Now everyone sees that you cannot engage in reasonable and sincere dialogue.

You keep accusing me of citing authority. I have to point this out. You are using the definitions of authority backwards in regard to the concept of the fallacy. You aren't listening to reason. Not even attempting. You aren't pointing to bitcoin experts. You aren't even trying. You aren't even addressing the subject. You are pointing at someone that is an expert in a different field and you are considering their opinion as valid truth because they have credentials>>>therefore you consider them an authority>>> you consider an authority to have the valid opinion-you are the fallacy of argument from authority

You are using the wrong form of authority to validate your argument while accusing me of the fallacy when I am simply saying that the experts do not agree with the non-expert.

There is reason behind their disagreements, and mine. I'm not at all saying this guy is wrong because they say he is. You clearly are unwilling to traverse the reasoning. All I can do is point out that you are citing a non-expert that the experts that you would name as experts don't agree with.

If Satoshi wanted inflation to keep going, he could have programmed bitcoin to increase its supply indefinitely. He didn't do that though.

JB, what are your credentials as far as computer science goes? What is your opinion on CS professors like Jorge Stolfi, or Weaver, or David Gerard calling out bitcoin and blockchain as useless at best and not "technology of the future"? Any opinions on why most CS or programing forums share the same sentiment? Don't you find it odd that only uber drivers and facebook mlm moms are fascinated with this ground braking technology?




Tweet from CS professor and a Phd. But I guess that is all FUD since he's not qualified by your standards.

I appreciate you saying this, and last time when I laughed at your post I forgot to apologize and say I was more laughing at the horrible disinformation people have to try to wade through. Sorry I did mean to make fun of your situation.

As to your comment...this is the interesting thing I mean to point out. Its not true. Satoshi couldn't have kept inflation going by increasing the supply indefinitely. This is exactly the title of todds paper. Tail emission is NOT inflationary.

And remember, bitcoin's supply rate is 21 million halved every four years....that and infinite issuance.

The maximalist narrative, which is a lie, has taught people that Satoshi made bitcoin finite in this regard on purpose because of his belief in Austrian economics.

What Todd shows i that Satoshi didn't have a choice. A perpetually issued coin limits. We want to understand this as a group.

Great examples.

These guys do not work on or maintain bitcoin in any shape form or fashion. Why would you consider them experts over the actual developers and conceivers and implementers of the system? Please don't take my question rhetorically please respond to it. What makes them BITCOIN experts. And what makes them BITCOIN experts over the developers?

WTF are you talking about MY standards?

Well of course they don't, why would they? They are doing something that is useful for society. And what kind of backward thinking is that, creating and maintaining most computationally wasteful consensus-based data structure ever conceived >>>> getting a phd in computer science.

So you are saying they are not qualified? You honestly believe that with their knowledge they could not maintain bitcoin? From what I've seen, albeit not detailed, Bitcoin source code is not considered high quality by any C++ standards. So what's the catch here, what is the part that CS professors would have a hard time understanding?

On last page, arguing with pocket_zero your stance was that you get to pick and choose who is qualified and who is not. That is wtf I'm talking about.

You have to say, not they are not the experts on bitcoin, but I trust their opinion more. They are critics and cynics. Bitcoin is much more than any implementation and there is not one single code source.

To say "I am a comp science professor" therefore I am a bitcoin expert, is words of a charlatan. You wouldn't go to such people for any sort of significant questions 'ie how do I secure my wallet'. But what is most important is that these guys don't agree with the people that are actually building this thing. Bitcoin is not just a software, its not a software. I don't know how people have come to believe that the non-experts should be believe when they disagree with the experts. What is that?

What causes you to believe them over the maintainers and builders of the system?





I literally TWICE said for PZ to choose the experts and I will show they disagree with this guy. But he has to choose 10 so I don't have to choose out of stolfi and gerarrd and the few other obvious cynics.

Back some time ago when TS was disrupting this thread I was using the question of 'can you explain nature and role of the relationship between nodes and miners' to show when a person doesn't know the first thing about bitcoin.

I didn't want to explain the answer. You can't google it because the definition of node/miner changed as the system evolved so its a good question to verify knowledge. But it is the crux of understanding the security of the system. We are capable of understanding it together. Once you understand, you understand the reasoning behind the security, weaver refers to the relationship between nodes and miners incorrectly. No bitcoin expert would agree with him.

We can go over the relationship together and simply let reason prevail lest you blame me for converting you to a religious belief.

It is not just other few obvious cynics, majority of CS and programing field agree blockchain is useless and way overhyped. Stolfi and Gerard are just most vocal about it. Most others don't care unless they have vested interest, like Vitalik coming up with a marketing term "smart contracts" because uber drivers and poker dealers think it sounds smart. They are neither smart or contracts, but it definitely sounds better than stored procedures.

This is an article by Gerard. He is pointing to the idea that bitcoin's supply can be effectively increased by copy and pasting the code. Do you agree with this sentiment?


That argument which him and francis coppolla tried to push only works on people that don't understand that bitcoin nodes do not SEE those other forks. The nefarious writing by these two is aimed at people that don't understand the relationship between nodes and miners and therefore don't understand what it means that you cannot copy the hashrate associated with the bitcoin network.

Every bitcoin dev understands this perfectly. And now so do you.

sort of to put it another way, i think that something special will happen if in this thread we make it in general that 'bitcoin expert' refers to those that have the most technical knowledge of the system and have a different word for those people who have expertise in related fields and are critics of the system .

we can and should still consider the critical opinions and not reject them outright because they aren't from bitcoin experts but we need a way to refer to those that have the most specialized knowledge of bitcoin

Technically, yes. That's how we got Dogecoin and Litecoin, btc code copy paste with small tweaks. So what? There is over 20000 shitcoins already and none of them does anything useful. And if the original shitcoin is still the best shitcoins, well that says a lot about technology after over a decade of "innovation".

When you say 'useful' you mean non-monetary usefulness right?

Getting nerdy and detailed about technical bitcoin should not be a top priority since most people don't even care about that. What most people care about is line going up and buying a lambo.



Exposing the whole industry - well you can't really call it and industry since it doesn't do anything - as a scam is far more productive for random people reading the thread over debating nuances between bitcoin developers, nodes or hash rates.

Of course if you didn't see any usefulness from it you would see it as a scam though. Thats not using reason to determine if its a scam. Thats your premise being ur conclusion. I'm well aware of these people and accounts. Bitfinex'd account is self inconsistent. It's an account that is concern trolling and you can see this for yourself. They are pretending to caring about bitcoiners sayin g that the price is being propped up but they want nothing more than tether to pop which by their argument means bitcoin with it.

What bitfinex'd really is, what i call team red, are opponents of the private investors behind bitfinex (team blue).

team red is trying to cut out the private banking behind team blue using media and social media propaganda. Their argument back would be 'no bitfinex and tether just don't want us exposing their lies' but then you have to somehow write me into the conspiracy.

Nonetheless its admitted, none of these people are bitcoin experts, you can bring their criticisms up but neither of you seem to have tried to claim these are bitcoin experts. Thats what I mean to point out.

Why does it matter whose tweet that was? You think that was photoshoped because it's Bitfinex'd or something? Do you really believe btc price is not heavily manipulated by Tether/Bitfinex?

If no, how do you explain btc chart almost mirroring USDT after covid flash crash? How do you explain every time USDT prints 2b on a Sunday afternoon(must be institutional investors pilling in), btc pumps 10-15%?

bitfinex ie team blue has a set of private investors. They are bitcoin bulls but they thrive too off the volatility. As bitcoin's market cap grows they need tethers to move in and out of in order to combat their adversaries' (ie team red) plays on different exchanges.

You are pointing to a phenomenon which is really a relationship, and you are implying and assuming causality because a concern troll account is calling attention to this viewpoint. That account is a bitcoin bear account disguised as concerned. They want bitcoin to fail and they are pretending to warn the public against a scam.

Again, not sure why are you so focused on the messenger. Also not sure why you say he is a disguised bitcoin bear, he's obviously bearish on bitcoin if he sees it as a scam. Why does everything have to be mystic and convoluted with you?


And if you don't see anything wrong with USDT you are beyond helpless.

LOL, "everyone sees" and back to your fall-back to fawning over self-anointed "experts". You haven't referenced a single specific statement the man has made which supports your opinion that he doesn't know what he's talking about, or even worse, a charlatan as you claimed. And yet I'm the one failing to reason? The literal definition of reason from the Oxford dictionary is "cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event." and "think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic."

This is how every one of your arguments goes - he's not an expert, experts say this and that, my expert disagrees with you. And "everyone says or knows..." You sound like Donald Trump.

Do you ever actually argue on the merits of the topic itself, using your own original thoughts?

I am familiar with that account and the argument. It doesn't claim bitcoin is a scam. Its self inconsistent. I'm not focused on the messenger, the msg is clearly propaganda.

It's not just me. En masse the bitcoin experts don't see anything wrong with USDT. There is nothing wrong with it. And when I say bitcoin experts I mean those that are most knowledgeable about the technical details of how bitcoin works. You are citing an account that is very loud and very clearly on a daily basis shows that they don't understand bitcoin on any level nor economics.

Why does that account's message have any credibility to you?

I said YOU list YOUR experts. I have said this multiple times now and you keep pretending I didn't say it because you know I am correct. YOU experts will say YOU are wrong. list them. I will go get quote from them


Right. Because we live in a world where we cannot cite experts. What are you asking me for that will satisfy your ignorance? My opinion? Tell me something what is the nature and role of the relationship between mining and nodes. Tell us you know the first thing about bitcoin and you aren't just citing cynics that themselves don't know the first thing about bitcoin as you don't.

His message was basically this:



There, no FUD from a disguised bear, this is publicly available.

Could be the reason they no longer have to print Tether, they found another way to manipulate the price, borrowing and lending fake money left and right to keep the price from collapsing. It will be fun to see the extent of scams Bitfinex is involved with when the whole thing inevitably collapses.

I am not surprised one bit bitcoin experts don't see it, their whole identity revolves around the cult. Doug Polk didn't see anything wrong with CoinFlex either. Another expert.

What are you talking about? You are making baseless assertions. Tether and bitfinex are well known among bitcoiners and they are held highly.



Again wtf are you talking about, you are calling doug polk an expert? why is it that the only non experts to you are the actual persons that are developing and maintaining bitcoin. The ones that have the most technical knowledge

you cited david gerard. he has no computer science background. Why in the world does his cynical opinion matter. Did you know that he's using the term blockchain incorrectly? You don't know that do you.

"Tether and bitfinex are well known among bitcoiners and they are held highly." - LOL, you wouldn't be able to spot a scam even if they hit you on the head with it.

Held highly hahahah