I'm the only one here who's read the associated literature as expressed by the creators of the movement. What are you afraid of?

Nobody's afraid of anything, they want to know whether they will gain from owning bitcoin or not, so they discuss and debate the situation. You don't debate, you declare and obfuscate. Your posts are densely riddled with logical fallacies, including but not limited to arguing by assertion, affirming the consequent, and relentlessly appealing to authority.

Then you cram your half-baked opinions into every page of every thread, speaking with a tone of full authority when it's fairly obvious that you're a) under the age of 26, b) have never properly experienced or invested around a true correction/blow-up in any financial instrument or market, and c) haven't completed a degree in economics. My prediction: you'll have a personal reputation crash in about a week, and posters will no longer humor you or your wind.

steelhouse on lithium?

I'm also clearly the most well read on the subject.

permabulls gonna permabull

If Joe reads 100 pro-choice books and Bob reads 5 pro-choice books and 5 pro-life books, who is more well read on the topic of abortion?

Thread's looking up. More logic puzzles for our friend Nooseknot I think.

I'm still not convinced he's not a stinkypete creation.

Probably a doctor that works at an abortion clinic and went to university for it.

I don't care about the busts. I am riding this pig wherever it takes me. If it tanks, I'll have a helluva story to tell. I'm sick of half measures. I'm swinging for the fences and If I strike out, so be it. I won't be some mediocre drone living a life of quiet desperation. I believe in bitcoin and I'm going for broke, knowing the risks.

What if you're at the fences?

Clipping a coin is not an increase in coins though, not directly. It created a fiat, but the market's will recognize it as a less valuable money. So there is two phenomenon at play. You can say it wouldn't increase the price of goods if its fiat, but it will have the effect of wealth fleeing if it doesn't.

Debasement then serves as the same thing.

How do you see this in regard to bitcoin?

What I say, is when a group say they need to control blocksize in order to guard bitcoin's value from increasing fees, they are admitting they want inflation control, even though they can't control the supply, they still want to manipulate its value. Is that resolvable with the above etc?

I wouldn't regard bitcoin as "inflationary" because while technically there are new bitcoins, those new bitcoins are easily anticipated and there's a cap, and the logarithm makes it very hard to create new bitcoins.

I'll try to read more history of coin clipping.

Thanks for having this thread. This is the other post from the other thread that I meant to post here, which seems relevant.

Hoping to learn more about BitCoin.

I might have linked this already, but its relevant right now. Hard to put into context otherwise, but just great if you know the context:

Cite your work. I highly doubt that banks are unanimously telling governments that crypto is a good thing for society considering how at odds their interests are with the success of crypto.

That's ignoring how painfully obvious it is that a significant percent of the people using it are doing so to break the law or evade taxes which is tautologically not something that governments would agree is in the interest of society.

Because there's an endless list of alternatives that do all the same things, and very likely that in the future governments will endorse the currencies that offer a greater surety that users will be in compliance with tax laws.

The hype train would then come to a grinding halt, and the price that they trade at would likely be a small fraction of what it is now.


You're not deferring to an expert on a specific point of contention. You're just dropping the name of experts on contentious points and telling us that it validates your perspectives. He would likely reject a lot of the things you're saying here.

every bank is building its own crypto. I've cited everything I've said. The banks interests are to stabilize our economies and to make good investment related decisions. And they'll be wiped out faster now if they don't perform. Who of Hayek, Smith, Szabo, Nash, Selgin would you like me to pull quotes from?

Your sentiments are not observable reality. Bitcoin is not illegal in almost any major or significant country. And its primarily held, not spent.


The great philosophers believe governments will have no choice but to endorse stable money.

It seems like hype when you are listening to irrationally exuberant enthusiasts, but there is actually an academically founded argument behind the movement, most just haven't been exposed to it.
Or retweet it: https://medium.com/@rextar4444/bitco...e-7f5c6e95be22

Here's Hal Finney, he's an expert on the movement (deceased now, frozen):

You posted this bull**** before uncritically. Take this:
lmao @ bitcoin solving this problem. You know someone's mind is gone when they think they've found a magic bullet merely by something existing.

There's already a huge system of competitive free banking. You can take on any level of risk and leverage you choose. Risk is discounted, different rates paid, leverage is higher or lower. There's a vast market for every appetite right now, Bitcoin isn't going to change a ****ing thing. That some people think it will solve the problem of the banking system is a howler up there with the same guys predicting that QE will cause runaway inflation (hence buy gold). How did that turn out?
This is my favorite part of all. The guy is goat-level ignorant (the animal, not the acronym) of history. The banking system is far more stable and reliable than it's ever been in the history of the world.

Ok here is the thing, you are arguing with one of the founders. So you are telling him this tech works. But you haven't read the literature hes cited. And there is more that is referenced. So you are laughing and falling over your own ignorance.

he's not citing himself, he's referencing george selgin. You are laughing at a 120 billion dollar project that finney created. That is one the heels of the imf. Its just you laughing at your own ignorance.

You have no idea what you are talking about. The people that created this are well studied and smart, thats how it happened.

I understand that there is nothing I can quote or say to convinced you TS. But what i CAN do is show everyone else that you are laughing at the arguments as laid by the creators. Literally telling the experts of the movement how things work...but you don't know about anywhere NEAR the amount of economics these men do. They understand how the banking system REALLY works. They understand money better than the banks. They understand security better than our intelligence agencies.

You laughing at incredibly intelligent men that were able to do this.

Now they're not only experts, they're "great philosophers"!

Philosophers of economics that expounded on the advent of an international ecurrency with a stable supply. Or Hayek that explained the folly of Keynes not understanding international economics and writing an essay on what would happen if the monopoly on money supply was broken.

I mean you poke at me Didace. But you aren't really engaging in talk about economics. You aren't really putting forth and argument or countering one.

I think we are used to "foruming" and not actually searching truth. Szabo's argument is extremely well laid out and those familiar with his works know him to be a polymath. Ethereum is based on his concept of smart contracts, which he designed 20 years ago based on bitcoin as the premise.

How is it you hold Toothsayers opinion and laughing above the actually creators of the work who took great pains to write many essays related so that it wasn't just an empty technology but an well backed argument?

Are we really more interested in Toothsayers ignorance and laughing, than we are in at least hearing the instructions as written by the creators?

It is purely ignorance versus founded logic.

Correct. I'm pointing out how incredibly flawed your world view is. All of your posts follow this pattern:

Fiat bad, Bitcoin good. I know this because Austrian school economists and early Bitcoin adopters tell me so.