5 ms·

I think it follows the typical modus operandi of large part of the Bitcoin community: 1 - Propose flawed argument. 2 - Insert pink unicorns. 3 - When asked f

I think it follows the typical modus operandi of large part of the Bitcoin community: 1 - Propose flawed argument. 2 - Insert pink unicorns. 3 - When asked for proof, don't give it and instead claim this is exactly what's best for the world but that we are too short minded to understand it.

snitko 10y ago
What you're trying to do here is to project your hatred for Bitcoin using fraud as somehow representative of the ideas embedded into Bitcoin, which have nothing to do with that fraud.
- pg_is_a_butt 10y ago
  sorry, HN proved that correlation is causation. you're an idiot.
- jbmorgado 10y ago
  I'm sorry, but only the people that feel the need to follow something as some kind of religion or philosophy really need to attribute the adjectives "hatred" or "love" to some kind of technology. The rest of the world at large (EDIT: that knows about bitcoin as sub intended by the rest of the sentence) that is not part of the bitcoin cult, looks at the thing for its technological prowess - or lack of it - and mostly sees it as a cryptographic experiment gone right and a financial experiment gone very wrong.
  - snitko 10y ago
    Don't speak for most people. Most people know nothing about Bitcoin just yet. Can you be more specific about where the financial experiment of Bitcoin has gone wrong and why?
    - jbmorgado 10y ago
      It's quite telling that you don't want me to speak for other people but just in your answer before projected your irrational feelings about bitcoin on me and on what I feel or don't feel for bitcoin (so that we get straight, I don't "feel" anything for a technology, that doesn't make sense). When I referred the world at large, I referred the world at large that already knows bitcoin, not the world population. And from those, most of them obviously didn't get in bitcoin (in fact the ones that did get in bitcoin are pulling out as can be clearly seen in the volume of bitcoin transactions since 2014). And it is a clearly failed financial experiment because: 1 - It concentrated all the wealth in the hands and very few people in only a couple of years (http://www.bitcoinrichlist.com/top100 http://www.bitcoinrichlist.com/top100) 2 - The majority of bitcoin transactions are used for ilegal purposes (http://www.coindesk.com/dark-web-markets-processed-more-bitcoin-than-bitpay-in-2014/ http://www.coindesk.com/dark-web-markets-processed-more-bitc...) 3 - It's more inconvenient than existing payment systems to use so people don't use it (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-is-dead-says-prominent-fintech-executive-taavet-hinrikus-transferwise-bitcoin-experiment-failed-191800988.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-is-dead-says-prominent...) 4 - People are so uninterested and suspicious of bitcoin that you actually loose money if you present bitcoin as a payment/donation method (http://bitcoinist.net/mozilla-study-shows-bitcoin-negative-impact-donations/ http://bitcoinist.net/mozilla-study-shows-bitcoin-negative-i...) 5 - Complete unregulation keeps meaning high scale theft and complete unreliability of bitcoin markets (MtGox and many others) All in all, the world at large - in this case not only the ones that know bitcoin - clearly understands that the financial system needs more regulation not less, and yet, you put bitcoin in the table with is utter lack of regulation and try to claim its a great thing that will solve the world's financial problems but you don't give absolutely no sane argument or metrics about how it is doing that. And that was exactly my original point.
      - fucking_tragedy 10y ago
        The most damning: Seven transaction a second. You cannot have a functioning financial system that is constrained to seven transactions per second.
        snitko 10y ago
tinkerrr 10y ago
Your prejudice against "Bitcoin community" is quite telling, given the fact that it took the Bitcoin community less than 2 hours to disprove the supposed proof and very few in the "Bitcoin community" would consider Wright one of their own.
- jbmorgado 10y ago
  They also don't consider Gavin Andresen one of their own then? Which begs the question, exactly what what means being "one of their own", and if they have any kind of plans to re-instate the Spanish Inquisition.
  - arcticfox 10y ago
    Gavin appears to most likely be a victim here, not a fraud. He made an enormous mistake in not requiring public proof before he posted, which he has since admitted. It seems to me like the community's reaction to a fraudster was remarkably productive, outside of Gavin / Matonis getting suckered.

snitko 10y ago

What you're trying to do here is to project your hatred for Bitcoin using fraud as somehow representative of the ideas embedded into Bitcoin, which have nothing to do with that fraud.

pg_is_a_butt 10y ago
sorry, HN proved that correlation is causation. you're an idiot.
jbmorgado 10y ago
I'm sorry, but only the people that feel the need to follow something as some kind of religion or philosophy really need to attribute the adjectives "hatred" or "love" to some kind of technology. The rest of the world at large (EDIT: that knows about bitcoin as sub intended by the rest of the sentence) that is not part of the bitcoin cult, looks at the thing for its technological prowess - or lack of it - and mostly sees it as a cryptographic experiment gone right and a financial experiment gone very wrong.
- snitko 10y ago
  Don't speak for most people. Most people know nothing about Bitcoin just yet. Can you be more specific about where the financial experiment of Bitcoin has gone wrong and why?
  - jbmorgado 10y ago
    It's quite telling that you don't want me to speak for other people but just in your answer before projected your irrational feelings about bitcoin on me and on what I feel or don't feel for bitcoin (so that we get straight, I don't "feel" anything for a technology, that doesn't make sense). When I referred the world at large, I referred the world at large that already knows bitcoin, not the world population. And from those, most of them obviously didn't get in bitcoin (in fact the ones that did get in bitcoin are pulling out as can be clearly seen in the volume of bitcoin transactions since 2014). And it is a clearly failed financial experiment because: 1 - It concentrated all the wealth in the hands and very few people in only a couple of years (http://www.bitcoinrichlist.com/top100 http://www.bitcoinrichlist.com/top100) 2 - The majority of bitcoin transactions are used for ilegal purposes (http://www.coindesk.com/dark-web-markets-processed-more-bitcoin-than-bitpay-in-2014/ http://www.coindesk.com/dark-web-markets-processed-more-bitc...) 3 - It's more inconvenient than existing payment systems to use so people don't use it (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-is-dead-says-prominent-fintech-executive-taavet-hinrikus-transferwise-bitcoin-experiment-failed-191800988.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-is-dead-says-prominent...) 4 - People are so uninterested and suspicious of bitcoin that you actually loose money if you present bitcoin as a payment/donation method (http://bitcoinist.net/mozilla-study-shows-bitcoin-negative-impact-donations/ http://bitcoinist.net/mozilla-study-shows-bitcoin-negative-i...) 5 - Complete unregulation keeps meaning high scale theft and complete unreliability of bitcoin markets (MtGox and many others) All in all, the world at large - in this case not only the ones that know bitcoin - clearly understands that the financial system needs more regulation not less, and yet, you put bitcoin in the table with is utter lack of regulation and try to claim its a great thing that will solve the world's financial problems but you don't give absolutely no sane argument or metrics about how it is doing that. And that was exactly my original point.
    - fucking_tragedy 10y ago
      The most damning: Seven transaction a second. You cannot have a functioning financial system that is constrained to seven transactions per second.
      - snitko 10y ago

tinkerrr 10y ago

Your prejudice against "Bitcoin community" is quite telling, given the fact that it took the Bitcoin community less than 2 hours to disprove the supposed proof and very few in the "Bitcoin community" would consider Wright one of their own.

jbmorgado 10y ago
They also don't consider Gavin Andresen one of their own then? Which begs the question, exactly what what means being "one of their own", and if they have any kind of plans to re-instate the Spanish Inquisition.
- arcticfox 10y ago
  Gavin appears to most likely be a victim here, not a fraud. He made an enormous mistake in not requiring public proof before he posted, which he has since admitted. It seems to me like the community's reaction to a fraudster was remarkably productive, outside of Gavin / Matonis getting suckered.