4 ms·

Are you kidding me, or just kidding yourself here? Orders of magnitude more people care about weed and porn than care about bitcoin. Your comparisons are all r

Are you kidding me, or just kidding yourself here? Orders of magnitude more people care about weed and porn than care about bitcoin. Your comparisons are all ridiculous. Bitcoin is like curing a rare illness? This is why nobody takes breathless crypto-boosters seriously. Bitcoin is MLM for tech boys.

dane-pgp 8y ago
You seem to be arguing against positions I'm not taking, so perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I don't dispute that orders of magnitude more people care about weed and porn than care about bitcoin, but the reason I mention weed and porn is the same reason "lawn" did in the comment I linked: There are people who wish to buy or sell these legal (in some jurisdictions) products but who are limited in their practical ability to do so due to a lack of financial freedom. For such people, crypto-currencies are a possible solution. https://news.bitcoin.com/indospace-io-cannabis-merchants-accept-bitcoin/ https://news.bitcoin.com/indospace-io-cannabis-merchants-acc... https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/vbqwwj/patreon-suspension-of-adult-content-creators https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/vbqwwj/patreon-su... https://bitcoinist.com/librepatron-btcpay-patreon-bitcoin/ https://bitcoinist.com/librepatron-btcpay-patreon-bitcoin/ The fact that bitcoin is used in these situations (even if for a minority of purchases) shows that it is a useful technology (assuming you think that these products aren't inherently illegitimate, even where legal). Similarly, I accept that bitcoin is completely different from curing a rare illness, in terms of the effect it has on its beneficiaries, but that was not the comparison I was trying to make. I was trying to point out that just because only a minority of the population benefit from a technology (whether a medical technology, or a financial technology), that doesn't make the technology useless. To pick, perhaps, a better example, suppose there were a new financial technology that helped only the poorest people (and I'm not claiming that bitcoin is such a technology). A wealthy critic of the technology might claim "almost nobody is using it", and they might be correct, but they would be missing the significance of the technology. Full disclosure: I have never bought any crypto-currency, and have no intention of buying any in the next 24 hours. :-)

dane-pgp 8y ago

You seem to be arguing against positions I'm not taking, so perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I don't dispute that orders of magnitude more people care about weed and porn than care about bitcoin, but the reason I mention weed and porn is the same reason "lawn" did in the comment I linked: There are people who wish to buy or sell these legal (in some jurisdictions) products but who are limited in their practical ability to do so due to a lack of financial freedom. For such people, crypto-currencies are a possible solution. https://news.bitcoin.com/indospace-io-cannabis-merchants-accept-bitcoin/ https://news.bitcoin.com/indospace-io-cannabis-merchants-acc... https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/vbqwwj/patreon-suspension-of-adult-content-creators https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/vbqwwj/patreon-su... https://bitcoinist.com/librepatron-btcpay-patreon-bitcoin/ https://bitcoinist.com/librepatron-btcpay-patreon-bitcoin/ The fact that bitcoin is used in these situations (even if for a minority of purchases) shows that it is a useful technology (assuming you think that these products aren't inherently illegitimate, even where legal). Similarly, I accept that bitcoin is completely different from curing a rare illness, in terms of the effect it has on its beneficiaries, but that was not the comparison I was trying to make. I was trying to point out that just because only a minority of the population benefit from a technology (whether a medical technology, or a financial technology), that doesn't make the technology useless. To pick, perhaps, a better example, suppose there were a new financial technology that helped only the poorest people (and I'm not claiming that bitcoin is such a technology). A wealthy critic of the technology might claim "almost nobody is using it", and they might be correct, but they would be missing the significance of the technology. Full disclosure: I have never bought any crypto-currency, and have no intention of buying any in the next 24 hours. :-)