4 ms·
> Unforeseen future circumstances could make people less amenable True, but irrelevant. It doesn't matter either way. The point is that it can be done if that
by root_axis 7y ago
> Unforeseen future circumstances could make people less amenable
True, but irrelevant. It doesn't matter either way. The point is that it can be done if that is what conventionial wisdom dictates is desirable at the time.
- bduerst 7y agoConventional wisdom also dictates that it is desirable for Bitcoin to handle more than 7 transactions a second - and yet that problem isn't possible for Bitcoin to solve either. Again, it's an argument from ignorance and gross oversimplification to claim "the future wisdom of the community" will solve problems for bitcoin.
- root_axis 7y agoYou can equivocate all you like, but accusing me of ignorance doesn't make it so. It's an undeniable fact that it is possible for any of these properties to change and the poster that claimed it was impossible for them to change is wrong. There is no debate here, it's just reality.
- bduerst 7y agoI'm not accusing you of ignorance - An argument from ignorance (i.e. argumentum ad ignorantiam) is the name of a known fallacy, which you're making with your claims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
- root_axis 7y agoYou're engaged in the fallacy known as "straw-man", where you argue against a point I'm not making. I'm going to state my argument clearly so you can't continue to weasel around it. The technical properties of bitcoin can be modified, saying that it is impossible to change them is wrong.
- bduerst 7y agoThis is part of the argument from ignorance - the attempt to push a burden of proof when the claim you made was "Unforeseen future circumstances could make people more amenable to any kind of changes imaginable". I didn't say anything about impossibilities, maybe you're confusing me for someone else?