7 ms·

>Jesus, since when has uncouth thoughts been grounds for conviction? If it was, I'd be guilty of a trillion crimes. Are you seriously putting these words in my

by blhack 15y ago

>Jesus, since when has uncouth thoughts been grounds for conviction? If it was, I'd be guilty of a trillion crimes. Are you seriously putting these words in my mouth? I didn't say anything like that. The gist of my post was that from a casual reader's perspective, bitcoin was a hobby for cryptographic nerds, and that this demonstrated that it's "lost its innocence", so to speak. Am I "upset" by this? Sure. In the same way that I would be upset if I was competing on something like allrgb, but nvidia decided to come in and destroy me and my friends by building custom glass. Is nvidia be "immoral" there? No. Are they being, to be blunt, assholes? Thoughtcrime? Convicted? I want this to be clear to anybody reading this that doesn't understand the context of what I'm saying: (I'm trying to say this in the most polite way possible) your response here is completely incorrect, and without merit. You're accusing me of something that I consider morally abhorrent (accusing somebody of "thoughtcrime"), and it's ridiculous.

wnight 15y ago
> It sounded like he [...] contemplated hitting that $1000 limit a bunch of times. That's the thought, and you treat it like a crime. Hence, thought-crime.
- blhack 15y ago
  How am I treating this like a crime? I'm saying that all of the players in bitcoin aren't altruistic. In case you missed the context here, my original argument was that my naivety caused me to assume that people playing with bitcoin were mostly just cryto geeks.
  - wnight 15y ago
    > Honestly, this whole forum post reeks of "I know I did something wrong, hopefully posting here will make the pit in my stomach go away." This is what you said about him contemplating transferring more money out of mtgox. You're acting like he did something abhorrent, or should think he did. > my naivety caused me to assume that people playing with bitcoin were mostly just cryto geeks. They are. But you're trying to say "... and I'm surprised one of them would be thiefly, like this guy." Really, all this shows is that he should have transferred all the bitcoins out immediately. Then mtgox would have to deal with him instead of just slandering him. Now that he's pointed everything out to them he's just a scapegoat.

by blhack 15y ago

wnight 15y ago

> It sounded like he [...] contemplated hitting that $1000 limit a bunch of times. That's the thought, and you treat it like a crime. Hence, thought-crime.

blhack 15y ago
How am I treating this like a crime? I'm saying that all of the players in bitcoin aren't altruistic. In case you missed the context here, my original argument was that my naivety caused me to assume that people playing with bitcoin were mostly just cryto geeks.
- wnight 15y ago
  > Honestly, this whole forum post reeks of "I know I did something wrong, hopefully posting here will make the pit in my stomach go away." This is what you said about him contemplating transferring more money out of mtgox. You're acting like he did something abhorrent, or should think he did. > my naivety caused me to assume that people playing with bitcoin were mostly just cryto geeks. They are. But you're trying to say "... and I'm surprised one of them would be thiefly, like this guy." Really, all this shows is that he should have transferred all the bitcoins out immediately. Then mtgox would have to deal with him instead of just slandering him. Now that he's pointed everything out to them he's just a scapegoat.