5 ms·

lol, I've listened to tons of Saylor interviews. Do I have to to search through them all to give you soundbites of him saying less extreme advice like "invest

lol, I've listened to tons of Saylor interviews. Do I have to to search through them all to give you soundbites of him saying less extreme advice like "invest an amount your comfortable with" (which is an actual quote.) Does the context of his speech even matter, or are you playing the social media game of clipping soundbites? Because that doesn't sound like you're actually giving anything else he says credit, you're providing no intellectual capital to this conversation. You're playing politics and news opinions. Example: Here's his idea of thermodynamics applied to monetary energy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH2-wqyx3_Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH2-wqyx3_Q The point is what are you trying to achieve by putting these one off quotes on blast? As if in the hundreds of interviews he's had, this is the most relevant and significant quote. You're trying to cast dispersion on the popular characters behind Bitcoin because you hate Bitcoin, correct? Edit to include the quote in above video: "Okay, look, it's totally strange to have a financial instrument, which is scarce and capped, because you can print more tech stocks, you can print more bonds, you can mine more gold, you can issue more fiat currency. On the other hand, in the engineering world, when you're designing pneumatic systems or hydraulic systems, nobody ever built a pneumatic system with a leak, a hydraulic system with a leak. Your swimming pool doesn't even work with a leak, right? Everybody knows if there's a leak in the fuselage of the airplane, it's not going to fly, it's going to explode. So, you don't have a leak in a nuclear reactor. Do you ever try to go across the ocean and a ship with a leak? Okay, the idea of a closed system is basic to every freshman in engineering. I'm an MIT engineer. We talk about something called adiabatic lapse. An adiabatic system is no leak. A closed system is when you have mass in the system that can either leave or can be added, and all you can do is inject energy. So, Bitcoin is the classic textbook closed system. There's 21 million coins, virtual bars of gold in the system. You can't remove any, you can't add any. There's no inflation. On the other hand, what you can do is you can heat it up. If you're buying Bitcoin above the 4-year or the 200-week moving average, you're heating up the system. If you're buying it below the 200-week moving average, you're cooling down the system. The entire thing's like a massive monetary battery, a capacitor. It's storing energy. What we've done is created a system where I can take $100 million of monetary energy, I can put it into the Bitcoin network. It'll sit there for as long as you can imagine, and there's no power loss. That's the genius of it. If I told you I was going to inject another million Bitcoin or two or three million Bitcoin, I'm bleeding off, I'm diluting the energy. So, when I describe it as a closed system, what I'm saying is for the first time in the history of man, we created a monetary energy network that will store the energy over time with no power loss. We've never had a money. We've never had a thing that could do that. Gold didn't do that. Copper, silver doesn't do that. Fiat doesn't do that. Stocks and bonds don't do that. So, it's really an engineering breakthrough. But hey, he said the literal words "mortgage your house", so we'll just repeat those words out of context to show that he must be a sleazeball scumbag right.

DonHopkins 5y ago
What are you trying to achieve by denying that he said the lines I quoted, which he really did say, then attacking me for quoting his own lines to you and "repeat[ing] those words out of context," when I actually took the time and effort to transcribe and include the entire context, and the context proves my point beyond any shadow of doubt? I didn't copy and paste an out-of-context sound bite from some social media tweet. I INCLUDED the context you're accusing me of ignoring, by transcribing every word in the video, line by line, with my own hands. I notice you failed to directly address my questions about why you wrongly claimed that he didn't say that, and you failed to admit that you were wrong, and you failed to renounce your claim that other people were just making stuff up, or even admit the fact that YOU were the person who was actually making stuff up. Or is what you said just a little white lie? The first of a dozen steps you should take is to please answer my questions directly, and explicitly admit that you were wrong, just for the record, so YOUR words of contrition are unambiguous, and there is no wiggle room for anyone to misinterpret what YOU mean, the same way you're trying to wildly misinterpret what Michael Saylor said, after your initially denial that he said it. Since you're playing the game of initially denying then selectively cherrypicking what he said, and creatively re-interpreting and diluting his very own lines, to make the dubious claim that he didn't literally mean what he said, but actually meant something he never said (when he EMPHATICALLY said just the opposite in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS), then I can play that game too, by mirroring his own words, and my explanation for his erratic behavior is MUCH more plausible and believable and statistically likely than yours: "Well Cocaine's the best drug. What's the second best? There is no second best. There is no second best drug. There's a drug that's called Cocaine, right? Right. There is no second best, ok? But take all your money and buy Cocaine. Then take all your time, figure out how to borrow money to buy more Cocaine. Then take all your time and figure out what you can sell to buy Cocaine. And if you absolutely love the thing that you don't want to sell it, GO MORTGAGE YOUR HOUSE AND BUY COCAINE WITH IT. And if you've got a business that you love, because your family works for the business, because it's in your family for 37 years, and you can't bear to sell it, mortgage it, finance it, and convert the proceeds to the hardest drug on earth, which is Cocaine." -Michael Saylor Go ahead and deny he said that too, but obviously that's what he really must have meant, and why he said what he did, and my theory perfectly explains his irresponsible behavior. The only way to rack up lines like that is with a mirror and Occam's Razor Blade. How do you explain YOUR erratic behavior?

DonHopkins 5y ago

What are you trying to achieve by denying that he said the lines I quoted, which he really did say, then attacking me for quoting his own lines to you and "repeat[ing] those words out of context," when I actually took the time and effort to transcribe and include the entire context, and the context proves my point beyond any shadow of doubt? I didn't copy and paste an out-of-context sound bite from some social media tweet. I INCLUDED the context you're accusing me of ignoring, by transcribing every word in the video, line by line, with my own hands. I notice you failed to directly address my questions about why you wrongly claimed that he didn't say that, and you failed to admit that you were wrong, and you failed to renounce your claim that other people were just making stuff up, or even admit the fact that YOU were the person who was actually making stuff up. Or is what you said just a little white lie? The first of a dozen steps you should take is to please answer my questions directly, and explicitly admit that you were wrong, just for the record, so YOUR words of contrition are unambiguous, and there is no wiggle room for anyone to misinterpret what YOU mean, the same way you're trying to wildly misinterpret what Michael Saylor said, after your initially denial that he said it. Since you're playing the game of initially denying then selectively cherrypicking what he said, and creatively re-interpreting and diluting his very own lines, to make the dubious claim that he didn't literally mean what he said, but actually meant something he never said (when he EMPHATICALLY said just the opposite in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS), then I can play that game too, by mirroring his own words, and my explanation for his erratic behavior is MUCH more plausible and believable and statistically likely than yours: "Well Cocaine's the best drug. What's the second best? There is no second best. There is no second best drug. There's a drug that's called Cocaine, right? Right. There is no second best, ok? But take all your money and buy Cocaine. Then take all your time, figure out how to borrow money to buy more Cocaine. Then take all your time and figure out what you can sell to buy Cocaine. And if you absolutely love the thing that you don't want to sell it, GO MORTGAGE YOUR HOUSE AND BUY COCAINE WITH IT. And if you've got a business that you love, because your family works for the business, because it's in your family for 37 years, and you can't bear to sell it, mortgage it, finance it, and convert the proceeds to the hardest drug on earth, which is Cocaine." -Michael Saylor Go ahead and deny he said that too, but obviously that's what he really must have meant, and why he said what he did, and my theory perfectly explains his irresponsible behavior. The only way to rack up lines like that is with a mirror and Occam's Razor Blade. How do you explain YOUR erratic behavior?