3 ms·
200yrs is nothing (and fiat was backed by gold as recently as 50yrs ago). Focusing on this despite the rest of what I wrote is still kind of missing my point.
by gonehome 5y ago
200yrs is nothing (and fiat was backed by gold as recently as 50yrs ago).
Focusing on this despite the rest of what I wrote is still kind of missing my point.
There’s not really much point in further discussion, there’s not much more to say. We just don’t agree.
- lottin 5y ago200 years is a lot. To put it in perspective, the Industrial Revolution started 250 years ago in England. But feel free to disagree, of course. The evidence doesn't care if you don't agree with it. It's still there, for everyone to see.
- gonehome 5y agoTook me a bit to realize you are the same account from the last thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30630271 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30630271) You have a clear motivated reasoning bias (crypto = bad and useless) paired without understanding the basics of how crypto works. You don’t have conversations with people, you just ignore details that disagree with your pre-existing conclusion and focus on digressions you think prove your point (typically against a strawman argument I’m not making). Your submissions betray this bias too. Crypto (and conversation) is more interesting when considering the nuanced bits even if it may disagree with “your side”. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-debates-should-not-appear-one-sided https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-deb... You’re right about one thing though, the evidence is there for people to see.
- lottin 5y agoWhy don't you address the arguments themselves, instead of attempting to discredit them by attacking the person who made them? That isn't exactly arguing in good faith, to use your own words.