3 ms·
>I'd say you have a more black-and-white vision than me. I definitely do. If a part of bitcoin's chain of usage requires enough trust to ask the government to
by jmoak3 4y ago
>I'd say you have a more black-and-white vision than me.
I definitely do. If a part of bitcoin's chain of usage requires enough trust to ask the government to intervene to protect me, why not just trust the government?
>My suspicion was simply that many HNers tend to reflexively upvote any comment that paints crypto in a bad light.
I think that many people agree with me, and that it's not some reflex, fud, or deception.
- olalonde 4y ago> I definitely do. If a part of bitcoin's chain of usage requires enough trust to ask the government to intervene to protect me, why not just trust the government? I am not sure I understand the question, Bitcoin does not require trust or intervention from the government. Your original comment is objectively incorrect in two different ways. It's not even remotely a surprising event[0] and most importantly, self-custody does not require running a server. Therefore I maintain my suspicion but enjoy your upvotes. [0] "You can't make this up": used to express great surprise. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/you-couldn-t-make-it-up https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/you-coul...
- jmoak3 4y ago>self-custody does not require running a server. I disagree and have made my case elsewhere. Anymore and I think we'd be going in circles. >You can't make this up": used to express great surprise. I think I used it correctly, but agree to disagree on this as well. Sorry for confusing your suspicions with something more conspiratorial.