3 ms·

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that you at least had a basic understanding of cryptocurrencies and the drivers of transaction volume. If you don't even

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that you at least had a basic understanding of cryptocurrencies and the drivers of transaction volume. If you don't even understand that speculation can (and does) occur outside of on-exchange transactions, then I don't think this conversation is worth continuing. I now understand that you probably weren't lying, you were just clueless about what you were talking about and actually thought that exchange volume is the only place where speculation occurs lmao. In case it still isn't clear to you: on-exchange activity != total speculative activity. It isn't an upper threshold on total speculative activity. It has no concrete relationship with total speculative activity. Both on-exchange and off-exchange transactions can be speculative, or non-speculative. The metric you provided is not "exactly the data I asked for", it's a complete non-sequitur that betrays your ignorance on the underlying topic. > That doesn't sound too different from all modern investing. This is a valid comparison, you're on the right track here! Crypto ownership is very similar to modern investing, in that it's a speculative asset class, and not primarily being used for its function as a currency.

EscapeFromNY 3y ago
If you replaced the subject matter with something more mundane, this exchange would be hilarious. It almost reminds me of a Monty Python sketch. 1> Here's a paper that calculates the average lifespan of humans. The average lifespan is 75 years. 2> That's because the vast majority of humans eat junk food lmao. What do you think the lifespan of a human is? I'd be willing to be it's less than 10 years, maybe even 100 years 1> You don't have to bet, the data is in the paper. 75 years. 2> The paper only looks at the Americas, Eurasia, Africa, and mainland Australia. It doesn't even look at Tasmania. You're making up bogus statistics that aren't supported by your sources in the way that you say they are. 1> Maybe so. I put forward my sources, but there could be a better way of calculating it. If you had to calculate that same statistic, what methodology would you use? 2> One time I saw someone die from a heart attack when they were 45 years old, and 45 is way less than 75. Why would I spend my time digging up data to quantify things are incredibly obvious from observation, when you're willing to lie and make up facts to support your narrative? 1> Your personal observations are not universal objective reality. That's why data is important when running a society at scale. Why exactly do you believe the inclusion of data from Tasmania would significantly change the results? Do you have any sources for your wild claims? 2> I'm sorry, I was under the impression that you at least had a basic understanding of geography. If you don't even understand that humans live in Tasmania, then I don't think this conversation is worth continuing. When talking about the lifespan of humans on earth, the lifespan of humans in most countries on earth is a complete non-sequitur. Anyway, if you don't understand why data is important when discussing policy, there's not much to be gained here. I hope you find truth if you're looking for it, and peace otherwise. Cheers.
- greatwave1 3y ago
  What a ridiculous analogy. Add statistics to the pile of topics that you're overconfident yet completely naive about. What you're describing is a scenario where you take a sample, and use its measure of central distribution to make inferences about SAME METRIC in the population. This is perfectly valid! But the obvious flaw with your argument isn't "this paper says that 75% of X volume is speculation, but it's excluding some data", it's that the paper presents literally no claims or evidence about the % of volume that is speculation lmao. You have been conflating 2 entirely unrelated metrics this whole time. I said this before, but I guess it needs repeating: the % of volume that happens on-exchange is not a proxy for the % of volume that is speculation. These are completely different things! If you want an accurate analogy, this would be like if you said "this paper shows that the average human lifespan is 4 years", but what the paper actually said was that the Olympics are held every 4 years. It's a completely unrelated data point, irrelevant to the topic at hand, and you'd have to either be ignorant or intentionally deceitful to pretend that they are the same thing. Just bush league stuff... and as I said earlier, if you can't grasp this concept then I don't know what you're doing on a crypto thread. I actually do think that you have serious underlying confusion about the nature of what speculation even is, because you keep pretending like it's something which can be objectively measured by using on-chain data. Data is obviously a useful tool when it's available, but making up bullshit statistics to support your argument is malignant.

EscapeFromNY 3y ago

If you replaced the subject matter with something more mundane, this exchange would be hilarious. It almost reminds me of a Monty Python sketch. 1> Here's a paper that calculates the average lifespan of humans. The average lifespan is 75 years. 2> That's because the vast majority of humans eat junk food lmao. What do you think the lifespan of a human is? I'd be willing to be it's less than 10 years, maybe even 100 years 1> You don't have to bet, the data is in the paper. 75 years. 2> The paper only looks at the Americas, Eurasia, Africa, and mainland Australia. It doesn't even look at Tasmania. You're making up bogus statistics that aren't supported by your sources in the way that you say they are. 1> Maybe so. I put forward my sources, but there could be a better way of calculating it. If you had to calculate that same statistic, what methodology would you use? 2> One time I saw someone die from a heart attack when they were 45 years old, and 45 is way less than 75. Why would I spend my time digging up data to quantify things are incredibly obvious from observation, when you're willing to lie and make up facts to support your narrative? 1> Your personal observations are not universal objective reality. That's why data is important when running a society at scale. Why exactly do you believe the inclusion of data from Tasmania would significantly change the results? Do you have any sources for your wild claims? 2> I'm sorry, I was under the impression that you at least had a basic understanding of geography. If you don't even understand that humans live in Tasmania, then I don't think this conversation is worth continuing. When talking about the lifespan of humans on earth, the lifespan of humans in most countries on earth is a complete non-sequitur. Anyway, if you don't understand why data is important when discussing policy, there's not much to be gained here. I hope you find truth if you're looking for it, and peace otherwise. Cheers.

greatwave1 3y ago
What a ridiculous analogy. Add statistics to the pile of topics that you're overconfident yet completely naive about. What you're describing is a scenario where you take a sample, and use its measure of central distribution to make inferences about SAME METRIC in the population. This is perfectly valid! But the obvious flaw with your argument isn't "this paper says that 75% of X volume is speculation, but it's excluding some data", it's that the paper presents literally no claims or evidence about the % of volume that is speculation lmao. You have been conflating 2 entirely unrelated metrics this whole time. I said this before, but I guess it needs repeating: the % of volume that happens on-exchange is not a proxy for the % of volume that is speculation. These are completely different things! If you want an accurate analogy, this would be like if you said "this paper shows that the average human lifespan is 4 years", but what the paper actually said was that the Olympics are held every 4 years. It's a completely unrelated data point, irrelevant to the topic at hand, and you'd have to either be ignorant or intentionally deceitful to pretend that they are the same thing. Just bush league stuff... and as I said earlier, if you can't grasp this concept then I don't know what you're doing on a crypto thread. I actually do think that you have serious underlying confusion about the nature of what speculation even is, because you keep pretending like it's something which can be objectively measured by using on-chain data. Data is obviously a useful tool when it's available, but making up bullshit statistics to support your argument is malignant.