3 ms·

// It is backed by only thing rfst backs any form of money: the credibility of it’s monetary properties // Of course. That doesn't mean that all currencies ar

by rhelz 2y ago

// It is backed by only thing rfst backs any form of money: the credibility of it’s monetary properties // Of course. That doesn't mean that all currencies are equally soundly backed, now, does it? Bitcoin doesn’t even have any intrinsic properties. Its properties are also set by consensus genius. // you can’t ban mathematics or code // You can’t ban physical laws either, but somehow we manage to have speed limits. You can’t ban the laws of chemistry but somehow we manage to have laws banning drugs. // . . . All value is subjective and relative . . . // The word you’re looking for is “intersubjective”.

noch 2y ago
I'm sorry. I can't respectfully continue this conversation with you. It simply won't be productive for us because I don't believe you're a serious or intellectually honest person nor that you have the technical knowledge to discuss these things competently. I'll just end up annoyed and my goal in 2025 is to be less annoyed and less annoying online. I main ffs, the United States president owns Bitcoin (and just launched his own meme coin) and the largest asset manager in the world has well capitalized spot Bitcoin ETF but you're still regurgitating anti-bitcoin talking points from a decade ago about bans? Grow tf up! Nonetheless, thanks for the conversation and for your time.
- rhelz 2y ago
  // I can't...continue...I don't believe you're a serious or intellectually honest person // Exactly the right move. Don't waste any time with somebody who doesn't argue in good faith. Heck, these days, you have to worry about wasting time arguing with an LLM. // Thanks for the conversation and for your time. // You are welcome. here's a freebie: conversations on the internet never end in one person admitting they are wrong. Instead, as long as the two participants have rational reasons to disagree, they offer those rational reasons to each other. When one party runs out of such reasons, well...they insult the other guy and break off the conversation ;-)

by rhelz 2y ago

noch 2y ago

I'm sorry. I can't respectfully continue this conversation with you. It simply won't be productive for us because I don't believe you're a serious or intellectually honest person nor that you have the technical knowledge to discuss these things competently. I'll just end up annoyed and my goal in 2025 is to be less annoyed and less annoying online. I main ffs, the United States president owns Bitcoin (and just launched his own meme coin) and the largest asset manager in the world has well capitalized spot Bitcoin ETF but you're still regurgitating anti-bitcoin talking points from a decade ago about bans? Grow tf up! Nonetheless, thanks for the conversation and for your time.

rhelz 2y ago
// I can't...continue...I don't believe you're a serious or intellectually honest person // Exactly the right move. Don't waste any time with somebody who doesn't argue in good faith. Heck, these days, you have to worry about wasting time arguing with an LLM. // Thanks for the conversation and for your time. // You are welcome. here's a freebie: conversations on the internet never end in one person admitting they are wrong. Instead, as long as the two participants have rational reasons to disagree, they offer those rational reasons to each other. When one party runs out of such reasons, well...they insult the other guy and break off the conversation ;-)