7 ms·

I wasn't sure who the author of the post was -- surprised to find out now: Karl Denninger is an American technology businessman, finance blogger, and political

by clicks 14y ago

I wasn't sure who the author of the post was -- surprised to find out now: Karl Denninger is an American technology businessman, finance blogger, and political activist, sometimes referred to as a founding member of the Tea Party movement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Denninger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Denninger

tptacek 14y ago
Denninger ran an ISP in Chicago in the mid-90s and is an infamous curmudgeon. He sold the ISP in the late '90s and, as I understand it, retired to Florida to curmudge professionally. I have no idea why his thoughts on Bitcoin would be worth spreading on HN. He has no particular authority regarding economics (he's not a trained economist so far as I know) an the reasoning in this post seems to be of the typical working- backwards- from- foregone- conclusion attempted- first- principles stuff you can get on any HN thread arguing about Bitcoin. I really dislike Bitcoin, but can think of much better devil's advocates than Denninger.
- nwzpaperman 14y ago
  Well stated, he has zero authority on the subject of finance.
- Irregardless 14y ago
  > I have no idea why his thoughts on Bitcoin would be worth spreading on HN. Ad hominem attacks are somehow better? One would hope the crowd on HN is mature enough not to be swayed by those... It's popular because he made valid, well-supported points. If you disagree with his points, why not attack those instead of Denninger himself?
  - tptacek 14y ago
    The ad hominem fallacy is the fallacious use of an argument concerning an opponent. The words "ad hominem" aren't a talisman exempting all people from judgements of credibility. So far as I can tell, all the points Denninger has made here are supported only by Denninger's bare assertions. It reads like a message board post. Here's an article critical of Bitcoin that does better than recasting opinions as facts: http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2013/04/03/1425292/the-problem-with-bitcoin/ http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2013/04/03/1425292/the-problem-wi...
    - Irregardless 14y ago
      > Here's an article critical of Bitcoin that does better than recasting opinions as facts: http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2013/04/03/1425292/the-problem-with-bitcoin/ http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2013/04/03/1425292/the-problem-wi... From that author's biography: > Everything she knows about economics stems from a childhood fascination with ancient economies. . . > She studied Ancient History at UCL, and has a masters in Journalism from what was then the London College of Printing. I hope this is just an elaborate troll, since this was your criticism of Denninger: > He has no particular authority regarding economics (he's not a trained economist so far as I know)
      - tptacek 14y ago
        Did you read the post? It does not rely on the author's credibility. (55 minutes pass) I'll take that as a 'no'.
        Irregardless 14y ago
        Of course. It was worth reading just for this gem: > Bitcoin’s programming ensures there can never be more than 21m coins in existence. Part of the “bubble” effect, no doubt, is linked to a realisation that we are quickly approaching that limit. According to the latest data from Bitcoin charts, for example, there are currently 10,986,175 bitcoins in issuance. Yes, we still have some room to go, but given exponential dynamics, the fact that we’ve reached the “half-way point” in supply is no doubt meaningful.
    - kevingadd 14y ago
      The vast majority of his points are in terms of logic, concepts and arguments. It's not as if he's making all sorts of wild claims about individuals and organizations involved in Bitcoin and failing to provide evidence to support them. If you think he's misusing a concept, then say so. He clearly names the concepts and describes what he believes them to mean, so you can plug those into Google and see if you agree. If you think the logic he's using to support his arguments is faulty, then you can simply point out the logical flaws in his arguments. This again does not require any citations or particular outside authority. Finally, the entire post is clearly presented as his opinion on Bitcoin and in response to people asking for his thoughts. Given this, what is wrong with him expressing his opinion based on logic and his understanding of concepts. Why does his opinion require citations?
- kevingadd 14y ago
  How is this anything other than an ad hominem attack? You don't really make any effort to demonstrate any actual issues with his arguments in the linked post, or even provide examples of better-written alternatives or people who are more qualified and happen to disagree with him. The article is formatted a bit strangely, and the author is strange, sure, but neither of those are legitimate reasons to discard the actual content without consideration. The article does go to quite significant lengths to try and establish a foundation for what he's arguing so that the reader can decide whether they agree with the logical steps he's taking to reach his conclusion, which I think is a good thing.
  - analog 14y ago
    It's not ad hominem because it's not using the dislike of the author to disagree with the argument.
    - drharris 14y ago
      Thank you. Ad hominem has nothing to do with talking about the credibility of the author. Rather, the fallacy occurs when you rely on that information to challenge the position.
      - kevingadd 14y ago
        What is this if not challenging the arguments the author is making? tptacek claims this article shouldn't be on HN because the author is somehow unqualified to share his opinion and therefore it shouldn't be of interest to anyone. 'Well, I don't agree or disagree with what you're saying, I just think YOU shouldn't be able to say it' doesn't seem to be different from an ad hominem attack in practice in this case. It's refusing to engage with the actual content on quality or validity grounds and instead engaging with some unrelated point. The original post is not arguing 'you should agree with what I'm saying because I'M saying it' and it's also not saying 'these are facts because I say they are'.
        tptacek 14y ago
- mikecane 14y ago
  >>>he's not a trained economist so far as I know What? I'm astonished you said that. How many people who have created the companies of today were "trained" to do them. Show me Jeff Bezos' bookselling training. Steve Jobs' design training and programming degree. The Google team's former analog advertising agency and their degrees in those fields. Just stop.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Nobody trains to be a bookseller.
    - mikecane 14y ago
      Seriously? Then you know nothing about the field.
  - jbooth 14y ago
    Point taken, but I'll still take someone with some credentials or track record over some wacko muttering into his drink at the bar. When the wacko founds a fortune 500 company, I'll pay attention.
    - mikecane 14y ago
      Wacko? There is nothing he said there that was wacko. If you mean his Tea Party affiliation, I didn't even learn of that until after reading. I think you're letting something other than his argument color your reaction.
      - jbooth 14y ago
        I was talking about the general case you were debating with Mr. Tacek, about complete amateurs vs those with a track record. Wasn't commenting on the author. I didn't finish the article because of the ALTERNATING bold FONTS, so I can't really comment on the substance.
        14y ago
Irregardless 14y ago
Not that that should detract from his credibility, since he abandoned the movement when it was "hijacked" by the Republicans: > However, Denninger later expressed concern with the Tea Party movement, stating in an October 20, 2010 blog post that Republicans had hijacked the movement and perverted its original goals to the standard Republican concerns of "guns, gays and God".
- tptacek 14y ago
  Here is a piece on WorldNetDaily(!) wherein Karl Denninger offers his expertise as to the fraudulence of Barack Obama's birth certificate: http://www.wnd.com/2011/05/295189/ http://www.wnd.com/2011/05/295189/

by clicks 14y ago

tptacek 14y ago

Denninger ran an ISP in Chicago in the mid-90s and is an infamous curmudgeon. He sold the ISP in the late '90s and, as I understand it, retired to Florida to curmudge professionally. I have no idea why his thoughts on Bitcoin would be worth spreading on HN. He has no particular authority regarding economics (he's not a trained economist so far as I know) an the reasoning in this post seems to be of the typical working- backwards- from- foregone- conclusion attempted- first- principles stuff you can get on any HN thread arguing about Bitcoin. I really dislike Bitcoin, but can think of much better devil's advocates than Denninger.

nwzpaperman 14y ago
Well stated, he has zero authority on the subject of finance.
Irregardless 14y ago
> I have no idea why his thoughts on Bitcoin would be worth spreading on HN. Ad hominem attacks are somehow better? One would hope the crowd on HN is mature enough not to be swayed by those... It's popular because he made valid, well-supported points. If you disagree with his points, why not attack those instead of Denninger himself?
- tptacek 14y ago
  The ad hominem fallacy is the fallacious use of an argument concerning an opponent. The words "ad hominem" aren't a talisman exempting all people from judgements of credibility. So far as I can tell, all the points Denninger has made here are supported only by Denninger's bare assertions. It reads like a message board post. Here's an article critical of Bitcoin that does better than recasting opinions as facts: http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2013/04/03/1425292/the-problem-with-bitcoin/ http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2013/04/03/1425292/the-problem-wi...
  - Irregardless 14y ago
    > Here's an article critical of Bitcoin that does better than recasting opinions as facts: http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2013/04/03/1425292/the-problem-with-bitcoin/ http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2013/04/03/1425292/the-problem-wi... From that author's biography: > Everything she knows about economics stems from a childhood fascination with ancient economies. . . > She studied Ancient History at UCL, and has a masters in Journalism from what was then the London College of Printing. I hope this is just an elaborate troll, since this was your criticism of Denninger: > He has no particular authority regarding economics (he's not a trained economist so far as I know)
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Did you read the post? It does not rely on the author's credibility. (55 minutes pass) I'll take that as a 'no'.
      - Irregardless 14y ago
        Of course. It was worth reading just for this gem: > Bitcoin’s programming ensures there can never be more than 21m coins in existence. Part of the “bubble” effect, no doubt, is linked to a realisation that we are quickly approaching that limit. According to the latest data from Bitcoin charts, for example, there are currently 10,986,175 bitcoins in issuance. Yes, we still have some room to go, but given exponential dynamics, the fact that we’ve reached the “half-way point” in supply is no doubt meaningful.
  - kevingadd 14y ago
    The vast majority of his points are in terms of logic, concepts and arguments. It's not as if he's making all sorts of wild claims about individuals and organizations involved in Bitcoin and failing to provide evidence to support them. If you think he's misusing a concept, then say so. He clearly names the concepts and describes what he believes them to mean, so you can plug those into Google and see if you agree. If you think the logic he's using to support his arguments is faulty, then you can simply point out the logical flaws in his arguments. This again does not require any citations or particular outside authority. Finally, the entire post is clearly presented as his opinion on Bitcoin and in response to people asking for his thoughts. Given this, what is wrong with him expressing his opinion based on logic and his understanding of concepts. Why does his opinion require citations?
kevingadd 14y ago
How is this anything other than an ad hominem attack? You don't really make any effort to demonstrate any actual issues with his arguments in the linked post, or even provide examples of better-written alternatives or people who are more qualified and happen to disagree with him. The article is formatted a bit strangely, and the author is strange, sure, but neither of those are legitimate reasons to discard the actual content without consideration. The article does go to quite significant lengths to try and establish a foundation for what he's arguing so that the reader can decide whether they agree with the logical steps he's taking to reach his conclusion, which I think is a good thing.
- analog 14y ago
  It's not ad hominem because it's not using the dislike of the author to disagree with the argument.
  - drharris 14y ago
    Thank you. Ad hominem has nothing to do with talking about the credibility of the author. Rather, the fallacy occurs when you rely on that information to challenge the position.
    - kevingadd 14y ago
      What is this if not challenging the arguments the author is making? tptacek claims this article shouldn't be on HN because the author is somehow unqualified to share his opinion and therefore it shouldn't be of interest to anyone. 'Well, I don't agree or disagree with what you're saying, I just think YOU shouldn't be able to say it' doesn't seem to be different from an ad hominem attack in practice in this case. It's refusing to engage with the actual content on quality or validity grounds and instead engaging with some unrelated point. The original post is not arguing 'you should agree with what I'm saying because I'M saying it' and it's also not saying 'these are facts because I say they are'.
      - tptacek 14y ago
mikecane 14y ago
>>>he's not a trained economist so far as I know What? I'm astonished you said that. How many people who have created the companies of today were "trained" to do them. Show me Jeff Bezos' bookselling training. Steve Jobs' design training and programming degree. The Google team's former analog advertising agency and their degrees in those fields. Just stop.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Nobody trains to be a bookseller.
  - mikecane 14y ago
    Seriously? Then you know nothing about the field.
- jbooth 14y ago
  Point taken, but I'll still take someone with some credentials or track record over some wacko muttering into his drink at the bar. When the wacko founds a fortune 500 company, I'll pay attention.
  - mikecane 14y ago
    Wacko? There is nothing he said there that was wacko. If you mean his Tea Party affiliation, I didn't even learn of that until after reading. I think you're letting something other than his argument color your reaction.
    - jbooth 14y ago
      I was talking about the general case you were debating with Mr. Tacek, about complete amateurs vs those with a track record. Wasn't commenting on the author. I didn't finish the article because of the ALTERNATING bold FONTS, so I can't really comment on the substance.
      - 14y ago

Irregardless 14y ago

Not that that should detract from his credibility, since he abandoned the movement when it was "hijacked" by the Republicans: > However, Denninger later expressed concern with the Tea Party movement, stating in an October 20, 2010 blog post that Republicans had hijacked the movement and perverted its original goals to the standard Republican concerns of "guns, gays and God".

tptacek 14y ago
Here is a piece on WorldNetDaily(!) wherein Karl Denninger offers his expertise as to the fraudulence of Barack Obama's birth certificate: http://www.wnd.com/2011/05/295189/ http://www.wnd.com/2011/05/295189/