3 ms·
I conflated you with the other response to my post saying bitcoin was not fungible. Regardless, you seem very adept at unfairly attacking my vocabulary usage a
by crystaln 13y ago
I conflated you with the other response to my post saying bitcoin was not fungible.
Regardless, you seem very adept at unfairly attacking my vocabulary usage and finding inconsequential issues with bitcoin. Other than that I don't see much in what you are saying.
It doesn't matter that the number of bitcoins will slowly decline. Bitcoin is infinitely divisible, and whoever lost the money is the only it's a problem for. For everyone else that's a benefit.
Even if you were correct, such theoretical long-term concerns will not stop the adoption of bitcoin.
- jacques_chester 13y agoI'm "attacking" the vocabulary because, by repeatedly raising fungibility, I felt you were talking about a tangential matter. > It doesn't matter that the number of bitcoins will slowly decline. I don't agree. And it needn't be gradual. > Bitcoin is infinitely divisible, and whoever lost the money is the only it's a problem for. For everyone else that's a benefit. Hence the "Bitfinger" scenario I alluded to. > Even if you were correct, such theoretical long-term concerns will not stop the adoption of bitcoin. No, but I think they would be sufficient to prevent bitcoin ever becoming legal tender.
- crystaln 13y agoBitcoin is legal tender in Germany.