5 ms·

Because he had the gall to make fun of Bitcoin. So now instead of refuting his opinions directly we're going to to do shit like this.

smokeyj 13y ago
I don't think opinions are meant to be refuted.
3pt14159 13y ago
This isn't really an either-or. We refuted and continue to refute any objective claims he makes while concurrently posting his widely inaccurate predictions from the past. Don't forget, we're attacking someone who is using his reputation as an economist to speak with authority on Bitcoin. The only way you can refute the authority is to refute the individual's previous claims. And it isn't like we've been hiding under a rock. We're just getting tired of doing it. He's an overrated economist that nobody that greatly understands Bitcoin takes seriously. He's like Opera, accessible to the masses, emotionally involved, but utterly void of a deep understanding of the issues involved. If you want to make widely inaccurate claims about something that is controversial you are going to get lots of upvotes. The problem with Bitcoin is that the people that informed about it are usually tilt pro-Bitcoin[1], while the people that are against Bitcoin usually haven't done enough research into economics, mathematics, and politics. [1] We're not the lunatics that post on /r/bitcoin everytime Bitcoin doubles. Many of us see valid challenges ahead for Bitcoin, especially from the government.
- onebaddude 13y ago
  >The problem with Bitcoin is that the people that informed about it are usually tilt pro-Bitcoin[1], while the people that are against Bitcoin usually haven't done enough research into economics, mathematics, and politics. 99% of this board haven't done the research Mr. Krugman has done in economics, or even have the experience in applied math he does. But "those who are pro bitcoin are smart, those who are against it aren't", really? From most of what I've read, here and on /r/bitcoin and elsewhere, Bitcoin proponents are utterly clueless when it comes to economics.
  - 3pt14159 13y ago
    This board has the top computer scientists, mathematicians, and engineers from the best universities in the world. Furthermore, I said that the majority of people that have really dug into how bitcoin works and what it would mean, tilt pro-bitcoin. That doesn't mean that the people who are pro-bitcoin are smart. That doesn't mean that there arn't people that have dug into it and are against it. All it means is that generally when we see Krugman's simplistic objections we roll our eyes like you would roll your eyes at Oprah explaining credit default swaps to her audience. We've responded to his claims over and over. It is getting boring and old.

smokeyj 13y ago

I don't think opinions are meant to be refuted.

3pt14159 13y ago

This isn't really an either-or. We refuted and continue to refute any objective claims he makes while concurrently posting his widely inaccurate predictions from the past. Don't forget, we're attacking someone who is using his reputation as an economist to speak with authority on Bitcoin. The only way you can refute the authority is to refute the individual's previous claims. And it isn't like we've been hiding under a rock. We're just getting tired of doing it. He's an overrated economist that nobody that greatly understands Bitcoin takes seriously. He's like Opera, accessible to the masses, emotionally involved, but utterly void of a deep understanding of the issues involved. If you want to make widely inaccurate claims about something that is controversial you are going to get lots of upvotes. The problem with Bitcoin is that the people that informed about it are usually tilt pro-Bitcoin[1], while the people that are against Bitcoin usually haven't done enough research into economics, mathematics, and politics. [1] We're not the lunatics that post on /r/bitcoin everytime Bitcoin doubles. Many of us see valid challenges ahead for Bitcoin, especially from the government.

onebaddude 13y ago
>The problem with Bitcoin is that the people that informed about it are usually tilt pro-Bitcoin[1], while the people that are against Bitcoin usually haven't done enough research into economics, mathematics, and politics. 99% of this board haven't done the research Mr. Krugman has done in economics, or even have the experience in applied math he does. But "those who are pro bitcoin are smart, those who are against it aren't", really? From most of what I've read, here and on /r/bitcoin and elsewhere, Bitcoin proponents are utterly clueless when it comes to economics.
- 3pt14159 13y ago
  This board has the top computer scientists, mathematicians, and engineers from the best universities in the world. Furthermore, I said that the majority of people that have really dug into how bitcoin works and what it would mean, tilt pro-bitcoin. That doesn't mean that the people who are pro-bitcoin are smart. That doesn't mean that there arn't people that have dug into it and are against it. All it means is that generally when we see Krugman's simplistic objections we roll our eyes like you would roll your eyes at Oprah explaining credit default swaps to her audience. We've responded to his claims over and over. It is getting boring and old.