3 ms·

Well - that's certainly the most charming jibe I've received about my writing. I tip my hat to you sir. I would be keen to know your opinion after reading the

Well - that's certainly the most charming jibe I've received about my writing. I tip my hat to you sir. I would be keen to know your opinion after reading the whole article. I assume you haven't - because I do at least make an argument for that claim, and you don't attempt to address it before calling me deluded. Given the large amount of effort I put into that article, don't you think I might deserve this much at least?

williamcotton 13y ago
Another thing you could learn from Bowie is how to write succinctly. Listen dude, I don't think Bitcoin is valueless. It is an interesting solution to a number of technical challenges in distributed computing. It may even very well work as some sort of digital currency. What I don't think is that it is going to change the world. You and every other maniac out there is actually doing a disservice to the acceptance of the technology. What kind of loony expects someone to read a 10,000 word essay that starts off with some sweeping claim about how 'everything's different now!'? You don't know shit about the world. You couldn't possibly have enough experience or knowledge to piece together any sort of valid prediction, just like every other motherfucker out there. You've just got faith in some grand tale that honestly isn't that different from any other end-of-time story, like say, the Book of Revelations. You're right to point the finger at economists when they make grand sweeping claims. They're just storytellers. There's a reason it is considered a liberal art. Computer programmers and engineers aren't much more than storytellers either. There is even more danger of delusion in software because entire virtual worlds are created and then assumed to be real. Math is the language of nature. Truth is the language of man. Learn to tell the difference.
- grovulent 13y ago
  Oh dear, you're a very vituperative fellow. I don't expect you to read it at all. I couldn't give a tinker's cuss if you do or don't. Generally though, if you don't want to look like a fool, it's best not to express an opinion about a piece you haven't read. The claim you are so hostile to is actually not even particularly controversial. It's a conditional statement for one thing (you don't even read an introduction carefully) and it's easily defended. It's a fact that no currency has ever been widely adopted without having some kind of intrinsic or government mandated value. Plain, historical fact. Bitcoin has no intrinsic or government mandated value. So if it gains widespread adoption, then I don't see how you could possibly deny the historical significance of this. A large amount of economic orthodoxy goes out the window. If you are willing to address this argument, I'm willing to listen. But if you're just here to beat your chest and get all alpha on me then I might point out you're better off hitting the gym and cruising the bars. It's more likely to get you laid than arguing with me.
  - williamcotton 13y ago
    The claim I'm hostile to is ANYONE making grand claims without acknowledging that it is all just story telling. Arguing with you about your faith in the world changing powers of Bitcoin would be like arguing with a Christian about the Bible. I'm not saying that Bitcoin is useless. I'm not saying it is without value. I'm saying that the kind of zealotry you're exhibiting is nauseating and nothing new. There are vast capital machinery in place entwined with giant military fleets, tax collectors, fiat currency and billions of democratically elected positions of power. That shit has a lot of inertia and the concepts are so interdependent on one another that you can't just slot out 'US dollars' and drop in 'bitcoin'. Farmers and soldiers don't give two shits about your blog posts. If you want to change the world you will have to deal with... the world. The problem with bitcoin or tech or Christianity or any other kind of ideological zealotry is that you're basically putting on blinders and ignoring the world because you're so convinced that what you're doing is the only thing that matters. "The rest of the world doesn't matter because it will all change so drastically that I don't need to know anything about it!" Again, there is nothing wrong with bitcoin, tech, or Christians... Just zeal applied to grand narratives. Getting my drift yet, dude?
    - grovulent 13y ago
      Would I be a zealot if I said the printing press precipitated a revolution in human society and culture? I'm just saying something similar about bitcoin IF it meets certain conditions in the future. If you bothered to read the article you would notice that I'm sceptical that it actually will. Anyway - we're done here. I made a claim and presented an argument. You chastised that claim without reading the argument or even addressing the summarised version I just wrote for you. I am willing to listen to a counter-argument and consider it, but you refuse to provide one. So this is a waste of both our time. I don't get how you can behave this way and yet accuse me of behaving like a religious zealot. Refusing to actually address an argument for a claim, while at the same time attacking that claim feels a lot like all the of the conversations I've had with zealots myself.

williamcotton 13y ago

Another thing you could learn from Bowie is how to write succinctly. Listen dude, I don't think Bitcoin is valueless. It is an interesting solution to a number of technical challenges in distributed computing. It may even very well work as some sort of digital currency. What I don't think is that it is going to change the world. You and every other maniac out there is actually doing a disservice to the acceptance of the technology. What kind of loony expects someone to read a 10,000 word essay that starts off with some sweeping claim about how 'everything's different now!'? You don't know shit about the world. You couldn't possibly have enough experience or knowledge to piece together any sort of valid prediction, just like every other motherfucker out there. You've just got faith in some grand tale that honestly isn't that different from any other end-of-time story, like say, the Book of Revelations. You're right to point the finger at economists when they make grand sweeping claims. They're just storytellers. There's a reason it is considered a liberal art. Computer programmers and engineers aren't much more than storytellers either. There is even more danger of delusion in software because entire virtual worlds are created and then assumed to be real. Math is the language of nature. Truth is the language of man. Learn to tell the difference.

grovulent 13y ago
Oh dear, you're a very vituperative fellow. I don't expect you to read it at all. I couldn't give a tinker's cuss if you do or don't. Generally though, if you don't want to look like a fool, it's best not to express an opinion about a piece you haven't read. The claim you are so hostile to is actually not even particularly controversial. It's a conditional statement for one thing (you don't even read an introduction carefully) and it's easily defended. It's a fact that no currency has ever been widely adopted without having some kind of intrinsic or government mandated value. Plain, historical fact. Bitcoin has no intrinsic or government mandated value. So if it gains widespread adoption, then I don't see how you could possibly deny the historical significance of this. A large amount of economic orthodoxy goes out the window. If you are willing to address this argument, I'm willing to listen. But if you're just here to beat your chest and get all alpha on me then I might point out you're better off hitting the gym and cruising the bars. It's more likely to get you laid than arguing with me.
- williamcotton 13y ago
  The claim I'm hostile to is ANYONE making grand claims without acknowledging that it is all just story telling. Arguing with you about your faith in the world changing powers of Bitcoin would be like arguing with a Christian about the Bible. I'm not saying that Bitcoin is useless. I'm not saying it is without value. I'm saying that the kind of zealotry you're exhibiting is nauseating and nothing new. There are vast capital machinery in place entwined with giant military fleets, tax collectors, fiat currency and billions of democratically elected positions of power. That shit has a lot of inertia and the concepts are so interdependent on one another that you can't just slot out 'US dollars' and drop in 'bitcoin'. Farmers and soldiers don't give two shits about your blog posts. If you want to change the world you will have to deal with... the world. The problem with bitcoin or tech or Christianity or any other kind of ideological zealotry is that you're basically putting on blinders and ignoring the world because you're so convinced that what you're doing is the only thing that matters. "The rest of the world doesn't matter because it will all change so drastically that I don't need to know anything about it!" Again, there is nothing wrong with bitcoin, tech, or Christians... Just zeal applied to grand narratives. Getting my drift yet, dude?
  - grovulent 13y ago
    Would I be a zealot if I said the printing press precipitated a revolution in human society and culture? I'm just saying something similar about bitcoin IF it meets certain conditions in the future. If you bothered to read the article you would notice that I'm sceptical that it actually will. Anyway - we're done here. I made a claim and presented an argument. You chastised that claim without reading the argument or even addressing the summarised version I just wrote for you. I am willing to listen to a counter-argument and consider it, but you refuse to provide one. So this is a waste of both our time. I don't get how you can behave this way and yet accuse me of behaving like a religious zealot. Refusing to actually address an argument for a claim, while at the same time attacking that claim feels a lot like all the of the conversations I've had with zealots myself.