3 ms·
> in a post-industrial world. It appears our disagreement lies in "post-industrial". My first thought was "I don't see how the use of precious metals in Ancien
by Double_Cast 13y ago
> in a post-industrial world.
It appears our disagreement lies in "post-industrial". My first thought was "I don't see how the use of precious metals in Ancient Egypt is any different from the role of currency in a post-industrial world." Now, asserting our myopia leaves us nowhere. But as long as this thread is already, I'd like to dig deeper.
Given the Mt. Gox debacle, I'm assuming your line of reasoning is related to trust. E.g. "the purely electronic form of bitcoin allows it to be stolen on a scale not feasible with more tangible forms of money." But then, do banks prevent the laundering of USD electronically? Or perhaps "who will insure against theft if not the government?" But then, who insured against theft prior to Hamilton's creation of the U.S. National Bank?
But at this point, I'm fully immersed in strawman land.
- philwelch 13y agoThat's because this entire thread has been a chain of irrelevant derailments and strawman attacks on your end.
- Double_Cast 13y agoThe reason I knowingly offered strawmen citations was to provide a prototype of the response I was looking for. Responses like "but its use as currency was generally..." didn't really fit the bill. Nor did "I don't see how [so and so]". Ideally, I wanted to understand your reasoning. I still haven't gotten very far. Consider that if I can't decipher why you disagree and I'm not permitted to construct hypotheticals (strawmen) as to why you disagree, that leaves me with either assuming you're automatically wrong or not thinking critically at all. Derailment? I don't think that's fair. Until now, I've been pursuing the same question this entire thread (why you disagree with top post).