4 ms·

No.

kovacs 13y ago
Aaron you come across so angry and prickly that even people that may agree with you do so begrudgingly. In this case you're simply wrong to not even agree and cannot expound beyond a simple "No", like a 2 year old that doesn't want to share their drink box. The fact is he's right, there's nothing about bitcoin and the technology itself that should fall under scrutiny until it's used in monetary transactions. It's almost as if you didn't even read that questions because your answer is just flat wrong. I respect what you've done to disseminate the information regarding the complete failure of government to clarify and enforce laws around finance but you may want to reconsider your tone because it's not going to help you to further that cause.
- dcc1 13y ago
  He's a legal troll a parasite on innovation not to different from patent trolls, don't entertain him.
  - thinkcomp 13y ago
    You have it backwards.
- hnnewguy 13y ago
  >because your answer is just flat wrong His answer to "Can we agree?" is wrong?
- thinkcomp 13y ago
  So first of all, you have to keep in mind that I'm in the middle of litigation related to these issues. I am careful about what I say. Second of all, the question posed here was both presumptuous and awfully vague. I'm not about to go on the record in response to that kind of question other than to reject it. I'm sorry if that makes me come off as prickly--I have to put other considerations ahead of public perception.
crashandburn4 13y ago
I have to agree with kovacs. Simply saying "No" does not count as a reasonable answer to a reasonable question (and I agree in the fact that it sounds petulant). If you disagree with the points put forth disemminate them and offer a rebuttal. Do you think that the presented cryptographic solution is one that is equivalent to money? if so why? I'm sure if I wanted to argue so I could think of some parallels or arguments to illustrate the point (possibly using the example of the current credit or financial systems, though I think I would personally disagree with those arguments). If not and you take exception to some other point raised state what that is. Your response as it is provides 1 bit of information and that is only as to your opinion on a matter and is thus semantically useless.

No.

Aaron you come across so angry and prickly that even people that may agree with you do so begrudgingly. In this case you're simply wrong to not even agree and cannot expound beyond a simple "No", like a 2 year old that doesn't want to share their drink box. The fact is he's right, there's nothing about bitcoin and the technology itself that should fall under scrutiny until it's used in monetary transactions. It's almost as if you didn't even read that questions because your answer is just flat wrong. I respect what you've done to disseminate the information regarding the complete failure of government to clarify and enforce laws around finance but you may want to reconsider your tone because it's not going to help you to further that cause.

dcc1 13y ago
He's a legal troll a parasite on innovation not to different from patent trolls, don't entertain him.
- thinkcomp 13y ago
  You have it backwards.
hnnewguy 13y ago
>because your answer is just flat wrong His answer to "Can we agree?" is wrong?
thinkcomp 13y ago
So first of all, you have to keep in mind that I'm in the middle of litigation related to these issues. I am careful about what I say. Second of all, the question posed here was both presumptuous and awfully vague. I'm not about to go on the record in response to that kind of question other than to reject it. I'm sorry if that makes me come off as prickly--I have to put other considerations ahead of public perception.

crashandburn4 13y ago

I have to agree with kovacs. Simply saying "No" does not count as a reasonable answer to a reasonable question (and I agree in the fact that it sounds petulant). If you disagree with the points put forth disemminate them and offer a rebuttal. Do you think that the presented cryptographic solution is one that is equivalent to money? if so why? I'm sure if I wanted to argue so I could think of some parallels or arguments to illustrate the point (possibly using the example of the current credit or financial systems, though I think I would personally disagree with those arguments). If not and you take exception to some other point raised state what that is. Your response as it is provides 1 bit of information and that is only as to your opinion on a matter and is thus semantically useless.