3 ms·
Apologies, totally forgot about that, I just searched for the figure again.. you really should update the wikipedia article with your research. Anyway my argum
by abalone 12y ago
Apologies, totally forgot about that, I just searched for the figure again.. you really should update the wikipedia article with your research.
Anyway my argument is not based on the fraud figure (at least not at the <=1% level). That still leaves plenty of room for consumer benefits.
Also, don't get depressed! Bitcoin's cool. Someone mentioned microtransactions -- makes a lot of sense for that. Digital cash stuff. It's just not going to take over all consumer spending on the basis of "saving fees". The right analytical lens to use is "consumer benefits".
- FatalLogic 12y agoI hate to repeat myself, but... I suggest you ask yourself honestly why you keep citing a number that you've repeatedly been shown is inaccurate, in order to support the same argument over and over again. That's my last word on this matter.