It was repeatedly avoided, but never directly answered.
Leo, your social capital with me is sub-zero - so you can keep repeating the same thing over and over. I responded to your query - you're not happy with the answer - that now becomes your issue. Any questions that you're putting to me are likely to be ignored from here on in - due to the attitude you present with and the disingenuous approach you're taking here. The same goes for your fellow travelers.
@Leo it is not worth your time any longer, there is a clear lack of understanding and when faced with that truth the poster would rather attack the person.
The origin of personal attacks lie with yourself and your fellow bitcoin naysayers (and despite what you once claimed, that's precisely what you are).
Over the last few days this has been proven again and again, nobody is allowed to contribute an opinion that disagrees with the shallow understanding of a novel technology or they will suffer a personal attack and be chastised as a 'naysayer'.
The 'last few days' provides an excellent example of what's at play here. It was brought to your attention repeatedly that there was no conflict - but you were hell bent on finding it. And the point upon which you (and your co-travelers) found it is priceless.
I was repeatedly chastised for taking the approach that regulation is oftentimes good - but cannot be relied upon to always be so - that individual regulations need to be assessed on their merits - that it must be ensured that innovation is nurtured and not stymied.
That was my position and that remained (and remains) my view and position - when I was repeatedly told I hadn't answered. Apparently that's 'sitting on the fence'! The crystal clear take away is that I was being badgered to confirm that regulation can only be good when nobody
with any credibility could ever make such a statement.
I have never once suggested that I am any form of oracle on this subject over the course of over three years of discussion. However, you have on two occasions. And yet this is the guy who's implicit in suggesting that regulation can only be good and it can't harm the development of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. I have NO tolerance for arrogance regardless of how well versed someone is in a subject - that's not an excuse. For a guy who claims oracle status, how then has it escaped your attention that a long, long list of very well regarded people in the industry have flagged exactly what I referred to with regard to crypto and regulation? Given what you claim, you should be embarrassed.
Whilst we're on the subject, your insult in terms of the allegation that my input involves cursory google searches has zero credibility. I know the strength and depth of the time and energy I've put into this subject area. Had I listened to the 'advice' or views that were emanating from your co-travelers - or more recently yourself I'd be down life changing amounts of $ in the case of every single one of the past three years.
The reality is that this sub-forum has been partisan and frustrated with attempts to drown me out, you go with this contrivance (that I haven't answered questions when I have - yet you don't apply your own standards to yourselves). You and your merry band can agree amongst yourselves - don't think for a second I care - because I don't. Given your behaviour, you don't have and will never have my respect. What I do care about is that people who come here to gain an understanding of the subject have access to both sides of the debate. Exactly that. I don't care what conclusions they reach - so long as they have the info to make their own decision.
Now, I think it's crystal clear to everyone. I won't be brow beaten. You can continue on with this - your'e not bothering me one bit. But you are disrupting the ability of others to form their own opinion.
That's my position - just so that we're clear.
