You're quite the dramatist really!You can state that and I wouldn't jump down your throat.
Asking you to answer a question that you said you have answered, but haven't? Pot / kettle againIt's completely moronic what you're going on with here.
Where have I suggested that?Are you seriously suggesting that ALL regulations can be assumed to be good!?
I am not a bitcoin naysayer. I have said it before, I think it's GREAT for criminalsNo wonder your gaggle of bitcoin naysayers don't get bitcoin!
I never said you had to consent to anything. Why are you trolling a thread so close to your heart?Ah, I see. I have to consent to this nonsense in your wayward opinion?
But you never did anywayI won't be answering any of your questions going forward.
A great addition to the discussion. Thanks for your service.You're quite the dramatist really!
Aside from the inconvenient truth - question has long since been answered.Asking you to answer a question that you said you have answered, but haven't? Pot / kettle again
It's implicit.Where have I suggested that?
Anything that you can tar and feather it with - understood.I am not a bitcoin naysayer. I have said it before, I think it's GREAT for criminals
Then why the inappropriate comment.never said you had to consent to anything.
That's a blatant lie.But you never did anyway
I have said it before, I think it's GREAT for criminals
That's where the rest of you take this - time and time again. I called it from the get go - you were determined to find conflict - that was your only interest here.@tecate has sunk to the lowest form discourse by attacking the person when they no longer have the capacity to engage in conversation.
I know. I really struggle to reach your level of intellect.It is truly laughable that they do not see how they are twisting the words to try and save whatever face they have left. I actually used to think you had a solid understanding of Bitcoin, but I think your knowledge stretches only as far as whatever article you can find on google. I really think you lack the ability to rationalize Bitcoin as a technology.
You don't like my responses - yeah, I've heard that a few times. Just coincidence that it comes from bitcoin naysayers.Honestly, you've wasted so much time on here, as through however many posts in response to me over the last few days,
The implicit suggestion is that regulation is good regardless of what specific regulations we're talking about. That is completely and utterly moronic.When faced with that you come up with 'regulation is good and bad'....
I don't tend to mesh well with the arrogant - that's a certainty.Anyway, I don't engage with people who are unable to handle criticism of a topic,
Gee, thanks.so by all means feel free to respond
Very best of luck to you.but I will not be engaging with you on this topic any longer.
I have heard this before, I have never been convinced of it. Bitcoin does not compare to cash when it comes to criminal enterprise. For sure there may be some use cases, but cash is king in the criminal world. As has often been pointed out here, bitcoins use as a MoE is not great.
Which is why cash is the clear choice of criminals - not bitcoin.BTC does not offer as much privacy as cash.
It's an open discussion. If you'd like to PM WolfeTone, have at it.(Tecate....this point is directed at WolfeTone and not you)
So the question to ask is why is a decentralized currency that operates outside of the financial system is not the preferred currency of criminals?
Well my theory on that is this - the primary driver for getting involved in criminality is at one end of the scale to get out of poverty, or at the other end of the scale indulge in the trappings of vast wealth.
At either end of the scale, cash is king for use as a medium of exchange and as you mention, privacy. Bitcoin falls well short as a MoE, so it makes little to zero sense to use it for criminal endeavours.
I vehemently disagree - and that's where it stops.
Take your nonsense to someone else, Leo - I'm not buying the manure you're selling.So you can't back up your claim, or admit you actually don't understand the technology that underpins all this.
Take your nonsense to someone else, Leo - I'm not buying the manure your selling.
Your question was answered - and beyond that, you no longer have question privileges. A child needs to be treated as such .So go on then, explain how someone can send bitcoin over a satellite service without the need for an internet connection? You're the one trying to sell nonsense, I just called out on it.
Your question was answered - and beyond that
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.It was repeatedly avoided, but never directly answered.
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).@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 '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.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'.
You give yourself far more credit than reality permits you - I'm no-one's 'victim'. That said, my post and the points raised stand.@tecate do you honestly believe that you are a victim?
Incorrect. Every opinion has been met with my own opinion. Last time I checked, we're all entitled to one.Every opinion I have produced on this subject has been met with the starkest criticism from yourself.
Don't pretend for a second that you know the first thing about me - let alone contrive conclusions to fit your world view.You are so narrow-minded
It's you that needs to re-read. On several occasions I pointed out that there was no such conflict in play - but you persisted with it. I was astonished at the new depths of stupidity evidenced up to yesterday. You had every opportunity to correct that but you did no such thing. Now when its underscored you have no choice. I'll repeat again - only a moron would suggest that blanket regulation (irrespective of the detail) could be good for the development of crypto and blockchain. Youcan wriggle this way or that but it's implicit in what you were driving at and what you were badgering me with. You did nothing to correct that - nor did you do so when @Firefly came to your support with precisely that.if you actually took the time to reread the stance you are exhibiting on Regulation is no different to mine, you just jumped to a conclusion that my regulation comment was negative. Please clarify
Ah, I see. Now you're claiming I started with the d*** measuring. I did no such thing. Over the course of three years, find me a post of mine that lords it over someone on the basis of my knowledge of the subject? You were the one that started with that - you're basically suggesting that simply on the back of that, my opinion doesn't count.I think I have mentioned that I have personally been invested in cryptos for a decade and worked on professional projects, so if you want to go down a d*** measuring about life-changing sums of money that is your prerogative.
Clearly, there's a direct connection between the two in one form or another.However, the utility of BTC and the cryptocurrency market as an investment vehicle is an entirely different subject to the utility of BTC.
It's you that needs to re-read. On several occasions I pointed out that there was no such conflict in play - but you persisted with it. I was astonished at the new depths of stupidity evidenced up to yesterday. You had every opportunity to correct that but you did no such thing. Now when its underscored you have no choice. I'll repeat again - only a moron would suggest that blanket regulation (irrespective of the detail) could be good for the development of crypto and blockchain. Youcan wriggle this way or that but it's implicit in what you were driving at and what you were badgering me with. You did nothing to correct that - nor did you do so when @Firefly came to your support with precisely that.
Ah, I see. Now you're claiming I started with the d*** measuring. I did no such thing.
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.
Clearly, there's a direct connection between the two in one form or another.
As regards requests from here on out - go fish. That kindness has been expended given what you and your co-travelers are about here.Tecate please be so kind as to point out where I have ever said that I am a proponent of blanket regulation? I have included my very first comment on the topic below. My comments were always on the back of a specific topic, I will clarify that when I said Bitcoin in the below I was referring to Bitcoin trading ecosystem, which should have been clear in subsequent posts.
What would be helpful to your assertion here is if that's what I actually stated - it's not. I said that regulation for the most part can and oftentimes is - good. I added that that's not always the case and that care has to be taken to ensure that regulation is sympathetic to the innovation on hand. Worldwide, there are plenty of examples of wayward regulation as it pertains to crypto/blockchain. Now, I NEVER claimed to be an expert on regulation but there's no need to be to figure those basics out.You clearly do not have a deep understanding of Financial Market regulation and how it protects participants and are leaning towards any regulation of the crypto market is to stymie innovation, which is frankly wrong.
Oh, no you don't! I brought that up in direct response to sustained declarations of your superior knowledge whilst ridiculing mine. It took me three years to get to that - and only when provoked by your arrogant outbursts. There are well over 1000 posts of mine here - all pertaining to this subject area. Find me a post where I lord it over other discussion participants on the basis of me claiming to have superior knowledge. You're here two minutes and there are a few such examples.See below for the cavalier boasting of the life-changing sums of money you have made in your most recent post.
You were invited a number of times to set out your rationale - and initially ignored that - then refused to do so. Between that and your behaviour, your interaction with some others here - and your commentary on the subject in general, it's clear enough. No further clarification is required - It's no longer of interest to me (ergo, there's no mystery in it any more).If this is true, and I am an investor, then how can you accuse me of being a naysayer?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?