Excuse me, as you pointed out yesterday this is a free forum and other contributors are free to post what they like. I have no control over what or how others interpret your attacks, and it is certainly not my response to clarify.
A couple of things. Yesterday, you were instructing me not to post. That's not whats at play here. I don't give a fiddlers what way you respond. However, I'm demonstrating what course of action you chose (as in the disingenuous one).
As regards the 'attacks', when people started getting frustrated because they couldn't drown me out - the attacks came thereafter - at me - not from me. You can twist that whichever way you want but that's the truth of it.
and it is certainly not my response to clarify.
Indeed - and nor did it suit your purposes. But you have time to sledge me (not necessarily the points I raise but me personally) - go figure.
I introduced the topic of regulation in the specific context of the market infrastructure,
Ego much? I'm under no obligation to meet your requirements.
you added some wishy washy statement that regulation can be good and bad,
You can continue with the insults all day long - water off a ducks back.
that's great and should be painfully obvious to everyone that I didn't feel the need to mention it.
No, it should most certainly not. Again, more of the arrogance.
Your claims that I propose 'blanket regulation' should be easily provable, but now at the third time you've finally admitted that you've said it was 'implied', I'll accept that as you admitting. So I am not sure why you are asking me to agree with a point I made in the first place?
Firstly, there is no 'third time' - I wasn't pressed on the subject - I volunteered my take on your actions/inactions relative to this specific discussion.
So I am not sure why you are asking me to agree with a point I made in the first place?
Because that's a blatant lie - you made no such point until an hour ago.
That is painfully obvious your lack of expertise, even now you are talking about regulation of crypto at the macroeconomic level whereas the only comments I have made are regulation as it pertains to the financial market infrastructure. It is ok if you don't know about there was just no need to try and argue on a different topic.
And again, here we have it. Time and time again, I'm accused of 'personal attacks' - and here you are with the 'lack of expertise' charge. Just in case it wasn't clear, arrogance I have no time for. Other than that, what you post is your own doings. What I choose to post is my own business but be as obtuse as you wish in trying to justify your behaviour here.
Mind your manners.
you tried to ascertain your knowledge on the topic of by boasting about how much money you have made. It has nothing to do with any comments I or anyone else has made.
It had everything to do with your comments and was a direct response to the arrogance on display here. 1,000 posts on here and I never tried to denigrate another poster on the basis of having uber-knowlege. You're on here two minutes and I can cite several examples. My statement was in direct response to your reprehensible comments.
Own your own statements please.
Have a care for your own wayward statements and doings here.
Damn straight its a lie - on your part. You did no such thing. You refused to answer.
However, what relevance does my overall stance on BTC have to do with the topic I have discussed here. You have already admitted you agreed with my stance on regulation. Why are you hellbent on categorizing people as 'naysayers', is that the only way you can rationalize your own views? If I am a naysayer, what does that make you? As it would then suggest that you are just blindly following bitcoin.
Quite the opposite. You came on here some weeks ago suggesting that you had no bias and were approaching the topic as a neutral - alleging that I wasn't. I have consistently pointed out pros and cons with bitcoin. I have repeatedly and consistently acknowledged that it may fail or succeed. That's not the approach I see in those that I include in the 'naysayer' category.