The Bitcoin threads could be interesting in the future

[DublinHead54]

As regards requests from here on out - go fish. That kindness has been expended given what you and your co-travelers are about here.
However, I will say this. It's implicit when taken in the context of the discussion as a whole as it pertained to regulation over the past two days.
What puts that further beyond doubt is your support of the other two carnival workers - who pitched in on your behalf. If you agreed with me, why didn't you post "i agree"? If that was too much for you to stomach, why didn't you correct them? You can try to wriggle out of this as much as you want - it's patently obvious.

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.

I introduced the topic of regulation in the specific context of the market infrastructure, you added some wishy washy statement that regulation can be good and bad, that's great and should be painfully obvious to everyone that I didn't feel the need to mention it. 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?

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.

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.

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.

Tecate, wise up, 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. Own your own statements please. I have still not seen anything from you that doesn't suggest I have more rounded understanding of crypto.

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).

This is a lie, I set it out the previous discussion with you. 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.

 

[WolfeTone]

Regulation of bitcoin markets good, regulation of bitcoin bad.

 

[DublinHead54]

Regulation of bitcoin markets good, regulation of bitcoin bad.

Careful now or you'll be accused of being a naysayer.

 

[tecate]

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.

Tecate, wise up,

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.

This is a lie,

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.

 

[DublinHead54]

Damn straight its a lie - on your part. You did no such thing. You refused to answer.

This forum doesn't lie, say what you may but you misinterpreted my comments and when challenged you started with insults, and then boasting. It is not arrogant to point out after working for 20 years in financial regulation, that I have more knowledge on the topic.

Until you can separate 'BTC position' and ability to critically assess a forum post you are going to continue to have these tantrums and resort to insults, I really hope in real life you don't act like that. I will continue when in my opinion you make incorrect statements critically assess them and respond. Otherwise this forum will just be you posting articles about BTC dominance.

I am not sure why you need to keep bringing up false claims and trying to distract from the topic on hand.

 

[DublinHead54]

Damn straight its a lie - on your part. You did no such thing. You refused to answer.


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.

I am not a fan of being called a liar especially when the claim is completely unfounded. The below is taken from a post in which I presented by stance on Bitcoin and Blockchain Technology as a direct response to Tecates request.


"As I have mentioned, the political, economic and cultural issues are as important as the technology itself, so there will be varying adoption across the globe. My first point is I don't believe BTC will be used as a currency, it will become some form of digital store of value, whether that store of value becomes $1 or $50k, I have no clue.

In terms of Blockchain Technology, there are lots of interesting Proof of Concepts being proposed, but currently we aren't seeing a whole lot of adoption, I think the cost of implementation for corporations will out weigh the benefits.

The most interesting area is CBDC and Decentralized Finance. Central Banks have the biggest impact on us day to day, so they have the power to force adoption of digital assets (most money is already digital). I am excited by the concept of programmable money, for example, the stimulus checks for Covid in the US could have been delivered digitally and programmed to be only spent in certain areas of the economy. This gives another tool in the monetary tool box for Central Banks, and also goes towards moving towards a platform economy. It asks important questions around the role of Financial Intermediaries etc.

DeFI, is probably the coolest idea around at the minute and we are seeing lots of people benefit from it, I am working on a project currently in DeFi."


@tecate you have zero credibility from now on in my opinion.

 

[tecate]

This forum doesn't lie,

For sure - people can interpret it themselves. Just don't delude yourself that everyone shares your opinion (just in case you believe your own bs).

Until you can separate 'BTC position' and ability to critically assess a forum post you are going to continue to have these tantrums and resort to insults

Sounds like you're giving yourself a self-talk there. Lets hope its helpful to you.

I will continue when in my opinion you make incorrect statements critically assess them and respond. Otherwise this forum will just be you posting articles about BTC dominance.

Right back at you.

I am not sure why you need to keep bringing up false claims and trying to distract from the topic on hand.

Long since called it. The only ones pulling down free and open discussion is yourself and your fellow travelers.

I am not a fan of being called a liar especially when the claim is completely unfounded.

Perhaps if you'd be honest for a second you would't have to deal with it. Here we have another example....->

The below is taken from a post in which I presented by stance on Bitcoin and Blockchain Technology as a direct response to Tecates request.

On several other occasions, I asked you specifically for your rationale specific to bitcoin itself - not CBDCs or blockchain technology generally. You ignored that request first time round and second time round you said it wasn't relevant.

 

[DublinHead54]

On several other occasions, I asked you specifically for your rationale specific to bitcoin itself - not CBDCs or blockchain technology generally. You ignored that request first time round and second time round you said it wasn't relevant.

and still after being presented with cold hard facts that disprove your allegations you continue.

@Brendan Burgess in light of this, I suggest the thread gets closed.

 

[tecate]

and still after being presented with cold hard facts that disprove your allegations you continue.

You've done no such thing. You've taken a snippet of an alternate part of the discourse and passed that off. You were specifically asked for your rationale with regard to bitcoin on a number of other occasions - not CDBCs or blockchain technology in general.

The point is that you say you're neutral but the evidence doesn't suggest that. You've been on here trashing the notion of decentralisation - which is at the very core of the more recent development of crypto.