• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bitcoin - Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
PartSkeptic said:
Psion10 did not bother to look at the article. It was inside the quote marks because it was part of the article. Thanks for assisting.
Click to expand...
You didn't cite an article. You just posted a picture.

That you think you can make a claim then assume that the onus is on everybody else to prove you wrong is very telling.
 
Argumemnon said:
What's there to be confused about? I looked up the citation for you because you didn't bother to and then you tell me that I stand for another poster although this has nothing to do with them. Again, look it up yourself in the future.
Click to expand...
I had no idea that your motivation was to do me such a wonderful favour.

Next time .........
 
psionl0 said:
I had no idea that your motivation was to do me such a wonderful favour.

Next time .........
Click to expand...

If you're going to argue against someone's posts, at least have an idea of what they're talking about. Using the content of PS' post you can easily find its source on Google.

And that way you won't need to insult other posters in the process.
 
Argumemnon said:
If you're going to argue against someone's posts, at least have an idea of what they're talking about. Using the content of PS' post you can easily find its source on Google.

And that way you won't need to insult other posters in the process.
Click to expand...
Like you are doing? Why is it up to me to prove somebody else's case?
 
Argumemnon said:
I'm insulting you by pointing out that you personalised the discussion without reason?

Whatever.
Click to expand...
It is you who is personalizing this discussion. If somebody else doesn't reference their work properly then I am not the one to blame for pointing this out.

Of course, if you agree with the other person's POV and disagree with mine then that would explain your motivation perfectly.
 
psionl0 said:
You didn't cite an article. You just posted a picture.

That you think you can make a claim then assume that the onus is on everybody else to prove you wrong is very telling.
Click to expand...


You are right about not my posting the link. I mistakenly used the article title instead. But if you googled the title you would have found the link, as was pointed out to you.

Just say thanks to Argumemnon for his assist.
 
I don't think Bitcoin has commodity qualities in terms of commodities. A better system would be if gold is to be used for balance payments in international transactions it must be linked to basic raw materials so that it oscillates in price with these selected raw materials.
 
PartSkeptic said:
You are right about not my posting the link. I mistakenly used the article title instead. But if you googled the title you would have found the link, as was pointed out to you.

Just say thanks to Argumemnon for his assist.
Click to expand...


But you defended not posting the link instead of rectifying your error.
PartSkeptic said:
A picture tells a thousand words. Notice the Dutch windmill in the background. But I do not think he is cutting down tulips.
Click to expand...
You may owe Argumemnon a debt of gratitude for covering up for your sloppy work but I owe him nothing for his personalized attack.
 
Henri McPhee said:
I don't think Bitcoin has commodity qualities in terms of commodities. A better system would be if gold is to be used for balance payments in international transactions it must be linked to basic raw materials so that it oscillates in price with these selected raw materials.
Click to expand...
One of the advantages of a crypto currency is that you don't have to invest effort into securely storing a hard medium or trust somebody else to do so while you carry an IOU instead.

Otherwise, I'm not sure that "oscillates in price with these selected raw materials" applies only to physical media and not virtual ones.
 
psionl0 said:
It is you who is personalizing this discussion. If somebody else doesn't reference their work properly then I am not the one to blame for pointing this out.

Of course, if you agree with the other person's POV and disagree with mine then that would explain your motivation perfectly.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why I will never help you again. You immediately assumed that I agreed with him, without reason, and which is the very personalisation I was refering to. Very convenient that you forgot that in order to now accuse _me_ of personalising things.
 
Argumemnon said:
Which is exactly why I will never help you again. You immediately assumed that I agreed with him, without reason, and which is the very personalisation I was refering to. Very convenient that you forgot that in order to now accuse _me_ of personalising things.
Click to expand...
If you saw the word "IF" in my post then you would realize that this response is totally OT.
 
psionl0 said:
But you defended not posting the link instead of rectifying your error.

You may owe Argumemnon a debt of gratitude for covering up for your sloppy work but I owe him nothing for his personalized attack.
Click to expand...

Ok I'm just going to show that you're lying here:

psionl0 said:
It's nice of you to stand up for somebody who thinks that proof is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Two personal attacks for the price of one and you have the balls to complain about me responding in kind? You are special.
 
psionl0 said:
If you are not supporting somebody (other than me) then why is it suddenly my duty to do their work for them?
Click to expand...

You were under no obligation to do so, and PS should've done it in the first place. But then you automatically assumed they made it up rather than putting in the effort of a 5 second search to confirm that the article existed. Again, no obligation, but the accusation makes your lack of search look very lazy. And then you decide to make it personal once I decide to step in and clarify things, only to downright become dishonest and claim that I made it personal first.

It's clear that you're simply being confrontational out of principle.
 
psionl0 said:
One of the advantages of a crypto currency is that you don't have to invest effort into securely storing a hard medium or trust somebody else to do so while you carry an IOU instead.
Click to expand...
So what do you have that's more secure than these things?
Otherwise, I'm not sure that "oscillates in price with these selected raw materials" applies only to physical media and not virtual ones.
Click to expand...
I'm certain it can't be made to apply to gold, which like other physical commodities finds its own price on the market. We have seen in this thread how gold and silver could not be held in a fixed ratio even though monetary authorities operating bimetallic systems had a strong motive to do so. They simply couldn't, as each metal fluctuated independently in market price.

At first the gold:silver value to weight ratio at the mint was changed from 15:1 to 15,5:1, but that couldn't be held either, so silver was demonetised, and after 1873 it appeared only in small quantities as token loose change, like US dimes, French twenty-centime pieces, and so on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom