• 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.
remirol said:
Not "quoting" -- "is linking to an article which says".
Click to expand...
Oh! That makes all the difference - NOT!

jhunter1163 said:
It's certainly not a currency in any practical sense.
Click to expand...
remirol said:
I don't see the problem here. I don't consider it a currency;
Click to expand...
And yet you both "linked" to articles that called it a "currency". Even if you think you can use any word that you find convenient, I still say, :id:
remirol said:
All you have to do is read the words and respond to those, instead of the ones you hear inside your mind.
Click to expand...
I don't know which words you imagine I am responding to but I am only responding to the ones I saw in the articles.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
Oh! That makes all the difference - NOT!

And yet you both "linked" to articles that called it a "currency". Even if you think you can use any word that you find convenient, I still say, :id:
I don't know which words you imagine I am responding to but I am only responding to the ones I saw in the articles.
Click to expand...

It's just English. Try it sometime.
 
This really isn't that difficult, psionl0. The fact that Remirol and I linked to articles which called BTC a "currency" does not mean that either he or I think of it as such. If the writers of the articles believe that it is, bully for them; it in no way affects my opinion and I think I can speak for Remirol in saying that it in no way affects his opinion.
 
jhunter1163 said:
This really isn't that difficult, psionl0. The fact that Remirol and I linked to articles which called BTC a "currency" does not mean that either he or I think of it as such. If the writers of the articles believe that it is, bully for them; it in no way affects my opinion and I think I can speak for Remirol in saying that it in no way affects his opinion.
Click to expand...

So neither of you believe it's a currency but you post an article that calls it a currency and compares how it did over the year to other currencies.

That article either contradicts your view of what bitcoin is, or it's total junk for comparing a non currency to currencies.

As you have already said you don't consider it a currency, why would you possibly post this? You accept the conclusion of an argument when you've stated you don't accept the premise.

That's illogical yo. I can't have it.
 
The_Animus said:
So neither of you believe it's a currency but you post an article that calls it a currency and compares how it did over the year to other currencies.

That article either contradicts your view of what bitcoin is, or it's total junk for comparing a non currency to currencies.

As you have already said you don't consider it a currency, why would you possibly post this? You accept the conclusion of an argument when you've stated you don't accept the premise.

That's illogical yo. I can't have it.
Click to expand...

I'm having a hard time even parsing this. There's not an "argument" here; the articles simply showed that BTC lost more than half of its value in 2014, which is a worse performance than any currency on earth. That's not arguable. That's a fact.

If it would make you feel better, I could compile a similar chart showing BTC's performance against, say, gold, platinum, copper and lean hogs (if BTC is deemed a commodity) or against the Dow, S&P, Russell 2000 and Nikkei (if it's deemed an investment). I'm sure the comparisons would reflect equally poorly on BTC.
 
The_Animus said:
So neither of you believe it's a currency but you post an article that calls it a currency and compares how it did over the year to other currencies.
Click to expand...

So tell me, what about the article changes if you replace the word "currency" with the word "commodity" everywhere that it's used to reference Bitcoin?

That's illogical yo. I can't have it.
Click to expand...

Only for an extremely narrow definition of "logic".

I'm hardly surprised at this reaction, though -- the Bitbugs in this thread have all avoided discussing the content of the article in favor of shouting in faux-glee that someone bothered to call Bitcoin a currency. As noted earlier both in this thread and others: Unsinkable Rubber Duckie.
 
Belz... said:
Yes I know, and I told you why it isn't so.
Click to expand...
No you didn't.

You seemed to infer that I believed that the sources were wrong about bitcoin prices because they called bitcoin a "currency".

I would never be guilty of such uncritical thinking.
 
Don't make me stop this car!! Because I will!

And I'll tell you right now, I don't want to hear any of the but-he-started-it ****.
 
remirol said:
I'm hardly surprised at this reaction, though -- the Bitbugs in this thread have all avoided discussing the content of the article in favor of shouting in faux-glee that someone bothered to call Bitcoin a currency.
Click to expand...
So bitcoin lost nearly 3/4 of its value in 2014 and the Russian Rouble didn't. What's so discussion-worthy about that? If the articles hadn't called bitcoin a currency there would be nothing to comment on.

Of course, I never expected that drawing attention to the currency aspect would result in all this hoo ha but - there you go.
 
remirol said:
Only for an extremely narrow definition of "logic".

I'm hardly surprised at this reaction, though -- the Bitbugs in this thread have all avoided discussing the content of the article in favor of shouting in faux-glee that someone bothered to call Bitcoin a currency. As noted earlier both in this thread and others: Unsinkable Rubber Duckie.
Click to expand...

I understand the article just fine and bitcoin did lose more value than any currency. The article is logically consistant, at least for anyone who believe bitcoin qualifies as a currency.

You and Jhunter accepting the article and its conclusion while simultaneously rejecting the premise is illogical. It's logic 101 and I'm sorry if you don't understand but I'm not wasting anymore time on this portion of the discussion.
 
Last edited:
The_Animus said:
You and Jhunter accepting the article and its conclusion while simultaneously rejecting the premise is illogical. It's logic 101 and I'm sorry if you don't understand but I'm not wasting anymore time on this portion of the discussion.
Click to expand...

There isn't a "premise". BTC was compared to currencies by the author of the article. I disagree with the author that BTC is a currency, at least in any useful sense, but that in no way invalidates the author's conclusion that BTC performed worse than any currency on earth last year because that conclusion is factual.

I can't explain it any more clearly than that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom