• 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.
psionl0 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Other than "gee, i wonder if all the people who bought in at $1,000 are feeling good now", maybe. Oh, and whether the people who were touting it are yet ready to admit that maybe Bitcoin is pretty much exactly what we've said it is all along -- a speculators' commodity that is far too volatile and with far too few upsides to ever be useful as a currency.

Of course, I never expected that drawing attention to the currency aspect would result in all this hoo ha but - there you go.
Click to expand...
You're the one creating all the hoo-ha by refusing to just read the words that people say, and instead listening to the words in your head. This discussion is painfully simple for the rest of us; sorry it seems to be hard for you.

The_Animus said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are incorrect. Here, let me break it down for you as logic 101.

p = Bitcoin is a currency
q = Bitcoin lost a huge chunk of value in 2014 compared to $LIST_OF_CURRENCIES

Jhunter/I: !p.
psion: p.
Article: p and q.
Me: :rolleyes: Oh, look, an article saying q. Not surprised.
Jhunter: :rolleyes: Not surprised either.
psion: :eek: Ha! because article, therefore p! You admitted p! p! please p?
Us: :teacher: No, because p and q have no defined relation. Both truth values in this combination remain valid:
if q, then p && q == TRUE (bitcoin is a currency and lost value compared to currencies)
if q, then !p && q == TRUE (bitcoin is not a currency and lost value compared to currencies)
psion: :cry1 BUT YOU MUST HAVE ADMITTED pppppp
Us: :rolleyes: Nope. We still say !p && q.
You: :jaw-dropp OMG NOT LOGICAL

...demonstrating that you don't actually understand logic yourself. Did you ever actually take a class in it? Mine was in 11th grade, but that's not so long ago that I can't still remember the basic principles.

Oh, and hey, you didn't answer this:

me said:
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?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
remirol said:
Other than "gee, i wonder if all the people who bought in at $1,000 are feeling good now", maybe.
Click to expand...
Uh Oh! It looks like yet another epitaph.

remirol said:
You're I'm the one creating all the hoo-ha by refusing to just read the words that people say, and instead listening to the words in your my head. This discussion is painfully simple for the rest of us you; sorry it seems to be is hard for you me.
Click to expand...
ftfy.

remirol said:
Jhunter/I: !p.
psion: p.
Article: p and q.
Me: :rolleyes: Oh, look, an article saying q. Not surprised.
Jhunter: :rolleyes: Not surprised either.
psion: :eek: Ha! because article, therefore p! You admitted p! p! please p?
Us: :teacher: No, because p and q have no defined relation. Both truth values in this combination remain valid:
if q, then p && q == TRUE (bitcoin is a currency and lost value compared to currencies)
if q, then !p && q == TRUE (bitcoin is not a currency and lost value compared to currencies)
psion: :cry1 BUT YOU MUST HAVE ADMITTED pppppp
Us: :rolleyes: Nope. We still say !p && q.
You: :jaw-dropp OMG NOT LOGICAL
Click to expand...
:sdl: :sdl: :sdl: And you accuse me of listening to the words in my head? :sdl: :sdl: :sdl:

BTW regarding your "mastery" of logic:
if q, then p && q == TRUE (bitcoin is a currency and lost value compared to currencies)
if q, then !p && q == TRUE (bitcoin is not a currency and lost value compared to currencies)
Click to expand...
The logical "AND" requires both statements to be true so neither line in your quote can be true since q says nothing about the truth value of p.
Had you used a logical "OR" then both your lines would be true.
 
Last edited:
jhunter1163 said:
remirol said:
Bitcoin bad. ... <rest of brilliant post snipped>
Click to expand...
Nominated! (And I run TLA so I suspect this has a good chance of getting in the finals poll).
Click to expand...
:D

Do not change quoted posts without making it clear what you have done. remirol did not say the words you have attributed to him.

Be more careful in future.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin
 
Last edited by a moderator:
psionl0 said:
Uh Oh! It looks like yet another epitaph.
Click to expand...

I'm just requoting my prediction from long ago, which is that the people who were buying in at $1k were fools. Turns out I was right. Big surprise there.

BTW regarding your "mastery" of logic:
The logical "AND" requires both statements to be true so neither line in your quote can be true since q says nothing about the truth value of p.
Had you used a logical "OR" then both your lines would be true.
Click to expand...
Only someone determined to deliberately misinterpret the words he's reading would think that this:

me said:
Both truth values in this combination remain valid:
if q, then p && q == TRUE (bitcoin is a currency and lost value compared to currencies)
if q, then !p && q == TRUE (bitcoin is not a currency and lost value compared to currencies)
Click to expand...

means that both are true at the same time, since that would require that p == !p, which is obviously never true.

Seriously. Read the words on the screen. Respond only to those. People have been telling you this for several years now. You can do it; I have faith in you, if you put in the effort.
 
remirol said:
psionl0 said:
The logical "AND" requires both statements to be true so neither line in your quote can be true since q says nothing about the truth value of p.
Had you used a logical "OR" then both your lines would be true.
Click to expand...

Only someone determined to deliberately misinterpret the words he's reading would think that this:

me said:
Both truth values in this combination remain valid:
if q, then p && q == TRUE (bitcoin is a currency and lost value compared to currencies)
if q, then !p && q == TRUE (bitcoin is not a currency and lost value compared to currencies)
Click to expand...
means that both are true at the same time, since that would require that p == !p, which is obviously never true.
Click to expand...
Another comprehension/logic fail. What do you think "&&" means?

p && q == TRUE means that both the statements p and q are true while
!p && q == TRUE means that both the statements !p and q are true (or p is false AND q is true).
Neither line can be inferred if q is true.

"It's just English. Try it sometime."
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
Neither line can be inferred if q is true.
Click to expand...

Both remain valid possibilities, as the truth of p is unrelated to the truth of q. Which is what the post said in the first place -- you just would rather play silly buggers than admit anything at all.

Of course, if you had just read the original post in the first place rather than conjuring up feverish slashfic in your mind according to the rules of some immature game where you ignore what people actually say in favor of claiming "NO NO YOU SAID THIS I KNOW IT", you wouldn't have this problem.

It isn't a rational approach to discussion to assume that a person who has held opinion A for a long time has suddenly ceased to hold opinion A simply because he agrees with another person on a tangentially related matter, even if that other person happens to hold opinion B. It's even less rational to follow him around a thread repeating such rubbish when that person has directly stated "No, I still have opinion A." You aren't a mind reader, and pretending you are in this manner is childish.

Seriously. Read the words on the screen. Respond only to those. People have been telling you this for several years now. You can do it; I have faith in you, if you put in the effort.
 
Last edited:
I was going to buy a coin (or wallet, or whatever) at $350 just for novelty's sake (and on the extreme off-chance Bitcoins would increase ten-fold).

Glad I didn't.
 
remirol said:
Other than "gee, i wonder if all the people who bought in at $1,000 are feeling good now", maybe.
Click to expand...

The people who bought in at $1,000 last year are probably feeling pretty crappy about it, but the people who bought in at $20 the year before (and didn't sell) are probably feeling pretty relaxed.

Bubbles tend to burst sooner or later.

Fudbucker said:
What are those guys mining bitcoins going to do with all their computer equipment?
Click to expand...

Render-farming, perhaps.

(I'd suggest Litecoin mining, but the prices for that have collapsed as well.)
 
Last edited:
Brian-M said:
The people who bought in at $1,000 last year are probably feeling pretty crappy about it, but the people who bought in at $20 the year before (and didn't sell) are probably feeling pretty relaxed.

Bubbles tend to burst sooner or later.
Click to expand...

Yep. The point of the remark (and the prediction) is that there were an awful lot of people in this thread who didn't think it was a bubble.
 
remirol said:
Both remain valid possibilities, as the truth of p is unrelated to the truth of q.
Click to expand...
Talk about illogical!

The statements p &&q == TRUE and !p && q == TRUE may be valid possibilities but your conditional statements if q, then .... are FALSE for the reason you gave.

You could have written
if q, then p && q == TRUE || !p && q == TRUE
but by the law of absorption, that reduces to the trivial case of
if q, then q == TRUE.

You know about as much about logic as you know about what I have posted. I have never questioned that bitcoin prices have fallen. I have only said that calling bitcoin a currency was ironic (and ironic doesn't mean anything other than ironic).

If you would just acknowledge this irony instead of "playing silly buggers" you could end this exchange and stop making yourself look foolish.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom