What a completely bizarre exchange this is,
@psionl0 , even by your standards.
Here, let me just quickly recount it here, and maybe the completely bizarre nature of your responses might become evident even to you when you hear yourself now, just maybe.
---------------
So, I happen to see
@Gulliver Foyle ’s post, this one:
1) The modern art market is largely a tax dodge, a scam played by the ultra rich on the rest of us. Hence why you've got stuff with no artistic merit, thought or quality like the above named item going for astronomical sums or the career of Damien Hirst.
In terms of 2) five accounts hold over 51% of the bitcoins in existence, therefore they can dictate what goes on the blockchain, up to and including changing the number of bitcoins that can be mined.
I found that observation interesting, the second paragraph specifically, and I responded to
@Gulliver Foyle , saying this:
Really? Just five accounts hold half all btc? ...that's literally a scam, right there, if these are legacy accounts and legacy holding. (Admittedly, if they're new/newer/newish accounts that simply speculated right, then this specific argument won't work, that I've added to Gulliver Foyle's observation.)
At which point you mangle up my post in your quote, and respond to that mangled up version of my post, saying this:
* GROAN * Don't tell me that you are going to recycle another discredited argument from 2010!
Those who got in early are not scammers because they were not psychic and had no way of knowing if btc would ever be worth anything.
So I point out to you that that's already addressed in my post, except you cut it out yourself:
Your objection has already been addressed, very clearly, in my post that you quoted from. In the portion that you’ve gone out of your way to snip out there.
And you reply with this random attempt at mind-reading me, for no reason that I can discern:
Maybe you meant something different when you posted "legacy accounts". I get that people who bought in more recently don't hold "legacy accounts".
Not unreasonably, given your bizarre response, I ask you to explain yourself in my next post to you:
Different than what? What is your understanding of the term "legacy accounts", that you brought to bear when reading my post?
Whereupon, instead of answering my question, you respond to me with yet another bizarre and random mind-reading attempt, again for no reason that I can discern:
I'm guessing that you meant something totally different to the wallets that were set up by the creators and early adopters (when mining rewards were the greatest). You might even mean an account at a bitcoin exchange rather than a bitcoin wallet.
Incidentally, Satoshi Nakamoto (the creator) originally set up several wallets and mined a bunch of bitcoins for himself. But he disappeared from the face of this planet and those wallets have never been touched since.
So then I ask you, again, to clearly explain what on earth you’re babbling away incoherently about:
No, I'm asking you what specific sense of the term you brought to bear when reading, and responding to, my post.
Like I asked, different than what? It's a simple straightforward question, perfectly reasonable given your posts addressed to me. And there's no honest reason why it shouldn't admit of a simple straightforward short one-sentence answer.
At which point, another mysterious and apparently random post from you in response, this one:
Why don't you read what I posted instead of doggedly clinging to a lie?
I point out the completely incoherent and random nature of your response in my next post to you:
That doesn't sound like a sane response at all, to what was said and asked. At least not a sane response that is remotely honest.
(Neither the first response either --- although there was some possibility there of a reasonable explanation, which is what I was trying to explore. And most certainly not this present response of yours.)
*backs away very, very slowly*
At which point, you outdo yourself, by saying this to me:
You obviously don't have any sort of definition of "legacy accounts" whatsoever. That is the only way that you are able to constantly disagree with what I posted.
---------------
There. Do you see now why I’m starting to wonder if we should put up a ‘Beware of Crazy’ warning for this thread?
All of what you’ve been saying here is bizarre, incoherent. But let’s just take the time to focus on that last post of yours, that consists of these two apparently random statements:
“You obviously don't have any sort of definition of "legacy accounts" whatsoever. That is the only way that you are able to constantly disagree with what I posted.”
Do you really not see that your post is literally incoherent, that you're just saying random things here? Let me spell that out for you:
1. I was addressing
@Gulliver Foyle , and commenting on what
he had said. I wasn’t even addressing you at all here, nor anything you'd said. I only addressed you afterwards, and that was in response to your posts to me, and to find out why exactly you’d said what you did, and what you meant.
2. I didn’t either disagree or disagree with you about anything there, at all. How could I, since I hadn’t even addressed you or anything you’d said?
3. In as much as I didn’t disagree with you about anything, in these posts, then it is not very …sane of you, is it, to try to cook up weird theories about how and why I’m able to do what I didn’t even do.
4. Why and how the blazes is it “obvious” to you that I “don't have any sort of definition of "legacy accounts" whatsoever”? What on earth is that complete drivel?
--------------------
I don’t know what on earth’s up with you. If you’re just having a bad day, or a bad life, and would like to acknowledge your extraordinary behavior, and take it back: well then that’s cool, we can shake on this and put this behind us, like sane civilized human beings.
Else you can …well, keep doing you, I guess. Your call. If you choose the latter, despite my taking the time to clearly demonstrate your own …less than sane behavior just now, then I’m not going to be wasting any more time on you after this.
