Merged Bitcoin - Part 3

[SpuriusMaximus]

No, I'm literally using your own arguments. If they're that easy to not understand even when used verbatim, that's your communication problem, not mine.

But, I guess, cognitive dissonance is what it is. It'll always soon revert to you being right and everyone else just twisting your arguments or otherwise cheating somehow. James Radi had some good videos about it. You know, since this forum used to be called JREF.

As for your argument about criminals, you still haven't shown how it helping with preventing criminality would even work, when:

1. it doesn't exclude dissidents in a totalitarian government. They don't actually exclude people donating to some human rights organisation from those, say, buying fentanyl. I mean, it's not even hypothetical. In Russia you can literally go to a prison in Siberia for giving money to Ukraine, including stuff like paying for a blue and yellow paint-job in World Of Warships that said a percentage of the proceeds go to Ukraine. The crypto-world scenario would make that trivial with a simple block-chain query. Which invalidates your whole argument about how the existence of oppressive totalitarian dictatorships in any way justifies saying why some people would want crypto instead to be rid of government oversight. There is still a fundamental incompatibility between that argument and having admitted that those governments would have it EASIER to track your transactions.

2. Nor explain why would then anyone else than those living in such dictatorships (which, presumably, includes you) want no government oversight. Again, addressing a literal argument from you.

3. Nor how that would even actually work in a world where a lot of countries don't share such information with each other. I mean, the US sure as heck ain't gonna share its registry of user and Bitcoin ids with China or Iran. Nor viceversa. If I were to buy, say, child anal porn from China, my government would even know that that's some Chinese id, even if China identified the guy, nor what I paid for. Maybe TEMU stuff? Maybe humanitarian aid directly to someone? Maybe monument pictures from an old foreign guy? Maybe models or textures for my game modding? Maybe a sexy foreign OnlyFans model? (You just know some look grreat.) Maybe an NFT now that those prices are low? Who knows? Who cares? No judge or jury would even indict me for just sending money to some unknown recipient.

Bonus extra points:

4. In the process you also haven't given any actual reason for why any legal kind of use outweighs just the greater fool theory (aka speculating on its future price) and illegal use, which frankly is the most Occam-conform thing at this point.

5. Nor that most trading in crypto seems to be wash trading, or otherwise just otherwise transferring it between accounts of the same person, even when presented with a study saying that it is. Sorry, I'll take a study over some crypto-bro regurgitating the same old tired propaganda points. I thought that would be default knowledge on a sceptic board.

It seems to me like you just want to eat your cake and still have it. Or in less metaphorical terms, use two propaganda talking points that are fundamentally incompatible with each other.

But hey, keep flailing around. As I was saying, I can appreciate a good clown show. Maybe you can also bring a little car, a squirting flower and some long balloons you can twist into funny argument shapes next time

 

[psionl0]

I'm literally using your MY own arguments.

ftfy.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Nope. It's still two arguments that you've made. You still haven't shown how I misunderstood either of them. I mean, both mine and yours are still all in black and white on the forum. It should be trivial to point out something like "in message #X I actually meant A, while in message #Y you misunderstood it as meaning B," You didn't. Even after it being itemised to you as best as I can. You just kept doing bare postulates. (And I mean not just about that, but in the whole thread.) Now it only moved to postulating that you were right anyway, and someone is distorting what you said, but it's still not supported by anything. There still is no "X therefore Y" in there. It's still just a bare postulate.

Frankly even Emre or Pixie Of Key had been doing better than just postulating that they're right in their threads. And FSM knows that's as low a bar as one can set, short of grabbing a shovel and starting digging

But whatever helps your cognitive dissonance, I guess

I suppose it was my bad to expect a crypto-bro to actually have a coherent argument. Dunno what I was even thinking. I blame it on the vodka and OJ. Sorry about that

 

[psionl0]

I suppose it was my bad to expect a crypto-bro to actually have a coherent argument.

This is your entire problem. You actually believe that anybody who attempts to make a valid assessment of crypto is a "crypto-bro". In your view, only the most negative view of crypto is permissible - even if it is false in every way.

I am NOT going to defend claims that I never made.

I am NOT going re-answer claims that you have regurgitated while pretending that I have never answered them.

I have repeatedly given the basics. Crypto is a digital asset that can be transferred from wallet to wallet all over the world without third party interference. That's it! Everything else is either hype or fear.

As for whether it is useful or not, that is largely in the eye of the beholder. But enough people believe that it is useful for it to become an object of speculation.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Whether or not you're a crypto-bro doesn't affect the validity of your claims, nor address the fact that yes, they're your claims, yes, you've made them, and no, they can't be true at the same time.

The claim that objections are spoken "like someone who lives in a free world" where the government doesn't track any transaction, but otherwise "One of the arguments against central bank digital currencies is that it would give the government the power to do just that." is in your message #5,100 two pages ago from your answer here. Followed by YOU bringing up totalitarian regimes and how you don't want them to control and prosecute every transaction is in your message #5,116 ON THE VERY PREVIOUS PAGE from your current anwer. The claim that you've already agreed that crypto makes it easier for such totalitarian governments is literally in your message #5,118 the same previous page than your current answer, just 2 messages down from #5,116.

Like, WTH, trying to lie about what you wrote is downright stupid when it's still in the thread for anyone to see. And doubly so when it's just on the last two pages. It doesn't take more than using the page number buttons to check. And twice again so when your claim that brought up totalitarian governments and not wanting them to monitor and prosecute transactions that violate policy, and your contradicting claim that you've already agreed that crypto would make it EASIER to monitor such transactions are on the same page, with just ONE other message in the middle. One literally only has to read page 256 and see both simultaneously on one screen.

I mean, WTH? I dunno, maybe you have alzheimer's and forgot you wrote the first when you wrote the second. My sympathies then. But otherwise brazenly lying about what you've wrote, when it's literally on the very previous page, is stupid. Maybe you get away with lying to people's faces like that IRL, and gaslighting them that they remember it wrong, but it's stupid on a forum that preserves your messages for eternity, for everyone to see.

Long story short: try for a change to do less lying and more actually addressing the points

 

[psionl0]

The claim that objections are spoken "like someone who lives in a free world" where the government doesn't track any transaction, but otherwise "One of the arguments against central bank digital currencies is that it would give the government the power to do just that." is in your message #5,100

This is true. For various reasons, people who might not want the government to know about certain transactions might find crypto a viable alternative (the usual caveats about blockchain forensics apply). This is more likely to be the case in oppressive regimes (where for example, giving money to unapproved persons might be a crime). This is just a possibility. I haven't phrased it as the "saviour of the world".

Why you would spam this thread with volumes of objections to such a possibility (and make it personal to boot) is beyond me. Even now, the rest of your post just goes on and on about it. Give it a break! I am not important enough for you to need to destroy.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

As for the anonymity issue, if was really impossible to keep your name disassociated from a wallet then criminals would have no use for bitcoin so that your argument that ONLY criminals use bitcoin (for payments) is false.

The main advantage of Bitcoin to criminals isn't its anonymity, but that there are no banks in the way to monitor and block transactions.

Cryptocurrency is not actually perfectly designed for crime. Just ask the crypto cops.

“What we’ve seen is that a lot of the reasons that made things like bitcoin attractive to criminals are also making it increasingly unattractive to criminals,” said lawyer Urszula McCormack, a Hong Kong-based partner at King & Wood Mallesons specializing in cross-border finance and technology.

“When you look at what is actually involved in a transaction, you’re looking at the use of what’s called a public key or a wallet, and that’s a string of letters and numbers,” she added, but “that isn’t purely anonymous.”

According to Chainalysis’ annual crime report, just 0.15 percent of crypto transactions last year involved criminal activity, down from 3.37 percent in 2019.

 

[psionl0]

The main advantage of Bitcoin to criminals isn't its anonymity, but that there are no banks in the way to monitor and block transactions.

Cryptocurrency is not actually perfectly designed for crime. Just ask the crypto cops.

That's a peculiar interpretation of the article you posted. The article doesn't say anything like that.

Of course, if you really want to conduct a criminal enterprise anonymously then there are cryptos like Monero which offer greater anonymity than bitcoin.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

That's a peculiar interpretation of the article you posted. The article doesn't say anything like that.

It's not an interpretation of the article at all, but a separate observation. The article focuses on anonymity. I'm saying criminals have another reason to use Bitcoin which makes it attractive despite not being totally anonymous. However it seems this is not enough to maintain its popularity among criminals, which suggests the lack of anonymity is a concern for them.

Of course, if you really want to conduct a criminal enterprise anonymously then there are cryptos like Monero which offer greater anonymity than bitcoin.

So you agree that Bitcoin isn't isn't the best solution for criminals wanting anonymity.

 

[psionl0]

So you agree that Bitcoin isn't isn't the best solution for criminals wanting anonymity.

Can you name a post where I said otherwise?

 

[psionl0]

It's not an interpretation of the article at all, but a separate observation.

Ah. So you were making up a "fact".

 

[Andy_Ross]

No, it's am interpretation

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Ah. So you were making up a "fact".

So, back to lying and dissembling, eh? Well, colour me surprised. I never would have guessed

I mean, it's almost as unexpected as Emre posting illogical BS again about Turks

Look dude, I'm not out to "destroy" you, and yeah, as you've said you're not worth my time for that. But the utter nonsensical illogical dishonest BS you post... yeah, dismantling illogical BS is kinda my thing

 

[psionl0]

No, it's am interpretation

But Roger said it's NOT an interpretation.

Maybe he meant that in the absence of privacy of bitcoin transactions, the only other reason that criminals might use it is because "there are no banks in the way to monitor and block transactions" (and even then, banks might still want to monitor their clients' crypto history - possibly for credit worthiness reasons).

Of course, he didn't post any of that.

 

[jeremyp]

Asserted without evidence.

What? That nobody is using Bitcoin for anything except speculation or that speculators are only buying it because they think the price will go up?

The latter is a truism for any instrument that doesn't pay an income. The former is obviously true because people like you can't produce any counter examples.

I have lost count of the number of times somebody said on this thread that bitcoin has "failed" because its price dropped - only for the price to ultimately rise to a new high. There is no guarantee whatsoever on the price of bitcoin so price volatility is a given.

I'm not saying Bitcoin has failed because its price has dropped. That's one aspect of it. There was a bubble, now it's burst.

The main reason why it has failed is because it's not being used for its original purpose. Even as a vehicle for speculation (gambling) it's losing its lustre.

Loom at this chart of Bitcoin trading volumes. It's not very popular anymore. This is why I say it is a failure. Nobody is using it. Nobody is speculating with it. Nobody is talking about it any more, except on threads like this on obscure forums.

 

[jeremyp]

I already pointed out that most "normal" purchases are paid for with "normal" currencies so I don't know what you think you are refuting.


Spoken like somebody who lives in a (relatively) free world where the authorities don't monitor/control every penny you spend. One of the arguments against central bank digital currencies is that it would give the government the power to do just that.

Can you cite any country in the World where the authorities monitor/control every penny you spend?

 

[jeremyp]

And another thing...

... if I ran a totalitarian dictatorship, cryptocurrencies would not bother me in the slightest. I would simply make it mandatory for banks to report transactions with cryptocurrency exchanges. Anybody who tried to do that without evidence that the transaction was innocent (from my perspective) would immediately go on the waiting list for a night in the cellar with my secret police and some electrodes.

 

[dirtywick]

(and even then, banks might still want to monitor their clients' crypto history - possibly for credit worthiness reasons).

lol yeah maybe that's it

 

[dirtywick]

And another thing...

... if I ran a totalitarian dictatorship, cryptocurrencies would not bother me in the slightest. I would simply make it mandatory for banks to report transactions with cryptocurrency exchanges. Anybody who tried to do that without evidence that the transaction was innocent (from my perspective) would immediately go on the waiting list for a night in the cellar with my secret police and some electrodes.

they have this thing called a wrench attack in crypto. it's where someone beats you with a wrench until you give up your keys. i think a dictator could do that one too

 

[Roger Ramjets]

But Roger said it's NOT an interpretation.

No, I said it wasn't an interpretation of the article in question. You could say it was my 'interpretation' of stuff that wasn't in the article, which you then call 'making up a "fact"'.

My bad. I should have quoted from reputable sources to back up my assertion, which you would then quibble about or ignore. I actually found sources, but couldn't be bothered quoting them because it should be common knowledge by now.

But what does this mean? A thread with 257 pages in its third part probably has a relevant post in it already - perhaps even from me - which you probably quibbled about or ignored the first time (and the second, and...). In short, we're all sick of having to repeat ourselves.