Quote from: BitProdigy on August 22, 2015, 07:32:04 AM

Quote from: Krona Rev on August 22, 2015, 07:11:25 AM

Regarding Tor, my axiom was that XT makes running Bitcoin behind Tor difficult, not impossible. You strengthened my axiom in order to attack it more easily. It's not a valid logical technique, but it's one commonly employed: Strawman.

I am sorry to report but it seems you misunderstood my critique of your Tor argument. It would be a straw man if I had strengthened your argument and then defeated the new version I created of your argument, and then claimed victory over your original argument. That is not what I did and I would expect you to more thorough than to miss that.

What I did was strengthen your argument and then show that if your argument were thus strengthened it would be true, and I would accept your argument, but however, the point of strengthening your argument was to contrast it with your original argument, which is not true, and I do not accept. The point of presenting the strengthened version of your argument was to demonstrate the reason for my rejecting your original argument.

The strengthened argument:

Running behind Tor is vital to Bitcoin. Bitcoin XT does not allow running behind Tor. Bitcoin XT should therefore be opposed.

I agree and accept this argument as true because if running behind Tor is vital and Bitcoin XT eliminates running behind Tor it would destroy bitcoin, and therefore Bitcoin XT should be opposed. But it is not the argument you gave. I present the above strengthened argument only to demonstrate why the below original argument is not true, and I do not accept and do not agree with.

The original argument:

Running behind Tor is vital to Bitcoin. Bitcoin XT makes running behind Tor more difficult. Bitcoin XT should therefore be opposed.

Strengthening an assumption actually weakens the argument. This is probably obvious to everyone, so no need to elaborate.

Quote from: BitProdigy on August 22, 2015, 07:32:04 AM

I have not been convinced by your Tor argument ...

Actually, you never challenged my argument. You changed one of the axioms and then challenged that modified axiom. Again, this is probably obvious to everyone, so there's no need to elaborate.