I don't use Slack, and I don't know anything about what happened in this case. But although I've seen you bring up good points before, I've also seen you communicate non-constructively on many occasions. Oftentimes, if someone is disagreeing with you, you will start berating them with non-arguments. You also tend to monopolize the discussion, posting far more than anyone else. If you want people to take you seriously (and not ban you from places), then you need to stop this.

Instead of constantly ranting about how we're all fools for not understanding Ideal Money, I suggest that you write a single complete post on how Nash's ideas relate to Bitcoin. In this post:

- Don't actually say Nash's name more than once. You tend to assume that everything Nash says is automatically correct, but the rest of us aren't super familiar with him, and certainly don't view him as omniscient. Your constant appeals to Nash's authority just weaken your arguments.
- Don't tell people to go read Ideal Money. Nobody's going to do that, even if it's a fairly short paper. Summarize the points from Ideal Money that you think are important here. Don't assume that things are correct just because they're in Ideal Money; instead, using the same arguments as Nash (or your own), convince us that they're correct.
- Make logical arguments which advance your case.

I've read many of your posts, but I only have a vague idea of what your underlying points are because you hardly ever give any details. You just keep referencing Nash and Ideal Money constantly, and telling people that they're obviously wrong because they contradict Ideal Money. This is not an effective way of communicating.