Quote from: Ichthyo on June 20, 2013, 03:39:33 AM

Do you really think a unfortunate statement becomes better by repeating it literally? ;-)

I have nothing constructive to say here, although it will be difficult to respond to your points without being as patronsing and diversionary as you are.

Quote

OK, so lets start with the basics of human communication. If you foist "prayer", "evangelism", "nonsense" on your interlocutor this counts as insults and thus counts against the credibility of your argument. That means: you would not need to insult other people if you were able to win by plain flat argumentation. That being said...

No, prayer and evangelism can be the foundation of a religion. I think Bitcoin may have become similar or analogous to a religion. Some may argue that prayer, evangelism and religion are insulting and/or count against the credibility of an argument; I don't know but it's an interesting perspective.

Quote

so again: what are the "myths of Bitcoin" dude??
Is it really so hard to "get" the fact that you to state what you mean in order to be understood by other people?

The core myth is that it works for the purposes commonly outlined by its proponents definable as a broadly adoptable currency of mutual benefit, able to replace or compete with state fiat.

Quote

this again is not argumentation, but defaming of other people.
You might be right, but you would have to show this is actually the case. You should make clear what you mean with "wasting". You should make clear what you mean with "screwing". And then the difficult part is to show that the whole endeavour is indeed zero-sum. This is indeed such a difficult challenge that it is just plain unjustified to state such an accusation as being "obvious"

You should investigate the meaning of defamation. Its a matter of personal reputation and a tortious action. Its my opinion and its also my opinion that if you dont know to which of those two groups youre in its the latter. I believe the words 'wasting', 'screwing' and 'zero-sum' are quite capable of being understood. Anyhow, why would I have to show this is actually the case? Until it has achieved the purposes outlined above or similar the onus is on Bitcoin to prove its continued worth, not for me to prove otherwise.

Look down - to my signature - you'll see a Bitcoin address. I have Bitcoins, I'm on Bitcointalk and I'm not a troll who fills the boards with relentless posts slating Bitcoin. I have no problem with Bitcoin per se, in the technology, perhaps as a stepping stone; my problem is in where it's going in terms of time, progress and progressive claims made. Assuming Bitcoin is more than a pyramid I don't recall claiming I had a solution to remedy all the flaws to every Bitcoin owner's preferences, and if I did or this was possible which I doubt I rationally wouldn't suggest them until I had optimised my own potential gain from what I perceive as possible misundersatndings or mispricings; that is if I was being economically rational which I concede perhaps I am not. That is certainly a matter of opinion subject to timescales.

Quote

oh my god.
Don't you notice how broken this argument is?
First of, what makes you think there are just the two alternative scenarios you point out? Have you considered the possibility of an equilibrium state in-between (hint: in most free market-like constellations, a more or less fluctuating equilibrium is even the most likely state, while the clear "black" or "white" situation never happens).
Besides of that, the two "exclusive" alternatives you point out are both distorted and misconstrued:
1) is in contradiction to the very notion of supply and demand. If something is scarce, this means the demand surpasses the supply. In a market-like constellation, this causes the price to go up, until there is an equilibrium. This mechanism limits the possible scarcity, but it does not automatically destroy the usefulness of the scarce good.
2) is a merely theoretical construction and misleading, since you can't simply introduce a payment system in the blink of an eye. Have you ever considered what "network effect" means? Thus again, this presumably exclusive alternative can't even exist, but rather we get again the push towards an equilibrium (after a certain number of distinct payment networks have been created, the market for payment networks is saturated)
And, after this rather brilliant piece of argumentation, you draw your conclusions:

Your breakdown of scenario 1 doesnt make sense with regards to a broad fungible currency when alternatives are available. Your breakdown of scenario 2 is largely my point.
But nevertheless it comes down to two questions: is Bitcoin scarce, and then what would be the rational and likely response to that?

Quote

And the last sentence is the annoying part and the reason which derailed this whole discussion right from start: you have nothing to offer, but you hide that behind the allusion of everything being "self-evident".
It is in no way clear what "needs" to be changed, since you weren't able to come up with a clear account of what presumably is "broken" with Bitcoin. Worse, you didn't even try to come up with such.
And last but not least, you should note that "economics" is not some kind of a fixed substance; rather there are several highly controversial schools of economics, especially when it comes to macro economics. If getting monetary systems "right" would be just a matter of common sense, then the global finance wouldn't be in such a desperate situation.
While all of this discussion is certainly funny and entertaining, actually we should indeed discuss and scrutinise the very things you're avoiding with all your statements: we should actually pose the question: what properties do we want to require from a payment system?

No I do not need to offer a solution to highlight a problem. I will transact in the way that I believe best suits my interests, like everybody else. Absent Bitcoin doing something to address common complaints or questions raised, the natural course of collective realisation over Bitcoin is and will continue to evidence itself in alternatives that will exercise the function of fixes. Im not sure whats so difficult to understand about that. Maybe there isnt a solution yet, maybe its trial and error, maybe the array of recent alts, ripple, fiat currency volatility etc are evidence that the market is searching for something better. Perhaps it's just a game, trading numbers on a screen and hoping to wallk away with more than you started.