Quote from: weisoq on June 21, 2013, 10:24:09 AM

In propagation of a belief structure or infrastructure it is for the believer to justify such belief to the sceptic, not the other way around. Whether my views on Bitcoin are that of atheism or agnosticism or adherence, such a sceptical starting point is that shared by those yet to take up the concept and therefore questions needs addressing (questions and views that friends and colleagues enquiring of Bitcoin and cryptos in general have, which is what makes this discussion particularly interesting).

I have to assume that your reference to an initial simple and fundamental question as insidious (rather than just answering it; and theres nothing confused about it whatsoever, scarcity is a prime factor in assessing the value of any asset) implies that you think the answer to that question will provide a means for you to begin outlining my critique for me. Which means were going nowhere, and so Im done with wasting my time on this discussion. Good luck.

So to conclude.

User Weisoq comes to this thread.
He behaves in a partonising manner, implying that his interlocutors are zealots, proponents of a belief structure, adhering to some obvious bitcoin myths.

When prompted to make his critique explicit, he starts spreading insults and asks suggestive "teacher questions", but plain flat refuses to make a clear point.

Quote

I have to assume that your reference to an initial simple and fundamental question as insidious, rather than just answering it; and theres nothing confused about it whatsoever, scarcity is a prime factor in assessing the value of any asset, implies that you think.....

you should not "believe", assume, and imply what other people might intend.
Rather you should make your presuppositions clear and make your conclusions explicit. Then there is room for discussion.

The question "is Bitcoin scarce?" is rogue, since it treats scarcity as a substantial property of Bitcoin. Which it isn't. Scarcity is a result of demand and supply. Likewise value, which is in addition subject to a lot of subjective factors of judgement. Everyone participating in an unregulated market should be aware of that.

This question is akin to asking "is uncle Bob's sleeping room on the left side of the house? because then this means..." -- a classic suggestive trap-door question. Is east left, or is west left? Neither, since it depends on the coordinate system.

Thus my insistence on explicit presuppositions and clear structured thinking, when we intend to treat a subject like the effects of scaling and dividing of a currency unit. Doing so creates a lot of effects, both subtle and blatant ones.

But judging which of these currency-scaling effects must be considered as "an issue" requires to make your moral coordinate system explicit. What kinds of behaviours do we consider to be harmful? AND are we in a position to intervene and defeat those harmful aspects? Do we have a mandate for intervention, and on which foundation?