What's notable is that Trolfi admitted he couldn't be argued out of his position, so only empirical evidence will convince him.
The original poster asked what I would consider proof of success. Obviously that can only be empirical.
Logic can only change someone's
expectations of success. I could be argued out of my position, but I see big flaws in the supporter's arguments (like "the price will go to the moon because the supply is limited") which they refuse to acknowledge. Why should I change my expectations then?
That's bullshit. I asked you what it would take to convince you of the merits of Bitcoin and you responded that I shouldn't bother to even try. For an academic, you don't appear to have a strong understanding of your own thought processes. You appear to use reason and logic only in an ex post facto attempt to rationalize beliefs you obtained though other than rational means.
Again, what is the economic framework you are operating under? Classical, neoclassical, Keynesian, monetarist, Austrian or other? Do you even know? Your economic model (assuming you even have one) is not intuitively obvious to your interlocutors. Without some common frame of reference your communication is so poor that many assume miscommunication and sophistry is your aim. It's getting rather difficult to avoid that conclusion.