I refuse to believe that Carstens from the BIS is the most sophisticated critic of Bitcoin. There has to be a really intelligent pro-fiat central bank economist out there who is writing a piece with steel-manned arguments against Bitcoin's continued future growth.
-
This is true, but am not sure what point you are trying to make. One can make a thoughtful pro/con analysis of any money and payment system. Unless one is peddling a particular religion, that is. Is that what you're doing?
My point is that thoughtfulness is woefully insufficient for being accurate or useful or worth reading. Why should Bitcoin people pay attention to the self-serving and often facially shallow ("Bitcoin is too volatile to ever be used as money") theologies of central bankers?
-
-
First of all, because some of those arguments may be correct, at least, in some contexts. In any case, my point is that you could do better by critiquing the arguments you find to be wrong instead of throwing all central bankers (or any class of individuals) under the same bus.
-
That would certainly not be better. It is an awful way to waste one's time, trying to reconcile the realities of monetary history and engineering, which I have mastered, with the superstitions of central banker macroecon. I'm not yet another of your victims.
-
Alright, well I would have certainly preferred a civil and enlightening conversation, but it seems you're not willing. Wishing you all the best with your project.
-
Apparently this is indeed religion and I am the devil. :-)
-
Lucifer was the bearer of light, so there's some hope for you.
-
I just came to the thread and
@dandolfa shilling Lucifer is the best thing I’ve seen on twitter in a while.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.