Just because you classify double-spending as “theft” doesn’t make it less effective as an attack vector. You want to ignore it because it doesn’t neatly fit into your “proportionate” argument. 
Weird comment. I think you misfire there ;-) Citing Budish is not appealing to authority nor ad populum - if I am, why would I reject his theory? lol. It’s called establishing a common baseline - something seems impossible with you in most of your arguments.
-
-
“...took this hardware cost into consideration... the only difference between his & my...” - IOW, I’m not alone (ad populem) and/or he is an authority and agrees with me (appeal to authority).
-
dude, he is no authority on the matter and neither are you. I’m citing whatever argument that makes the most sense. Right now, that doesn’t include yours ;-)
-
It doesn’t matter whether he is or not. It is your logical error to use him as one. You did not cite an argument, you cited agreement by a person.
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.
