How in the world did you gather this from what he said?
The arguments from pro-bitcoiners get worse by the day. I’m out.
Since bitcoin is a means of online/semi-anonymous transaction, and an investment/currency-like entity, when one is criticizing one aspect, people sometimes defend the other aspect. It reminds me of when someone is criticizing how people are being mistreated, someone always brings up people who are being treated worse, or the starving kids in , and why we are focusing on such a minor problem when these greater ones exist.
the part where he said it would only give you an r.o.i if you proselytized it. in other words, implying bitcoin has no benefit over other money transfer services like paypal. in effect, he suggested that people like my self and Anenome who explain bitcoin to people who dont or wont understand, were nothing more than free advertisement. unlike yourself, he made an argument of sorts. Anenome addressed it by asking if he was totally ignorant of some of the benefits of bitcoin. and for someone who acts as though he has followed the debate, and might want to learn more, you seem surprisingly uninterested in anything but the people involved.
like I said, smiling dave’s idiotic strawmen convinced you and you turned off your intellect. too bad.
are you trying to obfuscate the issue? since when did those become seperate categories of thought?
kind of like the hater three step I outlined above, huh
Visa/Mastercard/Debit/Paypal are means of online payment, but aren’t any kind of currency/investment entity. And something like physical money isn’t very useful for online payment, since you have to mail it and it’s insecure.
One can’t “hold on to” a visa card payment for very long; it turns into money in a bank account. Vendors using bitcoin who immediately convert it to some other currency aren’t using the currency aspect of bitcoin, just using it as an equivalent to Visa etc. I’ve seen discussion of ways merchants can minimize value loss due to sudden changes in bitcoin’s valuation (or for example the recent post here about Freesomething’s not holding bitcoin for a long time, converting it to gold instead).
Completely separately from the online payment aspect, many people buy and sell bitcoin as an investment. Some hold on to it as a store of value and to buy things. This is the currency/investment use. Seems quite distinct to me from the online transfer aspect. That is, even if it could only be done offline, these same people would probably be using it. And vice-versa; if it didn’t have these uses (investment, store of value), it would still be useful as an implementation detail in semi-anonymous, low-overhead online transactions.
true
true
false
they are not “just” using it as an “equivalent” to visa, they are using it because they prefer it. this doesnt serve to somehow isolate those other aspects of bitcoin just like gold doesnt cease to be pretty when you make into coins.
right, because of bitcoin’s volatility they seek to be on the right side of swings. point being?
nonsense. people make investments because they wish to make a return on investment. that return is based on value or on trends. value investors appreciate bitcoin for its sound fundamentals, i.e. the pseudonymous transfer features it provides, the low transaction costs, etc. if you can find me a technical investor who plans to unload his bitcoin holdings in physical form, you have found me one, not “many.”
how exactly? buying things with bitcoin is usually an online transfer. you seem ignorant of the fundamentals of value investing.
so youre saying bitcoin is useful in two different ways so when people criticize its usefulness they should explain its usefulness in a way that the criticizer can understand? I agree.