I think Jorge's point that logical systems are brittle is well-taken. They are also robust, within their domain. Some are provably correct. Others have extensive stress testing which gives us high confidence in them. Many are not provably correct. Many have little stress testing. Often even very well designed systems have usability flaws which increase the likelihood of operator error resulting in risk or outright harm.
All of which is completely off-topic, but then this is the de facto off-topic thread, and I resemble that remark.
In any case, the primary point I take from that discussion is that one should try to cover for other's errors, in order to be an effective cooperator.
Well, I kinda feel bad now for being so harsh with Jorge - he really seems a nice guy, and for sure its much better to have him in here than the other thousands trolls that are flooding this forum since October.
What is kinda annoying of him IMO is that he clearly has a lack of understanding of fundamental things linked to Bitcoin, and instead of silently reading and learning what was discussed in the past and try to complement that, he just spits the same old arguments that have been discussed (and debunked) thousands of times before.
Practical example: the "ponzi scheme" thing. We already had an intellectual/economist on the forum who explained us many times and with Jorge's very same words how Bitcoin was a ponzi on the verge of collapse: his moment of glory was during the crash of 2011, and he went to great lengths to explain how Bitcoin was a zero-sum game in which early adopters were assraping late adopters. He cheered with joy during the crash from $32 to $2, but we all know how that played out: the "bag-holders" as he called them (did you think you invented that word, Jorge?) are now holding a bag worth hundreds of times more it was worth during this infamous character's rants. The name of this guy is John Nagle, and you can find his profile
here and
here a nice web with which he embarassed himself.
And BTW, Mr. Stelfi: please point to us an example of a ponzi scheme which has seen 3 different "boom and bust" cycles in which price deflated as much as it did with Bitcoin, to then recover in such a way as Bitcoin did. Just FYI:
2011: $32 to $2 (-94%)
mid-2013: $266 to $50 (-81%)
late 2013: $1242 to $400ish (-68%)
Maybe because BTC is
not a "zero-sum game", or a "ponzi" or a "bubble", despite that's what its critics have said of it from its very inception. Maybe there's much more to it than its mere utility as money, maybe (and only maybe) the distributed blockchain is the promise of a revolution that brings an increased freedom for the people.
I'm afraid that to see that you probably have to look deeper into it.
Poll
