Not only does he repeatedly make up what he thinks others are saying falsely and refuses to accept it when people tell him that he misunderstood what they were saying, but now he also uses words while imbuing them with completely arbitrary meaning that has no common ground with the English language other than appearance.
Oh my god. You know English the best, and how to you express ur selfie.
No, I don't. But you're literally and demonstrably incapable of holding a coherent conversation.
look in the mirror before you point too many fingers.
You've done the same thing repeatedly. You make up the content of others' posts even though it's clearly false.
Who gives a shit? Are you the content monitor? Maybe I am making points that you do not understand? while acting like you do understand?
Then you argue against the position of others that you have made up in a manner comparable to a complete degenerate.
Yeah.. right.
Even Roach manages to at least distill the content of the posts he's quoting when spewing his nonsense.
Yeah.. your buddy roach.
1. If you call Bitcoin non-artificial that's patently false. It is artificial.
Who cares if it is artificial or not? That is a point that you are wanting to argue.
I am talking about a 21 million cap that was created in the original algorithm, has been maintained by consensus, and is likely NOT to change.
So whether it is artificial or not, the 21 million cap is an actual current condition, and it does NOT matter if, in theory, such cap "can" be changed when the practicality is that either 1) it is never going to be changed, 2) it won't be changed in our life(s) time, or 3) if it changes, then we can deal with such change at that time. Option 1 is the most likely to be true and is the most practical current operative condition, so who gives any shits about your theories about options 2 and 3?
And that's not a technical argument. It's just a fact of the English language.
In order to attempt to cause your situation to become more true, you can argue it in whatever the fuck framework that you want, and if you are arguing some pie in the sky speculation about a condition that does not exist, it does not become more true, merely because you frame it as "english language" phony baloney.
If you can't even use words properly and refuse to amend your mistakes when pointed out to you there is no point in talking to you as you have no intention of conveying meaning and only care about rambling ad nauseum.
Yes, from your limited perspective that you wished were god-like.
2.
Accordingly, try to change the 21 million bitcoin versus trying to figure out the extent to which the gold supply is scarce or not manipulated by paper inflation? Which one is more scarce in real application and what the fuck problem has bitcoin attempted to solve?
With bitcoin, we are talking practical application and a programmed and consensual scarcity, not some pie in the sky theory about what could or might happen in some hypothetical (not likely to happen scenario). And, that is part of the reason why, currently, bitcoin has the strongest and hardest money that has ever been created (until proven otherwise).
To which I've responded with:
As far as the scarcity argument goes, it doesn't even exist. One is limited in supply, the other is not.
This response literally states that I've agreed with the idea that Bitcoin's supply is
not unlimited, while gold virtually is.
You got your scarcity backwards. Bitcoin is more scarce than gold. That is what makes bitcoin the hardest money ever in existence.
None of this has anything to do with the "artificial" argument which you clearly conflate with your absence of reading comprehension skills.
Artificial is either 1) off topic, 2) irrelevant or 3) something that you want to discuss on a technical basis (that does not cause it to become relevant, merely because you would like to discuss it as some kind of supposedly important point that you are making......... NOT).
Yet you respond with this horseshit:
If I am talking horseshit, then why do you want to continue to discuss with your baloney?
One of the significant reasons that bitcoin is valuable remains its scarcity, and no one gives a ratt's ass if it could technically be changed through consensus, because it is not going to happen, at least not in the foreseeable future, not in any practical way, and such a change that is theoretically possible is not relevant because it is not going to happen, and if it does happen, then we could address such point at that time. If you believe bitcoin's supply is going to change at any time in the near future, then you are surely in some whimsical thinking that no one else is planning around such scenario.. but yet you still want to talk about it? Get a a grip, BTCMILLIONAIRE.
And thus proving
once more that you are incapable of following an argument. You repeatedly conflated false assumptions of your own, then ramble on and on about "technically". There is no technicality issue here.
Yes. I have made my various points, but you still want to discuss.
There are two arguments.
From your continued limited perspective that you would wish to be "god-like."
One, you clearly don't understand the word "artificial" and you're too arrogant and delusional to adopt its proper use.
One: you are focusing too much on me.
Two, gold has virtually no scarcity and thus can't be compared to Bitcoin which is inherently limited. One is abundant, the other is scarce.
Two: If you love gold so much and want to argue about how it is so much better than bitcoin, then why do you need to do that here? Does anyone here, besides Roach, give any shits about your nuance (and seemingly inaccurate and misleading) comparisons?
Again, learn to fucking read and get over yourself.
Why? Why should I accept your imposition of framework, merely because you want to act like a god? Meanwhile you don't seem to know what you are talking about.
Instead of asking why you've possibly misunderstood you keep lashing out against everyone every time this happens.
Who cares if I misunderstood? Doesn't matter, except for you.
You're an emotional and impulsive asswipe that emits zero signs of intelligence. Perhaps Roach was right in assessing you as a chat bot.
Yes.. your buddy roach has intelligent things to say and to quote? Rrrrrrriiiiiggggghhhhhhttt.
So as a brief summary:
- You use words with no respect for their definition
- You have zero reading comprehension
- You can't follow even basic arguments
- You repeatedly conflate your false ideas of what has been said
- You ramble on and on about your conflated nonsense
And you seem to be focused too much on me... who cares? those arguments about me are not relevant.
I doubt anybody in this thread can make an argument as to why anyone should waste time reading your posts when not only you use words with no respect for their meaning, but also fail to listen when people repeatedly tell you that you're making up shit that has never been said.
There is no need to make any argument about which posts to read. People can decide for themselves.
The latter happened at least twice just this week. Get a grip, JJG.
I am glad that you are keeping track regarding things that don't matter.
Poll
