Look, the thing is that although you make some useful points, and you are consistently polite in doing so, you are becoming increasingly strident. The fact that you very selectively choose what to argue - and a lot of people have made some very good points against some of your mistaken assumptions recently - means that it's not really worth engaging with you. Literally no point, because you appear to ignore anything that doesn't fit with what you already believe and move on.
Obviously I argue while I believe I am right. If a reply is convincing, I let the poster have the last word. Isn't that enough?
But there are MANY reasons why I am skeptical of bitcoin's success, and many of the replies that I get are not only unconvincing, thet are just countering facts with statements of faith:
Me: "Goevernments can effectively ban bitcoin, see China for example."
Them: "Bitcoin is like the internet, it will find a way around any obstacle."
Me: "Bitcoins may be scarce, but there are plenty of cyptocoins with equivalent or better protocols"
Them: "Cryptocoins will die and bitcoin will not."
Me: "Bitcoin is now more prone to theft and fraud than credit cards, see the numbers."
Them: "Bitcoin will be much safer when it matures."
Me: "Mining is already concentrated in a few companies, they may form a cartel and become like the bankers."
Them: "It is a free market so that will not happen."
Me: "The Satoshi 2009 blockchain already assigns XX% of all the money to a few thousand people."
Them: "Wealth distribution will improve with time."
And so on and on. Obviously I am not convinced by such answers, but how can I argue with statements of faith?
Poll
