...
Thanks for again going to the trouble of replying so comprehensively. However, although we appear to be attempting to respond to one another's posts and at least at first glance appear to be speaking the same language it is also becoming obvious to me that our understanding of words or our use thereof is so different that we may as well be speaking different languages. Although there are certain points I think we are coming to agreement on for each of those we have a fresh dozen stuff about which either we are not in agreement or we each believes the other is failing to understand.
For example on the issue of bitcoin as a currency and bitcoin as a payment processor you appeared to me to be confusing the two. So in my reply I separate them out to distinguish between the two. Your response to that is to write in bold letters that there is a difference between a currency and a payment processor. But that's what I just told you! Can you see why I think this is a time consuming and frustrating way of going nowhere?
You:
"If it is providing a service some find preferable for which they need to pay less then bitcoin is adding to the services available. So as a payment processor or as a means of transmitting money trans-globally (v. Western Union, wiring money etc) it [bitcoin] brings something new to the table. If you think existing services are better nobody's stopping you using them."You're not comparing Bitcoin to money transmitters here?
