[hendzen]

Peter,

You just cherry picked one (minor) point from each article, and then used an argument against those points to claim that both articles are incorrect in full. I think that is a dishonest form of argument.

Furthermore, it's worth disclosing your own personal dislike of Mike Hearn - you guys have spent a huge amount of time attacking one another... so I'm inclined to discount any of your statements on him.

[petertodd]

We seem to have a fundamentally different outlook on this. First of all, I'm busy - I'm not going to do a point-by-point takedown of the article if I can avoid it. Secondly, if you can show an author clearly lied about anything - and I think I have clearly shown that - it immediately calls into question the value of the rest of the work. That saves time and effort for the reader, in much the same way that showing a single step in a math proof is wrong is an efficient way of rebutting an entire work.

Secondly, in claiming I have a personal dislike of Hearn, you're actually making a clear ad-hominem attack. My personal feelings are irrelevant to whether or not Hearn's arguments are correct.

In any case, Hearn is quite a nice guy in person, and fun to hang out with; I used to often chat with him on IRC. It quite frankly saddens me that I'm in a field where I'm not able to do what I'd much rather do - be friends with him - because of professional ethics. This is far from the only time when this has happened - repeatedly I've had to end friendships in the Bitcoin space because friends of mine got involved in scams and other dishonest behavior; in another context where the public wasn't being harmed I could be much more forgiving, but here I can't be.

[SomeStupidPoint]

> That saves time and effort for the reader, in much the same way that showing a single step in a math proof is wrong is an efficient way of rebutting an entire work.

This isn't actually how mathematics functions as a profession: small technical faults are routinely pointed out without discrediting the bulk of the work and at times, major works are submitted without all the technical details actually being accounted for.

Mathematicians are capable of understanding the main thrust of a work without getting bogged down in technicalities, and usually try to "ironman" the work -- seeing the main thrust in the best light possible, rather than the worst. (In contrast to "strawman".)

> Secondly, in claiming I have a personal dislike of Hearn, you're actually making a clear ad-hominem attack. My personal feelings are irrelevant to whether or not Hearn's arguments are correct.

It actually is relevant, considering that you "refuted" Hearn's arguments through the flimsiest of means -- pointing out a small flaw and saying he's not technically correct -- without every addressing the core part.

The heuristic of personal bias is a fine way to assess the genuineness with which you presented a heuristic argument (since you didn't address the core points), and assess if we want to take your heuristic point at face value. It's anything but an ad hominem to provide a reason you might be trying to present a faulty heuristic in response to you presenting a heuristic argument.

So... since you were wrong on both points here, we should discount the entirety of your posts on this topic -- at least, by your (poor) logic.

(I don't actually have any opinion on the topic, but your reasoning here is bad.)

[zawy]

Relying on errors or lies on some points to "disprove" the other parts is itself an ad-hominem. Also, if you have a problem with his ethics, then I have an ethical problem with you if you still want to be friends with him. More to the point, in one post you've given me two causes of concern in regards to your ability to be honest with yourself and therefore to others.