[kgraves]

> Lmao are you serious? Source is 15 years of buying drugs...

So the source is you then? If so, that is an anecdote and that isn't a reputable source, try again.

> The illegal drug dealers only took cash, and now that buying drugs is legal, the legal dealers only take cash too. They have an ATM in their shop, but that's because they only take cash.

So you are saying that cryptocurrencies was never an option for these people at all? If it was legal bank transfer or credit cards would be just fine.

Would be nice if you provide sources for your claims to these.

> Guess who stayed open the entire time? The drug dealers. They were excluded from lockdowns due to ostensibly being essential businesses who sold "medicine". And guess what, the entire time they have only accepted cash.

Again, do you have any reputable sources for these claims?

Burden is on you to provide proof.

[arthurcolle]

I promise you that drug dealers only accept cash.

Maybe a few zoomer ones accept Venmo, but that is functionally equivalent.

[zepolen]

> So the source is you then? If so, that is an anecdote and that isn't a reputable source, try again.

What is your definition of a reputable source then?

You have four different people saying the same thing and still you ask for a 'source'.

[kgraves]

If I said I cracked bitcoin's cryptography would you just believe me because the source is me with no evidence?

[arthurcolle]

No I wouldn't. But the claim that most drug dealers don't accept anything other than greenbacks has less significant (even if just in pure dollar terms) than the claim that you've broken the fundamental threat model related to the largest crypto-asset system that currently has a market cap (as of this moment) of more than half a billion USD

[sellyme]

This is what you are doing: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/game

Don't be surprised when no-one wants to take you up on inane requests.

[kgraves]

Am I? or is an anecdote a valid source?

[sellyme]

You seem to be under the impression that anyone here has an obligation to make sure that you're adequately convinced.

You clearly won't believe that most drug transactions are done in cash unless you see incontrovertible evidence. That's fine. But no-one cares, so I don't know why you expect demands for a source to be met.

If this was an even remotely controversial or decisive topic, it's worth providing sources, because they convince not only the person demanding it, but also anyone reading. But in this case, it's such a well-known and obvious fact that there's no such benefit.

You can ask for sources for "the sky is blue" all you want, but I'm happy to just stick my head out the window and go "yep, I'm pretty sure". I'm not too fussed if you still don't believe me.

[kgraves]

> You seem to be under the impression that anyone here has an obligation to make sure that you're adequately convinced.

All I'm just asking for clear evidence to a claim, like someone asked me for evidence of a claim I made, I provided a source and evidence. Not hard, seems you and others have an issue with it.

> You clearly won't believe that most drug transactions are done in cash unless you see incontrovertible evidence. That's fine. But no-one cares, so I don't know why you expect demands for a source to be met.

Do you expect me or anyone else to believe a random person like you making a bold claim at first glance?

So unless you have a source to a bold claim, I can dismiss it.

> But in this case, it's such a well-known and obvious fact that there's no such benefit.

Then the refutation should be quick and easy right? Again, I see none so far.