[dkshdkjshdk]

Was that even the question to begin with? Here is the comment I replied to, originally [0]. Try to find the word "Bitcoin" there.

And, again, thanks for continuing to support my point, by failing to address the fact that the first example I gave had nothing to do with BTC.

Have a nice day.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27769442

[skohan]

Yes that was essentially the original question to begin with. You can make a pedantic distinction between "Bitcoin" and "blockchain", but your comments make it clear you are arguing in bad faith here.

[dkshdkjshdk]

I'm arguing in bad faith, according to you, even though I individually and respectfully tried to address every point you asked/made.

Yet, you are the one doing unbased accusations of fraud ("stablecoins are essentially fraud"), and still haven't replied to the question I made 4 or 5 times already: What if I choose to get my returns in some asset that is pegged to USD (e.g. DAI, USDC), am I still speculating on the value of BTC?

I guess my question is inconvenient.

I'm done here, but I do hope you have a nice day. And, don't worry, I won't bite your bait ever again.

[skohan]

> I individually and respectfully tried to address every point you asked/made.

Oh come on, look at your comment above mine in this thread. You're splitting hairs and trying to find minute flaws in the arguments against you instead of actually arguing the points. It certainly makes it look like you cannot defend your actual arguments.

> Yet, you are the one doing unbased accusations of fraud ("stablecoins are essentially fraud")

I never said all stablecoins, but some certainly look like they are.

> I'm done here, but I do hope you have a nice day. And, don't worry, I won't bite your bait ever again.

Oh I'm not worried!

[dkshdkjshdk]

> Oh come on, look at your comment above mine in this thread.

Was that comment addressed at you? Please point out an actual example of me engaging in bad-faith argumentation with you. This is what you said, right? That I was engaging in bad-faith argumentation with you (not a third-party: you).

> You're splitting hairs and trying to find minute flaws in the arguments against you instead of actually arguing the points.

Uh... finding flaws in other people's arguments is how rational people argue. If you have a flaw in your argument, it's not a good argument.

Again, please point out a situation in which I'm needlessly splitting hairs with you and avoiding a question you asked.

> I never said all stablecoins, but some certainly look like they are.

Ah! So now that you figured out how bad your argument is, you decide to move the goalposts. You say "stablecoins are essentially fraud", and I'm supposed to interpret that as "some stablecoins are essentially fraud", rather than "all stablecoins are essentially fraud"? Sigh.

If you're not arguing in bad faith, it sure seems like you're going out of your way to make it seem like you are.

I keep forgetting how I'm not supposed to feed the trolls... ah, well...

[intev]

Lol you got suckered in just like me again. They made it clear that nothing can convince them. It's like trying to convince a Christian to be Muslim. Nothing you say or do can change their view. It's incredibly frustrating because the goal posts keep moving and they will refuse to even say what will convince them - primarily because nothing can convince them. So why bother right...