[skohan]

1) As far as I know there are legal proceedings ongoing agains Tether - I don't think this is a conspiracy theory.

> My initial question still stands. At what point will you think you are wrong with regards to the value? Will you constantly move goal posts, as I did for years, or have a line in the sand after which you will adopt it.

I know this is a common argumentative tactic to attempt to get people to change their mind. I don't know what would change my mind, but we're certainly not there yet as long as the risks which I cited still exist.

[dkshdkjshdk]

> As far as I know there are legal proceedings ongoing agains Tether - I don't think this is a conspiracy theory.

Even so, how do you go from "there are legal proceedings against Tether" to "there seems to be very credible evidence that Tether and other stablecoins are essentially fraud"?

Being hyperbolic does not help your argument here... it just makes it seem like you don't know what you are talking about (i.e. you don't know the difference between USDT, USDC and DAI, for example).

> I know this is a common argumentative tactic to attempt to get people to change their mind.

You seem to be under the impression that people are trying to change your mind, rather than simply pointing out the flaws, leaps-of-faith and speculation in your argumentation.

Trust me... you also did not convince anyone that the value of BTC is literally zero (except the ones that were already convinced).

[skohan]

I am quite confident my arguments are sound. However you are posting from a brand new account, continuously splitting hairs rather than confronting the argument head-on, and generally engaging in bad-faith argumentation tactics.

This might be effective on other forums, but I'm quite confident the HN audience will not be impressed.

[dkshdkjshdk]

> I am quite confident my arguments are sound.

Ah, yes. Like the argument that "Tether is being investigated for fraud" thus "every stablecoin is essentially fraud". Seems like a water-tight argument you have there.

> However you are posting from a brand new account,

So, instead of addressing my actual arguments, you're concerned about going through my account history? Great. Note that my account is not "brand new", though: I created the account days ago, to participate in discussions that have nothing to do with "blockchain". You can check it out in my history, if you haven't already.

> continuously splitting hairs rather than confronting the argument head-on

Point one one single argument that you have made to me, that I did not respond to head-on. Just one. I'll wait.

In the meantime, while you look for it, and as a proof that you are indeed argumenting in good faith, feel free to respond head-on to the question I already made 5 times: 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?

Until you do, I'll keep assuming you are discussing in bad faith and refuse to reply to anything else you write.

> and generally engaging in bad-faith argumentation tactics.

There is exactly one such comment from my side (or one that could be seen as bad-faith, if you consider "pedantry" to be a sign of bad-faith), and it was not directed at you, so I'm not seeing where your complaint comes from. I re-iterate: point out a single example of me engaing in bad-faith argumentation with you. A single actual example. And then, maybe, we can continue the conversation. Until then, and as I already said, hope you have a nice day.

[skohan]

> There is exactly one such comment from my side

So you admit you were arguing in bad faith?

> Point one one single argument that you have made to me, that I did not respond to head-on. Just one. I'll wait.

> point out a single example of me engaing in bad-faith argumentation with you. A single actual example. And then.

Sure, how about this very comment?

> Ah, yes. Like the argument that "Tether is being investigated for fraud" thus "every stablecoin is essentially fraud". Seems like a water-tight argument you have there.

You're misrepresenting my statement in a way to obfuscate the very real fraud accusations against Tether and other stable-coins. I never said all stablecoins are fradulent. Why are you focused on that falsified version of my argument rather than arguing against the fact that Tether is indeed fraudulent?

> maybe, we can continue the conversation

Not interested in continuing it, thank you!

[intev]

> I know this is a common argumentative tactic to attempt to get people to change their mind. I don't know what would change my mind, but we're certainly not there yet as long as the risks which I cited still exist.

This is a common tactic to best understand if I am wasting my time. Seems like I am. Hope you have a good rest of the day.

[skohan]

That's a convenient way not to engage with the actual arguments - seems like you have been wasting everyone's time. A good day to you as well!

[intev]

> That's a convenient way not to engage with the actual arguments

What actual "argument" did you put forth? You brought up tether and stablecoins, which is a pretty speculative argument. Nothing concrete is happening. The other two points you mentioned I directly addressed.

> seems like you have been wasting everyone's time. A good day to you as well!

lol. How am I wasting anyone's time? You in a long winded way basically said nothing can convince you. So who's wasting whose time? I literally said BTC doesn't deserve to exist if needs to rely on fossil fuels. That's where my line is. What's yours? Nothing. So yes, I am wasting my time while you are arguing religiously with no way to convince you so you are basically wasting everyone else's time.

Also let's not forget other legendary investors like Stanley Druckenmiller don't think the risks you mentioned are substantial enough to not invest. But I'm sure you understand the risks much better than them.