[dmitriid]

> I was asking about fiat because many of your criticisms equally apply to fiat.

They... don't.

> I answered that multiple times already.

You haven't. All you're saying "o let's have this centralised trusted entity that does something with blockchain because blockchain".

> That's, unfortunately, the case for almost anything of value.

If bitcoin is a currency as you would have us believe, then this is not what a currency should be.

> But it seems you are very emotionally invested in this for some reason...

Ah yes. There are only a few ways crypto discussions go: problems are dismissed out of hand and/or "have you had bad experience with crypto" (often in the form "you're just sad that you didn't get in on it early").

[olalonde]

I didn't dismiss anything out of hand, I replied to all your questions as objectively as possible, but you just pretend that I didn't. I also would not have you believe anything, I am not trying to sell you anything here. I just answered your questions because I believed they were genuine questions. I am now starting to question that...

My question to you: what is your alternative? USD has many of the problems you mentioned and more. Transactions happen "off-chain", monetary inflation largely benefits the wealthy, etc.

[skinnymuch]

Pretending you’re not a crypto proponent is funny while trying to imply the other person isn’t genuine.

They already said fiat doesn’t have close to the same issues as crypto. The monetary inflation benefits to the wealthy are nowhere near the same for Bitcoin or any crypto. It’s a fraction of how bad Bitcoin is. They also basically said that multiple times too.

They have answered the rest too. Being on chain isn’t an issue for fiat because they aren’t trying to be on chain. They aren’t trying to shoehorn in blockchain.

[skinnymuch]

Now they have turned to acting like you aren’t genuine in their next reply, haha. When they actually tried to pull a “I don’t know if I’m a crypto proponent”

Yes the last line is a recurring one lol.