"Not your keys, not your coins" has been repeated ad nauseum on crypto forums for years. It is very much part of the ethos and received wisdom, even if often discarded.
To say that centralized exchanges whom you trust to keep your assets in their custody run counter to the spirit of a system conceived with trustlessness as the defining feature is not rhetorical voodoo or fallacious reasoning.
Is saying “most of something” a universal generalisation?
The comment didn’t say “you’re not a crypto enthusiast _unless_ you believe X”. It just made an assertion (which, for what it’s worth, I think is incorrect) that the majority have a certain belief.
You’re both completely missing the point (hence, my somewhat terse original reply).
It really doesn’t matter to the meaning of my comment whether the first sentence exists or not. You can simply remove it if you like, the rest of the comment is still comprehensible. And, most importantly, its main point - to differentiate between the kind of exchange the gp was referencing and the kind the post is about, still stands.
This is all just a case of nitpicking some small detail that is so common and annoying. It’s the “your battery is dying” to a screenshot.
Even disregarding that, are we really posting wikipedia links to No True Scotsman in 2022? Has anyone not heard of NTS? It just comes across as pedantic.
Finally, you’re all hung up on the definition of “crypto enthusiast” — but it doesn’t even have meaning in the specific context. It’s just an attempt to shorten a much longer comment (like this one).
In my head, crypto enthusiast was just the 15 character version of “that group of people who are very interested in the programming and theory of decentralized economies. They tend to attend crypto conferences, program solidity or other smart contract dsls, and use phrases like ‘not your keys, not your crypto’”.
In that context the statement was mostly tautological stage setting for the rest of the comment, so for the whole thing to get derailed by low effort, kind of rude, attempts “but it’s an almost, but not quite logical fallacy (well, NTS isn’t actually a logical fallacy, but I am going to snarkily imply it is one)” sniping is not only wasted space … it’s boring.
To say that centralized exchanges whom you trust to keep your assets in their custody run counter to the spirit of a system conceived with trustlessness as the defining feature is not rhetorical voodoo or fallacious reasoning.