[cbsmith]

> If he had any understanding of the other uses like multiparty transactions, timestamping, identity management, voting, derivatives, and trustfree contracts, then he failed to say anything to convey that awareness in his writing.

He wrote nothing about whether he requires oxygen to live, but I'll wager with you he needs it.

He spoke negatively of Bitcoin as a currency (and currencies aren't used for much of what you describe), but he highlighted a number of aspects of Bitcoin that he thought were useful and where he expecting to see it having a huge, innovative impact. He didn't make a laundry list of everything awesome one might be able to do with Bitcoin, but given that his essay was about the future of payments, you can see where perhaps speaking of its use for voting might have resulted in the essay becoming meandering and without focus...

> I didn't misread anything.

Trust me, you did.

> Rather, he miswrote by conflating his opinions of a single bitcoin service with the entire underlying protocol.

No he didn't. Actually, he hardly got two paragraphs in before he said, "I did not actually have anything against Bitcoin in this particular case."

So no, he's quite aware that his issues with "a single bitcoin service" are removed from the underlying protocol.

[firepacket]

> He wrote nothing about whether he requires oxygen to live, but I'll wager with you he needs it.

So you think understanding bitcoin applications is obvious as breathing oxygen? Sounds to me like you're making baseless assumptions.

> He spoke negatively of Bitcoin as a currency

Yes he did, and he didn't mention why. It was just a page full of backhanded jabs and insults towards bitcoin with zero reasoning to support it. Doesn't strike me as someone who understands it at all, quite the contrary.

> he highlighted a number of aspects of Bitcoin that he thought were useful and where he expecting to see it having a huge, innovative impact.

Inter-bank asset exchange? If that's where he thinks the major innovation lies, he clearly and severely lacks understanding of potential applications.

> Trust me, you did.

Ok, pal.

> So no, he's quite aware that his issues with "a single bitcoin service" are removed from the underlying protocol.

If he has regulatory issues with accepting small gifts, or if he doesn't like the methodology of a particular bitcoin service, that has absolutely nothing to do with bitcoin as a currency.

How is making statements like "bitcoin is a terrible currency" without including any actual reasoning anything but pure ignorance?

[cbsmith]

> So you think understanding bitcoin applications is obvious as breathing oxygen? Sounds to me like you're making baseless assumptions.

Great case of the pot calling the kettle black there...

No, I do not think that understanding bitcoin applications is as obvious as breathing oxygen. The point is that just because someone didn't write about something in one particular article doesn't mean it isn't there.

> It was just a page full of backhanded jabs and insults towards bitcoin with zero reasoning to support it.

A common problem described in that essay, which is not a jab or insult towards Bitcoin, though definitely has the Bitcoin community in its crosshairs, is that the community seemed to take his very real experience with tip4commit as criticism of Bitcoin; your comments are doing a wonderful job of demonstrating the problem.

Let's go over the "backhanded insults":

* he personally believes that it is a terrible currency [OMG! How insulting that someone has a negative personal belief!]

* bitcoin is unregulated [how is this a disputed fact? how is this an insult?]

* if you move large sums of bitcoin going in and out of your account you won't be questioned by authorities [again, I can't see the issue here]

* For him, Bitcoin's costs and predictability as a means of transferring currency across borders is worse than using transferwise, and even more so when within SEPA. [pretty rooted in fact, no?]

The one thing he didn't back was his opinion of it as a currency, and the way he presented it, it was quite clear it wasn't presented as an argument and he wasn't trying to change anyone's mind with that statement.

In general, I'd say his essay did a great job of expressing the reasoning behind his actual concerns on this matter.

> How is making statements like "bitcoin is a terrible currency" without including any actual reasoning anything but pure ignorance?

If he were conducting a debate about the value of bitcoin as a currency, you could make a case that it was pure ignorance. Given that he was expressly trying to avoid that debate, your assertion is ridiculous. He was merely acknowledging his opinion without trying to defend it or make an argument for it.

Sometimes you are writing a piece about one topic, but people insist on calling you out on another. You acknowledge your opinion about that topic, but you don't want to get in to the details about it because it isn't relevant to what you are speaking to, so you don't make any effort at all to make a case for the opinion, you don't make any effort to defend it, and you certainly don't try to persuade anyone to agree with you. (In this case he even qualified it by mentioning some other ways he sees value in the technology.)

By example...

You've made a number of assertions about all the ways bitcoin is awesome. You also made assertions about Mr. Ronacher's knowledge of it, and yet you haven't presented any actual reasoning on any of those points. Where are the paragraphs of supporting material on each of the ways Bitcoin is awesome? You haven't presented Mr. Ronacher's education and browsing history to support claims of his ignorance, or even detailed the "jabs and insults" from the essay!

Should we conclude from this that you are contributing nothing but pure ignorance to the discussion?

At least to me, that kind of argument seems completely ridiculous.