BITCOIN

Parking_Eyerate

Zola. said:

The state of Arizona is filing to make bitcoin legal tender. 

https://t.co/XhNfdJ4KNh

Hardly, It’s one senator that seemingly has a an anti-government and pro Q Anon history.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/arizona-senator-introduces-bill-bitcoin-213046518.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvLnVrLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFfsNN1HH8vLm8pzN1hon9GYybbvkAAcn_4X_L4d4k5NsVkypbymd7ubIT3aaAf5AySz3TK7dvvYzGBrf_EuZwNZ_3hIMISAU-wl75oBg4iQ1W9-VDdCNwa2HZxGfIHn1vlL5CJDjl8ti47tj2GAPLz7wEaW0QK5a56Bu0zJmZyg
If you are similarly one step away from Q Anon then it is maybe something to get excited about.
There’s also the tiny fact that US States apparently can’t independently invent new legal tender. Who would have thought it?!

Zola.

Parking_Eyerate said:

Zola. said:

The state of Arizona is filing to make bitcoin legal tender. 

https://t.co/XhNfdJ4KNh

Hardly, It’s one senator that seemingly has a an anti-government and pro Q Anon history.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/arizona-senator-introduces-bill-bitcoin-213046518.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvLnVrLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFfsNN1HH8vLm8pzN1hon9GYybbvkAAcn_4X_L4d4k5NsVkypbymd7ubIT3aaAf5AySz3TK7dvvYzGBrf_EuZwNZ_3hIMISAU-wl75oBg4iQ1W9-VDdCNwa2HZxGfIHn1vlL5CJDjl8ti47tj2GAPLz7wEaW0QK5a56Bu0zJmZyg
If you are similarly one step away from Q Anon then it is maybe something to get excited about.
There’s also the tiny fact that US States apparently can’t independently invent new legal tender. Who would have thought it?!

Whether this person is a divisive character or not is largely irrelevant. An acting senator of a state has submitted a bill to make bitcoin legal tender, that is fact. Of course, it is yet to pass (and I have no idea how long these things take), but who knows where this ends up. States have shown the ability to change laws, look at the state cannabis laws for example.. 

In recent years Louisiana, Utah, and Texas have passed legislation recognising gold and silver as legal tender, and therefore exempt from taxes. This could be an additional tax play.

There are also states like Texas, Florida, New York (and now Arizona) etc all competing over who will be the hub of Bitcoin / crypto innovation, they are all trying to outdo each other. 

Parking_Eyerate

Zola. said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

Zola. said:

The state of Arizona is filing to make bitcoin legal tender. 

https://t.co/XhNfdJ4KNh

Hardly, It’s one senator that seemingly has a an anti-government and pro Q Anon history.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/arizona-senator-introduces-bill-bitcoin-213046518.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvLnVrLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFfsNN1HH8vLm8pzN1hon9GYybbvkAAcn_4X_L4d4k5NsVkypbymd7ubIT3aaAf5AySz3TK7dvvYzGBrf_EuZwNZ_3hIMISAU-wl75oBg4iQ1W9-VDdCNwa2HZxGfIHn1vlL5CJDjl8ti47tj2GAPLz7wEaW0QK5a56Bu0zJmZyg
If you are similarly one step away from Q Anon then it is maybe something to get excited about.
There’s also the tiny fact that US States apparently can’t independently invent new legal tender. Who would have thought it?!

Whether this person is a divisive character or not is largely irrelevant. An acting senator of a state has submitted a bill to make bitcoin legal tender, that is fact. Of course, it is yet to pass (and I have no idea how long these things take), but who knows where this ends up. States have shown the ability to change laws, look at the state cannabis laws for example.. 

In recent years Louisiana, Utah, and Texas have passed legislation recognising gold and silver as legal tender, and therefore exempt from taxes. This could be an additional tax play.

There are also states like Texas, Florida, New York (and now Arizona) etc all competing over who will be the hub of Bitcoin / crypto innovation, they are all trying to outdo each other. 

The state senator’s character might be irrelevant to you but in my opinion it is very pertinent because, having looked at some of the things she has said, it makes me question her ethics and motivation. Your first post on the story suggested, to me at least, that the proposal was a lot more than a spurious bill proposed by a fringe Arizona state politician. Reading more about it, however, I think it is objectively difficult to characterise it as much beyond a fringe political attention grab.

Not only is it yet to pass, it is not at all clear if it’s even possible and I really can’t see that there is any suggestion that it’s likely to pass. Looking at her record I’d be somewhat surprised if the bill’s proposer manages to keep her seat, though this is Arizona so, as you say, who knows…

If the bill had instead been proposed by a bipartisan group of moderate politicians I could understand why you might want to get a bit excited about it.

My understanding is that only Utah has designated gold and silver coins as legal tender in the transactional sense. Notably, however, the coins in question are issued by the US Mint and since the US has a history of gold/silver coins being legal tender I imagine that the adoption in Utah would have been reasonably straightforward in a legislative sense. I would also be really interested to see how many transactions have been carried out in Utah using these gold/silver coins since the law was introduced. In essence I think it was possibly more about the tax breaks, as you acknowledge. For Louisiana and Texas my understanding is that the laws related to not taxing gold/silver purchases (rather than any transactional matters). Regardless, in my opinion gold/silver coins issued by the US Mint are not particularly comparable to bitcoin, so I really don’t see the overall relevance anyway.

User232002

Thrugelmir said:

That was an exceptional event which has yet to run it's course. The great unwinding is yet to follow. 

Interest payments on US debt currently stand at $420BN per year on a 0.25% interest rate. US GDP is twenty odd trillion, but federal tax receipts are $4T per year. 

They are also currently saying they will hike rates to four times their current position, to 1%, which increases govt debt payments, but not govt tax revenue.

There will be no great unwinding because it is just not mathematically possible. The idea that they will hike AND reduce the balance sheet is fanciful thinking. At this point, we are just playing a game of narrative.

Parking_Eyerate said:

The state senator’s character might be irrelevant to you but in my opinion it is very pertinent because, having looked at some of the things she has said, it makes me question her ethics and motivation. Your first post on the story suggested, to me at least, that the proposal was a lot more than a spurious bill proposed by a fringe Arizona state politician. Reading more about it, however, I think it is objectively difficult to characterise it as much beyond a fringe political attention grab.

Not only is it yet to pass, it is not at all clear if it’s even possible and I really can’t see that there is any suggestion that it’s likely to pass. Looking at her record I’d be somewhat surprised if the bill’s proposer manages to keep her seat, though this is Arizona so, as you say, who knows…

If the bill had instead been proposed by a bipartisan group of moderate politicians I could understand why you might want to get a bit excited about it.

Same old shifting of the goalposts. 

In 2012 Bitcoin was magic internet money. Now its being bought or retained as a balance sheet asset by multi billion dollar companies, bought by pension funds, is legal tender in a nation state and there are openly pro-BTC politicians in congress and the senate arguing for Bitcoin to be adopted. 

When its proposed by a bipartisan group, you'll say come back when its passed. When its passed, you'll say come back when its being used or adopted everyday by X number of people. When it fulfills that, you'll say come back when its being bought by central banks. And after all that, you'll then call for higher CGT or wealth taxes on those 'lucky people' that bought Bitcoin before you did.

Even the fact that is a 'fringe political attention grab,' is noteworthy, because it signifies that the considerable number of US Bitcoin holders have become substantial enough to be appealed to.

Hexane said:

Hey kid, you were the one saying a few months ago, that BTC would go to US$100,000 within a few months.

Are you sure that no-one believed you? Because the people that made money, made it off the back of people who bought based on that nonsense you peddled.

So if no-one believed you, then good...

People buying Bitcoin 'because number go up,' or based on what someone else said are idiots just as much as people buying Gamestop, AMC or whichever emerging market stocks are currently in vogue are. This happens every cycle. People buy because its in the news and then the people that don't understand what they have paper hand their asset away when it crashes (despite, as many people here have pointed out, to not overexpose yourself to the volatility) and the ones that did their research stick around.

And if you didn't think Bitcoin could crash to levels previously seen (*checks calendar*) 6 months ago, you havent done your DD. Bitcoin goes up 17x, crashes 50% and people call it a crash. At this point, its just a math test; and most people suck at math.

Hexane said:

Thank you for asking! A topic dear to my heart, but...

... two weeks, you say, TWO WEEKS? Well, gratifyingly, I think in the last two weeks my equities have stopped constantly going up like they did for the last few years and (on average) the last few decades. Worryingly, my equities only dipped a little in the last two weeks. Was something more dramatic supposed to happen?

Your bravado is misplaced. S&P500 down 8%. Nssdaq down 13%. That sounds a lot better than 50%, but its also the average return they make per annum so not something I'd describe as 'a little,' either.

Also think the US equity market being like 60% of global equities might be a bigger ponzi than anything I've seen in crypto too.

Parking_Eyerate

darren232002 said:

Thrugelmir said:

That was an exceptional event which has yet to run it's course. The great unwinding is yet to follow. 

Interest payments on US debt currently stand at $420BN per year on a 0.25% interest rate. US GDP is twenty odd trillion, but federal tax receipts are $4T per year. 

They are also currently saying they will hike rates to four times their current position, to 1%, which increases govt debt payments, but not govt tax revenue.

There will be no great unwinding because it is just not mathematically possible. The idea that they will hike AND reduce the balance sheet is fanciful thinking. At this point, we are just playing a game of narrative.

Parking_Eyerate said:

The state senator’s character might be irrelevant to you but in my opinion it is very pertinent because, having looked at some of the things she has said, it makes me question her ethics and motivation. Your first post on the story suggested, to me at least, that the proposal was a lot more than a spurious bill proposed by a fringe Arizona state politician. Reading more about it, however, I think it is objectively difficult to characterise it as much beyond a fringe political attention grab.

Not only is it yet to pass, it is not at all clear if it’s even possible and I really can’t see that there is any suggestion that it’s likely to pass. Looking at her record I’d be somewhat surprised if the bill’s proposer manages to keep her seat, though this is Arizona so, as you say, who knows…

If the bill had instead been proposed by a bipartisan group of moderate politicians I could understand why you might want to get a bit excited about it.

Same old shifting of the goalposts. 

In 2012 Bitcoin was magic internet money. Now its being bought or retained as a balance sheet asset by multi billion dollar companies, bought by pension funds, is legal tender in a nation state and there are openly pro-BTC politicians in congress and the senate arguing for Bitcoin to be adopted. 

When its proposed by a bipartisan group, you'll say come back when its passed. When its passed, you'll say come back when its being used or adopted everyday by X number of people. When it fulfills that, you'll say come back when its being bought by central banks. And after all that, you'll then call for higher CGT or wealth taxes on those 'lucky people' that bought Bitcoin before you did.

Even the fact that is a 'fringe political attention grab,' is noteworthy, because it signifies that the considerable number of US Bitcoin holders have become substantial enough to be appealed to.

Hexane said:

Hey kid, you were the one saying a few months ago, that BTC would go to US$100,000 within a few months.

Are you sure that no-one believed you? Because the people that made money, made it off the back of people who bought based on that nonsense you peddled.

So if no-one believed you, then good...

People buying Bitcoin 'because number go up,' or based on what someone else said are idiots just as much as people buying Gamestop, AMC or whichever emerging market stocks are currently in vogue are. This happens every cycle. People buy because its in the news and then the people that don't understand what they have paper hand their asset away when it crashes (despite, as many people here have pointed out, to not overexpose yourself to the volatility) and the ones that did their research stick around.

And if you didn't think Bitcoin could crash to levels previously seen (*checks calendar*) 6 months ago, you havent done your DD. Bitcoin goes up 17x, crashes 50% and people call it a crash. At this point, its just a math test; and most people suck at math.

Hexane said:

Thank you for asking! A topic dear to my heart, but...

... two weeks, you say, TWO WEEKS? Well, gratifyingly, I think in the last two weeks my equities have stopped constantly going up like they did for the last few years and (on average) the last few decades. Worryingly, my equities only dipped a little in the last two weeks. Was something more dramatic supposed to happen?

Your bravado is misplaced. S&P500 down 8%. Nssdaq down 13%. That sounds a lot better than 50%, but its also the average return they make per annum so not something I'd describe as 'a little,' either.

Also think the US equity market being like 60% of global equities might be a bigger ponzi than anything I've seen in crypto too.

Talk about shifting the goalposts, you’ve just gone way beyond that and, out of nothing, have created your own strawman to argue against. Congratulations!

It seems to have escaped your notice but I never said anything about the history or current status of bitcoin or whether pension funds or multi million dollar companies buy it as an asset or not, or indeed anything else you mentioned. So I really don’t see what or who you think you are arguing against.

Regarding your comments re what I would say if various events come to pass, well all you have done there is put words in my mouth, which I think is a very weird thing for you to do. If the events you described do come to pass, unlike you I don’t know right now what my opinions would be, but I can tell you that I would draw my own conclusions. Thanks for revealing your character anyway though.

Essentially all I have said in this thread is that I think that the Arizona bill proposal is a fringe political attention-grab and, despite the fact you seem to agree that could be the case, that one small point appears to have really triggered you. I have no idea why it has triggered you so and if your intention is to try and promote/support bitcoin then I personally don’t think you have taken the best approach.

Some studies put US Q Anon followers at around 15% of the population, does that substantial number automatically mean that they should be courted by politicians? Maybe the Arizona senator was trying to kill two birds with one stone.

User232002

Parking_Eyerate said:

Talk about shifting the goalposts, you’ve just gone way beyond that and, out of nothing, have created your own strawman to argue against. Congratulations!

It seems to have escaped your notice but I never said anything about the history or current status of bitcoin or whether pension funds or multi million dollar companies buy it as an asset or not, or indeed anything else you mentioned. So I really don’t see what or who you think you are arguing against.

Yet here you are, on a Bitcoin thread as a new poster, offering an opinion as to recent developments. The latest in a long line of posters that appear for a short period and disappear before they can be proven incorrect.

You suggested it was unlikely to pass, mentioned that it hadn't passed, questioned the character and tenure of the proposer and passed it off as a political attention grab before closing with "If the bill had instead been proposed by a bipartisan group of moderate politicians I could understand why you might want to get a bit excited about it." Except you'll have disappeared when that becomes a reality and someone else will appear arguing that "it hasn't been signed in to law yet and then we need to wait for the next election to see what the electorate really think of the people that agreed it." 

And this is what Bitcoiner's constantly have to deal with, the constant shifting of 'I'll buy when...' which is why I raised all those points I did. Five years ago, many people on this forum would have laughed if you had told them Bitcoin would have achieved all those milestones. And it being proposed by a senator that a US state make BTC legal tender is a big deal regardless of its prospects of immediately passing because its also something that five years ago many people on this forum would have laughed at being possible.

Parking_Eyerate said:

Regarding your comments re what I would say if various events come to pass, well all you have done there is put words in my mouth, which I think is a very weird thing for you to do. If the events you described do come to pass, unlike you I don’t know right now what my opinions would be, but I can tell you that I would draw my own conclusions. Thanks for revealing your character anyway though.

Perhaps you are one of the very few that might actually be intellectually honest and change your thinking if it were to pass. My experience says that such an act would make you extremely rare though.

Parking_Eyerate said:

Some studies put US Q Anon followers at around 15% of the population, does that substantial number automatically mean that they should be courted by politicians? Maybe the Arizona senator was trying to kill two birds with one stone.

Haha. Yes, since Q Anon is 15% and BTC holders are 20% then the former must be a subset of the latter. Well done.

chucknorris

Parking_Eyerate said:

darren232002 said:

Thrugelmir said:

That was an exceptional event which has yet to run it's course. The great unwinding is yet to follow. 

Interest payments on US debt currently stand at $420BN per year on a 0.25% interest rate. US GDP is twenty odd trillion, but federal tax receipts are $4T per year. 

They are also currently saying they will hike rates to four times their current position, to 1%, which increases govt debt payments, but not govt tax revenue.

There will be no great unwinding because it is just not mathematically possible. The idea that they will hike AND reduce the balance sheet is fanciful thinking. At this point, we are just playing a game of narrative.

Parking_Eyerate said:

The state senator’s character might be irrelevant to you but in my opinion it is very pertinent because, having looked at some of the things she has said, it makes me question her ethics and motivation. Your first post on the story suggested, to me at least, that the proposal was a lot more than a spurious bill proposed by a fringe Arizona state politician. Reading more about it, however, I think it is objectively difficult to characterise it as much beyond a fringe political attention grab.

Not only is it yet to pass, it is not at all clear if it’s even possible and I really can’t see that there is any suggestion that it’s likely to pass. Looking at her record I’d be somewhat surprised if the bill’s proposer manages to keep her seat, though this is Arizona so, as you say, who knows…

If the bill had instead been proposed by a bipartisan group of moderate politicians I could understand why you might want to get a bit excited about it.

Same old shifting of the goalposts. 

In 2012 Bitcoin was magic internet money. Now its being bought or retained as a balance sheet asset by multi billion dollar companies, bought by pension funds, is legal tender in a nation state and there are openly pro-BTC politicians in congress and the senate arguing for Bitcoin to be adopted. 

When its proposed by a bipartisan group, you'll say come back when its passed. When its passed, you'll say come back when its being used or adopted everyday by X number of people. When it fulfills that, you'll say come back when its being bought by central banks. And after all that, you'll then call for higher CGT or wealth taxes on those 'lucky people' that bought Bitcoin before you did.

Even the fact that is a 'fringe political attention grab,' is noteworthy, because it signifies that the considerable number of US Bitcoin holders have become substantial enough to be appealed to.

Hexane said:

Hey kid, you were the one saying a few months ago, that BTC would go to US$100,000 within a few months.

Are you sure that no-one believed you? Because the people that made money, made it off the back of people who bought based on that nonsense you peddled.

So if no-one believed you, then good...

People buying Bitcoin 'because number go up,' or based on what someone else said are idiots just as much as people buying Gamestop, AMC or whichever emerging market stocks are currently in vogue are. This happens every cycle. People buy because its in the news and then the people that don't understand what they have paper hand their asset away when it crashes (despite, as many people here have pointed out, to not overexpose yourself to the volatility) and the ones that did their research stick around.

And if you didn't think Bitcoin could crash to levels previously seen (*checks calendar*) 6 months ago, you havent done your DD. Bitcoin goes up 17x, crashes 50% and people call it a crash. At this point, its just a math test; and most people suck at math.

Hexane said:

Thank you for asking! A topic dear to my heart, but...

... two weeks, you say, TWO WEEKS? Well, gratifyingly, I think in the last two weeks my equities have stopped constantly going up like they did for the last few years and (on average) the last few decades. Worryingly, my equities only dipped a little in the last two weeks. Was something more dramatic supposed to happen?

Your bravado is misplaced. S&P500 down 8%. Nssdaq down 13%. That sounds a lot better than 50%, but its also the average return they make per annum so not something I'd describe as 'a little,' either.

Also think the US equity market being like 60% of global equities might be a bigger ponzi than anything I've seen in crypto too.

Maybe the Arizona senator was trying to kill two birds with one stone.

Ha! Childs play! Try telling him to kill 2 stones with one bird and see what he says!

IvanOpinion

chucknorris said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

Maybe the Arizona senator was trying to kill two birds with one stone.

Ha! Childs play! Try telling him to kill 2 stones with one bird and see what he says!

Or better still 2 stoned senators with one Stormy bird

Parking_Eyerate

darren232002 said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

Talk about shifting the goalposts, you’ve just gone way beyond that and, out of nothing, have created your own strawman to argue against. Congratulations!

It seems to have escaped your notice but I never said anything about the history or current status of bitcoin or whether pension funds or multi million dollar companies buy it as an asset or not, or indeed anything else you mentioned. So I really don’t see what or who you think you are arguing against.

Yet here you are, on a Bitcoin thread as a new poster, offering an opinion as to recent developments. The latest in a long line of posters that appear for a short period and disappear before they can be proven incorrect.

You suggested it was unlikely to pass, mentioned that it hadn't passed, questioned the character and tenure of the proposer and passed it off as a political attention grab before closing with "If the bill had instead been proposed by a bipartisan group of moderate politicians I could understand why you might want to get a bit excited about it." Except you'll have disappeared when that becomes a reality and someone else will appear arguing that "it hasn't been signed in to law yet and then we need to wait for the next election to see what the electorate really think of the people that agreed it." 

And this is what Bitcoiner's constantly have to deal with, the constant shifting of 'I'll buy when...' which is why I raised all those points I did. Five years ago, many people on this forum would have laughed if you had told them Bitcoin would have achieved all those milestones. And it being proposed by a senator that a US state make BTC legal tender is a big deal regardless of its prospects of immediately passing because its also something that five years ago many people on this forum would have laughed at being possible.

Parking_Eyerate said:

Regarding your comments re what I would say if various events come to pass, well all you have done there is put words in my mouth, which I think is a very weird thing for you to do. If the events you described do come to pass, unlike you I don’t know right now what my opinions would be, but I can tell you that I would draw my own conclusions. Thanks for revealing your character anyway though.

Perhaps you are one of the very few that might actually be intellectually honest and change your thinking if it were to pass. My experience says that such an act would make you extremely rare though.

Parking_Eyerate said:

Some studies put US Q Anon followers at around 15% of the population, does that substantial number automatically mean that they should be courted by politicians? Maybe the Arizona senator was trying to kill two birds with one stone.

Haha. Yes, since Q Anon is 15% and BTC holders are 20% then the former must be a subset of the latter. Well done.

Yes, here I am commenting on a bitcoin thread. Wow, the fact that I read different threads on different subjects and sometimes make comments is astonishing.

It frankly says a lot that what concerns you is how long people stay around in order to allow you to prove them incorrect. If being proven right is all that matters to you then I am not surprised if people do disengage.

Yes, I have said that the bill hasn’t passed. I didn’t realise it was such a ridiculous thing to say since it has literally only just been proposed.

Yes, I have also said I think it is unlikely to pass and I have said why I think that. Do you have any points to make as to why you think it will pass?

Yes, I said that I could understand why people might get excited if it had been proposed by a bipartisan group of moderate politicians. Again, I don’t see why that’s ridiculous. You assume I’ll disappear if that becomes a reality. Well, frankly, I think that’s a very odd thing to say. Why on Earth should you care what threads I comment on and when? Is being proven right so important to you that you need people to bow down before you and beg forgiveness for daring to ever question anything to do with bitcoin? I have no idea what subjects will interest me months/years in the future and I think the fact my interests and future comments, or lack thereof, could exercise you so much is somewhat bizarre. (It’s not lost on me that you have mentioned five-year timescales, to me that’s a very long time to bear grudges against anonymous people on the internet and it doesn’t sound healthy.)

You seem to think that if I don’t return this thread again that someone else will take up a mantle you imagine exists and subsequently make a different point. As if there is a group tag-team or relay or something. Well, honestly, to me you sound paranoid. I have no control or input as to what comments other posters will make months/years in the future. That likely won’t be a surprise to most people but maybe it will be to you. Further, as it happens, following this interaction I am in fact beginning to regret having bothered to comment at all.

You think the bill proposal is a big deal, I think it is a fringe political attention-grab. So we have different opinions, that’s astonishing. Feel free to note that down and add me to a ‘proven wrong‘ list.

Again, I never said that bitcoin holders were a subset of Q Anon followers but, now that you mention it, I would actually be quite interested in seeing that Venn diagram.

User232002

Parking_Eyerate said:

It frankly says a lot that what concerns you is how long people stay around in order to allow you to prove them incorrect. If being proven right is all that matters to you then I am not surprised if people do disengage.

This is an investment forum. In financial markets, being right is correlated with making money. So yes, being right matters to me.

Parking_Eyerate said:

Yes, I have also said I think it is unlikely to pass and I have said why I think that. Do you have any points to make as to why you think it will pass?

Oh, I don't care one jot either way. The point is not whether it will or won't pass, or who proposed it. The point is that, the fact it is being discussed at all shows the progress that this magic internet money has made over the last decade.

Parking_Eyerate said:

Yes, I said that I could understand why people might get excited if it had been proposed by a bipartisan group of moderate politicians. Again, I don’t see why that’s ridiculous. 

For someone currently having a hissy fit over me putting words in your mouth, this is an interesting statement given that I never said that. Its not a ridiculous statement; but it is a pointless one. 

Parking_Eyerate said:

You assume I’ll disappear if that becomes a reality. Well, frankly, I think that’s a very odd thing to say. Why on Earth should you care what threads I comment on and when? Is being proven right so important to you that you need people to bow down before you and beg forgiveness for daring to ever question anything to do with bitcoin? I have no idea what subjects will interest me months/years in the future and I think the fact my interests and future comments, or lack thereof, could exercise you so much is somewhat bizarre. (It’s not lost on me that you have mentioned five-year timescales, to me that’s a very long time to bear grudges against anonymous people on the internet and it doesn’t sound healthy.)

I raised a perfectly salient point that non-Bitcoiners don't argue from a position of intellectual honesty because they consistently move the goalposts of 'success.' You are ranting.

Parking_Eyerate said:

You seem to think that if I don’t return this thread again that someone else will take up a mantle you imagine exists and subsequently make a different point. As if there is a group tag-team or relay or something. Well, honestly, to me you sound paranoid. I have no control or input as to what comments other posters will make months/years in the future. That likely won’t be a surprise to most people but maybe it will be to you. Further, as it happens, following this interaction I am in fact beginning to regret having bothered to comment at all.

Haha, not a different point; the same damn point. Easily disprovable. Just wait like 5 pages and I'm sure someone will say that BTC needs to be closed down because of its carbon footprint, or that its not scarce because theres 10,000 other cryptocurrencies in existence.

Parking_Eyerate said:

You think the bill proposal is a big deal, I think it is a fringe political attention-grab. So we have different opinions, that’s astonishing. Feel free to note that down and add me to a ‘proven wrong‘ list.

I don't think its a big deal. I think its but one addition to a long line of data points that plot a trajectory.

Parking_Eyerate said:

Again, I never said that bitcoin holders were a subset of Q Anon followers but, now that you mention it, I would actually be quite interested in seeing that Venn diagram.

Come now. Lets not plead innocence here. Why pick Q Anon I wonder? You could have chosen from a multitude of asinine subsections of the population; Toyota owners perhaps. You chose Q Anon in an attempt to conflate them with Bitcoiners in order to assert moral superiority. 

Nobody here cares about Q Anon, so just stop with the disinformation.