Bitcoin - Part 2

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Wrong.

Don't lie. That's exactly what you did.

[Samson]

There seems no reason to expect Bitcoin to decline below cost of production.
Gold requires environmental destruction as does Bitcoin.
It will be a little time before the paradigm of infinite supply of cryptos is understood against the finite supply of elements populating the periodic table.

We must be patient, a nudge by vested interests may see bitcoin surge 20 or 30% from here, but this will be met by a wall of escapees. That will be the last hoorah.

[a_unique_person]

IIRC the work required to mine bitcoins grows over time.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Don't lie. That's exactly what you did.

Don't insult me. I didn't lie: not highlighting that word doesn't "negate" anything. You already highlighted it yourself. My point, AS YOU WELL KNOW, was to point out that you said history was repeating itself IN ORDER TO support the idea that it will continue to do so. Pretending otherwise IS a lie, by you. Stop projecting.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Don't insult me. I didn't lie: not highlighting that word doesn't "negate" anything. You already highlighted it yourself. My point, AS YOU WELL KNOW, was to point out that you said history was repeating itself IN ORDER TO support the idea that it will continue to do so. Pretending otherwise IS a lie, by you. Stop projecting.

The words "so far" specifically exclude a prediction of the future. Therefore, your non-sequitur is exactly a lie. This is because you had to remove the highlighting from these words in order to make your claim.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by psionl0

The words "so far" specifically exclude a prediction of the future.

No, they don't. Absolutely not. And I don't believe for a second that you think they do.

Quote:

This is because you had to remove the highlighting from these words in order to make your claim.

You act as if the highlight made the "so far" impossible to read. Or do you think highlighting the next words "specifically excluded" the "so far"? Don't be ridiculous. A highlight is to put emphasis on something.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Belz...

No, they don't. Absolutely not. And I don't believe for a second that you think they do.

Typical. Unable to deny that the words exist you attempt to reinterpret them to be either meaningless or making a prediction about the future.

Originally Posted by Belz...

You act as if the highlight made the "so far" impossible to read. Or do you think highlighting the next words "specifically excluded" the "so far"? Don't be ridiculous. A highlight is to put emphasis on something.

Exactly. I highlighted the words "so far" so that you wouldn't be able to claim that I was making a prediction. That is why you are tying yourself in knots right now. You had to remove the highlighting and place it elsewhere. But as you mention, the words are still there.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Typical. Unable to deny that the words exist you attempt to reinterpret them to be either meaningless or making a prediction about the future.

Again, you know exactly what you were arguing for. There's no reason to bring up that this sort of slump happened before, and then to say that so far history is repeating itself, except to indicate that you predict that it will continue to do so.

Who do you think you're fooling? The only person tying themselves into knots here is you, pretending to be a neutral observer on this topic.

[psionl0]

GOTO 3645

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by psionl0

GOTO 3645

GOTO 3646

You're still not fooling anyone.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Belz...

You're still not fooling anyone.

I'm not trying to. I said exactly what I mean. You are tying yourself in knots trying to reinterpret the words.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by psionl0

I'm not trying to.

See my last comment.

[psionl0]

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by psionl0

A perfect summary of your argument.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by psionl0

I'm not trying to. I said exactly what I mean. You are tying yourself in knots trying to reinterpret the words.

No he's not.

If you meant it to be interpreted differently, you should have phrased it differently.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

No he's not.

If you meant it to be interpreted differently, you should have phrased it differently.

And what magic are you going to perform to make the words "so far" disappear?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by psionl0

And what magic are you going to perform to make the words "so far" disappear?

Nothing disappears when it's left, right there, for all to see. If I had cut it out, you might have a (weak) case. I didn't. You lied.

[applecorped]

Bitcoin is a lie

[Almo]

Originally Posted by Samson

There seems no reason to expect Bitcoin to decline below cost of production.
Gold requires environmental destruction as does Bitcoin.
It will be a little time before the paradigm of infinite supply of cryptos is understood against the finite supply of elements populating the periodic table.

We must be patient, a nudge by vested interests may see bitcoin surge 20 or 30% from here, but this will be met by a wall of escapees. That will be the last hoorah.

This just sounds like the usual line from BTC faithful.

"may see" well, yeah anything is possible.

[Dr.Sid]

Originally Posted by applecorped

Bitcoin is a lie

I guess you mean 'some statements about bitcoin is untrue on purpose' .. but you didn't specify what statement. So it ended up being kinda vague.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Nothing disappears when it's left, right there, for all to see. If I had cut it out, you might have a (weak) case. I didn't. You lied.

Let's see who the truth teller is:

Originally Posted by psionl0

Originally Posted by Belz...

I've taken the liberty of highlighting the part that could give off that impression.

. . . and unhighlighting the "SO FAR" part that would negate that impression.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Let's see who the truth teller is:

Yes, let's see:

Originally Posted by Belz...

Originally Posted by psionl0

Why did I mention what? I never said that bitcoin will bounce back. That is just a strawman argument that many are trying to rebut.

Just review our conversation (starting from post #3566):

Belz: But BTC is not doing great right now. In fact, hasn't been doing great for a couple of years. It's had a hell of a peak, but value doesn't necessarily translate in widespread demand. It could reflect demand within a small community.
psionl0: Nothing that didn't happen 4 years ago though the cycle may last longer this time and, as is always possible, bitcoin may not get past $20,000 again.
Belz: Sorry I can't parse that. Might be me. Could you rephrase that?
psionl0: Look at the price chart from around 2013 and the posts in this thread from around the same time. You will see that so far, history is just repeating itself.
Belz: I don't know. It seems in a harder slump than usual.
psionl0: Bitcoin lost 90% of its December 2013 peak price over the next 12 months then languished in the doldrums for another year before starting to recover. Bitcoin has 'only' lost 80% of its December 2017 peak so far. It may still fall further suggesting that the cycle is taking longer this time.
Belz: Fair enough.

Where in that exchange is there any suggestion that what happened in 2013 means that it will happen again the same way?

I've taken the liberty of highlighting the part that could give off that impression.

Oops, the "so far" is still there!

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Yes, let's see:

That proves that it isn't you.

You changed the highlighting from "so far" to "history is just repeating itself" - exactly as I said - yet you label me a "liar" for pointing that out.

You didn't change the highlighting because you wanted readers to give equal emphasis to both sets of words. You wanted readers to only see the latter and assume that it was a prediction for the future.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by psionl0

That proves that it isn't you.

You changed the highlighting from "so far" to "history is just repeating itself" - exactly as I said - yet you label me a "liar" for pointing that out.

BS. I said that the so far IS STILL THERE. I'm pointing out AGAIN AND AGAIN that the point is that you're MAKING THE CASE that history repeating itself SO FAR means that it will continue to do so IN THE FUTURE. I've told you this repeatedly and that you pretend to not get it IS DISHONEST. And now you try to pretend that my point is something else altogether because your BLATANTLY BIASED defense of Bitcoin is weak and ineffective.

Do you get it now or do I need to write that for you in crayons?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Belz...

the point is that you're making the case that history repeating itself so far means that it will continue to do so in the future.

I had to remove the disruptive formatting in order to get the gist of your post.

You appear to be simply repeating the tactic you tried from post #3644. Having failed to draw attention away from the words "so far", you attempted to argue that the words have no effect in the argument.

That attempt at a magical disappearing act isn't working for you either.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by psionl0

I had to remove the disruptive formatting in order to get the gist of your post.

And you still didn't get it. I guess you do need the crayons.

Quote:

You appear to be simply repeating the tactic you tried from post #3644. Having failed to draw attention away from the words "so far"

No one's trying to take attention away from those words, stop lying. They're still there, in the post, for all to see. What I did, quite obviously, and which I've pointed out repeatedly, and which you've done your darnest to ignore, is call attention to ANOTHER set of words in your posts that reveal your actual intentions, despite your objections. The words are STILL THERE, gettit? I called attention to OTHER words.

Unless, of course, you want to now say that your own highlights were put there to draw attention away from the rest of your post? That would be ridiculous, right? So why are you dishonestly trying to use that very same logic for my own highlighting?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Belz...

I guess you do need the crayons.

Give it up! No amount of formatting can overcome a poor argument and no matter how desperately you try to twist my words, you can't turn them into a prediction.


If I had intended to make a prediction then I would have said so and not bothered with the words "so far".

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by psionl0

And what magic are you going to perform to make the words "so far" disappear?

Originally Posted by psionl0

Bitcoin lost 90% of its December 2013 peak price over the next 12 months then languished in the doldrums for another year before starting to recover. Bitcoin has 'only' lost 80% of its December 2017 peak so far. It may still fall further suggesting that the cycle is taking longer this time.

If you meant the words "so far" to preclude making a prediction, it didn't come across that way. The way I read this, you're saying it's lost 80% of it's value so far, it previously lost 90% of its value, therefore this "cycle" could take longer because it hasn't lost 90% yet like it did before.

By the way, your use of the word "cycle" is what makes it look like a prediction. What are cycles except patterns that repeat themselves?

So the way I read your statement the "cycle" is for Bitcoin to lose 90% of it's value before it shoots up again.

If you say that's not what you intended, I'll take your word for it. But interpreting your words as a prediction (this cycle will take longer because it hasn't yet lost 90% of its value, once it does it will shoot back up again) is a perfectly reasonable interpretation.

If you want to say something different, then say it.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

If you meant the words "so far" to preclude making a prediction, it didn't come across that way. The way I read this, you're saying it's lost 80% of it's value so far, it previously lost 90% of its value, therefore this "cycle" could take longer because it hasn't lost 90% yet like it did before.

By the way, your use of the word "cycle" is what makes it look like a prediction. What are cycles except patterns that repeat themselves?

So the way I read your statement the "cycle" is for Bitcoin to lose 90% of it's value before it shoots up again.

If you say that's not what you intended, I'll take your word for it. But interpreting your words as a prediction (this cycle will take longer because it hasn't yet lost 90% of its value, once it does it will shoot back up again) is a perfectly reasonable interpretation.

If you want to say something different, then say it.

You are right. The words "so far" may not have been sufficient. I should have said "if the cycle repeats" to make my meaning clearer.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Give it up! No amount of formatting can overcome a poor argument and no matter how desperately you try to twist my words, you can't turn them into a prediction.

There is no reason for you to write any of that post if you didn't intend for people to infer that history is likely to repeat itself. Hedging by adding a few weasel words doesn't change this it simply suggests you have a level of doubt in your own prediction.

Originally Posted by psionl0

If I had intended to make a prediction then I would have said so and not bothered with the words "so far".

"So far" is a phrase used to provide a status update on a prediction. Why would you be giving us a status update on a prediction you were not making?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by lomiller

There is no reason for you to write any of that post if you didn't intend for people to infer that history is likely to repeat itself. Hedging by adding a few weasel words doesn't change this it simply suggests you have a level of doubt in your own prediction.



"So far" is a phrase used to provide a status update on a prediction. Why would you be giving us a status update on a prediction you were not making?

More proof that this thread is a critical thinking free zone. Where else would somebody claim that they could read my mind?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Give it up!

Yes, it seems you are determined to "misunderstand" what I've explained to you again and again. Even in crayons it doesn't get into your thick skull. I guess you're more interested in scoring imaginary internet points.

Originally Posted by Mycroft

By the way, your use of the word "cycle" is what makes it look like a prediction. What are cycles except patterns that repeat themselves?

Oops! In drawing attention to the word "cycle", you've drawn it away from the words "so far". You bad, bad boy!

Originally Posted by psionl0

More proof that this thread is a critical thinking free zone. Where else would somebody claim that they could read my mind?

You just can't admit to having made a mistake, can you? It's again revealing of your slavering defense of Bitcoin.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Belz...

You just can't admit to having made a mistake, can you?

On the contrary. I have admitted to Mycroft that there were inadequacies in my argument. OTOH you are trying to go much farther.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by psionl0

On the contrary. I have admitted to Mycroft that there were inadequacies in my argument.

Inadequacies my eye. You knew exactly what you were posting when you did. You were just unable to admit it before three other posters chimed in, thinking you could fool me. It didn't work, and you ended up looking foolish doing so.

[Dr.Sid]

Kids, lol ..

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

Kids, lol ..

But daaaad!

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Inadequacies my eye. You knew exactly what you were posting when you did. You were just unable to admit it before three other posters chimed in, thinking you could fool me. It didn't work, and you ended up looking foolish doing so.

I admit it. Your Vulcan mind-meld has defeated me.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by psionl0

I admit it. Your Vulcan mind-meld has defeated me.

Don't blame me. It's your post that defeated you.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Don't blame me. It's your post that defeated you.

More like your over active imagination defeated you.

Don't forget that you started this by taking all of the highlights from my post and putting them where you wanted instead. You have been so busy being offended that I pointed this out that you have made a fool out of yourself ever since.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by psionl0

More like your over active imagination defeated you.

Do you really still think you won? Look around you. NO ONE is buying your argument. Everybody saw through it. Give. It. Up. Move on. Buy some Bitcoin.

Quote:

Don't forget that you started this by taking all of the highlights from my post and putting them where you wanted instead.

Psi, this is a self-defeating argument. By accusing me of making "so far" disappear by highlighting "history is repeating itself", you are accusing yourself of the reverse. You are saying that you highlighted "so far" in order to draw attention away from the very words in your post that shows clearly that you were expected this history-repeating to continue.