I'd like to know more about the "non-Bitcoiner" and the context of the discussion. For example, do you think they linked this article to you in good faith? Are they seriously considering purchasing some Bitcoin?
On a side note, the guy's X profile background image is spot-on 😂
I think these journalists are not allowed to own any crypto as it would be deemed a conflict of interest.
Probably a good idea on paper but could also joke that they should not be allowed to own cash by the same logic.
reply
Did you mean to reply to #315637 ?
To be clear, I was asking about the person that sent you the article, not the journalist. Sorry for the confusion.
reply
Didn’t read your reply properly. My non-Bitcoiner is someone who knows I’m interested in “crypto” so will have pinged it over for that reason. Complete good faith. Can’t imagine that they are at all interested in purchasing any themselves.
reply
Got it. In that case, why bother to take the time to write such a long reply to them? It sounds like you're trying to convince them of something, but I'm not sure what or why. Depending on what the purpose was, it would affect how I critique your post. But obviously I agree with your overarching point, which is that this article is filled with misleading half-truths.
Another side note – I'm genuinely curious if the author is purposely trying to mislead, or if this is really the way he sees things. Quotes like this:
"Fol­low­ing Hamas’s attack on Israel, more than 100 law­makers from both major polit­ical parties in the US signed a let­ter urging the Biden admin­is­tra­tion to out­line the steps it is tak­ing to mit­ig­ate crypto­cur­ren­cies being used as a means of fin­an­cing ter­ror­ism."
show that we're living in two different realities. He cites "more than 100 lawmakers" as if that should be an impressive statistic, an appeal to authority. But we know these are just a bunch of grifting ignoramuses pursuing the Current Thing.
reply
Why do anything? I wanted to.
reply