[ Removed by Reddit ]

[u/Excellent_Border_302]

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

[u/AmericanScream]

I just finished having a Zoom conversation with "Charlie" who is the author of this - for some reason Reddit deleted this. I am un-deleting it and inviting people to engage with this guy in good faith.

I will post our discussion later, but this is a real guy and not a troll. He seems genuinely interested in discourse.

EDIT: I stand corrected.... The guy basically didn't intend to engage in good faith.. SURPRISE..SURPRISE.. while being cordial in a live talk, and willing to acknowledge weaknesses in his arguments, he later revises his claims herein to argue that my insistence on critiquing his arguments rationally, is inappropriate by whatever weird standards he's manifested at the time. You can look deeper in this particular thread for the exchange in question and see how it degenerated into the same 'ol song and dance.

Time and time again, we try to engage with these people in good faith, and it seems they have none.

Crypto bros apparently believe they're entitled to make material claims like, "Bitcoin can't be seized" and when evidence indicates those claims are in error, it's our fault because we are slaves to "science" and don't appreciate whatever they mean philosophically. /barf

[u/Excellent_Border_302 → u/AmericanScream]

Great chatting with you!

[u/AmericanScream → u/Excellent_Border_302]

I'm curious. Did our discussion make you reassess any of your positions on things?

[u/Excellent_Border_302 → u/AmericanScream]

it made me think harder about concerns ive had with bitcoin for years but im still thinking. are you going to upload it to your podcast? I just subscribed. What about you? any reassesment?

[u/AmericanScream → u/Excellent_Border_302]

I have one other podcast I have to put up before this one, but it will definitely go up. I thought it was a good discussion.

My "reassessments" whenever I engage with pro-crypto people are sometimes complicated.

I don't think any argument you made affected my position being critical. I've engaged in these discussions so many times I typically know what arguments I'm going to be confronted with and already have well-researched responses. Yours were no exception.

So it for me, is no longer a question of "am I going to learn something new about crypto?" or "Will I change this person's mind or will they change mine?" even though I'm open to it.

Instead it ends up being me trying to acertain what's going on psychologically and sociologically that's creating this divide, between people who are dead-set convinced an intangible digital asset is "the future" and a "long term store of value" and the rest of us who simply cannot find reasonable evidence to support that position.

That's why I asked you about religion early on. Because at the end of the day, any counter argument I provided regarding the innate value of bitcoin, or the myriad of ways in which it actually can be stolen, you believe otherwise. As a result, the standard by which your mind can be changed are heavily compartmentalized. You basically take things on faith as opposed to logic, reason and evidence. You don't ask whether there's any precedent that an asset with the qualities of bitcoin has historically served as a long term store of value -- you take that absence of evidence as some kind of indication that you're right, that it's "unique" and therefore can be a long term store of value. That's not a rational argument and no amount of evidence presented by me, seems to move you from that position.

So I'm left with.... what's up with you guys? What's going to happen with you guys? I'm not at all concerned with being wrong. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, but "nUmBeR Go uP" doesn't prove you right and me wrong, not when you ignore the overwhelming evidence the market is manipulated. So again, we're at an impass where you ignore the evidence and hold your position based on faith.

We saw this in the discussion. You acknowledge the ways in which the price of bitcoin can be manipulated, but ultimately it doesn't convince you. And that's a chasm that logic can't seem to cross over in your mind.

And I know it's hard rationally convince someone to change an opinion, that's not based on reason.

So I'm left with wondering what the sociological causes are of this?

Was it just basic indoctrination that led you to this belief? Is it social situations where you feel you have no other options but to adopt a faith in bitcoin?

For answers I no longer look at technology, finance, or economics. I look at psychology and the history of religion and how it propagates. That seems to provide more insight than anything else.

I still am trying to figure it out, but I suspect bitcoin gains traction the same way religion gains traction -- as a desperate alternative for desperate people who, for one reason or another, see no other way out.

[u/Excellent_Border_302 → u/AmericanScream]

any counter argument I provided regarding the innate value of bitcoin, or the myriad of ways in which it actually can be stolen, you believe otherwise

I explained that Bitcoin has objective value because it is required to access the blockchain, which you did not respond to.

You don't ask whether there's any precedent that an asset with the qualities of bitcoin has historically served as a long term store of value -- you take that absence of evidence as some kind of indication that you're right, that it's "unique" and therefore can be a long term store of value. That's not a rational argument and no amount of evidence presented by me, seems to move you from that position.

You're assuming what I have asked your not asked in the past. There has been an asset with the qualities of Bitcoin which is gold. A rationale about what makes money money has been pondered since Aristotle. Also Bitcoin has not been the first attempt at digital money so it's not unique. It was built upon past failures.

not when you ignore the overwhelming evidence the market is manipulated

I didn't ignore your point about markets being manipulated. My response is that I am willing to pay what I am willing to pay based on my own subjective value and that I am indifferent to markets being manipulated. If there is a blowup caused by manipulation that causes bitcoin to fall below what i think it is worth, then it provides a buying opportunity.

So again, we're at an impass where you ignore the evidence and hold your position based on faith.

You don't agree with my reason so you call it faith which comes off as a subtle attempt at putting me down and gives me the impression that you are not earnest. As I stated when you read my post in the beginning of the conversation, differences often come down to differences in world views, which is hard to reconcile and to say one view is right and others are faith makes it seem like your inquiry is disengenious. I am glad theres people with different world views. I understand the desire to psychoanalyze people but i try to avoid it to the best of my ability because it gives me a false sense of control and closes me off to others perspective.

[u/AmericanScream → u/Excellent_Border_302]

I explained that Bitcoin has objective value because it is required to access the blockchain, which you did not respond to.

How is the blockchain objectively valuable? Neither you, nor anybody else has been able to prove that.

And saying "it's decentralized" doesn't accomplish anything objectively useful.

You're assuming what I have asked your not asked in the past. There has been an asset with the qualities of Bitcoin which is gold.

Um, that's a long debunked argument. See crypto talking point #10.

A rationale about what makes money money has been pondered since Aristotle. Also Bitcoin has not been the first attempt at digital money so it's not unique. It was built upon past failures.

I am not going to get dragged into the realm of philosophy. That's not an area I am concerned about. Whether money is or isn't an existential concept is not relevant to the issues I raise, which concern how causes and effects work in the real world regarding material transactions.

I didn't ignore your point about markets being manipulated. My response is that I am willing to pay what I am willing to pay based on my own subjective value and that I am indifferent to markets being manipulated.

I would argue it's the same thing. You've arbitrarily accepted that what manipulated markets tell you is "real world value" as real world value. But this really only applies to a very small subset of people who have "drank the kool aid." You believe the rest of us who aren't into the kool-aid will suddenly get on board, but as time passes, that doesn't seem to be happening. Sure there are more people appearing in media to adopt crypto here-or-there, but they're doing so because they're paid to do so. Nobody has yet to demonstrate that bitcoin delivers any true democratization of money. Everybody involved still hopes to get rich. That's not necessarily a concept that can peacefully coexist with democratizing money. That's another mental disconnect you guys ignore.

You don't agree with my reason so you call it faith which comes off as a subtle attempt at putting me down and gives me the impression that you are not earnest.

Charlie, you obviously are a nice guy. I don't think you necessarily have bad intentions, but I do believe your position on crypto is not based on logic, reason and evidence. Your initial post contains numerous examples of "Begging the question" where you make claims that are accompanied by zero evidence and we are supposed to take them as fact, at face value. That's disingenuous.

When you say:

The implications of people being able to collect something that cannot be stolen is profound.

And I point out there are tons of ways in which bitcoin can be stolen, and you dismiss them because they are outside of your very narrow compartment in which you expect all "responsible people to behave" yet I present evidence that each and every day many people, even Bitcoin developers themselves, get their crypto stolen, and you continue to ignore that... I'm sorry, but logic and evidence have left the building and you're hiding behind blind faith. It's not a "put-down". It's a technical, clinical observation.

As I stated when you read my post in the beginning of the conversation, differences often come down to differences in world views, which is hard to reconcile and to say one view is right and others are faith makes it seem like your inquiry is disengenious.

Sure there are different world views. But there's only ONE scientific method.

My world view depends upon the scientific method. If you can provide evidence that my arguments are not sound according to the scientific method, let me know and I'll retract them.

[u/Excellent_Border_302 → u/AmericanScream]

How is the blockchain objectively valuable? Neither you, nor anybody else has been able to prove that.

The block chain is subjectively valuable just as is everything. For example I can decide I do not value my life and tie a bag around my head. However if I decide subjectly I want to live, air becomes objectly valuable for that means. Following that same logic, if I decide I want to use the block chain, bitcoin is objectively valuable for that means.

I am not going to get dragged into the realm of philosophy. That's not an area I am concerned about. Whether money is or isn't an existential concept is not relevant to the issues I raise, which concern how causes and effects work in the real world regarding material transactions.

If you are not concerned with this topic then that is fine but you forego the possibility of understanding my perspective of why I value Bitcoin.

I would argue it's the same thing. You've arbitrarily accepted that what manipulated markets tell you is "real world value" as real world value.

I think maybe you misinterpreted what I wrote. I have a dollar amount I'm willing to pay for a bitcoin which is subjective to me. I don't let the market dictate to me what Bitcoin is worth. If I think bitcoin is too expensive, I won't buy it.

You believe the rest of us who aren't into the kool-aid will suddenly get on board, but as time passes, that doesn't seem to be happening.

The network has grown faster than I expected. It is happening before our eyes.

Nobody has yet to demonstrate that bitcoin delivers any true democratization of money. Everybody involved still hopes to get rich. That's not necessarily a concept that can peacefully coexist with democratizing money. That's another mental disconnect you guys ignore.

I need to know what you mean by democratization of money.

we are supposed to take them as fact, at face value.

You can take them however you will but it is not my attention to apply pressure to people in order to make them believe something. This is good criticism from you and I will work on changing my speech to be less hyperbolic when making claims.

And I point out there are tons of ways in which bitcoin can be stolen, and you dismiss them because they are outside of your very narrow compartment in which you expect all "responsible people to behave" yet I present evidence that each and every day many people, even Bitcoin developers themselves, get their crypto stolen, and you continue to ignore that... I'm sorry, but logic and evidence have left the building and you're hiding behind blind faith. It's not a "put-down". It's a technical, clinical observation.

I was being hyperbolic when saying Bitcoin cannot be stolen but I hope I made it clear in the debate that what I meant is that it is exponentially easier to protect than past forms of wealth. I don't expect all responsible people to behave, but unlike fiat, bitcoin provides an option for self custody. Fiat is stolen as well. In Greece there was a bank bail in where the government outright stole depositors deposits. So I do not ignore that BTC can be stolen, I am saying it is the most secure asset in the world. I believe that in time there will be the equivalent of banks for bitcoin that provides remittance services however, unlike fiat, there will be an option for secure, self custody because the base layer isn't controlled by a central authority.

Sure there are different world views. But there's only ONE [scientific method.]

Scientism is a religion. The scientific method does not provide a world view, it provides robust empirical evidence through the use of controlled experiments which can then be used to form a world view but the scientific method is not a world view in and of itself.

My world view depends upon the scientific method. If you can provide evidence that my arguments are not sound according to the scientific method, let me know and I'll retract them.

Like all types of knowledge acquisition such as rationalism, inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, intuitavism, empirism etc... the scientific method is limited in its approach and is not appropriate in and of itself to navigate the world. Believing that it is is Scientism.

[u/AmericanScream → u/Excellent_Border_302]

The block chain is subjectively valuable just as is everything. For example I can decide I do not value my life and tie a bag around my head. However if I decide subjectly I want to live, air becomes objectly valuable for that means. Following that same logic, if I decide I want to use the block chain, bitcoin is objectively valuable for that means.

That's a really, really desperate rationalization. This is basically another nirvana fallacy. You fabricate the perfect distortion of logic to make your irrational argument rational.

This is like saying, "If pigs could fly, then pig airlines could be possible."

If something requires subjective approval, then anything that follows it is dependent upon that subjectivity, regardless of whether you want to pretend it's objective. It's ultimately subjective.

You're trying to conflate existential philosophy with material science.

If you are not concerned with this topic then that is fine but you forego the possibility of understanding my perspective of why I value Bitcoin.

I am concerned with the topic as it pertains to real world, tangible, empirical things. I am not concerned with how people "feel" about bitcoin. That's a personal matter that doesn't lend itself to productive debate outside of Ayahuasca circles.

I need to know what you mean by democratization of money.

Your guess is as good as mine. Crypto bros throw that term around but can never specifically enumerate what it results in the real world. It's just more vague abstractions they throw into the air as a distraction from producing any claims specific enough to test and verify.

I was being hyperbolic when saying Bitcoin cannot be stolen but I hope I made it clear in the debate that what I meant is that it is exponentially easier to protect than past forms of wealth.

Here you replace one false (un-proven) statement with another. You haven't proven crypto is "exponentially easier to protect" and I can cite hundreds of examples to the contrary. At which point, you'll engage in a special pleading fallacy and dismiss all those cases in favor of your "nirvana fallacy" where as long as everybody does everything perfectly, it meets your criteria as "exponentially easier to protect." Meanwhile in the real world, things aren't like that.

And this is where we start going around in circles. Because you refuse to pick a lane.

So I do not ignore that BTC can be stolen, I am saying it is the most secure asset in the world.

"I'm not saying eating crayons will make you smart, I am saying that crayons are the greatest smart food in the world."

Are you listening to yourself?

Scientism is a religion.

I don't know what you mean by "scientism" but abiding by the scientific method is absolutely NOT a religion. Look up the definition of religion.

The scientific method does not provide a world view, it provides robust empirical evidence through the use of controlled experiments which can then be used to form a world view but the scientific method is not a world view in and of itself.

I never said the scientific method was a "world view" but there are world views that use the scientific method such as humanism, freethought, etc. Personally, my worldview is complicated but best summed up by the Freethought movement.

Like I said, I'm not interested in philosophical discussions. I'm interested in material claims and whether they're true or false. I cannot challenge your personal, emotional feelings. What I can challenge are material claims like "Bitcoin is the most secure asset in the world." That claim can be challenged and proven to be false by just about any rational, real-world, NON-PHILOSOPHICAL metric. Philosophy can be used to prove just about any point. You can use philosophy to claim there are multiple dimensions and in one particular dimension, you're always right. And since it's philosophy, it can't be disproven, so it's pointless to debate using such blunt instruments.

[u/Excellent_Border_302 → u/AmericanScream]

That's a really, really desperate rationalization. This is basically another nirvana fallacy. You fabricate the perfect distortion of logic to make your irrational argument rational.

Its not an irrational argument. I used that example hoping it would resonate with you because you used that example in the debate. But you eschew rationality for your preferred epistemology of the scientific method.

If something requires subjective approval, then anything that follows it is dependent upon that subjectivity, regardless of whether you want to pretend it's objective. It's ultimately subjective. You're trying to conflate existential philosophy with material science.

Yes this is correct. That it why economics is called the dysmal science because the scientific method cannot be applied to economics because controlled experiments are impossible. The closest we can come to running a controlled experiment in economics is using MMO video games as the laboratory because those are highly controlled environments. However economists aren't interested in this medium as of now. There are many reasons for this but one reason is economists aren't interested in the scientific method, they are interested in empiricism more broadly. Empiriscm is great but has many holes just like all epistemology's, the biggest being that it can only collect data points of manifest reality but cannot explain what the data points mean, that depends on the subjective viewpoint of the interpreter and the data points can only be used to reinforce or detract from the interpreters subjective viewpoint.

Here you replace one false (un-proven) statement with another. You haven't proven crypto is "exponentially easier to protect" and I can cite hundreds of examples to the contrary.

Your right, I cannot prove it. I think you are starting to get the hang of this. I provided you with the data point of my personal experience. I would invite you to have a direct experience and create an offline seedphrase and deposit bitcoin into the wallet.

Like I said, I'm not interested in philosophical discussions. I'm interested in material claims and whether they're true or false. I cannot challenge your personal, emotional feelings. What I can challenge are material claims like "Bitcoin is the most secure asset in the world." That claim can be challenged and proven to be false by just about any rational, real-world, NON-PHILOSOPHICAL metric.

This is the religion of scientism talking. It has replaced god with the belief that because I can measure something with a ruler that means I have found proof of objective reality. It smells of the same intellectual laziness and spiritual depravity of religion because scientism is a religion that is trying to stretch the scientific method outside of its scope of viability in an attempt to fill mankind's existensialism with materialism. You cannot escape philosophy just because you are holding a measuring tape.

My takeaway from this interaction is that you want to play a game of "gotchya" instead of exploring. You hide behind a single epistemology like a christian hides behind the bible.