No, you implied that LR was used by criminals, because "otherwise they wouldn't need LR".
No, you assumed that's what I said. Big difference. My statement was about their desire for anonymous transactions. Exactly why they were involved in LR, in the first place.
Then my point was that criminals don't need LR, because they are already using the legacy system.
After which you declared victory.
Because your point was moronic, as it was based on
your flawed assumption.
You just take for granted that (A) those using LR were criminals, and that (B) their needs would be better served with Bitcoin than with any other usual financial instrument.
Prove A, then B, and then I'll be able to take you seriously.
The fact that you even offered A or B, tells me there is no way I can take
you seriously. I mean, really?
You're actually a smart guy with markets and what not. You can't possibly be this blind. This is the whole ideological point of bitcoin.