Why so much agro and upset about Jorge's posts? He's not threatening you (or perhaps he is somehow?). He has a view and he expresses and articulates that view pretty well. I don't agree with much of what he says either but I appreciate that his posts are coherent, quite well written and free from personal attacks or vitriol. In fact, he's very gracious in his responses to many of you that get all so incensed that he's expressing the views that he is; and this is indicative that some of what he's saying has seriously hooked your innards and is tearing at you in some manner. That you're responding in such an affronted way says to me you're not 100% sure and his line of thought on this stuff causes internal conflict.
If you don't agree with his take on Bitcoin (and crypto in general), just point out calmly and unemotionally where his logic, assumptions or beliefs are flawed. I think it's very good to have someone like him putting the ideas up he does as it makes for interesting consideration of his views versus alternatives.
Isn't this what a thread like this is about?
Your gracious friend has been trolling this forum for years now. I agree that there is no need to get all fired up about it, but to
"point out calmly and unemotionally where his logic, assumptions or beliefs are flawed" is even more of a waste.
He has some ideas that (I think) are the very antithesis of what crypto is all about. Suggesting that there'll inevitably have to be a rethink on the 21 million cap and that an increase will eventually happen is the slippery slope to Bitcoin being just another manipulated disaster like we're seeing with almost all fiat currencies (and, obviously to get it to be manipulatable like that, will require some dramatic action and reallocation of mining resources away from the current Bitcoin community). In fact he basically seems to have a line of thought that takes the current monetary system's "features" and attributes and retrospectively applies them to Bitcoin like "it's just how money works and if Bitcoin doesn't hold these properties it will fail". That I find to be backward thinking as it's failing to see the paradigm of how central bankers and Wall Street "run" the monetary system is THE problem and to use it as a framework of sorts for how crypto needs to operate is everything crypto isn't and should never be (but any conversation about 'money' is by nature controversial and complex).
My point though is he appears to have many people quite riled up and that's unfortunate. His points simply need to be deconstructed and the flaws pointed out. But if it's a waste of time doing that (and I haven't been in this thread for more than a few months) then probably best to just let him post and not respond.
Either way I don't find his posts to be trollish in their nature (but maybe his "graciousness" is hiding a whole other agenda I'm not aware of) and I appreciate he's expressing his view and that's perfectly okay.
People are riled up, somewhat, with Stofl because his posts are generally deceptive and misleading and accordingly disingenuous...
Many times, he has actually admitted to being a troll of these forms...
In other words, trolls deal in disingenuous arguments and distractions and really attempt to incite others with their ridiculous points... surely from time to time Stofli makes decent points, but that generally is the exception rather than the rule... most of the time he is misleading and spinning... ..
surely we can ignore him or communicate rationally with him, but sometimes he needs to be called out because otherwise some people, including what appears to be yourself, will begin to believe some of his several stupid ass misleading posts.
Okay. Perhaps I haven't experienced enough of him yet to see the dis-ingenuity in full flight. As always with people on these forums, there's their face-value appearance and then their deeper hidden agenda which may take longer to pick up on.
Yes, his (Stolfi's) mostly courteous front can be very misleading concerning his credibility - and likely causes people to give much more credit to him than he deserves. Surely, sometimes he makes some decent points or brings up some interesting topics, but frequently, his points are skewed in a level of unrealism that any real supposed academic who is acting with honesty would give more validity to points that are contrary to his own agenda.
But one always has to ask what the driver for someone's modus operandi is. If he's so down on Bitcoin and thinks it's so likely to fail, why is he here?
He has been attacked a lot for mostly the whole time that he has been participating in this forum, and pretty much he is an admitted troll. Surely, he has made certain claims over his membership time, but mostly he asserts that he is NOT financially invested in BTC... but some of that disclosure is likely NOT true... He asserts that he is totally funded by his academics etc... but any academician needs to maintain relevancy, and likely spending so much time on bitcoin, he has chosen to make bitcoin a part of his new specialty, and likely he is going to attempt to gain financially from building supposed expertise as an "anti-bitcoiner." I don't really have any problem with people gaining financially or even status or prestige by being on one side of a battle or another, but Stofli has continued to attempt to hold out a kind of facade to assert and proclaim that he parsing out neutral analysis (even though generally negative towards bitcoin) in part because of his NOT being invested in bitcoin..... Also, goes to his whole attempt to bring credibility to his participation in these forums by proclaiming to be a "professor." Who the fuck cares whether he is a professor or not? He should be able to bring credibility to himself and his various positions through the arguments themselves, rather than attempting to proclaim and project some kind of expertise with a supposed title... his supposed professorship is irrelevant, except to the extent that he has used it as his bitcoin presence in these forums to attempt to bring further credibility to his various bullshit and misleading posts.
I think this is the same question we all need to ask ourselves. I'd expect that he has doubts about his views too, hence can't stay away because he's inevitably drawn to a debate like this to challenge the parts of his thinking that don't quite believe the outward position he's stated.
Yes we all have various doubts about our views from time to time on any topic. But a part of being genuine is to be a bit more forthright about the doubts that we have. Frequently, Stolfi is presenting points that any logical person could NOT really believe and especially problematic when coming from someone who is asserting to be a professor.... which misleads people into thinking some speculative long shot possibility about some point 100 years into the future should be prioritized as an urgent matter... that is called bullshit and disingenuous.
I'm here because I'm fascinated by Bitcoin (and crypto in general) and I believe my investment in it may bring a good return. The "fascinated" part extends out from my awareness that this technology just might be the one thing that saves humanity from the greed and stupefying madness of a world population that, not only has no real understanding of money, doesn't even know that it's completely lacking that understanding and consequently is being seriously worked over by some very dark forces. The average person from a westernised nation today walks this planet completely and utterly clueless as to what the fundamental attributes of money are and why the manipulation via the Fed's QE and ZIRP is just putting off for another day the inevitable financial reckoning that's going to catch the masses out. I think Greenspan, Bernanke and Yellen and their Wall Street banking cronies will one day be recast as criminals that led us all on this merry dance into disaster. And just maybe, the existence of Bitcoin (and it's potential to travel through this coming mess relatively unscathed....and I said "potential"; many trials and tribulations for it yet) will alter the course of history and create a surging discourse amongst the public as to what the true nature of 'money' is.
Yes, agreed. Each of us has varying ways of expressing why we are interested and/or invested in bitcoin, and surely your expression above is NOT inconsistent with quite a few people who are bullish about bitcoin while taking account of the various manipulations of various mainstream fiat systems.... in other words, you are partly hedging your bets into bitcoin and crypto because you consider them to be helpful in addressing the various problematic aspects of fiat systems... Lots of people likely would agree with your above assertions.
But there are soooo many differing views on this subject. I for one pretty much listen to them all as the potential to be caught by confirmation bias within groups like this and not even realise you're on a pathway with other lemmings on the way to the cliff's edge is ever present.
Yes, it could be problematic to listen too much to a bunch of bitcoin bulls because or even problematic to invest based on someone who is a bull and who is talking his book.
For that reason I welcome the Stolfis and others with extreme views adverse to what the bulk of us in cryptoland hold (even if they are "trolling"....take what's useful; leave the rest) because they help me check my reasoning and assumptions, and I believe that's a good thing.
I don't have a problem hearing various negative views or even sorting the various arguments etc; however, trolling by definition is a problem because it is distracting and aims to incite rather than to really engage in meaningful discussion. There are ways to present counter evidence and make arguments against bitcoin without being disingenuous and without putting out false arguments and even misstating relevant facts. Some of the trolls, including Stolfi has a pattern and tendency to mislead.... .. and frequently the bullshit should be pointed out for what it is, rather than accepted as if he is contributing to the dialogue in some kind of positive way. Again, NOT every post of Stolfi can be characterized as such, because in fact he attempts to build his credibility by being a more sophisticated troll.. and when he does actually put out FUD, sometimes very genuine and intellectually honest people, including yourself, are mislead by some of his FUD spreading.
