pull down to refresh
you might be more familiar with individual personalities or stereotypes here on SN; however I've been "out of town" for a while, so I'm less eager to dismiss people's concerns, even if I agree with you that they are misguided in some way.
I'm just asking questions and voicing concerns in a corner of the internet that I respect, and consider the best place to find legitimate, well thought out answers.
I'm not sure where he's getting his ideas about me from, and he's welcome to have his own opinion about me, but I don't think anything I've said counts as an attack on bitcoin, or is overly alarmist.
I also know there are people here that actively develop for bitcoin, so I'm asking for expert opinions.
Simple as that.
You're asserting things as true that simply are not, that's not asking questions. You're presupposing.
Linked you to 3 different long posts that break it down, and referenced papers from peter gutmann... and all you got is "agree to disagree"
You're not looking for answers, you're looking to confirm your idiotic presuppositions.
All you're asking for is to be flamed by posting nonsense as fact: #1468593
I'm telling people what my understanding is and I've been extremely open to being corrected, and my responses to you are "agree to disagree" because I don't think you're capable of having a reasonable conversation about this.
Flame away, but I'm on the verge of just muting you entirely. There's people here who are capable of acting like adults.
don't think you're capable of having a reasonable conversation
Projection.
I've provided materials that lay out the case very clearly, you won't engage on the topic because you're not actually trying to learn anything and seem content to just repost lies.
If you want to learn, I'll educate you, but you've shown only the opposite so far.
The only thing you've shown me is that you take any disagreement as a personal attack. It's not projection, I've been completely civil towards you and am continuing to do so, despite your inability to show the same courtesy.
Yes by providing the information to correct you and telling you not to be so gullible I clearly scrambled the virtue signals you were emitting. Much attack.
Ok, you provided me 3 papers by Gutman. Gutman did not disprove the math behind quantum computing, his stance is that the current state of quantum computing is wildly overhyped.
Let's say he is 100% correct, and I'm completely fine believing that. It still doesn't change the fact that at some point in the future, computing will likely get to thet point.
As far as 2% of the population sustaining the current security budget. It would mean that the average transaction fee on L1 would have to be $45 to $50 per transaction. That means it will be either extremely expensive for a common person to make a transaction, and one of the proposed solutions is batching thousands of transactions together off chain on L2. I'm not attacking bitcoin or making up facts.
I'm not spreading fud, I'm not shaking in my boots, im not running out to buy quantum safe shit coins, and I'm not pushing some weird scam. I'm talking about the fundamental math of thr halvings and the different scenarios that can and will happen.
Yea they're related, since hipsters identity is wrapped up in one aspect, anyone placing value in a different place along the surface is inherently invalid
Many such cases