In the US? Elizabeth warren. Not only is she loud and annoying with her criticism, she continually introduces bills to congress to make it harder to use Bitcoin or downright impossible. Her statements also shape liberal perception of Bitcoin and provide talking points to her allies.
Which is why I donated money to her primary opponent. There is zero chance of a non-dem winning her district. There is a decent chance she could be unseated if her primary challengers have enough backing behind them. There's a few bipartisan pro-Bitcoin PACs, I donate to them too.
Jamie Dimon. Because inconsistancy.
I can give Peter Schiff some stopped clock credit.
ollama run dolphin-mistral
>>> What has Jamie Dimon said about Bitcoin, historically?
Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, has had mixed opinions on Bitcoin throughout history. Here are some notable
statements:
1. September 2017: In a speech at a Delaware Economic Forum, he called Bitcoin "a fraud" and said that he would fire anyone
trading it for the bank. However, he later clarified that the comment was not about the entire blockchain industry, but
rather about bitcoin itself.
2. November 2017: At an investor conference in New York, Dimon described Bitcoin as "worse than tulip bulbs" and said that
it will eventually blow up. He also called it a "scam."
3. June 2018: In a CNBC interview, Dimon expressed regret over his previous negative comments on bitcoin and admitted that
the cryptocurrency is "real." However, he still maintained a cautious stance, stating that he didn't own any himself and
that it was not something he would recommend to his clients.
4. September 2018: In an earnings call with JPMorgan investors, Dimon reiterated that he does not think bitcoin is "worth
the paper it's printed on." He also stated that Bitcoin is not a substitute for fiat currency and serves no real purpose as
a unit of account.
5. March 2019: During an appearance at the Economic Club of Washington, Dimon said that he had changed his mind about
bitcoin and that it might one day become a legitimate part of financial system. He stated that if the price of Bitcoin goes
to zero or negative, then "so be it."
6. June 2019: In an interview with CNBC, Dimon expressed concern over Facebook's Libra cryptocurrency project and its
potential impact on monetary policy and the financial system. He suggested that regulators should closely scrutinize the
project before allowing it to go forward.
Overall, while Jamie Dimon has had a historically negative view of Bitcoin, his opinions seem to have evolved over time.
While he still does not see it as a viable investment or unit of account, he has acknowledged its legitimacy and potential
role in the financial system.
In the US? Elizabeth warren. Not only is she loud and annoying with her criticism, she continually introduces bills to congress to make it harder to use Bitcoin or downright impossible. Her statements also shape liberal perception of Bitcoin and provide talking points to her allies.
Which is why I donated money to her primary opponent. There is zero chance of a non-dem winning her district. There is a decent chance she could be unseated if her primary challengers have enough backing behind them. There's a few bipartisan pro-Bitcoin PACs, I donate to them too.
Nassim would be a good addition.
nah, he's pretty good.
I've taken great pride in using Taleb against himself on this point
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/nassim-taleb-vs-taleb-quotes
I’d agree. That’s why it’d be a great candidate for the poll, ie is the worst critic one of the better ones?
Rat poison by the oracle of Omaha
Jamie Dimon. Because inconsistancy. I can give Peter Schiff some stopped clock credit.
ollama run dolphin-mistral >>> What has Jamie Dimon said about Bitcoin, historically? Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, has had mixed opinions on Bitcoin throughout history. Here are some notable statements: 1. September 2017: In a speech at a Delaware Economic Forum, he called Bitcoin "a fraud" and said that he would fire anyone trading it for the bank. However, he later clarified that the comment was not about the entire blockchain industry, but rather about bitcoin itself. 2. November 2017: At an investor conference in New York, Dimon described Bitcoin as "worse than tulip bulbs" and said that it will eventually blow up. He also called it a "scam." 3. June 2018: In a CNBC interview, Dimon expressed regret over his previous negative comments on bitcoin and admitted that the cryptocurrency is "real." However, he still maintained a cautious stance, stating that he didn't own any himself and that it was not something he would recommend to his clients. 4. September 2018: In an earnings call with JPMorgan investors, Dimon reiterated that he does not think bitcoin is "worth the paper it's printed on." He also stated that Bitcoin is not a substitute for fiat currency and serves no real purpose as a unit of account. 5. March 2019: During an appearance at the Economic Club of Washington, Dimon said that he had changed his mind about bitcoin and that it might one day become a legitimate part of financial system. He stated that if the price of Bitcoin goes to zero or negative, then "so be it." 6. June 2019: In an interview with CNBC, Dimon expressed concern over Facebook's Libra cryptocurrency project and its potential impact on monetary policy and the financial system. He suggested that regulators should closely scrutinize the project before allowing it to go forward. Overall, while Jamie Dimon has had a historically negative view of Bitcoin, his opinions seem to have evolved over time. While he still does not see it as a viable investment or unit of account, he has acknowledged its legitimacy and potential role in the financial system.ITS GOING TO ZERO!!!!!ITS GOING TO ZERO!!!!!
The funny thing about him is he said that after meeting CSW. He met the scammer and fully fell for his bullshit and thought he had "inside info".
i did not knew that fact hehe
yeah, in the extended version of that clip he says: "I know because I met the person.....here in london....."
In microseconds!
Justin Bons by a country mile
For someone to be harmful, they have to have credibility in the first place. If they don't, it's just "any publicity is good publicity".
And the question is ambiguous. "Worst critic" as in "not good at being a critic"? or "Bitcoin critic who is annoying as fuck"?
Vitalick this NUTSACK
Hard to tell... It's so hard to tell... Last option should've been "All of the above."
They all are marginally ahead of each other as Bitcoin critic.
deleted by author
War is peace!
deleted by author