On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 7:51 AM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:31 AM, Eric Walker <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> I agree. Bitcoin's built-in deflation is its Achilles heel. James will >> surely disagree with me on this one, but I'm happy to go along with modern >> economics on the question of deflation. Keep in mind in this regard that >> bitcoin is just one among a number of cryptocurrencies; there are other >> cryptocurrencies that do not have built-in limits. Although bitcoin has >> some fatal flaws, as a representative member of a new class of currencies >> it is very interesting. >> > > There have been a few occasions where it was clear you hadn't read my > prior messages, since you repeated what I had already said but without > attribution, but this is the first time you didn't read what I said and > imputed that I said the opposite. Specifically, I told Jed: > > "Your second statement is true and does mitigate against some > cryptocurrencies just as it does against any fixed commodity." > > His second statement was about the problems with deflationaryfixed-supply > currencies. My use of the word "some" to qualify "cryptocurrencies" > clearly means that I allowed for those cryptocurrencies that do not exhibit > this deflationary/fixed-supply and that those that did exhibit > deflationary/fixed-supply were weaker (mitigated against). > > My statement that Bitcoin is going to increase for certain usages (I'm not > going to repeat the entire statement) in no way denies its weaknesses. > Oh, I also repeated that this fixed supply/deflationary aspect was not a good thing with emphasis "_not_" in the response just before yours which had been there for 4 hours before you posted your inverted imputation.
