NFT's are Fundamentally a MLM-Type Scam Designed to Get You to Buy Crypto

[Destiny_Corrupted]

@Gadget Helmsdottir

–Gadget will give you two beads for three E-Coins

Ya got any teef?

[Gadget_Helmsdottir]

–Gadget knows that’s what Aplha clones are really for

[Arumi_Liz]

If you believed what you were saying you’d be doing something about it instead of shilling against it because you can’t stand people prospering. Every time the mainstream talks about it it’s about regulating it, not about how it can benefit anything blind. Also, the fact you talk about the “corrupt elite” and conflate it with bitcoin invalidates your entire argument because you just made it into a conspiracy theory without any proof. You’ll talk about its value but I bet you eat off the back of a fiat currency.

[Aedaxus]

Good news, as with fusion power, Bitcoin has a possible future.

MIT-designed project achieves major advance toward fusion energy

[Aedaxus]

@Arumi Liz

you’d be doing something about it

I am doing something about it, i’m ****posting here.

[Aaron]

Shrugs* I get paid daily for my processing contribution, it’s been this way since I first started mining. The moment i see anything untoward happening you’ll be the first to know.

LOL, I have Troll Shield Ver 2.0 installed. I’m secure in what I do and very happy that something has actually worked out in my life for once.

I salute all the other crypto miners out there o7 you’re making history supporting these crypto currencies on a distributed system.

[Anderson_Geten]

@Aaron

Not everyone agrees with you buddy, accept it and move on. This isn’t something you can address, it’s just what happens. There is a sudden demand for something (privacy), someone creates a method to solve this (Digital currency using Cryptography), and then people jump on it and pay for it because it does what it says on the tin.

What a bunch of useless words. This is personal attacks and completely unrelated to the topic.

You are spamming nonsense now.

@Aaron

I was referring to any distributed computer system when i said that due to someone saying a node on such a system has no value.

Except this is wrong.
Practice what you preach and be sure to quote what I said. Because I did not say, what you pretend I said.

@Aaron

That is not what I said, I implied anyone who thinks a node on ANY system inteded to be distributed has no value has a stupid viewpoint.

And this is completely unrelated. You claimed that a node produces value by the sheer belonging to a distributed architecture, and I said this is wrong

Here :

@Anderson Geten

You can make a wind blowing industry, and claim that without the wind blower there would not be an industry. It does not mean you add value by blowing the wind.

Now you are making a strawman by claiming I meant something else.

@Io Koval

When a node is added to a distributed network, it can absolutely be adversarial.

I was not going this far, but yes this is another counter argument to “I produce value because I belong to a distributed architecture”.

@Aaron

I understand and accept this point, but that was not the nature of what Geten and I were discussing.

Yes, it is.

You just pretend it’s not, but that’s exactly what my sentence meant.

[Aaron]

You’re being silly again Geten,

You initially claimed MY Node had no value, and I said you was silly for thinking that because you are ignoring the fact i get paid daily for it.

In terms of crypto, to say a node attached to a distributed crypto system purposely designed for that has no value would also be silly, because you only have to understand how much money it transports to know if it adds value or not.

Geten, why not just say it has no value to YOU and leave it at that? it would be silly of anyone to impose their view of something on others and expect them to agree just because you think your narrative is important it don’t work that way.

[Aaron]

@Anderson Geten

What a bunch of useless words.

Think what you like, supply is always determined by demand no matter what the item in question is. People have got rich supplying a demand throughout history, people who have supplied the the demand for privacy are getting rich as we speak. Supply and demand that very concept will never change and It does not matter what opinion your or I have.

@Aaron

You initially claimed MY Node had no value, and I said you was silly for thinking that because you are ignoring the fact i get paid daily for it.

This is what you said Geten, do you still think MY node has no value or not? what is your view?

Just so we are clear, No transaction would ever take place for that crypto currency if there were no nodes, The nodes are the bread and butter of a distributed crypto system.

It’s ok that you think this is still a scam and I am fine with that, my general point is this does not make you right because there is strong evidence which shows you are wrong.

[Anderson_Geten]

@Aaron

You initially claimed MY Node had no value, and I said you was silly for thinking that because you are ignoring the fact i get paid daily for it.

No I did not.

You are the silly one, with your strawman.

@Aaron

Geten, why not just say it has no value to YOU and leave it at that?

Because that has nothing to do with what I said.

Again, you are making up things I did not say. Again, a proof you are dishonest.

@Aaron

This is what you said Geten,

No. You are a liar.

[Aaron]

Whatever you think or said, or whatever I said or think, all parts of a crypto network have value. Come on lets just get on the same page here and acknowledge what exists without trying to manipulate it to suit your narrative.

It is a bit childish what were doing here, My mining rig obviously has a value to someone otherwise I wouldn’t be able to generate money with it. this is my honest reality and we can discuss it further if you’d like.

[Anderson_Geten]

@Aaron

Whatever you think or said, or whatever I said or think, all parts of a crypto network have value.

That’s irrelevant.

Read again what I actually wrote, instead of the strawman you are again making .

@Aaron

My mining rig obviously has a value to someone otherwise I wouldn’t be able to generate money with it.

No, it has value because you need something to get it. That’s the definition. But that’s irrelevant to the point.

I have no need to discuss that. I stated my point several times already but you keep distorting my point. There is no discussion if you remain that dishonest and keep dodging the issue.

[Aaron]

Make your entire point in your next post, I’m confused as to what your point is.

[Aaron]

@Anderson Geten

No, it has value because you need something to get it. That’s the definition. But that’s irrelevant to the point.

Sorry No, It has value because i get a daily payout that i can exchange back to real cash. The daily payments will get to a point where I will have made back the cash I spent for on the rig. the ROI seems short compared to other types of investments.

You seem to be trying to ignore the only reason I brought the rig was for it to become a crypto node and confirm transactions, I’m sorry but a person does not buy lots of GPU’s and build them all together on a single frame and then find out by accident they are useful for mining crypto. That simply isn’t how it happened.

I made a premeditated decision to buy the rig because I knew it’s value as a crypto node, and I knew I would be paid daily for the functions it performs,

For instance, a gardener will buy a van because it’s value is in the fact he can get to jobs faster and carry tools with it. The van isn’t valuable just because one needed money to pay for it that doesn’t make any sense it’s valuable because it has a purpose or function and was manufactured to fill that exact purpose.

[Aedaxus]

@Arumi Liz

shilling against it because you can’t stand people prospering.

@Arumi Liz

Also, the fact you talk about the “corrupt elite” and conflate it with bitcoin

This is the thing. Anyone who doesn’t cheer Bitcoin up is a conspiracy theorist and anything evil that comes out of Bitcoin is “just an exception”. I am just critical on what it is. I don’t mind people that “smoke weed every day.” for entertainment. I will shill against people that justify their drug habit by saying things like “But if I don’t smoke it, i’m not hungry, and if I don’t eat, I will die, you wouldn’t want that, right?!”. That’s bad. I will also ask people that say “Smoking weed cures all cancers.” that’s not scientifically prooven and yes, addicts will reply to me in the exact same form as you do. I am evil and want people to die from cancer they say. But I know better. You don’t help bitcoin, in fact your posts will make people stay far from bitcoin as they see it as yet another addiction type.

@Arumi Liz

Every time the mainstream talks about it it’s about regulating it, not about how it can benefit anything blind.

They tax it as companies use it now like they use solar power to pay less taxes. In the end -the tragedy of the commons- is that the companies benefit and the poor energy users suffer higher prices. If the government has taxes they can help the poor because it is a fact that the companies do not.

[Aaron]

@Aedaxus

I am just critical on what it is

It might be an idea to look at it in simple terms, It is a currency, a money transfer network, and a method of doing very private legal purchases. it can be traded.

The underlying engine for all crypto is Cryptography, the funny thing is that it is already a major part of our lives as it is used in the internet to secure Visa/debit transactions, it’s used in mobile phones, e-commerce and computer passwords.

Now, lets keep it real and talk about what we see. Mobile phones never seem to get hacked or at least it’s not something you really hear. You never hear of Visa transactions being hacked, e-commerce is pretty much secure, everyone feels reasonably comfortable buying/selling online, and passwords rarely get hacked. All of this is actually thanks to cryptographic techniques which all of us depend on to remain secure.

Also if it wasn’t for things like Cryptography that was used in world wars since 1910 the world may have been a very different place from what we see now.

So it’s my opinion that respect is due for crypto purely based on what it has done for us in the past. I opted to give it a chance, I tuned out all the hype and focused on the facts of what crypto could do for me taking into account the skills I already had and found it has benefitted me.

[Shipwreck_Jones]

Yeah, I lost track too.

And, I say this as someone who is on your side -I know you can argue better than this because I’ve seen you argue better before.

Anyway, I will call out argumentative fallacies and bad faith arguments when I see them, but I still try to focus on the issue at hand. And that’s because I don’t have to convince my debate partner in order to win a debate; I only have to convince my audience.

Now, don’t get it twisted, I am not advocating for the use of bad faith arguments in order to win a debate. Hell, I’m not even saying that the only reason to have discussions is to win a debate. After all, I do not have a monopoly on knowledge, insight, or experience, and have changed my mind on several different things over the years. So, if I believe that some of my past beliefs were wrong, doesn’t that leave open the possibility that some of my current beliefs could be wrong? Naturally, this means that I think it is important to honestly present my beliefs and ideas to others in order to have them interrogated and challenged. After all, if it is a belief that can’t stand up to scrutiny and challenge, I don’t think I’m justified in continuing to believe it.

Thus, when I debate with others, I’m actually looking for two things:

1. to test my ideas
2. and, assuming my ideas stand up to challenge, to persuade the audience.

Note that neither of those goals include persuading my interlocutor. I mean, if I do persuade him, then great. But at the end of the day, not everyone is available to be persuaded. Some people will obstinately stick their guns no matter what. Hell, even people who openly admit to losing a debate will frequently fail to change their minds, because they attribute the loss to a poor debate performance, rather than to their beliefs lacking validity.

So, my advice is to:

• Present your ideas honestly
  • If you have to use bad faith arguments in order to convince others, you probably shouldn’t believe in what you’re arguing.
• Focus on persuading the Audience
  • You do not win arguments by persuading your interlocutor -you win them by persuading the audience.
  • Don’t get bogged down attacking arguments. If you think it’s a potentially persuasive argument, try to bat it down. But at the end of the day, your focus should be on the positions themselves, and not the arguments that are used to attack or defend them.
  • For example, if someone accuses me of being an alt that is trying to manufacture consensus, I will provide evidence that I’m not, and then move on, regardless of whether I manage to convince my interlocutor or not.
    • I mean, I’m pretty sure I’d know if I was an alt, thus I don’t have to worry about challenging my own beliefs.
    • Someone who fails to be persuaded by compelling evidence, is unlikely to be persuaded by any amount of evidence or arguments.
    • Spending my time trying to prove I’m not an alt, distracts me from arguing about the actual topic at hand.

Anyway, those are my current beliefs on the matter.

[Anderson_Geten]

@Shipwreck Jones

So, my advice is to:

I presented my ideas honestly. Aaron on the other hand dodged the actual point I made - and other people made before, that is he does not generate value - by

1. claiming that belonging to a distributed architecture implies he does generate value, which is not proven and therefore a fallacy => a stupid argument (stupid meaning it makes no sense), then
2. pretended I made claims I did not, precisely the one about the value of his rig => off-topic and strawman.
3. repeated the same nonsensical soup of words.

At this rate, I don’t pretend that he is a dishonest person in general, but here he is simply polluting the discussion under the pretense of explaining his opinion => toxic behavior.

So now I spent enough time answering his nonsense and will just ignore whatever he says, unless I can prove in less time than he used that he is wrong. Because it’s a troll strategy, to present several invalid argument, in order to tire your “opponent” (that is, people who disagree with you) into debunking half-assed meaningless stupidities. And this is exactly the strategy he is employing.

[Aaron]

@Anderson Geten

Aaron on the other hand dodged the actual point I made

I asked you clearly in a one line post earlier to make your point as I am confused as to what point you are trying to make. You yourself have chosen to not answer me and leave me in a confused state about what you’re saying.

Stop trying to manipulate.

@Shipwreck Jones

And, I say this as someone who is on your side -I know you can argue better than this because I’ve seen you argue better before.

Some of his points do not make any sense, he doesn’t seems to want to accept concepts like supply and demand,…e.g: we can never be in a position to dictate what people demand, If they demand a private secure annonymous currency then someone will supply that demand.

[Shipwreck_Jones]

I wasn’t saying that you didn’t. I brought it up because I didn’t want to give the false impression that I was advocating that one should prioritize winning a debate above all else.

@Anderson Geten

Because it’s a troll strategy, to present several invalid argument, in order to tire your “opponent” (that is, people who disagree with you) into debunking half-assed meaningless stupidities.

Yeah, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen that strategy, as well as other strategies meant to do the same thing. I honestly don’t think that Aaron is arguing in bad faith though. Of course, I can’t really offer any compelling evidence -it’s just the impression that I’ve gotten from him.

What I can say, however, is just because someone uses a “bad argument,” that doesn’t mean that they don’t actually believe it. I mean, that’s why argumentative fallacies have persisted for over two millennia since they were first identified and described -it’s because they’re effective. It’s because people can and do find bard arguments convincing.