No, I looked up an accepted definition of a word and quoted it. The world can speak for itself and has.
yes you literally wrote that are.
And that definition also shows that you are wrong :
“depends on the will of the people” does not oppose to “a select few making the decisions”
You are still wrong.
You pretend that “the world” agrees with you, that’s only delusions of grandeur.
Write emails to scholars and dictionaries creators claiming the meaning is wrong then. because that is who i got the definition of the word from.
Well you do then, since that definition shows that you are wrong.
“depends on the will of the people” does not oppose to “a select few making the decisions”
You are still wrong.
I believe my interpretation of what was written is correct.
You did not provide a logical interpretation.
You only provided a contradiction with the definition.
“depends on the will of the people” does not oppose to “a select few making the decisions”
You are still wrong.
A system where a select few are making the decision can still be a democracy. You pretend it can’t, thus you are wrong.
Yes I 100% agree…if they are voted in by the people, or a representative who was elected by the people.
If they wasn’t my point is how exactly is that a democracy? Sounds like a dictatorship to me.
Finally. You should have started with that.
Your choice of terms was poor and lead you to an absurd interpretation.
So what you meant is “elected people making the decisions is closer to a democracy” ?
You knew that’s what I meant from the start. I even said so very early on. You just have an extremely awkward way of talking which will only be to your detriment.
The definition of democracy has always been the same since you and I was born,
No. What I knew was, what you wrote. And what you wrote was plainly absurd.
THAT is what I knew.
The only things you wrote was that the number was important. People being elected was not present in your argument.
You did not take the time to read what I wrote, and claimed that you were wrong even when the definition you provided was in contradiction with what you wrote.
Are you a lawyer or solicitor in real life?, I must admit you have a good way of making people look wrong when it fact it is you who is terribly wrong.
Why personal attacks again ?
YOU WERE WRONG.
No, you were. You even admitted it. And now pretend that you were not ? Even going to personal attacks ? That’s childish. Grow up. Acknowledge your mistakes, so the discussion can be constructive.
Stop making me responsible for your mistakes. You made them. Learn from them. That’s wisdom.
Asking your profession is a personal attack? lol You’d make millions if you were a lawyer or solicitor I’m telling you man!
This still doesn’t prove your silly overall point “BTC is a scam” is true lol
As a way to produce a negative judgement on the person instead of addressing his argument, yes it is.
Dude you took hours to agree that you were making such an obvious mistake.
It will take you decades to accept that BTC is a ponzi.
So now you are pretending that when elected people are making decisions it’s not a democracy again ?
Your way of pretending you were not wrong when you were is manipulative.
This was 6 months ago, if this is true then should these people that couldn’t access their funds carry on using banks when the banks seem to be mis-managing funds? The problem I have with you is that you think everything is the same everywhere, from your perspective everything will most likely be fine with your money/assets and I would expect a country like France to be able to provide that for you. #
Now, it APPEARS that the chinese government and banks might be mis-managing their citezens assets. This does look real, it is reported that people are purposely defaulting on the mortgages, debt for banks is at $9 Trillion there, many have no hope of accessing funds.
IF this video is true and factual wouldn’t you agree something needs to be done? If there was a GPU mineable coin in China that people could mine wouldn’t it be interesting to see how it would play out? Yes the citezens would still have to pay their taxes and detail their earnings in some sort of declaration at the end of the year they could pay in this GPU coin, the only difference is the banks wouldn’t be managing this GPU coin they can receive it and manage their coins but much of the populace will have their coin secured in personal digital wallets.
So yes, on some level I am sure you understand this, and honestly I think satoshi had something like this in mind when creating BTC, You will have to accept there are abusive governments in the world today, why would you want to try and stop the citezens of these abusive governments creating democracy ( using the GPU mineable coin i spoke of as currency for example) and moving forward in a manner that helps the people?
Are you able to level with me? I’m being serious now, no more talk of gazzilionaires or any other nonsense, just real talk, In the ALLEDGED China situation you realise its just normal people trying to access their money right? Just your normal retail worker, nurse, plumber, electrician looking to buy food and supplies for themselves and their family. I am not talking about drug dealers, gangsters, conmen, or any other kind of criminal, just normal people like the ones I know you see suffering on the news ok.
So yes, just real talk now, please, are you able to do this?
My personal view is that BTC was hyped up too much, and large groups of traders/investors realised BTC could help to change many factual bad things in this world (keep calm Aedaxus, no trolling or jokes here remember) and they all brought some in the hope of making profit and got other people to give them BTC in the hope of making even more profit. If we look at the history of currency the way it’s managed has taken a long time to develop and change. Many were lead to believe BTC adoption would be fast which would mean investors profit faster, but I think its longer maybe 10 years or much more.
Please don’t misinterpret my convo, this is purely. “OMG!!! look at what’s happening on the news in XYZ country, what the hell is going to be done!!!” seriously I’m not bullshitting you this is the convo I want ok, I hope you can understand me.
1 Like
That’s the definition of a ponzi.
1 Like
A very good text but somehow you mistake currency with lending. The issue is banks taking large risks, some of those are even made off the books. This behavior is an issue, not currency. If tomorrow they would have a CBDC, maybe it would be easier to audit the (non-government) banks, but even then, the current attitude of private companies who believe they stand above the law is the problem in your example.
The government stepped in and tried to fix the issue. Don’t tell me the BTC rules would have done the same because without even reading one line of the code I can guarantee you it will not fix this kind of issues.
Well, they tried to make it look like BTC was going to explode and everyone would be using it by next year which is very misleading. What makes it look like a ponzi is the investors marketing of BTC. If the investors were not involved hyping up BTC then I believe people would just use BTC as and when a retailer requests it.
You may have to accept that buying BTC and holding it for profit was an idea coined by salesmen and investors, I’m very sure that if salesmen and investors were clear that profit could only be made when billions of people use BTC genuinely for transactions then this problem wouldn’t exist, BTC would be viewed as more of a retail tool to transfer value rather than an investment tool to make quick profit from.
Yes, this is something they will never ever stop doing even after the dust settles from the current problems I bet they will go right back to doing this, the cycle continues. You are correct, the issue is with large risk, and part of my point was to stop them having full access to peoples money in the first place. Yes, banks should be free to invest with willing customers who want to invest but this only happens because they have full access to the customer funds.
With my example of a GPU coin the blockchain it’s on would feature digital wallets where only the holder has access which would make it impossible for them to lend out other peoples money and lose it. I get that they are doing all they can to solve the issue and I am very sure it will happen again.
Yes, and they do seem to be trying to deal with it which is great, This problem now seems commonplace in the world today. My point is how will this be stopped completely?