>I also know history, probably better than most on this board.
I should remind you again, past performance is not an indicator of future results. The history might give you clues, but it can't point you to a guarantee of what will happen.
>This conversation is about trying to find the crux of your disbelief.
If you have an interest in being reasonable, I think you can see how this statement is total nonsense. I don't "believe" or "disbelieve" in anything, this is just the reality of the situation. If you're trying to get me to "believe" in something, that suggests you're putting trust and faith in them and you want me to do the same. A "belief" would be if I was making predictions of when BTC will collapse, or if I was saying it will never collapse. We can guess, but no one can know that for sure.
I certainly do hope it collapses, because it is actually a giant fraud based on nothing. It has no value, it has no fundamentals, it is based entirely on the "belief" that you will be able to dump the coins on someone else some day. Yes, I know that government-backed fiat dollars are also technically like this, those are at least based on the local economy remaining stable, the economy that (unlike any cryptocurrency) is absolutely required to keep your farms and food imports running if you personally want to not experience mass famine and death. If BTC collapses, you can't get your money out because it's worthless; if your local economy collapses, you will have a lot worse problems than not being able to take money out of the bank. And no, you cannot remove the need for a local economy by forcing people to transact in cryptocurrency, businesses will just not transact on markets that are too risky for them.
>you are throwing gotchas that we mostly disregarded years ago
They were not disregarded for any real reasons other than the opinions of the BTC miners and the developers of the protocol. Actually a great many people disagreed with their opinions and thought they were wrong to disregard them, hence the existence of bitcoin forks, and all the other crypto coins that aren't BTC.
I unfortunately understand the BTC maxi attitude, but it's not even consistent with its own world; the goal appears to be to dismiss all the other coins as "shitcoins" for disregarding certain issues with the network in favor of profits, despite that BTC has exactly the same fundamentals and also disregards a lot of issues with the network in favor of profits.
I should remind you again, past performance is not an indicator of future results. The history might give you clues, but it can't point you to a guarantee of what will happen.
>This conversation is about trying to find the crux of your disbelief.
If you have an interest in being reasonable, I think you can see how this statement is total nonsense. I don't "believe" or "disbelieve" in anything, this is just the reality of the situation. If you're trying to get me to "believe" in something, that suggests you're putting trust and faith in them and you want me to do the same. A "belief" would be if I was making predictions of when BTC will collapse, or if I was saying it will never collapse. We can guess, but no one can know that for sure.
I certainly do hope it collapses, because it is actually a giant fraud based on nothing. It has no value, it has no fundamentals, it is based entirely on the "belief" that you will be able to dump the coins on someone else some day. Yes, I know that government-backed fiat dollars are also technically like this, those are at least based on the local economy remaining stable, the economy that (unlike any cryptocurrency) is absolutely required to keep your farms and food imports running if you personally want to not experience mass famine and death. If BTC collapses, you can't get your money out because it's worthless; if your local economy collapses, you will have a lot worse problems than not being able to take money out of the bank. And no, you cannot remove the need for a local economy by forcing people to transact in cryptocurrency, businesses will just not transact on markets that are too risky for them.
>you are throwing gotchas that we mostly disregarded years ago
They were not disregarded for any real reasons other than the opinions of the BTC miners and the developers of the protocol. Actually a great many people disagreed with their opinions and thought they were wrong to disregard them, hence the existence of bitcoin forks, and all the other crypto coins that aren't BTC.
I unfortunately understand the BTC maxi attitude, but it's not even consistent with its own world; the goal appears to be to dismiss all the other coins as "shitcoins" for disregarding certain issues with the network in favor of profits, despite that BTC has exactly the same fundamentals and also disregards a lot of issues with the network in favor of profits.