It sounds more like you came to pick a fight instead of to engage in a discussion.
You made a factually incorrect argument, and when challenged you claimed incivility.
Discussion
Not true. Please explain
You said Lightning isn’t bitcoin.
You said nobody uses the Lightning Network.
You asked what nodes even have to do with Lightning.
You claimed ETH and BTC have the same monetary policy.
I don’t even know where to start.
I do.
This has bad faith argument written all over.
Best to leave him to his Eth and his “monetary” policy of whatever the flavor of the week is.
I think even web3 has search engines where he can answer his own “civil questions”
#[6] 🤷🏻
Where did I say that eth and btc have the same monetary policy. You made that up. I said that eth was deflationary. Neither are perfect
You said ETH has a monetary policy just like bitcoin, but they are completely different in every way.
If what you meant was that both have their own unique policy, then yes, that’s true.
However bitcoin has a policy that is completely transparent and understood by its participants and can’t be changed without overwhelming consensus from the users.
ETH’s policy is whatever they say it is on any given day.
You misunderstood what I meant. Just because bitcoin has a monetary policy doesn't mean it is perfect. I said that there are alternatives. None of them are perfect. I also pointed out that bitcoin lacks governance, and I posted a medium article which explains this in more detail.
I am a user. How do I participate in consensus?
Haha. Haven’t seen these bad faith passive-aggros in a while.
Recipe:
- 1 part “I’m just trying to understand something I could have researched before asking a more intelligent question”
- Add in 2 cups of Bitcoin FUD. You can use “X is better because it has a dog” or “Bitcoin failed because I don’t understand it!” Which is my personal favorite brand
- stir up on high heat with “Bitcoin community is closed minded because no one wants to hear my nonsense”
- Serve with a Nostr block