If your argument hinges on the premise that being either a police officer or a politician makes someone either a paragon of morality or wholly incapable of committing crimes, then I'm afraid I have some bad news for you.
My argument hinges upon the fact that Mr Nagle has been waging a FUD campaign for some time without much contest here, through leveraging his reputation. It's become tiresome, very few LEO support his concerns at this point, yet he continues unchallenged. It's mostly cherrypicking and well below the quality of his other posts.
All of us who've been around enough know what FUD campaigns look like on well-managed Internet forums. I am middle-aged and find this worthy of countering as it appears obsessive. Younger technologists are constantly having their efforts defamed needlessly on this leading technology forum with nothing being added to the conversation.
> Younger technologists are constantly having their efforts defamed needlessly on this leading technology forum with nothing being added to the conversation.
Speaking of nothing being added to the conversation, it’s somewhat conspicuous that you are attacking the source rather than engaging with the argument. His criticisms are valid and shared by many technologists of all ages and skill levels, surely you can explain why they’re mistaken — for example, you could point to extensive use of Bitcoin in a legitimate non-speculative economy. You’ve been promoting it for many years, surely you must have examples?
Help me understand. Are you saying that former LEO are well-served from a PR standpoint by attaching themselves to the "points" you're holding are clearly evidenced by the parent post?
The parent post argues that cryptocurrency is most useful, in practice, for illegal activities. It does not argue that this is how it's perceived by the general public, by the NYC municipal government, or by Eric Adams. The perception is that it's a sexy new technology of the future, whereas the reality is that it's mostly a playground for "investors", fraudsters, and criminals.
(To help qualify my perspective and insistence... I was involved in stopping a long term predatory crime this year where digital assets were used to help protect the victim against perpetrators using dollars. As you might imagine, having clear records of transactions is likely to be more helpful to the targets than the perpetrators in these cases.)
To be clear, I'm talking about the bookkeeping element of an in-progress federal investigation involving theft of corporate equity and corporate tax fraud. The target was legally disabled.
If your argument hinges on the premise that being either a police officer or a politician makes someone either a paragon of morality or wholly incapable of committing crimes, then I'm afraid I have some bad news for you.
My argument hinges upon the fact that Mr Nagle has been waging a FUD campaign for some time without much contest here, through leveraging his reputation. It's become tiresome, very few LEO support his concerns at this point, yet he continues unchallenged. It's mostly cherrypicking and well below the quality of his other posts.
All of us who've been around enough know what FUD campaigns look like on well-managed Internet forums. I am middle-aged and find this worthy of countering as it appears obsessive. Younger technologists are constantly having their efforts defamed needlessly on this leading technology forum with nothing being added to the conversation.
> Younger technologists are constantly having their efforts defamed needlessly on this leading technology forum with nothing being added to the conversation.
Speaking of nothing being added to the conversation, it’s somewhat conspicuous that you are attacking the source rather than engaging with the argument. His criticisms are valid and shared by many technologists of all ages and skill levels, surely you can explain why they’re mistaken — for example, you could point to extensive use of Bitcoin in a legitimate non-speculative economy. You’ve been promoting it for many years, surely you must have examples?
5 replies →
>as it appears obsessive
Do you see the irony here?
2 replies →
That's a political publicity stunt, and does not counter any of the points made by the parent
Help me understand. Are you saying that former LEO are well-served from a PR standpoint by attaching themselves to the "points" you're holding are clearly evidenced by the parent post?
The parent post argues that cryptocurrency is most useful, in practice, for illegal activities. It does not argue that this is how it's perceived by the general public, by the NYC municipal government, or by Eric Adams. The perception is that it's a sexy new technology of the future, whereas the reality is that it's mostly a playground for "investors", fraudsters, and criminals.
1 reply →
Yes, especially the ones that become politicians.
2 replies →
(To help qualify my perspective and insistence... I was involved in stopping a long term predatory crime this year where digital assets were used to help protect the victim against perpetrators using dollars. As you might imagine, having clear records of transactions is likely to be more helpful to the targets than the perpetrators in these cases.)
You can use local heavies to protect yourself from bullies. That doesn't mean those heavies won't commit crimes in their spare time.
To be clear, I'm talking about the bookkeeping element of an in-progress federal investigation involving theft of corporate equity and corporate tax fraud. The target was legally disabled.