[AUDIENCE] I came across a very interesting treatise on commercial real-estate.
In the comment section on LinkedIn, there was a bit of a critique and the author was exceedingly dismissive
of the critic, but I actually dug into some of the critique that the author gave.
My question for you would be: clearly you've encountered people who disagree with you,
perhaps on emotional grounds, perhaps on intellectual grounds.
On the entire concept of Bitcoin, who is the most effective, well-reasoned, intellectual critic
that you enjoy engaging with, because they've actually invested the time and energy to try to decipher
why [Bitcoin] might or might not be something [of value]? For them or for any of us?
[ANDREAS] It changes from time to time, because the people who I find are the most intellectually honest
about trying to understand this technology... They start of as critics. We all started off as critics.
My first reaction to Bitcoin was dismissive. Everyone I know who is in Bitcoin was dismissive.
Satoshi himself / herself / themselves [said], "I don't know, it might work."
Pretty much everybody who followed Satoshi [said], "No, that's not going to work." We all come into it like that.
Then I think many of the intellectually honest people eventually stop being critics, because they suddenly
realize that the flaws they're identifying are temporary features or issues, not inherent problems.
There are very few inherent problems in a dynamically evolving design, or ecosystem of different designs
all competing, that cannot be resolved. There are critics who criticize this technology
primarily based on their worldview. It is politically inconsistent with their worldview.
It's not that they do not like the technology, it's that they do not like the implications of this technology.
The primary criticism you get is, "This should not be." To which all I can answer is, "... and yet it is!" Right?
"But we must not!" And yet we did. "But you shouldn't!" And yet we did.
Now let's talk about what we do next... We shouldn't have the ability for people to
send transactions peer-to-peer, anywhere in the world, without control?
What will the world descend into? Will it turn into chaos? It's almost as if people are using cash again.
"That shouldn't be." But it is. Now what do we do about it?
The problem with debating and criticism about this is... If it truly offends your worldview,
the problem is that you're trying to resist reality. Reality has a knack of sneaking up on people.
So I can't really identify critics that I would enjoy debating on a regular basis, primarily because
for people who are fundamentally offended by the implications of this technology
this is not a discussion on the merits; this is a debate on the morality of individuals.
That quickly turns very personal. It undermines people's sense of self, of morality, of right and wrong.
People can get very heated about that. I get enough death threats as it is. I don't need any more.