Jump to content
P3T3RIS

xRapid execution order confirmed by David Schwarz

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, opaopa said:

Yes. Fiat is less subjective then money, @Professor Hantzen explained this sufficiently. End of discussion.

You’re the Most Master of arguments.

But wrong. 

Edited by Ripple-Stiltskin
It’s not up to you to end a discussion, as you weren’t part of it in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ripple-Stiltskin said:

You’re the Most Master of arguments.

But wrong. 

Hey, listen, I'm sorry if I came across as rude. I honestly have nothing better to do with my life at the moment then to argue with complete strangers on the internet, so let me summarize why I attacked your post.

When you refer to the fact that all definitions are subjective you are not incorrect. I understand what you are trying to say and share your conviction. However, when you use this argument in a discussion you are effectively undermining the discussion in itself. How can we have a discussion in the first place since everything is subjective anyway? In my opinion, it is a cheap trick you are using to try and save your face in a discussion you are losing. It is dishonest and it is counter productive to the discussion.

Maybe this wasn't your intention, in that case I'm sorry for my frankness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think money has anything to do with objectivity nor subjectivity. Fiat is a term used to differentiate government backed money from other forms. 

Attached is 'the money flower' of BIS. Indeed BTC is money. I mentioned in another thread that XRP is money too, in contrary to the term digital asset (which is a subform of money). How can we measure whether something is universally accepted, as shown in the flower? It's of course it's liquidity, fueled by demand. 

graph5-B.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, zerpian said:

I don't think money has anything to do with objectivity nor subjectivity. Fiat is a term used to differentiate government backed money from other forms. 

 

This is exactly why fiat it is less subjective then money. The more narrow a definition of a word is, the less room there is left for subjective interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, opaopa said:

Hey, listen, I'm sorry if I came across as rude. I honestly have nothing better to do with my life at the moment then to argue with complete strangers on the internet, so let me summarize why I attacked your post.

When you refer to the fact that all definitions are subjective you are not incorrect. I understand what you are trying to say and share your conviction. However, when you use this argument in a discussion you are effectively undermining the discussion in itself. How can we have a discussion in the first place since everything is subjective anyway? In my opinion, it is a cheap trick you are using to try and save your face in a discussion you are losing. It is dishonest and it is counter productive to the discussion.

Maybe this wasn't your intention, in that case I'm sorry for my frankness.

I’ll summarise what I tried to say:

- I saw the ( heated) discussions between P3t3RIS and Brownbear , in this and other threads

- I notice that many discussions on the board get heated and escalate into namecalling

- imo that’s because they often talk about different things and from different perspectives

- so it’s important that all parties in a discussion agree on the basics ( main definitions) of the subject

- the discussion about “ base” , “ fiat” , “ money”  etc is just an example.  

- imo there are no  “objective” or “ subjective”  definitions.  Just that every definition has a certain grade of acceptance.  If you want to call a definition with a > 50% acceptance ( how does one measure that?) an “ objective” definition, fine by me. ( but I can challenge that: why > 50% and not > 90%?)

- economics isn’t science. And even in Physics ( a science) not all things are absolut ( objective)> Einstein’s relativity. 

So yeah, your answer was a bit offensive and no, I’m not losing the discussion nor do I want to save my face.  I like arguments and discussing, but I only state things that I’m convinced of. Until I’m proven wrong. And still happy then.

note: his argument was that “ fiat” is a (100%?) objective term. 

Edited by Ripple-Stiltskin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, opaopa said:

This is exactly why fiat it is less subjective then money. The more narrow a definition of a word is, the less room there is left for subjective interpretation.

Agreed, but his statement was that money is subjective and fiat is objective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ripple-Stiltskin said:

Agreed, but his statement was that money is subjective and fiat is objective. 

I feel that this is nitpicking and there is no reason to discuss in that level of detail. I'm sure that he did not intend to say that fiat is an "absolutely objective term", I'm sure he described fiat as objective relative too (see what i did there?) money. Anyway, I'm glad we could finally agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, P3T3RIS said:

 

What part of this is new?... You need to drop your obsession with the pairing as it would put off anyone who has studied any type of economics from going to your exchange.

P.S: I don't want to engage in this discussion again, there's enough in the other threads and the first page of this one.

Edited by xp3215233

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, opaopa said:

I feel that this is nitpicking and there is no reason to discuss in that level of detail. I'm sure that he did not intend to say that fiat is an "absolutely objective term", I'm sure he described fiat as objective relative too (see what i did there?) money. Anyway, I'm glad we could finally agree.

With all due respect:  are you his spokesman? Can I just have a discussion with an individual member, without others judging if there’s a reason to discuss that level of detail? 

I leave it up to him to decide that, and not to you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ripple-Stiltskin said:

Can I just have a discussion with an individual member, without others judging if there’s a reason to discuss that level of detail?

Yes, it's called PM. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, opaopa said:

Yes, it's called PM. :)

Now you’re the  spokesman of the whole board? 

Maybe it’s you that needs to PM more ( or add something of value to the discussion. As of now we, yes the whole board, don’t see any real contribution in your posts in this thread) .   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ripple-Stiltskin said:

Now you’re the  spokesman of the whole board? 

Maybe it’s you that needs to PM more ( or add something of value to the discussion. As of now we, yes the whole board, don’t see any real contribution in your posts in this thread) .   

I mean that if you want to have "discussion with an individual member, without others judging", maybe PM would be better? Since that is literally the function of PM. Otherwise I think you will have to put up with other users interfering, me included. It was intended as a humerus remark to your question, but i guess it went straight over your head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×