I used to be skeptical about Bitcoin

[Hugh Akston]

I used to be skeptical but I took the blue pill and now I understand!

 

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/money/nsamint/nsamint.htm

[ribuck]

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

 

The NSA paper advocates centralized cryptocurrencies (such as the Canadian Government's "MintChip" system). Are you saying that, as a result of reading this paper, you now advocate decentralized cryptocurrencies? That would be the red pill, surely.

[Hugh Akston]

No, I'm saying I'm skeptical and the lack of skepticism is suspicious.

[ribuck]

I still can't make sense of what you're saying.

 

Your topic header mentions Bitcoin, but your link is not about Bitcoin. You say you're skeptical, but about what? "The lack of skepticism" is suspicious, apparently, but whose lack of skepticism are you suspicious about?

 

Surely you are not suggesting a general lack of skepticism about Bitcoin? Bitcoin has been subject to a huge amount of skepticism, even from many of the Mises guys whom one would think would understand it better.

 

Anyway, skepticism shouldn't last long. Rational enquiry will soon determine the truth about that which caused the skepticism.

[Wesley]

No, I'm saying I'm skeptical and the lack of skepticism is suspicious.

This is curious, because I think you have no idea how much skepticism I have had or how much I have researched or tested bitcoin. So you are saying there is a lack of skepeticism, but you seem to have no idea.

 

Not to mention that the code is open source, so anyone who can read the code doesn't need much as far as skepticism goes, for they can read it themselves.