I simply asked you to research more info about these power generation systems and the grid implications. Most sources either lie or ignore it. Why is that?
Here's a simple question for you. What happens to grid stability, reliability, and energy costs once 50% is solar or wind? Did you even know the early adopters got free infrastructure rides? Might this fact give the false impression of lower costs which are hidden behind preexisting infrastructure? What changes at 50% demarcation?
I'm not playing ring around the rosie with you. Saying BTC is a petro-pegged asset is ludicrous and I think you know that. This is a semantics argument at best. If everything is pegged to petro$, there is zero point in making that the brunt of your argument. I'm not going to give up the frame to your retarded treasure hunt either.
You're traveling way too far away from the original argument here. Go play retard with someone else.
We replied at the same time.
I'll accept your response as admission you know I'm right but simply don't want to admit it.
Take care.
You aren't right. You keep wanting to veer off course and I don't care to. There are limits to a petro-pegged nature of of crypto. You don't care about the nuance and are using an abstract semantics argument and are distracting me away from the original exchange, which is pretty meaningless to begin with. You think crypto being tethered to petro makes any difference. Guess what, so is every other asset class. The big difference is the exceeding trend of crypto away from the petro peg, which you conveniently don't notice. I'm not playing this semantics bullshit with you where you send me on some treasure hunt. Do this pilpul shit with someone else. It being pegged to petro$ is meaningfless and I think you know that.
You don't get to feign victory because I'm done playing your games. This is a bad faith argument at best. Fuck yourself, brainlet.
(post is archived)