What claim did I make exactly? There were none.
I highlighted 2 points in a post made by anabolic where he provided his reasons for not getting involved in bitcoin.
"The longer this goes on unabated, the more I believe government created it. They want a cashless society. That's not a good thing. Right now you have to convert it back to dollars in order to spend it."
Are you able to freely transact in bitcoin? What if the most major governments switch to BTC. Who would be right. You or Anabolic?
"TPTB have to keep their fiat scam system going and cryptos are the future of it. I'm stay far away from these things, I don't care how high they go."
For arguments sake, let's say he doesn't care about being wealthy and doesn't care how high prices went. He had his reasons for not wanting to get involved, just like you have your reasons for hodling BTC. Both are equally valid to the individual, so who is right here?
As I said when I quoted his post. It will be the passage of time that will show us know who was right. There is also still a good chance you'll both be wrong. (Buy ETH and LRC)
Of course you don't need to "convert it into a dollar to spend it". That comment from Mr A is as idiotic now, as it was back then when he made it.
Of course we will see Government coins (and these will both track spending, and not be limited in supply). Bitcoin is not the enemy here, nor is it a trojan horse - rather, Bitcoin is our defence against Government issued digital money. Governments not only will, over time, recognize the legitimacy of Bitcoin, but they indeed have no choice but to do so.
As for who was right, obviously it was me. He called Bitcoin "a Ponzi scheme", and "a bubble of nothingness doomed to fail." I explained to him that it was the future decentralized monetary system of the world.
No Government can control Bitcoin as Bitcoin is not sovereign to any country - its global, decentralized, amorphous, and immutable. Government's can certainly adopt its usage though (which of course would be a huge boost to its overall value due to the fixed supply). We are now starting to see this occur in various ways globally, whether its allowing taxes to be paid in Sats, allowing employees to be paid in Sats, allowing banks to use Sats, recognizing disputes relates to Sats as solvable under the existing established legal system, or even (in the case of El Salvador) making it an actual official currency.
So yes, Mr A gave reasons, but they were of course all either wrong, illogical, false, un-ethical, spiteful, obstinate, pig-headed, misguided, deceptive, misleading, or irrational.
