Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't really an either-or. We refuted and continue to refute any objective claims he makes while concurrently posting his widely inaccurate predictions from the past. Don't forget, we're attacking someone who is using his reputation as an economist to speak with authority on Bitcoin. The only way you can refute the authority is to refute the individual's previous claims. And it isn't like we've been hiding under…
> The problem with Bitcoin is that the people that informed about it are usually tilt pro-Bitcoin[1], while the people that are against Bitcoin usually haven't done enough research into economics, mathematics, and politics. 99% of this board haven't done the research Mr. Krugman has done in economics, or even have the experience in applied math he does. But "those who are pro bitcoin are smart, those who are against…
Furthermore, I said that the majority of people that have really dug into how bitcoin works and what it would mean, tilt pro-bitcoin.
That doesn't mean that the people who are pro-bitcoin are smart.
That doesn't mean that there arn't people that have dug into it and are against it.
All it means is that generally when we see Krugman's simplistic objections we roll our eyes like you would roll your eyes at Oprah explaining credit default swaps to her audience. We've responded to his claims over and over. It is getting boring and old.