A quick search converges on a ponzi being "an investment scheme that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors" (uh-oh, Bitcoin).
What's a word for an intellectual ponzi in which one advances an argument/graphic that depends entirely on people not googling?
This is not even a question to anyone who pays attention—Bitcoin IS going to infinity, the only questions are "infinity in terms of what?" and "wait doesn't that require a unit and create an unresolvable paradox?" and "did I just get taken in by semantically empty content again?"
In an age of bad-faith arguments it's rare to see such truth in a statement. Kodak had zero foresight; if only they could see how often we'd all pull out our digital cameras, check the batteries, check the memory card, snap a photo, transfer it to a USB, and get it printed at CVS
Anyone who doubts Bitcoin bulls is not paying attention.
$30k Bitcoin "much sooner than people expect" is 100% unprovable and almost guaranteed to be correct due to a vague timeline about unspecified people. This is brilliantly disingenuous, and why bet against brilliant people?
This is an incredibly powerful commentary on the absurdity of modern rhetoric. By taking a well-known phrase and injecting "Bitcoin" such that the semantics become nonsensical, Saylor is able to create an incomprehensible piece, expertly reflecting the recent perversion of logic.
"...for people who were forced to flee [Ukraine], Bitcoin proved the be a much better store of value than gold"
Homie, bitcoin was $38333.75 on 2/24/22; gold was $1908.90. When you published this, gold was $1928.29 (+1.02%) and Bitcoin was $23774.65 (-37.98%). This is icky math
Check out my views and outlook on Bitcoin and the entire cryptocurrency & #blockchain world.
Spoiler alert: I am VERY bullish on Bitcoin 🚀
#BTC#Crypto#Bitcoin
https://t.co/Vx5MFlkHsA