I didn't realize my statement would confuse someone into thinking it was the result of a scientifically accurate survey and not just an observation of sentiment. I apologize for the confusion.
"Most" is hardly a vague term, as it definitely means "more than 50%". Some would say it means more than 75%.
So you're boldly claiming that the company has lost over 50% of its community support. That's an incredibly damaging statement. And you're basing it on shamefully weak evidence.
If you really wanted to be vague, then the appropriate word might have been "some". So you could have said "Some people in the community have lost faith in Blockchain.info". But that wouldn't have sounded as impressive, would it? It would sound like you don't know what you're talking about and you don't have any real proof. So you went with the bold and confident "most".
> Do you have any specific ones you want an answer for?
Frankly, after this discussion, absolutely all of them, because you seem to be prone to exaggeration, to put it mildly.
You seem fixated on my choice of wording. I've explained my meaning. I could have also said "many" and been factually correct and with the same impressiveness. I've apologized for confusing you but if you're just going to keep going on about it there is really no point in us continuing to discuss things.
>Frankly, after this discussion, absolutely all of them, because you seem to be prone to exaggeration, to put it mildly.
Well go ahead and copy any paste any of the ones you are unsure of here and I'll reply.
>Well go ahead and copy any paste any of the ones you are unsure of here and I'll reply.
I said "all of them", but who has time for that? Just take another statement of yours as an example:
>"2014 Was meant to be the year of Bitcoin" based on the claims of all the leading people in the bitcoin world outside of Gavin.[1]
"All" the leading figures in the Bitcoin world, except one, said 2014 would be the year of Bitcoin? Really?
I'm sure "some" of them said that, or some kind of bullish statement of that sort, but even if you'd claimed that, you'd still run into an argument about who are "the leading figures" anyway.
It's the way you frequently employ these sweeping generalizations and broad exaggerations to support your arguments that makes me more and more inclined to discount any statement you make.
Probably some of what you say is true. But basically you seem to spew out assertions without checking them. You have a terrible habit of stating your opinions as facts. I suspect you may even be twisting the facts to better support your claims, in the heat of an argument. So how can I trust you? I don't have time to sort out the truth from the half-truths and exaggerations.
The leading figures in an industry are pretty easy to pick out. They are the most influential/well known figures. My list would be Silbert, Gavin, Andreas, Shrem, Ver, Garzik, Voorhees, the Winklevoss brothers, and Tony Galappi(In the order I thought of them not of influence).
All of who except for Gavin(and almost never Garzik) have at points claimed it would be the big break out year. That it was going to the moon this year, $XX,XXX coins, that big investors were arriving any day now, etc.
The problem you seem to have is that you are a literalist and are unable to understand when someone uses broad words in conversational English to imply meaning instead of specifics.
I'm confident most people can understand that when I say "all the leading people" that I mean "the majority of the most well known influencers".
>So how can I trust you? I don't have time to sort out the truth from the half-truths and exaggerations.
How can you trust me? I think its clear that you cannot as you seem to want to take everything I say literally.
You haven't even counted them. You're providing no real data.
There's no way that it justifies your stark claim that "most people in the community have lost faith in Blockchain.info".
Why do you feel the need to enhance your argument with exaggeration and unsupported assertions?
reply