Key Post Bitcoin is a clearly identifiable economic bubble

tecate

Registered User
Messages
1,919
OK, let's keep it simple. You said it here:



Are you sticking to that line that PCs 'started' to be shipped in the 1990s?
I was responding to something you brought up. You seem to have some obsession with this - despite me pointing out "I have no idea where you're going with this or what the relevance is."

The bottom line here Leo is that I've cited multiple sources from people far better placed than you that outline that criminals are early adopters of technology. You disagree - fine. In the context of what you present with here, there's little that sways me towards your view. Others can make up their own minds.

I'd suggest we park it up. However, if you insist, then you can come back and answer this -> Where did the FT say that mid 90s users were early adopters?
 

Leo

Moderator
Messages
14,166
I was responding to something you brought up.

No, you first raised to point that criminals are early adopters of technology in post #375. I've challenged that and your links to date have only served to prove my argument that criminals generally only adopt technology once it becomes mainstream.
 

tecate

Registered User
Messages
1,919
No, you first raised to point that criminals are early adopters of technology in post #375. I've challenged that and your links to date have only served to prove my argument that criminals generally only adopt technology once it becomes mainstream.
They explicitly state that "criminals are early adopters of technology". You can take that up with them if you wish. As regards what you've expanded on here, you have not proven a counter argument. ...and I could go out and come back with the views of more professionals in the law enforcement/tech space along the same lines if there was a need to.

We won't agree - and that's perfectly fine. We can park it up where it is and people can make up their own minds.
 

Leo

Moderator
Messages
14,166
They explicitly state that "criminals are early adopters of technology".

They do, but they don't post here. You do post here, and you made the claim here first, later posting those links to back up your argument. All I was asking you to do is back up your assertion with details of where criminals were early adopters of technology. You have so far failed to do that.

For criminal use of drones for example, show me something from the '40s or '50s. The gives you a very generous 40+ years after their development. The only reports I have been able to find originate in 2010, more than 90 years after drones were first developed, and after they were mass produced and widely available.
 

tecate

Registered User
Messages
1,919
They do, but they don't post here.
Have you considered a career in stand up? You've got some great material.

All I was asking you to do...
Not dancing to your tune...
is back up your assertion
Assertion underpinned by the views of people far better placed than you - people who work at the intersection of cybercrime and tech. Now you can dissect where they're wrong as you wish - but you've done no such thing. You took issue with the FT as to their classification of early adopters but when asked this -> where did the FT say that mid 90s users were early adopters? - you can't answer it.
For the benefit of the overall discussion, I've asked you to park this up but you seem determined to drive a perfectly good discussion off a cliff.
 
Last edited:

Leo

Moderator
Messages
14,166
Not dancing to your tune...

That's the trouble with a lot of Bitcoin debate. Many of the evangelists can't back up their claims, and when pushed they just deflect.

I've asked you to park this up but you seem determined to drive a perfectly good discussion off a cliff.

This is a forum discussion, you should expect to be challenged on the points you make. In my opinion, a perfectly good discussion on a forum such as this is where opinions are challenged, and when that happens posters look to back their claims up with whatever evidence they can. That evidence can then be challenged, and people make their minds up regarding its veracity. That's how debate moves on, not by allowing posters to make unsubstantiated claims without question.
 

tecate

Registered User
Messages
1,919
That's the trouble with a lot of Bitcoin debate. Many of the evangelists can't back up their claims, and when pushed they just deflect.
You can mis-characterise my views on Bitcoin and cryptocurrency all you want. All that does is reflect on you and the mindset you approach this discussion with. Claims were backed up - it's you that can't back up jack in this instance.

This is a forum discussion, you should expect to be challenged on the points you make.
Indeed - and when that discussion is had and there's no new information being brought by either party, what's helpful is to park it up - not waste peoples time. You were invited to do that umpteen times but you won't.

when that happens posters look to back their claims up with whatever evidence they can.
My point of view is underpinned by the opinion of people with authority on the subject. You take issue with their opinions but when challenged ( where did the FT say that mid 90s users were early adopters? ), you come up empty.
 

Leo

Moderator
Messages
14,166
where did the FT say that mid 90s users were early adopters?

You posted that article to back up your assertion that criminals are early adopters of technology. The subject of the article speaks about computer crime, the only timeframe he references is the mid '90s. My assumption is that he mistakenly believed the mid-'90s were early.

You doubled down on that by stating:

They started to be shipped in the 1990's.

Do you still claim this to be true? Have you found any actual reports on real criminal early adopters of PCs? Drones? AI?

On the second article you posted...if everyone but me thinks there is plenty of evidence to support your case that criminals are early adopters of technology, why did you choose to link an article that didn't contain a single example of past early-adoption, but instead focused on how criminals might use certain mass-market technologies in the future?
 

tecate

Registered User
Messages
1,919
You posted that article to back up your assertion that criminals are early adopters of technology. The subject of the article speaks about computer crime, the only timeframe he references is the mid '90s. My assumption is that he mistakenly believed the mid-'90s were early.
Well, we must be getting to the heart of the issue. Your 'assumptions'. You're reaching. They clearly state that "criminals are early adopters of technology." My point isn't made on assumption - it's based on unambiguous statements from people better qualified to speak to the matter than you.

You doubled down on that by stating:
Ah, I 'doubled down' on your assumption, did I? If I recall, I asked you repeatedly what that had to do with the discussion. Let me tell you quite clearly what I'm doubling and tripling down on -> I've cited statements to the effect of "criminals are early adopters of technology" - from multiple sources. Those sources by and large come from people who work law enforcement related to technology. Your 'assumption' has done nothing to convince me otherwise.

Do you still claim this to be true? Have you found any actual reports on real criminal early adopters of PCs? Drones? AI?
If you want to disprove multiple authoritative sources have at it. That doesn't involve me running around fetching things based on your assumptions.

On the second article you posted...if everyone but me thinks there is plenty of evidence to support your case that criminals are early adopters of technology, why did you choose to link an article that didn't contain a single example of past early-adoption, but instead focused on how criminals might use certain mass-market technologies in the future?
I posted multiple links to articles which explicitly stated that "criminals are early adopters of technology". By and large, they're statements from experts in law enforcement from a technology perspective. That's what I posted. You're more than welcome to disprove them - but we're still waiting on that.

Here's a few more for you:

Visions of Law Enforcement Technology in the Period 2024-2034
The report states: "Criminals are early adopters of technology".
How about 'The Routledge Handbook of Technology, Crime and Justice' which dedicates a whole chapter to the reality that criminals are early adopters of technology.
Or the New York Times and Wall Street Journal best seller, 'Future Crimes: Everything is connected, everyone is vulnerable and what we can do about it'. It states "criminals are early adopters of technology".
From cyber security company RSA Labs: [broken link removed]
Marc Goodman of the Futures Crime Institute: "We have to both understand and appreciate the fact that criminals and terrorists are often early adopters of technology".
 

Leo

Moderator
Messages
14,166
They clearly state that "criminals are early adopters of technology."

So they state it, just like you did before you posted those links. Now, where do they provide evidence to back that up? Can you provide any evidence to back up how you formed your view?

I can post links where people state with certainty that the earth is only 6,000 years old. Do you accept that as fact?
 

tecate

Registered User
Messages
1,919
So they state it, just like you did before you posted those links. Now, where do they provide evidence to back that up? Can you provide any evidence to back up how you formed your view?
You've got this the wrong way round. I've presented multiple statements from authoritative sources. YOU are the one that's free to deconstruct that. I don't have to go running around as per your agenda. If I have commentary on what you come back with, you can rest assured I'll post accordingly. As it stands right now, you have not come back with anything that dismantles the viewpoint of people who work in law enforcement relative to cyber crime and technology.

There is a great opportunity for you here though. If you can actually prove the point that you're trying to make (that criminals are not early adopters of tech), then it seems you could get this published. From the endless links I've posted, you can see that the widely held belief is that criminals are early adopters of tech. This could be ground breaking material.
 

Leo

Moderator
Messages
14,166
I've presented multiple statements from authoritative sources.

Multiple statements with zero facts does not make a truth.

I have searched myself for any evidence or even reporting of criminals as early adopters of drones, AI, and PCs, but the only reports I can find for any of these originate long after the early adopter phase and coincide with mass adoption.

There is a great opportunity for you here though. If you can actually prove the point that you're trying to make (that criminals are not early adopters of tech), then it seems you could get this published.

So you're asking me to prove a negative! Come up with a Russell's Teapot if you will. If you'll accept proof of absence then the statement above that google is unable to find a single report of early adoption should suffice.
 

tecate

Registered User
Messages
1,919
Multiple statements with zero facts does not make a truth.
Multiple statements from authoritative sources based on their professional experience have to be respected. That's not to say that they can't be disproven - have at it. There's nothing in what you've come out with that changes things as far as I'm concerned. But please hold whatever belief you feel comfortable with. Others can come to their own conclusions. That's where this sidebar should have been parked up many posts ago. Or we can keep going. As you wish.
 

Leo

Moderator
Messages
14,166
Multiple statements from authoritative sources based on their professional experience have to be respected.

So you still can't source a single example of a reported criminal early adopter?

There's nothing in what you've come out with that changes things as far as I'm concerned.

It's clear you base your beliefs on something other than facts.
 

tecate

Registered User
Messages
1,919
So you still can't source a single example of a reported criminal early adopter?
I've provided nine citations from people far better placed than yourself to gauge it - people who work at the periphery between tech and law enforcement. A couple of those include books or comprehensive specialist reports that encompass the subject. Within that, examples have been given of tech that has been used in the past at early adopter stage. And before you ask - no, I'm not playing any further games here. Go and review the articles - the information is there. I'm not running around fetching things for you beyond what I've already done.

It's clear you base your beliefs on something other than facts.
Well, you seem to be at war with the world on this one. As before, believe what you want Leo. Others can make up their own minds. And for the record, given the way you approach stuff, I wouldn't have any trust in directions from you - let alone anything else.
 

tecate

Registered User
Messages
1,919
I've read them all, I'm still waiting for just a single example.
That's untrue - but everyone can make their own minds up. Notwithstanding that, I refer you back to my previous post. I won't be going round fetching stuff for your review.
 
Top