As regards requests from here on out - go fish. That kindness has been expended given what you and your co-travelers are about here.
However, I will say this. It's implicit when taken in the context of the discussion as a whole as it pertained to regulation over the past two days.
What puts that further beyond doubt is your support of the other two carnival workers - who pitched in on your behalf. If you agreed with me, why didn't you post "i agree"? If that was too much for you to stomach, why didn't you correct them? You can try to wriggle out of this as much as you want - it's patently obvious.
Excuse me, as you pointed out yesterday this is a free forum and other contributors are free to post what they like. I have no control over what or how others interpret your attacks, and it is certainly not my response to clarify.
I introduced the topic of regulation in the specific context of the market infrastructure, you added some wishy washy statement that regulation can be good and bad, that's great and should be painfully obvious to everyone that I didn't feel the need to mention it. Your claims that I propose 'blanket regulation' should be easily provable, but now at the third time you've finally admitted that you've said it was 'implied', I'll accept that as you admitting. So I am not sure why you are asking me to agree with a point I made in the first place?
What would be helpful to your assertion here is if that's what I actually stated - it's not. I said that regulation for the most part can and oftentimes is - good. I added that that's not always the case and that care has to be taken to ensure that regulation is sympathetic to the innovation on hand. Worldwide, there are plenty of examples of wayward regulation as it pertains to crypto/blockchain. Now, I NEVER claimed to be an expert on regulation but there's no need to be to figure those basics out.
That is painfully obvious your lack of expertise, even now you are talking about regulation of crypto at the macroeconomic level whereas the only comments I have made are regulation as it pertains to the financial market infrastructure. It is ok if you don't know about there was just no need to try and argue on a different topic.
Oh, no you don't! I brought that up in direct response to sustained declarations of your superior knowledge whilst ridiculing mine. It took me three years to get to that - and only when provoked by your arrogant outbursts. There are well over 1000 posts of mine here - all pertaining to this subject area. Find me a post where I lord it over other discussion participants on the basis of me claiming to have superior knowledge. You're here two minutes and there are a few such examples.
Tecate, wise up, you tried to ascertain your knowledge on the topic of by boasting about how much money you have made. It has nothing to do with any comments I or anyone else has made. Own your own statements please. I have still not seen anything from you that doesn't suggest I have more rounded understanding of crypto.
You were invited a number of times to set out your rationale - and initially ignored that - then refused to do so. Between that and your behaviour, your interaction with some others here - and your commentary on the subject in general, it's clear enough. No further clarification is required - It's no longer of interest to me (ergo, there's no mystery in it any more).
This is a lie, I set it out the previous discussion with you. However, what relevance does my overall stance on BTC have to do with the topic I have discussed here. You have already admitted you agreed with my stance on regulation. Why are you hellbent on categorizing people as 'naysayers', is that the only way you can rationalize your own views? If I am a naysayer, what does that make you? As it would then suggest that you are just blindly following bitcoin.