so, just to be clear, you deny every single one of the following, you fail to realise — or outright deny — that this is an impersonation of him and his ego, and you think it’s all really about my ego?
I look forward to your response …
- he wrote a foreword to a book he hadn’t read about a concept he doesn’t understand.
- he revealed as much by slandering a world expert in *something else* he doesn’t understand, who was mentioned in this book.
- he thinks owning Bitcoin as in controlling UTXOs is the same as owning it as in controlling the client software.
- he thinks people walk around with the Bitcoin source code memorised because he doesn’t understand what “code” is.
- he thinks Bitcoin can be rebooted tomorrow because he doesn’t understand consensus development.
- he thinks Bitcoin is “the first organic currency”.
- he thinks he is smarter than Satoshi Nakamoto and that he invented the Lightning Network.
- he has repeatedly stabbed people in the back in public over concerns they relayed to him in private.
- he thinks “left boundedness” explains prospect theory.
- he told people having a fruitful conversation without him and unrelated to anything he has ever said that they need to “read his fucking paper [about something else] and then bullshit.” (i.e. tweet)
- he makes it impossible for the ergodicity economics research programme to spread on twitter.
- he cites papers he hasn’t read about concepts he doesn’t understand, while writing in the book proof that he hasn’t read it and doesn’t understand it.
- he writes academic papers attempting to debunk other academic papers, and allegedly for the sake of public health in which he gratuitously references a concept he doesn’t understand in a way that makes no sense and throws the rest of the paper into question.
- he cites mathematical theorems he doesn’t understand to make irrelevant points that only a bullshitting imbecile would think were related.
- he thinks that when he repurposes a phrase, anybody using the phrase in its original, correct, sense has committed the crime of both failing to read his book and failing to understand the concept.
- he uses concepts he doesn’t understand to intimidate people with whom he wants to win arguments.
- he uses a technical word 17 times in one of his books. 13 of the usages were provably incorrect.
- he uses mathematical concepts that are also English words to give the impression of understanding and intelligence, then proceeds to use the English meaning while pretending he is speaking mathematically. he does this purely for the sake of intimidation given he doesn’t *really* understand the topics he discusses at any deep level.
- he willingly cultivates and gives the impression of being a brilliant trader, when in fact he got very lucky one time, then ran a hedge fund that had entirely middling returns. he will sue you for defamation if you say so. he then stepped back so his younger, brilliant associate, could make some real money without his idiotic influence.
- he could disprove this by publishing his returns, with proof, as I have challenged him to.
obviously you aren’t going to bother rebutting a single one of these, but if you could indicate which you disagree with, that would be appreciated.
it really is incredible the extent to which people bend over backwards to defend him. let me ask you one final question: if you said one single thing half as stupid or evil as anything I have listed here and you have failed to refute, do you think he would give you the benefit of the doubt that you are trying to give him?
if so, you are truly in a cult.