One of cash's characteristics is that I can give my neighbor $1 and my net worth drops by exactly $1 and theirs goes up by that amount. There's no fee.

Yes

> cryptocurrencies have most of the characteristics of cash

> untraceable cryptocurrency while keeping all of cash’s characteristics

Surely this is a place where a good faith reading solves the conundrum. If the author had written, "while keeping the cash-like characteristics" we wouldn't be here and they would have made the same point they were trying to make.

Fwiw, I guess I'm not particularly up on crypto or coin lore.

I've been very aware of it since many many moons ago.

Even then, I guess I don't know what's obviously bad faith.

The other user's comment doesn't appear bad faith to me.

In fact, I thought it was clever, as it advanced my understanding of matters as they are.

Am I wrong?

Am I doing bad faith?

Are we sure they are?

It’s a common rhetorical trick to refute one thing someone said and pretend it refutes everything they said. I honestly don’t know how to say it better than I did in my initial comment.

What if the author had just written "while keeping the cash-like characteristics" instead of "while keeping all of cash’s characteristics"? Does that meaningfully change the author’s point? I don’t think so and I would expect someone reading the article in good faith isn’t going to say, "But you said all!"

No, you’re not wrong.

No, your comment does not seem to be in bad faith.

The comment I initially responded to absolutely was.

Gently, I'd ask you to consider reading both mine, and his, comments with some more grace, whether it be theirs with charity, or mine with respect for what I mean.

Their comment was absolutely not in bad faith.

With grace, I would say not everyone has as considered views as you do. That can make it challenging and frustrating to deal with because you know better.

It's worth showing them, or at least telling them, instead of discussing your opinion of their motivations for saying things, which we can agree is, at best, mind-reading among strangers in a textual format.

The cryptocurrency field is so overrun with bullshitters and con artists that I have a hard time being very charitable. You're right though - I should have just assumed that they were exaggerating for rhetorical effect and not trying to mislead.

That's not actually true. The fee is implicit in the continuous and perpetual inflationary devaluation of the currency. Moreover, this fee applies whether you transact or not.

Inflation in not a transaction fee. At most you could call inflation a cost. You sound like you're just playing with words.

I said as much. Inflation is a holding cost. Ultimately, all costs matter, whether for holding or for transacting.

You didn't say as much. You said inflation is a fee; inflation is not a fee.

Inflation is 100% in effect a fee on holding.

As the saying goes, if it quacks/walks/acts like a duck, you can decorate it with all the lies you want; it is a duck.