Bells
Staff member
Given he has also discussed the risks and how people can lose everything... For example:Imagine for a moment, this hypothetical possibility: Sarkus in fact works as a crypocurrency trader. He is paid on commission every time he facilitates a transaction to buy Bitcoin. It is clearly in his interest to have as many people buy Bitcoin as possible. So, he spreads the "good news" about what a wonderful investment Bitcoin is as far and wide as he can. He drops financial advice into social conversations in real life and on social media. He urges people to invest in Bitcoin. He comes to sciforums and tells everybody that Bitcoin is a sound long-term investment, and gives lots of reasons that sound reasonable.
None of us here know that this hypothetical is false. Why? Because Sarkus refuses stridently to say anything about his vested interests in Bitcoin.
How well do you think his sales pitch is going?To a large extent they have already burst - at least those not pegged to a stable currency (i.e. the "stablecoins"). Bitcoin peaked at c.USD64k and is now at just c.25% of that.
Nothing he has posted on this site would be subject to such a query.I have been very clear that I do not stand to benefit financially from posting anything to sciforums. Somebody asked me - just like I asked Sarkus. The difference is, I answered the question in a straightforward, honest way, whereas Sarkus has flatly refused to say even so much as whether he has any interest at all in Bitcoin.
And if he did have a vested interest, he would declare it, as most organisations would have a set of procedures and ethical conduct requirements that employees have to abide by.All that is really required to raise the ethical issue is a reasonable-person perception that one might conceivably benefit in some way. If that's there, there is an ethical duty to disclose any conflict of interest that one actually has.
Or perhaps he is refusing to tell you about what investments he may, etc, have because it is a very personal question and you are just some dude on the internet. How would you feel if someone asked you where you worked?It is very easy to say "No, I don't have a vested interest" if you don't, in fact, have a vested interest. A person who refuses to say that and who gets all antsy when asked invites a reasonable level of suspicion that they have something they want to hide.
Do you ask people who spruik whatever political ideology or party they belong to if they have a vested interest or are members of that party? How about in the various vaccine threads that have existed on this site where people have encouraged others to get vaccines? Have you demanded if they have a vested interest in the pharmaceutical companies that make vaccines? How about the religious posters who keep referring to the bible? Asked them if they have a vested interest in the sites or companies that publish bibles? I could go on, but you get my drift..In a previous post, I highlighted in bold a number of statements from both Sarkus and Seattle that speak admiringly about Bitcoin and its many virtues. Their posts read as promotion of Bitcoin, so I asked the question. I stand by the opinion that it was not at all unreasonable for me to do that, in circumstances.
Or perhaps, you are reading way too much into what they are posting and you have created wild hypotheticals and expect them to answer for it, and it has become personal for all concerned.In the end, this is just standard belligerence from that pair, who often act like a couple of 20 year old males trying to make themselves centre of attention in the pub with their loud "look at me" complaints. Tiassa has coddled and affirmed them, which hasn't helped at all.
Okay...?I don't know what's so difficult about this. They will do what they will do. I will have my opinion about the ethics of appropriate disclosure of vested interests. Nobody is holding a gun to somebody's head. Nobody has to agree with me. Your ethics - or lack thereof - are your own business. Speaking for myself, I just usually try to avoid dealing with people whom I perceive to have questionable ethics. That is what I will do in this case, like any other. Everybody else is free to make his or her own personal choices in this, too; nobody has to follow me on this.
I think that's kind of going both ways at the moment. You enjoy butting heads with him as he enjoys butting heads with you. You kind of sought this out. They don't have to agree with your assessment of their ethical standards and vice-versa. At the end of the day, their investments, employment, personal details is kind of their business. I have seen nothing whatsoever in any of the threads this has been concerned with (and believe me, this hasn't been enjoyable reading) that would suggest a vested interest. A mild obsession? Sure. But a vested interest? No.I understand why Sarkus wants to continue to butt heads with me - he's carrying lots of other baggage from previous interactions with me.
Please do!I understand that Tiassa wants to continue to be a dick, too. But I think that, possibly, the rest of us can move on.
This is not moving on!"Do you have a vested interest in Bitcoin?"
"No, I don't."
If, in fact, Sarkus did not have a vested interest in Bitcoin and/or its promotion, it should be easy for him to answer the question. But, instead, we get page after page of juvenile histrionics and excuses. For me, this all tends to reinforce my suspicion that he is trying to hide something. Your opinion seems to be different, which is just fine. I'm entitled to my view; you're entitled to yours.
I'll be blunt. He is under absolutely no expectation to disclose anything personal about himself. Pressuring him to and coming up with hypotheticals about why he isn't answering such personal questions is what exactly?
You have spent quite a few pages guessing about what he does..With respect, you're just guessing that "that's all". Neither you, nor anybody else here, knows whether Sarkus has a vested interest he should be disclosing, because he flat-out refuses to answer the question.
Yes, among his excuses are arguments about his faulty "principles". I have explained at some length why those haven't convinced me that it was wrong for me to ask the question, or that it is wrong to expect an actual reply.
And why should he convince you about something so personal? Do you want him to send you a screenshot of his investment portfolio so you can be convinced that he does not have a vested interest? You are literally asking him to disclose something very personal, James. He's told you that he does not believe that he should answer that and you keep asking him to. Boundaries, dude. Boundaries! Whether he owns Bitcoins or shares or whatever, has absolutely no bearing on this discussion or his posts about Bitcoins or any cryptocurrency. Having a personal interest in a subject does not always mean having a vested interest and if he owns Bitcoins, then good for him and good luck to him and let's hope it doesn't crash. That should be the end of it. If you do not like Bitcoins or do not see a value in it, then that is your opinion and you are free to it, just as his opinion is different to yours and he is free to that opinion as well. That does not mean he has a vested interest in it and it does not give you or anyone else the right to question him repeatedly about what his vested interests may be and what his investments may or may not be.
It sounds like Sarkus may have unloaded to you and talked you into believing I am somehow in the wrong on this. I mean, you asked whether I want to live in a police state? Or interrogate people? Really? That sounds like something Sarkus would say, not you.