> that is burning energy for the sake of maintaining a ledger of fictional possessions.
The original comment is obviously not using "fictional" to mean "intangible", as it is dismissive.
Since you used the word "fictional" as a continuation of the original usage without clarification at the time, one must assume, given the context, that you meant the same thing. Anything else would not be reasonable in context.
But again, nobody outside of this very discussion has ever used "fictional" when they really mean "intangible". "Imaginary" maybe, but not "fictional". I think we both know that this was a post-facto rationalization of your own unnecessarily dismissive comment.
I'm not the person who said "fictional", and my comment was not dismissive. Further, you stating something as true doesn't make it true, nor is it true if you blindly claim "one must assume". No, one must not assume, there is no one holding a gun to your head forcing you to be obtuse.
I do appreciate you proving just how defensive Bitcoin people are, that is nice.
Please don't do flamewars here and please don't go back to breaking the site guidelines again. Regardless of how wrong or annoying it feels like the other person is.
The original comment is obviously not using "fictional" to mean "intangible", as it is dismissive.
Since you used the word "fictional" as a continuation of the original usage without clarification at the time, one must assume, given the context, that you meant the same thing. Anything else would not be reasonable in context.
But again, nobody outside of this very discussion has ever used "fictional" when they really mean "intangible". "Imaginary" maybe, but not "fictional". I think we both know that this was a post-facto rationalization of your own unnecessarily dismissive comment.