This isn't really an either-or. We refuted and continue to refute any objective claims he makes while concurrently posting his widely inaccurate predictions from the past. Don't forget, we're attacking someone who is using his reputation as an economist to speak with authority on Bitcoin. The only way you can refute the authority is to refute the individual's previous claims.
And it isn't like we've been hiding under a rock. We're just getting tired of doing it. He's an overrated economist that nobody that greatly understands Bitcoin takes seriously. He's like Opera, accessible to the masses, emotionally involved, but utterly void of a deep understanding of the issues involved.
If you want to make widely inaccurate claims about something that is controversial you are going to get lots of upvotes. The problem with Bitcoin is that the people that informed about it are usually tilt pro-Bitcoin[1], while the people that are against Bitcoin usually haven't done enough research into economics, mathematics, and politics.
[1] We're not the lunatics that post on /r/bitcoin everytime Bitcoin doubles. Many of us see valid challenges ahead for Bitcoin, especially from the government.
And it isn't like we've been hiding under a rock. We're just getting tired of doing it. He's an overrated economist that nobody that greatly understands Bitcoin takes seriously. He's like Opera, accessible to the masses, emotionally involved, but utterly void of a deep understanding of the issues involved.
If you want to make widely inaccurate claims about something that is controversial you are going to get lots of upvotes. The problem with Bitcoin is that the people that informed about it are usually tilt pro-Bitcoin[1], while the people that are against Bitcoin usually haven't done enough research into economics, mathematics, and politics.
[1] We're not the lunatics that post on /r/bitcoin everytime Bitcoin doubles. Many of us see valid challenges ahead for Bitcoin, especially from the government.