@zepto I do agree with the last section of your child comment to this thread. I can't reply to it. I had no idea that there is limit to hierarchy of comments in HN.

>> It’s not surprising you aren’t getting it.

> Projecting on me maybe?

By ‘it’ I mean the discussion you say you want.

>> I don’t see this as encouraging people to discuss solving the Bitcoin energy problem.

> I am just pointing out that it's the behavior like yours that encourages polarization.

Is it?

> I don't see how that prevents people from discussing?

It doesn’t but when you accuse people of causing polarization, you discourage them from wanting to do so with you.

> This is probably part of why you got accused of whataboutism.

> You don't read the full comments, do you?

You don’t explain why you think this.

> I actually thought you were making some sense when you pointed out the flaw in my argument in your first comment but now I think you just want to troll.

I’m just pointing out that you didn’t act like someone who wanted to discuss the bitcoin energy problem, and so people aren’t likely to do so with you.

The fact that you changed your position isn’t enough for you to win back any trust on this, especially since you haven’t offered anything to the discussion except that.

My suggestion is that if you really want to discuss the energy problem, you try again later somewhere else, but this time:

1. start out by saying that, rather than the opposite.

2. Keep the focus on the energy problem with Bitcoin, rather than how to generate more energy.

That will help you to avoid being accused of whataboutism.

3. Avoid accusing people of trolling or ‘causing polarization’.