Yes the corpse that just got approved for a BTC ETF with an ETH ETF on the way and with multiple companies winning lawsuits against the SEC. But sure, because it's not on HN anymore it's a corpse.
The state of the crypto world is such that i genuinely can’t tell if you’re being satirical by using a bunch of jargon and acronyms that mean nothing in the order you used them, or not
You should probably learn what an ETF is…it’s one of the most basic investment vehicles that will grow your savings reliably over the years, and most people put their 401ks (or equivalent) into them, so yes a ton of normal people know what it is.
The SEC enforces regulation (or it’s supposed to at least) around securities passed by congress.
The real question here is if you don’t even know a basic finance term like ETF, why are you trying to talk down to my statement and crypto when you clearly have no knowledge of the sector? It’s just ignorant
I wasn’t talking down the financial aspect of your comment, I was saying that the language you use is so idiosyncratic with that community that, in being an outsider, I can’t tell if you’re making fun of it, or are a part of it. “…basic investment vehicles that will grow your savings reliably…” this is what I’m talking about.
Also I’m not American so it’s not reasonable to expect me to know what the SEC is, and I don’t have a 401k. We have an entirely different retirement system in my country.
Yeah it's understandable why though from your own article:
>The PCPSR poll found that 44% of Gazans say they have enough food and water for a day or two, and 56% say that they do not. Almost two-thirds of Gazan respondents - 64% - said a member of their family had been killed or injured in the war.
>Fifty-two percent of Gazans and 85% of West Bank respondents - or 72% of Palestinian respondents overall - voiced satisfaction with the role of Hamas in the war. Only 11% of Palestinian voiced satisfaction with PA President Mahmoud Abbas.
I would wager that actually means they're satisfied that there's "someone fighting for their rights" rather than they're satisfied with terrorism.
From another article[1]:
"Israelis reject U.S. pressure to shift the war in Gaza to a phase with less heavy bombing in populated areas by a ratio of 2-1...Only 23 percent answered that Israel should agree to the U.S. demand "that Israel shifts to a different phase of the war in Gaza, with an emphasis on reducing the heavy bombing of densely populated areas...A full 75 percent of Jewish respondents said Israel should ignore the U.S. pressure"
So it seems the same number of Jewish respondents are ok with the genocide occurring right now. Like I said in another comment, both Hamas and Israel seem to have genocidal intentions but only one side is actively pursuing it at the moment.
A bit of a strange take considering every one of your points applies much more to Palestine than Israel.
>I was in my 20s and remember the feeling in the air after Al Qaeda members hijacked commercial planes and flew them into WTC in 2001. Fear, Anger, A bit of revenge
Yeah the people in Gaza feel that pretty much every day
>Many of Americans, including soviet immigrants, enlisted in the army driven by that feeling.
They also feel this, which leads to them joining Hamas and is part of the reason there are normal Palestinians who support Hamas. Terrorists don't come out of no where.
>Israelis lost significantly more of their population percentage-wise during October 7 attack perpetrated by the official government of Gaza AND as we know now, some Gazan civilians.
Yeah I mean again just flip that and the people in Gaza experience that at a much higher rate
>With that in mind, its fairly simple for me to empathize with the Israeli public who are angry at the death of their fellow citizens and want Hamas to be punished.
Same but I also empathize with all the Palestinians just trying to live their lives in an open air prison and want revenge. I think both Hamas and Israel have genocidal intent, but one has much more power and is actually carrying it out right now.
People in HN are in a massive bubble; you see it with other topics too. It's nice to look here for some tech sentiment and interesting article sometimes, but for most cutting edge stuff this forum is always full of naysayers.
There's a fair amount of ill-placed arrogance. It seems that the majority on this board confidently and incorrectly believe that they know all there really is to know about bitcoin. Essentially that it's a scam that wastes energy.
If you try to help them understand, you're generally attacked as if you are shill, and then they continue along in their ignorant bubble. It's a shame, but their attitude isn't conducive to me losing any sleep.
This is out-of-touch on so many levels. What about people born in ten years? What about people born in ten years in developing countries? The only thing crypto“currencies” have done is increase the wealth disparity and greed.
The people born in 10 years will have access to a hard money that is time proven, more stable and less risky than it was 10 years ago. They will also see the price of their bitcoin go up relative to fiat. The same goes for people born in 300 years time.
Regarding developing countries, bitcoin provides anyone with a phone access to a bank, and one that offers better savings accounts than any fiat account.
Go and study it for 100hrs and if you combine that with a bit of intelligence, you'll be in the same position as the "lucky" bitcoiners who get wealthy buying it earlier.
Alternatively wait until every man and his dog already have it and the price has stabilised and it's a no brainer (say 10 or 20 years)
It's not arrogance and not just that it is scammy or wasteful to the environment. Bitcoin is another mechanism the increases inequality.
I think Bitcoin is one of the many way that the economy is rigged against economically insecure retail investors. The more money that gets funneled from the middle class into Michael Saylor and crew's pocket the closer it brings us to civil war.
Checkout
End Times: Elites, Counter-Elites, and the Path of Political Disintegration by Peter Turchin
Ironically this is exactly what bitcoin fixes. Fiat currency is the main cause of these issues (look up the Cantillon effect as an example). It's a cancer on the world, slowly destroying it.
I highly recommend reading "The Creature from Jekyll Island" which explains everything that's wrong with central banking/fiat currencies and will help you understand the devastating effect it is having on the world.
Sure, there is a transfer of wealth while bitcoin is monetizing. But you buy bitcoin at the price you deserve. Michael Saylor deserves everything he's going to get. He's a visionary with balls of steel - he's laid it all on the line. If you try to avoid making bitcoin whales richer by not buying bitcoin, you'll simply be cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Its so annoying that Non-WBA holder around here keep arguing with me. I try and explain to them why Walgreens Boots Alliance stock is the future of investing but they are kept in their non WBA bubble.
Good luck buying WBA stock at a higher price in the future!
Bitcoin itself is a scam that wastes energy. Without custodial ownership, scam transactions are resolved no different than legitimate ones. Without diligent regulation, Bitcoin's power usage can easily balloon beyond what any single institution would consider appropriate. Both of those things are demonstrably true, and providing Bitcoin ETFs via regulated exchanges changes neither one.
Lol power usage is such a strawman argument. 1% of all electricity in USA is used watching Netflix but you don't hear people complaining. But running a global permissionless decentralised store of value currency network should supposedly be "super cheap" or it's an environmental disaster and must be stopped.
The reason that bitcoin's energy usage is a philosophical nightmare is because it's a system where energy consumption is the product. As opposed to industries which are "merely" energy-intensive, let's take aluminum refining for example, spending more energy to refine aluminum does not create more demand for aluminum, but spending more energy on bitcoin increases the price of bitcoin, which induces more demand, which increases the price, which incentivizes mining, which costs more energy, and so on in a vicious cycle. Proof of work is a problem; it's conspicuous consumption on a hyper-industrial scale, and it's coming at the absolute worst time in human history for us to be wasting energy, let alone to be inventing the optimal machine for wasting energy at an increasing rate.
Proof of Work is an energy-intensive solution to a very deep and old social problem: how do you verify transactions between parties over a great distance/online without a trusted intermediary?
Proof of work is enormously socially valuable and will change the world. Bitcoin may not be the PoW application to do it (although it also might be) but proof of work is here to stay because of the huge advantages it has over the existing system where individuals/institutions insert themselves between transactions to their own profit.
RE energy, not here to argue philosophy. Just going to point out that if that is your concern luckily the world is going over to renewables so that particular objection will be gone soon anyway.
> Just going to point out that if that is your concern luckily the world is going over to renewables so that particular objection will be gone soon anyway.
This is dangerously missing the peril of the current situation.
The problem with our current energy makeup is not "there's not enough renewables".
The problem with our current energy makeup is "there are too many carbon emissions".
As a first-order effect, it does not matter how many renewables we bring online. What matters is taking fossil fuels offline. It does not matter if renewables make up an ever-increasing percentage of an increasing energy market, because the problem is not the relative market share of fossil fuels, it is the absolute amount of emissions, which is already more than our planet can handle. And the increasing demand for energy makes taking fossil fuel plants offline less viable than it otherwise would be, and bitcoin is a nontrivial component of that and it threatens to grow at an exponential pace, which makes it an existential threat to mankind.
Please trust me when I say that I do not give a damn about the price of bitcoin. What I care about is stopping runaway energy consumption, and from that perspective proof-of-work is the biggest existential threat to humanity since the atom bomb.
Harnessing energy is the basis for civilization. The amount of energy used is highly correlated to the level of civilization.
Using energy is not an issue, it's how we produce it that matters. This applies to all forms of energy use of which bitcoin is just a tiny fraction.
Bitcoin will not compete with current energy demand which is geographically constrained. Bitcoin miners can operate at any location in the world and are incentivised to use free, unwanted, waste energy. Any miners that try to increase the demand of current energy supplies will be uneconomical and go out of business.
Also miners using more energy does not directly increase the price of bitcoin. Ultimately the amount of (otherwise wasted) energy used by the network will be limited by the transaction fees which are a free market.
> Please trust me when I say that I do not give a damn about the price of bitcoin. What I care about is stopping runaway energy consumption, and from that perspective proof-of-work is the biggest existential threat to humanity since the atom bomb.
Bitcoin energy usage accounted for 0.11% of global energy usage and you think it is the biggest threat to humanity since the A-Bomb? Bitcoin is entirely irrelevant to the grand scheme of things re climate emissions.
So you are wrong on this point:
> bitcoin is a nontrivial component of that and it threatens to grow at an exponential pace
Bitcoin IS a trivial component of overall emissions and even with an insane ramp up would not be close to being the biggest issue re emissions.
> Bitcoin energy usage accounted for 0.11% of global energy usage and you think it is the biggest threat to humanity since the A-Bomb? Bitcoin is entirely irrelevant to the grand scheme of things re climate emissions.
GP already explained why he thinks that and you did not spend a word addressing that. Here is what GP said:
> The reason that bitcoin's energy usage is a philosophical nightmare is because it's a system where energy consumption is the product. As opposed to industries which are "merely" energy-intensive, let's take aluminum refining for example, spending more energy to refine aluminum does not create more demand for aluminum, but spending more energy on bitcoin increases the price of bitcoin, which induces more demand, which increases the price, which incentivizes mining, which costs more energy, and so on in a vicious cycle.
Basically, for BTC to "go to the moon" its energy consumption must also "go to the moon".
I didn't address that point because it is conceptually and factually incorrect. But I will breakdown why for your benefit:
> The reason that bitcoin's energy usage is a philosophical nightmare is because it's a system where energy consumption is the product.
False. The "Product" is a permissionless global peer to peer financial network using a (relatively) non-depreciating commodity. Energy consumption is a side-effect of providing this product/service. I'm sure if you thought about it for a bit you would have to agree here. Noone is mining bitcoin for the sake of it, they are mining it for profit and the only reason bitcoin has value is other attributes of the network/commodity itself. So not a good start from OP.
> As opposed to industries which are "merely" energy-intensive, let's take aluminum refining for example, spending more energy to refine aluminum does not create more demand for aluminum, but spending more energy on bitcoin increases the price of bitcoin, which induces more demand, which increases the price, which incentivizes mining, which costs more energy, and so on in a vicious cycle.
This is factually incorrect and easy to see why. Here is a link to an overlapping chart showing the hashrate for bitcoin against the market cap (https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/hashrate-marketcap-btc....). You'll notice the lack of connection between the market cap (overall price) and the hashing rate. This is an empirical fact based on the data we have so op is wrong once again.
It is true that price increases do incentivise more mining but the price increases aren't DRIVEN by increases in the mining. Otherwise it would be possible for anyone anywhere to spin up bitcoin farms and make guaranteed profit because the price would rise to a level commensurate with the energy expended. It is the other values of the network (peer-to-peer permissionless decentralised finance with an eventually depreciating commodity) that drive the price. Those are being priced by the market currently and more and more people are deciding to store wealth in the Bitcoin network as opposed to the Fiat network or other assets like property/gold/etc because they feel it gives a better combination of:
1. Store of value (or possibility for profit)
2. Functionality
Bitcoin mining is very often not profitable if you don't have cheap energy or do it collectively which is why it is moves around so much to find cheap energy sources (often using the cheapest forms of energy available which is burn off/extra gen that has no otherwise in grid) and miners pool to take a portion of the gains from mining the next block and getting the bitcoin that come with it.
OP's view of Bitcoin and proof of work is a very slanted one at best, completely factually inaccurate at worst.
All sound money has been proof of work since the start of time. It is fundamental to a lasting and fair monetary system. We currently have a fiat system where the population have to work for it, while the elite can effortlessly print it, becoming ever more unjustly powerful as a result. They are looting the world.
Even today, gold miners are working to dig up their proof of work which they can sell into the market. If the work they did was worth more than the gold they found, they'd stop. And if was worth less, more miners would mine, increasing the supply and devaluing the gold.
The only difference with bitcoin is that the work is abstracted. It's simply anchoring the creation of a digital token to work in the physical domain. At the same time, the work performed is protecting the network from attack - it's what makes the blockchain immutable. The work is not wasted - it is being stored as "walls" on top of each block. The further down the block chain you go the more walls of protection you would have to break. It's breathtakingly beautiful.
The main problem here is that you're looking at the energy use as a waste. It's absolutely not, but in order to understand why, you need to understand what's wrong with the current monetary system and the terrible effects it is having on the world.
You're also missing that bitcoin's game theory means that it will ultimately only use unwanted/wasted energy. Bitcoin miners can mine anywhere in the world and those trying to use energy that's in demand by the general population won't be economical.
It's an abstraction of work. All sound money requires equivalent value work to produce. And the work done is stored as protective "walls" in the blockchain, one on top of each block, piled higher and higher as time goes on, to become impenetrable. It's quite beautiful.
> but in order to understand why, you need to understand what's wrong with the current monetary system and the terrible effects it is having on the world.
Are we about to find out why, or do I have to pay for your memoir to understand? I've been dying to hear you expand on this for a while now.
A lot of people in software industry have tendency to reflexive negativity*, as people selected to become software developer often have a tendency to seeing things in their own limited scope, and not the in the scope of others.
People who aren’t in the tech/VC or crypto echo chambers can see that it’s (still) overhyped and mostly scams. They don’t really care or have more positive sentiment than HN.
Ok and from my anecdotal experience the opposite is true, so I guess we're at a crossroads here. Either way doesn't have bearing on how HN views crypto
Crypto failed to deliver in any area and it is still a solution in search of a problem. The only real use-case is is money transfer to/from sanctioned countries and other dark markets - not that much of a "bleeding-edge" technology we are enthusiastic about )))
There's a difference between being bearish and being fully anti crypto and just spreading conjecture. Being bearish is very normal, being rabidly anti crypto on every crypto thread on HN like a couple folks who are in this very thread is being in a bubble.
Some people are just like that. The same thing happens on the other side of the fence alarmingly often, where someone will claim Bitcoin is the second coming of Christ and sell their home before knowing basic technical details about the network. Or people who fully understand the system, and deliberately lie about a coin's functionality for petty gain. On either side there are people promoting altruistic regulation and acceleration, but at a larger scale we're mostly describing greedy businesses (on either side) and... put politely, "government dissidents".
So, as is the case with any meaningful investment, you have to ask "cui bono?" with cryptocurrency. Very plainly, you're risking normal money on a venture that doesn't promote anything other than greed and black market transactions. The hackers on this site will oppose it in favor of information freedom and a less money-influenced internet, and the greedy bastards will oppose it because they'd prefer one party owns everything from the start. It's a nuanced situation with lots of different people, good-faith or not, who will oppose or support cryptocurrency for the wrong or right reasons. It's straightforward and non-predatory to say that most people are better off keeping their pay-stub out of the alternative currency market.
I don't believe for a second that Bitcoin or any other DLT will be the world's reserve currency.
But the amount of hubris and preoccupation about this here on HN is really something else. I've long learned not to try to engage in any kind of serious discussion about possible interesting aspects.
I've been around cryptocurrency since around 2014, and I don't think the problem is hubris and preoccupation. People genuinely don't want cryptocurrency in their internet. The opportunity to spend more money online is not attractive to anyone. Conceptually Bitcoin and a lot of other networks can be nerd porn, but socially they are an unmitigated disaster. Self-custody wallets are like banks where individuals control their own money; a great idea until the scammers come by. By using managed-custody, you're not even owning P2P currency anymore and still exposing yourself to risk from a centralized institution. The broken "ownership" model caused thousands of people to lose their NFTs and tokens when exchanges went under or social engineers found their phone number.
Additionally, there are a lot of companies on HN that will try to sell you a terminal in an Electron webview for $9.99/month. Users on HN have to be diligent, so a lot of people will lash out against benign technology. Some of them probably also correctly identified scams and ran their owner out of town on a rail. That might be hubris, but I more think that both the investors and the inventors on HN are tired of reading "Yet Another Money Solution" after 10+ years of watching the old one collapse.
HN had a hate boner for crypto back in 2015 when I read about Ethereum here. Nothing has changed, it's a simple lack of curiosity and old men yelling at changes in the world.
It's not just crypto though, the same saturated dullness is shining through in other discussions as well.
> Very plainly, you're risking normal money on a venture that doesn't promote anything other than greed and black market transactions.
You could quite say the same about any privacy or encryption or really anything that protects you from a centralized entity taking your rights/property. It’s a bit absurd that people are really that blind that they think this is all there is to crypto. Your same logic would apply to dollars in that case as well.
I could say the same about privacy or encryption. It's probably why the average person doesn't care about either of those things when pressed.
Ideologically I'm not opposed to Bitcoin or the idea of it existing for the base it serves. It's too volatile to suggest for serious investment though, and it's reached an uncomfortable echelon of "nerd joke gone too far" for my taste. Real people do not need to waste life-hours learning about this when their local government invests in a clear and immediately fungible form of currency for them already. Investors should not be wasting life-hours learning about a perpetually-irrational investment when other industries are both safer investments and arguably more innovative.
> Your same logic would apply to dollars in that case as well.
It would, mostly. Most people who oppose the online adoption of crypto probably object to the same level of microtransaction in any currency.
Well, HN is so deep in their own reality distortion bubble that they are still not noticing that "AGI" is actually about lining some-else's pockets over a sci-fi dream sold to them through hype after trampling over laws and regulations.
Those on HN who believed that such a complete ban on crypto was feasible were always delusional. The cat is out of the bag for both AI and crypto, but in the end, the legal system always gets them to pay up and the regulators for both AI or crypto will get them as well.
First of all there never was anything "cutting edge". It was a nice prototype of p2p application for large and slow decentralized payments - a very niche thing for very niche audience with a questionable mechanism in the form of Proof-of-work. But at least the argument of "unregulated currency" made sense to regular folk. The get-rich-quick hype that followed killed any reason or logic in this area. The following NFTs was a joke even to those who believed in the "next currency" idea. The following ideas of pyramids that mint you money while you stake your coins (I think) got even the most gullible ones reject it )))
Probably controversial but I did lose a ton of weight before my sense of smell and taste came back from COVID. Part of me wondered whether it would've been better for my long term physical health to have that sense of taste stay gone...on the flip side, my mental health would've suffered greatly. Food is such an amazing way to experience the world and other cultures.
Man you are rewriting history for sure. Twitter was banning Wuhan lab theories as misinformation and Fauci's leaked emails show him asking the NIH to further "put down" the lab leak theories.
While Twitter, a private company, censored posts, Biden's White House said that they wouldn't rule out any possibility, including the virus being leaked on purpose.
He also ordered US spy agencies to do an investigation into the lab leak hypothesis.
"The left" wasn't denying anything. It just wasn't willing to jump to conclusions prematurely. Trying to rebrand it as "The China Virus" was a transparent attempt to focus blame and hate in a particular direction.
Interesting you just ignored the direct quote I gave of Fauci asking the NIH to put it down.
I'm pretty sure Twitter had pressure from the Virality Project which worked with Stanford and federal agencies so I think it's disingenuous to act as if they weren't denying anything or trying to play it down.
The China Virus thing has nothing to do with what I said
Your "direct quote" doesn't exist. So you may want to get your facts in order, especially if you're going to argue that it portrays something it clearly does not.
In fact, it's the opposite of what you were asserting.
Early on, virologists Michael Farzan and Robert Garry were on a call with Fauci and Collins about the potential that the virus could've leaked.
Following that, Fauci's released emails (another correction, since you called them "leaked") was part of a chain between him and Collins:
> Wondering if there is something NIH can do to help put down this very destructive conspiracy.
- Collins, April 16, 2020.
> I would not do anything about this right now. It is a shiny object that will go away in times.
- Fauci's response
What's more, Robert Garry clarified it further:
> One thing that could be misconstrued is that neither Dr Fauci or Dr Collins suggested in any way that we not write the Proximal Origin paper. Likewise, neither one suggested that we not mention the possibility of a Lab origin.
If I claim that aliens are manipulating our weather and that proof exists, when it doesn’t, that is misinformation. There is no evidence to support my claim, and it is wrong, even if I believe it to be true. If aliens show up tomorrow and announce they have been messing with the weather, then we have the evidence and it is true, but I was still spreading misinformation.
No. He had evidence, based on direct observation. The claims made at the time with Covid and the lab leak theory had no evidence and were made entirely for political purposes.
Any unsubstantiated claims presented as fact are misinformation, and when that misinformation is causing mental and physical harm, keeping it off your platform is the easy, correct decision.
I'm not sure if you remember, but the early lab leak suggestions were leading to a lot of abuse, threats, and in some cases even violence towards people of Asian decent.
Considering Texas has categorized it as child abuse, and begun investigations on by-every-metric very loving parents to take custody away from them, even for those who transitioned prior to any law changes (and the fact that Texas has some of the worst foster care outcomes), it’s an objective fact they’re hostile to trans people (youth are people, too)
Also, Texas even specifically cites puberty-blockers (which are reversible…) within the list of punishable offenses, so even Texas qualifies it as trans-healthcare, so your opinion is not particularly relevant.
What do you think the state will do if you give your children proper trans healthcare? Will they let them stay with you?
Luckily it's not your opinion that is important regarding what healthcare should be done and what shouldn't. The medical consensus is that puberty blockers are an important part of trans healthcare. Denying this to children is equivalent with denying them other healthcare.
Luckily you are mistaken that it is "medical consensus" and your opinion isn't the only valid one.
There are studies that show that hormone blockers don't actually decrease psychological distress (which is why England just said they're going to limit puberty suppressing drugs).
I think it's more interesting that people think children who can't possibly comprehend lifelong implications of most things are being given life altering drugs that don't have proper long term research is a good idea.
> Luckily you are mistaken that it is "medical consensus" and your opinion isn't the only valid one.
Well, it is the only valid one in the sense that there exists a medical consensus, an it is what I described.
> There are studies that show that hormone blockers don't actually decrease psychological distress
Mind sharing those studies?
> (which is why England just said they're going to limit puberty suppressing drugs)
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the conservative government desparately trying to distract their populace from the terrible job they are doing keeping the country running.
> I think it's more interesting that people think children who can't possibly comprehend lifelong implications of most things are being given life altering drugs that don't have proper long term research is a good idea.
Puberty blockers have been researched since the 80s. How much longer do you want studies to be done?
It's also funny that people like you always say "children who can't possibly comprehend lifelong implications of most things are being given life altering drugs", when the whole point of the drugs is to give them time. By delaying puberty those children have time to actually grow up and make an informed decision at the right time. You want to take that ability away from them, you want to condemn them to a lifestyle that is proven to drastically increase suicide rates. I'd like to know - is that a bug for you, or is it a feature?
How are you defining medical consensus? Because if there are conflicting medical opinions and the vast majority don’t agree then I don’t think it’s correct to call it medical consensus.
As for the England thing you can deflect with the politics if you want, but many countries (some that pioneered dysphoria treatments) are cautioning against puberty blockers and that more research needs to be done.
You can use emotional arguments all you want but the science from what I see doesn’t show an overall help with puberty blocking drugs and I don’t think we do have enough long term evidence for people who aren’t hitting early puberty and are taking these drugs. What you’re mentioning from the 80s is like saying it’s totally safe to give everyone who wants chemo chemo because it helps people who have cancer. Puberty blocking drugs are useful in specific use cases, but giving them to kids who feel they are the wrong gender (which by the way, things kids say and what they actually feel are so freaking varied and again, most kids don’t know wtf they’re talking about until they’re much older) does not have full scientific consensus.
How about you provide some links now to the OPs original argument of all the things they mentioned? If not then I think we’re done here as you are just throwing emotional argument after emotional argument as if the choice is between a shitty under researched drug on pre pubescent children who aren’t experiencing early onset puberty (which is the usage you’re talking about from the 80s) vs full on suicide.
> And here is the study that I believe England is using where 43 out of 44 patients didn’t find any help with puberty blockers
I looked into this study, and interestingly the authors come to the opposite conclusion you come to:
> Overall patient experience of changes on GnRHa treatment was positive. We identified no changes in psychological function. Changes in BMD were consistent with suppression of growth. Larger and longer-term prospective studies using a range of designs are needed to more fully quantify the benefits and harms of pubertal suppression in GD.
Given that you're misrepresenting the studies you share, yeah, we're done here.
