Bitcoin Forum

they already did this, if i recall correctly this FUD was spread before they forked BSV and caused the panic in bitcoin which led to crash from $6k to $3k. in fact the main reason for that crash was: 1. the market was still undecided and the fear was present, 2. the whales took the opportunity to manipulate the market and crash the price.

as you can see CSW's only achievement was a short term drama that succeeded only because it was timed correctly and the market was in the same direction. this won't be repeated for at least another 2 years because we have entered the bull market and FUD like that can not change this direction anymoer.

Hey, if that happens, I'm gonna eat my dick off. :P

CW is really scraping the barrel now. He’s desperate & everybody knows it, don’t take anything he says as truth or fact.

BTW, it's John McAfee not Craig Wright  :-\

It does not say which reward halving, but at the time of the BTC airdrop no halving took place.

This 2018 post will be entertaining when it happens.
https://i.redd.it/kgrxpsoh0m031.jpg
Capital C for capitalism. BitCoin.

I cannot trust this guy and I wonder why we give him attention anymore.
If he had the chance to do that, he will do it without posting it. He just want to scare bitcoin holders and spread them or attract them to their project.

...And one more point, if he was the real Satoshi, why would he ever to that to Bitcoin?

Legally he must inform in advance if he indents to sell large amounts.

Not disclosing large sales  of an assets (https://www.pymnts.com/news/bitcoin-tracker/2018/israel-central-bank-regulators-cryptocurrency-asset/) is a crime, this is long term warning ⚠️, anyone is free to make of it what they what.

Legally he must inform in advance if he indents to sell large amounts.
What someone does with the information is entirely up to each individual. If someone is of the opinion it is fud, so be it.
He did not create segwit and got airdroped over 1 million BTC, so its only natural to dispose of it over the years, starting in earnest sometime next year.
His only interested is BitCoin.

What makes you believe Wright and company have the means to do that? Just because he says so? ;D They may have thousands of coins to dump and a non-negligible amount of hash rate, but I think the market will roundly reject their attempts to push the price down. Like 2012 and 2016, there will probably be a selloff near the halving and they may push the market even further down, but I'm confident their sells will be absorbed (like the last two halvings) and miners will continue to invest in BTC mining. These guys are just like any other whales that try to manipulate the market in the wrong direction. The market will chew them up and spit them out if they try.

According to what laws? BTC isn't a security and Craig Wright is not a company insider. He doesn't need to disclose anything under any law I've ever heard of.

There's no such thing as "insider trading" with BTC so he doesn't need to use a 10b5-1 plan (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rule-10b5-1.asp) or anything like that. And if he were trying to comply with Rule 10b5-1, his little social media FUD doesn't meet the requirements.

I ask what will happen to Bitcoin.com and if Roger will lose it. The chances of it happening are high, unlikely in weeks.

It is fair to say there is great confusion at current time of what is "Bitcoin". Bitcoin is what is described in the white paper, the building plan.
We all can agree (feel free to disagree) Craig did not create SegWit and there is no mention of it in the white paper.
If someone has a building plan of a bridge and he builds a house, he will have a hard time convincing someone with brains that he build according  plan.

What I say or anyone else on the net is irrelevant, everyone has his own brain to use.

What makes you believe Wright and company have the means to do that? Just because he says so? ;D

They may have thousands of coins to dump and a non-negligible amount of hash rate, but I think the market will roundly reject their attempts to push the price down. Like 2012 and 2016, there will probably be a selloff near the halving and they may push the market even further down, but I'm confident their sells will be absorbed (like the last two halvings) and miners will continue to invest in BTC mining.

These guys are just like any other whales that try to manipulate the market in the wrong direction. The market will chew them up and spit them out if they try.

OK, I'm glad you are at least acknowledging that Roger Ver will not surrender Bitcoin.com in "weeks" anymore. These types of details matter. Anyway, I searched the net for the original post by CSW threatening to unload one million BTC on the market, and all I found was some troll forums posting it. Also, bear in mind, he is currently embroiled in a lawsuit in Florida over these bitcoins. If he were to sell, assuming he has them, there could be serious legal and perhaps criminal implications for him. While I doubt he's Satoshi, there is a remote possibility he has access to a substantial amount of bitcoins.

And that is why he is doing this.

Posting it to different social media network to gain the eyes of the people.
There will always be believers and they will follow what he said. But I dont think that is still enough to topple the price of bitcoin.
Yes, it might shake a bit but not to extent that will be going back years ago that consumed some holders into panic without any reason at all.

This is all just part of their greed technique to make easy profit. It is too obvious.

The original post was on twitter https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/1090075307439058944 but as twitter closed his account it's no longer available.
Its impossible to sell 1100111 BTC in one go (the tulip trust which becomes available on January 1, 2020)  the market could not even handle a tenth of it on a single sell order.

Exhibit 17 of the court case email to daves father he claims there is three key people* in the creation of bitcoin.
https://www.scribd.com/document/372445146/Exhibit-17

As he has the bitcoin copyright he can go to US Court and ask to issue an order for BCH and BTC to REMOVE the Bitcoin white paper from their network, their documents, their sale materials, and web sites such as Bitcoin.com, Bitcoin.org

Legal / criminal implications for selling his coins, how so? it the whole point of an advance notice if someone intents to get "cheap" coins they can get organized. Did anyone have any implication selling any of the forks coins when the got them.


*The third person maybe him, a guess.
https://i.ibb.co/0hMSb8W/Untitled.png (https://imgbb.com/)

Putting the pieces together it appears team Satoshi as:

• Craig, having the idea, wrote the white paper, registers and paid for the Bitcoin.org domain in 2008 (has tax records of it)
• Dave, proof reading and helping with complex math issues.
• "Unknow", implementing the code of the white paper (writing it) and communicating on the forum.

Ira, Dave's brother has absolutely nothing to do with Bitcoin and at first even voluntary forfeiting Dave's inheritance. (Dave died a miserable death)
Dave Kleiman needed money badly—his house was under foreclosure and he spent nearly three years in a VA hospital before he died.
Ira only later he became hyper greedy.
We may find out how much he will get within weeks.

It is rumored that Dave had a similar amount on his hard drive, but if that walled can ever be accessed is another matter.

-snip-
https://i.imgur.com/s8NMFw5.png

This part is also ridiculous and also dishonest.

They'd have to store up millions of the most efficient - at the time of this 'attack' - mining rigs but not mine on them yet.

The budget to do that is left as exercise to the reader.


 # Craig Wright is a fraud.

U cannot prove that - que up with all the trolls pls

Hey, I'm Satoshi. If you try to disprove me I will sue you. :P

This part is also ridiculous and also dishonest.

They'd have to store up millions of the most efficient - at the time of this 'attack' - mining rigs but not mine on them yet.

The budget to do that is left as exercise to the reader.

U cannot prove that - que up with all the trolls pls

Go public and I might check out

Shut up otherwise

You can't check out anything if your life depended on it.
BTW I thought this was a public forum. ::)

Can I throw up now?

Sooo, anything we see on the news makes it real? pfff

The issue is, most stop see at the surface.

BSV is real Bitcoin

Always have faith in the reverse indicators, they are real bruh!

This 2018 post will be entertaining when it happens.

Capital C for capitalism. BitCoin.

The issue is, most stop see at the surface.

BSV is real Bitcoin

Reason for the halt: Calvin added > $300,000,000 into new @squiremining miners that will be up and running ASAP. *This makes @CalvinAyre - BY FAR - the largest mining owner in the world. *Squire has been rumored to have addressed the previous issues and added new “features”.

The issue is, most stop see at the surface.

BSV is real Bitcoin

where can you say bitcoin SV is real bitcoin? You may have been exposed to the doctrine stated by Craig Wright, he is not satoshi nakamoto.

The Fact is someone paid for the Bitcoin.org domain in 2008 and Australian Tax records exist for it.
Anyone of the opinion that courts can not establish who paid for domain registration is delusional.
In 2008 limited option for domain registration existed, anonymous cash is not an option.

The Fact is someone paid for the Bitcoin.org domain in 2008 and Australian Tax records exist for it.

1. Show me da records. Else GTFO.
2. Even so it means shit. Look at FB.
3. Anonymous cash. Heard of Grin?

The only anonymous payment option available in 2008 was cash, no cash payment option exits for domain registration.
Are you claiming no-one paid for the Bitcoin.org domain in 2008 or that court can not establish who made the payment?

Most likely any court can establish who made a payment.
Probably someone made a payment for it then (I haven't seen any proof, but let's say it's true).

Pretty certain it was not Craig tbh.
Even if the evidence - backed by a court - points that it was Craig, then most likely the court was conned, which makes another reason Craig will go to jail on multiple counts.

He is digging his own grave (out of greed & stupidity) if you catch my drift.

Satoshi and Science
By Craig Wright | 30 May 2019 | Alternative Coins & Systems

The scientific principle applies in all aspects of life, including jurisprudence and law. It has done so for a long time. Generally speaking, the scientific principle is applied in the methodology followed below.

    Step 1 : Question. The “thing” that you want to know.
    Step 2 : Research. Conduct research.
    Step 3 : Hypothesis. Educated guess or prediction of the outcome experiment.
    Step 4: Experiment. Test the hypothesis.
    Step 5: Observations. Data you collect during the experiment.
    Step 6: Results/Conclusion.
    Step 7: Communicate.

Those seeking to discredit me are going to find out the hard way how law works. I don’t need to give more than I need to give as evidence. Bitcoin isn’t ‘code is law,’ it is not about replacing courts. Rather, it augments them. People don’t want me stepping into court in seeking to prove I created Bitcoin because it robs them of the narrative. I’ve had enough of people taking my invention and twisting it into something corrupted and rotten, and it’s not going to continue. They are going to learn what Bitcoin was and is really about. It is about the opposite of Liberty Reserve. It is about the opposite of e-gold. It is designed to rip apart and end forever everything that such systems promote.

I’ve said it before: careful what you wish for.

I’m not good with people and not good in groups, which is part of why I vanished in 2015 as I was uncovered. No, I did not make a claim in 2015; I vanished, others made the claim. In particular, people such as Greg Maxwell worked to ensure that I was outed in a way that would make me disappear. But I grow and learn, I am stepping up, and I will take responsibility for my invention and make sure that the crimes that such people are helping are uncovered.

Bitcoin isn’t some immutable system that acts outside of the law. Such is what criminals want, and it is not what I developed. If you think blockchain helps you make a criminal system, one that cannot be stopped, then you are absolutely stupid. Bitcoin is about the same as having a bunch of law enforcement officials that are incorruptible walk behind you every step of the way any time you want to create a crime. When you’re acting responsibly and within the law, they are not there. When you seek to scam people, to engage in fraud, it is a system that will record your actions.

I’ve said many times that Bitcoin was set in stone. To be decentralised, it requires a stable protocol. In fact, as I have said, “the only job the network needs to do is to tell whether a spend of an outpoint is the first or not.” Nodes don’t set protocol changes, they choose to enforce existing rules and can put limits within such rules. No more, no less.

What you are going to discover is that I am pro law and that there is no anarchy in Bitcoin.

I’m choosing court as a means to prove my identity as it is the correct place to determine truth. If you believe the truth is obtained through a key, then you are seeking something other than Bitcoin. Which is what people such as those who created Silk Road wanted. They are the ones who took my invention and tried to flush it down the toilet and ended up getting 1% of what they deserved as a result. And yes, I believe they got off easy.

It’s remarkably funny how people keep quoting things that I didn’t say or that are taken out of context. Some of the so-called quotes attributed to me are not what I said, rather comments I was rebutting. There is no single quote in existence from my time when I acted as Satoshi that is anti-bank, that is anti-government, or that is anti-court. There is nothing in my entire time talking to people that can be taken to be even remotely anarchist. Yet people cherry-pick parts of a statement and twist it maliciously to create something that BitCoin was not.

My code was always covered by copyright. It’s right there in the initial version. The © marker means that I expressed copyright and intellectual property law from day one. I did not bypass and give up copyright. I allowed licensing of the code. And even that does not cover passing off. Ethereum, as much as a dead end as it is, is not passing off trying to be Bitcoin. Litecoin, as much as a childish representation of the system it is that follows any stupid change, is not trying to pass itself off as Bitcoin. BTC is. It split, and resulted as an airdrop copy that has fraudulently been using the name of Bitcoin from 2017 on.

The aim of all such changes and the fraudulent airdrop is very simple: it’s an attempt to make a system that acts outside of law, allows terrorist funding, and helps many other scams and frauds. That’s it. And the thing is, it’s very very simple to stop. People are going to wake up one day and not find that the value of their BTC investment is diminishing, but that it is zero. When such types of crime coins end, they don’t end slowly — they end in an instant. One moment you will be looking at US$8000 per coin, the next global trading will be suspended. More importantly, miners who seek to violate such orders will find themselves incarcerated, and they will find their equipment seized. They will be allowed to stop mining BTC and continue mining other coins. They will then simply move from scams such as BTC onto Bitcoin and recover some of the losses. It is, of course, why the scam-coin (BTC) developers at Core seek to try to manipulate the system and remove miners — they want to make it harder to stop, but the problem is: Bitcoin is resilient to what they intend to do. The crime-coin attack is one of the things I spent years working on stopping.

In court, I get to put up evidence. If any of it was falsified, people could point it out and I would go to prison. Unfortunately for the crime-coin developers, there is nothing I will be submitting that is fraudulent. Bitcoin (BSV) is a single system. There are no splits in Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the original system, and is designed such that a transaction signed in 2009 will be valid in 2150. I don’t really care what Ethereum or Litecoin does, they have little to do with my invention other than being poor copies.

You are going to have to put up with me as Satoshi, and I don’t care if you like it. It’s very simple: there is no evidence you can ever propose that ever contradicts anything I’ve said, and there never will be. There’s not a single post that I made as Satoshi that conflicts. In 10 years, my personality has changed a little, I’ve grown, and I’ve learnt much more. I have been angry and gotten over it, and like everyone, I’m older but still the same person, and I still believe in a world of law and order. That is, a representative democracy. A system without fraud and a system where people can live without fear. It opposes anarchy, and I will never support a system that acts allowing the strong depression of the weak.

The true market of BTC is zero. When it’s stopped, it will just end. You know how much e-gold is worth today? Zero. Liberty Reserve US Dollars? Zero. You see, here lies the bit people don’t understand. As soon as a system of such kind starts to move outside of the legal constructions that allow it to operate, it stands on a foundation of watered sand and will eventually collapse. When it collapses, it can never be recovered. When you understand this, you will understand why I created Bitcoin to act within the law.

Because I backed away from publicity, people were able to defame me, to libel me, and to get away with it, but no more. People will learn the hard way that I don’t need to jump through what they say I need to prove. Code is not law, and it will never ever in the entirety of the universe even slightly resemble law, because it is a childish dream by people who cannot think beyond the realm of eight-year-olds. Law is flexible and grows. The common law has been created over centuries, and exceeds anything that some prepubescent seeking to make a distributed system without knowledge of anything about how the real world works can be.

The takeaway here is that I’m going to clean out the cryptocurrency space whether you like it or not.

If you want to pretend to be Satoshi, I will see you end in prison. This is the thing, this is how evidence and scientific principles work. It doesn’t matter whether I give you what you want, it’s not a falsifiable claim. I have a claim that I am Satoshi and that I created the white paper. It is potentially falsifiable and, if I lied, may be disproven. In court, there are consequences. I’ve made my claim under oath. I have sworn it in a court of law. If it turns out that I’m not, I will face 20 years in prison. The thing is, it will never happen, because I am the creator of Bitcoin.

Alternatively, the way I’m going to clean up the space is to force every single person involved in the space to either swear they are Satoshi and created Bitcoin or back down and apologise.

If they claim to be Satoshi, it is a falsifiable premise. That is scientific. Here’s the thing: I don’t need to tell you what I will do in order to discredit any particular individual at any particular time. Bitcoin is based on game theory. Like poker, my cards are kept close. Some want me to tell what my holdings are, how many bitcoin I have, when I can spend them and how. I won’t. When you see it coming, it will be too late. You won’t get notification of the end. You’ll wake up one day, and BTC will be trading at zero.

Please note, this is not market manipulation, it is truth. I am pre-warning you. I’m the one living in a jurisdiction — unlike conman John — that allows extradition, prison sentences, and law. I’m not hiding. When I act, and eventually I will, BTC will not ever be called Bitcoin again and people seeking to do so will be shown to be the fraud and scammers they are.

If you think I’m joking, if you think I’m not serious, if you think that I can’t prove what I’m saying, then I’m going to be looking forward to meeting you in court. And I’m not going to give more than I need at any time. I will give the minimum amount of proof to ensure that I win, and no more. I’m going to take pitiful people like Peter McCormick apart, as sad as it is, because of their stupidity and as a lesson. People are going to learn that you cannot lie and cheat and defame people without consequences. In time, if I have to, I will work one by one through every person in the BTC community, until they all either wear orange suits, apologise, or disappear. No exceptions.

I don’t care if you privately want to believe me or not. If you think it matters, you don’t understand Bitcoin. I have reason for doing things the way I do them, and I used an MIT licence as it is patent-friendly. I intentionally did not use other open licences as they oppose intellectual property licences. I expressed copyright on my authorship from 2008.

The mere signing of a key is not evidence, and such was never the intention of Bitcoin. In fact, escrow can incorporate the introduction of contracts linked directly to courts.

The process of what’s going to happen is that I’m going to make people like Roger Ver, Vitalik Buterin, and the Core team stand up in court and formally apologise or be in contempt. They can work out how long you get to stay in prison when you’re in contempt and choose when they want to come out of the orange jumpsuit and apologise. You see, I don’t care whether you believe. Belief has nothing to do with science. You could say that you don’t like me and that in your opinion I haven’t given strong enough evidence, which sorts of things are legal and covered under free speech. Lies, defamation, and hate crime are not covered under free speech.

So all of the frauds out there claiming that they had worked with me are going to find that I’m going to discredit what they say. I’m going to do so in court, and I’m going to do it in such a way where they never dig themselves out. I’m going to make sure that anyone anywhere on earth will see them and treat them with scorn. They are criminals, and they deserve to be treated as criminals.

Some people seem to think that I had to come out there when I was exposed and do what the media demanded of me. What you’re going to learn is that you don’t make demands of someone you want something from. You ask politely. You don’t need to like me. But Bitcoin and blockchain are my system. They act within the law, and are bound by it. You’re going to discover that decentralised only works for a blockchain system as a concept where it acts within the law. You’re going to discover that anonymous systems cannot act within Bitcoin. You’re going to discover that Bitcoin allows free speech but not hate crime. You are going to discover that Bitcoin doesn’t allow trolls to continue to operate with impunity. You’re going to discover that people who aid in hacking and compromising systems and people like Greg Maxwell are the opposite of what Bitcoin creates, and you’re going to discover that such people who run the sock puppets and manipulate social media and lie and seek to create systems that undermine law are the antithesis of what Bitcoin was designed to be.

You get your day in court. You get to make claims about how I lied. Then, I get to show how you were spreading false information and that nothing you’re bringing up is true.

After doing so, you apologise. Such is how truth works. Such is how the legal system works. Fools such as Mr McCormick who think that they have something on me get to learn that they don’t. They get to learn that there is a cost of calling people out using false information and that when you defame people and when you enact a slander and a libel, you get to pay and face the consequences. The reason we extended Mr McCormick’s time to respond is that I want him in court. We can force him using default orders right now, but I don’t want that. I want him to stand in court and put up with his lies, and then I’m going to tear every one of them apart and show every falsehood that he is basing his claims upon to the world. And when I’m done, I’m going to go through each and every other scammer in the space. I’m going to find every cowboy with a hat and no swagger and get him to understand what Bitcoin is really about.

Yes, I am Satoshi Nakamoto. It was my pseudonym when I created Bitcoin. I was not a group, I did it myself, but I had help from other people. Everyone has help from other people. When I asked people to give me advice, they did not become part of the authorship. When I asked people to talk to me about my project, they did not become the project. Those who helped code in 2009 and 2010 were valuable and I needed them, but they are not Satoshi Nakamoto ; I am, and if you don’t like it, I don’t care.

If you wish upon a star, and you trust in yourself and you believe in dreams of a connected society, and you believe that decentralisation will set you free, and you think you don’t need to go to university to study, and you don’t work hard and study long hours, when you are going to get beaten by people like me who work, who study, who sacrifice and learn, then you are only going to find that the world allows you to seek happiness, but it doesn’t promise it.
Trust-less and Permission-less

Bitcoin is trust-less only as far as you follow the rules and stay without changing the protocol. Bitcoin acts without permission as long as you stay within the rules and don’t change the protocol. There is nothing stopping you from creating a new script. As long as you work within the existing system and the rules, it’s allowable. Bitcoin is trust-less as long as you act within the rules.

If you act within the rules and Bitcoin, you can do so without trust. As soon as you change the rules, you enter into a realm where you need law and trust. Bitcoin only works within the common law prescriptions that I designed it to work within.

ICOs and associated scams are not how Bitcoin works. Such are systems just like e-gold and ones promoted by Liberty Reserve. They are the realm of frauds and scammers. People will tell you that it’s democratising finance as they are doing so to take your money without facing rules. They want to defraud you. There has not been a single valuable ICO in the history of Bitcoin. There will not be a single valuable ICO in the history of Bitcoin. Organisations like registered regulated exchanges will find that Bitcoin creates a platform that enables savings and that it speeds up operations and reduces losses. Bitcoin does not replace them. Bitcoin does not remove trust from systems such as ICOs. Only conmen and fools say otherwise.

Did you Like This Post? Share it:

Wanna destroy things u have no influence in.

BSV is real Bitcoin

This is the posited SegWit donations attack, with the booty piling up high in time for May 2020:

https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@anonymint/ps965c

You’re ostensibly misinterpreting what his statement means. Craig is ostensibly referring to the real Satoshi v0.5.3 protocol BTC network that will have forced the Core protocol to fork off. He means 51+% of the hashrate that was on Core’s protocol will have switched (i.e. it will not be only Craig’s hashrate given that many miners will want partake in the donations booty).

He is pointing out that until all the SegWit donations are taken (since only so many can fit into a block), the real BTC miners will not be accepting other transactions.

Of course transactions might still proceed on the forked off Core protocol if the hashrate doesn’t drop too low yet it might become far too congested with cratering hashrate, and it will no longer than the longest chain and presumably will be collapsing in price. Perhaps you can sell your free airdropped Core BTC while retaining ownership of your real BTC if you had stored your BTC correct with addresses that begin with 1 and not 3. You’d want to mix your Core BTC transactions with some UTXO input that was created after the fork so that it’s invalid to replay on the real BTC protocol (so you don’t spend your real BTC). Problem is exchanges may not split your BTC for you fast enough to profit on the dumping. And Core chain will likely become congested. Exchanges who have their BTC in SegWit addresses will be bankrupted.

So now we see that BSV is just a deco[y]. What Craig (or his backers) really want is the real Bitcoin. They fool the plebs into thinking he wants scaling and BSV.

OK. But of course, Ayre runs SQR, which uses Samsung to fab their ASICs directly.

Hope this is the last follow-up, because I really don’t want to be posting on this forum, but this is very important for readers. Want to make clear what our options are and what the reality of the situation really is.

Quote from: hv_ on Today at 10:22:13 AM
Sigh, world s financial markets and regulations are not a wish concert.

And yes, it's pretty much overdone and overregulated , totally agreed

But how can u safely and sustainable change that to a better?

Try to offend it openly by using clear and obvious illegal protocols and expect world wide adoption?

Would that ever work knowing before there are 100s of analysts and cyber risks experts sitting on every such gateway where we see they can stop things and close down every that touches law by any means?

My point is that there’s nothing we can do to change the fact that satism will enslave those who want to participate in the statist economy. How can one honestly expect to partake in an evil thing and not be subject to evil? Of course statism is all about defection and cheating on each other via the collective, so of course everyone (other than the devout Christian) prefers to cheat than be honest with themselves.

Instead come out of the statism and only use cryptocurrency in the non-statist economy of like-minded (probably devout “superrational” Christians, because others will be “rationally” selfish and turn against you when convenient) individuals who refuse to report transactions to and source their services and goods from the statist economy. In that case anonymity is irrelevant, e.g. refer to everything as a gift which is for example excluded from taxation in the U.S.A.. Additionally if careful about meta-data and knowing your entire community is using the same ISP, then individual identity can’t be traced on the Bitcoin blockchain.

Better on-chain anonymity might be helpful for those who come out of the Great Harlot statism (yet not absolutely necessary), but it won’t help those who don’t come out of the statism, because statist economy meta-data will be impossible to scramble sufficiently.

Given that Bitcoin’s mutability can’t be challenged, per the game theory and economics of the SegWit donations attack that is coming, we have no option of adding on-chain anonymity to the store-of-value cryptocurrency which already has the most network effects and mining adoption that can’t possibly be superseded any more:

https://medium.com/@shelby_78386/secrets-of-bitcoins-dystopian-valuation-model-cbf95efa3542

https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@anonymint/secrets-of-bitcoin-s-dystopian-valuation-model

The only competition now is potentially for a transaction volume scaling coin and for the reasons I explained on my above linked blog, the scaling coin can’t also be the hodler store-of-value coin.

And because adaptive block size is insecure (or trustless due to centralized control over parameters, which is thus insecure), it’s not even clear that a secure, trustless scaling coin can be constructed.

Quote from: hv_ on Today at 10:22:13 AM
What is the correct strategy to get Bitcoin adoption world wide?

A ) btc with shit protocol changes and dropped signatures plus 2nd layer stuff against aml checks?

B ) bch going anarcho and dark protocol

C ) bsv, stay as clean as possible and openly go the most transparent and regulation friendly road map?

Whether you like it or not, the store-of-value coin is Satoshi’s immutable v0.5.3 protocol. And this will be enforced soon with the SegWit donations attack on the Core shitcoin. Per my first post in this thread (relayed via @infofront because this is very important), Craig is apparently claiming they will initiate Satoshi’s cleverly designed defense mechanism. So Craig is playing the role of fooling those mindless bunny rabbits (http://trilema.com/2018/how-to-piss-me-the-fuck-off-a-guide/) who idolize nonsense so much that they can’t even correctly interpret what Craig is really saying. This is again how Satan is giving people their free will as he corrupts them with idolization. You have your free will to correctly interpret that invariants of the reality here, or irrationally idolize what you wish would a snowflake reality.

SUBJECT: I don’t think crypto can fix the West

I don’t think crypto can fix the West. The West must crash and burn.

So I ignore Craig’s vacuous blather about legal compliance. The West will turn batshit insane and lawless, totalitarianism will prevail.

There is absolutely nothing we can do in the cryptocosm to avert that outcome.

False hopes are not going to help us survive what is coming.

Bitcoin should resist all government interference in terms on-chain transactions. But no form of money can resist the government thugs with “rubber hoses” at the on and off-ramps.

All the cheerleading about scaling and adoption is vacuous, inapplicable nonsense. Bitcoin is being adopted as a superior gold by the wealthy who want to store their assets out-of-reach of the government. The problem is if you don’t come out of the Great Harlot system, then the government is going to find some way to take it all away.

Stop thinking about good times coming. About how many yachts you’re going to buy and living the good life. Bad times are coming. Very bad times. Prepare accordingly.

an observation from Shelby:

I like how Craig Wrights starts the post with "We (I)"...
It makes me think that he believes in himself to be the GOD of bitcoin,the ultimate crypto dictator.
Freakin' megallomanic... ;D
Anyway,his plans to ruin btc went in the trash.

The devs would need to devise some backup plan for it, they cant just underestimate CSW and treat him like a clown, because we dont know who he might be working with for the decryption of Satoshi's wallet. I dont want to spread any FUD, just to be realistic.

Why would you assume he has access to Satoshi's encrypted wallet in the first place? If anything is clear by now, it's that Wright had nothing to do with the creation of Bitcoin. Even if he could brute force the wallet (doubtful), I don't see how he would ever get his hands on it.

I didnt, I read somewhere he have it.

This 2018 post will be entertaining when it happens.
https://i.redd.it/kgrxpsoh0m031.jpg
Capital C for capitalism. BitCoin.

This message from Shelby is very interesting. The issue is even more complex than what I believe it was.

The recent versions of the core wallet are only distributing adresses starting with 3. Do anyone know if its possible to generate adresses starting with 1? Most of my stash is on those old "legacy" adresses, but I dont know if any fractions that I move from adresses starting with 3 to these old adresses would be valid (in face of what Shelby explained, assuming its true). Any suggestions?

Here is a revised post from Shelby with some important edits/additions:

This message from Shelby is very interesting. The issue is even more complex than what I believe it was.

No it's not. He seems like a nutjob. It's incredible that anyone is still going on about an "anyone-can-spend" attack. He obviously deeply misunderstands the incentives at work in Bitcoin.

No one cares what miners want; they will simply follow what users want. The lead-up to the Segwit fork proved that much. If miners switch to a fork where they steal everyone's coins going back 2012, nobody is going to switch to the miner's fork, LOL. Why would they? Clearly these are dishonest miners who are useless in securing a protocol.

Again, miners follow users, not the other way around. Without users, there are no transaction fees and no speculative value based on future usage. Miners will be spending massive amounts mining a completely worthless chain.

Just like they fell in line with Segwit activation, they will quickly migrate back to the "Core" chain where the vast majority of users will be. No, a bit of temporary congestion and slower block times won't cause anyone to fork to a chain where the protocol incentives obviously don't work to keep miners honest.

If the attack succeeded (LOL) it would only succeed in destroying trust in all the forks, and all of crypto.

Its interesting in the way that it could lead to a PoS version of bitcoin. If the miners betray the trust of users, and steal funds from Segwit adresses, the devs will fork it, rollback the theft, and use LN to validate blocks, since LN is dependable on Segwit. This would lead to a PoS version of bitcoin (https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7h6fsv/lightning_network_will_likely_lead_to/).

On the other hand, we would have the Legacy mainchain keeping the same value of the forked one, due to being the longest chain in a PoW perspective (LN came only in 2017), which was not the case with BCH (which had less hashrate when it forked).

But Im probably wrong, since I dont know all the technicals about it.

The miners who join Craig in mining Satoshi’s v0.5.3 protocol (which had up until that point been implicitly running alongside of Core, before Core is forced to fork off when the miners start taking the SegWit donations) will receive as donations as many SegWit addresses BTC as they can fit into each block. These are donations because Satoshi’s protocol sees the Core addresses as “pay to anyone” (aka “anyone can spend”). Of course the Core protocol will fork off, but mining Satoshi’s protocol will be so much more profitable.

Actually take some time to read the following two linked posts and understand that the death of the Core shitcoin is 100% economically assured:

https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@zoidsoft/psa991 <--- @zoidsoft has been a s/w engineer his entire life, read his numeric economic analysis

https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@anonymint/ps965c

I'm thinking that once the Segwit booty exceeds 50% of the total BTC in existence, that's when it will happen. If I could just mathematically model the flow into segwit somehow, I might be able to extrapolate when.

At the 50% mark, the value of BTC Core and BTC legacy will be equal which turns this into something similar to a PoS situation where the majority BTC legacy is assured control.

If you are simply stating an opinion and not giving users investment advice, then please put a disclaimer on your allegations that I’m a “nut job”. I have done more research in the past 6 years about crypto than most of all you combined. Enjoy poverty.

There was no SegWit “anyone can spend” donations booty to provide the Schelling point. Now there is. Read @zoidsoft’s numbers linked above.

Anyone who understands where Bitcoin’s monetary valuation comes from as a replacement for gold (make sure you click and look at the charts!):

Then understands that without immutability of the protocol, then the 21 million tokens limit can’t be assured and thus you will end up with a non-monetary valuation such as silver which is now entirely demonetized:

Note to mention that SegWit and LN makes the blockchain insecure, for reasons I have explained else where and will not repeat again now. If you doubt my technological acumen, then that is your stupid mistake.

Nonsense. They will be enriched with $billions of donations from idiot snowflakes.

Exactly. All crypto except real, immutable, original, one-and-only Bitcoin.

And that is exactly the way the genius Satoshi planned it to be. And so it shall be. Mark my word.

What part of the game theory and economics is your pea-sized brain incapable of understanding?

I pointed out that after the fork off, Legacy address hodlers will have tokens in both forks and the Core address hodlers will only have Core shitcoins. So Core supporters will have no Legacy coins to sell. And Legacy supporters will have Core shitcoins to dump. Why would they instead dump their real BTC if they made the conscious decision to hodl in legacy addresses.

The miners are not going to steal anyone’s coins. Only those generous snowflakes (like you fool) who have at the time of the fork spent their coins to “anyone can spend” addresses at the time of the fork off, will be thanked for funding the immutability of Satoshi’s protocol.

You idiots haven't even bothered to discuss mining incentives as pertaining to actual users, post-fork.

I already refuted this in the prior post. You seem to not understand the importance of the power-law distribution of wealth and thus you do not understand economics.

You are so arrogant that you refuse to learn about the backtested model that gives Bitcoin its valuation. Thus you’re boastfully ignorant about what the real BTC is worth. Fuck exchanges and all your nonsense about what you think gives Bitcoin value. Go study the math of the backtested model which I linked for you, so you can put some salve on your eyes, fool.

You still have not even paid attention to the fact that Core address hodlers do not get any Legacy tokens.

Thus the air-drop is of Core tokens, not of Legacy tokens.

Lol. You have no reading comprehension.

Which address format is the air-drop? Duh.

That was all explained in the Steemit posts which you do not even bother to read or you’re reading comprehension is so low that you can’t even grok the logic in what you read.

So, what would happen, in a market perspective, is that both chains would start with the same value, but the one forked by Core (technically, Core would have to rollback, to reverse the stealing of Segwit outputs

Why would you assume they start with the same value? Did Bitcoin Cash start with the same value? How about Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Diamond, etc?

This situation would be entirely different from the other forks. There was no theft when bitcoin cash, gold, etc, were forked. In the case of theft, it would be similar to what happened to ethereum.

When the DAO hack happened, ethereum forked from the main chain, to reverse the hack, and the main chain (at that point) became "ethereum classic". Eventually ethereum became the main chain, gaining more value than the classic version.

Disagree. The stock-to-flows valuation model is predicative and it instructs that the immutable coin with known future flow of token supply is exponentially more valuable than a mutable protocol.

Only the behavior of the wealthy matter. The vast majority do not matter at all. They are worthless. 50% of the population only has 15% of the wealth. The top few percent has 34% of the wealth.

Then they won't be investors for very long. They will be bankrupted former speculators who did not do due diligence.

The wealthy investors know what is going on. Craig told them. I told them. The trilema.com Bitcoin millionaire told them. Etc.. Word gets around amongst the uber wealthy.

Proof-of-shit aka proof-of-nothing has no value. All PoS shit will go to 0 eventually.

And you are right about this not being theft in the Core blockchain, since it would be rolled back.

When you put a SegWit booty bug in many software clients that convinces users to spend their BTC to "anyone can spend" unrecognized addresses, then the Satoshi protocol is eventually incentivized to take those as donations. Never did the Satoshi protocol change. Some miners were duped into honoring Core protocol rules and Satoshi protocol can tolerate Core's protocol rules until the booty piles up stinking high, then the Satoshi protocol will not have Nash equilibrium until the booty is take and the bug is removed from the clients.

The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime.  Because of that, I wanted to design it to support every possible transaction type I could think of.  The problem was, each thing required special support code and data fields whether it was used or not, and only covered one special case at a time.  It would have been an explosion of special cases.  The solution was script, which generalizes the problem so transacting parties can describe their transaction as a predicate that the node network evaluates.  The nodes only need to understand the transaction to the extent of evaluating whether the sender's conditions are met.

The script is actually a predicate.  It's just an equation that evaluates to true or false.  Predicate is a long and unfamiliar word so I called it script.

The receiver of a payment does a template match on the script.  Currently, receivers only accept two templates: direct payment and bitcoin address.  Future versions can add templates for more transaction types and nodes running that version or higher will be able to receive them.  All versions of nodes in the network can verify and process any new transactions into blocks, even though they may not know how to read them.

I hesitate to reply again to rebuke all your banal, non-erudite nonsense so that you can put some salve on your blinded eyes, because I am instructed not to waste my valuable talent and scarce time on the futility of educating swine. My time could be better put to use in actually creating technological solutions to problems than arguing with those who willfully commit the evils listed below:












Yet I must remember that Jesus spent most of his time with the afflicted because he said that was where the most productive work could be done. Or maybe the prostitutes were at least willing to listen because they were suffering. In any case, I will make one more attempt to try to educate the readers here. But I will not be able to help those who are arrogant, unteachable and determined to have corrupted minds, so there’s no benefit for me to continue going on and on after this. The fools can have the last word here in this thread, and the righteous will have the last laugh in the end.

---

Your reading comprehension is so low that you don’t even realize that I rebuked the BSV-fanboy @hv_ in my prior post (and several before that as well). I am not a BSV supporter. I am a Satoshi v0.5.3 immutable protocol supporter.

If you start with false premises (i.e. incorrectly presuming that I am a BSV advocate), then your dependent reasoning is flawed.


I wrote about that in the Steemit post I have linked several times in this thread. Of course you failed to read and/or understand, because your eyes and/or thinking are obscured with arrogance:


1. Craig Wright and others have profiled the Bitcoin network and discovered that only full nodes that contribute hashrate matter, e.g. that new blocks reach 98% of the hashrate nearly instantly but the delay is up to a minute to reach 98% of the entire P2P network. So I hope you’re not going to make that inane claim that the P2P network will not forward Satoshi protocol blocks. Obviously the hashrate that mines the Satoshi protocol fork will be connected to each other over a P2P network.

2. As I wrote (either upthread or in one of my linked posts), signaling means nothing. Miners/pools can change signaling with the flip of a switch. Money talks, BS walks. When miners see that have an opportunity to be enriched with SegWit booty, they have a decision to make. They can either cling to the nonsense that “user consensus” of the Core “soft fork” is more valuable than the backtested stock-to-flows model which I have shared upthread, or they can be wise and realize that Core is just a hardfork masquerading as a conniving deception named “soft fork” by Core. And we know what has happened to every Bitcoin hardfork— the free airdrop tokens are always sold because they have less value. The key point is the “unforgeable costliness” valuation (which is what the backtested stock-to-flows model valuation is based on) and I will be explaining that in more detail below. Every hardfork loses that unforgeable costliness, because it has violated immutability. All the energy that was burned to make the chain up that point is lost by the chain that hardforks off. That is why Core had to use the deception of a “soft fork” and worthless “user consensus” to fool all of you into believing that it is not a hard fork. So that you will misattribute Bitcoin’s accumulated unforgeable costliness to Core when in fact it can only ever be correctly attributed to the one-and-only immutable protocol, because by definition a hardfork has broken immutability and thus there is no longer any Schelling point around which changes to the protocol are the one-and-only one. Only the immutable protocol can claim that role and valuation. Additionally if “user consensus” (aka kleptocracy and democracy) can mutate the protocol, then it can later mutate the token supply limit. Mutation of the protocol is a slippery slope that once started, has already destroyed the NAV in advance. People with a brain stem understand these simple, self-evident truths. Arrogant fools go on and on about the value of the herd, as they are herded towards the cliff:



Word salad is not evidence of a brain stem. You are committing every mental error cited in the following blog:

http://trilema.com/2018/how-to-piss-me-the-fuck-off-a-guide/

---

Ostensibly you do not entirely grok technologically what you’re citing. I have emphasized the key phases with bold, underline. It’s true that Satoshi wrote above that nodes don’t need to know how to read the internal transaction format, but you are failing to read the stipulation he made: “evaluating whether the sender's conditions are met.”

SegWit puts the payee’s public key address in a format that Satoshi clients can’t understand, thus the transactions are “anyone can spend”. SegWit fails to adhere to the stipulation that Satoshi wrote that the sender’s conditions must be met. By putting the sender’s conditions in a format that nodes can’t understand, there’s no protection stating whom can spend the SegWit UTXO. Even in Satoshi’s immutable protocol, a valid Bitcoin script can be written that has no stipulation for a public key for spending the UTXO. This is essentially/conceptually what SegWit is.

---

Other than a long-range chain rollback (which is presumably impossible because it would require a sustainable 50+% attack, i.e. the basic security premise of proof-of-work), you’re correct that there will not be any theft because theft would require a hard fork, so thus everyone’s tokens always remain valid on the original chain (i.e. not on the hard-forked chain with the new protocol rules). IOW, Core address hodlers will not lose their Core shitcoins after the hardfork. And Legacy address hodlers will not lose their Legacy BTC after Core hardforks. And Legacy address holders will also get a free airdrop of Core shitcoins because Core is hardforking off of Satoshi’s protocol, not vice versa.

But again you are ostensibly repeating your double-speak from your prior post which I corrected. You again in this post employ double-speak to confuse/deceive the readers (and yourself?) because you are ostensibly insinuating that when Satoshi’s immutable protocol removes the SegWit booty from the UTXO to restore a Nash equilibrium to Satoshi’s v0.5.3 protocol, that Satoshi’s immutable protocol will have hard-forked off from the Core protocol. If that is what you think, you’re provably incorrect.

Satoshi’s immutable protocol has never stopped running. Protocol signaling is not meaningful (for the same reason that democracy and voting are not meaningful) because the only form of “signaling” that has unforgeable costliness are blocks on the longest chain.

So the blocks that are adhering to Core’s protocol are also compatible with and thus adhering to Satoshi’s v0.5.3 protocol. Satoshi’s protocol continues to run side-by-side with Core’s protocol, because Satoshi’s protocol does not care if Core enforces who can spend SegWit UTXO. This is the “soft fork”. But it does not mean the Satoshi protocol has stopped running. It just so happens that Satoshi’s protocol does not care who spends those SegWit UTXO. But when that booty piles up stinking high, then Satoshi protocol miners have an economic incentive to start spending that booty to themselves. And in fact when the booty becomes too stinking large, there will be a power vacuum and no Nash equilibrium until a mining oligarchy (e.g. Craig’s group) initiates the Schelling point to start Satoshi’s defense mechanism “poison pill” that will force Core’s protocol to hard-fork off (actually fuck off!). At that point the Core protocol miners will see that as a violation of their protocol rules, so they will hardfork off from Satoshi’s protocol, thus completing the inevitable hard-fork that Core wanted to insidiously hide from the public by inventing the political manipulation known as “user consensus” and “soft-fork”. Proof-of-work has no politics. Only the unforgeable costliness and longest chain matters. And fools are going to learn this the hard way.

The proof that Core is hardforking off from Satoshi’s protocol and not vice versa, is that everyone who hodls legacy addresses will get both legacy BTC and a free airdrop of Core shitcoins. Whereas, those who hodl Core SegWit addresses will get only the hardforked Core shitcoins and no legacy BTC.

How much clearer could I explain that? Why are you incapable of accepting the truth?

Core needed to use a “soft fork” because they needed to attempt to fool everyone into thinking that voting and signaling has any value. And of course most people are idiots and will fall into the woodchipper where they belong just like sheep pushing each other over the cliff. Lol. So hilarious how dumb (i.e. nonobjective) most people are and how they whor(e)ship the collective herd. About that whor(e)shipping concept, please see the references to 1 Samuel 8 and 1 Samuel 15 in the following linked blog of mine:

https://steemit.com/religion/@anonymint/ethics-of-religion-money-and-bitcoin


The Core protocol miners will not accept the SegWit being spent to anyone. But the Satoshi protocol miners will.

Your claim about there not being any Satoshi miners is nonsense, because you do not understand the unforgeable costliness model of Bitcoin’s valuation.

What will happen is the miners will leave the Core protocol in droves after Craig initiates (with their 3000 peta-hash/s mining farms) the Satoshi protocol defense mechanism that ostensibly Satoshi cleverly designed into the protocol and game theory. They will switch over to mining Satoshi’s protocol to partake in the booty. So the Core chain will lose so much hashrate that it will slow down to a crawl. And of course collapse in value in to ~0.


Lol. Money talks, BS walks. Changing a software client for huge mining farms is not a cost at all. The only issue is for the mining farm to decide which fork has the most value.


You do not understand the valuation of Bitcoin. We do. You will lose everything.


Yeah ask around to worthless idiots who collectively control only a small fraction of the BTC wealth. Lol. Ask those who do not understand Bitcoin’s valuation model. Yeah ask fools and follow fools over the cliff. Hahaha.


Lol. This is going to be epic to watch all you Core supporters lose everything. My popcorn is ready. I wonder how you will behave after you have lost all your wealth? Who will you lash out at? Will you sue? Will you seek retribution via the government?

---

I keep referring to the “going for the gold” valuation model. This is based on the unforgeable costliness of the accumulated energy to mine BTC. Refer to the following very detailed blog for your edification (and also make sure you click the link to PlanB’s blog which my blog is discussing):

https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@anonymint/secrets-of-bitcoin-s-dystopian-valuation-model

Thus my prior reply to you was a refutation of your claim that Core and Satoshi protocols start with the same value. Absolutely not. No fork of Bitcoin has ever started with the same value as Bitcoin.

The only double-speak from fools here is that those who have been hoodwinked by Core, believe that Core became Bitcoin, and that Satoshi’s protocol died and would be hardforking Core’s protocol if it came back. But that is because those fools don’t assimilate the details as I have explained it above and upthread. It is precisely the immutability of the protocol and the fact that Satoshi’s protocol never stopped, which gives Bitcoin unforgeable costliness of accumulated burned energy and thus value. Bitcoin’s value does not originate from users, analogous to that gold’s value does not originate from how many impoverished people fondle some little bits of gold.




Category error. Incomparable. You can’t compare a shitcoin that derives it ephemeral (eventually going to ~0) “value” from fooling witless bunny rabbits to Bitcoin which derives its value from unforgeable costliness.

The shitcoins exist as a way to extract the money from the hordes of fools in this world who are given fiat money by socialism, and siphon all that value into Bitcoin via unforgeable costliness. And that is why the following is coming:

https://steemit.com/money/@anonymint/rise-of-hard-money-is-a-harbinger-of-misery  <--- really you should read it.

Bitcoin is not your friend. It is a wrecking ball, here to destroy all the non-meritorious shit going on in the world these days.


Satoshi was not our friend. He is the global elite. Of course this has all been planted to fool bunny rabbits and take all their wealth, and make them an angry mob that will lash out. This is how they will bring about their totalitarianism that is coming soon. They will make it so anyone who has BTC is perceived to be a thief by the public (whilst they hodl so much BTC surreptitiously because they are always above the law). Craig is one of their pawns apparently as is Blockstream.





Yes humanity needs some form of fractional reserve system, else it collapses into a Dark Age (https://steemit.com/money/@anonymint/rise-of-hard-money-is-a-harbinger-of-misery), but the nation-states will fight to retain control over that. And Lightning Networks is a very poor technological attempt at putting fractional reserves on a blockchain. And proof-of-stake is just fiat, so of course the proof-of-stake system is a winner-take-all with the government as the winner. Btw, some people (e.g. the trilema.com dude) have speculated that the U.S. Government is actually behind the curtain of Ethereum.

P.S. The correct term is ‘debasement’ of the monetary supply. Inflation in the monetary context applies to price inflation, which is not always perfectly correlated to the Quantity Theory of Money, because PUBLIC CONFIDENCE drives wild swings.


That bickering was to fool you into thinking that unforgeable costliness is not cardinal. Be fooled if you like falling over the cliff and into the woodchipper.

It’s true that Satoshi wrote above that nodes don’t need to know how to read the internal transaction format, but you are failing to read the stipulation he made: “evaluating whether the sender's conditions are met.”

SegWit puts the payee’s public key address in a format that Satoshi clients can’t understand, thus the transactions are “anyone can spend”. SegWit fails to adhere to the stipulation that Satoshi wrote that the sender’s conditions must be met.

By putting the sender’s conditions in a format that nodes can’t understand, there’s no protection stating whom can spend the SegWit UTXO.

FUD carrier, nonsense.

There is not a single iota of logic or evidence that proves your point in those useless, rambling posts. Chock full of retarded assumptions with no basis like:


You are laughably dumb if you eat up this sort unproven illogical garbage. These posts are nothing but empty opinions from people who are obviously completely ignorant of the economic incentives.


You're a nutjob, no disclaimer required. Nobody cares about your "research" because quite obviously you have nothing to show for it besides some laughably stupid Steemit links.


"Oh yeah, derp derp, 50% coins in Segwit addresses? Must be time to fork to that chain nobody is going to use where we steal everyone's coins! Derp derp!" Super convincing game theory. We're all very impressed with you. LOL.

You idiots haven't even bothered to discuss mining incentives as pertaining to actual users, post-fork. You've based this entire absurd theory on mining rewards at existing prices! That's beyond absurd! Miners on your shitcoin won't be mining billions in value. Who is going to put bids on exchanges for that shitcoin? It would be dumped to hell immediately and become incredibly unprofitable to mine.

Somehow you've convinced yourself that airdropping coins to legacy addresses is going to create demand for your coin. Now why would that be? If Bcash taught us anything, airdrops are for dumping.


How is your shitcoin immutable? You're proposing a hard fork where miners steal outputs from users on the original fork. That's the complete opposite of immutable.

What you're proposing is yet another Bitcoin hard fork spinoff. What makes you think users would uninstall their Bitcoin software to install the miners fork? Half the economy with Segwit outputs is obviously strongly opposed to that. Everyone else has a strong interest in a resolution where miners don't prove Bitcoin doesn't work by stealing everyone's money. All user incentives, both long term and short, point to heavy opposition to the miners fork.

Bitcoin users can wait days, weeks or longer while miners spend endless millions of dollars attacking Bitcoin and mining their worthless shitcoin chain. All users have to do is wait. Slow block times aren't going to convince Bitcoin users to go against their interests. Miners are the ones who will be squeezed financially into calling the attack off and incentivized to return to the chain where users actually are.


Sounds really convincing!

When are you actually going to say something that might prove your point?



No they won't. Nobody would ever put bids up for this useless shitcoin. There will be zero bid liquidity on exchanges, zero OTC liquidity. In one move, these miners will have publicly destroyed the entire use case for their coin. It doesn't matter how big the mining rewards are since the coins will be worthless at market.

Which is why miners will never engage in this.



Why would your shitcoin be immune? Investors are going to conclude that POW doesn't work.

This is the most incredible thing about your theory. You believe investors are going to flock to the very dishonest miners who just robbed them. The truth is, they would dump your shitcoin too, especially since it was just airdropped.

Not to mention that miners will control half the supply on fork day. LOL. Yeah, really attractive for investors! Where can I line up to buy some? ::)

If u might be really able of abstract thinking and can for a minute analyze - not checking hashrate and speculation price ( both are related and can be manipulated dynamically esp very at some singular event) - then try to see Segwit was the fork, and the airdrop itself.

Hm

Current hash rate and price don't matter. What matters is compatibility with the legacy protocol and cumulative proof of work.

Segwit is/was compatible with the legacy protocol. It doesn't matter how horrible you think Segwit is. Legacy nodes accept Segwit transactions/blocks as valid. Since the Segwit chain is the valid chain with most accumulated POW, it is the only Bitcoin chain. There is no "parallel" legacy chain; there is only Bitcoin. Shelby bizarrely believes that despite a large majority of the network enforcing Segwit, miners could successfully hard fork Bitcoin to remove Segwit simply by virtue of hash rate.

The market has made abundantly clear over and over with such hard fork spinoffs: they are invalid chains. Hard forks. Spinoffs. Airdrops. Altcoins. Shitcoins. Whatever you want to call them.

Not only does the whole idea ignore what the market has proven repeatedly, but it shows great ignorance of the broad support Segwit has. Segwit activation obviously catalyzed the 2017 bubble; price literally entered the vertical phase of the bubble when miners locked in. Most of the network including major economic nodes are enforcing it.

Yet we are now to believe that overnight, miners alone can hard fork the network, steal half the network's wealth for themselves, and investors are just going to flock to this shitcoin because it's "the one-and-only great Satoshi's immutable protocol?" LOL, what a bunch of delusional crap. Only the most obtuse inbred retards in history could buy into this obvious crock of bullshit!

This is why only tiny groups of uninformed people in their obscure chat rooms and forums buy into this bullshit. Shelby (and Craig Wright) are just exploiting a small number of peoples' great ignorance of Bitcoin's technical aspects and game theory. Shelby obviously has an even (much, much) smaller audience than Craig Wright though, making his plans all the more pathetic looking.

Doesn't matter much what we think locally and at the moment. For u and some others who helped to get Segwit done (first not at all, than with 2x, and later scammed all the 2x away,...). Sure noobs and newbees still buying that crap but that potential seems to dry out with bigger industry checking out that scam.

Time moves on, take ur local stand as u can, the world is not under ur control

BitCoin didn't start as a ticker and didn't start with Segshit.

Netscape is gone as well.

We ll see

I'm open to the possibility that Bitcoin might be dethroned by another coin. I doubt this will be accomplished by hard forking Bitcoin though. The market has shown increasingly less interest with every new hard fork that comes along.

So that puts these forking miners in a difficult position. They have two options:

(a) Fork off and get ignored by the entire market
(b) 51% attack Bitcoin in hopes of getting noticed

Choice (b) would cost millions and millions of dollars on an ongoing basis. Bitcoin users would be inconvenienced by having their transactions censored, but the real financial pressure is on the attacking miners. They are the ones burning through endless money trying to attack Bitcoin. Bitcoin users can just wait until miners capitulate or have no money left.

If Bitcoin users all succumbed to a mere censorship attack and switched to the miners' fork, it would unequivocally prove Bitcoin's incentives do not work. If miners merely need to 51% attack the blockchain to force contentious consensus changes, the entire design discussed in Bitcoin's whitepaper is broken. The term "validity" no longer has any meaning with regard to the security design. There would be no difference between 21 million coins and 21 billion coins from the view of consensus rules. Obviously miners can change whatever rules they want and user consensus doesn't matter at all.

I'm guessing that won't happen based on the last decade of Bitcoin's history. If it does, no version of Bitcoin will retain any value. It obviously fails in its only stated purpose.

Since the discussion has become slightly more friendly to me, I will inject just a little bit more information, to encourage the discussion to head in a positive direction.


That is a white lie.

It is true that Satoshi’s protocol will run along side of the Core “soft fork” while Core builds up the booty of donations by fooling users into spending their BTC to “anyone can spend” addresses.

But by creating that booty Core is incompatible with the legacy protocol, because it creates a huge hole in the Nash equilibrium that can only be rectified by the Schelling point of the defense mechanism wherein the miners take the donations and force the Core virus to hardfork off (and force it to fuck off as well).

Your ostensibly either low IQ and/or stubbornness notwithstanding. I have already explained this several times in this thread, but you can not seem to assimilate all the factors into a holistic understanding of reality. If you disagree with unforgeable costliness then you must make a cogent argument as to why.


Strongly disagree. The SegWit chain has only accumulated the PoW in the past few months, when SegWit actually became significantly adopted. All the accumulated PoW before that was for the legacy addresses.


Do not lie. That is not an accurate summary of what I have written.


Correct. And thus Core has no appreciable value.


50% of the population has 15% of the wealth. You ostensibly do not understand valuation. Votes and democracy are worthless and create war because they are so non-meritorious.


Nope. The halving did. You refuse to read:

https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@anonymint/secrets-of-bitcoin-s-dystopian-valuation-model


Again you lie. As if you have not understood anything I have written in my two prior posts.


Lol. Read what I wrote about sheep in my prior post. The reason I ridicule sheep, because their fooliness creates totalitarianism and devastation.

Ahhh sigh. So difficult to teach an idiot.


Correct. And I have already established in my prior post that Core is the hardfork, not vice versa. Satoshi’s protocol can’t hardfork itself, and can not give its accumulated proof-of-work energy to a “soft fork”. I explained why in my prior post.

Additionally, read what Satoshi wrote as quoted in my prior post. Satoshi said that his protocol is immutable for the rest of the lifetime of Bitcoin.

You continue to ignore what gives Bitcoin its valuation (and thus you continue to promulgate Core’s deception and thus you are helping entrap innocent users in the Core scam!). It is not exchanges, impoverished users, etc.. It is only unforgeable costliness, i.e. miners (and the wealthy users) are the only thing that gives Bitcoin value. Hordes of minions (aka the plebs or serfs) are irrelevant. Until you understand that mathematical fact, you will continue to make the same inane, incorrect arguments.

And once we understand that only mining gives a cryptocurrency unforgeable costliness, then we understand that we the people can’t have our own cryptocurrency (i.e. not just for the global elite) until we solve at least 3 technological challenges:

1. ASIC resistant mining
2. Volume scaling in a constant block size, because adaptive block sizes are insecure and/or centralizing
3. Necessary (https://steemit.com/money/@anonymint/rise-of-hard-money-is-a-harbinger-of-misery) decentralized fractional reserves in a two-tier system (i.e. hodler coin and fractional reserves provably distinct but same unit-of-account) that the banksters can’t control

If someone would create such an altcoin and launch it fairly, perhaps we the people can win? Is it possible to create such an altcoin?

My posts on the subject of ASIC resistant mining:

https://busy.org/@anonymint/psjw06

https://github.com/tevador/RandomX/issues/11#issuecomment-499305867

https://github.com/ifdefelse/ProgPOW/issues/9#issuecomment-499103850

Some of you may know my history, that although I used to be prolific coder in my age 20s and 30s, have been suffering from a discombobulating chronic illness since ~2012 (ended up being at least gut Tuberculosis, Dengue infections, STDs, autoimmunity, diseased spleen and liver, chronic fatigue etc) which basically destroyed my ability to code because my liver does not produce enough energy for my brain. So although I can do spotty work on research, I do not seem to have the sustainable energy and work hours to code something myself anymore (at age 54).  :( :'(


You conclude that because you fail to understand unforgeable costliness, which is a concept invented by Nick Szabo for bitgold, before Bitcoin was launched. I explained that in my prior post. Again I urge you to read:

https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@anonymint/secrets-of-bitcoin-s-dystopian-valuation-model

The mining farms are controlled by the wealthy who understand unforgeable costliness. So of course they will mine the original, not the hardfork. And thus Core will die. Simple as that. The users will gnash their teeth and scream because Core transactions will not be confirmed, exchanges will fail, the ecosystem will come crashing down. I blogged about this yesterday:

https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@anonymint/bitco-i-n-will-collapse-to-usd775-price-soon <--- will be adding more to this blog soon


If no SegWit booty exists to create the incentive, then no Schelling point exists to cause the miners to go mine where the greater value is.

The incentives of proof-of-work remain extremely secure. It is the deception of Core which creates the huge “anyone can spend” booty, that causes the miners to rally towards the immutable value. This is a clever game theory that Satoshi put in Bitcoin, which protects against such attempts to use politics to take control of Bitcoin. Because we know politics is rent-seeking, kleptocracy (which is precisely what Core has been attempting to do with their Omnibus list of “features” and business models).

IOW, none of the miners can unilaterally 50+% attack Bitcoin. Even Craig’s group only has about 3% of the network hashrate, but that is ostensibly enough to be the leader of the SegWit booty driven Schelling point. The miners need some huge carrot for a Schelling point to exist. Once the Core deception is removed, then Nash equilibrium will be restored and no 50+% attack will be possible.



Nope. The miners can not change anything. They can only enforce Satoshi’s immutable protocol via the clever game theory Satoshi created.

Current hash rate and price don't matter. What matters is compatibility with the legacy protocol and cumulative proof of work.

Segwit is/was compatible with the legacy protocol. It doesn't matter how horrible you think Segwit is. Legacy nodes accept Segwit transactions/blocks as valid. Since the Segwit chain is the valid chain with most accumulated POW, it is the only Bitcoin chain. There is no "parallel" legacy chain; there is only Bitcoin. Shelby bizarrely believes that despite a large majority of the network enforcing Segwit, miners could successfully hard fork Bitcoin to remove Segwit simply by virtue of hash rate.

The market has made abundantly clear over and over with such hard fork spinoffs: they are invalid chains. Hard forks. Spinoffs. Airdrops. Altcoins. Shitcoins. Whatever you want to call them.

Not only does the whole idea ignore what the market has proven repeatedly, but it shows great ignorance of the broad support Segwit has. Segwit activation obviously catalyzed the 2017 bubble; price literally entered the vertical phase of the bubble when miners locked in. Most of the network including major economic nodes are enforcing it.

Yet we are now to believe that overnight, miners alone can hard fork the network, steal half the network's wealth for themselves, and investors are just going to flock to this shitcoin because it's "the one-and-only great Satoshi's immutable protocol?" LOL, what a bunch of delusional crap. Only the most obtuse inbred retards in history could buy into this obvious crock of bullshit!

This is why only tiny groups of uninformed people in their obscure chat rooms and forums buy into this bullshit. Shelby (and Craig Wright) are just exploiting a small number of peoples' great ignorance of Bitcoin's technical aspects and game theory. Shelby obviously has an even (much, much) smaller audience than Craig Wright though, making his plans all the more pathetic looking.

I'm open to the possibility that Bitcoin might be dethroned by another coin. I doubt this will be accomplished by hard forking Bitcoin though. The market has shown increasingly less interest with every new hard fork that comes along.

So that puts these forking miners in a difficult position. They have two options:

(a) Fork off and get ignored by the entire market
(b) 51% attack Bitcoin in hopes of getting noticed

Choice (b) would cost millions and millions of dollars on an ongoing basis. Bitcoin users would be inconvenienced by having their transactions censored, but the real financial pressure is on the attacking miners. They are the ones burning through endless money trying to attack Bitcoin. Bitcoin users can just wait until miners capitulate or have no money left.

If Bitcoin users all succumbed to a mere censorship attack and switched to the miners' fork, it would unequivocally prove Bitcoin's incentives do not work. If miners merely need to 51% attack the blockchain to force contentious consensus changes, the entire design discussed in Bitcoin's whitepaper is broken. The term "validity" no longer has any meaning with regard to the security design. There would be no difference between 21 million coins and 21 billion coins from the view of consensus rules. Obviously miners can change whatever rules they want and user consensus doesn't matter at all.

I'm guessing that won't happen based on the last decade of Bitcoin's history. If it does, no version of Bitcoin will retain any value. It obviously fails in its only stated purpose.

Craig seems sincere but perhaps he’s just a good actor. I loved his argument at the end about equality in law is the antithesis of equality in outcomes. That is a high IQ conceptualization. Kudos. I rarely have the patience to watch a 1 hour video.

The flaws I see in his reasoning:

1. Recording of all data so that omniscient governments can be held accountable is totalitarianism because accountability does nothing to fix the Iron Law of Political Economics (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984) which insures that democracy will always be about selling infinite debt to infinite wants. Transparency of data can’t rectify that flaw of democracy. So given the [Weberian definition of government](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence), removing our ability to be private means absolute enslavement. Governance will become an Orwellian winner-take-all 666 if we follow Craig’s naivete.

2. The “solution” of BSV for transaction volume scaling is essentially centralization. Thus the outcome of totalitarian control or failure due to infighting due to the inability for one mining/dev group to subjugate the will of another.

So in short, Craig’s Vision (an impostor pretending to be Satoshi’s Vision) is worthless. He either knows this, or is incredibly naive.


Please forward my criticisms to Craig.

Btw, I debated Craig a couple years ago in one of his private slack channels and they ended up banning me because I was winning all the arguments. Go ask @kLee et al.

Another missive from Shelby:


I'll reply downthread

Another missive from Shelby:


I'll reply downthread

I have read somewhere that BSV have a built-in code that allows law enforcement to freeze any asset,...

The UASF non-mining node army is ostensibly what pressured the miners into bending over and accepting Segwit. So history has shown that they can indirectly provide benefit, depending on what you'd consider a benefit.

I guess the only thing I want to reply to is point 2 about centralization. Yes, megagigaterapetablocks will likely result in fewer fully-validating, non-mining entities. It will also likely result in fewer full-stack mining entities. So what?

People keep talking about decentralization as if it is an end in itself. Why? AFAIC, as long as there are no structural barriers to entry by new participants, the network is as decentralized as it need be. If there is no discernible marginal benefit from adding one more participant to the network, then by definition further decentralization is of no benefit.

And quite frankly, all public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.

Not to mention the fact that non-mining nodes provide zero benefit to the network anyhow. If you have sufficient economic interest to be a first-class tx creator, then fine. Pony up for a validating client. But don't delude yourself that your participation brings any benefit to anyone but yourself.

By having megagigaterapetablocks you are giving full control of blockchain audit to the "operators". I guess the only way some people would understand why centralization is bad is when forces collude to censor certain transactions, such as donating to Wikileaks or anything else that wouldn't comply with what they consider a morally correct transaction.

Craig seems sincere but perhaps he’s just a good actor. I loved his argument at the end about equality in law is the antithesis of equality in outcomes. That is a high IQ conceptualization. Kudos. I rarely have the patience to watch a 1 hour video.

The flaws I see in his reasoning:

1. Recording of all data—without any options for privacy so that omniscient governments can be held accountable—is totalitarianism. Because accountability does nothing to fix nor even mitigate the Iron Law of Political Economics (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984) which insures that democracy will always be about selling infinite debt to infinite wants. Obligatory transparency of data can’t rectify that inherent flaw of democracy. So given the Weberian definition of government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence) is a “monopoly on violence”, removing our voluntary option for privacy will enable absolute enslavement. Governance will become an Orwellian winner-take-all 666 if we follow Craig’s naivete. Our wise forefathers understood this and thusly recognized in the U.S. Constitution our inalienable right to bear arms and made direct taxation unconstitutional (https://steemit.com/money/@anonymint/rise-of-hard-money-is-a-harbinger-of-misery).

2. The “solution” provided by BSV for transaction volume scaling is essentially centralization. Thus the outcome of totalitarian control or failure due to infighting due to the inability for one mining/dev group to subjugate the will of another.

Both points are evidence that Craig is fighting against decentralization. Craig wants to return to the old order which will die in flames of totalitarianism over the next decade(s) (https://steemit.com/money/@anonymint/rise-of-hard-money-is-a-harbinger-of-misery).

So in short, Craig’s Vision (an impostor pretending to be Satoshi’s Vision) is worthless. He either knows this, or is incredibly naive.


Please forward my criticisms to Craig.

Btw, I debated Craig a couple years ago in one of his private slack channels and they ended up banning me because I was winning arguments. Go ask @kLee et al.

---

Because I already provided a link upthread several times which explains in detail why automatically (e.g. via miner consensus) adaptive block size does not function correct decentralized. The only reason it is functioning now is because Craig’s group controls most of the mining and because they have the centralized political power to fork the code and get all the miners to adhere.

It is not the size of the blocks that it is the issue per se. But the fact that changes to the size can not be decentralized.

Also very large block sizes that are not currently fully utilized can be used to destroy other miners and entirely centralize the mining. Well the mining is already centralized, so this is their poison pill to make sure it remains centralized. Craig will never tell you this and he will ban me from any discussions so I can not debate him. I will destroy him in any debate.

Put me on a live youtube debate with Craig and I will roast his ass so badly that he will lose all credibility. Not because I hate him, but because he does not tell the entire story. He hides information that he does not want you to know. Or he is incredibly naive.

Do you not know how large blocks can be used to destroy other miners? Simple, they drive the transaction fees too low. This is not an issue while the coinbase rewards are significant, but will be an issue later.

In short, BSV is technologically inept and will die a fiery death eventually.



You ostensibly just do not see holes in his inept designs which will cause them to crash and burn eventually. Centralization is an entire waste of time. Not trustless, not permissionless. Just use Facebook coin then.

Craig is no Satoshi. I am much closer to being Satoshi than he is (and yet I’m still not and very far from being), from the standpoint of technological knowledge. Craig is an erudite, learnt man. I am a (unfortunately chronically ill, as was Craig’s former partner) mad-scientist, primary researcher. These are facts, not hubris.


Nope. I expect something totally new and closer to perfect will arrive on the scene at an opportune time. It will not be Bitcoin, nor any fork of Bitcoin.


Agreed, but AFAICS irrelevant to my points above.

---

And I rebuked that theory. Competition between democracies does nothing to rectify the inherent flaw of democracy. Only decentralization, trustlessness, permissionlessness, and (optional) anonymity can help us. We need a symmetrical power to resist tyranny. If you think the Swiss aren’t also destroying themselves, I have bridge on Mars to sell you. Do you need me to cite some Armstrong blogs about the political corruption in Switzerland?


Satoshi v0.5.3 protocol Bitcoin is decentralized enough, except for the dominance of ASICs and the fact that for example solar power in the middle of rural areas is not as viable as hydropower, because ASICs improve too fast so need to keep the hardware running all the time. I believe there may be a technological solution to this. Did you know that solar power is now less expensive than grid power (as low as 1.5 cents per kwh) in places such as Chili and the Middle East.

Then of course we need scaling but with constant block sizes. Again I there may possibly be a technological solution for this as well.

And we need anonymity that is not entirely broken and centralized as is the case for Monero (I am entirely vindicated!) (https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/re-anonymint-re-anonymint-is-monero-s-or-all-anonymity-broken-20190511t132347507z)



Lol. Depending on the government to ameliorate the Iron Law of Political Economics centralization due to the game theory of political control. Sounds very logical.  ::)

Craig simply offers nothing new and just wants to take us back to old centralized Internet.

Sorry. Facts.

By having megagigaterapetablocks you are giving full control of blockchain audit to the "operators". I guess the only way some people would understand why centralization is bad is when forces collude to censor certain transactions, such as donating to Wikileaks or anything else that wouldn't comply with what they consider a morally correct transaction.

The main reason Bitcoin has value is the fact that it works irrespective of any legal frameworks. CSW misses this main premise.

Craig seems sincere but perhaps he’s just a good actor. I loved his argument at the end about equality in law is the antithesis of equality in outcomes. That is a high IQ conceptualization. Kudos. I rarely have the patience to watch a 1 hour video.

The flaws I see in his reasoning:

1. Recording of all data—without any options for privacy so that omniscient governments can be held accountable—is totalitarianism. Because accountability does nothing to fix nor even mitigate the Iron Law of Political Economics (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984) which insures that democracy will always be about selling infinite debt to infinite wants. Obligatory transparency of data can’t rectify that inherent flaw of democracy. So given the Weberian definition of government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence) is a “monopoly on violence”, removing our voluntary option for privacy will enable absolute enslavement. Governance will become an Orwellian winner-take-all 666 if we follow Craig’s naivete. Our wise forefathers understood this and thusly recognized in the U.S. Constitution our inalienable right to bear arms and made direct taxation unconstitutional (https://steemit.com/money/@anonymint/rise-of-hard-money-is-a-harbinger-of-misery).

2. The “solution” provided by BSV for transaction volume scaling is essentially centralization. Thus the outcome of totalitarian control or failure due to infighting due to the inability for one mining/dev group to subjugate the will of another.

Both points are evidence that Craig is fighting against decentralization. Craig wants to return to the old dysfunctional political order which will die in flames of totalitarianism over the next decade(s) (https://steemit.com/money/@anonymint/rise-of-hard-money-is-a-harbinger-of-misery).

So in short, Craig’s Vision (an impostor pretending to be Satoshi’s Vision) is worthless. He either knows this, or is incredibly naive.

Because I already provided a link upthread several times which explains in detail why automatically (e.g. via miner consensus) adaptive block size does not function correct decentralized.

You ostensibly just do not see holes in his inept designs which will cause them to crash and burn eventually. Centralization is an entire waste of time. Not trustless, not permissionless. Just use Facebook coin then.

Nope. I expect something totally new and closer to perfect will arrive on the scene at an opportune time. It will not be Bitcoin, nor any fork of Bitcoin.

BSV advocates idolizing governance and law in general, as if some competition amongst nations will rectify human nature in political collectives.

In my haste, I failed to respond to this specific claim of yours. You’re ostensibly referring to pools. There are available protocols for pools that can even enable individual miners in the pool to dictate what goes in the block which they find the winning solution for. Miners can switch from pools at any time.

If you’re instead referring to ASIC vendors, contrary to my expectations more and more fabs are available for ASIC vendors, such as Samsung and Fujitsu recently. And the number of ASIC vendors are also increasing with greater competition. And recently solar power has been as cheap as 1.5 cents per kwh. China has banned Bitcoin mining and an industry insider claims 90% of it has left China. It actually seems that Bitcoin mining is becoming more decentralized, which was surprising.

---

I will explain below AFAICS there’s no puzzle. You appear to be mixing domain knowledge ineptitude and condescending hubris, which is a recipe for being humiliated and impoverished. I will try to be respectful and friendly despite the fact that you’re (just slightly) abusing me and trampling my effort in the mud like swine, with your what appears to be Dunning-Kruger-ness (?). I don’t go out of my way to be condescending and project lazy, ineptitude as hubris. JJG is an expert at doing that. As has been the case with other Coretards who are offended by facts, JJG misperceives my effort as cocky when in fact it is a humble (and pita, painstaking) attempt to help others. My words do become more sharp-tongued to those who refuse to stop trampling my effort in the mud. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and try to be factual and withhold my sharp tongue this time. Please take this opportunity to be more circumspect and improve your research and domain knowledge before you reply.

How about you tell us what puzzle you think you have worked out? Explain it to us or link us to some document which explains it. Full transparency please, not time-wasting obfuscation, political tactics. You are an engineer. Where is your technological document explaining this?

As I told you before (perhaps in a private communication), I have not studied in great detail all the machinations from that period of Bitcoin’s history. I do remember that Luke Jr. was (and apparently still is) adamant about smaller block sizes. Do you have a document which summarizes in sufficient detail what occurred so I can analyze it?

I did a Google search and found the following:


I added extra emphasis to the key statement above.

AFAICS, the key point is a hard fork would only have occurred if miners had chosen sizes greater than the 1 MB hard limit that Satoshi had put in immutable “v0.1”.

So AFAICS there’s no “puzzle”. The miners could make any size block they wanted to up to 1 MB and the Satoshi protocol would accept it with no hard fork. Any consensus around which “soft limit” to use was always overhead limited by the 1 MB hard cap limit dictated by Satoshi’s immutable protocol. Immutable because there was no Schelling point to hard fork the protocol. Hard forks are always worthless compared to (worth less than) the original, immutable Satoshi protocol, because otherwise it would require a Schelling point wherein the majority of wealth decides to sell the original and buy the new. But the problem is what new block size value do we agree on? We will never agree on one value. Thus the choice is between selling the original and buying innumerable competing forks, and thus the “unforgeable costliness” can never be transferred to hard forks. That is the game theory of proof-of-work. Learn it. Drill it into your mind. It will never change.

So Core was worthless because it did not force the Bitcoin wealth to make a decision. It sneakily injected a temporary “soft fork” deception to delay the decision of the wealthy. And of course the Bitcoin wealth have already made their decision about BSV and BCH. Just look at the relative market caps. And no the Bitcoin wealth is never going to sell out and buy BSV. For the reason I explained in the prior paragraph. Get real man. Wake up from the hocus pocus spell that Craig put on you.

And that is a critical distinction from the inept nonsense in BSV, which either has a) no hard limit, b) has a hard limit that is so high it can drive transaction fee revenue too low, or c) has a centralized protocol hard limit that is periodically raised. The last possibility #c is explicit centralization and the former two #a and #b enable a winner-take-all miner centralization that I explained already in my prior posts. With the adaptive unbounded block sizes limited by miner consensus in #a, a miner with sufficient percent of the network hashrate can (via economics) drive the adaptive consensus block size too large and thus is equivalent to #b. Multiple times upthread I provided a link (https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@anonymint/psadrv) which explains the problem with adaptive block sizes in more technological detail.

A block size which is too large as in #b (and what #a degenerates to) can force transaction fees too low, which enables bankrupting the marginal miners until the winner-take-all most efficient miner (or mining oligarchy) totally centralizes mining. I have explained this concept so many times to you over the years in various bitcointalk.org threads. I have never seen a cogent, correct, detailed rebuttal from you. Why do you continue obfuscating your thoughts by referring to some nebulous “puzzle” that you never specify?



Character assassination (aka argument via ad hominem) instead of factual discussion, is not cooperation nor a meritocracy. That’s (along with Coretards’ appeal to authority, e.g. when they cite the BitcOn-job, hack Gregory Maxwell) the Dunning-Kruger, political trough tactics and laziness of Coretards such as JJG. I would prefer they tried to argue technological facts without attempting to personalize discussion (i.e. not resorting to the trough of politics), but they’re incapable of doing so and so they force me to judge their character. But I speak factually about them. They do not speak factually about me. They bear false witness and they will reap what they sow. They are not worth a further mention from me. Let JJG carry on with his nonsense in the W.O. thread. It’s reality to him in his corner of “reality”.

Perhaps one could argue that my articulation is not comprehensive enough (even though it is exhausting enough to write what I do write) and that being a suitable justification for why others malign me or trample my effort in the mud. As if it is totally my responsibility to educate every person who thinks they know more about blockchain technology, economics, and game theory than they actually do. Nevertheless I put a lot of effort in, and my antagonists typically flippantly expend the minimum effort into trampling my effort with their ad hominem drivel and do not even try to grok the technological, economic, and game theory issues I have explained.

I understand you may feel slighted when I characterize BSV as inept nonsense. I think I am speaking factually and it is not directed to any person. I even stated in my prior post that I am not against Craig Wright in any personal sense. Also I have tried my best to protect you from scams, and I will admit that I have written to you private (or hinted in public) that I think you (and others) are contemplating potentially ruinous actions (not just on BSV but as you know other topics in private discussions such as not coming out of statism). So maybe this has sowed some minor resentment or maybe not. My intentions were sincere, but I can see where perhaps that is analogous to the judgemental relative who thinks they know what is best. So I should stop that and I will.

---

Please provide a link to those privacy options on BSV which are not a hard fork of Bitcoin’s protocol (aka “Satoshi’s Vision”)? I will then proceed to explain why these technologies are insufficient. You seem to forget that I am something of an autodidact “expert” on anonymity (https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/is-monero-s-or-all-anonymity-broken) (remember I was the “Legendary” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=400235.6940#msg16925985) @Anonymint who was one of the first who pushed for anonymity technology in 2013 for cryptocurrency) and recently been entirely vindicated about the flaws I alleged in Monero since 2014 (https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/re-anonymint-re-anonymint-is-monero-s-or-all-anonymity-broken-20190511t132347507z).

If you are referring to some hard fork of Bitcoin (other than the block size), then you will be merely confirming my anticipation of something that is not Bitcoin and which will be an improvement over Bitcoin for the medium-of-exchange function which Bitcoin was not designed to be.


What part of—‘encryption’ has as much to do with anonymity mix sets, as warm-blood has to do with mammals—do you not understand? Yeah encryption is usually needed for form anonymity over the Internet but it is an insufficient condition by itself.

In the context of anonymity that is an ignorant statement. Do I need to explain why? Encryption is not a mix set. You apparently understand nothing about anonymity technology.


Your handwaving lack of domain specific technological knowledge apparently induces you to write meaningless statements.

Craig is correct that BSV does not provide both untraceability and unlinkabiilty (https://cryptonote.org/inside#untraceable-payments). Thus AFAICS his rhetoric about transparency and accountability matches the technological reality of what BSV is. I doubt you will be able to provide a valid technological refutation.


I respect that you are a talented engineer in your domain of specialization (presumably more knowledgeable than me in your engineering specialty). But so far you have convinced me that your blockchain domain knowledge is too weak to have a correct interpretation of the reality you are trying to perceive about BSV. Whereas, I am reasonably confident that my blockchain domain knowledge is far beyond yours. Of course I am open to being corrected by your future reply. This is not an appeal to authority, as I have refuted you with facts, not authority. Rather this is a suggestion to be circumspect about your mistakes so you do not fall in Craig’s woodchipper along with the Maxwelled-Coretards, Fluffy-Monerotards, Vitaklans, Larimereameds, etc..


I also deduced the possibility of that finer conceptualization of his stance. I just can’t write everything I think, else it would be a novel. I also expected that sort of retort to my stance that Christians must reject statism and especially I expected that you would precisely be thinking that (I read your mind really no joke). The retort is that if we reject civilization, then we reject prosperity. Note Romans 13 tells us to cooperate with governments that are good. This means we can participate in civilization but we should stand our ground on unconstitutional income taxes (https://steemit.com/money/@anonymint/rise-of-hard-money-is-a-harbinger-of-misery) and the God given inalienable right to bear arms (without need for permitting and permission from any State). IOW, we can cooperate with a State that does not demand a Weberian monopoly on violence and which respects private property rights and freedom of religion. But when the State metamorphoses to a Beast the collects income taxes, we are to come out of her the Great Harlot. Every now and then the tree of liberty has to be replenished with the blood of tyrants and believers. Bear in mind who my ancestor was (and he did not even have the warlike Cherokee ancestry I also have from my mother’s side):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Shelby
(fmr. Confederate General and Governor of Kentucky)

I’m relieved that I was not there in the South when these SJWs were tearing down the statues of my ancestors. I don’t know if I would have been able to restrain myself.

Kentucky is where the “shots heard round the world” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_heard_round_the_world) were first fired. Male readers should listen to this pastor and learn to be a man:

https://youtu.be/zZeBUipC388?t=2381

He gets into the story of the battle at Lexington, Kentucky at the following linked juncture in the video:

https://youtu.be/zZeBUipC388?t=3060

[True not fake taught in most churches] Christianity is all about cooperation and respect for private property. It is the only philosophy of life that is fully compatible with Libertarianism. Again I explained it in more detail in a recent blog:

https://steemit.com/religion/@anonymint/ethics-of-religion-money-and-bitcoin

We Westerners were nothing before Christianity (and especially the form of it West of the Hajnal line) and we will be nothing again soon as we have departed from the only thing that made us great:

https://steemit.com/philosophy/@anonymint/geographical-cultural-ethos-science-is-dead-part-2



Done. In this post above.


Real, immutable, one-and-only Satoshi v0.5.3 (aka “v0.1”) Bitcoin has an immutable block size. Thus no centralization possible around block size changes. BSV and BCH are and will always be centralized (by politics and eventually even mining if not already) because of not keeping the immutable block size.

How was that not obvious? I have been stating that all along.


I stated very clearly that I am too ill to code. I do spotty research. I am obviously referring to the possibility that ideas are out there and someone will create the medium-of-exchange coin eventually.

Why do you assume I am talking about myself? Why do you assume I think I have a monopoly on ideas? For example, have I ever claimed to have invented zk-starks?

Trolls character assassinate me, then I respond by pointing out how many times I have been correct about so many technological issues, and so they then assume I am claiming to be so cocky that they think I am thinking I am the only person in the world who could create a decentralized medium-of-exchange cryptocurrency. I have never stated that in public. In fact, I did not start that asinine “Bitcoin killer” thread. The user @thejaytiesto created it and I certainly did not ask him to do it. And recently he honored my request to close the thread to further posts since I can not defend myself there. Remember when that thread was posted, I was incredibly ill given I had gut Tuberculosis and many other ailments and was taking 5000mg a day of very toxic antibiotics that made me extremely, extremely ill. I tried to defend myself in that thread against trolls when I was very, very discombobulated and ill. You guys are so friendly and fair like true Christians. :rolleyes:

Maybe you just want something to exist which does not exist. So maybe you are angry/frustrated with me when I call a spade a spade, because you think I am unfairly villifying a reasonable experiment (as if at least trying is better than doing nothing and only talking) because presumably you want so much for the medium-of-exchange cryptocurrency to exist when it does not exist. So blame it on me by writing something very hurtful like the above. As if you expect that creating such a cryptocurrency can be done overnight. How can one code when they are still doing research? Coding can not start until someone solves all of the flaws in the research. I am not a person who slaps nonsense together in code and then sell garbage to the community so they get scammed, lose their wealth, create nothing of value, and end up in the woodchipper. I have some German ancestry (in addition to Welsh and French-Italian) so I admire quality, not slop.

Besides I will not be launching any altcoin. It is too much for one person to accomplish by themself even if they did have all the research sorted out, and no way that such an altcoin can be launched by a team which is not anonymous.

Readers every altcoin which has a team you can identify is of course never going to be decentralized. If it begins with politics and personalities, then so it will die by them as well.

I suspect some anonymous group will accomplish it eventually. It will likely appear with no fanfair, very spartan matter-of-fact documentation, and when we least expect it such as at the bottom of a cryptowinter when nobody is paying attention.


I am not surprised that I have to point out to people that if their premises are flawed, then their dependent character assassination drivel is flawed. Touché.

Shelby has asked me to pass on his response:

In my haste, I failed to respond to this specific claim of yours. You’re ostensibly referring to pools. There are available protocols for pools that can even enable individual miners in the pool to dictate what goes in the block which they find the winning solution for. Miners can switch from pools at any time.

If you’re instead referring to ASIC vendors, contrary to my expectations more and more fabs are available for ASIC vendors, such as Samsung and Fujitsu recently. And the number of ASIC vendors are also increasing with greater competition. And recently solar power has been as cheap as 1.5 cents per kwh. China has banned Bitcoin mining and an industry insider claims 90% of it has left China. It actually seems that Bitcoin mining is becoming more decentralized, which was surprising.

I will explain below AFAICS there’s no puzzle.

How about you tell us what puzzle you think you have worked out?

Explain it to us or link us to some document which explains it.

AFAICS, the key point is a hard fork would only have occurred if miners had chosen sizes greater than the 1 MB hard limit that Satoshi had put in immutable “v0.1”.

So AFAICS there’s no “puzzle”. The miners could make any size block they wanted to up to 1 MB and the Satoshi protocol would accept it with no hard fork. Any consensus around which “soft limit” to use was always overhead limited by the 1 MB hard cap limit dictated by Satoshi’s immutable protocol. Immutable because there was no Schelling point to hard fork the protocol. Hard forks are always worthless compared to (worth less than) the original, immutable Satoshi protocol, because otherwise it would require a Schelling point wherein the majority of wealth decides to sell the original and buy the new. But the problem is what new block size value do we agree on? We will never agree on one value. Thus the choice is between selling the original and buying innumerable competing forks, and thus the “unforgeable costliness” can never be transferred to hard forks. That is the game theory of proof-of-work. Learn it. Drill it into your mind. It will never change.

Please provide a link to those privacy options on BSV which are not a hard fork of Bitcoin’s protocol (aka “Satoshi’s Vision”)?

What part of—‘encryption’ has as much to do with anonymity

Done. In this post above.

Real, immutable, one-and-only Satoshi v0.5.3 (aka “v0.1”) Bitcoin has an immutable block size. Thus no centralization possible around block size changes. BSV and BCH are and will always be centralized (by politics and eventually even mining if not already) because of not keeping the immutable block size.

I am not surprised that I have to point out to people that if their premises are flawed, then their dependent character assassination drivel is flawed. Touché.

Before anything, someone needs to send Andreas M. Antonopoulos a link to this thread, because he obviously doesn’t understand that Core will be the hard fork, not vice versa:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBnC9AhKjws

---

Firstly, I want to offer an olive branch to @jbreher by recognizing:

1. I appreciate his effort and participation. It’s frustrating to both appreciate someone and simultaneously deal with the propensity of certain snarky words to be later cited by others as evidence of something I am not. This has happened to me many times, even it is not @jbreher’s intention. IOW, I did not impress upon him how his use of certain words and phrases can by no fault of his, end up taking a life of their own because this forum has often become a “he said, she said” clusterfuck in my past experience. IOW, some people will later claim that @jbreher does not respect me and spanked me. Which is why I am not eager to post on this forum. But again I appreciate his effort and participation.

2. Misunderstandings and learning are part of any human process even between intelligent forms of life. I have a thick skin but it did not help me from being banned. So now I am more of stickler about letting people get away with snarky statements about me, because as I said they take on a life of their own. @jbreher may feel his statements were no big deal, factual, appropriate, and constructive dialogue. But that does not guarantee that others will interpret the way he does. I guess it is very difficult for us to write on forums and not have unintentional misunderstandings. We must be very, very meticulous with our wording if we want to avoid misunderstandings. I can understand any person for not being so meticulous and anal about it. Yet the word “absurd” is reasonably overt admonishment. So I don’t know for sure if my reaction was over the top. In any case, I am expressing a conciliatory tone now. That is not to claim that I never had a snarky Freudian slip. I hope most of my sharp-tongued bullets have been reserved for those who lashed out first with such kind words as “nutjob” (@jbreher did not use that word to describe me, which was instead flung by @exatsie and hopefully he will not again … I’m usually willing to forgive, forget, and be friends, unless there’s a pattern of abuse that never improves).

3. To clarify what I tried to convey, but poorly stated in my prior post, I think @jbreher has been trying to assist in promulgating awareness and meritorious analysis of my views and I do not think he was overtly attempting character assassination. I was slightly put off by him making statements which could be (mis?)interpreted as judgmental, callous, and not giving more understanding to my human suffering and commensurate with fully appreciating the effort I am trying to apply to help us search for the truth. IOW, I thought that he appreciated the effort I am putting in to try to help him understand why I think he is being fooled by Craig and to help him not lose moAr BTC value. I felt this is very noble of me and in the spirit of being a true brother and friend, so I was more shocked to read “absurd”. I thought I was sacrificing myself for the benefit of a group of men who are friends. Perhaps I need to recalibrate my expectations and motivations. Essentially I think both of us got sloppy/careless and should try to appear to be more cooperative and less snarky. Also he and I may at times have a different perspective about philosophical priorities. My philosophical stance is not cast in stone yet. I am still trying to figure it out.

4. After re-reading my prior post, I again did not explain my perspective optimally. So readers are to be forgiven for arguing with me and missing some of my points, when my exposition is somewhat discombobulated.

5. My illness has flared up again the past days (after a few good weeks) and it literally discombobulates my mental state to something that is sort of analogous to being very drunk and inability to connect thoughts clearly, and inability to proof-read text. The energy for the brain becomes severely lacking. It is a struggle I can not describe because it does not have an exact analog in the experience of those who haven’t endured this sort of illness. As I said, I should not even try to write here. I am asking for trouble. But I did it because this issue is so critically important for all of us.

6. I have become very exhausted from this discussion, so I find it very arduous to unravel misunderstandings. But I think this discussion is so important. Which is why I making one more post. I am gravely concerned about where the world might be heading. However I want to also keep an open mind and hope that there is a near-term positive outcome for humanity. (See the bottom of this post for some positive thoughts about our plight against statism) Please do not perceive my comments as entirely rigid and closed minded. I remain open to new data and new mental approaches. Sometimes I am so overloaded just to react to what others have written, that I do not make it clear that I am not so rigid in my beliefs as might be perceived.

7. I do not presume I am absolutely correct. As my illness and energy allow, I revisit my perspective again and again, searching for flaws in my prior statements. Sometimes I want to correct some past statements but it is too late. Inertia builds. I have other work to do. Etc..

Here is a clarification of my main points from my prior post:

1. Unforgeable costliness is all the (proof-of-)work that was burned to mine an asset and it is stored as the confidence—amongst the wealth of the hodlers of that the asset— that the asset is a reliable and good store-of-value. The unforgeable costliness is transferred from a physics phenomenon (i.e. cost of work) to a public confidence. Money exists only due to a Schelling point of public confidence (amongst the extant hodlers of the wealth in the said asset, e.g. Bitcoin’s power-law distributed wealth) which can’t be overridden by the nonexistent Schelling points for forgeries (amongst that power-law distributed wealth, disregarding worthless minions who incorrectly think voting is free (http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/#money-and-politics) but who actually do not matter in the economic equation), i.e. confidence that the store-of-value is unforgeable, reliable, fungible, widely accepted, liquid, etc.. Note recently several of my tweets further clarifying my conceptualization of the valuation of PlanB’s stock-to-flow’s model where deleted by PlanB and I was banned from ever commenting on his tweets again:

https://twitter.com/iamnotback/with_replies (archive of the specific posts (https://archive.is/yuJNx))

Is PlanB part of some conspiracy to drive more fools into Core before Craig starts the hard fork? Or is just offended by my tweets? Or does he disagree with my logic? Strange.

2. Block size changes, or any protocol changes other than benevolent bug fixes, break unforgeability. Because there is no single, one-and-only choice for the new protocol. And thus all the various protocol choices for forks are “forgeries” and lack the necessary confidence amongst the hodlers the wealth of that asset. All of us admit that all hard forks of Bitcoin have been sold off to buy more moar real Bitcoin. Core delayed the decision of the Bitcoin wealth, with a deception named “soft fork” which eventually becomes a hard fork, free airdrop for the real (aka legacy) Bitcoin wealth hodlers so that the said wealth can vote with its decision about which fork represents the unforgeable costliness. The only Schelling point of confidence which is definitively never a forgery is the immutable, one-and-only original. Thus it is impossible to transfer to a protocol change, the unforgeable costliness that gives an asset its monetary value (by way of the stocks-to-flows model I have cited numerous times in this thread).

3. @jbreher ponders whether Bitcoin never had a 1 MB limit. He and all big blockers must maintain that Satoshi had an adaptive limit and then put the 1 MB hard cap limit there as an afterthought and not as intentionally immutable. But I have explained and argued that any form of adaptive or mutable block size limit is incompatible with both decentralization and unforgeability. So thus there is no question (at least in my mind) that Satoshi had to make the block size immutable. If he didn’t then Bitcoin would have no Schelling point to provide and sustain unforgeability. This game theory seems to be very solid and comprehensible. I have never read a cogent rebuttal to it.

4. Craig correctly argues that governments will apply their power to attempt to force identity onto cryptocurrency transactions. Bitcoin has very weak to non-existent mechanisms for protections of our identities and correlatable activities which are recorded on-chain. Thus Bitcoin as a system is less of a threat to that aspect of government power than a more anonymous altcoin (although it has been shown that Monero is not very anonymous, may be a honey pot, and there really are not any truly effective anonymity altcoins yet, so Craig’s distinction on that point may not be that germane yet).

5. The lack of strong on-chain privacy and anonymity for Bitcoin is less of an issue for most people, because they were going to be kicked off of Bitcoin anyway by higher and higher transaction fees. And the Bitcoin $millionaires who can afford the txn fees, are going to be targeted by capital controls, taxation, etc... So the problem here is that since unforgeable (i.e. the real, immutable, one-and-only) Bitcoin is not going to be a widely used medium-of-exchange (can not scale transaction volume), the $millionaires are not going to have the political support of the masses. Bitcoin will likely become known/viewed by the public via propaganda of statism as a haven for “crime”, “terrorists”, “political manipulators”, “other religions than your own”, and general as something bad that governments must apply the full force of law to attempt to control:


6. So governments potentially destroying Bitcoin $millionaires is how the global elite possibly prevent competition for wealth as we go through this crazy period of transition from the Industrial Age to the Knowledge Age. Bitcoin will be a de facto global reserve asset. The uber wealthy who can “lawyer-up” and are essentially above-the-law will use Bitcoin as a way to transport and hodl their UNTAXABLE  wealth independent of nations. The rest of us will be subject to UNCONSTITUTIONAL taxes and be dumped back into the crab bucket mentality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality) of collective, political society. Those who are willing to sell their soul to the devil may be able to be accepted (https://steemit.com/money/@anonymint/rise-of-hard-money-is-a-harbinger-of-misery) into their private club (https://youtu.be/kJ4SSvVbhLw?t=102) (<--- please click this link).

7. So with BSV Craig offers us the proposition of a forgeable medium-of-exchange which the governments can use to track everyone with, i.e. the 666 system. Nice! Thanks Craig. Fortunately there’s no means of onboarding and adoption for Craig’s shitcoin (because it was not mined from inception and instead is just a forgery, free airdrop of tokens which everyone will sell) and the Bitcoin wealthy are surely not going to sell the unforgeable and buy the forgeable. Actually if you read carefully Craig’s writings, it is clear that he is going to be buying the real Bitcoin and selling the BSV shitcoin to all those fools who do not read carefully what he is writing and have not read my explanations so they can better understand the double-speak he is intentionally using. Craig is giving the fools a choice. It is a test. To determine whether they can think and analyse clearly. Of course he persumably knows he is selling a shitcoin to fools. My understanding of markets (that the majority must always lose the most so the power-law distribution is not violated) that is what he is supposed to do. He is a market marker for the greater fools. My theory is that he is fulfilling the role he was assigned by the global elite.

And no Bitcoin can not be the same 666 because once again I will repeat that with the 1 MB immutable block size, then it can not become a widespread medium-of-exchange. See all the factors of the analysis must be holistically assimilated. @hv_ if you are mixed up, maybe you are not assimilating?

8. Adding anonymity features to a cryptocurrency might increase the likelihood that miners are eventually targeted by governments, but it might actually decrease it (c.f. below). However, China (and soon India) has banned Bitcoin mining. Many governments may end up trying to ban Bitcoin mining as well. But mining will always continue regardless (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIQkuF_I5Xo) even if as necessary surreptitiously because it is profitable, e.g. there is no way to detect someone mining in their home. I do not agree with his claim that exchanges (between cryptocurrencies) can not be fully decentralized. We just need cryptocurrencies to implement cross-chain atomic transactions protocols which I helped to perfect (https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/scaling-decentralization-security-of-distributed-ledgers). So I am not entirely convinced of Craig’s argument about law. We are headed into a transition of the global economy away from Industrialization towards knowledge work over the Internet and nation-states will lose some of their relevance. Thus a global, private, anonymous medium-of-exchange might just disintermediate the governments. We’ll see. As I wrote before, research continues…


One could argue that making transactions non-anonymous increases the likelihood that governments will have an incentive to require miners to censor certain UTXO and transactions. Craig’s logic here is not a slam dunk.


He is arguing against himself. Lol. Because a miner of a cryptocurrency that has anonymity will never “knowingly…” because they are prevented from knowing by the anonymity.


Craig welcome to reality. Cryptocurrency is going to be vilified regardless of whether there is anonymity. Cryptocurrency is a technological, economic evolution phenomenon that no one can stop. It is going to happen regardless of anything Craig and/or governments do.


And the thing is that the criminals will be able to figure out how to use Bitcoin (including any of its forks) entirely untraceable by chain analysis, whilst the rest of us will not. So all that effort of governments to stop “crime” is bullshit when in fact the government and those who buy off the government are the criminals.

So Craig’s feigned altruism is bullshit and vacuous.

Cryptocurrency has arrived as a phenomenon which will shake-up the foundations of human civilization to the core. This is an earthquake that never stops and only grows more violent and disruptive (and in creative destruction and constructive disintermediation) over time.

---

Thanks for some education about Europe.

Jurisdictional arbitrage of this form (between just hodling whilst their socialist, clusterfucked kleptocracies collapse or declaring assets if they offer a good enough deal) is a plausible reason to be more optimistic.

This can be another interpretation of what is meant by positing that Bitcoin is here to enable the wealthy to perserve their wealth through the chaos coming to the world, not as a (especially if forgeable) medium-of-exchange.

And there are apparently a lot of Italian descendants in Argentina. And I might even become one of them.

---

Read my prior post in this thread. Bitcoin mining is ostensibly becoming more decentralized, not more centralized, at least until some singularity is reached wherein the minted coinbase reward (aka the flow of new stock) becomes too small. I will be blogging about my thoughts about that eventual singularity, but it is a decade or decades from now, but not later then 2141.

Sunk costs are not what provides value to Bitcoin in the stocks-to-flows valuation model. The mining cost of the new annual flow provides the baseline for valuation (https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@anonymint/pt1mqy) of all the above ground stock. (<--- click that link for more detailed explanation). I explained in this post that the sunk costs is transferred to the Schelling point of public confidence. Read this post and my prior one carefully.

There’s no Schelling point for the Bitcoin wealth to sell the immutable protocol and buy any fork. So the only Schelling point is to sell all the forks and buy the one-and-only, real, immutable Bitcoin with the proceeds.

So you are entirely incorrect about Schelling points and numerous forks. The forks have no (lasting) value thus they are irrelevant.

And you are also incorrect if you think Bitcoin is not physical. The physical mass of Bitcoin is all the mining equipment out there. It just so happens that unlike gold, the mass is detached and only tethered virtually, which gives Bitcoin utility that gold does not have.

You sold Bitcoin at $600. Lol. Announce it to the world. Refuse to buy back into Bitcoin at every chance you have been given to rectify your mistake. Ditto some guys in this thread who perhaps will not be wise enough to sell BSV when the greater fools rush in. Because they refuse to acknowledge reality.

I have explained this all very clearly now. There is no excuse.

.

.

I debunk the incorrect belief that gold is physical (aka tangible) and Bitcoin is not. They are both physical. Bitcoin’s physical mass is not tethered to the ability to transport the value. So Bitcoin has all of gold’s properties, plus we do not need to use fractional reserve receipts, because the physical mass (the mining hardware) stays in the “vault” whilst the value can be transferred cryptographically. Amazing!

Indeed no one can predict all the potential outcomes w.r.t. Bitcoin. But the problem with gold is that government has an asymmetrical advantage because gold has to be physically transported. Thus the government and thieves can physically take it from me if I need to move between countries. Look for example at Armstrong’s current reopened (“new”) court case (https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@anonymint/bitco-i-n-will-collapse-to-usd775-price-soon). Apparently someone stole his rare coins while he was unjustly imprisoned. Gold is an albatross around my neck (which I painstakingly learned by getting burned after shipping my precious metals to the Philippines). It limits my freedom to react to different situations that might arise. So it is actually the antithesis of diversification. A little bit of gold yeah maybe, especially given that as of Basel-III European banks will have an incentive to increase their gold reserves (https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/precious-metals/gold/will-basel-iii-changing-golds-status-as-a-reserve-asset-for-banks-change-the-future/). But exceedingly large hodlings of gold diverge from diversification. We’re a sitting duck in that case with the gold albatross around our neck (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albatross_(metaphor)).

Again I also refer readers to @fillippone’s point and my reaction to it in this post. That to perserve our wealth through what is coming we may need to just hodl BTC for decade(s) until the governments become so bankrupted and desperate that they agree to legitimize our wealth. We have to squeeze those criminals until they acquiesce.

If you have a way to transport gold without actually transporting it which does not involve a trusted party, I would appreciate if you would share with me how to accomplish it. Bitcoin is trustless. I do not need to trust anyone in order to store my Bitcoin and transport it.

Yes I know you are very conservative and unwilling to accept that (the real not the fake) Bitcoin is a ~2000 – 3000 year monetary cycle event that radically changes the old order of money. That is what I believe based on the facts that I am aware of. Even the Bible says we will throw our gold into the streets. Gold was not even money at the inception of human civilization. Gold is not some permanent form of money.

Humility is a multifarious phenomena. Is it humble for you to assume that gold is forever money and nothing could possible replace it overnight? I look at the model (https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@anonymint/secrets-of-bitcoin-s-dystopian-valuation-model) that explains why Bitcoin can rise in value so quickly and I understand. I have not yet seen you correctly refute that model.

The only significant uncertainty facet I am willing to grant (in comparison to gold) is that is is unclear what happens to Bitcoin when the aforementioned model’s S/Fs ratio and market cap far exceeds that of gold. But that will not be the case until Bitcoin is over $1 million. So why would I trade a currently $10k asset that is going to $1 million in the next ~8 years or less, for a currently $1300 asset that is going to maybe ~$5000 in that time frame.

Diversification must factor in adjusted for risk versus reward, and risk of loss as well as gain. With gold I have a huge risk of it entirely being stolen, stuck in some legal jurisdiction where I can not liquidate it, and other risks because it is not digital. So huge risk of loss and not very much upside. Whereas with Bitcoin, there is a very high probability of huge upside and very low risk of loss if I am careful about my opsec (which is entirely in my control, and trustless). Bitcoin is about self-responsibility. Gold is more of fiat instrument because it depends on trust for storage and/or for liquidity. Bitcoin is sovereign, gold is not so anymore. For example, gold forces me to come face-to-face with a buyer or seller, unless I rely on trusted 3rd parties. In the scenarios where I need gold to perform, it could be very dangerous to even transact in gold. Whereas with Bitcoin I can transact digitally and no need to come face-to-face not rely on trusted parties.

Yeah I might have some dozens of gold coins just in case. But I am not going to put $millions into gold (presuming I own at least 1 BTC now and the expected future price). Sorry that would be a huge albatross around my neck.

For astute diversification, I would probably choose to have enough gold coins to support my simple life and daily expenses. Gold that I can reliably carry with me where I need to go (or copies of that small hoard in each country where I might reside). Any Bitcoin we hodl is God’s money, not for me personally but for me to use for God’s objectives. Gold will be less effective for that and thus I think by the Parable of the Talents (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A14-30&version=NIV) I am to put more in Bitcoin otherwise the talents will be taken from me and given to someone who will.

What good is it for me 20 years ago to have buried gold at different places in the world? It is entirely useless if I can not get my hands on it when I need to direct it to accomplishing good. We are still digging up buried hoards from the Dark Ages.

The Core address 3s are not Bitcoin. That is just fundamental. Bitcoin has no value whatsoever if any development group can “soft fork” it.

The ability to discern good ideas from bad ones is essential to wealth generation. The fallacy of diversification is that any person could generate wealth without any expertise or maximum division-of-labor, which would be equivalent to the fallacy of egalitarianism and Marxism.






There is no Schelling point to sell the one-and-only, immutable Bitcoin. Forks are worthless if everybody sells their free airdrop tokens on the forks and buys moar of the one-and-only, immutable Bitcoin with the proceeds.

Miners have no power to change the protocol. Period.

I explained that already upthread. Even the miners who will force Core to stop its “soft fork” deception and hard fork off, will not have any power to change the immutable protocol. They will be merely restoring the Nash Equilibrium by taking as donations the massive, generous SegWit (aka Core) UTXO addresses booty. Then the Nash Equilibrium will be restored and Core will fuck off and die. And the real, immutable Bitcoin will chug along to $1 million per BTC before 2028. Whilst your gold will go to at most $5000ish.

All public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.

A blockchain is not public if it cannot be audited, and that is the dead end of BSV if it ever go to be used at scale. Just because you can see the transactions on some website, it doesn't mean anything in terms of how valid the data being shown is and thus it's private.

Anyone who cares to invest the requisite time, talent, and treasure is free to audit the blockchain. In SV as it is in BTC.

Auditing means running a full node,

validating the entire blockchain and confirming that everything checks in within the rest of the network, something you can't do on centralized, running-at-scale-on-chain approaches

like SV

Okaaayy....


Ok, so what's your point?


Oh I see - you're deluded. Carry on.

My point is that you are bagholding an altcoin (BSV) from the look of your posts, and you are not understand the game theory at play when it comes to what makes Bitcoin valuable on the first place.

A Bitcoin which is ran on datacenters on both the auditing and mining part is basically fiat. At that point if there were no alternatives, you could just keep using fiat (which is already digital) and use gold as store of value.

In a market perspective, the consequences of such stealing of Segwit outputs would be like what happened to the ethereum blockchain. Ethereum forked after the DAO hack, rolling back and thus, having the shortest blockchain at that point. The original one (that is, the one retaining the original chain after the DAO hack) was hence called "ethereum classic". However, both investors and miners flocked to the forked chain, and it gained more hashrate, surpassing the classic chain both in value and power. It also retained its original name.

So, what would happen, in a market perspective, is that both chains would start with the same value, but the one forked by Core (technically, Core would have to rollback, to reverse the stealing of Segwit outputs, thus forking like ethereum did) would receive more value, even if dont go straight to a PoS model at first.

We need to weigh down human behaviour on this event. Investors dont have a clue about immutability in the protocol, they dont even know how the protocol works, so they would mistrust the miners, and in such a way that it would put the PoW model into question. It could even affect the altcoin market, with several coins switching to a PoS model. Notice that, right now, ethereum is going to a hybrid between PoS and PoW, and this give a clue of what would happen to bitcoin in case of this attack.

The PoS model would also attract institutional money. Banks gained power through stacking in the debt-based fiat system. They dont like bitcoin because they dont have more power than the miners over it. The miners would lose their power if they steal the Segwit outputs, and ultimately, the theft would be reversed, like it happened with ethereum. So, I believe this wont happen at all, unless the miners want to consciously end their business. If the electrical companies benefit from mining, I dont see why this should happen.

But in case it happens, it would be better to have most of your output in legacy addresses, as this would maximize the airdrop. People who only hold in Segwit adresses would not receive coins from the miners chain, as their coins would be the ones stolen on that chain.

My point is that you are bagholding an altcoin (BSV) from the look of your posts, and you are not understand the game theory at play when it comes to what makes Bitcoin valuable on the first place.

A Bitcoin which is ran on datacenters on both the auditing and mining part is basically fiat.

You may end up eating your hat.

Dammit I did not want to reply to this thread again. But you essentially incorrectly summarized the thread and will cause new readers to think that there is not something much more important discussed in this thread than Craig Wright.

My posts in this thread have explained why Core BitcOn is a fake/forgery. And that there will eventually be huge donations of more than half of all the BTC from those who hold the Core fork of Bitcoin back to those miners who will mine Satoshi’s original, immutable, one-and-only actual Bitcoin. This “real Bitcoin” is not BSV nor BCH. It is the Bitcoin that never stopped and will never stop being the one-and-only Bitcoin. It is the Bitcoin with 1 MB blocks.

---

Also I am replying because I tried via private messages to get @jbreher and @pereira4 to clarify their debate, but apparently they’re unwilling to do so.

Essentially I believe the point @pereira4 is trying to make is that if the block sizes become too gargantuan then there is some size at which offline user clients would be unable to validate the blockchain because their computational power could not keep up with the rate at which new transactions are added to blocks. Each full node client (even if offline) has to validate every transaction in every block. That is what makes proof-of-work trustless, unlike proof-of-stake which is proof-of-nothing because due to the nothing-at-stake problem, validating clients had to actually be online always to know whether a blockchain was the “longest” chain.

I have not done the computations to determine what size of block would meet @pereira4’s presume criticism. That is not the main criticism against BSV.

---

Sorry friend but you are provably incorrect.


Our protagonist Craig Wright (a scammer[1]) has attempted to modify the protocol of Bitcoin, converting it into a fiat with centrally controlled block sizes. Any reply you make has already been discussed upthread. You’ll just be beating a dead horse as there are no new arguments that can be made.

Anyway, you will learn your lesson the hard way, by losing your BTC. Enjoy.

Q.E.D.

---

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9sexx0/craig_wright_actually_did_completely_original/
https://www.theblockcrypto.com/2019/06/15/craig-wright-sees-motion-to-compel-him-to-reveal-his-bitcoin-holdings-granted/

Here follows a recent quote from the Trilema.com dude who claims to have 0.5 million BTC:


The Trilema.com folks just hate the fact the idiots in collectivism always make the wrong decisions. The “power rangers” are Core/Blockstream and their fake BitcOn Core.

They do not care if these idiots and all their followers (which also includes all the idiots who think they have a vote in democracy) perish. Because they see that all the trouble they create.

Although I agree with the problem, I do not agree with their eugenics/genocide solution, because the power-law concentration is a “nobody left standing” phenomenon if not counteracted by the breakdown of order in nature.

My goal for a solution is to find technological means to enforce decentralization.

P.S. Someone should post that in the Long-term advance notice thread to remind them that the Trilema.com dude is still preparing to join in the destruction of Core BitcOn.

Readers for your edification about reality:

http://trilema.com/2015/if-you-go-on-a-bitcoin-fork-irrespective-which-scammer-proposes-it-you-will-lose-your-bitcoins/

http://trilema.com/2018/how-to-piss-me-the-fuck-off-a-guide/

http://trilema.com/2016/to-the-dao-and-the-ethereum-community-fuck-you/

http://trilema.com/2016/how-to-participate-in-the-affairs-of-the-most-serene-republic/

http://trilema.com/2014/interacting-with-fiat-institutions-a-guide/

I explained in a post upthread that CSW is providing advance notice of the SegWit donations taking which will destroy the Core BitcOn altcoin/shitcoin probably at the May 2020 halving event:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147618.msg51306669#msg51306669

CSW has recently clarified that this is indeed the plan:

http://web.archive.org/web/20190720165108/https:/twitter.com/riverish333/status/1152575517176020993

So he clearly is planning to dump the BTC ticker (aka BitcOn Core). But what he is not telling you is that his group (or backers, which are probably the global elite) will be hodling the legacy Bitcoin (aka the immutable Satoshi “v0.1” Bitcoin). Again do read the linked Rogue Wave thread for more information.

Note where CSW states the BTC he will dump is less than 5% of the outstanding token supply, he is arguing that he is in legal compliance and thus not manipulating markets. Also he has provided advance public notice.

Craig Wright (CSW) has also confirmed my aforementioned expectation of selling Core BTC for Tether and other USD pegged assets:

http://web.archive.org/web/20190802201319/https://twitter.com/riverish333/status/1157272246890745856

So the SegWit donations taking restoration of legacy Bitcoin (and the attempted destruction of the forgery known as Bitcoin Core) is now entirely confirmed for the Bitcoin halving event in May 2020.

Craig Wright has attempted to modify the protocol of Bitcoin, converting it into a fiat with centrally controlled block sizes.

Wow.   Try the opposite of this.

Restore original protocol
Blocksize decided by nobody but what the block-finding node is willing to risk


Although it isn't accurate to say "Craig Wright is doing it".  Plenty of people are "doing it", if Craig wasn't around there are many others who understand the real power of bitcoins, and all the things BTC did to remove that power.    8)

This 2018 post will be entertaining when it happens.
https://i.redd.it/kgrxpsoh0m031.jpg
Capital C for capitalism. BitCoin.

Is the plan that this all starts happening in January 2020?

Quote correctly without deleting portions so that readers can search and find the original discussion:


In that discussion (which preceded the post you quoted from), I had explained that BSV’s theory (of miner’s converging on an adaptive block size) is nonsense. Will never work. It only works if and while BSV mining is centralized.

Please do not reply to prior discussion and pretend that what you are writing wasn’t already refuted. That’s very disingenuous.


Agreed. The SegWit attack is coming (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157964.0) regardless if Craig’s group led the way.

Remember BSV is only a decoy. The legacy, immutable Bitcoin is what survives. Read this entire and the entire linked threads! Educate yourself.

---

Incorrect. The SegWit attack will begin at the May 2020 Bitcoin halving. Read my prior post:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147618.msg51584165#msg51584165

Remember BSV is only a decoy. The legacy, immutable Bitcoin is what survives. Read the entire thread!

I had explained that BSV’s theory (of miner’s converging on an adaptive block size) is nonsense.

and pretend that

You entirely ignore the highly detailed discussion upthread which refutes the pithy incorrect assertions you’re making. I will provide links below. In effect, you’re pretending that your pithy assertions weren’t already discussed and refuted earlier in the thread.


Incorrect.

This was already discussed upthread. You refuse to read the thread and then pop in at the end of the thread to make statements which are incongruent with all the prior discussion.

The following linked post is where I had (upthread) quoted Satoshi and explained precisely why you are incorrect:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147618.msg51390187#msg51390187

And here follows a link to the post where I replied in great detail on the subject in a response to @jbreher:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147618.msg51440603#msg51440603

And here follows a link to my first post in this thread (relayed by @Last of the V8s) wherein I explained that Craig Wright’s “long-term advance warning” is really about a SegWit attack against Core Bitcoin to restore the legacy Bitcoin with immutable block size. Craig isn’t tell you this, because he is using BSV as a decoy to deceive everyone as to the true aims of his plans and his globalist backers:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147618.msg51306669#msg51306669

As for the big picture of what is going on, who created Bitcoin, and why they are using Craig Wright as their pawn to obtain global totalitarian control, read the following linked post (and then the entire linked thread):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157901.msg52251343#msg52251343

In summary, Bitcoin will (after this current bounce) soon decline back to the “21 EMA” level (~$8500 or below as was the case in June 2013), then slowly climb over $13k by Jan 2020, and then the pattern of 2013 will repeat with a moonshot before the May 2020 halving event which will mimic the price action of 2013:

https://www.tradingview.com/chart/BTCUSD/1QSGColK-My-Secret-Chart-For-When-To-To-Buy-Bitcoin-In-A-Bullish-Trend/
https://twitter.com/JacobCanfield/status/1164185278262718464/photo/1

The BTC price at the halving needs to be very high, so the mining difficulty is very high so that when Craig dumps 850,000 Core BTC (he will split his BTC before loading onto the exchanges and keep the legacy, immutable blocksize BTC) and then initiates the mining attack to force Core’s protocol to fork off, then as the price of BTC craters to below $1000, the Core protocol fork block chain (after being forked off from the legacy Bitcoin by the taking of the 6+ million BTC SegWit “anyone can spend” booty) will grind to a halt. Blocks will be found perhaps once a week. And the difficulty will not readjust for a year or years. At that point Core is dead and the exchanges will be fleeced and bankrupt. Massive chaos comin May 2020 if Craig keeps his promise.

The legacy, immutable blocksize Bitcoin will be the blockchain that survives and is eventually used to be the backing of the new global currency Facebook Libra, when the powers-that-be are ready to weaken the U.S. dollar and assert their resultant totalitarian control of global monetary policy (and the totalitarian political power that will provide them). You fools! We are going to be entirely enslaved in the 666 system.

I think you have no idea about my technological acumen. I for example wrote a four-part blog on blockchain consensus algorithm technologies:

https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/scaling-decentralization-security-of-distributed-ledgers

Lastly, metaphorically God is allowing Satan to run amok and enslave the people, because the people have forsaken God. They people of the world ridicule the wisdom in the Bible such as for example how Jesus purportedly said as recorded in Matthew 19 that we are married forever to every person we have sex with. We truly get the government (King) to lord over us as we deserve for our sins, c.f. the Lord’s warning 1 Samuel 8. Repent or ye shall eventually be wallowing in eternal hell.

Incorrect.

This was already discussed upthread. You refuse to read the thread and then pop in at the end of the thread to make statements which are incongruent with all the prior discussion.

The following linked post is where I had (upthread) quoted Satoshi and explained precisely why you are incorrect:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147618.msg51390187#msg51390187

And here follows a link to the post where I replied in great detail on the subject in a response to @jbreher:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147618.msg51440603#msg51440603

Satoshi was very, very, very clever. Which is to be expected because he is/was (a think tank of) the global elite.

He made it appear that he added the 1 MB later as an after thought, but of course he planned it from the beginning. He knew that Bitcoin would start out centralized and grow more decentralized. He knew that eventually the centralized block size limits as a default in the reference client would eventually be insufficient to contain the forces of profit motive.

I believe he absolutely never intended to raise the 1 MB. And that he absolutely intended for there to be a 1 MB limit from the inception when he launched Bitcoin. You are free to believe whatever you want.

Nevertheless the fact is that there was a de facto centralized limit on the block size even before he added the 1 MB hard cap to the code. It was the default in the client.


Nope. When Satoshi wrote “v0.1” he was implicitly referring to what he was in centralized control over. The 1 MB cap was there from the start, in his head. He had the default which was lower than 1 MB and he was watching and waiting until he had to make his move. He made it. Then he disappeared. Simple as that.


Nope. Not on real, immutable Bitcoin.

Why are people still obsessed with this douchebag? Proof of keys or GTFO. It is the simplest way to prove he is Satoshi. None of this foolish pageantry. Only newbies are hooked to his BSV bullshit.

I have about 8 billion dollars’ worth of bitcoin and I’m donating them. Not as a joke. I’m giving them away. I want them to go to education. So my BTC is not going to go to me. I’ll keep my bitcoin — the bitcoin I created, the bitcoin I still work on. But the BTC, the whatever forks — I don’t really care — in 2020 I’m going to give them away…

Why are people still obsessed with this douchebag? Proof of keys or GTFO. It is the simplest way to prove he is Satoshi. None of this foolish pageantry. Only newbies are hooked to his BSV bullshit.

Which, if I am not mistaken, essentially boils down to 'Satoshi always had a 1MB limit - it was in his head from the start, so it was operative from the start. Just trust me on this'.

Craig Wright (CSW) has also confirmed my aforementioned expectation of selling Core BTC for Tether and other USD pegged assets:

Not BSV's theory.  Bitcoin's.

Bitcoin certainly can’t scale-out decentralized

@shelby, if we store our bitcoins in a legacy address (starts with a 1) are we OK if your hypothesis is true? Will our bitcoins be safe & usable on the original legacy immutable satoshi chain?

Why are people still obsessed with this douchebag? Proof of keys or GTFO.

The opposing dynamic here seems to be the idea of an open market protocol that allows any block size to be decided variably

I believe Luke Jr. (a pool operator and Bitcoin dev)

And then Satoshi conveniently ignored pleas to raise the 1 MB before he conveniently suddenly disappeared when those pleas started to reach a crescendo again.

apparently originally even much smaller than 1 MB

How quickly the myopic fools[flippant trolls] around here forget Craig crashed the BTC price from $6k to $3k:

https://i.imgur.com/KqDBYHs.png (https://steemit.com/libra/@anonymint/facebook-s-libra-bitcoin-trump-israel-666-orwellian-dystopia)

Also it was on purpose that Craig Wright (who is just a pawn or front man actor for the globalists) was tasked to act like a fool, so that everyone would dismiss his warning. The globalists (who created Bitcoin) have fabricated a masterplan. Again I will link you to the information as follows:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157901.msg52251343#msg52251343

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg52254095#msg52254095

---

STT, you need to read the Rogue Wave thread discussion. Also you’re conflating BSV with the legacy, immutable Bitcoin, so it seems you really haven’t read much at all. You are ostensibly clueless about the relative economic impacts of a SegWit “anyone can spend” donations booty taking attack versus what you observed Craig do late last year. What he did late last year was just a tiny thing compared to what is coming in May. Here is a link to the thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157964.0

---

Yes, but as I wrote in one of the recent posts, I’m concerned that soon we’ll be prevented from cashing out.

Realize after the SegWit donations booty taking attack, legacy immutable Bitcoin (not BSV) which survives (as Core is destroyed) is going to be viewed as a the theft-coin. Also in theory Craig may bankrupt the exchanges who deal in SegWit addresses for their BTC. Perhaps even all the institutions hodling Bakkt futures will see their BTC go “poof and then it’s gone” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmFo-LKHGY0) if Bakkt doesn’t follow my advice to hodl in 1 legacy addresses (I did message them about it, they didn’t reply and they have promoted a roundtable discussion with Adam Back as a guest speaker). The powers-that-be ostensibly deem it’s necessary to destroy public confidence in decentralized cryptocurrency so that they can bring in centralized Libra as the alternative. So the cratering of the cryptocosm will be intentional and they don’t care about low BTC prices for a few years because they have a long-term plan horizon. Have you read this linked post about the BOE governor saying Libra should replace the U.S. dollar:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157901.msg52251343#msg52251343

Also today Trump’s administration announced that Chinese drug lords are using Bitcoin. And here is another reason BTC is becoming tainted:


So make sure all your paperwork is in order. Proof of source of funds, etc. Even then, the world is going to turn very unfair. And you may simply be denied, as non-VIP Americans were denied foreign bank accounts by the FATCA.

The Bitcoin party might be coming to a close for many of us. Perhaps adjust our expectations.

---

Nonsense. A soft fork is not a fork because it doesn’t force the hodlers of BTC to make a decision. Read the Rogue Wave thread and educate yourself.

BSV is nothing but a decoy shitcoin. Craig’s globalist backers are fooling you. They will force Core to fork off and destroy itself. What remains will be the legacy, immutable Bitcoin.


What you wrote is Not Even Wrong (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong).  ::)

You’re off in left field derp.

Without decentralization, there’s the potential for censorship and lack of permissionless system. And thus it’s no better than Facebook Libra. And Libra will launch with a billion prospective users.


More nonsense. The dichotomy is between immutable and variable blocksize. The former is a decentralized Schelling point and the latter is only centralized. Period.


Thus we can now ignore you.


You’re lying. I already referred you to the detailed discussion I had with @jbreher which we have somewhat summarized again.


Satoshi actually did not respond again in the thread where the pleas were made. And then he conveniently disappeared. He globalist friends who control Wikileaks (Assange was living with Rothschild’s attorney) conveniently had it start accepting BTC payments so Satoshi could make an excuse to disappear without addressing the pleas for raising the blocksize limit.

How much more disinformation are you going to spew in this thread?

Nonsense. A soft fork is not a fork because it doesn’t force the hodlers of BTC to make a decision

The dichotomy is between immutable and variable blocksize

You’re lying

How much more disinformation are you going to spew in this thread?

Joe I find it impossible to fathom how you can be so incapable of assimilating my arguments and points.

mmutable Bitcoin with a 1 MB hard blocksize limit

Centralization = 51% attack (or sufficient percent such as perhaps 33%). A 51% (or sufficient majority) attack can surreptitiously censor anything whether it be entire blocks or just blocks that have transactions which are to be disallowed.

The clever game theory “poison pill” that Satoshi inserted into his immutable Bitcoin protocol, is such that all soft forks are “anyone can spend”

I just did.

So only the hodlers will make the final decision when Core is forced to fork off, because the hodlers will decide which tokens they sell and which they keep.

You can clearly see that Satoshi conveniently ignored that plea

It is not "immutable" with respect to blocksize.   The blocksize can be changed, but since everybody has "defaulted" to a specific limit, it requires extensive coordination..   The specific limit changes the game theory of "stale blocks" significantly.

It is naive to "blame satoshi" for this.


No.   They cannot.

They cannot effectively censor my transaction, as they neither know which transaction is mine, or what the contents of the tx is.
They cannot effectively censor a block ... as other blockfinders will catch up, and mine the tx into a competing block.

I will leave it there... but if you game out a "censorship" (or similar) scenario in more detail, I am happy to provide a more detailed answer about how it doesn't actually work in practise.

These are the things which make blockchain technology GOOD.   Your comments indicate that you either do not understand blockchain, or you are actively trying to undermine it.



No not "all" soft works.   Just specifically segwit, due to the way it was implemented.    Again, you are demonstrating a severe lack of understanding.


No you didn't.  You didn't say HOW.   You just said "it can be done", and you are incorrect.



Indeed.   The market sets the price of all the different tokens, include any "air drops" caused by BTC forks during the coming segwit calamity.

However, why would any of them be worth anything.   1MB every 10 minutes, shared between the entire world is very very very very stupid.    P2SH is stupid.  RBF is stupid.   Nobody involved with BTC sees that (because they *did* it) .... so who's going to fix the mess?   All those people (capable of fixing and building) left in August 2017.


It was never up to Satoshi to fix it.   It is up to the miners....  they could find a larger than 1MB block if they really really want to.

None of the miners who understand (or care about) that are mining BTC any longer ..... or at least they are only mining it for it's short term profit motive.

BTC has been dead for years.

For people who do know with CW bullshit propaganda will just simply ignore this but the sad fact that there are still newbies who are being mislead with this bullsh*t news around.

turning his head to say all those rubbish he is saying, and does he think that he will ever succeed to make the price of bitcoin drop so as to promote bsv? He has really failed.

EXCLUSIVE: First interview with Craig Wright after judge orders him to pay $5 billion in bitcoin
$2 billion in taxes due; ‘When you find a gorilla, don’t kick it in the nuts’
By Brendan Sullivan / August 26, 2019

A hearing in the Kleiman v. Wright case concluded Monday with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida rejecting Craig S. Wright’s testimony. The judge determined that “Satoshi Nakamoto” is a partnership of three people, but awarded half of its bitcoin holdings to the Kleiman estate. Craig Wright told Modern Consensus he “has no choice but to hand over $5 billion in BTC.”

Because this transfer is happening as an estate transfer valued at $5 billion, Ira Kleiman may have to dump $2 billion in BTC.

The court also awarded Kleiman’s estate with the intellectual property associated with the Bitcoin software, but none associated with Bitcoin Cash or Craig Wright’s back-to-basics Bitcoin Satoshi Vision. According to the suit, Wright and Kleiman mined these million bitcoins between 2009 and 2011, which were said to be stored in a trust called the “Tulip Trust.”

Modern Consensus spoke to Wright by telephone today just after he left the Florida courtroom.

MODERN CONSENSUS: How are ya doing?

CRAIG WRIGHT: Been better.

I’ll just ask, what does today’s ruling actually mean for Bitcoin and crypto?

The judge won’t rule on whether I’m Satoshi. But the partnership is. So when Dave Kleiman passed, the partnership transferred to Ira.

Will this affect BSV?

BSV, it won’t. But the judge ordered me to send just under 500,000 BTC over to Ira. Let’s see what it does to the market. I wouldn’t have tanked the market. I’m nice.

You could flood the market with $5 billion in BTC today, but I’m guessing you won’t. You have too much in progress on-chain. But what if the chain collapses? Presumably the market could tank to bad that whoever inherits his BTC would get substantially less.

I’m just not going to do that.

I know people think you’re a miserable prick. But you once told me that you and your wife had decided that this $10 billion fortune was too much. You said you worried about what it would do for your kids.

It’s fucking scary. Now the kids are going to know that we have the other $5 billion. And it really sucks. Imagine that (laughs). I had planned to live a long time and hopefully they wouldn’t know until they were older and we were gone. It could affect their whole lives.

Not to get you in hot water with the judge, but it doesn’t sound like anyone thought through what this would really mean to just hand over the keys to a huge industry.

No one seems to get that I’ve made 800 patents in IP and more are coming. Just on that I could have raised a lot of money. I’m sorry, BTC, but that might be a problem. They might have to convince Ira not to dump it. I can’t convince him not to dump it. Ira has to do what Ira has to do. And it wouldn’t have been me. And I don’t need it. He does.

I mean, I get it. You make money creating things for nChain, so you don’t need to dump any BTC from the Tulip Trust. But they can’t force Ira to sell. Can they?

He doesn’t actually need it but he wants it. Everyone might want to start praying, because I complied with courts and that might get scary really, really quickly. The courts ruled that Ira inherited the $5 billion. Now he has to pay estate tax on that if he wants it.

Whoa! The estate tax is 40%. Unless Ira has $2 billion in cash, he will have to dump 2 million BTC to pay the taxes.

Yeah.

Sorry. I’m just running the number. How are you feeling after all this?

I’m fine, we’re going to keep going. But I’ll make sure I keep supporting it. I can’t help.

But how will you actually get the money? We’ve talked over the years and I’ve always tried to respect your privacy. Just because it’s none of my business how much someone else is holding. But now you’ll have to break the Tulip Trust to transfer the coins.

If the court makes an order, I will comply with the order. And the court has made an order. It’s that simple.

So this affects the so-called “Satoshi Blocks” of unmoved bitcoins in the blockchain. The block rewards from when 50 bitcoins were issued for mining. Does that mean blocks that haven’t moved will since 2009 will get transferred?

Not at least, just under half. Because they’ll have to come out of partnership. I spent more money on the project than Dave, so I will rule on that and effectively Ira will get maybe 480,000 BTC.

And again, shouldn’t that include the BTC, BCH, and BSV and every other fork of Bitcoin? All of those had to replicate the original blockchain starting from zero.

According to the judge it’s only from before Dave died, so only BTC. Sorry BTC.

Wow. I’m sorry. This just isn’t the outcome that anybody wanted. I’ve even heard you tell me how you wanted to destroy BTC or BCH because they forked away from your plan. They always seemed to win out before. But this could tank the markets.

Everyone wants to hate on me. This is the result. If you’d left me alone, I would have sat on my fucking money and you wouldn’t have to worry. And the biggest whale ever has to dump because he has to pay tax. It’s not a transfer. Florida has an estate tax. Trust me. This is not an outcome I would have liked. I own a lot of BTC. Dave should have owned 320,000 and I should have had 800,000 and now it’s 50/50. At the end of the day, that’s not a good thing for BTC.

I know you can be a little combative but you never wished ill on the others. Yet this is beyond good and bad.

Trust me. Everyone makes me look like a mean asshole. I might have been a prick, but I was the prick who was withholding. I could have tanked the market anytime in the last 10 years and ran away laughing. I didn’t.

This goes back to the original Bitcoin whitepaper and the problem of the “selfish miner.” Someone could ruin the blockchain, but it would be more profitable to play by the rules and make some money along the way. Dave doesn’t have a choice. He has to sell to get any value. But by selling, he could destroy the whole crypto economy. Where BTC goes, so goes the whole market. And anybody still trying to raise money with an ICO.

Yes. And I tried to tell people and they tried to make me out to be a total prick. I sat on $10 billion and didn’t touch it. And this was happens. When you find a find a gorilla, don’t kick it in the nuts.

Haha. I’m sorry to be laughing. This could be the worst day of your life.

This is not the worst day in my life. My grandfather died, that was worse. This was just money. This is just money. Dave died, that was a worse day for me, because I lost a friend and a partner.  

Bitcoin took off while the world fell into recession in 2009. Now we’re facing another one and it could take down the whole market.

I’m the asshole who keeps inventing things that other people need. I’m not the good media personality. You think I’m gonna complain because I only get to keep $6 billion? And I’m the only surviving member of Satoshi? The judge ruled it was a partnership. I’m the asshole Satoshi. And Dave was the nice one. So have a nice day.

Some serious tax payments to be made

40% tax, on amount in USD at settlement.

By the time you sell the BTC, and pay the taxes .... then?!  How much will be left ?!!??!   :o

40% tax, on amount in USD at settlement.

By the time you sell the BTC, and pay the taxes .... then?!  How much will be left ?!!??!   :o

you will have to sell less BTC ;-)

Just ask for 1 year notice to pay the tax, you will have to sell less BTC ;-)

The problem is rather, once the tax bill is calculated, it does not account for the market price any more -  I'd not buy such a risk, and not for Long term at all

40% tax, on amount in USD at settlement.

By the time you sell the BTC, and pay the taxes .... then?!  How much will be left ?!!??!   :o

Now that we know he actually has these 500.000+ BTC (I'm estimating around 1.5 million BTC) it's pretty much guaranteed we'll see 3k and lower again very soon.

You seriously think such a high stake case would proceed if there is no evidence of the funds in question even existing? Get a grip.
You can rest assured he provided the signatures before the case proceeded.

Hopefully this will be my last post on this forum, or at least for a long time.

I wrote the following on Quora:

https://www.quora.com/Is-Bitcoin-controlled-somehow/answer/Shelby-Moore-III/comment/107351257

Note that is my hypothesis of what could happen if Craig Wright keeps his promise. It’s not guaranteed to occur. Personally though I am weighting the odds of it coming to fruition at greater than 50%.

Those who hodl in legacy addresses that begin with a 1, will not lose their BTC no matter what happens. But who knows what the exchanges and regulations are going to be later though.

I believe the West is headed for a Wiemar Republic style collapse over the next decade or two, and with Civil Asset Forfeiture the government (in the USA at least) can take all your assets even if you never did anything wrong yourself. Because the Bitcoin itself did wrong. So you cashed out and bought a house. Later the government will take your house. Civil Asset Forfeiture is legal precedent established by the King of England (click link below for details):

Facebook’s Libra + Bitcoin + Trump + Israel = 666 Orwellian Dystopia (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157901.msg52304593#msg52304593)

I think even the onerous “proof of source of funds”, which many exchanges are adopting, will eventually not be sufficient.

People who read this will think I am crazy, because they do not open their eyes to objectively analyze the transformation of the West. Westerners think they are voting for fairness, etc.. They are really voting to enact all the propaganda that has been programmed into their brains by the globalist control over mass media and education.

At the link above, I explain that I think what is happening now in Argentina is an example of what will happen to all the Western democracies.

The strong horse and the weak horse (https://blog.jim.com/uncategorized/the-strong-horse-and-the-weak-horse/)

James A Donald is correct here.

The weak, unproductive (leftists, feminists, etc) STFU when they can’t pilfer from the honeypot of democracy.

Democracy is a weakness, not a strength, unless have the small government and isolationism of true Christianity. But small government does hold up at scale.

But what Jim is (intentionally because he is a Deep State agent!) not telling you is that Western politics has always been such that we only get a King who is either a despot (or so weak as to be devoured by leftists, feminists, etc).

Westerners won’t transition from democracy without first going through something like the socialist Wiemar Republic. The reactionary despot (e.g. Hilter) won’t be a desirable outcome.

China has their one-party system because their culture has always been about patriarchal fiefdoms. They avoid democracy but fall into the decadence of stagnation and centralization of control.

Westerners have only ever been great with manorialism:

https://steemit.com/philosophy/@anonymint/geographical-cultural-ethos-science-is-dead-part-2

IOW, we have only been great as rebels and small Christian
communities acting independently and then the growth that comes when we network those communities. Eventually the networking leads to centralized politics and the honeypot that incentivizes the thieves analogous to flies to honey (aka leftists and feminists (perhaps unwittingly) conspiring with the globalist capture of government).

The U.S. Constitution and States rights was an attempt to network while retaining small government. It mostly failed, although we still have some of our essential rights such as gun rights, which Europeans never had or totally lost.

This is obviously based on the assumption of a SegWit donations attack at the halving event in May 2020, with the need for the price to moon before the halving so then when the price is crashed by Craig Wright dumping ~1 million BTC then the SegWit (i.e. Core) blockchain will lose most of its miners and thus slow down to perhaps 1 block found every week (instead of every 10 minutes) and with the mining difficult not to be reset (without some centralized intervention) for perhaps a year or never. The inability of the SegWit blockchain to proces transactions as the price craters will cause the price to crater even more in a spiraling into the death-of-coin abyss effect.

https://i.imgur.com/aCjez4F.png (https://imgur.com/a/E7tiBpA)

From more than 5 months ago I had predicted in one of the possible scenarios:

https://i.imgur.com/ctOyxZd.png (https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@anonymint/ptlyfl)

Enjoy the wild ride!

Another one:

https://twitter.com/riverish333/status/1184767609352478725

Unforgeable costliness and the lack of a sunk cost fallacy in the longest (aka greatest cumulative difficulty) proof-of-work chain, is due to the Nash equilibrium game theory that incentivizes everyone to continue mining and transacting on the legacy, immutable original. This theory has been falsified numerous times with every hard fork of Bitcoin being sold off.^[1]

The decentralized Nash equilibrium (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yJfBzcDL9fBHJfZ6P/nash-equilibria-and-schelling-points) exists because the utility of Bitcoin is greater than any extant decentralized alternative (e.g. gold). Thus there’s no Schelling point (https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/5i7afd/thomas_schelling_dies_aged_95/) to reach for alternative forks which have less consensus and thus less utility. Other examples of cryptocurrency utility which gold lacks, include the ability to be transported instantly as information and the fact that the tangible mass of Bitcoin (which is all the mining hardware) is disconnected from the intangible store of the transportable asset. Note the theoretical ideal proof-of-work is 100% efficient and thus burns no electricity (as heat) and burns only the depreciation of the hardware. Proof-of-work is an epochal technological shift which will transform human civilization. Proof-of-stake does not burn a tangible resource, so thus has no unforgeable costliness in which to base a Nash equilibrium.

The properties of gold which give it utility that older forms of money and later which fiat money lack, have thus historically been a Nash equilibrium, because there was no Schelling point to reach for metals with inferior properties, except that gold was too rare to be used as the transactional currency which gave rise to silver as a medium-of-exchange (aka the poor man’s money). Yet gold was in tension with social scalability (http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2017/02/money-blockchains-and-social-scalability.html) (e.g. the soon-to-be, deprecated need (http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Demise%20of%20Finance,%20Rise%20of%20Knowledge.html) for debt financing in the former fixed capital age (https://steemit.com/politics/@anonymint/pzmahp)) and thus the Nash equilibrium for gold could not prevent the rise of fiat money which was an imperfect yet more socially scalable (http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2017/03/collecting-metal-inner-and-outer-worlds.html?showComment=1491327410785#c2084031571461163577) form of money.

The huge problem for gold now is that proof-of-work replaces virtually all its utility while adding superior utility.


The only remaining utility for gold is the illogical and unjustified fear that decentralized mining can be disrupted or the possibly justified fear that mining can be monopolized. If the latter technological problem is justified and can be solved, a Bitcoin killer may still be on the horizon. However bear in mind social scalability. It may be the case that the illusion of decentralization combined with the lack of extremely potent anonymity technology, may be more socially scalable than some other ideal.

My belief is that the historical bifurcation of the world into gold versus fiat money will be replicated with a bifurcation of Bitcoin (as the reserve asset backing the new monetary system which may include Libra as a global 666 transaction coin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157901.0)) versus an underground, dark web, completely anonymous more provably decentralized proof-of-work altcoin. Note how my perspective differs from the one held by those who incorrectly (https://steemit.com/blockchain-scaling/@anonymint/lightning-networks-must-fail-if-it-succeeds) (c.f. also (https://steemit.com/blockchain-scaling/@anonymint/re-anonymint-lightning-networks-must-fail-if-it-succeeds-20190520t232135542z)) believe HTLCs such as Lightning Networks will be the transactional system.

Litecoin has unforgeable costliness only if it provides sufficiently unique and compelling utility that Bitcoin and other altcoins lack. The confusion over whether it does or will, is why altcoins have had some value over the short-term, but just look at their charts paired against BTC and it is clear they are losing leverage over time (i.e. the illusion of their utility is dying). Significant deadcat rallies in leverage relative to BTC are likely along the way to their eventual death (with one such rally already underway with GRS/BTC as I predicted in my private discussion group and likely LTC/BTC preparing to launch also).

^[1] Btw, this is why Bitcoin Core (aka omnibus SegWit at al mutations of Satoshi’s protocol since Satoshi exited the crime scene (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157901.0)) is an impostor “soft fork” and will be eventually destroyed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157964.msg52894973#msg52894973) when a hard fork (aka fuck-off) is forced (and I believe probably at the May 2020 halving (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147618.msg52866548#msg52866548)) by a SegWit protocol violation that enforces said unforgeable costliness to protect the said Nash equilibrium which gives Bitcoin its durable value.

There won’t be any Segwit spend to any attacks…

~snipsnip~

Null

I’m amazed that you don’t comprehend how a hard fork airdrop works.

When the Core chain forks off by refusing to accept the legacy blocks which donate SegWit UTXO to the miners[1], then those who hodl in legacy or Core addresses will have received a free air-drop of Core shitcoins at the moment of the timestamp of offending legacy blocks. The hodler of legacy or Core address BTC has no choice and automatically then hodls a private/public key pair which is separately in the UTXO of both the legacy and Core forks. And thus according to the IRS, those who automatically received this diabolical “free” airdrop owe income tax at the market value on the free Core tokens airdrop at the time of the said timestamp. The market value will be whatever nosebleed BTC price before Craig starts his posited (and warned) SegWit donations “attack” (not actually an attack but as I explained in detail in this thread and (links to) other threads (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147618.msg52260217#msg52260217) linked from this thread, rather it’s a “poison pill” self-defense economic, Schelling point, Nash equilibrium game theory of proof-of-work that prevents a proliferation of competing mutated hard/soft forks, which would otherwise dilute value via supply inflation and contentious politics/opinion).

Thus the huge problem for those who hodl in legacy or Core addresses is that we will receive the free airdrop of Core shitcoins whether we like it or not. And we will receive them as recorded by the timestamp on the blockchain (which the new IRS “common (non)sense” guidance designates for timing) when the market value of these soon-to-be-worthless Core tokens are still at whatever nosebleed BTC price the miners decide to run the price up to before the SegWit attack begins (posited and warned to begin at the May 14, 2020 halving). But as legacy address hodlers we will not be able to split our legacy and Core tokens until Craig has published his initially private legacy chain with the offending blocks, and thus by the time we can actually sell our Core shitcoins separately from our legacy BTC, the price of Core shitcoins will be essentially ~$0, because Craig will have dumped all this Core tokens on the exchanges (after splitting them from his legacy BTC on his initially private legacy chain) and the miners will begin jumping en masse from the Core chain to the recently published legacy chain thus driving the hashrate on the Core chain down severely meaning each new Core chain block will not be found for up to perhaps a week. So we will not be able to sell our Core shitcoins because they will be essentially worthless at that juncture, but yet the IRS will expect us to pay income tax on the full value of the Core shitcoins at the time of the fork as recorded by the timestamp on the blockchain when the price will still skyhigh before the attack began.

And the Core address hodlers are even more fucked than legacy address hodlers because their BTC on the legacy chain is “anyone can spend” (because P2SH is unrecognized by the legacy protocol) and will taken by legacy miners as donations to fund the readoption of the legacy protocol and forcing the Core shitcoin to fork-off. So Core address hodlers will owe the nosebleed high income tax, but will only hodl worth-less Core tokens and no valuable legacy BTC tokens. So how will they pay their huge tax bill? They are fucked.

On top of this, the posited attack will likely bankrupt most of the exchanges. And because of the attack, all exchange activity even on OTC markets might be locked up. So we will owe taxes but can’t even sell any of our legacy BTC to pay the taxes. And P2P transactions will virtually impossible for most of us because:


You see the diabolical powers-that-be will run the BTC up to some very high price before the halving and SegWit attack fork-off, perhaps $30 – 100k. This is going to shock many people who will be unprepared because they ignored these warnings. If they hodl Core addresses and do not sell, they lose all the value. If they hodl legacy addresses, they will end up in a tax and liquidity nightmare if they do not sell at this high price before the halving. But most people will not sell because they will think the price is going much higher after the halving. This diabolical plan is so clever.

[1] Again Core is forking off, not vice versa, because legacy address hodlers automatically receive a free airdrop of Core tokens at the posited event, but Core address hodlers only retain their Core tokens and lose their legacy BTC which will be donated to the miners.

Meanwhile in other news:[/size]


And in other news Craig Wright explains/claims that (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg53105289#msg53105289) Bitcoin’s miners will end up seizing BTC on behalf of coordinated government requests.

You mentioned in your video that some people think (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg53093113#msg53093113) the BTC price will reach a new ATH before the coming May 14, 2020 halving. I’m one of the proponents of the theory (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147618.msg52866548#msg52866548) that the BTC price will reach a new ATH before the May 14, 2020 halving event.

A fundamental causation for my posited re-acceleration hypothesis is because I have analyzed the possibility (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147618.msg51584165#msg51584165) that the legacy Bitcoin protocol is being “readopted” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147618.msg52263972#msg52263972) (analogous to the moonshot in the BTC price when legacy was first adopted in before 2013 and misdirection of adoption onto the impostor Core “soft fork” protocol) as warned by the powers-that-be (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147618.msg52260217#msg52260217). And I find evidence of this posited BTC price re-acceleration in the charts and also in the recent actions of some whales (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147618.msg52935819#msg52935819) (c.f. also the Trilema.com/Dao attacker (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147618.msg51497022#msg51497022) and what Bakkt did (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147618.msg52381480#msg52381480)). All of the cryptocosm value will be refocused into the legacy Bitcoin with the coming “poison pill” game theory defense mechanism (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147618.msg52263972#msg52263972) of the one proof-of-work chain to rule them all (http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/one-chain/).

Below I will discuss some of the evidence of re-acceleration I find in the charts. Click the images to go to their source.

Readers may also be interested in my blog: McAfee’s Dick Math: illuminating Bitcoin’s ACCELERATING price (https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@anonymint/mcafee-s-dick-math-illuminating-bitcoin-s-accelerating-price)

Let’s start with your chart comparing the 4 year period prior to each of the 2 prior halving events and the upcoming Bitcoin halving event (3 cases total). Note the prior ATH of the current (i.e. top-most on your chart) case was nearer to the start of the four year period analogous to the prior (i.e. middle on your chart) case. Whereas, the final “over the cliff” drop to the bottom and the sudden and steep (i.e. more accelerated both in time and price) out that of that bottom for the current case is more similar to the first (i.e. bottom-most on your chart) case. Also notice for first (i.e. bottom-most) case that the rise in the price before the halving was not as great as for the prior (i.e. middle) case, but the rise after the halving was much more accelerated (both in time and price) for the first (i.e. bottom-most) case as compared to the prior (i.e. middle) case. Thus the BTC price rise after the halving for the current case should be more accelerated than the prior case:

https://i.imgur.com/z9VES9j.png (https://youtu.be/UKHI_-SIcDU?t=429)

Next let’s refer to your chart comparing the level of the price at each subsequent halving event and the length of the “reaccumulation” (sic) phase before each halving event. Note that the prior (i.e. middle on this chart) case had both a higher price at and longer “reaccumulation” before its succeeding halving event than the first (i.e. left-most on this chart) case. Given an even longer “reaccumulation” before its succeeding halving event for current (i.e. right-most on this chart) case compared to the prior case, the BTC price should be even higher before and right at the coming May 14, 2020 halving as compared to the prior case:

https://i.imgur.com/sLEZgQi.png (https://youtu.be/UKHI_-SIcDU?t=434)

Let’s refer to the stock-to-flows (aka S/F) model below to see that the BTC price at the halving event in the prior case was 1.6 times higher than the S/F model price:

https://i.imgur.com/XcVDlPL.png (https://digitalik.net/btc/)

How much higher than the prior case should the price be at the coming May 14, 2020 halving event? Note in the charts below that the BTC price in your “accumulation” and “expansion” phases for the prior case were either below (at the same timing before the halving given by similar shade of green color) or at best only up to the S/F model price:

https://i.imgur.com/nmK4DZj.png (https://digitalik.net/btc/)

https://i.imgur.com/f3zHBWJ.png (https://digitalik.net/btc/)

https://i.imgur.com/QeXe6Qo.png (https://digitalik.net/btc/)

Whereas, the current case has already achieved 1.6 times higher than the S/F model price in this “accumulation” and “expansion” phase:

https://i.imgur.com/08HuzN9.png (https://digitalik.net/btc/)

Thus we should expect the BTC price at the coming May 14, 2020 halving event to be accelerated 1.6 × 1.6 = 2.6 times the ~$8800 S/F model price at the coming halving event. Additionally the current case has even more “reaccumulation” time than the prior case to build an even higher BTC price at the coming May 14, 2020 halving event. Thus the price at the coming halving event could be 3 ­– 4 times $8800 or roughly $26 – $35k. Additionally, I’m positing double of (i.e. two times) those prices projections at the halving due to third-order derivative (i.e. the rate of increase in the acceleration) mathematical effects which I don’t want to attempt to explain now.

Another reason the BTC price can front run the S/F model price rise at the halving is because PlanB recently unveiled the model.

Note I think the anonymous PlanB might be an agent (or an unwitting tool) of the bastard global elite who created Bitcoin are organizing the SegWit attack. PlanB (or someone at Twitter and Medium) banned and censored me from commenting on his Twitter and Medium blogs because I was getting too close to revealing these truths. I posit he has released this model to cause the market to front run the model and thus help achieve their goal of a nosebleed, moonshot BTC before the halving so that the hashrate difficulty will be so high when they initiate the SegWit donations attack that the Core protocol fork-off chain will become so slow that perhaps only a new block found every week or month. To drive the Core protocol fork-off to ~$0 price and complete their objective of surreptitiously concentrating most of the BTC in their own hands.

Also your projection for the ATH price after the coming halving is much, much too low. As I explained above, there is a reacceleration tweening between the prior and first cases. In those cases, the ATH price reached 3 and 10 times the S/F model price. Given the S/F model price will be $104k in 2021, the peak ATH should be at least $300k – $1 million. And there is a front running acceleration, so that peak ATH price could be attained as early as the end of 2020 so that McAfee doesn’t have to eat his dick. C.f. also my blog: McAfee’s Dick Math: illuminating Bitcoin’s ACCELERATING price (https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@anonymint/mcafee-s-dick-math-illuminating-bitcoin-s-accelerating-price)

The current state of the RSI is indicating a sudden rise in the price is imminent analogous to 2013 (not 2017) for the reasons I explained above:


I thus expect the rise in the BTC price to mimic the entire year of 2013 from this point forward. A moonshot rise pre-halving, then a dip with the SegWit attack killing Core and focusing the cryptocosm on legacy Bitcoin, then legacy Bitcoin rising above $300k before the end of 2020.

---

Plausible reasons:

• Refer to my above readoption and thus reacceleration theory (which I know you think is loony and conspiratorial).
• The IRS ruled that spending any amount of digital virtual currency is a taxable event, thus hopeless for Bitcoin being adopted more as a currency.
• Bitcoin is being prepped as a 666 global reserve currency (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157901.msg52630650#msg52630650), to be used by $billionaires only. The coming SegWit attack will kickoff and destroy all the minions who think they own some cryptocurrency but will soon find out they do not (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147618.msg53078032#msg53078032).
• "The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." (i.e. acceleration or second derivatives):
  
  https://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-09-15/albert-bartlett-on-message-about-exponential-growth-to-the-end/
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI1C9DyIi_8
  
  With exponential growth, the lily pond can be 50% covered on the 29th day and on the morning of the 30th day, 100% covered with lilies.
  
  Just because we can’t “see” visually the fact that the price is about to soon obviously front run the halving, does not mean the front running isn’t glaringly obvious mathematically. The front running is very well developed already. Most of you just can’t “see” it so glaringly yet because your eyes are not visualizing math.

---

For the price objectives and timing over the next months until the Bitcoin halving event, I recently wrote in private email several days ago before the drop below $8600 and before LTC had dropped below $60:

I’m amazed that you don’t comprehend how a hard fork airdrop works.

And thus according to the IRS, those who automatically received this diabolical “free” airdrop owe income tax at the market value on the free Core tokens airdrop at the time of the said timestamp. The market value will be whatever nosebleed BTC price before Craig starts his posited (and warned) SegWit donations “attack”

I noticed the Shelby's still peddling the same hypothesis...

This 2018 post will be entertaining when it happens.
https://i.redd.it/kgrxpsoh0m031.jpg
Capital C for capitalism. BitCoin.

Thanks for engaging in discussion.

I presume you grok topology, deterministic chaos theory and the underlying fractal basis of nature more deeply than I do.

Finally We May Have a Path to the Fundamental Theory of Physics…  and It’s Beautiful—Stephen Wolfram Writings (https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-have-a-path-to-the-fundamental-theory-of-physics-and-its-beautiful/)

Note Wolfram admits his theory isn’t falsifiable, but that’s because a universal T.O.E. must model the multiverse (https://steemit.com/philosophy/@anonymint/geographical-cultural-ethos-science-is-dead-part-2).

I’ll refer to a historical log chart for BTC/USD with my annotations:

Long term advance notice! (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147618.msg54430603#msg54430603)

That chart is telling us that Bitcoin will go to $1 million by 2021/22, yet how is it at this time of increasing leftist government totalitarianism (i.e. the corona virus plaNdemic hoax) that Bitcoin becomes a safe haven?

The hypothetical explanation in the above linked post. It’s necessary to understand what imparts the valuation to Bitcoin per the blogs I’ve linked from the above linked post. Oh yeah for sure most of the Bitcoins are going to be sequestered by the governments sending the valuation of those which are not sequestered to the moon. You’re ostensibly not aware of all the requisite details. There are two types of Bitcoins: Core and legacy. Core Bitcoins have an address that begins with `3` or `bc1`; whereas, legacy Bitcoins start with a `1`. There will be a bifurcation that becomes acute perhaps by November and ultimately nobody is going to accept the Bitcoins which were recovered as “stolen” donations:

Our Bitcoins Will Be Taken/Frozen By the Miners; Involuntary INCOME Tax on Frozen Bitcoin! (https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@anonymint/our-bitcoins-will-be-taken-frozen-by-the-miners-involuntary-income-tax-on-frozen-bitcoin)

Indeed the government does sometimes confiscate wealth. And this Darwinism produces the globalist elite who manipulate the governments (in order to protect their wealth). Yet this phenomenon unfortunately also opens the door for psychopath[1] $billionaires to REKT the entire economy as a certain one which I will not name is doing now. Note that the collective resource is a power vacuum that requires it be managed by power:

Some Iron Laws of Political Economics (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984)

You were a child prodigy theoretical physicist. You’ve got more raw, mental processing power than I do. But the devil is in the details. You need to open your mind and learn more about what you don’t know. The smartest individuals are humbled by how much they don’t know.

[1] The correct term is not sociopath.

Child prodigy theoretical physicist Luboš Motl engaged AnonyMint in discussion on Quora about the future of Bitcoin. The discussion began here:

http://archive.is/https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-for-Bitcoin-to-completely-shut-down/answer/Lubo%C5%A1-Motl/comment/95846451

Here was AnonyMint’s latest reply:

Craig Wright recently warned that global coordination such as via the intergovernmental global agency Financial Action Task Force (FATF) will force the miners to freeze Bitcoins which were involved in crime. Craig made the very specific prediction that the Bitcoin of Chinese fentanyl dealers to be frozen in 2020. In August of this year Trump’s administration announced that Chinese drug lords are using Bitcoin. Remember China wants a trade deal and their help with impeding the flow of fentanyl to the USA is one of Trump’s demands.

They will destroy us both with income taxes for the involuntary airdrop, the inability to spend after the attack because blocks will be full of donated SegWit tokens, and then later the FATF will declare that all SegWit lineage coins must be frozen because they possibly were involved in off-chain Lightning Networks (LN) crap which is not fully traceable! Ah fuck! Why did I not think of that. Now I totally understand what Craig has been warning[foaming at the mouth] about.

Our overlords don’t want the plebs to know… (https://gist.github.com/shelby3/9613df1445c54f69c4c4f198a7c85cb9)

-from anonymint