Regarding craig wright being satoshi, we do not need to entertain such dumb ideas... there's no proof beyond his mere assertions.

regarding how many miners would have been mining bitcoin 5 weeks after the first block is also questionable or at least unclear.  Mining was available to anyone, and there were mailing lists in which such information about bitcoin and mining was shared, so yeah there could have been some very early blocks that were mined by random people, including some russian, but I am not sure how many or who was known to be mining bitcoin in those first 5 weeks beyond satoshi and hal finney.  

It would be nice to put out a list of possible names for mining in that first 5 week period, but I doubt that even such a list of possible known people would even capture all of the possible persons who might have ended up mining that particular block.. and maybe even somewhat randomly, as you suggested.

By the way, we could probably reasonably eliminate craig from having had mined any coins prior to about 2013 or 2014.... Maybe be even 2015..  that narcissistic pathologically lying retard.

I did not believe theymos to even be in the mix of anyone who would be potentially involved in bitcoin.org.

I mean, theymos and cøbra just recently separated their interest by dividing the pie (separating the two domains), which seemed to have made it easier for cøbra to thereafter be able to unilaterally decide what he wants to do, with bitcoin.org within his complete discretion...


As pointed out by DooMAD above.

That is just a snipped of one of the declarations.  There is no actual declaration or attachment that is linked anywhere that i have seen, so far.

Based on your response, hv_ a few examples come to mind, such as my wondering:  

whether calvin more retarded than hv_?  

or
whether hv_ more retarded than craig?  

or
whether craig more retarded than calvin?

It would be a difficult task to attempt to rank these, no? 

That would be dumb to make gold ownership illegal and thereafter cause a rush to bitcoin and just a BIG mess in general...   

Sure Government might explore all kinds of options and considerations but Governments are not so dumb that they would not at least attempt to think through the problem and the reactions, are they?

Comes off as a bunch of pie in the sky presumptions and arguments contained in the article.

I was just playing along with some of the ideas that you presented in your earlier post, especially when you seemed to have been suggesting that "fuck you" status is more in the distance, difficult to obtain, or whatever that seemingly pessimistic assertion was intended to mean...    and accordingly, I was attempting to provide some extreme scenarios in order to suggest that even if we were to go to those kinds of extremes there are still likely to be ways to consider bitcoin continuing to have "fuck you" utility.

In other words, don't be giving up on king daddy.. you, vapourminer, or any other WO peep.... of course, since we are posting publicly, I am not merely referring to only you or your situation, vapourminer.. I am referring to the "everyman vapourminer" to the extent that any such beast might be imagined to exist.

No.  There are likely a few other losers, no coiners, fence sitters, bitcoin naysayers, sold too much too sooners, and/or alt coin pumpeners who are in the same camp of wishfulness as you.

Whoaza cAPSLOCK.  Probably you should just CAPSLOCK the whole post.

You are speaking in such absolutes, which makes it a bit more difficult to follow the plausibility of what you are asserting.



I like this statement.   

 



This is a bit of an absolute too, Hueristic.

I do understand that there may have been quite a few members on the cypherpunks mailing list, which does open up the possibility that any of them could have ended up sparking up a miner or just tried it out, but still... "could be anyone?"  Seems to assert a bit too much without really any meaningful attempt to hone down the set of possibilities.

A hat-maker with an engwish teaching side gig, or the other way around?

Who proclaimed that jacks-of-all-trades had gone extinct?

 

That's part of the problem of any bailout... how to decide criteria and who would qualify?  This would not really be insurance unless members would have to pay in to be eligible.. and that would likely be shut down soon by admins of the forum...

Probably any such fund would establish the criteria ahead of time, and then contributions would be made into such fund based on the criteria that had already been established.  You see how quickly it gets messy.

I suppose any well to do member might establish such fund himself/herself and maybe even fund such effort to the extent that donations might not cover it.. but then if there were a fund that required group input, then the selection or election of the group might be established ahead of time, too.

It seems messy, almost no matter what when we are on the interwebs, because it can be quite difficult to verify some of the stories, so maybe in some sense, the whole concept of a fund would be from a benevolent dictator rather than a committee because the benevolent dictator would not necessarily have to account, except when s/he is receiving funds people expect some kind of an accounting, and s/he could decide if s/he believes the story (and justification) for a bailout with some portion of the funds.

Let's say for example that I had started a fund earlier in the year, and I had already set forth that I was going to consider various cases in which members might need a bailout, and maybe one of the criteria would be that any bailout would be locked up for one year and another criteria would be that they would have to lock up some amount that is similar to the bailout and also employ dollar cost averaging and HODLing.. blah blah blah.  I also disclosed that I had .5BTC that I was going to start out with the fund, and I set forth some criteria, and I said that anyone could donate to the fund, if s/he wanted to help the fund.  So in the last several months, I had received an additional .1BTC.. so the totality of the fund had added up to .6BTC.

Thereafter, I had been confronted with the case of mindrust and the case of VB1001, and based on my having had gathered evidence, I decided that mindrust deserved a .05BTC bailout and VB1001 deserved a .125 bailout (this conclusion regarding amounts is hypothetical and is assuming some facts that might not be in evidence, such as mindrust having had panic sold and that VB1001 was more morally justified in his having had sold.. which might well be BIG-ASS assumptions but are fine for illustrative purposes).  

So in the end, members might decide to support (or give to) the fund based on my previous decisions, my stated criteria and they might believe that I am a fair person in these kinds of ways.  Others might not want to give to such a fund for a variety of reasons including that they don't agree with bailouts, they don't trust my decisions in regards to eligibility or my discretion (or they don't want to give me such powers) and/or they also might believe that there is a long scam potential or exit scam potential with the establishment of such a honey pot. Seems messy to me, but there could be ways to arrange such a thing, but anyone who arranges it too, and agrees to take donations, is likely going to receive negative feedback and skepticism regarding their purported good intentions.  

You seem to be reading way too much into this.

Bitcoin prices have hardly even moved.

Yeah, of course, we had a little correction in the last few hours, and sure, the correction might go down another $1,000 or even $2k, but so far it went down a few hundred and then bounced back to within about $200 or $300 from where it started.  Furthermore, it hardly even reached dip levels that it had achieved yesterday...

I don't see anything, so far, that is really bearish about this  -and it could be the opposite.. but too soon to call that, either.



Reminds me of Clint Eastwood.

"You feeling lucky, punk."

 


 (nothing personal)

These coins are not within the same year of BTC's creation... more importantly, they are within about 5 weeks of the first block ever being mined... so there would not have been too many miners within that short of a period of time.  Of course, we might not even be able to determine how many miners there would have been within 5 weeks of the first block besides satoshi and Hal finney.. Anyone else claim to be mining at that time or known to have been mining so soon after bitcoin's first block?

Clearly interesting.

Let's say for example it was a block mined by Hal Finney.  Then that block could be in control of Hal's estate or one of his heirs.  Of course, there are other plausible scenarios in which someone would still have access to earlier blocks and may even want to move those coins... I am looking forward to hearing more about this, if there happens to be any more information that can be sussed out from whatever happens to be currently known or even reasonably inferred from that particular transaction including its source and including speculation regarding how many miners might have been operating at that particular time and would have been in the running to have mined that particular block.

There can be more than one reason that any given person might froth at any given moment.



In other words, my happen to have been frothing at the same moment that you happened to have submitted your post happened to have been a mere coincidence.  So there!!!!!

look at you, Ibian.. 

still whining.. even though somewhat subtly..... kind of like jbreher.. but maybe even more subtly than him....  because you know you will be beat, until your morale improves.. if you whine more outrightly...


 

I understand.  Traditional financial people have been really having a hard time getting their mind around various aspects of bitcoin, even if they can appreciate the sound money aspects of it.

They also have some biasness to both think in terms of fee driven products, and they would not want any of their clients to go more than 1% or perhaps slightly more in some kinds of investments that do not fit within their bailiwick to manage.

I suppose that the more that they are exposed to the idea, they might be willing to accept that clients invest more than 1% into such a product and they might even begin to have exposure to some traditional vehicles, such as GBTC or some other products that are allowing them (or what they have available to them) to get involved.  We know that behind the scenes there are some well respected financial institutions , such as fidelity, that are getting deeper and deeper into bitcoin, and so credibility is coming to bitcoin through some of those earlier players who are also likely profiting more because they are figuring out some way to get into bitcoin within their traditional investment mindset (that also includes some of the encumbrances of such traditional investment systems).. whether reputation or even liabilities if something goes really wrong with custody.

Of course, with bitcoin it was designed in a way to limit the needs of various kinds of middlemen, whether we are talking banks or financial advisors.... so likely there are difficulties for even smart (and attempting to be unbiased) financial advisors to direct anyone towards a product that is somewhat intended to put them out of business (or to minimize the need for them) 


hahaahahha

You don't have to outrun the bear.  You just have to outrun your friend.   

Yes... I can see.. vapourminer that you are becoming somewhat scaredy cat by this virus and the economic macro situation... and sure I don't want to deny that we likely don't want to reach bitcoin richness or fuck you status in the midst of Armageddon, so it would be much preferable to reach such status under more normal circumstances in which the whole world is not burning down around us.

Of course, each of us has to plan accordingly, in terms of how much guns, bullets and food we need to put in storage and whether we need a bunker, based on our location including if we have options to remain a kind of obscure rich (and not a target), but also there is no real indication that the various BTC price prediction models such as 1) stock to flow, 2) four year fractal and/or 3) s-curve exponential adoption based on metcalfe and networking principles is NOT still playing out.

Sure, the price prediction models might need to be tweaked, but what the hell else are we going to invest in?  Bitcoin remains the best investment on the block, even if more Armageddon-like circumstances end up playing out way more than we would have wished them to be.. and yeah there could be some shutting down of the internet and communications, too but is that really going to bring down the value of bitcoin and our ability to store it and perhaps transmit value from time to time, as needed in it?  Yeah, sure, buy yourself some guns, bullets and maybe even a bunker, and hopefully that does not take up too much of your current resources that you cannot keep a decent amount of your value in bitcoin a the same time.. because even if our concept of "fuck you" might have changed in some ways, the concept still has not gone away, relatively speaking, when we are considering the better ways to allocate in order to maintain as many options as we can, which is still a kind of "fuck you" status, even if we might not be saying it with as much arrogance because we are afraid that the masses might otherwise attack us.. .. so yeah, during Armageddon-like circumstances, the deployment of our "fuck you" resources may likely need to be exercised with both a certain amount of covertness in order that we do not unreasonably cause ourselves to be a target through our own inabilities to hide that we might have more resources (you can hide bitcoin, by the way) than the vast majority of others.

We could have a "fallen bros" donation fund.

Like insurance for hat wearers.

What could go wrong?

We might be too greedy to admit to owning BTC or having an ability to save someone else... but yeah, without details it is difficult to know how each of us might act in similar circumstances in which our wealth (BTC) can be used to help others.... .or if we might have an obligation to bailout someone else.


Hahahahahaha

They are such lovely creatures.

Probably because you are too busy focusing on personalities rather than actual issues and substance, but whatever at least you can admit (somewhat) that you might have been wrong in your prior assessment of impact.

I doubt that there is anyone here who would have imagined that the financial impact of this whole virus situation would have been so great or that there would have been so much chaos in the world in regards to how to deal with it.  The chaos seems far from over, even with the opening up of various places in which the outbreak seems far from under control or even the ongoing lack of information and tests is likely NOT going to end well, but sure, maybe we will get lucky, and the opening up will work out fine..

I am really doubtful, not only that the opening up will not work out well, it will disproportionately impact the poor and disenfranchised, but even rich people are going to get fucked by lacking in their providing of various support systems and focus in the reopening efforts.

Good thing that a lot of us have bitcoin, but we are also going to get fucked from this whole thing because we are going to have so many more limitations to how we can spend our wealth...  in the hookers, lambo and blow territory but also other quality of life considerations in terms of steaks, travel, health and fitness options, social mingling, other supply chain issues and venue options.

So maybe even there was some truth in the proclamations of mindrust when he asserted that he felt better to shave off a lot of his bitcoin options because even being rich is not going to be that great in these kinds of times of fewer options... .... and even though there is some truth in that comment, having bitcoin and richness in those kinds of alternative asset holding ways is likely to provide way more options than either having money in fiat or other potentially depreciating or expensive to maintain ways.

Yep... let's just say hypothetically any of us is forced to sell.  We might just want to keep some token amount in bitcoin, whether $50 or some other amount in order that we attempt to continue with the proper mindset and practice towards continuing to have some kind of investment.

Of course, none of us knows the circumstances of another member who might not even share such details, and there could be circumstances in which it is not even possible to retain a token amount of BTC... which would likely be extreme circumstances.

Sure.  How you going to stop that?  We can bash on the shitcoin projects.  We can choose not to participate in them.  We can discourage others from involving themselves in the other shitcoin projects.  In the end, seems that it is just going to take time to iron out.  Difficult to rush such a process, and there are billions of people out there who have not invested in bitcoin or shitcoins or anything who are likely to be just as willing to invest into shitcoins as they are into bitcoin.  Shitcoins specialize into marketing to these people by asserting that they missed the bitcoin train, and their shitcoin has more potential than bitcoin because their shitcoin only costs $38.73 while bitcoin costs $9,776.78.  People eat up such deceptive bullshit.  Even smart people.


Again another thing that seems to be outside of your control, and regarding experimentation with shitcoins, seems to me that they are likely to be more successful to 1) gain in value, 2) play off of the network effects of king daddy, 3) attract people into them 4) etc during these earlier unsettled times..  Once it becomes more clear that bitcoin is the clear winner (which some of us have already recognized) then it might become more difficult to either attract people/investors into shitcoins or to create narratives that really cause people/investors to genuinely believe that they have chances to beat out bitcoin and become bitcoin 2.0.


If you build a better mouse trap, people will come.  Might just take 20 to 50 years.... and bitcoin is much more difficult than a mouse trap to actually assess and conclude that it is the "better" one.


Can't really stop individual or entities from wanting to make money.. and if there is money there, then why wouldn't they do it? 

Surely there are some individuals and entities that are bitcoin focused, too.


Why so impatient, Biodom?

Seems that you believe that bitcoin's adoption is NOT going quickly enough?

Personally, I am NOT sure how to imagine much more bullish growth without things getting too screwed up, because there is already a lot of chaos in the space, and sure there might be some areas in which there appears to be growth and then there are set backs.. but seems to take a while to get a lot of infrastructure matters into place in order to really facilitate hockey stick growth in adoption...

By the way, I have believed that hash power and mining power in bitcoin has continued to grow astronomically and even in ways that hash power could support 100x increase in the BTC price without any major issues, but even with that, we sometimes will recognize various kinds of vulnerabilities, and maybe it is better to make sure that some of the vulnerabilities are recognized and even worked up prior to the next 100x in BTC price.. we had 100x increase in price in 2013.. then some time to recover from that and then another 78x increase in price in 2017.. and then time to recover from that .. and adoption does require places for the people to store their coins and places for them to expand into, which seems to nearly naturally cause the BTC price to increase with fairly small increases in adoption causing large increases in BTC price.  So to me, it seems that bitcoin could tolerate another 100x in price, but there also need to be infrastructure in place to deal with it, too... and yeah maybe we cannot get 100x sustainable, but maybe we would end up gravitating back into the 4x to 5x area.. from where we are at because growth can only happen so quickly in order for various other aspects of the ecosystems to catch up.

Sure it is good to assess the facts, and maybe suggest that there might be various shit projects that distract people from adopting bitcoin, and they end up getting distracted into shitcoins, but why should we get upset about such distractions into shitcoins?  It is what it is, no?  Is there some way that there should be better marketing in bitcoin to keep some of the people from gravitating into shitcoins?  Shitcoins do provide a place for some people to go while the bitcoin infrastructure continues to be developed and allow a place for them to fit into.  Is there something that bitcoin is doing wrong?  Is there some niche that needs to be fulfilled in bitcoin?  Aren't there various entrepreneurs who would spot any niche if they believe that it needs to be filled or that it might be profitable?  I would agree that with open source, there will be some tragedy of the commons, too, in that sometimes there might not be motivations to build in certain ways that might be needed because no one believes that they can make money in that direction, even if such direction would be good for the bitcoin ecosystem to have support in a direction that is not really easy to monetize.

I think that one of the problems with any open source project is that it going to be inefficient in a variety of ways and there are going to be folks and other projects that try to steal from it and then imitate it and then try to gain its network effects.

In the longer run, value still remains quite likely to continue to gravitate into bitcoin because bitcoin continues to be the soundest of money and there continues to be no other project that even comes close to bitcoin's sound money aspect even though some of them will spout out such sound money claims, but their claims are not really backed by facts regarding how those other projects operate, and it just seems that the stealing from bitcoin and the delays in growth (total adoption) are just part of the open source territory and one of the costs of doing business under such openness... so in the longer run we might all be dead.. but still in the shorter run, bitcoin still seems to be a good investment choice when compared to other projects..

Yeah, any of us could get distracted into some sham imitation project, and we might even make more money by short term getting involved in such scam project... so the choice remains with each of us, whether to stay involved in bitcoin or to diversify into various shit projects because we believe that we might gain more profit that way and we are too impatient to either develop on bitcoin, keep our value in bitcoin or to wait for the slow open source project of kingdaddy to play itself out for the next 20, 50 or 100 years.