From what I understand (as I have not been paying attention back then), people have requested this section in the past and thus it was added. It was probably because the threads were flooding some other section and this is exactly what would happen if it was removed. The first step would be to ban Investor-Based games altogether. That way, no other section would be cluttered up with these threads. They should just delete this trash category, just a playground for scammers.
That's essentially what it is. A playground for scammers and signature spammers. |
|
|
|
why do people start these pointless idiotic topics ?
I was just about to ask the same question.
OP firstly move your thread to the speculation section. This is just another thread linking to another articles which just throws out random possibilities. If one spends enough time in the speculation section, I'm sure that they would hear every prediction ranging from $0 to the $moon for the halving. I have a strong feeling that Bitcoin halving will be a huge boom for Bitcoin.
Pure (pointless) optimism. It is doing so well and it would be really weird if it just suddenly crashed.
No, it would not be weird. I'm not sure I understand what do you mean honestly  "It took place" ? we are in the 400-450$ since months now . The price was around ~230$ in September, now it is ~450$. That was what he meant with 'took place'. |
|
|
|
That's about the same argument as the only people who don't value animal poop are people who don't need to eat.
It is quite different; you're just posting gibberish with that analogy. If Bitcoin was centralized in its current state, it would just be a very inefficient system (why would anyone use it?). If you don't value decentralization, you've come here for the wrong reasons and missed the original idea. Banks will probably copy blockchain in a more controllable way for them.
You can't just "copy" in a controllable way. They're not even sure what the exact definition of a blockchain is. In any case, a centralized blockchain defeats the purpose of having one (as it can be tampered with).
Update: False analogy fallacy strikes again. |
|
|
|
I should remind everyone (before they post) that doing something that has some effect is way better than doing nothing. This problem is getting increasingly worse and finding just 'decent' (less than than 'good') quality content is becoming increasingly hard. Tagging account sellers and sold accounts would have an effect on what they can do afterwards, because they would most likely be rejected by signature campaigns. Would more stringent bans for spamming be the solution.
I wouldn't mind, but it isn't up to me. As a starting ban for a signature spammer 2 months or more seems fit. get account selling banned on this forum.
This would not prevent account sales, as one could easily do it in private or on a external site. I don't see it being a bannable offense anytime soon (even though I would not mind it). |
|
|
|
No they're not. Just because YOU value decentralization doesn't mean that it's valuable. Even if it was valuable, it doesn't mean that it's all of the value or even a big part of the value of the technology.
Wrong. The only people who would not value decentralization are those who are either, in some way, profiting from the corrupt centralized system or those who are too ignorant to do anything about it. It's valuable because it's NOT centralized.
This is why Bitcoin holds it's value, and has value in general. Once it loses decentralization, it will automatically lose e.g. censorship resistance and thus it would no longer be of any use. Bank using blockchain technology won't benefit customers one bit.
Don't make generalizations like that. Blockchain technology will benefit the customer. the question is just how much. Obviously there are going to be entities which barely change their pricing, and entities who drastically reduce prices. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Paypal only.
|
|
|
|
I don't understand what the point behind such threads is. The theories that those two people are Satoshi were disproved, and basically nobody really knows who Satoshi is (or was) at this time. Heck, I'm a better choice than Dorian.
My cat is a better choice than both. |
|
|
|
And fiat equivalent is only irrelevant in crypto fantasy land.
Wrong. The people who only see Bitcoin in fiat equivalent are improperly using it. You think the NSA and other intelligence agencies would be incapable of finding out, and/or uninterested in, this information?
Just because they have access to a wast amount of information about the general population that does not mean that they can acquire information about anything they want. It would not be hard for sufficiently skilled people to create and keep a encrypted communication "line" between them. Additionally, it is very well possible to stay behind an alias (for a limited amount of time) without being discovered. because i don't think if i were satoshi nakamoto then i come out one day and prove the world to believe me,
Regardless of whether he would 'come out' or not, he surely wouldn't try to attract this much attention while simultaneously stating that he does not want it (which is quite a unreasonable combination). |
|
|
|
I'm not saying Core is evil, although I am defending Gavin for the obvious reason that he does not deserve to be vilified merely for having an opinion, especially after having contributed so much to bitcoin.
Oh, the irony present here is lovely: "we must never forget" == my opinion; so I deserve to be vilified ("lying", "hypocrisy", etc.) for having an opinion while Gavin does not? Remember, you are the one who started the shit slinging.
Nope, I have started nothing. Do you see me say anywhere that e.g. 'Gavin is bad'? I haven't said anything bad about either one of them and have stated something that is a reasonable course of action once someone does something bad. Both of them have created reasonable amounts of doubt regarding their 'status', due to their latest actions (which is only normal). The only person that I've used a 'bad adjective' to describe in this incident is CW.
Update: You tried to insinuate that Gavin/Matonis were part of some insidious plot along with Craig. Unless you're just trying to push some agenda, you have to know that isn't true. That is definitely shit-slinging and you should not expect not to get called out on it. And yes, you did start it.
I did no such thing. This conversation has been quite lovely, but you're wasting my time with nonsense. |
|
|
|
Satoshi gave him access.
That is no valid reason for him to retain access, especially when he practically quit the role that he had. Self-fulfilling prophesy if access is taken away. Is there a mechanism for taking away such privileges? 95% super-majority consensus, something like that?
No, it isn't. If he wants to contribute, he can create pull requests like everyone else. There is no mechanism for that and if I'm correct, Wladimir is the only one who can do that (due to him being the maintainer of the Github page). |
|
|
|
I doubt that you don't have anything against them. Your original comment was clearly seeking to instigate and make something into bigger than it actually is. You are lying.
You're taking things way out of context. I have attempted to do no such thing, nor am I lying at this very moment (I have never had a single interaction with Gavin nor Matonis, I believe). Keep in mind that a lot of those articles written by the media mentioned both Matonis and Andersen (as an argument to make their 'case' more 'credible'). Also, they have not been conned *easily*. Craig offered them proof none of us have seen, in a manner which would have been quite difficult to fake. You can say it was easy, but that would be a lie. JVP also believes Craig is Satoshi based on having met him before in 2005. There is actually a *lot* of anecdotal evidence which has not been explained or cleared up, and apparently the email conversations Craig had with them were extremely convincing. That is something that is extremely difficult to fake - coming off as being the exact same person as they talked to 5 years ago, just as a general feeling.
This is not factual evidence; without cryptographic proof (which would be a nice starting point) these are just stories. -snip-
Core has been wanting to take away Gavin's commit access for a long time. They used this as a convenient excuse to do so and now you are whitewashing the whole thing.
The rest is pretty much useless and does not need to be commented independently. This is just an attempt to defend Gavin and try to make Core look evil.  Besides, even if we ignore everything, Gavin does not need to have commit access anymore. While I do not understand the exact 'process' which was used to determine the set of people who will have commit access, Gavin is no longer a part of them. People who have stopped contributing to the project should not retain access. |
|
|
|
Well, I'd like to offer a caveat to that. While I don't think we ever need Satoshi to step forward in real life and identify himself, there is still the possibility that he or an inheritor will someday want to utilize the ~1 million coin fortune that he holds - perhaps for a philanthropic project or for investment in a worthwhile business startup, for example. As the Wright episode has shown, even the slightest rumor of a "Satoshi sighting" can move the market without proof - now imagine how the market might react if the coins really did start moving?
I have never said that he can't have market influence due to the amount of coins that he is holding. What I'm saying is, we don't need to know who he is nor do people need to be obsessed with the 'Satoshi quest' as they are now. Again, Satoshi wouldn't need to reveal his real world identity. Just authenticate a message and let people know what (in general terms) what he plans to use the bitcoin for, and that he's not abandoning it or signaling that Bitcoin has failed.
He has already abandoned Bitcoin long ago and (apparently) moved onto other things. I don't understand why his opinion on whether Bitcoin has failed or not would stand ground. No one should have that much influence in a decentralized system. Exactly. Gavin's commit access should not be restored. He represents a tangible security risk. The willingsness of Gavin and Matonis to sign a NDA alone disqualifies them from taking part in the Bitcoin Core project any further. One may specualte what other NDAs they may have signed...
While I do agree with the first part of the post, I do have to correct you on the second part. I have said that it is possible that they signed that NDA (or something similar), I never said that this actually happened (since we have no proof of this). |
|
|
|
Lauda, I know Gavin and Matonis give you nightmares in your dreams but there is no reason to be upset with them. They saw proof in person that was clearly convincing, and furthermore his personality fit with who they thought was satoshi. As much as you'd love to turn this into a smearfest against Gavin, I'm afraid it just doesn't hold up to water. You can't get upset with someone for having a personal opinion.
Incorrect. Personally, I have nothing against either one of them. However, my argument stands: Either both have been conned quite easily (i.e. they are too naive) or they have both been part of that 'plan' and signed an NDA. We might never know. In any case, there was a high chance that Gavin would have given CW control over the project (if he could). At least that is what he said a few years back about Satoshi. I do not understand why you would let them off so easy (people who helped spread this unfortunate event)? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin 'creator' backs out of Satoshi coin move 'proof'
Classic sociopath. Now he's the "victim". Gavin still has some explaining to do in my mind.
No. Gavin either got conned pretty badly, or has signed that NDA that was also offered to Antonopoulos. Either way, he's a risk; it is time for both him and Matonis to depart. Drama ended. Let's continue with the blocksize debate....
Replace the existing drama with another type of drama? There is no need. Core has a clear plan for 2016. |
|
|
|
|
While I'm tired of CW threads, this one seems okay as it is good to hear that this annoyance is (hopefully) going away from the Bitcoin ecosystem. People that have responded to this have obviously gotten this "apology" all wrong. This is the classic sociopath play. He is unable to provide the adequate proof (after being exposed) and now he tries to play the victim. Stop falling for his bullshit already.
Additionally, we must never forget what Matonis and Andersen have done. To the real Satoshi, whoever (&& wherever) you are, we do not need to know.
|
|
|
|
Liars and spin masters rephrase the wording to present someone's argument out-of-context (and delete entire threads where the caveats where disclaimed by myself which you are failing to mention).
Nothing was 'rephrased'. It was a screenshot from something that you wrote, even though you claim that you didn't. P.S. the context at the deleted thread which LauraM didn't even link to, contained bolded and red caveats similar to my reexplanation as follows (which I was forced to repeat after your leader gmaxwell vaporized an entire thread):
"Laura" can't link to things that have been trashed. Technically, I can, but you are unable to see them directly.
You're producing so much spam in addition to breaking several rules along the way. |
|
|
|
Who are you quoting? I never wrote that text.
Yeah, definitely did not say that in your thread:  Dude they know they can't ban me. I have too much political clout here. You should be careful with your words.
 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
