illogical and pie in the sky skewed nonsense when it comes to your supposed defense of the tech of SV and your nonsensical proclamations that SV supposedly adheres better to the original bitcoin vision than bitcoin itself -
You are again misrepresenting my position. Misunderstanding? Intentional misrepresentation? Only you know for sure. My position has been consistently that SV adheres more to the original Bitcoin protocol than does BTC. This is really undebatable fact from a protocol perspective. 'Vision' is a nebulous, touchy feely thing, upon which I make no value judgement. Satoshi's ... err ... vision may indeed have been more aligned with the current BTC. We have no way of knowing. However, if indeed that were the case, why did he not encode segwit into the original release? Oh gawd.... It's called scale as you go... Dude, don't just dismiss it right away. I think our boy is on to something here. Why don't we just make everything perfect from the start? Take IPv4 for example. It came with CIDR/VLSM out of the box. Computers from private networks accessed the internets via NAT form day one. Because anything else would be just stupid... Yeah... his level of shilling for that BIG block / bcash / original vision trashy shit is just getting ridiculous. Now he wants to argue that either we should have known everything from day one, otherwise it is no good. Or, two, if we learn something, instead of incorporating it through consensus (and allowing everyone to keep up), we should just throw out everything and start over. Makes little sense, except for ongoing opportunistic attempts to spout out largely unsubstantiated BIG blocker nonsense to shill for bcash trashy projects while denigrating the more solid path of where bitcoin is at, how it got here and where it is going. |
|
|
|
illogical and pie in the sky skewed nonsense when it comes to your supposed defense of the tech of SV and your nonsensical proclamations that SV supposedly adheres better to the original bitcoin vision than bitcoin itself -
You are again misrepresenting my position. Misunderstanding? Intentional misrepresentation? Only you know for sure. My position has been consistently that SV adheres more to the original Bitcoin protocol than does BTC. This is really undebatable fact from a protocol perspective. 'Vision' is a nebulous, touchy feely thing, upon which I make no value judgement. Satoshi's ... err ... vision may indeed have been more aligned with the current BTC. We have no way of knowing. However, if indeed that were the case, why did he not encode segwit into the original release? Oh gawd.... It's called scale as you go... |
|
|
|
200 source smerits per month is surely NOT the top of the range.
Clearly there are a few members who have in the neighborhood of 400 to 500 smerits per month. You can look at the top merit senders to reasonably make such calculation about the top merit senders. Most generous recent merit senders: 1339: dbshck
1152: suchmoon
963: chimk
811: Vod
689: Foxpup
534: Flying Hellfish
527: bones261
461: LoyceV
459: DarkStar_
311: frodocooper
293: qwk
285: TMAN
281: Halab
233: DdmrDdmr
229: ETFbitcoin
223: OgNasty
209: JayJuanGee You see Loyce.  You are showing that I am on a streak to be wrong in this thread, once again. The numbers are even higher than 400 to 500 source smerits per month because some members are sending more than 500 smerits in a month.. and over 1,000 as you show in this list from last month presumably a vast majority of those smerits are coming from their source allocation. |
|
|
|
::le sigh:: ...aaaand we're back to 'Aussie man bad!'
Truth is a defence to defamation Yet, only in honest discourse is understanding to be reached. You seem to be a lovely chap. I don’t know why you persist in defending such comic book villains. Lodging a copywright claim over the Bitcoin whitepaper which has an MIT open source license printed on the front page? It’s both hilarious and pathetic. Lodging such a copyright claim is also NOT an "honest discourse." Well, it may or may not be. But while I am attempting to have such an honest discourse with cAPSLOCK, need I really be subjected to post after post of tards yelling 'Aussie man bad!'? Note here that said discussion is focused solely upon technical aspects, and not some cult of personality. Regardless, it is certainly not me that registered the copyright, so WTF is the relevance? Actually, don't answer that. We know the answer. ZERO. Zero relevance. It seems misleading and disingenuous and an attempt at bullying (or a threat thereof).
Well, I don't see how. In copyright, litigation must be preceded by registration. Without such, case will be dismissed due to lack of standing. Assuming CSW intends to litigate copyright ownership, registration is a necessary first step. Further, the copyright owner Satoshi Nakamoto -- whether or not CSW -- has already granted license under MIT terms to open source the code. Such assignment of rights is irrevocable under the terms of licensure. As such, no bullying can be accomplished. It may ultimately result in the enforcement of restoration of the name in each file's author list. But is that bullying? I certainly don't think so. That's fine... We can disagree about whether the personality of fucktwat craig wright is relevant or not to bcash SV, and we can also disagree about whether his registration of a copyright is bullying or disingenuous. I stand by my earlier statements, so I don't see any reasons to repeat myself further.. nor do I find your additional arguments about your pure focus on the tech to be convincing, either, because historical posts have already shown that you have a tendency to spew out illogical and pie in the sky skewed nonsense when it comes to your supposed defense of the tech of SV and your nonsensical proclamations that SV supposedly adheres better to the original bitcoin vision than bitcoin itself - which ultimately downplays the fact that bitcoin is a community and a system of network effects that have evolved above and beyond some kind of idea of pure on chain scaling. In other words the bitcoin community has spoken on the topic including the incorporation and activation of segwit that allows for a decent number of second layer solutions, some of which may still NOT have been introduced into bitcoin in spite that bitcoin is going to be receptive to a variety of additional second and possibly third layer supplementations that have become the total package of what bitcoin is in a descriptive sense .. rather than some minority vision (such as your own and some of the various Bcash BIGBLOCKER nutjob detractors who stray from the truth with their self-centered prescriptions of what bitcoin "should be" rather than accepting and acknowledging, as a starting point descriptive assessments about what bitcoin actually is in its current state and as it is progressing through consensus. |
|
|
|
Yes.. quoting a banned troll should be taken with a decently-sized grain of salt... Sure it is possible that he has become more reasonable, but who knows with shill/trolls who have demonstrated their previous bullshit that ultimately got them banned from the forum? Lets focus more on the ideas, and less on the personalities.  Now I'm really gonna be in hot water around here - I'm agreeing with jbreher. I think that you gotta do both.. especially if someone has shown their disingenuine posting in the past.... At least, he is not (yet) presenting his doom and gloom bullshit, and seems to be presenting bullish ideas about the price.. .. I suppose we will see how the price plays out in the coming years, but even bullish projections should be considered with a grain of salt - because some more modest variation might end up playing out and we don't want to get tied too much into what sorcerers are saying (especially when they have waffled between going from doom and gloom to overly anxious bull within less than a year) |
|
|
|
Yes.. quoting a banned troll should be taken with a decently-sized grain of salt... Sure it is possible that he has become more reasonable, but who knows with shill/trolls who have demonstrated their previous bullshit that ultimately got them banned from the forum? |
|
|
|
::le sigh:: ...aaaand we're back to 'Aussie man bad!'
Truth is a defence to defamation Yet, only in honest discourse is understanding to be reached. You seem to be a lovely chap. I don’t know why you persist in defending such comic book villains. Lodging a copywright claim over the Bitcoin whitepaper which has an MIT open source license printed on the front page? It’s both hilarious and pathetic. Lodging such a copyright claim is also NOT an "honest discourse." It seems misleading and disingenuous and an attempt at bullying (or a threat thereof). |
|
|
|
Even if you have a good plan and you largely follow your plan, there can still be a decent amount of trepidation during the process of the BTC price going UP like a bat out of hell...
In many cases, can cause a large number of folks to second guess their plans... and gosh, when the price comes down to less than 1/5 of what it had been, then there is a kind of opportunity cost regret...
Takes some decently strong willpower to go through all of that - and even the longer term BTC HODLers seem to weather through the situation with some ongoing trepidations - so it does make some sense that even the longer term HODLers should skim, at least a small amount of BTC, off the top whenever there is a decently-sized BTC run, even if such shaving/skimming will merely provide partial rather than complete relief for the seemingly long enduring and decently uncertain BTC price correction period.
So build the shaving/skimming into the plan. That's all I'm saying. This is Bitcoin. If your plan does not consider the possibility that the price overshoots by at least an order of magnitude more than you -- in your wildest dreams -- would dare to hope, then u r doing it rong. At least in regards to skimming BTC on the way up and never running out of either bitcoin or fiat, you and I are largely saying the same thing, even if we might phrase things differently, depending on when we type our statement(s). I doubt that either of us will run out of either bitcoin or fiat unless we make a purposeful elect to do so (perhaps based on other considerations, such as cashing out because we only expect to live x amount of time longer - where x is a decently short period of time). Sucks to be mortal.  On the other hand, if you continue to believe that bcash SV is the real bitcoin then those kinds of considerations might relieve you of more BTC than what would otherwise be a prudent approach... I am talking about maintaining a BTC plan and not getting distracted by false/snake oil imitations. |
|
|
|
easier said than done...I thought I had it licked last time
What works for me is an honest assessment of my needs, wants, and expectations. In my case, the assessment must be worked out before the prices get to life-changing levels. This produces a plan whose outcome I'm happy with. In the heat of frenzied bulls raging, there is still some wiggle room for tweaking a few percentage points, as jbreher admitted, but the actual execution of the plan requires little thought. I find it easier when framed as "Do I still need/want/expect what I needed/wanted/expected when I was planning? Well, here it is, ready for me to pick." Prices to the moon. How much do I sell? Do I? Problems worth having. Even if you have a good plan and you largely follow your plan, there can still be a decent amount of trepidation during the process of the BTC price going UP like a bat out of hell... In many cases, can cause a large number of folks to second guess their plans... and gosh, when the price comes down to less than 1/5 of what it had been, then there is a kind of opportunity cost regret... Takes some decently strong willpower to go through all of that - and even the longer term BTC HODLers seem to weather through the situation with some ongoing trepidations - so it does make some sense that even the longer term HODLers should skim, at least a small amount of BTC, off the top whenever there is a decently-sized BTC run, even if such shaving/skimming will merely provide partial rather than complete relief for the seemingly long enduring and decently uncertain BTC price correction period. |
|
|
|
We all die in the end, money doesn't mean anything
If money NO mean Nuttin, then why we spending so much time and attention trying to accumulate it?  |
|
|
|
Am I really going to have to set a rule saying that Newbies can't link their own post on their first day at the forum, especially if their post is all about sMerits?
Sure, you should. Real newbies are not able to know about Meta board, and have their first targets as merit hunting. If an account created, and jump instantly into meta board to beg for merits, it is not a real newbie. I am sure about that. I suggested to restrict that accounts should have more than 30-days old to be accepted. A newbie should not even know a merit is something that has an importance, I think a newbie can be spotted real quickly if his only purpose is to gain merit... Just as an account with 100-200 activity and 0 merit usually isn't a real asset as well or more a trolling person .... What, it’s literally one of the first things you see in the Meta board. It’s right underneath the activity line on your account as well. It’s not like you’d have to go hunting for info on them. Are you saying that no newbies would be curious enough to learn just wtf they are? Actually, sowns, I think that you raise a decent question, because personally I would not conclude someone is a troll merely because they have high activity and 0 merits, yet I would presume that most active members would at least attempt to "look into the matter" in order to attempt to figure out what merits are.... On the other hand, no member needs to earn any merits if they merely want to read posts and make their own posts from time to time, and if they find little to no value in ranking up... which is not an unreasonable position, especially someone who might have an old account but logs in on an irregular basis (and maybe posts irregularly, too). Maybe micgoossens wants to respond further, but it seems to me that he was getting at a certain suspicion that older members have with new account, and especially in recent years there has been a decently large increase in shilling, trolling and farming of btctalk accounts - and the merit system has been meant to be a vehicle that makes it more difficult, at least for the making of money off of the farming of accounts and the shit posting that had been going along with such attempts to make money off of such historical BTCtalk account farming efforts. |
|
|
|
Could the source supply also been given on how active a source-member is at the forum?
Or mainly where the source is active?
Cause from around 15 to 200 and more is a big difference?
200 source smerits per month is surely NOT the top of the range. Clearly there are a few members who have in the neighborhood of 400 to 500 smerits per month. You can look at the top merit senders to reasonably make such calculation about the top merit senders. It seems to me that theymos would not want to limit himself regarding too specific of criteria (such as activity level) to determine how large to make each of the source's monthly supply, and I suppose that he uses a decent amount of discretion to determine who to pick and whether to increase or decrease their monthly allocation. I recall that he has made some posts that generally discuss some criteria that he might use to determine source status, including the thread that I believe you attempted to follow when you applied for source status, and maybe if a source is NOT active enough or is not spending monthly source allotments, he might choose to reduce their source, so you are likely correct that activity level might be one of the things that he considers... besides some of the other disclosures that he made about the preference for no self dealing and stuff like that. Anyone else have a better assessment of how theymos might balance criteria and determine source smerit levels, since I have not been batting too high in this particular thread in the past couple of days?  |
|
|
|
[edited out]
Before I launch in point-by-point, I need to thank you for not simply wasting my time with another restatement of 'Aussie man bad!', which is almost universally the argument given by Core acolytes as to why SV is not preferable to BTC. So, kudos for that. According to latest seemingly unnecessary fag drama, he seeming to have denounced his previous "aussie-ness" Substantial BW, but what of it? SV aims to be the reserve currency of the planet. (So sorry that the BTC has abandoned this aspiration)
In spite of your pie in the sky remark, at least, for a transitory moment, it appears that you recognize a difference in the nomenclature between bcash sv and BTC... Am I too optimistic to sense some progress, perhaps? So far, SV still looks like the preferable route forward to me. Current market share notwithstanding.
So far, to me, looks like you continue in a kind of trance. Wake the fuck up, jbreher!!!!!!!! Snap out of it.  |
|
|
|
Guys,
Watch this video. Watch watch watch.The entire industry is misguided. Save it! Stop buying (pumping) this BSV shit. It's gonna crash soon. The guy (the modern investor) seems to give way too much attention to CSW... Additionally, TMI seems to believe that it would be fruitful to read the various CSW bullshit.. as if there were some kind of meaningful threat.... In the end, why waste our time on the bullshit, and who cares if a lot of people believe the fraud or the fraudster...? There seems to be an attempt to get our mind-share in order to get attention.. and I really doubt that it is necessary to waste our time on a fraudster or the ongoing escalation of his ongoing and seemingly never ending fraudster claims. |
|
|
|
What will be the new name of the forum, BTC Forum?
The Craig S. Wright bcash SV forum.... Sad, isn't it? Change sucks!!!! Bye bye theymos.  |
|
|
|
Take a look at https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2019/05/21/craig-wright-registers-us-copyright-in-bitcoin-0-1-and-the-bitcoin-white-paper-what-this-means/What can Wright do with this? Not a lot, really. Registration is considered prima facie evidence of the claims in the registration — if the registration occurs within five years of first publication. That’s not the case here. Wright might have some problems suing for copyright violation — for instance, if he wanted to sue those “protocol developer groups” he claims “bastardized” Bitcoin. The software was licensed under the open-source MIT License, which allows all manner of reuse, open or proprietary. The license text is: Copyright (c) 2009 Satoshi Nakamoto Distributed under the MIT/X11 software license, see the accompanying file license.txt or http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php. The license granted is: Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the “Software”), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. That is — the MIT License is explicitly a grant of rights to do whatever the hell you like with the software, as long as you include the notice text. Open source licenses are generally treated as perpetual and irrevocable. There is also estoppel — you can’t release software, encourage its reuse, wait ten years and then sue people for using it under the license you released it under. So it’s entirely unclear what Wright or nChain get out of this registration. Apart from unimpressed press coverage. Thanks for that. The registration seems to get them a bcash sv pump and dump and bitcoin bashing / FUD spreading opportunity. |
|
|
|
[edited out]
EDIT2: And yeah, glad I have that fuckwit JJG on ignore. A pathetic example of an utterly impotent peacock. Yeah right. It seems like a real great idea to share lots of personal information (whether made up or not) on the interwebs, and likely it would be better to just spout out actual made up shit, rather than to actually share too many personal details because in that regard, if other peeps are responding to your posts (in a way that is not emotionally tolerable), then at least it would be much easier to handle.. In other words, anyone who posts too much personal information on the interwebs and expecting sympathy from quasi-anonymous avatars, seem to be inviting their own psychological issues. Smarter guys (and gal) here seem to refrain from sharing too many personal details (whether true or not), yet of course, there can be times when a certain amount of "seemingly personal details" might be helpful to making various thread "on-topic" related points.. ... so maybe there could be some value in your posts, in terms of other peeps learning that there remains a decent amount of value to attempt to at least try to retain some on-topicness in your posts and to keep out certain kinds of personal details that might be a bit too sensitive in the event that other peeps don't respond in the way you like (which seems almost inevitable on the interwebs - as inevitable as bitcoin's volatility, which seems to be about 99.9993294367% certain - approximately..... ) |
|
|
|
No need to remind him right now hahahahaha It's not about "need." It's about irresistible impulses. Didn't you know? Don't you know that on the interwebs, peeps enjoy kicking other peeps when down? I have witnessed a similar phenomena even with myself... there is a kind of piling on effect, and someone has got to start it, no?  Why not me? Anyhow, I am not "civilized" enough to refrain myself.. you should know that....  |
|
|
|
Bah. Depression sucks. Decided I'm getting drunk today.
Again.
*sighs*
Grow Bitcorn grow, tho. Once it breaches $10k, I'm thinking of rage-selling a chunk of corn to subsidize Rick's retirement.
Being retired, alone, kinda sucks. Dealing with Rick venting about (((them))) is starting to get to me, in a really bad way, and driving a wedge between us. Growing resentment, over a few years now, is going to become a breaking point sooner than later.
The human condition is a colossal bag of shit.
Come on Bob, what's happening to the most unshakable black cowboy we know? I think you might have neglected your titanium training recently. Keep your chin up, have a couple beers and look onwards! Bob has always been an emotional wreck as far back as I can remember. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
