Perhaps we can take the opposite route, and mock the hell out of those people by actually creating a fake Antichrist Illuminati Church of Bitcoin or something. After all, Satanism was created as a mockery of Catholicism.

Don't pay him too much attention. Anonymint is a newbie who talks big, but knows little, which you'll likely notice in the last two weeks of "debates" he had with other bitcoin experts, and the deep brown Ignore status he earned within a matter of days. He thinks his idas are original (they have been debated years ago), always thinks he is smarter than you, is apparently very religious, and thanks to this thread, is apparently racist, too.


As for Alex, when one peddles in conspiracy theories and crazy stuff, this conclusion on Bitcoin is to be expected. Was never a fan of his brand of loony, and honestly, I'm glad he was never convinced to shill for Bitcoin, despite Atlas proposing such an idea two years ago, since I think Alex promoting Bitcoin would harm it more than help it.

Hey, that would be neat, add the option to display the signed transaction as one, or a series, of QR codes, in case Bluetooth isn't an option. With used phones becoming so cheap, this might even give Armory and Trezzor some competition.

And some will simply ignore the fact that 0-confirmation transactions will likely be the norm, or that people would trust a well established financial system over a gimmicky, centralized, and extremely limited new one run by a private company.
Some also don't realize that simply posting links to everything in their posts, with said links not actually answering anything the links claim to answer, will eventually get their links completely ignored, and their arguments be reduced to "But I did defend my point! Honest! Trust me!" which will basically make the person's arguments seem childish and incomplete.

I would say that some should really try to actually explain their counterpoints, instead of resorting to repeating the same points by linking to them, ignoring the fact that those points are the ones being refuted. Saying "A", hearing "but so and so counters A, so it's B," and replying with "You're wrong, because here's a link to A" makes one sound rather idiotic.

But, this obviously won't matter, because no matter how much you try to refute some people's points by pointing out the flaws in their assumptions and theories, they will claim


and will continue to link to their original claim, as if it's somehow possible to refute the criticism of their original point by simply repeating their original point over and over.

I was hoping the dip would help delay the party, so you could spend more time planning and have it some time when it gets warmer. Stupid Bitcoin is too stupid to even know how to crash properly.

Just had a weird thought:

Since this wallet can sign and transmit transactions over Bluetooth, doesn't this mean that you can essentially use it as a very secure cold-storage wallet, by disabling all data and internet connection on a separate phone running it, and leaving only Bluetooth powered up?

Have you been keeping up with the new stuff proposed in release 0.9? Or the process of doing business with VISA under the threat of chargebacks?
I would guess not. Small merchants, and likely most transactions, will be accepted with 0 confirmations. The bigger ones may require a confirmation, or may be accepted with 0 confirmations if the customer provides some ID. So from the merchant's point of view, small merchants will get their transactions accepted between 10 and 20 minutes, while Amazon will have their transactions accepted between 20 and 60+ minutes. From a customer's point of view, who is used to 0 confirmation transactions, using their own wallet will make their transaction show up almost instantly with the merchants and likely with Amazon, while using Amazon's wallet their transaction will show up instantly when shopping on Amazon, but will take an extremely long time to show up when shopping with other merchants.

So, option A, use your own wallet, get instant 0-confirmation purchases everywhere,
Option B, use Amazon's wallet, get 0-confirmation purchases at Amazon, and 60 minute confirmations everywhere else.

I think people would avoid the "broken" Amazon wallet.


If Amazon was actually stupid enough to block everyone else's transactions from being accepted in blocks, then all they will be doing is wasting mining resources for reduced fees, and, although they will be delaying transaction confirmations a bit (which, as mentioned, won't matter to small merchants), they will basically be generously giving those excluded transactions to all other miners. Think about it, if Amazon has 20% of the hashing power, and you as a mining pool only have %10, before Amazon you would get 10% of all blocks and 10% of all transaction fees, but now you will still get 10% of all blocks, but those 20% Amazon-rejected transactions will get spread out, giving you an extra 2% in reward fees. Chances are that this may even increase overall mining profitability (for everyone but Amazon) enough to entice new mining power to join the network, and reduce Amazon's 20% share ever further. In the end, it's a penalty on the customers, who, being used to 0 confirmation transactions won't notice or care, and a reward to all other miners, who don't care about confirmation times anyway.


BTW, I am not posting this as a reply to AnonyMint, but instead only for the benefit of other readers who may be new to bitcoin, because


is a perfect description of AnonyMint's modus operandi.

Learn from my mistake and get a car loan 

If Cartel has 51% or even 60% of mining power, the decision all users will be faced with will be:

Join Chain A, which will have slightly less than 20 minute transaction time for the next 4 weeks, and submit yourself to a new alt-coin and the whims of a single cartel that may continuously debase your currency through inflation
Join Chain B, which will have slightly more than 20 minute transaction time for the next 4 weeks, and remain the decentralized, deflationary Bitcoin.

Considering that most day-to-day transactions will typically be done with 0 confirmations anyway, the 10 to 20 minute confirmation difference won't matter much, and rational risk-averse people, and especially ones with established wealth, will stick with the well known and established Chain B. Anyone who has any sort of hardware bitcoiin wallet or a POS system will stick with Chain B by default, as well. Frankly, most Chain B people won't even notice that something like Chain A even exists.

However, this will undoubtedly fall on deaf ears, because when it comes to listening to counterarguments on this forum,


is a perfect description of AnonyMint's modus operandi.

As noted in another thread, this forum is mostly composed of INTJ's and INTP's. We are not emotion-driven fanatics, we are very logic driven thinkers. As such, it should be very easy to get your arguments a fair hearing. All you have to do is come up with a logical, coherent argument, and when faced with a counterargument, try to defend your origina, position, or learn something new and change your position. In AnonyMint's case, though, he presents an incoherent argument that is based on incorrect logical and bitcoin-operational assumptions, and calls those who post counter arguments "too stupid to understand his higher intellect" claims, because


is a perfect description of AnonyMint's modus operandi.

He won't read this, but for other's sake, please note that I have never claimed to be intentionally spreading FUD about him. I said he is spreading FUD, and then covers any attempts at correcting him under even more FUD. Also, please not that I have tried very hard, as have BurtW, MoonShadow, and many other well respected members of this forum who know the ins-and-outs of Bitcoin way better than AnonyMint, but



is a perfect description of AnonyMint's modus operandi.

I guess now the OP question is flipped, and my answer went from definitely to maybe (it will definitely go up to $1,000, and now it maybe will drop to $1,000)

Only until one of those coins is spent on one chain, but is not spent, or is sent to a different address on the other chain. They would basically have to be perfectly synchronized with every spend, otherwise their transaction history diverges. So, realistically, this twice-spending will occur once.

I suggest instead of continuing to allow him to fill thread after thread with his nonsense and allow him to continuously burry rebuttals to his idiocy under more FUD, that people simply reply that AnonyMint doesn't understand the system, is wrong, and that others should just ignore him.

P.S. I said that AnonyMint was the one hurrying rebuttals to his FUD with even more FUD, not that others, or I, should cover his FUD with our own FUD. As in AnonyMint makes up bullshit claims, people reply to point out and explain why his claims are bullshit, and AnonyMins responds with so many of his own posts, self-replies, and extra bullshit, that the explanations of why his original claims are wrong get covered up in even more bullshit. Hope that clears it up a bit.

Judging by your current reputation and ignore status, I would say I had excellent foresight! Must be my 160 IQ 

I suggest instead of continuing to allow him to fill thread after thread with his nonsense and allow him to continuously burry rebuttals to his idiocy under more FUD, that people simply reply that AnonyMint doesn't understand the system, is wrong, and that others should just ignore him.

P.S. I said that AnonyMint was the one hurrying rebuttals to his FUD with even more FUD, not that others, or I, should cover his FUD with our own FUD. As in AnonyMint makes up bullshit claims, people reply to point out and explain why his claims are bullshit, and AnonyMins responds with so many of his own posts, self-replies, and extra bullshit, that the explanations of why his original claims are wrong get covered up in even more bullshit. Hope that clears it up a bit.

Another good example of what I mean is this


If Amazon is holding customers private keys, then Amazon is already holding all of customers money. Completely. There is no need for Amazon to do on-chain transactions, since all that would do is add complexity and expense to their system. But, as I said, AnonyMint doesn't understand the difference or the concepts of on and off chain transactions.

No, it can't be. It creates two different coins. You can't double-spend your fake coins on the bitcoin network that rejected your fake blocks. You have coins that can only be spent on the valid chain, and different coins that can be spent on the new invalid chain. It's no more a threat than Litecoin, since people using Bitcoins will simply not accept your invalid coins.


This just makes the invalid chain less trustworthy, because while Bitcoin continues to track every coin's history, this invalid chain will keep bringing in outside coins that may or may not even exist any more. It would be as if Bitcoin randomly brought in Litecoin transactions into its blocks. Chaos.


This is what I mean when I say you don't know how Bitcoin works. Rule #1, always, is to check that each transaction and each block is valid. No rules go before this, and if it is invalid, it is dropped and not even rebroadcast to the other nodes, so invalid transactions and blocks don't even get a chance to propagate through the network. After that the rule about longer chains comes in. Yes, I am 100% sure of this.



If they are too much, competition in the form of new miners will come in and drive them down. If they are insufficient, private interests will come in to try to secure the network. As I said, this has all been discussed heavily years before you even found out about Bitcoin.

So, let me reiterate:

AnonyMint doesn't understand the system, is wrong, and others should just ignore him.

Maybe we should either just plan for April-May time period, or wait for the crash and celebrate once it reaches $1,000 again or proves that the new low is still above $1,000, or just cancel it completely and start planning the $10k party.

Does everyone pretty much assume that there won't be a correction coming any time soon?

People who use cash tend to evade taxes
Cash is a pain to use and secure, and is impossible to use online, so not a lot of people use cash.
Bitcoin is like cash from anonymity standpoint, but is as easy to use, store, and use online as bank and credit card money.
More people will use "cash" with Bitcoin, therefore more people will evade tax.