“Basic” sounds to me like you’re saying “base layer”.  So, yes:  The Bitcoin blockchain is a rock-solid base layer that does one thing excellently:  Global, decentralized BFT transaction ordering, resulting in a single global ledger with a unit of account that provides the sound-money properties which JayJuanGee described.  (It also does some other things less-excellently; but I don’t really care about that, and it is irrelevant to the point I am addressing.)  Thereupon, we have a single global, public reference from which to synchronize private off-chain ledgers such as Lightning channels.


Hard forks are a risk, and also raise the question of just who has the authority to call for one.  I want to be conservative with risks in the base-layer handling of my money; and although I do hope that ongoing hardfork research can work out a good way to do a hardfork in a decetnralized system, the problem is so great (including its centralization risk) that I am automatically suspicious of anybody who even suggests a hardfork.

Segwit was a stroke of genius, because it added features necessary for Lightning (plus fixed some bugs) with only a softfork.  From there, I think it’s clear, the solution for most needs is to build on top of the blockchain layer, not to add to it.


Because he couldn’t do the fantastically stupid high-risk project of bolting a Turing-complete VM onto Bitcoin?  I guess so.

Imagine if the Ethereum DAO (to give only one example) had happened with Bitcoin.  Horresco referens.

I am currently entrusting the majority of my life savings to Bitcoin—yes, almost all my liquid wealth (excepting some small fiat cash reserve—as small as I can keep it).  I would not risk that on Ethereum, just on a technical level of asking myself, “What if this piece of oh so innovative technology loses all my money?”  The prudence of putting money I cannot afford to lose into Bitcoin is financially questionable.  However, I do think it is absolutely prudent to take that technical risk on the reliability of Bitcoin Core and the Bitcoin consensus rules.

Evidently.

Protip:  There is a reason why Communism is also called “Internationalism”, the early Communist quasi-governing body was in various forms called “Communist International” (First International, Second International, etc.), Communism is rife with talk about “world revolution” (and “Workers of the world, unite!”, etc.), and the official anthem of Communism is titled The Internationale.  (For obvious reasons, it is not a national anthem.)

Now, whyever do you suppose that an internationalist may object to national borders?

The majority of people who opine on Communism know next to nothing about what it actually is.  This does include most “American right-wingers and Trumpers”—however, you know even less!  You confuse the implementation details of Communism in a particular territory, at a particular point in time, with the essence of Communist principles (or what passes for “principles” to a Communist).

I suggest that you study political philosophy and history before you show such gross ignorance, which I am not in the mood to correct at length.  Read some books.  Start with both 19th and 20th century Marxist theoretical literature (to see what high-level Communists say in their own words—I suggest ignoring the low-level Communist propaganda until you first understand the high-level theory), the better literature of anti-Communists of the same era (to see the actual reasons why intelligent people criticize Communism), and some basic history—not necessarily in that order.

---

I could never help but notice that Capitalism is globalist, whilst Communism is internationalist.  And I could never help but notice that nobody else seems to notice...  Anyway, I am just passing through on my way to make some investments on Communist China’s stock exchanges.  Indeed, the whole Communist Chinese economy is booming with the activities of big, multinational globalist corporations!  Meanwhile, in America, the big, multinational globalist corporations are big supporters of the relaxed border controls at all levels which help bring them “cheap labour”, “free trade”, etc.  Well, got to go!  Those hot Communist stock picks await me.

Although I do, strictly speaking, call for anarchy, I explicitly reject the anarchy of the rabble.

Mine is the anarchy of the few, of the natural aristocrats who were not born to be slaves.  It is by individual anarchy that they must escape the tyranny which the mob, with its innate slave-mentality, has freely chosen and voted into existence by the dead weight of numeric majorities.

It is the anarchy of those who love order, and impose order first on themselves:  They who live by honour and not law.  They must become laws unto themselves.

It is the anarchy of amoralists who rise beyond good and evil to shatter the table of values of the mob’s slave-morality, and thus clear the way for their own tables of values.

It is the anarchy of the good who, being good, hold fast to honour out of pride:  For the most sincere morality is the self-glorification of the proud, whose judgments of others honour the best of what they see in themselves.  It is they who would embrace death before the self-negation of dishonour—not as a sacrifice, but as a supreme act of pure selfishness:  Humility is dishonour per se;—humiliation is to be dishonourable and dishonoured;—“death before dishonour” is the rule of the self-glorifying morality embodied by one so devoid of humility that he values his pride more than his life.  (And indeed, it is only the humble, the meek, the weak who fear death:  The cowardly.)  For those whose honour is pride and whose pride is self-honour, law is at best superfluous; and the law of the mob must be explicitly rejected.

Wherefore it is “authoritarian autarchy” as to yourself.  Don’t reject authority:  Be your own authority.

---

Mine is not the anarchy of the petty, the weak-willed, the vicious, the spiteful, the despicable, the criminal, the jealous masses of those who would tear down anything better than themselves to assuage the implicit insult to their own inferiority.

It is not the anarchy of those who simply wish to escape all rules, such that they may do whatever they find most convenient at any particular moment.  It is not the anarchy of a “rebel without a cause”.

Indeed, such a disordered mass-anarchy is unsustainable and self-defeating in practice.  History shows that when the mob is loosed from all bands of authority, it starts with an orgy of mass violent crime.  It then snaps back and demands order, for no greater motive than want of the personal comfort and safety which are impossible for members of an uncontrolled rabble.  The goodness of the outcome is commensurate to the wisdom of whatever systems and systemic leaders may so happen to arise in such a situation.

Because a headless mob makes no wise choices, the mob will tend to embrace whatever system and leadership best appeal to the ego of the small-minded.  This tendency can be actively exploited by wise leaders who obtain power for noble purposes, by pragmatically hacking the stupidity of the masses.  However, the mass-tendency is much more likely to empower those who genuinely best exemplify it.  And in practice, the system with the best mob-appeal is, of course, democracy on the principle of “one sheep, one vote”.  Thereupon do the sheep choose as shepherds those who are most adept at pandering to the masses, playing petty politics, and manipulating majority opinion with cunning propaganda.

As a feature and not a bug, by design, democracy guarantees that the dregs at the bottom will rise to be the scum floating on top.  The new order of tyrants wreathed in democratic platitudes will then proceed to bind the whole world in whatever chains the slave-mentality mob finds most soothing:  Mass-surveillance and militarized police to “keep people safe” from popular bogeys, slave-level taxation for the “economic justice” of “wealth redistribution”, thoughtcrime laws to “stop hate”, terrorist wars to bring the blessings of the same “freedom” to others who don’t want it, and, to the flipside, facetwit.tv entertainments which actively, immersively propagandize and surveil the masses throughout all their waking moments.

---

Am I mistaken?  Look around you!  Look with open eyes, an iron heart, and a freethinking mind which ruthlessly questions all unexamined premises it has been told are categorically unquestionable.

Are so many millions of people, in so many democratic countries around the world, all voting for leaders and policies which they actually don’t want?  Really?  Or do you simply disagree with what they want, and project your own desires onto them through your unexamined assumption that they must be just like you?

If you start with the premise that “all men are created equal”, you thus start by implicitly assuming that your own subjective desires are objectively the lowest common denominator of what all people everywhere must want.  It is a fundamental error.  Mean mediocrities (and worse) do not care about anything other than safety, basic comfort, cheap entertainment, and emotionalist dogmata which they will blindly defend to their deaths.

They do not disagree with your higher principles:  They have no higher principles, and moreover, they lack the mental ability to have higher principles.  They make individual decisions based on herd mentality and the dogmata which they have learned by rote—dogmata ingrained with emotions, and thence defended with the blind passions of the mass-mind.  This is an innate limitation, and an empirically observed reality which cannot be wished away by fantasies about “educating” the ineducable.  Sheep can no more be taught to think than dogs can be taught to sing opera.  Indeed, for the intended readers of this essay (others are hereby irrelevant), sheep can no more be taught to be you than you can be taught to be a mindless sheep; and it is all at once absurd, delusional, and fantastically arrogant to assume that you can remake the masses in your own image.  They are what they are.  Be what you are, even if that means you must renounce the mass-worshipping dogma and become a law unto yourself.

And lo, what a dogma that is!

A dogma may be beneficially descended from a higher principle; but sound higher principles are neither necessary for efficient production of a dogma, nor sufficient to impress it on the mass-mind.  Thus to the mass, “freedom” and “liberty” are but vapid buzzwords which only become important either as an excuse to self-righteously bomb a foreign country into “liberation”, or as cause for self-righteous indignation if you dare to question their “right to an opinion”.  Everybody is entitled to an opinion!  No matter if the opinion is thoughtlessly copied from the opinion-factories of the mainstream media and democratic government propagandists:  The facially absurd notion that everybody is entitled to an opinion is a learned dogma, with the added benefit of appealing to the petty egos of those least capable of independently forming their own opinions.  Wherefore let none dare any heresy against the “one sheep, one vote” principle of governance, a sacred relic that you must worship at the altar of the masses.  Of course, this state of affairs is entirely convenient for the priests of the opinion-factories.

Democracy is not three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner:  It is the flock obediently voting on the shepherd’s opinion of wolves.  Wherefore wolves are an endangered species.

---

What are you to do, when you are outnumbered, outgunned, and outvoted by numeric majorities who, per Goethe, falsely believe themselves “free” because they are entitled to express the opinions of professional opinion-makers, and thus go beyond Voltaire not only by defending the chains which bind them, but by actively demanding that you must love those chains, too?

Free yourself first from the moral authority of the mob.  You owe nothing to mass opinion; therefore, the laws which rise on mass opinion have no proper authority over you.  You do not consent to be governed by the votes of millions of anthropoid livestock who want to be bound in chains—who eagerly embrace those chains just as long as they remain warm, fed, and adequately entertained.  You are a law unto yourself.

Wherefore “anarchy” as to the masses and their so-called “governments”, which are in truth no more than the largest, most well-armed organized criminal gangs.  Don’t reject authority:  Be your own authority.

---

The foregoing is Part 0.  When further parts are posted, I will edit this with a link downthread.  Forthcoming:  Distiguishing of my analysis from other existing political philosophies; the intersection of this line of thought with crypto-anarchism; and more...

This is my “anarchy” thread.  Moderation will be authoritarian and elitist.

Your uncanny cat sense has done much good, but it is not in itself evidence as the basis for me to make up my own mind; and your admittedly incisive past performance is no guarantee that you are right in this particular case, where the case against PN7 looks quite blurry to me.


Well, to reach that point, we need to examine the case carefully—and most preferably, give a fair hearing to whatever PrimeNumber7 may have to say for himself.  That last bit requires actually persuading him that he will get a fair hearing—which I will give him, and I am actively urging others including you to do, too.  The grumpy kitty speaking dog Latin is not helpful on that particular point.


Does not logically answer the question, what if he is not Quickseller?


As I have said repeatedly, avoiding this discussion is also what an innocent person would probably do unless we show him that he will not be shooting himself in the foot by speaking up.  Sigh.


If you think that real, non-pretend liberalism itself is about anything but arbitrary whimsical non-standards that please the emotions of overgrown children, then it is you who may want to get a blood test/rootkit scan for liberal memes.  That malware is infectious.

---

After so much back and forth, I think it’s clear, at least, where people stand on this—well, except for the star of the show.

PrimeNumber7, if you can tell us something useful for clearing this up, please don’t let the grumpy kitty scare you off.  Hey, you might also get grumpy after years of having had every possible type of b.s. thrown at you by pathological liars.  I don’t think her argument is helpful here; sorry.  But it is also not helpful for you to avoid the discussion (much though I agree that silence is not evidence either way).  Help yourself.

OK... But what if PrimeNumber7 is not Quickseller?

I don’t care about the whole argument over whether Quickseller can be forgiven, or by how much.

I do care about the question of whether an innocent man is being accused here.  I want him to have his say, I am trying to tell him that he can clear this up if it’s just a terrible misunderstanding—and it is not helpful to just repeat the case against Quickseller, which I damn well know.  That may not be the case at all here!

Above, I told PrimeNumber7 that you are rarely mistaken; but “rarely” is not “never”.

---

Symbolism and colour are added with my condolences.

---

Unfortunately, it is not merely the status quo:  To answer a false charge dignifies it with the credibility of needing an answer; and worse, as I mentioned, there is the danger that innocent words may be twisted and misquoted for “proof” of guilt.  For the Americans, “...anything you say can and will be used against you.”

But this is the Bitcoin Forum, not a police station or courtroom.  I will go out on a limb and suggest discounting those factors here.

In so saying, I will speak from experience.  As you may (cough) remember, the anonymous scam_detector initially accused me together with alia.  It was a very bad situation for me:  I was falsely accused; but due to admittedly less-cautious judgment than I usually exercise, I had unknowningly, almost literally fallen into bed with a scammer.  There I was, intimately entangled with a very bad character against whom evidence was rapidly piling up from multiple credible sources—including theymos himself.  I knew that I looked quite guilty.

There was in that case no question of “dignifying” the charge:  It was objectively credible, not proved, but certainly a reasonable suspicion.  So I answered the accusations against me, openly and honestly.  Nobody coerced me to, or could have.  I thought it was the right thing to do.

As a result, a few dozen forum pages later, scam_detector actually apologized to me for having accused me.  I thought that was unnecessary, but I dearly appreciated the courtesy after such a bad day.  He did nothing wrong to me; and moreover, the thoroughness of the investigation had the beneficial side effect of dispelling any suspicions which otherwise may have lingered about me.

Although this is in some degree an apples to oranges comparison of very different situations, it is based on this experience that I don’t think I am too naïve in expecting that people here will be fair.  If PrimeNumber7 is actually innocent, it is to his own benefit to speak up; the problem is to persuade him of that, when it does sound a bit naïve for me to say so.  Of course, if he is actually Quickseller, eh—I probably don’t need to restate my opinion on that point.

---

Well, this is not America, much less an American courtroom—much less an American criminal-law courtroom, where the presumption is innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e. “moral certainty”).

I think a reasonable standard is the preponderance of the evidence:  A more or less simple balance scale, where one side need only to weigh at least a bit more than the other.  If you want to think of it in American legal terms, consider it as if you are being sued in civil court on accusation of Quickselliness—or, to the flipside, you are sick and tired of rumours that you are Quickseller, and you are suing for a declaratory judgment clearing your reputation.

An American civil court has no presumption of innocence, although it does, of course, put the initial burden on the plaintiff to bring a prima facie case.  If you want to think of it in those terms, I do suggest as a practical matter that, given that many high-reputation forum members think you’re guilty, you should step up to affirmatively clear your good name.  Although it is very difficult to prove a negative, a “preponderance of the evidence” standard means that for my part, I will be satisfied if you show that you are more probably than not not-Quickseller (with the understanding that moral certainty either way is practically impossible here, and I will also be satisfied of your guilt if others show you are more probably than not Quickseller).


Agreed.  It is zero evidence either way.

---

eddie13, ok, so you did obliquely refer to Quickseller’s longtime disrepution of the forum to make it revolve around his petty spite.

Thanks for raising this quote; I forgot to address it earlier, in and of itself:


That implies that the reason to not do wrong is to avoid negative consequences, rather than because it’s wrong—whereas it’s a “seriously heinous crime” to make yourself trouble by doing bad things.  Although I realize it is a cold reality that many people avoid wrongdoing only to avoid the consequences (wherefore “deterrence”), it is an exceedingly low standard.  Please recalibrate your moral compass.

---

Thanks for admitting in substantial essence that the hate-Lauda crowd hates Lauda for the sake of hating Lauda, and not because of any past transgressions (real and/or imaginary) which were all “forgiven”.

For my part, I care only about the truth of the matter.  Therefore, what bothers me is the possibility that your “also” belief may be incorrect.  If (if) he is not Quickseller, then I am definitely trying to help him!


But what if he is not Quickseller?  His position right now is terrible, and more importantly to me, undeserved.  The flipside of my support for merciless handling of the guilty is that I am very protective of those who may be falsely accused.

I am less interested in looking for clues about a real change of character in Quicksy, and more interested in knowing if PrimeNumber7 is not Quicksy at all.  (And by the way:  If you are so interested in seeking honesty in Quickseller, please advise, has he, “Quickseller”, ever even owned up to any of his past wrongdoing?  Showed even the slightest remorse or regret, other than perhaps a regret that he didn’t get away with it?  No?)

That is why, although I do not want to imply some “he did not deny it!” style argument, I have repeatedly expressed from my first post on this thread that I wish PrimeNumber7 would somehow clear this up.  If he is innocent, I want for him to know that I, for one, will give him a fair hearing and urge others to do the same.

As LoyceV said, an obvious motive for an innocent party to just shut up is a reasonable fear that nobody will actually listen to anything he says—“people won’t believe it”—and moreover, a reasonable fear that anything he says will only be twisted and used against him, because he has been convicted in advance.  It is why the usual (wise) advice for dealing with actual police is to reserve your silence, especially if you have been falsely accused.

I like to think I’m better than that, and that others here are, too.  Perhaps I may be too idealistic?

---

You unreasonably minimized the severity of what Quickseller did with the self-escrow, whilst merrily ignoring all the other untrustworthy things he has done:  Shady account dealing, that reality-inverting dishonest BU shilling I quoted above (I’ve tagged BCH/BSV shills for less!), turning the forum into his personal battleground for extended, remorseless smear-tactic reputational warfare as revenge for his getting caught, etc., ad nauseam.

You continue to do so.

In my book, that is tantamount to condoning it—well, a half-step away.


Thank you for clarifying.  I still agree with what I just wrote.

When I “presume good faith”, I think it’s implicit that I am presuming that “PrimeNumber7” is PrimeNumber7 and not otherwise.  It could be far less damning if he were someone else, but that would not exactly be a resounding acquittal his questionable identity!  Anyway, it is irrelevant, for nobody (PN7 or otherwise) has alleged that he is anybody other than either just-himself, or Quickseller.  If you wish to bring such an allegation, please show the evidence.


Thank you.  Quoted for the useful knowledge that you consider stealing a purportedly “small” amount to be no big deal.  It suggests that I should avoid trading with you.

For brevity, I need not reach beyond that point to recount in excruciating detail all the other things Quickseller did wrong.  Suffice it to say, I remember when I first looked on BPIP and saw him competing with several long-ago banned accounts for the ongoing distinction of being the forum’s most-distrusted user, drowning at the bottom of a sea of red.  It is not a distinction earned by being other than a “bad-to-the-bones scammer”.


I know, but I can’t help it:  She cast an evil spell that makes me do it!

Have you no empathy for my plight as a hapless victim of witchcraft!?


I know whereof you speak.  I agree with Lauda, albeit only moderately so.  I think the whole thing was an unfortunate clusterfork.  Lauda is firmly on my list of inclusions, and will probably there remain unless she shocks me by admitting to popping Quickpills.  Indeed, I lie awake at night wondering, “Why does she not deny it!?”


Oh, please...  What’s next, hyperventilating about “Blockstream Core” as Quickseller was doing at least as recently as I quoted above?

(Otherwise, you seem to understand little about my political opinions; but that’s irrelevant here.)

---

I consider myself to be a philosopher first, and a technologist as a consequence.


I realize that I thereby expressed what is likely to be an unpopular opinion.  You have seen that I stick to my principles; and you seem to acknowledge that at least my principles are well-considered, even if allegedly wrong.  Agree to disagree?

Now, hold on.  I think that is an unwarranted conclusion about Lauda; you’re demanding fairness, so please be fair, too!

I will here presume good faith on your part, because I really have not yet reached any conclusion about whether or not you are Quickseller.  If you are not Quickseller, then you are relatively new here; and thus, to adapt something nutildah said, there is much history here which you will not know...


Quickseller is a bad-to-the-bone scammer with just the wrong combination of cunning, deceitfulness, and petty spitefulness.  After he got caught red-handed, he spent years waging a war of ad hominem personal attacks against his perceived enemies—most of all, Lauda.  Oh, and I should mention, he is well-known to use alt accounts for insidious purposes.

I only learned the history of that because I got involved, and spent many hours studying the “drama” you said you avoid.  I did that because I care about the forum.  Since I am presuming good faith on your part, I presume you care about the forum, too—and you must understand, Lauda is just trying to protect the forum.  She is grumpy; but she has spent years doing a thankless job of cracking down on bad characters who will say anything, and do anything, to get away with spamming, scamming, and other wrongdoing.

You may have noticed that far from being driven by personal hate to “refusing to exercise even basic good judgement, or allow for even basic fairness”, Lauda supported Quickseller’s own flag on The-Devil.  She caught much flak for that, because—Quickseller!  I don’t question her objectivity.  I am just a bit mystified because, as I should also mention from my own experience, it is very rare for Lauda to be wrong about something.  I sometimes do question her judgment.  The usual result is to find later that she was deadly accurate—she saw something I didn’t.

Thus far, I find this whole controversy inexplicable.  And I do hope you are not Quickseller; you’ve made good posts, and it would be a shame to find that out.

You know, I am not jumping on the “Why does he not deny it!?” bandwagon; and if you’re innocent, I know it is quite difficult to prove a negative.  But if you want to make this discussion more productive than it has been thus far, then I want to hear you out—and I urge that others should, too.

Sorry...


On principle, I will not become Quickseller for the purpose of smacking down alleged Quickseller alts.

---

Well, that leaves me to say, “I have been told by someone very reputable, and whom I trust that...” as quoted with added boldface above.  Because I will not say that, I must instead remain undecided as to fact here.

Although I understand the sensitivity of investigatory concerns, that just means you are still building a case which is not yet mature.  The cops can hold close all the secret evidence they want—until they are ready to bring a case up for prosecution.

I observe that this thread was not started by anybody investigating PN7.  It was started by The-Devil, for obvious motives that have nothing to do with protecting the forum.  Speaking of which...

---

There is another observation I wanted to state earlier; but I did not want to give The-Devil cause to gloat.  My mistake.

The-Devil has proved highly effective at manipulating others with a “divide and conquer” strategy.  In another thread, he sowed discord that resulted in the flamewar to which I alluded above.  Now, we know he wants revenge on Quickseller for raising a flag against him.

He can’t hurt Quickseller’s account, because Quickseller wrecked his own account years ago.  To really get revenge, he self-evidently wants to draw others into torching PrimeNumber7—regardless of whether that is right or wrong in itself.

If PrimeNumber7 is Quickseller, then The-Devil’s revenge is total:  He just destroyed a considerable long-term effort to build a new identity.  If PrimeNumber7 is not Quickseller, then The-Devil must laugh wickedly over ruining the reputation of an innocent person whom he also hates.  I oughtn’t need note that in the latter case, Quickseller would probably sneer at his longtime enemies for having taken the bait whereas he himself is completely unaffected.

The-Devil lives up to his name.

---

I had further thoughts in reply as to identity, reputation, and what would have been the right course of action for Quickseller, if he wanted to honestly build a new reputation.  Maybe later.

I will not yet address any of the evidence about PrimeNumber7.  I should examine it later; but frankly, I have thus far avoided it, for reasons that should soon become clear.

I will therefore only address the points raised in this thread thus far—starting with my general observation of a forest that has been missed whilst scrutinizing trees.

---

For my part, I would be very concerned about PrimeNumber7’s identity if he starts trading under that name, or worse, running an escrow service.  I am also concerned any potential use of alts by Quickseller for DT-influence purposes (as, upon information and belief, I suspect that he has done before).

But otherwise...

If Quicksy wants to express his general opinions or engage in technical discussions without weighing his words under the baggage of a deservedly ruined reputation, and if he wants that so much that he’s willing to expend great effort to build a high-reputation account from scratch, then I would not knee-jerk shoot that down.  Anonymous or pseudonymous publication is often used exactly for the reason of divorcing an opinion from its author’s reputation—thus encouraging objectivity, and avoiding inappropriate ad hominem arguments (or avoiding inappropriate appeals to authority, for authors with a high reputation, as was done with “Publius” and the American Federalist Papers).

That is an important principle, with a long and important political history; the ideals of cypherpunks as to anonymity and identity are only the latest installment in that history.  And if I try to think of valid reasons for an undisclosed alt account, that comes up at approximately #2 on an extremely short list.  (#1 being for people living under tyrannical régimes to do potentially dangerous political activism, while still maintaining a “normal” identity—and #3 being those mysterious sock accounts which occasionally bust huge scams.)

I speak mostly as to opinions about technology, society, politics, etc.  However, more generally, we also recently saw a concrete example of what happens when Quickseller-stench clouds a discussion about an unrelated topic.  Quickseller raised a flag on an odious scam account, and explained his flag with arguments which were objectively correct.  Lauda had sufficient objectivity to see this, and supported the flag despite being perhaps Quickseller’s very worst Evil Nemesis on the forum.  A flamewar promptly ensued, wherein smart people whom I otherwise respect were reaching for patently absurd arguments to rationalize opposition to the flag.  I cannot imagine any reason for that, other than desire to oppose Quickseller himself.  I don’t want to potentially restart that tempest in a teapot by linking the thread; I think everybody posting here knows what I refer to.

If an unknown Quickseller alt had raised that flag, would the reactions have been the same?  I think not!

Now, generalize that problem to encompass PrimeNumber7’s involvement in discussions of politics and technology.

---

If Quicky is trying to get in on a plum signature campaign, I think that’s a matter for the sole discretion of the campaign manager.  Bring your evidence to the campaign manager’s attention.  I usually have no opinion about how someone else runs his business, as long as it’s not producing spam or promoting scams.

I think the best campaign managers will know how to best weigh any factors that may affect their own reputations and their clients’ reputations, if things go wrong and the whole thing blows up in their faces.  They are not newbies; and they should know as well as I do what may happen if a Quickseller alt with a new face turns over a new leaf, then later suddenly reverts to the same old behaviour that made him historically the forum’s most-distrusted user.

---

Not so.  In the general case, “but so-and-so did not deny it!” is a classic Quickselling fallacy.  Although it may not be fallacious in the face of compelling evidence plus the absence of any possible good-faith motive to ignore a charge, silence qua silence is weak evidence at best, and certainly not the “best proof”.

This is not to suggest that PrimeNumber7 should not reply; I wish he would.  I just can’t help but remember that there are so many accusations I myself have never explicitly denied, e.g.:



There are many potential good-faith reasons for a policy of neither confirming nor denying alt-identity accusations which are actually false.  I am not saying that PrimeNumber7 actually has such a reason:  Rather, I simply say that his silence should be discounted, and should not be a factor affecting one’s judgment either way when examining hard evidence.

---

I also couldn’t help but notice that exactly this form of argument has been thrown at me many times by Quickseller and others.  It is not evidence; and smart, meticulous people should not be punished for being smart and meticulous.

In my case, I was on-and-off casually lurking for years before I created an account; and before I started posting, I devoted quality time to reading old threads to find the lay of the land.  As a result, as of today, people tend to not even realize that I am still a relative n00b on the forum.  (Activity level gives a hint.)

Did PrimeNumber7 do similarly?  That is a sincere question, not a rhetorical expression of opinion.

---

I disagree with that.  I never forget; and I don’t forgive, if somebody’s actions were so despicable that I adjudge him to be a bad person (i.e., I judge him personally and not only judge his actions).

Although I am not generally in agreement with him, I think that C. S. Lewis said it best when he argued that “[the] essential act of Mercy was to pardon; and pardon in its very essence involves the recognition of guilt and ill-desert in the recipient....  As there are plants which will flourish only in mountain soil, so it appears that Mercy will flower only when it grows in the crannies of the rock of Justice”.  (The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment, 1949.)

Really, please, reframe the question in terms not of “forgiveness”, but of pardon:  Is Quickseller worthy of a pardon?  Really!?

If you want to be merciful, save your pardons for the rare instances in which basically good people make errors in judgment that contradict their general characters.  Not for someone who was caught red-handed in rank dishonesty, even outright theft (self-escrow is theft by deception of escrow fees!), and then subsequently spent years remorselessly waging a personal vendetta against those who had the least tolerance for his criminality.

Leopards don’t change their spots.  Good people are still fallible mortals, who may occasionally foul up.  If they make a serious error in judgment, they will pay the price of serious consequences; but they still are who they are, and the concept of pardon exists for a reason.  Bad people may sometimes put on their best behaviour, after years of getting whipped bloody in their attempts to get revenge for being caught.  Either way, all feel-good fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding, it is very rare, arguably impossible, for the character of a person to actually change.

I have recently noticed from Quickseller himself a pattern of behaviour which, at its surface, suggests that he may be trying to “turn over a new leaf”.  But of course, it is exactly the same pattern of behaviour which would be shown by a longtime scammer who finally admits to himself that he lost the old game, and thus starts up a new long con to inveigle his way back into people’s good graces.  Which is by far more probable?  See above.  And Quickseller is certainly shrewd enough to pull off a long con; much though I have sometimes ridiculed him, I do not underestimate him!

If this assessment seems harsh, well—that is the problem with being criminal:  You lose people’s trust, and you can never get it back.  More importantly, it is the criminal’s problem, not mine or yours.  If he suffers the long-term natural consequences of his own dishonesty, then that is his just deserts; and nobody should feel sorry for him.  (Interestingly, PrimeNumber7 has made some posts which lead me to think that he does not approve of bleeding-heart liberal policies; perhaps he may agree with me here?)

---

At this juncture, I think it’s warranted to point out that the infamous self-escrow scam hasn’t been the only reason to distrust Quickseller.  Although he’s an order of magnitude smarter than the typical shill (a low standard = “faint praise”), he used to spout vicious nonsense as if he just bumbled over here from /r/btc, e.g.:


I have not yet read many of PrimeNumber7’s posts.  Has he commented on the fork wars and BSV, i.e. the logical continuation of a long-term attack on Bitcoin that began not later than 2015?

---

Well said.

I do not propose to “give a second chance” to Quickseller, much less to attempt the fool’s errand of deterring potential wolves by educating masses of sheep.  (I make the obvious metaphor with due apologies to wolves, noble creatures unlike human criminals.)

If (if) it is adequately proved that PrimeNumber7 is Quickseller, then this is an unusual case that will require wise judgment indeed, to proactively prevent the new account from ever doing what its owner did with the old account—without preventing the new account from being used merely to engage in rational discussions without ad hominem attacks where there is no potential for fraud, if that is what the new account actually does.

Life is complicated, people are complicated, and potentially shutting PrimeNumber7 up on grounds of alleged Quickselliness may be an error in judgment.  This is a subtle, unusually complicated case, and should be treated accordingly.

I must also observe that such handling will not set a dangerous precedent, or make any loopholes for more ordinary cases.  How many scammers build a clean Sr. account with high earned merit before anybody even notices?  If PrimeNumber7 is Quickseller, I believe that this is the first time such a thing has happened; and it will probably be the last such instance seen for a very long time, perhaps the last ever.

Slightly off-topic, but this question evokes a subtly different, easily confusable related point that I think should be discussed elsewhere.  And it’s not entirely OT, insofar as I don’t think it’s uncommon for people on this forum to use messages signed by “stake” addresses to prove ownership of coins (in contradistinction to technical control of coins).

The argument advanced by various Core developers against reliance on signmessage to prove ownership (as opposed to control) of UTXOs is:


I respectfully disagree with sipa, luke-jr, and others so stating (and I should probably say so on that issue).  I argue strictly that control of the private keys equals title to the Bitcoin, period; and it is dangerous to blur a rule logically inherent in the nature decentralized, trustless, permissionless cryptographic money.

If you are a custodial exchange, etc., then you may be holding title to that Bitcoin as a nominee, or (quite arguably) a bailee, or some other legal concept which may be logical to apply.  However, account-holders at custodial exchanges are not the titular owners of any Bitcoin at all, in my opinion.  If you don’t have the private keys, then it is not your Bitcoin:  It is somebody else’s Bitcoin; and that somebody else, the titular owner of the Bitcoin, has contractually agreed to let you excercise beneficial ownership of some sort.

So many ills of this world result when ownership is divorced from control.  (Aside, don’t get me started on how the separation of ownership, control, and responsibility is a major factor in the widespread corruption of modern corporations.)  Don’t do that with Bitcoin.

In my analysis, ownership is fully congruent with the use of digital signatures to control money in a decentralized, trustless, permissionless system; and legal agreements outside the four corners of Bitcoin script are properly compartmented where they belong, in the realm of legal contracts and the legal enforcement thereof.

(N.b. that the same argument applies to theft:  A thief who uses wrongful means to obtain title is still holding titular ownership, and will continue to do so unless recovery is effectuated by avoiding the improperly obtained title.  By analogy, consider a criminal who uses forgery, coercion, or fraud in the factum to wrongfully obtain a deed to lands—although that deed would probably be adjudged absolutely void, not merely voidable, whereas a Bitcoin transaction is only absolutely void if a blockchain reorg retroactively invalidates it.)

Of course, the moving of coins is little different than signmessage in this aspect:  A custodial exchange (etc.) can spend UTXOs to its own addresses, just as you can to yours.

hv_’s latest post is hereby quoted fully without edits, and archived before deletion, so that people can see a textbook example of an attempt to divert the conversation by saying a whole lot of nothing—plus shifting of the burden of proof to everybody in the world, i.e. alleging that it is everybody’s responsibility to prove that Craig Wright is Satoshi (!), wrapped in nonsensically misapplied technical jargon “proof of work”:


Good idea, KISS:  Keep It Simple, Stupid.  I will take that advice.  Here is my reply to you, hv_:


Till then, on behalf of my esteemed brother /dev/null, I invite you to please enjoy the bitbucket. :-)

---

Meanwhile, a remark by Thekool1s set me about taking a closer look at some of what Craig Wright says about himself.  I will post on that later.  Spoiler:  He says nothing that makes his claim of Satoshihood in any way credible, but he says plenty that exposes his deeper agenda—a horrid agenda, even worse than greed for all that money he is trying to swindle out of the Bitcoin market.

I appreciate the dialectic here.  This thread waxes Socratic.  LeGaulois, JayJuanGee, I think you both have pieces of the truth that should be synthesized together.

You know that I am a Bitcoin idealist, deadset against KYC, with a general scorn for mere speculation.  What LeGaulois is saying, must be said!  Most of the few who are even capable of thinking on that level, are too timid to actually think through these points—let alone speak about them.  After all, you don’t want to be smeared as “evil” with all insinuations of the Four Horsemen of the Cryptopalypse.  Sacrebleu.  And to criticize empty speculation?  Simple greed will deter most people from thinking that through with any wisdom whatsoever.

However:


I have learned by hard personal experience, self-defeating principles are ipso facto wrong principles.  The aphorism that “all that is necessary for evil to win is for the good to do nothing” is oft deadly incorrect in practice:  Those who are “good” in their minds let loose all the ills of the world, when their own “good” principles stop “good” from winning.  If you do that that to yourself, then by the inexorable law of cause and effect, you are in substance fighting for your declared enemies!

In particular, principles which deny reality are never noble.  The world cannot simply be wished into being a better place.

It is necessary to be pragmatic in service of higher principles.  I do not posit that “the ends justify the means”, insofar as means which contradict their purported ends do turn you into what you purport to oppose.  However, at least minimally acceptable means that do not outright contradict the ends can be the key to success, i.e., to not giving victory as a gift to all you claim you despise.

By its nature as a thing born to move the world, Bitcoin unavoidably has before it a long struggle against a world that does not want to be moved.  And...


For my part, I do not passively “have trouble” accepting the world:  I actively reject the world as it is.  That is why I seek to change it for the better—by means that will actually work.

The answer is LeGaulois’ idealism plus JayJuanGee’s realism.  The former guides the latter’s high-level design goals, and the latter guides the former’s low-level implementation.

Now, how can that be done in practice?  What practical, positive actions can be done to grow the “everybody’s agreement” of the Bitcoin social phenomenon, while not only avoiding, but actively resisting unacceptable compromise of Bitcoin principles?

---

Edited to add, because this is the Internet:  I know that for the sake of rhetorical clarity, I have perforce simplified both the “idealistic” and “realistic” positions to make my point.  Obviously, if JayJuanGee (replete with his Bitcoin maximalist signature) were not a Bitcoin idealist, or if LeGaulois were not a realistic thinker, then we would not be having this discussion at all.

OK.  If so, I hope he has fun.  Because that’s all he could get.  He doesn’t have the resources to “pull off” the attack:  Nobody does, and I am much more sure that he will not “get lucky” than I am sure I will not be killed by a flying fire hydrant today.

Seriously, think about it:  Being killed by a flying fire hydrant has actually happened to somebody, somewhere!  Whereas even for an attacker who can spend millions of dollars on an attack, to “get lucky” cracking Satoshi’s keys is still rather less probable than a plague of flying fire hydrants suddenly killing people all over the world.  Just won’t happen.


In the topic to which you linked, OP combined a small, crudely-stated insight into batch attacks wrapped in a pile of misunderstandings about how Bitcoin works, how ASIC miner chips work, etc., plus some shoddy maths and general handwaving.  I think that thread received only small attention, because the Development & Technology forum gets so many of these crank posts by idiots who are so smug that they have found a brilliant new way to break Bitcoin’s security.  I should probably reply there sometime later.

---

Disclosure:  I myself have tried to crack Satoshi’s keys.  Indeed, it is a longtime hobby of mine—a stimulating intellectual exercise, not unlike my project to build a flying saucer out of empty beer bottles in my garage.  As Faust aspired to the infinite, I yearn for the impossible.

Of course, I am not so foolish as to ram my head into the astronomically large numbers involved.  Instead, I try to find practical attacks of the type I expect the NSA would probably attempt, if they wanted to break Bitcoin.

It is my heartfelt desire to create a Satoshi-signed message saying, “Craig Wright is not Satoshi, and neither am I!”, and then live off the proceeds of strategically flooding the BCH/BSV markets with my fork coins.  (Satoshi’s Bitcoins are sacred!  Spend!?  I think such holy relics deserve being swept into the world’s biggest UTXO at a beautiful bech32 address.)

Alas, I must report that thus far, the very best attack that I have been able to design is:  Magick.

Quote from: nullius on January 14, 2020, 12:29:56 AM

I myself cracked Satoshi’s private keys by performing esoteric rites, and then quantum-meditating until my soul developed the power of sumperimposing all possible keys in all possible universes into a single O(1) bruteforce attempt that is mathematically guaranteed to succeed.  FOR REAL.  My soul makes Shor’s Algorithm as obsolete as doing point multiplications on an abacus.

With great power comes great responsibility; and I don’t want to inadvertently FUD the Bitcoin market by revealing any proof of my mystical achievement.  So sorry, you will must needs take my word for it.

Craig Wright has no magick.  He is only a charlatan doing cheap parlour tricks to bedazzle fools.  Therefore, methinks Satoshi’s keys are quite safe from him!

---

Good talking points:

Quote from: JayJuanGee on January 18, 2020, 02:46:56 PM

It has been pointed out so frequently that the attention-seeking whore behavior of CSW and his various attempts to privatize, commercialize and even seeking self profits with bitcoin is so damned inconsistent with the whole presentation of satoshi, that there is almost NO possibility that narcissist CSW is satoshi - unless he had suffered from some kind of brain injury that had suddenly changed his personality (not wanting to provide any playbook for his next fraud claim attempt).

Quote from: aoluain on January 18, 2020, 05:42:41 PM

Actually the Bitcoin whitepaper kind of paints an image of finance sucking
banks who want control of more and more of our funds, CSW is a representation
of everything which Satoshi created Bitcoin to combat.

Well, no wonder he can’t even meet the threshold of signing with Satoshi’s private keys.

The part I rendered in bold is eminently quotable.

I noticed.


I think that’s reasonable, as is the statement in your tag.

For my part, I am still awaiting Timelord2067’s response.  As a matter of principle, I always try to see what an accused party has to say for himself.  He has been online as recently as just over five hours ago, and he usually watches Reputation like a hawk; perhaps I am waiting too long, but I will err to the side of caution.


Over ten hours ago, I already took snapshots on the assumption that marlboroza would probably delete xolxol’s zero-content offtopic insults:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200118055900/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5218451.msg53635426#msg53635426
https://web.archive.org/web/20200118061229/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5218451.0;all

Off-topic:  I thank xolxol for bringing his account to my attention.

<edit>
Edit 2020-01-19:  Snapshot of xolxol now whining with insults about marlboroza’s deletion of his prior whine with insults:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200119031414/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5218451.msg53642844#msg53642844
Full thread snapshot:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200119031421/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5218451.0;all
</edit>


Hit nail on head.

---

Now that Lauda is here, the danger is that the hate-Lauda crowd will make the thread about Lauda.

The only part of Lauda’s post that was self-referential was the bit about hypocrisy, which I quoted above.  It was a reasonable observation, for what it showed about reluctance to tag Timelord2067, the subject of this thread.  Lauda otherwise discussed Timelord, and topics relevant to Timelord such as how best to apply the trust system, plus a request that the self-moderating OP retain evidence of deleted posts.

I know that the name “Lauda” is like waving a red flag before a bull, but please stay on topic.

So, the solution is to ignore wild accusations against self and others on the basis of inadequate or nonexistent evidence (marlboroza), or public statements on the basis of Quicksold “evidence” that you are merely the latest in a string of alts who “moved on” (me).

For sacrebleu!  To discuss these issues candidly on a forum called “Reputation” constitutes “adding highly inflammatory substances to the already burning fire in the drama.”

With all due thanks for your undoubtedly “sincere” attempts to make forum peace, I myself will take that “under advisement”. 🗑️

---

I have not decided between poll options, for I am waiting to see if/when/how Timelord2067 responds.

An excellent point.


Craig Wright is a professional liar.  He can invent a new lie every day, so as to keep you running in circles debunking his wild claims.  This simultaneously drains your time and energy, and misleads people who don’t understand the deeper issues to wonder:  If he’s so wrong, why does he have so much to say that people keep needing to argue with him?  This facially absurd question rises from a mass-manipulator’s exploit of a well-known basic fallacy in human psychology.

hv_’s attempts to divert and reframe this thread exemplified the same propaganda technique (among others).  Look at the archival snapshots I took before deleting his posts; there is a reason why I archived before deleting.  Lies must be kept on record for examination, without letting liars dominate and derail the conversation.  Observe that besides some insults (e.g., “segshit”), hv_ kept trying to lure people into an endless argument over issues that are both irrelevant to my OP, and unreasonable to even consider when Craig Wright has not produced a cryptographic authentication of his claim to the identity of a cryptographic innovator who has known public keys.


This is called a threshold question.  An affirmative answer thereto is necessary but insufficient to conclude an argument; and if the answer is either negative or nonexistent, then further questions need not be reached.

Craig Wright has not passed the threshold of proving his alleged Satoshihood.

It’s important that there be publicly available lists of his lies, debunking him point by point.  But that is important only for the few who will want to analyze the subject in depth, more for intelligence purposes (or doing what I just did for hv_) than anything else.  Those few are precisely the ones who will not be easily fooled—and, excluding ill-intended shills, the large numbers of people whom Wright actually misleads are precisely the ones who will never even bother to examine such lists!

I think that the well-intended suggestions to put massive effort and publicity into such point-by-point refutations are misguided, and may even play straight into Wright’s hands—see above about human psychology, and the mass-manipulative techniques of a master liar.

aoluain is correct:  In wider public discussion, the answer to every question about Wright is to firmly stay on-point without letting Wright divert the public discourse:

Quote from: aoluain on January 17, 2020, 10:10:07 PM

[...]
Should have asked him to sign a message from a known Satoshi wallet
[...]
Dont need CLUES, just one task, ask him to sign a message from a known Satoshi wallet
[...]
Great, ask him to sign a message from one of the Satoshi wallets
[...]
Did you ask him to sign a message from one of the Satoshi wallets?
[...]
and so on and so on until we get all the way into court and still the question is not being asked....

and the statement isnt being said, "if you cannot access the wallets . . . sorry for your troubles, come back to us when you can"

That last bit is, “Come back to us when the threshold is met, so we are not wasting our time by examining additional purported evidence.”

I noticed.  Although meticulous evidence-gathering was more important (as was a lack of finnicky reasons to not include you), it is a part of why I included you on v1.0 of my refreshed trust list:  I place more trust in people whom I expect will not kowtow to smear campaigns, mudslinging, emotional manipulation, etc.  The same criterion was a point in favour of Lauda, TMAN, actmyname, The Pharmacist, and several key staff members and/or Bitcoin Core devs who have demonstrated track records of standing their ground against extreme personal attacks.

The ability to resist pressure is necessary but insufficient to exercise trustworthy judgment.  The weak-willed are ipso facto untrustworthy, for in the end, they don’t really exercise their own judgment at all; bad people can simply browbeat them into submission.

I think it’s important to mention this.  With the newly democratized DT, I fear that DT will slowly devolve into a popularity contest for who can best pander, flatter, and curry favour—i.e., politicians who not only bend to ill-motivated sticks, but also dangle carrots to actively exploit the underlying human frailties to their advantage.  To be worthy of DT, you need to be at least a little bit of what many people would consider “a jerk”—not for the hell of it, not for trollish purposes, but just because you need to be ruthless and tough as nails against bad people who will try to sway you any way they can, by hook or by crook.

---

A reasonable question.