Such has been a statement of CSW's, yes. However, it is a mere statement of fact. All of the Bitcoin forks form an immutable record of all transactions on the blockchain. Personally, I lean libertarian, and I feel that the fact that analysis techniques can deanonymize users within Bitcoin is a regrettable aspect of the system. But someone loudly pointing out such a state does not change it or make it more pervasive. BTC suffers from this weakness just as does SV.


Again, you will need to provide a link for me to understand that to which you are referring. I have heard him exclaim many times something along the line of 'anonymity bad, privacy good'.In the same sentence. You sure you're not just wrong about your belief of what he has been stating?

Do you disagree that the evidence trail is useful to law enforcement? Or do you maybe believe that all law enforcement is by definition bad? Or do you believe that BTC does not provide the exact same evidence trail as does SV?

The listed "factors" apply to "digital asset[ s]".
'They' in your statement (whoever 'they' are) applies to humans.
Certainly, you can discern the difference between digital assets and humans.

You would need to provide more info if you expect me to know what you are talking about. All I have seen from CSW as public pronouncements on changes to the protocol have been to restrict any such protocol changes to be to 'unfucken' (not his term, actually Shadders', I believe) it back to parity with v0.1. Any tools sitting atop such a protocol are just that - not base layer. Accordingly, I don't understand what that has to do with SV. If any public pronouncement has even been made.

I note also that you have not answered the posited question(s).


Exactly what is a 'phony hash war'? As differentiated, I suppose, from a 'real hash war?

Just who do you suppose is my 'idol dev'?


Is that a hard call? Can I throw it in your face in three years? Or is it perhaps speculation? Or maybe just a personal hope?

Lindy says ten years and counting. And up 18% on the day. Not too shabby so far.

Well, one cannot deny that listing on the world's highest volume crypto exchange is pretty good utility. So the delisting is indeed unfortunate. Though CMC tells me that Binance is responsible for a just about 12.5% of SV Exchange volume. So not crippling. More damaging in optics than in any significant lasting effect.

Curious is that the delisting does not seem to square with Binance's stated criteria. Of course, CZ is free to do what he wishes with the exchange he owns. But is seems more virtue signaling than adherence to rational criteria.


Seems like it could be a logical move.

Concern? Certainly. 'Done for'? Hardly. I see it as a buying opportunity,.


I would expect that SV's public flogging is in some large margin responsible for BCH's 18% daily gain, yes.

Funny choice of words. In what way does the listing status on any particular exchange cause a chain to be -- and I quote your careless misrepresentation -- "a fraud"?

Incidentally, for a non-native speaker, your English is pretty good. With the possible exception of not understanding the words 'scam' and 'fraud'.

Question: Would you prefer to prohibit any state actor from participating in Bitcoin?

Followup: If answer to above is 'yes', how do you square this with the mutually-exclusive attribute of 'permissionless'?

Yeah, I dunno. I could see the state dept sitting this one out on 'challenge to any state authority' grounds. It's not going to be high profile stateside, so they can probably take a flyer without any public notice.

Insurance endowments in crypto in unlimited quantity. Things that make you go 'hmmm'.

Funny choice of words. In what way does the listing status on any particular exchange cause a chain to be -- and I quote your careless misrepresentation -- "a scam"?

Haha. Based upon what, exactly?


Bitcoin Cash? Generations.

Good info - thanks. I note that that is the same contact info I provided a couple days ago upthread.

I guess I just assumed that my contact with the judge and with the FBI would have (i.e., should have) resulted in my being listed as a victim. Silly me, expecting logic from government processes.

I've left a message at the 866 number. We shall see.

Highly unfortunate development. I thought Elwar had tacit approval or acquiescence for the seastead. I wonder where the disconnect is.

I have not. I have just sent the FBI agent referred to above an inquiry as to whether or not the government considers me a victim. According to the source, I should have been contacted regarding sentencing. From an article linked within the quoted article:

Decades ago, I made a backup device that talked 5250. To IBM System 36, 38 and AS/400. Had the lion's share of the market outside of IBM 18-track tape. Which is to say , many more installations than IBM's, much less total revenue.

Was quite clever, running a backup device as if it was screens of terminal data. Of course, my work was in the HW at that time, not the SW.

Yes. FOr which they have received renumeration. For relationships between people don't write jack.


In part.

Probably a bigger factor in productivity is the processes and procedures in place that have taken some firms decades to develop.

I, for one, would think that such a tabulation would be very useful in regards to Bitcoin price movement. For several years now, 'subfora topic daily page count' has been one of the informal indicators that has factored into my sentiment analysis. Your thoughts seem to be another view into the same sort of sentiment analysis. I commend you for thinking about taking on such a task.

Two factions wanted to go separate directions. Strongly. Neither side yielded.

Unfortunate, but it is the world in which we live.