|
OP. You can call Bitcoin whatever you want. Bitcoin couldn't care less. You sound like a guy who missed the oportunity to buy early and is butthurt ever since. No one here will take you and your anti Bitcoin rantings serious. You can stop it now.
|
|
|
|
If I remember, you're in the UK OP?
No, the US. But I appreciate the suggestion and you're correct about what I was asking here. It's not as simple as this: The easiest solution is to print out a sign "Accepting Bitcoins" and a QR of his Bitcoin wallet
Lol, which isn't a solution to my problem at all. As AGD says, the simplest option would be to get him to set up his own wallet and accept bitcoin directly. If he wants to then register on an exchange to sell for fiat, then he can do that too.
That would be true for any merchant that didn't already accept bitcoin, but I don't suspect it would be easy to convince a business to start doing so if they're either unfamiliar with what bitcoin is all about or perhaps have a bias against it. I might be inclined to sweeten the deal for the bike shop, however. I don't think any business is going to want to accept bitcoin outright because of the volatility--that's what makes payment processors so important for merchants. If you don't think the merchant wants to simply accept Bitcoin, then why don't you exchange your Bitcoins for cash and pay that bike? If he uses BitPay or something similar your fees will be way too high and the merchant won't see any of the Bitcoins anyway. |
|
|
|
|
1 year ago it was 3500$ I wouldn't call that doomed, but a good investement.
|
|
|
|
|
The easiest solution is to print out a sign "Accepting Bitcoins" and a QR of his Bitcoin wallet
|
|
|
|
After all, crypto has become dependent on world news and panic...
Crypto is a speculative asset and VERY MUCH affected by world news and panic. People will be forced to sell BitCoin to cover losses elsewhere, and job losses. All you have to do is look at the price today to see this reality... Hard Facts .... and buy! |
|
|
|
....
I am way smarter than the average fool 🙉🙉🙉🙉 and I will call out BS every time
Hard Facts
If you are smart, why didn't you buy Bitcoin when the price was down? You had so many opportunities... |
|
|
|
|
I bought a lot of different goods with Bitcoin and it always worked smoothly, which brings me to the conclusion that Bitcoin is a currency AND a store of value. Esp. 2nd layer solutions like Lightning brought instant confirmations. Bitcoin ATM cards are not needed to make payments.
|
|
|
|
Imagine Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin, minted a million Bitcoins, disappeared to 'move on to other projects', lost all of his private keys, lost his GPG key, lost access to any known email address and now comes back to sue 'Bitcoin' and all of its forks. If this was real, Satoshi is a lonely mother fraggin idiot! Hmmmmm, I guess it's not real and Craig Wright is a lonely mother fraggin idiot.  Wrong He just manages to keep the muggles out of doing shit this time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ys4gxyw82w&feature=youtu.beSatoshi is much more intelligent than we ever might ve noticed  You are talking about the part at 2:06:00 ff, right? This meta level theory makes absolutely no sense. Craig Wright is not the creator of the Bitcoin white paper and the Tulip Trust is a fake. He has no access to Satoshis coins and his GPG key and he is a scammer. |
|
|
|
Scammer  Has been blocked by various forums because of scamming. Check Stanislav4232 or Vasily kov23 |
|
|
|
He did say something like Dave Kleiman involved
Kleiman involvement in Bitcoin's creation is no more credible than Wright: Kleiman was an IT guy who demonstrated no particular programming experience (the only evidence of him programming anything other than a trivial windows registry editing automation tool, written in visual basic). While it's not physically impossible, there is no particular reason to suspect him over (say) the guy behind the genius bar at your local apple store. The only reason anyone ever talks about Kleiman re Bitcoin is because of wrights "leaked" (and now shown to be forged) documents wrapping him into wrights 'tulip trust'. Kleiman's death is relevant... but it's relevant because by being dead he's the perfect unwitting accomplice. When you buy into theories about Kleiman you're buying into Wright's fallback story. Some people are never going to believe the brash and technically clueless wright was behind Bitcoin, but they'll more easily believe the inaccessible deceased guy did the hard work and for wright's scamming purposes that is generally good enough. Since the rumour about the deceised Dave Kleiman being Satoshi floated around BEFORE Craig W. came out with his allegations, it is safe to assume, that Craig read about the rumour about his acquaintance and as a result he build up his story. |
|
|
|
... So, this unauthenticated e-mail was allegedly sent by Satoshi to Mike Mr Surveillance & Taint Hearn four days before Gavin Andresen publicly announced his visit to the CIA: Subject: Gavin will visit the CIAI want to get this out in the open because it is the kind of thing that will generate conspiracy theories: I'm going to give a presentation about Bitcoin at CIA headquarters in June at an emerging technologies conference for the US intelligence community. Why Gavin posted about this CIA invitation anyway? He pretty much knew (and wrote) about the risk of being in the center of conspiracy theories. He could have kept it secret and noone would ever know about it. |
|
|
|
This sort of explanation fails occams' razor. Not as badly as some things that many people believe, but you don't need to go there. All sorts of perfectly ordinary explanations work fine. That one day Bitcoin will be called a national security threat lies in the principles of the Bitcoin code. It was created to be a competitor to government issued money and therefore poses a risk to it. It is not even important if, at the time the CIA invited Gavin, the threat to the Dollar has been already discussed (which I strongly believe esp. after the Wikileaks issue), but if Bitcoin can stand against any countermeasures governments will be firing sooner or later. I guess we have to wait for the answer, until countries begin to coorporate on this issue. So essentially, the question is why is bitcoin valuable in the first place? Is it for the reasons Satoshi gave explicitly?-- money that can't be overridden by political whim, even if well motivated ( http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-source)? Or is it because of some real politik regulatory dodge reason? If you believe the latter then cranking growth as fast as possible at any and all cost while cozying up to spooks sounds like a reasonable strategy. This alternative view even comes pre-made with a ready explanation you can use to dismiss people who disagree with you-- they're childish and don't understand how the world works. To me there are several reasons why Bitcoin is valuable and I think that both you stated are legit. Bitcoin seems to be successful standing against these. I see the attempts to overide in these forking attempts by Gavin, Hearn, Ver and CSW, which by now have been more or less unsucessful. And regulations by now seem to only affect centralized exchanges and mixers, but not Bitcoin itself. Another value of Bitcoin comes from its potencial inconfiscatability. It is the first time in history, that people are able to refuse to give up their savings. There are many more valuable sides of Bitcoin, like decentralisation, open source, worldwide P2P transactions without a middle man. If you believe the dates provided by Hearn. I saw no indication of that until many years after its claimed date. Especially if you're going to believe that there is some conspiracy of state actors to take out Bitcoin you probably should be pretty skeptical of any instances of "hey guies! I tots got dis email 5 years ago and didn't mention it till now!". I agree with you here. No proof, that these emails were actually from early 2011. Assuming that satoshis GMX account was under control of the 3 letters, it could have happened anyway or they also could have been backdated. There were enough reasons for both. Edit: The satoshi quote from the Hearn emails Since Google is trusted, couldn't users pay a token deposit to Google and Google pays them back when they close the account? makes it easy to me to believe, that this was not the original satoshi. |
|
|
|
.... I pretty much believe, that Satoshis GMX email account was already under control of somebody else at that time. I'm fairly confident that both of them communicating with "Satoshi" (not satoshi) after the account was compromised. -- both because the account was leaking messages it got from them to others, e.g. about mike and gavin talking about planning to fork bitcoin long before they did anything public... and also because they claimed to have heard from satoshi long after it would have been consistent with other evidence. But I don't now what, if any, roll this played in setting up the wright circus. To me it's pretty much clear, that this is all linked to the Wikileaks story and Gavins visit to the CIA. Satoshi knew what was up to come after Wikileaks accepted Bitcoin payments. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2216.msg29280#msg29280It would have been nice to get this attention in any other context. WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet's nest, and the swarm is headed towards us.
Somebody at the 3 letters must have been called out Bitcoin as a national security threat. This would probably lead to meetings, where countermeasures are being discussed. Taking over an email account is not a big deal for them. Deanonymizing people is also easy. They also have a long history of 'convincing' people to play their game. The fact, that the real satoshi could anytime cross these plans by appearing and using a valid PGP signature, makes me think, they have silenced him somehow. ... In his alleged email to Mike Hearn Satoshi stated: 'I've moved on to other things. It's in good hands with Gavin and everyone.'
Interesting, that both who had the last email contact to Satoshi turned out to be Bitcoin forkers.
I pretty much believe, that Satoshis GMX email account was already under control of somebody else at that time. It was obv. paving ways for Hearn and Andresen as Satoshis successors. This all looks, like somebody knew Satoshi is not coming back. Was that before or after this? ... It was way before that. About 4 month after satoshis last forum post https://pastebin.com/syrmi3ET |
|
|
|
In his alleged email to Mike Hearn Satoshi stated: 'I've moved on to other things. It's in good hands with Gavin and everyone.' Interesting, that both who had the last email contact to Satoshi turned out to be Bitcoin forkers. I pretty much believe, that Satoshis GMX email account was already under control of somebody else at that time. It was obv. paving ways for Hearn and Andresen as Satoshis successors. This all looks, like somebody knew Satoshi is not coming back. |
|
|
|
Soon they'll find out what even newbies in this forum already know: that a decentralized structure is very hard to fight.  |
|
|
|
Yes, this is a very common theory, and given the personality of Wright, who clearly knows something about the birth of Bitcoin, but cannot provide any significant evidence, this theory is very, very strong.
Although I have been telling everyone since 2015 that Satoshi is probably unfortunately no longer with us.
I've *never* seen wright repeat a true fact about Bitcoin that he couldn't have learned just reading some posts here or the mailing list. Instead, I've seen him repeat many false claims that you can find posted on the internet which anyone involved early in bitcoin would know. The obvious conclusion is that since he is perpetrating a multi-million dollar fraud and identity theft he spent a little time doing homework, but as his school records show he is utterly terrible at performing any kind of intellectual work at all... and so he didn't do a good job of it. He produces so much evasion, obfuscation, and outright bluster -- literally screaming FUCK YOU at people who challenge his technobabble, that he manages to fool more than a few people who aren't following closely. If you want to make guesses as to why he would assume Satoshi wouldn't out him... first, why would he need to assume that? He could continue to rake in money from victims until that time-- the scam has to end eventually after all, it might as well end that way. second, there were a long sequence of false Satoshi claims before him and Satoshi didn't show up to debunk those either so it's a safe bet that wright could get away with it for a long time. Finally, wright's activities have caused more fixation on satoshi than ever. It would be bad for everyone for satoshi to show up in light of that. I agree with almost all of your statements. There were a lot of people claiming to be Satoshi, but CSW was the only one who made it as far as convincing a person, who has gained the original Satoshi Nakamotos trust: Gavin Andresen. I would very much like to see the communication between him and CSW, that made Gavin book a flight to London. |
|
|
|
Imagine Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin, minted a million Bitcoins, disappeared to 'move on to other projects', lost all of his private keys, lost his GPG key, lost access to any known email address and now comes back to sue 'Bitcoin' and all of its forks. If this was real, Satoshi is a lonely mother fraggin idiot! Hmmmmm, I guess it's not real and Craig Wright is a lonely mother fraggin idiot. |
|
|
|
I don't think theymos, or anyone else for that matter, knows who the real Satoshi is. All we can do is verify a message signed with the PGP key or any of the known early bitcoin addresses.
So far, no one has done so.
I was also in the 'sign a message' camp, but even if it's done eventually, it's still no concrete evidence that we're dealing with the 'real' satoshi. Private keys can exchange hands, either on a voluntary or non-voluntary basis. As long as nobody signs from any of those ancient 50BTC reward addresses it's safe to say that the real winner is the market (i.e. the holders of Bitcoin), which I add a whole lot more weight to than finding out who or what satoshi is. In other words, people shouldn't want x/y/z entity to ever sign a message. This however also means that losers such as CSW have free game to claim that they are the inventor of Bitcoin. Rather this than the price crashing hard. You are contradicting yourself. One one hand you say, that private keys can exchange hands and it would be no concrete evidence, on the other you would believe somebody who signs with one of the ancient Bitcoin addresses (with the private keys nessecary to do this - which could have exchanded hands). Sure it would be no 100% evidence, but what else would Satoshi have to prove he is the real one? If somebody signs his PGP or with one of the old addresses, most people would believe him. No doubt. |
|
|
|
|
My thought: Price doesn't matter. The technology does.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
