Torque taking crazy pills  (confirmed)   

Trolls like you have a lot of credibility in those kinds of assessments?

Why don't you make yourself comedically useful and go eat some honey?  The rest of us can watch you get your head stuck, and at least there may be some entertainment value in that, perhaps?

Your back-peddling response is lame as fuck.

Hopefully in the future you can be a bit more genuine, rather than spouting off nonsense, and then later saying that you didn't mean it
quite like that.   

If I give you the benefit of the doubt, you may have made some legitimate mistake in your belief that smerits were going to be refunded, but if you had truly looked into the matter and/or thought about it, you had spent 2 smerits within the first 30 days, and then you spent an additional 5 smerits in the next 30 days.  You were not even prudent about your spending of your smerits because you spent 7 smerits on two members. 

In some sense, your story does not really add up, even if I give you the benefit of the doubt.



I doubt that we can really attribute any kind of narrow set of motivations to members regarding their choices to spend their smerits.  Ultimately there is a lot of personal discretion involved, and surely if some of the members are good at hodling their bitcoins, they also might believe it to be prudent to hodl some of their smerits.. maybe budget a certain amount to spend per month or per week?  But of course, there is individual variation, and you did get my point that it is likely that some folks just have very high standards in terms of what is going to cause them to spend their smerits.



I have decided to give you 1 smerit for your overall posts, and to give you some benefit of the doubt, even though your story is a bit implausible.  Also, your posts are a bit mediocre too (which some might characterize as shit posting), but I think that with some efforts you could perhaps improve your post quality by engaging in threads that are interesting to you and to try to provide meaningful responses to members in order to help members to understand matters more clearly (or from another perspective). 

If you try to provide substantive meaning and to help other forum members, then it is likely that you could at least earn some merits and to thereafter be able to increase yourself in rank.  Sometimes considering quality of posts rather than spitting out quantity of posts is good, and sometimes it is possible to accomplish both.  I will concede that it can be a bit time-consuming to really improve the quality of your posts - and perhaps even to limit the number of your responses to some manageable amount - let's say 5 quality posts per week or some other goal that you believe is something that you can work towards improving your post quality, attracting attention of other members and thereby earning merits.


Even though your framing of your question seems to suggest that you already do know the answer, in the responsive post, above, DdmrDdmr has clearly addressed your question.  I have given an smerit to DdmrDdmr, even though he seems to have spent a decent amount of time answering a question that has been answered several times in this thread... but anyhow, I was feeling like spending some extra smerits, today.... hahahahahhaha

You should already be aware of such a standard that there is no burden to provide evidence when rebutting off topic claims.. those can be summarily dismissed without any kind of evidence whatsoever, because providing evidence would be to sustain and perhaps pursue the off-topicness, which deserves to go to another thread.    

Don't you know nuttin, jbreher? 

Because you are a drama king.... 

What the fuck are you talking about?   I am just making an assertion that most folks here would understand and likely agree.. I just happen to get it inb4 others... that's all.

1) Your permissionless assertion seems to be a stupid concept.  You are now arguing that getting a confirmation is a form of seeking permission?  That is a very distorted perspective, seems inclined to mislead about the idea of permissionless.  confirmations ties into security and permission is a much broader concept that has to do with third party intervention.  Largely miners are decentralized, and so they are all over the place, and they confirm transactions based on fees and based on system integrity, not based on whether coins are supposedly blacklisted, so you seem to be taking your concept of permission way too far in your attempt to apply the concept to this zero confirmation scenario.

2) my spending time on this topic.  Your inference may be correct that I am spending too much time on the topic, too... but I am attempting to defend the subject matter of this thread, and to rebutt seemingly disingenuous posts such as yours, rather than attempting to shill some alt, which seems to be part of what distinguishes what you are doing from me.  I would argue that the substance of my off-topicness aims at preserving thread topicness, rather than going into the weeds on atopical alt coin shilling points, which you are doing on an ongoing basis, while trying to argue that there is some topical legitimacy in your persistent pursuits. 

Look who is back to pump stupid off-topic shit.     

Don't you have enough drama between yourself and the real satoshi to keep you busy in other threads/forums?   

Yes... You almost know what I am going to say before I say it... hahahahaha.... 

People label you as disingenuous because you seem to be smart, so frequently, what you are asserting comes off as disingenuous, because you know better (or at least you should know better). 

Accordingly, even you are aware that bitcoin is an evolving concept that is not locked into some past renditions, but is a product of what the community wants, pursuant to consensus, which does not seem to be easily achieved - yet has a process.... So, yes, do you remember mid-=2017?  The little ploy from segwit2x and NY agreement folks seemed to have backfired, but allowed bitcoin to achieve segwit consensus and the lightning network pathway that follows. 

Can you deal with it?  Apparently not.  You want to continue to pump on chain scaling and other baloney bullshit in order to attempt to assert that there is some kind of segwit/lightning network lacking that the inferior bcash proposals, such as zero confirmation transactions can deal with better.... but you and your stupid ass bcasher trolls are wrong about this, so go back to your stupid ass coin and play with your zero confirmations, rather than trying to get that sailed ship into bitcoin.. because it does not make much sense for bitcoin when bitcoin has better solutions - even if they are more sophisticated, including second layer escrowing like services.

Accordingly, even if zero confirmations may have been more acceptable in bitcoin in the past, when bitcoin was more in its test phases (lets say 2011 to 2013), currently, there is much wider adoption of bitcoin, more avenues for scammers to take advantage of vulnerabilities, such as zero confirmation, so even if you and your trusted buddies want to engage in some zero confirmation transactions on bitcoin because you trust each other, zero confirmations are no longer good to implement into bitcoin on a broader scale in which more innocent folks could end up getting screwed by such nonsense that would exist in a world of manevolent players who would like to separate you from your bitcoins.

The logic of why zero confirmations are impractical and cause too many vulnerabilities should seem so obvious on this, but you still want to argue your bcash shill talking-points to try to selectively chose some aspect of bitcoin's history and passionately argue that such practice should continue in bitcoin, as if bitcoin were locked in some past infancy status, which it is not..

Even though bitcoin is still in early adopter stages (with continuing to be quite less than 1% of world adoption), there is a considerable amount of value and confidence that should not be risked in bitcoin merely due to expediency concerns or some whining concerns of a minority who don't really seem genuine towards the better interest of bitcoin, anyhow.  In other words, stop your stupid ass whining about water under the bridge because that zero confirmation ship has sailed in bitcoin and it is not really necessary, except perhaps in a narrow set of trust circumstances of sending money to your self or between trusted parties.

Probably even jbreher would prefer to receive payment in bitcoin, even though he would resist to admit such, publicly.   

Please define "respectable" in terms of alt coins.   

Bitcoin seems to be a giffen good or a veblen good, in that more people are interested in it, as the price goes up.

Surely, such a public sentiment may be temporary, but any of us who have a systematic approach to attempt to accumulate BTC will tend to buy BTC as the price goes down in order to continue to accumulate BTC out of anticipation that the price is going to go up again.

In spite of some of the tax complications, there still can be systematic ways to attempt to sell small amounts of BTC in order that you do not have to come up with new cash in order to have systems in place to be able to continue to buy BTC as the price goes down (that is when it goes down).

Even though bitcoin prices are UP about 35x from late 2015 - that is up to $8,900 (currently) from the late 2015 price of about $250 - BTC prices are still down about 55% from the $19,666 high point.... Surely, today's price can seem like a bargain, even though there was more of a bargain in the $6k to $7,500 price arena... So, yeah, there is fear to buy when the price is low, in the $6k to $7,500 price arena, because of fear (or greed) that price might go lower.   Accordingly, a decent practice remains to attempt to buy incrementally as the price is going down because no one really knows when the bottom is "in"

Even if what you say is true, it does not matter that much. 

If there is a feature in bitcoin that is needed, such as zero confirmation between trusted parties (rather than wide-spread implementation), then likely the market is going to find a way to allow such feature into bitcoin.... On the other hand bitcoin seems to be moving away from such zero confirmation nonsense because the costs seem to outweigh any possible marginal benefits that may be gotten in such limited circumstances.


So why spend all this time on the topic of supposed value of zero confirmations, except for wanting to bump bcash as to having some supposed superior features, when surely those kinds of claims do not seem to be true - especially for what bcash actually is, which is merely some propaganda tool, bitcoin attack tool, and largely centralized pump and dump scheme. 

You can believe all that you want about bcash retaining the original bitcoin vision and some pie in the sky existence of zero confirmations in 2011 when bitcoin was worth less than $5, but you are merely engaging in the same misinformation that attempts to deny the validity and benefits of bitcoin's actual direction and the benefits of confirmations to ensure security and to lessen double spend breaches.

I had to look up your references, because the meme seems to be Mike Myers as Dr. Evil, but Verne Troyer played the mini-me version of Dr. Evil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Evil

Maybe you should concede on this one oblox?

It seems that you got yourself into an ambiguous position in which you are supporting bcash nonsense - with your attempt to engage with a supposedly objective analysis.

The fact of the matter is that bcashers attempt to assert that their onchain scaling is more in line with satoshi's vision.. and further the white paper then becomes relevant to their stupid-ass self-selective originalism arguments - in spite of their wanting to have their cake and to eat it too, with the zero confirmations nonsense....   

Surely, zero confirmation transactions contradict satoshi's vision whether we are talking about the whitepaper itself or other implementation statements from Satoshi... and yeah, who gives a ratt's ass about satoshi, because now bitcoin has become a product of later consensus, anyhow, including the current direction with segregated witness and lightning network. 

I think that bringing up the white paper is a way to use bcashers' contradictory arguments against them, even though who really cares what they are saying anyhow because they are disingenuously pursuing attacks against bitcoin and a likely failing alt that may take more 20 years to play out its ongoing attack drama.

Now you are pumping the trusting of 0 confirmations?   And you want folks to give you credibility?  I should not even be quoting your nonsense because your seeming disingenuousness seem to becoming too repetitive and obstinate.

The tilting of that logo means, it is referring to a bcash logo not a bitcoin logo.  Aren't we in a bitcoin thread?

I would like to see you busy posting to this thread, dooglus, on a daily basis, for at least the next year.

But, bitcoin does not seem to give a shit about what peeps like me want.

Show the source of your information about smerits decaying.  It is not true.  It says right on the merits' page of each user that smerits might decay in the future, which clearly suggests that smerits do not currently decay.