You literally cannot prove that your theory is true.  You are GUESSING that's what the case is about.  All you have are stories of intrigue and no evidence.  Please learn the difference between theory and reality.

The irony that you're commenting on a court case, where things like evidence are actually rather important, is clearly lost on you.

Using the width property doesn't change the filesize of the image itself.  It will have no impact on bandwidth of others.  It's still better for them to make those images smaller, though, since that post is annoying to scroll past.

I'm in a similar boat.  I sadly suspect there will always be a market for centralised services.  It largely depends on the individual.  Some people are prepared to take the initiative, learn what they need to learn and do things on their own.  Some would rather take the comfortable and convenient option of trusting someone else to handle things for them, or perhaps have other significant commitments to their time and would rather outsource anything they don't have time to grasp.  The latter types will continue to flock to Bitpay and their ilk.

Fingers crossed that Bitpay's influence will be reduced, but I'm not convinced it'll end their business model.

Wouldn't surprise me if it was yet another marketing stunt.  Anything for attention.  Whether it remains open or not, it has always been dead to me, heh.  

No you haven't.  You have made assumptions.  You have speculated.  You have told a story.  That's not the same as presenting evidence that proves your fairytale is accurate.  The burden is still on you to prove it.



And you still haven't understood them in a way that leads you to formulate a conclusion that makes an ounce of sense. 



They have read it.  They have formed a sensible opinion based on what they have read.  It doesn't matter if they read it a thousand times more, they're still not going to see it the way you do, because your understanding is flawed. 

I'm all for encouraging people to be diligent and careful when dealing with exchanges, but I think it would also be wise to place a bit more emphasis on the part where exchanges aren't necessarily the best way to acquire Bitcoin.  We need more write-ups encouraging responsible peer-to-peer trading, the advantages and disadvantages of escrow, etc.  Please consider making this part of a series of blogs and posts giving equal attention to the other ways to trade.

No arguments there.  All I'm saying is, don't shout louder than the crazy person, or people might mistake you for one and the same.

Call out the lies and deceptions where you see them, but just keep in mind not to take it too far.  I'm not saying you're doing anything wrong, heh.  It's all good.

As long as we're not taking a "we need to convert people to the light side before they can convert them to the dark side" kind of mentality, because that's a slippery slope.  We're not able to stop every last person making a poor choice.  And ramping up pro-BTC hype in an attempt to drown out the forkcoin rhetoric has notable and significant pitfalls.

And that's valid, but for the uninitiated, you might as well be talking about sorcery, heh.  They could mistakenly perceive us as a cult or something.  Maybe I'm too cautious, but lately I just feel like it's better to let people get there on their own rather than us acting like evangelists and trying to convert them.  

Mostly I'm just hoping that many of the people who have been banned from these forums over the years (who probably only came to terms with their bitcointalk ban because they had that other forum to fall back on) don't suddenly try to sneak back in here with new aliases now that those forums are closing.

Stay vigilant on the plagiarism reporting, as I suspect they'll be back to old habits if they do try to return.

I guess the answer is a bit like the one I'd give to religious people.  There's a limit to how hard you can push your beliefs onto others.  It's fair to say that Faketoshi and Ver often cross that line in how far they push to sell their beliefs.  We don't want to come across as shady used car salesmen who would say just about anything to rope someone in like they do.  Basically just use common sense.

There is also a clear difference between speculation and confirmation.  You seem more than happy to treat them as the same thing.  If you can hypothesise an outcome, suddenly that's the only viable outcome and you believe anyone who disagrees is a sheep who isn't thinking for themselves.  Apparently we all just have to accept that your brain is wired like that and can't function any other way.

Just so you know, flat-earthers and anti-vaxers also like to think they're seeing beyond the spoon-fed opinions.  Doesn't make them any less wrong, though.



Cool, I'll do it in a manner you'd approve of:

Kleiman gains little from proving that Wright doesn't have access to a vast wealth of Bitcoin.  It's in the Kleiman family's financial interest for the court to rule that Wright is exceedingly wealthy and needs to pay a portion of their estate to the Kleiman family.  This would indicate they are not, in fact, working together.  I've hypothesised that by "running scenarios" and if you disagree, it means you aren't "thinking for yourself" and haven't done enough "research".

Am I doin it rite?  Just make up any load of old bollocks and them claim the other person is at fault for not seeing the genius of it?



He can definitely have the last word, I just like to have a few in the middle to highlight that his last word is equally lacking in credibility as his first.   

Seems like it doesn't matter what the subject is, the only possible explanation for someone arriving at a conclusion that differs to yours is that they haven't "researched" as much as you have.  And it's beyond clear by this point that when you say "research" what you actually mean is you let your imagination run wild and filled in any blanks with the first thought that pops into your head.

It doesn't matter how long anyone spends looking into any given subject, you've clearly made your mind up and will never back down regardless of how much evidence is presented that you are merely a loudmouth with an overactive imagination.  What is it you even hope to accomplish when you engage with other people if you're never willing to see things from any other perspective aside from fantasy?

Learn how to people plz.

Currently giving Vivaldi a try, since the 'Braver' fork seems like it's still in early development.  Vivaldi is like a weird hybrid of Chrome and Opera but with supposedly better adblocking.  Only just installed it, so too early to be making recommendations yet.  Fingers crossed, I guess.

//EDIT:  uBlock Origin plugin, too.

I can see the temptation when witnessing the extremism of Faketoshi to then adopt the opposite extreme, but that's seldom a healthy path.  We can easily combat the FUD without overselling the benefits of Bitcoin.  It's generally best to maintain a healthy dose of realism, since this is all still a little bit experimental.  

There's almost a potential of legitimising your opponent if you begin to resort to the same style of tactics they use.  Avoid lowering yourself to their level.  We don't need to become militant or adopt high-pressure sales tactics.  That's just going to put people off and make them think we're as crazy as Faketoshi.
  

And what should "justice" look like in your eyes, exactly?

I've heard several half-baked ideas about objectivity that don't really work out in reality (seeing as you both seem to confuse "objectivity" with "people only using the trust system in a way you personally approve of", which is literally never going to happen).  Maybe you should try figuring out what it is you actually want before you start lashing out at everyone who is suggesting that you're maybe being a little bit annoying by constantly bitching about it.

Do you actually have some constructive criticisms that would legitimately improve the trust system, or do you just have a bunch of whining about how unfair it is that someone on the internet believed you to be untrustworthy and dared to write something down to express that opinion?

Trust is inherently subjective.  Based on feelings and instincts.  I don't see how you would realistically expect to enforce objectivity.

---

If the offending trust feedback was removed, what's the problem?  It might not always be as clean a process as we might like, but surely that's proof enough that people can be persuaded to do the right thing and remove inappropriate ratings.

Again, trust is based on feelings and instincts.  People can get it wrong sometimes.  I doubt it's practicable to eradicate that.  

You are making it about you.  People use the trust system to decide whose ratings they want to include and exclude, as they're perfectly entitled to do.  Then you complain that everything they're doing is because they don't like you and that there should be rules in place to prevent people including and excluding who they want because apparently it's all a vendetta against you.  

You accuse others of making it personal, they start accusing you of stuff and it becomes yet another shitty thread full of pointless drama.  You wouldn't need to "defend yourself" if you hadn't opened the hostilities and just kept your mouth shut to begin with.  Again, stop being such a try-hard.  It's annoying.  If you really do believe it's a popularity contest, you'd think you'd be smarter than to piss people off so readily.  Please give it a rest.

They can call it Mintchip 2.0.   

I predict it'll have a similar longevity to its predecessor, assuming it even gets off the ground.

"Equitable trust" sounds like some sort of financial group.  Trust isn't meant to be equitable.  Trust is earned.  You aren't just entitled to it because you think you deserve it.

What you want doesn't come into it.  The only thing that matters is who people trust and who people don't trust.  If people don't trust you, there is no rule that can change that.  So if you want something to change, maybe consider starting with your conduct. 

Whether you choose to take this as a general observation or a personal attack is up to you, but I find the more people bitch about the trust system, the more suspiciously I view them.  Maybe take a break from this little campaign of yours and stop trying so damn hard.  You probably aren't doing your cause any favours in the eyes of others. 

Patience is an important skill to learn in life.  I mean, honestly, what's the rush here?  Are you in a hurry for some fiat profits?  Sorry, but contrary to popular belief, that's not what Bitcoin was designed for.  I'm not a developer, but I think it's pretty safe to say that making short-term market gains to give you better ROI is definitely not one of the top priorities when it comes to development.  There are loftier goals in mind.  We're building something that will endure.  You can't rush that.

If your sole intent is speculation, then I can see why altcoins would hold a stronger appeal.  Just keep in mind that hype only lasts so long and most of them will disappear as quickly as they came.  People generally have short attention spans and novelty soon wears off.  Know when the time is right to sell and don't end up being a bagholder for dead coins that no one cares about anymore.  That's the risk you take when you try to keep up with the latest trends. 

Personally, I'd keep my focus what actually works and will continue to work because it is developed responsibly, for the right reasons, based on fundamental underlying principles that matter.

Also disappointing that Brave Software's CEO is a raving homophobe to boot.  I'll be sure to have a look at the fork.