 By Satoshi Nakamoto Dedicated to all trolls. After reading this .... I will drink a beer.  Beste quote in the whole BTC history..... A contender therefore, for sure. Some here might benefit from pondering the context in which that statement was delivered. which quote could be better?? I dunno. I was agreeing that it could be best. How does one pick The Best? More relevant is the rest of the post, which refers to the rest of the email, where satoshi explains that in time, nodes would be operated mostly by well-funded enterprises dedicating large capital to the task. |
|
|
|
More chance of Mila Kunis & Margot Robbie sucking my dick this weekend than CW being Satoshi. He’s a fraudster, a charlatan, a snake oil salesman. Hopefully he’ll be totally irrelevant regarding crypto in a couple of years (if he isn’t already).
So you're of the opinion that CSW is not the author of any patents? |
|
|
|
... I'm just trying to bring some sense of balance among the near-universal Craig derangement syndrome.
Fuck off dude. CSW is an lying idiot charlatan, and you are an idiot if you support him or defend him in any way. Makes you look even more stupid. ^^^Case in point. |
|
|
|
He can't simultaneously have a mound of patents (for which core sycophants regularly excoriate him), and not have any patents.
There is no impediment to him having a mound of invalid patents. Sure, there's an impediment. While the bar isn't so high as to be infallible, passing patent review is at least prima fascie evidence of validity. So are you claiming all of nChain's patents are invalid? |
|
|
|
...
Again... Relevance as to the matter on JPM potentially infringing on nChain patents? nobody gives a shit about that part except as a sideshow Then why did you post on the topic? we moved on to the part where you do everything you can to support this fraudulent actor ...
Hmm. I don't see it as doing 'everything I can', I see it as bringing some semblance of balance. and minimise his crimes
Crimes? What crimes? Has he been incarcerated? Convicted? Tried even? (Other than in the court of public opinion, that is) Hyperbolic much? |
|
|
|
What central banks can't control is the whirlwind that will be the inevitable result from the stupid policies adopted back in the 1910-1913 timeframe. All they will be able to do is react to the debt-fueled collapse of the world economic system.
If you are waiting for the ‘inevitable’ result of something that happened over 100 years ago, you may be waiting a wee while longer. Perhaps a few more hundred years. Did you gloss over where I stated that it has collapsed several times since? Do you exist only to sling shit? |
|
|
|
By Satoshi Nakamoto Dedicated to all trolls. After reading this .... I will drink a beer. Beste quote in the whole BTC history..... A contender therefore, for sure. Some here might benefit from pondering the context in which that statement was delivered. |
|
|
|
Aren't patent trolls "losers," even if they make money?
How so? There is a realistic debate to be had centering on the legitimacy of the concept of patents. But 'winners' and 'losers' are only identifiable as such within the context of the rules of the system. So, no: patent owners are by definition winners. At least to the extent to which others may want to employ the patented idea (i.e., even if they make money). I think that I already explained my position. If you want to value winners based on their ability to get rich by any means, then you can do that. It ain't _me_ doing the valuing. Getting rich is how society as a whole values the contribution made thereto. That's kind of the way market economies work. |
|
|
|
Now I'm not saying Bitcoin will be a lagging investment in comparison. Nay, even with the scenario outlined above, I expect Bitcoin to handily outperform PMs. But in discussing alt assets, let's at least be real.
Just in regards to your last statement, above. I think that i am being real with a suggestion of a 5% ceiling on dinosaur PM investments. Maybe I just misunderstand your nebulous statement. I read across your vagueness as there being a below 5% (I think your even wrote 1%) chance that gold would be revalued by some multiple in a step function. What exactly does "5% ceiling on dinosaur PM investments" mean? |
|
|
|
I don't have anything to add to the patent discussion. I just find it curious that you always rush to Craig's defense.
Granted, the chain of dependent clauses that I drew that ended in JPM being forced onto bitcoin as infrastructure for their JPM coin is a long one, with each step having some level of improbability. But if such were to occur, would that not be noteworthy? Is the possibility not worth discussing? It ain't a matter of white knighting for CSW. But I'm not the one that opened the topic. And other than my comment, all that was or would have been said would have been the typical dose of groupthink schoolyard pile on derision that was already underway when I deigned to speak up. Further, replies to my opening post on the topic parroted widespread lies and or misunderstandings regarding nChain's actions. Are such not worth correcting? Would you rather have slander go unchallenged when the record could be set straight instead? Yeah, we all know all y'all think Craig lied about being Satoshi. That's not what this branch of the thread is about. It's about nChain patents and their relationship to JPM. I'm just trying to bring some sense of balance among the near-universal Craig derangement syndrome. |
|
|
|
Would you be honest enough to criticize Craig, if you knew he was wrong?
Sure. He's already made a lot of bone headed statements already. No, I'm not going to enumerate them. Let's do some of them anyway https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Craig_Wright Wright's claimed PGP key was provably backdated. [1][2] He was paid millions of dollars by nTrust to 'reveal' himself as Satoshi (this is for those who think he lacked motive)[3] Signature claimed to prove him to be Satoshi was worthless. [4] Second claimed "signature" was also an obvious forgery. [5] N-th claimed "signature" was yet another obvious forgery. [6] Faked blog posts showing his early involvement in bitcoin. [7] Craig Wright is apparently using his fame to run an advance-fee scam.[8] Incorrectly calling it "Bit Coin" several times in 2011. [9] Gross technical incompetence. [10][11][12] No evidence of any C++ proficiency. Plagiarizism[13] If Craig Wright really was the creator of Bitcoin, the proof would be trivial. We see an example by Charlie Lee the creator of Litecoin[14] Again... Relevance as to the matter on JPM potentially infringing on nChain patents? |
|
|
|
Lol at talking about a permissionless world and meanwhile believing patents hold merit.
Two different systems, each governing different spheres of activity. While we don't all get a chance to write the rules, we all must live within them. And yet these two "systems" are not so separate as you try to make them appear, are they? I dunno. How similar is a frog to an apple? Would you be honest enough to criticize Craig, if you knew he was wrong? Sure. He's already made a lot of bone headed statements already. No, I'm not going to enumerate them. What's that got to do with the nexus between open source and patents? Or Craig challenging JPM on a patent infringement issue, for that matter? Unless you want to make the claim that nChain has not a patent infringed upon by JPM. Which may be the case- I don't know. But my suspicion is that Craig's claim -- at least in this case -- may indeed be true. He can't simultaneously have a mound of patents (for which core sycophants regularly excoriate him), and not have any patents. |
|
|
|
Lol at talking about a permissionless world and meanwhile believing patents hold merit.
Two different systems, each governing different spheres of activity. While we don't all get a chance to write the rules, we all must live within them. And yet these two "systems" are not so separate as you try to make them appear, are they? I dunno. How similar is a frog to an apple? |
|
|
|
Hmm. I think the message must have gotten lost in crossed wires or something. I can't even begin to fathom how one might go about anally ingesting a chicken curry.
Does it make more sense without the sirazimuth quote omitted from the bottom of my post? I was discussing crapping after a red hot curry as Sirazimuth was commenting on taking a red hot shit after a curry. No. I received that message quite clearly. It was the leap from the phallic appearing sausage to the disavowal of any gay tendencies that I thought missed the link between capsaicin and sphincter. |
|
|
|
has this piece of shit coin not died yet?
it needs to.
 |
|
|
|
Lol at talking about a permissionless world and meanwhile believing patents hold merit.
Two different systems, each governing different spheres of activity. While we don't all get a chance to write the rules, we all must live within them. |
|
|
|
Next year you might consider having Welsh sausage instead.  That "Welsh" sausage confuses me. Around the QR code it says "opskrifter fuld af smag" that's danish (or possibly norwegian) and means "recipes full of taste" and underneath is the symbol for the Swedish farmers asociation "Lantmännen" and under that is the Welsh flag. I'm confused. Wherever it's from I'm sure sirazimuth's ringpiece would love that huge meaty sausage more than a vindaloo. Last of the V8s ringpiece would probably love that sausage more than yesterday's chicken curry too. Sorry I am very very straight not a HOMO LOL Hmm. I think the message must have gotten lost in crossed wires or something. I can't even begin to fathom how one might go about anally ingesting a chicken curry. |
|
|
|
Rinse it up. Rinse it down.™
That purple thing? |
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Nouriel/status/1096128231038746625"In which way has the new alleged JPMorgan crypto coin anything to do with blockchain/crypto? It is private not public, permissioned not permissionless, based on trusted authorities verifying transaction not trustless, centralized not decentralized. Calling it crypto is a joke" There's Alanis signing again. Roubini actually says something I can agree with. |
|
|
|
Aren't patent trolls "losers," even if they make money?
How so? There is a realistic debate to be had centering on the legitimacy of the concept of patents. But 'winners' and 'losers' are only identifiable as such within the context of the rules of the system. So, no: patent owners are by definition winners. At least to the extent to which others may want to employ the patented idea (i.e., even if they make money). By the way, didn't you get the memo, jbreher, that there is a certain level of justified hostility against the use of patents in the open source community underlying the "real" bitcoin..
And again with the complete mischaracterization of nChain's patents. They don't underly the "real" bitcoin (be it BSV, BTC, or BCH). They underly things that can interface with the "real" bitcoin (again, be it BSV, BTC, or BCH). Do you mischaracterize thusly because you are dishonest, or merely because you are ignorant? By the way, didn't you get the memo, JJG, that 'hostility against' is meaningless in a decentralized, permissionless world? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
