That's not how arguing with franky1 works, you have to keep "researching" until you arrive at the same fantasy conclusion franky1 arrived at.   

Don't let anything get in the way of a good fairytale.  Facts, references, citations, they're all totally meaningless when they conflict with the soap opera storyline franky1 has concocted in his special brain.

A "ban" could be put in place, but it's unlikely to be an effective ban.  Unless you're getting your coins mixed up again, maybe?  Usage of BSV would be comparatively easier to restrict by a government than usage of BTC.  BSV has fewer nodes, limited infrastructure, weak decentralisation, etc.  Not to mention the so-called leadership's stance on regulatory compliance.  You'll put your hands up and surrender when you're told to. 

It's just more time for Faketoshi to dig himself a deeper hole.  The longer it drags on for, the greater the quantity of perjury he'll be guilty of, since he just can't keep his big dumb mouth shut.  Another day, another lie to make up.

Conversely, I could ask who are the madmen in government who think they can fight a branch of mathematics?  How do you practically and viably ban numbers?  That's all we're using here.  Large, nigh-impossible-to-calculate numbers.

Also, the game theory doesn't work out well on their end.  Many people have commented in the past that if they make crypto illegal, that would likely only drive it underground.  So they need to play nice and employ their usual "nudge theory tactics" (be on the lookout for those), or they risk crypto users choosing to play hardball and becoming more militant about what we do.  At the moment, I think it's safe to say most of us would describe ourselves as "enthusiasts" or "hobbyists", but if someone told me I couldn't do this stuff anymore, I'll be giving 'em the ol' middle finger and finding ways to flout whatever legislation they opt to put in place.

Faketoshi speaks as a charlatan with a criminal background.



You can trust the fallible and ever-changing concepts of "law" if you like.

I'm going to trust the comparatively indisputable laws of physics and mathematics. 

Mathematics confirm Wright is a fraud.  No court of law on the face of the planet is going to convince me otherwise.  The numbers don't lie.  That's Faketoshi's speciality.

I'm all for pointing out faketoshi's bullshit, but I'm pretty sure a fair amount of the credit for the "anyone can spend" drivel still belongs to the original crypto wingnut MP and his trilema blog, which I believe pre-date faketoshi's equally dumb blogs by some margin.

So you think the appropriate response is to bow to the pressure and allow the tyrants to have it all their own way?  Maybe my outlook is just generally more subversive than average, but I'd never think that way.  All the things you mentioned are concepts that need to be challenged and anything that helps put power back in the hands of normal people is another step towards those in authority realising they aren't as "in control" as they thought.

//EDIT:  And while it's a post responding to a completely different thread, I feel like this response applies aptly here as well:

We can't walk on eggshells here. 

---

I still believe exchanges in their present, fundamentally misused, format are on borrowed time.  I hope there will come a point where we simply won't do that sort of thing anymore, because it definitely wasn't part of the design concept to have these entities holding the keys to vast tranches of BTC.  The very concept of a centralised exchange is inherently weak and vulnerable to pressure from authorities.  It's no coincidence that  regulators so easily identified the choke point they could squeeze.  We're bound to come up with something better at some point.  I'm just hoping the rate of technological development will continue to outpace the legal framework designed to contain it.

I like the enthusiasm, but we also need to add a touch of realism.  To say it "could solve Bitcoin’s privacy problem" is a tad oversimplified.  It solves one aspect, but there are plenty of other privacy issues to consider as well.  This Bitcoin Wiki page has enough material on the matter to keep people busy for a while.

The point was, if a relative stranger suddenly appears on DT, regardless of who put them there, people are going to check to see if there's a good reason for them to be there or not.  If people arrive at the conclusion they shouldn't be there, it may be the right course of action to distrust an unknown quantity.  Why do you immediately have to turn it into something sinister about who does or doesn't like you?  

You claim the trust system should be about what's best for the community, but in order for you to see the trust system doing exactly that, you need to stop making it all about you.  It's clearly affecting your judgement.  You can't honestly sit there and claim that having random people turn up on DT without a strong history of references or feedback is a positive thing.

People refer to it as a "war on cash", but in practice it's a war on privacy.  There's no doubt that vast quantities of data about our spending habits is collated and sold.  I'll be using physical cash for as long as I possibly can.  It's still one of the best ways to protect your privacy.  And once the option to use cash is gone, it'll be time to start spending the non-government crypto. 

That's a funny phrase to use, considering you're the one who's constantly stirring the pot when it comes to the trust system.  You only come out of this looking a tiny bit obsessive.  



Trust is earned.  I can't speak for others, but if someone has very little engagement with the forum and suddenly appeared on DT2, that would certainly raise an alarm bell for me.  Are we just expected to take your word for it that these are trustworthy people?



With the levels of gamesmanship you appear to be engaged in, I wouldn't be surprised if you were adding totally random names to your inclusion list just so you can cry foul when someone inevitably excludes them.  

"Oh, the persecution!"    


 

Removing it now won't matter.  It's too late for that.  

If you use an old client that was made when satoshi was still around and tried to get it to synchronise, any blocks mined under EDA are invalid and will be rejected.  This means that neither the BSV nor BCH chain can ever sync from the genesis block using satoshi's own code.  Go ahead and try it for yourself.  The damage can't be undone and your chain is forever tainted with it.  It will always be a forkcoin with different consensus rules.  Never the original.

The only way to sync to the BSV chain is to alter satoshi's code to change the consensus rules.  Otherwise satoshi's code will sync to the BTC chain.  




//EDIT:  Looks like hv_ doesn't have a witty answer for this one and instead chose to reply to some other posts with points they feel they can dodge more easily.  Oh well.


//DOUBLE EDIT:  And could people please trim their nested quotes down a bit?  Topic is swiftly becoming an arduous scroll-fest.  You don't need to include a running history of the last 5 or more posts to reply to the latest one.

Okay.

BCH|	BSV|	BTC
☒ |	☒ |	☑

BCH and BSV = Emergency Difficulty Adjustment, or life-support to avoid having been stillborn with an insufficient hashrate to even survive, let alone propagate.

Didn't even make it past the 'Abstract' on the first page.  Perhaps your preferred chain is not as well represented by the whitepaper as you like to imagine.

I'd phrase that part differently.

With SPV, you're not using Bitcoin to its fullest potential, but you're still using it.  You're also not securing Bitcoin, but you are using it. 

If you can sign your own transactions with keys that you control, I think it's fair to say you meet the prerequisites to be classed as a user.

And you're the biggest one.  I love how you honestly think people won't notice when you pay lip-service to calling faketoshi a scammer, but you still continually spread the same lies and distortions he spreads.

I was thinking that, if anything, CBCDs would only further legitimise Bitcoin.  All the people who say Bitcoin "isn't real" or that it's "just a bunch of ones and zeroes" won't have a leg to stand on when they unquestioningly accept CBDCs like a bunch of hypocrites.  Calling it now. 

Maybe switch the [ code ] tag for a [ quote ] tag for the sake of readability.  Although I suppose the code tag is still needed for the ascii sections.  I ended up just visiting the github and reading it there.

I'm hoping this is eventually implemented and becomes so ingrained that people just accept privacy as the new norm.  There's no escaping it if it becomes something that any wallet can implement.  Eagerly awaiting the demise of "Big Data", although it's a pretty distant goal at the moment.

I get that you're mostly only capable of making posts that effectively boil down to "My belief is that BTC is going to die soon and all the BTC supporters are going to be sorry.  Then maybe people will pay attention to my wonderful altcoin which has a daily volume that's seemingly too small for anyone to bother tracking", but could you at least try to add something coherent to the discussion?  Your inane babbling doesn't appear to serve a purpose here.

And to top it off, there's this little gem, too:


So faketoshi created a bitmessage account under Kleiman's name and proceeded to have a conversation with himself.  Then dated the conversation to a time before Bitmessage was available for anyone to use.  Then gave the court the key as evidence to prove that he did those things.

What an absolute cretin.  

 

Loving the desperation on your part to avoid admitting that the public figurehead and guiding hand for your chosen coin is a proven once again to be a lying shitweasel.