In light of these facts, I have unfriended Satoshi Nakamoto on the P2P Foundation website and stand corrected.
And what about the issues raised here? I'll be willing to edit my trust rating regarding your withdrawn claims about satoshi, but I'll need to see some very convincing evidence that your altcoin is not a scam before I can consider removing the negative trust. This blog post was addressed in 2013 by our then lead developer in the following thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=231834.msg3289325#msg3289325The blog author was a serial coin creator who made coins in direct competition with Goldcoin. Having considered it carefully for the last few hours, I'm going to replace the negative feedback with a neutral one. I'm still deeply suspicious and don't find your recent behaviour in any way trustworthy, but with regard to the author of that blog post, it does appear to be a case of your word versus theirs. |
|
|
|
In light of these facts, I have unfriended Satoshi Nakamoto on the P2P Foundation website and stand corrected.
And what about the issues raised here? I'll be willing to edit my trust rating regarding your withdrawn claims about satoshi, but I'll need to see some very convincing evidence that your altcoin is not a scam before I can consider removing the negative trust. |
|
|
|
On 26 August 2019, a US Federal Court ruled that Satoshi Nakamoto is the partnership of Dave Kleiman and Craig Wright.
So now, for the first time in history we have confirmation by a US Federal Court of the fact that CSW is at least 50% of Satoshi Nakamoto.
Nope. That was just Calvin Ayre's warped interpretation of proceedings. And anyone who trusts Calvin Ayre is an idiot. |
|
|
|
It is difficult to evaluate the positive/negative effect of such an advertisement.
But I think you heard what you wanted to hear. If you have no relation to astrophysics, then you are unlikely to be interested in scientific research by Howard, for example.
I think that's actually a really good point. If this were a forum about model trains, would we naturally assume that the average member of the public will take an interest in that every time a particular character talks about it? Because, having watched a lot of that show, I can guarantee they've talked about model train collecting on far more occasions than they've talked about Bitcoin. And I certainly don't feel any particular inclination to get involved with model train collecting just because they talk about it on the show. It might be more realistic for people in this thread to take their excitement down a notch. |
|
|
|
I see that facts - BSV does what Satoshi wanted - no matter of all the rest
That's not a fact. That's an opinion. What he "wanted", with the information he had that time, doesn't matter. He is not here anymore.
Taking satoshi out of the equation altogether, whether they were here or not, the only thing that has any discernible impact is consensus. It's fine to have an opinion on which network you believe is a closer reflection to a document written by satoshi, but at the end of the day, it's just an opinion. If some people allow their opinion to blind them to the reality that the Bitcoin network is the one that has the: - most potent network effects
- longest chain without cheating with an emergency difficulty adjustment
- strongest security of any blockchain on earth
- majority of the community's dev talent working on it
- largest support from users running full nodes
- most recognisable "brand"
- greatest utility and actual usage in making real-world transactions
then there's nothing we can do for them (by the way, @hv, those are what "facts" look like). Faketoshi supporters are entitled to their fantasies that they're winning some sort of perceived "moral high ground" and pretending that only they are uniquely placed to know what satoshi really wanted, but the simple truth is, they've lost far more than just that. They've lost their credibility by following a fraud. |
|
|
|
Be prepared to be attacked on this forum if you fail to tow the blockstream line.
If you try to rip people off by attempting to scam them with shitcoins, you mean. I don't care how many of you group together to protest your supposed innocence, you're all scum trying to profit from scams. |
|
|
|
It's not like everyone will be buying BTC because of it, but it helps. Not only to get more people involved, but also to de-criminalize crypto in the minds of many people.
They're one of the few shows doing that, though. It's a refreshing change of pace that Big Bang Theory used Bitcoin in a socially-appropriate context. As opposed to quite a few other shows that have a strong tendency to mention crypto primarily in a criminal setting. |
|
|
|
|
There are some external factors, but I think a fair amount of it is self-inflicted as well. There's still too much reliance on exchanges, which leaves users of those services open to hacks and exit scams. Each and every time this happens, it's negative publicity. Publicity we wouldn't be getting if people were using Bitcoin the way it was designed to be used.
Other lesser setbacks include the idiots who tried to make a purportedly non-profit "Bitcoin Foundation" and were, for the most part, corrupt as hell and didn't generate a particularly positive public image for what was supposed to be an advocacy group. Sleazy Lawsky and his "BitLicense" racket, which was clearly designed to be an ongoing source of "consultancy" income for him, rather than anything that would actually benefit Bitcoin. Con artist faketoshi attempting to co-opt the Bitcoin whitepaper and managing to fool a small number of dimwits, creating divisions. In essence, every single time crooked people have tried to exploit Bitcoin for their own financial gain.
|
|
|
|
The theory of Satoshi being dead is a plausible one (relatively, as is the theory aliens kidnapped Satoshi)
Or the theory that satoshi was an alien and simply returned to their home planet, where the vast distance of space means satoshi's transactions don't sync with Earth's copy of the blockchain.  But back on a serious note, nothing about satoshi has to be proven, because we only need to prove who satoshi isn't. And it definitely isn't faketoshi. That much is beyond doubt now. |
|
|
|
Come on. Everyone wants to know who own this addresses.
Clearly not "everyone". Probably just vapid people who are obsessed with things like celebrity gossip and other such shallow nonsense. I think people today, generally speaking, are so unfulfilled in their daily lives that they have to fixate on what others have. It's just sad when that's what passes for culture nowadays. It's partly a problem with the media, who think it's okay to report on the private lives of individuals and pretend that it's somehow newsworthy, but ultimately the onus is on ordinary people to stop eating that crap up and then demanding more of the same. I would say this is yet another instance where Bitcoin provides some healthy checks and balances to the incorrect way in which we currently perceive things. The "Rich List" in Forbes, for example, has identities attached to it, potentially painting a target on their backs. The Bitcoin "Rich List" is pseudonymous, allowing people to stay safe by not allowing criminals an easily identifiable target. Why would you want to potentially place lives in jeopardy by seeking to change this? Otherwise, there would be no quest for who is satoshi.
Contrary to popular belief, also none of your business. |
|
|
|
Imagine you own the wallet and did your best effort not to be identified with that address. You would want others to stop digging. There is this thing called privacy.
The topic should have ended after this fine post. If they're not your coins, then it's not really any of your business who they belong to. |
|
|
|
*gibberish*
Just because you're not peddling your scamcoin anymore, doesn't mean your opinion is suddenly worth something around here. Leave the history lessons to be taught be people who aren't held back by the burden of their tinfoil hats, please. |
|
|
|
What is dust actually? Its not so obvious
It gets confusing because people seem to use the word in different ways. At protocol level, "dust" means an amount of 546 satoshis or less, or 294 satoshis if using SegWit. But some people use the word colloquially to simply mean "a small amount". But then it becomes a question of perspective. What one person may consider an insignificant amount, another person may see as a sizeable amount of wealth. And because this article is talking about significant sums of BTC, muddying the waters by using the word dust isn't helpful for ease of understanding. |
|
|
|
|
I often wonder if small companies sometimes make deliberately outlandish statements just to garner media attention. It now doesn't matter whether their analysis is right or wrong, they've got their free publicity now.
My personal opinion is that the dollar figure you place on so-called "stablecoins" is utterly meaningless because many of them likely aren't fully backed (as the centralised companies that control them would have you believe). And even if they were fully backed by real-world assets, it's still just a cheap duplication of the value of the underlying assets. You're literally trading IOUs for something that may not even exist and have to place full trust in a company that, not only does it really exist, but also that you have a genuine and tangible claim to the funds the stablecoin supposedly represents. Why would you even get involved with something that shady?
Stablecoins are a scam. One of the most ridiculous things in all of crypto.
|
|
|
|
I don't see how this would pass, why do I need to seek for job again when I know at the end of the month a big brother is going to airdrop $2k into my account, $2k per month doing nothing
Because there will be fewer jobs to seek if large numbers of businesses go under. Think about it. If you combine the issues of companies being forced to close for a prolonged period of time, and then on top of that, some people being laid-off or "furloughed", reducing their household income and giving them less money to spend once companies can open for business once again, it's not a comfortable position for businesses to be in. |
|
|
|
I had kind of noticed the parts about some questionable deviance into being sympathetic into shitcoins and nonsense BIG blocker theories, but sometimes it is NOT clear about the various connections and maybe they do not matter too much in the whole scheme of things and if I feel that I am able to engage within the forum and share ideas, mostly about bitcoin, then I am good... Jay, I think that it would be a real eye-opener (and ultimately beneficial to Bitcoin) if you were to do a market analysis to estimate approximately where Bitcoin should be today, were it not for the fork-attacks. Bitcoin’s “honey badger” power in resisting those attacks has been phenomenal; but where would we be without those attacks? I am now arguing from a business perspective. Any reasonable prospectus on Bitcoin must disclose that Bitcoin’s biggest vulnerability is fork-attacks, also known as the trust attack. Any reasonable investor should recognize it as in his own self-interest to fight those attacks. The forked shitcoins falsely advertised as “Bitcoin” will, in and of themselves, never amount to anything in the long term; they are purely a negative, which harms the market as a whole by intentionally, fraudulently diluting the “Bitcoin” brand and financially diluting Bitcoin’s market capitalization. and reducing overall investor confidence in Bitcoin’s uniqueness. To invest exclusively in the one and only genuine Bitcoin, and to defend your investment by defending Bitcoin against dilution attacks, is a strategy perfectly matched in both principle and practicality. Would I be right in assuming it's not the existence of forkcoins you oppose, but rather just the false advertising part to sucker in new users? Because I'd argue that being opposed to forks unconditionally simply isn't practical. If people vehemently want to incorporate ideas into Bitcoin that are fundamentally incompatible with its underlying principles, do we really want them to stick around forever, still desperately trying to inflict their delusions on the Bitcoin protocol? Surely it's better to excrete such toxins? It's never " dilution" to release waste. Let them build their faulty clones and pretend it's the real thing. I'd argue it's still preferable to an alternative outcome where no forks had taken place and the toxic "blocksize debate", instead of being a footnote in the annals of history like it is now, had still raged on to this day because those people never got what they believed they wanted. The fact they still market their shitcoins as "Bitcoin" is inexcusable, but they're off doing their own thing now, leaving us to get on unopposed with our thing. |
|
|
|
not to mention that the only reason why they are going towards PoS is that they are trying to save their failing project. they know well enough that the chain can not survive long term and it will start losing price and consequently the miners. in PoW that means death of that coin. so they are acting faster to mitigate that.
Indeed. It's perverse that people are attempting to cite Ethereum as an example that could be followed, rather than an example of what to avoid at all costs. ETH painted itself into a corner and is looking for a way out. Switching algo is a subsequent act of desperation on their part. Or to put it another way, if someone stranded in the desert is forced to drink their own piss in order to stay alive, that doesn't mean drinking your own piss is an advisable course of action under normal circumstances. |
|
|
|
They'll dillute the dolladr and make it worth even less and that 2000 that people will think is a lot will kick them in the ass a rear later when they'll have to pay $20 for a pack of cigarettes.
Sure, but the simple fact is, they will spend the money. You can't have an economy if people aren't doing that. When you compare it to all the other times they've printed money, which has also diluted the value time and time again, but the economy never saw the same kind of monetary "flow" from it that this will likely bring. Money needs to circulate and it can't do that when the banks effectively just funnel QE into their silly little derivatives casino. Anything is better than that. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
