I mean I went to read it until I realized it was written by Tyler Durden, the author needs to grow the fuck up and quit using story characters and fucking write under his name.
On the internet, nobody knows you're not Tyler Durden. IHaveNoIdeaWhatI'mDoing.png |
|
|
|
people in Asia look up to Jack Ma like he was born out of some orgy of Warren Buffet, Steve jobs, Confucius and buddah.
Hmm. 'Twould 'splain the twisted phenotype. |
|
|
|
Well that's a nice surprise now isn't it, more transactions has never been a bad thing.
Well, I hate to be ... that guy, but a doubling of txs from here, and we've hit blockapocalypse again. |
|
|
|
And yet, somehow comforting. |
|
|
|
Hmm. I'm guessing not the same Izabella Kaminska. I see no mention of FT on the page. Though I may have lingered longer than necessary in order to form such a hypothesis. |
|
|
|
I think a few of the oldtimers on this thread are shorting on the low, and this new bull market is freaking them out. (I am not referring to you Infofront).
Credibility points deducted for obvious pandering. |
|
|
|
Not immutable anymore
Conspiracy theory numero san: The hack was performed by butthurt diehard ethheads, who have gotten tired of being (rightfully) dragged behind the woodshed for the manner in which they enthusiastically abandoned the entire 'code is law' premise upon which their sand castle was built. |
|
|
|
Eh cut em some slack. If it’s a screenshot from Twitter, it’s a fair assumption that he’s not the one who made that week.
Every time he does it one of my pet earwigs dies. The latest one was little Hughie who passed away in my arms. I cringe every time he posts just in case the worst happens. And I think, it's gonna be all right. Yes, the worst is over now. The morning sun is shining like a Red Rubber Ball. You're welcome. |
|
|
|
That reminds me of one of my roommates and best friends in college. He was an average looking guy who women flocked to. We could walk into a bar and beautiful girls would buy him drinks. He had that X factor - even more than charisma, like some kind of invisible aura.
Maybe it was a pheromones thing? Haha. Right now I am sipping martinis at the SNA lounge, waiting upon my return flight. I was out here for a biz conference. At an adjacent room was a meeting of a geographically distributed company built upon the premise that what would make a dating app successful is to match his'n'hers pheromone profiles based upon cheek swab DNA tests. I don't know whether to marvel at their ingenuity, or be sad for their 'clients', whose data is surely destined to be sold to the highest bidder at some point. I thought to myself, 'only in the valley'. And then I remember it's not San Jose this week. Oh well. |
|
|
|
[edited out]
......I have repeatedly indicated that the chance seems unlikely, but there is no proof per se that CSW is not satoshi. Given the evidence we have at this time, that would be tantamount to disproving a negative. That ain't how logic works. Your statement here, jbreher, borders on crazytalk. There is absolutely no burden for anyone to prove that CSW is NOT Satoshi. Never said there was. If you want to claim that it is FACT, however, you should be prepared to back that claim up with solid evidence. Some would say that CSW's falsified evidence is proof of non-satoshi. I say it is merely evidence supporting such a conclusion. I can think of at least one strong reason why satoshi would like to sow doubt about his existence. So, no. Neither postulate has been proven. The burden is 100% (or at least fucking close to 100%) upon CSW to prove that he is satoshi, if that is what he intends to claim (or continue to claim).
I do not disagree with you here. Furthermore, decent and reasonable means of attempting proof through signing of a known satoshi block have been outlined many times, and CSW fails and/or refuses to even attempt the most reasonable acceptable means to accomplish such identification verification.
Do you think he would not have known without such an outline? CSW seems to have a puzzling grasp of things about Bitcoin that he knows, and other things that he thinks he knows but seem to be false anyhow. However, I'm pretty certain he was always aware of the possibility of signing something with one of satoshi's strongly conjecturable keys to be pretty damned solid evidence for the claim. |
|
|
|
I care as much about that trust thing as I do about the merit system. Which I use sorta like a "like" buttom and it made me hero and stuff, but other than that is just a feature of the forum which is even more meaningless to me than a %1 volatility of Bitcoin which is what I really care about.
[like] |
|
|
|
No. Actually most of us (try to!) ignore him. For us this thread is only 47 pages long too.
Kinda takes the air out of the sails for page count parity, though. |
|
|
|
(Cue smugness from jbreher in 3... 2... )
::**smugness intensifies**:: XD |
|
|
|
I don't see how ShapeShift laying off could be interpreted as bullish. Kind of predictable, given the recent market action. And hardly unique, in the space. OTOH, Erik's letter strikes me as a very well-written assessment of the situation, and seems to successfully strike an optimistic tone. It should serve to lessen the sting of those let go, and beneficial for ongoing staffing needs. |
|
|
|
Conspiracy theory number B: This attack was actually perpetrated by someone aligned with that Proof of Proof initiative that LotV8s posted a few pages back. |
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/peterktodd/status/1082594754376990720Very interesting possibility: the supposed ETC reorg attack might not have actually happened (and could happen on ETH). Big dangers in how so few people actually run nodes on ETH: easy to find critical nodes and Sybil them, and little independent evidence of WTF happened. was an eclipse attack, really - see thread jbreher, please educate Peter Todd on why nodes don't matter. Thanks If Todd wants to engage on the topic, I'm game. Are you asserting that Todd is asserting that mining power is not what caused the recent ETC rollback attacks? That would be a short discussion. Ultimately unsatisfying. |
|
|
|
Or he could try sending a message to Trisolaris. Duck! Sophon incoming! |
|
|
|
BSV is mostly aimed at being an exact copy of Bitcoin 0.1, hoping that hardware improvements and increased investments will make up for the sub-optimal code.
Close but no cigar. Don't confuse the protocol with the code. They are two different things. BSV mostly seeks to implement the 0.1 protocol. With better code than years past. Indeed, there is no other way the network could choke down a 65MB block, what with Core's (built of course upon the original satoshi) client's crappy multitasking architecture. Maybe core tried some multitasking stuff, but never haerd about multithreading - Raspis just dont... To the limit of my knowledge, core never addressed the crappy multitasking architecture in any manner. Rather than -- you know -- working on the issues that limit the ability of HW to handle a vastly increased number of txs, they spent their time creating a mechanism to render Bitcoin onchain txs virtually irrelevant. |
|
|
|
One example by picking a random date: Beecoin Crash at 0.072. Might be a good trade
My standing orders have been getting hit.  What exactly do you think you are demonstrating here? |
|
|
|
jbreher, want me to dig up the quotes where you said CSW's (empty) threat letter to Ver was rational,
Do what you want. I don't much give a damn. The statements I have made publicly are available for all, should they be interested to look. I have not deleted them or anything. Whatever I may have posted is an accurate depiction of my thoughts at the time. I don't recall any statement that CSW's letter to Ver was -- as you say -- rational, though I may have. So what? or how you said there's a chance he's Satoshi? Specifically you said you don't know he's _not_ Satoshi.
What of it? Well, I know. Pretty much everybody does who is not completely delusional about BSV.
No, you do not. You have made a conclusion based upon available evidence. I have repeatedly indicated that the chance seems unlikely, but there is no proof per se that CSW is not satoshi. Given the evidence we have at this time, that would be tantamount to disproving a negative. That ain't how logic works. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
