As long as you don't go quoting their prices here, we're fine... Anything other than the official Stamp price upsets the natives  At this very moment, BTC is trading on pro.coinbase.com for 9437.08. Suck it, shtamp nazis. |
|
|
|
Great pet in the future, for $74,500.  Cool. How long til the shitty battery renders it a sideshow? |
|
|
|
Jesus. Dallas County reporting 24 hour COVID19 infections over 400 people. Was 300 last week.
Very ungood.
By naw, my dear Bawb (those were both uncorrected typos), it should be evident that Nobody Fucking Knows. Your life is in your own hands. Rick's is in your collective... errmmm ... hands. Don't look to outside your cell of trusted peeps for wisdom, 'acause you ain't gonna find it there. I don' giveafuck what my governor sez - he's more clueless than am I. Despite his vaunted advisors. I'm headsdown. For as long as I think it makes sense. If they can't reach out to me, they can't infect me. ...or sump'in' |
|
|
|
...snip... The real satoshi told you what happens to minority forks ... A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me. It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in. If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version. If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version. This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.
I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.
...snip...
... The real satoshi is talking about the possibility of future chain forks here (i.e. BCH and BSV etc.,) No, the real satoshi is clearly NOT talking about the possibility of future chain forks in your quoted passage. The real satoshi is manifestly speaking to the topic of alternate client software implementations working on the same blockchain. What was it he said in the same discussion immediately preceding? Oh yes: I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.
...snip... Not so and your entirely missing the point that the real satoshi was making. BSV is the menace to the network, both the forked chain and the bastardized software implementation. No distinction, BCH included. BTC is the original Bitcoin implementation. BSV (and BCH) are no longer compatible nor in lockstep with the original Bitcoin (BTC). Craig Wright is NOT satoshi. No. In your quoted bit, Satoshi was clearly speaking of an alternate client implementation working upon the same blockchain. There is simply no other way to interpret 'all nodes getting identical results in lockstep'. If you can't see that, your [sic] a special type of stupid. Or maybe just willfully, delusionally ignorant. Yet your telling me I'm supposedly "a special type of stupid. Or maybe just willfully, delusionally ignorant.", when you think BSV is the 'original' Bitcoin. Yup. Not because we disagree on which sha256 blockchain tracing its ancestry to satoshi's genesis block is the preferred. But rather because you have some completely nonsensical interpretation of one of satoshi's utterances, and you cling to this flawed interpretation, trying to buttress some vacuous point, to which it has absolutely no relation whatsoever. So you were publicly posting on this forum about 5 quarters before me. Do you think that entitles you to some special insight? Riiiight. </s> I know who the real Satoshi Nakamoto is with 99.9% certainty.
And the answer is...? Right - what I thought. Satoshi Nakamoto is NOT Craig Wright.
Go on, prove me wrong! We are waiting and we will have the last laugh.
I have no reason to try to prove you wrong. You are utterly without effect. OTOH, I make no representations as to the identity of Satoshi. The value of a Bitcoin unhampered by an insane centrally planned production quota upon transaction throughput exists completely independent of the identity of its creator. The entire CSW drama is an irrelevant sideshow. Done here now.
Good. Every day that you do not return will make that day just that much sunnier. |
|
|
|
But "law is law" is the fundamental pillar to BSv, your opinion directly contradicts that of Faketoshi and CSW. You must realize that without Faketoshi's obnoxious claims and Ayre's bank account, there is no BSV, or are you in denial to that as well?
You really need some new go-to 'talking points'. 'Aussie man bad' and 'pedo man bad' are played out. The market is not listening to you. You have heaps and heaps of ammunition, should your tropes have any relevance at all. But they don't. As posted above: SpongeBobNobodyCares.png 'Law is law' is not relevant to BSV. Seems relevant to Craig, but again: CSW != BSV. After so much repeated evidence of this truism, you'd think you'd get it through your thick skull. But no.
The real satoshi told you what happens to minority forks ... A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me. It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in. If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version. If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version. This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.
I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.
...snip...
... The real satoshi is talking about the possibility of future chain forks here (i.e. BCH and BSV etc.,) No, the real satoshi is clearly NOT talking about the possibility of future chain forks in your quoted passage. The real satoshi is manifestly speaking to the topic of alternate client software implementations working on the same blockchain. What was it he said in the same discussion immediately preceding? Oh yes: I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.
...snip... Not so and your entirely missing the point that the real satoshi was making. No. In your quoted bit, Satoshi was clearly speaking of an alternate client implementation working upon the same blockchain. There is simply no other way to interpret 'all nodes getting identical results in lockstep'. If you can't see that, your [sic] a special type of stupid. Or maybe just willfully, delusionally ignorant. |
|
|
|
The real satoshi told you what happens to minority forks ... A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me. It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in. If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version. If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version. This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.
I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.
...snip...
... The real satoshi is talking about the possibility of future chain forks here (i.e. BCH and BSV etc.,) No, the real satoshi is clearly NOT talking about the possibility of future chain forks in your quoted passage. The real satoshi is manifestly speaking to the topic of alternate client software implementations working on the same blockchain. What was it he said in the same discussion immediately preceding? Oh yes: I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.
[emphasis added] <muttering> ...some peoples' kids... </muttering>
you still need to address his points, specifically:
Any such requirement is in your mind only. Do you believe that some court in some jurisdiction should be able to force changes to the blockchain?
'Should be able to'? As in, from a philosophical viewpoint? No, I don't. Then again, I am of the opinion that taxation is theft, but I pay what the people with guns insist I must anyhow. Or maybe you meant as a practical matter? Is an 'are jurisdictions _able_ to force changes to the blockchain'?. I don't think so, but I am not 100% positive. Bitcoin has so far exhibited a fair amount of resiliency. However, governments have created coordinated responses to other limits to their power. And all that hashrate comes with a physical manifestation with defined geographic locations. Which are therefore subject to the dictates of Men With Guns. If such Men With Guns mount a coordinated campaign against >50% of the network -- however improbable such coordination seem -- then yes. I can certainly envision the possibility that governments can force changes made to the blockchain. Any blockchain. But this state is completely independent of any mutterings Craig may make. And are true for any and all PoW blockchains. BTC included. So while you seek to vilify BSV for one person's mutterings on the topic, the utterances are completely unaffected by -- and completely without effect to -- any reality regarding the topic. |
|
|
|
Yup. Some people are born strong. Some tall. Some smart. Some rich. Life isn't fair. Tough titties. But almost everybody has some opportunity for bettering their economic condition. All I'm hearing from you is a buncha whining about how it ain't a level playing field. No shit. Two choices: 1) Whine and wallow, or; 2) Buck up and expend some effort at bettering yourself.
Now that's only true if you look at it this way. I was born tall, i was the second smallest kid in school. Nobody is born smart. Most babies are hindered to grow smart by taking over stupid believes from their trusted ones (parents, idols and others). Nobody is born rich. Whatever. What does any of that have to do with the topic of discussion -- the flawed assertion that 'todays generation of protesters' have no opportunity for economic advancement? Jack-squat, that's what. |
|
|
|
^ you underestimate the circumstances of the current generation of protesters. They have been trashed on the economic scrap pile since entering the workforce, not had jobs having a pick of vocations like the boomers.
Maybe I'm out of touch, but I really don't get this whine. Economic progress is so simple it is stupid. Create something of value that someone else is willing to pay you for. End of story. Bulls. You'll make a shit when you don't have a capital to educate yourself for beginners. It's like saying you should run and win a race if you're good enough even if you're way behind on starting point. Capitalist systems, specially the one in USA are made for rich to stay rich and poor to be their legal slaves forever. Sure, there will be one, two or 10 examples of people coming out by some strange way, but 99.99% of them will always serve their masters as they just didn't have a chance to do anything different. The rich will educate their kids ant best universities and prepare them to take over as next generation leafders and the rest will continue to eat their dust. You think some poor guy coming from poor neighborhood have a chance of coming with covid-19 vaccine, either as owner of the company or as one of lead scientists working for it and make billions/millions from that business? He has my arse. He neither has a chance to educate himself to come close to those circles or to have a capital to be an entrepreneur behind it. Nobody starts at the top. If shit needs shovelin' then make your living shoveling shit. Once you learn how to that efficiently, teach someone else how to do so as well. Employ them in the shit shovelin' business. After going through a few shit shovelers, mostly who would rather whine than actually work, you'll develop some managerial skills and money management skills. Which are transferable skills which will allow you to build a veritable shit shoveling empire. Don't shovel shit at me telling me there are no opportunities. Plenty of shit in the world needs shovelin'. Nobody starts at top my arse. Ask Trump. Or Bushs. Or Kennedys...... when you are stripped of good starting positions, good education before everything else, you can suck someone's dick. Unless you mined Bitcoin early and hodled. This world is designed to make rich richer and to transfer that to the next generation of their kids. It was always like that with kings and shit, unless it was changed by sword. But just to make another group rich and powerful, until the sword hits again. Yup. Some people are born strong. Some tall. Some smart. Some rich. Life isn't fair. Tough titties. But almost everybody has some opportunity for bettering their economic condition. All I'm hearing from you is a buncha whining about how it ain't a level playing field. No shit. Two choices: 1) Whine and wallow, or; 2) Buck up and expend some effort at bettering yourself. And to return to point where I first responded, it is not the case that there is zero opportunity for the current generation of protesters, and it is also untrue that the boomers were able to just waltz into the job of their choosing. |
|
|
|
^ you underestimate the circumstances of the current generation of protesters. They have been trashed on the economic scrap pile since entering the workforce, not had jobs having a pick of vocations like the boomers.
Maybe I'm out of touch, but I really don't get this whine. Economic progress is so simple it is stupid. Create something of value that someone else is willing to pay you for. End of story. I hear you, there is a spectrum of oppression, and I am not at all sure that any US citizen is truly oppressed and without opportunity. That said, there does come a time when pulling oneself up by ones bootstraps involves burning the lords house and seizing his lands. I get that. My issue was the with the assertion that the current generation of protesters have zero economic opportunities in front of them. And the implication that boomers could walk into any job they wanted. Pure twaddle. |
|
|
|
^ you underestimate the circumstances of the current generation of protesters. They have been trashed on the economic scrap pile since entering the workforce, not had jobs having a pick of vocations like the boomers.
Maybe I'm out of touch, but I really don't get this whine. Economic progress is so simple it is stupid. Create something of value that someone else is willing to pay you for. End of story. Bulls. You'll make a shit when you don't have a capital to educate yourself for beginners. It's like saying you should run and win a race if you're good enough even if you're way behind on starting point. Capitalist systems, specially the one in USA are made for rich to stay rich and poor to be their legal slaves forever. Sure, there will be one, two or 10 examples of people coming out by some strange way, but 99.99% of them will always serve their masters as they just didn't have a chance to do anything different. The rich will educate their kids ant best universities and prepare them to take over as next generation leafders and the rest will continue to eat their dust. You think some poor guy coming from poor neighborhood have a chance of coming with covid-19 vaccine, either as owner of the company or as one of lead scientists working for it and make billions/millions from that business? He has my arse. He neither has a chance to educate himself to come close to those circles or to have a capital to be an entrepreneur behind it. Nobody starts at the top. If shit needs shovelin' then make your living shoveling shit. Once you learn how to that efficiently, teach someone else how to do so as well. Employ them in the shit shovelin' business. After going through a few shit shovelers, mostly who would rather whine than actually work, you'll develop some managerial skills and money management skills. Which are transferable skills which will allow you to build a veritable shit shoveling empire. Don't shovel shit at me telling me there are no opportunities. Plenty of shit in the world needs shovelin'. |
|
|
|
^ you underestimate the circumstances of the current generation of protesters. They have been trashed on the economic scrap pile since entering the workforce, not had jobs having a pick of vocations like the boomers.
Maybe I'm out of touch, but I really don't get this whine. Economic progress is so simple it is stupid. Create something of value that someone else is willing to pay you for. End of story. |
|
|
|
Well, that's amusing and all, but this does not concern BSV. The blockchain discussed in your quoted tweets is BTC. Accordingly, you are off-topic in this thread. What bullet? Another shitshow centered around CSW, and BSV's 24-hr price activity is better than BTC's. SpongeBobNobodyCares.png |
|
|
|
According to what I've seen, Zhan burst into the office with a couple dozen mercs, took it over, and offered bonuses to any employee that would support him. <comic sans> so drama </comic sans> It is not like Zhan does not have a rightful claim to Bitmain's business, as far as I recall of some of the background facts.. and even chinese law likely would support him in that regard, perhaps. Yeah. I've not been interested enough in the drama to try to tease out the validity of the contested claims. From this distance, it appears a proper shitshow. You'd think the gov would have some way of resolving the conflict, but they don't seem interested. Each of Jihan and Micree seem to be able to seize the reins for a turn, and the powers just let them duke it out. So it looks like chinese law is yet to open their metaphorical mouth to speak on the issue. odd. |
|
|
|
According to what I've seen, Zhan burst into the office with a couple dozen mercs, took it over, and offered bonuses to any employee that would support him. <comic sans> so drama </comic sans> |
|
|
|
Since COVID market crash: BTC +24% BSV -4% Your point being ? Well, my main point is that the value of a Bitcoin that is not intentionally crippled by a centrally-planned production quota upon transaction volume will be made apparent when increasing usage makes clear the folly of such a limitation. I don't know how that got lost, but you nattering nabobs seem to keep missing it. My secondary point is actually coindesk's point. To wit: While bitcoin has outperformed gold and the S&P 500 index in 2020, data shows even better returns among leading bitcoin “fork” cryptocurrencies. - https://www.coindesk.com/returns-for-bitcoins-forks-have-trounced-bitcoin-this-yearIf you have a problem with that point, I suggest you argue against them.
"Aussie Man Bad!" (paraphrased)
Meanwhile, a cabal of early miners has conspired to drive 145 last nails in CSW's coffin. And the price of BSV remains about the same. One would think you all would learn that BSV != CSW. |
|
|
|
Has anyone had issues with their Trezor?
Whats the best place to go to get fast customer service?
Well, I'm not a trezor-er, but I think my first course of action would be to load my seed into another BIP44 wallet. |
|
|
|
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. ...Wright...
...CSW...
Meanwhile: While bitcoin has outperformed gold and the S&P 500 index in 2020, data shows even better returns among leading bitcoin “fork” cryptocurrencies. - https://www.coindesk.com/returns-for-bitcoins-forks-have-trounced-bitcoin-this-yearOh - that's actually merely an event. Brimming with averagosity. Well, here's an idea: Some day, you will learn that a blockchain which is unhampered by a centrally-planned production quota on transactions has a value independent of whatever other characters also see value in such an innovation.
|
|
|
|
You know what I find curious? The fact that someone could hate a voluntary inanimate system with such inflamed passion that one invests a significant percentage of waking hours trying to tear that system down, rather than just ignoring it entirely. But that's neither here nor there. Let's move on to your irrelevant bloviating... Some day, you will learn that a blockchain which is unhampered by a centrally-planned production quota on transactions has a value independent of whatever other characters also see value in such an innovation.
Pretty much every part of this sentence is untrue, or at best incorrect. sez you. Let's tally. - Bitcoin's block size cap is the result of consensus among the Bitcoin network and is not "centrally-planned."
Har. I guess that's kind of defensible. In the same sense that the FED's recent orgy of money printer go brr is the result of the consensus of the American people, the consensus of the heads of America's trading partners, and the consensus of all the humans living within those countries. And to the same extent that such money printer go brr activity is not centrally planned. If that qualifies as 'consensus' and 'not centrally-planned' to you, then have at it. We have an alternate consensus. What are you gonna do? Round us up and gas us? - This limits the "production quota on transactions" only when talking about on-chain transactions.
Did I claim anything to the contrary? No. I did not. This is significant enough to be seen by me and others as A Big Problem. - The value of anything is determined by those who value it. It is an opinion which requires human beings to formulate and does not exist on its own accord.
Did I claim anything to the contrary? No. I did not. Again, my thesis is that the value of the lack of a centrally-planned production quota upon transactions will become widely apparent when Blockalypse II is upon us. Your thesis can differ, and it affects me not in the least. Waaah. Conclude whatever you want about the value of huge blocks which have centralized your coin down to a relative handful of nodes -- I don't really care. What you don't get to pretend (without ridicule) is that BSV is in any shape or form the manifestation of "Satoshi's vision."
Ha. Neither do you about BTC. We each can point to evidence in Satoshi's writings that buttress our respective arguments. So what's your residual point? Do you even have one? Other than 'Aussie Man Bad'? Oh yeah - I forgot: 'Pedo Man Bad'. What else ya got? The Faketoshi Factor is still heavily priced in... I expect it to gradually fade away and put the fair market value of BSV at somewhere between $30 - $40 a coin. It may be years before it sinks this low, however, especially if BTC starts to take off and brings along the altcoin market with it (as it is wont to do). May 20th, 2019: price of BSV is $61.70 May 21st, 2019: Craig registers copyright for Bitcoin white paper, price goes up 20% May 29th, 2019: China " fake news tweet" says Wright transferred 50,000 BTC to Binance June 25th, 2019: BSV reaches local high of $242 August 27th, 2019: Judge Reinhart rules against Wright, orders payment of 500,000 BTC to Kleiman estate September 19th, 2019: Wright and Kleiman enter settlement discussions December 19th, 2019: BSV reaches local low of $80 January 11th, 2020: Judge Bloom drops sanctions on Wright, gives him more time to receive documents from bonded courier January 15th, 2020: BSV reaches local high of $343 Then pretty much every noticeable move since then has been tied to coronavirus economic fallout. You still don't get it. A myopic focus upon today's current price is not what we see as valuable about this system. But hey - you do you. Meanwhile, some cabal of early miners have put 145 last nails in CSW's coffin, and the BSV price is essentially unaffected. Sux to be U. |
|
|
|
Maybe it would happen. Alternatively, Fed will go full MMT, which would be good for btc &gold, I assume.
Thinking of buying a bit of physical-never did before. Worth it?
I dunno. People look at the gold/silver dollar ratio, and figure it's gotta revert to the mean at some point. That would be very bullish for silver. An alternate thesis is that silver is losing its status as a monetary asset. If so, it'll keep dropping in price until it reaches its industrial-use-only price level. I've got some silver. I'm not looking to buy more ATM. Though if I didn't have a stash of junk silver (e.g., pre-1964 US quarters, dimes, etc.). I'd be looking for a standard bag of that for use as TEOTWAWKI currency. |
|
|
|
Quite frankly, if you still support BSV after all these blatant lies, you need to have a serious talk with yourself.
Get some fucking help asap.
Some day, you will learn that a blockchain which is unhampered by a centrally-planned production quota on transactions has a value independent of whatever other characters also see value in such an innovation. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
