Bitcoin Forum > Bitcoin > Development & Technical Discussion (Moderators: gmaxwell, achow101) > High transaction fees
https://archive.is/zIioX#selection-267.3-489.175

This blatant Bcash shilling is off-topic in Development & Technical discussion.  I am reporting it to the moderator with the suggestion that it be moved to a more appropriate dumpster fire.  Please at least keep your stupid trolling on-topic in the future.  Thanks.

P.S.,


Please don’t buy Bitcoin.  Bitcoin does not need you and your drug purchases.  Go away.

Intelligent people know that Bitcoin’s base layer competes with wire transfers, not Visa, and use it accordingly.  They probably have more money than you do, so Bitcoin will get along just fine without you.

Bitcoin as Global Truth

I should expand on something that I said earlier:


The phrase “global truth” was not intended as an ideological statement.  A monetary system perforce requires that if Alice makes two transactions doubly-spending the same coin to Bob and to Charlie, then there must emerge a single global truth about who gets the money.  Otherwise, the money is worthless:  Who wants money that 99.9% of people believe you have, and 0.1% of people believe really belongs to someone else?

A useful lay definition:  The Bitcoin consensus is a single global truth of who has what money at each point in time.  The truth must be absolutist, with zero tolerance for any deviations:  Either Bob has the coin, or Charlie has the coin—either-or, with no room for any disagreement.

Bitcoin achieves a single, global, unanimous Consensus of absolute Truth, even in the face of Byzantine faults—although it does so probabilistically.  In the above example, as the number of confirmations of the winning transaction increases, the probability approaches 1 that absolutely 100% of honest nodes will reach the same conclusion about who has the coin—either Bob, or Charlie.  And each additional confirmation exponentially increases the security of this automagical unanimous agreement.  Satoshi knew this; see §11 of the Bitcoin whitepaper.

In the context of Bitcoin, that is the meaning of “consensus”.  And...


Bitcoin reaches this Truth with no central authority:  Nobody in the world has an override button for ruling in favour of Charlie over Bob, or vice versa.

---

Much mischief is done by the ambiguity of overloaded words.  Another example is “entropy”.  The word “entropy” has multiple distinct technical meanings in multiple fields, and multiple distinct meanings within the fields related to cryptography; if you confuse different types of “entropy”, then you will break your random number generator.

You understand the distinction here, but I think I really need to drive the point home for the public benefit:

In the context of Bitcoin, “consensus” is not how people agree to the rules, but how nodes agree on a global state based on the rules that everyone already agreed to.  This is not simply my opinion:  It is the meaning of the word “consensus” in the context of distributed systems architecture.

Compare and contrast the problem formulation in this excellent paper:


The words “servers” and “clients” must be adapted to the context of a P2P network.  The portions highlighted in pink do not apply to Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is designed on the Byzantine model.  Also, it arguably does not guarantee progress.


Indeed.


Good idea.

---

Quote from: Metal Brain on April 22, 2021, 01:17:58 PM

A previous poster on here said the NSA created the backbone of the bitcoin network with backdoor vulnerabilities. Perhaps they don't need to go through the expense of a 51% attack. They can pull the plug whenever they want. Heck, the establishment probably created it and own most of the bitcoin and are just doing a big pump and dump scheme.

Are you sure that “a previous poster” isn’t you? 

You created your account after that “previous poster’s” first crap on this thread had been ignored for almost two days.  You bumped it, then started spreading more crap in the guise of asking questions.  You have only posted on this thread.  Now, you are not-so-subtly calling attention to utter crap from “a previous poster”—and in the same breath, you have overtly started to parrot the “previous poster’s” party line.  I think that I can call this one.

---

Quote from: DooMAD on April 20, 2021, 11:52:25 AM

Quote from: pooya87 on April 20, 2021, 06:09:11 AM

Quote from: btc-room101 on April 18, 2021, 12:20:37 PM

of course NSA could crack this stuff all along.

Any proof or is it just the tinfoil hat talking?

Pretty sure that applies to every post this user has ever made.  I don't think I've ever witnessed them utter a word of sense in all 294 posts.

Pretty sure he’s trolling.  Like posting a comment about Microsoft Linux on Slashdot in 1999, and waiting for a dozen people to correct that in gruesome detail.

Or on second thought, he looks like a scammer...

<edit>

I should have checked his trust page before I wrote all of this (instead of afterwards, when I went to tag him).

Quote from: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2038954

Trust summary for btc-room101

This user recently woke up from a long period of inactivity.

Trusted feedback

gmaxwell

2018-11-25

Gibberish about key cracking appears to be bait for privately distributed malware. Do not run programs from this person.

</edit>

Anyway, he predicted that SHA-256 would be broken by 2020; so take his nonsense for what it’s worth.  🗑️

Quote from: btc-room101 on April 18, 2021, 12:20:37 PM

quantum-computers are way off, but 2^256 will be cracked soon with off the shelf hw.

Quote from: btc-room101 on April 22, 2021, 07:46:34 AM

The so called block-chain, is just what we call a linked-list in computer science, 70 year old tech nowadays.

Yup, grade F transparent troll.  Yawn.  He may have better luck spreading rumours that nullius works for the NSA.

(From my desk in Fort Meade.)

Thanks for the detailed explanation.  Such attentiveness to archival integrity is encouraging, as is your willingness to answer such questions with data.


Well, it seems that Jeffy-boy can’t afford a good computer.  I think that if he likes to eat, he will soon need to make his little shop accept Bitcoin. 

---

Diverging from my prior question, and not thereto relevant—whilst I am on this topic, I have a general suggestion that will surprise nobody.

Cryptographic timestamps would not assure the completeness of your archive, and would not guarantee the authenticity of archived posts.  However, that would assure that items in your archive are not modified after you first store them—not by you, and not by any malicious hackers who may potentially compromise your server.

It is quite feasible!  Peter Todd, the creator of OpenTimestamps, timestamped the whole Internet Archive (!) without expending too many resources:


But beware the evidentiary limitations.  The article briefly explains what OTS can and cannot prove; Peter Todd’s original announcement of OTS explains better.

Awww, rewriting it with a different frontend framework.  That is a classic!  It is almost as good as a total rewrite in a more fashionable language.  If I were to develop the new forum software, I would write it in C; then, I would realize that C is not Cool, and I would rewrite the whole thing in Rust!

That has been my suspicion about Epochtalk for years—since before I even had an account here:  It is intentional.

For you see, intentionally incompetent bespoke software development is often a cover for money laundering.  If you know a guy who knows a guy, there are guys who do this service to small business owners who want to save on taxes; and I reasonably suspect that a large proportion of Daily WTF-tier enterprise software consulting is graft, a conduit for senior executives to divert shareholder equity.  Come to think of it, I suppose that the same scheme would work for money raised with donations.

If done properly, the scheme is bulletproof.  An incompetent developer can never feign adequacy; whereas a talented developer can easily write poorly designed, bug-ridden, unmaintainable code that languishes in Development Hell for eternity.  To an auditor, the latter is indistinguishable from the former.

To be prepared in case of an audit, they guys offering these services do develop something plausible.  They meticulously maintain source repos of unmaintainable horror-code.  They deliver demos, alphas, and betas (but never a finished product).  And even in case of closed-source projects (which are the norm), they have no qualms about showing all of this to any investigator who may ask; if necessary, that is a part of the service.

The business can write all this off as an expense.  It can be an astoundingly large expense, because—well, have you ever seen what software consultants charge!?  Meanwhile, after the “developer” takes his cut, the money somehow finds its way into an offshore bank account.  It helps if the “developer” either is located in a foreign jurisdiction, or has such global connections as may facilitate running up his own “expenses” and “obligations” to make overseas remittances.

In case of diverting funds for graft, such complexity is, of course, unnecessary.  Taxes can even be paid, to avoid the high risk of being “Al Caponed”.  It is all so much easier, if the objective is simply to pilfer from shareholders (or donors) whilst feigning “transparency”.

I hate to mention all of this, because it is unethical to broach such speculation in public.  If my longtime suspicions about Epochtalk are correct, then unless someone is being scammed, I should mind my own business!  And if I am wrong—if this is a crazy conspiracy theory, like the notion that NFTs are 90% cover for money laundering and graft—then I risk drawing the Eye of Sauron to innocent people who are not doing anything illegal.  Rumours, gossip, reputational damage, police harassment, tax audits, unjust prosecutions—so many are the ills which may thus be caused.  To flap one’s lips on the Internet about this stuff is a lose-lose proposition.


Well, whatever—for the record, my longtime suspicion is the reason, and the only reason why I have never criticized the New Forum Vapourware.  I hate stupidity!  But I always chuckled at Epochtalk:  Wow, LOL, thermos has a good thing going there.  (That was my reaction because until a few days ago, I didn’t realize that the new forum software was funded by donors’ money; I presumed that it was paid for with the proceeds of a privately held business which auctions ads, and has other sources of revenue.)  Terrific amounts of BTC have been “dissipated”; and nobody can prove that it is not all a matter of

---

[ANN] Nulltalk, the new new forum software

Quote from: AdolfinWolf on March 30, 2021, 08:00:26 PM

Everything on this forum makes me rage nowadays

Me, too.  Let’s do something constructive about it.

I propose that I myself should indeed write the new new forum software.  As aforesaid, I will write it in C, then rewrite it in Rust; if I need to take more time, then along the way, I may also rewrite the code in Java, C#, Go, Javascript, Python, C++ with Boost, C++ without Boost, COBOL, MUMPS, Solidity, Visual BASIC, LISP, FORTRAN, and/or Brainfuck.  I don’t know many of these languages; thus, the schedule slippage will be spectacular as I spend time learning.  My proposed schedule is to deliver a feature-incomplete pre-alpha demo by the 2028 Halving, a beta before BIP 42 becomes economically relevant, and the official 1.0 release before the heat death of the universe—maybe.  I’m so slick!

The project is called Nulltalk, because its distinguishing innovation shall be that it autobans all users, and stores all posts in the /dev/null NoSQL database.  Thus, there shall be no talk.  Silence!  Hey—if John Cage could sell records this way, why can’t I build a forum that forbids all discussion?  Also, I shall integrate the zero-dimensional graph-theoretic /dev/null NoSQL cloud database with Blockchain, because Blockchain has maximal synergies with buzzwords in Enterprise NoSQL Cloud Blockchain.

AdolfinWolf, perhaps you should apply to join my team.  You shall write (then rewrite) a feature that battles the silence with noise:  Your module shall create new users and new posts from /dev/random, and my module shall commit them to /dev/null.  I will then use a pomo text generator to write a paper about the transgressive metaphysical singularity of a forum that, given infinite time, shall create and destroy all possible posts by all possible users, and the social subtext of Nulltalk’s design as an implicit hypostatic critique of the paradigmatic institutional framework of dominance and submission that gives rise to the dialectic of cyberbullying (ah, cyberbullying: do it for the grievance studies lulz!).

This is art!

Anyone who is interested in donating to my new new forum project should contact me privately.  

Tolerance for plagiarism is a deterrent against constructive contributions by people who are capable of making them; it is poison to the lifesblood of any site that derives its value from “user-generated content”.

I am currently left to draw my own inferences.  In prior discussions, I have seen it said that the administration avoids letting the plagiarism rule be used as a weapon in personal disputes; and in another thread, some idiot is accusing me of that.  As a precaution, I must therefore ask what the reaction would be if I were to make a report as follows:


If the hypothetical Newbie were to cry the cliché, “We had the same thoughts!”, then—well, if that were to be accepted, then this thread should be locked as a waste of time.  Anyone can use that excuse.  Many do.  In the future, not-so-hypothetical Newbies may take the handling of my complaint as a precedent.

As is clear from the above, I would have reported any user for this; and my report was motivated by my dislike for being ripped off.  If anyone assumes that I made report because nutildah did it, such is a reflection of that person’s thought process—not mine.  It only adds insult to injury that I have a long-running dispute with the other user, who must wish to avoid acknowledging me for a post that he evidently saw and imitated.

Da, according to Pravda Ratimova, airfinex is sick с вялотекущей шизофренией.  He should be sent to the yellow house for his own good, and to protect others from this contagious mental disease. 

In other news:  The new Five-Year Plan is ahead of schedule.  All Russian people are happy and prosperous.  Ratimov did no plagiarism.

---

Zeroth of all, that is nonsense—in itself, a false accusation by you against my motives.  If nutildah’s name is removed from my plagiarism report, it is clear that I would have reported anybody for the same post.  What you are saying is, in substantial effect, that I am not allowed to report someone who wrongs me because I have a dispute with him (!).

Furthermore, you compare this:

• My somewhat grudging, qualification-wrapped not-so-much-of-a-defence of a person who promptly admitted wrongdoing, when she was caught with six-year-old copy-pastes and no further evidence of malicious intent.  In my judgment, it weighed heavily in her favour that Lauda thanked the anonymous user who reported her, instead of attacking him.
  
  
  Quote from: Lauda on May 21, 2020, 11:55:42 AM
  Quote from: bitcoinchan on May 20, 2020, 08:25:18 PM

  Username: Lauda
  Profile link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872
  

  Thank you for reporting these.
  
  
  Quote from: nullius on May 23, 2020, 12:58:54 AM
  I was about ready to dine on feline fillet; and I grilled Lauda about this in private.
  
  For the record, if Lauda had not so fast and graciously come clean about this, I would have disowned and disavowed her.  Whereas in private discussions, she was even angrier at herself than I was at her; and I could not very well condemn her, when she was contemplating whether or not to commit forum seppuku and request a self-ban.
  
  
  Quote from: nullius on December 09, 2020, 04:37:02 AM
  🌸🌸🌸🀥🌸🌸🌸
  the way of the warrior
  if your friend self-eviscerates
  beheading is friendship
  
  Base image source: The Gist of Japan: The Islands, Their People, And Missions, Rev. R. B. Peery, A.M., Ph.D. (1897), p. 85,
  via Wikimedia Commons.

...to this:

• A user who blatantly ripped off one of my own posts—to whom I reasonably impute a malicious motive of a desire to avoid acknowledging me—who responded to my accusation with a “deny, deny, deny!” strategy, plus profanity-laden personal attacks and playing the victim:
  
  https://archive.is/6tBvd#selection-6085.0-6085.24
  
  Quote from: nutildah on April 02, 2021, 12:41:54 AM
  go fuck yourself nullius
  
  https://archive.is/HSV6y#selection-5209.0-5209.18
  
  Quote from: nutildah on April 05, 2021, 12:20:05 AM
  Stop harassing me.
  
  https://archive.is/HSV6y#selection-6301.0-6301.28
  
  Quote from: nutildah on April 05, 2021, 01:50:39 AM
  have a great day fuckwadius.
  
  [...etc., ad maximam nauseam...]

Perhaps I should have used an anonymous alt to report it?  Ah, yes:  You would insult and dismiss that as a “fake newbie”. 

---

If I do say so myself, this hereby topic is the very wisest thread that has ever been opened on this forum—nay, on the whole Internet!  To uphold that standard, I shall conclude this post with more wise words:

Voluntary goodness is a motive that drives only the best people, and not the average type.  Not everyone is of such a personal constitution that he can “be his own authority”.  Hence, rules and laws are necessary.  Just for instance, the law against stealing:  It was not made for those who are honest on principle, but for weak and unstable opportunists.  Such rules and laws are meant to hinder the wrongdoer through the deterrent prospect of punishment, and thus to prevent a situation in which the honest man is deemed stupid; that state of affairs would end in the belief that it is better to partake in the robbery than to stand by with empty hands—or worse, to allow oneself to be robbed.

Thanks for the response, mprep.  I think that reasonably preserves the DIY ethos of the self-mod feature, whilst preventing net-abuse tactics from being deployed against people who don’t actually have administrative tools to respond to that.  I will be guided accordingly.

The below-quoted post is an instance of nutildah telling a clear-cut, easily provable lie couched in the form of a rhetorical question, and using that lie to smear my reputation.

The post is missing from Loyce.Club:  Archive of Loyce.Club 404 error, archive of Loyce.Club topic list which does not show this post.  The post is available from Ninjastic.Space (archive of Ninjastic archive of post; archive of Ninjastic archive of the topic).  I have not (yet?) collated the list with other available records to ascertain if any other posts are missing.


For the record:  I did not delete any of ibminer’s posts from that topic.  I was manually fending off an apparent spambot attack by suchmoon, who reposted identical content 21 times within 2 hours; she sometimes reposted within seconds after I deleted it, so I rather doubt that that was done manually.  In another topic that nutildah follows, I was contemporaneously counting deletions.  The count of identical posts can be easily verified in the Ninjastic topic archive:  Ctrl-F for the phrase, "Awww, nullius has been triggered" (my browser says “1 of 21 matches”).  nutildah posted the above right after suchmoon stopped using spammer tactics to attempt forcing her post; either nutildah must have been high as a kite to make the above accusation, or he must have been intentionally lying.  Of course, I myself deleted nutildah’s post; but I never want for such evidence to be memory-holed.

Now, I must ask:  What happened to post ID 56749635 in the Loyce.Club archive?  Was it eaten by a bug, or was that post intentionally excluded for some reason?  —If this is a bug, how many other posts may be affected?

Either way, it is an important question.  Many forum users rely on the Loyce.Club archive for evidence of facts in controversy.

---

Aside:  When I use self-mod powers to delete posts, I habitually save quotes of them.  If you play stupid games, then you will win stupid prizes.

Edit:  Archive of this post.

It would be fun to see suchmoon’s reaction, if she ever learns the hard way that I am not a kindly, forgiving kitty-cat... nah.  

---

Why don’t you ask that question of suchmoon, who started a whole topic devoted to calling me “a cunt”, and of nutty and Dire Dog bin Kalb, who eagerly participated?  You may also ask sirazimuth why he is eager to sniff my farts.  

For my part, I am simply staying on-topic.  Is it not a Forum Virtue™ to stay on-topic?  

Quote from original, unedited OP, with original topic title:  Reeeeeeeeee: nullius is a cunt





[...]

---

If you wish to criticize, then you really should read the thread.  I said above:

---

This thread is returning to its natural course:  A reflection of suchmoon’s true character as an obscene little troll.  She tried to humiliate me with a filthy smear attack, and it has backfired.  So, where the fuck is my old friend, The-None-Above-All?  That lazy nobody.  Fucking cunt.

I request guidance on what to do if a user repeatedly reposts deleted content in self-moderated threads—especially if the user reacts to self-mod deletions at a speed which raises reasonable suspicions that the user deployed a spambot to defeat self-mod.

I do not like to run to staff for help with this.  The whole point of the self-moderation feature is that topic starters are supposed to handle these problems on their own:  Anarchy, self-help, etc.  However, the abuse-handling tools for self-mod are quite limited compared to the tools available to staff.  Moreover, a self-mod topic starter cannot sit on top of a topic 24/7 to control abusive behaviour.

N.b. that this is a persistent problem.  The same user has repeatedly defied my self-mod rules before, and created a Reputation topic devoted to calling me “a cunt” because I banned her from my topics (!).  I never complained in Meta before, because it was not a Meta issue; I just dealt with it.  Whereas the user is obsessed with forcing her way into my self-mod topics; her escalating, seriously abusive behaviour motivates my question now.

On the flipside, I am asking because I admit:  I am a little bit evil.  Well, more than a little bit.  If this behaviour is fully consistent with the forum rules, and if I am assured it will not cause any reaction from staff, then I may be tempted to obtain my own spambot, and hammer the hell out of “very self such moderated” threads habitually started by the user who did this.  Yes, that user is a hypocrite who deserves a taste of her own medicine...  Anarchy, self-help, etc.  Of course, I would not engage in such grossly abusive behaviour if it is against the forum rules! 

The below quote illustrates the problem, but only partly.  The user rapidly reposted identical content 21 times; she only stopped after I started publicly counting the deletions in another thread.  If deletion had been done by staff, that would surely result in at least a temp-ban—regardless of whether the user disagreed with the deletion.  The reasonableness of the deletion is irrelevant to the abusive behaviour.

Observe the timestamps; they do not reflect my own relatively slow speed in manually responding to reposts.  I could only catch a few of these fast, by sitting there and repeatedly reloading the page; who has time for that?  Staff and administrators should have access to the corresponding deletion logs which show when each post was deleted.

Please advise of whether I should report this type of abuse, and how—or should I handle this on my own, whatever that may involve?

Thanks.

For the record, because another banned user made a false accusation against me here:  I have not deleted any of ibminer’s posts on this thread.

Another user, who is categorically banned from my self-moderated threads, made almost two dozen identical posts in a very short time.  I suspect that she must have been using a spambot, since the deleted post was sometimes re-posted within seconds after I deleted it.

That is off-topic here.  Do not attempt derailing the thread with it.  I will reply to ibminer’s latest twisted nonsense if or when I have time for such things.  Suffice it for now to say, it is nonsense—just a slightly different twist on what has been rehashed already.

My reply to OgNasty is below.  First, apropos the topic of this thread, I should file this here for reference:




Of course, this provided another banned user the opportunity to lie about the posts that I deleted:

Quote from: nutildah on April 10, 2021, 04:24:59 AM

Nullius - you deleted 23 of ibminers posts? (I know the last 2 are mine).

You've decided to turn right into cryptohunter, apparently.

Your first posts on the forum provided an injection of knowledge relevant to the main subjects of the forum, but then you became completely obsessed with starting witch hunts against everybody who had crossed you in the past.

What happened?

---

Quote from: OgNasty on April 10, 2021, 12:40:40 AM

Quote from: nullius on November 26, 2020, 01:26:14 AM

I review these things from time to time.  Upon review, OgNasty is provisionally removed from the ban list.

Cool.  I didn't know this list existed but it's nice to be let out of time out.  If you'd remove your trust rating pointing to a bunch of incorrect information posted to make it seem like I lost 2000 BTC in user funds when not a single user involved stated they lost so much as a satoshi, that'd be nice.  Thanks.

I will reply at some length, because I actually take this stuff seriously.  After the ponderous first paragraph, it gets—interesting; please bear with me here:

Upon a brief review, including a review of positive and negative feedback you have received from various persons in my trust network, I am provisionally neutralizing the “scammer” tag; my reasoning to keep a tag is similar to V8s’ neutral tag.  My reference link for negative feedback was made by someone whom I have come to distrust; and to assure that evidence was presented fairly, I don’t have time to review judiciously all the years of flamewars evidence, counter-evidence, and argumentation spread across hundreds—perhaps thousands of pages on dozens—perhaps hundreds of threads, none of which saw my contemporaneous involvement.  Thus although in due candor, I must note that I personally don’t trust you (trust nobody), I cannot now support the red tag that I previously made; and I must maintain my standards for issuing feedback.  N.b. that most of my negative feedback is based either on events that I saw occur at the time, or on evidence that I reviewed very carefully.

The troll tag was based primarily on actions that you have discontinued.  Actually, you have been a gentleman about that lately.

On a probably-not-totally-unrelated note, I heartily agree with some of what you have said about your departed friend, whom I myself disliked.  When I belatedly heard about that in mid-March, I did not crash his funeral to criticize him—and I also did not feign a sudden friendliness toward him, which I found as deplorable as you did.  We will all leave this forum someday—either whilst alive, or by dying; and for my part, I will haunt and curse to a thousand hells anyone who mistreated me while I was alive, but pretends otherwise when I am dead.  For what is worse than an enemy is a false friend!

I have been intending to reply to these wise words; I 1000% agree, from my perspective of not being TECSHARE’s friend:

Quote from: OgNasty on March 25, 2021, 10:06:33 PM

Quote from: suchmoon on March 25, 2021, 09:44:00 PM

You trolling him while he was alive and then saying nice things once he's dead isn't honorable or respectful, it's delusional and self serving.  So while you call me continuing to support TECSHARE after his death narcissistic, I would say you trolling him endlessly while he was alive to then go and pretend you had a positive relationship after his death is typical of the type of manipulative fake person you are.

My will:  Your only chance to be my friend is while I am alive—and it requires my agreement.  If you miss that, then it is too late—don’t you dare say anything “nice” about me!  You don’t deserve to, you two-faced liar:  To praise me, to mourn me, and to celebrate my life is an honour reserved exclusively for my friends, who were my friends while I was alive.

I had intended to make my own thread about that (without mentioning TECSHARE by name), before I saw OgNasty’s above-quoted post.  The self-aggrandizing social game around TECSHARE’s death was sick.  If I die tomorrow, I hope that someone like OgNasty will have the balls to stand up and denounce all the scum who will pop up with mealy-mouthed platitudes:  “Oh, we had our differences; but he was so very smart, and I always really liked him.”  —Fuck you.  Burn in Hell.

OgNasty, I honestly do not care that TECSHARE died.^*  I do not say that to offend you, but because it is the truth:  There are billions of people in this world, and they all die; why would I be sad about the death of someone whom I disliked?  However, I understand that he was your friend; and I respect your efforts both to defend his reputation, and say “fuck you” on his behalf to false sympathy from disgusting cowards who hated his guts (except when he gave suchmoon an excuse to ~ me—which suchmoon loved, because she is a two-faced opportunist).  It is decent and loyal of you, especially because it is thankless:  Most (living) people will only criticize you for that.

—Anyway, I have been intending to remove the troll tag.  Done.

---

* A few months ago, I said somewhere that I hoped that nothing really bad happened to him.  I meant that sincerely; and what I had in mind was something I always have in the back of my mind with anonymous Bitcoiners in a world fraught with injustice.

No.  You are evidently unable to read.  As I wrote above, I knew how to cuss people out in Arabic; I only needed to search for the spelling.


Grade C-.  You lack talent, and you are trying too hard to compensate.  You reached for a cliché (“polished turd”); then, in an attempt at creativity, you reached for a superfluous adjective which is neither literally sensible, nor an amusing non sequitur.  When is a yeast infection fettered?  O, the chains that bind the oppressed yeasts!

---

Thanks for creating this containment thread for yourself.  It is so much better to wallow in grade F insults here, rather than to make a fool of yourself by evading my ban in a self-moderated thread...

By the way, I want to make it clear for the record that I would not call you a “cunt”.  For although I am absolutely opposed to feminism, I do object to use of the word “cunt” as an insult.  Cunts are desirable.  You may have a cunt—a fat, ugly, undesirable one, if CH speaks truly; but you personally are undesirable.  You are a waste product, a thing to be excreted with the “delete” button.  Thus, I think it is more appropriate to say, “suchmoon is a piece of shit.”

...forking hell, whom do you think you are impressing?  Even TOAA never pulled this level of shit; he did some annoying stuff, but he always basically followed forum rules and customs.  Also, I need to ask, are you using a spambot for this?  You made 12 identical posts within an hour (and now a 13th—and now a 14th...), sometimes within seconds my my hitting the delete button.  The only alternative explanation is that you really do have no life; and that is unsurprising, given that you are a worthless piece of shit.




Edit, edit:  ...and a 15th, and a 16th—and a 17th, and an 18th...  Note all timestamps.  This is spam, by definition.


Edit, yet again:  ...19, 20, 21...  suchmoon does not know when to stop digging.

Policy updated.  I remind banned users that ban evasion will not be tolerated.

A most excellent idea.  For Nemesis demands that suchmoon shall not be permitted to bury her smutty little troll-attack on me.

By comparison, middle-schooler tier potty-mouth mudslinging is what ruined CH/TOAA’s credibility—even though I think that he is actually much superior to suchmoon.  If he had kept calm and acted strategically, then CH could have been and remained a formidable power on this forum.  Instead, he made of himself a laughingstock; it’s a shame.

Hereby, too late, suchmoon realized that devoting a whole thread to calling a reputable forum member “a cunt” will assuredly backfire.  And there is no clean way for her to undo this.  She tried to tone the thread down; she got made fun of for that.  She could lock the thread; but such an attempt to sweep her own trolling beneath the rug would be called out, in a new “Reeeee reeeee nullius is a cunt” thread.  Her ugly behaviour remains on public display, right where she put it:  The forum called “Reputation”.

To that end, and to carry on an important discussion with CH, I wrote most of the following in January.  Development of this post then stalled, because I do not know how to write in Arabic.

Many years ago, I had some Middle Eastern friends teach me how properly to curse; thus, I know how to speak these words, but not how to write them.  I have now completed this post with Arabic copypasted from some site found via web search; if I erred, then I will just LOL, because I admittedly have zero proficiency in written Arabic.

To obey forum rules, the relevant Arabic phrase is fully on-topic for this “cunt” thread.

---

I see that DireWolfM14 must have borrowed some LSD from nutildah.  Again—as seen below, it is not the first time that he has had hallucinatory ideations about me.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Which reminds me...


CH, when I was a schoolboy, I came to know the type of vicious characters who are obsessed with proving that I am not so smart, after all.  I always ignored them.  Their only motive is jealousy; and it is generally beneath me to reply.  Why would I care if a blithering idiot says I’m not smart?

But in the public interest, and for you personal safety, CH, I must now address this problem; for I recall that as the years passed, one of those jealous characters got a job... flipping burgers.  And he was known to boast that he spat in the food of customers whom he disliked.

Based on the pattern of DireWolfM14’s behaviour, I literally would not trust him to flip burgers.

Observe the poor judgment psychotic hatred that he has shown toward me.  He even hurls at me obsessive insults and absurd accusations when I have been gone for months!


He is obviously unfit to flip burgers.

Furthermore, CH, you do not know how to insult this pimp-of-his-sister’s-cunt in a culturally appropriate manner.  Here is how it’s done—in a way that is totally on-topic for this cunt thread, and will be comprehensible at his mental level:


Moreover, CH, he pretends to call himself “Wolf”, but his true name is Dire “Wolf” bin Kalb.

His father is a dog—literally, a dog who fucked his whore mother’s filthy cunt.  His mother and his sister are whore cunts.  His family has no honour; for otherwise, they would not have produced such a shameful little wretch as he have shown himself to be, with his small-minded spitefulness toward his betters.  Not only does he dishonour his family:  His existence is proof of his family’s dishonour.

To call him a “burger-flipper” is too charitable!  Such a dishonourable character could not be trusted even as a servant.  He will spit in his master’s food, or worse.  suchmoon, be wary of what your rabid pet dog bin Kalb will do if he ever turns against you.

---

It is just too bad:  nutildah is a degenerate Westerner.  He thus failed to comprehend the severity of my insult based on ancestry.

However, I did not insult nutildah’s ancestors; rather, I insulted nutildah with the horror that he would cause to his ancestors, if they could see him now.  I should fix that:  nutildah, your ancestors must have been criminal dregs to have bred the likes of you.

No wonder you are a part of a schoolyard clique with M14binKalb.  Shit sticks together.

Thanks for reminding me of this.  There is so much trash on this forum that sometimes, I am lamentably absentminded about sweeping some of it up.  This is one of at least a score of threads that met that fate.  Eh.  If I don’t keep up with forum threads about large-scale frauds and major political upheavals, then you may understand that however bad ibminer is, he simply slipped to the bottom of my priorities.

I will forthwith tag ibminer for the baseless, scurrilous, abysmally dishonest defamation which he has made against me, and which he chose to worsen in this thread (archive).  This also reminded me to catch up on some other tagging previously promised...  Tags take too long to make since theymos imposed a short and undocumented length limit; I prefer to craft a meaningful summary that fits within the feedback text, but I am falling back to low-effort tag text because it’s not worth my time.

Now, it seems that ibminer got himself into some other controversy.  I have no time to review the evidence about a user who is beneath my attention, other than tying up loose ends here; thus, I cannot now express an opinion about that either way.  I do request that this thread remain on-topic.  Other accusations against ibminer are tangential, albeit probative insofar as they go to character; if there are other threads were these accusations are evidenced and discussed, I ask that you please link thereto.


Damn straight.  The forum the world would be a better place if moral cowardice, groupthink, peer pressure, and the herd mentality were not all so fashionable.

—Actually, scratch that:  The world would be a better place if not for modern democratic thinking, which by design puts the lunatics in charge of the asylum.  The herd mentality works just fine, when the sheep obey a proper shepherd. 

---

As I said before, I did not want to tag ibminer.  But no sinister “setup” is involved:  When I open a topic in Reputation accusing someone of dishonest and untrustworthy behaviour, it does not take Sherlock Holmes to deduce that I am considering a tag.  Also, as you are aware, you are permabanned from my self-moderated threads (unless I open one against you).  Ban evasion will not be tolerated—not yours, and not nutildah’s.

I have done some cleanup of ban evasion, plus extremely low-value troll posts; pre-cleanup archives:  archive.is, archive.org (seems to be flaking out right now, but I will link to it anyway).

---

I have been busy.  Unlike some users who sit on the forum 24/7 posting animated GIFs and no-value one-liners, I am not on-call to address the latest forum drama; and sometimes, if I have a few spare moments for the forum, I may prefer to talk about Bitcoin (!).  Perahps I may be building an important project—or perhaps I may be busy taking a nap; that would be more productive than wallowing in Reputation.  If you want my attention, get in line and wait your turn.

In the parlance this forum deserves, “no u”.

It is physically impossible that you read the text that you quoted, if this is what you got from it:


Where did I say or imply that!?  To eludicate, I will try again with the cultural semiotics of teh interwebz:



A general protip about life:  When you need to try to attract people’s attention, then you are not successful—at least, not in the realm of human affairs.

When people seek you out because they value you, then you have succeeded.

Naturally, this principle applies to affairs with women.  By way of metaphor:  Giving away Bitcoin to “get people interested” is sitting tongue-tied in a bar, trying to think of the right line to get a girl’s attention.  You desperate nerd.  You reek of neediness.  You will go home alone.

Bitcoin is now the man, that man whom the pretty girls are approaching and hitting on.  They need to prove their value to him.  And he DGAF.  There is a limited supply of Mr. Bitcoin to go around, and everybody wants a piece of him.

He is now money—not toy money, but real money.  Another protip:  People pursue money; money does not pursue people!

Per what I said before:  Have you ever seen a goldbug in a goldbug forum giving away tenth-ounce gold coins “to get people interested”?  You claim that something is valuable, and you are giving it away—LOLWUT?


Years ago, that surely was helpful to the growth of Bitcoin.  Years ago—when Bitcoin was widely perceived as toy money.

Nowadays, if you give away Bitcoin to get people into it, then you are devaluing Bitcoin.  You are bribing people to use it.  You are signalling that Bitcoin needs them more than they need Bitcoin.  You are showing them that it is not real money—because nobody gives away real money for free.  If you do not understand this psychological principle, then it is a confirmed scientific fact that you have never gotten laid—at least, not without paying money for it.

To prove that they are worthy of Bitcoin, people must qualify themselves.  They must demonstrate at least a modicum of effort to learn the newbie basics.  They must back up their seed phrases carefully.  And then, they must drain precious “money” from their bank accounts, and give it in exchange for real money:  Bitcoin.

—Either that, or they must work for it.  Some girls will do anything—yes, anything for Bitcoin!  They love him that much.

If you want to be oh so generous for the good of Bitcoin, then I suggest that you donate those coins to developers of open-source Bitcoin projects.  Core, or something like BTCPayserver.  Or what the hey, send me those unwanted coins.  I have been casting pearls before the swine here for years, and nobody has ever sent me a tip!  LOL.  Whatever.  Just do NOT peddle some Richy_T bigblocker nonsense pretending that there is something wrong with Bitcoin on grounds that allegedly, it is nowadays burdensome to cheapen Bitcoin by treating it as toy money.

Famous last words:

Divers days, I pin my e-mail inbox to a dartboard and toss a dart at a random WO-post whilst on break from Building Empires and/or sleeping in the Void of Nullity.  It’s amazing what I may hit:


Translation:

“Please, please be interested in my cryptonerd toy money.  I will give you some to get started!  Please come play with me. 🥺” = Success!

“Holy wow, are you kidding me!?  This is actually... real money.” = Bitcoin has failed.

Nobody gives away money to get people interested in money.  People are interested in money because it is valuable.  I have never heard your particular complaint being made about gold.  But soon, it will be quite common to give away a little bit of dollars to get people interested.  —Well, they are already doing that.  I hereby suggest DollarFaucet.gov to “President” Biden, so that he can save the U.S. economy.  View malware-laden ads, solve CAPTCHAs as a good little slave to robots, get stimulus!

---

I do understand the desire for fun.  Here on the Wall, I have previously Observed:

N.b. the references to suitable toy-money pseudocoins.

I myself recently made a puzzle giving away a chance at some real Bitcoin.  It is replete with a txid which starts with nine 0s, and what may perhaps be the only cat emoji embedded in the blockchain—fun!  I thereby observed:
And I only loaded the puzzle with 0.001 BTC!  That is the maximum amount of real money that I can afford to—no, more than I can properly afford potentially to give away to random strangers on the Internet for the lulz and meows.  Think about it:  It is as if I put a $50 bill and change where anybody in the world can come and pick it up—for fun.  And as I thereby said, I expect for that prize to be worth thousands of dollars someday.  Am I crazy!?

Well, I guess that’s it.  Bitcoin is being treated as real money.  Bitcoin is dead.

---

This is a hit-and-run.  Catch y’all later.  I hate plagiarism—I really hate plagiarism—so don’t forget to give me credit for the DollarFaucet.gov idea.  If the Americans actually do it, then I will make an address for them to send me royalties in Tethers.

LOL.  Every time I search Lauda’s voluminous post history for random keywords, I find more evidence that the cat was a divine presence that this forum did not deserve.

---

Damn, where is V8s? 

Awww, c’mon.  Can’t we have peash and luff and cute kittens in this thread?  😿

I know that Lauda wished Quickseller well.  The subject came up sometime when she wanted to send merit to one of my posts, and she explained to me that she had dumped all of her sMerits on Quickseller in Politics & Society.

Plenty of people make claims about Lauda.  Quickseller has been here for long enough that he has probably heard it all, and he probably knows from experience to take it for what it’s worth.  I really don’t think (and I didn’t intend to insinuate) that he meant anything bad here, where people are just shooting the bull and nobody not even nobody really knows anything.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

—So, does anyone have any progress on the Kitty puzzle?  Or desire for more puzzles?  I made that because Lauda loved Bitcoin, she was highly skilled in the practical use of cypherpunk crypto-stuff, and it is the kind of cat-toy that I think she would enjoy seeing here.  😺