Whoever wrote that is desperately clutching at straws.  There's nothing concrete in any of that and it's just wishful thinking on their part that they haven't been duped by a con-artist.  I'm sorry, but both they and you have been deceived.

Nope.  I've sent merit to 143 different profiles and not once to an unintended recipient.  Knowing that, much like Bitcoin itself, mistakes can't be undone, you double check before you send.

//EDIT:  Oh, but like DdmrDdmr said, back when the merit system was first introduced, I originally sent too little, so later revisited those posts and sent more.

My working theory was that, now the great pretender has painted himself into a corner, there was nowhere left for him to go.  That's why I thought the time had now come to simply ignore him.  But what I'm reading here in response tells me that people see the problem escalating if we do that.  So if we're fighting it head-on, count me in.  I do like the sound of a Bitcoin Advocacy sub, although I don't know if it would garner sufficient traffic to be viable.  But I'm all for presenting a united front against this figurative shitfountain.  However we're doing it, it's definitely time for the community to make a stand.

I don't see how it's a "convoluted argument".  Look at the way in which the event is reported in certain parts of the media (bold emphasis mine):


"For the duration of the day".  And then presumably go back to business as usual and forget about it for another year.  I mean, I don't see any other way to interpret that.  

In my view, I think they could be doing a much better job of explaining exactly what they mean on the https://www.proofofkeys.com/ homepage, because the intended message is clearly getting lost somewhere along the way.  I'm not saying it's a misguided effort on their part, but it should be abundantly clear that checking for exchange insolvency is a secondary objective and not the main purpose of the event.

That's a fair point, OP edited to reflect that.  The Altcoins sub shouldn't be used as a dumping ground for garbage, even if it often feels like one.  

I'd like to put forth a few arguments to present the case that it's high time for all topics about Craig Scammer Wright to be moved to the Altcoins section [//EDIT: Or some other, more appropriate, section] on sight.  

• First and foremost, he doesn't deserve the attention we give him
• Almost all threads about Faketoshi devolve into people talking about forked chains and other altcoins anyway
• Even when he claims to be talking about Bitcoin, every insane thing Faketoshi says is deliberately calculated to attract attention towards his fork
• Faketoshi has absolutely no official connection to Bitcoin itself, but the more we talk about him, the more it appears as though he's somehow important or relevant
• It sets the tone that, as a community, we want to distance ourselves from the constant, sordid three-ring-circus/pantomime/freak-show he embodies
• We shouldn't be providing a platform for con-artists to further their fraudulent agendas, it's irresponsible

It's time to draw a line under this and move on.  Feel free to add more arguments, or dispute or critique the ones I've laid out.  If someone responds with an argument I like, I'll add it to the list.

^{Topic Rules:  Absolutely NO discussion of forked chains or altcoins here, please}

What's being questioned is whether it actually achieves that, though.  Some people are presenting this Proof of Keys event as "keep all your coins on an exchange for 364 days a year and just withdraw them on this one particular day to make sure the exchange is still solvent".  No one is learning anything if they're only doing that.  They need to keep the bulk of their stash in their own personal wallet and only have what they're actively trading on the exchange.

Which is actually a pretty resounding endorsement, given your experiences with it, heh.  Many of the people who think it needs to be changed were citing that example.

Fantastic.  As a consequence of this, at what point can we start moving all CSW topics to the altcoins board?  There's clearly no link whatsoever between Bitcoin and that insipid con-man.  So it should now be beyond all reasonable doubt that all of his future pantomime sideshows won't be discussed in the Bitcoin-related boards.

It sounds like something users are generally supportive of, but with some reservations about the potential consequences.  It is a tricky one, since it effectively boils down to freedom of expression versus societal boundaries, which is always a huge can of worms.  Where does the right end for one person to say what they want?  It's not a line easily drawn, sometimes.

All I can really suggest is, if enough people are supportive of the idea, perhaps a short trial-period to see how it actually plays out in the wild?

And if that's what people want, they should definitely use that coin.  But it's not what I signed up for, so I won't be doing that.  



It's always "someone" with you.  Why can't you be grateful for what you have, instead of constantly asking other people to do more for you?  If you want it to happen, how about you do it?  But again, don't just expect people to join in.  They'll either join of their own volition, or they won't.

Here's what you don't seem to grasp.  People discovered Bitcoin, they liked the idea, so they started using it.  Then you come along thinking you can change the idea to something many of those users would deem absolutely abysmal AND you want someone else to make these terrible changes for you!  What planet are you even from if you think that's gonna fly?

Bitcoin Gold had one too.  The coin that claimed it was going to be ASIC-resistant.  I see that worked out well for them.  

Also Feathercoin and EthereumClassic.  Probably a few others no one cares about.

Your views on what Bitcoin "is" or "isn't" are totally irrelevant.  We have a consensus mechanism to do that.  It appears to disagree with you.

Thought they were scoring cheap points.  Failed as usual.   

One day they'll learn that they've lost every argument before they've even tried to make it, because their go-to position is to throw decentralisation under the bus.  It's the one thing all the Lightning detractors can't get around.  LN provides more throughput without placing any additional burden on the non-Lightning users who secure the blockchain.   

Oh, no!  Responsibility?!  What a catastrophe!  

Responsibility is something that generally comes with freedom.  It's only natural.  Even if no further advancements were made towards privacy from this point forwards, it's a fair price to pay (and I suspect the majority of users on this chain would rather take on some additional responsibility, rather than sacrifice decentralisation, which is a much higher cost to bear).  But I suspect we'll be making continued advancements in privacy anyway, both on-chain and off.

People don't always understand what will benefit them until it's too late.  Most of them are just looking for something simple they can comprehend, so whatever the media can distill into a simple headline is normally the only message that makes it through for the "average joe public".  I'm of the view that most people will eventually come to Bitcoin out of necessity later, rather than trying to understand it now.  It sounds pessimistic, but we can only help the ones that let us.  It often takes a painful realisation to finally wake someone from the comfort of ignorance.  All you can really do is grow your stash to ensure you have enough to help those you care about when that time comes for them.

Contrasting numbers aside, the key word there is definitely "Engagement".  

One the one hand, good topics are more engaging, so if the quality of discussion is higher here, people are more likely to take part in the conversation.  This is the forum with the greatest concentration of knowledge and expertise, so there are likely to be a larger number of engaging topics here.  The best forums are naturally the ones where the users make the best contributions.  Hence why most boards have specialist topics they're dedicated to.  It encourages the propagation of useful knowledge and insights.

On the other hand, the fact that we have a larger number of users is partly due to the financial incentive from bounties, which are the antithesis of engaging discussion.  That's why I don't mind seeing our user count drop, as long as it's the users who are contributing largely worthless posts that are leaving (or being forcibly removed, as is more likely the case).

Okay, I'm on board with the spirit of the re-brand, but not so much the names so far.  "Bitcoin Day" sounds far too generic and not particularly informative.  "Be your own bank" is good, but it sounds like more of a tagline than a name.  We want to convey the importance of not relying on others to store your BTC.  What name would sum that up best?

If Bitcoin were used by everyone in the way it was designed to be used, there would be no need for a 'Proof of Keys' event.  But because far too many people entrust custodial services with the bulk of their stash, this event is, sadly, quite necessary in terms of raising awareness about the pitfalls of "trusted" third parties.  

I think suchmoon is onto something.  If the number is decreasing, it's likely because all the ban evaders and bounty abusers are gradually being weeded out.  Some of them probably had dozens of sockpuppets.  A small number of genuine users will naturally be far more engaging in a discussion than most of the accounts that have been purged would be.

Quality > Quantity