Breakout a'comin
 |
|
|
|
ich denke in den paar monaten vor dem halving wird ein ziemlicher hype darum entstehen.
wirklich?  wurde mir garaniert.  |
|
|
|
|
ich denke in den paar monaten vor dem halving wird ein ziemlicher hype darum entstehen.
|
|
|
|
wunschdenken |
|
|
|
I am desperately trying to quicken the path through Grayscale (really my custodian) to arbitrage but to be effect I would need to be able to turn it around in a small number of days (or less) and right now it has taken most of a year for the first batch (not encouraging).
tbh its a pretty silly contruct |
|
|
|
securing profits. also 266+ for shorting is a no brainer.
going through bearfarts posthistory is fun  |
|
|
|
your buys @ 260 will be embarrassing very soon. |
|
|
|
das muss sarkasmus sein  is aber keiner. ich soll mein adblocker deaktivieren!? So ein scheiß zieh ich mir nicht rein  haha hab ja nicht ohen Grund ein adblocker na, den artikel kannst dir auch sparen, aber auf der ersten seite bei bild.de einen fetten banner zu haben über bitcoin ist einfach immer gute PR. |
|
|
|
das muss sarkasmus sein is aber keiner. |
|
|
|
|
bring on the fuckin etf already! ffs!!
|
|
|
|
The Craig Wright thing doesn't add up. There's supposed to be a tx of 1.1m BTC. Where is it on the blockchain and why are Satoshi's coins still where they always were? https://bitscan.com/articles/something-about-the-new-satoshi-isnt-wrightI'm trying to find another explanation and the only ones I can come up with are 1) Someone else has 1m BTC 2) The doc is fake possible offline transaction. just hand over the key. |
|
|
|
Question: Could i sell my bitcoin in wallet while being 1 year behind?
How large is 1 year 20 weeks to download?
i would guess 8h |
|
|
|
I'm surprised. It looks like this time, even some of the veterans in here tend to believe the Satoshi revelation story, that Wright = Satoshi.
Granted, the Wired/gizmodo article and research behind is somewhat better than that awful Newsweek "Look! Same last name!" story, but aside from that: whatever hard evidence Wired has (or has revealed so far) is rather flimsy as well. As far as I can tell, the major documents containing proof of identity either cannot be verified (cryptographically, say), or haven't been verified (by some indirect method).
All in all, I see very little strong evidence, and mainly just a man whose reaction to the Wired story is consistent with someone who could be Satoshi. But in that case, motivation matters, and it's rather funny how it only seems to cross a few peoples' minds that somebody might actually want to be believed to be Satoshi. The crypto nerds mainly seem to focus on the "He just wants his privacy!" angle, so somebody possibly trying to take credit for Satoshi's work doesn't seem to fit in.
Last observation: Wright's style doesn't pass the sniff test. From the soundbites and writing samples I've seen, there's a big difference between Wright's and Satoshi's style -- the latter's phrasing and argument development being rather modest sounding, never boasting -- which means I personally want to see a lot more hard evidence -- i.e. documents constituting proof of identity between the two, that also have been shown to be authentic and non-tampered with -- before seriously considering that Satoshi has been identified.
I concur; having this conversation with a friend today I rationalized my objections to this story with pretty much the same words. Believe me we will witness several similar "revelations" until BTC becomes what's destined to. Finally, I want to put a more "simple" thought in this. Imagine you're Satoshi; you've invented an extraordinary digital currency that will revolutionize the whole planet. You've included -but not limited to- economics, forensics, cryptography, networking, mathematics, chaotic modelling, social engineering in order to make it happen, and insure it's gonna fulfill its destiny. Undeniably, -if you're a single entity- and not a bunch of scientists, you're quite an extraordinary mind. What are the odds you didn't close all the links that lead to you? Didn't you foresee something like this coming?http://gizmodo.com/reports-police-raid-home-of-possible-bitcoin-creator-c-1747025289I rest my case. My impression is that Wright (may he or may he not be SN) wanted to be found. clap clap good read prof chaos fyp |
|
|
|
Finally above 400USD again with a lot of buying support left.
Oh and we found satoshi again, what interesting times.
and still going slow and steady... no buying panic in sight. |
|
|
|
I'm surprised. It looks like this time, even some of the veterans in here tend to believe the Satoshi revelation story, that Wright = Satoshi.
Granted, the Wired/gizmodo article and research behind is somewhat better than that awful Newsweek "Look! Same last name!" story, but aside from that: whatever hard evidence Wired has (or has revealed so far) is rather flimsy as well. As far as I can tell, the major documents containing proof of identity either cannot be verified (cryptographically, say), or haven't been verified (by some indirect method).
All in all, I see very little strong evidence, and mainly just a man whose reaction to the Wired story is consistent with someone who could be Satoshi. But in that case, motivation matters, and it's rather funny how it only seems to cross a few peoples' minds that somebody might actually want to be believed to be Satoshi. The crypto nerds mainly seem to focus on the "He just wants his privacy!" angle, so somebody possibly trying to take credit for Satoshi's work doesn't seem to fit in.
Last observation: Wright's style doesn't pass the sniff test. From the soundbites and writing samples I've seen, there's a big difference between Wright's and Satoshi's style -- the latter's phrasing and argument development being rather modest sounding, never boasting -- which means I personally want to see a lot more hard evidence -- i.e. documents constituting proof of identity between the two, that also have been shown to be authentic and non-tampered with -- before seriously considering that Satoshi has been identified.
I concur; having this conversation with a friend today I rationalized my objections to this story with pretty much the same words. Believe me we will witness several similar "revelations" until BTC becomes what's destined to. Finally, I want to put a more "simple" thought in this. Imagine you're Satoshi; you've invented an extraordinary digital currency that will revolutionize the whole planet. You've included -but not limited to- economics, forensics, cryptography, networking, mathematics, chaotic modelling, social engineering in order to make it happen, and insure it's gonna fulfill its destiny. Undeniably, -if you're a single entity- and not a bunch of scientists, you're quite an extraordinary mind. What are the odds you didn't close all the links that lead to you? Didn't you foresee something like this coming?http://gizmodo.com/reports-police-raid-home-of-possible-bitcoin-creator-c-1747025289I rest my case. My impression is that Wright (may he or may he not be SN) wanted to be found. |
|
|
|
PSA- Remember kids:
When some bogus news about some wannabe wank from Australia who claims to be SN, that's the sell signal.
allright chief! just sold all my stack. thx for your kind advice! that was close...  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
