Lol - hard ? All done by SOFTware - nothing else. Trapped in the Internet - proven - hard for you  Cryptographic proof is hard evidence. Learn how Bitcoin works. So I steel your keys - my stuff then ? If a real world person provs to trolls by moving coins - what does that do to trolls? get real - and stop whining - cause someone killed your Satoshi beleivings ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w39E_0Kh9MBitcoin does not Need such a smear from trolls that WANT things. Bitcoin is about DO things |
|
|
|
So u are helpless sure of sth you don t know. Caught in a world of fake. What happens in case u are wrong? Or u cannot think that far?  It might depend on what u allow yourself to see Some hard facts for you. I have been on this forum since the early days of Bitcoin. I was here on this forum when Satoshi was (bitcointalk was created by Satoshi). Re: Welcome to the new Bitcoin forum!- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5.msg188#msg188I have had 'communications' in the past, via this forum (and perhaps elsewhere) with actual Satoshi Nakamoto. I do not communicate with any of the current or previous developers. I never have. I do not know Craig Wright. He has made no endeavour to contact me though whatsoever, seems odd right, but hey I'm totally irrelevant.  Unlike CSW I have Signed and Verified one of my own 'old' Bitcoin wallets from early 2010 ... That's what my thread demonstrates ... I'm not a fake ... look for yourself ... its so easy to prove it ... Verifying my (old) zero balance wallet address for blockchain research etc.,- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4630066You can verify my message in the Bitcoin wallet and/or online. That's one functionality of Bitcoin, it's Financial Cryptography. All belief is only substantiated knowledge. If you don't have hard evidence YOU only have belief. In addition to 'belief', CSW has only presented untruths ... Op Ed: How Many Wrongs Make a Wright? ... - https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/op-ed-how-many-wrongs-make-wright/Now you do the math. P.S. If you fit the pieces together it might make some actual sense, perhaps not. Who knows ? EDIT: ... and as I did sign ... "Be seeing you at The Restaurant at the End of the Universe?"- https://youtu.be/O_WLw_0DFQQ*Satire* - https://youtu.be/PxbzujA69DA *NSFW* - SWIM Lol - hard ? All done by SOFTware - nothing else. Trapped in the Internet - proven - hard for you |
|
|
|
There is no room for uncertainty here. One either proves something or one does not. Your other statements are totally baseless. ... "Craig S. Wright has been ordered to appear in-person in Florida on June 18th. Will he?"- https://twitter.com/PonsDeSerres/status/1138207419471925248- https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/208/kleiman-v-wright/" ... Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion, ECF No. [200], is DENIED.
Mediation shall take place on June 18, 2019. All parties shall be required to personally appear at the mediation. DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, on June 10, 2019. ... "EDIT (additional): " ... Defendant also argues that should mediation go forward on June 18, 2019,
his personal appearance would cause him an “unjustifiable hardship,” and he should, therefore, be permitted to appear by videoconference. ... "See: - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5148607.msg51376113#msg51376113As an example of claimed "unjustifiable hardship" !?! - SWIM ... "See You Next Tuesday" !?! - SWIM So u are helpless sure of sth you don t know. Caught in a world of fake. What happens in case u are wrong? Or u cannot think that far? It might depend on what u allow yourself to see |
|
|
|
|
I really wonder why u guys still try to solve 'decentralized mining' where u migh start with decent definition and maths measurement for that first.
There is only clear central like fiat or xrp, hyperledger ... even PoS is here imo
Or
Open PoW blockchain where hardest competition and highest degrees of freedom = highest friction does ensure the killing of any too big to fail / monopolist over time. Even the inner force of a potential monopolist that a central dictated coin has no value will stop him to grow over a specific ownership, wouldn't it?
Increase the degrees of freedom, get rid of artificial limits that are lowering some miners risks (... bandwidth...)
|
|
|
|
How is this even measured? Is there a online resource with guidelines on AML/KYC? Not for AML, since it should not be easy for criminals to find out how to work around. AML rules should not be published - it's a business secret - to be efficient. |
|
|
|
I guess the only thing I want to reply to is point 2 about centralization. Yes, megagigaterapetablocks will likely result in fewer fully-validating, non-mining entities. It will also likely result in fewer full-stack mining entities. So what?
People keep talking about decentralization as if it is an end in itself. Why? AFAIC, as long as there are no structural barriers to entry by new participants, the network is as decentralized as it need be. If there is no discernible marginal benefit from adding one more participant to the network, then by definition further decentralization is of no benefit.
And quite frankly, all public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.
Not to mention the fact that non-mining nodes provide zero benefit to the network anyhow. If you have sufficient economic interest to be a first-class tx creator, then fine. Pony up for a validating client. But don't delude yourself that your participation brings any benefit to anyone but yourself.
By having megagigaterapetablocks you are giving full control of blockchain audit to the "operators". I guess the only way some people would understand why centralization is bad is when forces collude to censor certain transactions, such as donating to Wikileaks or anything else that wouldn't comply with what they consider a morally correct transaction. The main reason Bitcoin has value is the fact that it works irrespective of any legal frameworks. CSW misses this main premise. UASF control by hobby bitcoiners and PoSM change management Or Decent registered mining industry ( yes , it is also decentralized enough) in control to NOT change base protocol Easy choice when scaling needed for global adoption , but some see only CSW and stop thinking |
|
|
|
Another missive from Shelby: Craig seems sincere but perhaps he’s just a good actor. I loved his argument at the end about equality in law is the antithesis of equality in outcomes. That is a high IQ conceptualization. Kudos. I rarely have the patience to watch a 1 hour video. The flaws I see in his reasoning: 1. Recording of all data so that omniscient governments can be held accountable is totalitarianism because accountability does nothing to fix the Iron Law of Political Economics which insures that democracy will always be about selling infinite debt to infinite wants. Transparency of data can’t rectify that flaw of democracy. So given the [Weberian definition of government]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence), removing our ability to be private means absolute enslavement. Governance will become an Orwellian winner-take-all 666 if we follow Craig’s naivete. 2. The “solution” of BSV for transaction volume scaling is essentially centralization. Thus the outcome of totalitarian control or failure due to infighting due to the inability for one mining/dev group to subjugate the will of another. So in short, Craig’s Vision (an impostor pretending to be Satoshi’s Vision) is worthless. He either knows this, or is incredibly naive. Please forward my criticisms to Craig. Btw, I debated Craig a couple years ago in one of his private slack channels and they ended up banning me because I was winning all the arguments. Go ask @kLee et al. I'll reply downthread 1. The argument is that govs can / must globally compete and the open ledger is the correct way how to do. ( see Swissy regulation here...) 2. We both know that profitable systems ALWAYS centralize but profit is the only working incentive to keep Bitcoin stable and valuable to all users. The only repulsive force that works against the profit attractor is maximum fricktion gained by max openess for any operational risks including legal risks that e.g. are mainly responsible to break up chinese mining cartells atm. These risks incl competition / the race to best tech etc will break up any centralization over long term perspective. -> best thing we can do is vote for the simplest stable global legal open protocol in existance i.o. to give any potential competitor the chance to disrupt mining cartells. We know that works fine. |
|
|
|
Doesn't matter much what we think locally and at the moment. For u and some others who helped to get Segwit done (first not at all, than with 2x, and later scammed all the 2x away,...). Sure noobs and newbees still buying that crap but that potential seems to dry out with bigger industry checking out that scam.
Time moves on, take ur local stand as u can, the world is not under ur control
BitCoin didn't start as a ticker and didn't start with Segshit.
Netscape is gone as well.
We ll see
I'm open to the possibility that Bitcoin might be dethroned by another coin. I doubt this will be accomplished by hard forking Bitcoin though. The market has shown increasingly less interest with every new hard fork that comes along. So that puts these forking miners in a difficult position. They have two options: (a) Fork off and get ignored by the entire market (b) 51% attack Bitcoin in hopes of getting noticed Choice (b) would cost millions and millions of dollars on an ongoing basis. Bitcoin users would be inconvenienced by having their transactions censored, but the real financial pressure is on the attacking miners. They are the ones burning through endless money trying to attack Bitcoin. Bitcoin users can just wait until miners capitulate or have no money left. If Bitcoin users all succumbed to a mere censorship attack and switched to the miners' fork, it would unequivocally prove Bitcoin's incentives do not work. If miners merely need to 51% attack the blockchain to force contentious consensus changes, the entire design discussed in Bitcoin's whitepaper is broken. The term "validity" no longer has any meaning with regard to the security design. There would be no difference between 21 million coins and 21 billion coins from the view of consensus rules. Obviously miners can change whatever rules they want and user consensus doesn't matter at all. I'm guessing that won't happen based on the last decade of Bitcoin's history. If it does, no version of Bitcoin will retain any value. It obviously fails in its only stated purpose. On a) sum up the maket caps and trading vols of all the cheap payment coins. Not to be ignored imo. Include also all the legal and compliance actions that are needed and coming to get really global ... find out that bsv is not the fork . It follows the rules On b) that is the purpose of that entire threat / Satoshi and friends ( find out how many legends dropped out of bitcointalk with bs take over ...) Think |
|
|
|
If u might be really able of abstract thinking and can for a minute analyze - not checking hashrate and speculation price ( both are related and can be manipulated dynamically esp very at some singular event) - then try to see Segwit was the fork, and the airdrop itself.
Hm
Current hash rate and price don't matter. What matters is compatibility with the legacy protocol and cumulative proof of work. Segwit is/was compatible with the legacy protocol. It doesn't matter how horrible you think Segwit is. Legacy nodes accept Segwit transactions/blocks as valid. Since the Segwit chain is the valid chain with most accumulated POW, it is the only Bitcoin chain. There is no "parallel" legacy chain; there is only Bitcoin. Shelby bizarrely believes that despite a large majority of the network enforcing Segwit, miners could successfully hard fork Bitcoin to remove Segwit simply by virtue of hash rate. The market has made abundantly clear over and over with such hard fork spinoffs: they are invalid chains. Hard forks. Spinoffs. Airdrops. Altcoins. Shitcoins. Whatever you want to call them. Not only does the whole idea ignore what the market has proven repeatedly, but it shows great ignorance of the broad support Segwit has. Segwit activation obviously catalyzed the 2017 bubble; price literally entered the vertical phase of the bubble when miners locked in. Most of the network including major economic nodes are enforcing it. Yet we are now to believe that overnight, miners alone can hard fork the network, steal half the network's wealth for themselves, and investors are just going to flock to this shitcoin because it's "the one-and-only great Satoshi's immutable protocol?" LOL, what a bunch of delusional crap. Only the most obtuse inbred retards in history could buy into this obvious crock of bullshit! This is why only tiny groups of uninformed people in their obscure chat rooms and forums buy into this bullshit. Shelby (and Craig Wright) are just exploiting a small number of peoples' great ignorance of Bitcoin's technical aspects and game theory. Shelby obviously has an even (much, much) smaller audience than Craig Wright though, making his plans all the more pathetic looking. Cumulative work is sth dependant on time as well since if btc price falls to 0 the shit is up again... There is no profit from old high work blocks if new ones can be gamed for free. Eg all 2nd layer shit are on weakening this. Actions will be taken at every step in the future and BitCoin is still that young and totally unused. ---- Oh proof of action seen here All ano trolls (and btc eventually) gonna get destroyed in real world btw https://youtu.be/OqpwuJw7cxYAnd Segwitcoin is the illegal spin off. See my proof upthread so its not disputable after Shelby's rules  |
|
|
|
technically any coin mixing service can be accused of money laundering and shut down
I can't believe bestmixer hosted their servers in the country that can easily comply with the european court's decisions
this is a bad precedent , bitcoin is not that anonymous to start with and if many mixers are taken down , those who want to preserve their anonymity will have not so many options left
and even worse , there will be (if not are already) special services controlled mixers - as non anonymous as it can get
How much d u estimate is the potential to get tainted coins out of it? Who has highest interest to use it? Meh |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
