This video puts into perspective quite well why data usage is irrelevant in the big block argument. The only arguments against it that can be made are e.g. on the protocol side, which I know nothing about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12OSBJwogFc |
|
|
|
...
The real question is, why do you like to convince the retarded people all day? Are you really that retarded to realise realize that it's useless to convince the retarded people?  And spell checking isn't necessary but it does show you at least put a modicum of effort into your post. FTFY Or maybe you should put a modicum of effort into searching a bit before you criticise somebody? Realise and realize, both are OK: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/realise-realize/HAH, Good point, I didn't realise that! Cranky having withdrawals right now. -1WO for me.  For a bit of clarification, my post had no intentions of being in favour of r0ach.
Yeah, but a vast majority of spammers pop up in here quoting the trolls and arguing with them for merit mining and it gets annoying. I exclusively came to this forum to mine merit. Unfortunately big miners are driving us small folks out of business and creating a merit vacuum by funneling all the merit to the top 1%. The merit gap is widening too fast. It is time for merit redistribution! #AllPostsAreEqual |
|
|
|
...
The real question is, why do you like to convince the retarded people all day? Are you really that retarded to realise realize that it's useless to convince the retarded people? The most Retarded thing here is Quoting the roach. Good job. For a bit of clarification, my post had no intentions of being in favour of r0ach. For clarification, the 'good job' was directed at the ironic outcome of his post about spellchecking and effort. |
|
|
|
...
The real question is, why do you like to convince the retarded people all day? Are you really that retarded to realise realize that it's useless to convince the retarded people? The most Retarded thing here is Quoting the roach. And spell checking isn't necessary but it does show you at least put a modicum of effort into your post. FTFYGood job. |
|
|
|
Just so we are clear, the right wing utopia has people that starve in the streets?
hard to believe anyone would actually choose starvation over sweeping up the stockroom, I mean, come on. I believe that the community has a number of people who are able bodied and mentally ill, or just plain stubborn. I want to work on the edge cases, because the edge cases are where the rubber hits the road. You don't "work on the edge cases", you change the goalposts, first we agree that people who are not capable of working should be helped, then you include the very same category in your cohort of unwilling (people who are able bodied and mentally ill). And btw children that are endangered would be cared for by social services. We are talking about adults here. Another example of you moving the goalposts. Ok so the right wing utopia does have social services ? I want to know what happens to the kids because that is where the right wing approach always breaks down, and we end up with something that looks like what we currently have. If taxes were voluntary they would imply a government participating in the free market by offering services that the population decides how much it should be worth. Hence compatible with capitalism. These services could also extend to contracts along the line of "if you receive social services for x amount of time you will pay p percent of your paycheck for y amount of time once you get a job". The money could then be used either for further funding, or if "too profitable" be paid back to people who "invested their taxes" in the service. The rest would take care of itself by services being added, redacted and modified based on funding and changing landscape of social issues. Could also use that to fund going to fucking Mars, longevity, curing random diseases or fixing any other type of problem that is unlikely to be profitable and that people would come up with. Would also change the political debate from retarded pronouns to figuring out how to best allocate money and thus end partisan horseshit. |
|
|
|
Pretty ironic if you consider that BSV money clearly went into BCash. So BSV is "dwindling" not BCash. |
|
|
|
Player Scores 161 BTC Single Spin Jackpot in Cloudbet’s Bitcoin CasinoTow humble considerations: - 1. Good luck retrieving those in case of a genuine win.
- 2. Something fishy here: there is the article, then a slot of advertisement and below this reading:
"This is a paid-for submitted press release. CCN does not endorse, nor is responsible for any material included below and isn’t responsible for any damages or losses connected with any products or services mentioned in the press release. CCN urges readers to conduct their own research with due diligence into the company, product or service mentioned in the press release." (bold font mine)
So probably a borderline scam website.
All gambling is borderline scam. The entertainment argument is very weak. Poker & co are not gambling. |
|
|
|
|
I think Ayre is trying to break ties with CSW. If he keeps calling CSW Satoshi as if it was fact and CSW then loses in court Ayre can then claim that he got conned and walk away unscathed.
|
|
|
|
Either Ayre knows something we don't, got conned, or he's preparing to break ties with CSW. "This industry needs to grow up and Craig proving he is Satoshi is the only way past this Troll attack that is so bad for the industries reputation. He now has a duty to set the record straight for us all. The Trolls all know he is Satoshi hence the fear." https://twitter.com/CalvinAyre/status/1117706922415853569 |
|
|
|
|
Mic has been very active in the community and proven himself to be genuine and trustworthy time and time again.
Pretty sure everything else has already been said about him so I'll skip that part of my post and simply add my name to the long list of supporters.
|
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26LDWnM7qe46:55 Craig claims that Bitcoin was not created to fix "the system", while Satoshi created Bitcoin as a reaction to the 2008 financial crisis. His quote: "That's [debt and the debt crisis] not what Bitcoin helps with." Every other time he opens his mouth he directly contradicts Satoshi. He fails to understand that once we will use currency that price will keep increasing in time taking debt will be extremely unpopular. There will be also little interest for people to offer debts. I don't think that debt will disappear and I don't think debt is inherently a problem. Out of control debt and bailouts at tax payers' expense are the issue. There is and always will be need and use for debt though. Who will loan something that will gain price in year fro like 10%. Or more? I mean you will take small loans fro something that will bring you huge profit. But it will not be like there is today when they dont even want to sell you a car unless you take it on loan. Or when countries have for half year of production of debt. If not they looks stupid. Trust me this will stop. If you think that Bitcoin will perpetually gain 10% per year you're mistaken. And for the time that it does there will be similar downswings. So taking and giving loans at the right times means profit for the party that played it better. Never mind that people will help others for any number of reasons if they require money in the short term. There are also stablecoins to peg the loans to and there will always be people who hedge some risks in all sorts of stable assets. |
|
|
|
This almost makes me want to upload my drivers license to shapesh... umm... well... not quite.  Does Shapeshift require KYC now? Doesn't that defeat its purpose? lol The required reply when anyone tries to tell you any of the following: 1. Bitcoin is going to crash to zero 2. BCH is the real Bitcoin 3. Craig Wright is the real Satoshi 4. X/Y/Z shitcoin will supersede Bitcoin 5. China bans Bitcoin 6. Governments will outlaw Bitcoin 7. Bitcoin mining is unsustainable and consumes too much energy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM-e46xdcUoDamn, thanks for the trip down nostalgia lane. |
|
|
|
What he has been doing has been obvious to me (I think) and this supports it. He has been trying to make "bitcoin" something that the state and the CBs could embrace.
Question: Would you prefer to prohibit any state actor from participating in Bitcoin? Followup: If answer to above is 'yes', how do you square this with the mutually-exclusive attribute of 'permissionless'? I differentiate between participation and taking over control, which is what was suggested during a Coingeek conference in which the blights of society were supposed to get sufficient tools to keep doing what they have been in a more efficient manner. This could also be the issue on which CSW and Roger parted and to some extent why I don't have any hard feelings against him. CSW clearly cares about nothing worth caring about, unlike Roger (anti-establishment). If Roger hadn't teamed up with CSW and Bitmain (phony hash war) I might've very well been persuaded to at least keep sensible portions of both chains in cold storage. Roger isn't much better than Craig. He is a fucking opportunist. (one of the most disgusting) He allied with Craig when his actions were benefiting his agenda and he didn't say a word against Craig till the last second before BcashSV and BcashABC were decoupled. He used or tried to use Craig just like he tried to use Bitcoin. Bitcoin was good when it was benefiting his own agenda but it became super bad when the devs didn't act and do what he proposed. How is he different than Craig? Craig is following exactly the same route as Roger except he is too obvious about what he is doing. (lying) Roger is also a two faced sociopath who's going to say whatever lie to get what he wants. (less obvious, but still obvious) Both of them are disgusting piece of shits but If I had to choose one, I would choose Craig just because he is a fucking clown and unlike him Roger has a slight chance to succeed, which is scary. Fuck both of them in the end. Btw Bought more BTC today from $5.2k.  I can't read minds and Roger stated that he was fooled. This could very well be him covering his ass. But unlike CSW, Roger is still openly against government and central banking. CSW is not. And if there's one thing we know about con-men like CSW it's that they are pretty good at fooling people for short periods of time. And that effect is amplified when a person feels like the world is out against them. In short, I don't know if Roger is anti-BTC because of he truly believes that BABC is better or because he's strictly an opportunist. In CSW's case it's much more clear. Or in other words, I'm certain that CSW is an evil little cunt. With Roger I am not certain, so I can't put him in the same boat as CSW. If the evidence changes I will quickly amend my opinion (for better or for worse). |
|
|
|
What he has been doing has been obvious to me (I think) and this supports it. He has been trying to make "bitcoin" something that the state and the CBs could embrace.
Question: Would you prefer to prohibit any state actor from participating in Bitcoin? Followup: If answer to above is 'yes', how do you square this with the mutually-exclusive attribute of 'permissionless'? I differentiate between participation and taking over control, which is what was suggested during a Coingeek conference in which the blights of society were supposed to get sufficient tools to keep doing what they have been in a more efficient manner. You would need to provide more info if you expect me to know what you are talking about. All I have seen from CSW as public pronouncements on changes to the protocol have been to restrict any such protocol changes to be to 'unfucken' (not his term, actually Shadders', I believe) it back to parity with v0.1. Any tools sitting atop such a protocol are just that - not base layer. Accordingly, I don't understand what that has to do with SV. If any public pronouncement has even been made. I note also that you have not answered the posited question(s). If Roger hadn't teamed up with CSW and Bitmain (phony hash war)
Exactly what is a ' phony hash war'? As differentiated, I suppose, from a 'real hash war? I don't care enough to dig out the exact Coingeek conference at which they specifically suggested that Bitcoin needs to "grow up" (from it's anti-establishment narrative) and get into bed with the FED and other institutions to succeed as strictly a means of p2p payment system as opposed to a solution to (the bigger portions of) governments and central banks being a detriment to humanity. I also don't feel like copy/pasting the countless other contradictions to Satoshi that have eluded CSW. All I know is that I don't want to support someone of his character in any way. Based on what I've seen the only thing standing between him and becoming a dictator in the image of notorious figures of the past is the necessary infrastructure to facilitate his rise to power and given the power he certainly isn't of the type of character to allow people to criticize or oppose him. Even if BSV was technologically superior, there is no excuse for supporting a character like CSW over forking BSV#2 to make sure that a person that is more likely than the majority of people to silence others won't ever get the power to do so. And if you truly believe in the potential of Bitcoin then you're surely aware that a person with excessive control over Bitcoin, and thus the potential money of the future, would have potentially free reign. Lots of conditionals happening in convolution here, but an outcome that should be avoided at all costs regardless. A phony hash war is what we've seen take place. If it [redirection of hash rate] was for strictly technological reasons they wouldn't have switched back to BTC when they realized they were burning too much money and simply shut off as much as necessary to stay green on their own chain. Hence, they are either in it for money or for power with a tilt towards the latter in the case of CSW. Edit: I don't care if people act for money. That's fair game depending on the methods employed. CSW is very different from Roger and possibly Jihan though. |
|
|
|
What he has been doing has been obvious to me (I think) and this supports it. He has been trying to make "bitcoin" something that the state and the CBs could embrace.
Question: Would you prefer to prohibit any state actor from participating in Bitcoin? Followup: If answer to above is 'yes', how do you square this with the mutually-exclusive attribute of 'permissionless'? I differentiate between participation and taking over control, which is what was suggested during a Coingeek conference in which the blights of society were supposed to get sufficient tools to keep doing what they have been in a more efficient manner. This could also be the issue on which CSW and Roger parted and to some extent why I don't have any hard feelings against him. CSW clearly cares about nothing worth caring about, unlike Roger (anti-establishment). If Roger hadn't teamed up with CSW and Bitmain (phony hash war) I might've very well been persuaded to at least keep sensible portions of both chains in cold storage. |
|
|
|
Satoshi clearly knew and understood that because Bitcoin is open source and anyone can clone or fork Bitcoin, and anyone can create unlimited number of new coins at will, then the dominance of one form of digital open source money/Gold 2.0 would be decided in the court of public opinion. Not through censorship of Bitcoin's competitors.
So it all comes down to belief/popularity contest of what form of open source digital money should be dominant, with participants basing reason to purchase and use based on sum total of philosophy/moral/ethical/guiding principles, intent of dev team, attributes (security, decentralization, etc., etc.), and growth through usage (via popularity with exchanges, brokers, users, merchants, investors, etc).
And yes BSV is a scam and Craig Wright is a fraud. But that is for the public to decide.
I like your reasoned position. Probably because I agree with it entirely. Aire and Wright are taking a shot at being the new Rothschilds. Aire is a gambler and Wright is a pathological liar. For a while I almost began to wonder if one of them is the Antichrist. They will not be the last to try. This is a chance to run the world. Thing is, the popularity contest, as I see it has an entrant that is not/can not be controlled by anyone and is going to win after it eviscerates everyone like CSW who comes after it. One dark question I feel we face now is: How much of a whale are either or both of these guys. BTC whale that is. Have they already done as much damage to BTC in their bid to pump BSV or will they do more? The absolute NIGHTMARE scenario is CSW somehow got control over early keys. But then... why no real proof? If Hal was Satoshi and if CSW was sufficiently involved with him early on there could be a chance that the claim about some "trust fund" for the genesis key is true. And in that case CSW could potentially gain access to it. But even if that was the case then either the majority would assume that Hal was Satoshi and CSW somehow got access due to "being there at the right time" or nobody would care. Even if God himself descended and told me that CSW was Satoshi (and not in some non-duality kind of way) I wouldn't give a shit at this point. I refuse to play with someone like CSW unless it's my last option to function in this world. And I doubt I'm the only one given the stunts he's pulled. I'm agnostic enough to give Roger a pass if the majority decided to go BABC since he denounced CSW, but CSW is just hard pass. I wouldn't be surprised if he started sending people to the Gulag if he could and I absolutely refuse to contribute even on a Planck scale to the reincarnation of humanity's biggest evils - which with the potential of BTC is a very real possibility. |
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26LDWnM7qe46:55 Craig claims that Bitcoin was not created to fix "the system", while Satoshi created Bitcoin as a reaction to the 2008 financial crisis. His quote: "That's [debt and the debt crisis] not what Bitcoin helps with." Every other time he opens his mouth he directly contradicts Satoshi. He fails to understand that once we will use currency that price will keep increasing in time taking debt will be extremely unpopular. There will be also little interest for people to offer debts. I don't think that debt will disappear and I don't think debt is inherently a problem. Out of control debt and bailouts at tax payers' expense are the issue. There is and always will be need and use for debt though. |
|
|
|
The real answer is a triple rail drift. Edit: But still like the reasoning of it What if I'm looking to eliminate the maximum amount of people, because this planet is being raped of its resources ? Are you saying I should keep my original position, and not flip the switch ? Or should I flip the switch, which will lead to my goal of eliminating the most number of people Edit: RE: Poll, I blew the last one voting for $4,200, but was happy to be wrong with having us blast to $5k. Voted "No" in the current poll. Feel it is likely we won't ever see it dropping below $3k. Touching the $3k's ? Maybe, but gut bacteria says the $3,000's are behind us. Resources are energy and energy is unlimited. We just need to stop being such fucking retards and git gud. Edit2: I saw a video where the father recreated the problem with toys for his son. The kid only hesitated for a second, then moved one little guy next to other five, and rammed the toy train over all six. Makes sense. I need that video. |
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26LDWnM7qe46:55 Craig claims that Bitcoin was not created to fix "the system", while Satoshi created Bitcoin as a reaction to the 2008 financial crisis. His quote: "That's [debt and the debt crisis] not what Bitcoin helps with." Every other time he opens his mouth he directly contradicts Satoshi. What he has been doing has been obvious to me (I think) and this supports it. He has been trying to romance the state. He has been trying to make "bitcoin" something that the state and the CBs could embrace. He is a fool. It's not just obvious, they actually stated precisely that in one of their Coingeek conferences. ^
Well, I read a lot about Hal Finney and I do not remember seeing him before.
In any case, it seems very good, we do not know what awaits us from science in the future.
One day he will come back from the dead and sign the message just to bring clarity for posteriority. Of course it won't matter to Bitcoin itself at that point, but it will be nice to know regardless. And then we'll have Satoshi vs CSW movies. We have to start a cryogenization business, it's the future.  I'll leave that to the smart people already working on it. A few years down the road I might throw some money at the problem after talking to proponents and critics of the matter in great length. But for now my main occupation is multiplying my Bitcoin stash. The more I can get now the more I can throw at moonshots like those. I hope other Bitcoin OGs will be funding all sorts of insane ventures as well once we close in on 7 digits. We need more people like Musk in the world. |
|
|
|
This is less than an hour old.
Statement from Chad Elwartowski:
PLEASE SHARE THIS POST OUR LIVES DEPEND ON IT
This is ridiculous. We lived on a floating house boat for a few weeks and now Thailand wants us killed.
We had to go underground because our contact warned us before this came out. Now we found out they are using a US submarine to hunt us. I'll say it right here.
Nadia and I did not design, construct or pay to have the seastead constructed. We promoted it and lived on it. We helped out by giving the builder updates and we participated in the launch. We did not decide where to put the seastead. We are enthusiastic supporters of the project who were lucky enough to be the first ones to stay on it.
Hunting us down to our death is just plain stupid and highlights exactly the reason someone would be willing to go out in middle of the ocean to get away from governments.
We never had any ill intentions and I even state plainly several times that I would not want to be a citizen of any seastead nation that would have me. We were hoping to bring tourism to Phuket with an underwater restaurant, floating hotels and medical research, tech jobs, etc. We had 3 wealthy entrepreneurs in the past week tell us they were coming to live in Phuket because they were excited about the project. We love Thailand. Nadia is a proud Thai. She is a proud Buddhist who does not support violence. I am a pacifist who would not harm a fly.
What we need:
Lawyers or anyone high up in the administration in Thailand to talk some sense into your military leaders.
Someone high up in the US that can help. I need to be able to go to the US embassy in Bangkok or some place near Phuket to get me out of the country. I need ideas for helping Nadia, a Thai citizen. She needs an embassy in Bangkok where she can seek asylum.
Nadia is just my girlfriend. She played no role in planning anything with the seastead. She just took video and stayed on the seastead with me. E-mail me at elwartowski@protonmail . com if you can help (not just suggestions...serious help).
Neither Nadia nor I are suicidal. We would never in our wildest dreams commit suicide. I want to live to the ripe age of at least 200. I love life. We love life together. We just wanted to be free. If just for one day.
Going to break etiquette and essentially bump my own post to the newest page. Elwar is one of our own and I want to make sure people see his post and help if they can or at the very least know that he is for the moment being safe. Screw etiquette, I almost missed this post. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
