Yes they were so patently obvious an attempt by His Royal Majesty King Homero of Hash to dodge the bullets by blaming the imminent collapse of the ponzi on those meddling stuffed shirts in 'Legal'.

Your 'leaked' inside info, however, not quite as obvious but certainly triggering my bullshit detector with the carefully crafted introduction of 'outing' The King in his Belgian hideaway, while also conveniently leaking the 'fact' that they are actually, finally, no really they mean it this time, going to be honouring the $20 price per coin because, well, now they have a way to do it so, you know . . .quick kids . . .one more spin of the wheel, if you already put everything you have on XPY, only to watch it steadily evaporate along with the mirage of supposed innovation that never was, maybe now is the time to put someone else's money on XPY because, this time they are actually, finally, no really they mean it this time . . .

We can be confident in buying vast amounts of XPY now because someone who wants to 'out' His Majesty, kindly happened to include in his exposé leaked 'insider' information about the $20 price being 4realz . . .

Let's see, you are pissed at me because I quoted you perfectly accurately up to the oft-used three dots to then insert my brief summation of what your point actually attempted to claim by way of a beginning assumptions which ended with "I can practically conclude God exists"?

Which part of that conclusion *wasn't* 'therefore God'? You propose one thing and use it to conclude God exists, yet you are pissed at me for saying that was what you were asserting?


No, I do not note the extraordinary difference. Please, genuinely, please explain how that assertion appears, according to you, to be saying something other than what it appears to be saying to me, which is essentially, "I assert this to be true and, with this being true, I can then conclude the existence of God".


You have already since covered much of this point, but I'd just like to mention that you appear to intentionally be ignoring the fact that there is a big difference between flying teapots and a monotheistic God choosing to take the form of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Your whole complaint about us dumb atheists who invoke the FSM, centers entirely on you insisting that we are dumb to do so because, well, it's a fucking monster made of spaghetti, therefore you can't test for whether it is God, only that it is a monster made of spaghetti. It's a placeholder meme for an imagined omnipotent omniscient monotheistic deity and you know it, but you prefer to complain about the fact that some parts of this fictional character represent measurable things, therefore 'not god'.

It's like you're smart enough to know damn well what the FSM is about but you want to crap all over everyone else who is also smart enough to know what the FSM is about, purely to elevate yourself by way of sneering derision over your insistence that it is a failed comparative concept.

Ok, odd way to attempt a rebuttal. The cumbersome aspect I refer to is the proposal you cite Blockchain as heading towards, which would require the user to download all the Blocknet coin blockchains in order to use the cross-node features.

So to acknowledge the reference to just how cumbersome that would actually be, by way of disparaging the distributed Multigateway tech by, incorrectly, calling it centralised, isn't actually a rebuttal, it's a, "You say there's a problem? Sure, I'll just . . . look over there something something something!"


FFS, please lay off on the insta-accusations of trolling whenever someone is attempting to engage you in any meaningful conversation about Blocknet's development.

You keep saying, "Blocknet *is* something different", but everything you have said so far indicates that it isn't really very different at all, other than you regularly alluding to something something something mumble mumble can't say.

Given that your project raised a whole bunch of BTC from the community, I'd say you have something of a responsibility to actually clearly define the what, how and when of Blocknet that is going to be innovative and different because, so far, I've yet to see anything that's new given much of what is being cited as innovative has turned out to be methodologies and tech previously developed/discarded by others months ago.

Clearly the words of a person unfamiliar with the way computers used to be, prior to the development of the 'Personal' computer. Dumb terminals in an office building all hooked up to a central computer. If you were cutting edge enough to be working from home in those days you still are talking in terms of a dumb terminal connecting long-distance to a centralised computer.

Decentralised computing is about how you view the picture as a whole.

The processor in your laptop is a centralised device in the scale of you and your hardware, but considering you used to have to rely on the processor at the core of a corporations mainframe instead, all the people you know who are now using their own processors in their own devices, that's decentralisation of power, from the corporation to the individual.

Ultimately, the goal of true internet decentralisation is going to be the ability to hook yourself up to it without needing an ISP but, in the meantime, the fact that you can hook yourself up to your ISP without limitations is a good enough goal. Talk to a few users of old-school AOL customers or any other internet-early-days ISP, where they tried to create a closed corporate environment their users were restricted to in the hope they'd be able to spoon feed them a sanitized, commercial environment instead of the full open internet.

There may be value-added features of superNET which begin as distributed, or even centralised, server-based provisions, but the nature of SuperNET itself means that there is constant pressure to decentralise and find innovative ways in order to do so, which is a rather unique goal compared to mainstream corporate internet-service structures.

Yeah I'm going to go ahead and just point out that this tech/nique has been done already by one of the SuperNET functions and the cumbersome issue of needing to operate all blockchains at the same time meant they opted for the cleaner Multigateway solution instead which avoids the need for that.

So we're still at the point of trying to figure out what Blocknet has which is different to SuperNET. Although, going by your next paragraph, you don't actually appear to even be trying to offer anything different:
So far it appears not that you could be attempting to deliver the same thing, but that you are actually delivering the same thing, only much much later and somewhat inefficiently.

What is actually different about Blocknet, now that I've pointed out the tech you cited as being already created and relegated to a minor sub-function by SuperNET?

Swing and a miss, fella. Arguments for and against empiricism and rationalism tend to ignore the fact that both are applicable and useful tools of developing an understanding our Universe. I take umbrage with your grindingly clunky assertion above, as you simply cannot with any intellectual honesty, boldly start any premise with "Since it is practical to equate reality as a mental construct . . .therefore God"

Consider for a moment the fact that reality for us is a mental construct, but it isn't for the myriad scientific equipment we have built which is capable of observing/measuring the reality which exists outside our 'mental construct'. Unless you want to claim the Large Hadron Collider to be a sentient being of course.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Plus intellectual honesty and integrity.

None of our technological devices are capable of measuring for a god because god exists within our imagination and is blindly asserted as real by people overwhelmed by their Almighty Imagination beyond their existing capability for intellectual honesty and integrity.

You may defend the notion of the existence of a god with exactly the same vim and vigour that could be applied to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But don't pretend it holds any more value or validity than anything else arbitrarily stated to be real. If the FSM is lacking in any regards to the 'God' with a capital G, then you are simply to attribute the same characteristics to the FSM that would otherwise be applied to your 'God', at will. Or Harry Potter for that matter. Or, well, anything else you care to imagine.

NXT-based assets can be anything but, for the sake of comparison, they now include the superNET coins.

So far I'm getting that Blocknet is intending to implement the things that NXT and superNET already have, but is there anything about this Blocknet decentralised exchange being trumpeted in the last few posts that is actually different or innovative?

Only if it is capable of functioning above and beyond that which already exists within NXT's long established (for crypto), functional and very active decentralised exchange.

So, Syn, what will Blocknet's decentralised exchange do differently?

So you protest against this on the basis that 'god' cannot be held to the same degree of critical analysis as, well, EVERYTHING we know about our reality because, as you say, this 'god' character is by definition 'beyond the rules of Nature'. Trouble is, this definition is solely by way of attributes WE HUMANS have given the concept of a monotheistic 'god'.

To employ the special pleading fallacy, which you are, is only honest if you are also acknowledging that the reason you are employing special pleading is because our imagination has chosen to attribute 'his' characteristics as such in order to explain away the fact we are proposing the existence of an 'intelligent designer' when no empiric measurement can ever be applied because we say 'he' is beyond our reality.

The process of defining the characteristics or, for that matter, mere existence of something outside our reality, other than simply admitting you're 'making shit up' with your imagination, is farcical in the extreme.

To protest against the Atheist who, rightly, says there is no reason to believe in the existence of a proposed 'god' is to, by definition, accept the potential existence of ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING ANYBODY EVER DREAMS UP because, after all, the 'retarded logic' of dismissing claims towards the existence of that for which exists attributes beyond our reality, according to you, is wrong, therefore: [insert any fanciful supernatural notion here and apply some special pleading fallacy liberally as though it is equally as valid as dismissal of same for lack of evidence]

If we're going down that road, I'm with Konstantinos and his 'hypothesis' concerning the giant black dildo of smiteyness. Because, hey, you can't disprove me!!!!111!!!!1!!!!!! :superrolleyes:

@BADecker You're an idiot abusing what little you know of actual science in order to twist it to your own reality. Stop citing shit as though you even understand it in the first place. Your tiresome 'entropy' screeching keeps falling down over this inconvenient fact I have already cited: "Of utmost importance, entropy is an energetic phenomenon, and only tangentially has to do with the distribution of matter in a system."

As I said, I just wish I could unsubscribe to this shit thread. Sure, I could simply refuse to ever post it in again but the trouble is, sometimes when it appears for the umpteenth time in my list, I remember that I once was so brainwashed that I couldn't see the reality of the situation and it was the rational and reasonable words of others which allowed me to break my conditioning and free my mind from this juvenile and intellectually dishonest system of unquestioning 'faith'. So every now and then I suck it up and try again with you, only for you to show yourself to be beyond help it would seem.

The superBITS don't stake at this time. Which will actually create for an interesting range of options for people to choose to move coins to different places depending on how/where they want to store/use them.

Bitstarcoin, like the vast majority of cryptocurrency, including Bitcoin, is generally considered '1.0' in that the tech is very similar and has the same sort of limitations as to what can be achieved with it. NXT, however, is a '2.0' cryptocurrency platform, capable of decentralising many currently centralised services, including an Asset Exchange along with numerous other cutting-edge functions and features.

Due to Bitstarcoin being part of SuperNET, the '2.0' equivalent to the coin has been created on the NXT-based platform which you can trade into and out of by way of the SuperNET Multigateway on a 1-for-1 basis.

1.0 = BITS
2.0 = SuperBITS

1.0 Remains on its own blockchain and wallet, to which some modifications and updates are coming
2.0 Operates within the NXT-based platform and can therefore be incorporated into numerous decentralised services such as the aforementioned Asset Exchange, amongst other features and functions available now, soon and in the future.

There are benefits to both 1.0 and 2.0 platforms. This coin gets to have the best of both worlds.

So that's a resounding, "No", then.

So it's just you two?

Do you not have the support of ALL the Blocknet coin devs to help get things done?

Can we add this to the list of questions Mr Ganza is required to provide evidence for?

Where does he get the idea that there are tens of thousands of people even remotely aware of his ponzi-coin project, let alone actually participating in it.

The largest group of recipients of said welfare being the seriously disabled, the elderly and retired. But, sure, you carry on painting it like there's a hundred million perfectly-able scroungers bleeding the system dry, it makes for greater opportunity for derision and spite for those less fortunate than yourself.

Reads as though they are potentially going to be shipping the equivalent of a box of pencils and paper if they're making a '50Mh/s' miner.

+1

Don't bother posing questions that will simply allow him to waffle on about how the big bad 'legal' department ruined his dreams, or that there was a concerted conspiracy to destroy his 'legitimate cryptocurrency business which would have cured the world of [insert ailment here]'

Try for things like, "Why have you repeatedly made absolutely false claims towards your altcoin clone having cutting-edge innovative tech, when it is just a regular Proof-of-Stake coin and that an analysis of the Github has shown repeated pushes of code which had minor cosmetic changes removed and then replaced, as though to imply that there was regular development work being done on it?"

As much as Alpha Tech and those associated with it deserve to be torn a new one over this whole fucking mess, please refrain from the use of casual racism. It is nothing more than ignorant tribalism.

These guys are assholes because of their actions, not because of the colour of their skin or the content of their passports.

[snip] Undouched.

Extremely close.