Much as I would like to thank you for your magnanimous offer, I'm afraid that my fellow 'merkins -- many of them at least -- would rather cower under a benevolent boot than take responsibility for their own well-being. And accordingly are making an irresistible force determined to throw away their liberties - with mine thrown right out in the process.

As for myself, I'm perfectly capable of limiting my exposure to disease vectors on my own volition.

Lowest ask. If you are the maker, you make the market come to you. If you are the taker, you take the current offer.

OTOH, surrender your liberties and you also surrender to tyranny.

Incidentally, I don't doubt your rather rational conclusions about the effect of what you term 'opening early', as far as epidemiology goes. I just don't agree that the government of a free society has a legitimate authority to order the populace to stay in their cages.

As far as the effect upon Bitcoin, I'm not seeing such a causative factor.

That, or placing your buy below the current market price at time of order entry.

1) Which exchanges extract their fees in BTC? Any?

2) If you are paying 0.5%, U R Doing it Rong.

Why not? It's the mainstream consumerist 'merkin way.

You keep trying to claim that a protocol is the same thing as a software implementation. You just look stupider and stupider every time you do so.


You seem to need a refresher. Go look at v 0.8.

---

Relevance? Zero.

In my case, it was the “ Experienced bitcoiner =/= experienced trader” retort.

Not so much as I have respect for the truth. My support of jonoiv is to the effect that some here were repeatedly attacking not him/her, but a straw man misrepresentation of him/her.

The rest of your post is just too silly to bother responding to.

And you again demonstrate your abysmal ignorance to the fact that a protocol is not the same thing as a software implementation. You seem to parrot this inanity at every opportunity, heaping yet another pile of rightful derision upon your ignorant ass. One might expect that a person with a modicum of intelligence, having this gaping hole in their knowledge pointed out to them repeatedly, would pause to actually learn something about the matter. But no. Not you. No, not you.

FWIW, BTC has indeed endured a hard fork - though it was back in the time before BTC, BCH, and then BSV each went their own respective directions. So it is irrelevant as a differentiator. But you still want to cling to 'soft forks only', don't you? Demonstrating yet another vector of your ignorance.

We didn't. JiGgly just likes to see him/herself type.

::clink!::

Note that your (in)equation obeys the reflexive principle.

The trail of the dead in Bitcoindom is populated with many conventional traders that think their previous success in other markets uniquely qualifies them to apply the same principles to Bitcoin.

NYT, Confessor, Song&Dance

Oh ... wait... I see you see it.
Nevermind....

U R So Dum.

Rly Rly Dum.

BSV has indeed forked. This is a fact. BSV's forking has brought it to near compliance with the initial definition of the Bitcoin protocol.

These are simple statements of fact.

That you keep asserting that this is non-factual just demonstrates how fucking deluded you are. Or maybe ignorant. Or maybe duplicitous. Or maybe just Rly Rly Dum.

Looking at the plaintiffs' names, one can't help but wonder if this is another inside cointelpro job.

Well, no. There is no value judgement in my statement. It is simply a statement of fact.

Your statement, OTOH, is dripping with a false bravado driven assertion -- an assertion which is merely an (unfounded) opinion.

Now, it is true that I believe BSV's inherent attributes to be superior to BTC's current inherent attributes. And that very statement is indeed an assertion that it is better. But I had not made that assertion in the post to which you inaccurately responded.

All this time, and you _still_ haven't internalized the sigmoid curve of adoption.

The world abandoned sound money.

recursion

FTW