No. Dinki-Di.

Hey! Trusov Ilya Igorevych! Scammer! Knock it off!

I just received a reset password email from the forum. 'Odd', thought I, 'I did not request to change my password'.

It came from 146.185.201.117. 'Hmmm. I've not used that outgoing IP in the past.'



Who is this Trusov character?

https://www.google.com/search?q=Trusov+Ilya+Igorevych

An unsavory character indeed. Bitcoin Scammer. Hit #2:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1394054.0

Changed my pw for good measure. No, not through the link in the email.

What a maroon.

Is it unexpected? Really?

How did what work out for me?

You can guarantee? No, you cannot.

I may have reported one or more of your posts that had nothing to do with Bitcoin Cash. Again, there is a difference between banning users, and pointing out the unwelcome aspect of said user's posts.

There is a difference between banning users and simply pointing out the unwelcome aspect of said user's posts.

Well, that wouldn't be a tattoo then. A tattoo is commitment. Own that shit.

I have a hard time believing that. What about Dec - like the 7th or so? Went from ~$13000 to ~$20000. On lower volume?

What ever happened to @SorosShorts? Might be an apropos time for a reappearance.

That doesn't mean what you think it means

Haha! quote from article: "Japan started seeking its own rare-earth metals after China held back shipments in 2010 during a dispute over islands both countries claim". Delicious.

I hear ya man. Same boat here.

I drew down enough for a lambo in Dec. Unfortunately, a the time I didn't draw down enough for the taxes. Now I'm having to sell 3x the stash that I would have at the time. Grr. Poor planning. Or faith in a mistaken indicator. I was watching days-to-double. Either it is a bad indicator, or I don't know how to use it. Grr.


Agree. Unfortunately, the thieves have guns. More than I do. And radios - radio waves travel faster than cars or even bullets. Grr. Again.

I hate to feed the Blockstream/Core/LN trolls here in the Bitcoin Cash thread. But I will point out here that Bitcoin Cash is free of the cancer that is The SegWit Omnibus Changeset, upon which the current implementation of LN is dependent. As for LN:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=pOZaLbUUZUs

I'm curious what Adam's "large teams full time job" will come up with to debunk (*ahem!*) the above.

Go ahead shills - rip it to shreds. If you can.

Finally. We get to something concrete and debatable. Thanks.


Exactly. Three people met and discussed what -- if anything -- to do about malleability. The outcome: nothing at this time. Slight preference for MalFix, but no consensus.

True, one of the participants was the individual who currently leads the market-leading client implementation. Was he the holdout? Who knows? Doesn't matter.

But you fail to support your claim that MalFix would result in Bitcoin Cash abandoning Bitcoin's tried and true security model. Again, put up or shut up. You may just be parroting my observation that The SegWit Omnibus Changeset has caused Bitcoin Segwit to abandon Bitcoin's tried and true security model. But you seem to fundamentally misunderstand Bitcoin. For it is not the separation of sig from tx within The SegWit Omnibus Changeset that has abandoned Bitcoin's security model. Rather, it is the misguided abortional crude hack of pretending that an anyonecanspend tx is anything other than exactly that, which has opened post- SegWit Omnibus Changeset Bitcoin Segwit to a myriad of new attack vectors.

Go sharpen your pencil and get back to us.

Again, until you provide some evidence, all can safely consider this claim debunked, dispatched, and discredited.


Again, you fundamentally misunderstand Bitcoin. Non-mining, fully-validating clients (often misrepresented as 'full nodes') have no power to effect the network itself. This is true whether discussing Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Segwit, or any other PoW satoshi-pattern cryptocurrency. Miners have the power to enact any change they want to - or the majority thereof does. This power is counterbalanced only by the power of users and holders to abandon any chain that does not implement the characteristics they desire. In contrast, the only power non-mining, fully-validating clients possess is to divorce themselves from the network. Period. Other than suiciding themselves, they do not affect they network in any way.

The above is true regardless of Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin Segwit. For better or for worse, this is the system satoshi bequeathed us. True, miners are likely to use such chain abandonment as a signal of user/hodler displeasure. However, they are fully aware that such non-mining, fully-validating clients are subject to Sybil attacks. The only non-Sybillable resources are mining power and Bitcoin ownership, which is what makes the system work to begin with.


Exactly - and exactly identical for Bitcoin SegWit as for Bitcoin Cash.


No. Non-mining, fully-validating clients are the only entities in the system subject to Sybil attack. While they bring benefits to their owners, they do nothing for the network itself. They are merely a Sybiled proxy for economic power. Again, this is exactly identical for Bitcoin SegWit as for Bitcoin Cash.

So tek claims. He is partially right about the first one. A separation of signature data from the rest of the transaction data has indeed been proposed as a malleability fix. Funny thing about proposals - anyone can make one. Even an insane one. Not saying the concept of separating sig from tx is necessarily insane, just saying that there are essentially zero barriers to making a proposal.

To get the proposal implemented, however, requires consensus. There is no consensus for this proposal at this time.


Despite a direct challenge, tek has provided zero rationale for tek's claim that this proposal will change Bitcoin's security model. Zero. Tek merely dodges the question. See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2040221.msg34496915#msg34496915

It is possible there is a proposal for BCH that separates sig from tx and changes the security model. Possible. until tek coughs up the text of the relevant proposal, there is no knowing.

Salacious claims require support of evidence. The ball is in tek's court. Put up or shut up. *

If tek can establish such a proposal actually exists, it is then impingent upon tek to show that there is a snowball's chance in hell of it ever getting adopted. As if.

Unless tek steps forward with some evidence, you can safely consider this claim debunked, dispatched, and discredited. *


I think you sum up the situation rather well - Bitcoin Cash users are unlikely to accept being forced into such a system.

*edit: tek posted while I was composing this. From a quick scan, tek has identified a specific proposal, though tek's claims will still be debunked using this new evidence. Stay tuned.

That's rich. Seems there are four threads you've dropped. Here's the simplest:


After we dispatch that bit of nonsense, we'll move on to the others.

Old news is old.

But..... surprised?

If you are with someone only as an expediency, u r doing it rong.

^^^Diversionary tactic #23. When in an argument, you find yourself bereft of any valid counterpoint, introduce a distraction.