Did you notice that the funds total assets are $3m, I had to check to make sure it wasnt a mistake and they meant billion. But its right $3m..lol |
|
|
|
«that is believed to contain 200 tons of gold bullion and coins, equivalent to $130 billion, according to The Daily Telegraph».Who the hell did the math on this? Regardless, more gold = less price and you never know when they'll find a treasure ship or asteroid full of the stuff. Old world problems bitcoiners laugh at. Yeah that is weird. One of the figures is wrong... 200 ton [short] = 5833333.34 ounce [troy] @ $1,243.20/oz ~ $7,252,000,008200 ton [long] = 6533333.34 ounce [troy] @ $1,243.20/oz ~ $8,122,240,008200 ton [metric] = 6430149.32 ounce [troy] @ $1,243.20/oz ~ $7,993,961,634 OR maybe they were using the price of gold when the ship sank? you are missing the boxes "The cruiser’s crew were believed to have carried 5,500 boxes containing gold bars as well as 200 tons of gold coins" |
|
|
|
Whatever you think about whether or not Satoshi should be considered as authoritative I believe Satoshi died with Dave Kleiman and Hal Finney. I don't know what Satoshi writings could possibly be considered authoritative. I somehow expected better from you.
Fair enough. I'll try to up my game.  David Kleiman is part of CSW's narrative. If you think he is part of the story, then faketoshi is probably part of the story too. |
|
|
|
Common Kane put one in before extra time please thank you
God I hope so if only just to end it. But really Croatia are running rings round England. Yeah Engeland needed to make the second goal for more comfort, but still they Will win iT Fake the breakdown then ... moon. Croats play without mercenaries... do you think all those expats would play for england if nigeria was 10x richer? I don't. they are just mercs, sport mercs. go croatia... at least a real national team. Stop equating some mindless football game with politics, shut the fuck up and enjoy the game. |
|
|
|
Its well known that Roger had tens of thousands of bitcoin tied up in Mt Gox (at the least). He might even have been their biggest customer.
Its hardly surprising he would want to help Mark out.
Here are some of they well know people who made claims against MtGox Roger Ver - 577.46 BTC
Gregory Maxwell - 928.96 BTC
Olivier Janssens [Bitcoin Foundation] - 335126397.0 JPY and 385117.77 USD
Bruce Fenton [Bitcoin Foundation] - 8.06 BTC
Luke Dashjr - 446.12 BTC
Pieter Wuille - 59.83 BTC
Peter Vessenes [Bitcoin Foundation] - 8000.00 USD
Patrick Murck [Bitcoin Foundation] - 175.00 BTC
Martti Malmi - 10.00 BTC
Danny Brewster [Neo & Bee scammer] - 368.80 BTC
Adam Back - 108.45 BTC
Rudy Harjanto (also in offshore leaks) - 1076.19 BTC and 408819.13 USD |
|
|
|
Please don't quote this story, its clearly a scam and doesn't deserve oxygen. To test the truth of a Satoshi claim, you simply need to see a valid early block signature or message signed with a known Satoshi PGP key. This doesnt prove it absolutely, but without it, you shouldn't give it any of your time. |
|
|
|
facts do matter! that's the most frustrating thing about interacting with some folks - they create so much false narrative and FUD, and confusion that's it's a large teams full time job to debunk and disprove! if we had less confusion, we'd have less drama. Apparently this is the bit that proves Adam has employed a team of full time trolls... lol, what planet do you live on. That's nowhere near even the balance of probabilities. |
|
|
|
 Almost identical  |
|
|
|
I'm not going to dismiss it without some further reading and investigation, but it seems like a leap to me.
Dig deep, otherwise you’ll end up like Carlton Banks in his recent debate with me. All your evidence is circumstantial. So without digging down into the individual points, which I have little doubt are factually correct; With such a vast range of facts to draw-from after the fact, you will no doubt find many that are supportive. You have cherry picked a number of factual situations and used inference to connect it to your initial supposition. It's the same thing all the conspiracy theorists do. Not being able to disprove something doesn't give it any more weight. Being cool and something many of us want to believe, doesn't give it any more weight. A combination of cherry picked events/facts with plausable explanations which support your initial suppostion doesn't give it any more weight. The sum of the parts is zero. Truthfully, I'm open to your idea, but you need something more, what have you got that really supports what you believe? |
|
|
|
Put on your tin foil hat: src: https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/scaling-decentralization-security-of-distributed-ledgersAnonymint gives a brief discusion of ASICBOOST, quantum resistant addressing & Satoshi secretly wanting a 1MB block size, which leads to... Are why I have concluded that “Satoshi Nakamoto” was a pseudonym obscuring a secret task force of the “Satan’s global elite” and Bitcoin was mostly likely designed by the global elite in order to surreptitiously foist a world central bank by way of creative destruction of their own nation-state central banks. Note the natural law’s (i.e. collective human nature and physics of the universe) “Satan” wants to own your soul with the coming 666 system and thus Satan’s global elite always must give you your free will and allow you to choose to enslave yourself. Thus Satoshi never outright lied, but rather employed double-speak and deceptive truths. He was perfectly accurate with exquisite, meticulous attention to detail. I'm not going to dismiss it without some further reading and investigation, but it seems like a leap to me. |
|
|
|
- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
You statement is very confusing since you are taking about two things: a) 51% attack and b) stealing coins. How can you steal coins without private keys on Bitcoin? What kind of bull shit is this? Please enlighten me! In big blocker world you don’t need non mining nodes. Miners enforce and determine consensus. Therefore 51% attack can do anything they like including stealing coins without keys. |
|
|
|
- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
Just the first line in your post sold it for me. What in the actual fuck.
Hmm. Where have I heard that before? 51% attacks require nothing more, and they can do anything....ANYTHING. They can make every bitcoin address contain an mp3. The whole discussion about Segwit is bollox. Of course if you are running a full node you wouldn’t accept the mp3 invested junk, but then, non segwit people don’t run nodes, they rely on miners. Blanket statement is ignorant falsehood. Not one of you Segwit haters have provided any decent argument or evidence describing any substantive weakness. You all troll and pat yourself on the back for spotting some imaginary flaw. I am still waiting on you to reveal the problem. Your 51% attack nonsense doesn’t wash, what else have you got? |
|
|
|
Welp. We know how high level money and power works. When it's financially worthwhile to do so, someone will get together the required processing power and buy off the proper authorities and make an honest attempt to steal segwit coins. Whether it succeeds or fails, it will be a big blow to the faith people have in the system (bitcoin in all its forms, authorities, moneyed people (us, even if simply by association)).
Just the first line in your post sold it for me. What in the actual fuck.
I feel dumb. I've been a segwit cheerleader without knowing all the facts. I see now that some of it is tribalism, as you mentioned earlier. Anyway, it's what we've got now, and I still support Bitcoin. I won't be keeping my cold storage coins in a segwit address though. Group identity is a powerful thing. What's important now is what to do going forward. I didn't even know why it might be bad, I just had a funny feeling due to the lack of open discussion of its pros and cons. When only one side is being talked about, it's time to be careful. Welcome to ignore It’s not what he says, I listen to you being wrong, but don’t enjoy being trolled. |
|
|
|
- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
Just the first line in your post sold it for me. What in the actual fuck.
Hmm. Where have I heard that before? 51% attacks require nothing more, and they can do anything....ANYTHING. They can make every bitcoin address contain an mp3. The whole discussion about Segwit is bollox. Of course if you are running a full node you wouldn’t accept the mp3 invested junk, but then, non segwit people don’t run nodes, they rely on miners. |
|
|
|
First ever burned merit. Odd
Today at 07:52:35 PM: 1 to fluidjax for (Deleted/Off-limits/Ignored)
Sorry, thanks for the merit but I deleted the post. The thread feels unpleasant when I get trolled but am taking the conversation seriously. |
|
|
|
Welp. We know how high level money and power works. When it's financially worthwhile to do so, someone will get together the required processing power and buy off the proper authorities and make an honest attempt to steal segwit coins. Whether it succeeds or fails, it will be a big blow to the faith people have in the system (bitcoin in all its forms, authorities, moneyed people (us, even if simply by association)).
Just the first line in your post sold it for me. What in the actual fuck.
I feel dumb. I've been a segwit cheerleader without knowing all the facts. I see now that some of it is tribalism, as you mentioned earlier. Anyway, it's what we've got now, and I still support Bitcoin. I won't be keeping my cold storage coins in a segwit address though. Group identity is a powerful thing. What's important now is what to do going forward. I didn't even know why it might be bad, I just had a funny feeling due to the lack of open discussion of its pros and cons. When only one side is being talked about, it's time to be careful. Welcome to ignore |
|
|
|
If you haven't seen this before it's worth a watch. Andreas explains why Big Blocks are not going to work. (watch time: 5-6mins, Petabyte Blocks & Streaming Money) https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw?t=11m39sSegwit in its current form can't handle hundreds of millions of users either. That was never what it was about. We needed a step up, a year earlier than we got it, and we had a few options to do so. For the current leg, and I repeat myself yet again, why was segwit better than simply doubling the blocksize? Nobody seems willing to explain that bit, for whatever reason. Because Segwit is an upgrade that enables many new technolgies, L2 & L3. Technologies that will enable millions of TX's per second. We don't need an incremental step in the wrong direction, as perfectly illustrated by Andreas, big blocks can never fullfill the Bitcoin dream, because PetaByte blocks are effectively impossible. I guess if you think doing the wrong thing as a temporary fix, and incurring the associated Technical debt is OK. There is little I can do to defend segwit, but in my mind and the minds of many other developers, it's not acceptable, so Big Blocks are not an option at all. If bigger blocks are a bad idea then why are you not advocating for a blocksize decrease? Why do we have Precisely the Correct Blocksize as things now stand? Also I'll need to see some convincing numbers for the millions claim. The millions claim is based on L2 & L3 technologies that can now be developed because of Segwit, I can't convince you of it, beyond pointing to lightning as the first L2 tech, and my belief that developers will create better and more sophisticated L2 & L3 that will eventually scale up to that figure. There is no obvious ceiling, the limit is in the creativity of the solutions. I don't advocate a block size reduction at the moment, the best trade-off in block size is yet to be determined. |
|
|
|
If you haven't seen this before it's worth a watch. Andreas explains why Big Blocks are not going to work. (watch time: 5-6mins, Petabyte Blocks & Streaming Money) https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw?t=11m39sSegwit in its current form can't handle hundreds of millions of users either. That was never what it was about. We needed a step up, a year earlier than we got it, and we had a few options to do so. For the current leg, and I repeat myself yet again, why was segwit better than simply doubling the blocksize? Nobody seems willing to explain that bit, for whatever reason. Because Segwit is an upgrade that enables many new technolgies, L2 & L3. Technologies that will enable millions of TX's per second. We don't need an incremental step in the wrong direction, as perfectly illustrated by Andreas, big blocks can never fullfill the Bitcoin dream, because PetaByte blocks are effectively impossible. I guess if you think doing the wrong thing as a temporary fix, and incurring the associated Technical debt is OK. There is little I can do to defend segwit, but in my mind and the minds of many other developers, it's not acceptable, so Big Blocks are not an option at all. |
|
|
|
If you haven't seen this before it's worth a watch. Andreas explains why Big Blocks are not going to work. (watch time: 5-6mins, Petabyte Blocks & Streaming Money) https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw?t=11m39s |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
