Not the purpose of a public ledger in the case of bitcoin. It seems facetious to claim otherwise.


You're ignoring the fact that 50% or more of BSV's market cap still rests on the lie that Faketoshi is Satoshi. This is a critical error when assuming any sort of future price gains with this particularly fraudulent shitcoin.

But frankly I can't remember a time when you've ever been right about anything, so carry on. Lol.

You guys are just doing imaginary cartwheels off each other over imaginary piles of bullshit.

OK, we get it, you think Floyd deserved to be killed - whether it be for being a drug abuser or passing a fake 20 - we understood that months ago.

Alternatively, at best, the guy who died with a knee on his neck for 8 minutes would have died without a knee on his neck for 8 minutes.

That is a fantastic, Olympic-level leap.

This is so dumb that I'm giving it 2 merits.

Okay, well 5 seconds of Google research finds that Wisconsin's statutory rape laws fall under statute 948.02 whereas Blake was charged with violating 940.225(3).

So he deserved to be shot 7 times, is that what you are saying?


Having a knife in a car is pretty different from "waiving a knife around" as you previously claimed, and nowhere in the video was he shown to be "waiving a knife around." That is purely speculation designed to bolster your case (that he should be shot in the back 7 times), just as is Eddie's speculation that he raped a child. I have to wonder what is wrong with the both of you to think anything could possibly justify the actions of the officer in this case. The fact that you are both inventing evidence to bolster the case is equally as baffling.


BTW, the spelling of the word in this instance is "waving"; "waiving" refers to something else, like waiving your right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself.

Interesting lineup at the RNC the other day... I thought the Eye of Sauron made some great points about energy independence. Turns out we could be fueling half the country's power supply from geothermal heat.

Not necessarily. Most of the addresses in that list are mining addresses. They mined a huge fortune and have yet to touch most of it (or at least some of it -- we don't know to what extent they were actually involved, only that they are the owner of all those addresses claimed by Craig to be his own). This person might not have spent a single cent to amass their fortune -- minus electricity costs which are negligible compared to what they are today.

A lot of their website content is also plagiarized from Wikipedia and Medium articles... They really didn't put a lot of time into creating it. Looks highly scammy. They don't have any comments or activity in their thread. But I'll keep an eye on it going forward.

SimpToken, sounds exciting! <insert Shut up and Take my Money! gif here>

But will it surpass the glory of CuckCoin?

Uh... well that's one way to calculate it. Another would be to divide the total number of bitcoin sent to the Counterparty burn address (1CounterpartyXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXUWLpVr) by the total number of XCP, which would yield:

2130 / 2649272 = 0.000804 BTC per XCP, which is still 9x higher than its current price, roughly.

a. this thread isn't about you.
b. I don't work for Sportsbet.

What's funny is the fact that people who insisted on pretending he's not a fraud got burned.

All the evidence of McAfee being a fraud was there in your face, and you shoved it aside in order to lose money.

Clown world indeed.

 

You're being overly myopic here. The conversation contained more relevant back and forth after the statement you highlighted. Tell us what your end goal is by continuing to harp on this dead issue.

If anything we should be trying to figure out who side chain is so we can get their main account tagged and removed from whatever sig campaign they are currently in.

Some of it is still copied from other sources.

The top of page 16:


Original:


This isn't the only instance: it also plagiarized Wikipedia's entry on the U.S. dollar.

If you can't be bothered to come up with your own words, why would you expect people to invest in your project?

Since you did bother to come up with original wording for the overall idea of your project, I won't tag your account for plagiarism, but I also won't be recommending anybody invest in it, for multiple reasons.

No he didn't. If you're referring to the part where he says "just say I asked you to look at the flags & oppose them if you thought necessary," how is that a "lie"? You keep repeating he asked him to lie, but that in itself is a lie.

Not at all. Let's look at what the 3,000 architects and engineers are actually doing:


They paid for the report to be done -- they didn't actually perform any of the "work" and their personal opinions on what happened are highly varied.

The report itself includes the words "controlled," "demolition" or "explosive" zero times. So you are basically altering its contents to fit your own narrative. Just because the report found that the building did not collapse due to fire does not (necessarily) mean the government did 9/11.

Uncanny that my bullshit sensor is also extra sensitive when listening to what conspiracy theorists have to say.

Who you consider to be "critical thinking guards" I consider to be "armchair experts," those who taught themselves just enough broad principles of physics, chemistry, history, psychology, whatever else, to argue a point that can't be opposed by those who haven't. They have usually convinced themselves they have a deeper than superficial understanding of their subject, which is a critical flaw that is easily exposed by actual experts on whatever the subject may be.

You see this type of effect on display here on the forum quite often; most obviously is when a hack like anonymint or franky1 would make a novel but obtuse hypothesis about the inner-workings of bitcoin and then be quickly shut down by Carlton Banks or gmaxwell or somebody else who actually knows what they are talking about.

I'm not saying I'm particularly smarter than anybody, but I know enough to recognize and respect the diligence involved in mastering a discipline as opposed to reading a book or watching a YouTube documentary then resting on the laurels of having convinced oneself that they know things.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/3b06f433573161e36e5526b35b07f1d8/tenor.gif?itemid=16294467


Much like the JFK assassination or 9/11, without concrete evidence to shift the debate one way or the other, its not really worth speculating upon, and Occam's razor applies.

My problem is I have a scientific background and appreciate little details like evidence and logic before jumping to conclusions that serve to reconfirm my world view. If that renders me a normie NPC then call me Wojak.

You still haven't really given me a name as to who "controls" the stock market; you just alluded to a secretive "cabal."

Jamie Dimon and Warren Buffet mention bitcoin because some of their investors want to know what they think about it. When they get asked enough times for their opinion, they finally give it. As for the mainstream media's "hit pieces," they print what sells. Obviously there is some public interest in bitcoin, so they print things that they think their readers will want to read. And not all pieces in the media about bitcoin are bad -- several also hail its innovative features and cover it in a positive light.

Here's the problem: you are relying upon too many unknowns to arrive at a conclusion. It's a hallmark behavioral trait of conspiracy theorists. Present some specific evidence that:

a. TPTB hate bitcoin and are trying to destroy it (seems like more government regulators and financial institutions are coming to terms with bitcoin with each passing day), and
b. they would go so far as to hire Twitter shills to pump the stock market and shit on bitcoin.

Without producing specific evidence, I could just as easily claim that the cow jumped over the moon.