Pretty off topic for this thread, and first it has to exist. Then we will see. It will get no special treatment from me positive or negative.

Here's a suggestion: make your own forum.


You misspelled "There I go again with the accuracy thing".

And I'm not attacking anyone -- including you or Armstrong -- nor do I care what you say to generalizethis and AltcoinUK.

I'm reporting the facts accurately about Armstrong. Because after all this is the "Martin Armstrong Discussion" thread.

Also, when I get a chance I will be going through your last post about Armstrong and pointing out, section by section, the same sorts of half-truths, spin, and distortions you have been copying from his blog as he desperately tries to avoid any responsibility whatsoever for his unfortunate experience with the legal system, while turning every opportunity to reflect on his mistakes into an opportunity to play martyr and self-promote. There is a definite pattern emerging. If that distresses you, I suggest signing off now.

This one may be more helpful:



As an extra special bonus it hides generalizethis, altcoinUK and all the other people you can't resist insulting while simultaneously volunteering to spend your time replying to them.

Which front? The other roles? Not specifically. There are a few people helping with social media. Anyone who wants to be more involved in any role is welcome to contact me about it.

There's an app for that:

Let's move on TPTB.

We agree the system is badly corrupt, and that's more important than arguing endlessly over one guy's case that's in the past anyway, no matter who it is.

I do wish you the best of health and success on your project.

I'm curious about this graph. Why does 2015.75 not appear on it?

No, no and no. (Especially, I admit that my interpretation of the Guidstone inscriptions was likely incorrect based on the explanation in the book, but I face no embarrassment from being incorrect then or ever.)

I read this thread normally so there is no stalking involved at all. I disagreed with your reply to the original post on the topic of Armstrongs criminal record, and I said so. If you want to turn that into a day-long exercise in reposting his blog posts here, that is your choice.

Welcome back.

Again, why?

Who appointed you the defender of the legitmacy (or lack thereof) of Martin Armstrong's criminal convinction/plea bargain

It doesn't have to be your concern at all unless you decide that is your priority in life, and again if you do then I would ask why.

I don't know about you, but I get other work done during these discussions. Maybe that's why I don't go and drag bunch of references from his blog. I just give my opinion and get back to work. Perhaps try the same.

The image shows this as "estimated initial capacity" so I'm going to guess it is based on the current number of masternodes and storage being shared between masternodes with some amount per node, or something along those lines.

The difference I think the earlier post was addressing is claymore getting a percentage of the mined coins from every single user of his miner without paying for any electricity at all. It is assumed he just dumps those. No way to know for sure, but isn't an unreasonable theory.

I don't think it is even possible for self-moderators to edit posts, only delete.

On my self-moderated thread whenever I delete one or more posts (for violating rules or being completely off topic) I leave a note in their place.

If you are very bored and have an empty life, perhaps you would do that. If you are on this thread for fun and challenge, then what's the point? There's no actual prize for winning other than the enjoyment of playing.

Anyway, so far both sides have had quite an easy method to choose moves. It seems that will be changing soon though.

It was reported as such in the press. I don't have the transcripts from the case but it would not surprise me at all if there were hearings or motions on the trial delays. Anyway, I'm more inclined to give any weight at all to an independent source as opposed to his blog that you keep foolishily quoting as the authoritative source that it quite literally cannot ever be given its one-sided nature and the inherent self-interested bias of its author.


Sorry, I don't believe it. Where is it documented that he was "completely vindicated" of all of the charges?

What I believe is that some aspects of the case were probably found to be more attributable to the actions of others.

But as I said it was a very complex case with so many pieces and in reality there are so many complex laws and conflicting requirements, especially when it comes to vague conspiracy and fraud charges that just challenging the burden of proof is hard enough. It is almost impossible to ever be completely and provably innocent. So when he claims to be "completely vindicated" that just tells me that he is full of shit and trying to rehabilitate his image (or possibly self-image) with such puffery.


You keep quoting his blog as if that one-sided source matters one whit in a contested case. It does not.

I don't disagree in general about injustice and abuses of civil contempt. But in this case, had he gone forward with trial and then fully prevailed at trial, the civil contempt would also have ended because the order was to turn over assets associated with the alleged fraud. There is also a bit of verbal slight of hand in the statement of his that you posted (not unusual it seems). You do not have a right to a trial for civil contempt (though can appeal the order, which he did, twice, and lost twice), but being held in contempt does not prevent being tried in another case, which is what he was facing. If he wasn't going to turn over the assets, he needed to prevail on the fraud (and other) charges to render the civil contempt order moot.

I'm sorry but Armstrong is apparently full of shit on a lot of this stuff, and even a lot of the stuff that he says that may well be true is often a complete misdirection or distraction from his case (such as banks manipulating the silver market -- interesting and probably true, but not at all demonstrative of his innocence), or selective quoting or half truths (such as that 9 line section of a 17+ page document showing "one period" without losses). You shouldn't blindly reading and quoting his blog and do your own independent research. It seems not infrequently to disagree with his spin on it.

For sure I want to see free software available for mining rather than one proprietary miner controlling a huge swath of the network. However, if it isn't at least close to performance parity if not better, then a lot of people won't use it. So let's hope he is able to achieve that.

I'm blaming him for quoting a small section of a very complex case out of context on a blog and trying to turn it into proof of his innocence, and you for doing the same.


Nope the court did that.


The facts of the trial delay are contested. The government claims he requested the delays and they were willing to go to trial.

I find credible the supposition that he was and is a cantankerous and stubborn guy who wanted to fight every for single inch of process even if it meant staying in the can for 7 years, but that was his choice. Again, not proven, but plausible.

The civil contempt is another matter, but I do see that he appealed it twice and both times was rebuffed (on appeal it was found there was a valid reason to hold him). I suspect there was some actual merit to it, but who knows, maybe he's just the most unfairly persecuted guy ever, by bunch of different courts, in at least two difference cases.

That's also wrong. Those are currently active reachable nodes. In fact most people using a wallet won't keep their node up all the time, only when they are actually using it for transactions, and most end user nodes don't end up being reachable because they are behind a router/NAT/etc.

I don't know the truth of his factual and ethical guilt or innocence (of the ponzi, fraud, hiding of losses or whatever it is he was accused of), only the truth of the outcome of his court case (conviction after a guilty plea).

It is clearly a very complicated case (something like two dozen charges, although he only pled guilty to one), and the civil contempt aspect adds another layer of complexity to the whole thing. Either way, I'm sure as hell not going to take his blog as the authoritative truth though.


This is exactly what I'm talking about in terms of selective quoting of stuff on his blog not being a valid source. We can see from that page that the entire document is at least 17 pages long and we're shown exactly 9 lines of one page. The last of those lines is "That's one period of losses that are excluded" (emphasis added).

Just on the basis of that small section we can already ask about other periods, and as I said above there were 20 or so separate counts he was charged with. Even if this section somehow supports his innocence in some narrow way (and it is hard for me to even tell), that's a long way from showing that all 20 charges against him were bogus on the basis of all available evidence.

There may even be contradictory evidence about this particular aspect of it on the very same page or the next page! We just don't know. In a complex case like this it wouldn't be usual for there to be thousands of pages of similar evidence, or even more. 9 lines out of one page shown out of context is just meaningless.

That's wrong. SPV wallets and pruning have nothing to do with each other. SPV wallets are certainly possible on Monero; the design is built with them in mind (though currently none yet exist).

Pruning is also possible (multiple ways in fact), but I'm not going to discuss how right now.