It seems like the case is being handled by the courts, so it's probably legal at least to some degree. I could be wrong, but isn't this the same case with Mt. Gox? The people who had coins on their account won't be given back the exact BTC amount that they lost.

But yeah, I don't think there are any specific laws regarding exchange losses yet, so they're going to be able to continue getting away with shit like this. Either way, it's best not to trust exchanges too much, if at all.

This is why I don't believe him. If he was truly looking to convince people, he could have discussed peaks. I mean, Bitcoin barely stayed at $10k in 2017. It was dancing at around $5k for the latter part of the year, until it went on a run that reached $20k. If you asked an average person what Bitcoin's price back in 2017 was, they probably wouldn't say $10k. Regardless of his "proof", every other thing he described just sounded completely bonkers.

This, by the way, is only making rounds because John McAfee cited it as one the reasons he believes his prediction will come true right? That, to me, speaks volumes about the prediction lol.

I probably don't know enough about the subject, so please be patient with me.

I'm not defending Satoshi, but maybe he thought that BTC's rising value (it is deflationary by design after all) would offset the loss in mining revenue of the decreasing block rewards? I mean, I'd bet that 3 BTC 5 years from now would still be a lot more valuable than 50 BTC from a few years ago. I understand that mining costs are also increasing, but isn't that what the difficulty adjustment is for? It ensures that there will always be financial incentive for miners, regardless of transaction fee revenue.

I concede that transaction fees will have to rise, and that micro transactions won't be plausible at some point anymore (nor would it indicate failure). My concern is that it still has to be cheap enough as to not be detrimental to adoption. My views may be a little too naive though (like how Satoshi's may be lol), so I would appreciate any insight.

I don't know about almost zero, but I feel like cheap fees should still be a priority going forward. Cheaper fees than ones charged by third party payment processors was one of the primary selling points of Bitcoin, and Satoshi even addressed it in the introduction part of the white paper:


I don't think it necessarily has to scale to be able to accommodate microtransactions (there are workarounds after all, like LN), but at the same time should have enough use cases to remain plausible for the middle class. It could be argued that there's a price to pay for decentralization, immutability, etc., but realistically speaking, the average joe wouldn't care about that. It's difficult enough to convince people to use Bitcoin, and pricing them out with fees they would be uncomfortable with wouldn't be the best idea.

To be fair, it would still be decentralized. People would still be free to disagree with him, and Bitcoin would still be open source (unless CSW really is Satoshi lmfao). The only difference would be that there will be a clear, albeit informal figurehead, and that there will be no arguments about which chain is "real". The prospect of a single person having that much clout is terrifying for sure, but it's not without advantages -- consensus would be easier to achieve, for example. It's also not like he could dictate what miners and nodes should do, so he won't be in complete control of the network.

I like where we are now, but it probably wouldn't be too bad if Satoshi stayed either. I personally would like to hear his thoughts, divisive as they may be.

It's basically saying that crypto is useless and it only grows in value because of HODLers. It's taking a jab at people who tell everyone else to buy and HODL to raise prices, telling them to make sure they cash out before everyone else does, considering it won't have any value at that point.

It's just another guy trying to sound smart by setting up a strawman.

Probably because it's not doing anything illegal:


McAfee was involved in this case, so I can only assume that this was the real (official, at least) reason for Bestmixer's shutdown. If you don't want to open the linked article, it shows that Bestmixer had a page that basically tells you you can avoid anti-money laundering policies with its service. Chipmixer has nothing to worry about if this is the case.

Yeah, I never understood why people think banks will roll over and die once crypto takes off. Bottom line is that people trust them with their money, and will likely continue to do so regardless of the medium. It would be trivial for them to integrate crypto related services regardless of their current stance. I can see people maybe relying on them less, but they're not going anywhere.

I don't think HDDs will be phased out for as long as they have significant advantages over SSDs. They're going to have a solid niche until SSDs are priced competitively, so any person who wants to run a node should be able to easily get their hands on one. They're only going to get cheaper from here on out, so I don't think it's going to be a big issue.

We should definitely figure out the sweet spot, but I feel like compromise is necessary at some point. People should at least talk about it once we start getting full blocks from real adoption. I don't think it's a concern now because fees only really skyrocket when Bitcoin surges.

I wasn't really looking to be convinced, I just wanted a peek from a different perspective. After having read what you shared, let's agree to disagree.


Under the context of the conversation, I meant the existing crypto community (and some overflow with the media and casual investors, but they're fickle) when I said "mainstream". I wasn't doubting BCH and BSV in a general sense, I was doubting the prospect of them pulling a flippening over BTC given recent trends. Who knows could be said about nearly every given situation, but that doesn't change the likelihood of something happening, which is what I was addressing.

That's interesting. Why would you say so? The mainstream don't seem bullish at all on BCH, and much less so on BSV. What makes you think the script will flip in the long term?

Uh oh. People should be taking out everything while they can, whether or not this is true. If it's true, then you're saving yourself the headache of losing money, and if it's not, then they're in perfect position to pay out and happy customers will return.


This doesn't question their integrity, but rather their actual ability to give customers what they're due. I understand that people want to support exchanges they've used without a hitch, but there's no place for benefit of the doubt (as your response seems to imply) in cases like this.

Well, their biggest argument seem to be rooted on Moore's Law, basically saying that technology will scale with Bitcoin's demands -- they can increase block sizes as needed because the ever increasing speeds of the internet and the ever increasing sizes of disk storages will be able to accommodate it anyway. It's worth noting that Moore's Law is more of an observation, albeit a still-standing one, rather than an established fact.

I personally believe off-chain scaling is the way to go as I don't think simply increasing block sizes is sustainable, but I also see where they're coming from. The debate has become more political rather than technical though, which is why we have these absurd claims.

Personally, I believe he just painted himself into a corner and is simply doubling down on his lies in an attempt to save face. I mean, he's obviously just grasping at straws at this point. No one believes him, he can't show any solid proof, so he's trying to validate himself in other ways. His end game is probably just looking for a way to end this shitstorm with his reputation intact, and possibly make as much money as possible along the way.

It's possible, but this method typically requires you to share private information to verify the caller's identity. If you've been sloppy with your privacy, gotten phished, etc., you could be vulnerable to this. Additionally, there have been instances where hackers have people on the inside of the telecommunications company helping them pull off the attack.

So yeah, you should not be relying on SMS authentication to protect significant amounts (I mean, it's still better than no other protection at all), regardless of carrier.

People already addressed it, but exchanges are used more for day trading and small purchases, and stablecoins are more convenient for that purpose.

That doesn't mean cold hard cash isn't flowing into the market though, if that's the concern. OTC exchanges exist, and they apparently have a larger volume than traditional exchanges.

Does he actually own copyright now? Wasn't that just a claim, which could still be denied? I'm genuinely confused. It's pretty ridiculous how so many people are talking about this, but there are no real facts being published. All I could find out is that he's a claimant.

So I stumbled upon this:


So for as long as mixers don't show a faq as to why you should mix your coins (which Bestmixer had), they're perfectly legal? Or are there other factors at work here?


Lol to be fair, Netflix's (and other streaming services like Spotify in general) success seem to be credited more than authorities' efforts for that.


The security firm McAfee, which has no connections to McAfee anymore, was involved in the seizure

I wouldn't go that far. Lying is one thing, but revisionism to that degree is a different matter entirely. CSW being "officially" established as Satoshi, with all the evidence (or lack thereof) thus far should be completely unacceptable based on facts alone, regardless of what he could do with it.

As for altering the code, or monetizing it, or whatever, you're right. It's under the MIT software license, so there's ultimately no point. I would still be very wary if he succeeds though, however unlikely it's looking.

Hackable, yes, but it comes with an asterisk:


To put things into the simplest terms, hardware wallets have never been hacked remotely (assuming no attacker ever got their hands on it in transit) due to the way they were designed. Things could easily change in the future, but they're currently the best we have in terms of security and ease of use. Other cold wallets are still more recommended for long term storage.