Your background is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. If you wish to provide a counterargument to the debate that Craig is a scammer, you can't just say "because I'm me and I say he's not." That's not an argument, its an appeal to self-appointed authority.
Just try me. Just present whatever proof you have that Craig is Satoshi, and I will remain silent about it and let others respond. You're the one who stated you knew it as a fact. Either provide your evidence or be ridiculed about your statement. Save the personal attacks, the grandstanding and ego, and present something of substance for a change.
Let me conclude what you just said: "everything you say to irrelevant, just try me and I will discard it no matter what" I wonder if you feel silly now. That's not what I said. I challenged you to back your absurd claim and said I would not question it. You chickened out. I will never feel silly compared to a guy who said he knows for a fact that Craig is Satoshi, and refuses to even bother explaining why. |
|
|
|
As I have stated, there is no proof possible to be delivered on an Internet forum to a person who does not want to admit being wrong. But you are one arrogant lazy piece of work, I must admit that, because you are so lazy that you expect me to chew your food for you. To a person capable of rational thought, my background alone should make them think "hmm, maybe the social media and the popular opinion is wrong", but instead, you just keep doubling down like a true gambler until the bitter end. Good luck, don't kill yourself when the chickens come home to roost though. There is nothing more pathetic in this world than a suicide because of material loss.
Wow, that's some dark projection your engaging in. Your background is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. If you wish to provide a counterargument to the debate that Craig is a scammer, you can't just say "because I'm me and I say he's not." That's not an argument, its an appeal to self-appointed authority. Just try me. Just present whatever proof you have that Craig is Satoshi, and I will remain silent about it and let others respond. You're the one who stated you knew it as a fact. Either provide your evidence or be ridiculed about your statement. Save the personal attacks, the grandstanding and ego, and present something of substance for a change. |
|
|
|
Didn't you read what I wrote? I did it for laughs.
Right. What a marvelous sense of humor you have.  defense of centralization, personal attacks -- distress intensifies
K, so you're not offering any proof of your "fact" that CSW is Satoshi then. Got it. Thanks for joining us. |
|
|
|
You will notice that in any online debate, a person who has been pushed into corner will start replying to you in parts quoting each part separately. It's a sign of weakness. They think that if they cut the post into smaller pieces it's easier for them to make it seem like they've nailed it.  When you start seeing this, you know that the starter of it is already defeated, but is unable to admit it, so they will indulge in cluster-quoting to save face. I'm doing this for the illustrative purpose and for laughs, but it's really established already that the dialogue has come to a dead end. Oh brother. If I already lost the argument in your mind, why bother responding? I'm addressing each one of your points separately (the ones worth addressing, anyway) -- you just did the exact same thing. You're now making this a religious argument. So, you switched to Puritanism because you thought the excesses of the Catholic Church made it drift away from the teachings of Jesus. That's great. However, Bitcoin isn't a religion -- its a technology, and its free to evolve, even if it does it in such a way that renders the utility of your coin obsolete.
No, you are. That's called building a strawman, which in your case is "the religious argument". If that was really the case then TCP would have kept evolving too, making it practically impossible for high speed networking hardware to be developed. A protocol must not evolve. If you had any knowledge of the technicalities of building distributed computer systems then you wouldn't even dare to propose such a comparison. That's the main problem with BitCoin in general. Completely computer illiterate people have made it their business to discuss these matters, bringing ridiculous comparisons to religion and what not, to compensate for the fact that they lack professional vocabulary. We get it: you're a big blocker. That does not mean that Bitcoin (BTC) isn't allowed to evolve without increasing the block size (it effectively already has increased the block size limit with SegWit -- that was the compromise made). However ironically, you are pushing for a less distributed, more centralized version of bitcoin, which is the antithesis of Satoshi's actual "vision." Your scam argument does not hold either, because I know for fact that Craig Wright and he alone is Satoshi.
You know it "for a fact," do you? Prove it. Yes, I've got empirical evidence. I can't prove it to you if you refuse to open your eyes. I could present any fact to you but it's ultimately up to you to either take it as a fact or keep hiding your head under the sand. We both know you don't actually have any "evidence" that hasn't already been thoroughly debunked. If you had it, you would have presented it already. Now you are the one doing the straw-manning as an excuse to not share your "facts" with us. |
|
|
|
BSV is quite spectacular in a sense that it's THE ONLY ONE that has no block size limit at all and works perfectly well. "simply another big block fork" does not apply here, because even BCH has block size limit, they all do, except for the BSV. Quite an achievement for a mere scam, don't you think?
Not really; its the adjustment of a single parameter. Based on pure technical decisions alone I would bet on BSV any time.
You're welcome to your opinion. If there wasn't for BSV we would not have a single public block chain remaining that complies to the directives of the original whitepaper. Both BCH and BTC have deviated from the original design so much that they are no longer recognizable as BitCoin.
You're now making this a religious argument. So, you switched to Puritanism because you thought the excesses of the Catholic Church made it drift away from the teachings of Jesus. That's great. However, Bitcoin isn't a religion -- its a technology, and its free to evolve, even if it does it in such a way that renders the utility of your coin obsolete. Your scam argument does not hold either, because I know for fact that Craig Wright and he alone is Satoshi.
You know it "for a fact," do you? Prove it. You may believe otherwise but history is full of examples where people have been fooled by the (social) media.
Its also full of examples where people have been fooled by con artists, fake prophets, gurus, cult of personalities, and shyster salesmen. By the way, don't post twice in a row or you second post is likely to be deleted by a moderator. The next time you have a new thought, and you were the last one to post in a thread, simply edit your last post to include your new thoughts. I'm pointing this out to you now so you don't claim you are being conspired against later. |
|
|
|
I've been interested in Bitcoin since 2011 and working as a software architect for 15 years, I've got master's degree in software engineering and as a professional in my field I can confirm that BitCoin as defined in the original wrightpaper is simply a brilliantly designed economic system. Today, unlimited block size is only available on the original BitCoin (BSV), which further validates the point that on-chain scaling is possible not only in theory but also in practice. While BTC has been talking the talk of LN since ages, BSV has been walking the walk and actually delivering on the promise of the whitepaper. Calling something as disruptive and hard-working a scam only proves the wishful thinking of creator of this thread.
Its a scam based on the notion that Craig Wright is Satoshi. Without that element, it would simply be another big block fork of Bitcoin. We already have one of those. The Faketoshi ruse is what separates it from BCH -- that, and not much else. All of BSV's momentum is carried by the false pretense that Craig is Satoshi, as can be witnessed by its price movement being solely driven by the latest in Faketoshi news. Without this fraudulent connection, it would be just another fork. Its a shame that someone supposedly involved in Bitcoin for so long could still be so easily misled into supporting what is an obvious con. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is controversial technology , good to be discussed constructive and then it will grow better for all Destructive minded BTC ponzi shills can only think of: buy hodl sell to greater fool Look at them loosing all (proof: so much triggered and hate posts) 1st sentence: True 2nd sentence: Straw Man Trolling 3rd sentence: Straw Man Trolling Again, if all you have is trolling, it means you actually have nothing. You get triggered every time I write a comment here and are uncontrollably forced to respond to it. Try to exhibit a bit more self restraint next time. What would be more impressive is if you used logic or god forbid facts in your next rebuttal instead of your usual empty-minded snottiness. For example, come up with a reply to Jimmy Wales' tweet using verifiable facts and logic instead of just attacking bitcoiners. |
|
|
|
Yeah I liked it, a very well-produced video. I actually just subscribed to that channel, would like to see more of the Super Bowl narrated as a story with those mic'd up segments. The microphone is inside the player's helmet? I guess they can make them small enough to not get in the way of anything. Weird. |
|
|
|
That said, if you review the original thread Vod bases his accusation on, you will see I made an effort to mutually resolve a conflict between members of the Turkish community and Timelord. This lead to several interactions with several of the members of the Turkish community, of which I gained respect for because of how they handled the response. I must assume they felt the same way and this is why they added me. I didn't do anything I wasn't supposed to and these accusations are nothing but a tall tale designed to make sure I wasn't allowed to be put back on the default trust instigated by people with very long time, publicly documented animus against me. Your timeline is off. The trust trading was happening well before your involvement with Timelord's fake flag bonanza. The post you linked is dated September 7th, and you were playing trust games with Russian and Turkish local board posters from July through August. The only reason these users were on your radar was because they had recently been promoted to DT1, and like you, were either off or barely hanging on by 1-2 votes. Your other great rationale for adding local board posters is because somebody like Foxpup, suchmoon or myself distrust them, which according to you, "makes them interesting." Still a terrible reason to include someone in your trust list, and evidence you don't belong on DT. Is there a link to theymos stating Tech should not be on DT Vod? This would solidify the accusation of being substantially more than just plausible; and solidifies even more the need to have the below answered.
I assume he's talking about this, but there could be other instances of theymos inferring the same thing: So if some one who trusts me also trusts the default trust, then I become untrusted.
That's not how it works. If someone adds you directly to their trust list, then no exclusions will cause you to be removed. Your constant obsessive ramblings about this prove that you don't belong in the default trust network. What's funny is in almost 5 years absolutely nothing has changed. |
|
|
|
|
What everybody (of non-rational mind) forgets is that nobody wants to use a coin spearheaded by a known con artist. The adoption barrier is already hard enough to overcome for bitcoin; with its completely unfriendly leadership and Craig's baggage, BSV stands no chance of overcoming it.
We already have a bitcoin. It works just fine. Well enough to the point that nobody needs to use its (first) forked competitor.
|
|
|
|
Set in stone
>BCH forks from BTC >BSV forks from BCH BSV: Set in stone! >undergoes hardfork Set in stone, again! >undergoes another hardfork Set in stone, for reals this time!!  What a joke. BSV people will believe anything. |
|
|
|
Hi shasan, I would like to purchase $110 worth of PayPal. Will send 0.01148 BTC. I'm looking at preev. Does this sound good? 3QMsYteLeWGsJ6VBvWRSbzm1BZMRkBG3xM Sent and received. Thanks, that was fast! |
|
|
|
I never stopped you from having a conversation. I am here. Let's converse.
Care to rebut my point about why your meme is off-topic and TwitchySeal's isn't? My point was this: The difference between your comment and his is you didn't include anything relevant to the topic of discussion, whereas TwitchySeal did. Subject: Coronavirus Outbreak "[imagines this entire tirade with a German accent and burning books in the background]" + off-topic meme = off-topicSubject: VOD should be removed from default trust for systematic abuse of his position "TECSHARE has been getting abused for over 5 years now and you all are just turning your backs to look busy doing other things! I hope this puppy gif makes you feel better, TECSHARE." + off-topic meme = on-topicTOAA learned to cleverly insert just one or two on-topic sentences in his post before unleashing his usual hate-filled spiel about this-and-that, thus his posts stopped being deleted. If you managed to do the same, I don't think your posts would be deleted. No, not really. See! We are conversing. Great, well I'm glad we got to the bottom of that. I'm leaving this thread open in case anyone else has anything to add. |
|
|
|
Nothing really proven here - ur heavy bags just making sth up
get rid of any position talk and switch on analytical thinking : WHAT IS BITCOIN
there is no ticker talk
As usual, you just wrote a few words and managed to say nothing. If this is the best that SV shills have to offer, I don't expect it to be around for much longer. The fact that your dev is a con artist should be your business. Why try to build anything on top a house of cards? |
|
|
|
If the state of the union is LIT, you must acquit
If the POTUS won’t admit, you must acquit
If the trials not legit, you must acquit
If the Dems are half-wit, you just acquit
If the users activate SEGWIT, you just acquit Oof, that's rough. Docked minus one merit.  |
|
|
|
I’ve been in bsv since the beginning and therefore have made a ton of money betting against your advice promoting a scam. Why would I need to be paid?
Fixed that for you. |
|
|
|
Anything else I can help you understand?
Yes, why is your thread about me in Meta and not in the Reputation section where it belongs? Because its not about you -- its about whether or not SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT AND CENSORSHIP by FH is taking place, which is clearly a discussion that belongs in Meta. |
|
|
|
As I expected, you would like to keep the meaning of this thread amorphous as possible. Harder to keep your story straight later if you commit to one now isn't it Nutilduhh?
The meaning of this thread is incredibly straight-forward and self-evident, as well as provided in the title. That part has never changed, nor has the meaning. Of course "the meaning of the thread" is to discuss whether there is any merit to your claims of SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT AND CENSORSHIP in FH's moderation. You won't allow for debate in your thread, which is why this one exists. Anything else I can help you understand? |
|
|
|
The memes you post that get deleted by mods is bc the memes are off topic, not because they are memes.  Is it a log of memes or a discussion? You two work out your bullshit story among yourselves and try again. You're continuing to focus on matters that are wholly irrelevant to this thread. The meme you are whinging about wasn't deleted from my meme log. It was, however, off-topic. The reason why it was off-topic has already been explained to you, and you haven't rebutted the explanation. I don't understand why you insist on veering this discussion off-topic. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
