Isn't the data supposed to be transaction data, with perhaps a little bit of room to write a funny memo, like "Chancellor on the brink of a second bailout," or something?

Breher, you should take into consideration: this is kind of why people feel you are at times disingenuous. You full well know Satoshi never intended the blockchain to act as a mass repository for entire data files, but you are instigating doubt about the matter because it fits your narrative of BSV being "Satoshi's Vision." It is not. It is a fork of a fork launched by a pathological liar (albeit a very educated and intelligent one) under the absurd pretense that he is Satoshi.

Just say it with me, "Craig is not Satoshi."

Free yourself from the bonds of this spell and become whole again. I think you'll find it feels wonderful.

Well I guess that settles that then.

You really stuck it to Timelord pretty hard by including BitcoinSupremo after he had excluded him. Showed him who's boss.

I still don't think that's a decent way to guide your trust list setup, but that's wholly your decision, and you are of course free to do as you see fit.

Carry on.

This is a bit OT but I do wonder what happened to ICOEthics. He hasn't been active since July 7th. I don't think Turner got to him necessarily but I wonder what made him go on his hiatus.

You didn't actually say why you included him. So please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're saying you included him because you thought he was being unfairly "excluded." Pray tell, what exactly was he being excluded from? He only had 1 Trusted by and 1 Distrusted by before you trusted him and Hhampuz distrusted him. He wasn't on DT before Hhampuz distrusted him.



So he wasn't being "excluded" from anything or by anyone except Hhampuz (and the pre-existing non-DT Timelord2067), and there's no way you could have known that Hhampuz had excluded him as you both updated your trusts lists with him in the same week.

Interestingly, it did happen to be the same week he left you this nice positive feedback:



Regardless of any of the above, perceptions that someone has been mistreated should not be the sole criteria for adding someone to a trust list.

Obviously this project is a scam. Just look at who has been commenting in this thread: page after page of shill newbie accounts just talking back and forth to each other about nothing. They don't care about community or elaboration because its simply another cashgrab attempt.

Good to see you and Lambie out here.

This reminds me, we should also include fantasy team talk, which is also a form of gambling if your league has money on the line.

Lucky enough for me Michael Thomas slightly outperformed his projected and I squeezed out the Week 1 V in my league.

Pretty happy with this week's outcome. Rams won, and my fantasy team won. Can't ask for much more.

Funny anecdote: I just moved to a new city in the Philippines, found a white guy with an American accent who lived in my building, asked him where I could find a local sports bar that was open in the morning and played the NFL games. He was totally clueless. I was thinking to myself, what? An American, early-to-mid 50s, doesn't like the NFL? It turns out he's Canadian  

After tomorrows games I'll put up a new poll.

Its a "return to what Craig thinks the original protocol entails" + data storage in the blockchain. Don't remember Satoshi ever espousing data storage in the blockchain.

Again, not a great reason to add someone to your trust list.

Even if someone gets added to DT1 at net zero, they are still being added to DT1. They have the ability to vote for other DT1, which is what you like most about them. And even if what you are saying is true, is that still a good reason to add someone to your trust list? Do you speak Turkish, or Russian for that matter?

No matter how you spin your actions, its pretty obvious what your endgame is. You had to know you were going to get caught at some point. Should have come up with a better backstory during that time.


"More diverse" is not a good reason. I didn't know you were such a fan of affirmative action. You really only think they're a benefit if they include you in their trust list, or benefit you personally in some way. If they don't, you could care less about them.

They were taken advantage of thanks to an exploit in Monero's code, which was patched shortly afterward:

https://latesthackingnews.com/2018/08/05/monero-wallet-vulnerability-loss-of-1-8-million-to-livecoin-crypto-exchange/

https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2018/08/02/monero-bugs-patched/

They are not thieves. They had their Monero stolen, and socialized the losses by attempting to do a buyback of outstanding XMR before the final delisting.

Yes, of course ideally they should have credited all their customers with the missing XMR, but they felt the problem wasn't their fault, and was the fault of the Monero devs. Not saying I'm agreeing with the way they went about things, but they are not "thieves."

I just remember reading through the GitHub commit timeline for BSV, seeing that they had decided to keep in dozens (or hundreds) of changes made by Core and ABC devs since 0.10. Its really only "Satoshi's Vision" if you believe Wright is Satoshi. That's the only way in which the "SV" portion of BSV makes sense as its pretty far from a return to the original protocol.

+1 WOmerit


They could do that but they know there's too many important changes made since then, including those made by Amaury Sechet and Greg Maxwell.

BSV's new OP_LSHIFT and OP_RSHIFT are not compatible with Satoshi's Bitcoin v0.1.0

I'm not the one going around adding new DT1 members from local boards one after another like you are. If you want to dig for flaws in my own trust system setup, feel free.


Wrong. With the exception of Vispilio, they were all already on DT when you added them. Matthias added you in the week of 6/22, along with a dozen other DT1s. He didn't become DT1 until 8/2. You added him to your trust list 3 hours later.

8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM   Matthias9515* (2) trusts TECSHARE
8/2/2019 8:25:25 PM   TECSHARE (0) trusts Matthias9515 (2)

This guy was made DT1 in the week of 6/29. You added him on 7/23, and when he failed to reciprocate in a period of 5 days, you dumped him:

7/23/2019 9:34:59 PM   TECSHARE (0) trusts by rallier (2)
7/28/2019 3:18:28 AM   TECSHARE (0) no longer trusts by rallier

Kalemder was made DT1 on 9/4/2019 at 12:35:13 AM. You included him 16 hours later.

bobita was made DT1 on 8/2/2019. You included him 2 days later.

mhanbostanci was re-added to DT1 on 9/4. You included him 3 days later.

Regardless, is "wanting to see it more diverse" a good reason to add people to your trust list?


Is this also a good reason to add people to your trust list?

Афера обмен

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5183021.0

I remember seeing Hillary Clinton at 1.4x odds as next president of the U.S. for the longest time, thinking to myself that was easy money all day long. But I never actually bet on it, and now I'm glad I didn't, of course! Don't think I've ever been so wrong about something in my entire life. That's why I don't bet on politics.

The odd thing was, the site I was looking at didn't even have odds for Donald Trump, just "Republican Candidate." I guess Trump was too much of a wildcard.

I got sick of it the cheesy thread bumper army being deployed by this company, so I started tagging them for scam promotion (as it turns out a couple of projects they were hired by were indeed scams, as probably are most others who hire them), and lo and behold, they stopped posting with them. And started posting under other accounts. I haven't checked up on them recently but my policy is any time I see one of their accounts with a post county above 40, I tag it.

The weirdest part is, they don't create new accounts. They bought a batch of 200 or so with little-to-no activity and creation dates between 2012 and 2018.

At least a couple projects have fired them probably over my making a regular stink about it. Spammers-for-hire just annoy me.

Hey Lambie (and other NFL fans), I started my own NFL predictions thread in the Gambling section, but its pretty slow going over there. Feel free to stop by and drop some of your wisdom if you like. I'm always looking for insights about picks, I'm sure others are too:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5179018


The only sport where I can sit through the whole damn thing.

It is a bit weird that Americans decided to adopt the word "football" for their sport. The foot connecting with the ball is a rarer part of the action.

The man is a complete fraud and anybody who believes otherwise is either delusional or stupid.


Its not.


They're not.

I won't go so far as to say this makes him a "scammer," but its pretty dishonest behavior. Its obvious what TS has been doing over the past few months, and its evidenced best by him adding 6 Turkish local board DT1s to his trust list weeks or days after they were added to DT1.

There should really be an open discussion as to whether or not this type of behavior is an acceptable practice for a DT1 member, and as shown by the fact that TECSHARE is now back at -1, its safe to say that the community agrees that its not.

Let's take a look at his include/exclude history according to BPIP:


7/23/2019 9:34:59 PM   TECSHARE (0) trusts by rallier (2)
7/28/2019 3:18:28 AM   TECSHARE (0) no longer trusts by rallier

7/23/2019 9:45:04 PM   TECSHARE (0) trusts PHI1618 (1)

8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM   Matthias9515* (2) trusts TECSHARE
8/2/2019 8:25:25 PM   TECSHARE (0) trusts Matthias9515 (2)

8/4/2019 10:00:19 PM   TECSHARE (0) trusts bobita (2)
8/5/2019 10:07:57 AM   bobita (2) trusts TECSHARE (0)

9/4/2019 4:43:55 PM   TECSHARE (0) trusts Kalemder (1)
9/6/2019 5:32:09 AM   TECSHARE (0) no longer trusts Kalemder (1)
9/6/2019 5:24:47 PM   TECSHARE (0) trusts Kalemder (1)
9/7/2019 2:29:57 AM   Kalemder (1) trusts TECSHARE (0)

9/7/2019 3:50:44 AM   TECSHARE (0) trusts mhanbostanci (2)
9/7/2019 10:13:59 AM   mhanbostanci (2) trusts TECSHARE (0)

*became DT1 at this time

As you can see, Matthias9515 was the only member to trust TECSHARE first, and TS didn't get a reciprocal trust from by rallier or PHI1618. He also added Vispilio to his list, who recently fell off DT1 for not having the minimum requirements. He also did the same thing with WhiteManWhite:

(sometime between 3/31 and 4/6) TECSHARE trusts WhiteManWhite
5/30/2019 2:39:17 PM   WhiteManWhite (2) trusts TECSHARE (0)

Would you trust somebody who goes around adding new DT1s to his trust list despite having no previous interaction with them whatsoever, and who doesn't speak their native tongue? I wouldn't.

I can forgive the new DTs for not really having a respect for or knowledge of how the trust system works, but as TECSHARE is one of the more veteran members of the forum, he should really know better than this by now.

You are supposed to be adding members to your trust list who you _trust_, and who you think do a good job of leaving feedback, not out of hopes that they will reciprocate by adding you to their lists.

Allowing this kind of thing to happen without calling it out sets a dangerous precedent going forward.

NFL games are notoriously hard to call, which makes it all the more fun to watch. My friend, who knows his stuff pretty well, insists on betting on college games -- for some reason or another they are just easier to call. I guess when a blowout is predicted to happen, it usually happens by a wider margin than previously suspected.

I moved to a place that has terrible internet connectivity, and got sick with a pretty rancid case of food poisoning :/ missed out on the games today. Next week I hope to be back in action. It was good to read that the Rams eeked out a win. Can't say the same for my fantasy team, however. Its looking grim unless Michael Thomas (NO) can put on a great performance.