OP is probably playing 4D chess.
HmmMAA is not playing chess at all.. even an idiot can play 2D checkers against HmmMAA.. (2D checkers= PC flatscreen researchers) |
|
|
|
FUD by frankandbeans.
You accuse the Core Developers of having hidden motives/not trustworthy, but you support the the movement of Roger Ver + Jihan Wu to split the community, to hard fork into an altcoin, then call that "The Real Bitcoin" because Satoshi's white paper. Who were the signatories in the New York Agreement? Why were the Core Developers NOT invited, which for them, was such an important meeting?
no i did not.. my post history never even comes close to what you recitebut your post history and doomads does show you are learning your scripts from the wrong people. you sound too much like doomad religious scripts where he used to pidgeon hole anyone not treating core devs as gods as people who must be altcoin adorers you make yourself look silly when you cant think for yourself and just recite old religious songs sung by doomad heck you cant even think up an original insult and instead use his buzzword insults too.. also you are completely clueless and misinformed about the actions of 2017. no wonder you keep proclaiming you are gaslight. but you refuse to note who is the one lighting and fueling your fire. if we use religious analogies i view bitcoin as athiest. you believe bitcoin is catholic(where the priests get to do things to script-kiddies.) and then you think any announcing the failures of Catholicism must be muslim terrorists and pretend that they must be muslim and they must hate bitcoin if they are not catholic god adoring reality is bitcoin is athiest. but you idiots want to play pigeon hole games to make core look like gods and anyone not in your religious sect like the devil you do not beleive in independant code review, nor scrutiny. you believe in 'trust in god' and not question their scriptures, motives, messages funny part is, its actually your mentor that loves and adores other networks.. HIS post history proves it your mentor(doomad) is the one that doesnt want anyone but core gods to change the religious roadmap practices of bitcoin. instead he promotes anyone wanting to fix issues with bitcoin should go start another religion(fork) elsewhere and see who follows.. rather than actually deal with the issues of the gods you idolise |
|
|
|
Has there ever been a BIP to give a sort of priority value to transactions as a function of the passage of time : the more time passes, the more this value increases, which would, for example, make a tx at 1 sats/vB that has been waiting for 6 months a priority compared with a tx at 20 sats/vB that has been waiting for a few minutes.
to even become a formal BIP in cores github. idea's need to go through layers of moderated technical discussion platforms, moderated by the very same core devs that create cores roadmap. thus majority of proposals dont even get a foot in the door of even becoming a formal BIP let alone then becoming code core devs would then allow to be merged. |
|
|
|
courts are mediators. where its for the defense and prosecution to show their sides and prove/disprove each other and the judge just chooses the winner of the dispute/debate based on what the dispute is about yes courts can be abused. take for instance the CSW vs Ira Kleiman everyone knows in 2009-13 CSW had no bitcoin and not involved in it everyone knows in 2010-11 got talking to am american guy called Dave and they set up W&K to (wright:scam - dave:apply for grants) US gov defense grants. Dave K realised CSW was not going to offer real US defense services and distanced himself and discontinued communication with CSW W&K had nothing to do with bitcoin, pre 2013 in 2013 CSW bought his first bitcoin but wanted to use W&K brand to now get involved in bitcoin because W&K was a US business he can take advantage over for US exchanging. but found out his ex-partner died. so took over the brand.. then later communicated with IRA to suggest they should both agree that W&K was worth billions and had some (false) patents involved.. as IRa would earn some money out of this agreement so they both went to court acting like frenemies pretending they both agree that W&K had assets and value, but where the court filed dispute was purely on ownership stake of the brand.. just so CSW can start his proof of satoshi games in court. by getting the court to not make verdict on the W&K assets.. but just ownership % of brand thus in CSW view make him feel the court is proving W&K had assets because the judge didnt argue about proof of assets yep if both parties can secretly agree that a empty shell has crabs... even if the shell is actually empty. by both parties saying they agree the shell has crabs. but the dispute is only about who gets to hold the shell.. the judge does not check for crabs. thus people then (falsely) believe the shell has crabs, even if dispute is solely about who gets to hold the SHELL
if you are reading ANYTHING from coingeek you already failed yourself. if you know enough about coingeek to know publishers names you know too much about them. by you admitting you previously relied on them and still read them. shows you are piling up on ketchup instead of gathering real sources(sauces)
as for your previous posts thinking CSW was smart and a candidate of satoshi due to intelligence. as hilariousetc just linked.. CSW not only used ghost writers to write his degree stuff, the stuff wrote were plagiarised. whole blocks of texts copy and pasted.. thus not showing any sign of individual intelligence/novel thinking.
he is cunning. has skills in forgery, but this does not translate to intelligence..
much like criminals have "street smarts" but get caught and put in prison.. does not translate to being smart enough to not get caught. they just have cunning to scam/steal enough to survive until caught. cunning is not equal to intelligence.
CSW is getting caught in court right now
I have also read hitler's mein campf and quran , i guess my hands should be chopped off as a punishment . again maybe you should catchup and gather actual sources rather than gather ketchup sauces |
|
|
|
HmmMAA sounds like his evidence that formed his opinion is sourced from coingeek
Actually , i dislike coingeek , there are some articles that worth reading from specific authors but many things written regarding csw are way over biased . I dislike Kurt Wuckert Jr too , he's the main reason is stopped getting information from coingeek some years back . if you are reading ANYTHING from coingeek you already failed yourself. if you know enough about coingeek to know publishers names you know too much about them. by you admitting you previously relied on them and still read them. shows you are piling up on ketchup instead of gathering real sources(sauces) as for your previous posts thinking CSW was smart and a candidate of satoshi due to intelligence. as hilariousetc just linked.. CSW not only used ghost writers to write his degree stuff, the stuff wrote were plagiarised. whole blocks of texts copy and pasted.. thus not showing any sign of individual intelligence/novel thinking. he is cunning. has skills in forgery, but this does not translate to intelligence.. much like criminals have "street smarts" but get caught and put in prison.. does not translate to being smart enough to not get caught. they just have cunning to scam/steal enough to survive until caught. cunning is not equal to intelligence. CSW is getting caught in court right now |
|
|
|
But it's always better to be ready, and HODL/own hard assets like Gold,
i wouldnt suggest buying gold right now looking at golds all-history market. (ATH $2.075 ) today gold is($2025) in the top 97% of ATH (remember buy low sell high, not the opposite) when you see big gold countries selling or giving gold away to citizens. the elites are on a selling spree. they dont want to keep gold when normal people are being told to buy gold its because those already with gold want to sell its also worth noting normal people never get to trade gold at true spot price. many only have access to gold via shady "cash for gold" kiosks where the spread of spot vs retail price is huge and not helpful for those normal people wanting to buy/sell gold. they always get the worse deals another hint fuel costs have come back down to 2021 levels (unlike the june 2022 ATH of gasoline). so its becoming cheaper to mine gold again. this will play out next gold mining season when miners are throwing tonnes of gold onto the market that they mined cheaper than the previous couple years |
|
|
|
what being suggested is greedflation of consumer goods prices then cause even higher money printing. which if it continues, leads to hyper inflation
"Greedflation"? I believe there's no psychological effect in that matter. It's simply economics. Increase the money supply = purchasing power UP. Purchasing power UP = more demand for product and services. Prices will go up no matter the psychological state. greedflation is not about when the good times role/ or more money printing in the economy = more purchasing power.. because purchasing power is more psychologically from the stand point of the consumer(in the good times) having more money to want to buy more things, less concerned with finding discounts.. greedflation is from the standpoint of the producer, shrinking goods and also raising prices.. emphasis: in the bad times when money is tight for consumers who need to/end up buying less and want to find discounts yep purchasing power is when consumers(purchasers) have the power where in the good times consumers are spending more and retailers get to raise prices, that is standard economics.. but not "greedflation" also a side note not all money printing causes "purchasing power" increase for the consumer it depends if the money print is trickle up or trickle down for instance money printing to bail out banks did not help the consumer gain purchase power for instance money printing to give out covid stimulus cheques to citizens did help the consumer and thus purchase power purchase power(hint is in the name) is when the consumer(as purchaser) has more power not all money print enters the lower levels of the economy of the lower-class, working-class. but can be held and hidden in the upper echelons of institutions |
|
|
|
According to some rumors, the New York State Attorney General's office will be expanding the civil lawsuit against the Digital Currency Group and there will also be a case against Gemini. This is head shaking because there are allegations that Barry Silbert, Digital Currency Group and Gemini commited fraud on their customers.
This might cause more dumps on GBTC? The skeptical me thinks Larry Fink wants cheaper bitcoins heheehhe.
Link or it didn't happen.. Yes. .I know you are saying "rumors," but still that is pretty vague... What happened? A little birdie told you?  he is talking about https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2024-02/genesis-amended-complaint.pdf |
|
|
|
|
HmmMAA sounds like his evidence that formed his opinion is sourced from coingeek
he has not seen the tulip list CSW filed of "satoshi stash" to then see lots of random people that actually own addresses in the list use their proof of authority to announce that they are not satoshi nor CSW.
just that alone proves CSW is a fraud.. CSW in courts(plural) declared he owned other peoples funds.. that is fraud
CSW has never shown a true original document that speaks of bitcoin from 2008-2013. every document that supposedly was dated pre 2013 that mentions bitcoin is a forgery.
for years people have seen him release or cough "leaked" (by him on purpose) documents, all of which has ended up being a forgery
even his scam sponsors, as 'witnesses' and his lawyers in the hodlonaut oslo case have said silly things that lack proof "i believe he is, because his mother, his uncle and a few more people say so."... funny thing is his mother was told by CSW that he worked for nasa. and that was her belief about her son at the exact same time
HmmMAA can learn all this if he bothered to read all the documentation and details released over the years. instead of reading the opinion pieces of coingeek, HmmMAA should look at the data of the blockchain, the code, the dates when forks happened, to see that CSW's favoured altcoin is not a twin sister of bitcoin, nor the first born.
its a unwanted, rejected grandchild of bitcoin, and it would have been aborted/orphaned if CSW didnt set up shell companies of zero collateral to be the orphanage that keep his baby alive
he has no claims over bitcoin, only BSV. and if he truly believed BSV was "bitcoin" then he can edit his own chain to his desires, but even he knows and realises his BSV is not bitcoin, which is why he is trying to come after the grand-daddy trying to pretend he is due inheritance. but can only make inheritance claims if he can prove he was the grand-daddy's parent.. which he cannot
|
|
|
|
There are probably other people who rather trust companies than themselves. I understand them especially those who are already too old to get into the rabbit hole of technicalities. Of course I prefer to own and keep real Bitcoins myself, but to those who can't handle the heavy responsibilities that it implies, a Bitcoin spot ETF offered by a trusted and popular financial institution is an option. There's still risk of course but others might feel that keeping it personally is riskier.
but holding a share does not mean you own a bitcoin managed by someone else.. you do not own bitcoin by holding shares. you just have beneficial interest in the market price exposure of the index the ETF chooses and the pegging amount the ETF chooses.. |
|
|
|
under fidelity FBTC the OP does not own a share of BTC
he owns a share of a fidelity company share. he cannot redeem that share for actual BTC. he has no ownership rights of actual BTC
however yes using the 401k method to own shares EXPOSED to bitcoin PRICE. means he gets the exact same ups-down of the market movements, with for him the upside that he can purchase exposure amounts at a discount due to pre-tax share purchasing. and tax free selling of shares
but its still worth stating the OP does not have ownership rights over actual bitcoin.
With an ETF shareholders, admittedly only the larger ones, have a right to redemption meaning they can request delivery of the underlying asset. To simplify the Bitcoin ETF's it is a cash only redemption meaning you would get the spot market price of Bitcoin not physical Bitcoin but effectively it's the same thing. So with an ETF in a very real sense the shareholders are owners of the underlying asset and the fund manger, in this case Fidelity, is just a custodian. It's not as good as holding Bitcoin in your own wallet but has the advantage that you can get access to it through an IRA or 401k with a linked brokerage account. i can tell you have not even read fidelity's s-1/a filing with the SEC.. there are too many corrections i would have to make to clarify where you have things mixed up, that its probably best you go read the s-1/a to realise that you as a share holder through a broker are several levels away from having any ownership claim of bitcoin. your shares are just measured on the performance of the bitcoin market index.. (you have exposure to spot price but not ownership claim of btc) if not interested in reading the whole of it. and just want to learn some risks .. use browsers [find in page] function for "sole discretion" and see all the points where all the levels above you can do things without share holders permission/vote/knowledge or notice.. its enlightening https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1852317/000119312524003839/d375081ds1a.htm#rom375081_4by the way its really worth learning what a trust is. its where there is no ownership. just a hierarchy of management and beneficiaries whom dont own the property inside the trust but can get beneficial benefit of the trust structure without ownership ill just add this lil snippet MANAGEMENT; VOTING BY SHAREHOLDERS
The Shareholders of the Trust take no part in the management or control, and have no voice in, the Trust’s operations or business. Except in limited circumstances, Shareholders will have no voting rights under the Trust Agreement.
and The Sponsor will have full power and authority, in its sole discretion, without seeking the approval of the Trustee or the Shareholders (a) to establish and designate and to change in any manner and to fix such preferences, voting powers, rights, duties and privileges of the Trust as the Sponsor may from time to time determine, (b) to divide the beneficial interest in the Trust into an unlimited amount of shares, with or without par value, as the Sponsor will determine, (c) to issue shares without limitation as to number (including fractional shares), to such persons and for such amount of consideration, subject to any restriction set forth in the By-Laws, if any, at such time or times and on such terms as the Sponsor may deem appropriate, (d) to divide or combine the shares into a greater or lesser number without thereby materially changing the proportionate beneficial interest of the shares in the assets held, and (e) to take such other action with respect to the shares as the Sponsor may deem desirable.
|
|
|
|
now ill complete the snippet you forgot to include(using your own source) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_school_of_economics#InflationEven prominent Austrian economists have been confused since Austrians define inflation as 'increase in money supply' while most people including most economists define inflation as 'rising prices'
but i did find it funny how you PURPOSEFULLY snipped off first third and last third of a sentence inflation is measured by things like the CPI where by for instance some measure it as what can you buy using $100 from 1900-2024 where by some for instance look at the cost of a loaf of bread over 100 years some do real estate square-metre comps some do a average shopping cart of groceries. and so on to measure inflation some do an amalgamation of all of the above |
|
|
|
|
i can understand OP's point that a extravegant anniversary celebration is pure spending with no ROI.. however
think less about the material cost of the celebration and think of the significance that its a milestone highlighting your relationship
the OP's wife may care less about the cost, but wants to experience a moment of celebrating the relationship. in which case part of marriage is communication and compromise.
so instead of just cancelling the anniversary to save money.. instead think up creative FREE idea's of how to celebrate and make the most of the day without the extravagant part..
EG work out something that makes the day special that you can afford via income rather than having to dip into investments
EG if she wanted a huge party at a posh hotel which booked 20 rooms for friends and family and a dance hall and DJ
replace that by saying you and her are going to a local bar to celebrate(free entry, no hire). there is no bar tab but anyone can come and celebrate by buying their own drink(maybe even the friends buy the couple a celebration drink), if they wish to come meet up and have some fun, where the celebrating couple at most pay for their own drinks while dancing the night away
it might be a case the wife is more upset the husband cancelled the acknowledgement of a relationship milestone and doesnt understand why the husband doesnt want to celebrate the milestone.. rather than being about the money, he needs to compromise and atleast offer a cheap but intimate memory of the day
however if the wife is the type that wanted to use the relationship mile stone as an excuse to go on a spending spree to try to artificially play out a rich life style to friends and family, where its more about presenting a successful wealthy life rather than a intimate romantic memory, well she needs to compromise to atleast offer a cheap but intimate memory of the day
|
|
|
|
thirdly
however when there is other proof that a certain bitcoin address was in control of a certain identity. then that proof of authority can also signify proof of identity
You are starting to lose me here . What's the other proof that has to do with identity . Any examples ? As you said above , signing is just a part of authority . Authority changes so authority can't be identity by itself . Having authority today doesn't mean you will have it tomorrow . So , something that is a way to prove something today doesn't mean it will be available tomorrow . If satoshi gave access of the address that interacted with finney to someone else after those transactions does that mean the new owner is satoshi ? I agree that proof of authority signifies only at that point of time a proof of idenity . Not later . What's your definition of identity , so i can know that we can move on common ground ? other proof of which bitcoin addresses are satoshi related.. well the extranonce data is one, heres where you need a bit of common sense if satoshi gave the privkeys to someone else. that someone else would have spend the coins just to remove risk of satoshi spending them in short by funds remaining on the address is a better proof no one else has the privkeys but the original person (if someone found all your bank security questions, would you keep that bank account open, or change your security/account and close the old one) . anyways i still laugh how CSW just grabbed random addresses from bitcoin richlist and didnt even do the most basic "forensics" to even try to find satoshi stash addresses.. that comedy moment alone shows CSW doesnt know bitcoin nor knows satoshi, nor knows forensics, nor knows how to even sound genuine, nor prove anything |
|
|
|
technically all ETF always had over 190,000btc
grayscale had >640,000 from day one
only difference is that now OTHER ETF have 190k+ total and grayscale scale is down to 466,534
in short.. all etf have not accumulated that many new coins that were not already locked up for years via potential ETF
Do you recon that was money which was vouched from day 1 of the ETF applications id say $2billion were of grayscale (owned by DCG) baskets, where DCG sold its positions to get cash out(civil costs and court order fines and debt payoffs) where by other AP bought the sudden influx of coin on coinbase prime OTC to then put into other ETF id say $6b was AP's already invested in grayscale when it was a closed trust, finally escaping, and then trading it back into other ETF id say $2b was probably new AP signing upto grayscale to buy other shares unallocated and then exiting grayscale to go to other ETF AP's entering blackrock were on a transfer of $100m a day on average, although friday seen them bring in $200m of coin so id say, yes there was probably some back-yard chats and deals done between grayscale and other AP's wanting to exit but were told to only leave in queue order or to a daily basket limit amount per day |
|
|
|
Now ask yourself how many coins will these people sell during the bull run. They are professional investors, unlike Bitcoin hodlers who set unrealistic price goals, these people will not miss out on an opportunity to take good profits. So don't listen to Cathie Wood or Michael Saylor when they predict where the next ATH will be, because they will sell way below that and crash the market.
coins locked into a ETF already made their money back.. yes they bought 190k from mostly grayscale in a month.. but even while locked into a custodian. they then sold shares. so they have their money back already. (via share sales) |
|
|
|
I'd start with the idea of freedom.
Nobody forces a person to become a bitcoin dev.
Nobody forces another person to pay a dev.
Nobody forces a dev to accept payments.
Am I right up to this point?
Let's say a dev is not financed by anyone and quits. Do we benefit from it? Does the dev?
Let's say a dev is financed by an anonymous third party via donations. Do we care who that third party is?
Let's say a dev is financed by a known third party. Should we care what that third party is? If we do, what can we do about it, because it seems like nothing but maybe voice our dislike.
Personally, I don't care whether the source of money is known or unknown, as long as devs do their job.
It's like asking if it's fine for banks to be buying bitcoin. What if they decide to get 10% of all BTC for sale? Are you going to stop using bitcoin just because a bank became a large holder?
id start the same way, until i start seeing devs doing some shady crap that changes bitcoin in ways that actually dont benefit the decentralised individuals of bitcoin, but make it annoying for said individuals of bitcoin just to benefit institutions... then finding out institutions are the ones funding devs, then makes me and others start questioning things.. and if devs start saying "its commercially sensitive information" thats whe even more questions should arise also. devs are not immortal gods that require churches that need donations/bribes, employment as bishops and priests to keep the religion alive. devs can retire and devs can leave even in paid roles. they are only human. devs can be replaced by better people so dont fear a dev leaving by thinking we should put up with their crap because they are a known entity.. dont be afraid. dont keep dead wood around that poison the forest just because you think bitcoin will break without them specifically |
|
|
|
2016 blocks =~ a fortnight less than 5 fortnights (10 weeks) to go |
|
|
|
|
technically all ETF always had over 190,000btc
grayscale had >640,000 from day one
only difference is that now OTHER ETF have 190k+ total and grayscale scale is down to 466,534
in short.. all etf have not accumulated that many new coins that were not already locked up for years via potential ETF
|
|
|
|
Linux development requires money, so somebody has to fund it. It's no longer a hobby project by Linus Torvalds.
bitcoin is money if the devs cannot profit from the thing they manage.. they are in the wrong career its like devs that program SWIFT (G-10 international payment transfers), but needing to beg for yuan(not g-10) to survive, and tailor swift to operate better for non g-10 transfers and make it annoying for g-10 transfers if an american banker dev cant survive on US dollar.. he shouldnt be an american banker dev, he should go off-board and work for chinese payment systems most of the exploits are made by the core devs(devs that have been around even during 2011-14) so they had ample opportunity to accumulate coin for themselves to stay independent. (many are rich) but still willing to accept the golden handshakes of institutional money to then programs features that only benefit institutions
by the way doomad(and his echo chamber group) wants the annoying ordinal spam that creates unspendable 1-330sat utxo's to never be made to be stopped.. (wants the annoyances to continue).. yet doomad wants people spending re-spendable/consolidatable amounts of 10,000-1,000,000 sat ($4.80-$480) to stop using the bitcoin network because he wants real spendable retail purchases of coffee, pizza, grocery amounts to happen on his preferred subnetwork where he can syphon routing fee's from them on the other network each payment. because he cant sneak fee's from relaying on the bitcoin network so now you understand doomads mindset |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
