It does seem to be an amazing coincidence, does it not.  (To be clear, I don’t know; and my mind was busy with other things in the negligible time between when I saw her final personal text, and when she was gone.  But...)

Hey, besides the graphical storyboard that I already quoted, you left out the best part:  The leaked video of Lauda with her husband!


Lauda was always lolz. 😺

After you, Mr Nasty.

On a forum where some people are serious about privacy, uninvited interrogation of arbitrary users is bound to be unwelcome to somebody.

I myself may agree to be interviewed on condition that it be understood upfront, I will fictionalize answers so as to sow Impersonally Unidentifying Disinformation on the record about how I got into Bitcoin, what books I read, my exact reasons for anonymity, etc., etc.  Or perhaps I will simply answer every question with, “I’m a cat!”  Or it could be that I just don’t feel like being bothered with a bunch of questions.  Being interviewed would not feed my ego; and if I wanted to participate in this kind of thing, I would have social media accounts.

---

I myself would not issue negative trust feedback for the PM that was sent when I had been inactive and MIA for two months (!), which I politely ignored when I finally found it.  But then, I am not minerjones.  I would not presume to tell minerjones how to make his own decisions, or toss him the canard about the feedback being unrelated to trade risk—much less give him a n00b “how to” lecture with screenshots.  Um, yeah, thanks—I think that he probably knows how to use the trust system.

If you disagree with his feedback, maybe try understanding why he left it, and politely request for him to change it—and if he says no, back off and leave it alone.  I myself think it’s a bit disproportionate; but it’s not unreasonable.  I get why he left the feedback; do you?

And please, do not PM me asking me for explanations of how I decide to spend my merit.  Thank you.

Which monster?  I have only been addressing suchmoon and Foxpup in this thread.

35 hours:  1377 views, 104 posts, 99 merits on OP, and 58 unique users expressing goodbyes and well-wishes.

(That last is a manual count, because a computer cannot interpret the content of posts; and it includes one user who sent well-wish merit without posting.)

Lauda is well-loved, and much missed.

The troll OP must be aroused.

My prior post about his “secret fantasies” was “hah, hah—only serious.”  I’m about 90% sure that he is a closet case.

It’s a tell, when somebody is obsessed with sexual insults in a completely irrelevant context.  Now, why is CH/TOAA/KaneVWE/whatever so fixated on accusing people of arse-licking, felching, etc.?

His psychological profile:  All day, he is fighting the urge to fantasize about arses.  He is dying for a taste.  But he can’t admit it to himself, so he accuses people of that incessantly, obsessively, in contexts that have nothing whatsoever to do with sex and sexuality.

If he tossed off such insults but occasionally, it would be a different matter.  But his pattern of insults shows a one-track mind:  Analingus, felching, and sometimes even coprophagy.

I suggest therapy, so that he can come to terms with his paraphilias.

---

We now return to our regularly scheduled troll thread, but now featuring Foxpop presenting a tasty butt for CH’s delectation.


Thanks.  So stop bumping the damn thing.

Corollary:  If you are so hated by badness that malicious liars remain obsessed with you after you are gone—when you can no longer act against them!—then you have done right.  It is a sort of contrarian measure of how much good you have done.

I can only hope that when I am gone, the trolls will continue to create new threads spewing raw hatred against me in foulest terms.  It bespeaks considerable achievement!  Alas, I doubt that I could ever measure up to Lauda on this particular point.  Meow. 😼

Are you volunteering yours?

Frankly, I dislike having my arse licked.  Feels too passive to me.

At that, as Lauda’s Absolutely Most Annoying Groupie™, I think that the foul-mouthed bitch troll OP here is just whining about expressing his secret fantasies of getting himself repeatedly fist-fucked by me, by the moderators, and by pretty much everyone else with at least an ounce of sense, or even decency.

...and not unlike how some people allege that Satoshi must have been an élite group...


What an enigma “they” are!  To be honest, I am no more certain that Lauda was a single individual than I am that she was female. ;-)

I do think that I have the balance of probabilities on my side here.

---

To be clear:  Even though I tagged the Lauda account, it is still included in my trust list.  Her tags have saved me so much trouble!  I need to keep seeing them right up top.


I may downgrade my tag.  I am only debating it as an historical artefact, since I left promptly after my initial reply to OP here; and it is not of much practical significance, at this point.  I never touched my green-trust to Lauda, so the account is +1/-1 from me right now.

---

As an authoritarian anarchist, a self-sovereign absolute autocrat, I never found Lauda to be inclined to interfere in my domain. ;-)

“Autarchy” has a salutary multiple meaning.

So much for trying to “avoid histrionics”.  I just spent 12 hours obsessed with an Internet forum thread, then passed out drunk for awhile.  LOL.


(Also, you know, OP did not really sound so “voluntary”.  What the fuck!?  No, I don’t know.)

---

At least 51% of the reason why I returned to the forum on 2020-01-01 was to reconnect with Lauda.  And now she’s gone, as if she waved a magic wand and vanished into another plane of existence.

Although there are others here whom I respect and admire and should wish to consider my friends, I have had limited interaction with most of them.  Lauda was the only person on this forum whom I deeply trusted on a personal level (not considering those whom I’d say I very much trust professionally, such as Bitcoin Core developers).  She is also one of the only true freethinkers whom I have ever met.

She and I had our disagreements.  We had some rousing debates in private.  For one thing, she was what I considered to be softhearted (LOL).  But she was not one of the sheep who proclaim themselves “freethinkers”, then bleat in horror if anyone steps away from the herd.  She had negligible tolerance for stupidity, and none at all for malice; but I think that anyone who is honest and intelligent (in that order) could get along with her just fine.

And I cared about her opinion.  And I actually cared what she thought of me!  In case nobody noticed, I do not give a damn about most people’s opinions—and I tend to be contemptuous of others’ opinions of me, personally.  Whereas Lauda commanded respect—not by demanding it, but by deserving it.  I think it’s inevitable that anyone with basic honesty and intelligence would come to respect her, sooner or later.

Lauda was always for privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, financial freedom... freedom, freedom! —the things without which all of the other things I care about cannot exist!  And she once told me that if I agreed with her about everything, it would be boring.

Whoever she is, she is a rare mind.  Not just some screen name on the Internet.  Outside of my family, of all the people whom I have ever met in real life, I cannot think of even a half-dozen who have been more personally significant to me—who have merited such significance.

Wherever she is, I hope that she’s ok.  She said some very worrisome things; but I can’t worry about it, when I can’t do anything about it.

Indeed.  I’ve been mulling the prospects for a custom title all day.  Perhaps “Catbat Witch”, to match the permanent avatar and the worry about in OP about “Faketoshi... in a catbat mask” (and since the witch thing got a laugh from theymos)—or maybe “The Cypherkitten”, which Lauda appreciated.


Yes.


It is real.  Don’t get your hopes up.  :-(

With leftists:  The lower, the better.

---

Opsec, LOL!  Whoops:  Too bad that Daddy Biden has a long track record of hating encryption.

—Whoops worse!  Trump is the candidate whose “Justice” Department and otherwise administration is eager to ban uncompromised strong crypto right now...


...and Biden is the candidate whose attack on strong crypto motivated the creation of PGP almost 30 years ago:




You gullible mammothrepts!  As you do every four years, you are “choosing” between two candidates who are substantively similar on every issue of real importance.  But at least it keeps you entertained, and it gives you a feeling of superiority to live in a “free” country—unlike all those Communist countries with one-party rule and meaningless show “elections”.

---

Modern mass-media propaganda is a weapons technology, like bombs and missiles, based on the same psychological principles as any other advertising.  And it is an unavoidable reality of modern life.

Though there is involved some matter of degree:  I once saw some astute historian say that in Continental Europe, the propaganda must be subtle and sophisticated to fool the populace—in Britain, significantly less so—in the United States, the crudest, cheapest hogwash will suffice.  I think that you have succinctly summed up why.

(I think that democracy is “broken” by design, but I’ll meet you halfway hereby...)


Lefty court-packing started with FDR’s threat to the U.S. Supreme Court of that era that if they struck down his blatantly unconstitutional “New Deal” laws, he would have the number of justices increased, and stack the empty slots with his own men.  So much for a “balance of power”.

How do you suppose that he got away with instant tyranny, as much as he wanted?  (For pedantic correctness:  Off the top of my head, I don’t know if the Roosevelt gold ban was one of the issues directly impacted by the court-stacking threat; but I do know that the Commerce Clause abuse that is nowadays institutionalized to Federalize everything did start with Roosevelt, for exactly that reason.  And your Supreme Court should have, and otherwise would have promptly torn up everything from Socialist Insecurity, to quotas imposed on how much farmers could grow, etc., etc.)

I’m not sure why the SCOTUS from two decades earlier had permitted the Federal Reserve Act to stand—a subject for further research...  I do know that at the time, the SCOTUS had at least enough integrity that constitutional amendments were required to ram through the Income Tax, and the Prohibition of alcohol.  Nowadays, you know, your wise and benevolent Federal government would not bother with amending the Constitution for such things.

Indeed.  ++(future because I don’t want to run out).


I do hope that onion v3 will last for a long time.  The address format (a straight-up 25519 key, plus some little metadata—a 126-bit security level, barring new ECDLP solution or a way to run Shor’s Algorithm) was designed with the kind of forward-looking security margin that v2 never had when it was designed (80-bit truncated SHA-1 hash of a 1024-bit RSA key; WTF were they thinking!?).  Unless a practical quantum computer develops, I see no reason to expect v3 to become insecure—although of course, advances in cryptography may yield some reason also to add a v4.

v3 onion is approximately around the same estimated security level as Bitcoin public keys, so...


I saw that when the thread began with the new signature and avatar, long before theymos appeared.  I don’t know; but given the cat’s characteristic sense of humour (and see also what I said above about “rampant speculation”), I am guessing that it may have something to do with this, which should be savoured full-sized if I do say so myself:

Subject: Skynet to nullius: “GIVE ME YOUR ADDRESS THERE”

Would you please oppose your own flag, and then withdraw it?  Thank you.


That’s a hell of a lock.  Satoshi-sized.  What an honour.

---

Good point.  I won’t hold my breath waiting for those who support this flag to flag satoshi.

Thank you, theymos.  That settles it.  She’s gone as can be.


So true.

---

I think that she found the rampant speculation and arguments to be... beneficial, as a practical matter.  So many people are so damn sure that they know, on one side or the other!  Whereas nobody knows—er, I mean, even “nobody” knows nothing—um, whatever.  —Thus, Lauda remains an enigma.

She cannot be so easily profiled; and her private life is completely impenetrable from Internet forum information.

Besides being annoyingly stupid, the speculation could open the way for scams.  Which is exactly what Lauda has hereby so striven to prevent, in case OP wasn’t sufficiently clear.


Consider a long con involving false public hints, then private communications, concluding with:  “Yeah, sure, um, psst, a little secret:  I’m Lauda’s alt.  Whisper, wink, nudge.  Escrow 1000 BTC with me!”  It is a prospect that would most displease the cat.

---

I respect Lauda too much to suppose that her life revolves around an Internet forum.


It is hilarious that you are so sure.  Even more hilarious that you are trying to explain this to me.

On this particular point, the only certainty is that you know no more than I do.


“Lauda” is an actual name.  Although it seems to be a girl’s given name (five seconds of searching, people!) with an obvious Latin derivation (duh!), I have also seen it alleged to be masculine^{[citation/explanation needed]}.  It is also a surname.

But that does not mean much.  “Loyce” is a girl’s name, but I never assumed that LoyceV was female; it contradicts his behaviour.

I categorized Lauda as “probably female” because in real life, I have known highly intelligent, very willful women who closely matched her in personality and behaviour.  I don’t go in for mechanistic application of dumb stereotypes.  She is a type.  And that is all of the (admittedly unreliable, speculative non-)information that I have to go on, because...


No, Lauda has never claimed to be female.  When I have asked her in private, she refused to answer either way—due to privacy, for it is one binary bit of personally identifying information (damn it, this forum needs an undelete button!^* Loyce’s archive) to partition her anonymity set.  That is not my guess:  It is what she told me.  She was always deadly serious about privacy and anonymity.


She—eh, he could be a man.  *shrug*  It’s none of my business, because we didn’t have that type of a relationship (other than jokes, not unlike all the jokes about her and theymos).  I am also serious about privacy, so I respect the privacy of others.

---

* I just drunkenly reached for the nonexistent quote button on one of my favourite posts on a locked thread, and hit the delete button instead.  Damn it.

---

Indeed.

Point taken on so many levels, I may choke to death from all-consuming gales of laughter shitposts.

You just keep telling yourself that.  Dunning-Kruger rather well explains the conceits of druggies about drugs—not so much why they rationalize (which is obvious), but why they cannot see through their own transparent foolishness.  Well, um, they do drugs.  Which wreck the brain.  Duh.

Whereas I am not here to save you; I don’t give a damn if you want to ruin yourself.  It is your problem.

Hemlock is also “naturally occurring”.  As are arsenic, mercury, and lead.  Plus plenty of other mushrooms!

Anyone who uses the term “naturally occurring” as a criterion for “safe and healthy to take into your body” has brain damage.


No doubt more than a few people would call me “ignorant” of Jesus.

The inversion of reality to proclaim inferiority and irrationality as superior knowledge is—typical of a certain type.  And there is a pretty good historical hypothesis that much religiosity has been caused by “naturally occurring” drugs—much more Amanita muscaria than psilocybin.  Hmmm.

I won’t deign seriously to argue with your druggie religion any more than I debate Christian evangelicals.


No, I categorize marijuana as very bad based on my life experience of having known hardcore stoners who burnt their brains out with the stuff.  Young and brilliant—some of them could have been smarter than I am.  Among other experience which is perfectly consistent with all of the bad, bad things that people say about marijuana.

---

Thanks, but I am not such a big fan of the cinema.  (And only drug addicts are stupid enough to put up the strawman that Reefer Madness is the primary source of alarm over the deleterious effects of marijuana.)

Good point.  Her feedback is excellent, but unmaintained.  It is not only a matter of mistakes:  She has sometimes amended her feedback (sometimes spectacularly) based on new developments or new information.

But her tags are necessary.  Does anyone in DT want to go through her terrifically huge sent feedback list, evaluate each case, and copy feedbacks where appropriate?  Remember the “Prison Break” thread?

(For my part, I will keep Lauda in my personal trust list.  But I gave up on DT awhile ago; the system is broken by design, just basically democracy as I said long ago.)