I guess you don't realize that no one around here gives a shit about Ver? Never did?
So let it go dude.
We don't give a shit about any of the "vocal" or infamous personalities in the crypto world, they are all scam artists and always will be.
Thee fact that you are chiming belies the reality that you do indeed care about Ver. |
|
|
|
It only took a little wait for Hairy to nail you on that one.
I've seen you play the omission game in several technical discussions already... but defending Ver? Come on.
Nail? Hardly. I'm not defending Ver. I'm defending truth. It hardly seems appropriate to dress as a Defender of the Truth when the Truth so dearly defended is at the very least incomplete. At least you could have read the whole sentencing before taking a conman at his word. It's a fact that the judge DID use the expression "pipe bomb" in the official document. Just no. The prosecution (Mr Frewing) uttered 'pipe bomb'. The judge said 'bomb', sans any adjective. Read the damned thing you'sef before accusing me of playing fast and loose. |
|
|
|
It does seem you are still invested in BTC, but you also talk about BCH and BSV as if they might become something. Maybe they will, or maybe you like some properties of those altcoins that maybe you'd prefer the Bitcoin Core devs would put into BTC, the wallet, or you don't like Segwit or any of a number of improvements that have been made to the original client.
That was 2 years ago, can't change it now.
My thesis says the next Blockalypse invalidates your thesis. |
|
|
|
I pointed out years ago that at ten minute intervals, interplanetary mining is a non-starter. Wouldn't be a problem within our lifetimes. Like that article implies, there will be a Mars Coin, maybe a Jupiter Coin, and a SolarSystemCoin. If we manage to invent faster than light communication, then 10 minute blocks would be fine and everyone would still be using bitcoin in this galaxy. Not if we are to have one chain to rule them all.
This is a typical example of you providing a partial truth in a deliberately misleading manner.
Bullshit, my nuance-challenged counterpointer. I have noticed, you have been consistently misleading as well. Maybe it is not intentional, but somehow your bias bleeds out into your posts and writings. Check yourself. Some posts, you even say "I didn't bother to read the whole thing, but I'll accept him at his word." when you know full well that other guy has gone on to take a different road from the rest of us. "Toe the clearly delineated, already approved line" said nobody of any significance ever. |
|
|
|
It only took a little wait for Hairy to nail you on that one.
I've seen you play the omission game in several technical discussions already... but defending Ver? Come on.
Nail? Hardly. I'm not defending Ver. I'm defending truth. |
|
|
|
Interesting to read a debunking of the 'in jail for fireworks' line: I somehow don't believe his story of going to jail for 10 months for selling firecrackers on ebay. I think there is something to the story he is leaving out.
Here's a transcript of the sentencing hearing, detailing exactly why he was sentenced to 10 months in jail, including the parts of the story he may have left out. Spoiler alert: pipe bombs aren't firecrackers. I'm not so sure. I'm not going spelunking through the entire trial transcript. But from the sentencing, it appears that the term 'pipe bomb' appears only once. To wit: "I think one factor that the Court can take into consideration or at least should consider is there were some pipe bombs involved in this case as well that were not charged and are not incorporated in the conduct that's before the Court..." (emphasis added) To me, this looks as if the matter of any pipe bombs were never even discussed in trial -- no evidence entered, no testimony revealing, etc -- and that the prosecution was allowed to get a sideswipe freebie in unchallenged. Of course, 'pipe bomb' is a pretty specific term of art. I'd be curious to know what the legal definition of such was -- if indeed any evidence referring to such was ever entered into trial. But it apparently was not. Until someone points me at anything within the trial transcript itself indicating evidence of dealing in pipe bombs, I'm inclined to accept Roger at his word. As a sidebar, I find it kind of funny how this here crypto community is absorbed by long-past actions of various parties that have absolutely nothing to do with any crypto topic whatsoever. You missed the bit where the judge says selling bombs to juveniles is a very serious offence. I think that these offenses are very serious. They could have been a lot more serious. The bombs could have gone off or people could have used them in destructive ways. Selling bombs to juveniles is never okay. While it is true that the judge does not use the word ‘pipe bomb’ in these sentences and only uses the word ‘bomb’, the intent is clear. I would be unsurprised to learn that from a legal perspective, 'unlicensed firecracker' is precisely synonymous with 'bomb'. This is a typical example of you providing a partial truth in a deliberately misleading manner.
Bullshit, my nuance-challenged counterpointer. |
|
|
|
Thou shallest not count to the number two, unless thou proceedeth directly to three. |
|
|
|
I am involved with Vsys for a few weeks now. Almost 2 months to be exact. What do you think about its movements?
...
Never heard of it, we don't talk about shit coins in this thread unless we are dumping on ETH,BSV or BCH.  If you are dumping on BCH please ping me. I want that shit dumped to oblivion. I have a similar hatred for BSV but not as profound as in the case of BCH. Awwww. So sad for you. (  ) |
|
|
|
Haven't read it yet, but I did listen to Lopp and Welch on Livera's podcast this morning. Casa Security Protocol was the topic of discussion. |
|
|
|
I pointed out years ago that at ten minute intervals, interplanetary mining is a non-starter. |
|
|
|
Where's WO-Bro? game. Just for merits this time. Picture taken this morning. Y'all solved from the merest of snippets in less than a handful of guesses last time. Let's see how this one goes.  |
|
|
|
My theory about this is that when the mainstream coins like Libra hit the market, they will bring the Bitcoin dominance down because they will be pumped/inflated. Im sure next year we will see Google, Apple, Amazon, etc all jump in.
You seem to be presuming that these postulated coins will actually be cryptocurrencies, as per accepted definitions. Definitely not a foregone conclusion. |
|
|
|
Interesting to read a debunking of the 'in jail for fireworks' line: I somehow don't believe his story of going to jail for 10 months for selling firecrackers on ebay. I think there is something to the story he is leaving out.
Here's a transcript of the sentencing hearing, detailing exactly why he was sentenced to 10 months in jail, including the parts of the story he may have left out. Spoiler alert: pipe bombs aren't firecrackers. I'm not so sure. I'm not going spelunking through the entire trial transcript. But from the sentencing, it appears that the term 'pipe bomb' appears only once. To wit: "I think one factor that the Court can take into consideration or at least should consider is there were some pipe bombs involved in this case as well that were not charged and are not incorporated in the conduct that's before the Court..." (emphasis added) To me, this looks as if the matter of any pipe bombs were never even discussed in trial -- no evidence entered, no testimony revealing, etc -- and that the prosecution was allowed to get a sideswipe freebie in unchallenged. Of course, 'pipe bomb' is a pretty specific term of art. I'd be curious to know what the legal definition of such was -- if indeed any evidence referring to such was ever entered into trial. But it apparently was not. Until someone points me at anything within the trial transcript itself indicating evidence of dealing in pipe bombs, I'm inclined to accept Roger at his word. As a sidebar, I find it kind of funny how this here crypto community is absorbed by long-past actions of various parties that have absolutely nothing to do with any crypto topic whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Jeebus Cripes. So much wrong, I hardly know where to start. Let's try. Good news gents. Andrew Yang, the only self proclaimed crypto friendly US presidential candidate, is seeing a surge in popularity.
While Yang being crypto-friendly is cool and all, the balance of his insanity makes this 'surge in popularity' the antithesis of 'good news'. any popularity is good for Bitcoin as it will help encourage other candidates to pander to crypto community like Yang has.
Ohkaaaayy.... ThatWordYouKeepUsingItIDon'tThinkItMeansWhatYouThinkItMeans.png If this guy gets to the next round of debates watch out as his constant drum beat of giving every American a UBI of 1000usd per month(he calls it the Freedom Dividend) will only gain more and more traction as he gets more exposure.
He is the only candidate to go from polling at 0 percent to make it to the 3-4 percent range.
Thereby demonstrating once again that the easiest way to garner mindshare is to throw money at the people, never matter the true cost. Never underestimate the stupidity of the mob. Yang is a long shot, but a real possibility as he has the support of the Crypto community and by default the support of the future financial elite.
*cough* bullshit squared. Most crypto enthusiasts are too smart to not be repelled by this inane pandering. |
|
|
|
Silly intended BSV taunting: Yet SV is up 2.12% in the last 24 hours. Yep. Sans flames tho. This is fine. I'd point out that BTC is up a meager 0.16% in the same time period. But that would just be rubbing salt in Boris' butthurt wounds. Not to mention the fact that I garner no joy in BTC's misfortune. Flameout Boris flames out. |
|
|
|
It only works when I say it.  WellWe'reWaiting.png |
|
|
|
Good morning all,
I just come across this thread after reading that Jon Montroll has been sentenced. I had BTC located on Bitfunder.com and I've noticed some people have received letters in the mail regarding victims of crime, yet I have not. I'm from Australia and never been an American citizen and I would like to know if there is an agency in which I can follow this up with?
I realise this is a bit of a long shot but thought I would give it a shot anyway. Any help would be appreciated
Regards
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=337523.msg50434179#msg50434179Good luck. |
|
|
|
Wait so Bitcoin = bad because Segwit is "indeed an alteration of the Bitcoin protocol"
BTC is suboptimal not merely because SegWit is an alteration, but because the SegWit Omnibus Changeset is a net negative alteration. but bcash Bsv = good because their shitty changes are "legitimate claim to a protocol change"
One of the things that makes BSV good is that it is being incrementally returned to the original Bitcoin protocol. Do try to keep up. Thus coming back to my comment about original design of planes not having jet engines and cars not having air bags etc... Can you provide any other technology which was not improved and is stuck at its original design? BSv's whole premise relies on cult thinking rather than logic. The design of first car, computer, TV etc etc etc have little to do with their current revisions and no one cares about ENIAC and steam powered cars. Which, of course, brings me right back to the observation that the SegWit Omnibus Changeset is a net negative alteration. Degradation is not improvement. |
|
|
|
I put a fair price for this coin at somewhere between $20 and $40.
Thus spake nutildah, Maker Of Markets. I won't make any more predictions until 1 year from today. Be still, my heart. If SV is up from where it is right now, I'll issue this thread a public apology.
I'll believe it when I see it. Why change your stripes now? Remember this gem? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2040221.msg50184000#msg50184000To those unable to figure it out, $304.53 > $195. |
|
|
|
|
True Bitcoiners do not think in terms of 'cashing out'.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
