How could evidence of personal identity have anything whatsoever to do with evidence of protocol change? I'm not sure if you're trolling or trying to be serious.
Back at ya. See any evidence of SegWit in the white paper? No? Explicitly in front of your face. Willful dereliction of truthiness. SegWit was indeed an alteration of the Bitcoin protocol. Undeniably. There is really no way to argue otherwise. I am pretty confident the white paper doesn’t say anything about Turing completeness, legally enforceable smart contracts, token protocols, large data storage capability and all the other shit in Bitcoin SV marketing Yet interestingly, all fully supported in the 0.1 version of the Bitcoin protocol. You know, before the Cripple Rangers took control of the codebase. SegWit, on the other hand... Funny, eh? So what's the point you are trying to make? My mistake. I couldn't see any evidence of them in the white paper. Thank you for clarifying that it doesn't matter whether something is mentioned in the whitepaper. That is not what I said at all. Are you really that blind that you do not see what I am getting at? Even with your introduction of demonstrably flawed sidebars? The initial implementation of Bitcoin - 0.1 supports all the features you list. Without recourse to explicit enabling code. The initial implementation of Bitcoin -- and including up to and through the SegWit Omnibus Changeset Release -- did not support SegWit. Neither explicitly nor as an external implementation. Indeed, the implementation of SegWit was predicated on the most egregious change to the Bitcoin protocol ever enacted. The features you list did not / do not require a change to the Bitcoin protocol. SegWit did / does require a change to the Bitcoin protocol. So when you say "it doesn't matter whether something is mentioned in the whitepaper", you're neither right nor wrong. What matters is the protocol itself. SegWit was undeniably a change to that protocol. A rather significant one. Therefore, somewhat 'less Bitcoin-y' -- at least on this axis -- than other implementations which hew to the original. On the other hand, if some element is decidedly counter to the white paper (chain of digital signatures, anyone?), then that indeed does matter. |
|
|
|
If jbreher uses his intelligence to deceive people
Not at all. At least never intentionally. or to to get caught in stupid-ass technical arguments
I guess it takes a self-described technical ignoramus to openly refer to technical arguments as 'stupid-ass'. |
|
|
|
How could evidence of personal identity have anything whatsoever to do with evidence of protocol change? I'm not sure if you're trolling or trying to be serious.
Back at ya. See any evidence of SegWit in the white paper? No? Explicitly in front of your face. Willful dereliction of truthiness. SegWit was indeed an alteration of the Bitcoin protocol. Undeniably. There is really no way to argue otherwise. I am pretty confident the white paper doesn’t say anything about Turing completeness, legally enforceable smart contracts, token protocols, large data storage capability and all the other shit in Bitcoin SV marketing Yet interestingly, all fully supported in the 0.1 version of the Bitcoin protocol. By golly, sometimes you almost sound like you wrote it Nope. It'd be fun to dream about such, but I was heads-down in a different tech field at the time. (or was involved at an early stage)...since everything afterwards was "crap".
Well, I did not say that. Let's keep it honest. If you did-much respect. Respect even if you did not and just being a bit cranky about later comers like PW re-writing/modifying a "perfect" code.
Does "perfect" code even exist?
Probably not. But after such a breakthrough innovation, which carefully balances concerns across so many independent fields of thought (protocols, economics, sociology, game theory, computer science, software development), why should we be in a hurry to replace it with something else? Especially seeing as the design has not been shown to have any demonstrable flaws? Is it not possible that the mind that was able to balance all these divergent concerns may just have some insight that has escaped the code jockeys to follow? But more to the point of this twig of the thread, is it not evident that Hairy was trying to ridicule my point that SegWit was not part of the original design? Too bad for HM that, while not explicit as features in the code, the 0.1 implementation fully allowed for such to be built atop it. Without recourse of changing the protocol. |
|
|
|
How could evidence of personal identity have anything whatsoever to do with evidence of protocol change? I'm not sure if you're trolling or trying to be serious.
Back at ya. See any evidence of SegWit in the white paper? No? Explicitly in front of your face. Willful dereliction of truthiness. SegWit was indeed an alteration of the Bitcoin protocol. Undeniably. There is really no way to argue otherwise. I am pretty confident the white paper doesn’t say anything about Turing completeness, legally enforceable smart contracts, token protocols, large data storage capability and all the other shit in Bitcoin SV marketing Yet interestingly, all fully supported in the 0.1 version of the Bitcoin protocol. You know, before the Cripple Rangers took control of the codebase. SegWit, on the other hand... Funny, eh? So what's the point you are trying to make? |
|
|
|
I did not say the protocol could not be changed. I am pointing out Krubster's rather daft implication that the Satoshi-CSW question has anything whatsoever to do with the fact that SegWit is the alteration.
Sir, I have always respected you. Not for your believes, but for being a gentleman and keeping a civilized tone despite all the (unfair?) bashing you receive. Thank you for that. I respect you as well. Your insinuation that the Craig-Satoshi conundrum has anything to do with SegWit being an alteration to the Bitcoin protocol, however, remains daft. Granted, it was likely a mere rhetorical talking point. But if so, why stoop to that level of inanity? You're very intelligent, I give you that. I do however don't agree with you. For me, segwit is bitcoin, anything else is an altcoin.
Hmm. SegWit _is_ Bitcoin? Like, if one does not employ SegWit, then one is using something other than Bitcoin? That is certainly not the bill of goods we were sold at inception. Nor at the activation of SegWit. Just because segwit wasn't mentioned in the whitepaper some 10 years ago, doesn't mean it can't be bitcoin.
Debatable. Though I can acknowledge that such a position has some shred of rationality to it. Things evole. Technology improve. Just as bitcoin has improved. Segwit is a part of that improvement.
Again, 'improved' is debatable. |
|
|
|
There's a lot of evidence that Segwit is the alteration. Read the docs, the white paper
The same evidence that CSW is satoshi? WTF are you on about? How could evidence of personal identity have anything whatsoever to do with evidence of protocol change? I'm not sure if you're trolling or trying to be serious.
Back at ya. See any evidence of SegWit in the white paper? No? Explicitly in front of your face. Willful dereliction of truthiness. SegWit was indeed an alteration of the Bitcoin protocol. Undeniably. There is really no way to argue otherwise. ...and why that protocol could not be changed? There's a lot of evidence that Segwit is the alteration. Read the docs, the white paper
There's a lot of evidence that Segwit is the alteration. Read the docs, the white paper
There's a lot of evidence that Segwit is the alteration. Read the docs, the white paper
There's a lot of evidence that Segwit is the alteration. Read the docs, the white paper
I did not say the protocol could not be changed. I am pointing out Krubster's rather daft implication that the Satoshi-CSW question has anything whatsoever to do with the fact that SegWit is the alteration. |
|
|
|
There's a lot of evidence that Segwit is the alteration. Read the docs, the white paper
The same evidence that CSW is satoshi? WTF are you on about? How could evidence of personal identity have anything whatsoever to do with evidence of protocol change? I'm not sure if you're trolling or trying to be serious.
Back at ya. See any evidence of SegWit in the white paper? No? Explicitly in front of your face. Willful dereliction of truthiness. SegWit was indeed an alteration of the Bitcoin protocol. Undeniably. There is really no way to argue otherwise. |
|
|
|
saying that segwit is not bitcoin is the same like saying TCP is not IP. it's the same, but it's another layer. TCP can't exist without IP and segwit can't exist without bitcoin.
Not sure you realize what you are saying here. IP certainly does exist independent of any TCP layer. By (your egregiously flawed) analogy, bitcoin certainly does exists independent of any SegWit. Indeed, without recourse to any analogy, bitcoin doth exist independent of SegWit. Remember -- " soft" fork? " Not" mandatory? |
|
|
|
Currently trading at $10.8k-ish
Which -- barring a negative turn -- should put us back on dooglus' Top 100 Days USD chart. |
|
|
|
This photo is for all of those people that say that there is no #BitcoinCash community. Born from a grassroots protest movement and reborn as a grassroots protest movement preserving the principles of the original. #Bitcoin is thriving and #BCH is its best representative.  Source: https://twitter.com/Justin_Bons/status/1169070618286927872Who said there is no BCash community!? We are well aware of them. As we are aware of XRP supporters, creationists, flat earthers, antivaxers and other proofs of the infinity of human stupidity... Acced to stupidly said others coin supporter They want to capture the market probable propaganda. don't bring it here Sorry already gotten negative trust from "Lauda" I didn't know it was a scam  Here in the BCT echo chamber, the unthinking multitudes think BCH is a scam. Although it is not. Ask 'em to clarify what they mean specifically, and they can't point to anything other than the fact that some BCH participants claim that BCH is the real Bitcoin (a controversial though defensible claim). And Lauda is a brazen extortionist. |
|
|
|
Mind you, fucking god is pretty fucking cruel too, so waddayagonnado?
edit: angry cos mrs v's cancer spread all over the effing shop, and there's not much to be done except sort of wait it out
anyway thx to whoever it was who told me about other forums for whining about this sort of thing, it's been an absolute godsend, and i can spare you all here the grisly bits. lets just have fun get drunk watch the fomo rise and revel in deliciuous liberal tears
Terribly sorry to learn of the negative diagnosis. |
|
|
|
Stamp chart is used for the bitmex price. (one of them) I saw a few times a huge manipulation on the bitstamp because it's easier to crash or pump the market and liquidate longs or shorts on the leverage exchange. Are you seriously proposing that we reopen negotiation on the Vegas accords of 2015? Do you have any idea what a can of worms that would be? I really don't know what are you talking about and why do you have such a problem with my chart. We some militant subset of us have an understanding in this thread, that we only use Bitstamp prices. FTFY |
|
|
|
lcan’t wait to get rid of both businesses tbh.
I’ll probably buy 7 or 8 apartments so I can live off the rental income & that’ll do me.
I see your point and basically agree, but isn't managing an apartment too much work? Maintenance work begged for, tenants who don't pay in time yet are too difficult to get rid of (depending on law - UK is more landlord friendly than most other Euro countries)... I'd be looking for an easier income stream. Maybe some dividend ETF. Advice anyone? Sure. Find a good property manager. You'll need someone to handle routine ongoing maintenance on your palatial estate, anyhow. Make 'em work double duty. |
|
|
|
As ethically perverse as it may be, proof-of-work happens to have this probably in the origins unintended feature of introducing a powerful deterministic skin-in-the-game variable into the mechanism.
Whaddayamean 'unintended'?!? The skin in the game aspect is the fulcrum upon which the entire Bitcoin ecosystem balances. |
|
|
|
Haha. Funny. I may be laughing harder than you today. BSV seven day performance is disappointing at -6.61%, this is true. However, BTC seven day performance even moreso at -6.74%. Ha. Haha. HahahahahahaHaha. Or whatevs... You think there is any chance Calvin is keeping it pumped up in the wake of CSW's shaming by law? Perhaps. So what? So... it's delaying the inevitable. Weaksauce troll attempt insufficient to instill fear. Try harder. |
|
|
|
Haha. Funny. I may be laughing harder than you today. BSV seven day performance is disappointing at -6.61%, this is true. However, BTC seven day performance even moreso at -6.74%. Ha. Haha. HahahahahahaHaha. Or whatevs... You think there is any chance Calvin is keeping it pumped up in the wake of CSW's shaming by law? Perhaps. So what? |
|
|
|
 had a good laugh with this one Haha. Funny. I may be laughing harder than you today. BSV seven day performance is disappointing at -6.61%, this is true. However, BTC seven day performance even moreso at -6.74%. Ha. Haha. HahahahahahaHaha. Or whatevs... |
|
|
|
Does not matter if you are a U.S. Citizen, you always have to pay income tax no matter where you are in the world. You can't change U.S. citizenship? As I posted in reply to you several days ago (albeit with not as much specificity, as I thought all needed was a reminder), you can renounce your US citizenship, but you get taxed for the privilege of doing so. Heavily. |
|
|
|
Payable in each winner's choice of BCH (ha!) or BSV (haha!). PM me your addresses, gentlewinners.
Hopefully, you are really joking about the pumpening of any bcash variants (aka btc attack vectors) (as forms of payment) in this bitcoin thread. Nope. Done and dusted. No chance, you english bed-wetting type. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
