I'd recommend for you (and tecshare, spendulus, etc) to look into design thinking. Its beneficial in all walks of life but one of the basic principles of design thinking is that you adapt the design to incorporate previous failures. Its important to the scientific and engineering process. Failure is part of the process of building something that works. The same goes for governments and economic systems. We don't design new systems without considering previous failures and adapting the plans to avoid those failures. This is how problem solving works. Its the only way we move forward as a species. Quitting on an idea because of a previous failure gets your nowhere. I didn't fail. I just found 2,000 ways not to make a lightbulb; I only needed to find one way to make it work. Thomas Edison The greatest teacher, failure is. Luke, we are what they grow beyond. That is the true burden of all masters. Yoda If only we were talking about light bulbs and not the murder of millions of people every time your idea fails, maybe you would have a point. Also the the quoting of an alien midget with telekinetic powers shows how grounded in reality your ideas are. |
|
|
|
I was talking about someone being struck be a stray bullet. Not a child from ISIS holding a hard grenade like you described.
If if someone, like me, were to give away the shares to poor people why wouldn't they be able to benefit? They could stake the tokens (the ones that were given to them) and then sell the dividends. I've already given away tokens to some people. Do you think you could stick to the topic? Sorry but you know about as much about economics as you do about firearms, that is to say absolutely nothing. Your ideas are not new or revolutionary, they are half backed horse shit that would be an absolute disaster if it were ever attempted. |
|
|
|
1 and 2 are absolutely valid. Nr3 depends on what you value your account at, personally. You can trash it only once, and once it's done, it's done. So, I don't think just because something's worth more, it has to be the preferred choice or sacrifice in order to make some money off of it.
It would surely help if OgNasty would bring some clarification into this topic, but regardless of whether or not he's pocketed the funds, I can see why he does not reply, here.
I also generally agree with the whole burden of proof thing. This is generally something which is highly annoying in this forum… shifting the burden of proof to the wrong side seems to be pretty common, here. People got judged and punished for much less information than we have here. However, I think the information presented by Twitchy is enough to at least ask questions, don't you think? With everything presented, it's a possible scenario some misconduct has happened.
Maybe this whole thing had a better chance to get resolved if the OP was just a tad less clickbaity and more "functional". Now, we have a derailed thread with people repeating the same stuff over and over, with no solution in sight. And the one all this is about isn't even here. Except he isn't just asking questions. He is claiming to be able to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" OGNasty is responsible for theft and making conclusions. You have a way of attempting to personalize everything with your lil ongoing spinning efforts, Tecshare. It seems more accurate to say that Twitchy is asserting that he believes that the evidence that has been provided to date proves beyond a reasonable doubt that OGNasty took a certain quantity of BTC, while there is more evidence out there that shows additional reasonable inferences that OGNasty engaged in problematic behavior including possible theft, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary obligations, fraud and/or conversion in regards to other amounts of BTC. Twitchy ain't no fucking court of law, from what I can determine, but he is someone who has been involved in putting together the evidence and arguing about what conclusions he believes the evidence reasonably supports. This also should be taken in the larger context of this exact same pattern of behavior related to other accusations where he makes more accusations over and over again without any definite proof. Anyone pretending there isn't a pattern here is lying to themselves.
Yes, here is where you are mostly off topic, to be focusing on Twitchy's alleged "pattern" of behavior, rather than the evidence that has been presented, and you seem to easily get distracted into tangential nonsense.. .sure there is some connection of relevance to what you are saying concerning possible biasness, but the connection is so far out into space that it is much more of a distraction mechanism regarding the main point(s), rather than any kind of attempt for you to even try to stay on topic.  Tell me, if I am addressing the accusations made by Twitchy Seal, how exactly am I supposed to address his accusations without referring to him personally? This is all very much on topic. He has made accusation after accusation against OGNasty, all with serious gaps in his "evidence" which he glosses over with persuasive techniques, repetition, and speculation. Twitchy Seal is not a court of law, but he sure as fuck enjoys pretending to be one, specifically when it concerns OGNasty. Twitchy Seal has already admitted he has no proof who those funds went to, that is a gigantic fucking hole in his "proof", one he fills with speculation. The fact that he has made several accusations against OGNasty relying on speculation absolutely should be taken into account as it demonstrates a clear pattern of attempting to target OGNasty regardless if he has proof or not. You go ahead and call it whatever you like, his motives are transparent. |
|
|
|
I believe in a modified and modernized 2nd amendment.
So do I.. Their needs to be more protection for the "shall not be infringed" part because all of the short barreled, fully automatic, armor piercing, silencers, etc. stuff that is illegal now without a NFA tax stamp is bullshit.. Basically all of the NFA act is bullshit.. Everyone should be able to have full autos with silencers without question IMO.. I agree. You should be able to have any modification under the sun on YOUR gun. It's the firing of guns that needs to be checked; as to not harm the innocent. You are delusional and your ideas are neither new nor fully formed. Your plan is garbage no matter how much you want it to be effective. |
|
|
|
Don't you think with today's technology this can be accomplished without hindering the performance of the gun?
Not for a single second.. No.. Another thing, even if you did make these guns with these electronic disablers, how do you figure you are going to keep even your average hobbyist gunsmith from removing these features? You have a design idea drawn up? Lets see it.. Do you even know how firearms work? Of course he doesn't. Gun control freaks are totally ignorant about firearms and are motivated by emotions and fear, not logic. They are afraid and they seek to feel in control by controlling others, and of course they know best and can make life or death decisions for you. Unfortunately no matter how much they control the lives of others they will still be fearful little pathetic creatures, it will never be enough. |
|
|
|
1 and 2 are absolutely valid. Nr3 depends on what you value your account at, personally. You can trash it only once, and once it's done, it's done. So, I don't think just because something's worth more, it has to be the preferred choice or sacrifice in order to make some money off of it.
It would surely help if OgNasty would bring some clarification into this topic, but regardless of whether or not he's pocketed the funds, I can see why he does not reply, here.
I also generally agree with the whole burden of proof thing. This is generally something which is highly annoying in this forum… shifting the burden of proof to the wrong side seems to be pretty common, here. People got judged and punished for much less information than we have here. However, I think the information presented by Twitchy is enough to at least ask questions, don't you think? With everything presented, it's a possible scenario some misconduct has happened.
Maybe this whole thing had a better chance to get resolved if the OP was just a tad less clickbaity and more "functional". Now, we have a derailed thread with people repeating the same stuff over and over, with no solution in sight. And the one all this is about isn't even here. Except he isn't just asking questions. He is claiming to be able to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" OGNasty is responsible for theft and making conclusions. This also should be taken in the larger context of this exact same pattern of behavior related to other accusations where he makes more accusations against OGNasty over and over again without any definite proof, and he isn't the only one. Anyone pretending there isn't a pattern here is lying to themselves. |
|
|
|
Heh.
I'm not one of those people that's going to argue that Venezuela isn't Socialism or anything along those lines. Or to say that the USSR isn't Communism. All of the tries of true socialism in the world have ended in the deaths of millions.
But it's just wrong to say that Nazis are socialist, because they aren't. Yet that is literally the exact same argument you are making, also known as the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. |
|
|
|
Horse shit dick. If he was joking he wouldn't have preceded his comments with "Here comes the controversial part, the part I shouldn't say...". No one said anything about "stopping the dems", the fact that Chunk Yogurt is a degenerate animal abuser is plenty of reason to post. |
|
|
|
1. You do not know the owner of the output address of the "missing" funds.
2. There are no victims seeking redress or making accusations of theft.
3. EVEN IF you are right the amounts are so small as to not really make any sense for a very trusted member to trash his reputation over. Such an account could easily sell for well over the amount allegedly stolen, therefore it makes no sense for some one to do this for monetary gains when they simply could have just sold the account and associated signatures for a much higher return.
Are any of these three points incorrect? Please explain in detail if you think so. Should I assume from now on that when you ignore my direct questions it's because you know I'm right? 1 true, bitcoin is fungible, you can't actually track individual bitcoin unless the transaction includes the entire balance. There are clues though. He's made ~6,500 transactions over the past ~8.5 years. More than 60% of his darknet(silk road) and gambling(satoshi Dice) related transactions occurred between June and August of 2011. 2 I've explained to you at least 3 times already. 3 If he thought there was a very low chance of getting caught then it does make sense. Even if he could sell the account for $1700, it would basically be giving a green light for someone to use the account to scam. Steal the money and hope you don't get caught so you can convince more people to invest in future ponzis (like BFL). Clearly you don't need my approval to make baseless assumptions about anything. Number 1 sounds distinctly different than "beyond a reasonable doubt" and a lot like "I am speculating". Once again, you are speculating that it was his funds used by him directly that went to dice sites (so what?) and the "darknet". You don't know if he made these transactions or if the clients had their payments directed there. You have fun with your raging "clues", the rest of us will stick to facts. |
|
|
|
|
There are plenty of topics on UBI (and how much of an utter failure it is) in this section. Maybe pick a topic and stick to it. Your "solutions" are hair brained half baked marketing schemes to enact what is in effect a gun ban while pretending not to. No one is buying it, even people who want more gun restrictions. Your plan as described has so many problems I could go on for hours about them. It is not going to happen.
|
|
|
|
The problem with strategy is, China might collapse far quicker than the "other side".
Did you know there were police officers in airports in China who were questioning the outgoing Chinese citizens, stupid shits like "Why are you leaving China?" (like why would anyone leave our beautiful country wtf is wrong with you?)
Would the authority which doesn't want you to leave the country let you move your wealth out of the country freely? Even though this was just an act?
A big NO. The moment they make this possible, every Chinese with a little bit of life savings would want to leave that hell hole. It will just backfire. Don't get me wrong, China deserves plenty of criticism, and I am not a fan of the CCP, but your all or nothing approach to this situation leaves a lot of room for a lot of what I am describing in between. They don't have to be 100% trustworthy or 100% open for this strategy to work. One thing they are already using is having a domestically used yuan that is heavily restricted and an international yuan which is dedicated toward international use. They could easily adapt that strategy to these scenarios. I think overconfidence in their impending failure is a mistake. They only need to last long enough to pull this off, then their plan would run under its own momentum. |
|
|
|
1. You do not know the owner of the output address of the "missing" funds.
2. There are no victims seeking redress or making accusations of theft.
3. EVEN IF you are right the amounts are so small as to not really make any sense for a very trusted member to trash his reputation over. Such an account could easily sell for well over the amount allegedly stolen, therefore it makes no sense for some one to do this for monetary gains when they simply could have just sold the account and associated signatures for a much higher return.
Are any of these three points incorrect? Please explain in detail if you think so. You never responded to these points. I wonder why. How long will you continue to avoid addressing these points? He can't respond to these points because they are all true, and it totally undermines the speculative narrative he is desperately trying to push. As you can see he is already laying the groundwork for shifting to another accusation to push once again clearly demonstrating this is about targeting the man OGNasty, not exposing any wrong doing. |
|
|
|
Gold backed anything from China won't work unless China enables you to switch from crypto to physical gold no matter where you are.
If I have to go to China to get my physical gold for my crypto... It will fail.
If they are not going to give gold at all, it is a failure without a doubt.
They might accomplish this via their HSBC branches located all over the world but then... we will discover that if they were really honest about this whole thing.
Long story short, China won't let you to move your gold out of the country just like any other country.
The only way to move wealth without pain is bitcoin. (The pain starts when you decide to get back to FIAT though it is not about "moving")
The painful way is FIAT and banks. The Impossible or near impossible way is gold.
What is stopping them from being honest about it long enough to crush the dollar and put themselves in control? They would be taking a page out of Walmart's book, dropping the prices so low it crushes all the competitors, then they can safely jack up all the prices without fear of the customer base going elsewhere, because there is no where else to go. |
|
|
|
But they were nazis at first place. Who cares about all the rest?
Nazi is a made up term in recent time. They are and were National Socialists. I don't think the name is a good point of evidence to be using. I wouldn't say that the North Korean Government is democratic because their official name is 'Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea' Nothing about them is democratic nor for the people. Same thing with China I'm pretty sure. The Nazis wanted to redefine Socialism, as I said before, they wanted to build a new system around the term socialism -- which was practically authoritarianism with private ownership, though you still had to work with the government or you'd be fucked -- think of something like China, which I think is a pretty good example of such government. They're not socialists. Look at Squatz parroting Captain Postmodern talking points over here. Careful, next you will be telling me true Communism has never been tried because all the other times they tried it turned out to be massive genocidal failures. |
|
|
|
1. You do not know the owner of the output address of the "missing" funds.
2. There are no victims seeking redress or making accusations of theft.
3. EVEN IF you are right the amounts are so small as to not really make any sense for a very trusted member to trash his reputation over. Such an account could easily sell for well over the amount allegedly stolen, therefore it makes no sense for some one to do this for monetary gains when they simply could have just sold the account and associated signatures for a much higher return.
Are any of these three points incorrect? Please explain in detail if you think so. You never responded to these points. I wonder why. How long will you continue to avoid addressing these points? |
|
|
|
You get so worked up over a seemingly small point. I am not asserting that any initial burden has been moved from Twitchy to you.
I am merely asserting that you have the burden to prove any assertions that you make, to the extent that you are trying to persuade anyone into siding with you or action or whatever.
If you are not trying to persuade anyone, and you are merely rebutting the claims of others, then of course, you would have no burdens; however, let's say that Twitchy had met his burden of production and presentation, then the burden would shift to the other side (which seems to be you in this case?) to show that his evidence and logic is not true or persuasive.
I am not asserting that Twitchy never had any initial burden of proof, but if he were to have met the burden of proof (which he claims to have done in part of the evidence that he presented), then if true, the burden would shift to the opposition in regards to either the truth of that evidence or the persuasiveness of the logical claims. I would agree that we don't get to any of this shifting of the burdens, if what you said were to end up being true - that is that Twitchy has not provided sufficient evidence or logic to prove his points..
It is not just you who gets to decide whether Twitchy has met his burdens, but you are entitled to your opinion and your ability to present rebuttal, counter-evidence and counter-logic, of course.
I don's see how I am saying anything that is exactly controversial, like you seem to be attempting to make it out to be.
It is not a small point. It is a point upon which this entire accusation rests. Twitchy Seal is speculating where that money went, he has no proof of where it went, to whom, or why. I have highlighted in bold you contradicting yourself from one second to the next. I don't have any burden to prove anything, and this is you, once again, attempting to divert the burden of proof from Twitchy Seal to me. I never said I was not trying to persuade anyone. I said I don't care if anyone believes me. There is a difference even if you don't want to admit the distinction. Claiming to have met the burden of proof and meeting the burden of proof are not equivalent. I don't get to decide he hasn't met the burden of proof, but you do? It is not my opinion, it is a fact. He has no proof where those funds went. Again, you attempt to invert the burden of proof and claim I need to present evidence his "evidence" does not meet the burden of proof. That is not how burden of proof works. Either he has the evidence or he doesn't, and he doesn't, that is a fact. What you are saying is not controversial, it is a logical fallacy. I mean, we're just going in circles at this point.
Speculation implies there is no firm evidence.
It's not merely speculation. There's a shitload of evidence. When you take it all into consideration, it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he pocketed BTC145
If you wake up in the morning and your yard is wet, but you didn't see it rain, would you consider it just speculation that it rained because someone could have come and sprayed your yard with water while you were sleeping? No. The wet yard proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it rained. No, you are going in circles. You don't have any proof theft occured, that OGNasty victimized anyone, or even any proof who those funds went to. You are SPECULATING that it was stolen funds. This is not proof. Your own analogy is accidentally perfect. Your lawn being we doesn't mean it rained. It could have been humid that day, it could be dew, it could have snowed, hell maybe your neighbors sprinkler cast a bit too wide of a spray that day. Your ASSUMPTION that is rained is nothing more than that, an assumption. A wet yard does not prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt besides that your yard is wet. I must say, speaking of lawyer speak, your repetition of the term "beyond a reasonable doubt" is nothing more than a rhetorical sophist mechanism to persuade people of your speculative conclusions. You might want to look up the definition of that phrase by the way, because it doesn't mean what you think it does. 1. You do not know the owner of the output address of the "missing" funds.
2. There are no victims seeking redress or making accusations of theft.
3. EVEN IF you are right the amounts are so small as to not really make any sense for a very trusted member to trash his reputation over. Such an account could easily sell for well over the amount allegedly stolen, therefore it makes no sense for some one to do this for monetary gains when they simply could have just sold the account and associated signatures for a much higher return.
Are any of these three points incorrect? Please explain in detail if you think so. You never responded to these points. I wonder why. |
|
|
|
|
While BTC-e was obviously a shady organization, it was also an integral crypto institution for many years and was in fact the backbone of this community for some time. They may have been up to some illegal shit, but the one thing that they always made clear was they would never rob their user base, and they took full responsibility for any major hacks and thefts that occurred, reimbursing the userbase. This was unheard of for the time it operated, and still to some extent very rare even today. Even when the government seized all their assets they did their best to make the user base whole.
You don't have to endorse their illegal activities to have respect for how they operated their exchange in respect to the end user. Still to this day I haven't found an exchange I would trust more than BTC-e. I think this organization was unfairly demonized. Balthazar certainly doesn't deserve to be punished for serving in a moderator, customer service, and support role for this organization. I highly doubt he had any special knowledge of the inner operations of the exchange and he doesn't deserve to be pinned with that responsibility. Cryptodevil has long been overzealous with his negative ratings and he has been on my exclusion list for some time.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
