Gawd this is lulzworthy Remember the guy who ''lost'' 4 BTC after using the LN?
It was a major lie.
Mmm hmmm. And what is the evidence? But actually, this is the funny part: You literally need to he retarded to risk so much money on that tech.
And this is what you entrust your future to? |
|
|
|
The fact that CSW submitted for copyright something that has been in the public domain for years (the bitcoin whitepaper)
Whatever gives you the idea that the Bitcoin white paper is public domain? He didn't say it "is" public domain, he said its been in the public domain, because nobody was too big of an ass to attempt to copyright it until Craig came along. How convenient for the next public display of ignorance to come so quickly. Copyright is established the instant a work is affixed in tangible form. That copyright exists fully independent if any registration thereof. Absent any explicit delegation of rights to the public at large by its creator, the Bitcoin white paper is not public domain. Your willful persistence in confusing 2 different terms does not alter the fact that Craig is a fraud. You're like a medium-grade scammer who gets caught in a scam and then attempts to shift attention to an argument around something else. The fact remains: Satoshi intended bitcoin to be freely-distibutable, available to all, and Craig is attempting to subvert that ethos by copyrighting and patenting anything he can get his greedy little hands on, all the while claiming he is Satoshi. You have to be either very stupid or very dishonest to not see what's going on by now. That’s rather rich. I’m not the one with a demonstrated confusion between patents and compyrights, nor between public domain and non public domain items. The initial protocol is indeed free for anyone to use. While I understand at least some of the arguments for abolishing all IP law, under the current dominant system of the world, people’s inventions are their own, should they choose to patent them. Near as I am aware, nChain is not making patent claim to any fundamental bit of the initial Bitcoin protocol. They are making patent claims to other innovations running atop the Bitcoin protocol. And in the world in which we live, that is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. Exactly what is the nature of your compliant? Describe to me one patent of nChain’s that has you most up in arms, and describe to me exactly how you think it violates some element of fair play. If you can. |
|
|
|
Whatevs, dude or dudette. Fact is that xrtrlaev’s so-called ‘fact’ is unmitigated bullshit. Of course, pretty much nobody in this space understands any aspect of IP law whatsoever, so I guess I should not be surprised. Incidentally, what value do you think you have added to this branch of the thread?
The fact that CSW submitted for copyright something that has been in the public domain for years (the bitcoin whitepaper)
Whatever gives you the idea that the Bitcoin white paper is public domain? He didn't say it "is" public domain, he said its been in the public domain, because nobody was too big of an ass to attempt to copyright it until Craig came along. How convenient for the next public display of ignorance to come so quickly. Copyright is established the instant a work is affixed in tangible form. That copyright exists fully independent if any registration thereof. Absent any explicit delegation of rights to the public at large by its creator, the Bitcoin white paper is not public domain. |
|
|
|
The fact that CSW submitted for copyright something that has been in the public domain for years (the bitcoin whitepaper)
Whatever gives you the idea that the Bitcoin white paper is public domain? |
|
|
|
While I am unsure on the matter, I think nChain has the largest portfolio of patents in the crypto currency and Blockchain space. Not knowing your definition of "patent troll" -- not exactly a dictionary term -- I really have no way to respond to your question.
A patent troll uses patents as legal weapons, instead of actually creating any new products or coming up with new ideas. Instead, trolls are in the business of litigation (or even just threatening litigation). They often buy up patents cheaply from companies down on their luck who are looking to monetize what resources they have left, such as patents. Unfortunately, the Patent Office has a habit of issuing patents for ideas that are neither new nor revolutionary, and these patents can be very broad, covering everyday or commonsense types of computing – things that should never have been patented in the first place. Source: https://www.eff.org/issues/resources-patent-troll-victimsGreat. By that definition, neither nChain nor CSW are patent trolls. |
|
|
|
The recent exceptional spike has pointed out resistance at 10.5k, and, coming below the strong resistance at 13.5k, it is a bearish indicator (in conventional analysis).
I don't know nuttin' 'bout no conventional analysis, so I'll just ask. Does conventional analysis really consider a positive overshoot spike the same as being rebuffed at a resistance level? |
|
|
|
@jbreher of course I would like that....
Oops. I misread what you wrote. I thought you said you'd like me to sell all my BTC. Sorry. |
|
|
|
Seriously who sold anything at sub $8,000? I want to see hands in the air.
I did. I sold at 7750. Of course, that coin was bought shortly before at 7500, so all is well. Or to buy some BSV. Nope. The proceeds are just plowed into another standing buy order at $7500. At this point, my BTC ladder trades are completely independent of anything I do with my BSV. Though I hope you to just sell and go all BTC for real.
No you don't.  It's okay though. Neither do I, for that matter. |
|
|
|
Ok, guys. Because of your recent comments i decided not to comment anymore here about the price prediction. I just tried to help but because you don't like the way i express myself i won't make any TA anymore. I won't bother you. I'm sorry that you got it that way. I would say again, all that i tried was to help. I was aware of the danger to mark me as asshole. That's why i opened the thread where i said that predictions that i made was W.O. community predictions (even if they were all my predictions) but i don't care about my recognition here. But i do respect your opinion here. Maybe i'll post some meme here and there just for fun.
Your analysis and speculation is fine. Maybe there is a language barrier, I don't know. But to me, your incessant explanations of motivation and what not come off as arrogant and seeking of recognition. Just trying to help. |
|
|
|
Seriously who sold anything at sub $8,000? I want to see hands in the air.
I did. I sold at 7750. Of course, that coin was bought shortly before at 7500, so all is well. |
|
|
|
These sort of moves are unhealthy, especially without a proper base. A slow grind up is the only way to sustain a move over the longer term.
Many posters will celebrate this sort of pump, only to have their hopes dashed again.
Pish. This is Spar Bitcoin. This is what it do. If only there were some way to profit of the volatility itself... |
|
|
|
|
"Death cross", they said.
|
|
|
|
So, guys, where to sell and where to buy? Asking those who trade. Hodlers seem not to care. They just hold. They probably think at least 100k is guaranteed and because of that they think they dont need any advice.
Still doing most of my business on pro.coinbase.com |
|
|
|
"You can not patent code. You can only patent an invention which is implemented in your code. An invention is a new and unique way of doing something. Most of all, it must be something nobody did before. If anyone used the same technique which you describe in your patent, that's called prior art and invalidates your patent. So trying to get a patent on something somebody else invented and implemented in code would be futile. ..."
No shit. Relevance? Did you somehow forget your dev is crypto's biggest patent troll? While I am unsure on the matter, I think nChain has the largest portfolio of patents in the crypto currency and Blockchain space. Not knowing your definition of "patent troll" -- not exactly a dictionary term -- I really have no way to respond to your question. Incidentally, the title of 'your dev' is a complete non-sequitur, seeing as 'dev' is pretty universally applied to 'the peeps who write the code'. An activity that CSW (am I safe in assuming it is him to which you refer?) pays others to do. And, of course, that whole 'your' thing. Though whatever the outcome of that little sidebar, it sheds exactly zero light upon the questionable relevance of the quoted tirade by BitcoinFX. Try again? Or let BitcoinFX speak for him/herself?
"You can not patent code. You can only patent an invention which is implemented in your code. An invention is a new and unique way of doing something. Most of all, it must be something nobody did before. If anyone used the same technique which you describe in your patent, that's called prior art and invalidates your patent. So trying to get a patent on something somebody else invented and implemented in code would be futile. ..."
No shit. Relevance? Did you somehow forget your dev is crypto's biggest patent troll? Apparently being a fraud and a conman wasn't low enough for him. This ^ - https://github.com/bitcoin-sv/bitcoin-sv/blob/master/LICENSE"Open BSV License
Copyright (c) 2019 Bitcoin Association
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
1 - The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
2 - The Software, and any software that is derived from the Software or parts thereof,
can only be used on the Bitcoin SV blockchains. The Bitcoin SV blockchains are defined,
for purposes of this license, as the Bitcoin blockchain containing block height #556767
with the hash "000000000000000001d956714215d96ffc00e0afda4cd0a96c96f8d802b1662b" and
the test blockchains that are supported by the un-modified Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
THE SOFTWARE.
Version 0.1.1 of the Bitcoin SV software, and prior versions of software upon which it was based,
were licensed under the MIT License, which is included below.
The MIT License (MIT)
Copyright (c) 2009-2010 Satoshi Nakamoto
Copyright (c) 2009-2015 Bitcoin Developers
Copyright (c) 2009-2017 The Bitcoin Core developers
Copyright (c) 2017 The Bitcoin ABC developers
Copyright (c) 2018 Bitcoin Association
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
THE SOFTWARE."... Which came first the chicken or the egg ? CSW is not Satoshi and BSV is not Bitcoin.It's time to BUILD, a solid legal case against BSV. - SWIM ... - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/07/blockstream-commits-patent-nonaggression... Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (5/8) Movie CLIP - Invincible Sword Goddess (2000) HD- https://youtu.be/X5SaZ8EmSpw *Satire*  You fail to establish any relevancy for your spouting. You also seem to have a rather flawed understanding of IP law. Lesson one: patents and copyrights are two completely different things. Exactly what point do you think you are making by quoting the Open BSV License? |
|
|
|
|
Well, that was downright bracing.
|
|
|
|
"You can not patent code. You can only patent an invention which is implemented in your code. An invention is a new and unique way of doing something. Most of all, it must be something nobody did before. If anyone used the same technique which you describe in your patent, that's called prior art and invalidates your patent. So trying to get a patent on something somebody else invented and implemented in code would be futile. ..."
No shit. Relevance? |
|
|
|
I don't know which I find more amusing. The giant butt plug? Or the fact that they have not yet unboxed the tower monument that was delivered? |
|
|
|
They got my e-mail and password.
WE WANT THE VIDEO OF ELWAR PLEASURING HIMSELF!!! #nohomo |
|
|
|
There you go again with your misleading questions implying LN is custodial and can't be trusted ...
Why would you think that? Talk about a flying leap of logic. The topic was this new so-called 'innovation' upon LN allowing asynchronous transactions, not LN itself. Either keep up, or don't bother to comment. At least not disparagingly. Makes you appear the fool. Nay, base LN has its own piles o' poop, long since having been discussed. I read your comment with the same understanding as Dabs, so.....Not surprised you're getting blow back. Just saying Well, if’n you’re gonna react based upon something other than what I actually write, that’s all on you. |
|
|
|
There you go again with your misleading questions implying LN is custodial and can't be trusted ...
Why would you think that? Talk about a flying leap of logic. The topic was this new so-called 'innovation' upon LN allowing asynchronous transactions, not LN itself. Either keep up, or don't bother to comment. At least not disparagingly. Makes you appear the fool. Nay, base LN has its own piles o' poop, long since having been discussed. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
