You mean what do people think of conspiracy theories?

I wouldn't give much weight to what that person/company has to say. They think SHA-3 is being added in to the "mix". It's Tiger and it's being place in front of 3 other hashing functions.

I do however sort of agree with the sentiment about wanting something better. Given the speed at which an ASIC was developed for this coin, I suspect it will be only a few months before there's a new one out there. This change doesn't feel like it does enough to really make it harder for ASICs to be developed for it. Maybe the larger S-boxes of Tiger will, but if they were already willing to invest in making ASICs for such a young coin, I think they'd go for it anyway. My impression though is that the devs want to see how the Monero one works out and then that would be a potential option for a better solution. Regardless, the desire for no ASICs on the network is a core principle of the coin and they're making a change to that end which is all that really matters. We'll see how it all plays out.

It's on the website. https://bitcoinsv.io/roadmap/

Years ago I used to run chat rooms. I have a low tolerance for a lot of things when it comes to those that are put in a position of power. I hold anyone to a higher standard and if they can't live up to that, then they're gone. I had time limits for how long anyone could remain in that position because human nature it to become cynical and "corrupt" in their own way. Leaving people in positions where they seemed to create more controversy for me was simply not worth it in the end.

No one that has any "power" or "perceived" power should have more than 1 and any potential favoritism should be removed/minimized. i.e. a mod should not be able to garner merit. They should not have any involvement with trust either. This would cut out a ton of crap right there. The trust system should only be used for actual business related things as opposed to what we currently see a lot of time where people get into some forum spat and it's used by tribes to black ball someone. No one should have any "power" if their use of the forum can in any way, be a conflict of interest or be perceived as a conflict of interest. Those are just a few of the changes off the top of my head I would start to make if this was my forum.

The entire merit system is fundamentally flawed as I stated before. It's a reward and people will abuse it. It cannot be "fixed". The current merit system is basically a "like". Twitter has recognized how "like" has created so much of the crap they experience on their site, the toxic atmosphere etc, and they're seriously looking to remove it all together.

What is the problem that merit was put in place to solve by replacing the previous system of ranks etc? That's where the solution lies, in solving that problem as opposed to trying to make the merit system "work". It is fundamentally flawed and will never work well. As a stop gap, I suppose one could prevent anyone from giving more than one. Add in negative merit so the board (yt has both thumbs up and down for a reason) does a little bit of self regulation and let the chaos reign until people realize that abusing the system, on both sides, is counter productive. That would be fun to watch for awhile. Bottom line though, the actual underlying problem is what needs to be fixed, not what's been taped over top of it and so most of your list if worthless.

Ok? Until the other problems are resolved it just doesn't matter. It's the only thing they can use right now so I'm indifferent. Having said that, if sig campaigns are at the root of why merit was implemented, and it's now involving trust in order to qualify to be in a campaign, then I would probably approach it from a completely different angle. i.e., if they're the problem, make them come up with a solution. Make them come up with their own completely separate system of qualifying people that does not include those forum systems. How that could all work I have no idea off the top of my head but sometimes you need to divorce yourself from the problem and let those that create it solve it for you. It's in their best interest to not be a problem for the board cause at the end of the day, the final solution it to just ban all sig campaigns outright.


That should be a given.


How one communicates is as, if not more important than what you communicate. You're method of communicating is, more often than not, full of personal attacks, inuendo, misleading information and more that only serves to make people tune out from the message. If you "guys" approached things in a more rational and constructive manner maybe I'd see things in a different light.


Two of my posts were deleted. Don't see why they should have been but whatever.

The current trust system. The merit system. They are both flawed and failures because they are based on input from human beings who are always selfish and self serving. Prone to form tribes and act in a manner that favors their tribe. Any system that uses humans to try and be "fair" etc is doomed to fail. So unless you can come up with a way to deal with the issues the current systems try and fix, that doesn't require humans, then any other system will also be flawed. Could the current ones be made better? Most likely. How about you tell all of us what  your superior system(s) would be. The reality is that no one likes to hear complaint after complaint. You want to be proactive, present options/improvements. Offer up some solutions.

What are you talking about? The forum, or bitcoin? Satoshi had nothing to do with the forum in terms of how it is or should be run.

The concept of decentralized e-cash is better. Whether or not bitcoin will achieve that we won't know for many years to come. We haven't even reached the point yet where miners have to rely purely on fees to pay their bills. That could completely change a lot of things for bitcoin. It's also not hard to come up with many ways the governments could shut down all crypto if they really wanted to. With all the KYC and stuff already permeating this space, it's a slow march towards it becoming just an extension of the current financial system. But none of that has to do with the topic of this thread.

He was really good at making those that don't know better, think he always knew what he was talking about and that he was right. He would overwhelm people with walls of text and he would jump around from one thing to another making it impossible for anyone to effectively debate him and then actually reach any sort of real conclusion as to who was right. It's a common tactic by those that only seek to "win"...   "Claiming" you were right does not mean you are. Posting one sided threads saying you're right or you came up with something etc, does not make it so. Most people just couldn't be bothers pointing out where he was right or wrong. Which means he could not really be believed a lot of the time. Having said that, I did value some of his technical discussions up to the point he would start to "go off the deep end" so to speak at which point there was no longer any value in what he would have to say.

You would be completely wrong there but I'm not going to bother digging up instances to this, some of them I was involved with in the past which is why I know this to be true.

This thread is supposed to be about the forum is it not?

It's dead Jim.

I'm sorry, but trying to goad me into your opinion that he had any concern outside of what is clear from his interactions here and via his emails, simply isn't going to work. You're attempt is weak at best but more along the lines of pathetic. How about I read into this that it's nothing more than your desire that the forum be run in your vision of some utopia. That's the reality. You sound like anonymint. hmmm.. Where is he I wonder and what ever happened to that bitcointalk killer forum he was going to create for exactly the same reasons you're spewing here. I guess like everything else he was nothing more than just talk. No bitcoin killer. Not forum killer. Talk talk talk and no action.

As far as being treated fairly and equal. Sure. Would be nice. But we're talking about human beings and at the end of the day, human beings only care about themselves. And they all have their own opinion as to what is fair and equal. What you would like, can never be achieved cause if you get 10 people in the room you're going to have 20 different opinions depending on their mood in the moment. Even more so at this point of time where everyone is outraged and feeling like they're being oppressed over the smallest things.

Bottom line. you don't own this forum. So it doesn't matter what you want. You want a utopia, go start your own forum and run it how you wish. I for one would love to see if what you say you want, can actually be achieved. I believe it can't be.

Well then I guess bitching about those threads getting bumped is a valid complaint. I certainly found it very irritating earlier seeing half a dozen more of those on the first page. But then again places like this seem to attract people that seek attention and can't get enough of self masturbation.

Not cryptohunters. It's most likely they're all Quicksilver alts that he's created and/or, like in the case of cryptohunter, bought. Which is hillarious. Cause back when he just got that account he was going into threads speaking out about buying accounts etc. Cute tactic on his part.

You'd be wrong. The constant bumping of those stat posts has in fact been talked about as being "irritating". Probably one of the reasons the new bump system was put in place.

I really wish you hadn't included cryptohunter in here. I knew him and we had talked, discussed and argued about things in the past. It's clear to me that whoever is in control of that account now is not him and that it happened sometime around the beginning of last November. It really ticks me off seeing those sorts of crap posts with his account. Him and I didn't always see eye to eye but he was a decent guy.

You can make all the assumptions you want, but then all of this becomes nothing more then you trying to mold the forum to how you think it should be.

Satoshi was clearly only interested in bitcoin. He believed that other e-cash had failed purely because they were centralized and bitcoin would be the first to try and succeed by being decentralized. He was involved with the forum. He was involved with the open source software and all the contributors. If he had ideals of decentralization etc being extended to those areas, there would have been some indication of it. But there is none. I also have a problem with one of the last things he said "It’s in good hands with Gavin and everyone" If he was concerned about more than just decentralization of e-cash, then why would he have basically had Gavin in charge as opposed to trying to setup something clearly decentralized. Sorry. But as far as I can see, his only concern was with regard to bitcoin itself and nothing more than that. I think people like you have projected your own desires onto Satoshi in order to turn him into some sort of ideological "savior" or something.

Perhaps you should go and read all of his emails and posts. They are all technical. Programming. There is no indication in any of them of what his "principles" were regarding anything else other than creating decentralized e-cash via open source software. Nor is there any indication that he viewed this as a "movement" or even wanted it to be a "movement". So right here, it's clear you're talking about some other "principles and movement" that you've created in your own mind thus making everything else you've said invalid.

I will however support you in that the merit system sucks big balls. I come and go here often and it was "fun" knowing that one day by participating I would get up to "legendary" status. But when the new system came out I knew it would never happen cause I'm not one to play the game. I don't participate in the areas of the forum where my better posts would get noticed by those that are apt to hand out the merit. The system rewards those that play the game, actively seeking it out etc. For that reason alone it's a ridiculous system. But whatever, Theymos owns the site, he can do what he wants and if we don't like it we're free to go start our own.

Sort of funny. It used to be people constantly bitched about the trust system. Now they bitch about the merit system. There's always something to whine about.

Am I reading the roadmap right? The code has been changed in this coin to allow the miners to set the block size however big/small they want? How is consensus on that reached?

Can I mine it with my CPU? Cause if not, then it's not like 2011 at all lol

The original bitcoin was mined by a handful of people for a very long time at the beginning and all those things you outlined were not important at all. Securing the network for the first few years were the most important considerations. So I wonder who's delusional? Let them run with their coin as they see fit. How does it impact you in any way if they are a success or a failure?

What if we find all your posts a complete waste of time since nothing will come of it. I mean, I know you seem to be the sort that likes to just hear himself talk and call others names to make yourself feel better. So why don't you just admit that's your purpose with this thread as opposed to anything else. Or maybe you're just bored with your life and this is your only form of entertainment. Curious minds want to know.

What the hell. Bitcoin was introduced to the public and that's why it went up in 2017? WTF. That's hilarious. There's been 3 times bitcoin has been pumped like that and every time the public flooded in and bought it. So I have no idea what they hell you're talking about.

Here's what often happens. bitcoin price drops way down, usually leading up to a halving and then starts to climb. As it climbs more and more people see it happening and jump in. The media gets involved which brings even more and more as it snowballs. It's not rocket science. Bitcoin halves again next year.

Last time though I think it went a lot higher than it "should" have. I remember there was some billionaire that made the prediction it would be over something like 10k by 2018. The trend was indicating it wasn't going to happen and then as it got closer it started to take off. For all we know his ego was so big he just had to ensure his prediction came true.

All us little people have no idea of all the manipulation that goes on behind the scenes. Crypto is filled with pump and dumps all the time. Doge for example would go through one pretty much every year like clockwork. With bitcoin, it just requires some bigger whales. With this sudden drop in bitcoin, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if there weren't some whales wanting to get the price down prior to the halving.

"Trust" in the transactions is built into how bitcoin works. So there is no need for the government to be involved in "trust".

The problem is that people are stupid. They make stupid decisions which cause them to lose money and then they cry about it and want the government to protect them from themselves. Maybe they should take some personal responsibility for their actions.

So. Since "trust" is already built into bitcoin via the protocol, the only purpose of government regulation would be a form of endorsement. But do you really think they want to endorse something they have no control over? If they "endorse" it, people will run to them with their problems. They'll blame them for things when it goes wrong. They'll want some form of "control" over the transactions in which case, bitcoin will no longer be bitcoin.

Anyone that calls for regulation for crypto doesn't want crypto. They want an electronic form of money guaranteed by institutions like banks/governments. Don't worry. It's coming. And then they'll do away with paper money and they'll be able to see everything you ever purchase. Some places are already trying to work towards this.

1. Facebook censors and/or bans pages/accounts that violate their "rules". As each day passes, their "rules" seem to change to adhere to an ideology that does not include things like Freedom of Speech. It impacts people of all political/ideological persuasions.

2. Facebook has shown that they value gathering as much data on you as they possibly can and are unwilling/incapable of ensuring any aspect of your privacy.

So. Anyone that will let Facebook "control" their money, and cut off to their access to it for whatever reason they want. Well, they deserve what they get for being so stupid.

So sure, Libra should be "halted/killed" or whatever. More importantly, companies like Facebook should be broken up so they no longer have as much power as they do as it's getting worse and worse.

I knew you'd respond. I'm not going to get into a discussion with you about this as you're not worth the effort. Carry on with your opinion though, it's clear many people have bought into the same belief.