Wind_FURY - its patently obvious that CSW is Satoshi to anyone that has taken the time to find out for themselves. I am not confusing anyone, he is and he is proving it. NOT by signing a block (because then you would all suddenly decide that keys != proof of identity, which he has stated all along). Instead he is producing "a crazy amount of evidence" in court.
Would you have preferred "anyway it doesn't matter what satoshi thinks Bitcoin has moved on"?  |
|
|
|
peter does not at all want to imply that craig is satoshi. that was a discussion about evidence.
you really believe craig is satoshi?
I have been asking the same question, and I have never seen a simple yes or no answer, because they know he is not Satoshi, BUT wants to confuse you to believe that he “might be Satoshi”. Plus why would Satoshi expose himself ? He was very careful, and did extra steps to hide his real identity. Weird how I am neither confused, or doing the confusing. I have been very clear. 600watt - of course Peter doesn't! The truth defence was about the exact opposite. That Peter's claim that "CSW is a fraud" is truth. That's the truth defence! That's what has been dropped! Peter knows his claim "CSW is a fraud" is not true. Peter knows CSW is Satoshi. Wind_FURY - its patently obvious that CSW is Satoshi to anyone that has taken the time to find out for themselves. I am not confusing anyone, he is and he is proving it. NOT by signing a block (because then you would all suddenly decide that keys != proof of identity, which he has stated all along). Instead he is producing "a crazy amount of evidence" in court. You don't like him, and he knows it, and he is using that against you all because he hates what you stand for. He hates anarchy, anonymity and the criminal endeavours facilitated by anonymity. Here then, is the one thing that I *have* changed my view on over the years. I thought I was anarchist. I thought Bitcoin was taking down the governments and the banks and all of that business, but now I recognise the problems that come with that. I understand the need for (minimal) government. The need for law. How Bitcoin was always designed to operate within the existing regulatory frameworks. I know these things because I have *verified* them myself. I have not trusted a 3rd Party. All of this is in plain sight outside of Bitcoinlandia. You think Peter has your back? You think any of those people on Twitter pumping BTC have your back? They do not. They care about themselves and their $$$ profits from convincing rubes to buy and HODL. And here remains the one overwhelmingly obvious sign in all of this. I *still* don't recommend you buy BSV. BSV is Bitcoin though. just 2 more days |
|
|
|
I'm also unflinching in my wondering of why Peter McCoremack has dropped the defence of "truth".
Something something "no proof", something something "need signed message", perhaps?  I think you misunderstand, Peter's "truth" defence is that Craig is *not* Satoshi (truth being the perfect defence to defamation). Peter is not pursuing that defence, instead he is trying to mitigate the damage. If Peter was right then he would not have dropped the truth defence. I can't make this any clearer. |
|
|
|
|
I'm also unflinching in my wondering of why Peter McCoremack has dropped the defence of "truth".
|
|
|
|
Here's a fun image for you all to think about  |
|
|
|
<snip>...bitcoin to continue to produce its various kinds of foundational "utility"...</snip>
By jove JJG I think you've grokked it! If you can set aside your Craig Derangement Syndrome for a second and take an objective look at what BSV is doing you would see that this "foundational utility" is at it's core (pun intended). BSV has merely reverted to the original design of bitcoin. Restoring SCRIPT, removing the unnecessary (can be done in SCRIPT) P2SH, removing various limits that allow it to scale. As it *always* could. So this foundational utility is in Bitcoin *right now*. It always has been. Remember SCRIPT was there at the beginning, core disabled it. (which is why Vitalek made Ethereum... you do remember all this stuff right?) I too have consistently talked about how utility value eventually outweighs speculative value. In that post (7 years old now, btw and I'm *still* saying the same thing. *Exactly* the same thing) I talk of "the adoption curve" this is driven by utility. I've already banged that same drum in this very thread! So it's refreshing to hear others starting to see this. I think your talk of me "giving up on his stupid-ass ideas" is wishful thinking, or perhaps even projection. I do wonder that some of the things I am saying might eventually seep through the thick skulls around here ;p |
|
|
|
Id say look at the 250k you actually have vs the paper million you would be about to lose.
Keep watching!
You are starting to sound like CSW, sgbett... many idle promises that never come to pass.. and then you move onto the next idle promise.  It's not very honest behavior, is it. I refuse to believe that sgbett is so dumb he doesn't realize that everything he's said for the last 3 years has been completely wrong. I don't accept that he honestly believes what he is saying. At the very least, sgbett is a lesson in why you shouldn't trust people who 100% rely on "dude, trust me" to justify their opinions. A superb degree of confidence is no match for an honest understanding and acceptance of reality. The reason you can't see my honesty is because you can't afford to. You won't see it until it is too late, like most that have tied themselves to the mast of HMS BTC. You all seem stuck in a never ending loop of "Bitcoin is a vehicle to get more dollars" and it is excruciating for me to watch. It's like the Allegory of the cave. Stop looking at the wall, there is so much more to be seen if you would care to look. Why am I so sanguine about this and why are you all so salty, despite "Winning" so much!? Seems weird... Whilst I am warning you of the perils of BTC and its inevitable demise, you all spend your time convincing each other to HODL, so that you can then sell for more at each other's expense. Pretending you are all being nice to each other whilst plotting each others downfall! "Its not very honest behaviour is it." |
|
|
|
Damn this thread. I would still have a lots of BTCs by now if I had not read this thread! My bad decision last year was affected by this thread. Now BTC is too expensive and I can't get enough BTCs as I used to own. I feel so sad each day seeing price of BTC increasing day by day. I would have been a millionaire now if I had not sold most of my portfolio last year when the BTC price was only at 10k - 12k.
If you would be a millionaire now at 40k then that means you took $250,000 off the table. Congrats! Ofc if you had a million riding on BTC right now the question would be sell or hold. Everyone will tell you HODL of course, they are in the same boat. Id say look at the 250k you actually have vs the paper million you would be about to lose. Keep watching! |
|
|
|
 /popcorn |
|
|
|
| $2483 | sgbett | | $24830 | philipma1957 | | $33553 | JayJuanGee |
Can’t believe nobody else in a thread on *speculation* subforum dared to predict price when all you had to do was beat my 2483 guess to be able to give me some crap. This place has changed. 3 horse race then! I look favourite still *ducks* |
|
|
|
CSW
Now I start to understand what's your agenda. LoL! I love how those 3 little letters make it impossible for people to read any other words around them. |
|
|
|
This means RBF provides no guarantees, it means that in BTC you must wait for confirmation(s) - as you restated. So BTC cannot be used as P2P digital cash, as it was intended.
If that makes you panic you should probably ask yourself why.
They've never did provide any guarantee. About the digital cash part, I think that's debatable. The fact that people are used to transfer cash instantly, doesn't mean that any kind of cash have to do this. Bitcoin, by design, makes you wait for confirmations. Even if this "flaw" (as you seem to see it) would not exist, even then you would not be able to pay with Bitcoin at the grocery store (just imagine how big the queue would get!) You can still pay with Bitcoin, however, for your plane ticket, for your vacation, for whatever you are shopping online. It still fits to the P2P digital cash use case and one can properly wait for the proper number of confirmations. And for the grocery store, .. we need something added to Bitcoin. Maybe LN, maybe something else. And I'm not panicked at all, nice try to twist my words. Only newbies with insufficient knowledge can get panicked by all this ... story. Look here... I thought we needed LN in 2016... I want segwit. I think its great, because its a big help to getting LN. I really want LN, because I think that its an essential part of the road to allowing crypto replace fiat. I think blockstream are probably not bad guys. I'm open to the idea that not everything will be done on chain, and that's ok (provided Layer-N solutions share the same key attributes of being open source, peer to peer, do not require the use of their party, allows you to be your own bank etc)
...snip...
2 years of back and forth though and it became abundantly clear that I was wrong about the reasons for LN and SegWit. When SWx2 was proposed and as soon as segwit was introduced everyone reneged on the 2mb part. Fortunately Bitcoin forked so the original chain could be preserved. I still don't think block stream are bad guys, but it was very clear they were a business looking to make money off the back of bitcoin and that the original design did not fit with their plans. Lots of people sounded the alarm about LN, and side chains. They were all discussed and here we are today LN still not delivered, and Liquid is the preferred "Bitcoin" for Blockstream. Who knew? This is not nefarious insomuch as they are a business and they want to make money, but it should make you question why certain decisions were made. Adam Pivoting from 2/4/8 to a hard refusal is the shining example. I feel like I have followed what has happened over the last 10 years *very* closely, I have *always* considered Bitcoin to be p2p digital cash (per Whitepaper) and so when I see changes that move Bitcoin away from this it raises huge red flags. It was incredibly painful the split in 2018. I now realise this was my own cognitive dissonance. I saw BTC before me, that I had strongly supported all these years. I saw a "fork" that everyone was telling me was fake. I knew though the "fake" one represented everything I had always believed in Bitcoin and the "real" one had diverged and become something else. Letting go of BTC was the hardest decision in my life. For some years I have wondered if I did the right thing, but the longer time went on the more relaxed I became. Fortunately the situation appears to be coming to a head this year bitcoin core's removal of Whitepaper is tacit admission that it is no longer Bitcoin per the Whitepaper. The next step is CSW will pursue reclaiming the Bitcoin brand through the courts, people seem to detest this approach - but ask yourself if he is fraud then why would he be going to court. That is the last place fraudsters and scammers want to end up! The people that know what's going on, but continue to deny the reality of the situation - well they only have themselves to blame. The innocent people that do not know what is going on is who I feel for most. |
|
|
|
What I explained were the consequences of having an earlier lower fee tx be the one in the longest chain. This means RBF provides no guarantees, it means that in BTC you must wait for confirmation(s) - as you restated. So BTC cannot be used as P2P digital cash, as it was intended.
RBF is not supposed to provide a guarantee, it's quite the opposite - it's a warning that the TX can be replaced. Have fun arguing with your straw man. Lol. I know it provides no guarantees, I said *expected* behaviour. (it would be the most economically rational thing to do). However now there exists absolute proof that a miner might mine either. The only straw man is you thinking my central point was "RBF provides guarantees" My central point is: RBF provides no guarantees, it means that in BTC you must wait for confirmation(s)My conclusion from this is: BTC cannot be used as P2P digital cash, as it was intended. |
|
|
|
If you would be a newbie, I'd understand this post. But anyone long enough around should know that most services need 3 confirmations (some years ago it was 6) and anyone knows that orphaned blocks do happen. Also a replaceable transaction, one on which RBF can be made, has a special flag, allowing the recipient get warned to be more careful (yes, a proper wallet shows that) But it's easier to panic and spread panic than read and learn... Orphan blocks happen all the time. Yes I know this, I said nothing about that because its common knowledge. What I explained were the consequences of having an earlier lower fee tx be the one in the longest chain. This means RBF provides no guarantees, it means that in BTC you must wait for confirmation(s) - as you restated. So BTC cannot be used as P2P digital cash, as it was intended. If that makes you panic you should probably ask yourself why. |
|
|
|
|
The amount of "this is fine" is absolutely incredible, Andreas all up on twitter, creating articles, posting videos. Absolutely essential to convince those that don't really understand the implications of what this means that there is nothing to see here.
RBF + Full Blocks makes zero confidence unworkable, because it supplants the first seen rule and *allows* double spends. In Core's view of things this a feature not a bug.
What's interesting about this is that the expected behaviour of RBF would be that the later broadcast tx with the higher fee should be the one that makes it into the chain, but in this case a miner instead followed the first seen rule.
The implication of this is that you *absolutely* must wait for confirmations, which makes BTC essentially useless as Peer-to-Peer digital cash.
Again, in core's view of things this is a feature not a bug.
For anyone keeping up at home, Bitcoin was first and foremost supposed to be digital cash.
A semantic argument about it not being a double spend because one of them was not spent is disingenuous. Real world consequences of this are that a customer spending $20 in a coffee shop is long gone and the merchant has no recourse. Ergo, BTC cannot be used as digital cash.
At least now core has taken down the Whitepaper there is no question that they are building something else. Maybe that thing is a great thing, maybe ya'll can get rich trading it. GLHF
|
|
|
|
Funny how this forum (and people in general) repeats the same mistakes over and over again. A big (and I mean fucking BIG) crash will come. Most gains will be returned, and the euphoria will die. Nothing simply 100x's and doesn't suffer a bear market after. Bitcoin doesn't only go up and wallstreet doesn't come to pump everyone's pockets full. OP may have gone full retard with BCH but that doesn't change the fact that inevitable crashes are inevitable. What I find most concerning is the other guys who have been here through a few major bear markets still think it can't happen to Bitcoin.
It will rise again, but it can't just keep going forever. It must rest sometimes. In fact, until this bull run, Bitcoin spent more time correcting than rising. This was a sustainable rally until very recently. Now it is starting to get out of hand again.
Just be careful out there!
relevant yet? I'm not sure. Perhaps one more leg up? The fact that losing $30k didn't cause more of a slide must bode well. I cut in half what remaining exposure I had (XBT Provider ETF) at around $35k. As it's been delisted due to UK FCA regs I can't buy back, so I'm closer to all in BSV than ever before |
|
|
|
Goddamn vultures trying to defame bitcoin, the S&P 500 does this but no one bats an eye. I get that these vultures need money too but to go as far as mudslinging for a sensational article is a little bit on the disinformation side of things, I do not like mainstream media because there is no good news anymore, all they ever post is either emasculating articles about how women are far greater than any other gender, wholesome stories that distract us from the genocides that are not covered because "it ruins publicity", and advertisements about pasta machines for Yuppies to buy. Do not believe the FUD, bitcoin has bounced back a lot of times for over ten years and look at what happened. Nocoiners=Nofuture.
People most certainly do bat an eyelid when the S&P comes anywhere close to doing this. Here is a list of the largest historical daily percentage losses of S&P: I get what you are saying but talking about "not believing FUD" whilst posting misinformation yourself kinda undermines your point. |
|
|
|
[edited out.......]
I was vacillating a bit about whether to send a merit regarding what I consider a bit of a delusional explanation, even though it also did raise a few points.. so what the fuck.. I sent a merit.. Thanks for the merit, I hear your comments and I am interested to see how reality plays out! Sure, a fun little game that largely is due to randomness. By the way, how are you measuring the guess of the BTC price on 2/19? Do you do the weighted average for the day or the closing price or the low of the day? which exchange or averager? a range of all possibilities would likely put the 95% of the BTC price bellcurve between about $12.5k and $100k, so any price guessed within such range would be reasonable with prices in the middle of the bell curve to be more likely... (phillip's guess seems pretty damned reasonable to me, too) So, with a bit of a leaning towards the lower middle of that range.. with around 38 days to go, I will randomly guess the weighted BTC price on Bitstamp based on the BTC price posted in this thread for such date to be $33,553...  you fuck   I think I've said in the past "Bitstamp or GTFO" when it comes to price, in any case no money is on the line so I didn't really feel the need to write an extensive list of terms and conditions. It is indeed a bit of fun based on something largely due to randomness. Glad to you have you in the game |
|
|
|
no top or bottom calling, just plan ol guess the price on 19th Feb & try not to be any more wrong than me |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
