And sorry I attacked... it's been a shitty week/month/three years.
don't sweat it, I also remember you and know you're ok I just read the "paid troll" argument several posts back (and you are using it here too!) and it's just so tiresome. I am all about adversarial thinking, but calling anyone you disagree with a paid troll is a shitty argument.
i agree with you Saylor is all about promoting Saylor. But he has also bought gimongus amounts of BTC. And has an incredible incentive to prote BTC and himself...
well, ok. it's only a theory, i didn't get super secret hacked emails from Wikileaks or anything but everyone seems incredibly sensitive on this, why not just quit helping to spam Spamlord's stuff? any useful information is something he lifted from somewhere else anyway (except anything internal to the "mining cartel council") |
|
|
|
It is known that one of the most famous libertarians, John McCaffee, died on June 23, 2021 in a Spanish prison. This is a real tragedy! We all know that McCaffe has rendered a serious and undoubted service to society, as he created a very popular antivirus.
famous for what? he was a liar and a thief above all Perhaps libertarians, crypto-anarchists and cypherpunks are afraid to publicly express their ideas, since these ideas are not accepted by modern social society.
[snip] Modern people are more sympathetic to the ideas of socialism, as well as far-right ideas, than to the ideas of libertarianism. libertarian ideas do get presented in public, but always a little watered down, and then mixed together with right wing populism. it works quite well as a setup to use the "libertarian means a slightly nicer Mussolini" argument, and oh what a coincidence that the talking heads that espouse this cleverly contrived viewpoint are always presented on big news channels and newspapers as "most dangerous person in the country", and yet always presented nonetheless. it's actually a slightly altered version of the "5 minutes of hate" concept from Orwell's 1984 |
|
|
|
He advocates for Bitcoin... Whatever... maybe it's not perfect. Here, you, on the other hand, are advocating against Saylor.
I've been known to advocate for Bitcoin before, or at least I was trying to. for 10 years. Spamlord pitched up about 2 years ago, and he's been shouting very loud and very often, really as if he's trying to take control of the conversation. if I'm wrong about that, explain. if not, everyone advocating for him looks pretty weird at best, and shilling paid mini spamlords at worst.  . |
|
|
|
right, I would agree that the present situation is a step forward, however small I'm hoping some kind of Nostr based github will appear, and that the client seeks downloads for the git repo p2p hoping that whole software ecosystems spontaneously materialize may be a little optimistic, but I'm not very enthusiastic about doing it myself (sounds like javascript to me  ) |
|
|
|
excellent news. not the day job/stuck with pyQt part |
|
|
|
|
so
1. you're not getting paid
2. you reserve the right to spam Spamlord's spampaign promo material forthwith
okaaaaaaaaaay
i've said helpful things for Bitcoin, so have you JJG and several thousand others on this forum
we never tried to turn ourselves into a celebrity over any of it though did we?
please try to earn an honest living instead. why do you think he wants to use fake grassroots campaigns to become a Bitcoin celebrity? probably up to no good, especially when you consider that he has no talent or anything else to offer the space at all
|
|
|
|
If I come across some information that Saylor and/or his team put out [snip] I will forward it (which you call spamming, but you seem to have a way more strict (or would it be perverted?) idea regarding what is spamming, as compared with me - at least when it comes to Saylor).
I dare you to find 1. anything he's ever done or said that is any different to any other investment firm 2. anything he ever does to that end in future you/he won't, because his sole talent is spamming pictures of his face. everywhere. you are helping him with this. it's because you're getting paid, isn't it? |
|
|
|
is it not a good idea to have the keys... somewhere else too? I'm at a loss as to where to suggest, but it seems like github only is fragile (I guess the onion repo is a failsafe should github have problems?) maintaining the key list on bitcointalk is one option, the more the better I guess. |
|
|
|
1. don't give the key to anyone, not in a DM, not anywhere. if you get robbed, there's nothing you can do about it. 2. same as no 1 3. also same as no 1 4. sleep on it. if it's been safe on a phone for years, there's no point staying up til 5 am torturing yourself, the chance you'll make some dumb mistake (delete the wrong file etc) is not small 5. backup the file 6. backup the file 7. backup the file |
|
|
|
Is there hope to see Armory with bc1 address generation capability soon?
Thar would be a nice feature allowing lower fees in the future.
you can send to segwit v0 (bc1) addresses, but you can't receive to them. I believe that's in the works (@goatpig ?) in Armory 0.97. there are also segwit v1 addresses (which also start bc1), but I imagine they will be rejected by Armory. No need to worry, these are taproot addresses, and they are not commonly used yet. i think you'll save somewhat on fees even when you're only sending to segwit v0 addresses (the bytesize of segwit v0 outputs is smaller IIRC) |
|
|
|
Why such a Saylor naysayer?
because he spams his face and meaningless "interviews" in every piece of free internet column inches available, seemingly because he wants to become a bitcoin celebrity of some kind (Andreas Antonopoulos was the same kind of character, but even he wasn't as shamelessly obvious as Spamlord here) so you'll all stop spamming Michael Spamlord's spam, because you aren't spammers, right? |
|
|
|
The credit card industry would implode, followed by the banking industry followed by everything else that relies on encryption for transactions.
so credit cards (or their network protocols) use RSA keys  They managed to factor a 48 bit integer. So nowhere near the 2048 bits needed for RSA 2048. To do this, they say they need a quantum computer which doesn't exist and which utilizes technology which doesn't exist. If I publish a paper talking about a new space rocket design, that doesn't mean I've been to Mars. lol the mathematics that Bitcoin keys use is not RSA. Unfortunately, people seem to treat the expression "quantum computer" as meaning "magic computer that knows every answer to every question, before you even finish thinking of the question" |
|
|
|
Interesting news from MicroStrategy: ...except that's quite similar to saying nothing?  An exciting announcement from Micheal Saylor.
so can we take it you two are being paid to splash big screenshots of this nobody announcing nothing on the front page of the forum? seriously this Saylor guy is turning into the biggest spam master, and he's got nothing, every single time ...but I think I just hit on an apt nickname: Michael Spamlord |
|
|
|
|
seems like mostly healthy debate from what I've seen. There's a decent amount of new development going on, maybe it's not that visible because it's not in github projects board? (i'm using github as a webpage pretty minimally these days, so I don't know what bitcoin development looks like through that particular lens)
the fRBF stuff? it would be so trivial for some grey-hatter to in response destroy one of these 0-conf businesses with a targeted attack, so it was never going to amount to much anyway. I wouldn't be sympathetic if something like that happened, "a fool and their money" etc.
|
|
|
|
libertarianism is a pure form of capitalism, there is no economics or monetary theory in libertarianism, it's a political ideology. this sounds like the 'bitcoin is encrypted internet tokens' pov and this is what capitalism looks like on practice - people care about money first. this is an oft stated "oversimplification". you will not get the goods you want from the market place if you always choose from the people with the lowest prices. Why or how could that ever be true? capitalism is about... capital, not the lowest prices. it would in that case be called "buy everything cheap whether it's what you wanted or not"-ism |
|
|
|
And yes, some of these single aspects can be labelled as "anarchist" or "libertarian" etc. but for (most likely) everything I can argue for the exact opposite.
yes, the reddit-level of debate seems to constantly regurgitate all the libertarian aspects, but here on bitcointalk, it was noticed a long time ago that p2p systems are inherently collectivist, anathema to libertarians. Bitcoin is a collectivist system that mutually reinforces individual rights as a by-product. In fact, it is a stratification of mutually balancing tensions between the miners the users and people who produce forks (which includes the developers, of course). But this is not an original observation, as I say, someone else said all this stuff here on bitcointalk years ago. Peter Thiel is CEO of a private surveilance company (Palantir), and that company is know for spying on normal people. At the same time, he’s calling himself a "Libertarian" while he’s openly opposing the free market because in his opinion, monopolies are better. That has nothing to do with "liberal / libertarian" values. A free and fair market But in his "Libertarianism", he’s allowed to create a monopoly, to crush the free market because Thiel simply can do it due to his wealth (and get even more wealthy from his monopoly). There’s a great article about Thiel’s bullshit here. And similar to Thiel, many rich people are pushing such a "Libertarian" strategy. "Libertarian" has become a sponge word used by everyone and the people pushing this "Libertarianism" (which is exactly the opposite of that what would be really beneficial for normal people like getting rid of powerful structures abusing anything to their advantage) just want to replace currently existing rules with their own rules. And that’s where I’ve questioned how to turn Libertarian theories into reality because always someone like Bezos, Thiel or Musk will come and abuse a vacuum of power. It’s very important to understand the consequences of a vaccum of power. Some Libertarian theories explicitly try to remove any rules but when there are no rules (vacuum), this vacuum will be filled by those who have or will quickly accumulate power (money). Maybe you’ve also played monopoly (the game). There are some rules how to play but it always turns out when very late in the game one person owned all of the streets, placing hotels on it and everyone else goes bankrupt (because you can’t pay your rent). That’s a likely outcome how Thiel’s vision would escalate quickly. On a much bigger scale than our monopoly of course, where the monopoly game could be your city. It’s not a secret that when there are no rules, chaos will arise. Just imagine the forum where no DT would be active, no rules would be in place and spam piling up because it’s not getting deleted. Some players filling this vaccum might be nice, get powerful but don’t do many harmful things. Some other players filling the vaccum might be the opposite and they will abuse any vaccum for their profit. And these evil players will crush everyone, nobody could stop them at one point. Similar like Thiel intends to construct his monopoly: remove all rules and when all rules are removed, use your money (power) to establish your own (insane) rules (his monopoly). Netzpolitik.org, the site where I’ve linked the article above, calls Thiel’s vision "anti-democratic Libertarianism". And that’s exactly what Thiel is trying to do: trying to dictate the rules himself. That’s vacuum of power. I can’t see in regard of Libertarian visions any concept of how the end game could suceed. Libertarians (or what some people claim to be) have provided interesting visions and part of that are very important and also relevant for Bitcoin. But the end game from Libertarianism is similar like Communism, it just doesn’t work because it’s quickly abused by a small, wealthy and powerful group of people. So far, nobody could address arising problems of these visions, both Communism and Libertarianism. I believe people have addressed those problems (usurping structural changes in the political system) even on this forum before, I certainly remember talking on it myself. and yes, you might well conclude though that Bitcoin is also anti-democratic too, depending on your definition of democracy. for sure, it has already begun to re-shape the nation state, and may not stop until the re-invention leaves the state unrecognizable; I expect the former country's name will be the only characteristic that sticks. And not a single vote will be held that could endorse it or stop it (legislators "legalizing" something that's impossible to enforce against is never any more than an attempt to avoid looking weak/incompetent) Unfortunately, a power vacuum is exactly what that kind of scenario has as it's destination, although temporarily perhaps. But the system we're presently living in really is nothing more than anarchism gone wrong; the smartest, least ethical gang leaders turned the world's successful tribes into a series of elaborate yet thinly disguised cults. Maybe the gold money revolution started it all? Now that would be an unpalatable irony. The picture you paint of Thiel is arguably more benevolent than what we're enduring now (of which Thiel himself is simply a execrable component, albeit a valuable one to the ruthless). At least with Thiel, he himself makes it plainly obvious that he's a snake. Or at least I would hope it's obvious. And so the answer to me is that some critical mass of people see we're an anarchic system that was overrun by jackals and coyotes, and that we can expect the same cycle to endlessly repeat until we recognize it |
|
|
|
In my view, the major objection has been that it doesn't follow "the process". I feel that any change should be judged on its merits and not on whether it follows "the process" or not.
I feel that having to follow "the process" leads to centralization, as having a process requires someone to dictate "the process" and someone to enforce "the process".
right, I made a mistake in the OP in that I didn't mention that no formal process exists, and I think this is both intended and with good reason: any attempt to codify such a thing now would be to invite every vampire, goblin, three-headed dog, minotaur and necromancer to the proceedings before the serious trolls even arrived. If the opportunity couldn't be used to insert a flawed procedure into the project, then it would be equally useful as an attrition device instead, to wit the recent full-RBF nonsense, or the weirdo Github account that drones on endlessly about formalizing the process for adding maintainers. In the past, I think the original group of developers (2010 to ~2018) were good at settling points of disagreement about the project without resorting to hair-pulling, they were either truly sticking to technical arguing points to conform to the spirit of the white paper, and/or too busy to behave otherwise |
|
|
|
There is nothing anarchist or lawless about Bitcoin. Anarchy is simply a foolish ideology promoted by deranged minds hmmm, I think you may have been watching too much tv Bitcoin has rules (which is strictly obeyed by the community) of which without, anyone can do whatever he/she want like the worthless and satanic anarchy seeks to enthroned.
I wonder who will survive if the World or humans bodies exist in anarchy. Same as Bitcoin, it will completely crumble if it's ruled by anarchy, choas or lawlessness.
By the way, the Bitcoin is already in good hands and will never succumb to cheap and worthless blackmail.
right, you definitely have been watching too much tv. you know when the good guys are tall, witty, handsome and always helping old ladies across the road? and the bad guys are the total opposite? well, I'm not sure whether you noticed yet, but real life isn't like that. And even James Bond and Superman break the rules, because good guys do things like that, because, y'know, being good is a hard job It's entirely possible to alter Bitcoin's rules, but only if you're willing to use and promote your own fork of bitcoin. And ever was it thus; millions upon millions of people have essentially broken bitcoin's rules in order to achieve exactly that.
Gotta mock gender ideology at every opportunity to keep those SJWs in their place, or whatever. mock them both both groups are behaving as if saying "no, my nuclear weapon is bigger than yours" somehow ends well. they're both responsible for escalating to the current level of tension, and you appear to be promoting the perpertuation of said fight. mutual tolerance and all it's subtleties is the only solution, and every qualified adult already knew this long before you were all goaded into this nonsensensical dispute. the best the two groups can hope for is mutual dislike and distrust: from a safe distance. promote that, or accept your role in people fighting, ruining lives, and then finally some critical mass is reached and enough people quit fighting. the more you fan the flames, the less kindly you will be remembered [moderator's note: consecutive posts merged] |
|
|
|
|
yes, the unspoken point about digital fiat is that there are huge numbers of people all over the world that use cash to avoid the tax office. It's really just to create a hard layer in society, below which it's impossible to avoid tax.
all the charities, NGOs, churches and politicians will of course continue to operate their electronic tax avoidance schemes using CDBCs entirely unaffected, I shouldn't wonder that these schemes are designed to make all of that less easy detect.
the strange issue here is that the exact same organizations above are often handling money used for street level crimes; people trafficking and drug dealing. How will the ultimate beneficiaries of large crime organizations accept money at street level if cash no longer exists? blanket drug legalization would seem a strange way to sell the concept to your average person, so I'm at a loss as to how this is really supposed to play out. It's likely that at least some high level figures of such enterprises also have political influence too. In a world where the gangsters are rapidly running out of marks, it seems all rather unlikely to me that they would simply pack up and quit the game, so what's really going on?
|
|
|
|
But nowadays you can't see any new topics anymore on these matters. I found a few (and very interesting) ones, which were written in 2020: - Murray Rothbard Quotes on Libertarianism, Economics, and Freedom- Ayn Rand Quotes on Capitalism, Government, Philosophy, and More- Friedrich A. Hayek Quotes on Socialism, Economics, and More. And I think that the lack of such topics / subjects is a loss, a loss not felt directly, but indirectly. This is because Bitcoin was built on libertarianism and crypto-anarchism. You can't have it wihtout these concepts. well, some people make the bizarre claim that 20 thC socialism as we know it and Bitcoin are genuine bedfellows. Perhaps one of these 'alt' flavors of anarchism might work in some fashion. not so interested in them, but as long as they mind their own business, it's neither here nor there to me if they try it out. I lost interest in talking about the concepts; it is what it is, and arguing about it is to fall into re-creating the problems of politics, but with new labels for the groups. I did it myself really just now; I firmly state that entering into a discussion where divisions of libertarian doctrine are discussed is exactly what an opponent of libertarian ideas would like to see. It's not that hard to state the basics plainly, so arguing about the basics for any reason falls into the "don't care whether trolling or stupid" category |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
