 via Imgflip Meme Generator^ Such a lovely bottle...... At this moment of the evening 1 hout before midnight, and I already can’t stand the look of that bottle.... damn what’s wrong with me..... #EARLYknockOUThodlSLEEP I guess Nice, I m sure they ll follow the only true recepie having a Satoshi White Paper, and don't mix it up with soft shit at some time...  |
|
|
|
In bitcoin, there are no such things as "illegal transactions". If they don't follow consensus rules, they simply get rejected by nodes and miners and never get included in a block. But I don't think that's what you meant. Bitcoin is legal agnostic, it follows its own rules based on protocol and consensus and just doesn't care if something is considered legal or illegal outside of the blockchain.
If there is a particular transaction that any other entity wants to link to you, the burden of proof is on them. If you submitted your information to an exchange because of KYC and that transaction can be linked to your account, ... that's it. But if the transaction goes through several hops and ends up in some CoinJoin or seemingly stuck somewhere else (like a mixer does), with no connection to you, no one can prove anything.
Software/ protocols do have a purpose that is implemented into code and its consensus enforcing rules. Such purpose can be relevant for legal terms. Like I d say monero is designed to hide financial transactions from regulators |
|
|
|
@figmentofmyass. However, how does a commodity designation by the government automatically makes bitcoin a fungible cryptocoin if for example a government ban on a suspected darknet address can make those utxo dirty and cause it to be valued less?
Fungible is not same as traceable Privacy is not Anonymity |
|
|
|
People have dinner with Craig all the time. I'm sure he wouldn't mind having you as a guest.
Haha, yes. But still I think Satoshi is quite selective  |
|
|
|
Oh, meh. Signing is not evidence Same as deleting my posts all day long. I ll stop posting here, cause Lauda is right first time. Its boring |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin s idea is to get rid of middle men
So it is of no use to discuss ppl and what they want to change / demand what Bitcoin should be.
Bitcoin was defined to work as is.
No middle should change that
Better try to see behind why ppl try to alter it or say it does not work as designed
|
|
|
|
What a bunch of misinfo. Desperate shills
Please debunk the 'misinfo'. Most evidence against Craig is factual and can be verified. None of the bullshit Craig says makes sense, can be verified or turns out to be true. We might first start this, by agree that Segwit is not Bitcoin ? Otherwise we will never come to something ...
He started with stating such - yes. But would u really want to beleive that? BTW: He said this shit use and hard drug markets as well as crap like Wikileaks was reason to leave Bitcoin |
|
|
|
MAST also sounds like part of the package, so although it's not a huge change, it's a stepping stone to other features and shouldn't be overlooked. I will ask around, but if this is another one of your lies, then "you have been franked". Hahaha.
Just to point out that he's now banned from the Development & Technical Discussion subforum, so it's not worth getting into a huge back-and-forth with him around technical matters, as tempting as it might be. He's clearly not interested in an honest debate. Also, this topic isn't about the pros and cons of UASF, so let's keep it to discussion of Schnorr and Taproot. Haha. I'll try. I like annoying him, and causing him to make all those long techno-babbly posts. Plus newbies should always know the truth after each lie. franky1, if you are debating that Schnorr + Taproot won't scale more than 40x, then no one is debating that with you.
The point of these upgrades is to improve the network's latency, with the current block size that Bitcoin already has.
take a look at the topic creators first post, the image more specifically what word is marked as 1. oh look so what is that misleading word that the graphic is implying that these innovations improve the most no need to answer as its a rhetorical question as people can already see it for themselves have a nice day. just dont be one of those people that try putting the word scaling into the same sentance of schnorr benefits. try using prevent descaling if you atleast want to be honest about the benefits oh and one last thing.. You know what to do everyone. In case. #UASF
if you have not learned this already. cores new bypass technique does not need consensus, does not cause forks, is not a case of only activating at an acceptable threshold. there is no way to actually prevent devs putting it in and having such new funky tx's added to blocks. the UASF you speak of is actually just a translation of 'if you dont like it F**k off and go play with an altcoin' ** = both UC and OR UASF is not a new voting mechanism to activate new features. its an aparthied/community segregation technique. basically like 'if your not white and you dont like being told what seat on the bus to sit on, get off the bus, your not wanted'. core do not care for community participation. they literally bypass community need to agree to new features before activation. by letting their nodes bypass the verification so that nodes cant reject the new stuff Cannot agree more - btc kinda sold out. Good: Bitcoin was and is not bound to a ticker. Let them hodl a ticker - Satoshi hodl the protocol The ticker? If Bitcoin Cash SV was given the BTC ticker, it would become "Bitcoin"?  Was Bitcoin NOT Bitcoin before it got a ticker ? BTW First ticker I remember was just BC. so - utterly nonsense to try define Bitcoin by a poor ticker. Where is it defined ? From the very start ? Correct! Kraken calls Bitcoin "XBT", and other exchanges could start to call it "BC", give Bitcoin Cash SV the "BTC" ticker, and SV STILL would not be Bitcoin.  we agree: for you |
|
|
|
Any security that will be sold/used/created/exchanged in the US would probably be subject to the regulations one way or another. That applies for every country that has something similar to the SEC or applicable laws etc.
OK, what are those countries that have something similar to the SEC? are they numerous ? does the SEC have juridisction on those foreign institutions? Most countries are going to have something like the SEC unless they don't have something like wall street, stocks and bonds etc I would think as then they have no need for one. SEC would not have direct jurisdiction but there are probably provisions in various treaties between countries and the US. There might even be some international laws that might apply in some cases. SEC / CFTC and IRS - US gov just have way longer arms across the entire globe, cause every reasonable (global) Business needs some US peaces - at least the USD. They mostly collude very successful with any other gov's regulator if they have to hunt sth / shut down illegal activities / Money / finance related. |
|
|
|
what is SEC ? necessary in mongolia or kamtchatka ? SEC and other gov entities are important for world wide adoption of financial instruments. Cannot be ignored. If u tell others different u not helping |
|
|
|
Misinfo from annonymous idiots |
|
|
|
|
What a bunch of misinfo. Desperate shills
|
|
|
|
Can't trust Tone. I rather like the lady calling him out with passion. Though I don't understand the reference to pumpkins, tomatoes, etc and a super big farm. Anyone? Was Craig a farmer once?  Yeah, he used to live on a farm in Australia. I've seen of Craig proudly posing with a carrot somewhere. I'll try to find it. EDIT: Here we go!  Quoting to bump farmer Craig. Lol, that must be patented |
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Angelina_Lazar/status/1184513143508275200Alright, I lambasted this overt, grandiose, malignant narcissist, Craig Wright! - "Pumpkin-Man, Farmer Craig! Siennara, Bucko! He's as much Satoshi as he is Cinderella's Prince! - A mole for the International Banksters, trying to grab hold of Bitcoin, control it & crash it! OUT! She's bonkers -look at her tweets- but she's our bonkers. Yeyy, be proud u made it. Triggered bag hodlers start fear screaming in the public Is this the end for Smallblocked Segscream coin? |
|
|
|
MAST also sounds like part of the package, so although it's not a huge change, it's a stepping stone to other features and shouldn't be overlooked. I will ask around, but if this is another one of your lies, then "you have been franked". Hahaha.
Just to point out that he's now banned from the Development & Technical Discussion subforum, so it's not worth getting into a huge back-and-forth with him around technical matters, as tempting as it might be. He's clearly not interested in an honest debate. Also, this topic isn't about the pros and cons of UASF, so let's keep it to discussion of Schnorr and Taproot. Haha. I'll try. I like annoying him, and causing him to make all those long techno-babbly posts. Plus newbies should always know the truth after each lie. franky1, if you are debating that Schnorr + Taproot won't scale more than 40x, then no one is debating that with you.
The point of these upgrades is to improve the network's latency, with the current block size that Bitcoin already has.
take a look at the topic creators first post, the image more specifically what word is marked as 1. oh look so what is that misleading word that the graphic is implying that these innovations improve the most no need to answer as its a rhetorical question as people can already see it for themselves have a nice day. just dont be one of those people that try putting the word scaling into the same sentance of schnorr benefits. try using prevent descaling if you atleast want to be honest about the benefits oh and one last thing.. You know what to do everyone. In case. #UASF
if you have not learned this already. cores new bypass technique does not need consensus, does not cause forks, is not a case of only activating at an acceptable threshold. there is no way to actually prevent devs putting it in and having such new funky tx's added to blocks. the UASF you speak of is actually just a translation of 'if you dont like it F**k off and go play with an altcoin' ** = both UC and OR UASF is not a new voting mechanism to activate new features. its an aparthied/community segregation technique. basically like 'if your not white and you dont like being told what seat on the bus to sit on, get off the bus, your not wanted'. core do not care for community participation. they literally bypass community need to agree to new features before activation. by letting their nodes bypass the verification so that nodes cant reject the new stuff Cannot agree more - btc kinda sold out. Good: Bitcoin was and is not bound to a ticker. Let them hodl a ticker - Satoshi hodl the protocol The ticker? If Bitcoin Cash SV was given the BTC ticker, it would become "Bitcoin"? Was Bitcoin NOT Bitcoin before it got a ticker ? BTW First ticker I remember was just BC. so - utterly nonsense to try define Bitcoin by a poor ticker. Where is it defined ? From the very start ? |
|
|
|
A situations like this should be expected because Craig is a con person and people like him are always full of tricks but I'm still surprised by some crypto investors who choose to invest in BSV despite all what's happening. Full of 'tricks' ? Full of knowledge and patents - wow u don't get it - Full of 'bad aussie' - destroys my beloved Feelings about Satoshi - here u start screamin |
|
|
|
What is the current status of the court case? Does anyone know?
They bought some time. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
