6-If this would to happen, BTC would just fork, adjusting difficulty and freezing his coins (you gotta be pretty retarded to think that people who believe in BTC would just give up and switch to BSV to blindly follow the leader "Satoshi"). This is bitcoin, we trust in math not in deities.
Let me see if I have this correct. You think that, should Satoshi start cashing in some amount of his Bitcoins, that the community should fork to deny Satoshi the fruit of his labor? Divorce the question from whether or not CSW has any relation to Satoshi - that's irrelevant. But I really want to know if you think such an action by the community is warranted. You took the quote out of context, but let me see if i can spell this out for you "cashing in some amount" is different from crashing the price and then 51% attacking it to destroy the network. Did you watch the video at all? BTC is not a cult and has grown beyond Satoshi. If any entity attempts to destroy BTC, an appropriate action must be taken, even if that entity is "Satoshi". Personally i can live with the idea of Satoshi gone cuckoo or that he wasn't a perfect person (sold guns drugs etc...) Now to answer your question as phrased, personally i don't have an issue with Satoshi responsibly cashing out and even endorsing BSV (I support ideas not people). But as i previously wrote on this topic, realistically speaking, it'll be very hard for someone to conclusive prove that they're Satoshi. Especially in case of CSW, who couldn't have distanced himself further from Satoshi if he tried. So if CSW has private keys, we would most definitely fork, and then market would decide (but if he kills off one fork [to force people to follow his new chain] he'd make everyone's decision that much easier) We all knew what we were getting into with bitcoin. Satoshi could come back at any time and dump his entire stash. Most of us have made a calculated bet that this won't happen. Forking away is not an option. We'd be no better than the cult of Vitalik forking away after getting butthurt about the DAO "hack". Well first of all i think its important to differentiate between Satoshi coming back, and Satoshi's coins being dumped. i.e. -If CSW can prove in some court that he is Satoshi but can't move a single coin, after a short BSV pump no one will care the world will move on -On the other hand if BTC1MM gets dumped across exchanges, even with a signed message of "i'm not CSW", might bring BTC to its knees. That would be a black swan event, but I can't imaging any person forcing me to abandon the idea of BTC for a unlimited blocks at BSV (its just too retarded). if the option comes down to no BTC or fork BTC, i'd go with whatever name they choose and whoever will lead it as long as they alight with my idea/vision of BTC |
|
|
|
This chart has some great info!$BTC: Still waiting on that 30%+ pullback? Bitcoin had eight 30%+ pullbacks last market uptrend but the average time between each pullback was 98 days BTC had a serious 26.3% pullback on May 17th, which means the next major retrace could be a couple months away  https://twitter.com/Josh_Rager/status/1133371092175863808 It had that pullback on bitstamp only. all the other exchanges were between 16 - 19% average of 17.5% It only went that low on bitstamp because of the 4000 sell wall. It's going to dump slow but steady soon ending at $2500 before the year is out imho. I hope you didn't mortgage your home to fund your short position. There are way too many homeless folks already. my home is quite safe. and I don't think it's people going short that need to worry. https://blockchainwhispers.com/bitmex-position-calculator/Not sure where they source their data from but bitfinex has BTC32.200 over $280MM shorted https://www.bitfinex.com/statsit's from the BFX api, same as this site https://datamish.com/d/000000004/btcusd?refresh=20s&orgId=1the stats page on bitfinex doesn't seem to update, not sure if it's hourly, daily, weekly but the API is live afaik. Umm try again, sorry to bust your "bear data source" which inflates longs and deflates shorts Rates on Margin Funding
Average rates of the open funding (positions) as of May 29, 2019 - 02:34:49 AM UTC.
Currency Flash Return Rate Total sum of active funding Total amount used in margin positions
...
BTC 0.0107% 33,873.90 32,230.27
From https://www.bitfinex.com/stats |
|
|
|
This chart has some great info!$BTC: Still waiting on that 30%+ pullback? Bitcoin had eight 30%+ pullbacks last market uptrend but the average time between each pullback was 98 days BTC had a serious 26.3% pullback on May 17th, which means the next major retrace could be a couple months away https://twitter.com/Josh_Rager/status/1133371092175863808 It had that pullback on bitstamp only. all the other exchanges were between 16 - 19% average of 17.5% It only went that low on bitstamp because of the 4000 sell wall. It's going to dump slow but steady soon ending at $2500 before the year is out imho. I hope you didn't mortgage your home to fund your short position. There are way too many homeless folks already. my home is quite safe. and I don't think it's people going short that need to worry. https://blockchainwhispers.com/bitmex-position-calculator/Not sure where they source their data from but bitfinex has BTC32.200 over $280MM shorted https://www.bitfinex.com/stats |
|
|
|
6-If this would to happen, BTC would just fork, adjusting difficulty and freezing his coins (you gotta be pretty retarded to think that people who believe in BTC would just give up and switch to BSV to blindly follow the leader "Satoshi"). This is bitcoin, we trust in math not in deities.
Let me see if I have this correct. You think that, should Satoshi start cashing in some amount of his Bitcoins, that the community should fork to deny Satoshi the fruit of his labor? Divorce the question from whether or not CSW has any relation to Satoshi - that's irrelevant. But I really want to know if you think such an action by the community is warranted. You took the quote out of context, but let me see if i can spell this out for you "cashing in some amount" is different from crashing the price and then 51% attacking it to destroy the network. Did you watch the video at all? BTC is not a cult and has grown beyond Satoshi. If any entity attempts to destroy BTC, an appropriate action must be taken, even if that entity is "Satoshi". Personally i can live with the idea of Satoshi gone cuckoo or that he wasn't a perfect person (sold guns drugs etc...) Now to answer your question as phrased, personally i don't have an issue with Satoshi responsibly cashing out and even endorsing BSV (I support ideas not people). But as i previously wrote on this topic, realistically speaking, it'll be very hard for someone to conclusive prove that they're Satoshi. Especially in case of CSW, who couldn't have distanced himself further from Satoshi if he tried. So if CSW has private keys, we would most definitely fork, and then market would decide (but if he kills off one fork [to force people to follow his new chain] he'd make everyone's decision that much easier) |
|
|
|
Well....
1) I dunno. The pervasive narrative in this here space is that everything out of Craig's mouth is either: a lie, or; simply wrong. As such, how could anything he say undermine the legitimacy of the sector?
OTOH, if he has the capability to carry out such a threat, how would his huge advance warning not be a good thing?
2) I dunno again. Before vanishing, Satoshi revealed very little of his personal proclivities. I see no evidence therein to support the notion that he might not use his substantial war chest in order to tilt the market in favor of what he perceives as the more faithful rendition of his ideals. What exactly am I missing in his writings?
But if he crashes the market, BSV will also go down with it. My guess is that he wants people to have some doubt and hedge in BSV just in case he crashes the market. But their fork war with BCH brought every coin down, including BSV. No, if CSW has keys to Satoshi's stash BSV definitely will not go down. As far as the video, text is over 6months old, and looks like just FUD with no proof that CSW even said that. What the idiots that believe it fail to realize is that even if he has access to the private keys: 1-He can't cash in those coins because of the ongoing Kleiman lawsuit. 2-Once that lawsuit is over, the market will crash hard the second the transaction from Satoshi's stash is advertised, by the time he gets his first confirmation to the exchange, market would flash crash 3-He'd have 20 lawyers lined up at his door with lawsuits before he gets his second confirmation 4-Tax authority would be at his door before third confirmation 5-As far as destroying BTC I literally cannot think of a dumber thing to do for someone who has BTC1MM 6-If this would to happen, BTC would just fork, adjusting difficulty and freezing his coins (you gotta be pretty retarded to think that people who believe in BTC would just give up and switch to BSV to blindly follow the leader "Satoshi"). This is bitcoin, we trust in math not in deities. This actually got me thinking of how a sane person would try to cash out while trying to maximize profits. 1-Create you own fork 2-Short BTC to the max 3-When interest is peaked (before halfening), announce that you currently only have access to 25% of the stash which will be auctioned off in 10 blocks. First auction being x months from now (what FBI did) 4-Profit  |
|
|
|
Jesus what a pump  Wake up hodlersss!!!!! WHAT ARE WE OVER $20K !?!? Oh just $9k pfft back to sleep |
|
|
|
What a dumpster fire ... and this is further proof that the markets can remain irrational longer than expected as BCH should be dumping now. As expected, Due to BCHs lack of hashrate miners are double spending and reorging on BCH blockchain. Here is when it occurred last time- https://twitter.com/TheCryptoconomy/status/1131962447823278080‼️#BCH /#bcash was hit by 51% attack from just 2 miners, http://BTC.TOP & http://BTC.com - & no one seems to be talking about it. 🤨 Thread 👇🏻 1/ What I've gathered from loose details:First, there was an unintentional split with the recent #BCH "upgrade." 2/Since the original split in 2017, there has been a significant number of coins accidentally sent to "anyone can spend" addresses (due to tx compatibility of sigs, but no #SegWit on #BCH), or possibly they've been replayed from #Bitcoin onto the #BCH network. 3/Because of this, tons of coins (#BCH) would essentially be "up for grabs." However, devs implemented a protocol rule called CLEANSTACK, making P2SH coins unspendable. This was to be removed with May 15 fork, basically handing the coins to miners. https://github.com/bitcoincashorg/bitcoincash.org/blob/master/spec/2019-05-15-upgrade.md4/During the unintentional fork, someone exploited a bug (details are really hard to find) to add invalid TXs to @Bitcoin_ABC's client mempool. To counter, http://BTC.TOP mined empty blocks (the bad TXs made blocks impossible to produce) coinspice.io/news/unknown-attacker-fails-to-disrupt-bch-upgrade 5/Due to low hash rate of the network, http://BTC.TOP actually controlled over half (~54%) of #BCH hash power. Putting them in a position to essentially dictate which blocks were accepted by the network. (we'll see the problem here in a sec) https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/is-bitcoin-cash-under-a-51-percent-attack-as-one-bch-mining-pool-nears-over-half-control/6/ In the confusion, an unknown miner (possibly the attacker, but unconfirmed) tried to snatch a bunch of P2SH/#Segwit coins. But http://BTC.TOP & http://BTC.COM were expecting, and/or preparing to recover SegWit coins themselves... https://honest.cash/kiarahpromise/sigop-counting-45287/According to discussions, http://BTC.top and http://BTC.com were working with another party to recover #SegWit coins to rightful owners (exchanges and/or users). How they sourced the rightful owners I'm not sure, but this appears to be "reddit consensus. 8/ When the unknown miner tried to take the coins themselves, http://BTC.TOP & http://BTC.COM saw & immediately decided to re-org & remove these TXs, in favor of their own TXs, spending the same P2SH coins, + many others. https://honest.cash/kiarahpromise/sigop-counting-45289/It apparently took hours to figure out what happened as none of this was public yet. It appears the 2 miners were ready & communicating with each other directly & possibly another party (exchange or devs) for coordinating the re-org. Cant find specifics from involved parties. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7WMLRhXoAAzlEd.jpg10/So just 2 miners, in secret & w/ no trouble, took it upon themselves to remove 2 blocks w/ another’s TXs, & replace with their own. Bizarrely, some are celebrating! Some devs are quiet, but jtoomim (#BCH dev) called it “justice,” & “punishment” for “antisocial behavior.” https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7WM4hNXkAAfAsu.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7WM5NGW0AALecm.jpg11/One dev seems to be actually discussing how dangerous of a precedent this was & has the only write-up that I can find so far on what exactly occurred. #BCH https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7WNXlnW0AACJqw.jpg12/This is what everyone warned about of endless HFs. Its an attack vector, kills Lindy effect, & has turned #BCH into a political mess where private comms control what does/doesn't get in a block. I can’t tell if no one cares, or if they just want to ignore it? 13/There are at least a few people (maybe only partially) realizing that this basically kills any perception that #BCH is "decentralized, censorship resistant money." And leaves them to fight over whether the miners are "good guys" or "bad guys" with their actions. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7WOrXcWkAE2EA3.jpg14/Very curious to see others who could dig further (& more thoroughly) into this, as details are not easy to find, & there seem to no articles about the 51% as far as I can tell. 😁 /fin Rational people just don't own any bcash in the first place so no one can dump it. It's the same shitcoin that was burning part of the rewards by the pool cause they had too many of them. |
|
|
|
These papers are not for you to consume, all of his actions can be easily explained if you think of him as a man preparing a case for litigation. He's just preparing documents that he'll be submitting to court. Probably will try to trademark "Bitcoin" next.
Then why the sensational coingeek article? It was a well-timed pump job / maneuver backed by a well-written propaganda piece. It ultimately proves nothing, other than there is no apparent correlation between somebody's ability to invest and intelligence. BSV is so thinly traded a 500% pump wouldn't effect Ayre and CSW much |
|
|
|
::le sigh:: ...aaaand we're back to 'Aussie man bad!'
Truth is a defence to defamation Yet, only in honest discourse is understanding to be reached. You seem to be a lovely chap. I don’t know why you persist in defending such comic book villains. Lodging a copywright claim over the Bitcoin whitepaper which has an MIT open source license printed on the front page? It’s both hilarious and pathetic. Could be, or you just too naive to realize that you aren't the intended audience. These papers are not for you to consume, all of his actions can be easily explained if you think of him as a man preparing a case for litigation. He's just preparing documents that he'll be submitting to court. Probably will try to trademark "Bitcoin" next. |
|
|
|
*yawn*
I suppose everyone in prison since 2012 is a candidate, then?
Exactly. Some people are really desperate to prove that Satoshi is some petty criminal. I took me 5 seconds to confirm that this guy (Paul Le Roux) has nothing to do with Satoshi or Bitcoins. His skills are insufficient, and his educational background is not good enough to consider such a possibility. He has been in prison since 2012. But then the question arises why he didn't sold at least some of the coins in 2011, when for a brief period the exchange rate shot up to $30 per coin? Are his skills sufficient enough to create TrueCrypt? Cause he did. You should've spent more that 5 seconds researching, then you'd see that he clearly had no use for cash in 2011. So far the only somewhat solid argument against it, is Paul's ability to be on this very forum and communicate with others on the subject of bitcoin while at the same time running his empire. |
|
|
|
1.The curious Satoshi/Solotshi monikers. OK, It's close enough to peak my interest. 2.Both were programmers familiar with C++ It was the most used programming language back then. 
3.Both had a strong interest in cryptography and privacy. 1000s of people share the same interest, but it does not mean that they automatically qualify to be Satoshi.
4.Both were wary of authority. When you want to create something that makes it difficult for "Big brother" to decipher, then you will also be wary of authorities.
5.Both had an interest in online gambling – Bitcoin’s initial code had a poker client included. Millions of people gamble, really?
6.Both were well aware of the difficulty with traditional payment systems, Le Roux on account of the illegal prescription drug racket he was running. Would you not focus your attention of payment systems, if you want to launder money?
7.Satoshi’s spelling and language – “analyse, colour, defence, bloody, hard” is consistent with Rhodesian Le Roux’s. I would want to see more evidence of that, Satoshi's writings have been very had to decipher. <British style>
8.Satoshi disappeared in early 2011 to “move on to other things” around the time that Le Roux was transitioning from software genius to cartel boss. So everyone that changed jobs might be Satoshi then?
9.With tens of millions of dollars in cash, Le Roux would have had no need to cash out his BTC once the price began rising. Why has no family member ever tried to sell any of those coins?
10.If anyone could have hidden wallets containing 1 million BTC, it would have been the creator of disk encryption software TrueCrypt. I can hide the same amount of coins on a paper wallet without the use of any encryption knowledge or skills.
Interesting theories, but it will be interesting to see what happens when authorities start to dig a little bit deeper into this. Add to that a TrueCrypt inventor who by definition is very likely to be a cypherpunk. So far his MO fits more than anyone else i can think of. From what i can see this in no way helps CSW and if anything, makes him a liar that's trying to steal Pauls creation. |
|
|
|
Why would I hate women? I don't even hate black people or jews. If a racoon gets into your garbage, you don't hate the raccoon. Similarly, if one is aware of the predatory nature of the female, or the likelihood of a random colored person to steal your bicycle or try to kill you for no reason, it's pretty much the same thing. You just recognize the problem, adapt and overcome.
Wait, so by that logic are you saying that we shouldn't hate you either? That we should just accept you for a retarded self hating jewish Nazi who's parents were brother and sister who just got too close to each other one night, and who can't stop parroting that BTC is somehow not decentralized because no girl would touch you? Thus we should just adapt and overcome that by just ignoring you? That's the deepest thing i've ever heard you say roach |
|
|
|
Wow CSW was an expert against TrueCrypt inventor Paul Solotshi Calder Le Roux case From all the people who could've invented bitcoin TrueCrypt inventor (named Solotshi) would be near the top of the list (and CSW at the bottom)Edit: who's been in jail since 2012
|
|
|
|
You will not find anyone here who thinks that BCH will ever be $4k again ..even if BTC attains even the wildest predictions.
The trend BTC/BCH is very clearly lower.
It still has the support of Bitmain and another BTC bubble would presumably provide them a war chest with which to pump it. I mean, they're a million deep in that shit, so I'd certainly not rule it out. No. Bitmain has abandoned Bcash. Jihan is now bagholder extraordinaire It'll go to 0 the second Bitmain abandons bcash, they'd be stumbling over each other to see who gets to get their sell order in first. They're too deep, too committed with really no good way out |
|
|
|
Almost at a new yearly high! Where are all the Vegeta memes & fireworks?  |
|
|
|
Congrats... 3 or 4 obvious trolls / alt accounts of roach and... you, the only one being serious here and meaning what he says. I guess that makes you the village idiot.
I disagree about those new accounts being roach alts. It's probably just emulation. I do agree about the village idiot bit, though. While I disagree with roach in regards to bitcoin being a scam, I do enjoy alternate perspectives. How can you learn anything by simply ignoring someone you don’t agree with? Sounds like a fair few liberals in here who get triggered. I do agree with roachs view on women and I worry for microgoosens future with a woman who has had such a promiscuous past. His arguments been heard and shut down over and over again by overwhelming majority, yet he just keeps on repeating them like a broken record. He doesn't even believe in the historic price of silver charts. There's just no arguing with stupid. He sees that most people just ignore him, so as a last resort to grab any bit of attention he can, he started to create new accounts with the first comment like "well i don't fully agree with roach but..." you know the ones |
|
|
|
They need to investigate themselves as to why they accept a limit sell order 2000 points below the market price. That kind of order (not a market sell) should be simply rejected by the trading system (as an error). Wait an 100x overleveraged exchange exploited for its volatility? Stop the presses |
|
|
|
|
People feeding roach, must be a slow day
|
|
|
|
|
Miners are collecting almost BTC2 in fees for every block. Soon that would be ~30% of their block reward. Financials incentives seem to be working as planned
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone got any updates on the CSW lawsuit? He was supposed to provide info on the trust trustee etc by now
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
