Bitcoin Forum
September 29, 2020, 01:31:28 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 77 »
1  Economy / Speculation / [WO] The Nullian Bitcult on: September 27, 2020, 12:49:37 AM
Its about the almighty coin here and not about pseudo religious topics.

A lot of entities here favor worshiping the new money god that is bitcoin.
And these entities would like everyone else to follow suit and worship the same.
Such conduct is sin and corruption.

Lo!  Unwittingly as if possessed, I had acted in loyal service of the new money god that is Bitcoin!  ’Twas for that, the Divine Bitcoin lavished me with this compliment as a reward:

Nullius' sole objective is to facilitate the mass adoption of bitcoin.

A reward—and a guiding light, showing me to my true calling.

I ought to work more on this channelling of inerrant divine inspiration:

I. The Basic Laws of Bitcoin


The god of Bitcoin grants unto you full power over yourself:  No king, no priest, no judge, no senate, and no army can command or countermand your decree over your own bitcoins, as signed with the sacred mark of your private keys.

The god of Bitcoin demands that you take full responsibility for yourself:  For it is a law of Nature and Bitcoin that power and responsibility are as two sides of the same coin.

The god of Bitcoin commands, you shall keep safe your private keys.  An ye lose your private keys, the god of Bitcoin shall curse ye.  An ye let your private keys be stolen, the god of Bitcoin shall bless the thief and curse ye.

The god of Bitcoin demands obedience to the divine Law of Consensus.  The damned who hardfork without consensus are renegades, abjurers of holiness, rapine oath-breakers, frauds, sowers of discord, and traitors, who shall be consigned damnatio memoriae with their chains to eternal poverty within the depths of Tartarus, where all hashes are broken and all bits are made nothing.


The principal reason why I dropped it was my realization that too many dollar-worshippers seriously accuse Bitcoiners of a “cult mentality”.

The bottom line is that men create gods in their own images; and as societies change, so do their concepts of divinity.
2  Economy / Speculation / Re: [WO] Encrypt, or fork off! on: September 27, 2020, 12:30:55 AM
All non-public communications should be encrypted.  Period.

If you only encrypt selected things, then you are red-flagging those things as “something to hide”, leaking what is in practical effect contextual metadata, and inviting targeted attackers to seek specifically the things that you wanted to encrypt.  Oops.


If you don't mind red-flagging yourself as the-guy-who-encrypts-everything, of course...

I've been dropping shit for those fuckers to flag for decades, hope they love storing data. Cheesy

Oh, of course they do!

If you don't mind red-flagging yourself as the-guy-who-encrypts-everything something, of course...


If all that is required to scare you into submission and deter you from perfectly legal behaviour is the risk that potentially you may get onto a little list of people-who-doing-something-perfectly-legal, then you should not use crypto at all!  Not encrypted communications—certainly not Bitcoin, which is actually more dangerous to the system and, I note, invokes many potential complications in some jurisdictions where encrypting your communications is unequivocally legal.  Why are you not worried about the potentially much worse list of Bitcoiners—which you probably KYCed yourself into, as I myself have avoided?

Also, if the mere prospect of that little list has such an impact on you, then you are so very easy to control.  Trivial.  It’s like you’re asking for it.  Enjoy slavery.

For my part, I think that it’s a little bit too late to worry about simply being on little lists.  I have probably been getting onto more and more of them ever since I was a teenager.  If I could go back in time, perhaps I may teach myself a cloak-and-dagger routine so that I could live a total double life like a deep-cover spy—well, I do live in enemy-ruled territory, i.e. anywhere in the modern world...  Anyway, as it stands, if I could be on only the list of people-who-encrypt-everything, that would probably be an improvement!

Are you so meek that in an age of tyranny, you have not even been sufficiently annoying to ever get yourself onto a little list somewhere?

N.b. that I have never been arrested.  I have no criminal record (and no reason for one).  My perspective is not one of some anarchist jailbird who has nothing to lose.  To the contrary!

Why, oh why, do I feel it’s wise to note that?  Because you are acting like encrypting your communications is quasi-illegal!  This is Nineteen Eighty-Four stuff:  Obey the unwritten laws.
3  Economy / Speculation / [WO] Whence and whither religions on: September 27, 2020, 12:07:23 AM
P.S., not sure how I glanced by this point before:

Hinduism (Shiva as supreme being within Shaivism) is the world's oldest religion and Boedha are the most still intact.

Not intact in the least.

Many if not most of the modern sects of the Hindus are almost unrecognizable compared even to the diverse syncretisms of the Hindu Golden Age, let alone the religion of Vedic times.

Your allegation that Shaivism be the “world’s oldest religion”, and by implication that it was the original Hindu orthodoxy, rather prove my point that nothing is “intact” about any of these religions.

Way back when, the only Hindu “supreme being” was the impersonal Brahma (neuter noun), whence sprang the Trimūrti (a trinity):  Brahman (masculine noun; the Creator), Vishnu (the Preserver), and Siva (the Destroyer).  In the beginning was only Brahma; all existence may be said to be no more than an illusion imagined by Brahma; and all things shall return to Brahma, only to re-emerge in an eternal cycle.  The closest Western concepts to Brahma are in various aspects such things as Chaos, whence sprang the universe, and Fate, which controls the destinies even of the gods.

The syncretisms and variations that developed as Hindu orthodoxies over the centuries and millennia form an astounding tangle.  They all share the same Vedic roots, of course—somewhat in a manner analogous to how Sanskrit shares linguistic roots with Greek.  That is what distinguishes them from such outrageous heresies as Buddhism, or the skeptical philosophy of Lokāyaka (a highly intelligent rational atheism which rejects all mysticism, denies the existence of all gods, and holds that human consciousness is a material bodily process that ceases at the death of the individual), etc.

The same processes operate on all religions.  Judaism was originally polytheistic (as seen at Elephantine).  The Christian denominations of the Fifteenth Century would all have been condemned as heresies by each of the many different Christian sects of the Second or Third Century—and vice versa.  Zoroastrianism later had Mithraism as a direct descendant, so to speak.  The Greek religious beliefs of later Hellenistic times were of a different Zeitgeist from the beliefs of Homeric heroes (although here, the difference seems less significant due to the implicitly pluralistic nature of Greek polytheism).  Etc., etc.

The bottom line is that men create gods in their own images; and as societies change, so do their concepts of divinity.
4  Economy / Speculation / [WO] Ahistorical discussion on: September 26, 2020, 09:45:42 PM
N.b. that this is theocrasy (not a typo!), not an historical statement at all; I will nonetheless address it historically:

Jezus, Moses, Allha, Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu where all students to give uss a head-start and left.

Jesus and Moses are fictional characters.  Such can be said because they are alleged to have been historically extant human beings; and the Biblical alleged histories are bunk, just fiction (although they may be in part based very roughly on composites of bits and pieces of historical events).

In particular, I am amazed that anybody after the late 19c./early 20c. treats Jesus as having any more reality than the Wizard of Oz.  The Gospels are historically prepostrous.  Josephus was a liar generally, as can be readily demonstrated on many points (not only relevant to this issue).  Roman historical sources contemporaneous to, or soon after the alleged life of Jesus contain absolutely nothing about corroborates the story; biased “scholars” are left hanging onto some old chestnut about Tacitus and “Chrestus”, a misinterpretation that is completely absurd to anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the matter.  Etc...  Moreover, there is no reliable evidence that Christians (i.e. followers of Jesus) existed before the Second Century.

The others whom you listed are wholly mystical beings, not susceptible to scientific examination or other rational scholarship.  It is, strictly speaking, not irrational to believe in the existence of such beings somewhere that mere mortals (and their scientific instruments) cannot see.

The alleged historicity of Jesus was actually what I was thinking of specifically, when I wrote this:

I love history it gets really crazy the more i search.

Most of what you think you know about history is wrong.

That’s not personal.  It is just a general observation.  Most of what people believe to be “history” is fake news, either twisted or just made up by somebody with an agenda somewhere along the line—the Bible being only the worst and most notorious example.  Indeed, if you want a neat demonstration of just how bad the problem is, peruse the idiot-bait on Wikipedia and follow the “verifiable” citations to so-called “scholars” who crank out arrant nonsense “supporting” or “investigating” the historicity of completely fictional stories.

Hinduism (Shiva as supreme being within Shaivism) is the world's oldest religion and Boedha are the most still intact.

Not intact in the least.

Many if not most of the modern sects of the Hindus are almost unrecognizable compared even to the diverse syncretisms of the Hindu Golden Age, let alone the religion of Vedic times.

The oldest religion would probably be something from prehistorical times—therefore perforce unknown.  I need not reach the question of which religion has the oldest historically or archaeologically attested tradition.

Gautama expressed an essentially atheistic philosophy, eerily similar to Schopenhauer’s World as Will.  His Nirvana had the same objective as Schopenhauer’s Renunciation.  All of the Buddhist religious mysticism was piled on later, after the historical Gautama.  Such a thing could conceivably also happen over the course of future centuries to Schopenhauer and his quasi-mystical palingenesis of the Will, which can only be escaped by renouncing all desires and attaining the state of Nirvana, i.e. nonexistence.  (Sanskrit nirvāṇa = ‘extinguished’, literally ‘blown out’ in the sense of a candle.)

Obligatory at this juncture:
Quote from: Nietzsche (The Antichrist, Aphorism 42)
For this remains [] the essential difference between the two religions of decadence:  Buddhism promises nothing, but actually fulfills; Christianity promises everything, but fulfills nothing.

Parenthetically, I must remark that Gautama and Schopenhauer are correct:  Life inevitably has more suffering than joy.  People with an inner vitality must fight every day for a few precious joys amidst many sorrows.  Decadent people tire of this, and thus seek escape.  The desired escape can be rational and realistic as Gautama and Schopenhauer, or an irrational escapist fantasy, such as the Christian heaven or the transhumanist Singularity.

I have no desire to discuss this now at length; and I have avoided this general line of discussion for want of time even to parse it.  Dashing this off in haste, I simply call out a few points well known to me, which happened to have caught my eye as I skim down to try to catch up with what must be the fastest-moving forum thread in the world.

(Although bit weak on south Asian/Indian subcontinent history, may be you didn't expressed yourself much and i avoid correcting peeps on interweb)

I’d be pleased for some pointers on the Lokāyaka. ;-)

(I appreciated that your post, and did not intend to ignore it.  If were to I answer the question that you thereby asked, I should do so properly; but I have (as yet?) lacked both the time and the inclination for such a discussion here—sorry.  It also invokes the problem that I keep my reading list private; indeed, I use Tor to help assure that nobody can track what I am reading.)
5  Economy / Speculation / [WO] Trump ≈ Biden: Neither will undo Woodrow Wilson on: September 26, 2020, 03:21:43 PM
No one will shove big amounts of money into bitcoin before the U.S. election.

How is that even relevant?  Trump and Biden are approximately the same.  Neither will seek to undo the products of the Woodrow Wilson administration—and starting before undoing the Roosevelt New Five-Year Plan New Deal, that is what should be most important to the financial decisions of American investors, if they are capable even of remembering what they ate for breakfast.   #justsaying

Moreover, this charade has not even the slightest relevance to non-American investors.  One or the other of two American Commissars will be “elected”.  Either way, America will continue to be a terrorist rogue state, will continue to undermine the bigcorp-dollarized-globalized economy, will continue to export cultural degeneracy...  Yawn.

Some people’s obsession with this pointless circus act is surreal.  Not buy Bitcoin because of it?  Say what?  Why should Bitcoin give a hoot?

So much noise about what is basically just entertainment.  Football hooligans, scaled up.
6  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: September 26, 2020, 06:27:28 AM
Have you ever heard of the expression:  "a picture is worth a thousand words"?

In essence, memes cause posts to be shorter, especially if they do not need to be explained.  Wink

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

it did not add anything just as well as a baby meme before...and many before those.

Well, hopefully, I have not been completely voted off the island, yet... I might even get "my day" taken away - just to teach me a lesson about new developments in bitcoinlandia (apparently, I did not get the memo)  - the "non-value' of memes.   Cry Cry Cry  Whachagonna do next?  Take away emojis?   Tongue

explain in words:  wordy-man walls of text
pictures:  overrated
emojis:  nullius misunderstands your post due to its lack of words


Damn, CT.  That dog forgot his obligatory #nohomo tag before he picked out his clothes.
7  Economy / Speculation / [WO] Opsec versus LOVEINT on: September 26, 2020, 06:08:26 AM
Call it Opsec, if you will.   Cool

Indeed, everything should be encrypted all of the time.  With sufficiently large keys.  No 90s-era castrated “export” ciphers.

I'm not afraid someone throwing my dick on the net


And what, even if you don’t care what unpredictable ways all of your intimate personal data may be used to fuck you, do you really want for her elliptic curves to be vulnerable to penetration and exploitation by the NSA and Big Tech corporations?  Bruteforce isn’t even the most efficient attack there.

NP-Complete means NP-Hard.

Yes, I have a thread called “Ciphersex” somewhere.
8  Economy / Speculation / Re: [WO] On the principles of magnetism on: September 26, 2020, 05:31:51 AM
Anyhow, maybe I was a bit desperate to find a fit

Yes, I would suppose that Bitcoin bulls may often have that problem.  Just don’t brag about it on the Internet.

And stop ramming that candlestick into her cervix.  It causes volatility.

2. I did not get the loves her already? duh! but then, why "she is asking me to go deeper"?

Try first reading the words without looking at the image.  (If you can’t get the joke just from the words, then, um...)  Then, observe the expression on the dog’s face.
9  Economy / Speculation / [WO] On the principles of magnetism on: September 26, 2020, 04:22:36 AM
Perhaps the below image captures the seemingly ambiguous position that you currently find ur lil selfie?

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

Damn, Jay.  And I thought that I was harsh.

Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

Protip:  If you actually need choreographic directions (rather than her statement just being a stock phrase to egg you on), then ur lil selfie is already in a humiliating position.  You are supposed to be leading the dance (and you had better know how to do that—which most men don’t, nowadays; I mean generally, not only in the bedroom).  Unless she takes relationship advice from the type of website or magazine that runs articles reading, “Top Ten Sexiest Things Ever:  1. When he asks me what I want!”  In that case, you have much deeper problems; if you’re already all in with her, you’re fucked.

Quote from: Nietzsche
Whom hateth woman most? — Thus spake the iron to the loadstone: “I hate thee most, because thou attractest, but art too weak to draw unto thee.”
10  Economy / Speculation / Re: [WO] The Nullian Observer on: September 26, 2020, 01:11:10 AM
Expect the mind of ephemeral Homer when reading my posts.

I misunderstood your emoji, until I just checked the associated alt text.  D’oh!  I apologize for having come off as insulting to you about that issue.  I will edit my prior post to note this.

Homer Simpson is a cultural pet peeve of mine, for so very many reasons; but I would not have made that personal to you, if I hadn’t thought that you were ridiculing me for not being sufficiently “hip” and modern!

Interpretation of emojis, icons, and other pictograms:  Another modern problem. :-(


Edit again:  Oh, so was your link specifically to an Urban Dictionary definition of “whore” intended to suggest that I be a hypocrite for finding timeless old stories relevant to new problems, but not chasing idiotic, oftentimes politically motivated fads in language?  If so, that is such an absurd confusion of concepts that I could not guess what you did not say.


 I'm glad you managed to wade through the absurdity of it all and realize the error of my ways.

I object just as vehemently to the political correction of old stories as to the analogous butchery of language.

(A) Good:  Apply old fable, allegorical myth, or other literary scenario to new situation.

(B) Bad:  Bowdlerize old story because it’s XYZist.  A Newspeak of cultural semiotics, similar to the Newspeak of individual words.  Have you seen “modernized” versions of old stories?  Disgusting!

(C) Good:  Use old language in the modern day, with such minor adaptations and neologisms as rationally required to communicate about genuinely new things (e.g., “aeroplanes”, “motor-cars”, or the “Internetwork”).

(D) Bad:  Orwellian Newspeak.  Hardfork* the language without consensus, so that cultural scammers can hijack control of cultural values by artificially twisting and limiting the words used to express concepts.

You call me a hypocrite for embracing A, but rejecting D.  You thus hold that A is like D.

I say that A : C :: B : D.

Mmmm, analogies.

intentional non sequitur : humourous nonsense-analogy :: doughnut : olive branch

* Yes, hardfork.  Longstanding linguistic consensus has been changed in an irrational way; and the backwards-incompatible change is enforced by virtual lynch mobs, Kafkaesque persecutions, and socioeconomic terrorism.  Observe how people get attacked over using the “incorrect” pronouns, i.e. the correct pronouns!  If you refuse the hardfork changes, then there are zealots who want you universally shunned, fired from your job, and cancelled out of existence.  And they are gaining more power by the day—nobody pushes back!
11  Economy / Speculation / [WO] Cancelling the moon landings: Impractical wishes and irrational lunacy on: September 25, 2020, 06:52:15 PM
I have been thinking about this:

Besides, at this stage in the game I'd just rather not know the political beliefs of people I otherwise hold in high regard for their contributions elsewhere.

That falls under the category of “your problem, not theirs”.

I regularly use things made by people whom I personally despise.  If I didn’t, then I would need to boycott >99% of all things in the modern world.  Including almost every product of the tech industry.  Including the Internet.  Should I render myself powerless and irrelevant, while people whom I despise make things that give them power, influence, prestige, and wealth?  I think not.

On the flipside, if I ever create something of significant value (which, thanks to the benefits of anonymity and pseudonymity, you may or may not ever know), then I would personally appreciate if you would please refrain from contaminating my pure and sacred creation with your grubby little hands.  You, and a few billion others.  At least, that is how I feel:  I wish for anything that I ever create to only be touched (or even seen) by people whom I approve politically, morally, and culturally.  But if I have a purpose for giving others something of value to them, then I am not inclined to defeat myself by throwing a hissy fit, grabbing my toys, and running away.

What about whatever productive work you may do?  Do you lie awake at night wondering if somebody you dislike may enjoy something that you have done?  To any creative personality, is that not infinitely more important than the personalities who made things that you consume?

I think that this point needs a salutary object demonstration.

I hate simply cannot resist the opportunity to ruin this for you:  Dr Wernher von Braun, the chief architect of the rocket that put man on the moon, was a NSDAP member and SS officer who attained the rank of SS-Sturmbannführer.  I have no doubt that deep in his heart, he wished to put a swastika flag on the moon instead of the American flag.  And he was not the only like mind on the moon mission team; to the contrary!

I have a longtime pet theory that the “moon landing hoax” nonsense is motivated by this well-known fact on a very deep level.  It is a way of declaring Dr von Braun “cancelled”.

To help you cope with “the political beliefs of people [you] otherwise hold in high regard”, why don’t you open a P&S thread Revealing The Truth:  The so-called “moon landing” was a hoax concocted by an underground Nazi conspiracy to glorify the Third Reich!

Now, here and there on the Internet, you may have seen what appears to be PROOF that the moon landing hoax was done by Jews.  But of course, as a cover story in case the hoax was discovered, the Nazis had to create a meta conspiracy theory blaming the hoax on Jews.  Just because logically, Jews are exactly the people who would want for an SS officer and his fellows to be forever remembered in history as the builders of the first moon rocket.  That’s a typical Jewish thing!  It all makes sense!  Connect the dots, people!

Perhaps I myself should make such a thread.  The aforestated theory is more sensible than most of the stuff in P&S.

Lest delicate liberal brains actually, literally, physically explode, I will not mention the various opinions of numerous poets, artists, scholars, scientists, and philosophers throughout history—e.g., what Voltaire said about blacks and Jews.  If, nutildah, you really want to apply some sort of a political correctness litmus test for “the political beliefs of people [you] otherwise hold in high regard for their contributions”, then more or less your only option is to go hide in a cave.
12  Economy / Speculation / Re: [WO] The Nullian Observer on: September 25, 2020, 05:53:50 PM
I named myself after Homer  Embarrassed

I misunderstood your emoji, until I just checked the associated alt text.  D’oh!  I apologize for having come off as insulting to you about that issue.  I will edit my prior post to note this.

Homer Simpson is a cultural pet peeve of mine, for so very many reasons; but I would not have made that personal to you, if I hadn’t thought that you were ridiculing me for not being sufficiently “hip” and modern!

Interpretation of emojis, icons, and other pictograms:  Another modern problem. :-(
End of edit.

Naturally, as a gentleman, I paid you the compliment of presuming that you named yourself after the immortal genius whose epic poems are hailed by scholars as the founding documents of Western culture—the non-ephemeral Homer who will be remembered in the future, as he has been remembered for thousands of years—instead of a popular fictional fad character made to brainwash the masses into believing that men must be fat, stupid, out of control of their own lives, and not only lacking in household authority but also, abjectly undeserving of it.  D’oh!  I can almost hear Marge sighing at my mistake, before she does something to fix the situation with her homely practical wisdom.

Quote from: Nietzsche (pretty much obligatory at this juncture)
...according to the servile mode of thought, the good man must in any case be the SAFE man: he is good-natured, easily deceived, perhaps a little stupid, un bonhomme.  Everywhere that slave-morality gains the ascendancy, language shows a tendency to approximate the significations of the words “good” and “stupid.”

  I was more concerned with 'modernity' than 'whore' but I appreciate the insight nonetheless.  Cryptotourist understood what I wrote and had already defended your hypocrisy as trolling; I was happier with that explanation.

My contempt for modernity is not trolling!  To the contrary.

You misunderstood so completely that I am not sure how it is even possible (and if thus you are trolling me—touché, IHBT).  I was “trolling” sirazimuth over the CT/123 thing.  Edit:  And reviewing the context:  I wasn’t even criticizing modernity in the post that you very selectively (mis)quoted.  To the contrary, I was saying that old allegories can be adapted to the scenarios of new times.  Hypocrisy?  WTF?  Edit again:  Oh, so was your link specifically to an Urban Dictionary definition of “whore” intended to suggest that I be a hypocrite for finding timeless old stories relevant to new problems, but not chasing idiotic, oftentimes politically motivated fads in language?  If so, that is such an absurd confusion of concepts that I could not guess what you did not say.

Do you seriously suggest that, because I do generally despise the culture and worldview of modern times (i.e., about the past two centuries), I am a hypocrite if I don’t go full Amish?  That would present me with a false dilemma based on comically simpleminded, absolutely binary thinking.

Just because something is new, that doesn’t make it good—but that doesn’t necessarily make it bad, either.  Both fallacies are idiot-traps.  Moreover, only a fool refuses to use the tools available to him in his own life—if those tools can help him to achieve goals that are more important to him than the tools’ cost.

And by the way, speaking of newness—my contempt for modernity is not new.  E.g.:

Society cannot continue even another hundred years the way we are now.

I thought it clear, my implication was past-tense.  You are most of a hundred years out of date for the collapse of anything which could be properly called a functioning “society”.  Some might say, more than a hundred years.  The problem is that those living in a post-apocalyptic desert of downfallen, zombie-like anthropoids have already forgotten what it means to be human—what it meant, once upon a time.

By comparison, Roman society was a zombified rotting corpse for four or five centuries before the civil machine built by long-gone forebears ran out of momentum.  I can see how greater technology could have accelerated the ultimate downfall in various ways.

What’s left is to secure yourself, take care of your own, live by honour alone whereas law is meaningless, keep busy with something productive, and try to have some fun.

I believe nullius has a more optimistic view of the future than I do.  Smiley

“Optimism is cowardice.” — Spengler (writing most of a hundred years ago)

* Marge sighs.

In a modern world so absurd that I have almost wholly given up on satire, serious thought is mistaken for nonsense.
13  Economy / Speculation / [WO] Encrypt, or fork off! on: September 25, 2020, 02:15:16 PM
But... Don't forget that we all put our letters in envelopes (even innocent letters to mum), we don't send them open so that the text can be read by anyone. Privacy doesn't necessarily mean illegal activity. Some things must be kept private, and I hate it when this privacy is violated.

Emphasis mine.

Something that always amazes me about cryptography in general, is that it allows us to control our privacy without sacrificing utility. I can send a digital "letter" that's encrypted, on the open net, without fear of it being compromised (assuming your keys are safe)

^^^ T-H-I-S !

Ancient cypherpunk wisdom from the last millennium:  Don’t write anything in unencrypted e-mail (or forum PMs) that you would not send on a postcard.

Edit:  Dabs, there you go, pre-empting me while I am writing a post and multitasking:
2. Snail mail is usually in sealed envelopes.


(even innocent letters to mum)

All non-public communications should be encrypted.  Period.

If you only encrypt selected things, then you are red-flagging those things as “something to hide”, leaking what is in practical effect contextual metadata, and inviting targeted attackers to seek specifically the things that you wanted to encrypt.  Oops.

Quote from: nullius (DRAFT of a long-intended post on this subject)
Because I am sick and tired of this:
TOP SECRET RECIPE for Nullian Cookies

Most of my personal communications are very, very boring.  Mundane.  All are encrypted.  All.  Except for limited temporary contact with people whom I am still harassing and browbeating into crypto.

My general policy is that if you don’t want to use end-to-end encrypted communications, which are easier to use than ever before (with so many things available that are easier than using gpg in the terminal!), it means that you do not want to talk to me.  Bye!  Although that is not always practical to enforce in business matters, I actually cut people out of my personal life over this.

There comes a moment:  Encrypt, or fork off.  It is just that simple.

Social pressure can work, if people want to talk to you more than you want to talk to them.  Before I became downright draconian about crypto, I had approximately 0% success at getting non-cypherpunk people into it.  Now, my success rate is infinity times 0%—and it is a useful filter to help discover who values me.  You know, it is psychologically unhealthy to pander to people who value you so little that they will not make even minimal effort to talk to you.  It means that you are a desperate loser.
14  Economy / Reputation / Re: Nullian Verification: Post your PGP keys and timestamped statements here! on: September 25, 2020, 01:00:50 PM
Skip to the part that you should really want:  Verification bits!

V8s:  LOL. 😺

Thanks, johhny.  I am not really back, or not supposed to be; it is why my activity is kind of all in one place lately...

About bitcoin keys is this joke or not, eh?  Tongue Will try to recover it a little bit later.

Hah, made you look!  Well, that was the point.

I said that I was tempted.  If I really wanted to pay people to embrace cryptographic security, then—why, then I would spam a PGP 256% airdrop bounty signature campaign in the altcoin get-rich-quick forum!

So, anyone else up for doing the most advanced, temporally enforced crypto-forum crypto-key stake yet invented?

Feedback would be good.  How best could this work for you?  I sort of still a little bit idealistically hope to eventually someday develop this concept into something that people actually use.  Wow, such many qualifiers.

The timestamped file:

Hash: SHA512

Bitcoin Forum name: nullius
Bitcoin Forum userid: 976210
PGP primary key: C2E91CD74A4C57A105F6C21B5A00591B2F307E0C

# Ten most-recent Bitcoin block hashes:

649925 2020-09-25T12:30:41Z 00000000000000000008f792faeb5e869c2b8903677069116607e46192ff75c5
649924 2020-09-25T12:29:19Z 0000000000000000000a307b0345f564682d51b8c61d4d448b9be2a3994173c3
649923 2020-09-25T12:25:47Z 0000000000000000000d8807a5e43edd9c8b83da1851f2d8fabc4192b6de63fc
649922 2020-09-25T12:17:50Z 000000000000000000056dcdef09f359eee3b22d35706f370afcff5eb075b302
649921 2020-09-25T12:08:12Z 00000000000000000004dea2a11f636fe1618bf2d82fd5859b763ebc1906510a
649920 2020-09-25T11:52:19Z 0000000000000000000113cfe7db946c01718ecf74895f984f83d5c0eaee10bb
649919 2020-09-25T11:29:42Z 000000000000000000080484bd5dd522f6d1cb8480f3cf5a2f00473c76e7a2ce
649918 2020-09-25T11:28:58Z 000000000000000000078d48d0bca97bcfb6cf25b9f6153676198cc2b167acc3
649917 2020-09-25T11:23:50Z 00000000000000000008dd8e7bcdf57d9e676c4923987f5ff6b855dff976f423
649916 2020-09-25T11:15:34Z 00000000000000000001ed9249b14684491190b9adaeb5e2a1a5aafbea8c9e30



To verify the timestamp, you must save the signed statement with Unix line endings ('\n') and a single final line-terminator on the last line.  (No blank line at the end.)  Exclusively for ease of checking that the file is saved correctly, here is its SHA256 hash:


The OTS file (base64ed):

(The following will be edited when the “complete” OTS is available, following adequate confirmations on the Bitcoin blockchain.)

15  Economy / Speculation / [WO] The Nullian Observer on: September 24, 2020, 08:31:03 PM
Do not forget that SwayStar wanted to deplatform WO as an “extremely toxic community”.*  Quote-unquote.

* Original topic title:  “Should Bitcoin Wall Observer thread be deleted?”  SwayStar later edited the title and OP only to call for merits to be disabled in WO.

I always comport myself as a gentleman, and I suggest that others do likewise.  I think that I am also well on record as communicating professionally with the few females who are interested in technical or financial topics, who are here for that purpose, and who behave themselves as mature adults instead of tantrum-throwing toddlers.

Whereas I read CryptoTourist as giving a big fuck-you to deplatforming, to cancel culture—to the notion that more than twenty-seven thousand pages of forum posts should be memory-holed because someone Got Offended On The Internet.  Here, honey, have a dose of “toxic”.  No, you can’t delete it.  This forum does not have a “Code of Conduct”, a “Trust and Safety Team”, or other features of a padded playpen.  Anyway, that was my take on it.

Accordingly, sirazimuth can go skullfuck himself with a dildo sculpted from his own sanctimonious bullshit.

I am using uncharacteristic expletives for a reason.

For the record.  At greater length than before.  Because apparently, some people just don’t get it.  Sometimes, I need to be less subtle.

On another note...

On Whores and Historical Perspective

...regularly adapted to problems and scenarios specific to modernity.  Etc...


[—discussion of whoring—]

 C'mon man.

 An exposé on nullian hypocrisy will suffice.

Perhaps you may mistake me for a Christian—or for indulging the modern Victorian prudishness which, by no accident, coincided with stupid men’s invention of feminism.  Do you suppose that I buy into the Nineteenth Century’s orgy of modern democratic delusions?  Given the implausibility that I could be so foolish, I think it’s more probable that you have just never heard the old aristocratic aphorism, stated as to the lower classes, “The whore protects the virtue of the wife.”

Men will fuck women who are not their own wives.  That is human nature, on a level that cannot be changed unless humans are replaced by meat-robots (n.b.).  If common prostitutes are unavailable to low-class men who can neither access nor afford mistresses and courtesans, then they will chase each others’ wives, and society will fall apart.  To recognize this fact of life is necessary for wise governance—but of course, it would be indiscreet to mention this to the masses who need to be governed.  Oops.  Anyway, that is the old-fashioned view; attempts to outright eradicate prostitution are mostly new to modern democracies steeped in feminist dogmata.

So as for the lower classes.

Moreover, given that you name yourself after Homer, I’d expect that you would recognize my habitual allusions to classy sex in classical antiquity—including my posts with classical and neoclassical statues of Phryne, the hetaera who has inspired poets and artists for millennia.  That is neither modern nor degenerate.  For example:

I usually don’t label these things.  If you neither know, nor seek to know by yourself, then you do not deserve to know.  Anyway, this is a statue of Phryne—history’s most famous practitionress of the oldest profession:
What, you want a clearer view?  (Do a double-take:  Yes, this is a statue.)

nullius’ girlfriend

Occasionally, as hereby, I do explain just a bit.
Loading image...

That is a statute of the most famous ancient Greek ἑταίρᾱν, the cultural equivalent of a classical gaṇikā.

I must remark but briefly:  Phryne was once tried on a criminal charge of blasphemy.  As an argument in her defence, her advocate stripped her naked before the tribunal.  That was his actual argument:  She was too beautiful to be guilty!  The Greeks associated physical beauty with moral excellence (and ugliness with wickedness).  Phryne was acquitted.

How do you accuse me of hypocrisy?

You need a better dictionary.  Preferably one that, among other things, gives etymologies.  LOL!  A philology joke.  There I go being subtle again.  I cherish subtlety, because I care.

Edited for clarity.
16  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: #992662 “bingohouhou” promises “no risky” dice profit strategy on: September 24, 2020, 08:35:54 AM
Such users should be prohibited from opening a scam accusation threads because in most cases these are false allegations.
That would contradict of free speech in this forum. Newbie only prohibited to create a post on serious discussion and Ivory tower.

Also forum aren't moderate a scam, this should be investigate from cases to cases. If he's trolling or create false allegations thats why flags and trust feedback created.

There's more to it than that.
Let's say someone wants to ruin the reputation of a legitimate company. He can open a fake scam accusations without any evidence and that content will be passed on to search engines as well. This is called defamation and is regulated by law in many countries and has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

The United States, where this forum is located, has a safe harbour law that protects Internet forums from liability for defamatory content that is posted by third-party forum users:  The famous Section 230.  The law provides that the forum is not the legal “publisher” of the content.  Only the “publisher” is liable, i.e. the user who posted the content.  The forum is a service provider, not a publisher.

What I have just said is my own understanding of the subject; here is forum administration’s stated policy:

Boldface and italic are in the original; highlighting is mine: aims to enable as much freedom for its users as is legally possible. We will not remove content just because it annoys you. In particular, under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, cannot be held responsible for defamation by users, even if notified that possible defamation exists.

If you send us legally-nonsensical demands, we may publish them to make it clear to the world that you are illegitimately and possibly-illegally attempting to stifle discussion.

For my part, I would be wary of attempts to police content that may arguably turn the forum into a “publisher” who is liable for the content.

The above discussion is off-topic on this scam accusation thread.  I respectfully request that this thread stay narrowly on the topic of the scammer whom I have accused, #992662 “bingohouhou”.  If you wish to discuss forum policy, please take it up in Meta.  Thank you.
17  Economy / Speculation / Re: The Wall Order Thread on: September 24, 2020, 05:14:52 AM

Are you literally 12 years old, or thereabouts?

I do ask literally, not figuratively.  In the latter case, I should just ignore you.  In the former case, I should desist from discussing porn in front of you.  (Either-or.)

Edited for malapropisms and misplaced words that are uncharacteristic of me.  The same thing happened in my previous post.  I should take notice that arguing with idiots has no salutary effect on one’s own intelligence.
18  Economy / Speculation / Re: The Wall Order Thread on: September 24, 2020, 04:53:16 AM
My reply to nutildah is re-arranged in descending order of relevance to things other than a forum argument:

How the fuck do you know what the filmmaker intended?

Well I don't. But what I do know is that covid-19 wasn't around in 1988.

Cameraphones were not around in 1949; nonetheless, they are aptly described as handheld portable “telescreens”.  Allegories in literature ranging from Homeric poems to Shakespearean plays are regularly adapted to problems and scenarios specific to modernity.  Etc...

Moreover, the They Live adaptation was not directed at Covid.  It spoke to the reaction to Covid:  Whole societies throughout the world being essentially put under mass house-arrest, under a barrage of official propaganda.  Surely, concerns about mass coercion and manipulative control existed in 1988—and such things were indeed the essential subject addressed allegorically by the film in question.  This is not about Covid, qua Covid.

For more decades than you have probably been alive, some people have been warning that governments could exploit a crisis for tyrannical purposes.  Most people blew them off as “paranoid conspiracy theorists”.  You are blowing them off as paranoid conspiracy theorists when their erstwhile predictions have actually come true.  It is no longer a matter of arguing over potential future happenings:  It is denial of present reality.

—Unless you want to argue that there is nothing whatsoever tyrannical about mass lockdowns under the rubric of unlimited peremptory rule by “emergency” orders.  In that case, we have nothing whatsoever to discuss.

Your passing this off as a matter of my insulting you is an evasive misdirection.

Not at all. By opening with an insult you instantly drain any desire I might have to read any further. It's actually that simple. So feel free to incorporate that tidbit into your future missives, or not; ultimately its up to you of course.

Translation:  When you cannot argue substance, you argue form—and you try to flip everything on its head so as to make it look like you are taking the high road.  That is also intellectually dishonest.  I do not say that for the purpose of being insulting, but rather, as a concise and accurate description.

I do apologize to @Karartma1 for my crassness.

That’s nice of you, as to form.  In substance, you completely misinterpreted the post, and tried to link it to your American election—a matter of much less concern to the rest of the world than Americans would like to believe.

What we need is less fewer (edit: the pedant is must correct himself) arguments with American liberals who are currently whipped into a frenzy over their irrelevant election (which I was not the one to bring up here), and more Bitcoin porn.

By “we”, I mean “I”.

I have comedic licence to rip these cherry-picked misquotes out of context.
I'm a natural born human whore,
I'm not for sale.

So, which is it?  I hear that there is a rising financial starlet who wants to know if you can be swayed to assuage her loneliness by the vast amount of Bitcoin that she makes day-trading.

No, I am not trying to incite any offensive behaviour toward the individual in question.  My sensibilities as a gentleman would not allow such a thing!  Rather, I am trolling sirazimuth, who got upset over a post that SwayStar apparently just ignored.
19  Economy / Speculation / Re: The Wall Order Thread on: September 24, 2020, 02:14:04 AM
If you start a post directed at me with an insult,

You started this by directing a barrage of insults at Karartma1 for his amusing joke:  “Retarded”, “Alex Jonestown” (whereas you’re the only person who has even mentioned Alex Jones!), “shill”, etc.  I am not the only one who objected—although perhaps I was the most vehement.  You then continued to grind your axe on an irrelevant point by belittling and insulting the intelligence of others generally.

I accused you of dishonestly pushing an agenda, based on your observed behaviour.  I used sharper words when warranted warranted.

Your passing this off as a matter of my insulting you is an evasive misdirection.

—So summarized, with links to relevant statements, for the convenience of anyone else who may be curious.  Not you.  Of course, you know who said what; and moreover, as I have told you before:

whatever man, you're nuts if you think i'm reading all that. you win, OK?

My mistake was presuming a literacy level above that of Twitter.  [...]  If you are not reading it, then it is not for you.
I'm ignoring you in general because you take too many words to say too little.

20  Economy / Speculation / Re: The Wall Order Thread on: September 24, 2020, 12:09:42 AM

You get caught cold using bullshit twisty propaganda techniques to push an agenda, and you just ignore it?  Let’s see, what else:

As far as everything else is concerned, I just think some people have fun believing they are the targets of a global conspiracy to keep them down. It somehow adds a sense of meaning to their lives if they can convince themselves they are fighting tyranny in the name of the greater good.

"This affects all of us man!"

The truth is far more boring and depressing perhaps, which is part of what makes it difficult to accept: nobody actually gives a shit about you, because you simply aren't important enough to care about.

This continued belittling, combined with vast leaps of illogic.  Did you read from Saul Alinsky’s playbook?

Of course, the typical ordinary individual worried about this kind of thing is not personally a target of a global conspiracy.  An ordinary individual is not worth it (unless he ceases to be ordinary by becoming extraordinarily troublesome).  Global power is.

A global conspiracy in fact exists.  Stop with the belittling, or else I will toss something into P&S that give some of the real retards there endless fuel to annoy you:  An open admission, at the baseline, of the existence of a conspiracy to destroy national sovereignty throughout the world, via dishonest covert means.  Real and verifiable (from JSTOR, no less).  Brazenly hiding in plain sight.  Just one tiny little tidbit, a bare scintilla of evidence, a verifiable quotation from someone who would know whereof he spoke...  No, I will not Reveal The Truth (which is anyway far too complex to be understood by ordinary people).
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 77 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!