Financial surveillance propaganda from a fake news source whose very name translates approximately to Eat Hype.  Don’t swallow it.

“If we don’t enforce a global banking panopticon, then bad people may steal money that corrupt governments properly looted first, take candy from babies in second infancy, and ZOMG! (—faint—) do other illegal things!  To keep people safe, we need more KYC, more AML, more dox, more freezing and seizing, more asking permission, more limitations on what you can do with ‘your’ (LOL!) money.”

Everyone is guilty till proved innocent.  Now shut up, send more ID selfies, and show the source of funds if you ever want to see “your” money again.

It’s kind of like the argument that all crime could be prevented, if only the whole world could be turned into a giant prison on lockdown.  Oh, wait...

---

At this Sunday rump session of WO, are you calling for a focus on fundamentals?  Your meaning is ambiguous; for example, that thing I posted yesterday evoked at least two or three meanings of “bottom” that I can’t be arsed to list.

---

The confusion of concepts required to produce this statement is remarkable.

---

^^^ This.

---

News of speculative instruments is worrisome, and another reason why news of more holders is exciting.

---

Important clause highlighted.  He obviously wasn’t looking into a crystal ball and predicting that.

This is why influential people sometimes become wary of any type of “what if?”, thinking-aloud types of brainstorming in public.

Sane.

---

But did you see me tighten the loose O?

DT members, please support Type 1 Flag #2342 (scam accusation) against a probable fake newbie account that was created in 2017, suddenly woke up with a password change, made a false scam accusation against Prime Dice, and then turned around and promised to advertise a “no risky” dice profit strategy (ironically with statement of using “alotof alts accounts on primedice”).

Thank you.

A few days after creating this fake scam accusation, OP started scamming with mathematically impossible claims of a “no risky” betting strategy on dice.  Surprised?

Scam accusation, Type 1 Flag #2342.

N.b. that the scammer avers to using “alotof alts accounts on primedice”:


Which one got locked out?  LOL.

Type 1 Flag #2342

A few days after creating a fake scam accusation against Prime Dice, account #992662 “bingohouhou” (distrust!) opened a thread with the following statements, among others, that constitute concrete red flags of a high risk of losing money:


It is an account created in 2017, which only just woke up with changed password and started posting a few days ago.  It is reasonable to presume that it’s some sort of a sleeper account that just changed hands.

---

I don’t think it’s really worthwhile to make a big case over some little scammer account that may be a throwaway.  It does need to be tagged and flagged; I am surprised how far the scam thread got without being clearly called out.  Thus, I will simply quote the post that I used as a reference for negative trust feedback:


For reference, a full unedited quotation of the false scam accusation against Prime Dice:

⚠ WARNING:  This is a scam.

I am surprised that this was not called out in bright red letters on the first page.


The claimed “no risky” profit on dice is mathematically impossible.  Period.

This is just another scammer trying to trick people into contacting him, so that he can con them in private.  Don’t be a fool!

N.b. that this account just made a fake scam accusation against Prime Dice a few days before opening this topic (!).

N.b. also that this is a fake Newbie account—probably a bought account being used by another run by a serial scammer:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=992662

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=992662

OP fully quoted for reference, since I will be using this post for negative trust feedback:

what sense


poor swaystar #deletewo

---

good point...


does she?

what coins



poor mindrust

I have not “slandered” you.  (Allegedly libelled–let us not lose that distinction!)  If you point out even one factually incorrect statement I have made about you anywhere, then I will properly retract it.

I halfway wrote a long, detailed logical reply to you—not to be argumentative, but because you sometimes come off as quite reasonable.  (Not to mention that I’d toast the defence of the loose/lose distinction as a noble cause!)  I thought it would be worthwhile.  Then, I realized that this could be disposed more succinctly.


My first encounter with you was in a thread focused on Craig Wright’s grand-scale identity theft, not technical issues.

“Faketoshi-apologia” == this, inter alia:


With just a bit of digging, I also found you on record defaming Segwit’s security with the usual nonsense.  I have sufficient technical competence to know that it is indeed nonsense.  (That is why I am happy to keep my life savings in Segwit-native coins which I cannot afford to lose, which I would not entrust to unreliable technology.)  It is not only a matter of disagreement about whether or not Segwit is a practical improvement:  You’ve said things that are factually false, which I myself know to be factually false (not just because someone else said so), and which have been debunked so many times in such excruciating detail that I cannot imagine how any intelligent person can believe them sincerely.


I’ll give you this:  You are not a garden-variety BSVer, the type who either lacks intelligence or has a few loose screws (or both).  By process of elimination, that is why I called you a liar.  Rude?  I do think that the world would be a better place if people spineless jellyfish were less concerned about a false politeness than about honesty, freedom, the distinct definitions of English words, and all those other obsolete concepts that altogether too often are “cancelled” because nobody will speak up for them.


Hie ye to Hydrogen Audio for a fresh takedown!

—Oh fork, doesn’t Greg Maxwell have a xiph.org address?  It’s as if them Core people are ruining the whole world for you, ain’t it.

---

Bears mention on the Internet, where people get misunderstood:  You have seen that I have no problem with being aggressive; passive-aggression is just not my style.  I have stated the foregoing in good faith.

---

---

Edit:

jbreher, what did you mean by “sonics”?  The question is actually significant here.

For those who are unfamiliar with high-fidelity audio reproduction, I should briefly explain:  There is a certain type of man who is unalterably certain of the superiority of analogue audio recording technology—stereotypically, vinyl records.  It does not matter how often you explain the Nyquist Theorem.  It does not matter if you use absurdly high-precision scientific instruments to measure audio differences far too small for humans to be capable of hearing, which invariably show that good digital equipment is hands-down superior to the quality of the best analogue device ever made.  It does not matter if you perform empirical double-blind listening tests in anechoic chambers.  And the problem is not stupidity, per se.  It is tantamount to a religion.

If the above quote was intended to imply that 2" 30 ips tape has superior audio fidelity to digital, in the sense of transparent reproduction, then I have just accidentally solved the mystery of jbreher!

On the other hand, some folks frankly state that they prefer the distortions of various analogue media or equipment.  To them, audible imperfections add what feels like warmth or nostalgia that is missing from a more precise reproduction of the source audio.  “Sonics” could mean that, too.  —  On the other other hand, I don’t think that anybody ever said that about 2" (!) 30 ips (!!) tape.  That seems pretty clearly aimed at maximal quality, not audible distortions.

Your desire to lose the mob is trolled by Twitter’s desire to loose the mob.

But what will neomaniacal descriptivist zealots soon say about you?  jbreher, that old pedant!  They don’t understand that lose usage causes words too loose their meanings.  Its so simple for them to understand:  Language evolves.



Out of curioſity, I ſearched for a fucking clue.  Well, to my ſatisfaction, at leaſt my habit of reading old books has gifted me with ſpecial inſight:  I know the difference between fucking and ſucking.

Medial S:  It ſucks with ill-trained OCR!

Evasion of my logical argument with cliché stock stupidity gets my stock answer, with text enlarged to aid comprehension.

Needs illustration.

Story of my life:


Cassandra was so accursed as punishment for sexually rejecting a god.  What the fuck did you do?

The question is rhetorical—none of my business.  And don’t ask what I did.

---

Whereas it’s been obvious for years that TPTB are approaching Bitcoin via co-option.  Those too worried about a ban which would be difficult, expensive, and inconvenient to enforce should remember that tyranny interprets freedom as damage, and routes around it.

Why fight Bitcoin openly, when you can shear the sheep all the better by herding them into Paypal 2.0?


For the bankers, the fly in the ointment is that Bitcoin still allows self-control by highly motivated individuals who take matters into their own hands.  It is imperative to keep it that way.

Nice rant, rolling, loaded with bait-and-switch rhetorical chicanery, bold inversions of the truth, and some smug attempts to intimidate by bluster a nobody who is not thereby impressed.

What it boils down to, in translation:  “Banks and financial manipulators rule the world, whether you like it or not—nyah, nyah!”

First, the bait and switch—I replied to this point, which I will quote at some length so as to make obvious the obvious:


Whereupon you ignore what I said (just as you pointedly omitted Lightning from your list of off-chain transaction media), and jump from quote-unquote “the transaction costs alone will ensure it” to:


So, which is it, rolling?

Is your argument that most people are passive, ovine meat-robots?  I would not argue with that.  I did not argue with your brief mention of that point in your prior post—which was tossed off seemingly obiter dictum, amidst your vehement insistence on the primacy of transaction costs.  Actually, mass stupidity is the principal point of a plurality of my recent writings.

Or is your argument that “transaction costs alone will ensure” that individuals who want financial freedom will be unable to control their own money unless they are rich?


You are the one throwing bigblocker “Bitcoin won’t scale!!!” arguments, only with the twist that you think that’s a good thing.  Or at least, a “hah hah, little guy, you’re just totally fucked—bow down to your masters!” thing.

Is your binning me with the bigblockers intentional irony, whereas you seem afraid to mention the Lightning Network?  You know—the thing the bigblockers don’t believe in, which makes scalable, decentralized, private, trustless, permissionless off-chain transaction costs negligible.

Boldface is rolling’s; highlighting is mine:

= “STFU and kneel in awe of the ‘free market’, i.e. the slavemarket owned by banks, governments, and billionaires.”

That is your opinion.

Of course, Bitcoin is open to everyone.  As I recently noted, “I myself tend to distrust institutional corporate holders; but there is nothing that I can do to stop them.”  Bitcoin being open to everyone is my point.  Whereas I suggest that you contemplate your blatant self-contradiction that I have highlighted.


It is the bluster of a typical proletarian—the type who probably believes that $10 million is a lot of money.

In substantial essence, you are a worshipper of plutocracy.  Too bad for you that the big boys won’t pat you on the head for wanting so very much to be one of them.  Anyway, Bitcoin doesn’t care for your opinions.  It will scale, whether you like it or not.

---

(Aside to Jay:  As you may have surmised, I am not your typical prole in terms of contact with actual wealth.  And I have a pretty good idea of how the world actually works.  I am much less idealistic about Bitcoin than I tend to let on:  It is a tool.  It is an excellent tool, and timely at this moment in history; but it is just that.)

---

I almost quoted that myself, in my prior reply to rolling—in anticipation that some people may object to my discussion of potential fees on the order of $100 value (which was explicitly admitted handwaving in the absence of the crystal ball that none of us has).  No, transactions cannot remain cup-of-coffee cheap—cannot, as Bitcoin slowly transitions to what is effectually a fee-based security model.  The amount of fees produced by the fee market set a practical upper bound on hashrate as block rewards fall toward the point of economic irrelevance.  In the long term, on-chain fees that are too low would cause Bitcoin to fail—wherefore the champagne.

Maxwell made that statement at a time when on-chain transaction fees were close to bank wire transfer rates.

Somehow, I seriously doubt that Maxwell, of all people, was arguing that the future of Bitcoin belongs to banks (!).  He is probably the single most out-of-context quoted personage in the Bitcoin world—other than Satoshi.

For my part, I think that Bitcoin will converge on optimal fees—neither too high, nor too low—as on-chain improvements pack more transactions into a block (e.g., forthcoming Segwit v1 will make much more efficient use of block space for certain types of transactions), and layering developments move most transactions off-chain.

Perhaps that may be why the Greeks accorded the Egyptians a great respect for their antiquity.

Why the need to discount the Greeks?

The Greeks invented the philosophical, naturalistic way of thinking that is the foundation of modern science.  Other great civilizations existed; but outside of a few relatively isolated instances of inspired thinkers, their investigations of the natural world were mostly pragmatic, and they never even thought to be objective.  Insofar as is known to history, only the Greeks developed a trend toward doing what later became science and moreover, doing it for its own sake.  Thus, the modern world does indeed descend from the Greeks.

Without the Greeks, you would not now have the Internet with which to make that post, and there would be no TV and smartphones...  Wait, now I hate the Greeks.  Damn it, they also invented democracy.  Lunatics.  The ancient Egyptians, Hindus, and Chinese were much wiser and moreover, saner!


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.

---

I wrote the foregoing yesterday, but did not consider it to be finished.  I have not edited it, because I really think it’s done now:


Nice narrative.  And another case in point.

Ironically, just now when I saw this, I was writing a condemnation of Globalist Capitalism—another guise of International Communism, with stock market enterprises that own the State in lieu of State-owned enterprises.

Highlighting has been very purposefully selected, word by word.  The tail wagging this historical dog has been underlined.

---

Edit:


Being anti-copyright in principle, I just checked:  Several copies in multiple languages are available on libgen.  Just in case you do not want to “borrow” with DRM invading your computer, or fork over to a bigcorp propaganda mill.

He can’t.  His post is just a roundabout way of saying, “Bitcoin cannot scale, and will thus become a banker’s toy as bone-crushing transaction fees force everybody into the next generation of Paypal.”  Baloney.


Nice list.  You are basically describing a centralized shitcoin that’s like meta-Paypal 2.0 with magic “blockchain” pixie dust sprinkled on top.  Who needs it?  (Not the banks, who do not like transparent blockchains for their own use!  There is a reason why JPMorgan Chase (!) paid the erstwhile Zcash Company to adapt zk-SNARKs to their own bigbank confidentiality requirements.  See also Greg Maxwell’s discussions of bigcorp interest in Confidential Transactions—which are accordingly implemented in Blockstream’s Liquid.  Only idiots make their own finances publicly transparent; bigcorps are not so stupid.)

Notably, you omitted Lightning Network, and other off-chain things not under the control of banks and other regulated corporations.


I could see perhaps something on the order of magnitude of $100 (in today’s current value) on-chain transaction costs, but $1000+?  Smells like FUD.

Bitcoin needs to be accessible to even relatively poor individuals for long-lived channel management on a future L2:  Scrape together, say, $100 to open a channel that runs for years.  N.b., I am not saying it will cost that much!  Just taking that as a figure that will seem high to most people, it would be less expensive overall, amortized over the channel lifetime, than the ripoff fees that regulated money transmitters charge to the “unbanked” in many regions.  Proportionately, the poor always get ripped off the worst!  Speaking from experience—if I had back all of the money that I have ever paid to move small amounts of money without a bank account...

That is not some bleeding-heart egalitarian hogwash.  It is simply a functional description of what is necessary to be something other than just another bankers’ tool.

$1000+ tx fees would mean that Bitcoin is destined to fail—or worse, to become an abomination against financial freedom—and that I should dump it and get out right now.

Fortunately, I do not believe you.  On-chain scalability improvements, combined with off-chain layering, must and will keep “Be Your Own Bank” financial independence within the reach of ordinary individuals—including those who are not early-entrant “Bitcoin rich”.  Just look at the excellent work in Segwit v1, soon nascent, and then consider what the same types of continuing incremental improvements will bring to the baselayer—and what types of new protocols they will support.


That would turn Bitcoin into a bankers’ wet dream:  The totally controlled, centralized, regulated basis for a cashless dystopia in which everybody can be tracked, traced, and forced to ask permission to use money.

That is not a new allegation, and it’s not true.

The fact is, whether you the bankers like it or not, cryptographic cleverness will continue to enable technologies that put the individual in direct control of his own money.

It is a recursive semiotic which signals that your interpretation of my interpretation of your pic-post is that you want to measure people’s interpretations using pseudoscientific incantations that evoke the measurer’s interpretation of others’ interpretations.

I have been wanting to toss that at jojo69.  You got it instead—lucky you!  It is on my part a general statement, not only directed at any particular post.  Indeed, it is even a meta-statement on some of my own prior posts.

Not that I would expect for anybody to get it:  Abnormality is the new normal.  The more maladapted you are to life in this world, the more you are “the future”!  For example, autists are unable to grasp subtle humour.

But as a practical matter, the “high-functioning” autists would probably make suitable overseers in a world of technocratic mass-enslavement managed by robots.  Perhaps that may be why this stuff is being promoted:  A dystopia of socially-distanced, isolated individual units who have none of the normal human connections that characterized all of prior history—who interact with each other only by chatting through machines...  Why, it is almost as if autists were designed and engineered for such a world!


I struggled to interpret the interposition of the Bitcoin symbol.  It can be read a few different ways.

P.S., for the benefit of the Wall Observer, of course I posted the card which most frequently evokes sex.  You caught the nonexistent vulva, but missed the nonexistent erect penis at the top—among innumerable other things that may be seen in a blot of ink smeared onto cardstock a century ago by an insane psychiatrist, who then proceeded to use it to diagnose schizophrenia, homosexuality, and whatever else he decided to see in your perceptions of his little mind-game.

I am seriously hurt by not being included.  Virtually in tears.  If the troll does not frivolously flag me, I may become so depressed that I give up and leave the forum forever.

---

Old-school:

Source:  The Internets, probably some decades old.

---

Edit:  Unfortunately, I need to quote this at length as a stable reference for trust feedback.

Quote from: KaneVWE on September 18, 2020, 11:45:37 AM

Quote from: The Pharmacist on September 16, 2020, 09:10:00 PM

Quote from: Bitcoin SV on September 15, 2020, 09:08:55 PM

But suchmoon is just alt of Foxpup. Next flag must be to the Foxpup - he is a main puppeteer

Oh yeah, guys, I see what you're saying about BSV's zero-neuronal input posts and that he should just be ignored.  I hadn't read any of his recent posts, but if he thinks suchmoon and Foxpup are alts and that Foxpup is a puppeteer of...something...then yeah.  He's flown off his rocker and has landed ass smack on the grass.

Also: Vod is included in this?  The "Cult of Lauda" thing was a joke a while back, i.e., not a real thing.  Not a gang.  No organization with any structure or a leader.  And the members who got associated with this joke cult didn't include Vod as far as I remember--he's always stood on his own ground and didn't get chummy with any of the members on that list as far as I know.

Finally, not that I was worried about this BS flag being hoisted up the pole by three-fingered, snot-dribbling morons but I do thank those members who opposed mine.  I appreciate your support.  I don't know how the hell I got thrown into this mix anyway--or why the "Lauda gang" thing is being resurrected.  I'm not sure Lauda is even active anymore.

Then you know nothing. Or just spouting shit as usual.
Vod is merely an old man on welfare. Previously he has confessed to wanting to exclude or tag lauda but has been afraid to due to believing his account would be ruined as retaliation.  Over the years he has been ostracized by other elder members and has fallen in with the likes of lauda and tman. Who he constantly praises and protects.
He's a scammer support and enabler. Much like thepharmacist.

Theymos is well aware, but many believe that Lauda has something on him so Lauda the scammer gets away with pretty much anything.
Others claim Theymos and Lauda are family relations. The evidence is kind of weak and based from what I can tell on the fact laudaM and the apparent MM (theymos).
Foxpup is not suchmoon. Suchmoon is likely to be Lauda.
For a full expansive list of the Lauda scam gang see the dirty turds thread in meta.

This forum has died. There are at times less than 150 members browsing. That would have previously been a sad and unwelcome statistic. Now since a small corrupt group of scammers have gained control of the hilariously designed merit and trust systems and leveraged them to dominate all rev streams it is not so sad.

DT1 is a protection racket. Most there are entirely untrustworthy.

 

Left door:  Group psychology.
Right door:  Desire for bullish news, due to skin in the game.

What looks like probably a large long-term holding is good news.  0.2% of the total current BTC supply just moved from dumping bears and knife-juggling day-traders to cold storage.  Good.

Something else that does not seem to have been mentioned:  MicroStrategy is effectually dumping dollars.  Their big “cash reserve” is now much smaller; they are no longer HoDLing the dollar.  Hmmm...  As a dollar bear who has been warning people to dump dollars, I am thinking about what, of course, Saylor will not say even if (if) he is thinking it, too.


I myself tend to distrust institutional corporate holders; but there is nothing that I can do to stop them.

The more adoption by businesses (= the economically significant money in the productive economy, i.e. outside the extractive, destructive financial sector) and individuals (= attracts business), the better.


That is similar to why I did not share the excitement about CME, etc. in late 2017.  And I was right...

---

Sometimes, simpler is better to avoid missing the point:


I should have avoided my speculation obiter dictum on what he meant by “off-chain”.