Merited by TECSHARE (3), Royse777 (2)Hey Owly.. Why don't you go tag up TMAN and Lauda for calling people pajeets all the time? Eh? There lot of racist content from lauda other dog thepharmacist. His account HugeBlackWoman was a subject of lot of genuine upsets and complaints? Why no red rags? Why trust includes?
That poems thread from tman lot of racism and offensive slurs? But that poetry and good? (...etc...)I wonder why nobody has wanted to pick on me for my having called TE ChSHARE a dumb pajeet—and even (in the Nietzschean sense) a Chāndāla, which I have decided he most certainly is. Perhaps it may be due to my moderately well-known admiration for the Golden Age of Hindu high culture, * which makes for a productive compare-and-contrast with that of the Greeks. Merited by nullius (1) The actual fence is much higher,
and it works both ways.That is a statute of the most famous ancient Greek ἑταίρᾱν, the cultural equivalent of a classical gaṇikā. (I will be pleased if anybody can correct my inconsistent declensions here.)But it is irrelevant to Lauda. Or perhaps, in an instance of identity politics at its most liberal, it may be because I myself am admittedly not white. Frankly, I am glad of that, given white people’s native hyper-individualism, lack of regard for their own ancestors (relative to that of other races), and general preference for nuclear rather than extended families—and worst of all, their genetic tendency to psychotic Utopian fantasies throughout the ages. They even invented democracy! Only whites were dumb enough to do that. 🐑🐑🐑 Yeah, that has racist undertones. Of course, I recognize that not all white people are stupid pajeets, (R) chimps who are truly equal to their (D) counterparts, and assorted twits. The aristocratic philosophers and Renaissance men, them’s the good ’uns! Why, I even have some white friends (and plenty of white girlfriends). I am not racist against white people, buuuuut I simply recognize that them white folks got some problems. Just call me a race realist. the Roman, Arabic, German, and Japanese nobility, the Homeric heroes, the Scandinavian Vikings, are all alike... the aristocratic races...
* Yes, India has much declined since then. Europe has also badly degenerated since its cultural peaks; and I would not be called anti-European for saying so. Similarly in various ways as to China, Japan, Arabia, Turkey, and others whom I shall not bother to attempt exhaustively listing, lest anyone feel needlessly slighted. Anyway, all of those are superior to America, which never had a high culture, and which is the world-destroyer of all cultures. You must Americanize your country, or else the American world-police will bomb you into “ liberation” so that you can “ enjoy” the “ freedom” to think like Americans, act like Americans, eat at McDonald’s like Americans, vote like Americans, and most importantly, do whatever America tells you. No—most importantly, you shall love America! “ God” “ bless” the “ Land of the Free”!
Merited by eddie13 (1)This is just another good example of Lauda trying to hide the fact that they are a normie wearing 4chan culture like a suit to camouflage themselves Oh, is “pajeet” a 4ch thing? The amateur philologist wants to know.I myself once tried hangin’ with the cool chan kids. Perhaps I picked the wrong board, or visited at the wrong phase of the moon, or whatever; but the result was unproductive. I was promptly accused of being a jew, a fag, and even nastier things, such as a woman. It seems that some of the persons there have learned the SJW trick of shutting down intelligent discussion by shouting standardized arbitrary insults ad hominem. Because I sympathize in principle with the concept of a site that embraces freedom of speech about controversial issues, I question who benefits from promulgating a subculture that deters intelligent participation. Cui bono? Well, it’s not as if there is any evidence that intelligence agencies have any systematic programmes to manipulate Internet forums. Perish the thought! Some nobody with a sense of humour recently raised that point; whereupon nutildah discovered that Glenn Greenwald was only setting up an April Fools’ joke (and yes, I am sure that the one and only CIA agent on the chans has been outed). Anyway, back to chan shitposting. (((Greenwald))) is an admitted jew fag—plus a far-leftie (when he is not too busy reporting documented facts on important issues that most journalists will not dare to touch). Let’s just ignore him. See how that works?* nullius thinks that the world would be a better place, if it were less unpopular to evaluate facts rationally and objectively.
I imagine the "jews" hate Bitcoin because it is a great threat to their fiat funny money banking system based around their longstanding fetish (and great success) with usury..
WTF are they going to do if everyone decides to "be your own bank"? They'd be out of business.. Ssh, don’t tell anybody that there are Jewish contributors to Core. Or that the “be your own bank” motto is secretly a Jewish superiority complex thing: It’s a subliminal message to make everybody become a Jew banker. Those wily Jews, they’ve got a hidden agenda with everything.
|
|
|
|
Hatur Nuhun, Husna QA, for the opportunity to address the people of your local forum:
My friendly greetings to Indonesian Bitcoiners! In the past, I have been pleased to see the Indonesian enthusiasm for Bitcoin; and I respect Husna QA, the author of the Indonesian PGP tutorial, for his efforts to help others learn the tools that can bring them freedom and privacy. Bitcoin is money, it’s sound money, and it is more than money: Bitcoin is for freedom. Freedom is priceless. No matter who you are or where you live, Bitcoin is a way for you to earn honest pay for honest work, to grow your savings under your own control, to handle and spend your own money without asking anybody’s permission, and thus better to strive for the personal economic security that will help you better care for yourself and your family. I thank Husna QA for helping to spread the message of the Bitcoin Social Phenomenon and to protect Bitcoin’s integrity. If Indonesians embrace Bitcoin, not only for its market value but also for its freedom, then that is good for the Indonesian people—and good for everybody else, too! For, hanya ada satu Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
It’s funny, the imbeciles and assorted trolls whining at Lauda and now at Vod forgot that I have a whole thread for this: UNSOLICITED HOSTILE COMMUNICATION SEEKING TO INFLUENCE MY TRUST-RELATED DECISIONShi
can you explane why you excluded me? Yes, I can; but I do not wish to. Please be advised that this PM discussion may be published at my discretion. Please be advised i NOT PERMIT this discussion be published but i know you from lauda gand and she's assliker good luck And I have always left feedback consistently with my publicly stated trust feedback policy, q.v., which I should soon update with a policy on inclusions and exclusions. Also, this is not new—compare 2018 and 2020: OP on this thread:Whines > /dev/null. Otherwise, shall be published here. ...as part of your life advice to me, which I duly filed in “taken under advisement”. 🗑️ I will not waste my time arguing with a troll on endless forum threads about this. He is beneath reply. Case closed. Direct complaints to /dev/null, and DNFTT. * nullius dons moderation hat. [...] Complaints > /dev/null That is a conclusion, not an argument—and certainly not an invitation to debate. I will only debate Faketoshi or his shills if they can produce the most basic piece of evidence: A verifiable signed statement by one of Satoshi’s known keys, identifying Craig Wright as Satoshi. They do not do so, because they are liars or dupes—period. That is the truth, the objective truth, based on facts and not “debates”. Complaints >/dev/null This is how it’s done, folks! So having said, I will not argue the point. Complaints 2>/dev/null (Thanks, Anonymous, for the upgraded shell script!) P.S., Complaints > /dev/null Whines > /dev/null.
Edit, P.S.: In case that last line be ignored, I reserve the right to publicly post PMs, e-mails, etc. from spammers and/or spam supporters and/or spammer supporters.At my exclusive discretion, I reserve the right to publicly post any PMs received by me (0) on the subject of negative trust feedback left by me, and/or (1) in relation to such a public discussion as this one.
Whines > /dev/null. (...etc...) |
|
|
|
Lessons learnt all round I hope  I don’t share your morality; and if you thought somehow to shame me, it didn’t work. Also, I scorn all hope: Hope was the ill at the bottom of Pandora’s box, “the evil of evils, the most malign of all evils”. For the lulz, keeping up with the theme of things that I did not study in school—in this case, something that was always obvious to me: “(Gerade wegen dieser Fähigkeit, den Unglücklichen hinzuhalten, galt die Hoffnung bei den Griechen als übel der Übel, als das eigentlich tückische Übel: es blieb im Fass des Übels zurück)”.Your “lesson” as such is duly filed in “ taken under advisement”. 🗑️ I was, however, under the impression that nullius's post was satirical. Yes and no. Please look to the overall context: dragonvslinux’s rude, empty conceit in reply to a polite, jovial request by someone whom he evidently dislikes for no good reason. That came with what I read as a subtle swipe at me, though the correctness of my such inference is irrelevant to my point. So did I despise this rudeness that in protest, I awarded merit to Vod’s jolly post. Unedited: http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5395/53958809.htmldragonvslinux - nice charts! I'd like to see mine.  Apologies Vod, these are reserved for "anthropologically interesting cases" only - whatever the f that means, and you weren't the most interesting it seems ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Students these days will study anything, especially nonsense philosophy. I'm sorry your not interesting enough, maybe try a little harder  I think I've said too much  For that, dragonvslinux deserved and received a slap in the face measured according to the seriousness of his stature. However, the way that I delivered it, I left him a loophole. If he were not such an insecure little twit, then he could have done what I would do: Laugh it off! — Am I mortal? Do I myself sometimes make bizarre typographical errors (usually induced whilst editing) which are not caught by my obsessive exercise of the preview button to read proof? Alas! It most saddens me when such a fate befalls one of my precious little belles-lettres. Nobody has yet dared to flame me over such a triviality; but if or when that happens, my response may be expected to be along these lines: “Quel dommage! I have erred! 😢 The form of my art is marred by some trivial flaw which dishonours its unavoidable substance! I will now slap myself in the face with a large trout, and then drink myself into a stupor. Meanwhile, complaints from my critics shall be filed according to the virtù of their own substances, as measured against mine. 🗑️”Of course, that would not work for dragonvslinux: He lacks the requisite substance for such boldness. Indeed, he underscored that point with a tedious outpouring of “virtuous” slop, his unintentionally comical hypercorrection of my punch line, and his ridiculous posturing about “lessons learnt all round I hope”. I do mean the word “ridiculous” in its literal sense of inviting ridicule. I'm sorry your not interesting enough, maybe try a little harder [...] You need education: “ Try a little harder”, as you said. HTH, HAND. |
|
|
|
Just passing through. Don’t expect for me to follow up on a thread that’s not worth my time. I simply thought that I should drop a note that, quelle surprise, TE ChSHARE and his merry crew do not objectively apply theymos’ suggested standard for use of the trust system: Topic: #28719 “jbreher” is a liarDeleted per thread local rule (thread moderation archive, Loyce’s archive):I am an hard core BTC supporter, but yet though I don't think someone should be tagged for showing the technical barriers and advantages between two crypto currencies here. jbreher doesn't even seem to say that BCH is BTC which would still be a considerable deception but it's not the case.
You merely red trust users to crush there speech, you even exist here for the same as reflected in the effortful but baseless OP indicating no real danger of trading with jbreher in all. This probably shows your lapse in judgement and inability to be an objective DT.
That is why he is not on DT 1 or 2 any more. He has made his own ratings largely irrelevant with this kind of behavior. I get the distinct impression this account is either acting in coordination with, or is under the direct control of other well known trust system abusers here. Simple. Bitcoin Cash is purely Bitcoin. I'm just much bullishier on Bitcoin Cash.
Why ? I ask with no snark or ill-intention. Because it is purely and simply Bitcoin. In the form that I believe Satoshi intended. [...] If someone is fraudulently passing off Bcash as Bitcoin, the most appropriate response is probably to give that person negative trust. Local rules: [...] TEChSHARE, “truth or dare”, “savetheFORUM”, et al. shall be deleted on sight (but with archives noted in reserved posts).
The Bitch Latin Guild: Pretentious whiners unite in self-serving, recursively descending hypocrisy!While I’m at it—what? As of the sixteenth page of this thread, nobody bothered to point out that TE ChSHARE is, objectively judged, a pretentious twit who knows no more about Latin than he does about the English words “objective” and “standards”? Educational standards are falling. TEChSHARE’s actual standard:A Salutary Lesson from the
Gang of Philological Pedants
Membership: 1 Nor you knew Latin (I suppose). Though you were not addressing me, I should point out that, although I just said that I do not know Latin ( according to my own standards, or any reasonable standards of scholarship), I may damn myself with faint praise by observing that I know more Latin than some do. That is worse than dog Latin: It is bitch Latin. It exemplifies the folly of mashing together words found in an English-Latin dictionary, without having even the slightest clue about Latin grammar. | testimonium | nominative, accusative, or vocative singular of second declension neuter noun testimonium. | | libertatum | genitive plural of third declension feminine noun libertas. No other options than “of liberties” or “liberties’”. | | iustitia | nominative, ablative, or vocative singular of first declension feminine noun iustitia. Well, I suppose that I could perhaps imagine a way that maybe the ablative could be applied in its instrumental sense to make the whole phrase just a tiny bit less asinine. (For the beavises and buttheads in the audience, I must clarify that “asinine” evokes an ass in the sense of a donkey, not in the American sense of an arse.) |
LOL. Of course, he also does not know the meaning of either of the respective words “objective” and “standards”. And of course, I did a brief search to see if he was drawing some stock phrase or motto from speakers of barbarous Latin, or perhaps the worst vulgar Latin of the Dark Ages. If he was, I could not find it—and anyway, it would only mean he was such as fool as the blind following the blind. Not that I would expect any better from the same fool whose very name mutilates the Latin digraph representing X/χ (chi) from τέχνη. Spelling “tech” as “tec” is as stupid as would be, mutatis mutandis, abbreviating “philosophiae doctor” as “P.D.” instead of “Ph.D.”, thus breaking the digraph for Greek Φ/φ (phi). Cf. [ confer, ‘compare’] Ψ/ψ (psi), as seen in English pseudonym (< ψευδώνυμoς). * nullius condemns and contemns the award of so-called “Ph.D.” degrees to anybody who cannot spell philosophiae doctor without looking it up in a dictionary—or who cannot readily explain the origins and meaning of the term. Techies who are sufficiently old-school may be perhaps familiar with Prof. Knuth’s TeX (Tεχ), and with arχiv.org (formerly known as xxx.lanl.gov, LOL). Those are enough of a botch: Latin X is far away from Greek X. However, at least the progenitors thereof were sufficiently knowledgeable to squeeze away the CH digraph in a way that makes sense! As for TE**SHARE’s bitch-Latin, it would indeed look more intelligent to say, exempli gratia, “Techsharius trollus stupidius est”: That is obviously a joke, and not the empty posturing of a pretentious retard who is obsessed with Arguing On The Internet. TECSHARE “winning” But if he really wants to dress to impress, I suggest styling it as such: TESTIMONIVM·LIBERTATVM·IVSTITIA * nullius illum miseret Of course, the pun is that I made it look to the naïve reader as if I had said, “Nullius pities him”—whereas in a post wherein I had alluded to stock phrases, I used a handy stock phrase meaning, “He pities nobody.” Nullius: nullius illum miseret! |
|
|
|
I won't bother a point-by-point. Indeed, I expect chickenshit nullius will delete this post as well in this self-moderated thread. Is that all? Don’t be shy, now. Local rules: In the interest of fairness, jbreher shall be accorded the reasonable right to answer in his own defence—without regard to whether he wishes to start telling the truth, or just lie some more. Others shall be moderated at my sound discretion.
Is jbreher actually selling BCH as BTC or is he simply saying that BCH is in some way better than BTC? Don’t twist terminology with your usual aptitude for pretzel logic: He did not conflate the ticker symbols, but rather, the identity of “Bitcoin” per se. As I quoted, he repeatedly said that BCH is Bitcoin (before he switched to BSV...). Did you read OP? I also quoted theymos as stating that “the most appropriate response” to a user passing off forked altcoins as Bitcoin is “probably to give that person negative trust.” For the record, suchmoon, a question for you that I will pose in two forms:- Are forked shitcoins scams, or not?
- Is it fraudulent to portray a forked shitcoin as “purely and simply Bitcoin”?
No doubt, I will not be the only one interested in knowing what you say to this.
I think it's appalling that this red-trust-for-opinions nonsense is happening on a forum pretending to support "free speech". That argument would make more sense if red-distrust itself were not an unmoderated expression of an “opinion” that a person is untrustworthy. Tossing your argument back where it belongs, I think it’s appalling that this ~exclusions-for-opinions nonsense is happening on a forum pretending to support “free speech”. Why are you oppressing me, suchmoon? /sNow, since you have evidently been successful at censoring me (LOL), we will reach the point of debating whether jbreher would have a “free speech” argument when I kick his door down and drag him off to forking prison. Or when I otherwise effectually censor him—instead of expressing my own judgment of him, whilst carefully archiving his posts which I deleted from a self-moderated thread where they contravened local rules. (I don’t believe in chucking such things down the memory hole—to the contrary, I want for all of his posts to be readily accessible for examination.) Till then, I will duly oppress your opinion by filing it in “ taken under advisement”. 🗑️ |
|
|
|
Lool, that's exactly what I was thinking about after reading Vod's post: your post about the wolves and the sheep voting for dinner. Great minds think the same Obviously I had read his post and it was at the back of my mind. Say what? Vod, don’t tell me that you are literate in Romanian? Democrația nu este totuna cu trei lupi și o oaie care votează ce mănâncă la cină: este turma care votează supusă părerea ciobanului dspre lupi. Motiv pentru care lupii sunt o specie pe cale de dispariție. * nullius likes it better this way: Ich will auswendig gelernt werden.
Emilia who?Forget Lauda! .. there’s Nothing more rare, pristine, and beautiful than a Kialara! (Okay Lauda, Maybe Emilia Clarke )  No joke: I just had to look up Emilia Clarke on Wikipedia... ... oh.~ Since you haven't seen game of thrones I will just baffle you with an obscure Game of Thrones reference that you won't understand.  Zu lange wohl lebte ich im Gebirge, zu viel horchte ich auf Bäche und Bäume: nun rede ich ihnen gleich den Ziegenhirten.
Unbewegt ist meine Seele und hell wie das Gebirge am Vormittag. Aber sie meinen, ich sei kalt und ein Spötter in furchtbaren Spässen.
Und nun blicken sie mich an und lachen: und indem sie lachen, hassen sie mich noch. Es ist Eis in ihrem Lachen. * nullius is currently seeking Sanskrit translators for his most precious thoughts. Well, wow! Laura is pretty. 3> the dangerous and beautiful cat, « Laura ». CLASSIFIED TOP SECRET
NSA surveillance photo of Lauda
pwned by nullius * nullius is currently seeking Ægyptian hieroglyphic translators for his most precious thoughts.
nullius is anubis. That is very clear. Anyone who does not see this is simply closing their eyes. So as for cats and lone wolves. |
|
|
|
oh boy, you guys got jbreher in here. Not for long. ;-) Going to find some popcorn. Bring it on over to Reputation... The attentive reader will note that a challenge has been issued to nullius to rebut any "lies" he claims that I have posted. Shall s/he rise to the occasion? I will do better than that: I will demonstrate that you are a liar, generally. That is a judgment of your personal character, not merely of your actions. You have spent years consistently promoting scams and lying about Bitcoin. You are dishonest and untrustworthy.However, my judgment of your character is off-topic in this thread. I have therefore split this out to where it belongs, the Reputation forum, q.v.:I do so not because you challenged me (for I contemn your “challenge”), but because I think it is in the public interest occasionally to make such an exemplary case. Moderation notice: Further argument with or about jbreher will be deleted from here as off-topic, and archived on the above-referenced Reputation thread. |
|
|
|
To avoid making people scroll too much, posts by those who are just trolling me will be linked in Loyce’s archive, where they can easily be read. I will also provide code-block archives of what the “quote” button gave me before I hit the “delete” button, for easy copying and pasting. http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5398/53985462.htmlBy hacker1001101001Merited by TECSHARE (1)[quote author=hacker1001101001 link=topic=5231181.msg53985462#msg53985462 date=1583640496]
I am an hard core BTC supporter, but yet though I don't think someone should be tagged for showing the technical barriers and advantages between two crypto currencies here. jbreher doesn't even seem to say that BCH is BTC which would still be a considerable deception but it's not the case.
You merely red trust users to crush there speech, you even exist here for the same as reflected in the effortful but baseless OP indicating no real danger of trading with jbreher in all. This probably shows your lapse in judgement and inability to be an objective DT.
[/quote]
[quote author=TECSHARE link=topic=5231181.msg53985577#msg53985577 date=1583642813]
[quote author=hacker1001101001 link=topic=5231181.msg53985462#msg53985462 date=1583640496]
I am an hard core BTC supporter, but yet though I don't think someone should be tagged for showing the technical barriers and advantages between two crypto currencies here. jbreher doesn't even seem to say that BCH is BTC which would still be a considerable deception but it's not the case.
You merely red trust users to crush there speech, you even exist here for the same as reflected in the effortful but baseless OP indicating no real danger of trading with jbreher in all. This probably shows your lapse in judgement and inability to be an objective DT.
[/quote]
That is why he is not on DT 1 or 2 any more. He has made his own ratings largely irrelevant with this kind of behavior. I get the distinct impression this account is either acting in coordination with, or is under the direct control of other well known trust system abusers here.
[/quote]
Note: Edited within 10 minutes after posting.
[quote author=bonesjonesreturns link=topic=5231181.msg53994639#msg53994639 date=1583759806]
The title of this thread is unsubstantiated and could be false.
You can not prove he believes that he is preventing false information.
He is presenting his opinion which nullius believes is misleading and dangerous to investors.
Nullius is a hypocrite and deceptive for red tagging for this reason.
The person in question would be better to just say he believes that btc current design would not be bitcoin in satoshis view.
He believes bch remains true to the original fundamental principles
Something like that.
I would recommend that target of this hypocrisy join the guild tecshare started in meta to ensure fair treatment for all members and the end of double standards and hypocrisy.
Nullius is also a coward so will not debate this and will delete it.
[/quote]
[quote author=TECSHARE link=topic=5231181.msg53997476#msg53997476 date=1583790346]
[quote author=Lauda link=topic=5231181.msg53993654#msg53993654 date=1583749932]
Theymos green-lighted my negative ratings on people who were stating that Btrash is Bitcoin a couple of years back, this is in no way different.[/quote]
I will quote some of your best buds here:
[quote author=suchmoon link=topic=5210651.msg53920410#msg53920410 date=1582775675]Stop using theymos as a crutch when it suits you.[/quote]
[quote author=Vod link=topic=5210651.msg53916505#msg53916505 date=1582723776]
I'm curious why [b]you [/b]continue to quote Theymos from five years ago.
[b][i]How much longer is this community going to tolerate being ripped apart by people like this?[/i][/b]
[i]#hypocrite[/i][/quote]
[quote author=TMAN link=topic=5210651.msg53517617#msg53517617 date=1578140392]
Your such a pajeet. How can you reference a 2015 post when the system has changed so much, only a Sexually transmitted disease like you would stoop so low.
Keyboard fucker[/quote]
[/quote] |
|
|
|
N.b. that jbreher edited some posts after Loyce’s scrape. The quotes hereby reflect the content at the time that I hit the “quote” button (in some cases, immediately before deleting). The only edits that I noticed were clearly marked; but I did not bother collating against Loyce’s archive to double-check.
Archived Post 0(Imgur URL upgraded to HTTPS. No other edits.)http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53972154.htmlThe danger is that ... he can destabilize the market by making his claims to people who never used Bitcoin at all
You seem driven by illogical emotion. How can anything Craig says to nocoiners have any destabilizing effect whatsoever upon the (presumably Bitcoin) market? By definition, nocoiners have no effect upon the Bitcoin market whatsoever.
where we can all be informed and vent our hate at his antics.
Another illogical emotional outburst?
As I’ve stated before.. it became very obvious to me when he told me he built smart contracts in to the chain from day 1, a direct contradiction to satoshi himself in this thread ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=750.msg8140#msg8140)... Though Satoshi does not mention smart contacts by name., Nick Szabo stated to me that’s exactly what he believes Satoshi ( or maybe himself) was referring to. Funny interpretation. So satoshi provides a description of a smart contract as a simple example of the types of things that can be done on Bitcoin, and you take that as proof that satoshi is stating he has never built smart contracts? And WTF does hearsay about what you claim Szabo said have to do with anything germane?
Satoshi would never create a rival technology to Bitcoin and have the
nerve to call it Bitcoin SV.
OTOH, the _technology_ which BSV embodies is much closer to what satoshi bequeathed unto us as compared to the technology which BTC embodies. As such, it is BTC which is arguably the 'rival technology'.
Wright’s theft of Satoshi’s identity is factually false,
For this to be true, it would require facts not yet entered into evidence. Sure, you have a mountain of circumstantial evidence, but from a logical standpoint, not conclusive.
Meanwhile, they are abysmally failing to even keep their fraudulently misnamed altcoin running on a technical level.
Other than, you know, the fact that it is humming right along, totally unaffected by your FUDspread.
Fascinating. Clicking that link finds the following: Internet Archive's Wayback Machine
https://medium.com/@craig_10243/ccbe22f2637e
Latest
Show All
Sorry.
This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine. What could this mean? Is the Wayback Machine not a bulletproof historical record after all? Yes, such a claim, should your characterization be accurate, is absurd on its face. I'm a bit weirded out by how Wayback is treating it, however.
If, tomorrow, I were to claim that Faketoshi “verified” a signature for me (!) on the same basis as his “verification” for Gavin, then that would leave only two realistic possibilities: Either (1) I am maliciously lying with the intent to support Faketoshi in a scam, or (2) Bitcoin Core developer and technical forum moderator Andrew Chow is himself so incompetent that he said the foregoing about someone who doesn’t even know how properly to verify a digital signature.
Your set of possibilities omits a third possibility. And that would be that "faketoshi" actually did verify a signature for you. You evidently believe this to be "unrealistic". However, the very framing of the question in this manner precludes the scant -- though actually real -- possibility. You wield your supposed razor as would a religious zealot.
I fail to see how Gilder's being convinced that Gavin is convinced says anything about the morality of Gavin's claim.
I think the big danger there is when people get obsessed with knowing “THE TRUTH” about some real or imagined secret, and then they wind up chasing phantoms made of their own confirmation biases.
Haha. No truer words have been spoken. Yet I wonder how aware of self is the speaker? The most important facts about Gavin Andresen are that he abused his reputation to give Faketoshi instant credibility in the mass media, and also that he supported XT and BCH fork attacks on Bitcoin (and also that he mishandled the “Bitcoin Foundation”, and also...). These are easily verifiable facts—verifiable without fine parsing of minute details. It is unnecessary to know why he did it, to assess the damage of what he did. The “why” is an interesting question in its own right—but the “what” is the important part, and there are no questions there.
Well, no questions other than whether or not such was "abuse", or if indeed such were "attacks". These are things that are subjective, and only meaningful from a given perspective.
the only good thing i can say about blockstream is that adam back has stopped his wright-esq PR campaign of saying he (A.B) invented bitcoin due to "hashcash" algo.. Yeah, right: Because Wright is cited in the paper in which Satoshi first described Bitcoin to the world, and Dr. Back claimed to have invented something other than Hashcash. A perfect “mirror”, that! Perhaps you are forgetting Back's public claim that hashcash was "pretty much Bitcoin minus the deflationary aspect". Note that this is not an actual quote, and may be somewhat inaccurate, but the claim was indeed that he invented hashcash, which was pretty much Bitcoin minus one aspect. edit: found it:  Not that this has anything to do with Anastasia, but we might as well try to keep things accurate here.
Archived Post 1http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53973685.htmlOTOH, the _technology_ which BSV embodies is much closer to what satoshi bequeathed unto us as compared to the technology which BTC embodies. As such, it is BTC which is arguably the 'rival technology'.
"Bequeathed unto us?" Do you believe Satoshi's last build to be some kind of religious instruction? No. Satoshi would never create a rival technology to Bitcoin and have the
nerve to call it Bitcoin SV.
Would Satoshi ever had the nerve to create a rival technology to Bitcoin, and call it SegWit? The point remains that, in some supposed reckoning regarding whether BTC or BCH is 'rival technology' to Satoshi's ... errmmm ... design, it is BTC which is more divergent thereof, and therefore of the two would be the 'rival technology'.
Archived Post 2N.b., I have not (yet?) deleted this one. I archive it nevertheless. http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53977798.htmlFascinating. Clicking that link finds the following: Internet Archive's Wayback Machine
https://medium.com/@craig_10243/ccbe22f2637e
Latest
Show All
Sorry.
This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine. What could this mean? Is the Wayback Machine not a bulletproof historical record after all? He will have requested (or demanded) to have his content removed. "He". Presumably Craig? Seems plausible, even likely. Does Wayback provide any attribution traceability? I.e., is there any way to prove that removal was requested, and if so, by whom? While I never had any reason to look into it, I had always just sort of assumed that Wayback was an incorruptible, unalterable record of past states of parts of the internet. Imagine my surprise to learn that this is not the case. You can still use archive.fo and archive.today.
Thanks. That even worked: http://archive.ph/LMrM4I may have more to say after I read it. Though it does occur to me that there seems to be a valid use case for a high-capacity, unalterable, append-only database, free to be written by anyone who might care to pay whatever the market deems proper to get their data included, and free to be read at no cost by anyone anywhere at any time. If only such a thing existed.... Oh. Wait...
Archived Post 3http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53978397.html::sigh:: yes, it is your right to delete any and all content that you wish. For any reason whatsoever. Well, at least you have the vaguest shreds of decency left to leave a link that others may follow. However, you do not have the right to characterize my posts as "filled with lies". Well, unless you care to identify the (so-stated) "lies" therein, and rebut them. Well, you can -- as in, you have the ability to -- in your own self-moderated thread, but that is a chickenshit action, not a rightful one. The attentive reader will note that a challenge has been issued to nullius to rebut any "lies" he claims that I have posted. Shall s/he rise to the occasion?
This post may be edited to add additional archival quotes.
|
|
|
|
Trust summary for jbreherTrusted feedback| nullius | 2020-03-06 | | Yet another former “Bitcoin Cash” altcoin shill who upgraded his disinformation to promote the Faketoshi scam. Deftly weaves together lies, half-truths, and cherry-picked quotes in an attempt to bedazzle the audience. Don’t fall for it. | | gmaxwell | 2020-03-06 | | Promoting a scammer (CSW) and dishonestly claiming that fringe altcoins are "Bitcoin". I wouldn't trade with a person foolish enough to fall for such tripe, especially in a public way even if they were merely doing so because they're just another victim. | | Lauda | 2019-04-03 | Reference | Bitcoin Cash shill spreading fake propaganda in order to deceive newcomers. Do not trust a single word written by this user.
Sometimes hope for betterment is wasted. |
Some of these feedbacks may have been redone; I am quoting same from yesterday, in pertinent part.The attentive reader will note that a challenge has been issued to nullius to rebut any "lies" he claims that I have posted. Shall s/he rise to the occasion? I will do better than that: I will briefly demonstrate that you are a liar, generally. I mean that as a judgment of personal character, not merely of a few actions.
Post #3 on this thread will contain unedited full quotes and archival links from jbreher’s posts that I have deleted from the Project Anastasia thread. Posts #2, #4, and #5 will be reserved for other metadata. Local rules: In the interest of fairness, jbreher shall be accorded the reasonable right to answer in his own defence—without regard to whether he wishes to start telling the truth, or just lie some more. Others shall be moderated at my sound discretion. TEChSHARE, “truth or dare”, “savetheFORUM”, et al. shall be deleted on sight (but with archives noted in reserved posts). The following is overkill, and intentionally so: I am making an example. Having done so, I am uninterested in debating this, unless somebody has something new and unexpected to say.
Short Table of Contents
A brief review of jbreher’s perpetual lies over the yearsI have no desire exhaustively to document jbreher’s post history. All of the following was found by me in about ten minutes of searching. It will suffice to show that he is a liar. Simple. Bitcoin Cash is purely Bitcoin. I'm just much bullishier on Bitcoin Cash.
Why ? I ask with no snark or ill-intention. Because it is purely and simply Bitcoin. In the form that I believe Satoshi intended. Simple, characterizing Btrash as “Bitcoin” is purely a lie. And it is the type of lie for which I have been issuing negative trust feedback since I was a Jr. Member. theymos has not only approved, but even positively suggested this use of the trust system: If someone is fraudulently passing off Bcash as Bitcoin, the most appropriate response is probably to give that person negative trust. Elsewhere on the same thread as that theymos statement:User: jbreherSimple. Bitcoin Cash is purely Bitcoin. Shitcoins be shitcoins. Not too hard, is it?
[...] If someone is fraudulently passing off Bcash as Bitcoin, the most appropriate response is probably to give that person negative trust.
I fully agree. So Bitcoin Cash is not alt coin.
It is a scam altcoin. So-called “Bitcoin Cash” is neither Bitcoin, nor cash, in the sense that it has neither the unlinkability nor the fungibility of cash. It and its ilk are also generically different from honest altcoins, which at least have the decency to make their own names. I don’t even know what to properly call it—other than a scam, of course; and anybody who does not realize it’s a scam must be one or more of ill-informed, malicious, or incurably stupid.
[...]
I hope that helps. As for myself, I am still having trouble deciding what I should call Roger Ver’s little abortion. Perhaps ASICBOOSTCOIN. Any better ideas? “We’re-not-engineers-don’t-know-much-about-scaling-and-don’t-care-Coin” is too long. ~ ...I urge you to pray to “Bitcoin Jesus”. Verily, he lied for your sins. His mark rose heavenward on the pump; then a spear pierced His market’s side for the dump. Be ye a sick, BOOST ye He shall. Render unto Caesar Satoshi the things that are Satoshi’s, and unto God Jihan the things that are Jihan’s. Behold the Good News of His centralized Glory; for His alone are Wholly Profits!
More of same and similar:Bitcoin Cash _is_ Bitcoin. It's history extends unbroken back the the genesis block.
BCH seems to strive for continuous innovation at the protocol layer.
SV seems to strive for stabilizing the protocol at a state that already handles all meaningful use cases. Subject: Re: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi VisionMerited by Bitcoin SV (1)Please help your fellow BSV-er (wrighter? what do you call yourselves?):
BSV-er is fine for me. Wrighter, OTOH, I'm not answering to.
jbreher is an anti-Segwit disinformationistWe already have a bitcoin, its called bitcoin, and its doing just fine.
No. Satoshi's Bitcoin did not include the abomination we call SegWit. which inserts dire new security vulnerabilities. i am curious to know about these new "vulnerabilities". would you mind listing them while explaining why has there not been any exploits in past 1 year? If you are unaware of them, you just have not been paying attention. Though I rather suspect you are just boorishly making a rhetorical opening. For one, the ability of the miners to revert to the old definition of a segwit tx as its original (some would say true) definition as an anyonecanspend tx. This ability of miners to claim what some think as funds that many erroneously believe to be sent to specific parties as funds that the miners can pocket themselves was newly introduced into Bitcoin by the ill-considered so-called 'soft fork' employed for activation of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset. No matter what some arbitrarily-large cabal of miners were able to do previously, they were utterly unable to claim coins of others to themselves. This power is the direct and sole result of the segwit soft fork. BCH's desirability is predicated upon the fact that it does not contain the segwit virus -- especially as enacted through the so-called 'soft fork' trojan horse mechanism, which inserts dire new security vulnerabilities. I believe the number of non-mining nodes supporting their own form of a UASF would matter. You are delusional. I have demonstrated over and over again that the count of non-mining validators is a powerless metric in regards to Bitcoin consensus. Plus what would constitute as the economic majority in the network if no one ran nodes except the miners? Are you just stupid? The economic majority would constitute the economic majority. A count of non-mining validators has fuck-all to do with a measure of the economic majority.You seem incapable of absorbing new information that conflicts with your internal dogma. This discussion is accomplishing nothing. With that, I am done with this inane circular waste of time. So, the nodes run by users and HODLers of Bitcoin all collectively have “fuck-all to do with a measure of the economic majority”? I have publicly stated that my life savings are in Bitcoin. To be clear, my life savings are in Segwit UTXOs. Why am I unconcerned about jbreher’s fearmongering, which is essentially a rehash of the lies peddled by jonald_fyookball, et al. around the time of the BCH fork? Because: Merited by Foxpup (7), gmaxwell (3), achow101 (3), malevolent (2), AGD (2), paxmao (2), HeRetiK (1), CASlO (1), Manfred Macx (1)Full nodes do not blindly “follow the longest chain”. They follow the chain independently validated by them which has the highest total POW. A miner (or 51+% of miners) who produced invalid blocks would only be wasting hashrate, and likely risking widespread blacklisting of IP addresses. It doesn’t matter if the invalid blocks steal money from Segwit transactions, steal money from old-style transactions, create 21 billion new coins, or are filled with gibberish from /dev/random. An invalid block is an invalid block, and shall be promptly discarded by all full nodes—period.
[...]
Segwit transactions require signatures, just like old-style transactions. Segwit transactions have security greater than or equal to old-style transactions in each and every characteristic. If a miner could somehow steal Segwit funds with a 51% attack, then the same attack could be used against all bitcoins, including Satoshi’s coins. But such an attack is impossible; the whole idea is ridiculous, just nonsense peddled by Btrash supporters... I encourage Newbies and non-experts to read that post in full. I thereby did my best to distill to more accessible terms the essence of a deeply technical argument. The anti-Segwit disinformationists have done a bang-up job of leveraging technical half-truths to build total lies that cannot be easily understood as such, without technical expertise. Indeed, the anti-Segwit agitprop is so pernicious that at first, it confused even me. I was worried. That is why I studied the issue: I conceptually discarded all of my pre-existing knowledge of Bitcoin, all of my premises and prejudices, and did, ab initio, a review of Bitcoin’s design (both in theory, and in practice as empirically observed), a careful reading of BIP 141 and other technical documents, a little peek at the Core sources and bitcoin-dev/Github issue discussions, plus open-minded lurking in the debates on this forum, on Reddit, on blogs... Thereupon, I concluded that the anti-Segwit “Segwit is a security vulnerability!!” claims are not only technically incorrect, but so twisted as cannot reasonably occur other than through deliberate malice. I hate it when people despicable cretins lie to me.The purpose of being open-minded is to discover the truth, not to entertain falsehoods.
A brief review of jbreher’s dishonesty on the Project Anastasia threadProject Anastasia is important to the community—as the community itself has shown by volunteering volunteering translations to seven other languages (and counting), plus awarding its OP 6.6% of merits that I have yet earned (91/1380, as of this writing). I feel a duty to the community, to Satoshi Nakamoto, and to the memory of Grand Duchess Anastasia to maintain the standards of discussion, and to prevent the diversion thereof into the types of irrelevant flamewars that Craig Wright’s followers use to distract the public from the real issues. Project Anastasia OP:Moderation note: Posts in this thread may be deleted according to my mood. And I am in a bad mood. Please be kind to Anastasia, and honest toward Satoshi. Thank you. Wherefore Anastasia:I hereby have sincerely expressed my high respect for each of Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna Romanova, whom I am proud to memorialize by her proper title in OP, and Satoshi Nakamoto, the ingenious founder of Bitcoin. I have also imposed on this thread a moderation rule requiring that replies must “be kind to Anastasia, and honest toward Satoshi”. That is what I call a “win-win”, insofar as it is the intersection of the stories of two famous historical personages whom I remember for different reasons.
[...]
Of course, the respective circumstances of these two persons are very different and not comparable. However, Anastasia was royalty; and I do not think she would have objected to the wisdom of applying her own story to teach lessons for the greater good, as the names of the most famous royalty have always been spun into fables long after their deaths. [...] Again, I need not exhaustively document each and every instance of jbreher’s falsity: I will pick only a few such instances as exemplary.
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53972154.htmlThe danger is that ... he can destabilize the market by making his claims to people who never used Bitcoin at all
You seem driven by illogical emotion. I already addressed that. jbreher quote-mined the first eight-plus pages of the Anastasia thread, and cast me in a false light whilst deliberately omitting the posts where I explained why I use emotional arguments to accompany facts and logic. That is dishonest. How can anything Craig says to nocoiners have any destabilizing effect whatsoever upon the (presumably Bitcoin) market? By definition, nocoiners have no effect upon the Bitcoin market whatsoever. Classic misdirection. jbreher doesn’t seem that stupid, so he must be playing stupid. Lies in the mainstream media obviously have both primary (direct) and secondary (indirct) effects on the Bitcoin market. In the small, that can decrease Bitcoin adoption by those “nocoiners” he so dismisses; in the large, it is a direct attack on the Bitcoin Social Phenomenon, i.e. the source of Bitcoin’s real value. Because savvy traders know this, the effect on “nocoiners” also affects the decision of those who are already market participants. As I’ve stated before.. it became very obvious to me when he [Faketoshi] told me he built smart contracts in to the chain from day 1, a direct contradiction to satoshi himself in this thread ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=750.msg8140#msg8140)... Though Satoshi does not mention smart contacts by name., Nick Szabo stated to me that’s exactly what he believes Satoshi ( or maybe himself) was referring to. Funny interpretation. So satoshi provides a description of a smart contract as a simple example of the types of things that can be done on Bitcoin, and you take that as proof that satoshi is stating he has never built smart contracts? Absurd twisting of what ChiBitCTy said: jbreher turned it to the exact opposite of what he obviously meant. This is the referenced Satoshi post, in pertinent part: Here's an outline of the kind of escrow transaction that's possible in software. This is not implemented and I probably won't have time to implement it soon, but just to let you know what's possible.
Wright’s theft of Satoshi’s identity is factually false,
For this to be true, it would require facts not yet entered into evidence. Sure, you have a mountain of circumstantial evidence, but from a logical standpoint, not conclusive. It is technically difficult to produce positive evidence of a negative. jbreher is misapplying that technical difficulty to confuse people into believing that a negative cannot be proved at all. And he backs that with a catchphrase that most people do not properly understand. “Circumstantial evidence” is not necessarily weak evidence: It is perfectly possible (and does occasionally happen) that somebody can be convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence, if the circumstantial evidence is exceptionally strong. I note this for the sake of argument, without accepting the mischaracterization of the evidence against Wright as “circumstantial”. Craig Wright is a scammer with a long history of scamming, which all goes to character and the credibility of his claims. As to Bitcoin specifically, he has been caught in numerous lies that are easily proved false. His personality, his behaviour, and his openly stated agenda all flatly contradict everything that is known about Satoshi Nakamoto. And most importantly, at the threshold, he does not provide the first key piece of evidence that any cryptography expert would use to verify his identity: A digital signature that is verifiable with a public key long known to be associated with that identity! Overall, the evidence is sufficiently strong for me to be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto. ( Unreasonable doubts are just that.) By minimizing that evidence, you dishonestly advance an agenda that I explained at length: Merited by mindrust (5), Lauda (3), vapourminer (1), Last of the V8s (1), GazetaBitcoin (1)Craig Wright does not need for a majority of people to believe him: He needs only for a hard core of shills and fanatics to believe him, whilst the majority wavers.[...] In the current context: If Craig Wright can play the mass-media to introduce doubt into the minds of most people who have heard of Bitcoin, and if he is shilled to the hilt by a cadre of hv_ types, and if the only significant opposition is a bunch of forum theorists who won’t push the issue as hard as hv_ does, then Faketoshi will win. A compounding factor is the distaste that many Bitcoiners have for drama, hostility, and especially, emotionalist arguments and ad hominem attacks. It is good to have a culture that values logical arguments—but do not confuse critical thinking skills for efficacy at persuasive argument. If Craig Wright wields false persuasive arguments against your facts and logic, then he will win the hearts and minds of the majority, whose critical thinking skills are negligible. As I have said before: Don’t bring a sword to a gunfight. On this forum and in other venues, others have spent years debunking Faketoshi’s lies point-by-point. That is not hereby my objective; and indeed, it is more or less off-topic in the Anastasia thread (other than providing links to such thorough debunkings, which are welcome). Merited by gmaxwell (1), o_e_l_e_o (1)Craig Wright has not passed the threshold of proving his alleged Satoshihood. It’s important that there be publicly available lists of his lies, debunking him point by point. But that is important only for the few who will want to analyze the subject in depth, more for intelligence purposes (or doing what I just did for hv_) than anything else. Those few are precisely the ones who will not be easily fooled—and, excluding ill-intended shills, the large numbers of people whom Wright actually misleads are precisely the ones who will never even bother to examine such lists! I think that the well-intended suggestions to put massive effort and publicity into such point-by-point refutations are misguided, and may even play straight into Wright’s hands—see above about human psychology, and the mass-manipulative techniques of a master liar.aoluain is correct: In wider public discussion, the answer to every question about Wright is to firmly stay on-point without letting Wright divert the public discourse:[...]
Should have asked him to sign a message from a known Satoshi wallet
[...]
Dont need CLUES, just one task, ask him to sign a message from a known Satoshi wallet
[...]
Great, ask him to sign a message from one of the Satoshi wallets
[...]
Did you ask him to sign a message from one of the Satoshi wallets?
[...]
and so on and so on until we get all the way into court and still the question is not being asked....
and the statement isnt being said, "if you cannot access the wallets . . . sorry for your troubles, come back to us when you can"
That last bit is, “Come back to us when the threshold is met, so we are not wasting our time by examining additional purported evidence.”
Your set of possibilities omits a third possibility. And that would be that "faketoshi" actually did verify a signature for you. You evidently believe this to be "unrealistic". However, the very framing of the question in this manner precludes the scant -- though actually real -- possibility. More dishonest disinformation and misdirection. Craig Wright did not actually verify anything to Gavin Andresen: What he did was a stage-magician’s act in lieu of providing a verifiable signature. That, indeed, is why Gavin cannot provide any evidence thereof to others. And that is my whole point. If I were to endorse a similar sleight of hand, then either I must be technically inept (and thus, everybody who ever endorsed my competence must be stupid), or I must be a liar. The context of this discussion: Merited by Last of the V8s (1), xtraelv (1)The Same Standard Applies to MeLet’s take the media-hyped 15-minutes-of-celebrity name of “Gavin Andresen” out of the picture. And let’s make this personal, insofar as the foregoing argument hypothetically would apply to me, too, if I were to do as Gavin did. Two years ago, I received the following endorsement of my technical competence: | achow101 | 2018-02-13 | Very knowledgeable about Bitcoin and cryptography related things. Frequently gives in-depth, constructive, and well though out answers on various topics. |
If, tomorrow, I were to claim that Faketoshi “verified” a signature for me (!) on the same basis as his “verification” for Gavin, then that would leave only two realistic possibilities: Either (1) I am maliciously lying with the intent to support Faketoshi in a scam, or (2) Bitcoin Core developer and technical forum moderator Andrew Chow is himself so incompetent that he said the foregoing about someone who doesn’t even know how properly to verify a digital signature. What would Occam say about that? —Would any sane person not accuse me of lying, and not question what motive I may have for abusing my technical reputation to support a scam?
jbreher supports franky1’s defamation of Dr. Adam Back(Imgur URL upgraded to HTTPS)the only good thing i can say about blockstream is that adam back has stopped his wright-esq PR campaign of saying he (A.B) invented bitcoin due to "hashcash" algo.. Yeah, right: Because Wright is cited in the paper in which Satoshi first described Bitcoin to the world, and Dr. Back claimed to have invented something other than Hashcash. A perfect “mirror”, that! Perhaps you are forgetting Back's public claim that hashcash was "pretty much Bitcoin minus the deflationary aspect". Note that this is not an actual quote, and may be somewhat inaccurate, but the claim was indeed that he invented hashcash, which was pretty much Bitcoin minus one aspect. edit: found it: Not that this has anything to do with Anastasia, but we might as well try to keep things accurate here. Assuming that the screenshot is authentic, so what? Dr. Back does not thereby claim to have invented Bitcoin—let alone to be Satoshi Nakamoto! The quoted characterization that “bitcoin is hashcash extended with inflation control” may be a bit arrogant; but it is clearly intended to be hyperbolic, it is not dishonest, and most importantly, it is not a claim to have invented Bitcoin. Moreover, Dr. Back is at the forefront of his field; he has a right to be a bit arrogant, especially in a context where he was so close yet so far: He was the one who almost had the world-shaking, history-changing idea. Well, that is what makes the difference between creating an intellectual curiosity with interesting potential applications, and creating Bitcoin. With all due respect to Dr. Back, whom I have admired for over twenty years, that “almost” must hurt more than a bit. ;-) To draw a false equivalence between Dr. Back and Faketoshi is reprehensible:ver plays theymos's mirror
wright plays adam backs mirror | Craig Wright | Dr. Adam Back | | Claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto. | Claims to be Dr. Adam Back. | | Is a grand-scale identity thief. | Is, in fact, Dr. Adam Back. | | Claims to have invented Bitcoin. | Claims to have invented Hashcash. | | Did not invent Bitcoin. | Did actually invent Hashcash. | | Lies. | Makes factually correct statements,
indulges in some hyperbole,
and brags a bit. |
Credit where due: Hashcash was an important invention. It is the keystone in the Byzantine fault-tolerant mining archway that supports Satoshi’s much greater Bitcoin edifice. Most great works are built as such: Satoshi took material provided by those who came before him, Dr. Back inter alia, and assembled it according to his own design, together with his own original innovations. It is for this reason that Satoshi properly cited Dr. Back in the original Bitcoin paper. |
|
|
|
That is worse than dog Latin: It is bitch Latin. It exemplifies the folly of mashing together words found in an English-Latin dictionary, without having even the slightest clue about Latin grammar. | testimonium | nominative, accusative, or vocative singular of second declension neuter noun testimonium. | | libertatum | genitive plural of third declension feminine noun libertas. No other options than “of liberties” or “liberties’”. | | iustitia | nominative, ablative, or vocative singular of first declension feminine noun iustitia. Well, I suppose that I could perhaps imagine a way that maybe the ablative could be applied in its instrumental sense to make the whole phrase just a tiny bit less asinine. (For the beavises and buttheads in the audience, I must clarify that “asinine” evokes an ass in the sense of a donkey, not in the American sense of an arse.) |
I am curious about whether my extensive and eminently quotable criticisms have been quoted by anybody who is actually following TE χSHARE’s asinine thread, which I myself can’t be arsed with.
Define "true democracy".
Two lions and a lamb deciding what's for dinner. Hey, I like lions; and moreover, I disagree: Democracy is not three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner: It is the flock obediently voting on the shepherd’s opinion of wolves. Wherefore wolves are an endangered species. pix pls, copy & share @ hi res, #tweet #tweet. Let me write no more! Too many people are reading: Ich will nicht gelesen. Credit for public domain sheep cartoons: 0, 1.
I care about credit, not copyright!
Internal quotations: Left as an exercise to the reader.
Learning should be dear and not cheap.So as for cats and lone wolves.
Learning should be dear and not cheap. * nullius oft enjoys weaving enigmatic little puzzles and/or their solutions into his posts—hidden in plain sight.
“ Courageous, unconcerned, scornful, coercive...” is what I was taught not to be by my mother, and my kindergarten teacher, * and the finger-wagging Sunday-school teacher who told me that the meek shall inherit the Earth, by the mass-media culture, the movies, the teevee, and the beauty-pageant winner who said that all she wants is world peace and to meet a nice guy. Sounds great in a swimsuit. To stand up and face someone down is to be a jerk: Cruel, contemptuous, forceful, domineering, heartless, as if I’m some aristocrat who looks down his nose at everybody. It is indubitably unkind and unsympathetic. Why can’t I at least be nice to somebody who tells me that the sky is green? Philological protip: Compare the etymological development of the word “nice” with the proposition, “...der ungefährliche Mensch sein muss: er ist gutmüthig, leicht zu betrügen, ein bischen dumm vielleicht, un bonhomme. Überall, wo die Sklaven-Moral zum Übergewicht kommt, zeigt die Sprache eine Neigung, die Worte ‘gut’ und ‘dumm’ einander anzunähern.”
“True Democracy”- Communists: “True Communism has never been tried.”
- Ayn Rand: “True Capitalism has never been tried.” (Yes, I read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, replete with Alan Greenspan’s old essays condemning the Federal Reserve and calling for a return to the gold standard. LOL!)
- “Angus is not a true Scotsman: He puts sugar on his porridge.”
* nullius doubts that this “democracy” thing ever really worked as advertised, or ever will. Name one true democracy.
Actually, Athens was a “true democracy”. Indeed, the Athenians invented the concept τῆς δημoκρᾰτῐᾱς as it is known to history; it is otiose and obfuscatory to argue that they weren’t a “true” democracy. Make up your own word, if you wish to describe some even more extreme Utopian fantasy concept that is fallacious in theory and impossible in practice. My point was not that Athens was not a “true” democracy, but rather, that democracy does not and cannot work as advertised. That is a matter of design bugs, not bugs in the implementation. doubts that this “democracy” thing ever really worked as advertised, What does? Bleach, maybe. Whereas I can point to other political or political-economic systems that did exactly what they said on the tin. Imperfectly so, as all works of mere mortals, but more or less consistently for long periods of time—and, unlike democracy, not in flat contradiction of their purported ends. Inter alia, e.g., the Roman Republic... [— snip —] Oops, I was supposed to stop writing so that people would stop reading. Latest edit (February 29th, 2020): I updated the description of The Flat Earth Believers, Oh, my. Don’t get me started... Writing and thus reading may happen, alas. My response will be “evil” in its virtù. |
|
|
|
* nullius dons moderation hat. I should have known better to have IRL concerns drawing me away from the forum just after hv_ tested the waters again...Deleted two posts filled with lies, half-truths, and assorted disinformation by jbreher: http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53972154.htmlhttp://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53973685.htmlThe posts are preserved for anyone to examine—because I am not Craig Wright, who evidently likes to memory-hole his own writing when convenient: Fascinating. Clicking that link finds the following: Internet Archive's Wayback Machine
https://medium.com/@craig_10243/ccbe22f2637e
Latest
Show All
Sorry.
This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine. I also find it curious that jbreher managed to very selectively quote-mine this thread, and yet... You seem driven by illogical emotion.
[...]
Another illogical emotional outburst? ...avoided seeing this point which bears repeating, plus similar notes: If you insist on defending Bitcoin with only facts and logic, then you will confine Bitcoin advocacy to a few obscure forums inhabited mostly by crypto-coders and technology enthusiasts with robot-logic. Thus will you surrender Bitcoin to those whose weapons are only emotional and psychological manipulation—unavoidably, to such swindlers as Craig Wright. Observe that with no facts on his side, and with no logic on his side, he successfully persuades many people who do not think through facts and logic. I assure you that the emotional impact of my Anastasia essay was fully, consciously intendedand moreover, intended to be exemplary: This is how it’s done, folks! If you want to defeat the psychological support on which Craig Wright builds his hollow lies, then find ways to wrap true facts and sound logic in an emotionally evocative form of argument, delivered with a rhetorical eloquence measured according to the audience. (On that last point, observe that OP was authored with much simpler language than this explanation, kept short, and bracketed by pictures.) Then, you will have the winning combination that Faketoshi lacks: The facts and logic that he lacks, plus a potent weapon against his manipulation of people who neither verify facts, nor coldly reason from premises to conclusions. Under the weight of your logical iron core wrapped in passions, Faketoshi will implode as an empty shell. Blackhat Mindhacking 101: Exploiting Wetware Insecurity[...] Nullian Rule: To exercise fully independent judgment in the face of opposition requires that one’s humility be inversely proportional to the strength of the opposition. And the delicate Internet tea-party debate-club members would never dream of using ad hominem argumentation, even when it is objectively correct! Need I remind you that argumentum ad hominem is only an “informal fallacy”, and is not at all fallacious when personality and personal credibility are relevant tono, are the issues being argued? Oops, I forgot that. I became so “logical” that I feel like I should avoid anything ad hominem. [...] Dr. Wright has been expertly “verified” by the Bitcoin Chief Scientist. He also has some peer pressure on his side. hv_ and his buddies are Internet nobodies; but then, I’m the guy who named himself “of nobody” on the Internet. Who am I to call hv_ such nasty names as “shill”, “liar”, etc.? Him, and plenty like him ( a dime a dozen)... Who am I to stand against Dr. Wright and the Bitcoin Chief Scientist and a crowd of folks? Authority plus peer pressure! *again When Dr. Wright sounds so sure...[...] Maybe my eyes are lying to me, or maybe I made a big mistake—and then everyone will laugh at me, because the sky actually is green, and the Earth is flat, and 2 + 2 = 5, and Dr. Craig Steven Wright invented Bitcoin, and I’m just so stupid that I didn’t realize it. * nullius is suddenly feeling so insecure. :-(
Moderation note: Posts in this thread may be deleted according to my mood. And I am in a bad mood. Please be kind to Anastasia, and honest toward Satoshi. Thank you. As to Craig Wright, of course, the only question worth addressing is the threshold question of a verifiable signed message from Satoshi. Complaints > /dev/null |
|
|
|
You want this: https://web.archive.org/web/20120712200425/http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htmActually, everybody on the forum should read that (and a few like things). Provocateurs
[...]
2) Suggest doing foolish, illegal things to get the activists in trouble. Sage advice for forum users: If you ever receive such a request, either publish it, or simply reserve your “right to remain silent” by flatly ignoring it. Either it is a very dumb criminal who mistook you for criminal—or it is an agent provocateur. Either-or. Also, this warrants a red tag (which I will issue after making this post). |
|
|
|
I can see dumping an entire PM chain to defend oneself - I don't think a person would be guilty of a moral crime.
It is funny really. Had I played along, and one of Russians published MY PM chain (this very chain, just modified) it would be applauded for. This is why I criticize everyone left and right. Either apply uniformly or do not apply anything at all.Why, what an idea: Actual objective standards!
On “Ethics and Judgment”Sure it's not a "crime" here to publish a PM but doing so, especially for no real reason, sends a message (pun intended) about one's judgement and ethics. suchmoon, yes, let’s talk about “ethics and judgment”. To reach this point requires a delicate dance: ...is superlatively trustworthy... I will personally vouch... Without saying too much, I will give the general outline: It starts with a casual exchange of some PMs that, for my part, could cause me some extra headaches or minor embarrassment if revealed by the other party. It then proceeds to encrypted communications, where perhaps I may begin to discuss matters that I would never mention in a Personal Message which is readily accessible to Cloudflare/NSA, forum admins and high-ranking staff, e-mail providers who my handle any e-mailed copies of PMs, the forum’s server providers, said e-mail providers’ server providers, any blackhats who can compromise the forum’s huge, creaky pile of PHP code... :-/ This doesn’t mean that I chat about anything too “interesting” via encrypted communiations, with Lauda or otherwise; I am not involved in anything “too ‘interesting’”, anyway. What it does mean is that I can talk about things that I simply refuse to broadcast before the unseen all-seeing eyes of numerous known and unknown persons. To get to know someone’s character on a level where I would say, “I trust this person!”, it is necessary to be able to speak at least a little bit freely, in private. (Obviously, it is best to start with encrypted communications; but for reasons that baffle me, applied cryptography is mostly unpopular on a “crypto” forum devoted to Satoshi’s cypherpunk money.)I had high hopes for you, suchmoon. But you never even got far enough with me that I felt I really needed to push the issue of using encryption. Based on your public demands that Lauda violate my confidences and criticisms of her for her refusal to do so, such as you have even repeated in this thread, I would never trust you with confidential information. So as for “ethics and judgment”.And as for Lauda’s...
Browbeating a Dead HorseBrowbeat? You used to know what words mean. Rather than direct attention to my use of the word “browbeat”, why don’t you give the class a lesson on reading comprehension. * Ascertain the substance of the PMs that Lauda published, in-context and in the totality of the circumstances. Then, for extra credit, make a short list of colloquial English words that would suitably describe this type of interrogation, argumentativeness, and accusations of “manipulations of other people's opinions” from a person who has previously done one of those “conspiracy theory” threads that you usually oh so dearly love. (* Protip: This sentence concludes with a period, because it is not actually interrogative: It is a rhetorical question which pointedly omits the question mark.)Indeed, in this case, the only evidence of your opinion is that at the time, you thought that madnessteat’s prior thread was frivolous: Merited by suchmoon (4)I do not see any reason for you to open a thread here why somebody included/excluded me/or I am in nobody list. Everybody have their personal preference to include or exclude.
PS: Just curios to know what was your prior contribution to this system before this new system is announced. https://bpip.org/smerit.aspx?to=r1s2g3Now, look at this from Lauda’s position: Suppose that someone created a thread against you a year ago based on your trust list, and is now repeatedly PMing you about same and accusing you of doing something wrong with it. Please describe that situation carefully: If you approve of madnessteat’s behaviour, then your own critics may forseeably take that as an invitation. The evidence as such speaks for itself; I needn’t write a thousand-word essay thereupon. Oops; I tried. Well, I kept it under a thousand words. Excluding quotations, etc., it amounts to less than a fifth of that! |
|
|
|
Great! I hope Theymos will publish the PMs of Satoshi now... That will not happen next year (2021) as originally considered, * but maybe after a few more decades. (I have further thoughts on that; but the discussion is off-topic for this high-traffic, highly watched thread about forum rules.)
* I merited that post two years ago—for reason of the information that Satoshi “always used Tor”, not due to the prospective release of Satoshi’s PMs. I have frequently quoted it in argument against people who have have a negative impression of Tor users.
Potentially relevant to how Personal Messages may be mentioned in the rules list:Based on the theymos statements that I quoted, I think of the administration’s policy as roughly analogous to a “one-party consent” rule for disclosure of PMs. I find it admirable that the forum’s administration has a reasonable policy to prevent overt fishing expeditions that may seek to coerce disclosure of PMs with consent of none of the involved parties... https://bitcointalk.org/privacy.phpBitcointalk.org is in US jurisdiction, and is subject to US subpoenas, wiretap orders, preservation orders (which would negate the above retention rules), and similar. Furthermore, our service providers could also be subject to similar orders without our knowledge. Note that we consider PMs to require a warrant in order to be released. ...although that is a quite limited protection, when every PM passes in cleartext through Cloudflare each and every time it is previewed, sent, or viewed. What it really means in practice is that police ( obviously police, because nobody would ever try to steal an “official” identity) can’t grab your PMs simply by e-mailing or faxing an official-looking request. If the forum’s administration requires a warrant, I also infer that that means they will at least seek to quash civil subpoenas for PMs. Although that is always important for protecting metadata (which is in many ways even more revealing than “content”), it is less of a concern for people who use crypto—I mean, who really use crypto:Note: PM privacy is not guaranteed. ⚠ Encrypt sensitive messages. ⚠ Because I am sick and tired of this: PM = Personal Message, not Private Message. Compare "private interview" to "personal interview" or "private locker" to "personal locker". Something private isn't expected to be made public, but something personal is only owned by or associated with a single person, not necessarily with a strong guarantee of privacy. I really don't believe in willingly putting a man-in-the-middle in your HTTPS like this, […]
I especially dislike Cloudflare, which I'm almost certain is basically owned by US intelligence agencies. [...]
The security implications are that Cloudflare can read everything you send to or receive from the server, including your cleartext password and any PMs you send or look at.
Thank you, theymos, for honestly disclosing and discussing the facts about Cloudflare. |
|
|
|
OP, please add the explicit forum rule about Personal Messages: Subject: Re: Publicly posting PMsThere is no restriction against it. PM = Personal Message, not Private Message. Compare "private interview" to "personal interview" or "private locker" to "personal locker". Something private isn't expected to be made public, but something personal is only owned by or associated with a single person, not necessarily with a strong guarantee of privacy. For the sake of user safety, I also recommend noting that unencrypted Personal Messages are not private, no matter what forum policy says about disclosure by the parties thereto: Vide the very first post in my post history!I really don't believe in willingly putting a man-in-the-middle in your HTTPS like this, […]
The security implications are that Cloudflare can read everything you send to or receive from the server, including your cleartext password and any PMs you send or look at.
Thank you, theymos, for honestly disclosing and discussing the facts about Cloudflare. [...] Note: PM privacy is not guaranteed. Encrypt sensitive messages. I have been intending to request this addition for awhile. Despite the explicit warning adjacent to the “Send message” button, too many users are labouring under the misapprehension that “PM” stands for “Private Message”. For the record, this is my personal policy on the handling of my own PMs: For my part, I treat unencrypted PMs with the discretion of common courtesy. Likewise, if someone were to publish my unencrypted PMs gratuitously, for petty spite, and/or otherwise without any good cause or even a colourable reason, then I would consider that to show indiscretion—i.e., evidence of an untrustworthy character; and depending on the particulars of the circumstance, on a case-by-case basis, I may issue negative feedback accordingly. Otherwise, I have no illusions about the privacy of unencrypted Personal Messages: I treat them as a sort of one-on-one forum, or an open-door room aside from the main room at a party.
Encrypted communications with explicit bilateral promises of confidentiality are a quite different matter, of course. IMO. I think that comports with the basic decency and common sense which should be expected of anybody who is worthwhile to correspond with. P.S.—thanks, mprep, for maintaining this list of rules. |
|
|
|
Lauda is superlatively trustworthy with confidential information which she has promised to keep as such. I say this based on my substantial experience with her handling of confidential information. For obvious reasons, I cannot publicly disclose evidence of that experience; nevertheless, I will personally vouch that I would trust her with almost anything. However, that is irrelevant to her publication of (0) unsolicited, hostile contacts that, separately and additionally, were (1) made via a communications medium that explicitly bears no expectation of privacy. Was it really necessary to post private discussions on public? PMs are not private—explicitly not “private” messages. On this forum, neither rules nor custom prohibit their publication.Subject: Re: Publicly posting PMsThere is no restriction against it. PM = Personal Message, not Private Message. Compare "private interview" to "personal interview" or "private locker" to "personal locker". Something private isn't expected to be made public, but something personal is only owned by or associated with a single person, not necessarily with a strong guarantee of privacy. For my part, I treat unencrypted PMs with the discretion of common courtesy. Likewise, if someone were to publish my unencrypted PMs gratuitously, for petty spite, and/or otherwise without any good cause or even a colourable reason, then I would consider that to show indiscretion— i.e., evidence of an untrustworthy character; and depending on the particulars of the circumstance, on a case-by-case basis, I may issue negative feedback accordingly. Otherwise, I have no illusions about the privacy of unencrypted Personal Messages: I treat them as a sort of one-on-one forum, or an open-door room aside from the main room at a party. Encrypted communications with explicit bilateral promises of confidentiality are a quite different matter, of course.
Yes. Any attempts, and I do not care by who, of even remote manipulation, coercion, threats and many other things instantly get posted by me. That is sound “good cause”, per what I stated above.
Yet it doesn't provide any "evidence" so what was the point? Makes me think that the "secret evidence" in other cases, such as Kalemder's, is similarly flimsy to non-existent.
No, this is not a request to publish any more PMs, and not an excuse to blame others for your lapse in judgement. There you go again. FYI, I do not communicate with Lauda via unencrypted Personal Messages; and in re Kalemder, no matter what the substance of what I told her, she has no choice but to keep my confidence, unless she were to explicitly betray my trust in her promises. Stop giving her grief for her more or less quiet refusal to do that! Should you be in the mood to grind an axe on this issue, take it up with me—but please be advised that I am not so kind as Lauda is.
PSA: On personal communications in a panopticonAside from myself, the PMs can be read by the administrators, the datacenter technicians, Cloudflare, and the NSA. They are public as is anyways. Vide the very first post in my post history!I really don't believe in willingly putting a man-in-the-middle in your HTTPS like this, […]
The security implications are that Cloudflare can read everything you send to or receive from the server, including your cleartext password and any PMs you send or look at.
Thank you, theymos, for honestly disclosing and discussing the facts about Cloudflare. Anybody who expects privacy from unencrypted Personal Messages is lamentably misguided. Your unencrypted PMs can be read by many different parties without your knowledge. By close analogy, are you so stupid as to expect privacy for your unencrypted Gmail, your Facebook messages, your bank records, your credit/debit card purchase records, your tax records, your gold purchases, your phone’s SMS texts and voice calls, your phone’s locational data (including cell tower data) that physically track you as the contemptibly dumb, contentedly grazing tagged livestock that you are, your Google search terms, your Twitter DMs, your Skype calls, anything you say or do in the presence of your “smart” TV, the forms that you happily fill out for advertising gimmicks from companies who want your name, address, and birthday for commercial Big Data purposes, etc., etc., ad maximam nauseam!?*crickets*Sorry. So sorry. Perhaps that was the wrong question, in the sense of hitting the mark on issues that are more comfortable to ignore: An evil question. Keep grazing, grinning idiots happy masses; let not my musings disturb your ovine contentment. Cheers! Please enjoy a refreshment from my sponsors, and remember to retweet!                AD SPACE FOR SALE.
$$$ YOUR LOGO HERE! €€€
Ahem...
Man and TechnicsI believe nullius has a more optimistic view of the future than I do. :) “Optimism is cowardice.” — Spengler (writing most of a hundred years ago) [...] I don’t have a television... or a smartphone. Quibbling about etiquette in the personal handling of unencrypted Personal Messages is not seeing the forest for the trees. You are casually chatting in the presence of a telescreen, and then worrying about whether the other party to the conversation may tell others what you said. Note: PM privacy is not guaranteed. Encrypt sensitive messages.
That was a tangent, but relevant to the absurdity of expectations of privacy for unencrypted Personal Messages. I now return to the point: Lauda’s publication of unsolicited contact seeking to persuade, then browbeat her into changing her trust list is not only justifiable, but a positive public service for the good of the forum.The evidence as such speaks for itself; I needn’t write a thousand-word essay thereupon. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
