Mr. Brendon, you asked a smart question.The saying that a Bitcoin block happens “every 10 minutes” or “about every 10 minutes” is misinformation. It is a form of classic Gambler’s Fallacy. It is endlessly repeated by people who should know better—even after they have been corrected. I know of only two or three other people who have actively tried to correct this fallacy in the Bitcoin community—and all of them have sometimes been accused of being my alts (including Lauda, lolz). Thus, I must thank you for inquiring based on your own empirical observations, instead of mindlessly believing and repeating what everyone else says. ( Cf. the Asch conformity experiment.) So from my personal BTC explorer, i realized that sometimes a blockchain isn't really 10 minutes or anything close.
Indeed not! To understand this will require some maths. For an initial explanation, I will not try to delve deeply into that. The Bitcoin mining process, already described above by mocacinno, is modelled as a Poisson process. This statistical process is memoryless: The expected time to the next block does not start from the last block, but from any particular moment in time. The expected arrival time of the next block follows the exponential distribution, with λ = 0.1 if you are working in units of minutes. Accordingly, the average time to the next block is 10 minutes; and about 63.2% of blocks actually arrive within 10 minutes. However, the exponential distribution has a curve which defies human intuition: It is frontloaded with a high density of fast arrival times, followed by a long tail of slow arrival times. That long tail includes those slow-seeming blocks which you observed; those drag the average up to 10 minutes. More useful to practical everyday life are median and the quartiles. The median expected time to the next block is about 6 minutes and 56 seconds. An equivalent statement: At any particular moment—at the moment when you read these words—you can expect a block within 6:56 with 50% probability. Of course, that means a 50% chance that the next block will take longer than 6:56 to arrive. The next block has a 25% chance of arriving within 2:53, and a 25% chance of taking longer than 13:52 (the long tail). Incidentally, many games of chance, including classic Bitcoin dice games, can be usefully modelled according to the same process and the same probability distribution for the arrival of wins. (Pedants may argue that that’s a discrete process, whereas the exponential distribution is continuous; but for the purpose of this discussion, that is not relevant.) Studying the mathematics of Bitcoin block arrival times can help give an understanding of why you can’t beat the house—and on the flipside, studying the mathematics of gambling will give a firm theoretical grasp of why Bitcoin block arrivals have the behaviour that you observe empirically. Gambler’s Fallacy is ever popular—as is social conformity in the repetition of obviously wrong statements. Thus, I am pessimistic about my prospect for fighting off the misinformation that “Bitcoin blocks take about 10 minutes”. |
|
|
|
Nobody who has even the slightest knowledge of cryptography will ever attempt to guess a Bitcoin private key that way. For an P2PKH or P2WPKH address where the public key has not been revealed, the search space is 2 160; and there are approximately slightly fewer than 2 96 valid keys per address. If the public key is known, it has a notional 2 128 security level. An attacker would not try to guess the key by bruteforce. Rather than bruteforce, an attacker would use something like this free, open-source program: And even if someone wanted to try bruteforce for some ridiculous unreason, there are about 2 256 - 2 128.3457 valid private keys, not exactly 2 256 keys. That is a negligible difference; but if one wishes to count keys, count the keys properly! Technical information must be accurate. The good cause of teaching the public about Bitcoin’s security is not helped by misleading explanations and misinformation. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is for everybody, so—sure, it’s good for churches. Bitcoin is permissionless, so even Satan himself couldn’t censor their transactions. I will note that religion has been in Bitcoin for a long time: bitcult.faith
I don't like the idea of mixing religion with anything at all - politics, finance, educations, science. [...] Religious leaders shouldn't tell people how to live every aspect of their lives, its a recipe for disaster and a large number of wars and conflicts in the world stem from this to this day.
That is a repudiation of the whole concept of religion. I am not quite defending religion here; and I am definitely not defending Christianity. As to the latter, I agree with Nietzsche, “Ich verurteile das Christentum, ich erhebe gegen die christliche Kirche die furchtbarste aller Anklagen, die je ein Ankläger in den Mund genommen hat. Sie ist mir die höchste aller denkbaren Korruptionen, sie hat den Willen zur letzten auch nur möglichen Korruption gehabt.” However, I recognize that to be logically consistent and arguably sincere, religionists must take religion seriously. A religion which is disconnected from “politics, finance, educations, science”, generally unimportant, and irrelevant to most aspects of a person’s life, is not a religion in any meaningful sense of the word. To profess atheism is to proclaim that there are no gods. To preach that religion should be rendered practically meaningless is to proclaim that even if there are any gods, they should be slapped in the face. (Compare and contrast the commonplace proposition of liberal religionists who say that it doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you believe in something of a mystical nature. That is not only a repudiation of the concept of religion, but also a denial of the concept of truth; and it is to apotheosize irrationality.) I can easily imagine a pastor shilling for some ICO or shitcoin for their personal profit. Maybe it even already happened.
Given the profitability of selling salvation, I would not be surprised. But I think they will find it better to stick with Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Why are you all seriously debating the propositions of a pseudointellectual twister, who is a fraud by his own standards? Taleb thrives on attention and credibility. He relishes controversy—but he needs to be taken seriously. When he has shown such gross intellectual dishonesty that he boosted a scam to attack Bitcoin, he should be ridiculed and otherwise disregarded. I don’t think that Bitcoin is perfect; to the contrary, I am harshly critical of much of the economically inept speculative nonsense in this space (especially PlanB! or any TA!). I think it would be productive for people who are acting in good faith to discuss and debate that—in another context. Here, you are just keeping Taleb’s name in lights. Similarly as the threshold question to Faketoshi should be a demand for a Satoshi signature, discussion of Taleb should not reach anything beyond his appearance at that Coingeek conference. It is as if a celebrity astronomer gave a speech at a Flat Earth conference, tacitly endorsed their agenda, and didn’t even give a hint that the Earth may be round. Thereafter, does he retain even the slightest shred of credibility? Craig Wright must really be laughing at all of you. The U.K. courts have given him a free hand to ruin people’s lives with frivolous litigation. A famous celebrity scribbler of ephemeral writings burnished his public image, then somehow continues to be taken seriously in his attacks on Bitcoin. Money to support the BSV operation must be flowing from somewhere. Before January 2020, I spent years writing Wright off as a low-grade scammer beneath attention; but I now see that he must be laughing at you. |
|
|
|
Nobody is arguing that
Actually, yes: There is a whole thread arguing against that. It is now 3 pages long, and it keeps generating responses—mostly mindless drivel, so that thoughtful responses get lost in the noise. I created this thread to compete with it. and we all respect Satoshi Nakamoto for being the creator of bitcoin and blockchain.
Glad to hear it.  But what are signature campaigns have to do with this?
Users who partake in paid signature campaigns tend to fill stupid threads with useless posts— especially in Bitcoin Discussion. That is why arrant nonsense in a low-effort, mindless OP can generate a thread running 5, 10, or even 20 pages, as important threads get slid away. Unlike most of my self-moderated threads, sigspamming is welcome here if it helps to keep this thread bumped while the long thread keeps getting bumped. Of course, if I get any thoughtful responses here, I may without warning suddenly delete sigspam posts to get the good stuff up to the top. |
|
|
|
so you failed at your silly little association games of trying to pigeon hole me into a group
You failed so miserable at your silly game of trying to pigeonhole others (especially me) into a group, you drastically edited to cover up this post as I was replying to it, to cover up something really embarrassing: as for the talk about merits
i give zero crap amount merit.
i happily throw merit out in the 50's because i find it meaningless to the point of no value so giving out 50 means jack
but i see the group of you lot have your own lil 'foxpop gang' which is a big sign you do care about it
You were the one who started talking about merit here: just wondering:
have you ever tried to have an independent thought outside the group mindset?
(you follow and merit the exact same group with the altnet mantra, privacy mantra, defi mantra, pruned node mantra)
Offhand, together with a larger context, I responded to that in my reply to n0nce. The only two people in this entire thread who have mentioned merit are you, who brought it up, and me, in response to what you said; and you will note that I am not a part of Foxpup’s merit thingie (lol). Now, you are fixated on merit. When you claim that you “give zero crap amount merit”, thou doest protest too much, methinks.  Anyway, I think you are clearly not engaging in this discussion in good faith. I previously disagreed with others who were giving you the troll treatment in this thread, and I never categorically kicked you out of my self-moderated threads; but you have done a good job here of proving me wrong about that. Please don’t be surprised if you get a lack of response from me in the future.
Now, returning to the topic... |
|
|
|
I do have Franky on ignore and considered moving this thread since he just cannot stay on-topic, but I would like to emphasize (as if it wasn't obvious) that contrary to his opinion (potentially he's projecting something here..) I am not a 'follower' of Adam Back or believing what I believe because he says so; in fact, I was made aware of the talk I linked to, only the other day. (see below)
My views on the topic were set before that (all provable through Bitcointalk posts), and I just thought he explained it well in spoken form. That's also exactly what I've written above.
Quote for 'proof': [...]
There is no need to justify yourself like that. Don’t let franky1 put you on the defensive with his reality-inverting mindgame. To promote his agenda, he is essentially trying to make it politically incorrect to cite or discuss Adam Back on the Bitcoin Forum. LOL. His accusation of a “group mindset” in following “influencers”, replete with a jealous remark about merits, is especially ridiculous in any discussion where I am involved—and where I am the one who brought up Dr. Back, and linked to his relevant 2014 conference talk. I am an independent loose cannon, and I am assuredly the most unpopular person here. There is a whole thread devoted to smear-attacking me; it is titled with eloquent professionalism by a real pillar of the community, “ nullius is a cunt”. I am merit-boycotted by numerous users, including some merit sources. I am immune to groupthink; I say what I mean, not what is popular. Some people appreciate that, but others do not. Given that franky1 is a n00b, he would not recall the era when Dr. Back first announced on Cypherpunks the Hashcash system that Satoshi cited in footnote 6 of the Bitcoin Whitepaper. I remember Cypherpunks from first-hand experience. Better to understand Bitcoin, whence it came, why it exists, and what legacy Wasabi is effectually repudiating, I recommend this 2016 article by Jameson Lopp, a professional Cypherpunk: https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2016/04/09/bitcoin-and-the-rise-of-the-cypherpunks/Lopp therein focuses on privacy. I generally agree with his conclusions in that article.
I am far behind on this thread—only for the reason that some replies here raised such important issues, my responses grew beyond the proper scope of a reply here. They spawned drafts for the OPs in at least two new threads. One of them actually gave franky1 some credit for raising a good point (that he promptly ruined), and constructively criticized n0nce’s approach in another thread—well, if franky1 is accuses me of groupthink for citing Adam Back, I should edit that, and ban franky1 from my self-moderated topics. To be continued... |
|
|
|
1 BTC = 1 BTC.OP is a n00b who was intentionally anti-Bitcoin for years. He obviously now regrets that he chose not to buy BTC at $1,000. Now, greed has gotten the better of him; but he still has not learned some important facts: - You need Bitcoin. Bitcoin does not need you.
- Bitcoin was created for the purpose of being permissionless money. You will never change it to be otherwise.
- Interrogative sentences should be concluded with a question mark. (See topic title.) The word “legality” does not mean “illegality”. (See the conclusion of the above-linked post.) And so forth... OP struts as if he has wealth, but I don’t believe it unless he won the lottery. He lacks sufficient intellect for useful business.
- If you announce that you hate the essential purpose of Bitcoin, but you grudgingly bought BTC because profitability persuaded you that Bitcoin isn’t so evil after all, then Bitcoiners will not exactly pat you on the head and hand you a lollipop. If you, a patent anti-Bitcoiner, want to be praised and showered with positive reinforcement for bringing your chump change to a coin so that you can join the chase for some moons, then I suggest that you should sell all your BTC right now, and buy SHIB instead.
- 1 BTC = 1 BTC.
Filed under: Attempts to educate the ineducable. HTH, HAND.
|
|
|
|
@tokyohd, in the interest of fairly apprising readers of the nature of the source, please change topic title from: Bitcoin Will Be a Failure Even If It Hits $100,000, Says "Black Swan" Author !! To: Bitcoin Will Be a Failure Even If It Hits $100,000, Says Faketoshi Shill !! Reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5408004.0Thanks.
So what? Gold was in a bear market for more than 6 years. In fact, everyone who bought in late 2011 or during 2012 had to wait until 2020 just to recover the value of their initial investment.
Gold’s extended bear market was much longer than that. Also, that’s not a good argument to raise here: Taleb is anti-gold (so at least he agrees with Jay about something!). Indeed, at Calvin Ayre’s Coingeek conference where Taleb appeared alongside Faketoshi, Taleb explicitly raised the “demonetization” of gold as an argument against Bitcoin. Taleb is against gold. Taleb is against Internet gold, i.e., Bitcoin. At least, he is consistent in deprecating anything that could help people escape from the corrupt, kleptocratic fiat financial system.
|
|
|
|
Can we hand over the account password and private key to access our Bitcoin wallet from now on?
Again, no one is handing over their private keys to children, You are quite wrong about that. Their are even systems designed for the purpose of facilitating this—although not nearly enough, in my opinion. There are security engineering tradeoffs between conveying private keymat directly, and other methods. The only way to convey a wallet indistinguishable from other wallets on-chain is to convey the private keys. Although some Bitcoiners are long-term thinkers with plans for their heirs, a disturbingly high proportion are hyperindividualists who do not think of what comes after them. (I have posted about this before, but cannot now find what I wrote due to this forum’s faulty, unreliable search function.) When they die, their coins remain forever frozen on the blockchain. The hype about “the greatest wealth transfer in history” is mostly nonsense, for in practice, most of the transfer is ephemeral: Most real wealth will revert to the prior economic incumbents within a generation (and probably sooner), by various routes including this one. I have been thinking about this for a long time... and imo, no one should ideally be handing down their account password. Social platforms are not heirlooms which gets transfered or inherited.
In the context of condemning account sales, I think that I have said somewhere that the only circumstance in which I may convey access to my forum account would be to an heir. For heirs to inherit their ancestors’ reputations was customary throughout all of history before modern times: Indeed, it may even be said that the study of onomastics is the study of the nexus between identity, reputation, and familial continuity. The various traditions in different cultures for surnames is partly based on the ideal that descendants inherit and carry forward a name. This tends to be a larger factor in the upper classes than in the lower classes—a distinguishing mark of social class used to be a detailed knowledge of one’s ancestors more than two generations in the past, and the carrying on of their traditions; nonetheless, even for commoners, the customs of patronymics (or in some cultures, matronymics) attest the importance of carrying on the reputation of one’s ancestors. In the upper classes, even up to royalty—or even in the degenerate modern “upper” classes, a designated heir oft even receives a name fully identical to an ancestor, with a number appended. For a degenerate modern American example, vide William Henry Gates III (the full name of Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft Corporation). To deny the inheritance of names and reputations is hyperindividualism tantamount to sociopathy. I absolutely reserve the right to designate a Nullius II, the titular “nullius”, with Bitcoin Forum uid 976210, if I see fit. And in a cypherpunk world, theoretically, nobody needs to know. If, hypothetically, I were to have a series of heirs who, by genetics and tutelage, evinced style and substance indistinguishable from mine, then at least in theory, the same apparent “nullius” could be posting here long after the block reward ends, with perfect continuity. It is unlikely in practice—but it is theoretically possible. A bigger question is how much of long-term thinker theymos is. When I clicked on this topic title, I expected a post about the future continuity of the Bitcoin Forum itself. Cypherpunks didn’t last, despite attempts to carry it forward to this day with cpunks. I am pessimistic. |
|
|
|
Why I Disliked BitcoinI've known Bitcoin since 2012 [...] Can you imagine that despite having enough money to invest in the cryptocurrency between 2019 -2021, I was adamant that I wouldn't because I believed Bitcoin aids legalities like trafficking, money laundering, terrorism, activities of drug barons, and many more.
What will be running in your mind if Bitcoin reaches $1000 againHowever, in events that more backlashes and higher inflation negatively affect the crypto some more and finds itself at about $1000. What would be your reaction? Will you turn your back on Bitcoin or has your investment just begun on it?
My, you are suffering for your foolishness. 
$1000 would be godsend for those who missed the train [or sold all their coins at $4500 due to a belief that it would go to zero—FTFY]. But it is probably not going to happen. It is a price from 2014-2015 era. I don’t think we can go back to that anymore.
Correction: $1000 was the price at the beginning of 2017—or before that, near the end of 2013, soon before the crash. 2014–2015 era was around $215 – $400, or thereabouts. Cycle bottom in August 2015 was about $215.
|
|
|
|
Why I Disliked BitcoinI've known Bitcoin since 2012 [...] Can you imagine that despite having enough money to invest in the cryptocurrency between 2019 -2021, I was adamant that I wouldn't because [...stupid nonsense about how Bitcoin is oh so evil...]
What will be running in your mind if Bitcoin reaches $1000 againHowever, in events that more backlashes and higher inflation negatively affect the crypto some more and finds itself at about $1000. What would be your reaction? Will you turn your back on Bitcoin or has your investment just begun on it?
My, you are suffering for your foolishness.
The Four Horsemen ComethI've known Bitcoin since 2012 but started using it in 2019, though it was still for payments (funding and withdrawal) of online Forex trading, nothing more because I was careful to deal with something that might aid illegality. [...]
[...] I believed Bitcoin aids legalities like trafficking, money laundering, terrorism, activities of drug barons, and many more. I forgot to think that as it has its advantages, it also has its disadvantages, no system works perfectly.
Thanks to the present-day awareness, development and regulations that make it clear that Bitcoin is not as porous as I thought. 95% of my only transactions are now crypto-based.
Please be advised that some of us who have technical expertise are working hard to make sure that wrongheaded little twerps like you can’t corrupt Bitcoin. I am prepared to devote my life to the cause of making Bitcoin absolutely opaque and untraceable—and of keeping Bitcoin permissionless and decentralized. And there is nothing that you can do to stop me.Please be further advised that Bitcoin is not some pump-and-dump “crypto” Ponzi desperate for fools to buy into it. Bitcoin does not need your money. You hurt only yourself by your own choice not to buy BTC earlier; now, you are left quite transparently wishing that you could have another chance to buy at $1000 (the price at the start of 2017). For my part, I would much rather you sell all your BTC right now. If I could, I would ask the CEO of Bitcoin to ban you. Of course, Bitcoin is permissionless—that means I can’t stop you from using it, any more than anyone can stop “terrorists” or “money launderers” from using it. Bitcoin shall not change for you, for your agenda. Come along for the ride, or get left behind—either way, that’s not my problem. P.S., I believed Bitcoin aids legalities like trafficking, money laundering, terrorism,
At least, that is quotable.
|
|
|
|
An antidote to all of the weak hands in this weak, weak, weak-hands thread:Bitcoin just like every other system that is decentralized is one that is controlled by the invincible hands of demand and supply, <...>
 Beyond strong hands— Beyond diamond hands— Beyond Saylor-hands— INVINCIBLE HANDS!I am nobody, of nothing. I am invisible—and I am invincible! Malapropos nothing, my invincible hands control Bitcoin. Fear my invincible hands, for the penis mightier than the sword: ✍️
|
|
|
|
Hello guys, I am still searching for a tool to encrypt and decrypt pgp message.
Recommended: https://gnupg.org/ — Free, open-source. Cross-platform. Optionally, you may use various GUI options available on different platforms. (I do not use any GUI for PGP/GPG.) Many tutorials are available on the Web; a tutorial is prominently linked from OgNasty’s OP on this thread. HTH. :-) |
|
|
|
[...] Good point, but...  Hahaha. We may have different opinions on the matter, but I believe that someone is indeed wrong on the internet. No, I agreed with what you had said before. Please reread. My perspective, trying to put myself in Satoshi’s shoes: If I had created Bitcoin, I would be mortally terrified of being outed. Maybe I would consider a digitally signed “deathbed confession”, or evidence released on a deadman’s switch, so that I could be remembered by history—or maybe not; why would it be important to be remembered by a so-called “real name”, instead of by a self-chosen pseudonym? I guess that such a decision would probably depend on the details of Satoshi’s life; and even outing himself when dead may place his heirs at risk. Anyway, I understand why Satoshi may want to preserve his privacy. Another reason I believe why Satoshi would never ever reveal his real identity is, he might be working for a technology company when he was coding the first implementations of Bitcoin. Isn't there a law that says any software, or invention you develop while under employment in a company will automatically give the patents/rights of that software/invention to that company?
No. To your question, absolutely not! Do you suppose that an open-source patch contributed to some project by an employee off-the-job is always, in all cases automatically copyrighted by the employee’s $DAYJOB? You seem to be thinking of the “works for hire” doctrine. That generally applies only to works made within the scope of employment. The details, extent, and limitations of this rule (or even whether it applies at all) vary wildly by jurisdiction. I note that we have no idea where Satoshi was located at the time that he created Bitcoin, and any clues he left may be intentional disinformation of the type that I myself not infrequently sow. (His apparently Japanese name, his use of a British newspaper headline in Block 0, his alternation of British and American spelling—even “his” use of an apparently masculine pseudonym and online persona.) As a precondition of employment, some employers require an employee’s agreement to an employment contract that greatly extends the scope of what “intellectual property” the employer can claim as theirs. Some jurisdictions have laws limiting such contracts. This is a very complicated area of the law. Nothing that I say here should be construed as legal advice. I only seek hereby to show that the broad-brush statement quoted above is incorrect on its face. I would not want inadvertently to FUD Bitcoin’s status in this regard. |
|
|
|
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5408004.0
MAN DOWN, MAN DOWN! REPEAT! MAN DOWN! We just lost a good, bright, intelligent man to the Cult of Craig. Check the speakers of the Flat Earthers’ Conference of Bitcoin. If you know, you know.  I cannot accord Taleb that excuse. The only potential explanations are stupidity, or malicious dishonesty—and I do not accuse Taleb of being stupid. It is wildly implausible to suggest that Taleb, who makes some pretense of being a philosophical thinker with ethical responsibility, just didn’t realize that he was boosting a fraud. It is on similar, albeit not identical grounds that I call Gavin Andresen a willful, malicious liar: The only alternative would be to accuse a former leading Bitcoin developer of gross ignorance about how digital signatures work. This is a famous quote from one of Naseem Nicholas Taleb’s books. Hahaha.  To be honest, I’m actually very very curious about the topic of his talk, and what he has to say. Will the conference be streamed for free?
Haters proof best this is the thing As usual, the promoter of a fraud flips the truth on its head. The hatred and lies of Craig Wright, Nassim Taleb, Calvin Ayre, et al. against Bitcoin are proof that Bitcoin is a noble and powerful thing. Whereas I myself totally ignored Craig Wright from 2015–2020. In and of himself, he is beneath my attention threshold; and I did not want to feed a dumb troll. I only deigned even to mention his name, after Gregory Maxwell made an incisive argument that we should stop ignoring him. On the other hand, a big part of the reason that he's caused so much disruption (and he truly has)-- is because so many bitcoiners took one look at him, saw how transparently fake he was, and decided it was best to ignore him. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. And that is what has happened here--
[...]
If someone broke into your house and was stealing stuff-- you wouldn't just say 'that thief doesn't deserve our attention' and ignore them. We shouldn't hesitate to defend Bitcoin and the community surrounding it.
Shows that Bitcoin works as designed, copyright, gov, Satoshi compliant. Stable as TCP IP, one of the biggest protocols adopted ever, cause low risk to really use and not speculate with? No surprise that you are as ignorant of TCP/IP as about all else. Much as Bitcoin Core ( onion) does with Bitcoin, the IETF and its antecedents have been revising and extending the TCP/ IP protocol stack for more than four decades. As Bitcoin Core does with Bitcoin, the IETF strives to keep TCP/IP changes backwards-compatible; in Bitcoin terms, they are “softfork” changes. And much as with Bitcoin, TCP/IP can be improved by “non-consensus” improvements such as new TCP congestion control algorithms. Actually, “stable as TCP/ IP” is an excellent analogy for Bitcoin! Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
|
|
|
|
Motto: "If you see fraud and don't shout fraud, you are a fraud".
Thanks. I am not skilled at making popular-style “memes”, but I think I do well in the style of a glossy magazine ad. Please see the newly-edited OP here, and spread this around: Instead of wasting time with Taleb’s ill-informed arguments against Bitcoin, people should be asking why Taleb, who boasts of his own “ethics” in shouting about “fraud”, boosted the worst cryptocurrency scam. It is an intellectual scandal. When set against his actions, the words of his motto doth protest too much, methinks.Always verify digital signatures! I said “signed,” so I signed my words. To extract the PGP-signed statement: exiftool -b -ImageDescription taleb_fraud.jpg > taleb_fraud.asc
Please feel free to copy and share—although unfortunately, many services will strip the signed statement from the image metadata. The original text of OP is now moved to Post #2, with my apologies to those whose quote-links are now slightly off. This sordid scenario rather reminds me of the time that a legend of the academic world frankly admitted to working with others to make a supranational, international government, while lying about it— viz., openly professed to participation in what we would now call a globalist conspiracy. I am reluctant to say who; it was an intellectual giant, to whom Taleb deserves no comparison. I may drop a cite, if Taleb ever challenges me on it—or if anyone ever bets me significant BTC that I just made it up.
Further replies to others later. Thanks for the intelligent discussion. |
|
|
|
I supplied the contact information only to identify the address of such people if one were to come across that. There is no other purpose but this. I will modify the OP and remove the contact information if there is any chance that this may lead newcomers astray and fall for such again.
Ah, I see. That would be appropriate for some sort of a scam investigation thread in one of the subforums for that purpose, if presented differently; but that is not the situation here. I suggest you reread your OP with fresh eyes, as if you were a different person reading it—perhaps read it as if you were a total newbie who just had some money stolen, and is desperate to get it back. OP basically presents a testimonial alleging that someone with that e-mail address had successfully “recovered” 7.0938 BTC. It is presented in the form of asking if that’s possible, but it does not sound very skeptical. To a neutral reading by someone who’s not you, it tends to come off very differently than you say you intend. (Note: OP is currently unedited.) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
