I don't give a ratt's ass about what I said or did not say
Obviously.
stop getting caught up in these kinds of technicalities in order to attempt to keep your stupid-ass FUD spreading topic relevant, when it barely is relevant to anything in Bitcoin.
It is not FUD spreading. It is truthful statements about properties of Segwit.
You, on the other hand, either were completely wrong or lying in your assertion that these properties did not exist.
From my understanding, for some assertion to fit into a lying category, then it would have to include an intention to mislead, right?
I have had no intention to mislead in regards to this particular segwit fungibility topic. Whether I was "completely wrong," I have my doubts about that too, so I would need to see the exact statement in order to attempt to assess about what you are referring and whether it matters.
Even though I have been wrong about various matters in the past, a categorization of "completely wrong" is a very strong assertion that I will deny, at least for now, unless I see evidence to the contrary... So far, all I see is that you are making bullshittingly bold lack of fungibility statements, and acting as if they have some kind of material significance in regards to the current state of bitcoin.
O.k.. so fucking what if you are correct on the theoretical issue,
When backed into a hole of your own digging, you accede to what all can see. How big of you.
Hole? What hole?
Are you just trying to argue for the sake of it? Is there some kind of point that you would like to make? Is bitcoin going to die soon? cause of death = lack of fungibility?
You surely act as if you have made some kind of meaningful statement at some point in regards to some kind of lack of fungibility question in bitcoin.
Are you asserting that such topical pursuit is not getting caught up in the weeds of bullshit, and there is some kind of importance in meandering down such rabbit hole in which you would like to direct me and the rest of this thread's participants?
What I am asserting remains what I have been asserting all along. I am asserting that these properties are endemic to Segwit. Period.
O.k. You are asserting a theory.. So fucking what? Do you have any evidence of a problem, yet? Anyone refusing to take segwit transactions that amounts to a material and significant problem?
What is more, I only offered this up when someone asked me to explain why I was a Segwit skeptic.
That is generous of you. I recall something about you not using segwit.. so good luck with that. Of course, legacy addresses can still be processed because the segwit fork was backwards compatible, so perhaps that will work out for you. Maybe at some point in the future, you will come around to using segwit? Who knows? You do seem to have some strange inclinations. But hey, to each his own.
This narrative of me calling certain and immediate impending doom is one of your own deluded invention.
I don't think so. You want to continue to pursue this topic, and it seems that you are not really getting any traction, here, but you want to continue, right? What does that say? To me, it seems that you want to continue to pursue irrelevance and attempting to give more weight to the topic than it deserves... at least at this time.
Seems like speculation about a phenomena that is .1% likely to happen and you are attempting to treat such speculation as if it has greater than 50% odds, no?
No. I even stated point blank that the significance of these existing properties is a subject of debate.
Does not really seem that it is subject to much debate if it is a pie in the sky speculation with a very low probability of even being an issue. Probably better to create another thread on the topic or to join the topic in another thread if you think that it remains such an important discussion point, no?
Why isn't your conduct here considered just FUD spreading and trolling?
Probably because I stick to the facts.
Gotta find some humor in this self-description. I couldn't maintain a serious face, and argue that you are without some humor, from time to time, even if your humor, in this case, was not intentional.
How is it that you want WO peeps to treat you seriously and with credibility, jbreher, when you seem to take nearly every opportunity to exaggerate negative aspects of bitcoin with highly unlikely theories?
How is it that you want WO peeps to treat you seriously and with credibility, JJG, when you seem to take nearly every opportunity to exaggerate my position and stick words in my mouth - only after having been exposed as either ignorant or duplicitous?
touché
Answering a question with nearly the same question. I suppose you could not really answer my rhetorical question very well, except to merely tailor your question to what you perceive to be my conduct.
We've exhausted this fungibility topic, for now, no?
Any other points needed? Doesn't seem like it to me.
Who here is NOT going to sell me their Lambo if I pay in BTC that has either some segwit taint, or that actually comes from a native segwit address? I didn't find anyone who wouldn't accept my coins.
Exactly. I think that is part of the point. There is no real evidence of peeps refusing to accept segwit coins or segwit tainted coins.... Not yet, anyhow. So the discussion point remains theoretical and speculative rather than based on any kind of significant facts (except for "asserted facts" whatever that is?).
Poll
