Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[Fatman3001]

for the millionth time, nobody knows if it is fake or not.

Then let's assume it's fake, ok?

It just is neither fake nor legit. But whatever makes you feel good.

And either way, the message was quite spot on.

He is not saying you should accept that it's fake. He's saying we have to move forward as if it was fake.

And no. It's not spot on. It's self-contradictory.

If you want some satoshi fodder you might want to go and look at the old bct forum discussions where he and Gavin discusses the idea of a plurality of implementations.

I don't have the link but I'm sure your buddy brg444 has it.

[hdbuck]

for the millionth time, nobody knows if it is fake or not.

Then let's assume it's fake, ok?

It just is neither fake nor legit. But whatever makes you feel good.

And either way, the message was quite spot on.

He is not saying you should accept that it's fake. He's saying we have to move forward as if it was fake.

And no. It's not spot on. It's self-contradictory.

If you want some satoshi fodder you might want to go and look at the old bct forum discussions where he and Gavin discusses the idea of a plurality of implementations.

I don't have the link but I'm sure your buddy brg444 has it.

there you go:

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.  The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

Good idea or not, SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (or co-opt it for their own use) sooner or later.  They'll either hack the existing code or write their own version, and will be a menace to the network.

I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it.  I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.

That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1613#msg1613


Gavin's twisted evil mind seems to be quite in action for the last couple years. And this is not fake.

[Fatman3001]

for the millionth time, nobody knows if it is fake or not.

Then let's assume it's fake, ok?

It just is neither fake nor legit. But whatever makes you feel good.

And either way, the message was quite spot on.

He is not saying you should accept that it's fake. He's saying we have to move forward as if it was fake.

And no. It's not spot on. It's self-contradictory.

If you want some satoshi fodder you might want to go and look at the old bct forum discussions where he and Gavin discusses the idea of a plurality of implementations.

I don't have the link but I'm sure your buddy brg444 has it.

there you go:

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.  The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

Good idea or not, SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (or co-opt it for their own use) sooner or later.  They'll either hack the existing code or write their own version, and will be a menace to the network.

I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it.  I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.

That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1613#msg1613


Gavin's twisted evil mind seems to be quite in action for the last couple years. And this is not fake.

Yup, that's the one. That's what Satoshi wrote 6 years ago.

[hdbuck]

for the millionth time, nobody knows if it is fake or not.

Then let's assume it's fake, ok?

It just is neither fake nor legit. But whatever makes you feel good.

And either way, the message was quite spot on.

He is not saying you should accept that it's fake. He's saying we have to move forward as if it was fake.

And no. It's not spot on. It's self-contradictory.

If you want some satoshi fodder you might want to go and look at the old bct forum discussions where he and Gavin discusses the idea of a plurality of implementations.

I don't have the link but I'm sure your buddy brg444 has it.

there you go:

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.  The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

Good idea or not, SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (or co-opt it for their own use) sooner or later.  They'll either hack the existing code or write their own version, and will be a menace to the network.

I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it.  I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.

That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1613#msg1613


Gavin's twisted evil mind seems to be quite in action for the last couple years. And this is not fake.

Yup, that's the one. That's what Satoshi wrote 6 years ago.

Do you have reading issues also? Don't you see the irony?

It is exaclty what gavin and his wingmen whether toomim or hearn tried to do.
Highjack the protocol and fork it off to meet whatever the USG told them to and/or to simply flood it.

[molecular]

for the millionth time, nobody knows if it is fake or not.

Then let's assume it's fake, ok?

It just is neither fake nor legit. But whatever makes you feel good.

And either way, the message was quite spot on.

He is not saying you should accept that it's fake. He's saying we have to move forward as if it was fake.

And no. It's not spot on. It's self-contradictory.

If you want some satoshi fodder you might want to go and look at the old bct forum discussions where he and Gavin discusses the idea of a plurality of implementations.

did someone say satoshi fodder?

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

He wanted to remove the 1MB blocksize limit by March 2011

If you (hdbuck) are going to argue through authority (illegit anyways), at least do it with some honesty.

[hdbuck]

satoshi fodder?

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

He wanted to remove the 1MB blocksize limit by March 2011

But he did not.. and gavin met with the CIA.

[Fatman3001]

for the millionth time, nobody knows if it is fake or not.

Then let's assume it's fake, ok?

It just is neither fake nor legit. But whatever makes you feel good.

And either way, the message was quite spot on.

He is not saying you should accept that it's fake. He's saying we have to move forward as if it was fake.

And no. It's not spot on. It's self-contradictory.

If you want some satoshi fodder you might want to go and look at the old bct forum discussions where he and Gavin discusses the idea of a plurality of implementations.

I don't have the link but I'm sure your buddy brg444 has it.

there you go:

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.  The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

Good idea or not, SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (or co-opt it for their own use) sooner or later.  They'll either hack the existing code or write their own version, and will be a menace to the network.

I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it.  I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.

That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1613#msg1613


Gavin's twisted evil mind seems to be quite in action for the last couple years. And this is not fake.

Yup, that's the one. That's what Satoshi wrote 6 years ago.

Do you have reading issues also? Don't you see the irony?

It is exaclty what gavin and his wingmen whether toomim or hearn tried to do.
Highjack the protocol and fork it off to meet whatever the USG told them to and/or to simply flood it.

I simply confirmed that you found the correct post. Unless you disagree with that we have nothing to argue about.

[molecular]

satoshi fodder?

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

He wanted to remove the 1MB blocksize limit by March 2011

But he did not.. and gavin met with the CIA.

He did not. Instead he left.

And we are unable to do it apparently. The pussies that we are.

[hdbuck]

satoshi fodder?

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

He wanted to remove the 1MB blocksize limit by March 2011

But he did not.. and gavin met with the CIA.

He did not. Instead he left.

And we are unable to do it apparently. The pussies that we are.

Poor orphans

Still I would simply not want any new 'benevolent' daddy messing around with the protocol's holy parameters I bought into.

This is Bitcoin, its values thrives from the trustleness and the inability from any egomaniac dev to usurp it.

[Fatman3001]

satoshi fodder?

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

He wanted to remove the 1MB blocksize limit by March 2011

But he did not.. and gavin met with the CIA.

And they partied



until Gavin had to go

[Fatman3001]

satoshi fodder?

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

He wanted to remove the 1MB blocksize limit by March 2011

But he did not.. and gavin met with the CIA.

He did not. Instead he left.

And we are unable to do it apparently. The pussies that we are.

Poor orphans

Still I would simply not want any new 'benevolent' daddy messing around with the protocol's holy parameters I bought into.

This is Bitcoin, its values thrives from the trustleness and the inability from any egomaniac dev to usurp it.

... bought into.. pffff

You've been shorting bitcoins for two years. You just want to see it burn.

[hdbuck]

satoshi fodder?

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

He wanted to remove the 1MB blocksize limit by March 2011

But he did not.. and gavin met with the CIA.

He did not. Instead he left.

And we are unable to do it apparently. The pussies that we are.

Poor orphans

Still I would simply not want any new 'benevolent' daddy messing around with the protocol's holy parameters I bought into.

This is Bitcoin, its values thrives from the trustleness and the inability from any egomaniac dev to usurp it.

... bought into.. pffff

You've been shorting bitcoins for two years. You just want to see it burn.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[yugo23]

Coin



Explanation

Full blocks but price on the rise so it's not really important 

[Dotto]

[Dotto]

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

satoshi fodder?

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

He wanted to remove the 1MB blocksize limit by March 2011

But he did not.. and gavin met with the CIA.

He did not. Instead he left.

And we are unable to do it apparently. The pussies that we are.

Poor orphans

Still I would simply not want any new 'benevolent' daddy messing around with the protocol's holy parameters I bought into.

This is Bitcoin, its values thrives from the trustleness and the inability from any egomaniac dev to usurp it.

... bought into.. pffff

You've been shorting bitcoins for two years. You just want to see it burn.

Nice comeback, hdbuck!!  You pussy.

[Dotto]

And probably my fave. Talking about a random alt

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.

Hmm...



http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html

That silly fake email. That was the beginning of the desperation phase for Core.

[bargainbin]

What's going on here? I wake up to *THIS*?!