But it's being bandied around by all the usual shillspects on twitter recently.. perhaps in advance of the SV Shindig.
I have been meaning to answer back your responce to me... but busy.. life... etc.
That said, without going "Aussie man bad" do you not think that warning/threat is
1. Horrible. Horrible. Horrible. Bad game theory. Does decades of damage to the entire sector. Undermines the legitimacy of the Bitcoin and the entire crypto sector. Shows that it's all being controlled by a madman etc.
2. The most un-Satoshi like thing possible considering his writings that we have.
So we have evil, out of character, and possibly all a lie. Right?
Well....
1) I dunno. The
pervasive narrative in this here space is that everything out of Craig's mouth is either: a lie, or; simply wrong. As such, how could
anything he say undermine the legitimacy of the sector?
This is not an argument. Well it's a circular one. Do not use the reverse of something I did not say to refute what I said.
Well, what you
said was "...do you not think that
warning/threat is 1. Horrible. Horrible. Horrible. ..." Your words there refer not to the potential action to which the warning/threat refers, but to the warning/threat itself. If you meant otherwise (which is apparent in the next bit of your reply), perhaps you should have indicated so.
Let us assume he has access to original blocks in the "tulip trust" and plans to sell them. How is this not going to ruin the legitimacy of Bitcoin probably forever.
I don't see why it would.
Let's say he sells every last one of his millions of bitcoins and buys every last one of the BSV coins with the proceeds. Bitcoin will crash, as will all the alts.
Well, BTC would likely be negatively impacted, true. Not devastatingly to start with, as best estimates of Satoshi's stash seem to be in 1-1.5M range. That's well under 10% of the supply. There'd be a big drop, followed by dry powder taking advantage of the fire sale. But the real damage would come later, as more and more people are likely to start to believe that maybe -- just maybe -- he might be Satoshi after all. Blockstream/Core's ...
curated ... narrative would be called into question for the first time in the minds of the many.
BSV will skyrocket, and then the entire world will see that the "new money system" was invented by a megalomaniac willing to ruin lives and destroy fortunes.
I see several issues with the above. Firstly, this proposition -- that BTC is an impostor -- has been trumpeted loud and long. Never mind that precious few have heard the message. Everyone has been exposed to it. Should this be the case (mind you, this entire discussion is hypothetical), rational people would realize they've been hoodwinked into the BTC narrative, and move on with the revealed reality.
Next, it would demonstrate conclusively that Bitcoin is indeed permissionless, and an asset class of huge importance.
It would show the world that Bitcoin is meritocratic, and that fortune in this system only follows those who make the correct decisions.
No, I think that the system's creator going to extraordinary measure to ensure the system's restored dominance is proper, and would ultimately be viewed as such.
Of course, most here would be happy to otherwise ruin CSW's life and destroy his fortune. What's good for the goose...
Trust in BSV will be virtually nill.
I think you're delusional. Care to support your assertion by any reasoning from principles?
Central banks will create a competing, and equally centralized coin and the world will flock to the devil the know and away from the devil they do not know.
How does the CSW doomsday scenario change this outcome in any way? It does not. If CBs are to create a centralized competitor to Bitcoin, they're going to do it. The masses either will or will not flock to it. Whether BTC or SV, the scenario is unchanged.
OTOH, if he has the capability to carry out such a threat, how would his huge advance warning not be a good thing?
If I planned to release a doomsday virus onto a continent and gave them a year and a half notice... And then shrugged my shoulders pointing to a 4chan post as that continent was ravaged by that virus, would I have not acted as a saint? C'mon. Another non argument. Warnings are nice. What he says he would DO is terrible.
I see again that you thought you wrote something other than what you actually did write. Nevertheless, you think him using his funds to accomplish his goals in a fully legal manner is somehow "terrible"? Are we not all free to use whichever resources we have legitimate ownership of to affect any outcome we may desire, as long as the rights (note 'rights') of others are not violated?
No, you don't have a right to be protected from the consequences of your stupid investment decisions.
2) I dunno again. Before vanishing, Satoshi revealed very little of his personal proclivities. I see no evidence therein to support the notion that he might not use his substantial war chest in order to tilt the market in favor of what he perceives as the more faithful rendition of his ideals. What exactly am I missing in his writings?
His posts on this forum reveal so much about his character. He certainly did not see bitcoin as the panopticon for the State that Wright is trying to sell.
Again, you are bypassing what you wrote, and substituting something else of novel construction. Nevertheless, what panopticon are you speaking of? CSW talks about traceability and the difference between anonymous and private, this is true. However, he is not seeking changes to the system in order to give additional tools to law enforcement. He is merely pointing out the
already existing characteristics of Bitcoin - whether SV or BTC. For you to put your fingers in your figurative ears and chant "muh anonymity" to avoid hearing the reality does not change it one whit.
And seeing as you merely sidestepped the question, I will ask again: I see no evidence therein to support the notion that he might not use his substantial war chest in order to tilt the market in favor of what he perceives as the more faithful rendition of his ideals. What exactly am I missing in his writings?
But MUCH more than them he is trying to sell it to the CENTRAL FUCKING BANKS.
I thought our collective thesis included the proposition that Bitcoin is a superior money? If it is, then of course central banks will end up using it. The only way that they would not in the end game get involved in Bitcoin is if it is an inferior form of money. The sooner we get to such a condition is that much less time idiots like Rep Sherman have to try to pull it down.
And FWIW My bet is he is clearly full of shit.
He may well be (though my bet is hedged). But this entire sidebar started with the hypothetical that he would be able to carry out the implied and expressed action.
Poll
