|
jbreher
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
|
|
November 12, 2019, 06:20:52 PM |
|
I haven't kept up much on chair technology, but it's very difficult finding a decent chair.
I present to you the eChair: http://carltatzdesign.com/press-releases/pr-1115-carl-tatz-has-your-back.htmlIs it the best chair available? I dunno. But after living with it for a while, it is certainly better for me than (e.g.) an Aeron.
|
|
|
|
jbreher
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
|
|
November 12, 2019, 06:42:54 PM Last edit: November 12, 2019, 08:52:00 PM by jbreher |
|
OK, back to this. The only reason you are correct here is because he was analyzing the wrong set of blocks, which you didn't know until right now. The fuckup happened in a block previous to 600,000 -- read below. IOW, NOT evidence. It is glaringly a dispositive. During the previous 10,000 block period there were exactly 6 penalty transactions totaling 0.09746883 BTC. Haha. Glaringly obvious indeed. Even when spoon-fed, you entirely miss the implication of my clearly-stated musing (see italic above). [Blah blah blah (paraphrased) - irrelevant shit not in dispute. - ed] If his counterparties were on the beneficial side of a stale closing tx, what is their incentive to issue a penalty? They stand to win more through just letting the mistaken stale tx broadcasts lie as is. Seems we need to at least consider that possibility before closing the case. As at least one scenario.
So far none of the 400 nodes connected to him reported receiving any funds. Hmm. None of the 400 unjustly-enriched parties reported unjust enrichment. Whodathunkit? What is more likely is he has the funds, can't access them, and they are far fewer than 4 BTC in total.
Sez you. Sure, it's a plausible argument. But it does not invalidate the alternative scenario which I present. Which, of course, is why I ask to see the evidence. Again, everything you present falls far short of being dispositive. There are LN experts working pretty hard to help this guy recover his funds. What ever does that have to do with the assertion that your last link is mere hearsay? Do you not understand the word itself? It seems like this guy did everything wrong on purpose. Its hard to believe someone would crash through several safeguards so recklessly if he cared at all about his BTC. My bet is when his funds are restored it will surface that the total "lost" was far less than 4 BTC.
Perhaps. More germane, you have moved the goalposts from 'he made the whole thing up, case closed' to 'I kinda think sorta he might have exaggerated his losses'. Let us recall that this opened with an assertion made to the effect that it was all a lie, followed by me merely asking for evidence, for which you attacked me with the strawman of denial. I don't know if you're being dishonest, or you are merely incapable of logic.
|
|
|
|
jbreher
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
|
|
November 12, 2019, 06:44:55 PM |
|
It's almost as if people don't realize that Bitcoin has been capable of private messaging since genesis.
|
|
|
|
jojo69
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3318
Merit: 4602
diamond-handed zealot
|
|
November 12, 2019, 06:45:52 PM |
|
MMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmm essence of gelfling
|
|
|
|
|
jbreher
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
|
|
November 12, 2019, 07:20:43 PM Last edit: November 12, 2019, 07:34:11 PM by jbreher |
|
BAKKT is a necessity for the criminal syndicate of big money to control the price of bitcoin... They think they can use rehypothecated bitcoin collateral like they do with physical gold. They can't!
Well, they can't. Unless society as a whole lets them. Which is why education is so important. Well, not BAKKT specifically, as it is physically-settled. At least as long as the customers don't simply roll their take. But most other 'tools' at of the pinstriped bandits do serve this 'need'. Do you think the average man-on-the-street has internalized 'not your keys, not your bitcoin'? Hell, our little insular bitcoin community doesn't even practice that, at least not enough to deter partial reserve bitcoin. Tether, anyone?
|
|
|
|
jbreher
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
|
|
November 12, 2019, 07:31:05 PM |
|
To be completely transparent, I'm liquidating however many BTC will be needed for me to buy a nicely specced-out Mac Pro when the new ones are released (any day now)
I'll be waiting until my SW runs on Catalina.
|
|
|
|
hv_
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2534
Merit: 1055
Clean Code and Scale
|
|
November 12, 2019, 08:02:27 PM |
|
It's almost as if people don't realize that Bitcoin has been capable of private messaging since genesis. So many things haven t been understood and / or crippled to death or anonymity. Sigh Now invent new wheels again?
|
|
|
|
jbreher
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
|
|
November 12, 2019, 08:04:06 PM |
|
I mean how can BSV be worth $2.5 billion with around 25 users globally and zero hash rate security.
How? Why? Because your assumptions are ludicrously off the mark.
|
|
|
|
jbreher
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
|
|
November 12, 2019, 08:14:50 PM Last edit: November 12, 2019, 08:54:04 PM by jbreher |
|
It's not too hard to figure out. BAKKT customers need not be Bitcoiners. Look at the last day. You could sell a future contract for 9500 or so, by the chart. Well, you could buy BTC at that day's price (as low as 8775), and sell a contract, your assets and liabilities balance, you pocket money. A fair amount. With the only downside being the counterparty risk of the parent company of the mudderfukkin' New York Stock Exchange. It's a pretty simple calculus. The only miracle is that the volume isn't higher.
|
|
|
|
jbreher
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
|
|
November 12, 2019, 08:16:59 PM |
|
I remember how people were making fun of ltc as 5$ coin.
Yeah, I remember when it was a 3 bucks forever and dropped to like a buck and a half and chinese were sucking it all up and I was like "theres to many of those shitcoins to grab any" So I didn't grab any. Man was i brilliant at that time. Give it time to play out.
|
|
|
|
jbreher
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
|
|
November 12, 2019, 08:26:44 PM |
|
Life's too short to watch this, just want to know one thing. Who on earth is Mr X?
Speed Racer's mentor. On his day off, of course.
|
|
|
|
fillippone
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2310
Merit: 16505
Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23
|
|
November 12, 2019, 08:33:09 PM |
|
It's not too hard to figure out. BAKKT customers need not be Bitcoiners. Look at the last day. You could sell a future contract for 9500 or so, by the chart. Well, you could buy BTC at that day's price (as low as 8775), and sell a contract, your assets and liabilities balance, you pocket money. A fair amount. With the only downside being the counterparty risk of the parent company mudderfukkin' New York Stock Exchange.
It's a pretty simple calculus. The only miracle is that the volume isn't higher.
Nothing magical, It’s called cash and carry. It’s explained here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5188060.msg53009523#msg53009523You can lock in more if you sell back months future.
|
|
|
|
|
jbreher
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
|
|
November 12, 2019, 08:56:11 PM |
|
The creator of C++ has expressed disappointment in the language’s use in BTC mining
Hmm. That's a turnaround. Bjarne was a participant in the early meetings of ISO TC 307.
|
|
|
|
P_Shep
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1795
Merit: 1208
This is not OK.
|
|
November 12, 2019, 08:56:33 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
Last of the V8s
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 4392
Be a bank
|
|
November 12, 2019, 09:22:18 PM Last edit: November 12, 2019, 09:46:47 PM by Last of the V8s |
|
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/federal-court-rules-suspicionless-searches-travelers-phones-and-laptopsFederal Court Rules Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional Government Must Have Reasonable Suspicion of Digital Contraband Before Searching People’s Electronic Devices at the U.S. Border
huh edit: 'you were in the area' 'you are travelling' 'you have a "device"' therefore suspicion, but still? edit As faulty as "democracy" might be, this is one of the examples of when it works.
More like a nod to 'rule of law' for a change.
|
|
|
|
makrospex
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 728
Merit: 317
nothing to see here
|
|
November 12, 2019, 09:30:10 PM |
|
As faulty as "democracy" might be, this is one of the examples of when it works. Observing $8.773, while trying to backread dozens of WO pages.
|
|
|
|
fillippone
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2310
Merit: 16505
Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23
|
|
November 12, 2019, 09:32:26 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|