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

[d_eddie]

I actually asked myself a couple of times already what has to happen that Satoshi decides to re-enter the scene.

What has to happen?
Satoshi back among us?
An undo on death?




#haiku

[Satofan44]

if you are going to say that the larger image protocol is not going to cause a courtroom battle you are entitled to your opinions .

If I am going to say that the increased and eased ability to store large images will cause a courtroom battle or 2 or more I am entitled to my opinion.

We will find out since it is passed. The stage is set all we need is some time to;

You keep talking about it like something new has happened. Nothing new has been introduced to Bitcoin. It was the same as it has been in v29. It is not even a "new protocol".

I actually asked myself a couple of times already what has to happen that Satoshi decides to re-enter the scene.

Nobody can objectively prove that they are Satoshi anymore. Not even with the original keys. As far as you know those keys are already compromised by a quantum computer as their public key is exposed (or through some other method).  

[Hueristic]

Who knows? Perhaps that will cause Satoshi himself to come join the thread to scold me. 🤔😁

I actually asked myself a couple of times already what has to happen that Satoshi decides to re-enter the scene.

He is dead and not coming to save anyone or anything.



He gave us the tool and it wasn't his job to teach us how to use it.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[OutOfMemory]

It seems to me BTC will face legal challenges which will get solved one way or another.

I call bs on this prediction.

Who will sue whom?
Can I sue electricity because it powered some people's nasty habits?
This story about pictures and files was already circulated few years ago...nothing happened.

A 5 or 20 dollar bill is presumed "innocent" regardless of what substances are on it.
Same here..if need to be, the protocol would be declared as existing beyond what people do with it.

EDIT: It seems that people focus too much on what could happen instead of what would likely happen. My opinion (based on the block universe theory) is that everything already happened, but if bitcoin didn't get smothered at the very beginning, the probability that it would continue for a while vastly exceeds the probability of it's sudden demise.

Well, with Trump et al you can't be sure that no stupid trial would be set up for the public, or just to further "flood the zone with BS", possibly with the thought of lower prices to buy Bitcoin for, in his/their mind, or can you?

And according to Murphy's Law, which is more than just relevant, people should really focus more on what could happen.
It's also proven that only simple changes in a complex environment tend to result in more or less severe, unwanted side-effects, or even chains of unwanted side- and after-effects. It's entropy at work, throughout the whole universe, don't forget about that.
Black swan events are real, too.

Who knows? Perhaps that will cause Satoshi himself to come join the thread to scold me. 🤔😁

I actually asked myself a couple of times already what has to happen that Satoshi decides to re-enter the scene.

He is dead and not coming to save anyone or anything.



He gave us the tool and it wasn't his job to teach us how to use it.

But he laid out the underlying ethics, which should have been a reasonable guideline, imo.

I actually asked myself a couple of times already what has to happen that Satoshi decides to re-enter the scene.

Nobody can objectively prove that they are Satoshi anymore. Not even with the original keys. As far as you know those keys are already compromised by a quantum computer as their public key is exposed (or through some other method).  

First, i should have added that the statement should be taken with a grain of salt  
Second, an appearance does not have to include proof of identity. It's just that we'd never know.
We could also be witnesses of Satoshi posting here, using a new account, without anybody knowing it's him, and without him even trying to come out.
If you think about it, the saying "We are all Satoshi" really makes sense in more than one way.

[Satofan44]

I actually asked myself a couple of times already what has to happen that Satoshi decides to re-enter the scene.

Nobody can objectively prove that they are Satoshi anymore. Not even with the original keys. As far as you know those keys are already compromised by a quantum computer as their public key is exposed (or through some other method).  

First, i should have added that the statement should be taken with a grain of salt  
Second, an appearance does not have to include proof of identity. It's just that we'd never know.
We could also be witnesses of Satoshi posting here, using a new account, without anybody knowing it's him, and without him even trying to come out.
If you think about it, the saying "We are all Satoshi" really makes sense in more than one way.

With these I agree absolutely. I love the saying that we are all Satoshi. He may be indeed among us. We will probably never know and that is for the best.  

[SPIDERMAN008]

What has to happen?
Satoshi back among us?
An undo on death?


#haiku

Bitcoin is so perfect that nothing needs to be fixed in future , so Satoshi may never come.
His idea is truly decentralized Whether he exists or not.

THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME. HE IS THE THE PAST PRESENT AND FUTURE.


source

[OutOfMemory]

I actually asked myself a couple of times already what has to happen that Satoshi decides to re-enter the scene.

Nobody can objectively prove that they are Satoshi anymore. Not even with the original keys. As far as you know those keys are already compromised by a quantum computer as their public key is exposed (or through some other method).  

First, i should have added that the statement should be taken with a grain of salt  
Second, an appearance does not have to include proof of identity. It's just that we'd never know.
We could also be witnesses of Satoshi posting here, using a new account, without anybody knowing it's him, and without him even trying to come out.
If you think about it, the saying "We are all Satoshi" really makes sense in more than one way.

With these I agree absolutely. I love the saying that we are all Satoshi. He may be indeed among us. We will probably never know and that is for the best.  

While Sassaman, of whom i read the first time today, seems to be factually only weakly connected to SN, according to this article i flew over after reading him up on wikipedia. https://coingeek.com/faketoshi-series-part-4-len-sassaman/

But then again, this is too far off topic. Not that i care too much about off-topics myself (most of you know what i mean, LoL), but i'm really more interested in the Knots/Core discussion by my own philosophical and technical interests.

Bitcoin is so perfect that nothing needs to be fixed in future , so Satoshi may never come.
His idea is truly decentralized Whether he exists or not.

THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME. HE IS THE THE PAST PRESENT AND FUTURE.

Highly biased opinion right there. Nothing is perfect. Maybe the universe, but at which scale, when we are too imperfect to ever find out?
(EDIT: To say the very least)
Nucular* was also a good idea... (once)

*see Penguins of Madagascar

[Hueristic]

...
While Sassaman, of whom i read the first time today, seems to be factually only weakly connected to SN, according to this article i flew over after reading him up on wikipedia. https://coingeek.com/faketoshi-series-part-4-len-sassaman/
...

LOL, That article is a joke.

This is a fucking retarded statement.

Len Sassaman was a champion of privacy and cryptographic security, but his approach and ideology differ greatly from that of Satoshi Nakamoto. Sassaman’s work was deeply rooted in the cypherpunk movement, while Nakamoto was pretty publicly opposed to cypherpunk values and even had negative things to say about various cypherpunks like James Donald and Julian Assange.

You never seemed to me to be someone that believes everything they read without critically thinking about it.

Either way I could care what people think, after much research I am convinced.

*No I'm no going to do anyone's research for them, and even if I did you shouldn't just believe me either

[ESG]

are many ways to solve this problem, if they want...like, keep only data from history transaction of each coin, ungroup transactions, or arbitrary coinjoin on chain, but the real problem is mining incentives, this problem could not solve , because greed is high!

It is easy to say: You need to stop the storage of data into Bitcoin! The harder thing is to design a solution that looks like it would work. Lastly, the hardest thing is to reach a level of knowledge where you understand that this is basically impossible.

I don't like the spam but the only real solution would be to change to a protocol like Grin's where the types of transactions are extremely restricted. No Lightning, no sidechains, no contracts, no decentralized swaps ...

This is what you would have to do and it probably would still not work. It is just that Grin is not that interesting or relevant for someone to figure out a way to store data there too (yet). Should we keep removing things from Bitcoin in a desperate attempt to stop the unavoidable? Even if we introduced a centralized transaction review committee, it would be still possible to obfuscate data into transactions in ways that would get approval by the review board. So what should people do? Whine and yell that doomsday is coming or accept that this is how information technology has always worked?

You arrived a little angry, but then you were open to dialogue, that's good.

Bitcoin was successful because it came and solved the double-spending problem.

An arbitrary Coinjoin on the network would end this impossibility of data being added to transactions, and existing ones would also be lost.

If then Bitcoin came to be a peer-to-peer money system, what is the purpose of wanting to keep images on the network, and also, how many alts already do this service? many...

So, having arbitrary Coinjoin on the network would discourage this, but it would also desensitize the miners who need to process more data to earn more fees, being the ones who decide what is best for Bitcoin, and not the people who use, just like me, a mere user.

In the beginning, I remember that anyone could mine bitcoin mannually with a pen, paper and calculator, I had this written down on my PC, on block-note, which I lent to a friend to help him, because he drew architectural drawings and needed to learn Auto CAD, and move on to the digital age, but his children formatted my PC, and I discovered this some time later, Because at this stage of my life things have changed, I still have this PC and I still think that one day I will have time to see this HD and see what is on it, I believe that I must have mineirad a little... But I don't remember almost anything else, I suffered several accidents and setbacks in my life.

But I can tell you, that as a mere user, bitcoin would have more value being only an electronic means of money transfer, and not a database of eternal images.

So I'd like to hear from you, it's better a roots-to-peer electronic money transfer system, with all possible security to avoid double spending, or one more in the middle of many other protocols with numerous purposes?

With so many forks, why in Bitcoin also images? Would arbitrary Coinjoin end all this, and also end the incentives for miners?

[cAPSLOCK]

The ETF era Bitcoin Drama - 2025  Part THREE!

The basic arguments...

I intend to outline each sides basic points.  I will strive to be non editorial in this, and save that sort of thing for later.  I welcome input from folks on this, though again, it should be non biased, and factual.  These lists are not meant to describe a single person.  Some ideas are held by some folks but not others. In fact, the less tribal someone is the more they probably agree with parts of both lists.  Not to mention there is definitive overlap.  Some things even contradict within a camp.  Sometimes these contradictions are used by a single person thereby weakening their argument.  But not always.

Both sides allow endless nuance for their argument but tend to frame the other side in black and white terms.

Abbevs:  
O_R- op return
DCS Datacarrier size

The anti-filters points:

-Spam on bitcoin is bad.
-UTXO spam is the worst kind, and a major reason for the origin of O_R and the expanded cap in DCS
-Spam is in the eye of the beholder.
-Everyone should be able to choose how they use bitcoin.
-If we filter what can go in a mempool we are damaging Bitcoin's censorship resistance
-The fee market will drive spammers to other chains
-Blocks are basically empty now
-O_R is prunable
-The change is protocol standardization
-The change aligns relay and miner policy and
-The market is demanding space for arbitrary data storage
-Filtering is an unwinnable cat and mouse game
-Filters don't work
-Even if core did not change librerelay is the tolerant minority and the cat is out of the bag basically
-There is already spam on the blockchain
-There is no way to stop spammers
-Most users are not knowledgeable enough to really understand the issue, game theory, or implications
-We should trust the devs
-Filters are censorship
-The change is just an eddge case for use by companies who need access to arbitrary data BEFORE they go into a block (ex Citrea)
-Filters cause node's mempools to be vastly different which has disadvantages
-Mempool normalization makes fee and block estimation more accurate
-The change is harm reduction if spammers use O_R rather than witness space or fake pubkeys.
-Spammers will not use O_R anyway because witness space is much cheaper, so the change won't really affect anything
The existing DCS limits are just bad code since they dont work and you should remove unneeded code.
-This is policy, not consensus. Therefore not as big a deal as the blocksize war for example
-Miners will take money to include transactions directly (Slipstream API)
-Miners will not store illegal files because they are filtering (ex. Slipstream TOS)
-You can still set size limits for DCS yourself (for now)
This is an argument between intelligent devs and "podcasters"
-Out of band transactions will encourage miner centralization
-Valuable devs will leave core if we make them feel too much heat.
-People resisting this change are likely paid by someone
-The genisis block fit's the filter side's definition of spam.  Satoshi was a spammer?
-It's mostly bots who appose this
-V30 shipped and bitcoin did not die
-the larger default DCS cannot bloat the chain because of the block limit
Knots/Client Specific:
-Knots has many changes that are bad for the network security, and affecting some lightning use
-Knots is only maintained by one person
-Your node running Knots will have to include every block created anyway so running Knots accomplishes nothing
-You miss security updates if you so not run the latest core.
-Knots is 99% core anyway as a fork
-Luke is crazy
-Luke is a fundamentalist/religious and wants to censor
-Luke was so dumb he lost his bitcoins.  How can you trust him?
-Luke wants to hard (or soft) fork bitcoin and implement MUCH more censorship
-Similar points to the above about other visible folks on the filters side
-"Knotzis and filteroors" are far right kooks.
-Luke, Ocean et al are working for the CIA (or similar)
-You can just not upgrade if you do not want to run v30
-Users are banning and blacklisting Knots nodes


Whew.  I am sure I missed a lot honestly.

Pro-Filters side:

-Spam on bitcoin is bad.
-UTXO spam is the worst kind, and a major reason for the origin of O_R and the expanded cap in DCS
-Spam via Taproot changes (ordinals) could be fixed but isn't. Luke made a PR for it.  Why?
-You recognize spam when you see it.  It is not "in the eye of the beholder".
-Most but not all arbitrary data is bad
-Arbitrary data used in financial transactions are ok (anchor hashes for example)
-That kind of data is small (40/80 byte)
-Why did we not just upgrade to 160 like Citrea asked for?
-Why not roll  this out via a series of gradual larger numbers? Much like Satoshi suggested for blocksize back in the day?
-100Kb is 1250x 80b
-A 100Kb DSC opens known and unknown exploits (like Taproot did)
-We should be REDUCING Bitcoin's attack surface, and this change enlarges it
-Bitcoin NEEDS input from the non devs.  The philosophers, economists, and even some of the shitposters.
-Going that big is fishy
-This is a slippery slope
-Why not do the arbitrary data storage on layer 2?
-The above creates more technical debt
-Bitcoin should be used for financial transactions.  Not file storage
-Opening up DCS signals intent.  Inviting non financial use cases
-Contiguous unencrypted data is now easier to store on Bitcoin
-No hacks are needed anymore.
-We need to take the time to consider as many second+ order effects before making a change like this
-There has not been a good explanation for why 100k
-Filters do not need to work perfectly to be worth it
-99%+ of O_R were <=80 bytes when that setting was being enforced
-Miners can examine and censor illegal data in OOB submissions (slipstream)
-Miners will lose time and therefore money (particularly the block subsidy) if they have to examine large O_Rs so they will not
-It is worth employing filters even if they only stop a certain amount of spam
-Node runners have a right to decide what they will or will not relay - Soveriegnty
-Spam will put node runners in legal jeopardy (CSAM)
-BSV made the same change and CSAM started filling up blocks
-Let miners signal what they would allow for O_R
-Luke Dashjr has seen issues before others many times
-Luke Dashjr has "saved" bitcoin more than once.
-Opening the door to spam could kill bitcoin
-Opening the door to spam could harm Bitcoin's primary use case
-This will not "kill bitcoin" immediately... but as time goes more issues will likely arise.  Some of them possibly dire
-A rich motivated attacker will pay a LOT to attack bitcoin. (ex governments) so fees may not be enough
-Use L2s for arbitrary data.
-Deprecate O_R entirely?
-Various softfork ideas to deal with any problems that the new O_R creates
-This opens up BTC to serious social attacks and harm the public opinion of it
-This change turns Bitcoin into a free open relay for CSAM/malware/arbitrary data. And eternal storage for a small cost.
Core/Client Specific:
-Core severely damaged it's reputation by doing this badly socially.
-Core wants to deprecate the DCSlimit entirely
-Core plans to remove the ability for users to adjust DCS etc themselves
-Core wants to turn bitcoin into ETH
-Core devs have financial interests which this change benefits
-Core shut down the conversation and ignored the users
-Core unilaterally shipped a very contentious change
-In the past core has shutdown other changes saying "Let the market decide"
-Big donators are pushing core decisions (Chaincode labs, Blockstream, whomever)
-Core has been compromised in some way (ie Gvmt)
-Core is now made up of leftists and this is part of the result
-Core has been driving Dashjr away for quite some time
-Core unilaterally closed Github chats to certain users and banned others
-Core basically ignored the NACK voices amongst it's own ranks  
-Core has rewritten definitions to "fix" problems
-Knots may not be the best final solution but it is the best we have now.
-Knots DOES have multiple contributors, not just one
-We can be pro-filter and choose an older version of Core rather than run Knots
-Running Knots rather than not upgrading sends a signal

I reserve the right to edit this heavily, and am glad to hear input.

The next installment might highlight what various users/influencers/etc have been saying where the arguments have been high content.  I will likely avoid just the shit slinging with will pretty much eliminate what many people are saying from my series lol.  I may also make a list of the more notable users who fall on each side outside of the original main cast list.

If you want to buy me a coffee you can send sats to moose@walletofsatoshi.com.  If you want me to shut up because I am "stupid and do not know what I am talking about" you can GFY.  Though I DO welcome rational calm criticism.

If you use the word "misinformation" even ONE time I am going to filter your ass.

Finally a thanks to the whole WO.  I know this is a LITTLE OT and I know some would rather not hear it at all.  But I hope this is helpful to some folks who are curious but have wisely not been paying that much attention to the mess.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[OutOfMemory]

...
While Sassaman, of whom i read the first time today, seems to be factually only weakly connected to SN, according to this article i flew over after reading him up on wikipedia. https://coingeek.com/faketoshi-series-part-4-len-sassaman/
...

LOL, That article is a joke.

This is a fucking retarded statement.

Len Sassaman was a champion of privacy and cryptographic security, but his approach and ideology differ greatly from that of Satoshi Nakamoto. Sassaman’s work was deeply rooted in the cypherpunk movement, while Nakamoto was pretty publicly opposed to cypherpunk values and even had negative things to say about various cypherpunks like James Donald and Julian Assange.

You never seemed to me to be someone that believes everything they read without critically thinking about it.

Either way I could care what people think, after much research I am convinced.

*No I'm no going to do anyone's research for them, and even if I did you shouldn't just believe me either

You're right, i'm still looking into this, and i just started
So far i found mostly contradictory stuff, could well take me hours, days, weeks to consider a final opinion.
You might also have recognized that i tend to throw in "according to" statements in the hope of further hints and input by WO's of more experience in the matter of question 

[Satofan44]

are many ways to solve this problem, if they want...like, keep only data from history transaction of each coin, ungroup transactions, or arbitrary coinjoin on chain, but the real problem is mining incentives, this problem could not solve , because greed is high!

It is easy to say that. Go ahead write a BIP and a implementation, then you can say it again. Most people think they have great idea but they hide them in places where they won't get scrutinized heavily and destroyed. Surviving the developer list would be the first step.

You arrived a little angry, but then you were open to dialogue, that's good.

I don't tolerate retards who believe they are independent thinkers while they continue to spread misinformation, a case example is cAPSLOCK. He is the perfect kind of parasite in Bitcoin who sits on the sidelines most of the times and has never contributed anything, but occasionally they awaken to create damage to it. That's all they do. He wrote again a big post where half of the content is lies or exaggerations.  

So I'd like to hear from you, it's better a roots-to-peer electronic money transfer system, with all possible security to avoid double spending, or one more in the middle of many other protocols with numerous purposes?

The failure of this statement lies that you don't recognize that this is censorship and permission. You want to decide how I will use this system. You can design the system however you want, you can intend it to be used in whatever specific way you want, but you can't force me to use it that way. That is the beauty of Bitcoin. If I want to store images on Bitcoin, I will store them.

With so many forks, why in Bitcoin also images? Would arbitrary Coinjoin end all this, and also end the incentives for miners?

I'm pretty sure someone could find a way to bypass this within 24 hours. Write an email on the developer list and you will see. I am completely ignoring the fact that this would be a big overhaul of how Bitcoin works and that OP_RETURN limits are nothing compared to this.

[philipma1957]

The ETF era Bitcoin Drama - 2025  Part THREE!

The basic arguments...




< big snip to the real points>



-100Kb is 1250x 80b
-A 100Kb DSC opens known and unknown exploits (like Taproot did)
-We should be REDUCING Bitcoin's attack surface, and this change enlarges it <snip>.  The philosophers, economists, and even some of the shitposters.
-Going that big is fishy
-This is a slippery slope.
-We need to take the time to consider as many second+ order effects before making a change like this
-There has not been a good explanation for why 100k

<snip>

To me we could have simply done six month upgrades

Core 30  80kb
 to Core 31 160kb
to Core 32 320kb
to core 33 640kb
To Core 34 1280kb
To Core 35 2560kb
To Core 36 5120kb
To Core 37 10240kb
To core 38 20480kb
To core 39 40960kb
To core 40 81920kb

No one has  said why a single jump from 80kb to 100,000kb is safer and better than a slow move upwards and onwards.


We have done 30 cores there is no need to do it in a single jump since we all know we will do many more core moves.

So where is the safety in rushing from 80kb to 100,000kb

When a more gradual approach was easy to do?

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[Satofan44]

To me we could have simply done six month upgrades

Core 30  80kb
 to Core 31 160kb
to Core 32 320kb
to core 33 640kb
To Core 34 1280kb
To Core 35 2560kb
To Core 36 5120kb
To Core 37 10240kb
To core 38 20480kb
To core 39 40960kb
To core 40 81920kb

No one has  said why a single jump from 80kb to 100,000kb is safer and better than a slow move upwards and onwards.


We have done 30 cores there is no need to do it in a single jump since we all know we will do many more core moves.

So where is the safety in rushing from 80kb to 100,000kb

Because in the mind of normies and other less technical people this sounds like it does something. It doesn't do anything, it does not provide any extra safety that you think it does.

When a more gradual approach was easy to do?

It is more code, more review, more tracking of data so the opposite of easy. Given what I read here and in other misinformation places, Core should have not returned the -datacarriersize option. It was a mistake to cave in to this demand, and yes I demanded it too.

[philipma1957]

To me we could have simply done six month upgrades

Core 30  80kb
 to Core 31 160kb
to Core 32 320kb
to core 33 640kb
To Core 34 1280kb
To Core 35 2560kb
To Core 36 5120kb
To Core 37 10240kb
To core 38 20480kb
To core 39 40960kb
To core 40 81920kb

No one has  said why a single jump from 80kb to 100,000kb is safer and better than a slow move upwards and onwards.


We have done 30 cores there is no need to do it in a single jump since we all know we will do many more core moves.

So where is the safety in rushing from 80kb to 100,000kb

Because in the mind of normies and other less technical people this sounds like it does something. It doesn't do anything, it does not provide any extra safety that you think it does.

When a more gradual approach was easy to do?

It is more code, more review, more tracking of data so the opposite of easy. Given what I read here and in other misinformation places, Core should have not returned the -datacarriersize option. It was a mistake to cave in to this demand, and yes I demanded it too.

I have worked with computers since 1975. This is a perfectly good method of fucking up a working system with a huge upgrade.

And if doing 8 upgrades is too much work then go from 80kb to 800kb to 8000kb to 80000kb

YOU DO NOT HAVE A VALID ARGUEMENT TO GO FROM 80KB TO 100,000KB in 1 shot not when you could have done it far more slowly.

Please stop trying to convince people that there was or is a pressing need for the increase in one shot.

I have seen more than one system struggle when too much was done in one upgrade.

[Satofan44]

I have worked with computers since 1975. This is a perfectly good method of fucking up a working system with a huge upgrade.

Yes computer expert, next time I will upgrade my RAM from 4 GB to 64 GB in baby steps otherwise my system will be fried. Should I do it in 10KB steps just to be extra sure?  

I have seen more than one system struggle when too much was done in one upgrade.

The generalization is dumb and has nothing to do with what is going on here. Learn the basics again, relay vs. consensus rules. Non standard transactions are happening regularly, just because you are not watching them that doesn't mean that something new is going on.

YOU DO NOT HAVE A VALID ARGUEMENT TO GO FROM 80KB TO 100,000KB in 1 shot not when you could have done it far more slowly.

It is over, a done deal. It will not be reverted. You can argue this position all you want, but it won't change anything. You can try to convince luke though, maybe he will do it that way? 

[cAPSLOCK]

I don't tolerate retards who believe they are independent thinkers while they continue to spread misinformation, a case example is cAPSLOCK. He is the perfect kind of parasite in Bitcoin who sits on the sidelines most of the times and has never contributed anything, but occasionally they awaken to create damage to it. That's all they do. He wrote again a big post where half of the content is lies or exaggerations.

Ok I am going to answer you on this though I should know better.

First of all... Fuck you.  

Ah that felt kinda good.

Secondly you are using the same non-argument that I see so many using.  Calling your opposition a "retard".  That is not an argument.  It is an ad-hom character assassination tactic used by people with no argument.

But wait.  Then you DO try to make an argument.  Congrats on that.  Too bad it's totally silly.  You do a couple more ad homs :  sits on the sidelines... never contributes anything things you cannot possibly know about me.  I am not going to ask anyone here to vouch for me, but I am willing to bet there are one or two who might have appreciated things I contribute to this community.

But then you state what I bolded...

He wrote again a big post where half of the content is lies or exaggerations.

Firstly...  I have to guess at what you are talking about when you say "half the content is lies or exaggerations" I can only ASSUME you mean most of what I wrote down as the filter-side's arguments and perhaps some of what I wrote as core-side arguments.  I have to guess because you do not argue based on content.  You just call me names.

But here is where you really show your ass.  

What was I doing?  Was I trying to make a point?  Was I arguing for one side or the other?  Here is a surprise for you.  I agree with the MAJORITY of the points on the core side.

But you accuse me of spreading lies.  This is because I ACCURATELY represented the side of the argument you disagree with (as WELL as the other side).  But you do not want those points to be exposed because they are "misinformation" by your own decree.  

You are a censor.  An impotent censor, but someone who wants to shut down information.  A filter, if you like.

Just because some things on that list are CERTAINLY factually incorrect, and others are ridiculous non arguments (in both lists) my efforts there are quite accurate.  Those points ARE what each respective side is arguing.  And THAT was the point of my post.

Frame both sides clearly so the people here (whom I happen to quite respect) get to know the info.  Some already do.  But others might still be thinking about this.

That post did not even take a side.

Calling for people's speech to be shut down because you disagree with it is cowardly, autocratic, and even a bit evil.

OK... I am almost done.

Fuck you.

There...



I'M FINISHED!