Where are you 'Iamnotback'?

[theymos]

He has several accounts all banned for ban evasion. It seems that the underlying offense which caused him to initially get into trouble (and often the thing which causes his alts to get noticed) is excessive multi-posting. But when he was warned and/or temporarily banned for this minor thing, he kept evading his bans. This forum cannot operate unless its few rules are followed, so ignoring the warnings and temporary bans that you receive and continuing to do the same stuff is unacceptable. People who do so are not welcome here.

His bans will not automatically expire, and any future alts we see from him will be permabanned. I may manually reconsider his ban if he promises to actually try not to break forum rules. The rules are not meant to silence anyone, but to keep the forum usable and fair. When someone multi-posts excessively, it monopolizes a thread in a way which harms everyone else's ability to communicate. Based on his posts in this thread, I think that he will just continue to break rules if unbanned, so I will not unban him at this time.

bitcointalk.org is not a normal for-profit company. Even if banning iamnotback somehow stopped all future ad revenue, he would still be banned, since his rule-breaking is disrupting the forum's mission of hosting free discussion of Bitcoin and related topics. (As explained above, "free discussion" is not "unmoderated discussion".) Similarly, I would welcome effective competition from decentralized forums, and I would be thrilled to be able to shut down bitcointalk.org in favor of a better-in-all-ways decentralized alternative. But although decentralized forums have existed for a long time (eg. Freenet's FMS is almost exactly what iamnotback keeps describing, and has existed since before Bitcoin), they have unfortunately not been widely used since the era of the semi-decentralized Usenet system, mainly due to vastly inferior usability.

[1714152307]

1714152307

[1714152307]

1714152307

[1714152307]

1714152307

[Dorky]

The whales and the miners are economically the same entities, per the math above. Your imaginary dialogue is complete nonsense from an economics analysis perspective.

And that is why I stated that the dolphins (the $millionaires) will be paying the fees for the whales. The whales will pay no fees. And the minnows will be kicked off the blockchain by the high fees.

My analysis was mathematically cogent. You simply couldn't visualize the math without me spelling it out for you ABCDEFG.

Stupid idiot.

The main primary purpose of bitcoin is NOT to financially milk the sheeps, BUT to digitally track the activities and properties of them.
What you are analyzing is based on what is happening TODAY.
In the future, things will change.
That's why they are testing out PoS and other non-PoW proposals.
The moment bitcoin activates segwit, your whole stupid thesis falls apart in your face.

Scum.

[jonald_fyookball]

The whales and the miners are economically the same entities, per the math above. Your imaginary dialogue is complete nonsense from an economics analysis perspective.

And that is why I stated that the dolphins (the $millionaires) will be paying the fees for the whales. The whales will pay no fees. And the minnows will be kicked off the blockchain by the high fees.

My analysis was mathematically cogent. You simply couldn't visualize the math without me spelling it out for you ABCDEFG.

Stupid idiot.

The main primary purpose of bitcoin is NOT to financially milk the sheeps, BUT to digitally track the activities and properties of them.
What you are analyzing is based on what is happening TODAY.
In the future, things will change.
That's why they are testing out PoS and other non-PoW proposals.
The moment bitcoin activates segwit, your whole stupid thesis falls apart in your face.

Scum.

lol... im not falling for it.  dorky is another sock.  

whats with you man

[Dorky]

Since whales will have transactions which are say 1000 times higher in transferred value than minnows, so if whales are willing to pay 0.1% fee, then minnows will pay a 100% fee (i.e. they can't transact any more).

The whales make up over 80% of all bitcoin supply, leaving only <20% to the bottom 90% and that makes little financial difference whether to retain or oust them out of the blockchain. And 0.1% fee is already a reality today with all the minnows.

You have unjustified nightmare imagination.

At the point that miners are making too much profit off of whales, the whales are economically incentivized to rent hashrate, mine their own blocks, and pay the fees to themselves. Thus ultimately, the miners and the whales are economically the same entities.

The whales and the miners are economically the same entities, per the math above. Your imaginary dialogue is complete nonsense from an economics analysis perspective.

1. If ALL the minnows are completely 100% out of bitcoin blockchain, then WHO will pay the fee to feed the miners? Nobody! Then what's the point of pushing the minnows out? There is no point.
2. If the whales are the same as the miners, then pushing out all the minnows and earn ZERO fee instead of retaining them and earn some fee is unwise.

You keep talking about pushing out the minnows based entirely on miners' greed.
You don't really understand game theory entirely.

Without the minnows, who will pay the fee to the miners?
Who will make up for the difference once ALL the minnows left?
Answer me, you retard!

If bitcoin is reserved only for the whales, the top $billionaires and $trillionaires, then I sincerely say you have no fcking idea what's the primary purpose of bitcoin.
If you think bitcoin is made to fight the tyrant governments and sideline the banksters, you are really an idiot.
Bitcoin wasn't made reserved for the top elites.
Bitcoin was made for us sheeps.
The altcoins are just 1) distraction, 2) sandboxes to test out proposals.

[dinofelis]

I have already stated upthread that my hope would be to only engage you on a decentralized forum wherein I could "edit your posts" for brevity and "delete" your insolent posts when they are accusing me of being deluded

Visibly your "insolence meter" is asymmetrically calibrated.  This is probably one of the reasons why you end up banned from online social interaction here, which, from an intellectual point of view, can be regrettable, but which, on the side of politeness, is understandable.

As I explained, these moderation actions would only appear for those who had chosen to have their forum client software follow me as a moderator. All your posts would remain fully intact on the blockchain, and any reader could view them if they want to. So in no way would I propose a system wherein I could censor you, yet if I am a popular moderator, I can influence you to structure your discussion to be more concise and to avoid adversarial ad hominem allegations that can't be falsified.

Such a rudimentary system existed in the 1990-ies as I said before: it was called usenet, and had a simple, decentralized protocol: NNTP.  Nobody ever bothered writing a filter script on top of it, but that is something that could be done with not too much hassle.  usenet died because it crumbled under gigabytes of daily spam ; but what is spam for one, is interesting for another one.  I used to hang around in the sci.physics section, where every lunatic was exposing his rants about his theories of the universe, making normal talk about normal physics essentially impossible.  That's how sci.physics.research was born, with moderation.  Now, of course, to most of us, those lunatic "original thinkers" were spammers writing every thread full of bullshit, but for a limited audience, they were of course visionaries that exposed the conspiracy and idiocy of academia.  So who's to decide ?  Of course you could add blacklists.  Yes, you could even distribute black lists.  But it was a pain.

On the other hand, if you want to vent your own opinions, the internet allows you to have your personal blog where you are master.  Nobody stops you from citing other blogs, picking out what you like, and comment it.  If you are a popular blogger, people will read your stuff.

However, attracting attention to your blog is much more work that profiting from the attraction of an existing centralized forum.  I guess that's why you are here - that's why I am here: both of us want the easiness of picking in on the existing success and social gathering of this forum, instead of going through the difficulty of trying to build such a community from scratch, with all chances of it failing.  I want to have people answering my stuff, so that I can learn from it, and I have my own method of provoking answers, which is not necessarily adversarial to the system I'm (ab)using.  The price to pay to profit from some other entities' popularity, is to accept their power and rules. BTW, this is why many decentralized systems are doomed: people, in general, are willing to pay a price of power, to get easiness back from it.   Usenet was a precursor of decentralized discussion.  People prefer, by large, centralized versions of it.   If you want to have decentralized discussion, restart usenet, and add a "Joe's moderation preferences" script to it, with a moderated group mod.prefs.joe, which contains the encodings of his daily moderation preferences ; or Joe can also put his moderation preferences on his web site.  Nothing difficult.  Nobody will use it.  Hell, there were moderated groups on usenet too, the only ones that were actually usable.  Everybody could start his own moderated group.  Most people didn't.

I've been moderating scientific discussions for a long time, until I really got enough of it.  I respect the moderators on a big forum like this: it is an ungrateful job, and it is difficult to keep one's cool sometimes.  Of course, sometimes, when things don't happen the way you think is fair, a suspicion of conspiracy against your ideas is easy, because the power structure is opaque.  As I've seen the other side for years, and if you see the free investment by people, you know that this is most likely not the case.

This is, BTW, something that crypto is entirely killing: free engagement.  Everything that was freely given away, is now subject to accountancy.  Your idle computing time that could be used for voluntary projects, is taken away because you can use it to mine some coins ; discussing on a blog becomes an act to be paid for in coins ; when free generosity becomes a matter of accountancy, there's no fun to be had any more.  Crypto is killing the last bit of freedom by trying to make everything to be paid for.

You are popular.  You can have a popular blog.  You can of course copy whatever you want from this forum to comment on your blog.  That's exactly what you are proposing.  What's the problem ?

[dinofelis]

a huge number of sock puppets.  this guy literally loves to talk to himself.

Why are you on a forum where there are essentially, to your view, only two participants: "you and your sock puppets" and "us" ?

That said, it comes close to my view on the world: "me", and "the others"

[the_end_is_near]

He has several accounts all banned for ban evasion. It seems that the underlying offense which caused him to initially get into trouble (and often the thing which causes his alts to get noticed) is excessive multi-posting.

I am not the one who allows multiple duplicate threads on the same subjects, thus forcing me to copy posts to the multiple threads on the same topics.

It is not a logically valid reason for perma-banning.

I've always wondered why your mods are so derelict that they can't stop the duplication of threads on the same subject matter.

But when he was warned and/or temporarily banned for this minor thing, he kept evading his bans.

Because your ban was inane for the reason I stated above. I refuse to follow inane rules made by unorganized fools.

This forum cannot operate unless its few rules are followed, so ignoring the warnings and temporary bans that you receive and continuing to do the same stuff is unacceptable.

Thus your policy is that posting in all the threads on the same subject matter is unacceptable. And whose fault is that. Duh.

People who do so are not welcome here.

And that is why your forum will die. And is dying.

I've also heard you were also censoring on Reddit.

His bans will not automatically expire, and any future alts we see from him will be permabanned. I may manually reconsider his ban if he promises to actually try not to break forum rules.

I will never promise to respect idiots who are corrupt, unorganized, and make inane rules.

Besides why would I allow you to be an authority over me, when I can simply disrupt your paradigm and destroy your corruption. The latter is much more sane and inspirational.

I am not coming back to your insane asylum. The final posts will be made here in this Meta thread.

The rules are not meant to silence anyone, but to keep the forum usable and fair. When someone multi-posts excessively, it monopolizes a thread in a way which harms everyone else's ability to communicate.

If by "multi-posts" you are referring to fact that I post multiple responses to different individuals in a thread, then your rule is batshit insane. How else am I supposed to conduct myself if I am not able to discuss all the issues presented in the thread. And my posts are often incredibly detailed because of the nature of the subject matter and thus necessarily too long to merge multiple posts into a single post, even though I do that often with horizontal rules separators. I fail to see the major difference between multiple posts and multiple posts merge into one post. It is the same content regardless.

Essentially your inane rule is that you are throttling how much effort someone can put into making content for your forum. That is stupid.

You are arbitrarily silencing me because others don't like the fact that I work very hard to cover all the issues.

If you really want a throttle, then simply institute one, some maximum number of posts per hour for example.

Based on his posts in this thread, I think that he will just continue to break rules if unbanned, so I will not unban him at this time.

Correct. And it will never change until you fix your problem. Or more likely, until I fix the problem and render your forum irrelevant.

bitcointalk.org is not a normal for-profit company. Even if banning iamnotback somehow stopped all future ad revenue, he would still be banned, since his rule-breaking is disrupting the forum's mission of hosting free discussion of Bitcoin and related topics.

You're disrupting your own forum. The end is near.

Similarly, I would welcome effective competition from decentralized forums, and I would be thrilled to be able to shut down bitcointalk.org in favor of a better-in-all-ways decentralized alternative.

I could almost like you, if I could possibly understand your behavior in allegedly censoring at Reddit and the inane throttling of my ability to create incredibly valuable content.

It is possible to turn my attitude into a positive one, if you simply fix the inane nonsense.

I'm quite amiable with people who don't destroy value. It is not difficult to be my friend, as my friends will attest.

But corruption and inane destruction of value will justifiably continue to earn my ire. I never intentionally put myself on the wrong side of what is correct. Those who do simply have some vested interest which prevents them from doing so or blindness to the correct reality.

But although decentralized forums have existed for a long time (eg. Freenet's FMS is almost exactly what iamnotback keeps describing, and has existed since before Bitcoin), they have unfortunately not been widely used since the era of the semi-decentralized Usenet system, mainly due to vastly inferior usability.

FMS is a messaging system, not a forum. You don't seem to understand most basic issues of technology, because there is no way that Freenet could implement a forum because afaik it doesn't have any distributed consensus on ordering of data in time. It is a P2P file sharing system, not a blockchain.

Also there are bound to be a huge laundry list with usability issues by any software created by an academic who doesn't have experience in creating commercial user facing software. For example, I don't even know if there is a web browser interface so that someone doesn't have to download an app just to taste it. And any mobile apps available?


Meanwhile in Venezuela.


Edit on May 5:

Someone sent me a PM suggesting that I try to compromise with @Theymos. I declined. The reason is because I've been compromising for the past 4 years dealing with this inane insane asylum forum. I am tired of fighting with all the trolls and being blindsided by moderation. I think I need to create something better. I don't think I need to go backwards into the cesspool. So thanks, but no thanks. If BCT is improved, I might change my mind.

To elaborate a bit, I am a pragmatic person and did choose to use BCT rather than attempt a more difficult challenge. I am normally a person who is willing to compromise in order to facilitate the most efficient path forward. But I also learned in life that once you've been severely abused, if you come back for more, you'll be abused more. The pattern we see early in a relationship never changes. I have learned from life, that what we see is what we get. People don't change.

So no! I am not going to come back for more abuse. Sorry. There is no possible compromise other than if BCT is improved to fix what is causing the problems. But of course it won't be improved ever. It won't change.

Additionally the rules are ambiguous and arbitrary and I would have to walk on eggshells. Sorry I don't want to live my life worried about everything. BCT isn't worth the headaches.

I do not want to continue discussions on a site where I have deal with so many trolls and don't have the moderation tools available so I can efficiently squelch their strife. It simply isn't worth the disruption to production. It is a cesspool of noise and strife. I don't want my important technological content being buried and obscured by trolls and subject to deletion by mods. It creates too much duplication of work and wastes enormous quantities of time dealing with crap. This time could be better invested in productive activities.

To the idiot who keeps sending me PMs and thinks he knows better than me, you're just another troll. Please stop. It has nothing to do with my ego. It has to do with stopping the daily strife, so that I can get work done. Stop being so worried about how I will market my project. I know what I am doing. And you don't! So please STFU and stop sending me PMs. I don't need your advice nor your opinion. It's just more noise. I get so much noise from this forum. If you can do something important, go do it. Stop running your mouth and causing me to waste more time explaining it to you. I don't need to explain. I know what I am doing and that is the only person who needs to know at this juncture.

A permissionless crypto-currency is not well matched to a permissioned forum. Mavericks don't attain greatness by compromising their goals and ideals and pussy footing around.

Oh btw, I never wrote that I wouldn't consider buying advertising (from @Theymos or from users' signature space) in the future. It remains a possibility, although there are other choices as well such as Coindesk, Coinmarketcap, etc.. I haven't analyzed that yet. Too premature.

Due to the recent changes implemented by theymos I would not trust to post in a thread I've not started. Sorry.

Re: MPOE-PR Perma-Banned after warning, Temp Ban more appropriate?

You don't get banned for swearing at a moderator. MPOE-PR was asked to stop spamming/trolling by Maged, and rather than stopping, she swore at him. The act of insulting Maged itself didn't get her banned, it was the warning, and then lack of acknowledgement of the warning that got the ban.

As much as MPOE-PR (Mircea Popescu) was hated she/he was usually right when he called bullshit (and that's why people hated him). He had Bitfinex pegged in 2013: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=230182.0

[the_end_is_near]

I have already stated upthread that my hope would be to only engage you on a decentralized forum wherein I could "edit your posts" for brevity and "delete" your insolent posts when they are accusing me of being deluded

Visibly your "insolence meter" is asymmetrically calibrated.

As I already wrote, the group leader/expert should moderate asymmetrically when the subject matter is perceived to be insolent to group's mission or thesis:

One hundred expert moderated groups will trounce a one-size-fits-all totalitarianism and socialist least common denominator clusterfuck. The reason Medium is succeeding is because all the important people post there, including for example superstars such as Nicholas Taleb.

Experts refuse to waste their time having discussions where they don't have sufficient moderation control in order to keep the discussion on point of the expert's group focus.

Even I am proposing to improve upon that, by having all moderation actions be entirely optional to follow since all the data remains immutable on the decentralized blockchain.

But entirely the point is that we should have a common hub for discussion but allow different groups to prioritize/filter what content they don't wish to interact with. So that everyone can co-exist in the greater economies-of-scale of a common nexus of activity without forcing all users to the least common denominator.

You'd be welcome to go lead your own group else stop being insolent to the astute thesis of the group expert:

…

You're intense, haughty, insolent skepticism/pessimism/fatalism about the (lack of) importance of blockchains and Bitcoin … yet my point as a visionary has always been to not miss the exponential change that humans can't detect in its nascent stages wherein for example aliasing error (remember the broken clock example upthread) would cause someone to presume that Bitcoin and blockchains are only about unregulated illegal activities, gambling and speculation. I think you're going to be eating humble pie at the rapid transformation of the importance of Bitcoin and blockchains over the coming years.

…

The timing of technological revolutions coincide with some key enabling factor. For example, the Second Industrial Revolution (mass production in factories) was enabled by the First Industrial Revolution (e.g. steel fabrication). Szabo has written extensively¹ about enabling factors of the Second Agricultural Revolution and the subsequent industrial revolutions. The Internet made possible and even necessary to solve the problem of decentralized consensus, i.e. blockchains. This is a technological revolution in its nascent stage which is going to significantly transform the world.

This is probably one of the reasons why you end up banned from online social interaction here, which, from an intellectual point of view, can be regrettable, but which, on the side of politeness, is understandable.

There you go again with your aliasing error. You form batshit insane conclusions from point samples, as if you looked up at a stopped clock at 6am and 6pm and concluded the clock was functioning properly.

I have no problem in a social setting when I can remove the riff-raff trolls from the conversation I am participating in. Either I am leading that group or I find the group leader's moderation to be agreeable to me else I don't participate (and that is why I no longer participate in BCT). I already explained that this forum doesn't allow one to effectively form groups:

Unfortunately the Ignore feature of this forum doesn't work very well. It continues to show me the blanked out posts of those I Ignored and replies to those I ignored. I want an Ignore feature that erases you entirely from my view, so you can't come back to haunt me when someone I don't Ignore decides to reply to you. It is an unfortunate feature of this forum that is subjects us to trolls we don't want to have to deal with. That is why for example, you won't see an A-lister such as Eric Raymond posting extensively in a forum where he can be torn to shreds in a battle of attrition by 100s of anonymous newbie trolls who want to take pot shots at the top dog.

Instead it is a one-size-fits-all least common denominator clusterfuck wherein we have paid trolls like @jonald_fyookball writing delusional nonsense as follows:

a huge number of sock puppets.  this guy literally loves to talk to himself.

Why are you on a forum where there are essentially, to your view, only two participants: "you and your sock puppets" and "us" ?

[the_end_is_near]

Are you missing out on this Litecoin action or just hiding in the shadows?

He has stated to us in private (Crypto.cat chat) that there is a high probability that LTC will decline to the 0.0107 - 0.0112 region before noon on May 1 UTC, and that would be a firm bottom. His prediction for the next major top some weeks later is 0.016+. The ATH of 0.05 is on the longer-term horizon.

He had also predicted the rise from 0.01017 to 0.0122, because it is mimicking the pattern from late March and early April (see the crash low and rebound and crash again in early April). The intersections of the Fibonnaci concentric circles is also providing these predictions for inflection points.

Did anyone notice LTC declined to below 0.011 yesterday as I had precisely predicted in this thread when the price was much higher.

Next stop 0.016+.

Note how the pattern matches from April 23, except the lows are not as low, thus indicating the next rise will make a higher high instead of a lower high. And I have a theory about alternating downwards and upwards staircase steps, with the angle of ascent increasing.

I advised buying LTC when it was $7 and less than 0.006. Now it is $20+ and 0.0014+. I wrote on April 2, that LTC would have to catch up on making its ATH before BTC could make significant progress on its new ATH. Thus once again my prediction was correct.

[iTradeChips]

Are you missing out on this Litecoin action or just hiding in the shadows?

He has stated to us in private (Crypto.cat chat) that there is a high probability that LTC will decline to the 0.0107 - 0.0112 region before noon on May 1 UTC, and that would be a firm bottom. His prediction for the next major top some weeks later is 0.016+. The ATH of 0.05 is on the longer-term horizon.

He had also predicted the rise from 0.01017 to 0.0122, because it is mimicking the pattern from late March and early April (see the crash low and rebound and crash again in early April). The intersections of the Fibonnaci concentric circles is also providing these predictions for inflection points.

Did anyone notice LTC declined to below 0.011 yesterday as I had precisely predicted in this thread when the price was much higher.

Next stop 0.016+.

Note how the pattern matches from April 23, except the lows are not as low, thus indicating the next rise will make a higher high instead of a lower high. And I have a theory about alternating downwards and upwards staircase steps, with the angle of ascent increasing.

I advised buying LTC when it was $7 and less than 0.006. Now it is $20+ and 0.0014+. I wrote on April 2, that LTC would have to catch up on making its ATH before BTC could make significant progress on its new ATH. Thus once again my prediction was correct.

good to see you posting again man. would you advise to take profits on LTC now at 0.0140-0.0145 range? if so what will be a good buyback price?

[Thenoticer]

Are you missing out on this Litecoin action or just hiding in the shadows?

He has stated to us in private (Crypto.cat chat) that there is a high probability that LTC will decline to the 0.0107 - 0.0112 region before noon on May 1 UTC, and that would be a firm bottom. His prediction for the next major top some weeks later is 0.016+. The ATH of 0.05 is on the longer-term horizon.

He had also predicted the rise from 0.01017 to 0.0122, because it is mimicking the pattern from late March and early April (see the crash low and rebound and crash again in early April). The intersections of the Fibonnaci concentric circles is also providing these predictions for inflection points.

Did anyone notice LTC declined to below 0.011 yesterday as I had precisely predicted in this thread when the price was much higher.

Next stop 0.016+.

Note how the pattern matches from April 23, except the lows are not as low, thus indicating the next rise will make a higher high instead of a lower high. And I have a theory about alternating downwards and upwards staircase steps, with the angle of ascent increasing.

I advised buying LTC when it was $7 and less than 0.006. Now it is $20+ and 0.0014+. I wrote on April 2, that LTC would have to catch up on making its ATH before BTC could make significant progress on its new ATH. Thus once again my prediction was correct.

Simply in awe. The advice has been amazing. Wish I had something to contribute to the conversation. Waynes World moment...[We're not Worthy!!!]

[the_end_is_near]

In the future, things will change.

The moment bitcoin activates segwit, your whole stupid thesis falls apart in your face.

I don't think so. The whales have no incentive to allow it to change. The whales (miners and hodler whales) have and will continue to block SegWit and any other changes which remove their mathematical economic dominance as I described it. @dinofelis and I seem to agree on this point.

I even claim that Satoshi premeditated designed it this way. Of course whenever I claim that, it causes @dinofelis to accuse me of being delusional and having a confirmation bias.

That's why they are testing out PoS and other non-PoW proposals.

This will never happen for the reason I stated above and also because of the huge investment in ASIC mining farms and ASIC engineering (e.g. Bitmain).

Litecoin has been designated the offchain (thus regulated) scaling coin. Bitcoin will remain the on chain, unregulated but only for those who can afford to pay the egregious transaction fees that are coming in the future years.

The whales make up over 80% of all bitcoin supply, leaving only <20% to the bottom 90% and that makes little financial difference whether to retain or oust them out of the blockchain. And 0.1% fee is already a reality today with all the minnows.

You have unjustified nightmare imagination.

That is not a refutation of the math I provided.

You seem to have difficulty comprehending the math, as evident by your reply which makes no logical point w.r.t. math I provided.

1. If ALL the minnows are completely 100% out of bitcoin blockchain, then WHO will pay the fee to feed the miners? Nobody! Then what's the point of pushing the minnows out? There is no point.

I already stated that the dolphins (those who are $millionaires now) will. They will pay the high transaction fees because they want to transact on chain, unregulated.

The minnows are entirely worthless and insignificant. As usual, the sheep are pushed out on to the regulated farm so they can be harvested for economic parasitism by the shadow elite.

[the_end_is_near]

As I explained, these moderation actions would only appear for those who had chosen to have their forum client software follow me as a moderator. All your posts would remain fully intact on the blockchain, and any reader could view them if they want to. So in no way would I propose a system wherein I could censor you, yet if I am a popular moderator, I can influence you to structure your discussion to be more concise and to avoid adversarial ad hominem allegations that can't be falsified.

Such a rudimentary system existed in the 1990-ies as I said before: it was called usenet, and had a simple, decentralized protocol: NNTP.

Afaik, NNTP is not decentralized consensus. Rather it is a single news server which is the canonical source and other servers can mirror it.

usenet died because it crumbled under gigabytes of daily spam

Thus it didn't have my moderation feature. And it didn't charge a minuscule microtransaction fee to post, which is the another aspect I'm planning. Steemit already does this, you don't do any activity on the blockchain without paying a fee, but the fee on Steemit is a quota instead of deduction from your token balance (yet your token balance is debased, so same effect as charging a fee). On Bitnet, the fees are burned, so the money supply shrinks and thus your tokens become more valuable.

… moderation …  So who's to decide ?  Of course you could add blacklists.  Yes, you could even distribute black lists.  But it was a pain.

A poorly designed and programmed system is not a refutation of my plans.

On the other hand, if you want to vent your own opinions, the internet allows you to have your personal blog where you are master.

A blog page with trailing comments, and self-moderated forum thread are essentially the same thing.

However, there are advantages to the economies-of-scale of having a unified GUI and feature set for all threads.

Also I hub of threads, i.e. a forum, yields economies-of-scale in readers and content browsing/searching.

However, attracting attention to your blog is much more work that profiting from the attraction of an existing centralized forum.

The forum canonical source doesn't need to be centralized. Perhaps you mean having the common hub or nexus of a list of threads that can be browsed and searched. Indeed.

I guess that's why you are here - that's why I am here: both of us want the easiness of picking in on the existing success and social gathering of this forum, instead of going through the difficulty of trying to build such a community from scratch, with all chances of it failing.

I am up for the challenge of trying to create a decentralized forum technology that could end up being used by a billion users.

BCT is but a speck of sand at the beach, compared to what I have in mind.

The price to pay to profit from some other entities' popularity, is to accept their power and rules.

There you go with your aliasing error again. You constructed a strawman. I don't need to pay a price. Just create a better mousetrap and watch the world choose to use it, instead of the inferior forum software out there now.

BTW, this is why many decentralized systems are doomed: people, in general, are willing to pay a price of power, to get easiness back from it.

Decentralized forums don't need to suffer any disadvantages and can have many advantages, if they are designed well.

Usenet was a precursor of decentralized discussion.

Not really. Please stop comparing archaic crap to my plans. Usenet is not all similar to what I have in my plans.

Everybody could start his own moderated group.  Most people didn't.

Correct most people are followers, not leaders. You have this habit of failing to assimilate what I already wrote upthread (like you have selective reading comprehension):

One hundred expert moderated groups will trounce a one-size-fits-all totalitarianism and socialist least common denominator clusterfuck. The reason Medium is succeeding is because all the important people post there, including for example superstars such as Nicholas Taleb.

Experts refuse to waste their time having discussions where they don't have sufficient moderation control in order to keep the discussion on point of the expert's group focus.

[the_end_is_near]

Edit on May 5:

Someone sent me a PM suggesting that I try to compromise with @Theymos. I declined. The reason is because I've been compromising for the past 4 years dealing with this inane insane asylum forum. I am tired of fighting with all the trolls and being blindsided by moderation. I think I need to create something better. I don't think I need to go backwards into the cesspool. So thanks, but no thanks. If BCT is improved, I might change my mind.

To elaborate a bit, I am a pragmatic person and did choose to use BCT rather than attempt a more difficult challenge. I am normally a person who is willing to compromise in order to facilitate the most efficient path forward. But I also learned in life that once you've been severely abused, if you come back for more, you'll be abused more. The pattern we see early in a relationship never changes. I have learned from life, that what we see is what we get. People don't change.

So no! I am not going to come back for more abuse. Sorry. There is no possible compromise other than if BCT is improved to fix what is causing the problems. But of course it won't be improved ever. It won't change.

Additionally the rules are ambiguous and arbitrary and I would have to walk on eggshells. Sorry I don't want to live my life worried about everything. BCT isn't worth the headaches.

I do not want to continue discussions on a site where I have deal with so many trolls and don't have the moderation tools available so I can efficiently squelch their strife. It simply isn't worth the disruption to production. It is a cesspool of noise and strife. I don't want my important technological content being buried and obscured by trolls and subject to deletion by mods. It creates too much duplication of work and wastes enormous quantities of time dealing with crap. This time could be better invested in productive activities.

To the idiot who keeps sending me PMs and thinks he knows better than me, you're just another troll. Please stop. It has nothing to do with my ego. It has to do with stopping the daily strife, so that I can get work done. Stop being so worried about how I will market my project. I know what I am doing. And you don't! So please STFU and stop sending me PMs. I don't need your advice nor your opinion. It's just more noise. I get so much noise from this forum. If you can do something important, go do it. Stop running your mouth and causing me to waste more time explaining it to you. I don't need to explain. I know what I am doing and that is the only person who needs to know at this juncture.

A permissionless crypto-currency is not well matched to a permissioned forum. Mavericks don't attain greatness by compromising their goals and ideals and pussy footing around.

Oh btw, I never wrote that I wouldn't consider buying advertising (from @Theymos or from users' signature space) in the future. It remains a possibility, although there are other choices as well such as Coindesk, Coinmarketcap, etc.. I haven't analyzed that yet. Too premature.

Due to the recent changes implemented by theymos I would not trust to post in a thread I've not started. Sorry.

Re: MPOE-PR Perma-Banned after warning, Temp Ban more appropriate?

You don't get banned for swearing at a moderator. MPOE-PR was asked to stop spamming/trolling by Maged, and rather than stopping, she swore at him. The act of insulting Maged itself didn't get her banned, it was the warning, and then lack of acknowledgement of the warning that got the ban.

As much as MPOE-PR (Mircea Popescu) was hated she/he was usually right when he called bullshit (and that's why people hated him). He had Bitfinex pegged in 2013: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=230182.0

This troll continues to lecture and patronize me in PMs after I've told him to please stop, so in case anyone else has similar thoughts to him, let's just bring it in the open and address it:

His bans will not automatically expire, and any future alts we see from him will be permabanned. I may manually reconsider his ban if he promises to actually try not to break forum rules. The rules are not meant to silence anyone, but to keep the forum usable and fair. When someone multi-posts excessively, it monopolizes a thread in a way which harms everyone else's ability to communicate. Based on his posts in this thread, I think that he will just continue to break rules if unbanned, so I will not unban him at this time.

You read that Shelby, the owner himself came here to offer a truce and a chance to shake hands if you promise to stop fucking around copy pasting your posts in 2000 threads, even though you insulted him and the rest multiple times.

As I see it he has a set of unbreakable rules and you have somehow crossed the line. We are technically in his property and we should respect his rules, no matter how stupid they seem to be in our opinion.

That also means he appreciates you and your comments, as the rest of us, but he also has principles and his ego, as you do. Don't be fucking silly and take advantage of it, you can stop this farts battle now. You don't have to do it publicly, you could send him a PM.

Besides, you gonna need this platform to promote your incoming project, so c'mon. Be water my friend. We need ya here.

I am not a beta male. I don't need him nor his inane forum. Observe the outcome.

That has nothing to do with being a beta male, or a dick contest. That has to do with having or not street smarts. You can use his own platform to undermine him. Direct confrontation is not always the best strategy to defeat the enemy.

Maybe reading "The Art of War" again could help ya understand my point.

http://scienceofstrategy.org/main/content/winning-without-conflict

You don't seem to have enough experience in life. You are forcing me to explain what a wise man knows.

It has nothing to do with a dick contest!!! What the fuck is wrong with you. You are acting like all the other trolls.

I've quoted from the Art of War in the past. Please you aren't telling me anything I don't already know. Do you think I am so clueless. I know what I am doing.

I added one more comment to the post:

Additionally the rules are ambiguous and arbitrary and I would have to walk on eggshells. Sorry I don't want to live my life worried about everything. BCT isn't worth the headaches.

You might well know everything but you are applying nothing from it. You prefer conflict over diplomacy, the longer and rougher path, being clear you will be the one losing the most in this conflict.

You take it as if he slapped you publicly and you must stand your ground to avoid being taken for a ride and appear as a wimp, when the reality is he's already made concessions coming to this thread and posting why you're banned and how you can reverse it, because he wants you in the forum, but respecting his admittedly stupid rules.

But you have to double down like fucking "el Chapo", when it is painfully clear this is not the way to win this war, nor the right strategy.

Your target users - the pioneers and speculators needed to get the ball rolling and start the network effect - are already here.

Better start marketing your project here to make your life easier until you have reached critical mass?

You are another troll who is wasting my time. Please go away.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1887077.msg18864936#msg18864936

I already told you, I know what i am doing. And you don't. Please stop lecturing me. I am smarter than you realize.

You don't know what i am doing. You are too blind to even detect it.

Absolutely! I'm another troll and you need to sleep it off.

The ban will help ya to focus on your project, and stop embarrassing yourself here in the forum.

If you're embarrassed for me, that is your problem and prerogative. I'm not at all embarrassed.

Who the fuck is going to invest in your project after reading all your rants?

Certainly not you! Which will be perfect when you are so jealous after the others gain so much while you'll be too butthurt to invest.

"Know your enemy and know yourself"

Fuck your inane platitudes. I actually know how the work gets done. Your misapplication of the Art of War as hammer for every nail, is your ignorance and inexperience on display.

Do you realize how stupid it is for you presume you know better than me and then lecture me. I am not 20 years old. I have experience. I know what I am doing.

Seems you are unable to manage people and lead a team, after seeing you can't appreciate people giving you sound advice.

Noise makers are the Mythical Man Month. They reduce production, not increase it.

You are socially inept, and fail to understand how important a skill it is to manage people to execute a project.

I am socially adept. I have entertained large crowds at Comdex. Have you not watched my video I did last year on Ethereum and consensus designs?

I recorded a video of myself to try to explain some of these issues:

http://coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Shelby_Ethereum_Paradox.avi

You're so damn self-important.

You definitely have not what it takes to form and lead a team to execute this project.

You have not the ability to judge what I can and can't do.

All you're doing is appeasing your self-importance ego and wasting my time.

Maybe you are a really good CTO, but you will need a CEO still, a business partner. The problem is you won't be willing to respect his strategic decisions, because you are an arrogant know-it-all, unable to understand your own limitations and be part of a team and delegate the decision making process to someone with the chops for it.

You are ironically, as per Raymond's post, an execution b-lister.

Loud self-display? check. Insecurity? check. Constant approval-seeking? check. Overinflating one’s accomplishments? check. Touchiness about slights? check. Territorial twitchiness about one’s expertise? check.

But yeah, you just need more fanboys and yesmen to adore you and tell ya how great and super smart you are, instead of "trolls" like me that actually tell you the problems as they see them from the outside, so you can actually pivot and rectify your strategy. And that is, in a nutshell, your problem: you will form a politically correct team of yesmen that will handle ya with kids gloves.

Don't bother to answer back, I already know the BS you'll write. Don't try to waste my time again. This will be my last message. I honestly don't give a shit anymore.

Now I see clearly that your project, if you ever execute it, will be good for a PnD or two, not long term investing.

All I can say, is do NOT invest because you have it all figured out correctly.

That will be perfect.

And the loud display is you refusing to stop lecturing me. I told you I had it under control, but you are determined to ram your self-important, b-lister ego shit down my throat.

• Insecurity. Responding to debate is not a display of insecurity dufus.
• Constant approval seeking. As the essay says, I figure if I am not regularly pissing people off, then I'm doing something wrong. How on earth did you interpret that I'm seeking approval. I never sugar coat anything in order to get approval. I always speak what I believe to be the facts.
• Overinflating one’s accomplishments. Never have I done this. I speak factually about my accomplishments and failures.
• Touchiness about slights. When I try to ignore you trolls, you don't stop badgering me. That is why I am leaving so I can create some proper moderation controls, so in the future you trolls will disappear with one click of "ignore forever". As a prolific and controversial poster, BCT forces one to fight against all the self-important crab bucket mentality trolls, or to disengage. I tried fighting back, now I am disengaging.
• Territorial twitchiness about one’s expertise. Debating is what BCT is for. Debating is not twitchniness, but rather is one of the main functions of the forum. Eric means someone who claims exclusive expertise and tries to prevent anyone else from claiming to have that expertise. I don't do that. I'm happy when I can find the rare person that has expertise that I also have, so we can jam together.
• Loud self-display. I'm simply responding to the posts in the thread. Being prolific is not a loud self-display. Nicholas Taleb is prolific also in the volume of material he publishes (even on Medium), but that doesn't make it a loud self-display. Eric means those who try to pump up their own reputation by boasting or what ever. I try to make sure that readers have the facts as I understand them to be, because I know in many cases there is no one else on the forum who will give them that factual information. And the readers know and appreciate this, that is why there are here demanding that I be unbanned.

You could rightfully accuse me of trying too hard to try to clarify many things for readers. I think most A-listers have realized that the more we try to explain, the more people will be pissed off and have misconceptions. You're an example of that. As I said, I am disengaging because this experiment has taught me that as much as I would like to help others understand, I actually can't help others understand. C'est la vie.

You're yet another clueless idiot who thinks he knows something, but actually doesn't.


Edit on May 6:

To further address @Skalpell’s allegation that I prefer conflict over diplomacy, diplomacy requires that both sides get something they want or need, i.e. a win-win. What has been offered by Theymos is a win-lose, thus of course only a defeated person would accept it. He made absolutely no concessions or improvements at all. He basically said I have to admit that everything is my fault and suck it up and then maybe, just maybe (but probably not), they might just barely let me back in the door. Which means at the first opportunity they will simply ban me again and then all the momentum I could have had by standing my ground and winning will be lost. In short, you don’t even understand what compromise and diplomacy entail, so you are no position to be judging me and ramming unsolicited advice down my throat. Diplomacy can only begin with mutual respect. Theymos only bothered to post in the thread, because some members with high reputations are not happy with the ban. Theymos has absolutely 0 respect for me, as evident by his win-lose (he wins and I lose) proposal.

As if your users are at fault when your policies and software are inane. Blaming the customer is the dumbest possible thing a business can do. It is the business shooting itself in the foot.

[dinofelis]

Such a rudimentary system existed in the 1990-ies as I said before: it was called usenet, and had a simple, decentralized protocol: NNTP.

Afaik, NNTP is not decentralized consensus. Rather it is a single news server which is the canonical source and other servers can mirror it.

Nope.  It was, AFAIK, totally decentralized.  You posted your post to the news server your reader was connected to, who then propagated it in a P2P network of news servers.  You could run your own news server of course but only institutions did so, because that was "heavy" at that time for the existing technology in those days.  In fact, it would even be "heavy" today too.  Bitcoin's block chain is ridiculously small compared to the news groups' daily volume.  That said, a news server mostly didn't keep old stuff.  One month of history was usually standard.  If you wanted to keep stuff, it was entirely your business.

The "consensus" was simply everything, because there was no specific order needed, there was no contradiction to be resolved etc...
Of course, every news server could decide for himself whether he propagated the article or not, but the standard policy was to propagate everything.  There was no crypto needed for that.  You didn't need an "account".   Everyone could just post and put the "credentials" he liked - but of course, nobody would stop you from signing your messages.

The exception were moderated groups.  They only accepted articles from a specific e-mail address, the moderator's e-mail, and if you "posted" there, in fact, you sent an e-mail to the moderator, who could relay it to the news group or not.

https://internetworkingsecuritysafety.blogspot.fr/2017/03/what-newsgroups-are-and-how-they-work.html

usenet died because it crumbled under gigabytes of daily spam

Thus it didn't have my moderation feature. And it didn't charge a minuscule microtransaction fee to post, which is the another aspect I'm planning.

Of course this could have been improved.  In fact, Adam Black's hashcash against spam would have been a solution for high-volume mass posting.  But that was not the real difficulty.  The real difficulty was not the "standard spam", but rather the "annoying posters", and that is something you cannot solve without human moderation.  So in the end, for some serious discussions, people just went to moderated discussion groups, which were the inspiration for internet discussion forum software.

Slight improvements of usenet would have implemented the features you are longing for, like multiple versions of moderated groups with different moderators, but visibly there was not enough demand for that.  In fact, technically, the system was already possible: instead of having one moderated group, you could have as many versions of it as you'd like, with different moderator e-mail addresses: every moderator would decide, independently, what posts to relay, and have his "fan moderated group".
But of course, as I said, nothing stops one from having an overlay on an un-moderated group, where you have your news reader load Joe's moderation preferences from Joe's web site, who has published the message ID he thinks should be read, and your news reader only showing those that have a corresponding message ID on Joe's page.  You could even make logical combinations:
"I want to see the messages that are approved by at least 3 of the 5 guys in the list Joe, Jack, James, Jeffrey and Joey, and are disapproved by at least one of the 3 girls Mary, Jane, Helena" or other fancy things.

I only wanted to point out that decentralized discussion platforms existed in the 80-90-ies and essentially disappeared, which indicates the relatively low value people attach to this decentralized paradigm.  Maybe it could be revived, but it doesn't need much sophistication to do what you want.  No need for much crypto/block chain/consensus/.... KISS.

[the_end_is_near]

Such a rudimentary system existed in the 1990-ies as I said before: it was called usenet, and had a simple, decentralized protocol: NNTP.

Afaik, NNTP is not decentralized consensus. Rather it is a single news server which is the canonical source and other servers can mirror it.

Nope.  It was, AFAIK, totally decentralized.  You posted your post to the news server your reader was connected to, who then propagated it in a P2P network of news servers.  You could run your own news server of course but only institutions did so, because that was "heavy" at that time for the existing technology in those days.  In fact, it would even be "heavy" today too.  Bitcoin's block chain is ridiculously small compared to the news groups' daily volume.  That said, a news server mostly didn't keep old stuff.  One month of history was usually standard.  If you wanted to keep stuff, it was entirely your business.

The "consensus" was simply everything, because there was no specific order needed, there was no contradiction to be resolved etc...
Of course, every news server could decide for himself whether he propagated the article or not, but the standard policy was to propagate everything.  There was no crypto needed for that.  You didn't need an "account".   Everyone could just post and put the "credentials" he liked - but of course, nobody would stop you from signing your messages.

No wonder it was a clusterfuck failure. Anyone could then act as an imposter for anyone, and other inconsistencies such as people could post in the future dated as if they had responded in the past, thus pretending to be able to predict the future.

Also there is no guarantee that any server is giving you the full or even correct data!

As I explained to @Theymos, it is really impossible to do coherent decentralized databases without the decentralized consensus.

Actually P2P is not decentralized consensus, which was my claim.

and that is something you cannot solve without human moderation.

Which can be accomplished in a decentralized forum.

Slight improvements of usenet would have implemented the features you are longing for, like multiple versions of moderated groups with different moderators, but visibly there was not enough demand for that.

I don't expect a lot of demand for that feature either. As I had detailed in my Bitcoin killer thread, I think the two choices 1) group leader's (aka thread creator's) moderation and 2) no moderation will be the most popular choices and #2 is very important bcz as you found out that when a post is deleted in self-moderated thread on BCT, the post disappears from public accessibility. Some users might want to toggle the "no moderation" to glance at what is being deleted by default by the group/thread moderator.

Yet when I build something, I might as well build the generality because the market can sometimes surprise and find uses for things we didn't envision.

I think we might also find that some superstars become frequently chosen moderators, so the generality might actually end up being used.

I only wanted to point out that decentralized discussion platforms existed in the 80-90-ies and essentially disappeared, which indicates the relatively low value people attach to this decentralized paradigm.

Aliasing error again. You have really bad hole in your intellect pertaining to jumping to conclusions that fit your confirmation bias without considering all the possibilities. You need to look at that stuck clock once every 12 hours.

They didn't fail because they were decentralized. They failed because they sucked. Also there was no legitimate known need for being decentralized at that time. Some decades later, we now understand that centralized databases are a major liability.

Most importantly, people will earn tokens which is one thing that will motivate them to use it.  

And the superstars will earn tokens. Where the superstars go, the flock follows.

Also the decentralized database means a plethora of GUIs and apps on top of the same database, so that network effects kick in and the users are getting more of their choices met than @Theymos could possibly keep up. The real reason users need decentralized DBs is not because they care at all (they don't!) but the users do care about competition and getting more apps and more features faster.

And so now all those fucking B-listers can go fuck themselves because I actually do know what I am doing.

[iTradeChips]

Last reminder to get on the LTC train and don't be butthurt that I told everyone to get on at $7 and 0.06. Facts are facts.

man i sold some too early above 0.012+ and then the remaining LTC at 0.014-0.0145. isnt it too high now to enter? wait for dip?
about BTC i was lucky to sell at ~1650 USDT. what is your estimate for a good buy back? thanks man your predictions are almost exact

[Dorky]

That is not a refutation of the math I provided.

You seem to have difficulty comprehending the math, as evident by your reply which makes no logical point w.r.t. math I provided.

I already stated that the dolphins (those who are $millionaires now) will. They will pay the high transaction fees because they want to transact on chain, unregulated.

You are trying to shape a thought pattern that Bitcoin will be an exclusive currency only for the $billionaires, unregulated.
You have your own thoughts, beliefs, truths, etc, that is your own business.
I have my own justification to disagree and we don't need to force each other to comply to the other's argument.

You keep talking about math and accuse me of being a math retard.
The truth is, I don't even know what math you are talking about nor did I ever (you can quote me if you like) argue about your math.

Bitcoin as I personally understand it, will be BOTH regulated and centralized, and nobody will be exempted from it, not the $millionaires and not the $billionaires.

Your thesis is based on Bitcoin being settlement layer first and foremost, and subsequently all your analysis is derived from that main thesis.
My thesis is based on Bitcoin being a digital tracking/surveillance system first and settlement layer second, and subsequently all my main analysis is derived from the first thesis first and the rest (least important) from the second thesis.

Bitcoin will be the Mark of the Beast.
Whether the $billionaires are going to pay high fee or low is not the most important issue for the rothschilds as long as it does not interfere with Bitcoin's primary function as a digital/online tracking/surveillance system/network.
And it is not an issue for you to dictate the outcome.
The moment you realize the true purpose of Bitcoin, you will realize why the fee will not be an issue, not for the $billionaires, not for the $millionaires, and not for the insignificant minnows.

Most people see Bitcoin as a digital currency.
Few see it as a payment/settlement layer.
Fewer still (among the few) see it as a digital/online tracking/surveillance system/network.

You will not buy nor sell without the Mark of the Beast, regardless of the fee that you are paying.
You should be clear by now the true direction of Bitcoin, and how everything continue to revolve around it.
Don't even waste your brain cells on the fee.

The whales (like Roger Ver) have no final say.

[the_end_is_near]

Last reminder to get on the LTC train and don't be butthurt that I told everyone to get on at $7 and 0.06. Facts are facts.

man i sold some too early above 0.012+ and then the remaining LTC at 0.014-0.0145. isnt it too high now to enter? wait for dip?
about BTC i was lucky to sell at ~1650 USDT. what is your estimate for a good buy back? thanks man your predictions are almost exact

The mods deleted the post wherein I am trying to fulfill my responsibility for the trade advice I initiated before I got banned. I happen to believe in the concept of word-of-honor and fulfilling responsibilities. Because I am not a corrupt motherfucker. I have a conscience and I believe I try to do what is correct for society.

I was told by @mprep upthread, that the policy is not to deleted posts in Meta. Sheesh. These guys can't handle the shame of the fact that they banned me right during the major rise of LTC which I was advising thus causing many speculators to lose an opportunity to make a lot of money (or even lose money since my sell alerts weren't communicated). It is their fault and they can't accept it. Denial of reality/facts and/or corruption.

This is why I will not return to BCT. The moderation nonsense is entirely unpredictable, untrustworthy, insane, inane, and destroys production. They have insulted themselves. I am just speaking honestly about their corruption. Why would I be embarrassed about exposing or want to be under the skirt of such corrupt fools.

Note it did go up to 0.0176 after I posted that above, so it was a good time to buy, but now it is a good time to sell.

I was sleeping. But hopefully everyone was astute enough to observe on their own that the trendline from the 0.0106 origin (as drawn on the chart I had provided before sleeping) was broken to the downside. Thus LTC is in bearish mode until we bottom:



As it moves closer to its ATH in fiat ($50), the demand from FOMO speculators should increase. The majority is always late. At some point it has to take a major correction to shake out weak hands and leveraged longs. Probably not now though. Right now everybody who missed out on the move from $7 to $25, is getting butthurt jealous and trying to avoid buying late, but the FOMO effect overpowers shame after some delay (so that the majority buys too late).

Iamback is toasting champaign glasses somewhere at this time. Litecoin is chiming right along and on schedule. Did not disappoint. Let the fomo start to set in.

[jonald_fyookball]

Last reminder to get on the LTC train and don't be butthurt that I told everyone to get on at $7 and 0.06. Facts are facts.

man i sold some too early above 0.012+ and then the remaining LTC at 0.014-0.0145. isnt it too high now to enter? wait for dip?
about BTC i was lucky to sell at ~1650 USDT. what is your estimate for a good buy back? thanks man your predictions are almost exact

The mods deleted the post wherein I am trying to fulfill my responsibility for the trade advice I initiated before I got banned. I happen to believe in the concept of word-of-honor and fulfilling responsibilities. Because I am not a corrupt motherfucker. I have a conscience and I believe I try to do what is correct for society.

I was told by @mprep upthread, that the policy is not to deleted posts in Meta. Sheesh. These guys can't handle the shame of the fact that they banned me right during the major rise of LTC which I was advising thus causing many speculators to lose an opportunity to make a lot of money (or even lose money since my sell alerts weren't communicated). It is their fault and they can't accept it. Denial of reality/facts and/or corruption.

This is why I will not return to BCT. The moderation nonsense is entirely unpredictable, untrustworthy, insane, inane, and destroys production. They have insulted themselves. I am just speaking honestly about their corruption. Why would I be embarrassed about exposing or want to be under the skirt of such corrupt fools.

Note it did go up to 0.0176 after I posted that above, so it was a good time to buy, but now it is a good time to sell.

I was sleeping. But hopefully everyone was astute enough to observe on their own that the trendline from the 0.0106 origin (as drawn on the chart I had provided before sleeping) was broken to the downside. Thus LTC is in bearish mode until we bottom:

You shouldn't be giving investment advice without a lisense.  You might run into trouble with the authorities.