pereira4 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1610
Merit: 1183
|
|
July 14, 2017, 06:24:48 PM |
|
The btc1 dns seed change can tell you a lot. Move away from devs seed (have ackd privacy/neutrality policy) to companies who seek control. https://twitter.com/_jonasschnelli_/status/885884662010322944They are trying to sneak in this shit in various ways. It shows the aim they want to take with Bitcoin, all of course, lead by butthurt Jeff Garzik known for his efforts in blockchain analysis: https://angel.co/skryBe aware of the fact that everyone involved in the hardfork is a direct enemy of bitcoin, and you supporting it makes you an enemy of bitcoin. Watch sockpuppets try to defend this in various ridiculous ways as the price crashes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once a transaction has 6 confirmations, it is extremely unlikely that an attacker without at least 50% of the network's computation power would be able to reverse it.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
OROBTC
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1852
|
|
July 14, 2017, 06:29:13 PM |
|
...
Hmm, interesting analysis and point.
My response as someone who does not know:
Buy BTC now before they try any KYC crap. Then lay low to see of this policy holds. Buy BTC with money that you can afford to lose. Then mix those coins.
|
|
|
|
franky1
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4214
Merit: 4473
|
|
July 14, 2017, 06:34:23 PM Last edit: July 15, 2017, 12:55:05 AM by franky1 |
|
lol awwwww blockstream employees cant own bitcoin(the network).
but what pereira4 doesnt realise is that Bloq employees are paid by.... the same people that pay blockstream employee's
so effectively barry silbert still owns bitcoins main mechanisms.
atleast pereira4 will still get to back the same team(once he follows the money back far enough). its semi-subdefuge because he is causing empty drama knowing that all his finger pointing is just distractions, where ultimately the same puppet master has the same control
maybe it will sort blockstream out to be more part of the community by them joining the community because from what i can see blockstream love the segwit part of segwitx2 but as soon as segwitx2 activates the segwit element, their blockstream seeds will block and abandon nodes that want the 2x part.
now blockstream have to up their game and add the x2 code to then be allowed to be dns seeds.. otherwise blockstream lose out
|
I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER. Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
|
|
|
Last of the V8s
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 4392
Be a bank
|
|
July 14, 2017, 06:57:36 PM Last edit: July 14, 2017, 08:41:40 PM by Last of the V8s |
|
[16:57:38] · <trinque> http://btcbase.org/log/2017-07-14#1683508 << I'll start chopping things down and aim for it, yes. [16:57:38] · <a111> Logged on 2017-07-14 16:47 mircea_popescu: aaand trinque, incidentally, as it just occured to me -- can you get deedbot payments online by the end of the month ? seems somewhat likely usg is gonna turn off its "webwallet" bullshits from blockchain.info down. [16:57:44] · <mircea_popescu> cool deal. [16:59:51] · <shinohai> All signs point to this .... blockchain.info is added as DNS seed for segwit2x in recent commits on shithub [17:00:55] · <mircea_popescu> would have been great if we had a service that had already been open, tested and could be advertised ; but it'll be useful even to have it new, not like the dorks have much memory or mental consideration space anyway. [17:01:29] · <mircea_popescu> meanwhile on reddit, [porn censored] [17:03:00] · <asciilifeform> lol dns seeds [17:03:10] · <asciilifeform> i nearly forgot that this existed.
|
|
|
|
squatz1
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1285
Flying Hellfish is a Commie
|
|
July 14, 2017, 07:50:45 PM |
|
...
Hmm, interesting analysis and point.
My response as someone who does not know:
Buy BTC now before they try any KYC crap. Then lay low to see of this policy holds. Buy BTC with money that you can afford to lose. Then mix those coins.
Well if it's being put into the code itself, I'd be expecting for them to be able to find out the mixing things much eaiser now. I wouldn't see any other reason for someone that has a vested interested in Blockchain Analysis (Garzik) which favors Financial Institutions / Law Enfrorcement community to be getting involved in the code works of trying to change bitcoin UNLESS he feels that he can help himself and his company get more and more work. Even if you buy BTC now, just know that you SHOULD still be mixing coins to ensure the highest level of anonymity.
|
|
|
|
AgentofCoin
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1001
|
|
July 14, 2017, 08:35:03 PM Last edit: July 15, 2017, 12:03:25 AM by AgentofCoin |
|
I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness.
Under this new client type, if it forms their own chain, there is a high probability that any mixed coins or coins that do not come directly from approved exchanges/ services will be blacklisted or considered "dirty". This policy will reinforce the false perceived value of the clean coins, thus incentivizing the ignorant to want blacklists and the theft of "rights" of their fellow users. Eventually, those who remain will be the most monitored and enslaved, yet they will call it freedom.
In addition, immutability may not have a certain probability of existing on that chain since the creation and transference of liabilities from events on this chain, is applied to the companies that formed and support this client. This has never occurred in the bitcoin space prior to this event. It would be considered under most jurisdictions, that these companies in fact created this new product, instead of just providing a connection to an unregulatable pre-existing product. Thus, there is a high probability of a future chain edit or "roll backs" on this chain type due to their new legal responsibilities. So, by the NYA's signatories' creation, immutability can not exist on this chain, because they have taken on liabilities that they will be forced to expel through chain edits, instead of through quantifiable damages in courtrooms.
There are very important reasons why Satoshi did what he did, and designed as he did. It was to protect all participants within the Bitcoin ecosystem. So be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it all.
All companies that signed this NY Silbert Agreement should refer to their in-house counsel(s) and potentially receive a second legal opinion from outside reputable independent counsel, so they are fully aware of what they have willingly participated in and created, and if possible, take corrective actions before any liabilities manifest.
[Edit: For clarification, the legal issue stems from the SegWit2x/ABC Client using a new chain with protocol changes that were "contentious". When a forked chain occurs, where two chains will survive or the new chain supplants the current chain, the new client chain with it's signing corporations, all legally bound themselves as responsible parties for all actions on that new chain, including but not limited to, failures in code and on-chain transactions that facilitate illegal deeds.
This is attributable because without their collective action, this new chain and any liabilities that occur, could not have reasonably come about on it own accord. It comes from their collective agreement and support for taking on this liability whether aware of or not at the time of signing. Corporations are held to higher standards when signing agreements, than compared to individuals or by High Consensus. Ignorance of what they participated in, does not absolve them of potential future damages to certain parties. There was a very important reason why Consensus and One Chain was a rule. It was not to restrict some, but to protect all parties involved in this Experiment.]
Edit: removed some "ABC" clients for "new" clients, to be more specific that it refers to contentious chain splits, not a specific client itself.
|
I support a decentralized & unregulatable ledger first, with safe scaling over time. Request a signed message if you are associating with anyone claiming to be me.
|
|
|
Variogam
|
|
July 14, 2017, 10:00:05 PM |
|
Hey pereira4, did you expect the DNS seeds inside btc1 client going to be keept to the core devs who dont support SegWit2x This would be not safe for the success of SegWit2x at all. You believe core devs geting KYC from everybody who using Bitcoin Core. hmm...
|
|
|
|
pixie85
|
|
July 14, 2017, 10:10:54 PM |
|
Haha because we all want what's best for financial institutions. We want to help them decide what is a fraud or not and we want them to monitor our blockchain activity. Damn, that's a nice find. No to centralization no to bankers and no to government tracking!
|
|
|
|
The One
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 924
Merit: 1000
|
|
July 14, 2017, 11:00:11 PM |
|
I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness.
Under this new client type, if it forms their own chain, there is a high probability that any mixed coins or coins that do not come directly from approved exchanges/ services will be blacklisted or considered "dirty". This policy will reinforce the false perceived value of the clean coins, thus incentivizing the ignorant to want blacklists and the theft of "rights" of their fellow users. Eventually, those who remain will be the most monitored and enslaved, yet they will call it freedom.
In addition, immutability may not have a certain probability of existing on that chain since the creation and transference of liabilities from events on this chain, is applied to the companies that formed and support this client. This has never occurred in the bitcoin space prior to this event. It would be considered under most jurisdictions, that these companies in fact created this new product, instead of just providing a connection to an unregulatable pre-existing product. Thus, there is a high probability of a future chain edit or "roll backs" on this chain type due to their new legal responsibilities. So, by the NYA's signatories' creation, immutability can not exist on this chain, because they have taken on liabilities that they will be forced to expel through chain edits, instead of through quantifiable damages in courtrooms.
There are very important reasons why Satoshi did what he did, and designed as he did. It was to protect all participants within the Bitcoin ecosystem. So be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it all.
All companies that signed this NY Silbert Agreement should refer to their in-house counsel(s) and potentially receive a second legal opinion from outside reputable independent counsel, so they are fully aware of what they have willingly participated in and created, and if possible, take corrective actions before any liabilities manifest.
[Edit: For clarification, the legal issue stems from the ABC Client using a new chain with protocol changes that were "contentious". When a forked chain occurs, where two chains will survive or the ABC chain supplants the current chain, the ABC client chain with it's signing corporations, all legally bound themselves as responsible parties for all actions on that new chain, including but not limited to, failures in code and on-chain transactions that facilitate illegal deeds.
This is attributable because without their collective action, this ABC chain and any liabilities that occur, could not have reasonably come about on it own accord. It comes from their collective agreement and support for taking on this liability whether aware of or not at the time of signing. Corporations are held to higher standards when signing agreements, than compared to individuals or by High Consensus. Ignorance of what they participated in, does not absolve them of potential future damages to certain parties. There was an very important reason why Consensus and One Chain was a rule. It was not to restrict some, but to protect all parties involved in this Experiment.]
Why is it that the companies get a say? They are centralised entities. Miners and users are the one who must decide, no one else.
|
| ..................... ........What is C?......... .............. | ...........ICO Dec 1st – Dec 30th............ ............Open Dec 1st- Dec 30th............ ...................ANN thread Bounty....................
|
|
|
|
Sadlife
|
|
July 14, 2017, 11:30:29 PM |
|
It seems like this seeds enables the blockchain to reveal our identities just like how they track the illegal torrent users. Are we some kind of criminals, why are they adding crap in bitcoin ? That would not be bitcoin anymore but rather will be something like ETH. The original purpose of bitcoin was to send and receive transactions anonymously this is a huge turn off for bitcoin users as they use BTC because of it's decentralized feature. The devs or whoever controlling it behind should probably reconsider this implementation.
|
▄▄▄▀█▀▀▀█▀▄▄▄ ▀▀ █ █ ▀ █ █ █ ▄█▄ ▐▌ █▀▀▀▀▀▀█ █▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█ █ ▀█▀ █ █ █ █ █ █ ▄█▄ █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█ █ █ ▐▌ ▀█▀ █▀▀▀▄ █ █ ▀▄▄▄█▄▄ █ █ ▀▀▀▄█▄▄▄█▄▀▀▀ | . CRYPTO CASINO FOR WEB 3.0 | | . ► | | | ▄▄▄█▀▀▀ ▄▄████▀████ ▄████████████ █▀▀ ▀█▄▄▄▄▄ █ ▄█████ █ ▄██████ ██▄ ▄███████ ████▄▄█▀▀▀██████ ████ ▀▀██ ███ █ ▀█ █ ▀▀▄▄ ▄▄▄█▀▀ ▀▀▀▄▄▄▄ | | . OWL GAMES | | | . Metamask WalletConnect Phantom | | | | ▄▄▄███ ███▄▄▄ ▄▄████▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀████▄▄ ▄ ▀▀▀▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▀▀▀ ▄ ██▀ ▄▀▀ ▀▀▄ ▀██ ██▀ █ ▄ ▄█▄▀ ▄ █ ▀██ ██▀ █ ███▄▄███████▄▄███ █ ▀██ █ ▐█▀ ▀█▀ ▀█▌ █ ██▄ █ ▐█▌ ▄██ ▄██ ▐█▌ █ ▄██ ██▄ ████▄ ▄▄▄ ▄████ ▄██ ██▄ ▀█████████████████▀ ▄██ ▀ ▄▄▄▀▀█████████▀▀▄▄▄ ▀ ▀▀████▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄████▀▀ ▀▀▀███ ███▀▀▀ | | . DICE SLOTS BACCARAT BLACKJACK | | . GAME SHOWS POKER ROULETTE CASUAL GAMES | | ▄███████████████████▄ ██▄▀▄█████████████████████▄▄ ███▀█████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████▌ █████████▄█▄████████████████ ███████▄█████▄█████████████▌ ███████▀█████▀█████████████ █████████▄█▄██████████████▌ ██████████████████████████ █████████████████▄███████▌ ████████████████▀▄▀██████ ▀███████████████████▄███▌ ▀▀▀▀█████▀ |
|
|
|
AgentofCoin
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1001
|
|
July 14, 2017, 11:39:17 PM Last edit: July 15, 2017, 12:04:15 AM by AgentofCoin |
|
... All companies that signed this NY Silbert Agreement should refer to their in-house counsel(s) and potentially receive a second legal opinion from outside reputable independent counsel, so they are fully aware of what they have willingly participated in and created, and if possible, take corrective actions before any liabilities manifest. ...
Why is it that the companies get a say? They are centralised entities. Miners and users are the one who must decide, no one else. You may be confusing Legal Obligations and Responsible Parties versus being a simple Bitcoin participant that has no power to steer the network. The legal issue only comes about from the chain split itself in conjunction with agreements with legal entities. It is not that they "get a say", it is that they have individually injected their corporate entitles into a possible liable situation, where the responsibility of the network and any liabilities that could result, is no longer transferred to the Network and ignored due to it non-enforceablity, but is directed toward those signing corporations, since they have willingly and without coercion chosen to take on that legal responsibility. Simple answer is that the Law does not care about if Users want to use the new chain. The issue is who is now responsible for failures of and in the new chain. Originally, we all agreed by high community consensus to move together, thus no one is responsible in legal theory, but if a minority group of corporations (which are legally bound entities) bind themselves with an agreement to support a new client that causes a new chain, or others in the community do not join them, and that chain exists, it does so under a different legal form than prior chains. This new chain has legal responsibility attached through the agreements that the corporations have signed. In theory, if that chain is edited or work is reversed to fix a Mt. Gox like theft in the future, or even if it isn't edited or work is reversed, that is a catch 22 where I could bring suit against the signing corporations for either choice. They are damn if they do, and damned if they don't. That is why Satoshi designed the Network as is and High Community Consensus was preferred. No one who is reasonable wants to take on liabilities like this. Currently, under the way the current chain theory works, it is very hard to litigate someone because it is the users who decide. But in this case, those exchanges have already agreed prior, thus accepting responsibility automatically since they are legally bound entities already. Basically, they are leading and not following the user. You must remember to consider those businesses not a users themselves, but as banks. There are different and higher standards for them, than for normal users. The point of my posting was that this is a new precedent that has not occurred in Bitcoin before and should be looked into more closely since there are serious liabilities possibilities that can exist now, that was near impossible before.
|
I support a decentralized & unregulatable ledger first, with safe scaling over time. Request a signed message if you are associating with anyone claiming to be me.
|
|
|
bones261
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1827
|
|
July 14, 2017, 11:39:28 PM |
|
If you don't like the seeds, simply download the code yourself, change the seeds to whatever you like and then compile. It's that easy.
|
|
|
|
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
|
|
July 14, 2017, 11:48:23 PM |
|
stop fudding, this has nothing to do with KYC.
Anyway i wont be running or using SW in any way shape or form.
|
|
|
|
bones261
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1827
|
|
July 14, 2017, 11:56:41 PM |
|
stop fudding, this has nothing to do with KYC.
Anyway i wont be running or using SW in any way shape or form.
You mean that you won't be disposing of your SW coins that you get off the fork so that you can accumulate non SW coins? I admire your principles.
|
|
|
|
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
|
|
July 15, 2017, 12:06:09 AM |
|
stop fudding, this has nothing to do with KYC.
Anyway i wont be running or using SW in any way shape or form.
You mean that you won't be disposing of your SW coins that you get off the fork so that you can accumulate non SW coins? I admire your principles. I will be immediately liquidating some of them yes, and continue to liquidate as the market asserts itself based on the fact that users want low fees and fast confirmations, and a Bitcoin that can scale.
|
|
|
|
franky1
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4214
Merit: 4473
|
|
July 15, 2017, 12:10:45 AM |
|
It seems like this seeds enables the blockchain to reveal our identities just like how they track the illegal torrent users. Are we some kind of criminals, why are they adding crap in bitcoin ? That would not be bitcoin anymore but rather will be something like ETH. The original purpose of bitcoin was to send and receive transactions anonymously this is a huge turn off for bitcoin users as they use BTC because of it's decentralized feature. The devs or whoever controlling it behind should probably reconsider this implementation.
just worked that out?? funny how when blockstream had the DNS seeds everyone was kissing their ass.. now blockstream doesnt everyone starts having rational thoughts the only issue with not having DNS seeds is that a node would have to ping every single IP address there is, until it got a response saying a bitcoin node exists on such ip address i kinda prefered the days that the dns seed was an IRC channel rather than a cartels website
|
I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER. Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
|
|
|
bones261
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1827
|
|
July 15, 2017, 12:23:17 AM |
|
stop fudding, this has nothing to do with KYC.
Anyway i wont be running or using SW in any way shape or form.
You mean that you won't be disposing of your SW coins that you get off the fork so that you can accumulate non SW coins? I admire your principles. I will be immediately liquidating some of them yes, and continue to liquidate as the market asserts itself based on the fact that users want low fees and fast confirmations, and a Bitcoin that can scale. How are you going to do this without "using it?" Only way that I can see is that you have a face to face contact with a buyer, give them you private key(s) in exchange for cash, and have that person immediately sweep the private key coins to one of his addresses.
|
|
|
|
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
|
|
July 15, 2017, 12:43:01 AM |
|
stop fudding, this has nothing to do with KYC.
Anyway i wont be running or using SW in any way shape or form.
You mean that you won't be disposing of your SW coins that you get off the fork so that you can accumulate non SW coins? I admire your principles. I will be immediately liquidating some of them yes, and continue to liquidate as the market asserts itself based on the fact that users want low fees and fast confirmations, and a Bitcoin that can scale. How are you going to do this without "using it?" Only way that I can see is that you have a face to face contact with a buyer, give them you private key(s) in exchange for cash, and have that person immediately sweep the private key coins to one of his addresses. SW is a SF. you do not need to use sw address.
|
|
|
|
bones261
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1827
|
|
July 15, 2017, 12:56:25 AM |
|
SW is a SF. you do not need to use sw address.
OK, I understand now. You'll use the chain but not the public keys that are SW.
|
|
|
|
Andre_Goldman
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 322
Merit: 253
Property1of1OU
|
|
July 15, 2017, 01:25:57 AM |
|
DNS hardcode seeds is hard ...
|
Patent1number: ****-****
|
|
|
franky1
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4214
Merit: 4473
|
|
July 15, 2017, 01:42:44 AM |
|
DNS hardcode seeds is hard ...
this will clear the problem andre If you don't like the seeds, simply download the code yourself, change the seeds to whatever you like and then compile. It's that easy. the "hard" part is you cant really change things at runtime
|
I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER. Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
|
|
|
Andre_Goldman
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 322
Merit: 253
Property1of1OU
|
|
July 15, 2017, 01:59:21 AM |
|
DNS hardcode seeds is hard ...
this will clear the problem andre If you don't like the seeds, simply download the code yourself, change the seeds to whatever you like and then compile. It's that easy. the "hard" part is you cant really change things at runtime Yes I remember vaguely some polemics regards RFCs 882, 883, 973, 1035 ... ps-> in case I get a good analogy to our current situation I'll post here
|
Patent1number: ****-****
|
|
|
pooya87
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3444
Merit: 10550
|
|
July 15, 2017, 04:47:17 AM |
|
ok someone clarify this for me, (i am still not convinced about last one either).
first of all DNS seeds are used as a "fallback" method in case you have no prior known IPs to connect to or can not use the hardcoded list of nodes. this means one may not even use it at all...
and when you connect to these DNS seeds you just receive a list of IP addresses of bitcoin nodes to connect to as a start (to find other nodes if you have none).
it was individuals (the developers) list and now the code changed it to a couple of known services (bitpay, blockchain.info, bloq, don't recognize the other one).
my question is: why is this bad? and what the f**k this has to do with KYC?
|
. .BLACKJACK ♠ FUN. | | | ███▄██████ ██████████████▀ ████████████ █████████████████ ████████████████▄▄ ░█████████████▀░▀▀ ██████████████████ ░██████████████ █████████████████▄ ░██████████████▀ ████████████ ███████████████░██ ██████████ | | CRYPTO CASINO & SPORTS BETTING | | │ | | │ | ▄▄███████▄▄ ▄███████████████▄ ███████████████████ █████████████████████ ███████████████████████ █████████████████████████ █████████████████████████ █████████████████████████ ███████████████████████ █████████████████████ ███████████████████ ▀███████████████▀ ███████████████████ | | .
|
|
|
|
pereira4 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1610
Merit: 1183
|
|
July 15, 2017, 12:22:01 PM |
|
stop fudding, this has nothing to do with KYC.
Anyway i wont be running or using SW in any way shape or form.
You mean that you won't be disposing of your SW coins that you get off the fork so that you can accumulate non SW coins? I admire your principles. I will be immediately liquidating some of them yes, and continue to liquidate as the market asserts itself based on the fact that users want low fees and fast confirmations, and a Bitcoin that can scale. You fill find soon enough that the market doesn't want a blocksize increase. Maybe in the future, but not now, because we don't need it. A hardfork needs way more research and dedication than this rushed up garbage. https://bitcoinhardforkresearch.github.io/If a hardfork happens and you are going to take that risk, it must have something of real value, not a dumb ass blocksize increase.
|
|
|
|
crazyivan
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1007
DMD Diamond Making Money 4+ years! Join us!
|
|
July 15, 2017, 12:26:27 PM |
|
Bitcoin anonymity is the BIGGEST shit crypto currency has ever faced. It achieved nothing but allowed bunch of scammers, ponzi pumpers and pyramids lovers to find an excellent tool to scam people.
If I have nothing to hide concerning the source of my money, why the fuck anonymity??? Not to pay taxes you say? Well, you do want your kids to go school or your local hospital to work, ha?
Fuck this shit, anonymity s good only for people who ve got something to hide.
|
|
|
|
pereira4 (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1610
Merit: 1183
|
|
July 15, 2017, 03:29:44 PM |
|
Bitcoin anonymity is the BIGGEST shit crypto currency has ever faced. It achieved nothing but allowed bunch of scammers, ponzi pumpers and pyramids lovers to find an excellent tool to scam people.
If I have nothing to hide concerning the source of my money, why the fuck anonymity??? Not to pay taxes you say? Well, you do want your kids to go school or your local hospital to work, ha?
Fuck this shit, anonymity s good only for people who ve got something to hide.
Are you fucking kidding me? The whitepaper says "p2p cash". Cash includes anonymity. Don't give me the crime propaganda bullshit. If you don't want anonymity, then why the fuck are you even here? go use Ripple and stop caring about decentralization. These guys want to put bitcoin inside corporate buildings via massive blocksize agendas. They want their own bitcoin that they can control. The value propositon of such a bitcoin is exactly 0, which is what the value of segwit2xCoin will be.
|
|
|
|
aso118
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1918
Merit: 1012
★Nitrogensports.eu★
|
|
July 16, 2017, 12:49:54 AM |
|
Bitcoin anonymity is the BIGGEST shit crypto currency has ever faced. It achieved nothing but allowed bunch of scammers, ponzi pumpers and pyramids lovers to find an excellent tool to scam people.
If I have nothing to hide concerning the source of my money, why the fuck anonymity??? Not to pay taxes you say? Well, you do want your kids to go school or your local hospital to work, ha?
Fuck this shit, anonymity s good only for people who ve got something to hide.
If that is your problem, there are enough government promoted e-coins which are coming up. Why don't you just move over? And if people under a tyrannical ruler made a small religious donation, and got busted for it, you really wouldn't care. They don't need anonymity, do they?
|
|
|
|
|