Dr.Craig Wright talking about the end of bitcoin next year. [No FUD here]

[Steamtyme]

Faketoshi is IMHO clinically insane and one of the worst enemies of crypto. He has made it clear that he is willing to destroy BTC and BCH.

Not just that, there was the part where he talked about making exchanges lives a living hell then going back later to make it worse. In what universe does that do anyone any good. He's a real salt the earth so nothing grows kind of guy.

I can't say I've ever really given the guy much consideration, he's just never done anything to peak my interest while actively participating in the community. Like someone else said he just sorta pops in and out and makes a big splash about it.

His psy-OP level FUD is vile and disgusting; I must say I have never felt more sympathy for his opponents Roger Ver and Jihan Wu.

Well they were all good buddies for a while. This is what happens when you act shady and deal with snakes. I remember trying to digest and disseminate information Ver and bunch were passing off on the Bitcoin.com website, you know a trustworthy source of information about the real vision of bitcoin and what not. Made for a hell of a time figuring out where I was and what I was or wasn't supporting while trying to figure out the basics.

With that whole interview it wouldn't matter what great content he delivered, or proof he has any coding or programming skills. The second he stated that BTC would be gone entirely, that there was a fatal bug that he knows about and obviously doesn't feel like sharing; it all became FUD.

It was also the instant he pretty much contradicted himself. With the I don't have the time to attack BTC, to actually I don't need to it'll kill itself. Awesome dude, can't wait to hear more.

[1714859397]

1714859397

[1714859397]

1714859397

[franky1]

Well then, if Bitcoin is gold can something not be the crypto equivalent of copper or silver? .

why do you think litecoin vertcoin and a few others have made themselves LN compatible.. you have the answer above

[Kakmakr]

Everything everyone says comes from a position of motivated self interest. I’ve seen statements from the most trusted founding pillars of bitcoin that end up being pure crap. Forum admin, devs, mining kingpins, business leaders and everyone in between all lie to protect their own best interest.

You need to ask yourself, “what does he have to gain”. Then you’ll know the truth.

At first I thought the answer to that question was simple, because he just want to scare Bitcoin (BTC) investors in an attempt to get as much people as possible to sell their coins and to buy Bitcoin CashSV, but I think the answer is a lot more complex. The guy has a serious God complex and in his mind he is Satoshi Nakamoto, so he wants to destroy all other coins that does not adhere to his vision of what Bitcoin should be.

The real Satoshi Nakamoto never said that Alt coins or competing coins should be destroyed and I doubt that he/she/they would want that to happen. This is just empty threats and FUD being created by the master scammer. 

[DooMAD]

people will deposit bitcoins into LN. play around on LN but not want to get BTC back(slow confirms, only ~2k tx per block, higher fee's than many countries min wage). people will instead want to exit LN via an altcoin thats cheaper and faster.

Now replace each instance of "LN" with "centralised exchanges" in that quoted text and explain why Bitcoin isn't dead already.  People already have the option to leave Bitcoin in favour of an altcoin, so LN will be no different in that regard (apart from the notable exception that it's better than trusting a centralised exchange with your funds).  Clearly BTC still has enough value and utility for people to keep using it.

I'll demonstrate for you:

people will deposit bitcoins into LN centralised exchanges. play around on LN centralised exchanges but not want to get BTC back(slow confirms, only ~2k tx per block, higher fee's than many countries min wage). people will instead want to exit LN centralised exchanges via an altcoin thats cheaper and faster.

Definitely sounds like something that doesn't match up with reality.  No wonder you said it.  

[Reid]

It seems to be like it is just FUD.
Creating chaos to shaken the bitcoin world.
Not even a good actor at all. But if he could pull some bitcoin holders down then it will be a success right? And I am betting he may have successfully did it.

Lots of negative threads being created and telegram is full of crap for negativity against bitcoin.
This is the power of a known man creating thid kind of FUD. It may affect the value of bitcoin a little.

[funchiestz]

Note: This is a self-moderated thread, with the only intention to reduce the spam, so everything that I consider as a spam will be removed.

So this is not a FUD intended thread, as I don't really trust Craig Wright.
But I'm more curious about is it just a FUD-spreading sh!t he is doing here or he is referring to a specific problem (probably exaggerated)?

Here is the link to the interview.
https://youtu.be/MXMCzhwm554?t=1138

Someone says it is right time to buy again BTC.

Example: https://cryptonews.com/news/this-investor-beats-the-market-says-it-s-a-good-time-to-buy-2934.htm

But I think we have to be carefull. It is too risky. I want to believe and buy more BTC but it can be trap.

[franky1]

Now replace each instance of "LN" with "centralised exchanges" in that quoted text and explain why Bitcoin isn't dead already.  People already have the option to leave Bitcoin in favour of an altcoin, so LN will be no different in that regard (apart from the notable exception that it's better than trusting a centralised exchange with your funds).  Clearly BTC still has enough value and utility for people to keep using it.

Definitely sounds like something that doesn't match up with reality.  No wonder you said it.  

comedy again.
yet people are already doing it. loads of people that use exchanges exit the exchange not with BTC but by using altcoins so that can arbitrage value to other exchanges without delay.
take the whole purpose of USDT and stable coins.

even back in 2012 people were arbitraging via litecoin instead of bitcoin.
some where even using bitinstant 'codes' via the reserves to move between mtgox, bitstamp and btc-e without having to exit with BTC

its why exchanges have such huge HOARDS. .. because not everyone is taking their BTC out

think logically
people us a separate network service thats micropenny cost and no delay.. you think they are going to choose a slow costly blockchain or a cheap speedy blockchain

.. and dont try the whole "bitcoin worth XXXX while altcoins worth XX".. because people are smart enough that if they have $6k it does not matter if they put it in btc or altcoin. because they will get 1btc or 100altcoin which both equal thee same value

EG people doont buy 1 gold bar. they buy several ingots, hundreds of ounces as its then easier to move than a bar, and doesnt cause as much dust to break it up when making split payments

[Btcvilla]

Note: This is a self-moderated thread, with the only intention to reduce the spam, so everything that I consider as a spam will be removed.

So this is not a FUD intended thread, as I don't really trust Craig Wright.
But I'm more curious about is it just a FUD-spreading sh!t he is doing here or he is referring to a specific problem (probably exaggerated)?

Here is the link to the interview.
https://youtu.be/MXMCzhwm554?t=1138

if what Dr. Craig Wright says is a reference and is trusted, this is no different when JP MORGAN attacks bitcoin. What is the difference ?
whatever they say is an assumption that is not based on strong facts and evidence. I am sure he will swallow round what he has said.

[DooMAD]

yet people are already doing it. loads of people that use exchanges exit the exchange not with BTC but by using altcoins so that can arbitrage value to other exchanges without delay.
take the whole purpose of USDT and stable coins.

That still isn't an argument against either LN or the long-term future of Bitcoin.  For the most part, people aren't SPENDING those altcoins in the real world.  The only economic activity is playing the markets.  It doesn't matter how cheap or fast an altcoin is if no one accepts it in exchange for goods and services.  Bitcoin is fast enough and cheap enough.  That's all it needs to be.

think logically
people us a separate network service thats micropenny cost and no delay.. you think they are going to choose a slow costly blockchain or a cheap speedy blockchain

You don't get to tell people to "think logically" when you're the one being illogical.  Again, people already have the choice.  They've had the choice for years.  And whatever they choose in the short term, Bitcoin has still retained its #1 spot. 

Having been on this forum for as long as you have, it's baffling how you haven't figured out the part where utility, security and network effects are considerably more important than raw speed and generally being tighter than a duck's arse with your tx fees.  Even most of the newbs who've been here less than a month can figure that out.  Either you're trolling, or you're just not very bright.

[franky1]

That still isn't an argument against either LN or the long-term future of Bitcoin.  For the most part, people aren't SPENDING those altcoins in the real world.  The only economic activity is playing the markets.  It doesn't matter how cheap or fast an altcoin is if no one accepts it in exchange for goods and services.  Bitcoin is fast enough and cheap enough.  That's all it needs to be.

bitcoin merchant adoption has DROPPED.

funny part is, it was your own words that highlighted that you know it. because in previous topics you admitted that coinbase and bitpay had to diversity their merchant payment tools to include altcoins because merchants were moving away from bitcoin

now customers when they go to merchants that accept crypto. get presented with a shopping cart that lets users choose which coin to pay with.
its no longer just bitcoin..

but hey all i see is lack of substance in your reply and just an insult.

come on atleast admit people do use other coins. im not saying the 99% of crap coins. but i mean the main ones like ethereum, litecoin for example.
(if you wish to flip flop/deny it. i would usually ask you to do your own research, but lets just spoonfeed you just this once
https://commerce.coinbase.com/docs/images/shopify_final.png
https://help.coinify.com/article/108-list-of-supported-blockchain-currencies)

as for bitcoin network security..  ill just say "inflight upgrades" which your own words have said allows devs to slide in upgrades without needing the communities consent.

theres no need you to reply with your flip flop meanders on the topic.
you spent about a month saying that core dont and shouldnt need network permission.. so dont backtrack now. they have a backdoor to avoid consensus, which you seem to love
you have defended devs motives enough. but still lacked the concern for the network.

[1Referee]

bitcoin merchant adoption has DROPPED.

funny part is, it was your own words that highlighted that you know it. because in previous topics you admitted that coinbase and bitpay had to diversity their merchant payment tools to include altcoins because merchants were moving away from bitcoin

now customers when they go to merchants that accept crypto. get presented with a shopping cart that lets users choose which coin to pay with.
its no longer just bitcoin..

but hey all i see is lack of substance in your reply and just an insult.

come on atleast admit people do use other coins. im not saying th 99% of crap coins. but i mean the main ones like ethereum, litecoin for example.

I think that you are out to discredit Bitcoin whenever you can. Payment processors implement altcoins because it's stupid to only stick to Bitcoin with how large the communities behind some altcoins are. If you stick to Bitcoin, you are excluding like 50% of potential revenue, now tell me, what business does that?

On top of that, people aren't spending their coins, doesn't matter whether it's Litecoin, BCrash, Ethereum, XRP, etc. It's the nature of this market that people don't spend that what they believe might pump tomorrow, especially when you take into consideration that people are too lazy to replace spent coins.

Extra point; BitPay didn't diversify, their BCash listing is purely the result of Bitmain's and Roger's influence. They will do whatever they can to block any other coin, because we all know (even with his hash war that costs them like $0.5-$1 million per day) that they don't mind losing money. It's a political battle for them.

[rricksu]

Craig Wright is Wrong!

If you are the creator of Bitcoin, how come you tell so much about it? why let the whole world know you?

As I can see, the real satoshi is so humble with a japanese culture with him, not a scumbag who tries to scam people.

[QuestionAuthority]

Everything everyone says comes from a position of motivated self interest. I’ve seen statements from the most trusted founding pillars of bitcoin that end up being pure crap. Forum admin, devs, mining kingpins, business leaders and everyone in between all lie to protect their own best interest.

You need to ask yourself, “what does he have to gain”. Then you’ll know the truth.

At first I thought the answer to that question was simple, because he just want to scare Bitcoin (BTC) investors in an attempt to get as much people as possible to sell their coins and to buy Bitcoin CashSV, but I think the answer is a lot more complex. The guy has a serious God complex and in his mind he is Satoshi Nakamoto, so he wants to destroy all other coins that does not adhere to his vision of what Bitcoin should be.

The real Satoshi Nakamoto never said that Alt coins or competing coins should be destroyed and I doubt that he/she/they would want that to happen. This is just empty threats and FUD being created by the master scammer. 

Yep, I think you nailed it.

[franky1]

I think that you are out to discredit Bitcoin whenever you can.

nope. i promote bitcoin. but i will discredit developers who wish to mess negatively with the bitcoin network
you know.
the devs that say bitcoins blockchain cant scale
the devs that backtrack out of consensus
the devs that chang code for personal benefit while ignoring community wishes

if you separate certain devs from the term "bitcoin" and see the concern for the network vs devs. you will understand that i am promoting the network but discrediting certain devs.

its these devs that have caused the issues such as onchain scaling delays, fee wars and other things.

remember devs are temporary, devs are replacable. there is no point defending a dev and letting them mess with the network because you want to "trust a dev" that just shows you care more for a dev than for the network

highlighting the issues the network has is not discrediting it.
its to raise awareness and to hope people wake up and start being concerned about the network issues to hopefully try to push it to get them sorted. to improve bitcoin..

but hey. those that play the "hug and defend a dev" games will always continue to distract people from the real causes of issues and point fingers to social dramatists as the cause

[franky1]

Extra point; BitPay didn't diversify, their BCash listing is purely the result of Bitmain's and Roger's influence. They will do whatever they can to block any other coin, because we all know (even with his hash war that costs them like $0.5-$1 million per day) that they don't mind losing money. It's a political battle for them.

nope bitpay and coinbases influence was due to having owners DCG.CO

DCG want LN (an independant network) for multiple coins.
they paid blockstream to invent segwit.. community said no from november 16-summer 17
so they paid BLOQ for segwitx2. they paid samson mow, luke jr and others for UASF to push segwit through as mandatory

if you follow the money you will see it.
ver and wright are just social face drama. and not actual influencers
which again is why i find it funny that fingers get pointed as such drama queen, instead of people actually being aware of the reality.

[DooMAD]

bitcoin merchant adoption has DROPPED.

funny part is, it was your own words that highlighted that you know it. because in previous topics you admitted that coinbase and bitpay had to diversity their merchant payment tools to include altcoins because merchants were moving away from bitcoin

Link?  Chances are, you either didn't understand my post or you're deliberately trying to twist the meaning of whatever it was I said.  There's nothing wrong with merchants diversifying, because that doesn't mean they've moved away from Bitcoin.  Show me a merchant that accepts all the major altcoins but not Bitcoin.  Assuming you can find one, I don't think they'll stay in business very long.

Other coins succeeding doesn't mean that Bitcoin is failing.  There's enough success to go around.  It's not realistic to expect one cryptocurrency to be perfect at everything.  Altcoins will naturally serve some niches in the market.  That's perfectly healthy.  Why fight it?

now customers when they go to merchants that accept crypto. get presented with a shopping cart that lets users choose which coin to pay with.
its no longer just bitcoin..

but hey all i see is lack of substance in your reply and just an insult.

come on atleast admit people do use other coins. im not saying th 99% of crap coins. but i mean the main ones like ethereum, litecoin for example.

What's wrong with people using other coins?  Of course people use them.  I have no problem with that.  I'm looking forward to atomic swaps, as I've already explained to you on numerous occasions.  Why would I be looking forward to atomic swaps if I didn't want people using other coins?  Try to keep up.

You're the one saying that we shouldn't have LN because it would somehow promote other coins.  I'm the one saying it won't promote other coins any more than exchanges already do.  
You're the one saying Bitcoin is too slow and too expensive.  I'm the one saying it's not a problem because Bitcoin has the strongest security and network effects and it's still fast and cheap enough to be useful.
You're the one saying other coins being accepted by merchants is bad news for Bitcoin.  I'm the one saying "who cares?" because there's literally nothing wrong with that.  

Stop whining about insults and come up with better arguments.  Or better yet, click that 'ignore' button you're so fond of pointing out lately.  I'm going to keep shooting down your FUD all the while you continue to make that such an easy task by being such a lousy debater.


Speaking of lousy arguments:

the devs that say bitcoins blockchain cant scale

It can scale, but not by merely tinkering with the blocksize and pretending that somehow fixes everything.  It doesn't.  And there are costs for doing that.

the devs that backtrack out of consensus

Users and miners determine consensus.  It cannot be "backtracked" (did you get bored of saying "bypassed"?) because that's something that can only happen in your fantasy la-la-land.

the devs that chang code for personal benefit while ignoring community wishes

If the community wished for something different, they'd be running different code.  You're the one who is ignoring community wishes because you don't respect the choice the community has already made.

[1Referee]

the devs that say bitcoins blockchain cant scale

It can scale, and it already did with Segwit. That poisonous entities in this space have different opinions and knowingly block adoption isn't the fault of the developers.

its these devs that have caused the issues such as onchain scaling delays, fee wars and other things.

There are no issues in terms of on-chain scaling, that's only how opposing parties see it. I won't say that high fees are ideal, but it's a convenient way to let the ecosystem get used to it, because who's going to pay miners when the block rewards aren't cutting it anymore? You know what makes Bitcoin mining still interesting today during this bear market? Its fees.

On top of that, with services using Schnorr, Bitcoin's throughput will increase significantly, which means that there will be more available blockspace without actually increasing the block size. This is scaling. Increasing the block size is a poor mans way of dealing with a problem.

ver and wright are just social face drama. and not actual influencers
which again is why i find it funny that fingers get pointed as such drama queen, instead of people actually being aware of the reality.

Bitmain and Ver are balls deep into this space financially, while Craig The Scammer is in it with his mouth and ego. Paying attention to Craig is a convenient way to waste time.

[franky1]

Users and miners determine consensus.  It cannot be "backtracked" (did you get bored of saying "bypassed"?) because that's something that can only happen in your fantasy la-la-land.
if the community wished for something different, they'd be running different code.  You're the one who is ignoring community wishes because you don't respect the choice the community has already made.

community didnt choose.
remember your love for "compatible" nodes. that dont need to upgrade.
that does not mean consensus occured, that means consensus got by passed as it didnt require an opt-in to vote yes
again you love that the core didnt need permission. you said it many times.
you spend a month yammring on about it.. no point continuing your "trust a dev campaign"

anyway
long story short.
craig and ver are just social dramatists and its real funny how some people want to avert peoples gaze away from real influencers (Devs and investor ownership control)
all this social drama stuff seems to just want to distract people away from the real causes of events in the hope it sends sheep to sleep long enough to not realise the real changes being made that really affect the bitcoin network

[franky1]

On top of that, with services using Schnorr, Bitcoin's throughput will increase significantly, which means that there will be more available blockspace without actually increasing the block size. This is scaling. Increasing the block size is a poor mans way of dealing with a problem.

schnorr is not to increase throughput
its actually when people no longer just do legacy transactions due to high fee's and instead need to use multisigs for LN. schnorr is there to attempt to shrink the bloat of (in the future) more popular used multisigs, which would reduce tx/block if schnorr was not used.

EG
imagine average tx was 250byte
multisig was 500byte

when multisig becomes more popular. LESS transactions could fit.
(easy math. legacy=upto 4k.. multisig only 2k)

so schnorr reduces the tx bytes to bring it down to the utility to normal legacy levels.. not to increase scaling.. just prevent decrease.

open a spreadsheet and do some math.

[bitfocus]

you just told he is not to be trusted - and that's your answer about Draig and Bitcoin.