Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 02:00:22 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 [853] 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1803912 times)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 06:56:50 AM
 #17041

this is where you are very wrong.

the Federated model SIDECHAINS allows a transformation of BTC to all manner of speculative assets by allowing an offramp to these speculative SC's with opaque ledgers and insecurity. this does 2 things; drains value from Bitcoin itself and increases attacks while on this insecure SC.  this is a totally different situation from a gox general deposit address which still exists on the Bitcoin blockchain and even if hacked just moves those BTC to the hackers new address. 

FTFY, again.

Sure what you describe is true, that is if you believe and trust gox to maintain full reserve. Unfortunately history has shown this to be a very shaky proposition

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
1480816822
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480816822

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480816822
Reply with quote  #2

1480816822
Report to moderator
1480816822
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480816822

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480816822
Reply with quote  #2

1480816822
Report to moderator
Visit and contribute to reddit.com/r/Bitcoin
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480816822
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480816822

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480816822
Reply with quote  #2

1480816822
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 06:59:16 AM
 #17042

this is where you are very wrong.

the Federated model SIDECHAINS allows a transformation of BTC to all manner of speculative assets by allowing an offramp to these speculative SC's with opaque ledgers and insecurity. this does 2 things; drains value from Bitcoin itself and increases attacks while on this insecure SC.  this is a totally different situation from a gox general deposit address which still exists on the Bitcoin blockchain and even if hacked just moves those BTC to the hackers new address.  

FTFY, again.

Sure what you describe is true, that is if you believe and trust gox to maintain full reserve. Unfortunately history has shown this to be a very shaky proposition

i'm not sure what you think you're fixing.

it matters not whether gox maintains full reserve.  whatever BTC got deposited to the general deposit address was always there or got hacked away.  inflation applies to what was happening with goxBTC on the orderbooks which is not the same thing.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 07:01:36 AM
 #17043

and you are one senile grampa

what you keep emphasizing is your opposition to the detachement of the BTC asset from the BTC mainchain onto potentially speculative sidechains that could drain away the value off the BTC mainchain. I hope you did not forget this. If so I can gladly pull up your numerous posts that clearly imply this mechanism would "destroy Bitcoin"

what I keep emphasizing, which you are seemingly to stupid or disingenuous to comprehend, is that federated servers do exactly this.

it has never been a debate about changing the source code or not. so unless you are trying to move the goal post ONCE AGAIN, then at least make at attempt at being honest.

you concern is Bitcoin's Sound Money property.

my answer to your concern is you should see your bitcoins RIGHT NOW because SIDECHAINS using a federated model are this danger you so very much fear

no, that's just been your misperception of my argument.  it's ALWAYS been about changing source code.

OH IS THAT RIGHT

the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.

Well tough luck brothers, because the BTC unit CAN and WILL be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) by SIDECHAINS running on a federated server model. That very mechanism is possible without any change to the source code.

So...it seems my good man that Bitcoin as Money is broken ALREADY which brings me to ask you......







.... sold your Bitcoins already?

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 07:05:19 AM
 #17044

the Blockstream bounty still applies btw  Cheesy

nothing you've said has changed my mind.  in fact, its all crystallized it for me.

You cook the stuff yourself?


allowing the exit of BTC from its secure blockchain via the SPVproof breaks the whole concept of the Sound Money function of Bitcoin in my book.  whereas ppl would have been forced to buy into BTC to participate in Bitcoin, now they will be able to buy all sorts of SC speculative assets which will be derivatives of BTC, whether they be on federated servers or decentralized SC's.  Bitcoin won't be Bitcoin anymore thus ppl should willingly do this as BTC really won't have the ability to appreciate anymore as it will no longer represent Sound Money.  in essence, i see these speculative SC's, which Blockstream will be creating for fees, to be inflationary.  their ledgers will be hidden and opaque and insecure as i doubt they will be mined as MM has a limited capacity.

You sound like Peter Schiff with the appeals to the 'Sound Money' sloganeering.

Anyway p2sh and the multi-sig support and such is far more significant protocol level stuff than the modest proposals to better support sidechains.  If all that stuff doesn't turn Bitcoin into 'Funny Money' (note the capitalization appropriate for religious-tinted dogma) then I don't know what does.  That didn't kill Bitcoin.  I myself was actually concerned that it would, but not for phony-baloney economic reasons.


brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 07:06:19 AM
 #17045

this is where you are very wrong.

the Federated model SIDECHAINS allows a transformation of BTC to all manner of speculative assets by allowing an offramp to these speculative SC's with opaque ledgers and insecurity. this does 2 things; drains value from Bitcoin itself and increases attacks while on this insecure SC.  this is a totally different situation from a gox general deposit address which still exists on the Bitcoin blockchain and even if hacked just moves those BTC to the hackers new address.  

FTFY, again.

Sure what you describe is true, that is if you believe and trust gox to maintain full reserve. Unfortunately history has shown this to be a very shaky proposition

i'm not sure what you think you're fixing.

it matters not whether gox maintains full reserve.  whatever BTC got deposited to the general deposit address was always there or got hacked away.  inflation applies to what was happening with goxBTC on the orderbooks which is not the same thing.

LOL you still don't get it do you? Notice the ol' SPVProof/Federated Sidechains switcharoo? See how it fits perfectly in there and remains true?

Got it? Probably not.... Undecided

Lemme pull the same ol' trick :

it matters not whether the sidechain maintains full reserve.  whatever BTC got locked to the sidechain was always there or got "burned" away.  inflation applies to what was happening with scBTC on the sidechain which is not the same thing.

 Cool cool no?

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 07:07:51 AM
 #17046

and you are one senile grampa

what you keep emphasizing is your opposition to the detachement of the BTC asset from the BTC mainchain onto potentially speculative sidechains that could drain away the value off the BTC mainchain. I hope you did not forget this. If so I can gladly pull up your numerous posts that clearly imply this mechanism would "destroy Bitcoin"

what I keep emphasizing, which you are seemingly to stupid or disingenuous to comprehend, is that federated servers do exactly this.

it has never been a debate about changing the source code or not. so unless you are trying to move the goal post ONCE AGAIN, then at least make at attempt at being honest.

you concern is Bitcoin's Sound Money property.

my answer to your concern is you should see your bitcoins RIGHT NOW because SIDECHAINS using a federated model are this danger you so very much fear

no, that's just been your misperception of my argument.  it's ALWAYS been about changing source code.

OH IS THAT RIGHT

the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.

Well tough luck brothers, because the BTC unit CAN and WILL be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) by SIDECHAINS running on a federated server model. That very mechanism is possible without any change to the source code.

So...it seems my good man that Bitcoin as Money is broken ALREADY which brings me to ask you......







.... sold your Bitcoins already?

in this entire 200 pg discussion, my arguments have centered on the SPVproof mainly b/c that is Blockstreams main goal; to insert SPVproof into the source.  even they say federated servers are an interim insecure, centralized step.  i agree, i discount them as any real long term implementation of SC's for exactly those reasons.  the real meat of everything i've argued has and always will apply to SPVproof as it systematizes the SC concept and implies that a community consensus has been reached regarding these things.

stop pretending that i'd be upset at the federated model as you keep gloating and screaming about as above.  i could give a shit b/c it's not a threat and should NOT be a reason for us to scream in fear "OMG, give us SPVproof!"
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 07:08:00 AM
 #17047

the Blockstream bounty still applies btw  Cheesy

nothing you've said has changed my mind.  in fact, its all crystallized it for me.

You cook the stuff yourself?

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 07:11:02 AM
 #17048

you mean like this trick?

i'm an asshole.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 07:14:57 AM
 #17049


Anyway p2sh and the multi-sig support and such is far more significant protocol level stuff than the modest proposals to better support sidechains.  If all that stuff doesn't turn Bitcoin into 'Funny Money' (note the capitalization appropriate for religious-tinted dogma) then I don't know what does.  That didn't kill Bitcoin.  I myself was actually concerned that it would, but not for phony-baloney economic reasons.



huh?  why would you think multi sig would be a threat?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 07:19:07 AM
 #17050

in this entire 200 pg discussion, my arguments have centered on the SPVproof mainly b/c that is Blockstreams main goal; to insert SPVproof into the source.  even they say federated servers are an interim insecure, centralized step.  i agree, i discount them as any real long term implementation of SC's for exactly those reasons.  the real meat of everything i've argued has and always will apply to SPVproof as it systematizes the SC concept and implies that a community consensus has been reached regarding these things.

stop pretending that i'd be upset at the federated model as you keep gloating and screaming about as above.  i could give a shit b/c it's not a threat and should NOT be a reason for us to scream in fear "OMG, give us SPVproof!"

So this:

the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.

Was some kind of delusion of yourself that never happened? Some fragment of your imagination created by your schyzophrenic mind? The "basis of your argument" is no more the "basis of your argument" because you cannot defend it anymore?

I'm very sorry but federated servers supported sidechains are ABSOLUTELY part of the future of BTC. Do you not remember those scary opaque, centralized sidechains you make nightmares about? You think they're gonna hand over control of their chain to miners? Hell no! They will most certainly use federations/oracles to verify their chain.  

Which leads me back to what I have tried to explain to you repeatedly. Most of the sidechains created by Blockstream for clients will be booted on top of federated model servers. They cannot afford the uncertainty of MM and its consequent insecurity.

SPVproof are effectively our best ally against any of these opaque, centralized/off-chain schemes. The market should absolutely demand algorithmically pegged sidechains. They are the most certain and secure way to prevent the inflation of Bitcoin through off-chain fractional reserve.

Of course they come with a whole lot of implications that should be considered. Others have done a great job at pointing these out, in a couple of posts at that, while you've been witch hunting for the last 200 pages without any valuable contribution.


"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 07:23:42 AM
 #17051

in this entire 200 pg discussion, my arguments have centered on the SPVproof mainly b/c that is Blockstreams main goal; to insert SPVproof into the source.  even they say federated servers are an interim insecure, centralized step.  i agree, i discount them as any real long term implementation of SC's for exactly those reasons.  the real meat of everything i've argued has and always will apply to SPVproof as it systematizes the SC concept and implies that a community consensus has been reached regarding these things.

stop pretending that i'd be upset at the federated model as you keep gloating and screaming about as above.  i could give a shit b/c it's not a threat and should NOT be a reason for us to scream in fear "OMG, give us SPVproof!"

So this:

the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.

Was some kind of delusion of yourself that never happened? The "basis of your argument" is no more the "basis of your argument" because you cannot defend it anymore?

I'm very sorry but federated servers supported sidechains are ABSOLUTELY part of the future of BTC. Do you not remember those scary opaque, centralized sidechains you make nightmares about? You think they're gonna hand over control of their chain to miners? Hell no! They will most certainly use federations/oracles to verify their chain.  

Which leads me back to what I have tried to explain to you repeatedly. Most of the sidechains created by Blockstream for clients will be booted on top of federated model servers. They cannot afford the uncertainty of MM and its consequent insecurity.

SPVproof are effectively our best ally against any of these opaque, centralized/off-chain schemes. The market should absolutely demand algorithmically pegged sidechains. They are the most certain and secure way to prevent the inflation of Bitcoin through off-chain fractional reserve.

Of course they come with a whole lot of implications that should be considered. Others have done a great job at pointing these out, in a couple of posts at that, while you've been witch hunting for the last 200 pages without any valuable contribution.



so your argument has morphed from SC's solely being implemented as utility chains, to maybe a NASDAQ stock SC being great, and now to all these Blockstream, IBM, Google created federated server SC's that we all should fear!  lol!

go right ahead and dream that fantasy b/c i don't fear them at all.  let 'em do it.

as long as they don't change source.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 07:26:22 AM
 #17052

you mean like this trick?

i'm an asshole.

Everytime you resort to ignoring my comments I smile knowing I've won that argument.

You are a sad, sad person cypher. I hope you get some help. This pathetic ego of yours is digging you a hole from where you'll have a hard time climbing out of.


"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Jimmy_Zed
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 07:27:06 AM
 #17053

Gold will hold above 1000 USD for ever, and will hit 5 K before 2020. Maybe even 10 K. BTC will follow.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 07:28:18 AM
 #17054

you mean like this trick?

i'm an asshole.

Everytime you resort to ignoring my comments I smile knowing I've won that argument.

You are a sad, sad person cypher. I hope you get some help. This pathetic ego of yours is digging you a hole from where you'll have a hard time climbing out of.



i read them but i ignore answering them b/c they are usually a bunch of shill bullshit and not worth the time.  you never listen to my answers anyway and certainly never answer any of my questions.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 07:28:56 AM
 #17055

in this entire 200 pg discussion, my arguments have centered on the SPVproof mainly b/c that is Blockstreams main goal; to insert SPVproof into the source.  even they say federated servers are an interim insecure, centralized step.  i agree, i discount them as any real long term implementation of SC's for exactly those reasons.  the real meat of everything i've argued has and always will apply to SPVproof as it systematizes the SC concept and implies that a community consensus has been reached regarding these things.

stop pretending that i'd be upset at the federated model as you keep gloating and screaming about as above.  i could give a shit b/c it's not a threat and should NOT be a reason for us to scream in fear "OMG, give us SPVproof!"

So this:

the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.

Was some kind of delusion of yourself that never happened? The "basis of your argument" is no more the "basis of your argument" because you cannot defend it anymore?

I'm very sorry but federated servers supported sidechains are ABSOLUTELY part of the future of BTC. Do you not remember those scary opaque, centralized sidechains you make nightmares about? You think they're gonna hand over control of their chain to miners? Hell no! They will most certainly use federations/oracles to verify their chain.  

Which leads me back to what I have tried to explain to you repeatedly. Most of the sidechains created by Blockstream for clients will be booted on top of federated model servers. They cannot afford the uncertainty of MM and its consequent insecurity.

SPVproof are effectively our best ally against any of these opaque, centralized/off-chain schemes. The market should absolutely demand algorithmically pegged sidechains. They are the most certain and secure way to prevent the inflation of Bitcoin through off-chain fractional reserve.

Of course they come with a whole lot of implications that should be considered. Others have done a great job at pointing these out, in a couple of posts at that, while you've been witch hunting for the last 200 pages without any valuable contribution.



so your argument has morphed from SC's solely being implemented as utility chains, to maybe a NASDAQ stock SC being great, and now to all these Blockstream, IBM, Google created federated server SC's that we all should fear!  lol!

go right ahead and dream that fantasy b/c i don't fear them at all.  let 'em do it.

as long as they don't change source.

Should we really run a list of your argument beginning at the start of this discussion?

Do you even remember this one?

the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.

What you don't care about Bitcoin's Sound Money principles anymore  Angry How dare you !  Cry

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 07:29:15 AM
 #17056


Anyway p2sh and the multi-sig support and such is far more significant protocol level stuff than the modest proposals to better support sidechains.  If all that stuff doesn't turn Bitcoin into 'Funny Money' (note the capitalization appropriate for religious-tinted dogma) then I don't know what does.  That didn't kill Bitcoin.  I myself was actually concerned that it would, but not for phony-baloney economic reasons.



huh?  why would you think multi sig would be a threat?

I didn't say 'threat'.  I said 'funny' in the context of how money normally works.  Contrast it to 'sound'.

I had some concerns that the added complexity would produce attack modes that nobody anticipated.  So far it has not seemed to...unless one has some absurd idea that sidechains are a threat and some of these mechanisms might be used to facilitate federations and such.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 07:31:14 AM
 #17057


Anyway p2sh and the multi-sig support and such is far more significant protocol level stuff than the modest proposals to better support sidechains.  If all that stuff doesn't turn Bitcoin into 'Funny Money' (note the capitalization appropriate for religious-tinted dogma) then I don't know what does.  That didn't kill Bitcoin.  I myself was actually concerned that it would, but not for phony-baloney economic reasons.



huh?  why would you think multi sig would be a threat?

I didn't say 'threat'.  I said 'funny' in the context of how money normally works.  Contrast it to 'sound'.

I had some concerns that the added complexity would produce attack modes that nobody anticipated.  So far it has not seemed to...unless one has some absurd idea that sidechains are a threat and some of these mechanisms might be used to facilitate federations and such.



you don't think SC's are vulnerable to attack?  how does that help Bitcoin?  but also how does forcing a choice btwn corpGovCoin and PaypalCoin help any of us?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 07:33:33 AM
 #17058

in this entire 200 pg discussion, my arguments have centered on the SPVproof mainly b/c that is Blockstreams main goal; to insert SPVproof into the source.  even they say federated servers are an interim insecure, centralized step.  i agree, i discount them as any real long term implementation of SC's for exactly those reasons.  the real meat of everything i've argued has and always will apply to SPVproof as it systematizes the SC concept and implies that a community consensus has been reached regarding these things.

stop pretending that i'd be upset at the federated model as you keep gloating and screaming about as above.  i could give a shit b/c it's not a threat and should NOT be a reason for us to scream in fear "OMG, give us SPVproof!"

So this:

the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.

Was some kind of delusion of yourself that never happened? The "basis of your argument" is no more the "basis of your argument" because you cannot defend it anymore?

I'm very sorry but federated servers supported sidechains are ABSOLUTELY part of the future of BTC. Do you not remember those scary opaque, centralized sidechains you make nightmares about? You think they're gonna hand over control of their chain to miners? Hell no! They will most certainly use federations/oracles to verify their chain.  

Which leads me back to what I have tried to explain to you repeatedly. Most of the sidechains created by Blockstream for clients will be booted on top of federated model servers. They cannot afford the uncertainty of MM and its consequent insecurity.

SPVproof are effectively our best ally against any of these opaque, centralized/off-chain schemes. The market should absolutely demand algorithmically pegged sidechains. They are the most certain and secure way to prevent the inflation of Bitcoin through off-chain fractional reserve.

Of course they come with a whole lot of implications that should be considered. Others have done a great job at pointing these out, in a couple of posts at that, while you've been witch hunting for the last 200 pages without any valuable contribution.



so your argument has morphed from SC's solely being implemented as utility chains, to maybe a NASDAQ stock SC being great, and now to all these Blockstream, IBM, Google created federated server SC's that we all should fear!  lol!

go right ahead and dream that fantasy b/c i don't fear them at all.  let 'em do it.

as long as they don't change source.

Should we really run a list of your argument beginning at the start of this discussion?

Do you even remember this one?

the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.

What you don't care about Bitcoin's Sound Money principles anymore  Angry How dare you !  Cry


you can't stop ALL ppl from doing stupid shit.  plus, federated servers don't change the source code and force all of us to scramble to adjust our strategies based on a disruption of the mining equilibrium as well as user disincentives to further utilize Bitcoin as Sound Money as it will have been broken by an SPVproof.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 07:39:22 AM
 #17059

you mean like this trick?

i'm an asshole.

Everytime you resort to ignoring my comments I smile knowing I've won that argument.

You are a sad, sad person cypher. I hope you get some help. This pathetic ego of yours is digging you a hole from where you'll have a hard time climbing out of.



do you really think ppl actually listen to your bullshit ad hominems?  it just shows how young and immature you are.

they just laugh at you like i do.
Bagatell
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 719



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 07:41:29 AM
 #17060

you mean like this trick?

i'm an asshole.

Everytime you resort to ignoring my comments I smile knowing I've won that argument.

You are a sad, sad person cypher. I hope you get some help. This pathetic ego of yours is digging you a hole from where you'll have a hard time climbing out of.



do you really think ppl actually listen to your bullshit ad hominems?  it just shows how young and immature you are.

they just laugh at you like i do.

Pots and kettles..
Pages: « 1 ... 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 [853] 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 ... 1560 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!