Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[brg444]

About the Satoshi comment:

Zeke says:
It's a brilliant comment, made even better by its plausible deniability. If the author really is SN, and he signed it to prove authorship, then he would be invoking personal authority rather than reason to influence the debate. And would also completely undermine even a reformed Gavin, b/c now we would know that SN is waiting in the wings to offer divine guidance. Instead, we have a comment that points out with convincing reasoning that regardless of originalist doctrine, SN's early opinions are not canonical. Furthermore, it is equally plausible that a present-day SN would disagree with the approach of coercing a hard-fork to XT.

When you think about it, if Satoshi really had something to say that is exactly how he would do it.

Of course the Gavinistas are never going to accept even the slightest possibility it is him seeing the butthurt induced by his comments.

Yeah, the real SN would definitely invoke Barack Obama. Confirmed

I don't see why he wouldn't? Care to explain your logic? Because you didn't "portray him" that way?

I didn't "perceive" him that way? Maybe. He always rose above the political BS and focused on the bolts.

And any message delivered in this manner, under the name "Satoshi Nakamoto"... is an ad verecundiam, regardless of whether you are able to contort your mind to believe otherwise.  

See it appears you either didn't read the post I mentioned or "perceive" Satoshi as a complete idiot.

I for one think he's absolutely smart and perfectly conscious that the post would create confusion and that most would simply disregard it as just another scammer using an old, hacked satoshi email account.

If we believe this to be true then it should follow that being the wise guy he is, he wouldn't sign the message and "confirm" his identity so that the nature of his message would shine through his action : let ideas stand on their own and stop idolizing idiots. You could say he "walked the walk" exactly to avoid "ad verecundiam".

I'm not suggesting I actually believe 100% it was him. "Only god knows".

Simply proposing it isn't out of character or a particular stretch of the mind.   

[Cconvert2G36]

About the Satoshi comment:

Zeke says:
It's a brilliant comment, made even better by its plausible deniability. If the author really is SN, and he signed it to prove authorship, then he would be invoking personal authority rather than reason to influence the debate. And would also completely undermine even a reformed Gavin, b/c now we would know that SN is waiting in the wings to offer divine guidance. Instead, we have a comment that points out with convincing reasoning that regardless of originalist doctrine, SN's early opinions are not canonical. Furthermore, it is equally plausible that a present-day SN would disagree with the approach of coercing a hard-fork to XT.

When you think about it, if Satoshi really had something to say that is exactly how he would do it.

Of course the Gavinistas are never going to accept even the slightest possibility it is him seeing the butthurt induced by his comments.

Yeah, the real SN would definitely invoke Barack Obama. Confirmed

I don't see why he wouldn't? Care to explain your logic? Because you didn't "portray him" that way?

I didn't "perceive" him that way? Maybe. He always rose above the political BS and focused on the bolts.

And any message delivered in this manner, under the name "Satoshi Nakamoto"... is an ad verecundiam, regardless of whether you are able to contort your mind to believe otherwise.  

See it appears you either didn't read the post I mentioned or "perceive" Satoshi as a complete idiot.

I for one think he's absolutely smart and perfectly conscious that the post would create confusion and that most would simply disregard it as just another scammer using an old, hacked satoshi email account.

If we believe this to be true then it should follow that being the wise guy he is, he wouldn't sign the message and "confirm" his identity so that the nature of his message would shine through his action : let ideas stand on their own and stop idolizing idiots. You could say he "walked the walk" exactly to avoid "ad verecundiam".

I'm not suggesting I actually believe 100% it was him. "Only god knows".

Simply proposing it isn't out of character or a particular stretch of the mind.   

So brg444 thinks those were the words satoshi has waited so long to tell us. How about you iCE?

[brg444]

So brg444 thinks those were the words satoshi has waited so long to tell us. How about you iCE?

What? You think he'd write you a fucking essay? A love letter to Gavin?

Instead, we have a comment that points out with convincing reasoning that regardless of originalist doctrine, SN's early opinions are not canonical. Furthermore, it is equally plausible that a present-day SN would disagree with the approach of coercing a hard-fork to XT.

[rocks]

Wow, just wow.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h9cq4/its_time_for_a_break_about_the_recent_mess/

Thermos has really exposed himself and the rest of the intentions of the LN crew in this post.

What is interesting is in the 24 hours he was off over the weekend just how pro-XT /r/bitcoin became. Huge upvotes and a large number of intelligent comments regarding the blocksize debate favoring XT and larger blocks determined by a free market.

Then thermos came back and poof, it was as if it never happened.

At least the absurdity is fully out in the open

Do not violate our rules just because you disagree with them. This will get you banned from /r/Bitcoin, and evading this ban will get you (and maybe your IP) banned from Reddit entirely.

If 90% of /r/Bitcoin users find these policies to be intolerable, then I want these 90% of /r/Bitcoin users to leave. Both /r/Bitcoin and these people will be happier for it. I do not want these people to make threads breaking the rules, demanding change, asking for upvotes, making personal attacks against moderators, etc. Without some real argument, you're not going to convince anyone with any brains -- you're just wasting your time and ours. The temporary rules against blocksize and moderation discussion are in part designed to encourage people who should leave /r/Bitcoin to actually do so so that /r/Bitcoin can get back to the business of discussing Bitcoin news in peace.

[brg444]

Wow, just wow.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h9cq4/its_time_for_a_break_about_the_recent_mess/

Thermos has really exposed himself and the rest of the intentions of the LN crew in this post.

What is interesting is in the 24 hours he was off over the weekend just how pro-XT /r/bitcoin became. Huge upvotes and a large number of intelligent comments regarding the blocksize debate favoring XT and larger blocks determined by a free market.

Then thermos came back and poof, it was as if it never happened.

At least the absurdity is fully out in the open

It's increasingly apparent to me that this idea does not hold. Consider:

Recently Bitcoin came close to unmitigated disaster, in the following way: Gavin diplomatically suggested that miners increase their block size, from the previous magic number of "250k" to something they themselves pick. This approach is flawed: the solution to the problem of having a magic number in the code is not passing the responsibility of choosing it to a larger group. It may work politically, in the sense that where large, vague groups are responsible for a bad move nobody will ever be hung. It does not work practically.

http://trilema.com/2013/and-gavin-moves-on-to-the-dark-side-the-bitcoin-project-is-officially-hijacked/

[smooth]

Hearn has in the past been a consistent advocate for having more Bitcoin users pushed onto less reliable SPV wallets instead of fully validating Bitcoin nodes, a move that is dangerous in an environment with substantially larger blocks and a higher orphaned block rate. The use of SPV wallets clearly and plainly increases the risk of users being duped by double spend attacks during common one to three block forks triggered by orphaned blocks, events which would likely become far more common as increasingly large block sizes and block verification times make XTCoin security measurably weaker than that of Bitcoin.

http://qntra.net/2015/08/hearn-releases-code-to-potentially-fork-xtc-from-bitcoin/

Maybe XT should be renamed SPVcoin? Any takers?

Bitcoin was designed to have most users on SPV wallets.

[Cconvert2G36]

Wow, just wow.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h9cq4/its_time_for_a_break_about_the_recent_mess/

Thermos has really exposed himself and the rest of the intentions of the LN crew in this post.

What is interesting is in the 24 hours he was off over the weekend just how pro-XT /r/bitcoin became. Huge upvotes and a large number of intelligent comments regarding the blocksize debate favoring XT and larger blocks determined by a free market.

Then thermos came back and poof, it was as if it never happened.

At least the absurdity is fully out in the open

Do not violate our rules just because you disagree with them. This will get you banned from /r/Bitcoin, and evading this ban will get you (and maybe your IP) banned from Reddit entirely.

If 90% of /r/Bitcoin users find these policies to be intolerable, then I want these 90% of /r/Bitcoin users to leave. Both /r/Bitcoin and these people will be happier for it. I do not want these people to make threads breaking the rules, demanding change, asking for upvotes, making personal attacks against moderators, etc. Without some real argument, you're not going to convince anyone with any brains -- you're just wasting your time and ours. The temporary rules against blocksize and moderation discussion are in part designed to encourage people who should leave /r/Bitcoin to actually do so so that /r/Bitcoin can get back to the business of discussing Bitcoin news in peace.

Wow indeed. I wonder if we should shut up in this thread too? Decentralized project for th[break]

[brg444]

Hearn has in the past been a consistent advocate for having more Bitcoin users pushed onto less reliable SPV wallets instead of fully validating Bitcoin nodes, a move that is dangerous in an environment with substantially larger blocks and a higher orphaned block rate. The use of SPV wallets clearly and plainly increases the risk of users being duped by double spend attacks during common one to three block forks triggered by orphaned blocks, events which would likely become far more common as increasingly large block sizes and block verification times make XTCoin security measurably weaker than that of Bitcoin.

http://qntra.net/2015/08/hearn-releases-code-to-potentially-fork-xtc-from-bitcoin/

Maybe XT should be renamed SPVcoin? Any takers?

Bitcoin was designed to have most users on SPV wallets.

Which seems like a mistake in retrospect, wouldn't you think?

One that was accurately pointed out to Satoshi only days after his first Bitcoin email:
http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09968.html

Now I'm not saying they're completely useless but that naive reliance on SPV features is a dangerous game.

[Peter R]

7-1/2% and climbing. 

Over 8% now:

[smooth]

Hearn has in the past been a consistent advocate for having more Bitcoin users pushed onto less reliable SPV wallets instead of fully validating Bitcoin nodes, a move that is dangerous in an environment with substantially larger blocks and a higher orphaned block rate. The use of SPV wallets clearly and plainly increases the risk of users being duped by double spend attacks during common one to three block forks triggered by orphaned blocks, events which would likely become far more common as increasingly large block sizes and block verification times make XTCoin security measurably weaker than that of Bitcoin.

http://qntra.net/2015/08/hearn-releases-code-to-potentially-fork-xtc-from-bitcoin/

Maybe XT should be renamed SPVcoin? Any takers?

Bitcoin was designed to have most users on SPV wallets.

Which seems like a mistake in retrospect, wouldn't you think?

No

One that was accurately pointed out to Satoshi only days after his first Bitcoin email:
http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09968.html

Okay tag team nerd cage fight. We have you and James A. Donald on one side, me and satoshi on the other. Who wants tickets?

[iCEBREAKER]

So brg444 thinks those were the words satoshi has waited so long to tell us. How about you iCE?

He always rose above the political BS

Sure, except for that one time when he gave "political BS" the starring role in the very act which created Bitcoin.

The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks

Of course the Gavinistas are never going to accept even the slightest possibility it is him seeing the butthurt induced by his comments.

Confirmed.

[Cconvert2G36]

So brg444 thinks those were the words satoshi has waited so long to tell us. How about you iCE?

He always rose above the political BS

Sure, except for that one time when he gave "political BS" the starring role in the very act which created Bitcoin.

The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks

Of course the Gavinistas are never going to accept even the slightest possibility it is him seeing the butthurt induced by his comments.

Confirmed.

The genesis block refers to some sort of impetus for Bitcoin's existence. One I completely agree with, as btc's characteristics are of a somewhat political nature. That said, you must admit this tone is something else.

The email, despite the double spaces, reeked of politics, the kind both of us are guilty of... something distinctly out of character for satoshi, he would have been more objective, more technical. One of us is talking silly.

[rocks]

7-1/2% and climbing.  

Over 8% now:

Our window over this weekend into what the true uncensored opinion is in/r/bitcoin shows just how much in favor the economic majority is for larger blocks.

That is the real problem with censorship, it never works because it does not allow one to see just how off they are, and leaves no ability to self correct.

But again, node count does not matter, we need to see blocks coded for the version change.

[brg444]

So brg444 thinks those were the words satoshi has waited so long to tell us. How about you iCE?

He always rose above the political BS

Sure, except for that one time when he gave "political BS" the starring role in the very act which created Bitcoin.

The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks

Of course the Gavinistas are never going to accept even the slightest possibility it is him seeing the butthurt induced by his comments.

Confirmed.

The genesis block refers to some sort of impetus for Bitcoin's existence. One I completely agree with, as btc's characteristics are of a somewhat political nature. That said, you must admit this tone is something else.

The email, despite the double spaces, reeked of politics, the kind both of us are guilty of... something distinctly out of character for satoshi, he would have been more objective, more technical. One of us is talking silly.

That it called out politics and attempt at governance does not make it "reek" of politics.

How was he not objective? Would he not be expected to object at different attempts to bastardize his "vision"?

[iCEBREAKER]

Thermos has really exposed himself and the rest of the intentions of the LN crew in this post!

All your huffy, poutraged talk of socioeconomic defection is cheap.  Let's see you back it up with some action, like leaving your Legendary account.

You only empower Thermos's demonic dictatorship when you post on here and his subreddit.

https://voat.co/v/bitcoinxt is calling your name.

Here's what I think of threats to take your ball and go home, because Thermos and the LN crew are so awful:

[brg444]

Our window over this weekend into what the true uncensored opinion is in/r/bitcoin shows just how much in favor the economic majority is for larger blocks.

 

[Cconvert2G36]

So brg444 thinks those were the words satoshi has waited so long to tell us. How about you iCE?

He always rose above the political BS

Sure, except for that one time when he gave "political BS" the starring role in the very act which created Bitcoin.

The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks

Of course the Gavinistas are never going to accept even the slightest possibility it is him seeing the butthurt induced by his comments.

Confirmed.

The genesis block refers to some sort of impetus for Bitcoin's existence. One I completely agree with, as btc's characteristics are of a somewhat political nature. That said, you must admit this tone is something else.

The email, despite the double spaces, reeked of politics, the kind both of us are guilty of... something distinctly out of character for satoshi, he would have been more objective, more technical. One of us is talking silly.

That it called out politics and attempt at governance does not make it "reek" of politics.

How was he not objective? Would he not be expected to object at different attempts to bastardize his "vision"?

Sigh, if satoshi expected max_blocksize to stay at 1MB to infinity, as important as the distribution curve. He should have damn well said so when he was here.  

[brg444]

So brg444 thinks those were the words satoshi has waited so long to tell us. How about you iCE?

He always rose above the political BS

Sure, except for that one time when he gave "political BS" the starring role in the very act which created Bitcoin.

The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks

Of course the Gavinistas are never going to accept even the slightest possibility it is him seeing the butthurt induced by his comments.

Confirmed.

The genesis block refers to some sort of impetus for Bitcoin's existence. One I completely agree with, as btc's characteristics are of a somewhat political nature. That said, you must admit this tone is something else.

The email, despite the double spaces, reeked of politics, the kind both of us are guilty of... something distinctly out of character for satoshi, he would have been more objective, more technical. One of us is talking silly.

That it called out politics and attempt at governance does not make it "reek" of politics.

How was he not objective? Would he not be expected to object at different attempts to bastardize his "vision"?

Sigh, if satoshi expected max_blocksize to stay at 1MB to infinity, as important as the distribution curve. He should have damn well said so when he was here.  

I'm beginning to have concerns about your reading abilities.

Where, in the comment, did Satoshi take any position in regard to the block size?

[Cconvert2G36]

Sigh, if satoshi expected max_blocksize to stay at 1MB to infinity, as important as the distribution curve. He should have damn well said so when he was here.  

I'm beginning to have concerns about your reading abilities.

Where, in the comment, did Satoshi take any position in regard to the block size?

Satoshi has come to writing "pretender-Bitcoin".

He also thinks we need to HARD fork bitcoin to enable (direct? ...implied) "decentralized" full node compensation? Hopefully his solution against "full" node farming will arrive shortly?

That whole implicit-explicit thing is troubling you?

[brg444]

Dyslexia confirmed

Beware the power of the butthurt.

I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.

Turns into

He also thinks we need to HARD fork bitcoin to enable (direct? ...implied) "decentralized" full node compensation?