Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[davewantsmoore]

I see a lot of people saying it was nChain that caused the split, but for the months prior to the split ABC & associates were busy developing splitting tools and negotiating with exchanges that no matter what happened ABC would keep the BCH ticker. ABC had less hash and they knew it.

Yes, good point .... but it's a lot simpler than this.

Who changed the protocol? That is what causes a fork. Exchanges, and tools, and community, and 'leaders' are all just secondary BS. The protocol is what makes bitcoin (or a 'fork').
[doublepost=1554536447][/doublepost]

The problem with PoW to date is that Bitcoin has not been used in sufficient volume. If it is not used it is easy to change behavior.

However if Bitcoin is used in sufficient volume and by diverse applications, then at some point it achieves a critical mass that is difficult/impossible to change. Imagine if there were thousands of applications being used by over a billion people in all geographies, it would be near impossible to coordinate a change.

<SNIP>

Similarly, Bitcoin either requires zero protection and protects itself, or it is worthless. If Bitcoin requires Greg or Amaury or yourself or myself to "protect" it, then it failed and is worthless.

Full stop.

This. 110%.

 

[freetrader]

I recommend following DrFunkenstein on Twitter, he makes short work of nonsense claims.

 

[sgbett]

The absolutely most fundamentally important piece of evidence that categorically proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that CSW is not Satoshi is that it's possible to find a detail to nitpick. Nitpicking is my favourite kind of evidence, it requires no consideration of the big picture no real understanding of the subject matter at hand, and can be tritely expressed in 140 chars so that people with the same shallow understanding of things can lap it up.

Anon troll recommends you follow another anon troll on twitter. Got it.

 

[Zarathustra]

@sgbett

What so many otherwise intelligent people do not consider: You can be a so called con artist and an inventor at the same time.

https://wikivisually.com/wiki/Lee_de_Forest

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Lee-de-Forest

 

[cypherblock]

CSW: "within the year it will be locked with the protocol fixed and the asinine changes removed."

I guess another year until BSV protocol is "locked". Should we say 18 months instead?

 

[sgbett]

I'd like to be possibly the first person in internet history to hold up my hand and say that there are things I have done in my post that were probably not good decisions, and that may have been legally questionable and that may have hurt other people. I am human, I try and be the best I can, but sometimes I fall short. I know though, that this does not represent any sinister fundamental evil in me. Failure, mistakes are where we learn and I think the people that have the courage to take risks, make mistakes, act in good faith on the principles they believe in (even if sometimes they are not aligned with the law) are good people. Some will misconstrue these words and if they do, that says more about them than it does me.

Others may deem things I have done bad, or dishonest or illegal. Yet that does not make me any less of who I am, or make me any less accountable for the good things I have done, the things I have created. It does not make me a scammer, it does not make me a fraud.

I understand that humans are complicated, and I understand everybody faces their own challenges in life and must make choices the best they can. I don't know what CSW has been through, I don't know what choices he has had to make. I only see what he is doing now and the things he is saying. I see what is happening with BSV and what his company is doing. I see a volume of historical activity. All of which paints a picture for me. Let me be clear, I do not confuse this with knowing (or caring) if Craig is Satoshi. It doesn't matter, I'm not here for Satoshi I'm here because back in 2010 I found Bitcoin and it blew me away, and continues to do so today, and since that day I have sough to follow what I believe Bitcoin is. To remain involved with it, and one day to be able to transition into working on it full time. This is not an easy thing to do, and will take me some years, but that is my goal.

Anyway, I think my point is that when people focus on the man, then they will find humanity, with all its successes and all its failings. You get the good, the bad and the ugly. Those that would proclaim their spotless virtue, whilst decrying anything they see in others are the real frauds. The real crime is that of intellectual dishonesty.

All of which is entirely irrelevant, but I think it needed saying.
[doublepost=1554553709][/doublepost]

CSW: "within the year it will be locked with the protocol fixed and the asinine changes removed."

I guess another year until BSV protocol is "locked". Should we say 18 months instead?

I think he's being a bit overoptimistic there, but then that seems to fit his character

so far so good though

 

[freetrader]

The real crime is that of intellectual dishonesty.

Oh, for a second there I thought you were actually trying to defend CSW.

The absolutely most fundamentally important piece of evidence that categorically proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that CSW is not Satoshi is that it's possible to find a detail to nitpick.

Guess I struck a nerve with another Craig Wright fan.

No, this isn't nitpicking. It is accumulating data points, it is resolving the real CSW, who is slowly coming into focus from the background of a blurry myth fairytales told about (or by?) him - some of that very much of his own doing. CSW is slowly crushing himself under the weight of his own untruths.

Anon troll recommends you follow another anon troll on twitter.

And welcome to my Ignore list around here.
Only people who can't deal with arguments go on to attack the anonymity of the counterparty.
This trait somehow is exceedingly prevalent in supporters of SV.

 

[sgbett]

No no, you have me wrong I genuinely think nitpicking is the best way to build a sound evidence base. I don't understand why would you think you struck a nerve? Do you think I wasn't being honest? Why would anyone think that!?

The real tragedy here, is that you will never see my reply as I am on your ignore list. Me and my big mouth!

 

[Richy_T]

CSW is slowly crushing himself under the weight of his own untruths.

The thing is that he's not. For true believers, every new thing that turns up is "just a nitpick" or "something from his past" (albeit that that past was earlier last night). You'll never convince them. But hopefully it will be enough to warn the uninitiated.

 

[sgbett]

This trait somehow is exceedingly prevalent in supporters of SV.

I can’t speak for anyone else but I give a lot of weight to the notion of “skin in the game”. I stake my reputation on the things I say and what I believe. My credibility is important. I am accountable. None of these things are cheap to fake. In this age of information manipulation it’s important to consider the quality of the source, of how easy it is for false information to be broadcasted and relayed. That is not to say you do not believe the things you say, or that the things you say are untrue. It is that they do not come with the weight of reputation and so automatically invite scepticism from those who would employ some level of critical thinking. I understand well some of the arguments for anonymity on the Internet, but I’d be jumping to conclusions if I tried to second guess your specific reasons.

I’d be keen to hear them from you. Perhaps someone else can help freetrader see this by quoting me.

Finally you accuse me of not being able to deal with arguments, and yet you entirely ignore the message in my post. Instead using rhetoric to try and make a point.

Have you ever done anything you regret freetrader, or are you one of those virtuous souls that we see so often on the Internet, loudly denouncing others for their human failings, whilst denying their own duplicity. How’s that for rhetorical?

You suggest you have struck a nerve, but insta-ignore me. I posit that my post was too much for you to handle because it cuts to the heart of your “Aussie man bad” argument. It’s easy this rhetoric game huh?

You are doing nothing to dispel the notion that cypherdoc put forward that your raison d’etre is to sow discord here.

I also realise the irony that I’m biting, but as I mentioned before, sometimes I don’t always make the best decisions.
[doublepost=1554563153,1554562488][/doublepost]

The thing is that he's not. For true believers, every new thing that turns up is "just a nitpick" or "something from his past" (albeit that that past was earlier last night). You'll never convince them. But hopefully it will be enough to warn the uninitiated.

You know that works equally well for the true-beleivers as it does for the true disbelievers.

I’m not saying that CSW is Satoshi. I’m not saying that I want you to believe that he is Satoshi. I’m saying I don’t know for sure.

I would advise the “uninitiated” (wierd choice of word, btw) to also maintain the logical and rational position that they don’t know either.

The people with the most to lose are the people who commit to knowing something that cannot be known, because then they do not act rationally.

 

[Zarathustra]

No no, you have me wrong I genuinely think nitpicking is the best way to build a sound evidence base. I don't understand why would you think you struck a nerve? Do you think I wasn't being honest? Why would anyone think that!?

The real tragedy here, is that you will never see my reply as I am on your ignore list. Me and my big mouth!

He probably will not do it. He doesn't promise this for the first time. But he lied. Now we could use their language once again: He is a liar, a fraud. He is slowly crushing himself under the weight of his own untruths. But we don't.
[doublepost=1554563964][/doublepost]

The thing is that he's not. For true believers, every new thing that turns up is "just a nitpick" or "something from his past" (albeit that that past was earlier last night). You'll never convince them. But hopefully it will be enough to warn the uninitiated.

Who are the true believers? I do not exclude the possibility that he was part/main part of a team Satoshi. Do you? If you do, it's you who's the true believer.

 

[Richy_T]

You know that works equally well for the true-beleivers as it does for the true disbelievers.

Not really. Whoever is the true Satoshi could prove it in moments and not have to rely on the bullshit that CSW comes out with. Proving that CSW is not Satoshi is an impossible task for most of us (though we can point to the long, and ever growing, laundry list of conman-profile behavior). So the onus is on those who would make the claim that he is. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
[doublepost=1554566937][/doublepost]

I do not exclude the possibility that he was part/main part of a team Satoshi.

I don't (main would be stretching it too far probably though). But neither do I exclude that possibility for you, freetrader, Peter or many other people. They are not claiming to be someone they are clearly not, however so it is neither here nor there.
[doublepost=1554567853,1554566727][/doublepost]Fox.exchange giving us some subliminals here...

 

[cypherdoc]

> Whoever is the true Satoshi could prove it in moments and not have to rely on the bullshit that CSW comes out with.

if i were the real Satoshi, i'd prove/sign it in an instant just to vaporize all the $hundredsofmillions of fraud wrapped up in BSV.

 

[Richy_T]

Perhaps. But if I were the real Satoshi, I would have already settled the block size debate. Which means it seems likely his reasons trump this kind of thing or he's dead.

 

[lunar]

All the truth and history is slowly coming out. Honest disbelievers will eventually go silent, trolls will get louder.

 

[freetrader]

if i were the real Satoshi, i'd prove/sign it in an instant just to vaporize all the $hundredsofmillions of fraud wrapped up in BSV.

Now let's examine this critically.

Why doesn't the real Satoshi "vaporize" BCH, or BTC?
After all, Craig is constantly ranting about how these dev teams are taking the protocol in directions never intended (cough) and that the real salvation lies in freezing it at v0.1?

And remember the CSW talk about ruthlessly killing other chains if you get a chance, etc.

I can name a reason why the real Satoshi would not insta-dump a chain even if he disagrees with it completely.

But can you tell me (the plural "you" - any of you SV fans can ask him for me) what CSW's excuse is?

 

[freetrader]

It is that they [ed: statements/opinions from anons] do not come with the weight of reputation

I am not anonymous, I am pseudonymous. Big difference. True anonymity does not allow for reputation, but calling me an "anon troll" is technically incorrect.

So I present some easy counterexamples from both sides of a spectrum:

Satoshi, _unwriter --- /// --- Theymos, Cobra

(I am not saying the reputation has to be positive, just that it exists)

I urge everyone to read this and give it some thought. Even before participating under your real name in Bitcoin. Fine if you say that poses no risk to you. That's up to you to decide.

https://www.wired.com/2014/04/why-we-need-online-alter-egos-now-more-than-ever/
[doublepost=1554572677][/doublepost]

All the truth and history is slowly coming out. Honest disbelievers will eventually go silent, trolls will get louder.

Nah, I prefer to believe Calvin & friends will run out of money before the bold part happens.

But generally yeah, the truth does come out, whether people want it or not. Happens all the time.

 

[Richy_T]

All the truth and history is slowly coming out. Honest disbelievers will eventually go silent, trolls will get louder.

"I'm sure I'll take you with pleasure!" the Queen said. "Two pence a week, and jam every other day."
Alice couldn't help laughing, as she said, "I don't want you to hire me – and I don't care for jam."
"It's very good jam," said the Queen.
"Well, I don't want any to-day, at any rate."
"You couldn't have it if you did want it," the Queen said. "The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday – but never jam to-day."
"It must come sometimes to 'jam to-day'," Alice objected.
"No, it can't," said the Queen. "It's jam every other day: to-day isn't any other day, you know."
"I don't understand you," said Alice. "It's dreadfully confusing!"

 

[cypherdoc]

But can you tell me (the plural "you" - any of you SV fans can ask him for me) what CSW's excuse is?

that's easy, if you're truly looking for a reason. BSV is only 4-5 mo old. maybe he prefers to get everything locked down first before selling off BTC/BCH. who knows.

 

[Zarathustra]

I don't (main would be stretching it too far probably though). But neither do I exclude that possibility for you, freetrader, Peter or many other people. They are not claiming to be someone they are clearly not, however so it is neither here nor there.

This comparison is not even a bad joke, and you know it. The members of the GCBU thread, the smartest of all bitcoin threads, would give Craig a hundred thousand-fold higher probability than to me.