That's fine. Feels simply don't interest me.recap on my arguments:
hashwar claims by csw directly damaged bsv in the marketplace, by causing delistings, which reduces speculator interest, which in turn reduces development interest, which retards the potential of bsv over time.
series of losses by csw has resulted in scorched earth level emotional grudge, which history has shown leads to more failure.
this time however, the approach is even more off the mark
Do you not see the complete irrelevance of Western financial thinking? The West is dying in a pool of their own greed. Do you think the Chinese will care if Westerners value useless tokens? China is taking over the South China Sea and nobody cares. China owns your military suppliers and nobody cares. You have freely given yourself over to your negative feelings about something nChain has embraced. I am not pro-CCP, but I can read the writing on the wall. Haven't you noticed that the Chinese are the only ones that have really taken Bitcoin seriously in policy? They were the first to rule that Bitcoin is a commodity. Sure some bureaucrats release back-and-forth statements about legalities, but their monetary policy has been consistent.@cbeast it seems you are not heeding the spirit of bitsko's criticisms. it is not akin to boilerplate argument-free anti-BSV hogwash by small-time investors that confusedly hope such noise increases their chances of becoming rich at the crypto casino.
the common point of departure is the belief that BSV is technically superior and approaches the expected functionality of bitcoin. additionally, there has been a willingness to suspend judgment on personalities and focus on fundamentals.
at the time of the BCH/BSV split, BSV took an exciting direction, focusing on scalability, compliance and protocol stability, leading to enterprise adoption. meanwhile BCH's governance was a shambles, with an economically inept leader-dictator who eventually quit for money imposing half- baked protocol changes, and a lack of interest in the thought that massive adoption requires both stability and insertion in -- not circumvention of -- the existing legal and business framework.
yet a few years down the road the main BSV strategy has become to pursue legal cases which will not be resolved for years and whose result is quite improbably the one theorized. businesses are not onboarding. a boom cycle is going by that has lifted the entire space except for BSV. exchanges aren't listing it, the BTC narrative has become entrenched and self-fulfilling, technical difficulties remain, end usage is not picking up (effective throughput has halved since last year), and the maximalist claim that BTC would be sold to fund BSV development has been unceremoniously taken back.
so perhaps it is time to modulate the optimism? this is the attitude already taken by several BSV builders (relayx, handcash, twetch): not to count on the BA / CSW / CA strategy, indeed criticize it and continue to work despite it. these businesses cannot wait forever, revenue needs to be generated, it is not sufficient to build on the self-annointed best tech, nor is anyone expecting to convert grand cross-jurisdictional legal theories by discredited defendants into marketplace victories.
the reality is that a sustained wave of interest in crypto that could have finally led to an uptick of usage of the capable tech completely bypassed the project. the time for rosy predictions is over.
wut*note. Please take RXCs warning to get out of crypt0 completely... eventually.
**BSV isn't crypt0
What's wrong with anarchy, I support CSW's ideas because he advocated for anarchist principles whatever he calls them, I'm more interested in ideas than labels.So you're an anarchist? Authority is essential for civilization.
I live in a world governed by "stupid" tyrants, they don't seem that stupid to me, it's the capitalists who are losing and have otherwise been coopted to serve tyrants.You overestimate the power of tyrants. They tend to be quite stupid.
Defining yourself by an ism, an ist, or their antithesis is only useful if its definition is agreed upon. Unfortunately social constructs schism far too easily. The Code of Hammurabi, the Magna Carta, the US Constituion, and the NAP are useful depending on how they are perceived in relation to fairness. But they too often schism.What's wrong with anarchy, I support CSW's ideas because he advocated for anarchist principles whatever he calls them, I'm more interested in ideas than labels.
Modern civilization is predicated on removing authority from other humans and giving it to God and then building on the premise that no one has authority over anyone and we are all equal under God. I just don't believe there is an authority in God other than the laws of phisicks we're forced to obey.
Our modern history in law is fundamentally a story of the decentralization of power starting with the Magna Carta.
I live in a world governed by "stupid" tyrants, they don't seem that stupid to me, it's the capitalists who are losing and have otherwise been coopted to serve tyrants.
CSW is quite vocal about the amount of wealth he pretends to have.You know, I forgot what this thread was named. All anyone here cares about is number-goes-up. Mea Culpa.
Does anyone here have any argument that doesn't include terms like market value and investment? Numpties go up! I need to find a programmer forum.CSW is quite vocal about the amount of wealth he pretends to have.
He even uses that as an argument quite often.
So his stance of contempt and anger regarding people that are happy to build their wealth while investing in something else else than BSV seems rather inappropriate and hypocritical.
Apparently more than others. I used to sell myself for $100 per hour if you're interested.How much would you sell yourself for?
This is probably the single most destructive belief plaguing society at the moment. One does not need to believe in science as one believes in a god, science, is not the gospel preached by our high priests the media called scientists.While believing in science is useful,
I'm not an idea, I'm an individual, I was just agreeing with an idea, the definitions of words are an example of anarchy. There is no authority who can definitively define the meaning of a word, they evolve they change, you need to explain your definition. Words mean whatever you want them to mean.Defining yourself by an ism, an ist, or their antithesis is only useful if its definition is agreed upon.
We use science to make numbers go up. Being excited about numbers going up is not the problem, conflating that with reality is.Numpties go up! I need to find a programmer forum.
I'm not an idea, I'm an individual, I was just agreeing with an idea,