Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
>I thought @rocks' comment about how the dev tax actually places a ceiling on developer involvement enlightening.

indeed. there was an illuminating reddit post that argued that MOST devs don't want a protocol dev subsidy b/c it encourages protocol devs to keep shifting the sands (rules) resulting in unintended forking off of their offchain dev projects costing them time and money. we've seen Daniel interview one such dev a couple years ago. what's happening in the big pic is that we're seeing a select group of self selected power holders concentrate their power even more tightly as things get dicey and less certain. that's not good for BCH as a public good. no one (namely large financial institutions and merchants) is going to adopt such a farcical situation as they stand to lose money too.

>@cypherdoc What is your theory on why CSW copied entire academic papers nearly verbatim and past them off as his

we talked about this one time already. CSW doesn't appear to be a paragon of virtue, does he? plagiarism is disgusting, lazy, and highly unethical. so i don't condone what it appears he did. i did see though one mildy convincing argument as to why he does this. given i can't remember exactly what that argument was is perhaps some indication of it's plausibility :D but he probably figures that which he copies are basic well known principles that even if plagiarized, shouldn't cause too many ruffled feathers on his way to the meat of what new principles he's trying to advance. not to make excuses for him, surely.

the way i see it, it's all part of the brain twister that will cause most investing in crypto to lose money.
[doublepost=1579834756,1579834139][/doublepost]
The big question is will Craig sell BTC/BCH to buy BSV or instead cash out.
if my theory about the Tulip Trust being a GRAT or some other tax derivative strategy, then it will be liquidated into good ol fashioned dollars to complete the tax strategy in the eyes of the ATO or IRS or whatever jurisdiction. even if he retains a direct advisory role to the ultimate Trustee (whoever that might be), he couldn't tell that Trustee to dump the dollars straight away into yet another volatile immature asset like BSV, as there is legal prudence/obligation to what a Trustee must do with the funds.
 
Last edited:

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
@cypherdoc What is your theory on why CSW copied entire academic papers nearly verbatim and passed them off as his own?
@Peter R
What's your theory on Edison?
[doublepost=1579856087,1579855012][/doublepost]
If the past 10(!) years has demonstrated anything it is the vast majority of people who got into Bitcoin did so only as a get rich quick scheme. They have no interest in Bitcoin's stated purpose, which is to re-establish honesty in the money supply and remove government control/manipulation over money. So they have no understanding of what success for Bitcoin means or how the chain works.
@rocks
As I understand CSW he wants to change the economy with micropayments, as a tool to escape the cartels which he mentioned in this interview.
I think the government (which is a tool of the society) can always control the money supply. They can always create government backed IOU's (credit) of Bitcoin, as it did with other commodities, or today with credit itself, which is backed by the assets of the society.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Norway and bitsko

kyuupichan

Member
Oct 3, 2015
95
348
Maybe May is BU's chance to be the reference software for the BAB-sans-tax chain, and leave ABC to be the reference software for BAB-cum-shitlord-tax. A chance to get out from under Amaury's thumb and perhaps find relevance again, though BAB is not a great chain to do that on any more.
[doublepost=1579867640][/doublepost]I bet the failed BUIP to not switch other coins to BAB will be one of BU's most profitable non-actions ever.
 

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
I'm cheering for a split of BCH in May over the tax issue or any other issue.


SPLIT IT, SPLIT IT, SPLIT IT!!!
 

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
If you're a BU member, and you still haven't figured out that 2 of 3 of @solex @theZerg and @Peter R have stolen the money donated to BU, you're a fool.

(Yes @AdrianX, I'm looking at you, lol)

They can't tell you how the money was spent. They refuse to do it.

Why?

The only reason to hide your transaction history is because the transaction history reveals spending that goes against the mandate given to these people.

It's normal corruption.

And I will bring up this issue each time @Peter R, @theZerg and @solex post in this thread.

This time, it was @Peter R that triggered my response.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
can anyone spot the contradictory self serving moral hazard bullshit, not to mention violation of basic Bitcoin principles, in this paragraph amongst several other paragraphs? I'd spell it out for you except I'm traveling on my phone :

"It is more accurate to call this proposal a service fee for the miners, which has both wide contemporary and historical precedent in the market outside of Bitcoin. Bitcoin itself is a free market governed by majority hash rate, and honest majority miners are under no moral, legal, or protocol obligation to accept blocks from minority miners if they cannot agree on proper terms of doing business together. This is the free market at work, and we believe Bitcoin cannot work any other way."

https://read.cash/@Bitcoin.com/bitcoincoms-clarifications-on-the-miner-development-fund-80828a53
 
Last edited:

torusJKL

Active Member
Nov 30, 2016
497
1,156
The issue I have with this Tax is not that they want to include it in their protocol.
It is the way they market it as free market but we all know how it will go down.

It will not be a free market decision.
A majority hash rate would not be able to oppose the decision because the exchanges will side with the Tax-chain and not acknowledge the other, even if longer, chain that does not enforce the tax.

With the exchanges, once again, colluding with the ABC developers the other chain would have no alternative than to stop building and concede to the minority chain.
[doublepost=1579921715][/doublepost]
I'm cheering for a split of BCH in May over the tax issue or any other issue.


SPLIT IT, SPLIT IT, SPLIT IT!!!
I don't see a split happening.
Who would invest the money in that other chain that would not be called BCH anymore (the exchanges will see to that)?

All those that where opposed to the ABC regime have already left BCH.
The ones still on BCH are either compliant (e.g. Bitcoin.com) or have no real power.
 

torusJKL

Active Member
Nov 30, 2016
497
1,156
can anyone spot the contradictory self serving moral hazard bullshit, not to mention violation of basic Bitcoin principles, in this paragraph amongst several other paragraphs? I'd spell it out for you except I'm traveling on my phone :

"It is more accurate to call this proposal a service fee for the miners, which has both wide contemporary and historical precedent in the market outside of Bitcoin. Bitcoin itself is a free market governed by majority hash rate, and honest majority miners are under no moral, legal, or protocol obligation to accept blocks from minority miners if they cannot agree on proper terms of doing business together. This is the free market at work, and we believe Bitcoin cannot work any other way."

https://read.cash/@Bitcoin.com/bitcoincoms-clarifications-on-the-miner-development-fund-80828a53
I find this one especially funny:
A tax is a coercive instrument by state actors which must be paid under threat of legal penalty, including fines and jail time. Under this proposal, no such threat exists. Bitcoin.com stands behind peaceful, free market activity and voluntary associations. This proposal is made in accordance with those principles and we will continue to support it so long as it remains that way.
The neo-Coreans have now taken the next step and started like their big brothers (the Coreans) to redefine words and their meaning.

Just say that a tax needs to be enforced by jail time and presto the BCH tax is now only a peacful service fee.

What they fail to see is that the legal penalty or jail is not part of the tax but how a state government can enforce the tax.
Bitcoin has its own enforcement instrument which is orphaning blocks.

So even if a tax is only a tax if there is an enforcement than the BCH tax checks all the checkboxes.
 

lunar

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,001
4,290
Tax ... ?

If you don't pay the toll, we the Cartel steal your block reward.

https://www.ganintegrity.com/portal/corruption-dictionary/

Extortion
Extortion is the unlawful use of one’s position or office to obtain money through coercion or threats. One example would be when customs officials request undue ‘customs duties’ from importers as a condition to clear their goods.
 

digitsu

Member
Jan 5, 2016
63
149
can anyone spot the contradictory self serving moral hazard bullshit, not to mention violation of basic Bitcoin principles, in this paragraph amongst several other paragraphs? I'd spell it out for you except I'm traveling on my phone :

"It is more accurate to call this proposal a service fee for the miners, which has both wide contemporary and historical precedent in the market outside of Bitcoin. Bitcoin itself is a free market governed by majority hash rate, and honest majority miners are under no moral, legal, or protocol obligation to accept blocks from minority miners if they cannot agree on proper terms of doing business together. This is the free market at work, and we believe Bitcoin cannot work any other way."

https://read.cash/@Bitcoin.com/bitcoincoms-clarifications-on-the-miner-development-fund-80828a53
Every dictator, to ever have seized the reigns of power, have done so on a populist campaign. Whether it be a socialist one if the country is poor, or a libertairian one, where the existing government is perceived to be too strong. They change the rules, tell you it's for the good of the general community, for the "people". But never actually asked the people what they wanted or need. Beware leaders who change the rules to what they say is "good for you".
 

sgbett

Active Member
Aug 25, 2015
216
786
UK
I wonder if anyone outside of a small niche in the metanet.icu slack has the foggiest idea of the fundamental philosophies that underpin Bitcoin's raison d'être?

Once you start to understand that, all the petty squabbling over ownership of keys, plagiarism of papers, discrepancies in historical records is he or isn't he satoshi, "contempt" of court reveals itself to be the most asinine and petty discussion that it really is.

If I was in his position, I think that I too would find the whole thing (not just the the legal process of discovery, but the so called Bitcoin community) contemptible. There is so much utter shit to wade through. It makes the light *so* much brighter once you can see it. I hope I can keep moving towards it, because (and I'm ok with admitting this) I didn't really get it before.

Nour indeed.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
look at the Cambrian explosion of non sensical ideas flowing through r/btc right now. everyone over there has redefined the terms Nakamoto Concensus and miner governance. crazy to see.
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
@sgbett I don't think you need to be in that ICU to understand that.

There is one concern, though, trusting in Law. The legislation we have today largely exists because the majority are hypnotized to think it's just.

What's happening to Craig maybe not in his ICU is a gaslighting campaign?

Bitcoin does not need Satoshi, and Craig does not need to be Satoshi. Bitcoin is an amazing design and one can understand it without proving Craig is or is not Satoshi.

What boggles my mind is so many people don't actually understand what makes Bitcoin work. BSV, I can only hope actually proves bitcoin works. I'm working on that.
 
Last edited:

digitsu

Member
Jan 5, 2016
63
149
I wonder if anyone outside of a small niche in the metanet.icu slack has the foggiest idea of the fundamental philosophies that underpin Bitcoin's raison d'être?

Once you start to understand that, all the petty squabbling over ownership of keys, plagiarism of papers, discrepancies in historical records is he or isn't he satoshi, "contempt" of court reveals itself to be the most asinine and petty discussion that it really is.

If I was in his position, I think that I too would find the whole thing (not just the the legal process of discovery, but the so called Bitcoin community) contemptible. There is so much utter shit to wade through. It makes the light *so* much brighter once you can see it. I hope I can keep moving towards it, because (and I'm ok with admitting this) I didn't really get it before.

Nour indeed.
Amen. NOUR Brother.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway and sgbett

sgbett

Active Member
Aug 25, 2015
216
786
UK
@sgbett I don't think you need to be in that ICU to understand that.

There is one concern, though, trusting in Law. The legislation we have today largely exists because the majority are hypnotized to think it's just.

What's happening to Craig maybe not in his ICU is a gaslighting campaign?

Bitcoin does not need Satoshi, and Craig does not need to be Satoshi. Bitcoin is an amazing design and one can understand it without proving Craig is or is not Satoshi.

What boggles my mind is so many people don't actually understand what make Bitcoin work. BSV I can only hope actually proves bitcoin works.
You are right I'm being unfair, I was probably projecting my own shortcomings!

There are undoubtedly smart people out there that are better educated and/or a bit quicker on the uptake than I. I would re-iterate though that the "liberal education" I've gotten from Craig has been an invaluable addition to my understanding.

I think how Craig is perceived (and how that is managed) is no accident.

Maybe I'm over simplifying (or overthinking?), but if it's true that "proof of coins" would tank the (BTC) market, then there is much more value in cultivating faketoshi, at least until such time as one has hedged against that potential somehow.

As to whether there is a smear campaign, perhaps - I could also put it down to individual ignorance, and herd mentality.