Topic: Alts market if C. Wright moves coins from early blocks (Read 5908 times)

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36213588 Whether Charlie Sheen is actually Satoshi or not, he is not so desperate for money that he would dump coins. If coins have so far not moved then simply knowing who the main bitcoin dev was will not cause him to sell.

I explained the economics centralization upthread, just search "sockpuppet1" to find all the posts.

Satoshi obviously intended for us to end up with a centralized token. What other possibility could there be?

Note Satoshi even wrote in the discussions with others, that he did envision Bitcoin's mining becoming controlled by corporations. All that ideological crap about "better gold" and "usurping financial institutions" was just putting lipstick on a pig.

Maybe theymos was actually using reverse psychology to make a hidden point. That could be he is ridiculing those who say there might be a potential but unproven back door in Bitcoin, by pointing out that such unproven FUD would justify stealing Satoshi's coins in advance to prevent the hacker from causing havoc.

Perhaps he is slyly trying to refute my hypothesizing about a back door in Bitcoin (but my technical argument was not about a quantum computing attack).

Theymos defacto in effect admits TPTB_need_war might be correct with his technical allegation upthread that Bitcoin could possibly have a back door that could be cracked:


Vindicated!

Which similar reasons?

---

Well gleb gamow and SebastianJu both got temp banned too for similar reasons not too long ago.   At least the forum rules are being enforced somewhat fairly.

If we quit looking for a single person and speculate a combination of intelligence agencies as Satoshi Nakamoto,
We get the following :  

SATO= MI6 (Secret Intelligence Service)
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/satoyama/

SHI  = CIA (Central Intelligence Agency)
http://www.kanjijapanese.com/en/dictionary-japanese-english/shi
shi-aie-  translated is Central Intelligence Agency
(Extra sneaky dropped the -aie- )

NAKA = Home ( Homeland Security or MI5 (Domestic intelligence) or both)

Moto = Mossad  (referred to inhouse as the Institute)
(Extra sneaky , removed a T , would have originally been Motto)

 

Have you ever read Delueze's Societies of Control? Bitcoin fits great with this agenda, though I think Deleuze would say it's the natural progression of Capitalism and more the TPTB playing themselves than leading anyone--pay specially attention to the discipline society being ousted for control society when reading. While I think some in Bitcoin are trying to make it more private, I don't think it will ever achieve any degree of great privacy as it will never be at the protocol level and require you going through observable way stations that require you to borrow further and further underground--"Neo, what's in your wallet?"

http://www.mccoyspace.com/nyu/10_s/ideas/texts/week08-Deleuze.pdf

What is so ironic from my perspective (and I suspect the elites are also having a good chuckle about the blindness of you "useless eaters/cattle") is that once you review all the facts (<--- click to know what Satoshi Nakamoto really is), the fools are those who even entertain any thought that Satoshi could be a person.

The elites are playing us like a fiddle with BitCON. Seriously. I didn't reach this conclusion without extensive thought and rationality.


Zero chance. Nick is both not smart enough and doesn't code prolifically enough.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14456412
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13239420 (Craig Wright was correct, Szabo was incorrect)
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14196266 (did Nick ever create any s/w?)
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14464292

I am aware of your past BCT posts about the inadequacies of asymptotic complexity arguments.

I don't share your romantic guess of who created BitCON.

Btw, Craig says the name Satoshi comes from "the book" about the House of Morgan:

https://forum.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-discussion/the-name-satoshi-comes-from-satoshi-david-character-from-the-house-of-morgan-t7619.html

And Nakamoto means "in the book" in Japanese.

And Julian Assange knew Craig in 1996:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hozs5/wikileaks_on_twitter_wed_like_to_thank_satoshi/d2rdg7u

Don't forget that (I was told) a House of Rothschild person was sheltering Assange when he was still free in the UK. And note now how the UN is attempting to supercede the UK's authority on the case. There is always a globalist plan for these pawns, including Edward Snowden.

I think someone paid off Craig to discredit Matonis and Gavin. Gavin has now lost commit access.

The danger is not that BitCON fails, but that it becomes the new totalitarian digital currency.

Hope you are aware that ostensibly the Dr. Craig Wright can't be proven to have made the blog posts, which implicate him:

http://craigswright.com/

Meaning a failure of Bitcoin is not the big problem we face. I hope for the failure of Bitcoin instead of it scaling by becoming centralized. The danger is that many vested interests want Bitcoin to continue even if it is centralized. Centralization doesn't necessarily kill Bitcoin, unless the centralized controllers kill it. Too many tinfoil hats want Bitcoin to succeed and be "the better gold" even if it is centralized and controlled by the combination of China's miners, Larry Summers' 21 Inc., and Blockstream.

The annals of the crypto-currency arena is littered with ignonymous players. Similar to the birth history of President Obama, theymous and the Gman are nearly entirely ignonymous. I've seen only one photo of theyman. I can't find any LinkedIn for the Gman, his educational history, which high school he attended, and where he was born, even though most of his colleages at Blockstream have a LinkedIn. Googling "Gregory F. Maxwell" only returns an address and phone in Parker, Colorado and the following Wikipedia Commons page:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Gmaxwell-boat.jpg

I note the Gman's use of the "rascist" attack against both TPTB_need_war and against Zooko @ Z.cash. And in the above linked Wikipedia Commons, his support for viral "copyleft" licenses that force companies to refuse to use open source because they aren't allowed to keep any portion of their derivative works as proprietary code. In other words, some of sort of totalitarian socialist/Marxist philosophy similar to FSF's Richard Stalman. Dangerous.

Readers again you may want to quote this message because we can't be sure if mods won't get "happy finger" and nuke this post.


Edit: these 1996 posts by Julian Assange says everything you need to know about whether he is a eugenics globalist:


One man can't accomplish what "Satoshi" did with such precision. It was a large group of experts. No doubt about it.

You guys who have no experience in doing something like this, love to have your James Bond fantasies. But you are completely out-of-touch with the reality of actually doing what "Satoshi" accomplished.

So thus you've admitted that double hashing adds no protection against a computationally bounded adversary (i.e. the only kind of adversary that exists in the real world). So why did Satoshi add double hashing to Bitcoin  


So thus you've admitted that double hashing protects against length attacks, but length attacks can't occur in the Bitcoin. So why did Satoshi add double hashing to Bitcoin  


As I interpret TPTB_need_war's explanation of the potential vulnerability (and I'm the canonical source of such interpretations, lol) due to a Boomerang differential attack, that Satoshi adopted the incorrect way of doing double hashing is precisely what makes Bitcoin open to the hypothesized vulnerability.
 
So why did Satoshi add the incorrect form of double hashing to Bitcoin  


I tried to be nice to theymouse and Gmaximus and discuss in an open forum about how it might be possible to break Bitcoin so that it could not make one person very wealthy. But they want to play hardball, so...

Please kindly quote my post in case it is deleted by the mods.

P.S. My personal opinion is I speculate Craig Wright was hired by core to discredit Matonis and Gavin. And I was hired by myself to do the same to "core"; and I speculate "core" appears to be affiliated with the aforementioned individuals. Velvet gloves are off. No more nice guy. Bitcoin is a failed clusterfuck with 70% of the hashrate attributed to China, and one former cattle farmer in China planning to increase that to 98%. The miners and Blockstream are ostensibly colluding to put soft fork versioning into SegWit. There is $1 million per day flowing from n00bs into this raping system that ends up in miner's pockets and other connected parties. Electricity likely charged to the collective via State funded hydroelectric infrastructure. And the ecosystem has no real utility outside of gambling, scams, and other nefarious use cases.

Why did the mods ban TPTB?

How does censorship help the crypto movement?

Where did these posts go?