Pages:
Author

Topic: Anunymint ban - page 2. (Read 9083 times)

legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
August 20, 2018, 10:59:56 AM
#93
You don’t seem to understand that those sites suddenly started doing that because they have to protect themselves due requirements in the recent EU GDPR legislation requiring centrally controlled Internet websites to protect users from hate speech.

GDPR is about privacy and data protection (literally "General Data Protection Regulation"). It does not address hate speech.

Do you have a link to your decentralized blockchain-based website?
newbie
Activity: 18
Merit: 3
August 20, 2018, 08:28:01 AM
#92
He can still publish on his own website. I don't see how this impedes his ability to reach his followers. It might impede his ability to gain new followers so basically Twitbook and Facetube decided to not promote him anymore. Although I'm guessing that individual users of those sites can still post his links/videos.

You don’t seem to understand that those sites suddenly started doing that because they have to protect themselves due requirements in the recent EU GDPR legislation requiring centrally controlled Internet websites to protect users from hate speech. And that sort of totalitarian legislation might also be coming to the USA when the Democrats get back in power. That is why we absolutely must decentralize all databases and websites via the blockchain.

Please pay attention to the Youtube from George Gilder that I linked in my prior post. He explains how the fiefdoms aren’t sustainable. What we see underway is the coming collapse of Western Civilization before 2033 as the Millennials favor ideology and thus drive the tech sector to leave for greener pastures in Asia:

https://steemit.com/politics/@anonymint/why-social-media-software-sucks

(above blog links to details on all my above assertions)

All of you should read everything I ever wrote on Steemit on my blog and comment timelines. There is a wealth of information in there that you won’t be getting on bitcointalk.org.

https://steemit.com/@anonymint
https://steemit.com/@anonymint/comments

Especially this!

https://steemit.com/trading/@anonymint/most-important-bitcoin-chart-ever


If you expect everything to be a soundbite, then you will always be ignorant. You must actually read in detail and click every link I provide in order to understand my communications. Millennials have the attention span of a gnat. Which is another reason Western Civilization will collapse within a decade.
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
August 20, 2018, 08:13:47 AM
#91
Alex Jones was recently banned from major media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, the Apple Store, and others. These were instituted at nearly the same time. The bans handed down by Facebook and YouTube are in relation to alleged violations of "ban evasion" rules on their respective platforms.

Many in the core of the left wing MSM have championed this corporate censorship as they do not like what Alex Jones has to say, and do not like his ideology.

I do not subscribe to the conspiracy theories pushed by Alex Jones, and strongly condemn him both personally and his extremist views. However many people actively choose to listen to what he has to say, and he should have the ability to speak and publish his message.

It should be noted that it has been alleged that a certain member of the left wing media has put in particular effort into getting Alex Jones banned by various platforms, in part by giving particular scrutiny to each of his posts, and reporting each one accordingly.

It is indisputable these platforms have the right to to ban anyone they choose they do not want to participate in their platforms, however the question remains if doing so is the right thing to do. I think the answer to this question is "no".....

He can still publish on his own website. I don't see how this impedes his ability to reach his followers. It might impede his ability to gain new followers so basically Twitbook and Facetube decided to not promote him anymore. Although I'm guessing that individual users of those sites can still post his links/videos.

Those platforms ban people all the time, including violations more benign than Alex Jones. Applying rules regardless of some "celebrity" status is the right thing to do.
newbie
Activity: 18
Merit: 3
August 20, 2018, 07:53:01 AM
#90
I do not subscribe to the conspiracy theories pushed by Alex Jones, and strongly condemn him both personally and his extremist views. However many people actively choose to listen to what he has to say, and he should have the ability to speak and publish his message.

I was going to merit this above but it looks like I have none to give  Embarrassed

Well I agree about the problems of censorship and even the famously accurate technological prognosticator George Gilder in his talk about his book Life After Google explains that that centralization of the Internet backfires on the behemoth fiefdoms and thus isn’t sustainable.

But unfortunately you guys really need to understand that false-flags are staged. I have studied the evidence in great detail (I mean weeks of effort over a period of years). You should really look at the facts more intensely and read my analyses:

Plane Flyover; Explosives Planted Inside The Pentagon

https://steemit.com/politics/@anonymint/succinct-absolute-truth-about-9-11-and-las-vegas-massacre

https://steemit.com/politics/@anonymint/re-anonymint-re-anonymint-israel-s-mossad-did-9-11-20180806t173225425z

https://steemit.com/psychology/@anonymint/you-can-t-handle-the-truth

https://steemit.com/freedom/@anonymint/in-t-h-e-f-t-a-n-d-m-a-s-s-a-c-r-e-s-we-trust

For example review my detailed analyses that proves that the airplane flew over the Pentagon. No missle. It was a bomb that was planted. The evidence is overwhelming when you analyse it in detail as I did.

I agree Alex Jones is obnoxious.


P.S. Traxo apparently continues to link in his posts on bitcointalk.org to some of my Steemit posts. It’s impossible to ban information. Defies the laws of thermodynamics (c.f. the bottom of this recent post for more on that point).




EDIT: Tangentially I studied the 9-11 incident in great exhaustive detail. Compare that to for example the EU’s GDPR which I have never read nor thought about for more than about 15 minutes. I have for example written a blog analysing in great detail the facts of the Pentagon venue on that day. And facts that most people are not aware of and are drowned out by the noise of nonsense such a missile attack, etc.. It is quite easy to show that the plane flew over the building and that all other possible explanations are impossible. There was construction ongoing in that section of the Pentagon. It is very simple. A bomb was planted. And I guarantee you that if you review my detailed explanation of the evidence you come to realize that you cannot respect institutions. There is a DEEP STATE of corruption within our institutions. I know this sounds crazy but facts and evidence do not lie. You will be surprised the evidence that is actually available that most people never hear about.
hero member
Activity: 1459
Merit: 973
August 15, 2018, 06:34:41 AM
#89


I do not subscribe to the conspiracy theories pushed by Alex Jones, and strongly condemn him both personally and his extremist views. However many people actively choose to listen to what he has to say, and he should have the ability to speak and publish his message.



I was going to merit this above but it looks like I have none to give  Embarrassed
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2374
August 15, 2018, 01:56:07 AM
#88
Alex Jones was recently banned from major media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, the Apple Store, and others. These were instituted at nearly the same time. The bans handed down by Facebook and YouTube are in relation to alleged violations of "ban evasion" rules on their respective platforms.

Many in the core of the left wing MSM have championed this corporate censorship as they do not like what Alex Jones has to say, and do not like his ideology.

I do not subscribe to the conspiracy theories pushed by Alex Jones, and strongly condemn him both personally and his extremist views. However many people actively choose to listen to what he has to say, and he should have the ability to speak and publish his message.

It should be noted that it has been alleged that a certain member of the left wing media has put in particular effort into getting Alex Jones banned by various platforms, in part by giving particular scrutiny to each of his posts, and reporting each one accordingly.

It is indisputable these platforms have the right to to ban anyone they choose they do not want to participate in their platforms, however the question remains if doing so is the right thing to do. I think the answer to this question is "no".....
newbie
Activity: 18
Merit: 3
August 06, 2018, 09:35:55 AM
#87
I was also banned from the Go Github. My antagonists here will probably idiotically mistake that as some validation of their stance. Click the link for some explanation.

Btw, Medium is also presumably nuking very important information about potential false flags corruption.

Even in a long-term equilibrium state different communities may end up converging on different definitions of the ideal money: some favoring immutability while others prefer reversible transactions for example or preferring different trade-offs across security, transaction fees and inflation rate. Where there is consistent demand for a particular definition of money, communities can form Schelling Points and give that kind of money value.

This is especially likely given that humans often do not behave like purely rational economic agents. They despise shipping fees and a-la-carte pricing and they are (relatively) insensitive to inflation and risk. They covet both stability and growth, both security and flexibility. Community loyalty could cause users to value a niche currency even if they understand it to be inefficient, as arguably Dogecoin demonstrates already. Ultimately money is the servant of actual human demand and not economic theory, and so we may see a panoply of currencies thrive even if they don’t necessarily make sense — the economic equivalent of Wile E. Coyote never looking down.

What do you think of this idea of "ideal money may not be an absolute truth"?

edit: I just saw he has abandoned the forum.


I came back over to add some additional information to “Corruption” portion of my up-thread post. I noticed your post and it’s an interesting and very important question which deserves my response, because it drives right into whether I should continue to work on yet another shitcoin. Which perhaps relates to whether I should seek an appeal of my perma-ban (although I think others can act liaisons on this forum for any decentralized ledger project I might be involved with).

Note in a prior blog of his, he pointed out why the real Bitcoin is more valuable in the long-run than the extra features of the Core altcoin:

The existence of Hypecoin implies the existence of Hypecoin-but-with-Bitcoin’s-network, which means Hypecoin and Bitcoin don’t compete by featureset (because features can be freely co-opted) but instead compete strictly on network.[/size]

[…]

The reason the Bitcoin network is so valuable is that Bitcoin has the most wealth, the broadest userbase and the longest history of successful operation. Since money is a network effect good, these advantages are self-reinforcing: a larger network means more liquidity, which attracts more use cases, which strengthens the network.

[…]

The fastest way is slowly
Trust in new financial instruments is slow to build. For those of us considering adopting crypto already it can be hard to understand how slowly this trust will build for most of the world.

[…]

The only way to learn the risks and failure cases of a crypto-economic system is put wealth into it and observe whether anything goes wrong. One of the central reasons that Bitcoin’s featureset is compelling even though it is very limited is because it is battle tested and reliable. Bitcoin has been operating for almost a decade with billions of dollars of value flowing through it and the system continues to operate as intended. The simplicity of Bitcoin and it’s reliability are different aspects of the same quality.

Conversely, the flexibility and featureset of the some of the newer cryptocurrencies is inseperable with their more complex security exposure. You can see this in practice with the Ethereum DOA hack or Parity bug, both of which involved losses in the hundreds of millions of USD and founding members of the Ethereum team. The very qualities that make it easier for Ethereum to do more interesting things also make it harder to be certain exactly what things any given smart contract will do. Trust for every smart contract will need to be bootstrapped individually. Even if the killer app were invented tomorrow it would take a long time to gain any confidence that it was working as intended.

Some argue that the sturm und drang over trying to launch SegWit signal a failure of Bitcoin governance and a counterargument to the reasoning above that Bitcoin could in practice actually adopt the features of a competitor. Personally I see the fact that Bitcoin is challenging to change as a feature, not a bug. Decentralization is the reason for the blockchain’s very existence and a decentralized monetary system should reflect the conservative preferences of the market about adopting new technologies.

It’s not as easy as it looks
The challenges of building a crypto-economy are non-linear. There is considerably more incentive to spam, attack and exploit the market leader than the competitors. Weaknesses in other systems are left unexploited not because they don’t exist but because the targets they protect are not sufficiently valuable to justify the effort. Congestion is lower not because of advantages in scaling but because there is less competition for limited network resources.

Many of the sharpest criticisms against Bitcoin (high fees, for example) are inevitable consequences of a thriving network. Many of the strongest claims of altcoins (strong privacy guarantees, for example) remain essentially untested until they accrue enough significance to be worth trying to defeat. To properly assess the value of a cryptocurrency we must account for the advantages and disadvantages of being / being sheltered by the market leader.


So I’m in agreement with all the points he made in the above blog, so let’s consider the second blog he wrote:

Today I’d like to continue my contrarian impulses by talking about why I don’t think it makes sense to invest in an ICO or startup based on a decentralized application. Decentralized applications (dApps) may very well change the world — but they are very unlikely to make their creators rich. To understand why, it’s helpful to take a step back and understand the basic mechanism that allows entrepreneurs to accrue wealth in the first place: the firm.

Where does shareholder value come from?
Profit is not an automatic side-effect of building a compelling product or having a large customer base. The cotton gin, for example, revolutionized the economy of 19th century America but it never made Eli Whitney rich. It is entirely possible to build a widely used and valuable technology without ever accumulating wealth. That’s because a firm’s profit isn’t based on how useful the technology it builds is, but is instead based on how easy or hard it is for competing firms to enter the marketplace. The easier it is for a new entrant to solve the same problems you are solving, the harder it will be to charge a premium for your products or services.

[…]

As demand for the services provided by the dApp increases, so does demand for token — theoretically providing outsized returns to investors and early adopters who hold token. A nice situation if you can arrange it! But just as with the monopoly firm above, it’s vulnerable to competition. If there are interesting profits for the original holders of token to capture, those profits will attract competition.

In fact it’s even worse for dApps because in order to be decentralized they have to be open source — essentially giving away their core IP for free. That means it’s incredibly easy for a potential competitor to download the dApp codebase, fork it into a new dApp′ with a new token′. Just as above the new dApp′ can underprice the original system, reducing the profit margin and stealing the consumer and supplier bases, since they have no loyalty to the original system beyond the service it provided.

[…]

If your value generation takes place on-chain, it is decentralized. If it is decentralized, you will not be able to use it to extract economic rent.


He is actually arguing above against utility tokens because he makes it clear they have insufficient network effects and allegiance. I also had written before against the viability of utility tokens both from the standpoint of having no network effects and because utility tokens aren’t a cogent exemption from securities regulation.

But he’s not arguing in the second quoted blog above against altcoins which have sufficient network effects. He instead made that argument for Bitcoin maximalism (and thus implicitly against altcoins) in the first quoted blog above. But then in the third blog which you have cited, he has backed off a bit on his claim that it’s impossible for an altcoin to establish a network effect.

Here are my thoughts on his third blog:


Ideal money may not be an objective truth
Money is at its most basic a coordination tool that enables communities to cooperate economically, so it’s value is entirely dependent on the community of users that it serves.

I’ve been making this argument for the past few years. Bitcoin as onchain transacted Ideal Money is ultimately for the community of $billionaires and $trillionaires as an international reserve currency which all other nation-state and highly fungible currencies float against. We will all be kicked off of the real Bitcoin eventually because the transaction fees will rise to $50,000 eventually (of course Bitcoin will be worth north of $250,000 then also though so it depends how many BTC you’re hodling). Security, proven reliability, and immutability are the most important features of the real Bitcoin which becomes the new world reserve currency. It will be the most fungible and liquid asset on the planet by 2032.

But the real Bitcoin will not be a transaction token for the masses. For transactions, we have many competing technologies in play. For example, the Lightning Networks on the Core altcoin is one of the possible altcoins being developed to meet such need.

Lightning Networks will have certain unique attributes:


  • denominated in BTC
  • Mt. Box fractional reserves (users will sometimes lose everything such as was the case for Mt. Gox)
  • inability to transact to every other users on the blockchain
  • inability to seamlessly integrate spending with others actions (e.g. posting a blog post a la Steem) recorded on a blockchain

So there will be other altcoins that attempt to compete with Lightning Networks that improve on some of those unique weakness but they will not be denominated in BTC.

Lightning Networks can’t really remake the Web 3.0. It’s more targeted only on spending without onchain integration required for decentralizing all the centralized databases on the Internet. So I do think some altcoin is going to end up being a major player and eventually in the long-term be more important than Bitcoin as the fungible monetary system fades and the knowledge age Internet system rises. LN is roughly Banking 2.0. Another altcoin could potentially be Internet 2.0.

But most of you will be incapable of analyzing which altcoin that is. You will invariably fall prey to hyped scammy ICOs along the way. And I’m not going to be around here trying to help analyze for the members here. I’ve been shown the door.

As usual, I have some surprises up my sleeve…



I remain of the opinion that such opportunities to extract rent from decentralized applications will be rare and when they exist relatively modest, but I am excited to learn of counterexamples whenever I find them!

It’s not necessary to extract rent from apps, although I think this will also be possible. Rather it’s only necessary to establish a token which has network efforts because of the unique decentralized ledger technology and market features. Others won’t be able to successfully copy that technology because they won’t have the first-mover advantage networks effects that are already established (as is the case for Bitcoin). Steem was open source from the start, yet it established network effects inertia that is hard to overcome. The problem for Steem is they screwed up the technology and the model, which leaves the door wide open still for a competitor.

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: You forgot Bitcoin, as it also broke up above downtrend after July 12
From:    "Shelby Moore"
Date:    Wed, August 8, 2018 9:42 am
To:      Martin Armstrong <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/future-forecasts/ecm/ecm-the-cycle-inversion/

You forgot Bitcoin. Bitcoin has also broken above the downtrend line same
as for the US dollar and Canadian dollar.

This is yet another confirmation for you that Bitcoin is becoming a world
reserve currency.

Continue to ignore this Martin at your peril.
legendary
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1014
August 05, 2018, 09:47:02 PM
#86
https://theoryofself.com/nuance-in-the-case-for-bitcoin-maximalism-5c4adb064a21


Quote
Even in a long-term equilibrium state different communities may end up converging on different definitions of the ideal money: some favoring immutability while others prefer reversible transactions for example or preferring different trade-offs across security, transaction fees and inflation rate. Where there is consistent demand for a particular definition of money, communities can form Schelling Points and give that kind of money value.

This is especially likely given that humans often do not behave like purely rational economic agents. They despise shipping fees and a-la-carte pricing and they are (relatively) insensitive to inflation and risk. They covet both stability and growth, both security and flexibility. Community loyalty could cause users to value a niche currency even if they understand it to be inefficient, as arguably Dogecoin demonstrates already. Ultimately money is the servant of actual human demand and not economic theory, and so we may see a panoply of currencies thrive even if they don’t necessarily make sense — the economic equivalent of Wile E. Coyote never looking down.

What do you think of this idea of "ideal money may not be an absolute truth"?

edit: I just saw he has abandoned the forum.
legendary
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1175
Always remember the cause!
August 05, 2018, 08:49:29 PM
#85

If there are no further arguments raised in this thread, I suppose this will be my last post on bitcointalk.org. Hopefully.

Hi Shelby,
Come on dude. Just create a new id and join the discussions man. You can simply put less efforts here but believe me, you would find it useful, occasionally tho.

legendary
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1014
August 01, 2018, 09:06:05 AM
#84
I dont doubt Core has world class coders. The problem is, bitcoin is much more than that. Does Core have world class game theory and high finance thinkers too? has gmaxwell debated MP and anonymint on the game theory involving segwit long term? or he just points at how "the code is great"?

Why should I even entertain the risk (no matter how small) when I can just keep the cold storage on legacy addresses?
newbie
Activity: 18
Merit: 3
July 31, 2018, 11:20:51 PM
#83
This is a consecutive posting, but I’ve waited days for someone to reply to the thread before posting again.

My contrarian thoughts on the Singularity thesis (and empathetically humanity at-large) I think ties in with my stance about my ban and my points about corruption which applies to my reasoning for not seeking reinstatement here:

https://www.quora.com/Do-advances-in-AI-mean-that-before-long-we-won-t-need-computer-programmers-as-we-ll-be-able-to-just-ask-a-computer-to-write-me-some-code-that-does-the-following/answer/Shelby-Moore-III

(archived here: http://archive.is/C5xrA)

If there are no further arguments raised in this thread, I suppose this will be my last post on bitcointalk.org. Hopefully.


EDIT: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/07/the-instagram-forums-where-teens-go-to-debate-big-issues/566153/
newbie
Activity: 18
Merit: 3
July 29, 2018, 07:47:53 PM
#82
Stop evading your bans and appeal for your ban like everybody else. you are not better than anybody, you are a man like several billion men living on earth.

Sorry but not all men are created equal. Yours is the SJW egalitarianism mayonnaise which I wrote about in my post on the prior page of this thread. Westerners are stuck in that ideological shit which is going to drag them back down to a third world clusterfuck if someone doesn’t press the abort switch. And Bitcoin was precisely created to destroy egalitarianism, politics, and promote meritocracy instead. I work a 100 hours a week (although not or not productively while I had been ill with Tuberculosis for 5 – 6 years and the recovery from treatment in 2017). I have done that for significant stretches of my 40 years as a programmer. I have specialized applicable skills, knowledge, and experience. Presumably many of you don’t have those skills and/or don’t work with that same level of intensity.

You seem to not have comprehended the part where I conveyed that I presumed I have been singled-out for temp-banning because you shills wanted to silence me.

And no, I am not going to beg for you or @theymos to undo what his corrupt shit should never have done in the first place. Hell no. I am going to destroy and replace your corrupt shit. Competition is more fun (and more productive) than begging. Corruption can presumably be subtle where the purveyor of corruption doesn’t even think they’re doing corruption. I presume for example that Bill Gates thought all of his monopolistic business practices were the reality of free market competition. And I might even be swayed that was the case if I had time to study all the details of that case. This is a privately owned website and they’re certainly able to do whatever they want to do with their business. And we’re free to compete with them and try to make something we think would serve the market better.

Also I’m not going to endorse a corrupt or dysfunction bureaucratic mechanism which wastes my time. It’s akin to the masochism of choosing to remain as a tourist in a country that wastes our time in bureaucratic crap. Smart people leverage jurisdictional arbitrage, which is what for example the Internet and now Bitcoin facilitate.

I explained clearly up-thread starting from the first post by my prior account (which was banned for posting in Meta!) why I thought the temp-bans were corrupt from the start, which is why I never respected them (even though I have hence inhibited myself from consecutive posting and multi-posting because I didn’t see any significant reason not to). I also clearly explained that “the rules” aren’t working as most of the software engineers are leaving or do not visit as often ostensibly because of the trolling and lower quality discussions. I also argued that “the rules” seem to exist as an arbtrary, subjective construct to enable corrupt collusion between moderators and shills who can presumably buyoff @theymos and the mods. Or maybe it’s is just or also involves an ego battle between those who don’t like me to stick my head too high above the poppies (which btw is an Asian cultural thing now ostensibly being adopted in the West).

Clearly humans want a forum which is gamified. There’s so much political gamesmenship ongoing. So I want to give them what they want in a leveled playing field, in way that will also enable those who want serious, sober discussion to form their own circles. Life is also a game.

And what ever happened to those $100s of millions of BTC (current valuation) that @theymos raised to improve the forum and ostensibly never did.

Also your tactics are nakedly obvious to me. You want me to submit to a corrupted construct so then you can use that construct to temp-ban me when ever you do not like the information I am successfully bringing to the attention of readers. By employing corrupted temp-bans as a means of inducing me to evade the corruption and then perma-ban me because I evaded the useless, corrupted construct.

Nah man. It’s an opaque, centralized, subjective, politicized clusterfuck that needs to be replaced with a decentralized, trustless, transparent, objectivized algorithmic construct.

Politics and social consensus are the antithesis of Satoshi’s Bitcoin. And you Core bunny rabbits are going to learn this the hard way by living out your retirement years in trailer parks instead of collecting Lambos (that is if you HODL all your wealth in SegWit addresses instead of legacy addresses).

The Magnitsky Act Behind the Scenes video has been banned by the powers-that-be from the U.S.A.. They do not want you the people to know the truth.

CORRUPTION
(Edit: Youtube keeps removing the Magnitsky Act Behind the Scenes video)

Here follows the details of the manipulation of Russia and Russian year 2000 elections by bribing and entraping Yeltsin with a $7 billion IMF loan (to remodel the Kremlin), then threatening to expose Yeltsin if he didn’t resign and endorse a certain person for the presidency. Yeltsin was forced to turn to former KGB Putin for assistance. Tangentially the IMF was allegedly also involved in 9/11.

https://i.imgur.com/L3FSdBm.jpg
(click for image & discussion about destruction of court documents on 9/11/2001 at WTC7 demolition)

Chapeau, Mr Browder! Hats off for this incredible man. Last month, he succeeded in stopping a film screening in the European parliament and took off a few articles from American web sites. This week, he turned the only US screening of a film critical to his version of events into a ruckus. No freedom of speech for his enemies! His lawyers prowl around and issue summons to whoever digs in his sordid affairs. His hacks re-wrote his Wikipedia entry, expunging even discussions of the topic: despite hundreds of edits, nothing survived but the official version.



What makes Browder so powerful? He invests in politicians. This is probably a uniquely Jewish quality: Jews outspend everybody in contributions to political figures. The Arabs will spend more on horses and jets, the Russians prefer real estate, the Jews like politicians. The Russian NTV channel reported that Browder lavishly financed the US lawmakers. Here they present alleged evidence of money transfers: some hundred thousand dollars was given by Browder’s structures officially to the senators and congressmen in order to promote the Magnitsky Act.



Enter Mr Andrey Nekrasov, a Russian dissident filmmaker. He made a few films considered to be highly critical of Russian government. He alleged the FSB blew up houses in Moscow in order to justify the Chechnya war. He condemned the Russian war against Georgia in 2008, and had been given a medal by Georgian authorities. He did not doubt the official Western version of Browder-Magnitsky affair, and decided to make a film about the noble American businessman and the brave Russian lawyer fighting for human rights. The European organisations and parliamentarians provided the budget for the film. They also expected the film to denounce Putin and glorify Magnitsky, the martyr.

However, while making the film, Mr Nekrasov had his Road to Damascus moment. He realised that the whole narrative was hinging on the unsubstantiated words of Mr Browder. After painstaking research, he came to some totally different conclusions, and in his version, Browder was a cheat who run afoul of law, while Magnitsky was his sidekick in those crimes.

Nekrasov discovered an interview Magnitsky gave in his jail. In this interview, the accountant said he was afraid Browder would kill him to prevent him from denouncing Browder, and would make him his scapegoat.

The Magnitsky Act Behind the Scenes has been pulled from everywhere. You do not ban a film in Europe and the United States if it is wrong. This is perhaps a huge cover-up that goes really beyond comprehension. The film was funded by ZDF TV in Europe and they have the power to prevent it from being shown despite the fact that they are taking a huge loss. They would not do that unless there was political pressure behind it.

Trump canceled his meeting with Putin he said until this “Russian witchhunt is over.” The Magnitsky Act is being expanded throughout the West. Canada in 2017 passed its version of the Magnitsky Act. Denmark and Sweden moved for versions of the Magnitsky Acts. Estonia voted to ban entry to foreigners deemed guilty of human rights abuses in a law targeting Russia and inspired by the Magnitsky case. We also have versions of the Magnitsky Act adopted in Britain, Lithuania, and Latvia. This is clearly not to help Browder get his money back. This is the start of a narrative that is trying to convince everyone in the West that Russia is the dark enemy and then we MUST go to war to annihilate them once and for all. This is the script that is being sold to justify war.

[…]

It also makes no sense WHY would Congress enact the Magnitsky Act to try to get money back for Browder who resigned his American citizenship. They have also used the Magnitsky Act to keep adding people who have absolutely no connection to Magnitsky. The case is far more than just Browder. That is what Putin is seeking access to in the USA.

Is this to protect the justification for war with Russia? Even Merkel in Germany said she feared that  Putin would interfere in the German elections, which never took place. The entire socialist agenda is collapsing. Those in power have NO way to prevent it. The only way that they see to reset the world economy is another war? So pay attention. The peak is probably around 2027.

[…]

The ONLY reason the Magnitsky Act has any traction is that it demonizes Russia and sets the stage for war. That is why this film was shut down in Europe and the USA/Canada. It exposes the lie behind the whole affair. They have used Magnitsky’s death to justify war.

The Club & Why the Majority Must be Always Wrong

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/cnn-confirmed-money-was-stolen-from-imf/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/so-who-really-tried-to-blackmail-yeltsin-takeover-russia-nsa-cia-or-investment-bankers/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/the-media-complete-ignores-putins-request-to-interrogate-us-officials-about-interfering-in-russia/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/magnitsky-act-the-strange-backdrop/

https://russia-insider.com/en/politics/agent-william-f-browder-smoking-gun/ri13858

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/rule-of-law/why-is-former-ambassador-refusing-to-be-questioned-by-russians/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/interview-on-the-magnitsky-film/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/magnitsky-act-is-back/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/magnitsky-affair-the-murder-of-edmond-safra-in-monaco/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/the-3rd-film-on-the-magnitsky-affair/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrong-in-the-media/the-forecaster/gag-orders-cover-ups/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/russiagate-the-slow-drip-of-the-coup-to-take-over-russia/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/russia-starts-criminal-investigation-of-browder-while-us-deep-state-protects-him/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/dominick-dunn-death-in-monaco/

While these remarks are deeply offensive, what they really reveal is how much EU officials prefer to promote propaganda as well and create their own FAKE NEWS to distract people from reality.

EDIT (Sept 10, 2018): https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/deep-state-using-discredit-strategy-to-drive-trump-from-office-to-what-end/

EDIT (Sept 12, 2018):

Once again, they seem to be scared to death that the truth about the US interference in the Russian 2000 election is what resulted in Yeltsin turning to Putin. Just look at the timeline.

July 1998, Republic Bank alerted authorities about unusually large wire transfers coming through its coffers from Russia.

July 25th, 1998 Yeltsin appointed Putin as Director of the Federal Security Service (FSB), the primary intelligence agency and the successor to the KGB.

August 9th, 1999, Putin was appointed one of three First Deputy Prime Ministers, and later on, that same day he was appointed acting Prime Minister. It was that same day that Putin agreed to run for the presidency.

August 16th, 1999 the State Duma approved Putin’s appointment as Prime Minister. There were opponents who fought hard to prevent Putin’s emergence as a potential successor. Putin had not been formally associated with any party.

August 20th, 1999 Wall Street Journal reports Bank of New York Investigation. They wrote: “It was in late August when the suspicious transfers at Bank of New York were brought to the attention of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation by Republic National Bank of New York, a unit of Republic New York Corp., according to people familiar with the matter. “

August 27th, 1999 Republic National Bank takes our funds, I demand to fly to Geneva to speak to Safra when the head of the bank George Wendler says he is “only the messenger.” This is when I was told Safra fled Geneva and went to Monaco “for security reasons.”

December 3rd, 1999 Edmond Safra dies in Monaco all his bodyguards were given the night off.

December 31st, 1999, Yeltsin unexpectedly resigned and, according to the Constitution of Russia, Putin became Acting President of the Russian Federation. Putin also passed that same day the decree made it a law that Yeltsin cannot be charged with corruption which is obvious that there was a problem with the whole Bank of New York and IMF missing funds incident.

January 25th, 2000; Putin consented to compromise with Duma that Yeltsin can be prosecuted for any serious crimes committed while in office with a vote of 275 to 139 on second reading. Yet, Putin would never prosecute Yeltsin.

EDIT (Sept 13, 2018):

There is a very slow flow of incriminating evidence which seems to grow almost daily revealing that FBI and Justice Department officials both worked together with Democrats in the Obama Administration to prevent President Trump’s presidency from getting underway. The whole Russia investigation conducted by Robert Mueller must now come under serious question, and it seems likely that key FBI officials should be charged with crimes. The latest release by Congress of documents late Monday revealed an “apparent systemic culture of media leaking” among top officials at the FBI and Justice Department. This is quoting a letter that North Carolina Republican Rep. Mark Meadows sent to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. It turns out that FBI official even discussed their “media leak strategy” before making any Trump-Russia revelations.

[…]

This is no longer about Trump – this is about National Security for such people could just as easily be taking bribes from third parties domestic or foreign.

EDIT (Sept 21, 2018):

Well, it was only a matter of time. President Trump on Monday threw a  hand grenade into the center of the Russian investigation that was all started by Hillary blaming the leak of  Democratic Party emails on Russia and Trump colluded with them. The Democrats and Hillary then paid to create the infamous dossier and pretended it was not funded by the Democrats. They have managed to keep the country distracted and that has been the political objective all along – just politics.

Trump has now directed the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice to declassify a number of documents related to the Russia investigation which will be for our reading pleasure and pull the curtain back a little further on just how seriously bad things have gotten in the Washington Swamp. Already the Democrats are screaming say this will put people’s lives at risk. If I recall, the same thing was said about the IRS scandal when the Obama Administration was targeting the Tea Party using the IRS with the silent support of John McCain and John Boehner. They wanted to have Lois Lerner’s testimony sealed claiming death threats – she is still alive.

Trump also directed the release of unredacted versions of all text messages about the probe sent and received by multiple officials, including former FBI Director James Comey and deputy director Andrew McCabe […] Moreover, Trump also instructed the Justice Department to publicly release unredacted versions of all text messages related to the Russia probe of Comey, McCabe, Ohr, and FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, who were involved in both the Russia investigation and the probe into 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she served as secretary of state. The leaks we have seen so far have been showing that they turned a blind eye to Hillary and abused their power to target Trump.
Additionally, he requested that the agencies declassify all FBI reports of an interview with Justice Department official Bruce Ohr that were connected to the Russia probe. Now, this should get interesting. If you remember, Ohr is the person who communicated with former British spy Christopher Steele back in 2016 to compile that dossier of damaging allegations involving Trump and Russia which was used to justify this entire case. Trump wants released information about confidential sources that Steele used while compiling his dossier, as well as Steele’s own history as an FBI source.

EDIT (Feb 20, 2019):

One of the gaping questions that have gone unanswered is why has Mueller not taken Putin up on his offer to go question the Russian intelligence officer he has indicted in Russia? Putin said he would allow Mueller and his team to travel to Russia and be present at the questioning of 12 Russian military intelligence officers the special counsel previously indicted for hacking into the computer systems of the Democratic National Committee and the emails of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman. Putin wanted to question the former American diplomat, Michael McFaul who was appointed by Obama. Interestingly, it was Senator Chuck Schumer who introduced on 07/19/2018 the resolution to deny Putin to question any Americans including Bill Browder. John McCain, the sponsor of the Magnitsky Act, led the charge among Republicans to support Schumer’s resolution to deny any investigation into the Magnitsky affair. The Senate vote was a resounding 98-0 to deny the questioning of ANY Americans by Russia. This is one of the most curious cover-ups in modern history even after the questionable report that was released on the Trump Tower Meeting that was all about the Magnitsky Act.

The tail gets even more interesting when we look closer at the infamous Trump Tower meeting Mueller has been investigating. Russian-born lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin worked closely with the research firm Fusion GPS which commissioned the infamous Steele Dossier on behalf of the Clinton campaign and DNC to smear Trump and begin the entire Russia-Gate affair. Interestingly, Akhmetshin also attended the infamous Trump Tower meeting.

Natalia Veselnitskaya was the Russian lawyer who also attended the Trump Tower meeting and in turned US prosecutors later retaliated and charged her with a single count of money laundering.  To add further to all of these coincidences, one of the lawyers involved in the Trump Tower meeting was Scott Balber, who also worked on my case and was familiar with the Russian connection involving Edmond Safra and Republic National Bank and his assassination (Death in Monaco). Yet Akhmetshin and Veselnitskaya worked with Fusion GPS in an effort to expose the truth behind the Magnitsky Act. Fusion’s main task was investigating Bill Browder, the London-based financier whose lobbying efforts led to the Magnitsky Act passage. (see also the film Behind the Scenes Magnitsky Act)

I have stated many times that I was asked to invest $10 billion into Hermitage Capital by Republic National Bank. Edmond was the major shareholder. This is the fund that Browder claimed he was Putin’s number one enemy and Magnitsky was not a lawyer but an accountant. There would have been no incentive for Putin to have killed Magnitsky for he would have been a witness against the entire cabal of bankers seeking to take over the Russian government by blackmailing Yeltsin to step down and stuff in their puppet Boris Berezovsky, who flees to London when Putin comes in an amazingly interesting incident hangs himself in Britain (see the movie the Forecaster).

The ultimate client for Fusion GPS, Akhmetshin, and Veselnitskaya was Katsyv, whose firm, Prevezon Holdings, which was sued by the Justice Department for allegedly laundering money stolen during the tax fraud scheme uncovered by Magnitsky. Interestingly, Prevezon’s payments to Akhmetshin and Fusion GPS were routed through its U.S. law firm, BakerHostetler. That arrangement was the mirror-image of its work for the Clinton campaign and DNC. On that project, Perkins Coie, the law firm for the Democrats, paid Fusion GPS $1 million to investigate Donald Trump’s ties to Russia. BakerHostetler paid Fusion GPS $523,651 in 2016. Entangled in this entire affair is not just Hillary’s paying Fusion GPS to create the dossier on Trump and the strang banning of Ambassador McFaul appointed by Obama and any possible connections with Fusion GPS. Most interesting is the fact that Bill Browder also donated money to Hillary. He donated $17,700 to Clinton and another $297,000 to the Democratic National Committee.

Also entangled deeply is the Bank of New York Money Laundering case for $7 billion and of course the involvement of Republic National Bank working with people in the US Treasury sending skids of $100 bills to Russia in the affair known as the Money Plane.

Here is what CNN Money wrote on September 1st, 1999 12 days before my case began:

Quote
The saga that’s brought money laundering issues to the fore this summer allegedly began back in 1994, when Russia’s International Monetary Fund representative, Konstantin Kagalovsky, left the organization to join Menatep Bank in Moscow.

Over the next three years, it’s alleged, Kagalovsky arranged to funnel billions of IMF money meant to help transfer Russia’s communist economy into a capitalist one through a private company called Benex Worldwide Ltd. Eventually, the money went into and back out of Bank of New York (BK) and Republic National Bank, a unit of Republic Bancorp (RBNC), as well as several institutions in Europe, including the Union Bank of Switzerland AG and Deutsche Bank AG and its Bankers Trust Unit.

Now the burning question the US press will not address is why does Putin want to question a former American Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, who was denied a Russian visa in June 2014 and subsequently banned from entering the country for his supposed “active participation in the destruction of the bilateral relationship and relentless lobbying in favor of a campaign to pressure Russia,” Foreign Ministry officials told Reuters at the time. Essentially, Putin was after U.S. State Department internal memos from 2009 and 2010 drafted in Moscow about the investigation into the Magnitsky case. The Russian agency’s official spokesman, Alexander Kurennoi, told the news agency Interfax that McFaul is one of the Americans suspected of involvement in Browder’s illegal activities alleged by Russia.

Chuck Schumer wants Muller to indict Trump, but he will not allow any investigation into the DNC and Hillary’s involvement in this entire tangled web of intrigue.
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2374
July 29, 2018, 04:42:50 PM
#81
It is absolutely ridiculous to explicitly say (as Maxwell has said) that it is acceptable to ban people because you do not like them, or because many people do not like them.

Nice strawman. Please give the actual quote word for word where he said that, instead of just saying that he said it.
[...] AnonyMint was banned [...]

AnonyMint [...] is responsible for a significant fraction of the technically competent people becoming largely inactive.


People who are really savvy with the technology have valuable time (as is the case for anyone with valuable skills).  It's a waste of that time to spend it in a place where there are decent odds of their efforts being buried under a mountain of abusive nonsense.   Even those few who don't find his dishonest practices extremely annoying are forced to admit that it's just a waste of time to be in the same venue as someone like that.

[...] AnonyMint's consistent conduct year after year is especially demoralizing. [...]

If a community can't choose [...] participants [...].

You can read the rest of his quote and see he clearly does not like Anunymint.


Further, it is difficult to take his post seriously when Greg's actions/behavior at Wikipedia have been described as "vandalism" by his peers at Wikipedia. Some have claimed that Greg continues to have a positive professional relationship with the admins at Wikipedia, however I have not seen evidence of this, nor have I seen anyone to claim to have affirmative direct knowledge of this.  

Okay... So what did he change on wikipedia that was "vandalism"?
See this and read for yourself.



As previously mentioned, Anunymint seems to have agreed to abide by the forum rules, which appears to have met the condition of unbanning him imposed by theymos.
copper member
Activity: 1330
Merit: 899
🖤😏
July 29, 2018, 10:38:49 AM
#80
Stop evading your bans and appeal for your ban like everybody else. you are not better than anybody, you are a man like several billion men living on earth.
newbie
Activity: 18
Merit: 3
July 29, 2018, 09:51:58 AM
#79
Anyway, it's difficult enough that I think the burden of proof rests on someone who wants to use this as an attack against him, not just assumed that he did something wrong and anyone who wants to dispute it must dig through ancient archives.

Ditto his slanderous and incorrect characterization of my technological worth. Right there he demonstrated he is a sleazy troll. You will not see him debate me about SegWit (on a neutral forum) because he knows damn well I am correct and he will be unmasked in the debate.

IOW, Gregory shouldn’t throw stones in his glass house.

I was talking about the Bitcoin protocol... Roll Eyes

How can you claim you understand Satoshi’s protocol and then have such ignorance about Core being an altcoin as defined by the protocol and its associated game theory. Again this is not a matter of opinion for those who really know the protocol and the game theory which gives Bitcoin its value and security.

If you want to assert that Core has been consensus voted to be popularly known as the new Bitcoin, then okay but first recognize that any change to the protocol which modifies its security and game theory, thus constitutes an altcoin. Then I will accept that the n00bs voted to rename the Core altcoin “Bitcoin” and fool themselves into donating all their real BTC to the miners who have no choice but to restore the security by accepting those donations (and my nuked posts explained in great detail the mechanism by which that massive n00bs donation will come about eventually).

(for readers new to this thread, I am not a BCH shill)

P.S. I refer you again to some additional thoughts from Leah on how much we don’t know until we dig in deep into STEM fields:

…architecture is a complex and comprehensive profession and it is stronger because our experiences are so disparate from one another…

“A lot of people in our industry haven’t had very diverse experiences. So they don’t have enough dots to connect, and they end up with very linear solutions without a broad perspective on the problem. The broader one’s understanding of the human experience, the better design we will have.” — Steve Jobs

Because architecture is such a challenging profession with so much to learn, growing and taking on leadership roles can take a very long time and many never even see the business management side of the industry! But the positions I held before were simpler, with fewer barriers to advancement, and I grew into management and leadership positions quickly where I gained invaluable skills, like accounting, operations, and business administration, that most of my architecture peers now (and even superiors) don’t have yet. Not only that, but I had the opportunity to tackle tough problems by developing unique solutions unburdened by influence of over a century’s worth of practice legacy, which gave me what my colleagues call my “rebel spirit”. I see fundamental flaws in practice and management and immediately innovate, looking outside of the AEC industry for inspiration, connect dots from a larger picture, and prototype new ideas without hesitation or fear.

That last paragraph indicates to me that she and I followed an analogous path in life and explains our conscientious “rebel spirit”. The preference to tinker and dabble in so many interesting tangents, experienced being a leader at a very early age (actually age 5 in my case1) and to become even isolated from the real world at times, and then feeling out-of-sync with the mainstream, yet also coming back into it via entrepreneurialism. Note again though, her IQ is higher than mine.

1 When I was 5 years old, my father was preparing to build a platform in the back of his VW bus to support a bed with storage underneath. I was unaware this was the camper he was to use to leave our family and go to Belize with the N.American lady who became his second wife. He seemed to be having some pause formulating the design he would employ (and note my attorney father seems to have a higher IQ than mine especially in logic and the literary arts, but I may have greater visual math skills than him). So I instantly visualized and explained the design I would use. I also instinctively became the leader in our neighborhood football games and relished my daily bloody nose at age 5. No exaggeration!
hero member
Activity: 1459
Merit: 973
July 29, 2018, 08:06:35 AM
#78
Shelby, is such a dedicated author, just look at the above post of him.  Shocked

I'm so sorry for his situation with btctalk and I feel responsible about the brutal act that they committed against him and his posts. I lost a great part of my motives when they banned @anunymint and slaughtered his posts.

Although it is an old and disgusting story with centralized forums, I become frustrated whenever it happens.  Sad


"To see the farm is to leave it"

Leave it and start your own forum with your own rules if you are not happy.I liked reading anonymint's posts myself even if I didn't agree with some of his opinions and am sad to see such censorship instead of opposing arguments.Certainly a tradgedy of the commons can happen when peoples viewpoints propogate and multiply but freedom is freedom like truth is truth and selective truths are no better than lies etc etc etc.We could argue all day about what is and what is not but I will admit some his posts were entertaining and didn't coerce me to think differently.Only the feeble minded allow this to happen and its up to the individual to take responsibility as to how the aggregate and correolate or interpret information etc.

legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
July 29, 2018, 07:48:47 AM
#77
Quote
You claim, “I understand a lot.” But you’re unable or unwilling to do a Google search:

I was talking about the Bitcoin protocol... Roll Eyes

*edit* Yea I don't know. I've been fiddling around with the links for a while now and I still can't figure out the answer to my question. The reason I'm not impressed that his "peers at wikipedia" rebuked him is that I know wikipedia is full of left wing culture warriors. It's so bad that they libel people they don't like as "white supremacists". The way I see it is, if you are interacting with those people on a regular basis and somehow haven't managed to become embroiled in conflict with them than that is probably because you are one of them.

Anyway, it's difficult enough that I think the burden of proof rests on someone who wants to use this as an attack against him, not just assumed that he did something wrong and anyone who wants to dispute it must dig through ancient archives.
legendary
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1175
Always remember the cause!
July 29, 2018, 04:38:18 AM
#76
Shelby, is such a dedicated author, just look at the above post of him.  Shocked

I'm so sorry for his situation with btctalk and I feel responsible about the brutal act that they committed against him and his posts. I lost a great part of my motives when they banned @anunymint and slaughtered his posts.

Although it is an old and disgusting story with centralized forums, I become frustrated whenever it happens.  Sad
newbie
Activity: 18
Merit: 3
July 29, 2018, 03:29:14 AM
#75
@Quickseller, @aliashraf, @Ix, @Traxo, @miscreanity et al, I appreciate that you’re awake to the evils of centralized databases on the Internet. Don’t expect altcoin shills to have any conscience, astute ethics, vision for future, or ability to foresee their own self-destruction. For example, the Core shills vision for the future is off-chain, fractional reserves, but they’re too blinded by their ignorance, fantasies, and/or vested interests to observe reality. There’s no solution that can brought forth within such a corrupt paradigm. The only solution is to move the Internet forward to “Web 3.0” on decentralized ledgers. So let’s just stop fighting the corruption from inside the corruption and get the necessary work done to disintermediate the corruption. You will get no where feeding the trolls and arguing with those who will vehemently shill for their altcoin (which is mostly the Core altcoin shills in this thread).

@cryptohunter my reaction to both your public and private comments, is I don’t want to return. Because I agree with what you noted, that you and virtually all (99%) the other guys here on this forum aren’t able to discern the technological arguments.

Thus attempting to explain such technological, game theory, economics, sociology, is a mostly fruitless (or let’s say insignificant ROI) misallocation of precious time. For example, after all the careful and patient effort I put into holding @Wind_FURY's (and to a lesser extent @Anon136’s) hand(s) recently and explaining everything to him very carefully in numerous threads and posts (which were censored), they both for example continue to make clueless and ignorantly boastful, erroneous statements in the Lightning Networks discussion thread. The shills for altcoins such as Core (and all the others such Ethereum, etc) are analogous to violent soccer fans. It’s always “my team is better than you team” with hands over ears and eyes, yelling “na, na, na, na, I can’t hear you nor see you” and employing whatever sort of trolling is necessary to support their team and show their allegiance to either vested interests and/or inaccurate fantasies.

It’s like baboons who are cheering on the blue vs. red team which they religiously believe in while the blue team is leading to a failure which they can’t comprehend. It’s both sad and hilarious. This is the unfortunate reason the masses are and will always be fodder. Unlike scammers and manipulators who only want to use their ignorance or who don’t care, I really tried to explain and help them but all I get in return in their ire (and ridiculously boastful ignorance) even when I patiently tried to teach them. So there’s nothing to be gained from me posting here where I can’t form my own decentralized circles and kick off the riff-raff. And worse, since the content is not stored on a decentralized, open database, I risk my effort being nuked as it has been so many times.

It’s a wiser allocation of my resources and much more productive for me to focus on my work. And no I am not frustrated at all that others don’t understand my work. They don’t really understand Bitcoin either yet they appreciate it. My work can be similarly appreciated at the correct juncture if I am able to complete it, which is mostly dependent on my health and my ability to not waste time.

Here is an example of what I am referring to and I must post here in Meta instead of in the LN thread where the discussion is:

Indeed, it's very telling how much effort they put into trash talking in comparison to how much they want to add supporting voices to alternative ideas to improve cryptocurrencies.

This, exactly this, was my problem with Shelby lately.

I addressed this twice near the end of this post in Meta.

Also when y’all admit Core is an altcoin, then it can receive the same critical analysis that the other altcoins receive from myself. I don’t discriminate against Core.

I had also stated (in the posts that were nuked from the LN thread) that I’m not against the LN experiment. I stated very clearly the reasons I think it will become entirely centralized, run by the banksters, and be a fractional reserve system, that also donates all the real Bitcoin to the powers-that-be. In the future, we’ll observe if I am correct in my analysis and expectation.

Yet you all go on and on thinking that your errors in the LN thread will change that outcome. It won’t. And y’all do not understand why, even though I tried to explain it to you. So there isn’t anything more that needs to be said. Carry on to your destiny.

Even Gregory Maxwell admitted the LN is not what you retards[n00bs] think it is:

https://news.bitcoin.com/the-curious-case-of-gregory-maxwell-and-the-lightning-network/



AnonyMint's posts are almost exclusively jargon-laden techno-babble.  His posts are angry and abusive while at the same time they often fail to even make syntactic sense when it comes to the technical content-- at least to anyone who knows what the words mean.  

If this is true, it would be trivial for someone with similar or greater technical knowledge than him to publicly prove him wrong and/or defeat him in a debate.

Oh Gregory surely can dig up something where I have been wrong (and probably where I even admitted my error) in order to obfuscate that Gregory will be unable to address the specific technological challenges that I presented in my prior post.

Note in the prior post made by @Traxo on my behalf, I have provided two examples where in a debate with Gregory he was shown to be incorrect and he refused (even until this day) to admit he was incorrect.



I understand a lot.

No you do not understand much in any holistic sense. Compounded on top of your lack of holistic understanding is your bunny rabbit fantasy confirmation bias, i.e. you really want to believe that proof-of-work can have some form of off-chain instant transactions and transaction volume scaling that won’t be centralized and won’t be fractional reserves. This fantasy bias causes you to reject becoming holistically astute, yet I also doubt that you have the ability to assimilate all the necessary information because of the extreme level of discipline and effort that is required.

By analogy, females-at-large (and note there’s always exceptions) can be awarded engineering degrees (by corrupted SJW holiness cesspools they name universities), but then can’t produce tritium or complete the Obamacare website. Not even because they’re not smart enough (as James Donald astutely points out females more typically excel as first lieutenants although of course there can be exceptions), but because as Jordan Petersen explains, most of them aren’t willing to work 100 hours a week like I do grinding away at assimilating all the “boring” engineering details. Similarly, you may understand (but as you admit at lower level of understanding) paradigmatically in the way the computer science student thinks he understands how to program and then gets into the real world of needing to holistically integrate programming, economics, game theory, sociology, etc. and falls flat on his face. Which BTW, is also one of Gregory Maxwell’s failure modes to some degree (although he’s expert in cryptography and encodings and various other computer science disciplines). Yet Gregory also suffers the SJW victimization holiness psychosis which he probably learned as most Millennials do these days from these cesspools of academia.

Your Dunning-Kruger overconfidence can be best explained by a woman on Quora who has a 160 IQ. She is smarter than me. Read how she explains it. @WIND_Fury you should also read that and take heed about what I had explained to you in the nuked posts, that if you’re 1 to 2 SD below in IQ or equivalently in detailed expertise, then you don’t understand anything at all and are just making errors pretty much every time you write anything. Leah also wrote more about the hateful, ignorance you trolls spew.

Honestly, I still never read any of your ridiculously verbose (and presumably the technical) posts.

If you want only soundbites, then you will never understand anything holistically at a level capable of not making a fool of yourself as you continue to do in the Lightning Networks (LN) thread you started recently.

How silly that you blame me for the complexity of the confluence of technology, economics, game theory, sociology, etc.. That exemplifies the ridiculousness of your claim of understanding a lot. Come on man stop jerking yourself off and get in touch with reality. Or don’t. Stay in your bunny rabbit fantasy and be played by disorder as it should be (see the tail end of the prior post from @Traxo about order and disorder which I am confident is entirely incomprehensible to you).

Further, it is difficult to take his post seriously when Greg's actions/behavior at Wikipedia have been described as "vandalism" by his peers at Wikipedia. Some have claimed that Greg continues to have a positive professional relationship with the admins at Wikipedia, however I have not seen evidence of this, nor have I seen anyone to claim to have affirmative direct knowledge of this.  

Okay... So what did he change on wikipedia that was "vandalism"?

You claim, “I understand a lot.” But you’re unable or unwilling to do a Google search:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=36639732#User:Gmaxwell
https://twitter.com/sayurichick/status/954381661885538304
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/74se80/wikipedia_admins_gregory_maxwell_of_blockstream/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4klqtg/people_are_starting_to_realize_how_toxic_gregory/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/45ail1/wikipedians_on_greg_maxwell_in_2006_now_cto_of/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/459iyw/gmaxwell_in_2006_during_his_wikipedia_vandalism/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/457y0k/greg_maxwells_wikipedia_war_or_he_how_learned_to/



He always argues that some terrible event is going to occur at some unspecified time in the future.

Oh like I called the BTC triple bottom in late June and early July before the rest of the Speculation forum caught up to the concept. And I emphatically stated (which is in the nuked posts that @mprep refuses to assist in sending me a copy of) that BTC would bounce from $6100 up to $8000+. That’s both not terrible and quite empirical.

I could go through a laundry list of examples like this such as my correct public prediction in 2010 that silver would rise from $25 to $45 by Q2 2011 then crash (which is exactly what it did), but you’re just here to troll and write lies. So it would be a waste of my time, because you’re not interested in being non-disingenuous. Or never mind that I screamed all over these forums multi-posting in numerous threads in early 2017 to buy LTC at $6 days before it blasted off and proceeded to over $350 in 2017. As I said, I could go on and on. But you trolls will try to make up some lies about my record by citing something out-of-context or based on your incorrect vague memory. And I don’t have enough time to continuously correct all your lies and errors. Because there’s a lot of more of you Core shills than myself. One against a horde of trolls is certainly a recipe for misallocation of scarce resources.

Did you also forget my Speculation Rule: buy when others are IRRATIONALLY pessimistic/cautious (c.f. also my blog of the same title) on October 25, 2016 when Bitcoin was in the low $600s right before it started to blast off.

He clearly likes the attention

Where’s your empirical proof? No, I would actually like to mute you from the circle of people I want to discuss with, so I never see your useless slobbering.

Readers be very clear that every person spreading lies about me on this thread is a Core shill. They are offended about the truths I have explained.

It is absolutely ridiculous to explicitly say (as Maxwell has said) that it is acceptable to ban people because you do not like them, or because many people do not like them.

Nice strawman. Please give the actual quote word for word where he said that, instead of just saying that he said it.

Anonymint didn't get banned because people don't like him, though.

Ah yes, we must remain technically accurate while obfuscating the reality of the situation. The Jews weren’t exterminated as cockroaches because they were Jews, but because they didn’t have the correct papers indicating they were not Jews.

Your point is analogous to “Slick Willy” Bill Clinton arguing in the court what the definition of ‘is’ is.

I explained up-thread that I felt that people who didn’t like my dissenting information were asking mods to temp-ban me for spreading that information. They used technicalities to single me out for the activities that others were also doing and not being temp-banned for. The response here has been just because other people get away with it, doesn’t absolve me from responsibility to adhere to “the rules”. And I have pointed out that “the rules” aren’t even working to prevent trolling and spamming, so basically those rules exist so that shills (presumably who buy off the mods and @theymos behind the curtain, yeah where is the audit of the finances of these individuals?) have the means to be arbitrary against your critics. @QuickSeller and others (including myself) have correctly pointed out such a paradigm of censorship is the antithesis of our decentralization movement.

I’m not arguing with you because I want to come back to your centralized clusterfuck. I’m making sure that others who read this in the future (and we are archiving everything in case you realize I’m winning the argument and devolve to censoring in Meta as Stackoverflow does), will understand the importance of the decentralized replacement I will create to disintermediate your corrupt shit.

he's here to tell us everything is broken yet again, even though it isn't.

Core shills want to dominate bitcointalk.org and r/Bitcoin with their propaganda and censor any dissenting information especially when a dissenting person is quite successful at attracting attention to that dissenting information.

So you Core shills want to have a monopoly on truth. But the fact is that we could not even exist (time would not be irreversible and thermodynamic processes would not move forward irreversibly) if anyone had a monopoly on information.
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
July 26, 2018, 11:37:06 AM
#74
It is absolutely ridiculous to explicitly say (as Maxwell has said) that it is acceptable to ban people because you do not like them, or because many people do not like them.

Nice strawman. Please give the actual quote word for word where he said that, instead of just saying that he said it.


Further, it is difficult to take his post seriously when Greg's actions/behavior at Wikipedia have been described as "vandalism" by his peers at Wikipedia. Some have claimed that Greg continues to have a positive professional relationship with the admins at Wikipedia, however I have not seen evidence of this, nor have I seen anyone to claim to have affirmative direct knowledge of this. 

Okay... So what did he change on wikipedia that was "vandalism"?
Pages:
Jump to: