Topic: Calling top at $16500 (Even Newer!: $2483 bottom 19 Feb 2021 MtGox said so!) - page 2. (Read 24373 times)

Weird how I am neither confused, or doing the confusing. I have been very clear.

600watt - of course Peter doesn't! The truth defence was about the exact opposite. That Peter's claim that "CSW is a fraud" is truth. That's the truth defence! That's what has been dropped! Peter knows his claim "CSW is a fraud" is not true. Peter knows CSW is Satoshi.

Wind_FURY - its patently obvious that CSW is Satoshi to anyone that has taken the time to find out for themselves. I am not confusing anyone, he is and he is proving it. NOT by signing a block (because then you would all suddenly decide that keys != proof of identity, which he has stated all along). Instead he is  producing "a crazy amount of evidence" in court.

You don't like him, and he knows it, and he is using that against you all because he hates what you stand for. He hates anarchy, anonymity and the criminal endeavours facilitated by anonymity. Here then, is the one thing that I *have* changed my view on over the years. I thought I was anarchist. I thought Bitcoin was taking down the governments and the banks and all of that business, but now I recognise the problems that come with that. I understand the need for (minimal) government. The need for law. How Bitcoin was always designed to operate within the existing regulatory frameworks. I know these things because I have *verified* them myself. I have not trusted a 3rd Party.

All of this is in plain sight outside of Bitcoinlandia. You think Peter has your back? You think any of those people on Twitter pumping BTC have your back? They do not. They care about themselves and their $$$ profits from convincing rubes to buy and HODL.

And here remains the one overwhelmingly obvious sign in all of this. I *still* don't recommend you buy BSV.

BSV is Bitcoin though.

just 2 more days

I have been asking the same question, and I have never seen a simple yes or no answer, because they know he is not Satoshi, BUT wants to confuse you to believe that he “might be Satoshi”. Plus why would Satoshi expose himself ? He was very careful, and did extra steps to hide his real identity.

peter does not at all want to imply that craig is satoshi. that was a discussion about evidence.

you really believe craig is satoshi?

Can't make what any clearer? Your steadfast dedication to a tangential sideshow? Anything to take attention off the fact that your dev is a fraudulent con artist?

You know what takes precedence over interpretations of adherence to a white paper, at least in the minds of users of decentralized financial products (as spoken by market demand)?

That the administrator of the system not be a giant fraud.

I think you misunderstand, Peter's "truth" defence is that Craig is *not* Satoshi (truth being the perfect defence to defamation).

Peter is not pursuing that defence, instead he is trying to mitigate the damage.

If Peter was right then he would not have dropped the truth defence.

I can't make this any clearer.

Something something "no proof", something something "need signed message", perhaps?

I'm also unflinching in my wondering of why Peter McCoremack has dropped the defence of "truth".

What? Project much?

I don't agree with that sentiment at all.

We just want to point out the many ways in which you are wrong so people don't accidentally take your awful advice. You have been unflinchingly wrong for 3 years. To me, that would be painful to watch if it weren't funny.

You find that funny, but if Bitcoin truly crashes, it would take everything down and crash all the shitcoins too, including your precious Bitcoin Cash SV. I am very sure of it.

Plus, let’s be honest, Bitcoin Cash SV will NEVER be considered “the Bitcoin” by the community.

But not the one thing that would unequivocally prove it. 

Who cares?  


Apparently, you do, sgbett.  Probably sucks to be "a lost puppy" like you.

hahahahahahaha

 

Did you know that Tether have printed *8 BILLION* USDT in the 30 day extension that the NYAG gave them?

Did you know Peter McCormack said "Craig Wright submitted a crazy amount of evidence that he is Satoshi in my lawsuit"?

Did you know that trial starts tomorrow?

Does news like this not make it to Bitcoinlandia?

Wow. You are not giving up.         


That's your imagination, if you believe that is what is happening, sgbett.  You might need to take a pill to snap you back into reality, instead of your lil fantasy of beliefs regarding what is supposedly happening in bitcoinlandia.



Sure it does seem weird, when you frame it like that, but the reality of the matter is that there continue to be a lot of happy (sanguine) peeps in bitcoinlandia, also... so your sample of "salty" might not be representative of what is really "happening out there." 



Again.. I doubt that is happening.

When a person has a lot of BTC, they can sell whenever they like, and they do not need further pumpening or rely on more buying blah blah blah.


Going a bit far here, aren't we, sgbett?


Now, you know "honest."  That is a pretty strong claim given your track record.


There is no reason for me to study BSV anymore than I already have gotten through the last couple of years of its existence as a bcash forkening... and the various shenanigans that it has demonstrated through the years, whether you want to include or ignore that diptwat craig in your assessment of value of the coin/project.


If true, that would not necessarily mean that progress has been made, you dumb twat (said for emphasis and not implying that you are actually a dumb twat even if you are acting like one)


These are beyond my pay grade to understand, so I will let someone else chime in if there might be any meaning to any of these assertions.


I give less than two shits.. so if you have some kind of point then you might need to outline it better for someone non-technical like myself to help me to see why your piece of shit coin has any value.

You understand that there is value in consensus, no?  Remember in 2017 there were differings of opinions about what bitcoin should be, and so when BTC developed in a certain direction through consensus, bcash split off.. and then a year later, your piece of shit coin split off from bcash to create another bcash claiming to be the original BTC, but the original BTC has been evolving and developing through consensus.. Many of us put some kind of value in consensus including accepting a variety of technical changes that have taken place in BTC (whether we understand them or not), so in the end, you might make all kinds of technical arguments about bitcoin could be better with x, y, z or some other variety of additions, but if you want to get it into bitcoin, then you better fucking get it to be agreed upon and then adopted into the consensus chain.. which remains our king daddy that the market already clearly recognizes as the one and only king daddy.. and who gives any shits about the reasons that Vitalik made a piece of shitcoin and your various bcash buddies made bcash that end up having another piece of shit version that is hardly used except by a few scammers called BSV that you are so hot and bothered about.


I am glad that you might have had some good ideas from time to time, but your getting behind a piece of shit scam does not really seem to help your credibility in terms of possibly having some good ideas that you might be able to contribute to the space and the thinking on the matter from time to time.


People are starting to see that king daddy is the coin to get behind.. so I am not sure about other things that you believe that some people might be starting to see.  Also, I doubt that the mere fact that you had some ideas "back in the day" mean that you were the first one to think of such ideas.  There are all kinds of ideas out there. You know the expression about opinions and assholes, right?  The punchline is that everyone has one, and so your opinions and ideas end up being a so fucking especially if we attempt to consider such ideas in terms of bitcoin.  Bitcoin is a conglomeration of a lot of ideas, so some ideas might end up getting put into bitcoin, and other ideas might build upon bitcoin, but if you are caught up in some alternative universe and some shitcoin, then I have difficulties understanding how concretely your supposed good ideas are going to end up contributing to one of the most important (if not the most important) phenomenon of our lifetimes.. namely king daddy.



Yes.  Most likely I was referring to you when I used the expression about giving up "stupid-ass" ideas.  So, sure, no problem, stick with your ideas if you believe that there is some purpose or value in them.  That's your right, and many of us might continue to criticize you for sticking with those various ideas that you purportedly continue to believe in, and sure several of us have also accused you of being disingenuous because we believe that you are smarter than the "stupid-ass" ideas that you continue to double down on.. or whatever you are doing with your ongoing BSV and/or BIGblocker related assertions.

Sorry to piss on your "utility" parade sgbett, but:

As long exchanges charge 1-2% just to purchase BSV, another 1-2% to sell it, and (in the U.S. anyway) the IRS wants to tax it for either short term (income) or long term gains (15-20%), coupled with the fact that no merchants want to accept it for any goods or services, I'm afraid that your dream of BSV "utility" as a worldwide daily currency is completely DOA. There is zero incentive to buy and use BSV over just using fiat accounts for daily purchases.

Add in the fact that the fraud CSW is at the helm of it all, and basically BSV is already a zombie coin that will never go anywhere. Like, ever.

But keep dreaming...delusion can run soooo deep.

Here's a fun image for you all to think about

By jove JJG I think you've grokked it!

If you can set aside your Craig Derangement Syndrome for a second and take an objective look at what BSV is doing you would see that this "foundational utility" is at it's core (pun intended).

BSV has merely reverted to the original design of bitcoin. Restoring SCRIPT, removing the unnecessary (can be done in SCRIPT) P2SH, removing various limits that allow it to scale. As it *always* could.

So this foundational utility is in Bitcoin *right now*. It always has been. Remember SCRIPT was there at the beginning, core disabled it. (which is why Vitalek made Ethereum... you do remember all this stuff right?)

I too have consistently talked about how utility value eventually outweighs speculative value. In that post (7 years old now, btw and I'm *still* saying the same thing. *Exactly* the same thing) I talk of "the adoption curve" this is driven by utility. I've already banged that same drum in this very thread!

So it's refreshing to hear others starting to see this.

I think your talk of me "giving up on his stupid-ass ideas" is wishful thinking, or perhaps even projection. I do wonder that some of the things I am saying might eventually seep through the thick skulls around here ;p

The reason you can't see my honesty is because you can't afford to. You won't see it until it is too late, like most that have tied themselves to the mast of HMS BTC.

You all seem stuck in a never ending loop of "Bitcoin is a vehicle to get more dollars" and it is excruciating for me to watch. It's like the Allegory of the cave. Stop looking at the wall, there is so much more to be seen if you would care to look.

Why am I so sanguine about this and why are you all so salty, despite "Winning" so much!? Seems weird...

Whilst I am warning you of the perils of BTC and its inevitable demise, you all spend your time convincing each other to HODL, so that you can then sell for more at each other's expense. Pretending you are all being nice to each other whilst plotting each others downfall!

"Its not very honest behaviour is it."

In no way to claim to be an expert about what the block size capping is meant to achieve, but seems to me that there is a bit of a desire for protecting from outside influences and spamming by causing it to become less incentivized to spam.  Sure some people might say that small blocks can be spammed more easily, but there is a kind of balancing of incentives as well.  Another aspect is having the mining and the monitoring of the whole blockchain to remain way more manageable and capable of being accessed by anyone.  Can you imagine the difference between several terabytes of data.. whether crap or worthwhile data versus the access to the less than half of a terabyte of data (around 330 GB - currently as I type) that has built up as a result of more than 12 years of running bitcoin.  That 330GB is way more manageable - especially considering how much value has been produced, transmitted and maintained through the past 12 years.



Of course, utility can be considered both in terms of types of utility and balancing, but then also in terms of prioritizing.  So, I take the proclamations of "limited" utility with a BIG ASS grain of salt, because the mere fact that there is a system of decentralized finance through bitcoin that has never been established previously and there is no other system like it (which is another way of describing bitcoin as "paradigm" changing), and that should be more than enough conceptualized utility in bitcoin to accept that bitcoin is providing plenty of utility that can be accepted as an "as is" good enough situation rather than proclaiming that bitcoin is not doing enough blah blah blah.  Bitcoin, "as is", should be understood as life changing and as a face melting phenomenon and there seems to be little to no reason to assert that it is not "utility" producing enough.



Of course, there are various systems that can be pegged to bitcoin that allow bitcoin to continue to produce its various kinds of foundational "utility" and other systems built on top or pegged to bitcoin can provide some of the desired "utility" of other kinds of systems.. whether we are talking about "micro-payments" or other kinds of speculated lacking "utility" that has not been completely defined, currently.  Sure there may be a lot of kinds of utility that people have in mind and want to have provided on bitcoin or through bitcoin or pegged to bitcoin, and seems to be a whole hell of a lot of speculation that is able to be tested through nearly 10k various shitcoins out there.. and if those are successful, they might either be absorbed into bitcoin or somehow pegged to bitcoin and would not take away from the foundational value that bitcoin already provides and likely to continue to provide into the future that causes a security layer for the ability of a variety of shitcoins to play around with a variety of kinds of utility that may or may not be something that is wanted or needed in the present or in the future.

Surely, while in the midst of my response to you, Wind_FURY, I started to feel that quite a bit of my response here had quite largely deviated from the topic of this thread... so what to do about it?   Only 4 more days to witness specifically how BIGGLY sgbett's 2/19/21 BTC price prediction has deviated from actual BTC price happenings.      Another funny thing about such prediction is that even though he has been completely wrong, and maybe even by more than what some of the more "sgbett skeptical" of us would have anticipated, his most recent post in this thread appears that he is not really giving up on his stupid-ass ideas.. but like nutilah mentioned above, it seems quite likely that sgbett is NOT being genuine in his ongoing nonsensical assertions because anyone with even some small level of BTC related knowledge would not be so persistent in asserting such high levels of dumb - which makes a disingenuous label, in regards to sgbett positions and arguments, to be amongst the most plausible.

Sgbett, you still don't accept that you are the loser or fail in your prediction? There are only 5 days left and we are all watching what will you say on 19 Feb 2021.
I already bought BTCs back and I will not sell till it reaches 100k.

It’s a war of sustainability, which, I believe, the Core developers have solved by making design-decisions to make Bitcoin be more secure/robust, and more profitable for miners by capping the block size. It has made utility limited though, which the Lightning Network, or other off-chain networks might solve.