Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 25. (Read 85600 times)

This happened last week:



This just happened:


Are they *really* that trustworthy? Or, is it Tec is gaming the system giving trust-for-trust with anyone that comes along?  (or, is it just DT1 the whets his appetite?)

Some odd folks like me have a VERY good idea whom it could be by means of the powers of deduction.
But... I'm content with that personally.

That was funny for sure, best joke I have read on Bitcointalk from weeks.

I couldn't stop laughing for a few minutes.

Personally, I doubt that satoshi will ever come back.  The odds seem to be quite far against it.  

I am starting to consider that if he has already been successful (to date) of really baffling everyone in terms of concealing his identity in spite of the passion and likely interest in wanting to know who he is, then why would he screw up such a seeming concealment success story?

Some of the only scenarios that I could imagine would be cases in which he gets outed - for example, in circumstances that he is already known or the information gets leaked or discovered.  But never say never, and surely all kinds of crazy things can happen in the world.  

It's not like satoshi was some kind of precocious teenager without much history and who died right after creating and launching bitcoin (of course with nearly two years of testing with him still being somewhat active and interactive in some kind of capacity during early bitcoin years).  

In other words, s/he/they seemed to have had a decent amount of knowledge of various systems and cryptography dynamics at the time of the white paper and even walking through various scenarios while bitcoin was in its early years of running, which probably would take a lot of years for anyone to figure out how to combine various already tried projects into what turned into bitcoin and to talk through various potential problems, including creating incentive mechanisms - and even discussing that there are going to be a lot of snake oil imitations and attacks in that direction.  

So, in essence, what I am attempting to asserr is that some person(s) had to have known satoshi in real life through his having had acquired the knowledge and the various skills, and the only way to keep a secret is if all of them, except one, are dead...    

Some variation of this Benjamin Franklin expression:

>>>>Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead.<<<

Turbulence indeed... and one would imagine he/she/they would have the ability to sign messages from any previous owned or operated wallets. Imagine that  

Satoshi coming back would be huge international news.

That would create some major turbulence in the matrix.

Not to mention his account is already locked out.

He'll have to contact theymos first with a signed mesage from the genesis block. The more important question is, does he even have the keys anymore? (and that if he is still alive)

I wonder if Satoshi will ever make a come back to this forum and wonder if we will ever know his/her/their real identity.

Correction, that was definitely funny 

I've known for a long time that satoshi's account was locked (I think I must have read it in a post from theymos) to prevent it from being hacked. If satoshi wants to come back, all it takes is a signed message to theymos and he can regain access.
@satoshi: all it takes is one new post, and I'll send you 50 Merit

I didn't know "locked" also means he's banned though, until I added OmegaStarScream's list to my list of banned users. Most of them have probably been banned for years already, I just didn't know about them until last week.

You'll probably find the UID was constantly being hacked (or attempted to be hacked) along with obscene amounts of merits and trust being given to that user who clearly isn't coming back (and if the debar-kale with "Bruno" is anything to go by, banning the UID saves headaches later)


OK, that was actually *almost* funny...

OK thanks Hairy. I don't quite understand what you're talking about, but I appreciate your response.

---

He was caught plagiarizing Craig Wright.

Peloso blyat why not?
Heey, don't do that, he will exclude me again and won't tell me why he did it!

Clearly, it's because their keyboard was incredibly tiny and they fat-fingered the TAB button instead of making the tilde, and ended up adding you to their network. Give it a few days, they'll change it back soon enough: it's definitely not going to stick.

Prove me wrong, peloso!

No..
you can not

Ok, so more trolling.
I just have to ask you something. All this shitting and bitching, and you actually included me to your trust network and now you trust my judgement.

May I ask you...why? I am just so fucking curious.

i not use system at all
impossible use this corruption system properly)

look at this lauda on dt with 7 inclusions ))

the trust system is nothing for my business )

Nice spot. Thank you Timey, I will make sure my posts are totally completely fully coherent in future  




Thank you for the swift reply and explanation. I used to add/remove people to my Trust list fairly regularly but some time last year I became restrictive. I add people to my distrust list with ease but consider carefully before adding them to my Trust list because being on DT it means being responsible in a different manner.

Anyway, I am glad it all seems to be sorted out.




Thread titled: "Ree @hacker1001101001 ICO bump account": https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54735394

Multiple fake accounts, ICO bump service, loan scammer and general low-life... and to think I used the unIGNORE just to read your trash. Adding you back to my IGNORE list 

Allow me to quote Trust settings:
You are of course free to do as you please, but please consider forum guidelines too.

Move on bud.
You won't be getting anywhere with that. You might want to ask Tecshare if he has a problem with that, concerning of our past, LoL.
And I'm pretty sure he doesn't even mind me especially now, it has been in separate ways.

P. S. I just don't want you getting other users on some kind of mess especially if they are innocent.  It doesn't have any connection with TYM's loan scandal.

This just in from another thread dealing with multiple trust issues:


Further reading on the issue begins with this post.