Topic: Long term advance notice! - page 3. (Read 3710 times)
Now that we know he actually has these 500.000+ BTC (I'm estimating around 1.5 million BTC) it's pretty much guaranteed we'll see 3k and lower again very soon.
Some serious tax payments to be made
40% tax, on amount in USD at settlement.
By the time you sell the BTC, and pay the taxes .... then?! How much will be left ?!!??!
I'll believe it when I see it. Still no proof of anything here, just more useless blathering from Craig Wright. I think Wright is just trying to save face after the court rejected his testimony and falsified evidence.
I'll be on the lookout for 2009 block rewards moving on the blockchain. Short of that, I assume this is just BS.
Some serious tax payments to be made
40% tax, on amount in USD at settlement.
By the time you sell the BTC, and pay the taxes .... then?! How much will be left ?!!??!
Just ask for 1 year notice to pay the tax, you will have to sell less BTC ;-)
The problem is rather, once the tax bill is calculated, it does not account for the market price any more - I'd not buy such a risk, and not for Long term at all
Or he just needs to go somewhere where there is no extradition bill and give them all the finger...
Some serious tax payments to be made
40% tax, on amount in USD at settlement.
By the time you sell the BTC, and pay the taxes .... then?! How much will be left ?!!??!
Just ask for 1 year notice to pay the tax, you will have to sell less BTC ;-)
The problem is rather, once the tax bill is calculated, it does not account for the market price any more - I'd not buy such a risk, and not for Long term at all
you will have to sell less BTC ;-)
I doubt that very much.
Some serious tax payments to be made
40% tax, on amount in USD at settlement.
By the time you sell the BTC, and pay the taxes .... then?! How much will be left ?!!??!
Just ask for 1 year notice to pay the tax, you will have to sell less BTC ;-)
Some serious tax payments to be made
40% tax, on amount in USD at settlement.
By the time you sell the BTC, and pay the taxes .... then?! How much will be left ?!!??!
I wonder if that TAX has to be payed, despite any coin could be moved / sold at what Price at all ?
How is the amount of tax derived ? Ususally it is a market -to market Price and off it goes
Some serious tax payments to be made
40% tax, on amount in USD at settlement.
By the time you sell the BTC, and pay the taxes .... then?! How much will be left ?!!??!
Some serious tax payments to be made
https://modernconsensus.com/cryptocurrencies/bitcoin/exclusive-interview-with-craig-wright-just-after-ordered-to-pay-5-billion-in-bitcoin/
https://modernconsensus.com/cryptocurrencies/bitcoin/exclusive-interview-with-craig-wright-just-after-ordered-to-pay-5-billion-in-bitcoin/
Quote
EXCLUSIVE: First interview with Craig Wright after judge orders him to pay $5 billion in bitcoin
$2 billion in taxes due; ‘When you find a gorilla, don’t kick it in the nuts’
By Brendan Sullivan / August 26, 2019
A hearing in the Kleiman v. Wright case concluded Monday with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida rejecting Craig S. Wright’s testimony. The judge determined that “Satoshi Nakamoto” is a partnership of three people, but awarded half of its bitcoin holdings to the Kleiman estate. Craig Wright told Modern Consensus he “has no choice but to hand over $5 billion in BTC.”
Because this transfer is happening as an estate transfer valued at $5 billion, Ira Kleiman may have to dump $2 billion in BTC.
The court also awarded Kleiman’s estate with the intellectual property associated with the Bitcoin software, but none associated with Bitcoin Cash or Craig Wright’s back-to-basics Bitcoin Satoshi Vision. According to the suit, Wright and Kleiman mined these million bitcoins between 2009 and 2011, which were said to be stored in a trust called the “Tulip Trust.”
Modern Consensus spoke to Wright by telephone today just after he left the Florida courtroom.
MODERN CONSENSUS: How are ya doing?
CRAIG WRIGHT: Been better.
I’ll just ask, what does today’s ruling actually mean for Bitcoin and crypto?
The judge won’t rule on whether I’m Satoshi. But the partnership is. So when Dave Kleiman passed, the partnership transferred to Ira.
Will this affect BSV?
BSV, it won’t. But the judge ordered me to send just under 500,000 BTC over to Ira. Let’s see what it does to the market. I wouldn’t have tanked the market. I’m nice.
You could flood the market with $5 billion in BTC today, but I’m guessing you won’t. You have too much in progress on-chain. But what if the chain collapses? Presumably the market could tank to bad that whoever inherits his BTC would get substantially less.
I’m just not going to do that.
I know people think you’re a miserable prick. But you once told me that you and your wife had decided that this $10 billion fortune was too much. You said you worried about what it would do for your kids.
It’s fucking scary. Now the kids are going to know that we have the other $5 billion. And it really sucks. Imagine that (laughs). I had planned to live a long time and hopefully they wouldn’t know until they were older and we were gone. It could affect their whole lives.
Not to get you in hot water with the judge, but it doesn’t sound like anyone thought through what this would really mean to just hand over the keys to a huge industry.
No one seems to get that I’ve made 800 patents in IP and more are coming. Just on that I could have raised a lot of money. I’m sorry, BTC, but that might be a problem. They might have to convince Ira not to dump it. I can’t convince him not to dump it. Ira has to do what Ira has to do. And it wouldn’t have been me. And I don’t need it. He does.
I mean, I get it. You make money creating things for nChain, so you don’t need to dump any BTC from the Tulip Trust. But they can’t force Ira to sell. Can they?
He doesn’t actually need it but he wants it. Everyone might want to start praying, because I complied with courts and that might get scary really, really quickly. The courts ruled that Ira inherited the $5 billion. Now he has to pay estate tax on that if he wants it.
Whoa! The estate tax is 40%. Unless Ira has $2 billion in cash, he will have to dump 2 million BTC to pay the taxes.
Yeah.
Sorry. I’m just running the number. How are you feeling after all this?
I’m fine, we’re going to keep going. But I’ll make sure I keep supporting it. I can’t help.
But how will you actually get the money? We’ve talked over the years and I’ve always tried to respect your privacy. Just because it’s none of my business how much someone else is holding. But now you’ll have to break the Tulip Trust to transfer the coins.
If the court makes an order, I will comply with the order. And the court has made an order. It’s that simple.
So this affects the so-called “Satoshi Blocks” of unmoved bitcoins in the blockchain. The block rewards from when 50 bitcoins were issued for mining. Does that mean blocks that haven’t moved will since 2009 will get transferred?
Not at least, just under half. Because they’ll have to come out of partnership. I spent more money on the project than Dave, so I will rule on that and effectively Ira will get maybe 480,000 BTC.
And again, shouldn’t that include the BTC, BCH, and BSV and every other fork of Bitcoin? All of those had to replicate the original blockchain starting from zero.
According to the judge it’s only from before Dave died, so only BTC. Sorry BTC.
Wow. I’m sorry. This just isn’t the outcome that anybody wanted. I’ve even heard you tell me how you wanted to destroy BTC or BCH because they forked away from your plan. They always seemed to win out before. But this could tank the markets.
Everyone wants to hate on me. This is the result. If you’d left me alone, I would have sat on my fucking money and you wouldn’t have to worry. And the biggest whale ever has to dump because he has to pay tax. It’s not a transfer. Florida has an estate tax. Trust me. This is not an outcome I would have liked. I own a lot of BTC. Dave should have owned 320,000 and I should have had 800,000 and now it’s 50/50. At the end of the day, that’s not a good thing for BTC.
I know you can be a little combative but you never wished ill on the others. Yet this is beyond good and bad.
Trust me. Everyone makes me look like a mean asshole. I might have been a prick, but I was the prick who was withholding. I could have tanked the market anytime in the last 10 years and ran away laughing. I didn’t.
This goes back to the original Bitcoin whitepaper and the problem of the “selfish miner.” Someone could ruin the blockchain, but it would be more profitable to play by the rules and make some money along the way. Dave doesn’t have a choice. He has to sell to get any value. But by selling, he could destroy the whole crypto economy. Where BTC goes, so goes the whole market. And anybody still trying to raise money with an ICO.
Yes. And I tried to tell people and they tried to make me out to be a total prick. I sat on $10 billion and didn’t touch it. And this was happens. When you find a find a gorilla, don’t kick it in the nuts.
Haha. I’m sorry to be laughing. This could be the worst day of your life.
This is not the worst day in my life. My grandfather died, that was worse. This was just money. This is just money. Dave died, that was a worse day for me, because I lost a friend and a partner.
Bitcoin took off while the world fell into recession in 2009. Now we’re facing another one and it could take down the whole market.
I’m the asshole who keeps inventing things that other people need. I’m not the good media personality. You think I’m gonna complain because I only get to keep $6 billion? And I’m the only surviving member of Satoshi? The judge ruled it was a partnership. I’m the asshole Satoshi. And Dave was the nice one. So have a nice day.
$2 billion in taxes due; ‘When you find a gorilla, don’t kick it in the nuts’
By Brendan Sullivan / August 26, 2019
A hearing in the Kleiman v. Wright case concluded Monday with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida rejecting Craig S. Wright’s testimony. The judge determined that “Satoshi Nakamoto” is a partnership of three people, but awarded half of its bitcoin holdings to the Kleiman estate. Craig Wright told Modern Consensus he “has no choice but to hand over $5 billion in BTC.”
Because this transfer is happening as an estate transfer valued at $5 billion, Ira Kleiman may have to dump $2 billion in BTC.
The court also awarded Kleiman’s estate with the intellectual property associated with the Bitcoin software, but none associated with Bitcoin Cash or Craig Wright’s back-to-basics Bitcoin Satoshi Vision. According to the suit, Wright and Kleiman mined these million bitcoins between 2009 and 2011, which were said to be stored in a trust called the “Tulip Trust.”
Modern Consensus spoke to Wright by telephone today just after he left the Florida courtroom.
MODERN CONSENSUS: How are ya doing?
CRAIG WRIGHT: Been better.
I’ll just ask, what does today’s ruling actually mean for Bitcoin and crypto?
The judge won’t rule on whether I’m Satoshi. But the partnership is. So when Dave Kleiman passed, the partnership transferred to Ira.
Will this affect BSV?
BSV, it won’t. But the judge ordered me to send just under 500,000 BTC over to Ira. Let’s see what it does to the market. I wouldn’t have tanked the market. I’m nice.
You could flood the market with $5 billion in BTC today, but I’m guessing you won’t. You have too much in progress on-chain. But what if the chain collapses? Presumably the market could tank to bad that whoever inherits his BTC would get substantially less.
I’m just not going to do that.
I know people think you’re a miserable prick. But you once told me that you and your wife had decided that this $10 billion fortune was too much. You said you worried about what it would do for your kids.
It’s fucking scary. Now the kids are going to know that we have the other $5 billion. And it really sucks. Imagine that (laughs). I had planned to live a long time and hopefully they wouldn’t know until they were older and we were gone. It could affect their whole lives.
Not to get you in hot water with the judge, but it doesn’t sound like anyone thought through what this would really mean to just hand over the keys to a huge industry.
No one seems to get that I’ve made 800 patents in IP and more are coming. Just on that I could have raised a lot of money. I’m sorry, BTC, but that might be a problem. They might have to convince Ira not to dump it. I can’t convince him not to dump it. Ira has to do what Ira has to do. And it wouldn’t have been me. And I don’t need it. He does.
I mean, I get it. You make money creating things for nChain, so you don’t need to dump any BTC from the Tulip Trust. But they can’t force Ira to sell. Can they?
He doesn’t actually need it but he wants it. Everyone might want to start praying, because I complied with courts and that might get scary really, really quickly. The courts ruled that Ira inherited the $5 billion. Now he has to pay estate tax on that if he wants it.
Whoa! The estate tax is 40%. Unless Ira has $2 billion in cash, he will have to dump 2 million BTC to pay the taxes.
Yeah.
Sorry. I’m just running the number. How are you feeling after all this?
I’m fine, we’re going to keep going. But I’ll make sure I keep supporting it. I can’t help.
But how will you actually get the money? We’ve talked over the years and I’ve always tried to respect your privacy. Just because it’s none of my business how much someone else is holding. But now you’ll have to break the Tulip Trust to transfer the coins.
If the court makes an order, I will comply with the order. And the court has made an order. It’s that simple.
So this affects the so-called “Satoshi Blocks” of unmoved bitcoins in the blockchain. The block rewards from when 50 bitcoins were issued for mining. Does that mean blocks that haven’t moved will since 2009 will get transferred?
Not at least, just under half. Because they’ll have to come out of partnership. I spent more money on the project than Dave, so I will rule on that and effectively Ira will get maybe 480,000 BTC.
And again, shouldn’t that include the BTC, BCH, and BSV and every other fork of Bitcoin? All of those had to replicate the original blockchain starting from zero.
According to the judge it’s only from before Dave died, so only BTC. Sorry BTC.
Wow. I’m sorry. This just isn’t the outcome that anybody wanted. I’ve even heard you tell me how you wanted to destroy BTC or BCH because they forked away from your plan. They always seemed to win out before. But this could tank the markets.
Everyone wants to hate on me. This is the result. If you’d left me alone, I would have sat on my fucking money and you wouldn’t have to worry. And the biggest whale ever has to dump because he has to pay tax. It’s not a transfer. Florida has an estate tax. Trust me. This is not an outcome I would have liked. I own a lot of BTC. Dave should have owned 320,000 and I should have had 800,000 and now it’s 50/50. At the end of the day, that’s not a good thing for BTC.
I know you can be a little combative but you never wished ill on the others. Yet this is beyond good and bad.
Trust me. Everyone makes me look like a mean asshole. I might have been a prick, but I was the prick who was withholding. I could have tanked the market anytime in the last 10 years and ran away laughing. I didn’t.
This goes back to the original Bitcoin whitepaper and the problem of the “selfish miner.” Someone could ruin the blockchain, but it would be more profitable to play by the rules and make some money along the way. Dave doesn’t have a choice. He has to sell to get any value. But by selling, he could destroy the whole crypto economy. Where BTC goes, so goes the whole market. And anybody still trying to raise money with an ICO.
Yes. And I tried to tell people and they tried to make me out to be a total prick. I sat on $10 billion and didn’t touch it. And this was happens. When you find a find a gorilla, don’t kick it in the nuts.
Haha. I’m sorry to be laughing. This could be the worst day of your life.
This is not the worst day in my life. My grandfather died, that was worse. This was just money. This is just money. Dave died, that was a worse day for me, because I lost a friend and a partner.
Bitcoin took off while the world fell into recession in 2009. Now we’re facing another one and it could take down the whole market.
I’m the asshole who keeps inventing things that other people need. I’m not the good media personality. You think I’m gonna complain because I only get to keep $6 billion? And I’m the only surviving member of Satoshi? The judge ruled it was a partnership. I’m the asshole Satoshi. And Dave was the nice one. So have a nice day.
turning his head to say all those rubbish he is saying, and does he think that he will ever succeed to make the price of bitcoin drop so as to promote bsv? He has really failed.
The blockchain is not about people or price.
Those who focus on that are incredibly naive about the world.
Why are people still obsessed with this douchebag? Proof of keys or GTFO. It is the simplest way to prove he is Satoshi. None of this foolish pageantry. Only newbies are hooked to his BSV bullshit.
For people who do know with CW bullshit propaganda will just simply ignore this but the sad fact that there are still newbies who are being mislead with this bullsh*t news around.if bitcoin did not drop in price with the FUD news that has come from world leaders' like trump, the issue of India with bitcoin, and china news planning to ban mining and many more, then there is nothing that can really drop bitcoin price ever again, so he should better take all his talk to himself and go spend his money with his family and if he is interested investing in BC, rather than creating panic news, he has better invest now.
mmutable Bitcoin with a 1 MB hard blocksize limit
It is not "immutable" with respect to blocksize. The blocksize can be changed, but since everybody has "defaulted" to a specific limit, it requires extensive coordination.. The specific limit changes the game theory of "stale blocks" significantly.
It is naive to "blame satoshi" for this.
Quote
Centralization = 51% attack (or sufficient percent such as perhaps 33%). A 51% (or sufficient majority) attack can surreptitiously censor anything whether it be entire blocks or just blocks that have transactions which are to be disallowed.
No. They cannot.
They cannot effectively censor my transaction, as they neither know which transaction is mine, or what the contents of the tx is.
They cannot effectively censor a block ... as other blockfinders will catch up, and mine the tx into a competing block.
I will leave it there... but if you game out a "censorship" (or similar) scenario in more detail, I am happy to provide a more detailed answer about how it doesn't actually work in practise.
These are the things which make blockchain technology GOOD. Your comments indicate that you either do not understand blockchain, or you are actively trying to undermine it.
Quote
The clever game theory “poison pill” that Satoshi inserted into his immutable Bitcoin protocol, is such that all soft forks are “anyone can spend”
No not "all" soft works. Just specifically segwit, due to the way it was implemented. Again, you are demonstrating a severe lack of understanding.
Quote
I just did.
No you didn't. You didn't say HOW. You just said "it can be done", and you are incorrect.
Quote
So only the hodlers will make the final decision when Core is forced to fork off, because the hodlers will decide which tokens they sell and which they keep.
Indeed. The market sets the price of all the different tokens, include any "air drops" caused by BTC forks during the coming segwit calamity.
However, why would any of them be worth anything. 1MB every 10 minutes, shared between the entire world is very very very very stupid. P2SH is stupid. RBF is stupid. Nobody involved with BTC sees that (because they *did* it) .... so who's going to fix the mess? All those people (capable of fixing and building) left in August 2017.
Quote
You can clearly see that Satoshi conveniently ignored that plea
It was never up to Satoshi to fix it. It is up to the miners.... they could find a larger than 1MB block if they really really want to.
None of the miners who understand (or care about) that are mining BTC any longer ..... or at least they are only mining it for it's short term profit motive.
BTC has been dead for years.
Thx - I can Support all of this.
BTC is dead for most of its initial use cases, except ponzi shilling and Money laundry
mmutable Bitcoin with a 1 MB hard blocksize limit
It is not "immutable" with respect to blocksize. The blocksize can be changed, but since everybody has "defaulted" to a specific limit, it requires extensive coordination.. The specific limit changes the game theory of "stale blocks" significantly.
It is naive to "blame satoshi" for this.
Quote
Centralization = 51% attack (or sufficient percent such as perhaps 33%). A 51% (or sufficient majority) attack can surreptitiously censor anything whether it be entire blocks or just blocks that have transactions which are to be disallowed.
No. They cannot.
They cannot effectively censor my transaction, as they neither know which transaction is mine, or what the contents of the tx is.
They cannot effectively censor a block ... as other blockfinders will catch up, and mine the tx into a competing block.
I will leave it there... but if you game out a "censorship" (or similar) scenario in more detail, I am happy to provide a more detailed answer about how it doesn't actually work in practise.
These are the things which make blockchain technology GOOD. Your comments indicate that you either do not understand blockchain, or you are actively trying to undermine it.
Quote
The clever game theory “poison pill” that Satoshi inserted into his immutable Bitcoin protocol, is such that all soft forks are “anyone can spend”
No not "all" soft works. Just specifically segwit, due to the way it was implemented. Again, you are demonstrating a severe lack of understanding.
Quote
I just did.
No you didn't. You didn't say HOW. You just said "it can be done", and you are incorrect.
Quote
So only the hodlers will make the final decision when Core is forced to fork off, because the hodlers will decide which tokens they sell and which they keep.
Indeed. The market sets the price of all the different tokens, include any "air drops" caused by BTC forks during the coming segwit calamity.
However, why would any of them be worth anything. 1MB every 10 minutes, shared between the entire world is very very very very stupid. P2SH is stupid. RBF is stupid. Nobody involved with BTC sees that (because they *did* it) .... so who's going to fix the mess? All those people (capable of fixing and building) left in August 2017.
Quote
You can clearly see that Satoshi conveniently ignored that plea
It was never up to Satoshi to fix it. It is up to the miners.... they could find a larger than 1MB block if they really really want to.
None of the miners who understand (or care about) that are mining BTC any longer ..... or at least they are only mining it for it's short term profit motive.
BTC has been dead for years.
This mathematical FUD has grown old.
You cant hold the dam anymore. Its leaking, and its many holes cant be repaired.
You cant hold the dam anymore. Its leaking, and its many holes cant be repaired.
Relaying another reply:
Riiiiight. Immutable. Much smaller than 1MB. Immutable. Riiiiiiiight.
Joe I find it impossible to fathom how you can be so incapable of assimilating my arguments and points.
And I find it impossible to fathom how you can be so incapable of assimilating the fact that v0.1 had not a 1MB block limit, and thusly the insertion of the 1MB block limit was therefore a direct contradiction of your claim of immutability.
Quote from: Shelby Moore
apparently originally even much smaller than 1 MB
Riiiiight. Immutable. Much smaller than 1MB. Immutable. Riiiiiiiight.
Joe I find it impossible to fathom how you can be so incapable of assimilating my arguments and points.
And I find it impossible to fathom how you can be so incapable of assimilating the fact that v0.1 had not a 1MB block limit, and thusly the insertion of the 1MB block limit was therefore a direct contradiction of your claim of immutability.
Satoshi had not left the premises yet. Is there some handicap with your reading comprehension:
Upthread I quoted (actually @figmentofmyass quoted and I responded) where Satoshi stated that “v0.1” locked the major protocol decisions in stone. His point was that once he left (given that he was the creator of Bitcoin), the protocol would be immutable. When Satoshi made the decision to explicitly announce setting a hard limit of 1 MB in the client (before that any blocksize was only apparently a suggested limit, which implicitly provided a Schelling point) and then chose to disappear without addressing the pleas to raise the blocksize again, he had left us with a legacy, immutable Bitcoin with a 1 MB hard blocksize limit.
Once that explicit Schelling point was set, it can never be changed again, per the logic I provided in my prior post. Which again due to your low reading comprehension, I doubt you have assimilated. I am exasperated. I can’t continue to spoon feed grown men who apparently just want to believe whatever they want to believe. Damn the facts, so they can drool on themselves. You guys have wasted so much of my time. I deserve an apology, which will not be forthcoming. Instead I will be scorned and derided. Thanks a lot.
Have you also failed to remember that I have written numerous times that Bitcoin started off as 100% centralized and became more decentralized over time, especially when Satoshi left the building.
Quote from: Shelby Moore
apparently originally even much smaller than 1 MB
Riiiiight. Immutable. Much smaller than 1MB. Immutable. Riiiiiiiight.
Joe I find it impossible to fathom how you can be so incapable of assimilating my arguments and points.
And I find it impossible to fathom how you can be so incapable of assimilating the fact that v0.1 had not a 1MB block limit, and thusly the insertion of the 1MB block limit was therefore a direct contradiction of your claim of immutability.
Relaying a response:
Riiiiight. Immutable. Much smaller than 1MB. Immutable. Riiiiiiiight.
Joe I find it impossible to fathom how you can be so incapable of assimilating my arguments and points.
Upthread I quoted (actually @figmentofmyass quoted and I responded) where Satoshi stated that “v0.1” locked the major protocol decisions in stone. His point was that once he left (given that he was the creator of Bitcoin), the protocol would be immutable. When Satoshi made the decision to explicitly announce setting a hard limit of 1 MB in the client (before that any blocksize was only apparently a suggested limit, which implicitly provided a Schelling point) and then chose to disappear without addressing the pleas to raise the blocksize again, he had left us with a legacy, immutable Bitcoin with a 1 MB hard blocksize limit.
It doesn’t matter what I say or what anyone thinks. The fact is that Satoshi inserted a very clever game theory into his legacy, immutable Bitcoin, such that all soft forks will eventually hard fork off and destroy themselves. This is apparently what is going to happen to Core Bitcoin probably at of the halving event May 2020 if Craig Wright is not bluffing. Because the SegWit “anyone can spend” booty has piled up (to last time I checked 6+ million BTC dangling as a carrot in front of the miners).
And it doesn’t matter what I say or you think about immutability. Variable blocksizes are not a decentralized Schelling point. They only converge to a single longest chain if the mining is sufficiently centralized so as to enforce a Schelling point. IOW, variable blocksizes change the game theory of proof-of-work to a power vacuum that requires essentially 33 – 51% mining centralization. Why is this game theory concept so difficult for you to wrap your mind around?
Variable blocksize is incongruent with one of the most important attributes of the game theory of decentralized proof-of-work as follows:
How?
A miner cannot censor my transaction.
Centralization = 51% attack (or sufficient percent such as perhaps 33%). A 51% (or sufficient majority) attack can surreptitiously censor anything whether it be entire blocks or just blocks that have transactions which are to be disallowed.
In order for there to be an enforceable Schelling Point that will converge to a single longest chain with a variable blocksize, then some group of miners have to agree to censor all blocks which do not conform to a specific blocksize limit of choice. Otherwise the chain will implicitly fork off into numbers forks because of disagreement. Upthread (or perhaps it was in another thread) I had discussed the specific mechanisms in BSV and explained why this is still the case. I am not going to repeat that again. There is a blog comment on my Steemit blog that explains it in detail. And no I don’t feel like digging for it again. Sorry I am not going to revisit all my past discussion over and over again, everytime some new disinformation agent comes into a thread and refuses to do his homework. How about you go digging for it. if you’re sincere.
Note it may not actually require 51% to censor and set Schelling points. It depends on how smoothly distributed are those who vehemently want to override any choices. Otherwise with a higher orphan rate and much greater number of blocks to orphaning (aka convergence) then less than 51% can suffice.
I just did.
Why do you compare yourself to me? Do realize I have been studying and doing deep research about blockchain technology and theory since 2013. I have had no other job during these past 6 years. Thus I might know a few concepts about blockchain game theory which you don’t. Who are you?
Oh dear. Are you for real?
It is a fork in the protocol. The nodes have to decide. The hodlers are not relevant.
Read the Rogue Wave thread and educate yourself.
Miners vote again every block. The vote is never final w.r.t. to protocol changes. The clever game theory “poison pill” that Satoshi inserted into his immutable Bitcoin protocol, is such that all soft forks are “anyone can spend” and thus a huge booty piles up for the miners to partake. This is an asymmetrical advantage for the legacy protocol, because when the miners take the booty, Core hard forks off and thus all the hodlers who were holding legacy addresses (i.e. begin with a 1 instead of a 3) get both legacy and free air-drop Core tokens after the fork. Whereas, those idiots who were hodling Core (aka SegWit) addresses only get Core tokens after the fork.
So only the hodlers will make the final decision when Core is forced to fork off, because the hodlers will decide which tokens they sell and which they keep. Normally all free air drop tokens are sold and everyone chooses to keep legacy Bitcoin. And Craig Wrights cratering of the Core price (and bankrupting all the exchanges which hodl in SegWit addresses) will help to insure that will be the case.
It's good thing that Satoshi's posts have been recorded, and people can go and see for themselves what he said.
Yeah here is the thread and post where someone remarked that if the limit was not removed then it would be almost impossible to ever change it. Satoshi did not reply. You can clearly see that Satoshi conveniently ignored that plea right before his globalist handlers arranged for an excuse for him to disappear (c.f. also).
Quote from: Shelby Moore
apparently originally even much smaller than 1 MB
Riiiiight. Immutable. Much smaller than 1MB. Immutable. Riiiiiiiight.
Joe I find it impossible to fathom how you can be so incapable of assimilating my arguments and points.
Upthread I quoted (actually @figmentofmyass quoted and I responded) where Satoshi stated that “v0.1” locked the major protocol decisions in stone. His point was that once he left (given that he was the creator of Bitcoin), the protocol would be immutable. When Satoshi made the decision to explicitly announce setting a hard limit of 1 MB in the client (before that any blocksize was only apparently a suggested limit, which implicitly provided a Schelling point) and then chose to disappear without addressing the pleas to raise the blocksize again, he had left us with a legacy, immutable Bitcoin with a 1 MB hard blocksize limit.
It doesn’t matter what I say or what anyone thinks. The fact is that Satoshi inserted a very clever game theory into his legacy, immutable Bitcoin, such that all soft forks will eventually hard fork off and destroy themselves. This is apparently what is going to happen to Core Bitcoin probably at of the halving event May 2020 if Craig Wright is not bluffing. Because the SegWit “anyone can spend” booty has piled up (to last time I checked 6+ million BTC dangling as a carrot in front of the miners).
And it doesn’t matter what I say or you think about immutability. Variable blocksizes are not a decentralized Schelling point. They only converge to a single longest chain if the mining is sufficiently centralized so as to enforce a Schelling point. IOW, variable blocksizes change the game theory of proof-of-work to a power vacuum that requires essentially 33 – 51% mining centralization. Why is this game theory concept so difficult for you to wrap your mind around?
Variable blocksize is incongruent with one of the most important attributes of the game theory of decentralized proof-of-work as follows:
Quote from: Shelby Moore
What you wrote is Not Even Wrong. 
You’re off in left field derp.
Without decentralization, there’s the potential for censorship and lack of permissionless system.
You’re off in left field derp.
Without decentralization, there’s the potential for censorship and lack of permissionless system.
How?
A miner cannot censor my transaction.
Centralization = 51% attack (or sufficient percent such as perhaps 33%). A 51% (or sufficient majority) attack can surreptitiously censor anything whether it be entire blocks or just blocks that have transactions which are to be disallowed.
In order for there to be an enforceable Schelling Point that will converge to a single longest chain with a variable blocksize, then some group of miners have to agree to censor all blocks which do not conform to a specific blocksize limit of choice. Otherwise the chain will implicitly fork off into numbers forks because of disagreement. Upthread (or perhaps it was in another thread) I had discussed the specific mechanisms in BSV and explained why this is still the case. I am not going to repeat that again. There is a blog comment on my Steemit blog that explains it in detail. And no I don’t feel like digging for it again. Sorry I am not going to revisit all my past discussion over and over again, everytime some new disinformation agent comes into a thread and refuses to do his homework. How about you go digging for it. if you’re sincere.
Note it may not actually require 51% to censor and set Schelling points. It depends on how smoothly distributed are those who vehemently want to override any choices. Otherwise with a higher orphan rate and much greater number of blocks to orphaning (aka convergence) then less than 51% can suffice.
I know that you can't
I just did.
Why do you compare yourself to me? Do realize I have been studying and doing deep research about blockchain technology and theory since 2013. I have had no other job during these past 6 years. Thus I might know a few concepts about blockchain game theory which you don’t. Who are you?
Quote from: Shelby Moore
Nonsense. A soft fork is not a fork because it doesn’t force the hodlers of BTC to make a decision
Oh dear. Are you for real?
It is a fork in the protocol. The nodes have to decide. The hodlers are not relevant.
Read the Rogue Wave thread and educate yourself.
Miners vote again every block. The vote is never final w.r.t. to protocol changes. The clever game theory “poison pill” that Satoshi inserted into his immutable Bitcoin protocol, is such that all soft forks are “anyone can spend” and thus a huge booty piles up for the miners to partake. This is an asymmetrical advantage for the legacy protocol, because when the miners take the booty, Core hard forks off and thus all the hodlers who were holding legacy addresses (i.e. begin with a 1 instead of a 3) get both legacy and free air-drop Core tokens after the fork. Whereas, those idiots who were hodling Core (aka SegWit) addresses only get Core tokens after the fork.
So only the hodlers will make the final decision when Core is forced to fork off, because the hodlers will decide which tokens they sell and which they keep. Normally all free air drop tokens are sold and everyone chooses to keep legacy Bitcoin. And Craig Wrights cratering of the Core price (and bankrupting all the exchanges which hodl in SegWit addresses) will help to insure that will be the case.
Quote from: Shelby Moore
You’re lying
It's good thing that Satoshi's posts have been recorded, and people can go and see for themselves what he said.
Yeah here is the thread and post where someone remarked that if the limit was not removed then it would be almost impossible to ever change it. Satoshi did not reply. You can clearly see that Satoshi conveniently ignored that plea right before his globalist handlers arranged for an excuse for him to disappear (c.f. also).
What you wrote is Not Even Wrong.
You’re off in left field derp.
Without decentralization, there’s the potential for censorship and lack of permissionless system.
You’re off in left field derp.
Without decentralization, there’s the potential for censorship and lack of permissionless system.
How?
A miner cannot censor my transaction. I do not practise address re-use... they do not know what my tx is, or who it is between. They're economically incentivised to mine it (via tx fee).
How does a large miner reduce "permissionless"?
The whole beauty of the blockchain.... is that the don't/can't. It's why the blockchain is actually good technology.
I know that you can't explain in detail how this "censorship and lack of permissionless system" actually comes about (in a way which isn't easy to point out the flaws in).... but I'd like to see you try.
Quote
Nonsense. A soft fork is not a fork because it doesn’t force the hodlers of BTC to make a decision
Oh dear. Are you for real?
It is a fork in the protocol. The nodes have to decide. The hodlers are not relevant.
Quote
The dichotomy is between immutable and variable blocksize
Explain to everyone how larger/variable blocksizes make for not-immutable.
Quote
You’re lying
It's good thing that Satoshi's posts have been recorded, and people can go and see for themselves what he said.
Quote
How much more disinformation are you going to spew in this thread?
Yes... I'm not sure I can compete on that front /S .... so I will leave.
I just feel sorry for the hordes of people who have been fooled by the "centralised mining destroys trustlessness" idiocracy. You can't explain how it does that.... because it doesn't.
Relaying another message:
In case you are new to bitcoin, selling 821,050 bitcoins is some serious showing of "proof of keys".
How quickly the myopicfools[flippant trolls] around here forget Craig crashed the BTC price from $6k to $3k:
Also it was on purpose that Craig Wright (who is just a pawn or front man actor for the globalists) was tasked to act like a fool, so that everyone would dismiss his warning. The globalists (who created Bitcoin) have fabricated a masterplan. Again I will link you to the information as follows:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.52251343
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.52254095
STT, you need to read the Rogue Wave thread discussion. Also you’re conflating BSV with the legacy, immutable Bitcoin, so it seems you really haven’t read much at all. You are ostensibly clueless about the relative economic impacts of a SegWit “anyone can spend” donations booty taking attack versus what you observed Craig do late last year. What he did late last year was just a tiny thing compared to what is coming in May. Here is a link to the thread:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-rogue-wave-5157964
Yes, but as I wrote in one of the recent posts, I’m concerned that soon we’ll be prevented from cashing out.
Realize after the SegWit donations booty taking attack, legacy immutable Bitcoin (not BSV) which survives (as Core is destroyed) is going to be viewed as a the theft-coin. Also in theory Craig may bankrupt the exchanges who deal in SegWit addresses for their BTC. Perhaps even all the institutions hodling Bakkt futures will see their BTC go “poof and then it’s gone” if Bakkt doesn’t follow my advice to hodl in 1 legacy addresses (I did message them about it, they didn’t reply and they have promoted a roundtable discussion with Adam Back as a guest speaker). The powers-that-be ostensibly deem it’s necessary to destroy public confidence in decentralized cryptocurrency so that they can bring in centralized Libra as the alternative. So the cratering of the cryptocosm will be intentional and they don’t care about low BTC prices for a few years because they have a long-term plan horizon. Have you read this linked post about the BOE governor saying Libra should replace the U.S. dollar:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.52251343
Also today Trump’s administration announced that Chinese drug lords are using Bitcoin. And here is another reason BTC is becoming tainted:
Nonsense. A soft fork is not a fork because it doesn’t force the hodlers of BTC to make a decision. Read the Rogue Wave thread and educate yourself.
BSV is nothing but a decoy shitcoin. Craig’s globalist backers are fooling you. They will force Core to fork off and destroy itself. What remains will be the legacy, immutable Bitcoin.
You didn't explain "why this matters".
Hint: It doesn't .... at best a large/majority miner can disrupt the system ... they cannot attack it in any other effective way. But this "power of disruption" applies to any other large player in any (!!!) other type of system. It's the natural state of things.
What you wrote is Not Even Wrong.
You’re off in left field derp.
Without decentralization, there’s the potential for censorship and lack of permissionless system. And thus it’s no better than Facebook Libra. And Libra will launch with a billion prospective users.
More nonsense. The dichotomy is between immutable and variable blocksize. The former is a decentralized Schelling point and the latter is only centralized. Period.
Thus we can now ignore you.
You’re lying. I already referred you to the detailed discussion I had with @jbreher which we have somewhat summarized again.
Not ignored.
Satoshi actually did not respond again in the thread where the pleas were made. And then he conveniently disappeared. He globalist friends who control Wikileaks (Assange was living with Rothschild’s attorney) conveniently had it start accepting BTC payments so Satoshi could make an excuse to disappear without addressing the pleas for raising the blocksize limit.
How much more disinformation are you going to spew in this thread?
Why are people still obsessed with this douchebag? Proof of keys or GTFO. It is the simplest way to prove he is Satoshi. None of this foolish pageantry. Only newbies are hooked to his BSV bullshit.
In case you are new to bitcoin, selling 821,050 bitcoins is some serious showing of "proof of keys".
How quickly the myopic
Also it was on purpose that Craig Wright (who is just a pawn or front man actor for the globalists) was tasked to act like a fool, so that everyone would dismiss his warning. The globalists (who created Bitcoin) have fabricated a masterplan. Again I will link you to the information as follows:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.52251343
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.52254095
I'll read any story but doesnt mean I like it or believe any of it to be true. The opposing dynamic here seems to be the idea of an open market protocol that allows any block size to be decided variably but also we have one person seemingly in control with which everyone else has to agree. So if the market doesnt agree, when does that become accepted or is the word of one person continually repeated as the correct direction.
So far BTC is the choice of the free market, I dont mind the idea of various protocols and ideas of what might work but I dont see why its always apparently in conflict with BTC.
I'm sure there is more then 1 unit for sale but even so, the market overall doesn't decide a price by the views of the minority even if it drops short term.
So far BTC is the choice of the free market, I dont mind the idea of various protocols and ideas of what might work but I dont see why its always apparently in conflict with BTC.
Quote
Craig Wright (CSW) has also confirmed my aforementioned expectation of selling Core BTC for Tether and other USD pegged assets:
Didn't we already have something similar to this and it ended up a buying opportunity if anything. A price established on low volume or with limited participation in the market is not especially accurate. I can sell someone my bitcoin for 100 dollars like we went back a few years but even if it showed on the graph as a valid order transacted, it doesn't have significance and nobody cares for more then a moment.I'm sure there is more then 1 unit for sale but even so, the market overall doesn't decide a price by the views of the minority even if it drops short term.
STT, you need to read the Rogue Wave thread discussion. Also you’re conflating BSV with the legacy, immutable Bitcoin, so it seems you really haven’t read much at all. You are ostensibly clueless about the relative economic impacts of a SegWit “anyone can spend” donations booty taking attack versus what you observed Craig do late last year. What he did late last year was just a tiny thing compared to what is coming in May. Here is a link to the thread:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-rogue-wave-5157964
@shelby, if we store our bitcoins in a legacy address (starts with a 1) are we OK if your hypothesis is true? Will our bitcoins be safe & usable on the original legacy immutable satoshi chain?
Yes, but as I wrote in one of the recent posts, I’m concerned that soon we’ll be prevented from cashing out.
Realize after the SegWit donations booty taking attack, legacy immutable Bitcoin (not BSV) which survives (as Core is destroyed) is going to be viewed as a the theft-coin. Also in theory Craig may bankrupt the exchanges who deal in SegWit addresses for their BTC. Perhaps even all the institutions hodling Bakkt futures will see their BTC go “poof and then it’s gone” if Bakkt doesn’t follow my advice to hodl in 1 legacy addresses (I did message them about it, they didn’t reply and they have promoted a roundtable discussion with Adam Back as a guest speaker). The powers-that-be ostensibly deem it’s necessary to destroy public confidence in decentralized cryptocurrency so that they can bring in centralized Libra as the alternative. So the cratering of the cryptocosm will be intentional and they don’t care about low BTC prices for a few years because they have a long-term plan horizon. Have you read this linked post about the BOE governor saying Libra should replace the U.S. dollar:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.52251343
Also today Trump’s administration announced that Chinese drug lords are using Bitcoin. And here is another reason BTC is becoming tainted:
BSV is bitcoin. Bitcoin is BSV. BSV is the original bitcoin protocol (or as as close as you get, right now - before undoing the remainder of the idiocy that BTC developers changed in the protocol)
BTC was forked away (segwit) from the original bitcoin protocol (which people refer today as BSV) in August 2017.
It was known as BCH for a while... but then BCH also forked away (and took the name with them).
BTC was forked away (segwit) from the original bitcoin protocol (which people refer today as BSV) in August 2017.
It was known as BCH for a while... but then BCH also forked away (and took the name with them).
Nonsense. A soft fork is not a fork because it doesn’t force the hodlers of BTC to make a decision. Read the Rogue Wave thread and educate yourself.
BSV is nothing but a decoy shitcoin. Craig’s globalist backers are fooling you. They will force Core to fork off and destroy itself. What remains will be the legacy, immutable Bitcoin.
Quote
Bitcoin certainly can’t scale-out decentralized
You didn't explain "why this matters".
Hint: It doesn't .... at best a large/majority miner can disrupt the system ... they cannot attack it in any other effective way. But this "power of disruption" applies to any other large player in any (!!!) other type of system. It's the natural state of things.
What you wrote is Not Even Wrong.
You’re off in left field derp.
Without decentralization, there’s the potential for censorship and lack of permissionless system. And thus it’s no better than Facebook Libra. And Libra will launch with a billion prospective users.
Small blocks doesn't change or stop this problem .... all it does is damage the usefulness of the blockchain.
More nonsense. The dichotomy is between immutable and variable blocksize. The former is a decentralized Schelling point and the latter is only centralized. Period.
The people who matter are those who say things about bitcoin which are both useful and correct.
Thus we can now ignore you.
It was ALWAYS discussed by satoshi as something which would need to be increased (and ultimately removed) before it actually LIMITED the available blockspace below the current number of tx.
You’re lying. I already referred you to the detailed discussion I had with @jbreher which we have somewhat summarized again.
Quote from: Shelby Moore
And then Satoshi conveniently ignored pleas to raise the 1 MB before he conveniently suddenly disappeared when those pleas started to reach a crescendo again.
Not ignored.
Satoshi actually did not respond again in the thread where the pleas were made. And then he conveniently disappeared. He globalist friends who control Wikileaks (Assange was living with Rothschild’s attorney) conveniently had it start accepting BTC payments so Satoshi could make an excuse to disappear without addressing the pleas for raising the blocksize limit.
How much more disinformation are you going to spew in this thread?
Quote from: Shelby Moore
apparently originally even much smaller than 1 MB
Riiiiight. Immutable. Much smaller than 1MB. Immutable. Riiiiiiiight.