You will notice that in any online debate, a person who has been pushed into corner will start replying to you in parts quoting each part separately. It's a sign of weakness. They think that if they cut the post into smaller pieces it's easier for them to make it seem like they've nailed it.
When you start seeing this, you know that the starter of it is already defeated, but is unable to admit it, so they will indulge in cluster-quoting to save face. I'm doing this for the illustrative purpose and for laughs, but it's really established already that the dialogue has come to a dead end.
BSV is quite spectacular in a sense that it's THE ONLY ONE that has no block size limit at all and works perfectly well. "simply another big block fork" does not apply here, because even BCH has block size limit, they all do, except for the BSV. Quite an achievement for a mere scam, don't you think?
Not really; its the adjustment of a single parameter.
If it's not spectacular then why hasn't it been done in more than ONE instance? Keep saying to yourself that it's "not really spectacular" when it very clearly is.
If there wasn't for BSV we would not have a single public block chain remaining that complies to the directives of the original whitepaper. Both BCH and BTC have deviated from the original design so much that they are no longer recognizable as BitCoin.
You're now making this a religious argument. So, you switched to Puritanism because you thought the excesses of the Catholic Church made it drift away from the teachings of Jesus. That's great. However, Bitcoin isn't a religion -- its a technology, and its free to evolve, even if it does it in such a way that renders the utility of your coin obsolete.
No, you are. That's called building a strawman, which in your case is "the religious argument". If that was really the case then TCP would have kept evolving too, making it practically impossible for high speed networking hardware to be developed. A protocol must not evolve. If you had any knowledge of the technicalities of building distributed computer systems then you wouldn't even dare to propose such a comparison. That's the main problem with BitCoin in general. Completely computer illiterate people have made it their business to discuss these matters, bringing ridiculous comparisons to religion and what not, to compensate for the fact that they lack professional vocabulary.
Your scam argument does not hold either, because I know for fact that Craig Wright and he alone is Satoshi.
You know it "for a fact," do you? Prove it.
Yes, I've got empirical evidence. I can't prove it to you if you refuse to open your eyes. I could present any fact to you but it's ultimately up to you to either take it as a fact or keep hiding your head under the sand.
You may believe otherwise but history is full of examples where people have been fooled by the (social) media.
Its also full of examples where people have been fooled by con artists, fake prophets, gurus, cult of personalities, and shyster salesmen.
Which only proves the fact that one should do their own research and in case of a controversy, the least you can do is to discard your existing bias and listen to what both sides have to say. Have you done that? It seems to me that you just keep clinging even harder to your dear belief, which is typical of course.
By the way, don't post twice in a row or you second post is likely to be deleted by a moderator. The next time you have a new thought, and you were the last one to post in a thread, simply edit your last post to include your new thoughts. I'm pointing this out to you now so you don't claim you are being conspired against later.
You would love that, don't you? Too much truth in too short time can get highly discomfortable, to the extent where an excuse for "moderation" can be found from any bush.
or alternatively, you're a simpleton who's mind freezes when it has to deal with recursion, so like a true NPCs that you are, you fall back to "aussie man bad" if you can't comprehend the recursion.
