News URL : https://twitter.com/cnLedger/status/744528738113642499
Topic: The Bullish Bitcoin Media Center (The ONLY Bullish Bitcoin News Thread) - page 120. (Read 259656 times)
June 19, 2016, 03:11:12 PM
June 19, 2016, 03:10:40 PM
Fakhoury
Here is another great news
http://bravenewcoin.com/news/imf-report-calls-bitcoins-blockchain-the-internet-of-trust/
have a nice day
Here is another great news
http://bravenewcoin.com/news/imf-report-calls-bitcoins-blockchain-the-internet-of-trust/
have a nice day
Danijel, thanks for the awesome news buddy, bullish as usual
Have a great day
June 19, 2016, 03:10:04 PM
What I disliked JJG is the attacking and it would reach flaming also.
Me and you have different points of view, but we like and respect each others as friends and brothers.
But to start attacking you and dismiss your right in thanking or giving credit for what you've done, this is not acceptable at all by me and you.
I believe that none of us are really beyond attacking, either when we are being attacked or when we are recognized the posting of repeated nonsense. I certainly am not beyond attacking folks, especially when it seems warranted.
I recall when you and I first started interacting, you asserted that you were about ready to put me on ignore because you felt that I was attacking Stolfi too much, and in essence, I explained to you that my perception of Stolfi was based on a series of his apparent passive aggressive posts in which he was continuing to spread disinformation and to selectively spin facts, which was very misleading, even though he was nice about it, he deserved to be attacked from time to time... and maybe even ferociously...?? hahahahahaha
I am pretty tolerant of debate and disagreement and even some bullshit arguments when there are attempts to back them up with either logic, facts or both... but I do sometimes begin to lose my cool when attempting to engage with someone and they continue to just spout out talking points and it seems to be more of an effort at misleading, rather than an attempt at genuinely pointing out some kind of bitcoin weakness.
Believe it or not my friend, I don't recall that I was going to put you on ignore list because of Stolfi.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you are a liar, AT ALL. The thing is that the most person I hate on the forum here is Stolfi and in that case, I would've felt in love with you since then
I extremely hate Stolfi because of his FUD and the hatred he saves and shares towards us.
I will concede that maybe I have a false memory in this regard. I thought that we had some communications regarding such subject, but surely it is possible that I am mixing you up with someone else.
The only take I had on you is that you are somehow "conservative" and didn't get my joke when you PMed me few days about when you told me something about this thread.
Yeah.. conservative in respect to my bitcoin investment, and sometimes that is reflected in how I talk about my anticipation of Bitcoin's future.
Don't worry my brother, it's OK
It seems we will have a good load of bullish news today, if Allah (God) wanted
June 19, 2016, 09:34:00 AM
Fakhoury
Here is another great news
http://bravenewcoin.com/news/imf-report-calls-bitcoins-blockchain-the-internet-of-trust/
have a nice day
Here is another great news
http://bravenewcoin.com/news/imf-report-calls-bitcoins-blockchain-the-internet-of-trust/
have a nice day
June 18, 2016, 09:07:54 PM
What I disliked JJG is the attacking and it would reach flaming also.
Me and you have different points of view, but we like and respect each others as friends and brothers.
But to start attacking you and dismiss your right in thanking or giving credit for what you've done, this is not acceptable at all by me and you.
I believe that none of us are really beyond attacking, either when we are being attacked or when we are recognized the posting of repeated nonsense. I certainly am not beyond attacking folks, especially when it seems warranted.
I recall when you and I first started interacting, you asserted that you were about ready to put me on ignore because you felt that I was attacking Stolfi too much, and in essence, I explained to you that my perception of Stolfi was based on a series of his apparent passive aggressive posts in which he was continuing to spread disinformation and to selectively spin facts, which was very misleading, even though he was nice about it, he deserved to be attacked from time to time... and maybe even ferociously...?? hahahahahaha
I am pretty tolerant of debate and disagreement and even some bullshit arguments when there are attempts to back them up with either logic, facts or both... but I do sometimes begin to lose my cool when attempting to engage with someone and they continue to just spout out talking points and it seems to be more of an effort at misleading, rather than an attempt at genuinely pointing out some kind of bitcoin weakness.
Believe it or not my friend, I don't recall that I was going to put you on ignore list because of Stolfi.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you are a liar, AT ALL. The thing is that the most person I hate on the forum here is Stolfi and in that case, I would've felt in love with you since then
I extremely hate Stolfi because of his FUD and the hatred he saves and shares towards us.
I will concede that maybe I have a false memory in this regard. I thought that we had some communications regarding such subject, but surely it is possible that I am mixing you up with someone else.
The only take I had on you is that you are somehow "conservative" and didn't get my joke when you PMed me few days about when you told me something about this thread.
Yeah.. conservative in respect to my bitcoin investment, and sometimes that is reflected in how I talk about my anticipation of Bitcoin's future.
June 18, 2016, 08:16:36 PM
What I disliked JJG is the attacking and it would reach flaming also.
Me and you have different points of view, but we like and respect each others as friends and brothers.
But to start attacking you and dismiss your right in thanking or giving credit for what you've done, this is not acceptable at all by me and you.
I believe that none of us are really beyond attacking, either when we are being attacked or when we are recognized the posting of repeated nonsense. I certainly am not beyond attacking folks, especially when it seems warranted.
I recall when you and I first started interacting, you asserted that you were about ready to put me on ignore because you felt that I was attacking Stolfi too much, and in essence, I explained to you that my perception of Stolfi was based on a series of his apparent passive aggressive posts in which he was continuing to spread disinformation and to selectively spin facts, which was very misleading, even though he was nice about it, he deserved to be attacked from time to time... and maybe even ferociously...?? hahahahahaha
I am pretty tolerant of debate and disagreement and even some bullshit arguments when there are attempts to back them up with either logic, facts or both... but I do sometimes begin to lose my cool when attempting to engage with someone and they continue to just spout out talking points and it seems to be more of an effort at misleading, rather than an attempt at genuinely pointing out some kind of bitcoin weakness.
Believe it or not my friend, I don't recall that I was going to put you on ignore list because of Stolfi.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you are a liar, AT ALL. The thing is that the most person I hate on the forum here is Stolfi and in that case, I would've felt in love with you since then
I extremely hate Stolfi because of his FUD and the hatred he saves and shares towards us.
The only take I had on you is that you are somehow "conservative" and didn't get my joke when you PMed me few days about when you told me something about this thread.
June 18, 2016, 07:09:01 PM
What I disliked JJG is the attacking and it would reach flaming also.
Me and you have different points of view, but we like and respect each others as friends and brothers.
But to start attacking you and dismiss your right in thanking or giving credit for what you've done, this is not acceptable at all by me and you.
I believe that none of us are really beyond attacking, either when we are being attacked or when we are recognized the posting of repeated nonsense. I certainly am not beyond attacking folks, especially when it seems warranted.
I recall when you and I first started interacting, you asserted that you were about ready to put me on ignore because you felt that I was attacking Stolfi too much, and in essence, I explained to you that my perception of Stolfi was based on a series of his apparent passive aggressive posts in which he was continuing to spread disinformation and to selectively spin facts, which was very misleading, even though he was nice about it, he deserved to be attacked from time to time... and maybe even ferociously...?? hahahahahaha
I am pretty tolerant of debate and disagreement and even some bullshit arguments when there are attempts to back them up with either logic, facts or both... but I do sometimes begin to lose my cool when attempting to engage with someone and they continue to just spout out talking points and it seems to be more of an effort at misleading, rather than an attempt at genuinely pointing out some kind of bitcoin weakness.
June 18, 2016, 06:17:52 PM
Actually, yep... various folks also wear combination of hats, and may be acting in one capacity in time 1 and another capacity in time 2, and some of these folks may be benevolent and/or honest and other are tricky... but in the end, bitcoin is supposed to be relatively trustless system, though we cannot completely get away from trust - especially because there are also various centralized systems that are built on top of bitcoin that may require some trust, even though bitcoin itself does not require trust (at least that's the theory)..
I also think that sometimes, this mechanism to attempt to get protocol changes that makes it very difficult for devs to agree on the causes advantages bitcoin by not allowing changes unless is an overwhelming large number of folks in agreement... so we kind of get stuck with the original design of bitcoin and modest changes to bitcoin and truly vetted changes.. Which is all fine and dandy, so long as the original design is not broken.
Regarding what happened today? Do you mean what happened to day in respect to the hacking of the DAO, or something else?
I also think that sometimes, this mechanism to attempt to get protocol changes that makes it very difficult for devs to agree on the causes advantages bitcoin by not allowing changes unless is an overwhelming large number of folks in agreement... so we kind of get stuck with the original design of bitcoin and modest changes to bitcoin and truly vetted changes.. Which is all fine and dandy, so long as the original design is not broken.
Regarding what happened today? Do you mean what happened to day in respect to the hacking of the DAO, or something else?
I agree with the second paragraph (along with what you said as well for sure), since consensus is a must, this makes me ultra comfortable that we will most of the time if not always have the right decision.
I meant with what happened in the Wall Observer thread, the fight between core and classic, as always :\
1) part of the strength of bitcoin remains it's actual invention that starts from a super strong foundation that solves the double spend problem.. and there is a large enough community of persons, both in the development and in the mining community that recognize and respect that any changes to bitcoin cannot compromise foundational bitcoin principles - or otherwise convert bitcoin into something that it is not.... and the survival of the attempt at a hardfork likely taught a lot more people the lesson of identifying threats such as XT/classic and the like.
2) I suppose that there is nothing unusual about having disparate and combative views in the space, and we cannot necessarily expect any such kind of harmony (except maybe in a thread like this in which you may likely remove the shills). In any event, when forums are not very much censored (such as the WO thread), there are going to be a lot of strong views, and only the real obvious shills and trolls are removed, the others are going to be able to express their anti-bitcoin opinions and to muddy the waters especially if they at least attempt to provide some evidence and/or logic for their views (even while sometimes spreading misinformation, at the same time).
What I disliked JJG is the attacking and it would reach flaming also.
Me and you have different points of view, but we like and respect each others as friends and brothers.
But to start attacking you and dismiss your right in thanking or giving credit for what you've done, this is not acceptable at all by me and you.
Personally, I think that one of the more important points of this LinkedIn sale is to point out the value of LinkedIn as $26 billion, and bitcoin is likely much more valuable (at present day) than LinkedIn, and therefore, we should easily be able to witness a doubling of the bitcoin's current priced based on such recognition of such bitcoin value.. which is likely soon to come. A question remains regarding recognition of Bitcoin's value... which sometimes can take some time and some media attention and educating of the public.
I agree with you, as always, and the media sooner or later will address us, the real FOMO and media attention will start when we pass the old ATH, as every single dollar above the previous ATH, is already an ATH.
Plus, the billions invested by VC's will take time to see it results, in 5 - 10 years if Allah (God) wanted, you will see where we are and I will remind you
June 18, 2016, 06:04:07 PM
Personally, I think that one of the more important points of this LinkedIn sale is to point out the value of LinkedIn as $26 billion, and bitcoin is likely much more valuable (at present day) than LinkedIn, and therefore, we should easily be able to witness a doubling of the bitcoin's current priced based on such recognition of such bitcoin value.. which is likely soon to come. A question remains regarding recognition of Bitcoin's value... which sometimes can take some time and some media attention and educating of the public.
June 18, 2016, 05:57:20 PM
Actually, yep... various folks also wear combination of hats, and may be acting in one capacity in time 1 and another capacity in time 2, and some of these folks may be benevolent and/or honest and other are tricky... but in the end, bitcoin is supposed to be relatively trustless system, though we cannot completely get away from trust - especially because there are also various centralized systems that are built on top of bitcoin that may require some trust, even though bitcoin itself does not require trust (at least that's the theory)..
I also think that sometimes, this mechanism to attempt to get protocol changes that makes it very difficult for devs to agree on the causes advantages bitcoin by not allowing changes unless is an overwhelming large number of folks in agreement... so we kind of get stuck with the original design of bitcoin and modest changes to bitcoin and truly vetted changes.. Which is all fine and dandy, so long as the original design is not broken.
Regarding what happened today? Do you mean what happened to day in respect to the hacking of the DAO, or something else?
I also think that sometimes, this mechanism to attempt to get protocol changes that makes it very difficult for devs to agree on the causes advantages bitcoin by not allowing changes unless is an overwhelming large number of folks in agreement... so we kind of get stuck with the original design of bitcoin and modest changes to bitcoin and truly vetted changes.. Which is all fine and dandy, so long as the original design is not broken.
Regarding what happened today? Do you mean what happened to day in respect to the hacking of the DAO, or something else?
I agree with the second paragraph (along with what you said as well for sure), since consensus is a must, this makes me ultra comfortable that we will most of the time if not always have the right decision.
I meant with what happened in the Wall Observer thread, the fight between core and classic, as always :\
1) part of the strength of bitcoin remains it's actual invention that starts from a super strong foundation that solves the double spend problem.. and there is a large enough community of persons, both in the development and in the mining community that recognize and respect that any changes to bitcoin cannot compromise foundational bitcoin principles - or otherwise convert bitcoin into something that it is not.... and the survival of the attempt at a hardfork likely taught a lot more people the lesson of identifying threats such as XT/classic and the like.
2) I suppose that there is nothing unusual about having disparate and combative views in the space, and we cannot necessarily expect any such kind of harmony (except maybe in a thread like this in which you may likely remove the shills). In any event, when forums are not very much censored (such as the WO thread), there are going to be a lot of strong views, and only the real obvious shills and trolls are removed, the others are going to be able to express their anti-bitcoin opinions and to muddy the waters especially if they at least attempt to provide some evidence and/or logic for their views (even while sometimes spreading misinformation, at the same time).
June 18, 2016, 05:44:11 PM
June 18, 2016, 05:39:49 PM
June 18, 2016, 05:25:14 PM
June 18, 2016, 05:22:18 PM
June 18, 2016, 05:17:26 PM
June 18, 2016, 04:58:08 PM
Jump to: