Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 14505. (Read 26608261 times)

JJG:  we can talk about it later after the kids have gone to bed.

Actually I have never questioned the intelligence of anyone in this thread. But it's tempting sometimes.

Shorts continue to grow on a net basis.

What is "EDA"?  My brain is not converting this.

It's self evident what the consensus is just by looking at TX's.  Last BCash block had a total of 2 tx's. LOL.. 2 that's it. 2.    As opposed to the 13k tx's on Bitcoin.

The bottom line is that if the wallet you use can't process pre-fork coins then it is not bitcoin. I don't see why anything more needs to be said on the topic.

+10 WOsMerits  

Somewhere back we where having a delightful conversation...its buried and half forgotten.  
*Hugs*   ....moving forward.


If I make crude joke Arri...are you going to question peoples intelligence again?  



Could it be this way?



Should have a better idea at the close of todays candle.

GBG

Neither. I am here to illuminate my point of view.

Won’t somebody think of the charts?

By definition, it is impossible to steal something which is free to use. Indignance aside, you have no leg to stand on here.


A vanishingly small number. And completely inadvertent. If you're gonna get involved in crypto without doing your due diligence, you're gonna have a bad time. No matter what particular coin.

Why are we going over the same old BCash nonsense again?

1) Wrong. Bitcoin, following the established consensus rules set from the beginning, did an upgrade to Segwit. Some people, going AGAINST that consensus decided to create a fork with a bunch of UNconsensuated rules (like the difficulty change algo and bigger blocks) so it wasn't even some rogue people deciding to maintain the previous branch AGAINST the newly consesuated rules, BUT A COMPLETELY NEW AND DIFFERENT THING. <- The point here is, anyways, CONSENSUATED OR NOT, according to the pre-established rules.

2) The bad faith was in some prominent proponents of that unconsensuated rogue fork PUBLICLY INSISTING that it was "THE REAL BITCOIN". And don't make start on arguing about all the rest of statements like it was going to be the predominant chain, etc etc....

3) I was very prudent in chosing "branding" instead of BRAND, as I am well aware of the implications of both concepts.

4) Parasiting is exactly what hapenned here. I didn't even argue if it was or wasn't a trademark infringent, but an intentional malicious "parasiting" sure did happen. Also, there wasn't any need to "save" Bitcoin from anything. And even if there were, that was NOT the way to do it.

Yes.

Hahahaha. Fuck you very much.


Bitcoin.com is not a scam, it is a URL. What is scammy about that? Further, in what way does the existence of such make me a scammer?


The EDA was shown to be an effective manner for a coin to fork off. In what way is that a scam? Do you assert that miners _owe_ the Bitcoin Segwit fork to operate only upon it? In what way does the existence of the EDA make me a scammer?


You're going to have to explain what you mean by this, as I have no idea.


Do you assert that a blockchain is responsible for the actions of individuals? What is your evidence that such spam attacks actually occurred? That they were perpetrated by 'Bitcoin Cash'? What is it about spam attacks that makes them scams? What context makes me responsible for such spam attacks?


Like Adam Back's admitted 'team of narrative correctors'? Incidentally, which sock puppets? Are sock puppets inherently scams?
 And in what way does this existence of such make me a scammer?


Like Adam Back's admitted 'team of narrative correctors'? For that matter, where's your evidence that such have occurred? What is it about social media campaigns that inherently make them scams? And of course, in what way does the existence of such make me a scammer?


At the time of the forks, Bitcoin Cash had as legitimate a claim on the title as did Bitcoin Segwit. Indeed, the only reason it does not currently have the title is that there is greater accumulated PoW on the Bitcoin Segwit fork. What with Satoshi's definition and all. Where is the scam in that? (I still hold out hope that this will change).


I don't much participate in any reddit fora. Thanks anyhow.

No one need respond to jbreher.  He is engaging in social media disinformation 101 through wanting to “discuss” the issues and asking so innocent questions, pretending he does not understand.  The fact that he is deliberately doing this right now marks him as a scammer.

He is not here to learn, he is only here to troll.

That's what I like so much about this place...

Always learning helpful new information, and I am gonna have to try some of these variations in the real world and see how far they take me... .... I can hear myself already... "Are you fucking retarded Nigga, I am NOT using "er", can't you hear it in my enunciation? , plus I said it in a nice tone, especially the first time when I passed by you in the liquor store, and further I should not have to 'splain this kind of basic common sense to you."

Wish me luck with this...

Makes me also considered whether my bitcoin's have good and clear destination paths for some day after I am gone?

Really? Not one single joke about Rick being Dick?

It is about a 20 minute video, and I made it about 2.5 minutes into it before I had to shut it off.

When the guy labels bitcoin (core) as the bitcoin fork of bitcoin and kind of rolled his eyes, and said something like the aspirations of segwit and lightning network failed to be realized.. blah blah blah.. ..   There is not enough time in the world to be wasting on that kind of distractive fantastical bullshit...

Again. Enlightened. /s