Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 3330. (Read 26715650 times)

I doubt that I need to defend cAPSLOCK because he can stand up for his lil selfie.  At the same time, you surely do like to come out swinging D_W, and I doubt there is any need to go on such an offensive, including that we are not going to know the varying ways that members are able to give, even beyond just batting around ideas in this thread or other parts of the forum.

I follow quite a few forum threads, but I cannot recall seeing one specifically aimed at various ways to fund devs.. or even funding lighting devs.  Of course, the topic comes up, but it does not seem to be one that I am specifically following, and I am not uninterested in the topic.    Even with my own management of funds, frequently there can be various competing interest, and even places to send money or to make various kinds of donations, and some people build tithing into their regular budgetary considerations, and sometimes maybe even giving to causes that should have received better due diligence.  I am tentatively thinking that I would not mind following a forum thread that might specifically be oriented towards ideas around giving/donating/funding to bitcoin core and/or lightning devs.  Square and Jack Dorsey has also been pretty good at funding Devs.. and even leaving such devs with a lot of latitude in regards to what they do.

By the way, I am addressing some of your points - and even if you might have made some decent points, it seem to me that I am likely not the ONLY one who is getting a little worn by some of your tone that seems to want to lecture (or go on the attack) about how certain kinds of behavior fit better in terms of what you believe is a true bitcoiner, and I doubt that trying to shame folks regarding what is a "good bitcoiner" and their supposed obligations to contribute/fund/donate in ways that you believe are proper (financially) is going to necessarily inspire folks with the means to feel compelled to start giving more in that giving/funding/contributing direction.  Shaming could cause the opposite.  

or even considering whether giving/contributing/funding might be in their budget 0.63 BTC, 0.05 BTC or whatever it might be, to get into giving/contributing in a monetary way, including possibly feeling comfortable enough in regards to how much due diligence that they feel that they need to engage in so that they might feel that they are giving their lil precious to a good cause rather than maybe getting involved in a shitcoin or some projects that are not so great for bitcoin.. or even if the developer(s) that they might start to fund is actually contributing to bitcoin in a way that actually makes bitcoin stronger and/or better.. rather than worse.  It is not always so obvious as you seem to be making it out to be... and if you know so much on the topic, then maybe you can start a thread or even start your own fund?  Wait you don't have hardly no BTC, so people might be skeptical of your motives, no?

I am not going to deny that sometimes I have come across some information about Developer funding efforts, but merely coming across such information (or efforts that are happening) does not necessarily inspire me to get involved or look into the matter further.. and I have already experienced some areas in my life where I end up getting involved more than I wished that I would have gotten involved.. has that ever happened to you, D_W?..

 so there are ONLY so many hours in a day... and even if you proclaim that some of us (including yours truly) should be spending our time (and money) differently than we have already chosen to do (and I surely am not even that receptive of people telling me these kinds of things, even people who actuallly know me pretty well.. and I have gotten pretty hostile, from time to time, even in real life when people make assumptions about my budget, my time or my readiness, willingness and ableness to give in ways that they presume that I should be...

It seems presumptuous also to conclude that cAPSLOCK has more coins (time or energies) than you or me, merely because he has been in bitcoin (this forum) longer.. that may well be a BIG mistake, including other balances that he has going on in his life in regards to demands on his coins (and he had mentioned some issues that he has had recently with budgets and even with draws on his time and finances.. which again I don't feel that I need to defend him (whether he is telling the truth or not.. I hardly give too many shits.. but I have no reason to doubt him in regards to those kinds of representations, either.. there are some other reprentations that he sometimes makes that I don't agree.. but whatever, he seems sufficiently fair enough.. and does not seem to attempt to drain the sympathies of others.. the vast majority of the time... or to attempt to play people.. so there is that), and in the end, we cannot assume the budgets and/or obligations and even free flow of cash of longer term bitcoiners. .even if they might have made representations of being richie as fuck and at fuck you status and even at triple super duper extra high fuck you status.... because even if some of us might be using $1 million or $2 million or some other number as a kind of fuck you status default reference point, it does not even presume other aspects of any person's actual budget or even that such same person might not be using $10k or some other personally chosen number as their own personal fuck you status level that may well deviate greatly from the default fuck you status (that I have been referring to as $2 million.. but I have never mentioned what my own fuck you status happens to be.. never ever ever.. not on the forum and not even in real life.... and yeah sometimes people want to presume that you are talking about your self when using certain numbers or percentages even if you may well have not have specified your own personal numbers in that kind of a way.

Damn, those shitcoiners have it in for you.

Glad to see you pulled through.

Explanation

Explanation

My sympathies for your family situation.  (Snipped from the quote, just in case it’s too much information.)  I hope that your people will be ok.

Based on your statements in this post, I edited another recent post of mine with an apology for and retraction of some aspersions cast on your character.

I can guess that you refer to That Other Privacy Coin.  The one with a community fund.  I am familiar with both projects, I weigh pros and cons of each—you’re right, it is off-topic for WO in itself.  I only wanted to discuss technology I have been yearning to see in Bitcoin for about the past nine years.  It got into a tangent because, hey, it is salutary to remind people that Core development gets paid for somehow.


Many pluses and minuses for me, too.  I insinuated somewhere, perhaps a bit too subtly, that they could have better manged the “dev tax” money; this type of issue has sometimes caused controversy and alienation in the Zcash community.  I was speaking only to the principle of the matter, by way of pointing out that Bitcoiners need to support Core.  Beyond that, the only part of my Zcash criticisms relevant to WO is that I am very worried by their announced plans to switch to POS, which seem to me a matter of smooth-talking VC-types putting the hard-sell on naïve crypto-nerds who are sad about their coin’s price performance.

POS is eating the world.  Old-school POW alts first:  It is strategic to isolate Bitcoin as a big consumer of energy and to set more POS-switch precedents, as anti-POW propaganda ramps up.  In addition to my fears as a longtime Zcasher, I see this ultimately as an attack on Bitcoin—the ultimate target.

I do try to keep on-topic here.  Anything that I’ve said about Zcash is ancillary to discussion of Bitcoin, and not reasonably avoidable for that.  If I wanted to praise or critique Zcash in itself, that would be a different post—and it would come off much differently.  By the way, if I wanted to discuss That Other Privacy Coin, I would discuss its decentralization and its community strengths (and RandomX) in addition to critiquing its privacy technology.  What I really want is to have it all in one place:  In Bitcoin.


Ultimately, I think that a better trustless, or trust-minimized Bitcoin sidechain implementation is needed to support numerous use cases:  Scaling, zero-knowledge proof privacy (the original Zerocoin and Zerocash ideas were for BTC on Bitcoin sidechains!), smart contracts/on-chain programmability (wtf am I doing on POS chains? need the features), the non-scam parts of defi, non-idiotic NFTs, etc.

I am very strictly against spamming the Bitcoin mainnet (e.g., check post history re so-called “burner addresses”).  But I am cautious about discussing sidechains:  I know that many ideas have undesirable security risks.

I am aware of RSK, but an EthVM clone is not exactly my cup of tea.  I do like that it is merge-mined with Bitcoin.  I am very much in favour of merge-mining sidechains (or altcoins) with Bitcoin.

---

^^^ The discussion of sidechains incited a brainstorm.  Of something else that could be done with ZKP on mainnet; another non-privacy application thereof, in addition to the idea I had in the Development forum a few weeks ago.  Sat here a long time thinking about it...  Need to post this; to be continued somewhere/sometime.

Explanation

I agree NFT's might end up useful tech for just the thing you are mentioning (titles, other single certificate type uses) but I think the best implementation would be a federated sidechain.  I think cities, counties, states and the federal government, title companies etc. could be members of the sidechain, and others could subscribe.  It would be hash-anchored to bitcoin, but maintained by the federation.

A to my railing against ZCash, you are right, though I had heard about them moving to the non trusted new tech I have not followed closely to see that they had.  That's a plus.  But there are many minuses still for me.  And with life being how it currently is for me (one child in the hospital long term, another in a country halfway around the world, and a personal visit this weekend to the ER duraing a terrifying negative prescription drug reaction) I have not had time to respond to much here.

That said, I have several complaints about that project.  Do not agree with the Dev tax argument, though I am sympathetic.  Have anonymously donated to both Bitcoin Development as well as another project along the way.  Both my own money and my time in the form of community contributions and merged pull requests on both projects.  But along with my personal circumstances, as it has been mentioned here alts are taboo, which I try to respect 90% of the time..

Hah, Plan 9 !

You must be pracketing richcraft... 

You are lamentably mistaken about my intents.

I seek to shame cAPSLOCK for his apparently self-entitled attitude towards Bitcoin.  If he has never donated to support Core development, or otherwise Bitcoinland open-source development, then he is like a welfare bum demanding that others enrich him with freebies—even as he unconscionably sneers at a little altcoin project, which could never have existed without its self-funding mechanism (a.k.a. the “dev tax”).  [Edit: I was mistaken about cAPSLOCK; I could go only on what I had or hadn’t seen him post, and it seems that I significantly misunderstood him.  I retract and apologize for the statements at this paragraph, which were correct in principle but way off the mark when said about him.]

I have thus a purpose greater than petty argumentation:  To encourage WO regulars to support Bitcoin Core.  To support development financially, in the sense of “put your money where your money is”.

I am NOT addressing sat-stackers and shrimps; heaven knows, I know what it is like to be in a position where you are scrimping for every sat.  But when you get yourself up to at least a few BTC, then you should start seriously thinking about this; and if you have >= 10 BTC, a small-sized hodling for most people who have been in BTC at least 8–10 years as of 2022, then it is rational self-interest to support development.  Because Bitcoin ultimately stands on a foundation built by its world-class excellent developers!  If development were ever to stall out or degrade in quality, then Bitcoin would suck; and your number would go down in a competitive world, where BTC is not the only option.

That said, I pick on cAPSLOCK because he deserves it.  The way this line of discussion started:  cAPSLOCK defamed and cussed out Tyler Winklevoss, a big BTC HODLer who, with his ingeminate brother Cameron, were the twin Saylors of an era when Saylor himself dismissed Bitcoin.  By comparison to Saylor, the Winklevi didn’t have much for stacking sats—only a few measly millions, with which they had accumulated about 1% of the outstanding BTC supply as of 2012.  They bet on BTC big-time!  And they bet big on Bitcoin at a time when, according to one of my own recent posts:

Thus in the 2017 bull run, they became on paper the world’s first “Bitcoin billionaires”.  I don’t know of any evidence that they turned against the source of their wealth, as some early Bitcoiners did.  And as centralized exchanges go, their Gemini exchange is reasonably pro-Bitcoin—definitely not anti-Bitcoin like cAPSLOCK’s preferred exchange, shitcoin central: Coinbase!

cAPSLOCK essentially accused Tyler Winklevoss of taking shill payola from Zcash’s “dev tax” to make a tweet supporting the right to privacy.  What the hell?

I don’t do “batslaps”, Jay.  I have my own way.  And I found in this a salutary way to campaign for HODLers, who benefit from Bitcoin, to give something back.  If you take care of Bitcoin, then Bitcoin will take care of you.  Bitcoin cannot take care of itself, for it has no “dev tax”.

As I mentioned in some of my recent posts, some BTC whales, big businesses, and exchanges are very good about this.  That is why Bitcoin is what it is today:  Somebody pays for development.

I recently wrote some long posts praising Blockstream for being, insofar as I can see, a company that looks like it’s essentially run to advance Bitcoin development with developers on their payroll.  For another example, the BitMEX exchange is well-known for its development funding grants; that is why I tend to be sympathetic to BitMEX, and I have defended their reputation in controversies, even though I have never used BitMEX and I have no financial interest in them.  I have also had private discussions about this with Bitcoiners who have large BTC hodlings, who despise WO and all other speculation venues.  They are generous towards Core development.  All HODLers benefit.

If you have a not-insignificant HODLing—if you want Bitcoin to make you rich—then I suggest that you should think long-term about the foundation on which your riches are reposed.  Funding for Bitcoin Core development is an investment in Bitcoin’s long-term health and prosperity.

Explanation

Nit:  It is Unix, POSIX, not only Linux.  wc(1) far antedates Linux.  (And Plan 9 also has a wc(1) utility.)

IEEE standard wc:
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/wc.html

I also found a nully quote substantively similar to empowering’s statement quoted at the top; but this string of quotes will get too long here.

By the standards of some leading DT members, that is 100% CONCLUSIVE PROOF that empowering is a nully alt.  Any contradiction of this proof shall only strengthen the proof to 1000% conclusiveness, with pretzel-logic that puts you in a classic Kafkatrap.^*  Denial of an allegation proves the allegation.  Refusal to answer equals denial, and therefore proves the allegation.  @empowering, you must confess, as if you are on trial for witchcraft...

(Hey, nully was infamous for his sympathies with witches.)

...and this is of critical importance because—um, I dunno.  You/nullius are not accused of any fraud based on scamming people with multiple identities, or of any other multi-account abuses.  There is no rational reason to make an issue of the possibility that you may or may not be nullius.  Frankly, it is nobody’s business if you are.  But for whatever reason, the most important issue in the world is to make you admit your nullianity right now, on the spot, on-demand.  If you don’t, that also proves that nullius is a deeply dishonest and untrustworthy person.

Now, empowering, since I have PROVED that you are nullius and you had better well damn confess, I must wonder:  “empowering” was created in 2013.  “nullius” was created in 2017.  Have I discovered nully’s “main account”?  Or is there an older one?

---

^* “Kafkatrap” is a coin termed by ESR in 2010 for an informal fallacy, in which denial of an accusation is taken as evidence that the accusation is true.  It is a disturbingly common fallacy.  And once you are in a Kafkatrap, the harder you struggle to prove your denial, the worse you are lying to cover up and evade the truth.

Explanation

Explanation

@JJG  the command in Linux   wc  is short for "word count". It's a small free utility included with every version of Linux for decades.  You run it manually, from a command line. In my case, I save copy/paste into a text file (dodging around quotes, to keep it pure), then run wc with the appropriate switches. Here's all the switches, I just use -w for here.

The jjg1.txt stuff is small errors on my part, in multiple filenames saving them locally. It's all in good fun, since you are infamous...  Now wc gives an easy way to compare. But, ain't nobody got time for that...

The  options  below may be used to select which counts are printed, always in the following order: newline, word,  character,  byte,  maximum
       line length.

       -c, --bytes
              print the byte counts

       -m, --chars
              print the character counts

       -l, --lines
              print the newline counts

       --files0-from=F
              read  input  from the files specified by NUL-terminated names in
              file F; If F is - then read names from standard input

       -L, --max-line-length
              print the maximum display width

       -w, --words
              print the word counts

       --help display this help and exit

       --version
              output version information and exit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JYp9eGC3Cc&t=52s

My impression might not be exactly the same as Hueristic, but still in the ballpark of what the fuck you bringing that shit here.

This is not a technical thread, but you want to bombard the thread with technical mumbo-jumbo, and if you want to fix (improve) bitcoin in various ways work on your BIP and/or partner up with some like-minded and complementary dweeb like ur lil selfie, and set forth the BIP..

If there is a BIP, you can still reference it here.

Surely, in the end, you have the right to post whatever the fuck you want here, including no need to self-censor like you mentioned, but it seems like you are striving to appeal to the wrong audience in these here parts.. we are better at fart jokes and things like that... looking at you    @sirazimuth

 


Fuck shitcoins and their pumpenings in these here parts.


Even if you are correct... who fucking cares?

Do you have a fart joke?  or a cladily dressed chica?  chico for bbbbbbaaaawwwbbbb.. ?

in udder wurds..

ain't nobody got time for comparison contrasts regarding which shitcoin might be less shitty in terms of some abstract presentations that ONLY fewer than 1 (if that's possible) out of 100 of us will likely understand 1/4 of what you be saying anyhow.  Not that very many of us (royal perhaps?) even understand 1/2 of what you be saying when you are talking about somewhat "normal" and potentially within our grasps topics.

Explanation

Yeah, The Doc said I was pretty lucky all the bones are lined up so they didn't have to pin them but I'm pretty sure thats because I got up and aligned them while leaning on the dude that pulled over. LOL

Funny thing is the guy who finally stopped ended up being someone I played against all night.

*Also they were giving me fentanol injections so I asked the doc if he was trying to OD me?

I understand that you are being both a bit tongue and cheek, but you are also attempting to suggest that none of us are completely pure, and surely I have no problems with that, but even when you might be trying to play off of ongoing misconceptions, you still seem to be playing with fire in the various ways that you are poking fun.

On a personal basis, I know that negative brushing of bitcoin existed at the time that I got in, and also that a lot of the negative brushing pre-dated me, and some of t had factual bases to it, too.

Sometimes there was jest too, so it's going to be difficult to impute blameworthy type knowledge - even to folks who might have gotten involved in one way or another with individuals of questionable characters - but just like you were suggesting the other day, sometimes we still might need to figure out if some people might have characters less pure than they proclaim based on some of their prior involvement in certain kinds of businesses or even certain positions that they took in various public forums.

One of the risks for me has been that I have written a quite a few words, over the years, believe it or not.. and yeah, we live in a much more complicated world when we have the various combination choices in regards to various online identities and real life identities and the extent to which those sometimes might get connected, and ev en how much do we need to be traceable if we are just spouting out information on the interwebs versus if we might be wanting to sell a good or service to someone.. a tangible or an intangible?

Surely there has been more and more thoughts in relationship to how internet identities might be connected in somewhat anonymous ways, and surely some folks are going to want to start over if they did some illegal or scammy shit, so it might not alway be clear if there might be work arounds for some of the new systems that are being proposed and developed.
 

Seems to me that people can choose however they like to spin the past, and we are not always going to want to spin matters in the same way that you do, which surely might provide value if there are different ways of spinning similar facts. .. and your contrary way of spinning the matter, D_W, which you seem to be implying is more true, shows that it is quite doubtful that anyone would have necessarily have been imputed with the knowledge that you are proclaiming to be emblematic of the referenced (in this case 2012) period.


Fuck shitcoins and your seemingly holier than thou attempts to inject their discussion in this thread as if the various compare and contrast cost/benefits are as very relevant at all to our discussion in these here parts as you are trying to make them out to be through your implicit denigration of our lil precious too..

Remember.. overall we are not claiming to be a bunch of smarties here, but you seem to want to get us into various in the weeds discussion of bitcoin.. but instead why not take those kinds of promotions about how your various shitcoins and their funding is wonderful to some other thread where you are pumping those kinds of seemingly nuanced / nonsense compare contrast talking points, no?

Recall the default mode in this here thread seems to be "fuck shitcoins, ain't nobody got time for that."  "Take your nuanced criticizing of king daddy pumping of dee shitcoins bullshit to some udder parts."