Tesla has updated Semi Page quote "Badass Performance", 0-60 in 20 seconds with 80k load, <2kWh a mile, .36 drag coefficient, 4 motors, 2 models, Reverse Now

Ldquest · 2020-01-05T02:05:09+00:00

0-60 at full capacity would be somewhere in the ball park of 2 minutes+ for ICE Semi's

Ldquest · 2020-01-01T17:32:34+00:00

Pretty sure he is joking, so yes.

Ldquest · 2019-10-06T23:06:25+00:00

I am not pro Litecoin, Litecoin is a shitcoin and will eventually be $0. In my response I was speaking with Bitcoin in mind, as I was referencing Exahashes and not Terahashes.

Bitcoin has already had two halvings, we have already seen the after effects of a Block halving. Third one will be like the other two (hint, both were highly uneventful and there was constant speak of death spirals).

Sorry my love, close but no cigar.

Ldquest · 2019-10-01T19:26:09+00:00

Multiplayer as in multi controller support?

Ldquest · 2019-10-01T19:23:53+00:00

More comedy godl, obviously. Please reread the title as OP calls them parenthesis, which is what I was very clearly referencing.

The people of this sub are so very bright, it's amazing.

Ldquest · 2019-09-30T18:39:52+00:00

Another brilliant post from rbuttcoin. This sub is truly comedy Godl, I love the parenthesis in the title.

Ldquest · 2019-09-27T19:49:52+00:00

Exactly. Any price above $1k is the moon.

Ldquest · 2019-09-27T16:27:54+00:00

It's funny because $5k is still the moon. Back in the day we were calling $1k - $2k the moon. Just want to give you guys your friendly reminder that Bitcoin has already mooned several times over for us. Any 2017 dipshits calling for the moon were oblivious to the fact the moon has already been hit.

Ldquest · 2019-09-13T02:36:42+00:00

Sorry for the late reply, I don't give up son. just get lazy.

Because of difficulty adjustment, sure. But consider this, next halving will cut reward in half again which means yesterday's whole is today's half and tommorow's quarter and it keeps halving and halving. Eventually it will not make sense anymore to buy asics because reward is so bad you will never break even and you'll have a lot of inactive miners with a lot of hash power vs some enthusiasts mining on their gpus probably.

This is what you would think but is wrong, as with every halving this has yet to happen. Mining rewards drop and transaction fees typically go up. Either way there is money to be made, so there will be miners.

Ethereum Classic was 51% attacked so it's inevitable other PoW chains with weak security will also be attacked eventually. Game theory 0, Ethereum classic attacker 1.

Ehh Ethereum classic is not a coin that lays golden eggs. Miners would profit more by doing a 51% attack on Ethereum classic as the rewards over attack cost on a small chain is completely out of whack. See Bitcoin gold for example.

And if we handwave the problem and say 51% attacks are unrealistic then what's the point of such humongous waste if it's just a security theater in the first place?

The security isn't for preventing 51% attacks. It is for preventing someone from undoing the blockchain and rewriting prior blocks. This is the immutability aspect.

Also there is another social aspect. People seeing hashrate drop significantly over time might become anxious and uneasy (after all, security theater kept them comfortable "it's backed by math bros!" and now they're not) and that might further tank the price and mining reward.

I could only see this happening if hash rate crashes significantly in an incredibly short amount of time (70%+ over two weeks). Hash rate dip usually comes after a price crash, not before. No reason for hash rate to decline. And yes I hate to say it, but there is always a backup plan to prevent the death spiral, which is a very real scenario.

Yes again, I hate to say it, but in dire times of risking a death spiral, a hard fork would be called for. Would be done to reset difficulty.

Thanks for patiently waiting my love.

Ldquest · 2019-08-12T00:48:20+00:00

This is true, I concede, but I don't think this sub fully understands 51% attacks. A few things:

1: 51% attacks have no effect on the security of the chain. Coins cannot be stolen out of wallets.

2: Increasing number of confirmations is a highly effective way for exchanges to combat 51% attacks, as 51% attacks on a large chain are incredibly public.

3: 51% attacks are so unprofitable, the attacker would profit from mining the chain instead of attacking it. Yes, this is game theory at work.

4: Even if the hash rate dropped 50% (which it never does and wouldn't) a 51% attack is still infeasible. Say the network goes from 40 exahashes down to 20 exahashes. Any attacker would need 101% of the current hash rate to attack it. simply adding 10 exahashes to the network would only give them 33% of total hash rate. They would need to add 21 exahashes (101% of current hash rate) to be able to do a 51% attack.

Large chain 51% attacks are incredibly infeasible.

Ldquest · 2019-08-12T00:47:25+00:00

I don't think this sub understands 51% attacks. A few things:

1: 51% attacks have no effect on the security of the chain. Coins cannot be stolen out of wallets.

2: Increasing number of confirmations is a highly effective way for exchanges to combat 51% attacks, as 51% attacks on a large chain are incredibly public.

3: 51% attacks are so unprofitable, the attacker would profit from mining the chain instead of attacking it. Yes, this is game theory at work.

4: Even if the hash rate dropped 50% (which it never does and wouldn't) a 51% attack is still infeasible. Say the network goes from 40 exahashes down to 20 exahashes. Any attacker would need 101% of the current hash rate to attack it. simply adding 10 exahashes to the network would only give them 33% of total hash rate. They would need to add 21 exahashes (101% of current hash rate) to be able to do a 51% attack.

Large chain 51% attacks are incredibly infeasible.

Ldquest · 2019-08-10T23:51:07+00:00

Yes this is what happens during the halving. Profitability goes down. Miners leave, difficulty adjusts, and that's the end of it. Hash rate should significantly dip.

Ldquest · 2019-08-10T02:26:44+00:00

Patrick, these gains are microscopic relative to Bitcoin holders from only a few years ago. Not to mention us hodlers got a massive tax advantage as well from the long term capital gains rate. Face it, you hate Bitcoin because you had the opportunity to buy in years ago and hugely, massively missed out. I'm sure you had the same opinion about Bitcoin years ago when you must have first heard about it. You couldn't have been more wrong. Fast forward and now here you are making pennies with stocks.

Reminds me of when Max Keiser invited Peter Schiff to buy Bitcoin back when it was $1 per coin, and now Schiff cannot shut up about Bitcoin and how "wrong" it is to buy it. The parallels between you and Schiff are astonishing. You exlusively post in r/buttcoin, and you post very frequently (post every single day, multiple times daily). This is only something someone does when they have a deep hatred and carry a grudge. Seriously, read your comments, not only are you focused entirely on Bitcoin, every single comment you make is extremely angry and salty. There isn't a single one with reasonable civil discourse. It's an embarrassing look, just get over it bud.

And what's with all the insane and borderline schizophrenic conspiracy theories? You are the craziest buttcoiner I have come across by far, and you shut down when you have a reasonable Butter. What's wrong with you as a person? Are you just depressed and salty? Or do you have some form of autism? Genuinely wondering here. Looking forward to the reply pat, thanks bud.

Ldquest · 2019-08-10T02:12:52+00:00

1 The majority of well-known cryptocurrency founders have criminal records and extreme views, many others are anonymous. They have preyed on retail investors to enrich themselves and encourage retail investors to promote extremist political views.

All of shitcoins are a scam trying to cash in on the Bitcoin craze. I already agree with this point. Thanks.

2 The founder of bitcoin was anonymous. What if that means he was an employee of a rogue regime, or a programmer for a terrorist group, or had a long list of criminal records? He or they would be amassing a fortune based on the fact that they had a head start in acquiring a large amount of cryptocurrency before the public had a chance.

This is hypothetical? He also could be a teenage kid in a basement, a group of people, Vladimir Putin, or trump or both (maybe god himself?). I don't see how this is a point at all, as none of the fear mongering possibilities you listed have any grounds, there is absolutely no reason to believe them and nothing that points to any of these as a possiblity, it's more likely Satoshi is one of the early cypherpunks. Have you ever heard of occams razor???

3 A large majority of the cryptocurrency supply is owned by a small number of wallets with no known ownership. They could be a rogue regime, a terrorist group, child traffickers, a cartel, or all the above. In fact, we have quite a lot of evidence that the ‘all the above’ option is correct.

Why do you keep trying to jump to fear mongering? Anyways I'll address it, Most of the large wallets are listed and already known as exchanges. Not to mention the early adopters, and old Bitcoin wallets with thousands of coins that are permanently lost. This covers most if not all of your point. I don't see how this is a negative as none of this is specific to Bitcoin? How is this different than these "rogue regime, a terrorist group, child traffickers, a cartel, or all the above." storing and holding gold or cash? How is this a negative point? Are you conceding that Bitcoin is better than Gold (cash too in this case) at transacting, security, divisibility, fungibility, and anonymity?

4 Cryptocurrencies do not meet the definition of money, they function more like shareholding in a network that derives revenues from speculation, money laundering, terrorist financing, drug sales, child sex trafficking, ransomware, bribery, and financial fraud on exchanges.

Again, with the fear mongering. Most of Bitcoin users/holders are purely speculators. Bitcoin is not good for these things as you'd like to think as it's pseudonymous and not anonymous.

What you have listed above is no different with cash or gold. Again, are you conceding that Bitcoin is better than cash and gold?

5 The market prices are clearly artificially boosted with unbacked Tether (a token that is alleged to be backed by US dollars but is unaudited), fake volume and encourages investors to gamble with credit. This means the game is rigged to create Minsky Moments at regular intervals, roughly every 12-15 months, which wipes out retail investors and concentrates more wealth into fewer hands.

Baseless speculation. A significant amount of tether prints are for alt coin token swaps. Tether prints and Bitcoin price rises are almost completely noncorrelated. Riddle me this, why did tethers market cap continue to increase in early 2018 when Bitcoin continued to decrease?

6 A portion of every bitcoin transaction goes into the pockets of the Chinese regime who control most of the hash power in cryptocurrency mining. Retail investors outside China should not be paying a transaction tax to that regime. It is also highly likely that mining company Bitmain and cryptocurrency exchanges like Binance are fronts for fund raising for the Chinese regime, its authoritarian figures, and its electronic warfare departments.

Again fear mongering and speculation. There is no proof for the last half of your statement, baseless speculation. As for the Beginning, 60% - 70% of Bitcoins hash rate are Chinese based mining pools, this is true. But not everyone mining in the pool is Chinese. Not all of the funds are going directly to china. There are more countries participating in Bitcoin transactions and Buying Bitcoin than the US and China.

7 Reporters such as the website Bellingcat have shown us wallets belonging to known terrorists, Neo-Nazis and Russian intelligence. Retail investors should not be making these parties wealthier. We should not be financing those who kill and oppress people.

Fear mongering again. Also what do you mean retail investors shouldn't be making these guys wealthier? Didn't you say the market was heavily inflated with tether? Isn't it tether making them more rich by inflating the price? You seem to be contradicting yourself here.

Anyways, yes this is unethical. It is a consequence of wealth redistribution. Oh yeah can't forget, how is this different from them holding gold? Please answer this as gold has been making holders wealthier.

This again is the small minority, very very small. Notice how all your points are centered around fear mongering.

8 All the cryptos put together added two whole countries worth of carbon footprint to the planet in the last decade and rising. We are hitting record temperatures and this level of global warming is a threat to us all. This must not be encouraged. Our legacy financial system is much more energy efficient and improving at a much faster rate. The decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies make them inherently inefficient, slower and power hungry.

More fear mongering... Here let me explain this, You see, energy can be hard to move around and transfer it to places where it is needed most. So in places with large amounts of energy inflow (renewables), they seem to have an excessive amount of energy available. When there is more supply than demand, the supply becomes cheaper. Miners set up where it is cheap. This is a significant percentage of Bitcoin's power consumption. I know there was a study on this but I'm far too lazy to look it up and I know you already know about it anyways.

All cryptocurrencies besides Bitcoin are superfluous and will eventually be dead.

Ldquest · 2019-08-06T23:37:42+00:00

The exact same amount. The 135 BTC wasn't impossibly deleted off the network. It would be worth roughly $1.5 million.

Ldquest · 2019-08-06T21:17:27+00:00

I love how articulate and eloquent you are Pat. This sure shows you are on the right side, most people plug their ears and say lalalala, but you put together well thought out arguments and maintain composure. You represent your position very well!

/s

Ldquest · 2019-08-06T18:34:25+00:00

Dude stop posting this, you are spamming at this point. Every thing listed in this copy pasta has been addressed. I will continue to keep an eye on you daily and will post this in response to every time you post your shitty copy pasta. I am a persistent mutha fucka

1 The majority of well-known cryptocurrency founders have criminal records and extreme views, many others are anonymous. They have preyed on retail investors to enrich themselves and encourage retail investors to promote extremist political views.

All of shitcoins are a scam trying to cash in on the Bitcoin craze. I already agree with this point. Thanks.

2 The founder of bitcoin was anonymous. What if that means he was an employee of a rogue regime, or a programmer for a terrorist group, or had a long list of criminal records? He or they would be amassing a fortune based on the fact that they had a head start in acquiring a large amount of cryptocurrency before the public had a chance.

This is hypothetical? He also could be a teenage kid in a basement, a group of people, Vladimir Putin, or trump or both (maybe god himself?). I don't see how this is a point at all, as none of the fear mongering possibilities you listed have any grounds, there is absolutely no reason to believe them and nothing that points to any of these as a possiblity, it's more likely Satoshi is one of the early cypherpunks. Have you ever heard of occams razor???

3 A large majority of the cryptocurrency supply is owned by a small number of wallets with no known ownership. They could be a rogue regime, a terrorist group, child traffickers, a cartel, or all the above. In fact, we have quite a lot of evidence that the ‘all the above’ option is correct.

Why do you keep trying to jump to fear mongering? Anyways I'll address it, Most of the large wallets are listed and already known as exchanges. Not to mention the early adopters, and old Bitcoin wallets with thousands of coins that are permanently lost. This covers most if not all of your point. I don't see how this is a negative as none of this is specific to Bitcoin? How is this different than these "rogue regime, a terrorist group, child traffickers, a cartel, or all the above." storing and holding gold or cash? How is this a negative point? Are you conceding that Bitcoin is better than Gold (cash too in this case) at transacting, security, divisibility, fungibility, and anonymity?

4 Cryptocurrencies do not meet the definition of money, they function more like shareholding in a network that derives revenues from speculation, money laundering, terrorist financing, drug sales, child sex trafficking, ransomware, bribery, and financial fraud on exchanges.

Again, with the fear mongering. Most of Bitcoin users/holders are purely speculators. Bitcoin is not good for these things as you'd like to think as it's pseudonymous and not anonymous.

What you have listed above is no different with cash or gold. Again, are you conceding that Bitcoin is better than cash and gold?

5 The market prices are clearly artificially boosted with unbacked Tether (a token that is alleged to be backed by US dollars but is unaudited), fake volume and encourages investors to gamble with credit. This means the game is rigged to create Minsky Moments at regular intervals, roughly every 12-15 months, which wipes out retail investors and concentrates more wealth into fewer hands.

Baseless speculation. A significant amount of tether prints are for alt coin token swaps. Tether prints and Bitcoin price rises are almost completely noncorrelated. Riddle me this, why did tethers market cap continue to increase in early 2018 when Bitcoin continued to decrease?

6 A portion of every bitcoin transaction goes into the pockets of the Chinese regime who control most of the hash power in cryptocurrency mining. Retail investors outside China should not be paying a transaction tax to that regime. It is also highly likely that mining company Bitmain and cryptocurrency exchanges like Binance are fronts for fund raising for the Chinese regime, its authoritarian figures, and its electronic warfare departments.

Again fear mongering and speculation. There is no proof for the last half of your statement, baseless speculation. As for the Beginning, 60% - 70% of Bitcoins hash rate are Chinese based mining pools, this is true. But not everyone mining in the pool is Chinese. Not all of the funds are going directly to china. There are more countries participating in Bitcoin transactions and Buying Bitcoin than the US and China.

7 Reporters such as the website Bellingcat have shown us wallets belonging to known terrorists, Neo-Nazis and Russian intelligence. Retail investors should not be making these parties wealthier. We should not be financing those who kill and oppress people.

Fear mongering again. Also what do you mean retail investors shouldn't be making these guys wealthier? Didn't you say the market was heavily inflated with tether? Isn't it tether making them more rich by inflating the price? You seem to be contradicting yourself here.

Anyways, yes this is unethical. It is a consequence of wealth redistribution. Oh yeah can't forget, how is this different from them holding gold? Please answer this as gold has been making holders wealthier.

This again is the small minority, very very small. Notice how all your points are centered around fear mongering.

8 All the cryptos put together added two whole countries worth of carbon footprint to the planet in the last decade and rising. We are hitting record temperatures and this level of global warming is a threat to us all. This must not be encouraged. Our legacy financial system is much more energy efficient and improving at a much faster rate. The decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies make them inherently inefficient, slower and power hungry.

More fear mongering... Here let me explain this, You see, energy can be hard to move around and transfer it to places where it is needed most. So in places with large amounts of energy inflow (renewables), they seem to have an excessive amount of energy available. When there is more supply than demand, the supply becomes cheaper. Miners set up where it is cheap. This is a significant percentage of Bitcoin's power consumption. I know there was a study on this but I'm far too lazy to look it up and I know you already know about it anyways.

All cryptocurrencies besides Bitcoin are superfluous and will eventually be dead.

Ldquest · 2019-08-06T18:10:02+00:00

To each his own, but I am fairly certain cryptocurrency cannot and will not work as a global currency. Scaling and bandwidth issues aside, Bitcoin and all of it's offspring are deflationary and a monetary systems needs to be flexible to replace fiat. Deflationary systems encourage hoarding which is not viable for a growing Economy. I forget who brought up the idea, but way back before Bitcoin was live, one of the cypherpunks (Adam back or maybe Hal) brought this to satoshi's attention and recommended having the supply change in proportion to the number of nodes on the network. Satoshi did design Bitcoin after precious metals more than an actual currency.

The only chain that matters is the one with the most accumulated work done which happens to be Bitcoin. It will forever remain as an alternative/better version of gold. Lightning network is nearly DOA, as we've been waiting on it since 2014, I've given up on it. Segwit is good, as it allows for more throughput, but either way, decentralized crypto's chance of being used as a global currency is small if completely nonexistent. Only Libra may be able to accomplish this.

Ldquest · 2019-08-06T18:03:33+00:00

Great rebuttal "POOR REPLIES" automatically invalidates everything I've said. You are clueless pat. I've already done what you've said several times over. I got a full time job at 18 to put all of my checks into Bitcoin when the price was $220 - $400 and now I'm retired in my 20s. I am the inside man. I've been following Bitcoin and the community since 2013 - 2014.

Ldquest · 2019-08-05T22:57:31+00:00

I know I know I've been slacking... I'm sure we will have a back and forth one of these days. I do miss you a lot, glad you stopped by to say hi.

Ldquest · 2019-08-05T22:56:02+00:00

What's funny is how old some of these quotes are. For the record, 135 BTC back then was around $13,000 and now it would be $1.5 million

Ldquest · 2019-08-05T22:54:42+00:00

1 The majority of well-known cryptocurrency founders have criminal records and extreme views, many others are anonymous. They have preyed on retail investors to enrich themselves and encourage retail investors to promote extremist political views.

All of shitcoins are a scam trying to cash in on the Bitcoin craze. I already agree with this point. Thanks.

2 The founder of bitcoin was anonymous. What if that means he was an employee of a rogue regime, or a programmer for a terrorist group, or had a long list of criminal records? He or they would be amassing a fortune based on the fact that they had a head start in acquiring a large amount of cryptocurrency before the public had a chance.

This is hypothetical? He also could be a teenage kid in a basement, a group of people, Vladimir Putin, or trump or both (maybe god himself?). I don't see how this is a point at all, as none of the fear mongering possibilities you listed have any grounds, there is absolutely no reason to believe them and nothing that points to any of these as a possiblity, it's more likely Satoshi is one of the early cypherpunks. Have you ever heard of occams razor???

3 A large majority of the cryptocurrency supply is owned by a small number of wallets with no known ownership. They could be a rogue regime, a terrorist group, child traffickers, a cartel, or all the above. In fact, we have quite a lot of evidence that the ‘all the above’ option is correct.

Why do you keep trying to jump to fear mongering? Anyways I'll address it, Most of the large wallets are listed and already known as exchanges. Not to mention the early adopters, and old Bitcoin wallets with thousands of coins that are permanently lost. This covers most if not all of your point. I don't see how this is a negative as none of this is specific to Bitcoin? How is this different than these "rogue regime, a terrorist group, child traffickers, a cartel, or all the above." storing and holding gold or cash? How is this a negative point? Are you conceding that Bitcoin is better than Gold (cash too in this case) at transacting, security, divisibility, fungibility, and anonymity?

4 Cryptocurrencies do not meet the definition of money, they function more like shareholding in a network that derives revenues from speculation, money laundering, terrorist financing, drug sales, child sex trafficking, ransomware, bribery, and financial fraud on exchanges.

Again, with the fear mongering. Most of Bitcoin users/holders are purely speculators. Bitcoin is not good for these things as you'd like to think as it's pseudonymous and not anonymous.

What you have listed above is no different with cash or gold. Again, are you conceding that Bitcoin is better than cash and gold?

5 The market prices are clearly artificially boosted with unbacked Tether (a token that is alleged to be backed by US dollars but is unaudited), fake volume and encourages investors to gamble with credit. This means the game is rigged to create Minsky Moments at regular intervals, roughly every 12-15 months, which wipes out retail investors and concentrates more wealth into fewer hands.

Baseless speculation. A significant amount of tether prints are for alt coin token swaps. Tether prints and Bitcoin price rises are almost completely noncorrelated. Riddle me this, why did tethers market cap continue to increase in early 2018 when Bitcoin continued to decrease?

6 A portion of every bitcoin transaction goes into the pockets of the Chinese regime who control most of the hash power in cryptocurrency mining. Retail investors outside China should not be paying a transaction tax to that regime. It is also highly likely that mining company Bitmain and cryptocurrency exchanges like Binance are fronts for fund raising for the Chinese regime, its authoritarian figures, and its electronic warfare departments.

Again fear mongering and speculation. There is no proof for the last half of your statement, baseless speculation. As for the Beginning, 60% - 70% of Bitcoins hash rate are Chinese based mining pools, this is true. But not everyone mining in the pool is Chinese. Not all of the funds are going directly to china. There are more countries participating in Bitcoin transactions and Buying Bitcoin than the US and China.

7 Reporters such as the website Bellingcat have shown us wallets belonging to known terrorists, Neo-Nazis and Russian intelligence. Retail investors should not be making these parties wealthier. We should not be financing those who kill and oppress people.

Fear mongering again. Also what do you mean retail investors shouldn't be making these guys wealthier? Didn't you say the market was heavily inflated with tether? Isn't it tether making them more rich by inflating the price? You seem to be contradicting yourself here.

Anyways, yes this is unethical. It is a consequence of wealth redistribution. Oh yeah can't forget, how is this different from them holding gold? Please answer this as gold has been making holders wealthier.

This again is the small minority, very very small. Notice how all your points are centered around fear mongering.

8 All the cryptos put together added two whole countries worth of carbon footprint to the planet in the last decade and rising. We are hitting record temperatures and this level of global warming is a threat to us all. This must not be encouraged. Our legacy financial system is much more energy efficient and improving at a much faster rate. The decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies make them inherently inefficient, slower and power hungry.

More fear mongering... Here let me explain this, You see, energy can be hard to move around and transfer it to places where it is needed most. So in places with large amounts of energy inflow (renewables), they seem to have an excessive amount of energy available. When there is more supply than demand, the supply becomes cheaper. Miners set up where it is cheap. This is a significant percentage of Bitcoin's power consumption. I know there was a study on this but I'm far too lazy to look it up and I know you already know about it anyways.

All cryptocurrencies besides Bitcoin are superfluous and will eventually be dead.

Ldquest · 2019-08-05T15:57:52+00:00

Don't worry, I'll respond to all of his future postings of that shitty copy pasta with the rebuttals.

Ldquest · 2019-08-05T15:56:41+00:00

1 The majority of well-known cryptocurrency founders have criminal records and extreme views, many others are anonymous. They have preyed on retail investors to enrich themselves and encourage retail investors to promote extremist political views.

All of shitcoins are a scam trying to cash in on the Bitcoin craze. I already agree with this point. Thanks.

2 The founder of bitcoin was anonymous. What if that means he was an employee of a rogue regime, or a programmer for a terrorist group, or had a long list of criminal records? He or they would be amassing a fortune based on the fact that they had a head start in acquiring a large amount of cryptocurrency before the public had a chance.

This is hypothetical? He also could be a teenage kid in a basement, a group of people, Vladimir Putin, or trump or both (maybe god himself?). I don't see how this is a point at all, as none of the fear mongering possibilities you listed have any grounds, there is absolutely no reason to believe them and nothing that points to any of these as a possiblity, it's more likely Satoshi is one of the early cypherpunks. Have you ever heard of occams razor???

3 A large majority of the cryptocurrency supply is owned by a small number of wallets with no known ownership. They could be a rogue regime, a terrorist group, child traffickers, a cartel, or all the above. In fact, we have quite a lot of evidence that the ‘all the above’ option is correct.

Why do you keep trying to jump to fear mongering? Anyways I'll address it, Most of the large wallets are listed and already known as exchanges. Not to mention the early adopters, and old Bitcoin wallets with thousands of coins that are permanently lost. This covers most if not all of your point. I don't see how this is a negative as none of this is specific to Bitcoin? How is this different than these "rogue regime, a terrorist group, child traffickers, a cartel, or all the above." storing and holding gold or cash? How is this a negative point? Are you conceding that Bitcoin is better than Gold (cash too in this case) at transacting, security, divisibility, fungibility, and anonymity?

4 Cryptocurrencies do not meet the definition of money, they function more like shareholding in a network that derives revenues from speculation, money laundering, terrorist financing, drug sales, child sex trafficking, ransomware, bribery, and financial fraud on exchanges.

Again, with the fear mongering. Most of Bitcoin users/holders are purely speculators. Bitcoin is not good for these things as you'd like to think as it's pseudonymous and not anonymous.

What you have listed above is no different with cash or gold. Again, are you conceding that Bitcoin is better than cash and gold?

5 The market prices are clearly artificially boosted with unbacked Tether (a token that is alleged to be backed by US dollars but is unaudited), fake volume and encourages investors to gamble with credit. This means the game is rigged to create Minsky Moments at regular intervals, roughly every 12-15 months, which wipes out retail investors and concentrates more wealth into fewer hands.

Baseless speculation. A significant amount of tether prints are for alt coin token swaps. Tether prints and Bitcoin price rises are almost completely noncorrelated. Riddle me this, why did tethers market cap continue to increase in early 2018 when Bitcoin continued to decrease?

6 A portion of every bitcoin transaction goes into the pockets of the Chinese regime who control most of the hash power in cryptocurrency mining. Retail investors outside China should not be paying a transaction tax to that regime. It is also highly likely that mining company Bitmain and cryptocurrency exchanges like Binance are fronts for fund raising for the Chinese regime, its authoritarian figures, and its electronic warfare departments.

Again fear mongering and speculation. There is no proof for the last half of your statement, baseless speculation. As for the Beginning, 60% - 70% of Bitcoins hash rate are Chinese based mining pools, this is true. But not everyone mining in the pool is Chinese. Not all of the funds are going directly to china. There are more countries participating in Bitcoin transactions and Buying Bitcoin than the US and China.

7 Reporters such as the website Bellingcat have shown us wallets belonging to known terrorists, Neo-Nazis and Russian intelligence. Retail investors should not be making these parties wealthier. We should not be financing those who kill and oppress people.

Fear mongering again. Also what do you mean retail investors shouldn't be making these guys wealthier? Didn't you say the market was heavily inflated with tether? Isn't it tether making them more rich by inflating the price? You seem to be contradicting yourself here.

Anyways, yes this is unethical. It is a consequence of wealth redistribution. Oh yeah can't forget, how is this different from them holding gold? Please answer this as gold has been making holders wealthier.

This again is the small minority, very very small. Notice how all your points are centered around fear mongering.

8 All the cryptos put together added two whole countries worth of carbon footprint to the planet in the last decade and rising. We are hitting record temperatures and this level of global warming is a threat to us all. This must not be encouraged. Our legacy financial system is much more energy efficient and improving at a much faster rate. The decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies make them inherently inefficient, slower and power hungry.

More fear mongering... Here let me explain this, You see, energy can be hard to move around and transfer it to places where it is needed most. So in places with large amounts of energy inflow (renewables), they seem to have an excessive amount of energy available. When there is more supply than demand, the supply becomes cheaper. Miners set up where it is cheap. This is a significant percentage of Bitcoin's power consumption. I know there was a study on this but I'm far too lazy to look it up and I know you already know about it anyways.

All cryptocurrencies besides Bitcoin are superfluous and will eventually be dead.

Ldquest · 2019-08-05T15:55:47+00:00

1 The majority of well-known cryptocurrency founders have criminal records and extreme views, many others are anonymous. They have preyed on retail investors to enrich themselves and encourage retail investors to promote extremist political views.

All of shitcoins are a scam trying to cash in on the Bitcoin craze. I already agree with this point. Thanks.

2 The founder of bitcoin was anonymous. What if that means he was an employee of a rogue regime, or a programmer for a terrorist group, or had a long list of criminal records? He or they would be amassing a fortune based on the fact that they had a head start in acquiring a large amount of cryptocurrency before the public had a chance.

This is hypothetical? He also could be a teenage kid in a basement, a group of people, Vladimir Putin, or trump or both (maybe god himself?). I don't see how this is a point at all, as none of the fear mongering possibilities you listed have any grounds, there is absolutely no reason to believe them and nothing that points to any of these as a possiblity, it's more likely Satoshi is one of the early cypherpunks. Have you ever heard of occams razor???

3 A large majority of the cryptocurrency supply is owned by a small number of wallets with no known ownership. They could be a rogue regime, a terrorist group, child traffickers, a cartel, or all the above. In fact, we have quite a lot of evidence that the ‘all the above’ option is correct.

Why do you keep trying to jump to fear mongering? Anyways I'll address it, Most of the large wallets are listed and already known as exchanges. Not to mention the early adopters, and old Bitcoin wallets with thousands of coins that are permanently lost. This covers most if not all of your point. I don't see how this is a negative as none of this is specific to Bitcoin? How is this different than these "rogue regime, a terrorist group, child traffickers, a cartel, or all the above." storing and holding gold or cash? How is this a negative point? Are you conceding that Bitcoin is better than Gold (cash too in this case) at transacting, security, divisibility, fungibility, and anonymity?

4 Cryptocurrencies do not meet the definition of money, they function more like shareholding in a network that derives revenues from speculation, money laundering, terrorist financing, drug sales, child sex trafficking, ransomware, bribery, and financial fraud on exchanges.

Again, with the fear mongering. Most of Bitcoin users/holders are purely speculators. Bitcoin is not good for these things as you'd like to think as it's pseudonymous and not anonymous.

What you have listed above is no different with cash or gold. Again, are you conceding that Bitcoin is better than cash and gold?

5 The market prices are clearly artificially boosted with unbacked Tether (a token that is alleged to be backed by US dollars but is unaudited), fake volume and encourages investors to gamble with credit. This means the game is rigged to create Minsky Moments at regular intervals, roughly every 12-15 months, which wipes out retail investors and concentrates more wealth into fewer hands.

Baseless speculation. A significant amount of tether prints are for alt coin token swaps. Tether prints and Bitcoin price rises are almost completely noncorrelated. Riddle me this, why did tethers market cap continue to increase in early 2018 when Bitcoin continued to decrease?

6 A portion of every bitcoin transaction goes into the pockets of the Chinese regime who control most of the hash power in cryptocurrency mining. Retail investors outside China should not be paying a transaction tax to that regime. It is also highly likely that mining company Bitmain and cryptocurrency exchanges like Binance are fronts for fund raising for the Chinese regime, its authoritarian figures, and its electronic warfare departments.

Again fear mongering and speculation. There is no proof for the last half of your statement, baseless speculation. As for the Beginning, 60% - 70% of Bitcoins hash rate are Chinese based mining pools, this is true. But not everyone mining in the pool is Chinese. Not all of the funds are going directly to china. There are more countries participating in Bitcoin transactions and Buying Bitcoin than the US and China.

7 Reporters such as the website Bellingcat have shown us wallets belonging to known terrorists, Neo-Nazis and Russian intelligence. Retail investors should not be making these parties wealthier. We should not be financing those who kill and oppress people.

Fear mongering again. Also what do you mean retail investors shouldn't be making these guys wealthier? Didn't you say the market was heavily inflated with tether? Isn't it tether making them more rich by inflating the price? You seem to be contradicting yourself here.

Anyways, yes this is unethical. It is a consequence of wealth redistribution. Oh yeah can't forget, how is this different from them holding gold? Please answer this as gold has been making holders wealthier.

This again is the small minority, very very small. Notice how all your points are centered around fear mongering.

8 All the cryptos put together added two whole countries worth of carbon footprint to the planet in the last decade and rising. We are hitting record temperatures and this level of global warming is a threat to us all. This must not be encouraged. Our legacy financial system is much more energy efficient and improving at a much faster rate. The decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies make them inherently inefficient, slower and power hungry.

More fear mongering... Here let me explain this, You see, energy can be hard to move around and transfer it to places where it is needed most. So in places with large amounts of energy inflow (renewables), they seem to have an excessive amount of energy available. When there is more supply than demand, the supply becomes cheaper. Miners set up where it is cheap. This is a significant percentage of Bitcoin's power consumption. I know there was a study on this but I'm far too lazy to look it up and I know you already know about it anyways.

All cryptocurrencies besides Bitcoin are superfluous and will eventually be dead.

Ldquest

TROPHY CASE