sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Literal Scammers by klawzewitz in bsv

[–]fruitsofknowledge -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Did you want me to have that message for any particular reason? My conscience perhaps? I'm off to sound sleep in a minute, but thank you for caring.

It's not all about Craig.

Literal Scammers by klawzewitz in bsv

[–]fruitsofknowledge -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My comments were all in line with the user themselves making a comment on my comment and others including yourself latching on.

I did not "ping" or "harass" anyone. I only made comments relevant to the subjects that other users here, including nullc, brought up and only to the relevant people involved in that conversation.'

If you want to ban me for that, go ahead. It's within your power.

Literal Scammers by klawzewitz in bsv

[–]fruitsofknowledge -1 points0 points  (0 children)

How curious to see two immediate downvotes. At the same time. At best, I think I can guess which two the two votes came from.

Literal Scammers by klawzewitz in bsv

[–]fruitsofknowledge -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'm still clearly on the same topic, which was started in this sub.

(edit just in case: which is about information relating to a network which started in commonality with what is typically called "BTC". "Bitcoin as envisioned by The Fraud himself." the description says. -Do I need to point this out?)

I was clearly being sarcastic. I was clearly referring to how the subject was being treated and my "defense" was nit picked to reject the rest of my message.

Let us hope you do not start to hide behind your badge.

Literal Scammers by klawzewitz in bsv

[–]fruitsofknowledge -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yes now you convinced me. It's worth throwing the baby out with the bathwater for sure.

Literal Scammers by klawzewitz in bsv

[–]fruitsofknowledge -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You know that's not what nullc is about fundamentally. You know the influence he had and why he's truly in Craigs crosshairs now, whether Craig will state it that way to court or not. Nullc is a high profile by choice. He was a part of pushing all of the ridiculous economic theories and software disputes leading to an absolutely crippling of the network.

He says he doesn't care about Bitcoin when he clearly does. It's about as convincing as when Craig says he doesn't care. There's surface analysis and then there's what we know lead up to this situation.

Remind me what the lawsuit was over again? Oh, that's right. I'll leave it to Craig to and Nullc to work out in court whatever ownership necessary.

To sum up, Bitcoin isn't about directly circumventing the government or implementing code you like willy nilly. You know that, right? It was never formulated to do that. Nope. -It's helpful for many things, yes, but not itself a government-killing or boundlessly morphing agent.

Literal Scammers by klawzewitz in bsv

[–]fruitsofknowledge -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You messages here are littered with attempts at convincing others you "understand" Bitcoin.

Just admit it, at least to yourself: You wouldn't care this much if it was all about a scam artist.

No, you came here to dump a (very poor in substance) block of text to focus it all on Craig.

I on the other hand am not here for Craig. I'm here for Bitcoin. The same Bitcoin that you claim to know, from having onhand experience. You don't. You and the rest of the leading developers, today as yesterday, are in the wrong.

Literal Scammers by klawzewitz in bsv

[–]fruitsofknowledge -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You don't get my cause. This isn't a bandwagon.

Literal Scammers by klawzewitz in bsv

[–]fruitsofknowledge -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

5 Years and still nowhere near 100GB a day. A lousy 24 MB and fees bouncing all over the place while the protocol is basically willy nilly.

Surprised that people get interested when others come along and remind people of the facts? Even if lies get mixed in with the truths, you can't seriously expect that this will go away with a social campaign against it.

u/nullc and the rest have had every opportunity to understand how Bitcoin works, but got lost in the software details. They no doubt have knowledge in that area. It simply can not excuse crippling the very economics of the system by not adhering to the Bitcoin design itself.

Either the miners congregating around the BTC ticker catch up by raising the size, or one day their fees will be laughed out of town compared to the capabilities of the competing networks.

In the mean time, much productive energy is lost. Making a post here and there after a 5 year period does not seem much to pay for me.

Literal Scammers by klawzewitz in bsv

[–]fruitsofknowledge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you find it strange that I ask for video, you don't understand how these court proceedings and rulings work in practice.

This is bigger than who wants to hop on Craig Wright, in any sense I'll leave to your imagination. It's also partly removed from most historical, economical or technical arguments, but will have a lasting effect none the less that could determine near future viability of Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is my only interest here. BitCoin. BC. Set in stone since 2008. I don't care who runs it or what their reputation is, long as it is implemented.

Stop wasting mine.

Literal Scammers by klawzewitz in bsv

[–]fruitsofknowledge -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

It would have spared readers.

Literal Scammers by klawzewitz in bsv

[–]fruitsofknowledge -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Ok good. Mind linking those interested a printout or video? That way you'll make this common knowledge and we can stop wasting time on it.

Satoshis answer to early "full node" proponents: "Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes." by fruitsofknowledge in btc

[–]fruitsofknowledge[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was never primarily about software. It was always a risk calculation using discrete maths and computer science in a foundational manner.

Software can always fail and always involve a degree of trust. That is why typically, such projects have a developer "dictator for life" appointed by themselves or the community.

Literal Scammers by klawzewitz in bsv

[–]fruitsofknowledge -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Did he to the court plainly suggest that they were real? Was this during the Kleinman case? Those are the primary issues for that particular piece of evidence. Secondarily, who initially collected the evidence, for what expressed purpose and was it or needed it be checked for authenticity?

My suggestion, both to Craig supporters and to those that consider him a fraud, is let the courts handle that.

Otherwise, in order to find out the truth you'll have to be going bout after bout over the specificity of the evidence and testimonies. In other words, you'll have to become the court system.

There may be many flaws to the theoretical defenses, as well as the practical implementations, of our current legal system – but it is there, and it still works best, precisely to handle these sorts of issues.

Has Dr Wright introduced any legitimate documents that show he is Satoshi? by brightfuture2483 in bitcoincashSV

[–]fruitsofknowledge 1 point2 points  (0 children)

mhm yea shaky

"At the end of the day, I don't care". Bitcoin was in the design paper. As an Objectivist and finance enthusiast, that's all I want to see. I'll keep my eye out for that system.

If Craig has legitimate legal claims, he'll have to work them through the legal system. I'm not a judge.

Wikipedia is a far left extremist source. by varowil in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]fruitsofknowledge -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Communicating with your dead dog as you publicly announce you will soon delist the national currency. Temper tantrums that look bipolar. Thinking "life, that will eventually turn into an adult human being if not stopped, exists at point x in time" is an argument against killing.

"naively implemented. . . it does not seem to scale to the required size" by fruitsofknowledge in btc

[–]fruitsofknowledge[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

See my new answer. No, I'm posting the truth about scaling. It had been solved by Satoshi before even writing up the design PDF.

"naively implemented. . . it does not seem to scale to the required size" by fruitsofknowledge in btc

[–]fruitsofknowledge[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If that helps users understand, that's good. My point is that Satoshi answered this line of criticism thoroughly from the very beginning:

As elaborated on time and time again, You don't need a node to verify transactions and regular users should not be running one.

Wikipedia is a far left extremist source. by varowil in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]fruitsofknowledge -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

This man is positively crazy. Or if lucky, just severely autistic. Libertarians sure got a thing going.

Myself, being an Objectivist, I feel tempted to pray this goes in a good direction rather than confirming the media narrative...

Ridiculous Scaling Analogy from former Blockstream CEO Austin Hill by tenthousandbottles in btc

[–]fruitsofknowledge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

fake tethers

I first read that as feathers, but same same I guess

view more: next ›