Let's pick another AgentofCoin Sociopathic classic.
AgentofCoin's Sociopathic Gem #2 - When lies are busted, keep making accusations.
Now in this replay, we see that AgentofCoin insists that, when Jihan signed the HK Agreement in early 2016, it was impossible for Jinha to learn that SegWit would break ASICBoost.
AgentofCoin's Sociopathic Gem #2 - When lies are busted, keep making accusations.
Now in this replay, we see that AgentofCoin insists that, when Jihan signed the HK Agreement in early 2016, it was impossible for Jinha to learn that SegWit would break ASICBoost.
You were insinuating that Jihan understood when signing the HK Agreement that SegWit
would break his ASICBoost, so he signed it in good faith and with knowledge. I merely pointed out that was impossible in the timeline of events.
So you show him the SegWit Github commit that proved the miners had 28 days to learn SegWit would break ASICBoost, not "impossible in the timeline of events":would break his ASICBoost, so he signed it in good faith and with knowledge. I merely pointed out that was impossible in the timeline of events.
That doesn't prove he had knowledge. You are assuming this.
When I used the term "impossible" it was possibly an incorrect term.
I have to go back and read all our discussions, but holding my whole argument to
a minor technicality is children's games. I was making a larger argument about motives
and not minor due diligence itself. I guess that is lost to you now as it was during our
original discussion. You do not know what real lies are, it seems.
Now let's do a reality check:
1. The 'Hong Kong Agreement' was signed on 21st Feb 2016. (Source).
2. The 12th Jan 2016 version of BIP-141 (SegWit), is already incompatible with ASICBoost (Link).
3. This is further clarified on the 24th Jan 2016 'Clarify txid and wtxid' update of BIP-141 (SegWit).
4. I repeat: SegWit has been factually proven to be incompatible with ASICBoost since 24th Jan 2016.
7. The one thing that made ASICBoost useless, the 'witness root hash', was already defined in 24th Jan 2016, 28 days before the signing of the agreement.
Now at this point, you'd expect a normal person to either reply with counter proofs, or admit he made a mistake, or just stfu, right?1. The 'Hong Kong Agreement' was signed on 21st Feb 2016. (Source).
2. The 12th Jan 2016 version of BIP-141 (SegWit), is already incompatible with ASICBoost (Link).
3. This is further clarified on the 24th Jan 2016 'Clarify txid and wtxid' update of BIP-141 (SegWit).
4. I repeat: SegWit has been factually proven to be incompatible with ASICBoost since 24th Jan 2016.
7. The one thing that made ASICBoost useless, the 'witness root hash', was already defined in 24th Jan 2016, 28 days before the signing of the agreement.
Well didn't I concede to that part? Can you cite where I denied that part?
Or course I reserve the right to read over our old discussion and look into everything
again, but my recollection was that I agreed with you and this particular timeline you
created, but as I stated every time, it does not actually prove anything. In a court of law,
the judge would laugh at you since you are jumping to conclusions. The assumption is that
Bitmain DID DO due diligence before signing the HK agreement. But that is an assumption
and not a fact. You asserted it was a fact, and thus our original disagreement. You only
proved that there was a decent timespan for Bitmain to perform proper due diligence,
that is all you have done here. Anything more is speculation.
My main argument was not based in Bitmain's due diligence alone. As you will recall,
I even came up with a conspiracy theory as to a possible answer that fits pieces that are
still unknown. It was a theory only proposed and created by accepting your due diligence
timeline as true, yet you are not providing that evidence to our non-existant audience.
You are lying by omission.
Nope, not our little sociopath, our little sociopath doubles down like his job depends on it.
You're not going to believe his reply:
Nope, I didn't make this shit up, that was his actual reply.
He "merely pointed out that was impossible".
So you merely pointed out that it was.
You're not going to believe his reply:
What your fatal flaw in your reasoning is that your timeline of events does not expound upon anything other than what the community already knows.
You do not attempt to understand why things occurred as they did.
You use what superficially did occur, as evidence of miners individual innocence and good faith. That is an incorrect connection and cannot be found in your outline.
What you are accusing me of, is exactly what you are now doing. What your current argument really is, is that since a person came to the police station and willingly gave some information about a murder, that person must not be the murderer.
You wanted to attack my passing statement to Jonald so strongly that you were blinded to the fact that your explanation doesnt disprove what my opinion was intended to convey.
You nitpicked my wording to Jonald, which in the past you accused me of doing incorrectly.
You are a big hypocritical mess. My statement to Jonald was intended to point out that he was assuming good faith of some miners during the HK meeting and that was his only basis of belief.
You do not attempt to understand why things occurred as they did.
You use what superficially did occur, as evidence of miners individual innocence and good faith. That is an incorrect connection and cannot be found in your outline.
What you are accusing me of, is exactly what you are now doing. What your current argument really is, is that since a person came to the police station and willingly gave some information about a murder, that person must not be the murderer.
You wanted to attack my passing statement to Jonald so strongly that you were blinded to the fact that your explanation doesnt disprove what my opinion was intended to convey.
You nitpicked my wording to Jonald, which in the past you accused me of doing incorrectly.
You are a big hypocritical mess. My statement to Jonald was intended to point out that he was assuming good faith of some miners during the HK meeting and that was his only basis of belief.
Nope, I didn't make this shit up, that was his actual reply.
He "merely pointed out that was impossible".
So you merely pointed out that it was.
You don't understand discussions and argument then.
Everything I said in the following, if that is true (since I need to read it all over again) is still valid.
You proving that Bitmain had time for due diligence, does not prove it was performed.
(BANG - And at that moment of typing, AgentofCoin figured out what was occurring and why this
person was attacking him. It has nothing to do with the actual argument and had to do with
what this argument type actually represents in another place.)
Suddenly there is 5 paragraphs of "your fault" "your fault" "your fault".
You just have to admire this level of rapid expulsion of bullshit, it's like an art.
I mean who the hell even talks that way?
You just have to admire this level of rapid expulsion of bullshit, it's like an art.
I mean who the hell even talks that way?
Lawyers.
He just keeps doubling down like no tomorrow, he does this for pages and pages, and he's proud of it.
That's why I've decided to make him famous, this guy deserves a medal.
If you think this is amazing, there is a lot more, you just can't believe the shit that came out of this guy's mouth.
That's why I've decided to make him famous, this guy deserves a medal.
If you think this is amazing, there is a lot more, you just can't believe the shit that came out of this guy's mouth.
No one should listen to me, since I clearly don't know what I am talking about.
Everyone should pretend I was never here and go on with their business.
Shoo shoo baby.