N.b. that jbreher edited some posts after Loyces scrape. The quotes hereby reflect the content at the time that I hit the quote button (in some cases, immediately before deleting). The only edits that I noticed were clearly marked; but I did not bother collating against Loyces archive to double-check.
Archived Post 0
(Imgur URL upgraded to HTTPS. No other edits.)
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53972154.html
You seem driven by illogical emotion. How can anything Craig says to nocoiners have any destabilizing effect whatsoever upon the (presumably Bitcoin) market? By definition, nocoiners have no effect upon the Bitcoin market whatsoever.
Another illogical emotional outburst?
Funny interpretation. So satoshi provides a description of a smart contract as a simple example of the types of things that can be done on Bitcoin, and you take that as proof that satoshi is stating he has never built smart contracts?
And WTF does hearsay about what you claim Szabo said have to do with anything germane?
OTOH, the _technology_ which BSV embodies is much closer to what satoshi bequeathed unto us as compared to the technology which BTC embodies. As such, it is BTC which is arguably the 'rival technology'.
For this to be true, it would require facts not yet entered into evidence. Sure, you have a mountain of circumstantial evidence, but from a logical standpoint, not conclusive.
Other than, you know, the fact that it is humming right along, totally unaffected by your FUDspread.
Fascinating. Clicking that link finds the following:
What could this mean? Is the Wayback Machine not a bulletproof historical record after all?
Yes, such a claim, should your characterization be accurate, is absurd on its face. I'm a bit weirded out by how Wayback is treating it, however.
Your set of possibilities omits a third possibility. And that would be that "faketoshi" actually did verify a signature for you. You evidently believe this to be "unrealistic". However, the very framing of the question in this manner precludes the scant -- though actually real -- possibility.
You wield your supposed razor as would a religious zealot.
I fail to see how Gilder's being convinced that Gavin is convinced says anything about the morality of Gavin's claim.
Haha. No truer words have been spoken. Yet I wonder how aware of self is the speaker?
Well, no questions other than whether or not such was "abuse", or if indeed such were "attacks". These are things that are subjective, and only meaningful from a given perspective.
Yeah, right: Because Wright is cited in the paper in which Satoshi first described Bitcoin to the world, and Dr. Back claimed to have invented something other than Hashcash. A perfect mirror, that!
Perhaps you are forgetting Back's public claim that hashcash was "pretty much Bitcoin minus the deflationary aspect". Note that this is not an actual quote, and may be somewhat inaccurate, but the claim was indeed that he invented hashcash, which was pretty much Bitcoin minus one aspect.
edit: found it:
Not that this has anything to do with Anastasia, but we might as well try to keep things accurate here.
Archived Post 1
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53973685.html
"Bequeathed unto us?" Do you believe Satoshi's last build to be some kind of religious instruction?
No.
Would Satoshi ever had the nerve to create a rival technology to Bitcoin, and call it SegWit? The point remains that, in some supposed reckoning regarding whether BTC or BCH is 'rival technology' to Satoshi's ... errmmm ... design, it is BTC which is more divergent thereof, and therefore of the two would be the 'rival technology'.
Archived Post 2
N.b., I have not (yet?) deleted this one. I archive it nevertheless.
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53977798.html
Fascinating. Clicking that link finds the following:
What could this mean? Is the Wayback Machine not a bulletproof historical record after all?
He will have requested (or demanded) to have his content removed.
"He". Presumably Craig? Seems plausible, even likely. Does Wayback provide any attribution traceability? I.e., is there any way to prove that removal was requested, and if so, by whom?
While I never had any reason to look into it, I had always just sort of assumed that Wayback was an incorruptible, unalterable record of past states of parts of the internet. Imagine my surprise to learn that this is not the case.
Thanks. That even worked: http://archive.ph/LMrM4
I may have more to say after I read it.
Though it does occur to me that there seems to be a valid use case for a high-capacity, unalterable, append-only database, free to be written by anyone who might care to pay whatever the market deems proper to get their data included, and free to be read at no cost by anyone anywhere at any time.
If only such a thing existed....
Oh. Wait...
Archived Post 3
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53978397.html
I should have known better to have IRL concerns drawing me away from the forum just after hv_ tested the waters again
Deleted two posts filled with lies, half-truths, and assorted disinformation by jbreher:
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53972154.html
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53973685.html
The posts are preserved for anyone to examine
::sigh:: yes, it is your right to delete any and all content that you wish. For any reason whatsoever. Well, at least you have the vaguest shreds of decency left to leave a link that others may follow.
However, you do not have the right to characterize my posts as "filled with lies". Well, unless you care to identify the (so-stated) "lies" therein, and rebut them.
Well, you can -- as in, you have the ability to -- in your own self-moderated thread, but that is a chickenshit action, not a rightful one.
The attentive reader will note that a challenge has been issued to nullius to rebut any "lies" he claims that I have posted. Shall s/he rise to the occasion?
This post may be edited to add additional archival quotes.
Archived Post 0
(Imgur URL upgraded to HTTPS. No other edits.)
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53972154.html
The danger is that ... he can destabilize the market by making his claims to people who never used Bitcoin at all
You seem driven by illogical emotion. How can anything Craig says to nocoiners have any destabilizing effect whatsoever upon the (presumably Bitcoin) market? By definition, nocoiners have no effect upon the Bitcoin market whatsoever.
where we can all be informed and vent our hate at his antics.
Another illogical emotional outburst?
As Ive stated before.. it became very obvious to me when he told me he built smart contracts in to the chain from day 1, a direct contradiction to satoshi himself in this thread ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=750.msg8140#msg8140)... Though Satoshi does not mention smart contacts by name., Nick Szabo stated to me thats exactly what he believes Satoshi ( or maybe himself) was referring to.
Funny interpretation. So satoshi provides a description of a smart contract as a simple example of the types of things that can be done on Bitcoin, and you take that as proof that satoshi is stating he has never built smart contracts?
And WTF does hearsay about what you claim Szabo said have to do with anything germane?
Satoshi would never create a rival technology to Bitcoin and have the
nerve to call it Bitcoin SV.
nerve to call it Bitcoin SV.
OTOH, the _technology_ which BSV embodies is much closer to what satoshi bequeathed unto us as compared to the technology which BTC embodies. As such, it is BTC which is arguably the 'rival technology'.
Wrights theft of Satoshis identity is factually false,
For this to be true, it would require facts not yet entered into evidence. Sure, you have a mountain of circumstantial evidence, but from a logical standpoint, not conclusive.
Meanwhile, they are abysmally failing to even keep their fraudulently misnamed altcoin running on a technical level.
Other than, you know, the fact that it is humming right along, totally unaffected by your FUDspread.
Fascinating. Clicking that link finds the following:
Code:
Internet Archive's Wayback Machine
https://medium.com/@craig_10243/ccbe22f2637e
Latest
Show All
Sorry.
This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine.
https://medium.com/@craig_10243/ccbe22f2637e
Latest
Show All
Sorry.
This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine.
What could this mean? Is the Wayback Machine not a bulletproof historical record after all?
Yes, such a claim, should your characterization be accurate, is absurd on its face. I'm a bit weirded out by how Wayback is treating it, however.
If, tomorrow, I were to claim that Faketoshi verified a signature for me (!) on the same basis as his verification for Gavin, then that would leave only two realistic possibilities: Either (1) I am maliciously lying with the intent to support Faketoshi in a scam, or (2) Bitcoin Core developer and technical forum moderator Andrew Chow is himself so incompetent that he said the foregoing about someone who doesnt even know how properly to verify a digital signature.
Your set of possibilities omits a third possibility. And that would be that "faketoshi" actually did verify a signature for you. You evidently believe this to be "unrealistic". However, the very framing of the question in this manner precludes the scant -- though actually real -- possibility.
You wield your supposed razor as would a religious zealot.
Just in case anyone is still thinking that Andresen's general ambivalence about Wright's identity theft is morally neutral: https://twitter.com/5omni/status/1231940554306572289
I fail to see how Gilder's being convinced that Gavin is convinced says anything about the morality of Gavin's claim.
I think the big danger there is when people get obsessed with knowing THE TRUTH about some real or imagined secret, and then they wind up chasing phantoms made of their own confirmation biases.
Haha. No truer words have been spoken. Yet I wonder how aware of self is the speaker?
Quote
The most important facts about Gavin Andresen are that he abused his reputation to give Faketoshi instant credibility in the mass media, and also that he supported XT and BCH fork attacks on Bitcoin (and also that he mishandled the Bitcoin Foundation, and also...). These are easily verifiable factsverifiable without fine parsing of minute details. It is unnecessary to know why he did it, to assess the damage of what he did. The why is an interesting question in its own rightbut the what is the important part, and there are no questions there.
Well, no questions other than whether or not such was "abuse", or if indeed such were "attacks". These are things that are subjective, and only meaningful from a given perspective.
the only good thing i can say about blockstream is that adam back has stopped his wright-esq PR campaign of saying he (A.B) invented bitcoin due to "hashcash" algo..
Yeah, right: Because Wright is cited in the paper in which Satoshi first described Bitcoin to the world, and Dr. Back claimed to have invented something other than Hashcash. A perfect mirror, that!
Perhaps you are forgetting Back's public claim that hashcash was "pretty much Bitcoin minus the deflationary aspect". Note that this is not an actual quote, and may be somewhat inaccurate, but the claim was indeed that he invented hashcash, which was pretty much Bitcoin minus one aspect.
edit: found it:
Not that this has anything to do with Anastasia, but we might as well try to keep things accurate here.
Archived Post 1
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53973685.html
OTOH, the _technology_ which BSV embodies is much closer to what satoshi bequeathed unto us as compared to the technology which BTC embodies. As such, it is BTC which is arguably the 'rival technology'.
"Bequeathed unto us?" Do you believe Satoshi's last build to be some kind of religious instruction?
No.
Satoshi would never create a rival technology to Bitcoin and have the
nerve to call it Bitcoin SV.
nerve to call it Bitcoin SV.
Would Satoshi ever had the nerve to create a rival technology to Bitcoin, and call it SegWit? The point remains that, in some supposed reckoning regarding whether BTC or BCH is 'rival technology' to Satoshi's ... errmmm ... design, it is BTC which is more divergent thereof, and therefore of the two would be the 'rival technology'.
Archived Post 2
N.b., I have not (yet?) deleted this one. I archive it nevertheless.
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53977798.html
Fascinating. Clicking that link finds the following:
Code:
Internet Archive's Wayback Machine
https://medium.com/@craig_10243/ccbe22f2637e
Latest
Show All
Sorry.
This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine.
https://medium.com/@craig_10243/ccbe22f2637e
Latest
Show All
Sorry.
This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine.
What could this mean? Is the Wayback Machine not a bulletproof historical record after all?
He will have requested (or demanded) to have his content removed.
"He". Presumably Craig? Seems plausible, even likely. Does Wayback provide any attribution traceability? I.e., is there any way to prove that removal was requested, and if so, by whom?
While I never had any reason to look into it, I had always just sort of assumed that Wayback was an incorruptible, unalterable record of past states of parts of the internet. Imagine my surprise to learn that this is not the case.
Quote
You can still use archive.fo and archive.today.
Thanks. That even worked: http://archive.ph/LMrM4
I may have more to say after I read it.
Though it does occur to me that there seems to be a valid use case for a high-capacity, unalterable, append-only database, free to be written by anyone who might care to pay whatever the market deems proper to get their data included, and free to be read at no cost by anyone anywhere at any time.
If only such a thing existed....
Oh. Wait...
Archived Post 3
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53978397.html
* nullius dons moderation hat.
I should have known better to have IRL concerns drawing me away from the forum just after hv_ tested the waters again
Deleted two posts filled with lies, half-truths, and assorted disinformation by jbreher:
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53972154.html
http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5397/53973685.html
The posts are preserved for anyone to examine
::sigh:: yes, it is your right to delete any and all content that you wish. For any reason whatsoever. Well, at least you have the vaguest shreds of decency left to leave a link that others may follow.
However, you do not have the right to characterize my posts as "filled with lies". Well, unless you care to identify the (so-stated) "lies" therein, and rebut them.
Well, you can -- as in, you have the ability to -- in your own self-moderated thread, but that is a chickenshit action, not a rightful one.
The attentive reader will note that a challenge has been issued to nullius to rebut any "lies" he claims that I have posted. Shall s/he rise to the occasion?
This post may be edited to add additional archival quotes.