Quote from: Lauda on Today at 09:32:19 AM

Quote from: nullius on Today at 09:02:15 AM

In fairness, I don’t think it’s ipso facto wrong to use multiple identities. (Cypherpunk here.) The question is of intent.

It was never my intention to do so, but I would strongly argue that you do not want somebody doing that (very unlikely for virtuous reasons)

It is not a good sign when Cøbra speaks with a forked tongue, as Cøbra—in addition to that multiple-identity thing.

Quote from: Lauda on Today at 09:32:19 AM

to be the sole owner and responsible person for Bitcoin.org.

Quote from: nullius on Today at 09:02:15 AM

I am much more worried by his equivocation over Btrash, of which I was hereto unaware due to my having slept for almost two years. Equivocation is always a bad sign.

Quote from: Lauda on Today at 09:32:19 AM

No, just no.

No argument from me here!

Quote from: nullius on Today at 09:02:15 AM

bitcoincore.org (onion)

verify the integrity of your download using strong cryptography

Quote from: JayJuanGee on Today at 09:47:23 AM

oh and say fuck you to the shitcoiners once in a while, that tends to be a bonus.

Whereupon:

Quote from: JayJuanGee on Today at 09:47:23 AM

Quote from: Lauda on Today at 07:12:45 AM

Essentially nobody trusts Cøbra except theymos and maybe a couple of bamboozled individuals. There is a reason for this, and there is a reason why many here have praised Cøbra when he has appeared here before: It is called ignorance.

I had kind of noticed the parts about some questionable deviance into being sympathetic into shitcoins and nonsense BIG blocker theories, but sometimes it is NOT clear about the various connections and maybe they do not matter too much in the whole scheme of things and if I feel that I am able to engage within the forum and share ideas, mostly about bitcoin, then I am good...

Jay, I think that it would be a real eye-opener (and ultimately beneficial to Bitcoin) if you were to do a market analysis to estimate approximately where Bitcoin should be today, were it not for the fork-attacks. Bitcoin’s “honey badger” power in resisting those attacks has been phenomenal; but where would we be without those attacks?

I am now arguing from a business perspective. Any reasonable prospectus on Bitcoin must disclose that Bitcoin’s biggest vulnerability is fork-attacks, also known as the trust attack. Any reasonable investor should recognize it as in his own self-interest to fight those attacks. The forked shitcoins falsely advertised as “Bitcoin” will, in and of themselves, never amount to anything in the long term; they are purely a negative, which harms the market as a whole by intentionally, fraudulently diluting the “Bitcoin” brand and financially diluting Bitcoin’s market capitalization. To invest exclusively in the one and only Bitcoin, and defend your investment by defending Bitcoin against dilution attacks, is a strategy perfectly matched in both principle and practicality.

Whereas Cøbra is perfectly positioned to stab Bitcoin in the back. He is a trusted party for a vital public relations channel—one to which such well-intended people as LoyceV (and unfortunately, I myself) have been referring newbies. If Cøbra were just some guy posting his opinions on the Internet, it would be a different matter. Whereas the trusted party exclusively controlling a website with major public mindshare is known to be at best equivocal—at best. If he were deadly principled, it may arguably be a different matter; but he is obviously not, wherefore:

Quote from: Lauda on Today at 07:12:45 AM

Next step: Cøbra to give up access to Bitcoin.org.