Quote from: jbreher on June 17, 2020, 12:16:53 AM

Quote from: DaRude on June 16, 2020, 05:38:09 AM

But "law is law" is the fundamental pillar to BSv, your opinion directly contradicts that of Faketoshi and CSW. You must realize that without Faketoshi's obnoxious claims and Ayre's bank account, there is no BSV, or are you in denial to that as well?

You really need some new go-to 'talking points'. 'Aussie man bad' and 'pedo man bad' are played out. The market is not listening to you. You have heaps and heaps of ammunition, should your tropes have any relevance at all. But they don't.

As posted above: SpongeBobNobodyCares.png

'Law is law' is not relevant to BSV. Seems relevant to Craig, but again: CSW != BSV. After so much repeated evidence of this truism, you'd think you'd get it through your thick skull. But no.

Quote from: BitcoinFX on June 16, 2020, 07:50:12 AM

Quote from: jbreher on June 16, 2020, 12:36:08 AM

Quote from: BitcoinFX on June 15, 2020, 02:19:21 PM

Quote from: vapourminer on June 15, 2020, 12:34:41 PM

Quote from: BitcoinFX on June 15, 2020, 10:28:32 AM

The real satoshi told you what happens to minority forks ...

Quote from: satoshi on June 18, 2010, 04:17:14 PM

A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me. It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in. If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version. If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version. This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.

I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.

...snip...

...

The real satoshi is talking about the possibility of future chain forks here (i.e. BCH and BSV etc.,)

No, the real satoshi is clearly NOT talking about the possibility of future chain forks in your quoted passage. The real satoshi is manifestly speaking to the topic of alternate client software implementations working on the same blockchain.

What was it he said in the same discussion immediately preceding? Oh yes:

Quote from: satoshi on June 17, 2010, 06:46:08 PM

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

...snip...

Not so and your entirely missing the point that the real satoshi was making.

No. In your quoted bit, Satoshi was clearly speaking of an alternate client implementation working upon the same blockchain. There is simply no other way to interpret 'all nodes getting identical results in lockstep'. If you can't see that, your [sic] a special type of stupid. Or maybe just willfully, delusionally ignorant.

BSv fundamental = unlimited size requires unlimited resources duh = FAIL
cult following = in tact while Ayre continues to bankroll = PASS
BSv PR = lol Faketoshi, Ayre = dddouble FAIL

Plan to success:
Step 1 Sue everyone
Step 2 Huh

Step 3 Everyone forgets about that whole decentralization thing, accepts and start using BSv as the one bitcoin

You are aware that projects fail cause of shitty leadership right?