I just noticed how this started because I am a bit preoccupied here, and I dont parse cutesy-wootsy abuse of languageWTF, the obsequious fawning over money, spineless as a jellyfish...
Just like the only possible reason why people could presume to criticize the stock market SCAM is jealousy of Warren Buffets whale-ness. Surely indeed, he must make your allegedly rich idol jbreher look like plankton. All hail Buffet!
Such logic is a plutocrats dream.
If it looks like a bcasher, and spins like a bcasher... ok, I should probably stop wasting my time here.
(No, Jay, I myself dont sing kumbaya.)
There is no such thing as WBTC....
I mean that WBTC is not BTC... So don't get fooled by what they are calling it. It is a fucking token.
So, who fucking cares if the WBTC managers call their token a BTC variant - because BTC, it is not.
Just for clarification, this is how it works.
You give WBTC managers your BTC (if you are that fucking stupid) and they keep your BTC while giving you a voucher. What the fuck kind of threat is that, exactly?
You have been reading too many sharding papers, Biodom.
If a depository offers a paper certificate redeemable for an ounce of gold, how is that a risk to gold? Moreover, there exist blockchains offering tokens that (promise to) represent ownership of gold. Thats wrapped gold. Should goldbugs be worried?
Accepting that is a risk to you, in the sense of not yourkeys coins, not your coins. Arguably, it may be a useful tradeoff in some situations. I dont see how some people making that tradeoff affects other people who hold their own gold coins, insofar as a theft by the depository would be just another more or less big gold theft. Am I missing something?
I do worry about all the bitcoins being held in centralized exchanges, just because that is a terrifically huge proportion of the total supplyall held in a relatively few points of failure, susceptible to coercion, etc.
Insertion between the above and below:
Versus how much held in centralized exchanges?
Does NOT seem very likely that jbreher would engage in any kind of behavior that would allow him to take you up on your beer offer, even though I do hate to lose hope for some people, but sometimes, we just get a sense that some people have gone too far down a path that they cannot feel comfortable coming off of such path...
I am not so naïve to expect any non-negligible chance of that; but I thought it worth mentioning nonetheless.
I would be interested to know the original source. Is it Vays, or someone else? I saw that in qwks personal text.
I have observed many people mistake it as if Emerson were criticizing consistency as suchas if inconsistency and self-contradiction were good. Usually, the misquote without the foolish qualifier is presented to rationalize some bout of neophilia, or self-contradictory postmodernism, or divers other pseudointellectual navel-gazing. I should know that youre smarter than thatbut you should know that on the Internet, so many readers are not!
Damn, I wanted to reply to one of your earlier posts, among others. You keep writing; I keep getting further behind.
I feel like many here are simply jelly of @jbreher and his whale-ness.
I am always eager to hear a person with a different (chain) point of view.
I am always eager to hear a person with a different (chain) point of view.
Just like the only possible reason why people could presume to criticize the stock market SCAM is jealousy of Warren Buffets whale-ness. Surely indeed, he must make your allegedly rich idol jbreher look like plankton. All hail Buffet!
Such logic is a plutocrats dream.
The levels of unneeded zealotry here are starting to trigger my usually not very sensitive bs sensor.
I can be in bitcoin without giving a second thought to bitcoin cash and it's derivative.
I can be in bitcoin without giving a second thought to bitcoin cash and it's derivative.
If it looks like a bcasher, and spins like a bcasher... ok, I should probably stop wasting my time here.
(No, Jay, I myself dont sing kumbaya.)
Right now, $1 bil btc is already "wrapped" (WBTC).
There is no such thing as WBTC....
I mean that WBTC is not BTC... So don't get fooled by what they are calling it. It is a fucking token.
So, who fucking cares if the WBTC managers call their token a BTC variant - because BTC, it is not.
Just for clarification, this is how it works.
You give WBTC managers your BTC (if you are that fucking stupid) and they keep your BTC while giving you a voucher. What the fuck kind of threat is that, exactly?
You have been reading too many sharding papers, Biodom.
If a depository offers a paper certificate redeemable for an ounce of gold, how is that a risk to gold? Moreover, there exist blockchains offering tokens that (promise to) represent ownership of gold. Thats wrapped gold. Should goldbugs be worried?
Accepting that is a risk to you, in the sense of not your
I do worry about all the bitcoins being held in centralized exchanges, just because that is a terrifically huge proportion of the total supplyall held in a relatively few points of failure, susceptible to coercion, etc.
Insertion between the above and below:
right...and what would happen if instead of $1bil some "btc holding fools" will give WBTC managers $20bil or more?
I think that you two are somewhat ignorant of the threat, perhaps?
I think that you two are somewhat ignorant of the threat, perhaps?
Versus how much held in centralized exchanges?
(FWIW, in some clusterfork of a Reputation thread, I mentioned that I would offer jbreher a (virtual) beer if he ever consistently repudiated his beloved forked shitcoins and Faketoshi-apologia, and admitted that he was wrong about Segwit, Core, etc. The offer stands.)
Does NOT seem very likely that jbreher would engage in any kind of behavior that would allow him to take you up on your beer offer, even though I do hate to lose hope for some people, but sometimes, we just get a sense that some people have gone too far down a path that they cannot feel comfortable coming off of such path...
I am not so naïve to expect any non-negligible chance of that; but I thought it worth mentioning nonetheless.
(I think I got "shitcoin minimalist" from Tone Vays)
I would be interested to know the original source. Is it Vays, or someone else? I saw that in qwks personal text.
I did look up the quote before I referred to it in my post, so I did recall at the time of my post that Emerson was referring to "foolish consistency" rather than mere consistency on its own.. but purposefully, I just decided to refer to the whole quote in a more vague and amorphous kind of way....
I have observed many people mistake it as if Emerson were criticizing consistency as suchas if inconsistency and self-contradiction were good. Usually, the misquote without the foolish qualifier is presented to rationalize some bout of neophilia, or self-contradictory postmodernism, or divers other pseudointellectual navel-gazing. I should know that youre smarter than thatbut you should know that on the Internet, so many readers are not!
Damn, I wanted to reply to one of your earlier posts, among others. You keep writing; I keep getting further behind.