Quote from: nullius on Today at 03:16:46 AM

Quote from: jbreher on September 19, 2020, 06:58:29 AM

Preference for the BSV protocol != 'Faketoshi-apologia' (WhateverTF that might be).

My first encounter with you was in a thread focused on Craig Wrights grand-scale identity theft, not technical issues.

Faketoshi-apologia == this, inter alia:

Quote from: nullius on March 07, 2020, 11:00:44 PM

Quote from: jbreher on March 05, 2020, 09:13:51 PM

Quote from: nullius on February 04, 2020, 04:34:23 PM

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.

Quote from: nullius on February 12, 2020, 10:39:32 PM

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.

Yup. And you've also quoted me in all that need be said about that:
"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."

Faketoshi-apologia? Hardly.

Quote

With just a bit of digging, I also found you on record defaming Segwits security with the usual nonsense. I have sufficient technical competence to know that it is indeed nonsense. (That is why I am happy to keep my life savings in Segwit-native coins which I cannot afford to lose, which I would not entrust to unreliable technology.) It is not only a matter of disagreement about whether or not Segwit is a practical improvement: Youve said things that are factually false, which I myself know to be factually false (not just because someone else said so), and which have been debunked so many times in such excruciating detail that I cannot imagine how any intelligent person can believe them sincerely.

I must misunderstand you somehow. You seem to be saying that: should a majority of SAH256 mining power choose to revert to pre-segwit protocol, and to defend that decision by attacking any competing chain, they would be literally unable to do so. Is that your claim?

Quote

Quote from: jbreher on September 19, 2020, 06:58:29 AM

And that entire matter of starting a brigaded neg campaign against me. Not like it hurt me in any way, but that's just fucking rude.

Ill give you this: You are not a garden-variety BSVer, the type who either lacks intelligence or has a few loose screws (or both). By process of elimination, that is why I called you a liar.

Right. Then proceeded with a litany of 'examples' to 'support' your claim, in which I lie in exactly 0% thereof. You asswipe.

Quote

Quote from: jbreher on September 19, 2020, 06:58:29 AM

If Blockalypse II comes and goes without the same sort of reduction in BTC Dominance that accompanied Blockalypse I, I'll likely acquiesce. In the same sense that I have waved goodbye to the sonics of 2" 30 ips tape. But repudiate the better design? Ain't gonna happen.

jbreher, what did you mean by sonics?

The subjective pleasure or displeasure -- as sensed psychoacoustically -- imparted by a particular music recording technology.

Quote

The question is actually significant here.

For those who are unfamiliar with high-fidelity audio reproduction, I should briefly explain: There is a certain type of man who is unalterably certain of the superiority of analogue audio recording technologystereotypically, vinyl records. It does not matter how often you explain the Nyquist Theorem. It does not matter if you use absurdly high-precision scientific instruments to measure audio differences far too small for humans to be capable of hearing, which invariably show that good digital equipment is hands-down superior to the quality of the best analogue device ever made. It does not matter if you perform empirical double-blind listening tests in anechoic chambers. And the problem is not stupidity, per se. It is tantamount to a religion.

That's a lot of blah blah blah dancing right past what really matters. You don't need to lecture me in Nyquist's theorem. I am a degreed electrical engineer and applied mathematician. But your blanket statement of superiority conveniently shoots right past the question of 'superior at _what_, exactly? The field of music production is a corner of the field of commercial art. And art is not measured by scientific instruments. It is measured by the effect it has upon each listener's emotions.

Quote

If the above quote was intended to imply that 2" 30 ips tape has superior audio fidelity to digital, in the sense of transparent reproduction, then I have just accidentally solved the mystery of jbreher!

So sad for you that the point flew right over your head.

Quote

On the other other hand, I dont think that anybody ever said that about 2" (!) 30 ips (!!) tape. That seems pretty clearly aimed at maximal quality, not audible distortions.

You've obviously no experience in the production processes of popular music - where 2" 30 ips tape used to be the norm. True, it has largely been supplanted by digital production processes. But this is widely considered a production workflow efficiency driven decision. Employing 2" 30 ips analog tape for pop productions is still largely considered in professional circles as 'going the extra mile' in pursuit of improved sonics.