Quote from: ETFbitcoin on Today at 12:41:21 PM

Quote from: nullius on August 01, 2022, 05:39:13 PM

Wait a minute. For the past three years, nobody noticed that fillippone is a wannabe wallet thief? This is way beyond Asch.

fillippone will never find anything unless someone tells him about Brainflayer, but that is not the point: He is audaciously proclaiming wallet-thief intentions that rico666 evasively dissimulated with LBC. rico666 got tagged for that. Worse, fillippone claims that this is “legitimate” (!). And he claims that as a trusted pillar of the community, who should be responsible to the highest standards. Tagged accordingly.

Doesn't it depend on how you interpret meaning of word "legitimate"? Based on how @fillippone use that word on sentence, i interpret that as Bitcoin ownership based on knowing it's private key.

Quote from: https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/legitimate

2. adjective based on known statements or events or conditions
synonyms: logical
valid
well grounded in logic or truth or having legal force

It is rare that I find myself in total disagreement with you as a wise and well crafted poster in this forum, but sorry, your position looks too cryptographic to me, and yes, it is bad, no matter how many people are bragging with their elementary number theory and cryptography or how trending is zk proof fantasies which are supposed to be the next BIG thing (total madness), bitcoin is not cryptography, believe it or not, it has never been introduced by its inventor as a "cryptocurrency".

The obsolete, elite/gov dominated field of cryptography, and its artificial terminology has never been used or credited in the bitcoin white paper other than one transient mentioning of "cryptographic proof" , AFAICR, and electronic signature. Don't take these mathemagicians too seriously, they are full of sh*t. Cheesy

BTW, Who in the hell made it up in the first place, ~~cryptocurrency~~? Huh