/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.16960397]

Why so many want him TO-NOT be Satoshi so bad?

[Anonymous No.16960408]

>>16960397
>i need a leader.

[Anonymous No.16960409]

>>16960397
he threatens their bags that is literally the only reason

[Anonymous No.16960421]

[Anonymous No.16960426]

>>16960409
he threatens their world view, just like trump

[Anonymous No.16960427]

>>16960397
Because he's a faggot, and his ideas suck. Maybe it's the George Lucas effect, idk.

>>16960409
Him being Satoshi doesn't mean shit to Bitcoin but thanks anyways

[Anonymous No.16960434]

>>16960427
>Him being Satoshi doesn't mean shit to Bitcoin but thanks anyways
coping lmao

[Anonymous No.16960479]

I hold both so I don’t care either way

[Anonymous No.16960485]

>>16960427
>Him being Satoshi doesn't mean shit to Bitcoin
The idea being out there and the forks reduce confidence and volume. They're complete poison.

[Anonymous No.16960540]

>>16960434
You're the one coping.

>>16960485
Sure, but that isn't nearly enough to kill Bitcoin anymore than BCH did, or literally any other attempted hard fork. Even Kregg gets that, because that's why he is attempting to play legal hardball (and will ultimately fail). Because what gives Bitcoin value isn't just its ability to conduct transactions.

[Anonymous No.16960556]

>>16960397
sign the keys

[Anonymous No.16960566]

>>16960397
Because he's not a very likeable guy..

[Anonymous No.16960593]

>>16960397
>Why so many want him TO-NOT be Satoshi so bad?
because he is an insufferable faggot and a tech illiterate boomer twitterdouche cringelord

[Anonymous No.16960601]

>>16960397
>decentralized
>central point of failure
pick one

[Hard4TheGuard No.16960676]

Ok to be the most realest trillest nibba on these cyber streets and to not use simple little words like faggot...

IMO and just my thoughts, this dude is out here doing some very questionable things to the industry. Also, he is not the only one spreading FUD. I think we all have a huge bias in the crytpo-sphere due to probably having too much skin in the game.

But again, there is a lot of uncertainty with all crypto projects and of course we are all speculating and relying on mass adoption. It is really hard to believe BTC is ranging 8K currently. Even that it went to 20k. Though, it has been very reliable for 10yrs now and counting.

Perhaps Craig is satoshi or came up with the name. I mean maybe the real reason everyone has a problem with this guy or any person coming out as satoshi is because we all like the idea that this is some anon person with good intentions for humanity. But we all know how each one of us can be taken by greed. raaantttt raaaaannnt raaaaaan + more raaaaant

[Anonymous No.16960740]

>>16960593
In short, the man is a douche.

[Anonymous No.16960810]

>>16960397
why do you want him to be satoshi?
the world doesn’t need a centralized CIA/FBI/NSA friendly shitcoin where transactions can be censured at their own interests
BTC needs more fungibility, not the possibility to seize coins

[Anonymous No.16960815]

>>16960740
well it's the main reason why nobody would want him to be satoshi.
but then again he made all the wrong answers when asked the right questions.
chances of him being satoshi are less than a random bantu niggers that lives in a mudhut with no internet access.

[Anonymous No.16961809]

>>16960397
why do you want a daddy so much? lol

[Anonymous No.16961827]

>>16960427
>Him being Satoshi doesn't mean shit to Bitcoin but thanks anyways

Next level cope right here.

[Anonymous No.16961965]

>>16961827
T.

[Anonymous No.16961991]

It would completely invalidate the technology

[Anonymous No.16962021]

>>16961965
typical small blocker cope

[Anonymous No.16962027]

>>16960397

Because they find his approach distasteful and arrogant. They want someone like Nick Szabo or Adam Back to be Satoshi because it fits the narrative of the past 10 years, which is that Satoshi was not just an anarcho-capitalist/anti gov type, but a quiet academic who can admit that he was wrong and that small blocks are the way forward thanks to the selfless efforts of expert cryptographers such as Greg Maxwell and Peter Todd (who definitely wasn't compromised by an anonymous CIA agent calling himself "John Dillon" who had deep pockets and a small-block agenda).

The truth is, Craig is a curmudgeon and a hardcore big blocker (just like Satoshi) who doesn't play nice and has changed a lot after 10 years and 10 billion dollars. But if you look at old photos of him pre-Bitcoin, he's basically just a nerdy guy like the rest. The lesson here should basically be that money changes people. Nick Szabo and Adam Back haven't changed since Bitcoin was released, because they didn't invent it or have any part in it until much later.

[Anonymous No.16962152]

>>16962021
I used my Bitcoin to buy a coke today. Paid no fees...so uh... Have fun with muh transaction speed when visa has your retarded asses beat

[Anonymous No.16962194]

[Anonymous No.16962206]

>>16962152
>I used my Bitcoin to buy a coke today. Paid no fees...

So you didn't use Bitcoin.

[Anonymous No.16962223]

>>16962027
>who definitely wasn't compromised by an anonymous CIA agent calling himself "John Dillon" who had deep pockets and a small-block agenda
>craig making a CIA friendly coin which allow coin seizure, transaction censorship and address ban
pick one

[Anonymous No.16962300]

>>16962206
I used my crypto.com card. Ez. Layer solutions are more practical for the modern world -- but that's why most crypto is doomed to fail.

[Anonymous No.16962333]

theyre shit scared. theyre calling him names but he just wont go away. theyre trying to ridicule him but keep getting BTFO. normies, corecucks and crypto scammers are absolutely frothing at the mouth they are terrified of this man and have no idea how to handle him

[Anonymous No.16962336]

>>16962300
>I used a third party

Oh so like what Peter Schiff talks about? Yeah man. Who needs crypto when you can just store gold with a third party and use a card to spend it.

Blockstream shills deserve only cancer.

[Anonymous No.16962356]

>>16962027
Based comment. Are you all in BSV ?

[Anonymous No.16962364]

>>16962336
>store gold with a third party and use a card to spend it
Yeah hahah who would do that? Oh wait the entire fucking world during the most economically prosperous times in history you fucking baboon

[Anonymous No.16962397]

>>16962356

Yes, of course

[Anonymous No.16962407]

So he set up Tulip Trust when the coins weren't worth anything. And he did this to protect his assets? If they weren't worth anything at the time, how does this work? And why not be a trustee if the Trust wasn't valuable at the time?

[Anonymous No.16962483]

Buying the dip hopefully it goes down to 175 or lower

[Anonymous No.16962542]

>>16962364
Again missing the point. With Bitcoin you don't have to use custodians for global commerce.

>Yeah hahah who would do that?
Since it's apparent you're completely clueless the best I can do is point you in the right direction. Learn about Goldsmiths and how bank runs occurred. Treating Bitcoin as a settlement system is the exact same thing.

Further this entire argument is a waste of time anyway. If you banking shills attempt to do this with Bitcoin you only shoot yourself in the foot because the system requires throughput to sustain itself.

All because bankers want to insert themselves in the transaction process of Bitcoin to siphon off economic energy like contemporary payment processors.

[Anonymous No.16962560]

because the price of BTC would plummet if he really is Satoshi, all my investments would be gone. Let's see if he really has that 1M bitcoin reserve or not

[Anonymous No.16962646]

>>16962407

[Anonymous No.16962769]

>>16962646
post source URL from document plz

[Anonymous No.16962794]

>>16962542
My argument here is that any fork of Bitcoin can accomplish the same goal and solve the largest problem -- government supply and tampering. Banks are good -- central banks and fed banks are not. Every modern financial hardship in history has been due to the government writing blank checks, and people being unable to hold it accountable. Public ledgers however force accountability and allow the public to audit it. That in itself, imho, is the modern role of Bitcoin in the modern day.

Bsv may be a more efficient system to conduct transactions, but it sacrifices small blocks for a more centralized network, thereby reducing fees and increasing tps. But, tps was never the reason Bitcoin blew up in the first place, and continues to crab. It blew up because the network could be run by anyone, making it secure and free from transaction interference. Okay -- that in mind, why do I think forks are doomed to fail?

Because they sacrifice things that make Bitcoin "what it is" in the name of tps. Custodial agents aren't ever going to go away, because you CAN'T use digital currency of any kind without one. The nature of a digital currency, as we interpret it, means that there is nobody to put the capital in to invest in a system to compete with visa. That's why so few accept BTC in the first place -- hassle isn't worth it. Nothing at all to do with fees, it's pretty apparent that they will just pass the fee onto you if visa is any model to go by. Finally, the fact that BSV is still "in development" ultimately makes it hard to be taken seriously. It makes it harder to reliably trust the network. A network that doesn't change is ultimately a safer bet than one that changes.

>btw I'm still holding 25 percent bsv for pumps because bsv and BTC can co-exist lol

[Anonymous No.16962805]

>>16962769
go on courtlistener

If there's one thing that convinced me that craig was satoshi, it was this case against Ira

[Anonymous No.16963002]

>>16962794
If you take transactions off the chain and store your asset with a custodian then you don't have anything to protect you from a bank run. The way BTC is developing is in such a way that users will NEVER use the chain. They are priced out. It will only be large payment processors and banks who settle on it every month or so because any more than that would be too expensive and time consuming even for them. All the while reducing security on the system itself because they have as I already said middlemen siphon economic energy from the miners. Less profitable to mine = less security. This is also ignoring all the benefits requiring custodians removes from the utility of Bitcoin in first place.

Am I totally against 3rd parties? Not even a little bit. However in BTC they are literally required because BTC cannot do payments and I mean that in the most literal way. The removal of first seen rule, implementation of RBF and full blocks absolutely prevents it. Tada! We've created a problem that requires a banking solution for payments! Going back to utility, they've missed the forest for the trees. Simple Alice to Bob transactions are such a minute insignificant part of the true power of this technology. When you scale it and let it run wild you get business and technical solutions that completely and utterly changes the way our world operates. This capability has been caged up for YEARS.

Small blocks do nothing for decentralization.

[Anonymous No.16963039]

>>16962805
i tried but i have no idea how to use their search engine to find Craig´s case files or documents.

[Anonymous No.16963053]

well.. google worked lol
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/kleiman-v-wright/

[Anonymous No.16963058]

>>16963039
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/377/kleiman-v-wright/

[Anonymous No.16963348]

>>16963058
does this mean nothings gonna happen till june 2020 ?

[Anonymous No.16963540]

>>16963002

Based

[Anonymous No.16963639]

>>16960397
I think you're projecting. Being that you have way more to lose if he isn't.

If he is Satoshi all that means is Satoshi is a fag.