/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.16970923]

>Literally the only crypto with a real future
>Literally Internet 2.0
>Literally made and backed by Satoshi himself

Why the fuck are you not all in BSV?

[Anonymous No.16971639]

I like these recurring threads. It ensures that NOBODY can claim they didn't know. NOBODY can claim they weren't warned. EVERYONE will have to own it when they miss Bitcoin for a 2nd time.

It's going to be very rough for some people when they realize what they missed.

[Anonymous No.16971695]

>>16970923
But I am desu senpai goku sushi.

[Anonymous No.16971713]

>>16971639
yeah man I'm really missing out on your psychopath head who, if he was actually satoshi, could prove it easily.

[Anonymous No.16971723]

Fuck BSV

XRP where its at

[Anonymous No.16971727]

I refuse to believe there is anyone on this board retarded enough to unironically hold bsv.

[Anonymous No.16971751]

>>16971727
This, there can't be.

[Anonymous No.16971803]

>>16971723
> tfw 2015 hype

[Anonymous No.16971814]

>>16971727
>>16971751
It's either a memster pretender or a legit curry.

[Gil Gunderson No.16971871]

>>16971727
But it pumped like crazy this month, didn't it?
I mean it's gotta be a gimmie.
Don't tell me ol' Gil is gonna lose his mortgage.

[Anonymous No.16971882]

>>16971727
kek

[Anonymous No.16971909]

>>16971727
This... I love how there's periods of no shilling then suddenly we are spammed into oblivion

[Anonymous No.16972168]

>>16971727
just like there was noone retard enough to buy 10k+ LINK at under a dollar. buy BSV

[Anonymous No.16972190]

>>16971713
He did prove it. You are just too stupid to get it.

[Anonymous No.16972243]

>>16971727
I refuse to believe there is anyone on this board retarded enough to unironically fall for this obvious glownigger FUD.

[Anonymous No.16973398]

>>16972190
rofl

[Anonymous No.16973936]

>>16973398
The other error in this claim is the assertion that keys should prove identity in the first place. CSW has written copiously on this and related topics. The ideology of many in crypto is that the rules in the code are the rules of the system. They do not see law as a superseding ruleset. Therefore, they see control of keys as the be-all and end-all on the question of ownership of bitcoin. However, we can clearly see that this is a poor argument and a flawed approach. Keys to one’s house are useful in that they create a system where the owner of the house can use the keys to limit the ease of access to trusted parties. However, if someone stole the keys, they would not own the house. If someone simply holds the keys to bitcoins, that alone should not give them legal ownership. Similarly, asking someone to prove ownership of keys to prove identity is a non-sequitur, even if it is true that control of keys known to belong to an individual increases the likelihood that the key-holder is that individual.

[Anonymous No.16974669]

>>16973936
Wow this is some professional grade shilling. I wonder how much they pay you. Either way, you point seems valid to the untrained eye, but you can't fool the people that have been here for a long time. Ownership of keys does not prove you own the house, but if you can show me that you have the keys to the original lock that came with the house (a lock that has long been replaced), you can at least back up your claim with some supporting evidence. Instead he shows us an empty box and says "here is where I used to keep the keys, back in the day when I had them. See? Told you."

[Anonymous No.16974699]

>>16970923
What do her farts smell like?

[Anonymous No.16974702]

>>16973936
>keys should prove identity
not legally no which is why craig would sign if he could its his best move convincing everyone while maintaining plausible deniability.

[Anonymous No.16974710]

>>16972190
You blockstream shills are literal demons on this Earth

[Anonymous No.16974720]

>>16972190
Meant for
>>16971909
>>16972243

[Anonymous No.16974816]

>>16974669
So you admit that signing with the keys is not actually proof. It's only evidence.

Congratulations, you just realized that requiring him to sign is completely unnecessary when there is evidence much more powerful available.

Proof of work. Proof of knowledge.

You checkmated yourself retard.

[Anonymous No.16974886]

>>16974816
wrong signing is not evidence of craig being satoshi its evidence of satoshi saying he is craig if the signature checks out. the rest is simply bollocks public domain knowledge would be no proof of any kind but fortunately craig demonstrated ample ignorance about cryptography and bitcoin for this not to be an issue.

[Anonymous No.16975186]

>>16974816
You sound like a complete idiot. It's well documented Craig has used the phrase "when I read the bitcoin whitepaper" instead of saying when I wrote the whitepaper. This guy is the absolute textbook example of a con artist. His ridiculous lies in the court case are seriously like a movie. Like a movie where the protagonist is just lying in a courtroom and saying the most outrageous shit and the judge just has to listen to it and respond. You can look this up the judge even said some shit like the tales we weave when we deceive or something. BSV is an obvious scam because it is represented by a man who is very obviously a fucking shameless liar and a person that cannot be trusted. He is not as stupid as you may think though; his partners in crime are definitely experienced in their own ways and are a force to be reckoned with. They must be. I want to admit... sometimes, late at night, when I'm very tired, I forget, for a moment, that BSV is a scam. The aluring pumps and the shills make it almost believable. Then I remember Craig's awful behaviours and complete lack of ethics. Maybe his complete disregard of ethical societal norms will allow this man to succeed in fooling the world though...

[Anonymous No.16975323]

>>16975186
lol imagine being this much of a disinfo shill

[Anonymous No.16975358]

Your friends FOMO'd OUT three days ago anon. Poor you and your hemorrhaging assets