Why would anyone take criticism about their investments personally?

stumbled on this today: Satoshi rumored to be sitting on a few bill, ha http://time.com/money/5002378/bitcoi.../?iid=sr-link2

and the hidden bitcoin tax: http://time.com/money/5007068/theres.../?iid=sr-link1

i figure there is a very good chance that the early satoshi private keys were destroyed and the coins effectively burned. I don't know exactly how the technicals work, but they are too much power, and if it was someone like Szabo or Finney, I think they would made plans for disposal beforehand.

Wrong. Someone is still moving early coins. For example, someone has been seeding this address with early coins since 2010. https://blockchain.info/address/1111...111111114oLvT2

Are you saying the coins associated with Satoshi Nakamoto have moved?

What are you talking about? That is a null address, no one is going to be able to access those coins.

Also, the first transaction sent to it is from august 2010. That's 1½ years into Bitcoin's history, it very probably isn't Satoshi that made that transaction.

Of course some of them have moved.

What makes you think that is a null address? Nothing about it should indicate that nobody will be able to access those coins. On the contrary, it seems quite unlikely that they are inaccessible.

They are most likely his. They are tied to coins which were used to seed the bitcoin faucet with 10BTC when it first came out. Likely the only person to seed it this much, this early was Satoshi himself.

Didn't anyone ever stop to think where all those faucet coins came from? Some came from Gavin himself, but he also said he couldn't handle all the demand and asked for more people to step up and donate. There was a public address where anyone could donate to the bitcoin faucet, which would help get the word out and get people to use bitcoin. That certainly would be in Satoshi's best interest. Here is a transaction where he donated 5000 BTC to the faucet. If you trace the coins, you'll see these are associated with the so-called null address I posted above.

https://blockchain.info/tx/4b5960b1d...095f635218db35

Also look at this. Transactions of coins moving from 2009.



I think people get confused about the whole "most coins inactive" thing. Sure, most of the coins from 2009 haven't moved. But a few of them have, and it's very interesting to see what they do.

Maybe I do not understand what you mean, but if you think someone have the private key and can spend the money that is in the address: 1111111111111111111114oLvT2 your technical understanding of Bitcoin is so poor that you really should consider reading more instead of posting here.

To answer your question, the public key is randomly generated from your private key, so to be in possession of the private key to an address that starts with 20 1s is practically impossible.

Randomly generated? Please note that addresses are different from public keys.

As your image shows the address is generated from the public key (which is generated from the private key).

Maybe I was a bit unclear by using the word randomly, but the point remains the same. You need to randomly look through private keys to find one that generates a public key that gives you exactly that address. Today this is practically impossible. If it becomes possible in the future, Bitcoin in its current form is dead so it does not really matter.

Okay, fair enough
Ughh, there you go again.

From a purely technical standpoint, is there any reason an entity could not have control of a private key that resolves to a 111111111111 address? I know its very unlikely, but it is possible, correct?

I think you are starting to get it, because this is what I had a problem with:

This image seems relevant here:
https://miguelmoreno.net/wp-content/...05/fYFBsqp.jpg

This has turned into a philosophical question.
Is it possible that someone controls that address: YES, but it is so unlikely that it would be considered very strong evidence that Bitcoin and SHA256 is broken if somebody did.

Can someone please help me understand BCC vs BCH? Are they the same thing?

What is BitConnect? I'm confused because coinmarketcap.com lists Bitcoin cash as BCH and Bitconnect as BCC?

Thanks

A pretty good narrative about how bitcoin's greatest utility is as a large value settlement medium rather than a coffee money. I don't agree with his whole argument (especially his attack on Keynes) or his conclusion (lack thereof) but he paints a picture that is somewhat in line with my thinking:



His book is worth the read.

I might have linked to this blog post already but its a relevant summary of his argument:https://thesaifhouse.wordpress.com/2...ement-network/

bitconnect is a blatant ponzi scam. they advertise yearly 120% returns.

some exchanges list bitcoin cash as BCH because bitconnect came first and they claimed BCC. however, since bitconnect is a scam and many exchanges don't list it, they list BCC as bitcoin cash.

Found this, its posted by Elaine Ou, who is well respected and followed in the community, I don't know the source but Szabo retweeted it so its safe to say he said it (I'll get the source if needed):

The reason it is significant is because Szabo has given the only found argument for how bitcoin can become valuable. Those that are arguing the contrary, that gold is valuable because its used for jewelry, are at a loss to explain why bitcoin is valuable and not destined to crash.

But you see, those latter people, are not the experts on bitcoin and they don't realize that Szabo already extended our understanding of economics by traversing the history of it in relation to new insights proven via technological advance.

You have to argue with the experts to disagree and that is the reason founded arguments are important in the first place

Seems you gave an example that supports my conjecture. Nonetheless, as I understand, Satoshi's coins on the whole don't move, and the community would go berserk with speculation if they did move.

Perhaps thats not all his coins, but I've never heard a story that claims they move.

If Szabo and Finney created bitcoin I don't believe they kept the wealth for themselves. It's too much power for what is to be the world settlement network.

Who gives a **** what the person who created BitGold (how much is that worth?) thinks about the uses of gold? You are so ****ing dense you don't understand basic things, such as what an appeal to authority is. In what way it Szabo an authority on gold?

I love the circular reasoning here.

LOL dude
Szabo isn't an expert on gold. Most of the bitcoin people with opinions are people who were long silver or gold at its various highs, believing in the Austrian hyperinflation from QE mythology, which has been conclusively disproven. There's a strong overlap with those worthless morons and bitcoin buyers. They didnt' understand money (or inflation) - they lucked into a bubble based on something that provided a viable medium for anonymous online illegal activities, and the ponzi that grew up around that.

There was a guy early in this thread (can't find the post) who predicted exactly that trajectory - the fueling of large growth into the billions by bitcoin's facilitating of illegal activities such as illegal porn and drugs (and quasi legal gambling). That guy was smart - he nailed it. All the other "fiat isn't real" and "hyperinflation is coming" people were morons, and nothing they believe about bitcoin has been proven yet. In fact, bitcoin is failing so far at real world, non-illegal, non-speculative uses.

It's a shame you dress your points up in such utter stupidity and weird appeals to authority (are you so intellectually insecure you need to name-drop discussions about ideas?), because there are interesting things to discuss here.

By the way, plenty of things have the properties of gold/bitcoin and have not become money.

Yeah because a guy who constantly calls it a bubble while hedging his views and having no skin in the game is someone we should really be paying attention to. Post streak is up to 48 days in a row, keep it up bud!

is not this just another version of the chicken or the egg question? chicken and egg happened at the same time, precipitated by something else.

likewise, "gold is valuable because it's used for jewelry" and "jewelry is valuable because it's made of gold" are both simultaneously true. it's not an either/or.

noose, forgive me for oversimplifying your thoughts, would this be an uncharitable summation of your opinion:

the reasons people value gold are completely irrational and gold is essentially worthless outside of being a unit of account that can cross borders. bitcoin is a slightly better version of this unit of account because unlike gold, the supply is completely known and fixed. fair?

Your obsession with Tooth is a little scary. He is exactly the kind of person a forum needs to stimulate discussion; he is contrarian, smart, bold and direct. Regardless of whether you agree with him he is the most important member of BFI. As long as you don't run him away it's whatever -- but, it would be a huge loss if he stops posting.

No way he stops posting here rest assured especially due to what I post. LOL on everything else.

I want him to keep giving us content, the more calls the better.

I get this from the internet often. I am thorough with my citations and references as a good debater should be and the only response from ignorant persons willing to argue about subjects they know little about is that such referencing and citing is an appeal to authority and therefore not valid.

Do you honestly believe the purpose of science and philosophical literature is to not be referenced in the future?

I'm citing Szabo cause its well understood he is the expert. Everyone agrees.

Szabo was building on top of bitcoin 20 years before it existed:

He showed the flaws in our historical thinking by taking insights further in our past than anyone has gone before. He did it with logic so its not arguable:

He's been extending our understanding of economics in relation to computer science for decades:
http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/201...gence-and.html
I can't find the orginal Kula ring concjecture but its a solution szabo puts forth that is the basis for "shelling out" which explains how bitcoin could have value, at a time where all other economic theories held that it can't: http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2005/11/kula-ring.html

Yes he is. He's the leading economic philospher in the world. He's been decoding our understanding of gold and money and the history of them based on insights from emerging computer science. He has 20 years of essays on the subject that range from the birth of gold in our universe to our pre history, to the future of it:
http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/201...lds.html#links

Bitgold was a precursor component to bitcoin: http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2005/12/bit-gold.html

I agree, our fiat won't hyperinflate, thats silly.

Name them and we'll talk about why they don't have the value gold did and bitcoin will.

I think its a not unrelated socially psychology that we deal with things in a dualistic manner. Perception and interaction etc. We use causality to explain things which I think are sometimes actually more in relationship rather than one being the cause of the others. We have a religion of conflict and debate is apart of that belief.

I think this will change just as the quality of our fiat increases because of the change bitcoin brings to our financial system.

But for now its better to suggest that jewelry is valuable because its made of gold not the other way around. Its important to understand and you can't really argue with bitcoin which is the whole point. Szabo explains the best way to change the world with the most leverage is computer science. Bitcoin is an actual academic experiment which is an extension of the conjecture that the algorithm will store value.

It's worth 100+ billion and gaining rapidly so its getting more and more difficult by the day to try to argue with the conjecture.

He gave the entire underlying argument before whoever created it released it. It's properly done and being blind peer reviewed. So if he says that gold has value first then someone has to address his argument in order to be correct if they want to disagree.

That's what science is, he taught me that (and Ayn Rand too ;p).