You will notice that in any online debate, a person who has been pushed into corner will start replying to you in parts quoting each part separately. It's a sign of weakness. They think that if they cut the post into smaller pieces it's easier for them to make it seem like they've nailed it.  

When you start seeing this, you know that the starter of it is already defeated, but is unable to admit it, so they will indulge in cluster-quoting to save face. I'm doing this for the illustrative purpose and for laughs, but it's really established already that the dialogue has come to a dead end.


If it's not spectacular then why hasn't it been done in more than ONE instance? Keep saying to yourself that it's "not really spectacular" when it very clearly is.



No, you are. That's called building a strawman, which in your case is "the religious argument". If that was really the case then TCP would have kept evolving too, making it practically impossible for high speed networking hardware to be developed. A protocol must not evolve. If you had any knowledge of the technicalities of building distributed computer systems then you wouldn't even dare to propose such a comparison. That's the main problem with BitCoin in general. Completely computer illiterate people have made it their business to discuss these matters, bringing ridiculous comparisons to religion and what not, to compensate for the fact that they lack professional vocabulary.


Yes, I've got empirical evidence. I can't prove it to you if you refuse to open your eyes. I could present any fact to you but it's ultimately up to you to either take it as a fact or keep hiding your head under the sand.


Which only proves the fact that one should do their own research and in case of a controversy, the least you can do is to discard your existing bias and listen to what both sides have to say. Have you done that? It seems to me that you just keep clinging even harder to your dear belief, which is typical of course.


You would love that, don't you? Too much truth in too short time can get highly discomfortable, to the extent where an excuse for "moderation" can be found from any bush.

Didn't you read what I wrote? I did it for laughs. But you keep responding because you are actually butthurt because I exposed it that you're weak (resorting to cluster-quoting).

What's your problem with centralization anyway? Don't you know that centralization into data-centers is actually good for BitCoin? Everyone keeps bashing centralization without even knowing what it means and what are its implications. This is exactly the thing that bothers me about these wannabe technical experts who have never taken even the basic course of programming. Boo-hoo go whine to ISPs that they are so centralized. You see your fallacy already? Centralization is part of professionalization, which in turn contributes to lower transaction fees and more use cases.

We both know that you don't actually have any evidence at all. I at least have the empirical evidence while you solely rely on proof of social media. That's the curse of non-technical wannabes. They fall for every trick in the book, because they lack the common sense and technical expertise to develop their own understanding on the matter.

so ultimately there is one validator - ie yours/CSWs/(((thems)))/the lizards/etc?

who will have the computing power to validate your central all powerful node? be nice if someone, whos not a state actor, could validate the blockchain.

or we just have to buy a high end datacenter to trust you guys?

These datacenters already exist called miners and pools, farms. Highly connected, highly efficient creating the blockchain. They are the producers with long term investments, running all the server farms and spending money on energy and infrastructure, already such big business and regulated.

'Decentralized' enough


If big shit happens they're all in charge.

Wow, that's some dark projection your engaging in. Your background is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. If you wish to provide a counterargument to the debate that Craig is a scammer, you can't just say "because I'm me and I say he's not." That's not an argument, its an appeal to self-appointed authority.

Just try me. Just present whatever proof you have that Craig is Satoshi, and I will remain silent about it and let others respond. You're the one who stated you knew it as a fact. Either provide your evidence or be ridiculed about your statement. Save the personal attacks, the grandstanding and ego, and present something of substance for a change.

Let me conclude what you just said:

"everything you say to irrelevant, just try me and I will discard it no matter what"

I wonder if you feel silly now.

Many tried to tell the truth, but most of those posts just getting deleted all the time.

I came to the conclusion that ppl who don't do own research does deserve to stay uninformed

And many just do not want to know the truth, cause their bags govern their will

You don't seem to know how courts work. That's okey. Let me explain.

If the judge orders you to hand over all documents matching certain criteria, then you are obliged to hand them all over regardless of their origin and circumstances. So for example, if your ex-employee has forged a document in an attempt to set you up, you are still obliged to hand over that document. Failure to do so is what gets you into trouble. Craig simply followed the order. It's was not his duty to decide whether a clearly forged document is relevant to the case or not. Now your fallacy lies in the fact that you assume it was Craig who forged the document in the first place while it was actually a rogue employee.