Reddit User Account Overview


Redditor Since June 13, 2018 (832 days old)
Karma Posts: 152 Comments: 681 Combined: 833
Active in


For me, redemption is earned, not given away. What Chancellor is getting now from the community is also earned.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 20, 2020 09:24:56

Ooo ooo, I know this one Alex! What is a fake "scaling solution" that was used as a beard in a subversive takeover of what was formerly "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System"?

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 20, 2020 06:54:54

Nice. But it should say "Disable BTC". We all know "BTC" is not Bitcoin, so that could just added to maximalist dissembling.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 19, 2020 07:34:19

I'm sure it's a Lightning implementation, right? Right?? Huh, for some reason NameCheap is *STILL* not accepting Lightning. So now I can pay about USD $1.16 to $3.28 in fees using BTC through BTCPay, or I can pay USD $0.001 using BCH through their previously existing BitPay option. Tough choice.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 17, 2020 15:41:23

I hope ETH2 succeeds on all fronts because it would be an amazing development, but I'm not holding my breath. Ethereum doesn't have the best record of delivering on their promises in a timely way. They've been promising to go Proof-of-Stake (in a way that'll fix the "Nothing at Stake" issue) since before they launched (5+ years and counting).

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 17, 2020 15:21:40

I wish this were true, but Judicial has demonstrated itself to be badly compromised, and Legislative has to deal with Republican treason as exemplified during the impeachment trial.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/news on September 17, 2020 13:19:56

I think others for whom the goal is closer to their mission statements are taking the lead on this. I don't support placing more effort on Turing completeness at the expense of the existing BCH roadmap.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 17, 2020 13:18:08

> Why? Is that some dogma that shall not be infringed upon because ... reasons? I suppose some might object because it's not part of the white paper's mission statement: "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System". My own objection is that no such system has shown that the scaling overhead required can be solved. In fact, existing examples are quite clearly demonstrating the opposite. But this could change (my own hopes for it aren't great, but ETH2 is a high profile attempt). If scaling were solved, I'd personally have no objection to having it in BCH assuming Nakamoto Consensus could be met.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 16, 2020 19:16:42

> US watchdog to investigate... Tragically few federal institutions can be trusted under this current administration.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/news on September 16, 2020 17:01:06

You could. I hope you don't get the impression I think it's a bad idea, it's just a bit different from what I proposed.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 16, 2020 14:48:42

I appreciate your input. I'm hopeful that as the community continues to grow, more will be in positions to seize such opportunities.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 16, 2020 14:47:29

There's overlap for certain, but looking at "BTC" mempools will absolutely be dominated with low fee transactions that sit at the bottom of the mempool for long periods. As I said, my suggestion would be focused more on throughput traffic. Transactions happening every block.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 16, 2020 01:05:26

True, and I hope to be in a position to tackle such a project at some point. But right now, I don't think I'm qualified and I certainly don't have the free time.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 16, 2020 01:03:37

No problem. It doesn't seem like the idea is getting much traction. I still think it would be a good demonstration at low cost (lower likely than another new stress or capacity test), but most don't seem to be convinced.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 15:53:47

I agree. I won't pretend to know what the circumstances might be regarding any planned fork, but more hard forks will happen on the "BTC" block chain via mistakes alone. It's only a matter of time. The most recent two, Blue Matt's unlimited inflation bug, and the fix it required, are cases in point.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 15:48:57

Not sure what part was unclear. Your proposal talks about mempool content. Leaving aside the issue of *which* mempool to focus on, mempools, especially on "BTC" are semi-static for a long time (lots of long-term or stuck transactions). So posting information on those transactions might not change or resolve for hours, days, or weeks. What I'm proposing is that all the traffic on "BTC" (and on ETH, if that is added) runs across BCH, live. It would be proof that we can support all the traffic that is strangling "BTC" and ETH without issue, while still having plenty more capacity available. And this would be live, changing every time a block is found. The two ideas have different focuses. Your idea puts a spotlight mostly on transactions awaiting blocks, my proposal focuses on transactions that already get into blocks.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 15:46:35

OP: > ... involved with BCH... The CSW fraud got the boot a while back, now is Amaury's turn.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 15:17:19

That might be interesting, but it wouldn't be a live process showing that equivalent transaction traffic is processing continuously on BCH in real time at a rate that is strangling "BTC" (and ETH in my nuclear proposal), while normal BCH traffic is running free and clear on top of all that.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 14:54:25

Not true at all. What's important is to replicate the transaction data sizes, not the values they transfer. The actual clone transactions on the BCH block chain could simply move one satoshi back and forth. Edit: minor typo

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 14:52:06

Disagree again. Most cumulative hash rate does exist currently on the "BTC" block chain, but what does that matter for a chain that has already recorded proof that it can ignore most hash rate at any time? That's why it's critical to remain valid with regards to Nakamoto Consensus for your entire history if you want to be Bitcoin. If you can violate that principle at any time, not only do you destroy governance by consensus, but you no longer have guarantees for immutability, nor a solution for double spending. Most hash rate only really matters on block chains that have remained valid to that principle for their entire histories. The only way for any SegWit chain to restore that validity is to have a massive roll back to the fork block height and either declare yourself a minority fork, pick a new ticker, a new name, and announce your minority consensus rules (in the case of SegWit1x, today's purported "BTC") then resume from that block height, or create a SegWit2x full node client without the BTC1 bugs and start that block chain fork for the first time from that block height (this would technically not require a roll back, because that block chain fork has been still born to this day). Both would then be valid per Nakamoto Consensus, but I'm not sure folks would be happy having to dispose of all the transaction traffic between now and then. There's a third option, of course. Continue with today's "BTC", but publish the consensus rules that define that chain's validity, because clearly its no longer following the Bitcoin white paper nor Nakamoto Consensus. Once that's done, for consistency a new ticker should probably be chosen. But even if you stick with "BTC", the present day SegWit1x block chain cannot represent itself as Bitcoin because it has permanently violated the definition of what Bitcoin's inventor laid down. Edit: Added "present day"

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 14:49:47

I disagree, and I think the last line of the Bitcoin white paper backs me up: "Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism." The most hash rate matters concept doesn't just solve double-spending and grant immutability. Honoring it consistently also defines Bitcoin. So when it backs a consensus rule change, that majority backed block chain is then Bitcoin moving forward *by definition*. Edit: Though, I'll agree, different block chains can define their own consensus rules. They just wouldn't be Bitcoin, they'd be something else. I'd love to see today's "BTC" for instance publish their consensus rules. I think explaining how it decides when to ignore most hash rate like it did when SegWit1x purportedly became "BTC" should figure prominently.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 19:42:14

I respect your opinion, but I'll agree to disagree on this one. We wouldn't say "we already have more traffic than "BTC", ETH, etc.", we'd say, this proves we can already support more than "BTC", etc. It'd only be fraudulent if we pretended the simulation was actual, organic transaction traffic. Almost no one I've encountered that supports BCH would do that.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 19:39:09

Bitcoin is regulated by hash rate, self-interest, and math. I'll take those over conventional regulation any day.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 19:37:04

That BCH is attacked doesn't mean there are facts behind the attacks. That's a huge difference in my book. In contrast, basically every criticism of BSV is 100% true.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 19:15:52

Oh, I see. But my point is minority forks can stay true to their consensus rules, as long as they honor them. Bitcoin Cash is a perfect example. It was a minority as most in Bitcoin still supported the SegWit2x fallacy. So it picked a new name and new ticker, and declared its new consensus rules (which in this case are just Bitcoin's consensus rules which obviously don't include a ridiculous block size limit and SegWit). SegWit1x, as a [< 4% hash rate supported minority chain]( did none of those things. Therefore it violated Nakamoto Consensus after the fork when it started to pretend it was "BTC" and Bitcoin. If you ran a node from before the SegWit1x debacle that had no SegWit signaling, it would've just stopped because as far as I know, no miners continued to run non-SegWit signalling nodes, and Bitcoin Core explicitly rejected any blocks not signalling for SegWit (which by the way is bald-faced hard fork behavior, instead of the soft fork they claimed to be.) Edit: I just realized what I wrote about an old node stopping would only be true if you were a miner. I think it's hard to know what a particular old non-mining node would've followed, since the SegWit2x block chain was still born. Edit 2: On further pondering, I'm pretty sure Core's fake soft fork code would've given it the advantage for the chain old clients would follow at the fork. SegWit2x and BCH were clean and explicit hard forks. But SegWit2x had > 96% hash rate support, so even as a hard fork, it was the only ongoing chain that could legitimately claim to be BTC and Bitcoin at that time. Too bad BTC1's ineptitude (or complicity, depending on what you believe), prevented us from seeing what should've happened.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 18:54:57

Right, but I'd argue as long as we execute properly, we wouldn't be.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 18:12:09

I'd argue that BSV hamstrung themselves long before any scaling argument with their idol worship of the multiply confirmed fraudster Wright, support of closed-source, patenting, and lawsuits, and their hypocrisy about censorship and user banning. Most outsiders are no longer still around to consider it as a legit scalable cryptocurrency. BCH doesn't have those issues. We can show the world we can support the max traffic of "BTC" and ETH, and still have further capacity, consistently low fees, and fast transactions.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 18:11:47

I definitely agree that Russia has honed trolling to instill dissent and squabbling to a fine art.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/worldnews on September 14, 2020 17:47:39

I'm afraid I don't cater my tone to the reader. I just state facts, and you clearly have difficulty grasping them. No Greyscale and Fidelity have never invested in "BTC". That is flat false. Edit: In Fidelity's case I stand by what I wrote. I believe Greyscale is still a private company, so it's possible they have invested in "BTC", but as far as I know, they never publicly disclosed.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 17:46:46

Back in 2008 when Nakamoto wrote his (her / their?) white paper, do you think it was with the understanding that 2008 technology could support every transaction in the world on block chain technology? He clearly understood that adoption would be gradual, and given the rate of technological advancement, he believed hardware would keep ahead of demand. In the last 12 years since then, his supposition has yet to be proven wrong. Can a Bitcoin block chain support every single global transaction on every payment network today? No. Does this mean it won't be possible at some point in the future? Also, no. In addition, Visa (and all other card payment systems) are in themselves centralized layer 2 systems. Layer 1 in those cases is the fiat units they use. Such systems could be applied to any crypto as well, as long as the end user is willing to accept the centralization and custodial risks involved. The point is, though, with "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" not artificially limited below current technological capabilities (looking at you, ridiculous 1 MB block size limit), vastly more people would not be forced to accept such compromises. ETH and EOS are trying to be more than just peer-to-peer electronic cash as their basic motivations. They are bringing their scaling issues upon themselves. BCH is simply showing Satoshi's system still works, and may very well always keep ahead of human demand. On top of that, BCH supporters are willing to apply development and new technologies to Bitcoin if they will further the "Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" goal, while maintaining needed levels of decentralization.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 17:40:11

Well, I guess your delusional perceptions are tied to reading comprehension difficulties as well. As is clearly spelled out in the sources you link, those are financial vehicles provided by those companies, not indications those companies are investing their own corporate capital into "BTC" (or any other crypto).

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 17:33:04

I disagree. BSV tries to play off any transaction volume as real. We'd be clear that we have our functional normal traffic, that's running on top of simulated traffic equal to all of "BTC" (and maybe others depending on how it would be implemented). I've seen many people discuss how existing BCH transaction traffic sometimes varies, and inevitably an honest forum user comes in and explains how one particular service that generates a lot of traffic (arguably spam), occasionally goes offline. In my experience, most BCH supporters don't try to fake usage in any way.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 16:48:27

So you don't really have any legitimate reasons that BCH or Roger Ver are considered scams or thieves, then. Noted. All your citations are for financial products where the companies in question take money from / for their customers / investors and put them in the crypto in question, taking fees to make a profit. As such the entities themselves, Fidelity or Greyscale, aren't putting any of their own skin in the game. They are just rent-gathering off of general investor interest. Lots of private investors don't do their due dilligence, and hence money is lost (or they get lucky and make money on the climbing side of a Ponzi scheme, that's possible as well). Mainstream financial companies make a profit either way. You have yet to source your claim that either Greyscale or Fidelity (or really any mainstream financial entity) is taking their own capital and investing it into any particular crypto. Edit: And by the way, Greyscale [recently added a Bitcoin Cash (BCH) product](

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 16:45:05

I think the original stress test already established BCH has vastly more capacity than any crypto network currently requires (perhaps more than needed for all real traffic from all cryptos together?) Even if things have improved on this front since then, we'd only be demonstrating even more increased headroom. I made an alternative proposal in a different thread [here]( Basically, what if a bot or service were created to clone every current "BTC" transaction to BCH (just the tx data size, not necessarily its value amounts). In fact, we could in theory go nuclear and add all transactions from ETH and ETH2 as good measure. Such a demo would have to run for a while (maybe a few months) to make an impact, but it would show that even with all existing traffic, BCH would remain fast, low cost, and reliable.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 16:37:33

Well, so far, I'm not sure how popular the idea is at all. There's another thread about doing a capacity test. I'll make a comment there.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 16:31:21

I agree there, but your original comment seemed critical of this articles' pointing out the unsubstantiated nature of the "Russia paid bounties on American troops" claim. That's all I'm taking issue with.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/worldnews on September 14, 2020 16:21:55

> ... without good reason. REEEeeeally? Let's hear some of those. Or even just one. > So what if BTC is down 50%... Sort of blows a hole in the whole store-of-value-only narrative is all. And makes it looks like you're throwing stones in a glass house when you try to pick on, say BCH valuation, as well. > only time will tell which is the REAL Bitcoin I guess... Then you are blinding yourself to basic, blatant fundamentals. "BTC" is actively working against being "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System". What utility is left? "BTC" can't be Bitcoin since it blatantly violated Nakamoto Consensus when it came into existence. Everything that's left is the vapor that surrounds massive "successful" Ponzi's like Bitconnect, Enron, or Bernie Madoff's enterprise. > ... more companies, hedge funds and big business are looking at investing in Bitcoin... By "Bitcoin" in this statement, I'll humor you by assuming you mean the obviously non-Bitcoin "BTC". Successful people in real finance companies are good at doing due diligence. That's why none of them has taken the full plunge into "BTC" yet. The fundamentals are simply that obvious. Greyscale doesn't buy squat. They take investor's money to collateralize their IOUs, making fees in the process. Fidelity hasn't invested anything into any crypto to my knowledge unless you have an actual source? > I hope ALL the crypto coins and forks from Bitcoin succeed and are successful. it's mostly the r/btc community which put me off ever investing or putting my money with BCH. That's where I'm different. I don't advise anyone enter into a Ponzi, and I don't root for their success, as such success results in more victims in the end. I support any *honest* cryptocurrency. Too bad they are in the vast, vast minority, and today's "BTC" is the worst offender in this regard. Edit: And a comment about "investment" into "BTC": I say your claims about Greyscale and Fidelity are wrong, but if you can provide evidence I'll look at it. The "investment" into "BTC" that I'm really interested in is what percentage of all the printed Tether ends up there. Edit: spelling

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 16:05:10

Sensible. Also it seems that if there were a blanket bounty on American troops, it'd be hard to prevent corroboration in one form or another from leaking.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/worldnews on September 14, 2020 15:49:01

Hmm, I'll consider it, but not sure I'm qualified. It popped into my head and so far I like the idea is all.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 15:42:44

I'm fully onboard with the fact that Russia under Putin is an evil international supervillain. But that doesn't mean false narratives shouldn't be called out.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/worldnews on September 14, 2020 15:41:30

It's still down almost 50% from its all time high. Add in market irrationality and Tether printing, and you might start to get a little concerned. Then wake to the fact that repudiating its Bitcoin nature as "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" and getting disqualified from being Bitcoin by violating Nakamoto Consensus has rendered "BTC" essentially a Ponzi Scheme and **Yikes!!!**

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 15:32:11

We'd be as upfront about it as possible. It's simply a demonstration of the fact that if we had all of "BTC"'s transaction volume (and ETH and ETH2 in my nuclear version), we'd still be fast, reliable and have low fees.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 15:14:34

Thanks for doing the math.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 15:11:06

I think so as well.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 15:10:49

I just edited my original post to say that I'm fairly certain this could be done for less than the total cost of the first BCH stress test.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 15:06:58

Unless there's clear indications that the leader of CENTCOM lets politics affect his concern for U.S. service members, I'm inclined to have some skepticism regarding the "Russia paid bounties on American troops" claim. Also, this article is from NBC, hardly a right-wing media outlet. Edit: Based on voting, seems my comment is controversial. Not sure why. If you're against Russia or the Trump administration, there are plenty more corroborated reasons to hold your conviction, you don't need to cling to an unsubstantiated narrative.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/worldnews on September 14, 2020 14:58:30

I have no idea, but if the idea gets traction, I think we could consult developers and experts in the community about it. It would certainly take fundraising, perhaps a Flipstarter. I'm sure that at BCH fees, it'll be vastly less expensive than the traffic actually costs on "BTC", and it would destroy the "BCH has no usage" argument.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 14:53:36

And the rebuttal is to try using both for yourself.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 14:18:29

Before, anyone claiming "down voting is censorship" was easily refuted. Now, there is a little truth to the claim. Edit: > It keeps obvious abusers, scammers, and spammers out. Again, these types are easily exposed. If you want them kept completely out, we already have /r/BitcoinCash. I prefer seeing them easily destroyed and dispatched with regularity. Also, existing rules are adequate to deal with spammers.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 14:04:46

True, but I think down voting and responding to their empty rhetoric is more effective. It reveals to anyone new to the space how poor their reasoning is, and how blatantly Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is attacked. Moreover, this action just renders us a bit more of an echo chamber like /r/Bitcoin. I'd much rather be as free a space for discussion as possible. We already have /r/BitcoinCash if you prefer highly moderated / curated / rendered safe.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 13:50:23

> but BITCOIN (BTC!) First, "BTC" is disqualified from being Bitcoin (you can't violate Nakamoto Consensus and be Bitcoin). Second, but "BTC" is vastly worse than all three (BCH, USD, or PHP). Those are all currencies. "BTC" is only a (bad) store of value.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 13:47:55

Regarding the Karma Requirement, although I likely won't miss the vapid trolling from the -100 brigaders, instituting this makes r/BTC less resilient to criticism and more of a curated safe space (of which there are already far too many in cryptocurrency). Overall, I don't like this change.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 13:38:25

Deaths are already bad enough. But sure, let's also ignore long-term (possibly permanent) effects, and the significant numbers of long-haulers, too.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/Coronavirus on September 14, 2020 12:25:54

I concur, mostly. > Was the genome of the virus sequenced? It doesn't seem so, as I bet the article would've made a point of this if it was the case. Determining the original infection and the subsequent reinfection have genomic differences seems to be the only way to confirm a true case of reinfection for now. > If not, then it's unlikely these were reinfections. I also mostly agree, but that doesn't address the fact that genomic sequencing can't determine if reinfections occur with the exact same strain of virus. The problem is, I don't believe we have any technique right now to distinguish this from reactivation, or biphasic / multiphasic behavior. Still considering all reported cases, and the likelihood of erroneous cases due to false positive testing, reactivation, or long-tail virus behavior, the total incidence rate of true reinfections seems small.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/Coronavirus on September 14, 2020 12:02:39

> We aint going nowhere until the herd immunity is achieved. Not sure. There are a very few examples of near eradication and near normal functioning without a vaccine. I'd say Taiwan, most of China, most of Australia, New Zealand most of the time, Thailand, etc. If you are aggressive, and suppress the virus well enough, while also building up your testing and tracing infrastructure, you can use Test, Trace, and Isolate (TTI) to push it near eradication, if not eradicate it completely. At this point, though, I think we're too close to having a vaccine to ever have a country prove this theory out for any extended period of time.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/Coronavirus on September 13, 2020 21:43:41

Gloating? I think they should be mourning their dead. Edit: I think their neighbors Finland and Norway are much more entitled to gloat. Edit 2: Yes, down voted without rebuttal. Sweden can do no wrong, I guess.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/Coronavirus on September 13, 2020 21:39:31

In fact I left off half the reason masks are important. They are at least somewhat effective in protecting the wearer as well. Recent studies are even suggestive that they have a pseudo-vaccinating effect. But even if you don't care about that, and even if you are healthy, preventing yourself from getting infected reduces the virus exposure to the rest of society. The reasons to act sensibly during the pandemic are not just overwhelming and obvious, but if you really don't like the restrictions, that's even more reason to get serious *now*. The sooner we get through this, the sooner you can get back to doing everything you used to. Half-assing it like most of the world is doing (especially the U.S.) is just dragging it out and making things worse. Just check places like Taiwan, New Zealand, Thailand, Australia, large parts of Europe, if you want to see where we could've been if we had any leadership that imposed common sense.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/Coronavirus on September 13, 2020 16:13:50

And you know definitively if you are infected how? Not only would you need to be one of the fortunate few on the planet with access to daily, on-demand testing that you can afford, but the testing would have to be 100% reliable. Or you could simply not be a selfish jerk, and take simple precautions. Punish? To wear a mask and act sensibly? How sensitive and weak can you be? Not to mention traitorous and unpatriotic (not acting responsibly is killing and injuring your fellow citizens, and weakening your nation's economic and world standing.)

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/Coronavirus on September 13, 2020 03:23:13

Freedom in every free country on this planet means everyone is free to do as they please *until doing so violates someone else's rights*. That's why we have laws, and why some things are crimes. If the situation were normal, forcing someone to wear a mask or to socially distance would violate their freedom. But this is a *pandemic*. Now, *NOT* wearing a mask or *NOT* social distancing violates others' rights to live and stay healthy.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/Coronavirus on September 12, 2020 11:44:42

You know, in all free countries we have these things called laws, right? But why do you need those if everyone is free? The reason is simple: if everyone was absolutely and completely free, you'd end up with a chaotic, lawless land. Anyone could kill anyone else at any time with no consequences. They could kill me or you. In free countries, one person's freedom ends when they start to infringe upon another's. So, in normal times, forcing people to wear masks or to socially distance would be violating personal liberties. But in the midst of a pandemic, *NOT* wearing a mask or *NOT* social distancing infringes on others' rights to live and stay healthy. Moreover, the faster everyone gets serious about the pandemic, the faster life and *normal freedom* moves on. Check Taiwan, China, New Zealand, among others as examples.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/worldnews on September 12, 2020 09:18:50

If the code in the node is to violate Nakamoto Consensus, it can follow the non-Bitcoin chain. But it still wouldn't be Bitcoin. And then you gotta ask yourself, what does the chain even matter, if most hash rate can be ignored at any point in time?

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 12, 2020 09:02:29

> Mean while, lightning labs + blockstream received over 100million dollars, and done jack shit with it ;) Problem is, we don't know what that money was actually for. If it was to disrupt / obstruct / delay / sabotage "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System", I'd say the backers have gotten every cent worth.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 12, 2020 09:00:18

> The network effect is extremely hard to overcome even for a superior technology. Perhaps true under normal circumstances, but when the network effect leader is actively making use of their network ridiculously costly and unpredictable, the landscape is different.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 10, 2020 13:22:56

For anyone who wants this discussion I'd rather just point out that the block size limit on the Bitcoin block chain has already been raised. Most call it Bitcoin Cash (BCH), but it's really Bitcoin. Also, this non-SegWit block chain even has the most legitimate claim to the "BTC" ticker, as it has always been true to Nakamoto Consensus throughout its history, and of the Bitcoin-contending block chains for which that is true, it has most cumulative hash rate.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 9, 2020 12:31:33

I have to disagree. I think it lends too much credence to the "downvoting is censorship" blowhards. Meanwhile we already have a highly curated and moderated space in /r/BitcoinCash. These policies better belong there. If they are to be added here, I can only support them if they are opt-in for the reader, and **not** the default setting for new visitors.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 9, 2020 12:13:22

The problem is it lends credence to the "downvoting is censorship" blowhards. r/cryptocurrency **is a censored and r/Bitcoin controlled subreddit**. Try making a thread about censorship or moderation behavior there and see. Why did they pull their public mod logs? I don't want to emulate their behavior in the slightest. We already have a highly curated and moderated discussion area in /r/BitcoinCash. Add these policies there. If they are to be added here, I can only support them if they are opt-in for the reader, and not the initial default for new visitors. Edit: minor wording change

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 9, 2020 12:10:24

No, please. I can't support this. It's too much like actual banning and censorship, and will certainly be spun as such by detractors. Moreover, it's important to at least see the most critical voices, if for no other reason than to validate our own conclusions. I could support this if it was somehow made to be opt-in for the reader, but even if it was, I'd vote that it NOT be made the default setting.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 8, 2020 16:53:00

No, I agree it's no secret. But I was hoping for an upfront statement that I could link to so it would be indisputable. As it is, ABC is being typically underhanded about it.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 8, 2020 16:48:23

I've looked through it, and I see a lot of suggestive evidence, but no clear ownership statement anywhere. I'm sure I haven't searched every corner of the Github, but if there's a clear smoking gun I haven't found it.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 8, 2020 02:14:30

Oh, that's rich. This from the person who claimed the linked article didn't show Sweden looks too bad. Oh, my sides.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/Coronavirus on September 7, 2020 14:56:20

Thanks for the confirmation. Is there a definitive source?

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 7, 2020 11:55:33

I'm asking you to provide your own data, and you refuse.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/Coronavirus on September 7, 2020 11:54:48

So, you're saying you can't propose a group of nations that don't make Sweden's performance look bad. Noted.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/Coronavirus on September 7, 2020 11:24:17

Who owns / controls the domain and the @bitcoincashorg Twitter handle? Are they compromised by ABC? The [Node page]( lists Bitcoin Unlimited and BCHD, but not [BCHN](

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 7, 2020 09:16:54

Pick your average then. Unless you only choose the nations that have had the worst responses in the world, Sweden's response sacrificed to many to preventable deaths.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/Coronavirus on September 7, 2020 08:43:23

> Heck I would consider BTC to be more bitcoin than an ABC IFP coin. Hmm. Well, in November, if the IFP block chain tries to claim the BCH ticker with vastly less than majority hash rate, they'll have done exactly what today's "BTC" (aka SegWit1x) did. To me, doing this is a bald faced rejection of Nakamoto Consensus, which disqualifies such a chain from being Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 5, 2020 20:13:50

Most certainly. But some Latin American nations probably have significantly younger populations as well, yet they are getting slammed far worse than Sweden. Age is surely a factor, but Sweden's death rate is 410% higher than the worldwide average. I'd be hard pressed to believe that age demographics can account for that alone. Moreover, that's even more reason to compare Sweden to nations like Finland and Norway. The age demographics are almost certainly much closer. And when you make that comparison, Sweden's performance looks even worse than when you compare only to worldwide average.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/Coronavirus on September 5, 2020 19:54:06

Data is data, nothing makes it better or worse. I've definitely not said that anything is making Sweden's data worse. I agree with you when you say their data is pretty accurate (is fairly close to the excess death statistics). But data also clearly points out the stark difference between Sweden's performance, and the world's average, to say nothing of the best performing countries in the world. As of today, Sweden has about 410% more counted deaths than the world's average. Let's be extremely generous and say the rest of the world has undercounted by 80% (as far as I know, there are no actual studies that put the worldwide undercount of deaths at anywhere near this high). That would *still* make Sweden's rate 183% higher than average (and that's using Sweden's official death count, not their excess death figure).

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/Coronavirus on September 5, 2020 19:47:42

Let me put it this way: Norway and Finland executed their strategies for responding to Covid-19, which resulted in the statistics we can now see in those countries (Norway 49 deaths per million, Finland 61). Sweden, as another Scandinavian country, shares some similarities with Norway and Finland, but definitely has notable differences as well. All I'm saying is, despite whatever differences, if Sweden had used a strategy like Norway's or Finland's, their statistics would be far better than they currently are (577 deaths per million). They would even have had a chance to better the performance of their neighbors. I don't think the differences between these Scandinavian nations would've changed that. So to me, making this comparison makes perfect sense, and is about as fair a comparison as you can get. I personally think that a lot of the times you see this comparison made in this subreddit is for these reasons, rather than because people expect all three nations to be exact carbon copies that perform exactly the same in all respects. Just that more things are equal among this comparison than when comparing Sweden to almost any other region on the planet.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/Coronavirus on September 5, 2020 19:38:40

The problem with your speculation is there are actual studies around world that show the scale and direction of this inaccuracy. The article you yourself linked shows this. Therefore you can see, that even **with** the inaccuracies factored in, Sweden is still doing 300% - 500% worse than the world's average. Edit: And I have to add, this is just comparing Sweden to the world's average. I don't think the world overall is doing that great. If you were to compare Sweden to nations actually doing well, like New Zealand, Vietnam, Thailand, Germany, South Korea, some of Sweden's nearest neighbors, etc., Sweden comes off looking vastly worse.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/Coronavirus on September 5, 2020 17:59:39

Utterly not true. France, Germany, and Spain are compared to each other all the time, because they are neighbors, and because they are in Europe and the EU. In particular, for Covid-19, France and Spain, like the UK, are held out as nations doing poorly with the pandemic, whereas Germany is held out as a nation doing relatively well. That comparison is also made all the time. > Thats why i am wondering If this only happens to Scandinavia. Its not a trick question. Im not saying you shouldnt compare Scandinavian countries. I just find it odd. OK, that's fair. It just seemed to me you were suggesting people making the comparison had some kind of ulterior motive. For instance, I find those that insist on comparing Sweden's numbers only to the U.S., the U.K., France, Italy, etc. (in short, nations also doing badly in the pandemic), while obviously ignoring Sweden's more similar and geographically closer neighbors to be those who are making cherry picking comparisons.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/Coronavirus on September 5, 2020 17:57:58

Likely true to some extent, but you can choose those LDC's that have enough governmental or NGO infrastructure to give reasonable accuracy. I highly doubt that *all* the numbers are of by enough to make up the dramatic difference.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/Coronavirus on September 5, 2020 17:52:06

And I answered, they all are. I don't have any idea where you get the delusion that comparing Sweden to its neighbors, or any other country to its neighbors is special or unusual.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/Coronavirus on September 5, 2020 17:28:25

Nice dodge. I'll continue waiting for an actual answer from you. But for the record, I'm happy to compare Sweden's performance to any and all, as long as you keep perspective. But comparing to Sweden's nearest neighbors is clearly the fairest and most sensible thing to do.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/Coronavirus on September 5, 2020 17:21:41

It doesn't matter if Sweden's excess death percentage is small. What matters in comparison is the proportion to the average. Sweden has 410% worse counted deaths than the world average. Unless you can show that the world's excess deaths number is enough to change that difference by 100's of percent, it will still fall in the 300% - 500% range in the end. Edit: And who's making shit up? I'm not the one that says a massive displayed difference between Sweden's and other countries excess deaths *in my own linked article* "doesn't seem to stand out much".

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/Coronavirus on September 5, 2020 17:20:34

Let me ask you this, then: for comparing a nation's healthcare performance during this pandemic, who would you compare Sweden to, and why?

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/Coronavirus on September 5, 2020 16:59:55

Nonsense, people compare countries (especially neighbors) in regions the world over. I have no idea where you're getting the feeling that this is somehow different or special.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/Coronavirus on September 5, 2020 16:57:41

The numbers I'm taking are mainly from [this worldometers page]( (just type in "Sweden" or any nation you're looking for in the search field if you want to find its row quickly). On top of that, I've read several studies of excess deaths around the world, in specific nations, or in regions. They all show that the worst off excess death numbers are well less than 100% more than counted Covid-19 deaths (excluding figures that are highly suspect, such as China's reported death numbers). For most countries, the difference is well less than 50%. Studies in the United States have shown it's around the 28% - 30% range. Some nations, like Sweden, have quite small excess death percentages. And Belgium even has the opposite problem (likely too many deaths attributed to Covid). So based on measured actual deaths, Sweden currently has 410% more deaths per million than the worldwide average. Based on the scale of the excess death difference that studies have shown, I'm confident that comparing that figure would result right now in Sweden having between 300% - 500% more than the world average of excess deaths. And if you look at the screenshot detail I posted above, you can just eyeball that the area under Sweden's excess death curve is about 3x to 5x greater than the average of the others in the chart. Granted, that's a small and skewed sample, but it's small scale visual confirmation.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/Coronavirus on September 5, 2020 16:54:34

It's trying to make a fair comparison with as few geopolitical differences as possible. What about that is a mystery to you?

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/Coronavirus on September 5, 2020 16:39:10

I edited the bottom number to 300%, but just getting a general sense of worldwide excess deaths compared to Sweden's. My feeling is it will absolutely be in that range. Based on measured numbers, Sweden's current deaths per million stands at 577, the world average is 113.1. So unless you have some source that shows the excess death number for the world is orders of magnitude off from measured deaths, it's roughly in that range.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/Coronavirus on September 5, 2020 16:22:17

Are you trying to make a point or some kind of implication about comparing Sweden to its nearest neighbors? It seems to me that those making such comparisons are being charitable to Sweden. They could easily compare Sweden's performance to those of [the world's Least Developed Countries]( I've checked against many on this list, and each LDC seems to have done vastly better than Sweden so far (this might actually be true for every single one of these Least Developed Countries). The only people making cherry picking comparisons for Sweden seem to be those that consistently compare only to those nations with the absolute worst performances during this pandemic. The truth is plain to see: as of today, Sweden has 577 deaths per million population (per, whereas the world average is 113.1 deaths per million.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/Coronavirus on September 5, 2020 16:06:29

I'm sorry, but I have to question your perception of reality if that's what you mean by "doesn't seem to stand out much". Being about 400%-500% worse than the world average sticks out like a sore thumb to me.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/Coronavirus on September 5, 2020 15:47:55

What? Did you even read the article you linked? Here's a screenshot detail from it: Looks like a hugely stark difference to me. In fact, this may be one of the best ways to see how poorly Sweden has done compared to nations that were more proactive.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/Coronavirus on September 5, 2020 15:23:15

If nothing else, AFAIK, Bitcoin ABC will continue to be a wallet as well as a full node (sure it'll be on a hugely minority chain). As far as exchanges, haven't heard of a single one.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 4, 2020 15:00:42

Typical bone-headed governmental move: add the two cryptos that are currently worst for payments!

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 4, 2020 12:11:28

Your wires are so crossed, you would make that assumption.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 3, 2020 16:27:46

Brilliant! The two block chains least useful for payments at the moment.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 3, 2020 16:06:45

As an addendum, you might notice that Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is heavily attacked. The attacks are relentless and completely out of proportion with BCH's current stature in the the cryptocurrency space. Consider for yourself why that might be. I and many others here take it as a sign we're continuing to do things right. That our open and inclusive principles are a threat to centralized interests trying to operate stealthily with propaganda and deception.

Commented by /u/AcerbLogic2 in /r/btc on September 3, 2020 15:52:10