Reddit User Account Overview

/u/

/u/Cmoz
Redditor Since May 18, 2017 (1,143 days old)
Karma Posts: 216 Comments: 9,487 Combined: 9,703
Active in

Top
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/hkqoj8/armed_protesters_practicing_their_2nd_amendment/fwvfy1d/

> All I’m saying is it doesn’t matter how black people protest in the eyes of conservatives, it’s just always wrong. No matter how they do it. Im pretty conservative in alot of ways, and while I might not agree with their viewpoint, I dont see anything wrong with what these people are doing. >not-poor people. Seems like you're pretty close to understanding this is really about class and not race. But stoking racial tensions has always been a good way for the upper class to divide and conquer the lower class.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on July 4, 2020 00:08:20
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/hkqoj8/armed_protesters_practicing_their_2nd_amendment/fwvaz6y/

>I think it has nothing to do with that, Sorry, you dont have your head on straight if you think people started feeling more compelled to bring guns to protests because of Colin Kaepernick, rather than because they saw antifa on TV attacking Trump supporters

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on July 3, 2020 23:10:01
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/hkqoj8/armed_protesters_practicing_their_2nd_amendment/fwv81oc/

I dunno, I think what got them to come out with guns in particular was antifa going around beating up people wearing Trump hats.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on July 3, 2020 22:36:35
/r/Coronavirus/comments/hkkr4z/florida_records_9500_new_cases_67_new_deaths_and/fwuok3d/

Is it? Seems true for the most part. "Dems" seem to support the government forcing mask use. "Pubs" generally think that mask use is a good idea, but the government shouldnt have the right to force it on people.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/Coronavirus on July 3, 2020 19:09:06
/r/Coronavirus/comments/hkmxl8/private_jet_with_us_tourists_rejected_at_italys/fwumf38/

> I wouldn't be so much worried about the pool itself, it should have chlorine in it, pretty good disinfectant. I would definitely be worried about people hanging around and going through the house though. Sure. Infact u/Happy13178 specifically said early on: "I wouldn't be so much worried about the pool itself, it should have chlorine in it, pretty good disinfectant. I would definitely be worried about people hanging around and going through the house though." What we're talking about now is the pool itself though: "Chief Health Officer in my province said the chlorine in pools is too low in concentration to kill the virus. What qualifications or studies do you have saying it’s safe?"

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/Coronavirus on July 3, 2020 18:48:25
/r/btc/comments/hkqodl/despite_covid19_negativity_crypto_prediction/fwum2v9/

Interesting that 'predict it' has the opposite result: https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 18:45:07
/r/aww/comments/hkov9g/a_turtle_that_was_stuck_gets_help_from_humans/fwul4g6/

> If the surf was crashing then maybe You do realize wind creates waves.....right?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/aww on July 3, 2020 18:35:54
/r/Coronavirus/comments/hkmxl8/private_jet_with_us_tourists_rejected_at_italys/fwugudb/

> But there's an element of common sense involved there. Durr, but thunderstorms suck up water droplets and dump them elsewhere. >Unless you think it's common sense that pools can't spread covid, the logic doesn't apply. Its logical to believe pools arent a risk for covid-19, because they've never been seen as a risk for other coronaviruses. From the CDC: "Can 2009 H1N1 flu virus be spread through water in swimming pools, spas, water parks, interactive fountains, and other treated recreational water venues? Influenza viruses infect the human upper respiratory tract. There has never been a documented case of influenza virus infection associated with water exposure. Recreational water that has been treated at CDC recommended disinfectant levels does not likely pose a risk for transmission of influenza viruses."

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/Coronavirus on July 3, 2020 17:55:34
/r/Coronavirus/comments/hkmxl8/private_jet_with_us_tourists_rejected_at_italys/fwud63s/

> Until data has been collected which gives a meaningful answer, people should stay away from potentially harmful activities. That would be the same argument that people used to discriminatorily ban people with HIV from pools despite there being no evidence HIV could be transmitted through public pools.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/Coronavirus on July 3, 2020 17:21:13
/r/btc/comments/hio7yu/using_uselesscentralizednonfunctional_layers_is/fwil9ll/

Doesnt sound like hes focusing on the technical design to me, rather the functionality. "Using useless/centralized/non-functional layers is not "software architecture best practices"." They're saying layered design in general isnt always the best idea in software design. They're not focusing on what form that layer takes. The mention of sidechains seems to just emphasize that its a separate system and not just an abstraction of the original. Whether its a chain or not doesnt seem relevant at all.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 17:01:08
/r/btc/comments/hio7yu/using_uselesscentralizednonfunctional_layers_is/fwientt/

> Lightning Network is not a "chain" Neither is paypal or banks in the example you're responding to. You're missing the forest for the trees. Missing the underlying function of being a derivative layer by focusing on irrelevant technical structure.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 16:09:52
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwid4hp/

Pretty hilarious that now that its obvious you're hung up on getting the last word, you're writing transient messages and pming me and stuff because you think its less obvious to other people or something while still fulfilling your urge. What a wierdo.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 15:57:40
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwiblyq/

So kind, thank you master for this opportunity. Pathetic idiot.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 15:45:52
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwia9ar/

> A block reward was taken. only incidentally to returning the funds, like the overflow incident >Yup, exactly as what happened here. The miner was punished for not following the secret plan. Nope, the block reward was just incidental to returning the funds. The returned funds were many orders of magnitude more than the block reward. Its clear he action was restorative in nature. >You're implying that, without the bike, they wouldn't have gotten the reward. Unless you're not, in which case it's an even more terrible analogy. Im saying that the loss of reward was incidental to the return of the bike rather than the goal. Whether they could have gotten the block reward without the theft isnt relevant, whats relevant is the loss of the block reward was incidental to returning the funds. Just like the revenue loss of the delivery driver was only incidental to the return of the bike. >You found the salt mine again!! Hooray! ok clown >Of course it is, silly! No its not. whether its an attack depends on if it was intended to cause harm >In disappointment in yourself, I presume, at coming up with terrible excuses and projecting all your insecurities about adhering to a narrative at all costs. Youre projecting your projecting again, huh? >I've tried my best and had lots of fun, but I'm afraid you're beyond help. This'll be the last message from me on this topic. I'll give you the last word. Adios! Sure you have. Why are you so hung up on the last word? Obviously no one is going to read this 100 posts deep except you and me, so your preoccupation with getting the last word is pretty pathetic. Get a grip.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 15:35:05
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwi9bdf/

> The title specifically mentions 'cryptocurrencies' after it calls out the specific Bitcoin boom, meaning it's making a distinction. Everyone know the "bitcoin boom" they're talking about in the article wasnt specific to bitcoin. Infact the major altcoins boomed more than bitcoin did. The body of the aricle proves that when they said bitcoin they were only using the term generally and not specifically about BTC. We both know you know its true. Why keep pretending? >And, as before, this is my last message on this topic, because I've had my fun. You may have the last word. So thats what this has all been about? Getting the last word? Truly pathetic.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 15:27:38
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwi8z7d/

>Wrong. It could have been prevented. Like I asked before, is english not your first language? Whether or not something is incidental doesnt depend on it being preventable. >Projection. You're projecting right now. >Hahaha! Wow, now you've completely lost the plot. Nope, like in the real world, stolen good are returned regardless of the intention of the person currently holding them. >Nonsense. The police took that miner's block reward. The miner followed the rules, so blaming 'inconvenience' is ridiculous when they could have fixed the issue themselves earlier. Someone buying the stolen bike followed the rules too. Doesnt change the fact that he might lose something like time or future revenue in the process of the bike being returned. >I just did. You're hilariously blind, though. Nah, you're just searching for distinctions without a difference to what we're talking about. >Tell yourself whatever you need to keep believing your narrative! I've had enough fun. How can you ever have enough fun? You claimed you were laughing and having a great time earlier.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 15:24:55
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwi88jz/

> Every example seems to mean Bitcoin in the way I use it. The headline seems to refer specifically to the Bitcoin boom, too. Youre an idiot. The title says bitcoin, yet when you look at the article, its clearly talking about several digital currencies: "Now, eight months later, the $23,000 he invested in several digital tokens is worth about $4,000, and he is clearheaded about what happened."

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 15:18:59
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwi7w63/

> The vast majority of 'attacks' are pre-planned and non-public, especially in crypto. So if we're trying to characterize an action as an attack or not, those are relevant qualities, even if not 100% dispositive. The vast majoirty of attacks involve money that could have been taken being taken too. Didnt happen here, because the money was returned. >It was effectively punitive, as they lost the reward completely without fair warning, and it could have been prevented. punitive penalties imply that the primary goal is to punish. The goal of returning the funds was obviously restorative in nature, as that restoration was orders or magnitude higher than any loss by the thief. >Not true. The bike was not germane to the delivery revenue. The miner would have received it without the bike. The bike didn't help him get it in any way. You're not even making sense again. The bike in the example is linked to receiving the potential revenue, so the revenue is lost when the bike is returned. Whether the miner would have received it anyways isnt relevant, what matters is that now that they have recieved it, they're linked. This seems to be a pattern with you, where you just try to differentiate two things by pointing out any irrelevant difference you can find, despite the fact that that difference has nothing to do with the factors we're discussing. Whats the point? Its intellectually dishonest. >.Now, now. Calm down and take a deep breath. I mostly come to laugh, actually. What a sad waste of life you are then. How pathetically boring. >Let me reword that for you: whether or not miners (who could have insisted on code changes preventing this) 51%-ing a fellow miner who broke no rules was an "attack". Again, that there arent explicit rules isnt relevant to whether or not its an attack. >Well, I am laughing! Sure you are buddy. I'm not laughing, I'm just shaking my head. You've made probably 100 posts now and failed to come up with a logically consitant explanation for how this would be an attack and the value overflow incident isnt. The simple fact is that it isnt an attack just because you think it wasnt neccessary or urgent.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 15:16:13
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwi60bm/

> how me all the instances of mainstream news referring to Bitcoin but specifically meaning BCH or BSV or Bitcoin Gold or Bitcoin Diamond. I dont have to show an example of them specifically meaning BCH or others. I just have to show an example of them not specifically meaning BTC tokens. Heres an example: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/20/after-the-bitcoin-boom-hard-lessons-for-cryptocurrency-investors.html >Sorry, it doesn't prove it. You don't know that they knew BCH was used with purse.io. Usually when the media refers to multiple chains, they use "cryptocurrencies". You have no evidence they would be talking about BTC tokens specifically. As my earlier link showed, not only do mainstream sources use the term bitcoin to refer to the system more generally, including any forks, they even use the term to refer to crytocurrencies as a whole. So like I said, you coming here and whinging about the use of the term bitcoin is an absolute joke. Get a life. >Sorry, I still used it as P2P cash. You can use rounds of ammo as p2p cash too. Just means you're an idiot for using something thats not ever trying to be good at what you're using it for.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 15:01:07
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwi4x6e/

>There's literally codified laws around that, you know? Still not relevant to whether its an attack. >I gave a much more accurate one in another comment. This one makes it sound like the 'police' acted publicly and didn't have a secret plan to punish anyone who even touched the bike. Your analogy was stupid because it contained a punative penalty that didnt exist in BCH. The loss of block reward was incidental to returning the funds. >However, I highly disagree, and reasonable people absolutely could come to the conclusion that there was malfeasance No they couldnt. The only people who imagine such a thing are just trying to justify a predetermined opinion. >as is the fact that you don't know the intention of the miner who originally collected the outputs. intention of the miner isnt relevant. >The lack of an explicit rule not to take those outputs unless you immediately reassign them to the new owners, or else you lose your block reward, is gross incompetence in my opinion, and can be seen as the 'benevolent' miners attacking the rule-following miner. You could also claim the police are attacking the person who had the bike simply because they suffered some inconvenience or loss in the course of the bike being returned. >This situation bears no resemblance to the overflow bug in those critical ways. There's no fair or reasonable way to characterize that as an "attack". Theres no reasonable way to describe the BCH funds being returned to their rightful owners as an attack either. Youre just grasping at straws since you are an anti-BCH troll.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 14:52:33
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwi43a4/

> How many times do I have to delineate the very relevant differences? Keep plugging your ears. No matter how many times you say it, it doesnt make it relevant to the terms 51% or attack, sorry. >Yes, they are. The definition of attack literally does not mention anything about being pre-planned and non-public. And plenty of those things have those qualitys while not being attacks. > Someone goes up to it and touches it (the miner) and the 'police' (the cabal of colluding miners) immediately take the bike and fine the person $10k. There was no punitive penalty. The loss of the block reward was just incidental to the miner returning the stolen property. Just as the loss of delivery revenue from using the bike would be incidental to returning the bike. >You're such a clown. Says the moron that comes to this forum to argue with people about how they're using the word bitcoin and whether or not miners returning 3K BCH to their rightful owners was an attack. You're a joke and you know it.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 14:46:05
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwi37aw/

> Objection, lack of foundation. lol. what I said is undeniable. Do ahead an waffle around while you try and fail to deny it. >I'm merely pointing out that it almost always does in practice. Not really. Bitcoin very often refers to the system as a whole rather than a specific fork or token. >I'm pointing out the irrationality of this sub. Lol, whats irrational is you coming here and trying to dictate what the term bitcoin means to us. Its also pathetic. >I mean, it literally can if any person tries, but just because I always call walnuts "toothpaste" doesn't "prove the term toothpaste can be used to describe walnuts". The purse.io example proves that the term can be used logically to mean something besides BTC tokens specifically. >Ha! So it's Bitcoin until it's not, huh? Why don't we cross that bridge if we get there? We've already crossed it at least once, sorry.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 14:39:11
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwi2jem/

>Absent any direct way that owners could retrieve their lost property, how do you know the miners didn't intend to take it only to prevent any other malicious miner from running with it? You don't. Doesnt matter if they did or didnt. Just as with stolen property in reali life, it can be confiscated regardless of if you claim to have intended to return it. >Another terribly inapt analogy. Why am I not surprised? You are congenitally incapable of reasonable argument, it seems. Its a pretty good analogy. Whats do you think is wrong with it? >I believe that the code is the best effort at codifying the agreed-upon rules, and that it should only be overridden in exceptional circumstances where code did not accurately capture the agreed-upon rules. That is, code is not always law, but we ought to make the code reflect the law to the best of our ability. Irrelevant as to whether what happened was an attack. >It didn't require blacklists. It just required them to be more strict about the form these "segwit recovery" transactions could take. Why wouldn't the miners want this? Why wouldn't everyone want this? Doesnt matter if you think it was required or not. >months-long plan to 51% attack your own chain, when you had the opportunity to fix it in a much better way, is a terrible plan. Doesnt matter if you think it was a terrible plan, its still clearly not an attack.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 14:34:07
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwhkrmg/

>Totally relevant. It goes to the "malicious" miner's actual motive, which you haven't proved. You dont have to prove maliciousness when confiscating stolen property, sorry. >This was the fix. It wasn't supposed to be ongoing. Lol, OK. if you're going to keep pushing "code is law" bullshit but then claiming you don't believe code is law, we're done here, sorry. If you cant accept that the fix involved planned miner action rather than giving the devs blacklisting power, which it clearly did, even if you think that was a bad idea, theres no point.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 12:15:04
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwhkbk3/

> Because they said Bitcoin. Bitcoin could refer to the system as a whole, a token on a specific fork, or all tokens on all bitcoin forks. >Haha, I love the attempts at turnabout! Kudos! However, I said in the next sentence that they probably were talking about BCH. Then why'd you feel the need to pretend you didnt know in the first sentence? >Ha! I'm still using it as P2P cash. Sorry. Only possible while it stays niche and outside of bullmarkets. Then you'll have to switch to lightning network or liquid, neither or which which are even really "bitcoin-as-a-system". Sorry.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 12:11:31
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwhju9j/

>They attacked the other miner's block. Sorry. So did the value overflow fix...sorry. >Completely relevant, as the attack was intentional, pre-planned, and non-public, exactly the qualities an attack would be expected to have. (And exactly the qualities the overflow bug didn't have.) Doesnt even make sense. Attacks are not inherently any of those things (intentional, pre-planned, and non-public). Are you even trying? >Sorry, though, he played by the explicit code and written rules. You don't get to post-date rules. See ex-post-facto laws. Sorry. More of your "code is law" bullshit you claim to not subscribe to. Hilarious. >Great example of the kind of changes that developers could make with extra time to actually address a bug rather than using an emergency fix! Thank you for that. Nope, doesnt take much time to blacklist coins if you want your developers to have that power, sorry. >Absolutely does. It has relevance to the "benevolent" miners punishing the "nefarious" miner. Just like you punished the value overlflow attacker, huh? >On the contrary, defying Satoshi's consensus mechanism to enforce a controversial change that was unpublished and totally private is a pretty big deal! Satoshi never said miners cant reject blocks they feel are invalid. And validity is subjective, sorry. You might think its a big deal, but I dont. >Ah, so you trust their judgment only if it aligns with your judgment. Totally logical! Judgement is inherent in the word attack. If you're going to use a loaded word, prepare to defend it.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 12:07:42
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwhixcq/

>It's a fork of Bitcoin. Which is a type of bitcoin, yes. >My point is you wouldn't have to, because it's universal. But you know that. If you were talking in an international forum about dollars, with no further context, people would assume you're talking about US dollars too. That doesnt mean there arent other types of dollars.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 12:00:20
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwhin48/

>Bitcoin. But you know this. Nope. BCH is used on purse.io too. Why would they be talking specifically about BTC tokens? >In this sub, anything goes, so who can really say? Nah, we both know you know obviously they're talking about BCH in that scenario. The denial is palpable. >Not really. BCH threw away the consensus mechanism with the automated 'checkpoints', so it's not even really "Bitcoin-as-a-system" any longer, either. Yes really. BTC threw away the peer-to-peer cash function so its not even really "bitcoin-as-a-system" , either.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 11:58:06
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwhi0vr/

>LOL, of course it’s everyone else’s fault. BCH knew about SegWit for a long time and could have had a fix in from the beginning, but didn’t. irrelevant as to whther what happened was an "attack" >Again, just because they didn’t keep the money doesn’t mean nobody was attacked. A miner followed the rules and was attacked for it. The rules dont include exploiting an ongoing bug to take money that doesnt belong to you, sorry. >Were there any words, then, that said any miner not immediately paying back to the sending address would be an invalid block? Social contracts often dont involve any specific words from any specific person or group. Were there any words saying that you cant exploit a value overflow incident for profit? >Where are all the other cases of this happening not due to newly discovered bugs? Irrelevant as to whether or not what happened was an attack, sorry. >Where was that published? What other secret rules are there? It doesnt need to be published. BTC has secret rules as well, such as the Core Devs and their lackeys attacking you if you try to create an alternative BTC client that doesnt conform to their preferred rules. Thats not published anywhere either. >So not certain at all? The overflow bug may have just been exploited as a lark or a troll. Bitcoin was practically worthless at the time, and they knew they wouldn’t get to keep it. Whyd you attack him and steal his block reward then? >(I know you’re realizing your argument is bad when you keep accusing me of whining.) (I know you know your argument is bad when you keep tying LOLOLOL, pretending the BCH attacker didnt attack and it was instead the miners that attacked is pretty hard to defend isnt it?) > I explicitly don’t follow ‘code is law’, otherwise I wouldn’t have supported the value overflow reorg. Then why do you keep whinging about where the rules are written and implying that the bugfix had to be carrried out entirely in code? >Not only did the code allow it, the words did, too. Relying on an “implied” contract is crazy, since there was every opportunity to make that explicit, yet it never was. What words? Not exploiting ongoing bugs to take possession of coins that dont belong to you is obvious, its not crazy at all. >Ah, I thought so. There are no comparable “implicit” contracts where this has happened. You’re just making excuses for this specific situation even though it’s unprecedented. Yes there is. Theres no law in bitcoin saying you cant exploit an overflow bug, yet it wasnt allowed. >Yes, emergency actions are typically only required in emergencies Whether or not you think it was "required" or not is irrelevant as to whether it was an attack, sorry.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 11:53:10
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwhgapl/

Since they're talking about price, obviously they're talking about the token. With no additional context we could assume BTC. If they say, "Bitcoin is being used to launder money on Amazon!", what are they refering to? If someone on r/btc says "good thing bitcoin routed around blockstream's attempt to capture it by crippling blocksize", what are they refering to? Obviously bitcoin can be used to describe BCH as well, sorry.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 11:39:13
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwhfvvv/

>The universality of "Bitcoin" specifically referring to BTC has no comparison to "Linux" specifically referring to Ubuntu. Another disingenuous assertion. False. Fact of the matter is that BCH is a type of bitcoin. Perfectly valid to call it bitcoin. Especially in a subreddit where everyone knows BCH is the preferred fork. If you were talking to random news anchors with no further context, obviously you should specify exactly which token you're talking about if you're talking about a specific token and not the system as a whole, or more generally.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 11:35:54
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwhfkpy/

> So what if they were attacked? It was part of the secret plan to attack all along. Not an attack, sorry. >Not even remotely similar, as usual. There was no secret plan. That miner mined a block that was undeniably against the rules. It was a completely unknown bug that required an emergency fix lest everyone in bitcoin would have been irreparably harmed. "Secret plan" is irrelevant as to whether its an attack, sorry. >That miner mined a block that was undeniably against the rules. So did the BCH attacker, sorry. >It was a completely unknown bug that required an emergency fix lest everyone in bitcoin would have been irreparably harmed. Nah, could have invalidated the extra tokens with code and let him keep the block reward rather than attacking him....lol >This situation, on the other hand, only affected a very small minority of users who made mistakes that were preventable by BCH. Doesnt matter in reference to it being an attack or not, sorry. >If you trust their judgment, why don’t you use the coin where ~90% of the hash is? Theres a difference between transaction ordering and a quick bug fix by orphaning 2 blocks, and protocol level decisions that I dont agree with. >Also, it’s a bit circular. If an undeniably malicious 51% attack occurred on BCH, would you say, “oh, the miners know best. I trust their decision.” I’d hope not. If it was undeniable and malicious, obviously not. This wasnt though, sorry.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 11:33:22
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwheuiq/

> However, "Bitcoin" is a proper name that refers to a specific chain in its actual every-day usage Actually no, it isnt, its more commonly refers to the system as a whole. I misinterpreted your earlier comment as if you were asking what specific token is most commonly referred to, but actually people are more commonly referring to the system as a whole Sorry.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 11:27:29
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwhdwpm/

Probably bitcoin, obviously. Doesnt mean BCH isnt bitcoin too, sorry.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 11:19:54
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwgb633/

> They intended to revoke the block reward of a miner who followed all the rules. That’s an attack. No, they returned funds lost by users do to screwy user experience caused by autistic bitcoin core devs. The rules arent only in code. Bitcoin contains other social contracts and economic incentives outside of the code. If it was an attack, they could have just kept all the money by mining it anonymously to an address they control. Clearly not an attack. >Apples and oranges, as always. The inflation bug was an undeniable exploit that didn’t follow the intended rules. This miner followed the intended rules (well, except for the secret, non-public “inherent” one). The BCH incident was an undeniable exploit as well. The ongoing bug and the ability for anyone to claim the funds were not part of the "intended rules" even if the code technically allowed it. Code isnt law. >This was the fix. It was supposed to no longer be an issue. It could have no longer been an issue and had no miner lose a reward. Incorrect. The fix involved a miner spending form the anyone can spend to the correct address. Youre ability to accept that the fix involved something outside code provided by the reference client is your problem, not ours. >And you’re certain that miner was out for financial gain, eh? As certain as I am the overflow incident miner was out for financial gain, yes. >Lol, putting words in my mouth now. You really would fit in on /r/bitcoincashsv. Their focus on “code is law is bullshit” is right up your alley. Even if you dont claim it explicitly, your argument implies it. >Other than newly discovered bugs, can you point out some? Doesnt matter if its newly discovered or not, still cant steal it, sorry.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 03:06:50
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwgaom4/

US dollar is only dollar :)

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 02:59:21
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwgan1h/

>Haha, if you haven’t noticed, I quite enjoy them, actually. It’s hilarious to imagine you furiously downvoting my comments. lol ok >Sure, they have the power to 51% attack. Doesn’t mean they should. attack implies the intent to harm, which you havent proven. obviously their actions resulted in **thousands** of BCH being returned to users,. If a miner that took them for themselves loses 12.5 BCH block reward, too bad for them. Just like you dismiss the overflow incident attackers block reward. >Or sell their coins, like I did (though I sold them all after the automated checkpoints were added, so not entirely applicable here). absolutely. >Who needs code that could make clear what the rules are when you can have secret mining cabals enforcing unwritten social contracts, right? You're sarcastic comment misses the fact that miners incentives are more closely aligned with the success of the chain than developers, so i better trust them to make the such a decision, yes.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 02:58:42
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg8ytv/

Lol, you gonna cry about your downvote now? >It’s a made up lie to make yourself feel better. Its not, because devs dont have all the power. Miners have the power to reject blocks they feel are exploiting bugs as well. If the community disagrees with the miner, they can reject those miner's blocks.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 02:33:24
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwg8tii/

"Bitcoin forks arent bitcoin!” Lol.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 02:31:09
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg8rce/

>An attacking mining cartel. Not attacking, because the miners didnt intend harm. The action was obviously inherently altruistic in motivation, otherwise they would have kept the money for themselves. >LOLOLOL. Now you know how I feel when you hilariously worry about the block reward of the miner who took all this money, huh? >A ‘fixed’ bug. No it was clearly ongoing because the situation of stuck segwit funds had not yet been resolved. >Got it. The ‘fix’ was an attacking cartel who picked off the block reward of a miner who followed the published rules. Already addressed your incorrect attack claim, but your insistence on "following the published rules" isnt relevant. There is a social contract to not exploit bugs for financial gain. Miners clearly have the power to orphan you if the community supports their actions over yours. The value overflow incident already broke your "code is law" BS. >But he missed the, what was it, “inherent” something? He missed the part where theres a clear history in bitcoin of attack blocks being orphaned.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 02:30:14
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwg85ql/

Dollar has a widely used defintion too, but that doesnt prevent people from different groups from using it to refer to different things.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 02:21:33
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg81bf/

Its true. Sorry if you dont like it.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 02:19:46
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg7wfp/

>You’d rather let a miner get their block reward stolen for producing a perfectly valid block that adheres to the fix? Ok... the fix wasnt made in code, it was made by a miner so you're talking nonsense. >/r/bitcoincashsv is that way. Welcome to law. (You’re ignoring that the miner could have returned it almost immediately after.) What are you even trying to say here? >They lost the block reward, too. You ignore that. If you want a block reward, dont exploit an ongoing bug to take money that isnt yous. >It does, indeed, have relevance to the word attack, as I just explained in a recent comment. No its doesnt. >But could have, and thus prevented an attack. Again, not relevant to whether what happend was a 51% attack. >False. This was the fix for the bug. Again, the fix wasnt entirely carried out by the dev in code, so you're wrong again.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 02:17:51
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg79pr/

>I’d say it has relevance to ‘attack’, because if a known and longstanding bug has a ‘fix’, you’d think that any block that meets that ‘fix’ is a valid, non-attack block, right? Nope, because this fix inherently involved sending those coins to the correct address. Whether a dev mandates that or a dominant miner mandates it isnt relevant. >And this was publicized where? Ought it not have been in code lest a miner who wasn’t aware of this unspoken rule get their block reward attacked? It doesnt need to be publicized, because that only draws attention to the problem but doesnt change the end result. If you dont want your block orphaned, dont exploit an ongoing bug to take control of money that doesnt belong to you. >Given that the miner was attacked and his block reward unfairly taken? No, you're just making subjective claims about 'fairness' which is far from a given.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 02:09:03
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwg6yck/

> It’s just amusing to me to see the ‘bitcoin cash is bitcoin’ posts. Yea because you're a troll. But like I said, these discussions are almost always started by a core maximalist whining about the usage of the word "bitcoin".

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 02:04:43
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg6s19/

>This doesn’t make sense, since it would have been trivial to put that in the code or at least announce it. It does make sense, if as a dev, you'd rather let a miner make the decision themselves. > Again, you have no idea whether that miner intended to restore the txes. Doesnt matter. What matters is if you took it and it doesnt belong to you, it can be taken away from you. Same as if you buy stolen property, the police have a right to take it away from you without compensation, even if you didnt know it was stolen or claim you intended to return it. >A bug that could have been completely fixed by changing consensus rules in the code rather than attacking a miner who followed the rules. Doesnt change the meaning of the words 51% or attack. >They weren’t. This was the bug fix, not the bug. As I said, I'm talking about the effects of the bug. The bug was ongoing and obviously their fix didnt fully address the issue. >That was the bug! So was this. It was ongoing. >The miner who lost the block reward despite following the rules and not exploiting any bugs. lol >Future miners who may lose block rewards due to unpublished rules on BCH where mining cartels can 51% them. go mine BTC then. we dont care.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 02:02:19
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg696l/

> if you have plenty of time to fix it. Again, thats relevant to neither the terms 51% or attack. >The devs wanted the miners to have unpublished rules about which mining cartel could spend those coins? Weird. Not about who could spend them, only that they should be spent from the anyone can spend address to the intended address. >It absolutely is. There would not have been an attack on that miner if the code was there. Its simply not. Its only relevant to whether or not the incident happened. Given that it did happen, which is the reality we live in, its not relevant to whether or not it was a 51% attack, which is what we're discussing. Capisce?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 01:55:13
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwg5tzo/

You're literally like 40 posts deep in a thread started by a core maximalist troll saying "You guys all say the bch is the real Bitcoin. That isn't true either." A core maximalist was literally the one that brought it up. Sounds like you're the ones that are salty about the terminology.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 01:49:27
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg5kea/

> Now you’re just lying. No I'm not, the block he mined proves that he took possession of other people money. >Did he follow the publicly announced rules or not? He did. >Were his block rewards intentionally taken or not? They were. >Did the miner who took his reward follow different consensus rules? No. Consensus rules dont apply as some unbreakable bond, because we're dealing with resolving the effects of a bug. >Huh? He mined a perfectly valid, non-bug-afflicted block, no? He followed the rules announced ahead of time. Were there any announcements about miners not taking those except for a pre-approved cartel? I don’t remember that. Like I said, if a miner wants to orphan you because you're exploiting the effects of a bug, they can. If you want to pretend they cant, go ahead, but BTC did it with the overflow incident too. You keep focusing on the fact that the the bug theoretically could have been resolved by devs rather than miners, but who cares?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 01:45:51
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwg511w/

You are though. BCH users use the term bitcoin to refer to their prefered fork, then a core maximalist crawls out of their troll hole and cries about it. Thats how it always seems to go down.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 01:38:43
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg4xcb/

>No, the intended rules were the ‘SegWit recovery’ rules. The miner adhered to them and was punished for it. They were attacked despite following the rules. Intention isnt relevant here because **Segwit was never intended to be a part of BCH in the first place**. The devs were just trying to deal with the effects of shitty Bitcoin Core 'solutions'. >code would have sorted this out nicely and resulted in nobody getting attacked. The devs obviously prefered for miners to make the decision rather than themselves. Sorry if you dont agree, but frankly, like most of what you type, it isnt relevant to the point of whether or not it or the BTC incident were 51% attacks.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 01:37:21
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg4jh9/

>Faaaalse. I already showed you that the BCH scenario could very plausibly be construed as an attack, while the Bitcoin scenario could not. No you didnt, theres no way that could be construed as an attack. The attacker used the block and the effects of a bug to take possession of other people's money. You arent entiteld to a block reward in such scenario, just as the overflow incident attacker wasnt. That you think he "might have returned it later" is irrelvant. The overflow attacker could have sent his stolen money to a burn address too.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 01:32:15
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwg4832/

Lol.....yea go tell that to Canadians and their use of the term dollar. If you dont care, why do you cry about it so much?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 01:28:06
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg43du/

I'm not really interested in "excusing bad behavior" or not. I'm interested in the term "51% attack" and based on the definitions of the terms 51% and attack, if it fits one scenario, it clearly fits the other. Drawing a no true scotsman style distinction between one and the other in reference to the term because of your tribalism is disingenuous and you know it.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 01:26:24
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg3v2r/

>He operated 100% within the intended rules. You have no idea whether their plan was to return it or not. In fact, they may have planned just that because of the shitty, non-code “fix” for the problem. Having a large backlog of segwit transactions available immediately after a hard fork was never part of the "intended rules". It was the effect of a bug that hadnt been fixed. Whether you think it could or should have been fixed isnt relevant. >But nothing stopped them, technically-speaking. Nothing stopped you from taking them either, technically speaking. Who cares?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 01:23:23
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwg3fof/

Depends on how you define bitcoin, doesnt it? Its perfectly valid to consider all bitcoin forks bitcoin. If we want to talk about a specific fork we can use the ticker symbol or additional details.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 01:17:46
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg37zi/

>On the contrary, you addressed it poorly. nice, "no u" >No. Different. >Strawman my ass. You understand we're talking specifically in context of whether or not they're a 51% attack or not? Context is hard for you isnt it? You're simply trying to shift the conversation to comparing in other ways that are irrelvant as to whether its a 51% attack. Its very transparent.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 01:14:59
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg30hj/

>Not at all. That miner lost the block reward. Were they compensated for it? If their plan was to return the funds, too, that’s undeniably an attack against them. Hilarious that you'e 'worried' about the block reward for this miner. He shouldnt have taken control of other people's funds. You could use a similar argument in the BTC example. Maybe the value overflow attacker wasnt actually going to spend the funds so he deserves his block reward too. Lol, give me a break. >And that was guaranteed to happen how? What if they changed their minds and kept it? Im not sure how a guarantee is relevant. Regardless, they simply spent them from the anyone can spend address on to the intended destination. They never took custody.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 01:12:18
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwg1n48/

Yes, BSV is part of bitcoin too. I think its a bad fork and sold most of mine, but that doesnt mean its not bitcoin. Lots of parts of bitcoin suck. The BTC fork also sucks.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 00:55:15
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg1gmk/

>I addressed that. Poorly. > Because all homicides are directly comparable and don’t differ in critical ways that could be totally misleading? Gotcha. I never said the BCH and BTC incidents were directly comparable and don’t differ in "critical ways". You're just strawmaning now.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 00:53:03
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg19s8/

>There isn’t enough evidence to determine it for sure. Have all the funds been returned to their rightful owners? Huh? You can look at the blockchain and see that the funds were sent back to the sending address. >Was the ‘attempted thief’ going to return it, too? Irrelevant to whether or not harm was intended by the orphaning. >The fact that the fix could have been public and in the code very easily (yet didn’t) makes this action suspicious, at the very least. No it does't because we can see that the funds were returned.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 00:50:42
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg0vho/

> Again, the only relevant thing is that BCH planned a 51% attack when it had a plethora of other options. No, thats not relevant to the term 51% attack: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwfzyg2/ >The point is that just because you think it meets a technical definition, doesn’t mean the two ought to be fairly compared. The fact that you insist on comparing them despite their enormous differences is only to suit your narrative. I'm not comparing the incidents on all levels. I'm specifically comparing them in reference to them being 51% attacks or not.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 00:45:50
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwg049y/

Edit: actually no, Bitcoin Gold was premined, so the utxo set and blockchain were likely changed to accomplish that.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 00:36:46
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwfzyg2/

>Lol, the projection is palpable. That you’d try to compare these situations is painfully obvious tribalism. Lets break down the term "51% attack". "51%": refers to the fact that 51% or more hashpower is used obviously this is true in both cases "attack": refers to the idea that the actions being carried out are intended to cause harm You think the BCH incident was intended to cause harm, but the BTC incident wasnt? Completely illogical, sorry.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 00:34:53
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwfzkys/

>You can at least confirm that you’re just speculating about it, and, further, that it had no direct relation to why BCH miners planned a 51% attack when they could have fixed it in the code instead. Proof that the empty blocks enabled the attack isnt needed. >Lol, it makes all the difference in the world. No it doesnt. >Here, literally, the intentional plan was to 51% the chain! I’m not sure how you can say this with a straight face. No, the intentional plan was for an honest miner to return the funds before someone else stole them. >It’s like saying, “person A was murdered and person B died of old age, but they’re both dead, so why does it matter how it happened?” No it isn't. The defintion of murder explicitly requires that you were killed by someone else and not old age. The definition of 51% attack doesnt include a specific caveat that its not a 51% attack if you dont have any other options to address a bug, but always is otherwise. You just made that up because its convenient for your narrative.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 00:30:24
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwfz24h/

Obviously other changes were made to maintain the fork. The point was that the "Bitcoin utxo set, blockchain and most of the code" already existed in my software.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 00:24:11
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwfxrid/

I refuted your supposed refutations. Scroll up.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 00:09:10
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwfwi6c/

>Lol, so it has no bearing on the 51% attack. Thanks for confirming. No, I didnt confirm that. Perhaps the empty blocks gave them time to find a block themselves and prevent the planned fix from taking place before they were able to. >The problem could have been fixed in a few different ways at the developers’ leisure. There was no emergency. That they had more time to think of an alternative doesnt suddenly make it a "51% attack" and the overflow incident "not 51% attack". Thats just a no true scotsman fallacy in which you're specifically crafting an exclusion to your made up definition. Edit:You're effectively just arguing that 51% attacks are ok if the bug is severe and sudden enough, and that BCH's wasnt sudden enough and had other options. Doesnt change the fact that in both cases they used 51% hashpower to revert a transaction and combat the negative effects of a bug. That you want to apply the 51% attack label to one and not the the other is painfully obvious tribalism.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 23:54:57
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwfvgrg/

> So the “plan” was just to hope a specific benevolent miner would get the SegWit funds? What if another miner got them first? Obviously then they'd orphan them to prevent them from exploiting the bug, as was done with the value overflow incident. >Also, what does it matter that several empty blocks happened? Ask them. It was a pretty sophisicated attack with several things happening at once. And for the third time, like I said, what you think about the quality of the fix, or whether or not it was avoidable is irrelevant as to whether or not 51% hashpower rejecting a transaction was used as part of the fix to the problem.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 23:43:33
/r/btc/comments/hi0g1a/another_example_of_shaodowofharbinger_being/fwfv85u/

>No they aren't. Again with the stupid comments. Yes they are. They use bitcoin functions for deposits and withdrawls. >OK, you've gone full retard at this point. I'm done. So you just call names instead of actually showing that something wrong with the underlying language. Typical. Bye.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 23:41:00
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwfv397/

>No it hasn't, you're just being silly now. Yes it has, you're just being silly now. >I don't want to, have at it. They aren't Bitcoin though. They are. >Nor do you. Think about it. You can call it whatever you want. It just isn't true. Its true because I'm running the same software I always had been. >No. I told you what they did already. I'm tired of having to repeat myself with you. You're wrong. They just removed a limit preventing bigger blocks. The "Bitcoin utxo set, blockchain and most of the code" already existed in my software. >Deflection. The software would obviously sync to the Bitcoin chain. Not the bch altcoin chain. If you ran 2009 software it wouldnt sync to BTC. You need to fix the Berkely DB bug. But if we're already fixing one bug, why not fix the blocksize limit problems and just sync it to BCH instead?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 23:39:31
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwfu03u/

Then you dont really understand what happened. A bug (that had likely been identified by the attacker well beforehand and saved for a vulnerable moment) was exploited immediately after the fork causing empty blocks. The empty blocks only ceased 1 block before the attack transaction to steal all the segwit funds.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 23:27:55
/r/btc/comments/hi0g1a/another_example_of_shaodowofharbinger_being/fwfsukt/

>Exchanges aren't built upon the Bitcoin protocol though. Yes they are. They use bitcoin functions for deposits and withdrawls. A poor implementation of those functions can lead to a hack just like a poor implementation of smart contract functions can lead to a hack. >Imagine instructing your contractors to build a house for you on top of a swamp.... Then blaming the contractors when it sinks. That's eth. (the swamp) and the house represents the defi smart contracts. Nothing is wrong with the Ethereum smart contract language. Its up to programmers in the ecosystem to write robust smart contracts.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 23:15:39
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwfsh09/

>How so? Better testing >The ‘fix’ for the SegWit mis-spends was planned for months, IIRC. Immediately after the fork a bug was exploited that had existed since before the fork. That bug potentially caused the miner who was planning to refund these addresses from being able to. So the plan for fixing this problem was also impacted by an unforeseen bug appearing on the fly. But like I said, what you think about the quality of the fix, or whether or not it was avoidable is irrelevant as to whether or not 51% hashpower rejecting a transaction was used as part of the fix to the problem.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 23:11:41
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwfrj2b/

>Big difference. This was foreseeable and fixable ahead of time. You could say the same thing about the value overflow incident. Anyways, what you think about the quality of the fix, or whether or not it was avoidable is irrelevant as to whether or not 51% hashpower rejecting a transaction was used as part of the fix to the problem.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 23:01:52
/r/btc/comments/hh2mm7/it_looks_like_coinmarketcap_is_insistent_on/fwfquqe/

No you havent. But I mean, if you want to think you have, feel free.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 22:54:55
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwfqg7k/

>They signed a Bitcoin address. bch didn't exist at the time that keypair was generated. BCH has existed since the genesis block. The fork splitting BCH from BTC and the software to separate them simply hadnt been written at the time the keypair was generated. Early users that support BCH and their SHA256 miners are free to continue using their bitcoin as they please. You cant stop them. Thats the beauty of forks and permissionlessness. That you want to whine about other forks of bitcoin using the bitcoin name is irrelevant. You have no right to the name, sorry. >bch copy/pasted the Bitcoin utxo set, blockchain and most of the code. No, actually they removed a limit preventing bigger blocks (which was always intended to be removed) from the software they were already running. >As a fun experiment, if you were to compile full node code from 2009, fix the Berkeley DB bug and let it run, would it sync 100% to the Bitcoin chain or the bch chain? Why only the Berkely DB bug? Why not fix the 500-750k serialized byte limit and remove the explicitly temporary 1mb limit too? Those limits dont define bitcoin, and bitcoin is allowed to hardfork.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 22:50:46
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwfp416/

>Arbitrarily censoring valid transactions define valid transaction. >This was a bug, not the miners just deciding to censor transactions just because they can. The transaction reversed by miners on BCH was only possible in the first place because of an earlier bug that prevented users from recovering from Segwit addresses. Previously recovery was possible. A bug made it not possible for a few months, and a backlog built up. Once the bug was fixed, something tried to exploit the effects of the bug and miners rejected it. No different from BTC miners rejecting the BTC inflation bug transaction, sorry.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 22:37:02
/r/btc/comments/hi82p9/youtube_just_suspended_stephan_molyneuxs_channel/fwfoo4c/

Sure, but if they're going to act more like a publisher rather than a neutral platform, they're going to see their Section 230 protections taken away.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 22:32:34
/r/btc/comments/hi0g1a/another_example_of_shaodowofharbinger_being/fwfocqe/

Blaming smart contract hacks on ethereum is like blaming bitcoin exchange hacks on bitcoin. Try again.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 22:29:21
/r/btc/comments/hh2mm7/it_looks_like_coinmarketcap_is_insistent_on/fwfo13x/

>Yes, they do. Just read them. No they dont. Is english not your first language? >Yes, you are. I think you've lost track of this entire discussion. No: "Segwit2x having already been rejected at this point means he's now talking about his second choice being following nchain. He actually preferred Segwit2x as a good option before it became clear Bitcoin Core wasnt going to do it. Thats very different than being anti Segwit2x." >Scroll up to my first comment in this post. Not sure what you are responding to if you haven't even seen the link I posted. Im responding to the posts I clicked "reply" on. The link you provided earlier doesnt show he was against Segwit2x initially, it only shows he realizes by the date of that video that it wasnt going to succeed, so he was looking for alternatives by then. Like I said, very different from being anti segwit2x.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 22:26:06
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwfnlaa/

>No. You're trying to suggest that these forks are all just different versions of Bitcoin. They aren't. They are. >There is Bitcoin and a multitude of forks that arent Bitcoin. And that's it. No, sorry. Bitcoin forks are Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a system described in the whitepaper. Theres a reason people refer to the BTC token as BTC and not bitcoin, and thats because there are other parts of bitcoin besides BTC. Thats how forks work. As a fun experiment, can you tell me whether the person from 2009 who called Craig a fraud here signed a BTC address or a BCH address? https://news.bitcoin.com/over-a-hundred-10-year-old-bitcoin-addresses-signed-calling-craig-wright-a-fraud/

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 22:21:38
/r/btc/comments/hh2mm7/it_looks_like_coinmarketcap_is_insistent_on/fwff5ax/

>Yes, they do. Just read them. No they dont. Its very clear they dont. You're not fooling anyone, just making yourself look delusional. >Core and the overwhelming majority of users. This is irrelevant & you're deflecting from the conversation again. I'm not deflecting, its entirely relevant, because Segwit2x having already been rejected at this point means he's now talking about his second choice being following nchain. He actually preferred Segwit2x as a good option before it became clear Bitcoin Core wasnt going to do it. Thats very different than being anti Segwit2x. Like I said, hes saying "if we dont do Segwit2x, I'll follow what nchain does". Thats not the same as saying you're against Segwit2x. Far from it infact. >Ver was very clearly against s2x as proven by the link provided. You didnt provide a link.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 20:59:51
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwfe1u1/

>Well it would be inflation if these were legitimately Bitcoin as you're trying to suggest. No, inflation is new tokens that devalue at the expense of people holding the old tokens. Forking is just slicing the old tokens into new pieces. Theres no devaluation or inflation in forks because if you add up all the pieces, which every person holding bitcoin before the split had, you get the same value. >You're lacking even a basic understanding of economics and monetary policy then. Why else has the usd lost some 96% of its value since it was created? Like I said in my Edit above, USD devalues because new tokens are created and given to certain groups rather than being distributed equally to all USD holders, which decreases value for most USD holders. Like I said, forks are not inflation, because the old tokens *inherently contain the new tokens, therefore there is no value lost for the people holding the old tokens.* You cant have inflation without someone losing value. If no one loses value its a redenomination rather than inflation. In cryptocurrency, forking is much more similar to a peculiar and messy redenomination than it is inflation.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 20:49:21
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/hi1y9k/bitcoin_could_be_stolen_in_lightning_network/fwf7yta/

This is why we need 250kb blocks. I want to climax immediately, but I'm so desensitized that I can only climax if I'm paying $25+ fees. Its a financial domination fetish, and the Bitcoin Core Devs are my master.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 29, 2020 19:51:41
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwdztj7/

You're talking about miners orphaning the block that tried to steal all the funds erroneously sent to segwit addresses and *that had built up due to the effects of a bug*? If you think thats a "51% attack", then BTC got 51% attacked years ago during the value overflow incident: https://coincodex.com/article/3669/the-184-billion-btc-bug-that-caused-a-transaction-revert/

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 13:50:48
/r/btc/comments/hh2mm7/it_looks_like_coinmarketcap_is_insistent_on/fwdzjwy/

>I've just provided quotes from an interview that occurred in July 2017 that proves otherwise. Your quotes dont prove he was against Segwit2x. Those quotes are in the context of Bitcoin Core developers having already rejected Segwit2x by that time. So hes saying *if we dont do Segwit2x*, he'll follow nchain. He's not saying that he *wants* segwit2x to fail so he can follow nchain *instead* of segwit2x.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 13:48:50
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwdlvez/

> This is retarded. If you add the pieces up, you still get one whole pizza, no inflation. If you add the 21M real Bitcoin plus the 21M fake bch, you get 42M, = inflation. I mean, you can call it inflation if you want, but the number of tokens is irrelevant, just as the number of slices of pizza is irrelevant. What matters is that the original full pie of 21m bitcoins. If that full pie is split into BTC, BCH, and other minor tokens it doesnt matter. But all those forks are a part, proportional to their community support and economic value, of the original bitcoin. BTC is a fork as well. Its the biggest fork, but its still a fork and by itself doesnt totally represent bitcoin. You can see that by realizing its not even possible to tell if the OG whale who signed an early address denouncing Craig wright signed with a BTC or BCH address. The coins havent been moved since the fork, so they're still the original bitcoin that includes both BCH and BTC. >You don't want to admit it because you're loser in this situation. Not really. I'm a winner because I own many unforked original bitcoins that contain all the subsequent forks.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 11:58:59
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwddyk1/

No I didnt. You're just trying to simply things too much. Forks are a part of bitcoin. After a chain has forked, the new tokens are lesser versions of the original. Its like having a whole pizza and then taking a slice out of it. After you take the slice out, do you now have 2 pizzas? pizza inflation? No. But the slice of pizza is still pizza, and so is the rest of the pizza that you sliced it out of is still pizza too. But that doesnt mean you have an infinite number of pizzas if you keep slicing your pizza.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 10:49:48
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwc5ycs/

Thats how forks work, yes.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 00:41:36
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwc5mti/

But its easier for blockstream to make money this way, so its better

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 00:37:37
/r/bestof/comments/hh17jw/long_list_of_how_trump_has_hurt_us_troops_while/fwasr1v/

Even the first claim seems dubious. >Trump knew since Mar 2020 that Russia paid bounties to kill American troops, yet he has done nothing. Whats the source for this? Just the "anonymous intelligence official" in the NYT article? Trump has directly refuted that claim. "Nobody briefed or told me, VP Pence, or Chief of Staff Mark Meadows about the so-called attacks on our troops in Afghanistan by Russians, as reported through an “anonymous source” by the Fake News NY Times."

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/bestof on June 28, 2020 16:35:15
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/hhhwtr/federated_sidechains_8m_in_btc_stuck_in_limbo/fwaqamz/

For what it is, seems detailed enough for me. How much more detail would you like in your news article? Whats lacking exactly?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 28, 2020 16:14:40
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/hhhwtr/federated_sidechains_8m_in_btc_stuck_in_limbo/fwaevcc/

Great job in immediately shooting the messenger rather than addressing the actual topic of the thread.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 28, 2020 14:33:03
/r/bestof/comments/hh17jw/long_list_of_how_trump_has_hurt_us_troops_while/fw8iehm/

Trump has a better approval rating among US troops than Obama did.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/bestof on June 28, 2020 00:22:17
/r/bestof/comments/hh17jw/long_list_of_how_trump_has_hurt_us_troops_while/fw8gqk9/

>You're picking a single incident out of dozens I'm picking a single incident because its a massive load of Gish Gallop. Obviously I'm not going to bother responding to all of it. > and then drawing a false conclusion from it. Whats false about it? >Also you have no idea what a Gish Gallop is. It is a debating tactic. A list is a list. This isnt just a neutral list, its a list thats intended to push a narrative and make an argument. Many of the things in that list are exceedingly weak in supporting that narrative. Therefore its Gish Gallop.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/bestof on June 28, 2020 00:02:24
/r/bestof/comments/hh17jw/long_list_of_how_trump_has_hurt_us_troops_while/fw7ucln/

>On Oct 7, 2019, Trump abruptly withdrew support from America's allies in Syria after a phone call with Turkey's president (Erdogan). Turkey subsequently bombed US Special Forces. Pretty warped reasoning to pretend that withdrawing US troops from a forever war "has hurt US troops". I dont even think there were any injuries from this incident, and the withdrawl itself removed other US troops from a risky theatre.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/bestof on June 27, 2020 20:00:55
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/hch61p/ny_fed_just_classified_bitcoin_cryptocurrencies/fvko75c/

You started out this entire thread with insults: "It's not just that this **low-quality trash** like this is so common on this sub"

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 21, 2020 17:11:24
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/hch61p/ny_fed_just_classified_bitcoin_cryptocurrencies/fvknhbs/

You gonna cry and take your ball home now?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 21, 2020 17:04:53
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/hch61p/ny_fed_just_classified_bitcoin_cryptocurrencies/fvkkhpl/

>Here is the definition of Fiat money from Wikipedia again Are you really so dense that I have to explain 3 times that just because wikipedia mentions a caveat on how a term has been used, that doesnt mean that that usage isnt inherently doublespeak-esque in nature? Did you forget the wetwork example already? Also, why havent you addressed your nonsense distinction between fiat and pure fiat, which you later contradicted?: *"and it also makes it clear that these economists are adhering to the view that there is pure fiat (non-government backed) and fiat (government-backed), they make that distinction. This is a view in economics."*

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 21, 2020 16:37:11
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/hch61p/ny_fed_just_classified_bitcoin_cryptocurrencies/fvk9ngh/

> The word "pure" is an adjective. You're the one that made the claim that the difference between "pure fiat" and "fiat" is that one is government backed and the other isnt. Considering what we know about the definitions of "pure" and "fiat"....thats pure nonsense. And when its government linked economists making such claims, its a great example of doublespeak in action. Do you remember saying this:? *"and it also makes it clear that these economists are adhering to the view that there is pure fiat (non-government backed) and fiat (government-backed), they make that distinction. This is a view in economics."* >What is money with the same characteristics as fiat, but without legal tender status? and provide an example The same characteristics as fiat but without legal tender status? We call that toilet paper.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 21, 2020 14:58:35
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/hch61p/ny_fed_just_classified_bitcoin_cryptocurrencies/fvjjyiz/

>Absolutely correct. It's something that occupies the realms of complex monetary theory. So tell me when the first time (or an early use at least) the term "pure fiat" was used with the definition of being a non-government currency with no intrinsic value. Looks like a doublespeak campaign launched in 2019 by Antoine Martin to me. > If he wants to refer to fiat without legal tender status as "pure fiat", he absolutely can, especially when the context is explained. If the government in 1984 wants to refer to war as peace and freedom as slavery they absolutely can as well. Doesnt mean its not doublespeak.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 21, 2020 11:02:15
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/hch61p/ny_fed_just_classified_bitcoin_cryptocurrencies/fvjamd2/

> To them technically that's a form of "pure fiat". doublespeak >This is despite Wikipedia making the caveat that fiat is "often" government regulated, but not always. Again, just because wikipedia mentions a term is used one way, doesnt mean its not doublespeak when you use the term in that manner. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetwork >This is despite Wikipedia making the caveat that fiat is "often" government regulated, but not always. >I suspect we both know you'll avoid that for.. reasons :) nah, i might

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 21, 2020 09:17:30
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/hch61p/ny_fed_just_classified_bitcoin_cryptocurrencies/fvi9yu7/

>This is explained. Explaining it later doesnt change the fact that you're using doublespeak when you redefine and improperly use words to suit your narrative. >Pretty much yes. So you agree they're distorting the term "fiat"? >At no point do they compare Bitcoin to government controlled money, they in fact, make the distinction that it isn't. They do. They lump government controlled money and BTC both under the umbrella "fiat money" which is a misleading use of the term. Putting 2 things in the same category means you've compared something and found them similar enough to lump them together. It also neuters the word used to highlight the difference between the two things. >What issue do you have with their conclusion? My issue is primarily with their doublespeak and misuse of the term "fiat". If you want to have another discussion about their conclusions we could do that, but it would make sense to separate the two discussions.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 21, 2020 00:01:32
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/hch61p/ny_fed_just_classified_bitcoin_cryptocurrencies/fvi6i7n/

>Are the authors claiming BTC is government backed fiat? No, they're distorting the term fiat, so its harder to talk about and make the case that there are important differences between BTC and fiat. >so care to explain what meaning is being distorted here and for what purpose? The meaning of the term "fiat". They're calling all money without intrinsic value "fiat money", when the term "fiat" specifically refers to a decree, from an authority. The purpose is to make it harder to talk about the differences between fiat money and things like bitcoin, because they brush it aside and claim that Bitcoin is fiat as well, when infact it isnt.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 20, 2020 23:22:14
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/hch61p/ny_fed_just_classified_bitcoin_cryptocurrencies/fvi2q1g/

>It's not black/white. In this case it is though. The term "fiat" has always been tied to an authority. That some economists want to define "fiat money" as any money with no intrinsic value is doublespeak because fiat has nothing to do with intrinsic value, it has to do with an order from an authority. That Wikipedia mentions that some economists do that doesnt change the fact that they're engaging in doublespeak.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 20, 2020 22:42:01
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/hcosaw/j_on_wealth_inequality_its_not_from_monetary/fvh802e/

You watch....I bet they're gearing up to blame it all on racism.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 20, 2020 17:37:45
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/hch61p/ny_fed_just_classified_bitcoin_cryptocurrencies/fvh60nw/

>In the article.. Im asking about originally by Adrian and Mancini‑Griffoli >If you really want your brain melted, there economists who argue that all money is fiat currency, because (to grossly simplify) "let it be done" can be viewed as an agreement between parties, with no government involved, and that trust is required not just in a government, but between all exchanging parties Thats not how the word fiat has been used. Its always been linked to a decree by an authority. >A false conclusion because the entire premise is false. You just dont want to accept the engligh definitions of "fiat" and "doublespeak". Doesnt matter. If you want to make up your own definitions thats inherently doublespeak.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 20, 2020 17:19:26
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/hch61p/ny_fed_just_classified_bitcoin_cryptocurrencies/fvh1n99/

> Adrian and Mancini‑Griffoli definitions of money when was this definition made? >But according to certain economists not all fiat money is government-backed. There are arguments for and against that. Then those economists are engaging in doublespeak. Fiat in latin literally means, "let it be done", which is why we use it to refer to a decree by an authority. Therefore fiat money is money by decree.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 20, 2020 16:38:05
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/hch61p/ny_fed_just_classified_bitcoin_cryptocurrencies/fvgum1y/

You've got to be a troll. Fiat money is inherently government backed. Money that is not government backed and whose value is speculative is called fiduciary money.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 20, 2020 15:31:49
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/hch61p/ny_fed_just_classified_bitcoin_cryptocurrencies/fvgsbka/

The distinction is that the actual definition of fiat highlights the fact that it is backed by government decree... The article writers are engaging in doublespeak by labeling bitcoin fiat, since bitcoin is not backed by government decree, and is infact intended to be an alternative to such things.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 20, 2020 15:10:34
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/hch61p/ny_fed_just_classified_bitcoin_cryptocurrencies/fvgr46y/

Their article is pretending that the definition of fiat is: >Fiat money corresponds to intrinsically worthless objects that have value based on the belief that they will be accepted in exchange for valued goods and services. When in reality the oxfod definition of fiat is: "inconvertible paper money made legal tender **by a government decree**." By calling Bitcoin fiat, they're purposely leaving out the government decree inherent to the definition and the force backing their money by requiring taxes be paid in it.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 20, 2020 14:59:26
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/hch61p/ny_fed_just_classified_bitcoin_cryptocurrencies/fvgotp0/

> It's two economists giving their views. How is that double-speak? Because its literally misrepresenting the definition of fiat and pretending its something else. Thats what doublespeak is. In this case the purpose is to obscure the differences between two things by redefining the word that highlights that difference. I dont think you really understand what doublespeak is. Its not about saying one thing and then saying the opposite thing, though doublespeak certainly makes it easier to do that and get away with it. "Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words."

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 20, 2020 14:38:21
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/hch61p/ny_fed_just_classified_bitcoin_cryptocurrencies/fvgno7i/

>What double-speak? Calling bitcoin fiat, when bitcoin was specifically created as an alternative to fiat. >which narrative? In this case the narrative seems to involve pushing the idea that theres no difference between central bank issued currency backed by government decree, and other forms of consensually used money that arent underpinned by forced government taxation. Lumping both of those under the term "fiat" completely takes away the meaning of the word and makes it harder to talk about government imposed money.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 20, 2020 14:27:39
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/hch61p/ny_fed_just_classified_bitcoin_cryptocurrencies/fvglv8b/

Personal viewpoints inherently contain classifications very commonly. Doubt he had any more room in the title to point out that its NY Fed employees saying this and not an official statement. But you could just read the link and see that clearly. >We'll also just completely ignore the bizarre unintelligible 1984 link in the title gore. Whats unintelligible about it? OP is just pointing out the doublespeak inherent in changing definitions to suit your narrative. >The quality of "information" in this sub is on a par with r/conspiracy or r/libertarian The quality of information on this sub is on par for reddit in general. Sounds like you particularly dont like libertarians and questioning authority....what brings you to cryptocurrency?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 20, 2020 14:11:00
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/hch61p/ny_fed_just_classified_bitcoin_cryptocurrencies/fvgjoau/

so change "NY Fed" to "NY Fed employees" then. Its not so big a difference because "fiat" isnt an actionable legal definition anyways. What matters is the viewpoint that it shows inside the organization.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 20, 2020 13:50:53
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/hch61p/ny_fed_just_classified_bitcoin_cryptocurrencies/fvg722x/

The link in OP is to a blog run by current new york fed employees working in research and policy, and they directly say in the article: "And Bitcoin is just another example of fiat money."

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 20, 2020 11:55:52
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/hch61p/ny_fed_just_classified_bitcoin_cryptocurrencies/fvg6net/

The link in OP is a blog run by new york fed employees, and they directly say in the article: "And Bitcoin is just another example of fiat money."

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 20, 2020 11:52:06
/r/nottheonion/comments/hcaq4t/arnold_schwarzenegger_anyone_making_covid19_masks/fvem2yz/

Ah, I see. Now you believe you're correct. Congratulations.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/nottheonion on June 19, 2020 23:10:32
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/hc9hto/new_york_fed_bitcoin_just_another_example_of_fiat/fvdwbra/

From the article: "“Fiat is latin for ‘by decree.’ It means money which is commanded, through the threat of violence and the local monopoly that a state enjoys, to be used in society,” Carter told Decrypt. “Its value comes from the tax liability that requires individuals to hold and use the currency.” " So if Bitcoin is fiat, who is demanding with threat of violence that you are forced to buy/earn bitcoin in order to pay taxes with it?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 19, 2020 18:48:42
/r/nottheonion/comments/hc1teb/petition_underway_to_rename_columbus_ohio/fvdb4s6/

We cant have that, Ben Franklin was a slaveowner, we need to erase him from history.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/nottheonion on June 19, 2020 15:41:17
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/haz5fn/a_lone_young_woman_protests_with_a_blm_sign_while/fv6hxxq/

Disgusting. Love it when Trump signs and hats get snatched though. Serves those fascists right.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 17, 2020 20:02:09
/r/btc/comments/haxbph/fed_chair_powell_warns_of_unsustainable_budget_as/fv6hat1/

> it’s debt is to the federal reserve I guess thats why the federal reserve is complaining about it. They actually want to be paid back ;)

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 17, 2020 19:58:06
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/haqyxc/protester_surrounded_and_sucker_punched/fv5cr4p/

Youre talking about "systemic racism". I'm talking about this person personally saying racist things and potentially being a racist.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 17, 2020 14:31:08
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/haqyxc/protester_surrounded_and_sucker_punched/fv4za1w/

Racist much? What if I posted a video of some black people acting dumb at a taco bell at 1am in Baltimore and then said this why everyone hates black people? Or would that not be racist?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 17, 2020 12:45:04
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/hasx4c/and_here_i_was_thinking_that_the_other_guy_is_the/fv4x4cr/

In the other thread people are saying Australia

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 17, 2020 12:27:37
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/hapxha/cops_shoot_at_window_of_guy_recording_in/fv4w66t/

A live round has a cartridge, gunpowder, and a bullet. A blank has no bullet, just the cartridge with gunpowder.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 17, 2020 12:19:54
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/hapxha/cops_shoot_at_window_of_guy_recording_in/fv4utow/

Theres nothing pedantic about pointing out there are real differences between bullets and pepperballs. Its a very important difference.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 17, 2020 12:08:54
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/hapxha/cops_shoot_at_window_of_guy_recording_in/fv4upmf/

No it didnt. It the white powder is from the pepperball busting on the window, not the window busting.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 17, 2020 12:07:57
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/hapxha/cops_shoot_at_window_of_guy_recording_in/fv4te37/

No, its a pellet. Bullets and pellets are differentiated by the mechanism by which they're fired. If it uses its fired from a gunpowder powered gun its a bullet, if its powered by C02 from a pelletgun its a pellet. These are clearly defined differences and they're not interchangeable.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 17, 2020 11:57:13
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/hapxha/cops_shoot_at_window_of_guy_recording_in/fv4st8y/

> Hey genius, there are full-on hunting shotguns that propel their projectiles with CO2. Hey genius, those are called pelletguns.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 17, 2020 11:52:31
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/hapxha/cops_shoot_at_window_of_guy_recording_in/fv4skkn/

Thank you. Its absurd that people feel the need to try to redefine words just to get the negative connotation. It just undermines your argument.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 17, 2020 11:50:31
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/hapxha/cops_shoot_at_window_of_guy_recording_in/fv4sajp/

Lethality doesnt define something as a bullet or not. Pellet guns shoot pellets, to differentiate them from bullets which are shot using gunpowder. That you can kill someone with a powerful enough pelletgun doesnt mean it shoots bullets. Just like if you kill someone with a powerful potato gun that doenst mean the potato is magically a bullet.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 17, 2020 11:48:14
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/hapxha/cops_shoot_at_window_of_guy_recording_in/fv4rwfy/

A potato isnt a bullet either. Whether you think its "ok" or not is irrelevant to the definition.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 17, 2020 11:44:57
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/hapxha/cops_shoot_at_window_of_guy_recording_in/fv4r0eq/

It does matter. If you're right, you dont need to lie about whats happening. It just makes your argument weaker.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 17, 2020 11:37:36
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/hapxha/cops_shoot_at_window_of_guy_recording_in/fv4q99s/

Its literally not. Bullets, including rubber bullets, are fired from guns using gunpowder. You're right that they can still be dangerous, but not everything thats dangerous is a bullet.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 17, 2020 11:31:19
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/hapxha/cops_shoot_at_window_of_guy_recording_in/fv4lwxb/

It wasnt a rubber bullet or any kind of bullet. It was a pepperball shot out of a paintball gun.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 17, 2020 10:54:23
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/ha9mjv/off_duty_police_attacks_family_in_self_checkout/fv31o8w/

Why are you inventing excuses for this behavior? The person filming is an employee. They're laughing and joking about it because they were mad they were trying to close and the victims wouldnt leave, which is why they called the cop over to remove them. Here's another employee filming and taunting as well: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut/comments/ha9gp8/this_is_a_series_of_3_videos_of_a_family_harassed/ "They're laughing and joking at the expense of these people because they're scared"...how delusional.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 16, 2020 22:55:44
/r/Wellthatsucks/comments/h84efj/seattle_coronavirus_survivor_gets_a_11_million/fupdhh2/

Most insurance plans in the US have yearly out of pocket maximums above which you dont have to pay any more. For example, on healthcare marketplace plans, you cant even get a plan with a higher out of pocket maximum than $8,100. Did this person buy a plan without an out of pocket maximum?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/Wellthatsucks on June 13, 2020 10:23:24
/r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/gzy7ty/martial_arts_instructor_teaches_young_student/ftjzbhd/

> I hate hearing " well black people commit more crimes then whites at X% rate " and I always have to yell back " No, Black people are being ARRESTED for more crimes then white people at X% a rate " . I share your sentiment besides this statement, but we have to confront the reality of the situation as well. The murder rate in many black communities is absolutely through the roof. 23 people were murdered in Chicago just this weekend, and almost all of the cases involved black victims and perpetrators. I dont think theres some secret cache of white murders that just arent being reported to account for the huge disparity. This high murder rate certainly is linked to the after-effects of racism in the past leading to generational low-income areas, but pretending the crime rate isnt rate isnt real isnt really helping to solve the problem.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/nextfuckinglevel on June 10, 2020 00:49:19
/r/btc/comments/gz0y2q/casa_btc_maxi_wallet_no_longer_accepts_btc/ftis9lc/

its taken BTC 10 years to get where it is now. BCH should have at least 10 years since the bitcoin split before its judged against bitcoin's adoption level. If mass consumer adoption on either chain happens before then we could call it sooner, but we're nowhere near that happening. Frankly, BTC's consumer adoption probably isnt as high as you think relative to BCH if you exclude exchange to exchange transactions by moonboys.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 17:51:57
/r/investing/comments/gz6xjl/sp_500_closes_at_3232_year_to_date_price_return/ftfqpdl/

How big would the gap be if you subtracted the risk free rate though? things like CD's often offered much better interest rates during that period than they do now.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on June 8, 2020 22:39:10
/r/btc/comments/gz0y2q/casa_btc_maxi_wallet_no_longer_accepts_btc/ftdzezf/

Apparently the status quo is better because its the status quo. Anything that hasnt overtaken the status quo by now is proven to be inferior. This is the same argument bankers and bootlickers might use against crypto in general. Congratulations.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 8, 2020 13:25:35
/r/nottheonion/comments/gyeztq/poll_80_of_voters_think_the_us_is_spiraling_out/ftb6zdt/

Gates wants to use a "digital certificate", so the tracking implications of immunity status are similar whether that takes the form of an embedded microchip or something else.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/nottheonion on June 7, 2020 18:21:51
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gxwb46/btc_hasnt_had_an_upgrade_in_5_years/ftb0wei/

>Segwit was released on August 3, 2017 >...this thread is misinformation Not really, no. The Segwit BIP141 was made in 2015, 5 years ago. It took like 2 years to *activate*, yes, but the development had been complete long before that.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 7, 2020 17:26:27
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gxwb46/btc_hasnt_had_an_upgrade_in_5_years/ftb0qpc/

The Segwit BIP141 was made in 2015, 5 years ago. It took like 2 years to activate, yes, but the development had been complete long before that.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 7, 2020 17:25:01
/r/Conservative/comments/gxpn7u/leftism_not_racism_destroys_black_upward_mobility/ft6plh1/

So democratic politicians have failed to make any progress to address the effects of racism committed by the Federal Housing Administration 86 years ago? But you want us to believe thats Trump's fault? If inner city poverty is due entirely to to injustice decades ago and not poor leadership for all the decades since then, youd think inner city poverty would be going down much faster than overall poverty, but that doesnt seem to be the case.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/Conservative on June 6, 2020 16:56:30
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gxfmo5/protester_explains_riots_why_are_you_burning_down/ft54lka/

>more scientifically sound research Lol, no. your paper has been debunked by *multiple* papers in direct response to it: https://multimidia.gazetadopovo.com.br/media/info/2016/201604/A%20comment%20on%20%E2%80%9CFractionating%20Intelligence%E2%80%9D%20and%20the%20peer%20review%20process.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260029416_Further_response_to_Hampshire_et_al The evidence overwhelmingly shows that IQ is a predictive factor of social outcomes. To deny that is no less retarded than denying global warming.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 6, 2020 12:19:14
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gxfmo5/protester_explains_riots_why_are_you_burning_down/ft535qg/

> I refer you to my other comment chain on this thread it has sources and studies. Your first study is directly debunked by multiple papers: https://multimidia.gazetadopovo.com.br/media/info/2016/201604/A%20comment%20on%20%E2%80%9CFractionating%20Intelligence%E2%80%9D%20and%20the%20peer%20review%20process.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260029416_Further_response_to_Hampshire_et_al Your second link is only saying that personality traits also matter, and perhaps more. But its not saying IQ doesnt matter. Personality traits being equal, the person with higher IQ is predicted to still have better results.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 6, 2020 12:10:44
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gxfmo5/protester_explains_riots_why_are_you_burning_down/ft4zu43/

When a researcher studying intelligence says "smart", they're generally talking about high IQ, since IQ is the best test for general intelligence we have. Specifically the researcher who said that quote about smart people performing better at work, defined smart people as those with high general mental ability, as measured by an IQ test: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14717634/ *"When the siblings were in their late 20s (in 1993), a person with average GMA was earning on average almost $18,000 less per year than his brighter sibling who had an IQ of 120 or higher and was earning more than $9,000 more than his duller sibling who had an IQ of less than 80."* Why do you feel the need to deny the science?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 6, 2020 11:51:56
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gxfmo5/protester_explains_riots_why_are_you_burning_down/ft4xmu8/

https://www.inc.com/business-insider/why-iq-big-factor-future-success-job-performance-according-science-research.html "The researchers reviewed dozens of studies and found that smarter people generally perform better at work, probably **because** smart people learn new skills more quickly." There is a causation link between IQ and social outcomes: https://menghublog.wordpress.com/2013/09/28/iq-testing-from-correlation-to-causation/

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 6, 2020 11:39:26
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gxfmo5/protester_explains_riots_why_are_you_burning_down/ft4w2gn/

>IQ is irrelevant. Or at least very minimal. So its just a coincidence that most of the top of their field performers in law, medicine, math, computer science, and the natural sciences happen to have a very high IQ?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 6, 2020 11:31:51
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gxfmo5/protester_explains_riots_why_are_you_burning_down/ft4v0ps/

But I mean, I'm a short man with high IQ. Theres no reason I should be making less money in a cerebral field, yet short men make 10% less money regardless. At least the lack of women and blacks in the upper end of the pay scale has a somewhat justified basis in their lower IQ distribution in the upper IQ range: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/higher/dr-paul-irwing-there-are-twice-as-many-men-as-women-with-an-iq-of-120-plus-426321.html What is the excuse for discriminating against short men?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 6, 2020 11:26:32
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gxfmo5/protester_explains_riots_why_are_you_burning_down/ft4s8fe/

Wait, so you thinking burning down the stores in the area is going to *solve* the food desert issue?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 6, 2020 11:11:55
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gxfmo5/protester_explains_riots_why_are_you_burning_down/ft4rhkc/

I was about to move to Massachusetts but it doesnt look like that bill has actually passed. How are we supposed to get any traction when the victim role is so firmly held by women and black people? Whenever I interact with someone, I want them to constantly think about all the microaggresions they're committing against me. How do we enforce that through law?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 6, 2020 11:07:38
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gxfmo5/protester_explains_riots_why_are_you_burning_down/ft4qj9u/

People complain about food deserts in the ghettos, and yet this guys talking about burning down all the stores in the area to drop the rent. Nice.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 6, 2020 11:01:02
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gxfmo5/protester_explains_riots_why_are_you_burning_down/ft4hd5k/

Short men make less money than tall men, why dont people stand up for us vertically challenged too?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 6, 2020 10:09:14
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gxfmo5/protester_explains_riots_why_are_you_burning_down/ft4gyob/

> Maybe if you burn down the target bad enough they leave, a local grocery store will move in an quit enriching the already wealth. Why would anyone with any sense move into a place where their predecesor got burned down? Good luck with that.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 6, 2020 10:06:45
/r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/gxfjze/protesters_in_france_troll_cops_with_star_wars/ft23lx4/

>I don't know how Canada went one way and we went another. Its easy to avoid critical attention when you're relatively powerless and irrelevant.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/nextfuckinglevel on June 6, 2020 00:26:16
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gx3dur/police_officer_tells_proud_boys_to_hide_inside/ft206ox/

>The bias is in acting to help one group violating it to escape penalty. But the two groups are behaving differently, so the bias is justified. Its based on their differing patterns of actions. >In this specific protest, was there looting? Not during “these protests”, and the vague “destruction”. The threat of looting is based on recent interactions with protestors in this town, not one specific incidence, so your fixation on a specific incident doesnt make sense. There have been many storefront windows broken and graffiti from the protestors, and none from these armed people defending property, which is why they are treated differently. Newsflash: laws can be enforced less strictly against groups who arent being beligerant and arent breaking other more serious laws. Theres nothing improper about that. Its common sense.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 5, 2020 23:58:30
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gx3dur/police_officer_tells_proud_boys_to_hide_inside/ft1y2jq/

>Ahh, so the curfew was only for the people protesting police brutality? Everyone else is free to ignore it? Got it. "But he pointed out that "lawfully armed individuals violating a curfew does differ in severity from people throwing bricks and bottles during an otherwise peaceful demonstration." As such, police responses will vary accordingly, but without favoritism or bias, Moore added. " You're not favoring based on who they are, you're favoring based on the actions of those groups, which is completely reasonable. >Since you made such a big deal about whether the gas was ever deployed, what was looted in this specific instance? Nothing? Oh, well I guess there was no looters there. Actually there has been alot of destruction in Salem during these protests.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 5, 2020 23:41:40
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gx3dur/police_officer_tells_proud_boys_to_hide_inside/ft1t2hr/

They gave them advance warning because these guys defending property are not a problem and they dont necessarily want them to leave. While on the other hand, the protestors are intermixed with looters, rioters, and anarchists, which is the entire reason a curfew was implemented in the first place.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 5, 2020 23:02:51
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gx3dur/police_officer_tells_proud_boys_to_hide_inside/ft1ebu9/

I dont like curfews either. If you think your right to protest at night isnt exceeded by the rights of property owners who dont want to be looted, you could fight the issue in the courts. But starting riots when the police try to arrest you for breaking the law isnt helpful.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 5, 2020 21:13:23
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gx3dur/police_officer_tells_proud_boys_to_hide_inside/ft1duji/

I'm not saying all police everywhere did that, I'm asking about these police specifically in this incident.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 5, 2020 21:09:49
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gx3dur/police_officer_tells_proud_boys_to_hide_inside/ft1dmk8/

>favoring and protecting racists Why do you think they're racists? A more objective person might say they're favoring people defending property above those who are trying to protest after curfew. >directly prior to committing premeditated violence on protestors Did these cops actually commit "violence" against protestors in this incident? Was it an *excessive* use of force, or was it minimal and required to enforce the law against those who arent complying?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 5, 2020 21:08:15
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gx3dur/police_officer_tells_proud_boys_to_hide_inside/ft0qitn/

I mean, if theres a law to wear masks and you're not wearing masks, dont be surprised when you get arrested for that either. If I want to challenge mask laws, I'll let them arrest me for it and fight it in court. I'm not going to try to physically fight/resist the arresting officer or start a riot.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 5, 2020 18:15:22
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gx3dur/police_officer_tells_proud_boys_to_hide_inside/fszj6tm/

>Why would they favor these people with guns over unarmed civilians that are protesting for peace? Hmm. What are the differing philosophies of those two groups? Like I said, the protestors wanting to break curfew are inherently enabling looting, even if they arent personally looting. The people trying to defend property, arent.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 5, 2020 12:25:59
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gx3dur/police_officer_tells_proud_boys_to_hide_inside/fsziynf/

>Look you said peaceful protesters go home at night for the curfew. I said most do, yes. > Just cause protesters are out past curfew doesn’t mean they are going to riot or loot. Practical experience shows they're alot more likely to though. >It is a show of resistance against an increasingly violent, increasingly oppressive police state. If you want to fight curfews, you do it in the court system and have them removed. You dont do it by trying to impose a state of anarchy where legal orders can be ignored at your choosing.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 5, 2020 12:24:09
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gx3dur/police_officer_tells_proud_boys_to_hide_inside/fszilqo/

> In particular, he took issue with the officer telling the people outside of the salon to sit in their cars rather than leave. He said that contrasts sharply with how protesters have seen the curfew enforced. “They are playing favorites and (the officer) using that term acknowledges they are aware of that,” he said. Why wouldnt they want a calm, purely defensive group to remain, while a group that is on average much more hostile and destructive to leave?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 5, 2020 12:21:14
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gx3dur/police_officer_tells_proud_boys_to_hide_inside/fszi6m0/

>Because they said that, the thing they want to avoid is NOT arresting them while arresting others. Make sense? Not really, no. Pretty sure they'd rather have the protestors leave than have to arrest them. You think they dont ask the protestors to leave before they start arresting them? >it's not because the method that police are DOCUMENTED to ALWAYS use when "enforcing a curfew" looks absolutely nothing like this. Its almost like a group that is hostile to you requires different methods than one with is calm and compliant.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 5, 2020 12:17:52
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gx3dur/police_officer_tells_proud_boys_to_hide_inside/fszhio4/

Thats a non-sequitur. If they were still out after curfew, perhaps he'd have to arrest them because "I dont want to look like we're playing favorites.".

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 5, 2020 12:12:26
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gx3dur/police_officer_tells_proud_boys_to_hide_inside/fszhaiu/

> I said the protestors were told to leave and these men were told they could sit in their cars. How do you know the protestors cant be in their cars? >And the guy even admits they are treating them unfairly when he says he doesn’t want people to see them play favorites. You can be fair and still have favorites. Why wouldnt they favor people who are calmly trying the defend property above people who are trying to protest during the dark and after curfew, which enables looting?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 5, 2020 12:10:40
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gx3dur/police_officer_tells_proud_boys_to_hide_inside/fszh04y/

You have evidence of peaceful protestors being arrested in their cars here?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 5, 2020 12:08:27
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gx3dur/police_officer_tells_proud_boys_to_hide_inside/fszgvdu/

Those people should probably stop protesting in the street when curfew starts.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 5, 2020 12:07:26
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gx3dur/police_officer_tells_proud_boys_to_hide_inside/fszgmhl/

Going inside *is* complying with them.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 5, 2020 12:05:28
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gx3dur/police_officer_tells_proud_boys_to_hide_inside/fszgjqx/

Wheres the video of them being overly aggressive with the protestors after this? >Were the protestors allowed to do that or were they told to leave? You tell me. You're the one claiming the protestors are being treated unfairly. I dont see any evidence of it.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 5, 2020 12:04:50
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gx3dur/police_officer_tells_proud_boys_to_hide_inside/fszg62m/

> So again, I have to ask, why are you okay with police taking a non violent protest, albiet one which violates curfew, and escalating it to a riot Because the curfew is a legal order. You cant just choose to ignore it and not expect to have force used against you to make you comply. Thats how law works. The force should definately be proportional, but to not expect any consequences when breaking the law is stupid. If the crowd starts to riot because someone got arrested for breaking the law, that crowd needs to be controlled. I think curfews are shit. But if you want to fight the curfew, you do it in the court system by having curfews banned, not by trying to effect a state of anarchy.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 5, 2020 12:01:44
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gx3dur/police_officer_tells_proud_boys_to_hide_inside/fszfp8u/

I mean, i think curfews are lame too. But that doesnt mean you can just not comply with them. You'd need to challenge the validity of curfews in the courts.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 5, 2020 11:57:57
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gx3dur/police_officer_tells_proud_boys_to_hide_inside/fszf64n/

>what's the other explanation of what kind of favoritism they're worried about? Maybe these people are calmly defending property, from people that are looting and rioting, so they dont want to have to arrest the people who are simply defending property? >as opposed to, oh i dunno, having the curfew enforced against them like everyone else because that's what a curfew is? Asking them to go inside *is* enforcing the curfew.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 5, 2020 11:53:46
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gwyrqf/speeding_ticket_turns_into_a_pissing_contest/fszewv3/

Its sufficient reason to require you to get out of your car though.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 5, 2020 11:51:47
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gx3dur/police_officer_tells_proud_boys_to_hide_inside/fszdgc5/

>This is a police officer giving one party advance notice the that police are about to start a riot. The police are telling them they're going to enforce the curfew and clear out the street, and they dont want these guys in the way or getting involved at all. Separating these groups is actually a way to *prevent* a riot or violent escalation. And do you not think they announce with a bullhorn or something that curfew is in effect and that people should get off the street to the protestors as well?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 5, 2020 11:39:56
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gx3dur/police_officer_tells_proud_boys_to_hide_inside/fszczh3/

No, if they're actually peacefully protesting thats great, police brutality is definately a problem we need to address. But most of the peaceful protestors go home at night.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 5, 2020 11:36:20
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gx3dur/police_officer_tells_proud_boys_to_hide_inside/fszcqud/

I'm not twisting facts. I just wanted to discuss this issue with a few people in this thread, sorry.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 5, 2020 11:34:25
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gx3dur/police_officer_tells_proud_boys_to_hide_inside/fszchqn/

> There is no "narrative" here you privileged fuck....police are cozying up to armed white supremacists. I mean, that is a narrative. I'm all for addressing police brutality, but do you actually have any evidence the people in this video are white supremacists, and that because they are white supremacists they are treating them better than non-white supremacists who are trying to defend their property?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 5, 2020 11:32:21
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gx3dur/police_officer_tells_proud_boys_to_hide_inside/fszanv4/

>If you genuinely believe that's what the Proud Boys are there for Not saying they arent, but how do you know the people in the video are "Proud Boys"? >The non-white-supremacists defending property from looters get chased off, teargassed and shot with "rubber" bullets all the same as the protesters. Might happen sometimes, but havent seen evidence of this being true in most cases, no. Are you just assuming this because it would be convenient for your narrative?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 5, 2020 11:17:26
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gx3dur/police_officer_tells_proud_boys_to_hide_inside/fszadlg/

>Those are armed white supremacists. Are they? Thats a bold claim, do you have any proof that the two guys in this video are white supremacists?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 5, 2020 11:15:03
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gx3dur/police_officer_tells_proud_boys_to_hide_inside/fsz8qkn/

Whats wrong with not wanting to arrest people who are calmly defending property from looters? He didnt even ask them to do anything illegal, he just asked them to go inside.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 5, 2020 11:01:35
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gx3dur/police_officer_tells_proud_boys_to_hide_inside/fsz8kpa/

Why would he not have a job? Whats wrong with not wanting to arrest people who are calmly defending property from looters? He didnt even ask them to do anything illegal, he just asked them to go inside.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 5, 2020 11:00:13
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gx3dur/police_officer_tells_proud_boys_to_hide_inside/fsz8f29/

Whats wrong with not wanting to arrest people who are calmly defending property from looters? He didnt even ask them to do anything illegal, he just asked them to go inside.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 5, 2020 10:58:53
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gx3dur/police_officer_tells_proud_boys_to_hide_inside/fsz7mwy/

> what's the other explanation of what kind of favoritism they're worried about? Maybe these people are calmly defending property, from people that are looting and rioting, so they dont want to have to arrest the people who are simply defending property?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 5, 2020 10:52:16
/r/investing/comments/gwepzz/do_these_protests_pretty_much_guarantee_a_2nd/fsv7sg0/

tear gas helps encourage people to wear masks at least

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on June 4, 2020 11:08:02
/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/gvy7nb/cognitive_dissonance/fsteg05/

> https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/george-floyd-protests-06-03-20/h_9c79ff1ee6c999cb8e59f8d2c20ca365 So your position is that anarchy can only spread by easily identified protestors physically walking from one place to another? How naive. Try again, this time addressing the fact that protestors are traveling from all across the state/area to join protests and its not always easy to identify them before they start causing problems. Also address the fact that riots in one place can overwhelm state resources, making other areas in the state even more vulnerable to other potential rioters emboldened by the success of the first group.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PoliticalHumor on June 3, 2020 22:12:05
/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/gvy7nb/cognitive_dissonance/fstd799/

Please let us know how insurrection and anarchy stop at city borders, then I'll entertain you.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PoliticalHumor on June 3, 2020 22:00:24
/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/gvy7nb/cognitive_dissonance/fstc3pt/

Lol, perhaps conservatives could use your same local vs statewide argument to claim their own hypocritical position this meme is making fun of, isnt hypocritical at all.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PoliticalHumor on June 3, 2020 21:50:06
/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/gvy7nb/cognitive_dissonance/fst9lwt/

>It's germane because we see liberal leaders acting consistently Well, no: https://www.wgbh.org/news/local-news/2020/06/02/curfew-decisions-up-to-local-officials-baker-says >Weird to conflate "liberals" generally with the statements of a few pundits you seem to pay attention to. I mean, if you want to pretend liberals in general are just as supportive of these curfews as conservatives, go ahead. I havent seen any polls done so I can only go by the obvious negative reaction I've seen compared to that of conservatives. >On the other hand, we see Trumpist leaders acting differently in the two situations. Not really, as most conservative states had lockdown orders as well. The few that didnt just punted and left it up to counties and cities. Much like this guy did about curfews: https://www.wgbh.org/news/local-news/2020/06/02/curfew-decisions-up-to-local-officials-baker-says The obvious reality that you refuse to accept, is that liberals were supportive of the virus lockdowns relative to conservatives, and conservatives were supportive of the curfews relative to liberals. But both hypocritically support authoritarianism when its convenient for them.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PoliticalHumor on June 3, 2020 21:26:58
/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/gvy7nb/cognitive_dissonance/fsspukd/

The *governments* have, yes, because all governments ultimately tend to default towards control. Liberal pundits, thought leaders, and the public reaction have not been consistent though, no. Thats why people are having to do things like this: *"Mayor Eric Garcetti angered some progressives when he called in the National Guard, just hours after he said doing so was unnecessary."* https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/us/politics/floyd-protests-chicago-la-mayors.html Also, your "Can you point to liberal cities that haven't imposed curfews who need them?" question isnt very useful in this case, because I'm not pro curfew, so you'd have to ask someone else.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PoliticalHumor on June 3, 2020 18:31:14
/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/gvy7nb/cognitive_dissonance/fssn2ub/

The counter to that is the the focus on haircuts alone is really just a strawman argument. Its about being able to earn a living in general and not have the government be able to dictate the minutia of your life. Not being allowed to earn a living is just as oppressive as anything else if it continues long enough. Also, we should be focusing on ALL police brutality, because theres no clear evidence that police brutality is actually based on racial discrimination by cops:https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/upshot/police-killings-of-blacks-what-the-data-says.html

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PoliticalHumor on June 3, 2020 18:08:39
/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/gvy7nb/cognitive_dissonance/fsslesk/

We're talking about the public reaction to these things arent we? Obviously liberal city governments (almost all big cities are liberal) are most likely to react in *both* cases, because cities were the places most at risk to both riots and covid-19. That doesnt change the fact that liberals tend to be more critical of the curfews than conservatives right now. Places like Seattle definitely have a history of being more lax in their response to such protests, and letting antifa do as they please. That they do nominally have a curfew doesnt really change the trend. I can assure you that if riots were happening in conservative areas, they'd be responding more aggressively than liberal areas.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PoliticalHumor on June 3, 2020 17:55:12
/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/gvy7nb/cognitive_dissonance/fssj10e/

Generally Ive seen a lot of liberals say the curfews are a way for police to suppress protestors. And just because liberal areas might have curfews doesnt change that, just as many conservative areas having stay at home orders doesnt change the fact that conservatives tend to view them more negatively.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PoliticalHumor on June 3, 2020 17:36:12
/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/gvy7nb/cognitive_dissonance/fssgr42/

Interestingly liberals do the same thing but in reverse. They just switch the thing they like and the thing they dont. Both sides are stupid.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PoliticalHumor on June 3, 2020 17:18:12
/r/btc/comments/guw7gb/bitcoin_is_breaking_through_10k_right_nowthat_is/fsliyy1/

> Telling people to spend and replace is as dumb as thinking you don’t need to accrue value before being able to exchange such value. Why? >Thinking that increasing velocity makes your coin more valuable is extremely dumb. I think increasing utility makes your coin more valuable. If anything velocity is just a side effect. But thanks for the strawman argument. >You confuse velocity with liquidity. No I dont. >What you need is more people, not more currency swaps. Higher transactional utility (which results in higher velocity) makes it easier to get it in more hands and get more people to value it. >Bcashers don’t understand economics, computer science, and of course, don’t understand network effects. Small blockers don’t understand economics, computer science, and of course, don’t understand network effects. But yea man, if you want to stake the chances of bitcoin's mass adoption on focusing on its resemblance to a ponzi scheme while neglecting any other actual utility, have at it.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 1, 2020 23:19:23
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/guv0tt/some_interesting_flappenings_in_the_top_10/fslgyky/

> So there are more people willing to spend bitcoin cash. Debatable. But why is the mechanism through which early users ended up using BCH vs Litecoin relevant at all to the usability to someone holding it now? Why should we care? >Edit: And you can't make the pizza argument because BCH issued another full pizza to everybody. It is not part of the BTC supply, it is an exact copy of it. Blockchains arent physical things and it doesnt matter that the blockchain was duplicated in some sense (In another sense, the prefork blockchain wasnt duplicated at all, it shares the same prefork chain, and split BCH coins are invalid to BTC, and split BTC are invalid to BTC. Can you even tell me if the person that signed the early anti-CSW message recently did so with BCH or BTC? If the chain was actually duplicated, why isnt there any distinction? ). What matters it that they shared the same pool of value and the same pool of hashpower. When BCH forked, it was simply a slice of the pre-fork pool of value and hashpower splitting off. Those things were infact part of bitcoin.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 1, 2020 22:59:22
/r/btc/comments/guw7gb/bitcoin_is_breaking_through_10k_right_nowthat_is/fslfr6j/

>Probably the reason why your understanding of economics is so poor. Probably you need to present your ideas in some form other than 1 word sentences if you want someone to understand wtf you're on about. >It’s all about liquidity, not velocity. Whats all about liquidity and not velocity?What is this 'it' you're talking about?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 1, 2020 22:47:27
/r/btc/comments/guw7gb/bitcoin_is_breaking_through_10k_right_nowthat_is/fslf3oq/

> Keynesianism Not sure how Keynesianism is specifically relevant to this.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 1, 2020 22:40:58
/r/btc/comments/guw7gb/bitcoin_is_breaking_through_10k_right_nowthat_is/fsle68f/

Using a currency ultimately equals a cycle of selling and replenishing.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on June 1, 2020 22:31:53
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/guv0tt/some_interesting_flappenings_in_the_top_10/fslcy9p/

>To be fair bitcoin cash is a fork, and it’s whole marketcap came into existence from thin air But we're not talking about marketcap, we're talking about transactions and usage. How is what you said relevant to how much its actually being used? >No one received free litecoins, so you can’t really compare the two. No one received free BCH either...you paid for it by the longterm value of your BTC being diminished proportionally according to the value in the community which split off from BTC. Its like someone cutting a slice out of my own pizza, and then giving it to me and claiming the slice is free despite the fact that I paid for the entire pizza in the first place.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 1, 2020 22:20:05
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gufrhg/john_mcafee_calls_his_1_million_bitcoin/fslbzhs/

John McAfee is pretty interesting though. Always like hearing about hows hes doing with his life as a fugitive presidential candidate, and his psychedelic drug manufacturing escapades.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 1, 2020 22:10:42
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/guv0tt/some_interesting_flappenings_in_the_top_10/fslac1w/

> I don't know how BitcoinSV or BCH are even in the top ten ? Thrilled litecoin holds up , great use case coin that is being spent and moved significantly every day ! So right after you dissed bitcoin cash, you raved about litecoin being spent and moved significantly every day, when bitcoin cash actually has more transactions per day and retail acceptance than litecoin does...nice. Quality post right there.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on June 1, 2020 21:55:06
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/guaghc/protesters_hand_rioter_over_to_police/fsi48u2/

> But where does the line end? Every law has grey area in practice. Thats exactly why we have lawyers and courts...to figure that out.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 1, 2020 02:38:53
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/guaghc/protesters_hand_rioter_over_to_police/fsi3lt5/

>I agree with this, but it circles back to my main issue I think which is, who are they??? The people making plans for violence as part of a group known for such things (normally by self identification as being a part of that group, or by materially facilitating violent actions by other people who self identify as part of the group). For example, if my friend invites me to a group chat of a bunch of people who tend to have antifa flags all over their social media profile, and one of them says "Hello antifacists, lets meet at x location at x time to smash some Trump supporters faces with bricks". The person who said that could probably legally be defined as an antifa affiliated terrorist if I report them for it.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 1, 2020 02:29:46
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/guaghc/protesters_hand_rioter_over_to_police/fsi28g7/

>I only believe that is just a slippery slope, because of the nature of illegalizing an abstract concept, only an idea, with no one (except the masses?) driving that idea forward. The members who identify as part of the group are driving the idea forward. That there isnt a leader is irrelevant. >How do I believe anarchist groups function? I don't believe they function Just because they dont function *well* doesnt mean they dont function at all. Decentralized groups exist, thats a fact. When you have people waving the same flag, advocating for the same ideals thats a group defined by their characteristic. And when they openly self identify themselves as part of that group its even easier. >because of the nature of illegalizing an abstract concept And like I said, in practice an abstract concept isnt really illegal at all. Its the making plans for violence thats illegal. If if you're making plans for violence as part of a group known for such things (normally by self identification as being a part of that group, not by some leader's official list of members), there might be laws that make it easier to deal with you.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 1, 2020 02:10:38
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/guaghc/protesters_hand_rioter_over_to_police/fsi06wh/

I mean, even if you think Proud Boys are racist ( dont know if they are or not), that doesnt mean they're terrorists. If you're not advocating violence to enable your racism (which many people do), theres nothing inherently violent about racism. You might just want black people to be paid less or something stupid like that. >I personally think it's kind of dangerous to ban something that isn't a an organized terrorist group, but rather just an ideology Why cant you ban a violent ideology? If you're involved in organizing/enabling a violent ideology, that inherently means you're planning to facilitate violence against someone, which is illegal. >because without a group, without real people Just because a group of real people isnt organized around a leader doesnt mean they're not in a group and arent real people. How do you think anarchist groups function? Or do you think anarchist groups dont exist because they dont rally around a leader, but instead rally around social networks or meeting places?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 1, 2020 01:43:36
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/guaghc/protesters_hand_rioter_over_to_police/fshyxc1/

Maybe they should be. Is one of Proud boys key tenets about *initiating* violence though? I dont think it is. Their emergence seemed to be a reaction to antifa in some way. Proud Boys, ideologically at least, claim to be more defensive in nature. They clearly show up expecting a fight, but thats different from initiating it. Their leader was quoted as saying: ""We don't start fights [...] but we will finish them." Whereas Antifa ideologically is about *starting* fights. You don't really see Proud Boys beating up peaceful people in Joe Biden Hats, like you see Antifa beating up people in MAGA hats.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 1, 2020 01:27:15
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/guaghc/protesters_hand_rioter_over_to_police/fshy2x8/

I never said they were fascist. They certainly share some characteristics with fascism, such as the forcible suppression of opposition though. But I was responding to the person saying Antifa is just smoke and mirrors.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 1, 2020 01:16:33
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/guaghc/protesters_hand_rioter_over_to_police/fshu3zr/

> , that labeling an ideology such as that is really just an attack on freedom of thought, belief, and speech? The ideology is literally about trying to effect political change through violence. Thats the definition of terrorism. So if someone wants to identify themselves and organize under that label and take action to carry out its goals, by definition they are a terrorist. In this country, we've never viewed freedom of speech as including credible threats of violence against others. Let alone gathering groups with the express purpose of carrying out that violence.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 1, 2020 00:28:50
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/guaghc/protesters_hand_rioter_over_to_police/fshsoqp/

Who is the leader of Bitcoin? Who was the leader of Occupy Wallstreet? Its almost like decentralized systems and groups exist even if they dont have a central leader?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on June 1, 2020 00:12:49
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gu5yru/us_security_forces_hunt_down_journalists_covering/fsh0bh4/

US security forces? You mean police? Or is this some other organization?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 31, 2020 19:33:50
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gtsaam/please_make_this_go_viral_i_am_begging_you_police/fsfgo6m/

You think we should be killing ICE agents at this point?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 31, 2020 11:27:31
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gtsaam/please_make_this_go_viral_i_am_begging_you_police/fsede9e/

>In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Thats why you have to draw a red line somewhere. Many people draw that line at when the government tries to take away their guns.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 31, 2020 02:31:48
/r/pics/comments/gtpvib/this_is_linda_tirado_she_is_the_journalist_who/fsed583/

>missing the part where I defended the rioters, all I'm saying choices have consequences. Insulting the victim's choices leading up to the incident is inherently defending the people who reacted to those decisions, and is typical when people are defending police brutality as well. Pretty ironic.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on May 31, 2020 02:28:27
/r/pics/comments/gtpvib/this_is_linda_tirado_she_is_the_journalist_who/fsecjik/

Alright, have fun with your glaringly obvious hypocrisy.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on May 31, 2020 02:20:30
/r/pics/comments/gtpvib/this_is_linda_tirado_she_is_the_journalist_who/fsec2rv/

If this is a weak argument, why dont you refute it? Its pretty concise. >Sounds like the same excuse cops use when the use excessive force. Which these people are supposed to be protesting. How ironic.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on May 31, 2020 02:14:21
/r/pics/comments/gtpvib/this_is_linda_tirado_she_is_the_journalist_who/fsebw9o/

The common sense choice? What part of throwing rocks at a guy's head after he's been disarmed, and then robbing him after he's been brain damaged is common sense? Insulting the victim's decisions leading up to the incident is just more excuses, and is pretty typical when people are defending police brutality as well. Pretty ironic.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on May 31, 2020 02:11:57
/r/pics/comments/gtpvib/this_is_linda_tirado_she_is_the_journalist_who/fseajxz/

>I'm not saying kicking him when he is down is completely justified Generally even pro-cop people don't claim obvious abuse is "completely justified" either. But they focus on making excuses for it just like you are here. >The other difference is I don't have an oath to protect and serve, nor the training a cop does. What kind of training is 100% effective in preventing an overreaction after someone tries to kill you? Sounds like another good way to excuse the police abuse. Say "its not really his fault, his training just wasnt good enough."

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on May 31, 2020 01:54:23
/r/pics/comments/gtpvib/this_is_linda_tirado_she_is_the_journalist_who/fse9mo5/

> If you try to kill me with a sword, the best outcome you can hope for is you go to jail. Why did they keep kicking him and throwing rocks at his head after he'd already been disarmed? >I guess if you've never seen a fight before, people tend to get an adrenaline rush when someone attempts to kill them. Sounds like the same excuse cops use when the use excessive force. Which these people are supposed to be protesting. How ironic.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on May 31, 2020 01:42:34
/r/pics/comments/gtpvib/this_is_linda_tirado_she_is_the_journalist_who/fse9hkd/

>You don’t have higher expectations of police officers than civilians? Not much, no. Police are human. If the people protesting the police cant even refrain from doing what they're protesting about, they're not helping their cause. >Nobody would have blinked an eye if cops had gunned this guy down. Because if he was charging cops, the only reason he'd have to do that is if he was insane or actually wanted to stab them. But in this case, its pretty clear he's trying to defend property from looters and scare them away from his store.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on May 31, 2020 01:40:48
/r/pics/comments/gtpvib/this_is_linda_tirado_she_is_the_journalist_who/fse951v/

>The instant he started chasing people with a sword, he went from defending to aggressor. Why did they keep kicking him and throwing rocks at his head after he'd already been disarmed? Looks alot like the excessive force police often use. How ironic. That people are making excuses for this is disgusting.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on May 31, 2020 01:36:28
/r/pics/comments/gtpvib/this_is_linda_tirado_she_is_the_journalist_who/fse924v/

I'll ask again: Why kick him and throw rocks at his head after he's been disarmed? Why do you have excuses for these protestors, but not for police when they do the same type of thing?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on May 31, 2020 01:35:27
/r/pics/comments/gtpvib/this_is_linda_tirado_she_is_the_journalist_who/fse8uqq/

> a crowd in fear for their lives. Why did they keep kicking him and throwing rocks at his head after he'd already been disarmed? Looks alot like the excessive force police often use. How ironic. That people are making excuses for this is disgusting.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on May 31, 2020 01:32:54
/r/pics/comments/gtpvib/this_is_linda_tirado_she_is_the_journalist_who/fse86vf/

Is throwing rocks at his store legal? Why kick him and throw rocks at his head after he's been disarmed? Why do you have excuses for these protestors, but not for police when they do the same type of thing? 0 credibility to the cause.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on May 31, 2020 01:24:46
/r/pics/comments/gtpvib/this_is_linda_tirado_she_is_the_journalist_who/fse7u0k/

What if the intent was not to stab, but only to get them far enough away that they cant keep throwing rocks at your property?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on May 31, 2020 01:20:22
/r/pics/comments/gtpvib/this_is_linda_tirado_she_is_the_journalist_who/fse744n/

>If he wasn't down there trying to start trouble, nobody would be throwing rocks at him. What if he wasnt trying to start trouble, and instead was trying to PREVENT HIS STORE FROM BEING LOOTED BY TRYING TO CHASE OFF THE PEOPLE BREAKING WINDOWS? When you defend mob violence like this, you're no better than the people that defend police violence. This is obscene.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on May 31, 2020 01:11:37
/r/pics/comments/gtpvib/this_is_linda_tirado_she_is_the_journalist_who/fse6wwe/

Maybe he was trying to chase them off because they were throwing rocks at him and his property?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on May 31, 2020 01:09:15
/r/pics/comments/gtpvib/this_is_linda_tirado_she_is_the_journalist_who/fse6lq3/

What if he was defending himself from people throwing rocks at him and his store?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on May 31, 2020 01:05:33
/r/pics/comments/gtpvib/this_is_linda_tirado_she_is_the_journalist_who/fse6ec9/

They were throwing rocks at him and his property....he tried to chase them off and they almost killed him. Disgusting. They're no better than the cops.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on May 31, 2020 01:03:05
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fsdmi5m/

If I were black I don't think I'd currently be justified in shooting people either, sorry. That you think such a thing is currently needed (but of course you're not taking any action *yourself* because you're from some irrelevant country that supposedly has no injustice), is honestly hilarious.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 30, 2020 21:32:42
/r/spacex/comments/gtkm8y/crew_dragon_has_cleared_the_tower/fsdi1pf/

wierd, wikipedia says this: >For typical missions, Crew Dragon will remain docked to the ISS for a period of 180 days, but is designed to remain on the station for up to 210 days, matching the Russian Soyuz spacecraft.[12][13][14] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_2 I guess they dont have it up to spec yet. Because I did find this in a TIME article: >They will remain aboard for at least a month, though in no case will they remain for longer than 110 days, since the current Crew Dragon is not rated for a longer stay in the punishing environment of space. (Ultimately, the Dragon will be required to be certified for a 210-day stay.) https://time.com/5842445/spacex-crewed-launch/

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/spacex on May 30, 2020 20:47:48
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fsdggqi/

Have fun with your head in the sand! Enjoy fantasizing about killing your corporate overlords but not actually doing anything about it, all while complaining that Americans arent doing it for you! Be gone hypocrite.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 30, 2020 20:31:49
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fsdfvzs/

> I find it interesting how you specifically feel the need to mention black mayors and government officials, as if their white counterparts do not have those same responsibilities to shape their communities for the greater good and make their cities safe for all who occupy?? I mention it because you *already* specifically mentioned "indifferent non-racist" whites. >Google is free. I linked a source with multiple examples of police brutality against black and white citizens, wrongfully killed and targeted by the police who swear to serve and protect them. Again, Google is free, go find those statistics yourself. Your link was literally one incident. And I didnt ask for google's answer. I asked "How many Black Americans per year do **YOU** think are unjustly killed by police then?"" >Where do you get off saying that the murder rate is way down from past decades? Where is your proof for this? My proof is actual statistics on the matter: https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2013/05/SDT-2013-05-gun-crime-1-2.png >My source? Being a black woman, having black relatives as well as friends and neighbors who share their horror stories. Your anecdotal experience is no replacement for statistical evidence, as proven by your lack of knowledge about the murder rate dropping over the past decades. >I KNOW that there are more murders and modern day lynchings going on around the country. Again...you dont. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/ >I recognize and check my privilege, conscious and unconscious biases, do you? Do you also check your privilege, conscious and unconscious biases against short people, genetically unattractive people, and people born into poor families? >it is NOT, I REPEAT NOT the responsibility of black people, in general, to FIX those who choose to treat us as less than human, or those who refuse to recognize they even have a problem in the first place. If you're going to advocate for an issue, it is, however, your responsibility to not misrepresent the issue, such as your failure to grasp the nature of the murder trend over the past several decades in this country.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 30, 2020 20:26:04
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fsdbn21/

> 1- you have overly vocal 2A folk who love guns and freedom, always going on about dont step on me and from my cold dead hands etc. true >2- you have a demonstrably corrupt govt (at all levels) that infringe upon said freedoms and even allow cops to murder your citizens All governments have some corruption, its inevitable. Infact, accorind to the most common corruption index, the CPI, there are 157 countries in the world with more corruption than the US. Do you think all of those countries should be violently overthowing their government as well? >3- this is systemic, ongoing and not looking at all like it's going to change via peaceful means. Not in the 60s, not in the 80s and certainly not now. Why doesnt it look like its going to change/get better? Recently I've been hearing about cops being charged with murder while on the job, which I've never heard of before. What makes you think things are now any worse than when the founding fathers were around, as you laughably mentioned? You realize the founding fathers owned slaves? >4- your political leaders have failed you and are almost exclusively look after the rich and powerful. Have they? The USA has one of the highest qualities of life in the world. When have polititians not catered to the rich and powerful to some degree? You realize the founding fathers were rich/powerful, and largely looking after their own interests and didnt want to pay taxes to Britain anymore? Whats changed? >My question of how many people need to be murdered before YOU think violence is justified is answerable, you're just dodging it because it will highlight your barbaric stance on allowing people to be murdered....I have clearly made myself known and haven't backed away from or ignored your questions. This old trope is such a joke. You formed the question. Answer it yourself first if you want me to answer it. I havent asked you any questions I wont answer myself. Anyone reading this would laugh that you refuse to answer your own ill conceived question, yet hypocritcally badger me with it. You whine about Americans not violently overthrowing their government, yet later admit you wouldnt be killing at this point either. Yes, what you can take away from this discussion is looking at your own argument and realizing that you're ultimately a useless hypocrite. >My country doesn't even show up on a lot of your maps so please check your hegemonic ignorance dude. Why is it supposedly my problem that you live in an irrelevant country? Go distract yourself with goat herding or something if you dont want to be exposed to American culture. To pretend like youre forced to engage yourself in American issues like this and you arent willingly putting yourself in the position of armchair quarterback is just ridiculous. Where are you even from?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 30, 2020 19:44:30
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fsd38v6/

> Once again, you are completely ignoring my points, Which points? Give me one concise point instead of laying the Gish gallop on me. >even after I answer your question and you refuse to answer mine. Yours isnt answerable. You wont even answer it yourself. Unlike you, the questions I ask you, I'm willing to answer myself. >How do you expect to effectively communicate with someone when you are so clearly bring intellectually dishonest? Look in the mirror and ask yourself. >THIS is why I call your behaviour shameful. THIS is what your Founding Fathers would find reprehensible. Lol, wag that finger some more about the founding fathers would think while you whine about being "forced" to consume America culture. Pathetic.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 30, 2020 18:25:17
/r/spacex/comments/gtkm8y/crew_dragon_has_cleared_the_tower/fsd2n4m/

Ah my bad, the 210 number is just how long the Dragon is rated to be in space for I guess. Looking now, I've read the actual mission is only expected to last 30-120 days.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/spacex on May 30, 2020 18:19:55
/r/spacex/comments/gtkm8y/crew_dragon_has_cleared_the_tower/fscwqac/

After staying up at the ISS for like (EDIT: 30-120) days, yes.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/spacex on May 30, 2020 17:42:37
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fscuegg/

> I debunked it. You didnt. It was a useless load of Gish gallop. You know you don't have a single strong and concise rebuttal, which is why you're not even going to try, and instead resort to insults.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 30, 2020 17:27:39
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gtbhd9/why_is_there_a_direct_correlation_between_crypto/fsblyf7/

Its what happens when ideological beliefs (which are powerful by themselves) get tied to a financial stake.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 30, 2020 13:04:00
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fsbe2ow/

> Was Walker justified to use violence in self defense here? Absolutely. I agree, no knock warrants are ridiculous. >It's up to the oppressors, the deniers, and the "indifferent non-racist" whites to fix the issues their system has caused. Is it? Why dont you run for Sherriff, or campaign for someone you think would do a good job? You realize they're elected, right? >You can say this because you are ignorant to the real facts. The magnitude of unlawful killings of Black Americans is staggering How many Black Americans do you think are unjustly killed by police then? >We've tried peace, and it begets more deaths in the black community. Does it? The murder rate is way down from decades past. >My father is a black man and now a legal gun owner with a concealed carry permit, however we do live in an open carry state to begin with. He is licensed to protect our home and his family if it comes down to that. Thats great!

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 30, 2020 12:07:11
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fsbcbob/

> "why aren't the 2A people walking the walk? I mean, you yourself admitted you think violence is warranted at some point, but you yourself wouldnt likely be killing people currently. And if you're not killing people, where do guns play into this? You inherently agree with the position. Even if you think more 2fa activists should be protesting, that irrelevant to what they should be doing with their guns. Police overreach is a real issue, but its not like its some new and worsening situation. People just end up seeing videos of it more often now because there are more cameras. I have never met a single person who has been affected by police brutality. If it was more common to be affected by such violence, more people would take a stronger stand. Personally, I believe a much more effective action for someone to take would be to run for Sheriff or help campaign for someone who they think would do a good job. You realize they're elected, right?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 30, 2020 11:53:37
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fsbb4d6/

I mean, if you're just going to continue making random comments that dont respond to and barely relate to anything I said, theres no point in continuing conversation here.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 30, 2020 11:42:18
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fsbaqvl/

>Ignorant and circular reasoning at its finest. I mean, my point is not presented as a formal proof. Its a premise with a resulting action. If you have issue with the premise, why not debunk it concisely without a wall of text? The fact that you respond with insults rather than an actual convincing counter argument says alot.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 30, 2020 11:38:25
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fsaf9ao/

So if you lived in America you'd be killing people right now?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 30, 2020 04:23:03
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gt4tz3/meanwhile_in_atlanta_blacklivesmatter/fsae704/

I mean, the people rioting want it enough to do it.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 30, 2020 04:05:58
/r/pics/comments/gsv5dr/armed_demonstrators_protest_police_brutality_at/fsadbdf/

Its what happens when your entire worldview is based on race, and other issues are just ignored or hyped depending on if its convenient or not.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on May 30, 2020 03:52:05
/r/pics/comments/gt3pki/the_white_house_has_just_been_placed_under/fsacnzx/

We already tried Naruto running into area-51

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on May 30, 2020 03:41:58
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fsabvje/

https://www.brookings.edu/research/america-has-held-together-through-worse-times-than-now/

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 30, 2020 03:29:54
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fsaaipv/

Well you just inserted yourself in a thread about when violence is justified, if ever. If you're not going to take a position on what we should do about the "ongoing genocide against black people in America for 400years.", why bother replying?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 30, 2020 03:09:01
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fsaabqt/

I mean, considering this cop actually got charged, I disagree. >And sadly, month after month it's looking more and more likely from my point of view. Objective things arent actually getting any worse though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 30, 2020 03:06:09
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fsa7uce/

Are you telling me you think its time to start killing cops?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 30, 2020 02:30:38
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fsa6eyu/

Ok so you believe violence is justified at some point. Do you think violence is justified right now? If so, why arent you killing people?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 30, 2020 02:11:00
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gt69qe/police_start_shooting_press_with_some_kinda/fsa5ya7/

So we get rid of the cops then? Who do we get to enforce the lack of cops? More cops?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 30, 2020 02:04:44
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fsa5pfb/

>you’re suggesting that an armed militia could put up a real fight vs one of the greatest armies the world has ever known Define "real fight". The milita obviously wouldnt win, but they could make engaging with them simply to oppress them look costly enough to where that fight might not happen at all. Its about deterrence. If an action is likely to result in a violent action against you, all else being equal, as the threat of violent increases, you're less likely to take that action.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 30, 2020 02:01:28
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fsa4ujg/

Do you believe armed violence from the citizenry is ever justifed? I dont think you do. You're just a gun control serf trying to pretend a lack of conflict by 2nd ammendment supporters proves you right. Its pathetic.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 30, 2020 01:50:00
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fsa34in/

I'm sure they're more proud of me than someone who's argument boils down to a question like "Why have it, if you havent used it yet?" The obvious answer is because we reserve the right to use it in the future. Do you believe armed violence from the citizenry is ever justifed? Do you think we should have responded violently already? My answers are yes to the former and no to the latter. I'm not a weak ass dodge who wont answer my own questions.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 30, 2020 01:27:45
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fsa21cj/

>An armed populace only deters govt oppression if you fight back against said oppression. Currently, your populace doesn't so your point is moot. Your premise is illogical. Obviously a threat to violently retaliate if some action is taken deters that action on some level. Obviously not completely, but to some degree at least. The only way it wouldnt deter is if you throught the threat was 100% non credible, and if you believe 100% of the armed people in America arent looking for a reason to react violently against a government they feel is oppressing them, you're a bit naive. Nothing is 100%. >You keep dancing around trying to justify why your 2A people are not acting when your populace is CLEARLY being fucked on. Because they're rational to understand that nothing is perfect. The court systems and government oversight are still working well enough to make an armed battle not worthwhile. That you extrapolite from that as if its proof it will *never* be worthwhile, is ridiculous conjecture. >Also, you bold question is another weak ass dodge. You expect me to answer a question you refuse? Your asking a question you yourself refuse to answer is a weak ass dodge. You're the one that came up with the question. Why expect me to answer a question you wont yourself answer? If its a pertinent and answerable question, why wont you answer it? I wont answer it because it doesnt provide enough information to reach a conclusion. If you think it does, tell me your conclusion. Otherwise, its clear you agree with me and are just being intellectually dishonest. >Come on my man, you are coming across as someone who would rather make excuses as to why your country has failed your own founding fathers rather than someone who is determined to reclaim your so called freedoms. You're coming across as someone who is making illogical arguments that dont make sense. Just because people havant acted yet doesnt mean they never will.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 30, 2020 01:14:01
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9z84o/

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9z2pq/

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 30, 2020 00:39:54
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9z2pq/

>dozens of my points You present dozens of supposed points because you dont have a single good one. I have a single point: An armed yet peaceful citizen population, all else being equal, makes government aggression against that population less likely. Therefore in America we will retain our right to bear arms.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 30, 2020 00:38:08
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9yuym/

>Are you asking why would a government disarm a populace? Gun crime, populism, oppression take your pick. Seems like entirely slaughtering a large armed civilian population to reduce gun crimes is a poor trade off, but if thats the government's choice, so be it. So far we've seen that its not though. And if its the result of populism/oppression (which would be the same thing in this instance), you might as well fight it rather than submit to it. >It wouldn't be much of a fight. For the reasons I already explained din great detail. Reasons that you had no response to or counterargument for. In America today it'd be more of a fight than you think. I did respond, with the Taliban and Viet Cong as evidence. >Was he actually raping children? The answer is that it doesnt matter, because that is what was said retroactively to cover the massacre of the said children. The ATF was there to enforce firearm laws and confiscate illegally modified weapons. Disarming is why they were there, end of story. Another misrepresentation of history. Child abuse had been documentted in the Waco Tribune-Herald long before the raid. Also, the group had been stockpiling weapons that were already illegal. This wasnt a case of people trying to preserve their legal rights, it was a case of people trying to expand their rights and use violence to avoid the legal system entirely. Thats not what gun owners today are doing. > Do you hand them over or resist?... So you open fire and now you are nothing more than "domestic terrorists" on US soil. Even if your scenario plays out (I dont think it will, because the deterence is enough), its better than ending up in a concentration camp. >I shall humour you one last time: Traversing grass will require more power than traversing tarmac. An M1A2 Abrams will not notice any meaningful difference. The same goes for traversing the spilled guts of domestic terrorists that thought they could take on the US Army You cant effectively disarm a civilian population with just tanks. It requires boots on the ground going door to door in person, which results in losses, as we saw in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The political appetite for such a thing happening in a domestic population is miniscule.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 30, 2020 00:35:39
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9wycu/

> You want to discuss military matters You are a real piece of work. Youre going to sit here and opine about the difference between tactical and operational defense and offense, as if its relevant to my argument BUT ITS NOT. The fact is that if your group is perceived as being aggressive, its likely to trigger a response. That doesnt change the fact that a peaceful population is less likely to have force initated against them if they're capable of defending themselves on some level. In your example the group was clearly aggressive, so its irrelevant. >Do you know anything about any topic at all? The fact that you present such a poor argument, and then start slinging insults like this, is evidence that you might not. >There is no deterrence as I already explained in detail here and here I already responded to those [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9pent/) and [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9uf08/) >If you are struggling in understanding the relevance of the historical arguments I am presenting They're simply not relevant in the context you've presented them, sorry. I reccomend learning more about how to structure a logical argument.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 30, 2020 00:13:31
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9vm3o/

My point is that an armed population deters government oppression, and that at some point a violent response could be warranted, but it currently isnt. The fact that you want to try to make me in advance commit to a specific number of deaths after which it would be permissible to respond with violence is irrelevant to my point. Thats not how it works. Its an ongoing calculation. If you were being intellectually honest you wouldnt be playing such games. **Infact, I can turn the question around and ask you to answer your own question. How many people need to be executed before YOU believe violence is justified?**

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 23:58:26
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9uf08/

>Law gets passed. They come to collect your guns. Why would they pass a law to disarm you if they know you're otherwise peaceful, but wont disarm without a fight to protect the rights you've had for generations? The Bundy Ranch standoff proves that the government sometimes yields to an armed group. Being armed has an effect. >Waco was only unpopular because countless children were burned in the compound. The public loved the rest of it. It was entertainment. The public wasnt initially opposed, because David Koresh was accused of doing things that had been illegal for centuries, like abusing children. It wasnt about disarming. If the government is convinced youre raping children, whether or not you're armed is probably irrelevant. Being armed is a deterence. Obviously its not a silver bullet that overrides all other factors. Is that what you think I've claimed? >Can your neighbours gun take out a reaper drone flying at 50,000 feet? Can it intercept a Paveway or a Hellfire coming to splatter his guts onto the roofs of nearby buildings? Can it penetrate the armour of a Bradley? What about an Abrams? Does your neighbour's have a night vision scope for that gun or can he only see during the day? What about thermal? Your neighbours gun is just about worthless and you know it. You never served, have you? You know that you have no way to penetrate armour or down air support, your opponent might as well be invulnerable. Bigger scarier guns wielded by tougher and more experienced men are fired on US servicemen all the time. Has been that way for almost two decades. Your AR-15 or your neighbour's AMR is nothing compared to that. Dont kid yourself. Its grown kids playing war. Nothing more. Typical. You write a long rant, but your premise isnt realistic. They wouldnt be likely to initiate with a military grade response, because thats less likely to be politically acceptable. **The fact remains that since it would require a higher level of force to disarm, it is less likely to happen in the first place.** The fact you write rambling text walls but fail to address this point shows the weakness of your argument.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 23:45:16
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9sqhy/

Only an idiot would ask such a stupid question and pretend theres enough information to produce a number.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 23:27:00
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9rxhp/

>I asked you how many people need to be executed before you believe violence is justified. You didn't answer me. I did answer you. I told you a predetermined number isnt necessary at all. You have to take into context that else is going on in the government and courts and other institutions in the country. You cant just pick a number with no context. Your question is like, asking "how many times do you have to trade a stock until you profit $1 million." The answer is it depends. Theres no specific number to answer. >I asked you how many people have been MURDERED by cops in the last 5 years and you equivocate. Killed -/= Murdered. If total killed is 1093, unjustified murders is probably much less than 1000 then.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 23:18:18
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9rk6c/

>There is no combat scenario in modern warfare where a citizen militia beats a fully fledged regular army. Irrelevent. We're talking about deterence, not victory in total war. >The rout in Munich was tactically a defensive one for the Nazi citizen militia, even if operationally it was offensive. Stop being intellectually dishonest. Tactically defensive....lol. If you break things down far enough, you can claim almost any conflict is defensive at some level. The classic question of "Who started it". Who fired the first bullet? It doesnt matter. The fact is that by engaging in operationally offensive actions against the government, obviously you're going to override the deterence to attack that being armed gives you. >Because Army beats citizen militias every single time. You're missing the point again that this is about deterence. >I refute your argument with apt historical examples which illustrate precisely why you are wrong. No you dont. You're spewing misinformation and rambling your way into irrelevant non sequiturs that fail to coherently address the point.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 23:14:14
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9r1c4/

> Its toothless if you cant do anything about it. You can do something about it. >The moment you defy the Federal government you get smeared as "white supremacist domestic terrorists and traitors" and promptly blown apart with Bushmaster chainguns and drone strikes. Really? You think the Government would instantly engage in overwhelming military scale violence against an otherwise peaceful but heavily armed citizens? Why would they do that? If the government is that bad off you might as well fight them and die on your own terms because you're eventually going to be oppressed anyways. But the fact that you have some capacity to defend yourself makes such a scenario less likely because the cost/benefit analysis by the government is less likely to support initiating violence. > As I said a minor speedbump for a Mechanised Brigade recalled from the gulf that has spent over a decade crushing every form of light infantry force and insurgency. How many defections do you think there would be in the military if you suddenly ordered a military attack against an armed, but peaceful civilian population? >Thats no deterrent at all. It is though. >Like a rattle snake with no venom and fangs so small they cant pierce the skin. Useless rhetoric. My neighbor literally has a gun that can take out a helicopter. Guerilla warfare has proven to be anything but painless for modern militaries.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 23:08:37
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9q1j6/

> At one point, we just gotta admit, violence will become the only option. "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants." Hopefully we can delay that for a long long time though. I dont think we're anywhere near the need for such a thing.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 22:57:58
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9pp3k/

>Yes, a precise number would be illuminating. That might the case, but a precise predetermined number isnt necessary. >Oh, if you are talking about straight killings, then that number is too low. No its not: "A database collected by The Guardian concluded that 1093 people in 2016 were killed by the police."

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 22:54:18
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9pent/

> And if the red lines is toothless because when it comes down to it the army would easily overwhelm the militias. Also, the red line isnt toothless. Like I said, its not about winning the battle, its about detering the government from wanting to initiate the battle against you.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 22:51:14
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9p9i0/

> The Nazis were attacked, not the other way around. Yea, if you run around town armed threatening to overthrow the government, you might get attacked because what you're doing is inherently aggressive. Instead of making a coherent point, you write these useless walls of text with basic facts misrepresented.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 22:49:43
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9ou8u/

>How many people need to be summarily executed by your police before you believe violence is justified? Do you expect me to have a precise number? Its likely at least an order of magnitude higher than now. > Do you even know how many people HAVE been murdered by your cops in the last 5 years? Its likely about 1,000 per year. How many of those are justifed though?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 22:45:14
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9nr0c/

> They were planning to carry out a coup. Which is an inherently aggressive action. When you're marching around in armed bands shooting at police yelling "One last thing I can tell you. Either the German revolution begins tonight or we will all be dead by dawn!", obviously that attracts a response from the government you're planning to overthrow. Like I said, get real.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 22:33:46
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9muxo/

>My point is why bother having a 2A if you are not going to use it? We will use it if it gets bad enough to warrant it. >weak ass justifications for why the 2A crew aren't doing SHIT about it. We're not responding with violence because is isnt currently warranted, but it might be at some point. Do you think it could ever possibly be warranted? Do you think its currently better to refrain from violence? If you answered yes to both of those questions, wtf is your point exactly? If you answer no to either, please explain.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 22:24:30
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9liks/

There you go again, writing a wall of text that completely misrepresents history. How am I supposed to take you seriously when you write things like this: >Actually it was a defensive battle. The Nazi citizen militia was ambushed in Munich and destroyed. when in reality his effort was obviously offensive in nature? It was literally a failed coup d'état. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch Get real.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 22:10:36
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9ixof/

> For what purpose? Because of the possibility of something like what happened later happening. If you're well armed and have a longstanding red line in the sand drawn against disarming you, you're less likely to be oppressed by your government in the future. Its about deterrence. >In 1923 the Nazis were themselves a heavily armed, 15,000 citizen militia that tried to overthrow the government. You dont seem to understand. In that scenario you're initiating conflict, which is much different than detering aggression. >Yet if in 1923 the Jews of Germany armed themselves and went to war, murdering the Nazi citizen militia with their own citizen militia - they they could have prevailed. However without hindsight that would have been unrealistic. You're missing the point again. This isnt about preemptive war. Its about deterrence. >The Nazis did not take power by force. They did not overthrow the government. They became the government by winning elections after elections. Irrelevant. An armed population with a longstanding red line drawn against disarmament is still a deterence to being later oppressed by them. If you make oppression more convenient, less messy, and allow a boiled frog scenario, its generally more politically convenient, and therefore more likely to happen.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 21:43:57
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9hacu/

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9h615/

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 21:27:31
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9h615/

> 1923 maybe. Well good thing I think they should have been better armed before 1923 and should have had a red line already drawn against disarmament by then too.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 21:26:21
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9gxj0/

>1933 was way too late and why no citizen militia would have made a difference at that point. Lol, I already told you I agree on that point and that they should have been better armed before 1933 and have already drawn a red line at disarmament.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 21:23:59
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9gdzj/

>I am not going to reply on the topic of WW2 since its too frustrating discussing a historical topic with someone that argues from a position of ignorance. Good, I'd rather you stop misrepresenting the issue as if the areas occupied by Germany and then oppressed in concentration camps had a well armed citizen militia before they were oppressed. > Not unless the military is already on their side. Ah, now you're starting to get it. Citizen resistance isnt really about winning on the open battlefield in total war. Its about preventing it from ever getting to that point. If initiating the oppression requires armed conflict, its less likely to happen than if you ease into it over years. If you can just roll in with zipties and stick unarmed people in "reeducation camps", its alot more likely to happen than if it required slaughtering everyone and enduring guerrilla warfare for years. Thats why in America we want to draw the line at disarmament.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 21:18:36
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9em06/

Yes, the population should have been better armed before 1933 and should have had a red line already drawn against disarmament before the disarmament began and it was too late.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 21:01:03
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9ee77/

>Some of those militias even had tanks and howitzers. They were well armed. Doesnt get better armed than that. They were steamrolled. No, no significant portion of the population had howitzers or tanks. And a standing army is no replacement for a citizen militia. >You sound like a broken record. I am starting to think that you dont actually know anything about the Second World War and a merely arguing for the sake of arguing or simply trolling I sound like a broken record because you keep rambling but missing the same point. >Since you dont actually know what you are talking about, I politely ask you to stop trying to pervert history to push your personal political agenda. I could ask the same of you. >As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over. Thats great. Hopefully you now realize your original argument: >There are so many guns in America and all the gun owning citizens claim that they need firearms to "stop the government from oppressing them". Yet none of these patriots ever shoot at the cops to protect their freedoms when clear oppression and violation of basic rights is in front of them. is nonsensical, because just because the citizen militia hasnt felt its justified to use their guns to combat tyranny yet, doesnt mean they never will. Things can clearly get worse, and should, before considering violent rebellion.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 20:58:56
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsva3g/police_officials_claim_they_made_the_arrest_of/fs9dja0/

>Because that’s the issue at hand you daft fucking cunt. The issue if police overreach in general. >Don’t forget to note they didn’t even think of arresting the rest of the crew until they walked the reporter 50 feet away. How do you know what they were thinking? Did you ever consider that maybe they arrested him first, because he was the one that was talking to them, negotiating where his group was supposed to be, and seemed to be the leader of his group?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 20:50:26
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9d7ye/

Also, you seem to be missing the point that an armed population is more of a deterrent to your own government oppressing you. If you're up against a foreign force that has already mobilized the full force of its military against you as a military objective, obviously its less effective in that case.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 20:47:22
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9co36/

> Civilians will never have the same kinds of weapons as the military. You dont need military equivalency to deter oppression. >The only effective guerrilla forces in the war were trained regular army units that operated behind enemy lines such as the Soviet Partisan Armies in Ukraine or elite special forces sent behind enemy lines such as the Royal Marine Commandos in Africa. Perhaps thats because there werent well armed civilian militias. >Heavily armed civilians were slaughtered. Where was there a significant distribution of heavily armed civilians in the war? >Tell that to the millions of dead civilian that fought in militias Where was this well armed militia? >The civilian population was significantly armed in about a dozen of the Nazi occupied nations. Provide an example of a well armed citizen population being oppressed by the Nazis please. >Polish, Soviet, Yugoslav Jews that were armed with military grade equipment and they still were defeated with ease. Source? From what I've seen, those populations were not heavily armed. >Sure there were. Hundreds of them. Where? Specifics please. >It did not turn out how you say it "should" have turned out. >when in fact I am telling you what actually happened. What you're talking about isnt applicable though, because the civilians did not have a well armed militia.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 20:42:01
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9ajkg/

You're rambling and not making a coherent and meaningful point. For example: >You should make up your mind about which Jews are you talking about? The ones disarmed in Germany or the ones in all the other countries which had no shortage of weapons and standing armies to wage insurgencies that were easily crushed or rendered inconsequential. I'm talking about civilian Jews. None of the civilian jew populations were well armed. >Jews that were disarmed were massacred. Jews which were not disarmed were massacred. No difference. None of the civilian Jew populations were significantly armed in the first place. >Uncle Gunther with his hunting rifle ain't stopping the Third Reich. Thats extremely naive thinking if you consider the scale of the war. Tell that to the Viet Cong or Taliban. Even some of my neighbors have a gun that can take down a helicopter. >Not in conventional combat and not in guerrilla warfare. Guerrilla warfare didnt work out precisely because the population was not significantly armed. >Your run of the mill citizen militias ended up thrown into a ditch on the side of the road or marched to a concentration camp. There wasnt a well armed citizen militia at all. The fact remains that its more difficult to oppress a well armed population than one thats not. If there was a hard line drawn at disarmament, things could have gone differently. It certainly couldnt have gone any worse.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 20:21:26
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs99tnb/

Lol you keep acting like the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising proves armed resistance is futile, when in reality the problem is exactly that those people were barely armed in the first place: ""Hundreds of people in the Warsaw Ghetto were ready to fight, adults and children, **sparsely armed with handguns, gasoline bottles, and a few other weapons that had been smuggled into the ghetto by resistance fighters.**"" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 20:14:31
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs97hw3/

>Sure there is. The Nazis faced and brutally crushed countless local resistances all across Europe. Including armed uprising of Polish Jews. They were nothing more than a nuisance, no threat to the Nazi regime or its plans. And the Nazis would have had more trouble if the Jews had been better armed to begin with, and werent playing catchup a decade after already having been disarmed. >You can say it till the ice caps melt. Doesn't make it correct. I can say the same about your claim. In real life armed populations are more difficult to oppress. >The Viet Cong lost more people than there were Jews in Germany. Good thing it wasnt just *German* Jews who might have wanted to fight back. Also, if it comes down to it, I'd rather die fighting than die in a concentration camp. >Somehow I dont see the Nazis being bored of waging war or killing Jews. You might be surprised. If you make it expensive enough, people tend to stop doing that thing eventually. But sure, lets just take your advice and make it easier for them.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 19:52:21
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs95pe3/

>The Nazis steamrolled through 11 countries and their armies in a year and you think that a few thousand Jews with rifles and handguns would have stopped them? It was already over long before then. Theres a difference between fighting conventional armies and a local resistance, as the Taliban and Viet Cong proved. >As I said, by the time it becomes Nazi Germany its already too late for much of anything. As I said before, thats incorrect.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 19:35:15
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs9526n/

Incorrect, it was too late to do anything after this happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_the_German_Jews It didnt help that not many German citizens had guns to begin with.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 19:29:07
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs94870/

> The problem is that you think that this was about this George Floyds and not about the countless other George Floyds that are routinely murdered and will continue to be routinely murdered all over the country. I dont think this is only one incident. I just think its not yet worth an armed rebellion over, whereas a situation like Nazi Germany would be.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 19:21:12
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsva3g/police_officials_claim_they_made_the_arrest_of/fs93e92/

>My theory is that they assumed this guy was lying. I dont think so. If you watch the followup report with Omar its pretty clear the police knew he was with CNN. The issue was if they were getting in the way or not. Which is dumb because they never explained where they should be, but different than thinking hes not with CNN. >That is just speculation. But really. I highly highly doubt it’s a coincidence. Why mar/confuse the discussion with speculation when there is clear police overreach regardless of race?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 19:13:15
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs92o4o/

So you think people should be killing cops right now? Even though the police officer here is infact being charged with murder, which suggests we still have a functional government?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 19:06:22
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs92b5j/

>And it only took viral video footage and burning down half a city to compel the power that be to do it. Yea protesting actually accomplished the goal. Theres a hell of alot of difference between whats going on in Minneapolis with burning some buildings and an actual armed conflict against the government. >Where was the murder charge then? Where was the protesting then? You dont jump straight from incident of abuse of power to armed rebellion and open warfare against the government. There are intermediate steps like protesting. >They were openly murdered. So was George Floyd. What more do you want? Wow, are you really saying America today is as bad for blacks as Nazi Germany was for Jews? Get your head checked.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 19:03:00
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs909y3/

You have to look at it from a societal viewpoint though, not a few incidents. I dont think the level we're at now justifies violence, but if those kinds of things were happening a couple orders of magnitude more often, maybe it would be. Look at how Jews were treated in Nazi Germany as an example of a group that would have been justified in using violence against their government.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 18:44:28
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsslf7/in_a_followup_to_his_arrest_by_the_police_cnn/fs8zqpg/

> A uniformed criminal murdering someone right in front of you in broad daylight knowing that he will likely face zero repercussions for it is as oppressive as it gets. Yet here they are being charge with murder, so why exactly do you think armed resistance against the government would be needed now as a last ditch effort? Theres certainly a level where armed resistance is justified though... it can get a hell of alot more oppressive than this. Anyone who doesnt understand that is naive as hell. Just ask the Jews living in Nazi controlled Europe.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 18:39:40
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gsva3g/police_officials_claim_they_made_the_arrest_of/fs8tu1a/

Why are you focusing on the race of the people arrested? I just saw a white guy in the crew getting arrested in this video just like the others that were in the road. That someone else standing farther away didnt get arrested isnt that surprising, regardless of their race. Racism is certainly an issue, but you dont have to make police overreach about race *every* time, in fact thats counterproductive to actually getting anything done about it.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 29, 2020 17:47:45
/r/interestingasfuck/comments/gswtc0/my_eye_shot_on_my_pixel_3xl_not_sure_if_this/fs8qexy/

I think it requires a larger physical lens apparatus, and space is at a premium in a smartphone.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/interestingasfuck on May 29, 2020 17:18:35
/r/UpliftingNews/comments/gs73sf/new_zealand_discharges_its_last_covid_patient/fs7d07b/

Highest charity contribution per person.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/UpliftingNews on May 29, 2020 10:42:23
/r/UpliftingNews/comments/gs73sf/new_zealand_discharges_its_last_covid_patient/fs5b5e1/

>but when you wrongly think you're already at the peak Thinking something isnt a shithole = thinking its peaked and cant improve? Interesting claim, not sure it holds up though. >which is not the case by any metric. Another bold claim. Do you actually believe this? >Accept your country isn't the best and you can better it. ....you can still improve even if you're already the best.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/UpliftingNews on May 28, 2020 20:12:36
/r/UpliftingNews/comments/gs73sf/new_zealand_discharges_its_last_covid_patient/fs47htf/

By that standard, yours probably is too.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/UpliftingNews on May 28, 2020 14:41:03
/r/btc/comments/gqmd3u/2009_bitcoin_address_holder_signs_message_calling/fs3zjzo/

>The people who bought BTC in 2017 because of CNBC never took their coins off the exchange. Sure, many didnt. But if I am incorrect and new people werent trying to send crypto in Dec 2017, why did fee's shoot up to $50? Obviously many new people tried to move their crypto and paid high fees, and many more looked at the fees or heard about the fees and decided not to bother even if they otherwise might have. >You think you're talking to a BTC maximalist, and simply use the cliché narrative you know. But it's not the case. Because you're using cliche maximalist talking points. I even specifically asked you what scaling plans you prefer but you refuse the answer.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on May 28, 2020 13:38:49
/r/btc/comments/gqmd3u/2009_bitcoin_address_holder_signs_message_calling/fs3ni2r/

> Stop putting words in my mouth, I haven't said anything about any project than can be interpreted as me not liking them. You dislike their scaling plans then? What crypto has a superior scaling plan then? If its superior, why arent you invested in it? If you just talk about what you dont like and dont offer an alternative, you're not being useful. >Crypto users from 2015-2017 when fees got high are knowledgeable enough to know the alternatives, you can be sure of that. You're telling me that the people watching CNBC during the bubble Dec 2017 and who bought Bitcoin on Coinbase before coinbase even listed Bitcoin Cash fully understood the alternatives? I find that unlikely. >They might have been new then, but after a few years, if they really left BTC because of fees, they'd have found an alternative by now. You dont understand. These people didnt stay in crypto for a few years. They stayed for a few days/weeks, saw the retarded fees, and then left. >My bottom line here is that there's no such million users alienated by BTC. Well then its clear you have no idea wtf you're talking about. Were you even around during late 2017? You seem to have no idea what was happening in the ecosystem back then.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on May 28, 2020 12:06:00
/r/btc/comments/gqmd3u/2009_bitcoin_address_holder_signs_message_calling/fs3j2d1/

>I haven't talked about other projects. So you specifically dislike BCH and Eth? Why? >You're the one who said crypto OGs left crypto because they didn't know about the alternatives. Wrong, I was talking about people new to crypto, not "crypto OG's" >According to you, the millions of potential users that BTC alienated, instead of fleeing to BCH and ETH, simply stayed in the permissioned system. >Is that not what you said? Correct, yes. But those millions of users were not "crypto OGs", no.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on May 28, 2020 11:31:15
/r/btc/comments/gqmd3u/2009_bitcoin_address_holder_signs_message_calling/fs37mw7/

Lol, what kind of retarded and useless argument are you pushing here? That since another crypto didnt magically nullify BTC's first mover advantage and network effect, that means their scaling plans dont have any merit?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on May 28, 2020 09:54:32
/r/btc/comments/gqmd3u/2009_bitcoin_address_holder_signs_message_calling/fs10n3k/

>I don't need to tell you what coins I own, that's not the purpose of this conversation. It seems you're not even taking your own advice when it comes to scaling. Its alot easier to take someone's opinions seriously when they actually have skin in the game. >You contradict yourself. You say users have left crypto instead of using BCH or ETH but at the same time, BCH will rise and ETH is eating everybody else's lunch. Many users have left crypto because of bitcoin's flaws. It might lead to banks having time to onboard and optimize their own systems to prevent users from switching to decentralized cryptos. But if users do come back to crypto in the longer term, it certainly looks like Eth is making up ground against BTC. In the long term I think even BCH has a better chance than BTC, yes. >Why did they not go for BCH or ETH, we should be talking millions of users and merchants BTC has alienated, right? Because those users likely arent closely involved in crypto to know there are alternatives, and were turned off to crypto in general. >Why not using existing, working alternatives? They are. They're using fiat and centralized platforms like venmo.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on May 27, 2020 18:38:42
/r/btc/comments/gqmd3u/2009_bitcoin_address_holder_signs_message_calling/fs0z4ew/

> Or they exited crypto altogether. You just answered your own question. >Why using Ethereum when you can use BCH? Why not? >ETH is a smart contract platform, not a purely value transfer network. So? Also, you never answer which small block/maximized decentralization alts it is you own which supposedly arent having their lunch eaten by Eth?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on May 27, 2020 18:25:33
/r/btc/comments/gqmd3u/2009_bitcoin_address_holder_signs_message_calling/fs0vrto/

>Why not? Is this a serious question, or are you trolling? Ever heard first mover advantage or a network effect? >I own way more alts percentage wise than BTC. What small block/maximized decentralization alts are you invested in then? Eth is likely eating their lunches too.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on May 27, 2020 17:57:03
/r/btc/comments/gqmd3u/2009_bitcoin_address_holder_signs_message_calling/fs0u85w/

Not yet, no. Eth is certainly eating your lunch as we speak though.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on May 27, 2020 17:44:16
/r/btc/comments/gqmd3u/2009_bitcoin_address_holder_signs_message_calling/fs0mx3l/

You dont have to wait a few years, it already happened in winter 2017. Fees shot up to $50 and it caused irreparable harm to bitcoin's reputation in the eyes of largescale businesses and millions of users. That was already a failed launch toward potential mass adoption thwarted by rediculous fees. It was exactly what we told you would happen before core's refusal to take sufficient action forced the BCH fork. BTC might get another chance, or it might not, we'll see about that, yes. Also, I dont follow BSV, sorry.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on May 27, 2020 16:44:59
/r/blockfi/comments/gr9rv5/someone_sim_swap_hacked_me_today_because_of_the/frylr1n/

> I use different passwords for EVERY account, and they are all 30+ characters, numbers, digits, special characters... brute force is impossible. brute force isnt the only attack possible here. Its possible you have/had a keylogger on your computer. I'd do multiple virus scans.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/blockfi on May 27, 2020 04:43:35
/r/btc/comments/gqmd3u/2009_bitcoin_address_holder_signs_message_calling/fryk8r6/

*some* users are not discouraged. Oh ok. Obviously. What a useless statement though. Mass adoption of bitcoin is anything but assured, yet youre alienating users. Bitcoin needs to be competitive or else its going to be out competed. >As I said, if gas was cheaper, I'd drive more. But that doesn't mean the automobile is flawed. That situation isnt directly comparable though. Our situation would be more like company A placing a cap on gasoline car fuel efficiency, purposely making them less efficient, in order to encourage people to use electric cars instead. A noble goal, but nonsense strategy. Meanwhile company B is making gasoline cars as efficient as possible. People will eventually just switch to company B, once they ramp up their marketing and production, and company A will fail because A's strategy was flawed in a competitive environment.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on May 27, 2020 04:18:53
/r/btc/comments/gqmd3u/2009_bitcoin_address_holder_signs_message_calling/frx27o2/

>users are not discouraged by fees. What does this mean?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on May 26, 2020 18:21:40
/r/btc/comments/gqmd3u/2009_bitcoin_address_holder_signs_message_calling/frws5nf/

> Look at the transaction count. It's been on the rise and nearly at ATH. Meaning users are not discouraged by fees. Your idea that the fact that theres slightly more transactions means that fees havent alienated a large number of users is hilarious. We've litterally had negative retail adoption since the fee crisis of 2017. We could easily have 10x the adoption at this point if blocks we allowed to scale with demand.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on May 26, 2020 16:57:22
/r/btc/comments/gqmd3u/2009_bitcoin_address_holder_signs_message_calling/fru4cw0/

Its clear this person is specifically trying to be diplomatic with their words in order to appease both sides of the scaling debate and has more tact than most people on either side. Its worth pointing out that since the coins have not moved, it means they own both BCH and BTC.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on May 25, 2020 23:40:35
/r/btc/comments/gqmd3u/2009_bitcoin_address_holder_signs_message_calling/fru2r0v/

Alot more than you think. Like me for example. People seem to have confused not liking the idea of using LN potential as an excuse to limit the blocksize, with not liking LN on its own merits. Most big blockers support onchain scaling and 2nd layer scaling in parrallel, and only attack LN in the context of the idea that onchain scaling, including blocksize increases, should be put on hold while we put all our eggs in the 2nd layer scaling basket.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on May 25, 2020 23:22:49
/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/gqkhou/gun_make_me_big_strong_man/fru1f1i/

Who said his goal is only to protect the people around him? Maybe the goal is to protect his own rights.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PoliticalHumor on May 25, 2020 23:08:05
/r/btc/comments/gqmd3u/2009_bitcoin_address_holder_signs_message_calling/fru0i12/

Doesnt BCH that hasnt moved since before the fork have the same exact key as the BTC? How would you tell the difference unless they move them under one set of rules or the other?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on May 25, 2020 22:58:10
/r/btc/comments/gqmd3u/2009_bitcoin_address_holder_signs_message_calling/fru046t/

Not its not. Its a criticism of thinking you can *just* change the blocksize alone, and acknowledging theres additional work to be done beyond that.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on May 25, 2020 22:54:04
/r/btc/comments/gq8419/craig_steven_wright_is_a_liar_and_a_fraud_he/frtbqiz/

Theres no proof that God didnt put the dinosaur bones on Earth to test our faith either. So what? It may not be *proof* he's not Satoshi, because we can never prove someone is *not* Satoshi unless we prove who Satoshi IS. Because proving a negative, even if its rediculous, is often impossible. But its certainly more *evidence* he's not satoshi. Theres enough evidence for any reasonable person to conclude that the chance of CSW being Satoshi is so small its no longer worth entertaining the idea at all.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on May 25, 2020 18:51:23
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gqd9i8/newly_signed_message_from_2009_satoshiera_coins/frt9744/

Recently? No. Like he said, its been years now without any improvement.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 25, 2020 18:27:30
/r/btc/comments/gq8419/craig_steven_wright_is_a_liar_and_a_fraud_he/frt6f4w/

> What has BCH optimized again? how about graphene, Schnorr Sigs, and canonical transaction ordering? BCH will have 32mb+ blocks when we need it, but given the low level of block usage perhaps you can see why it isnt a priority :)

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on May 25, 2020 18:01:46
/r/btc/comments/gq8419/craig_steven_wright_is_a_liar_and_a_fraud_he/frt2xcz/

>Now imagine if you had to give $50,000,000,000 in bitcoin to someone who does not deserve it in your opinion, is it within the possibility that someone may lie? >Could it be that the anonymous owner of those addresses lied about the message to distract from who owns the keys? Oh my God, are you really telling me you believe its reasonable to believe CSW is making himself look like a fraud on purpose so he doesnt have to pay Kleiman's estate? You're like my idiot aunt who believes the earth is 6,000 years old and God put the dinosaur bones on Earth to test our faith. Anything you like is evidence he's satoshi. Anything you dont like is evidence hes pretending not to be satoshi. You're completely detached from reality. How exactly do you believe he's ever going to get to use his Satoshi money if he has to continue convincing a judge that he doesnt have access to it? Or maybe we can apply Occam's Razor instead of investing excuses for a scam artist's conflicting web of lies.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on May 25, 2020 17:30:27
/r/btc/comments/gq8419/craig_steven_wright_is_a_liar_and_a_fraud_he/frs6gbw/

Oh I dunno, maybe because he's trying to derive fame/money/status by assuming that identity? The same reasons charlatans, frauds, and imposters have lied about who they are or what they can do throughout history?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on May 25, 2020 12:48:10
/r/btc/comments/gq8419/craig_steven_wright_is_a_liar_and_a_fraud_he/frrucfz/

Come on. It says "We are all Satoshi". Do you think CSW's position is that I am as much Satoshi as he is? Why then does he spend so much time trying to link his identity in particular to Satoshi, if his position is that we're all Satoshi?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on May 25, 2020 11:00:35
/r/btc/comments/gq8419/craig_steven_wright_is_a_liar_and_a_fraud_he/frrtthq/

> They were hinting that just updating the block size (like BCH does) BCH has done a hell of alot more optimizations than just changing a constant in the code

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on May 25, 2020 10:55:35
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gq0u0u/a_single_bitcoin_transaction_can_power_your_house/frrtft0/

Dont be too hard on him. He's upset from having to watch Eth eat his lunch in real time.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 25, 2020 10:51:58
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gp8umv/equal_ground_where_every_blocksize_debate_should/frrqhls/

> There is no need to increase the blocksize to support LN in it's current state. You're right, we dont need additional blocksize to support LN currently. Currently we need it to reduce fees. >Because it can't be increased enough to make a damn difference? Supporting even 5X of today's transaction limit doesn't give us any great advantage. Reduced fees today is an important difference. The mempool distribution shows that fees would easily be much less than $1 with 5x capacity, instead of the $4-$5 fees we're seeing today. >Hell had we increased the limit to 2-3MB a couple of years ago a bunch of exchanges would just have dragged their feet on batching even longer, blocks would still have been full and transaction costs similar during peak usage. This is such a terrible argument. You're suggesting to ignore onchain scaling in order to punish users/exchanges with high fees in order to force them to more quickly optimize their actions? Wow, you're a marketing genius. Mass adoption assured...

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 25, 2020 10:22:23
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gp8umv/equal_ground_where_every_blocksize_debate_should/frrhg7l/

>Not for the store of value use cases it is not Lol, good luck getting mass adoption with the "store of value use case" alone. Like I said, mass adoption of Bitcoin is anything but assured. >Which will run into the same damn problems if they try to scale on chain, what part of that is hard to understand? 2nd layer scaling solutions like LN require more onchain blocksize, what part is that hard to understand? Why delay the onchain sclaing which increases fees and makes it less likely that anyone sticks around long enough for mass adoption and 2nd layers to take off?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 25, 2020 08:38:21
/r/btc/comments/gps5ed/ethereum_now_holds_four_times_more_bitcoin_than/frq4pnm/

Eth is eating your lunch and the best you can do is pretend LN has significant use in private channels which arent even usable for routing? Ouch.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on May 24, 2020 21:27:09
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gpmyg0/there_is_4_times_more_bitcoin_on_ethereum_than/frpxlwo/

>The higher the layer, the higher the value of that layer I dont think this is a universal truism. It depends on how those levels interact. In cryptocurrency lower layers need to have more value than the higher layers, because the lower layer provides the transaction security for its derivative layers. Otherwise why bother using the lower layer at all?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 24, 2020 20:14:01
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gpmyg0/there_is_4_times_more_bitcoin_on_ethereum_than/frpsvrw/

>Does the oil market have a bigger value than the automobile market? I dont think thats a similar comparision, because the oil market isnt "securing" the automobile market in the same way a base layer secures its 2nd layer derivatives in cryptocurrencies. >In the next months expect tether, Bitcoin and other stable coins represent the majority of value transacted on ethereum. >You theory would be put at test. Perhaps, but people using tether arent really concerned with the largescale security of their system anyways, since its already highly centralized by the company running it, so its easy to reverse any largescale issues that arise. And its not really the value of the transactions, but the value of the circulating supply that matters. But once the value existing in erc tokens exceeds the value of ethereum's marketcap, things could get interesting, yes.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 24, 2020 19:26:35
/r/investing/comments/gpd34w/why_did_microsoft_trade_sideways_from_1998_to/frplc2k/

I know a car salesmen who is pretty good at math too.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on May 24, 2020 18:13:48
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gp8umv/equal_ground_where_every_blocksize_debate_should/frpjm5h/

> So people will pay somewhat less to move their speculative "store of value" asset around? Big deal, you solved nothing. Reducing fees is very important, because mass adoption of Bitcoin is anything but assured, and it needs to be competitive to maximize its chances. >Without a solution that offers orders of magnitudes more transactions, all you can really achieve is "digital gold" for a use case. If BTC doesnt reduce fees soon, you're never going to need orders of magnitude more transactions, because people are going to find a cheaper/more convenient/more useful alternative.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 24, 2020 17:57:31
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gp8umv/equal_ground_where_every_blocksize_debate_should/frpek4h/

>And you think 500Mb blocks would be enough 3 decades from now? It'd be pretty good, yes. Much better than 1 Mb blocks, and depending on the level of adoption at that time could certainly support all that demand onchain, but its not necessary that it does. Extreme levels of adoption certainly requires 2nd layers as well, but theres a level below that yet above todays demand that could be supported onchain entirely if needed for some reason. > they then get to do less than 1 transaction a day. What that theoretical high level of adoption, sounds like a good baseline for maintaining your 2nd layer channels. Or are you one of those people who thinks anyone who supporting increasing the blocksize is against 2nd layer scaling?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 24, 2020 17:18:17
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gpmyg0/there_is_4_times_more_bitcoin_on_ethereum_than/frpe2ub/

> The value of the token going up is just a side effect. Nothing they do is for the explicit intent of increasing the tokens value. Lol, Maybe thats true for the devs who dont own any significant amount of Eth. Its very naive to think that increasing the value of Eth tokens isnt a significant motivation for devs who own a significant amoutn of Eth tokens. Is it the only motivation? No. But its a significant one. >If it was, then ETH would be an absolute shit coin. Oh ok. As if nothing impressive has been built with the help of a financial motivation in what you're building?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 24, 2020 17:14:43
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gpmyg0/there_is_4_times_more_bitcoin_on_ethereum_than/frp9q9j/

> The developers could not care less about artificially restricting supply for the sole purpose of increasing value of the token for a bunch of random ppl on reddit. You act like Eth Devs dont hold any of their net worth in Eth and only random people on reddit own Eth? Because otherwise that seems like a pretty good motivation for them to increase the value of tokens.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 24, 2020 16:40:57
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gpmyg0/there_is_4_times_more_bitcoin_on_ethereum_than/frp7vp4/

Theres more potential for financial gain by controlling a larger chain, which makes it more appealing to invest a larger amount of money in order to control it. You dont have to be able to steal the full value of the chain directly from everyone's private addresses in order to make controlling a chain appealing to an attacker.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 24, 2020 16:27:20
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gp8umv/equal_ground_where_every_blocksize_debate_should/frp6r0b/

> I can tell you that if blocks had been full back then it would not have been "fine". You can? I can tell you with some minor optimizations it would have been fine. >We simply can never handle all transactions on chain Never? Within 3 decades we could easily have 500mb blocks. And its not about limiting ourselves to everything onto the main chain anyways. It about scaling onchain AND 2nd layer, and not ruining the potential of either by failing to harness the available technology.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 24, 2020 16:19:17
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gpmyg0/there_is_4_times_more_bitcoin_on_ethereum_than/frp5l9p/

Doesnt work what way? I never said you can steal the full 100B, so what are you talking about exactly?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 24, 2020 16:10:56
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gpmyg0/there_is_4_times_more_bitcoin_on_ethereum_than/fro94m6/

> Any system where someone can consistently have 51% control is no longer viable. Right, which is why you dont want to incentivize that condition and make it likely/easier/more profitable by securing a high value 2nd layer with a lower value base layer. Because it allows you to control both layers while only needing to get enough resources to 51% attack the lower value base layer. When looking at it through the value of the combined layers, it doesnt even require 51% anymore. For example, if you're securing a 100B 2nd layer with a 10B base layer, you only need 5.1B to attack a network with the combined value of 110B. You just turned the 51% attack into a 4.5% attack.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 24, 2020 11:43:23
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gpmyg0/there_is_4_times_more_bitcoin_on_ethereum_than/fro6g25/

If you consistently have 51% control you can doublespend against lots of people at the same time. Its not like you have to pick only one target.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 24, 2020 11:22:45
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gpmyg0/there_is_4_times_more_bitcoin_on_ethereum_than/fro3urb/

doublespending steals from anyone using the system to transact at all, not just trader/exchanges

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 24, 2020 11:03:52
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gpmyg0/there_is_4_times_more_bitcoin_on_ethereum_than/fro2udt/

You can disrupt in all sorts of ways. And you can directly steal value through doublespending. You can also steal value by shorting the market on futures markets and using your disruption to cause spot prices to crash.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 24, 2020 10:55:41
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gpmyg0/there_is_4_times_more_bitcoin_on_ethereum_than/fro262l/

>An Ethereum that can use BTC as a foundation of value is the best of both worlds. Thats not possible though, because the value of the first layer (ETH) has to be higher than the value of the 2nd layer (wrapped BTC, etc), or else you can attack the first layer to disrupt/steal from the more valueable second layer.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 24, 2020 10:49:55
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gp8umv/equal_ground_where_every_blocksize_debate_should/fro0hu5/

>Which is one of the reason why the Bitcoin block size has not been increased. We have yet to reach the point in technology where 1MB of block size (and the storage/processing/transfer requirements etc) is clearly outpaced by technological progress You seem to have missed the part where I said "**longterm** growth rate". Obviously the blockchain is growing quickly on a percent basis currently, because we've only had full blocks for 2-3 years, so each block still makes up a relatively large part of the total chain. We're currently addiing 64GB per year to the chain. So in 5 years the blockchain will be growing at less than 10% per year. In 15 years the blockchain will be growing at less than 5% per year. In 25 years the blockchain will be growing at less than 2.5% per year. So clearly the longterm growth rate is much less than the increase in bandwidh, storage, and computational power, which have all been increasing at least 12% per year.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 24, 2020 10:34:52
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gp8umv/equal_ground_where_every_blocksize_debate_should/frmbm6s/

>Size and time are the enemy of all cryptos Only if the longterm growth rate of the blockchain is faster than the growth rate of technology which makes it easier to deal with large blockchains.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 24, 2020 00:58:03
/r/iamatotalpieceofshit/comments/gp85bb/fucking_unbelievable_that_is/frkoca7/

Despite what the image OP post says, I'm not sure this was actually a no knock raid: "Mr. Walker, 27, has contended that he did not know that it was police officers **who had been knocking at the door** and feared for his life when he grabbed his gun and fired." https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/us/Breonna-Taylor-Kenneth-Walker.html So apparently, they knocked, but he didnt know they were police so he shot at them, hitting one officer in the leg, and then the police shot back killing his girlfriend.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/iamatotalpieceofshit on May 23, 2020 14:57:27
/r/iamatotalpieceofshit/comments/gp85bb/fucking_unbelievable_that_is/frko0mm/

I mean, this is messed up, but the OP's image says they "didnt knock", like this was a no knock raid. But other information I read said they did infact knock. "Mr. Walker, 27, has contended that he did not know that it was police officers **who had been knocking at the door** and feared for his life when he grabbed his gun and fired." https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/us/Breonna-Taylor-Kenneth-Walker.html

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/iamatotalpieceofshit on May 23, 2020 14:54:31
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/goj1vz/xrp_has_by_far_the_highest_inflation_rate_of_the/frjrz4f/

BGuy seems to be claiming that Jed has so many coins that Cmc reduced the "circulating supply" based on a temporary agreement to limit his selling.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 23, 2020 09:47:38
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/goj1vz/xrp_has_by_far_the_highest_inflation_rate_of_the/fripjlz/

>Correct but at what cost? They are the largest holder of the asset, so tanking the price is not in their own best interest. Sure, but I'm not thinking they'll "tank the price" to nothing. What I expect to happen is that during the next general crypto bull market (if it ever comes), they'll increase their sales to be alot closer to that 1B mark and take advantage of the extra liquidity to cash out, and XRP will lag behind other cryptocurrencies because of that.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 22, 2020 23:54:55
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/goj1vz/xrp_has_by_far_the_highest_inflation_rate_of_the/frip2yu/

>Why wouldn't it included Jed's sales? Because the "circulating supply" isn't necessarily reduced based on a private individual's temporary agreements to limit selling. You'd have so see the details of exactly how they calculate this. Its an estimate. Just like they dont reduce the circulating supply when someone's harddrive gets corrupted and they lose coins. > Its a lot for an individual but it doesn't move the needle as far as new supply hitting the market. Huh? He like 5B tokens left to sell...thats 10% of the current circulating supply, and his agreement limiting his sales expires sometime soon, does it not? >its a simple equation... look up the circulating supply year over year and calculate Like I said, you're just trusting someone else to calculate circulating supply then. At one point, XRP supply was listed as 100B on coinmarketcap, which was clearly misleading. They're making an effort to be more accurate, but you dont exactly know what they consider "circulating". >If one wants to say the circulating supply #s are wrong on coinmarketcap, live coin, coingecko, etc, etc... then they are wrong for every single coin/project right? Sure, but XRP supply is more centralized than most of the top coins, so it affects XRP more. BSV is another example, as it's pretty clear Ayers and Faketoshi are propping it up and unclaimed coins are drastically inflating the marketcap. >Regarding the 1 billion per month... again this is not a mystery. I never said it is. I said you have to trust Ripple to limit themselves if you expect the inflation rate to not spike in the future. Whereas the inflation rate in bitcoin is programmatically assured.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 22, 2020 23:49:29
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/got7tb/karen_confronts_employee_over_viral_video_of_her/frihe9l/

Its like when alot of people still pretended WWE was real, whereas I think now its more thoroughly accepted as just being an entertaining show.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on May 22, 2020 22:22:54
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/goj1vz/xrp_has_by_far_the_highest_inflation_rate_of_the/frif25v/

> The circulating supply is the circulating supply... period. Not really. High centralization of the token distribution makes it it possible to play games with the "circulating supply"/marketcap, and makes those figures much less meaningful. See BSV for example.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 22, 2020 21:57:49
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/goj1vz/xrp_has_by_far_the_highest_inflation_rate_of_the/frid93j/

> And the year this article refers to (which I roughly did as well) he got his coins... contributing to the 4.7% increase year over year. Why do you think the 4.7% includes Jed's personal stash? Last I heard, Ripple company was selling 300m tokens per month, or 3.6b tokens per year. Did they slow down their sales recently or something? Because that alone was accounting for 8% inflation not long ago. And thats not even counting sales from the founders personal stashes. And by their own escrow contract, they're allowed to sell up to 1B tokens per month, and if you're counting on any number less than that, youre just going to have to trust Ripple to limit themselves indefinately. thats likely where the 20% inflation rate comes from. Because even if ripple is choosing to reescrow most of that 1B tokens, they still have the right to sell them on the market if they choose.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 22, 2020 21:38:49
/r/Coronavirus/comments/gnw7bv/social_distancing_one_week_earlier_could_have/fresicr/

So you think the actions of that one clearly insane man are representative of the average protester? Just another example of people like you and OP focusing on extremes rather than providing a realistic characterization of the average protesters' views.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/Coronavirus on May 21, 2020 22:50:14
/r/Coronavirus/comments/gnw7bv/social_distancing_one_week_earlier_could_have/frergjj/

You're the one thats proposing new political bandaids like expanding welfare, while these protesters generally just want their natural rights back.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/Coronavirus on May 21, 2020 22:39:25
/r/Coronavirus/comments/gnuq3s/only_73_of_people_in_the_capital_of_sweden_have/frdx4nd/

Did they not have conferences in Sweden during this time?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/Coronavirus on May 21, 2020 17:51:42
/r/Coronavirus/comments/gnw7bv/social_distancing_one_week_earlier_could_have/frdv16q/

I've talked to plenty of people in my own area, and thats not the case here. Perhaps you just have a higher percentage of batshit insane people in California. Its interesting you claim theres that there's such a disconnect from their signs and in person statements. Here I've seen the opposite of that. If anything the signs are often more outlandish and bizarre to get attention, but if you actually talk to most of them they're more reasonable.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/Coronavirus on May 21, 2020 17:33:43
/r/Coronavirus/comments/gnw7bv/social_distancing_one_week_earlier_could_have/frdtmy7/

>your first search was "salon protest", which is what I was referencing Yea because you specifically brought up people wanting haircuts. >I then did google 'california protest' for your sake and came up with the following. You added most of that with a quick edit I see. I made my response before your edit. But regardless, you've proved my point. None of those images you added from your own "california protest" search are talking about 5G or Bill Gates, yet you said "I live in California, and the only protestors we've had are batshit insane people complaining about bill gates and 5g conspiracies." Its clear you're misrepresenting the protestors, and its interesting that you refuse to admit it.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/Coronavirus on May 21, 2020 17:21:51
/r/Coronavirus/comments/gnw7bv/social_distancing_one_week_earlier_could_have/frds9c2/

huh? "california protest" is as unbiased and unspecific as possible. It covers *all* the people protesting in your state, including salons, barbers, 5G nutcases, and whatever else people in your state are protesting.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/Coronavirus on May 21, 2020 17:10:05
/r/Coronavirus/comments/gnw7bv/social_distancing_one_week_earlier_could_have/frdr2zm/

Its clear you're picking and choosing what you want to see in order to maximize your outrage. Thats not evidence of a general trend. Theres a reason I linked an entire google image search result and didnt just pick and chose the images I wanted to show you. For example, if you search "california protest" you'll see the protest signs are clearly focusing on opening businesses and ending the shutdown, not 5G and Bill Gates as you've claimed: https://www.google.com/search?q=california+protest&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjzhJiR68XpAhWCUjABHTkfDfMQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=california+protest&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCABQ6YQIWOmECGChiwhoAHAAeACAAekBiAHpAZIBAzItMZgBAKABAaoBC2d3cy13aXotaW1n&sclient=img&ei=I-rGXrPnBYKlwbkPub60mA8&bih=625&biw=1280 Obviously there are some conspiracy people out there protesting 5G and Bill Gates, but what I'm telling you is that those people are not the norm, and most protestors have more reasonable positions. Youre just focusing on the unreasonable ones and pretending thats the norm.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/Coronavirus on May 21, 2020 17:00:05
/r/Coronavirus/comments/gnw7bv/social_distancing_one_week_earlier_could_have/frdokfo/

>You're looking at what's popular on twitter or whatever, whereas I'm experiencing this shit on a daily basis because I have to go outside frequently. Swing and a miss. Hilarious that you think I dont go outside and use twitter. >You're presenting a strawman and projecting it onto me, get the fuck out. You said "I have not seen a **single person** protesting businesses being closed while encouraging the use of masks and PPE." Yet if you look at reality, most of these salon owners are wearing masks and not complaining about them. They're complaining about their businesses are closed. Maybe you live in an especially extremist and uneducated part of the US, otherwise you clearly have a distorted view of reality: https://www.google.com/search?q=salon+protest&sxsrf=ALeKk01PV-2nI257_yDrnC10MBnnqWnPwQ:1590092756752&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjhgbSP5cXpAhWEmOAKHfR5AxMQ_AUoAnoECAsQBA&biw=1280&bih=625

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/Coronavirus on May 21, 2020 16:38:59
/r/Coronavirus/comments/gnw7bv/social_distancing_one_week_earlier_could_have/frdncfs/

> pointing out how the protests are mostly politically driven because the president is a conspiracy theorist Yes thats your claim, but I'm telling you it doesnt reflect reality. Most people are protesting business closures. Not 5G and mask use. You're just latching onto a lazy strawman argument.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/Coronavirus on May 21, 2020 16:28:44
/r/Coronavirus/comments/gnw7bv/social_distancing_one_week_earlier_could_have/frdm5m9/

>What I've seen of protestors is....demanding haircuts, and praising trump for wanting to reopen. It seems like you're emotionally invested in this and view this as a political issue. In reality, it sounds like these people are simply protesting businesses being closed, like I said. Not protesting mask use as you claimed. Some might be protesting *government mandated* mask *requirements* but most people I've seen are focused on business closures. Obviously you're going to get some idiots at the extremes, but they dont represent the majority. >I have not seen a single person protesting businesses being closed while encouraging the use of masks and PPE. Must be very different in your part of the US. Inspired by your haircut comment, I googled 'salon protest', and most images I see have people wearing masks: https://www.google.com/search?q=salon+protest&sxsrf=ALeKk01PV-2nI257_yDrnC10MBnnqWnPwQ:1590092756752&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjhgbSP5cXpAhWEmOAKHfR5AxMQ_AUoAnoECAsQBA&biw=1280&bih=625 Interesting that thats not what you're seeing. Are you sure your assessment accurately reflects reality, or are you just focusing on a minority?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/Coronavirus on May 21, 2020 16:18:45
/r/Coronavirus/comments/gnw7bv/social_distancing_one_week_earlier_could_have/frdi1yw/

>Over here in the USA we have protests against wearing masks Honest question: Do you actually believe most people were protesting simply against wearing masks? How do you explain the people at those protests wearing masks? Or maybe they were protesting against *government mandated mask requirements* and forced business closures (the much bigger issue), because choosing to wear a mask and being forced to by the government are different? You're not one of those people who thinks choosing to wear a mask while protesting those regulations is hypocritical....are you? And if not, why create a strawman argument?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/Coronavirus on May 21, 2020 15:44:26
/r/geopolitics/comments/gmna80/trump_gives_who_ultimatum_over_virus_handling/fr92v9s/

> Why do you think this is a smart idea? Because it creates leverage. If funding is offered unconditionally and the the recipient feels no risk of the funds being taken away, even if the recipient acts against the interests of the funder, then the funder has no leverage. Why continue funding an organization unconditionally which isnt reflecting your interests? The US goal is to make it clear US payments are contingent on their interests being recognized, which ideally would cause the WHO to make the desired changes in order to retain or regain US funding. If that leverage fails to produce the desired results, the US can redirect the funds to an organization that better reflects their interests. But both scenarios are better than unconditionally funding an organization that you feel is prioritizing the interests of lesser contributors. Some people for some reason seem to be under the impression that the US's longterm goal is to maintain control of the WHO with no funding, but that misinterprets the goal entirely.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/geopolitics on May 20, 2020 12:05:26
/r/dankmemes/comments/gjc0vp/howd_he_do_that/fr8xyr0/

>you can't really say you don't want to sell it to dumb people I didnt say I "don't want to sell it to dumb people". I said " I dont want to sell it to dumb people **in particular**" Eugenics is about a specific *motivation* to affect the characteristics of the human population by selective breeding. My motivation is to sell my house so I can get enough money to buy/build a house somewhere else, not to influence the human population by selective breeding. Any effect on the population would be a side effect. But lots of actions have side effects on populations, because no matter what you do, populations trend toward the survival of the fittest.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/dankmemes on May 20, 2020 11:25:11
/r/dankmemes/comments/gjc0vp/howd_he_do_that/fr8w8iz/

Why do you expect him to cover every scenario for every person in the world in a few sentences? Obviously with this remark he was talking in the context of first world countries that have a stable system of titles and deeds and waterfront houses are often sold on the market and trade hands often. That doesnt make him wrong.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/dankmemes on May 20, 2020 11:10:34
/r/dankmemes/comments/gjc0vp/howd_he_do_that/fr8v2y3/

No, I dont want to sell it to dumb people in particular. I just want to sell it. I'm just telling you dumb people are still likely to buy before the flooding occurs, dumb people exist, therefore its possible to sell your house to someone other than aquaman.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/dankmemes on May 20, 2020 11:00:33
/r/dankmemes/comments/gjc0vp/howd_he_do_that/fr8tn5e/

No it isnt. Eugenics is "the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable." Whereas what I'm doing is just accepting the reality that dumb people are more likely to die from avoidable risks. I'm not intervening in the process at all.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/dankmemes on May 20, 2020 10:48:07
/r/dankmemes/comments/gjc0vp/howd_he_do_that/fr8scmc/

Well if you live in a shithole thirdworld country, why not just move your trash house further inland?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/dankmemes on May 20, 2020 10:36:43
/r/WinStupidPrizes/comments/gmvqfu/caught_keying_someones_car/fr6okr0/

Dunno about *never*, but its certainly racist of him to use race as a major factor in determining whether to stand up for someone.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/WinStupidPrizes on May 19, 2020 19:15:41
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gmkhx0/massive_crypto_whale_drains_bitcoin_wallet_moves/fr6kiev/

>Not sure why people keep making shit like this up. Anyone can just test it for themselves and see that it's false, or look at all the transactions being confirmed on a block explorer online. You can look at the 2 week mempool chart sorted by sat per byte and see that people arent making this up:https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#0,2w Theres clearly a backlog from May 13 to May 18 where people's transactions less than 2 sat per byte were not clearing and backing up. Even most below 4 sat per byte werent clearing. And From May 13-16 significantly higher fee transactions werent clearing. Maybe you got lucky and your transaction cleared during the dip on May 17 or something, but the reality remains that there were 10s of thousands of transactions that were stuck for several days, many up to a week. Thats just reality. There are some exceptions obviously. Perhaps a miner is sometimes creating blocks that include some lower fee transactions despite there being higher fee transactions in the mempool, for whatever reason. Could prioritize some amount of older transactions, segwit transactions, their own personal transaction or that of their friend or business partner...they can include whatever transactions they want, they just *generally* include higher fee per byte transactions, but not always...There are even services on BCH where you can pay a miner with BCH to speed up your stuck low fee BTC transaction. But none of that invalidates the the general trend of what most people are experiencing.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 19, 2020 18:38:59
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gmkhx0/massive_crypto_whale_drains_bitcoin_wallet_moves/fr5e6j9/

>This is not a miner how do you know that? Dont the big miners also collect significant bitcoin from renting their hash and selling miners? so even if the funds arent directly from recent coinbase rewards, you dont know that the funds dont belong to a big miner. >everyone can get their transactions confirmed paying the same per byte. Just not in the next block. Yea, recently you might even have to wait a week! Doesnt take much more demand to cause these low fee transactions to linger until they just get dropped from the mempool instead of ever being confirmed.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 19, 2020 12:51:30
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gmkhx0/massive_crypto_whale_drains_bitcoin_wallet_moves/fr56gdd/

easy to get low transaction fees when you mine your own transaction

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 19, 2020 11:48:54
/r/MurderedByWords/comments/glmj60/tennessee_congressional_candidate_brutally/fqz55j5/

Wow, try some reading comprehension. I literally told you that I dont doubt that he had hypocrisy related to his personal actions and his voting record on abortion. That was literally an argument that **I** made as an example of a coherent argument, as opposed to OP's argument which was illogical. What I had issue with was OP's argument that not wanting government healthcare and wanting to ban abortions were somehow contradictory policy positions. The two positions are not contradictory... because one is a positive right one is a negative right.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/MurderedByWords on May 17, 2020 20:01:43
/r/MurderedByWords/comments/glmj60/tennessee_congressional_candidate_brutally/fqyz0re/

Its almost like government exists to protect our rights from being infringed upon by other people (negative rights), and your rights arent infringed by having to pay for your own healthcare, as if you have the right to force someone else to pay for it for you (which would be a positive right). Whether we need the government to stop abortions depends on if you think a fetus is a human with the right to be protected from murder (a negative right). I'm no so sure it is, but at least get the arguments straight instead of pretending the two positions are somehow inherently contradictory just because they're both related to healthcare. Now, if he had voted against allowing abortions and then forced women to have abortions that would have gone against those rules, yeah, that'd be hypocritical and contradictory. And I dont doubt thats happened. So please, if you're going to make an argument, at least make sure it makes sense. Thanks

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/MurderedByWords on May 17, 2020 19:09:58
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/glea02/save_40_on_bitcoin_transaction_fee_by_keeping/fqx94hm/

Save 99%-100% of your bitcoin transaction fee by keeping your BTC on working layer 2 solutions like BCH or NANO!

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 17, 2020 11:12:20
/r/investing/comments/gkr0uw/bitcoin_price_target/fquq836/

Sure, that probably has something to do with the fact that bitcoin represents only like 1% of the marketcap of gold. But if you think that might ever get to 5% or 10%, bitcoin might be worth buying, and thats where those $100,000 numbers you were asking about tend to come from.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on May 16, 2020 17:01:48
/r/investing/comments/gkr0uw/bitcoin_price_target/fquo6k7/

>“Bitcoin should be $100,000 per coin” but, why? It’s not providing any future cash flows and it’s not a historic store of value like gold. Its not a 'historic' store of value, but it has been around for over 10 years now, and has many properties which make it a better store of value without third party risk than gold. Alot of people throwing big numbers around are expecting bitcoin to steal at least some percentage of the gold market more than it already has.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on May 16, 2020 16:46:50
/r/btc/comments/gjwf37/the_effects_of_the_block_reward_halving_are/fqo5v1l/

or maybe the $50 fees will prevent the bull market from occurring at all

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on May 14, 2020 22:03:10
/r/investing/comments/gj76g7/wsj_jpmorgan_extends_banking_services_to_bitcoin/fqmybun/

Tell me how else its possible to transfer value equivalent to say, $100m USD from China to Taiwan, without having to trust a 3rd party intermediary that is subject to control of the Chinese Communist Party?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on May 14, 2020 15:46:11
/r/investing/comments/gj76g7/wsj_jpmorgan_extends_banking_services_to_bitcoin/fqmkpps/

>Bitcoin has no investment theory besides waiting for a bigger sucker It does though. Bitcoin is a transaction and storage network that requires bitcoins to function. So your investment theory could be that the transaction network becomes more popular, thus increasing the demand for bitcoin and thus the price per unit. Why would someone be a sucker if they're deriving value from the unique characteristics that the bitcoin network offers?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on May 14, 2020 13:57:26
/r/investing/comments/gj76g7/wsj_jpmorgan_extends_banking_services_to_bitcoin/fqm8r9y/

Once you figure out what you're doing you switch to Coinbase Pro and avoid the noob fees.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on May 14, 2020 12:23:36
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gi0983/on_the_instability_of_bitcoin_without_the_block/fqm29el/

> The block size would grow or shrink based on the fullness of some previous line of blocks. But the blocks are always going to be full and expanding at the maximum rate....because if they werent full "you end up with a period of no pricing because everyone can get in."

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 14, 2020 11:30:55
/r/dankmemes/comments/gjc0vp/howd_he_do_that/fqm1v65/

>Theres nobody that would buy that house though. What do you mean? Coastal and waterfront properties are still extremely expensive today, even though we know that some time in the future they'll probably suffer from longterm flooding. You just have to make sure you're not the last person holding the bag and arent among the last people to realize how bad the risk really is. Its certainly insensitive but not actually out of touch with reality.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/dankmemes on May 14, 2020 11:27:38
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gi0983/on_the_instability_of_bitcoin_without_the_block/fqkyfl4/

Theres no way to have market price or the USD value of fees factor into your auto scaling algorithm unless you include some centralized oracle. Seems like a non-starter. And if theres space in the block, people will fill it with cheap transactions till its full. How do you base your scaling on whether or not blocks are full when they're always going to be full and you cant even calculate the real world value of what people are actually spending on transaction fees unless you add a centralized failure point?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 14, 2020 03:08:08
/r/dankmemes/comments/gjc0vp/howd_he_do_that/fqku0re/

To a dumb person. You sell it before the flooding actually happens, right? Then when the flood comes all the dumb people that still didnt see it coming die. Seems smart to me.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/dankmemes on May 14, 2020 02:04:16
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gi0983/on_the_instability_of_bitcoin_without_the_block/fqjfg5g/

>That's why I think a scaling size is best. I think your idea of a self scaling blocksize based on demand would effectively be the same as just making it your maximum expansion rate, because people would just spam the blockchain even if there wasnt organic demand to fill it up. It'd always be effectively full and expanding at your maximum rate.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 13, 2020 18:33:06
/r/worldpolitics/comments/gj77wd/this_virus_may_never_go_away_who_says/fqj1nfu/

Thank you for your time everyone!

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldpolitics on May 13, 2020 17:03:42
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gi0983/on_the_instability_of_bitcoin_without_the_block/fqj145j/

You dont need to get as low as 1s/byte fees. For example, with 100mb blocks, you'd only need $0.08 fees, which is already getting to the point of being insignificant for most people. We could easily have 100mb blocks in 20 something years if it were allowed to grow naturally at 15% per year.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 13, 2020 17:00:15
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gi0983/on_the_instability_of_bitcoin_without_the_block/fqizqdf/

>The maximum expansion size would go up on a schedule like in BIP103. Your idea is pointless then, because youd just always end up with the maximum expansion rate. >If you rely on fees for security, having a block size too large would be dangerous. How so? If you have large enough blocks, which is entirely possible by the time the block subsidy fades away, you can keep the same security with fees of only a few pennies. The penny fees can be maintained simply by making them the default fee on wallets and exchanges. Most people wont bother to change them if they're insignificant. And theres always a chance the mempool fills up temporarily, so some nominal fee makes sure your transaction gets through reliably. Its better to overshoot the blocksize with a single hardfork, because if you want to reduce it later, it only requires a softfork, or even just miners collectively deciding to orphan blocks that are too large.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 13, 2020 16:51:24
/r/technicallythetruth/comments/gj0tci/not_his_president/fqixzwu/

If you make a serious response to an obvious troll comment, how retarded does that make you? Hmm?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/technicallythetruth on May 13, 2020 16:40:17
/r/technicallythetruth/comments/gj0tci/not_his_president/fqivkrx/

Almost? And why do you think this kind of behavior means they think nobody else really matters? Whether Americans state their nationality or not, people from other countries are still going to have to state theirs if they're from something other than the largest english speaking country in the world. It changes nothing, so why the butthurt? Y u mad bro?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/technicallythetruth on May 13, 2020 16:24:40
/r/technicallythetruth/comments/gj0tci/not_his_president/fqispl0/

>Because that's the default Well it *is* the largest english speaking country in the world. And if the Americans are generally the people who do this, then you already know their nationality, so why should they bother being redundant?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/technicallythetruth on May 13, 2020 16:06:03
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gi0983/on_the_instability_of_bitcoin_without_the_block/fqirex2/

>I just think the current cap should be <1mb. Lol, ok. >No one has proposed a method to make this kind of change though. Huh? Are you new here? BIP 103?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 13, 2020 15:57:37
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gj1lhc/1000_wbtc_minted_today_on_ethereum_dwarfs_entire/fqib1nr/

>Bitcoin is unhackable. Hilarious to think that, because Bitcoin has already been hacked: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_overflow_incident

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 13, 2020 14:13:10
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gi0983/on_the_instability_of_bitcoin_without_the_block/fqi5x93/

>It's important to ensure the network can still run as a distributed network rather than only run by big servers. Which is why the blocksize should be allowed to increase over time as technology increases. We're nowhere fucking close to the network only being run by large servers. The idiots running bitcoin core got this so wrong, that the cost of a *single* transaction fee was allowed to exceed the cost of an entire full node. The proof is in the pudding. >And no I'm not just talking about block propagation.....utxo & validation increases as a polynomial with a linear block size increases, exponentially if you double blocks. You said "Some factors scale non-linearly with block size". 1)The utxo does **not** increase non-linerarly with blocksize. If you doubled the blocksize, the utxo growth rate would simply double its growth rate. Infact allowing fees to rise makes the utxo worse because it makes it more expensive to consolidate transactions. 2) block validation isnt non-linear as long as you limit the size of individual transactions from exceeding some level, which Bitcoin Cash has already done by limiting transactions to 1 MB each. It also later removed the quadratic hashing problem entirely by introducing an improved transaction format. >A long term scaling has to happen in terms of optimizing output per byte, compression, signature aggregation and second layer. Obviously. Look at all the advancements and optimizations made with Bitcoin Cash, for example.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 13, 2020 13:26:40
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gi0983/on_the_instability_of_bitcoin_without_the_block/fqhrziw/

>Some factors scale non-linearly with block size. You're talking about block propogation, huh? Which conveniently can be sped up with better software in addition to the hardware advances. You've heard of graphene right? > You are being disingenuous about block size, they are not currently full. HAHAHA. With your logic they'll never be full. Segwit increased space for witness data, which we only need so much of relative to non-witness data. We'll never reach 4mb. The fact that fees continue rising despite block size staying at 1.3mb tells you that in reality blocks are full. Even with full segwit utilization it wont exceed 1.6-1.7mb. So tell me again how blocksize has doubled and I'm the one being disingenuous here? > In either case we'll still end up with fees at $8. We can't raise that limit as fast as new demand comes. CPU's and memory don't get cheap enough fast enough. Well if we end up with $8 fees with much larger blocks, that means we would have had fees even higher than $8 without them. Your argument is really that we cant keep up all the way, so we shouldnt try at all? Amazing. I guess thats not a surprising argument coming from someone who's plan has already failed. Every time I think about that Core Devs writing in the bitcoin wiki that "We dont expect fees to ever exceed $1", I just laugh.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 13, 2020 11:21:05
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gi0983/on_the_instability_of_bitcoin_without_the_block/fqhogw1/

> it is in fact too high based on the growth of the metrics you discussed how so? > and you seem to be forgetting the fact that the bitcoin blocksize was increased by more than double. No it wasnt. The block size was 1mb, and segwit in reality only increased it to 1.3mb in practice. >The bitcoin blockchain will be 850gb 5 years So? A 1 TB harddrive only costs $30 today, and will be even cheaper in 5 years. You know you've really fucked up when your decisions cause a *single transaction* to cost more than the hardware cost of a full node. Its really mind boggling. >If 2.2mb is the wrong limit what is the correct limit? The limit isnt 2.2mb, in practical reality segwit will never exceed 1.6mb. It only reaches 1.3mb today. As I said, the correct limit should be at least 4mb by now based on hardware and bandwidth growth since the limit was imposed.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 13, 2020 10:46:16
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gi0983/on_the_instability_of_bitcoin_without_the_block/fqhjzwa/

It *is* artificially limited. The idiot savants and people who believe the sun revolves around the earth running bitcoin core have failed to increase throughput (to use your term) to keep up with the growth of technology and the decrease in node cost that results from that. If you doubled the blocksize today, individuals would not magically not be able to run nodes. Infact, bandwidth, storage space, processor speed, and all the other metrics that a node depends on have all doubled in the last 5 years, when the scaling debate was going on.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 13, 2020 10:02:01
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gi0983/on_the_instability_of_bitcoin_without_the_block/fqfhr1b/

>I don't think a future where most people interact through payment processors is what most people envisioned for bitcoin. It's certainly not what I'd prefer. It kind of defeats the point of a decentralized, permissionless network. You must not like lightning network very much then, because its making that situation even worse, and making people even less likely to avoid custodial solutions. But what I'm saying isnt *relying* on everyone using exchanges and payment processors. Its simply one factor that exists whether we like it or not due to human nature. If no one used such services the default fee function of wallets alone would be enough to keep fees of a few pennies. >I'm also not sure 4 MB blocks are reasonable today Whats reasonable then? 2mb? Add 5 years to the time reaching 100mb blocks then. Still results in enough small fee transactions to replace the block subsidy. >I'm not sure steady growth like that can be counted on for multiple decades So youd rather count on people paying high fees for the longterm in a free market with lots of competition? Good luck with that. I'd rather hitch my wagon to the horse of a demonstrated trend of continued technological progress. >Bitcoin wasn't built to rely on altruism, and I don't think it can function if it has to depend on people voluntarily paying to secure it. Its not based on conscious and active voluntary donations. Its based on fees being so small that they arent a pain point, and so wallets and services, decentralized and centralized both, can set a reasonable fee for transactions and most people dont even think about it because its insignificant. Its in wallets and services rational self interest to set a reasonable fee that can support network operation, and they can easily pass that insignificant fee onto consumers who wont even notice. So where is the altruism, exactly?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 12, 2020 19:11:49
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gi0983/on_the_instability_of_bitcoin_without_the_block/fqfdqxi/

>You can't say "High fees mean no one will use it". But thats not what I'm saying. I'm saying high fees means *less* people will use it than they otherwise would. Fees spiking any time there is a surge of interest in bitcoin is a self defeating system if your goal is mass adoption. If you dont expect to ever be anything more than a niche market, then sure high fees could work for a while, until your users coalesce around a competitor that offers more utility for less fees at least. >This statement is implying there are other networks that are using something other than their own native token to provide security. No it isnt. Im talking about the *blocksize* being artificially limited to encourage a "fee market". I'm not talking about token supply being artificially limited.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 12, 2020 18:38:10
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gi0983/on_the_instability_of_bitcoin_without_the_block/fqfd7js/

Since we often have significant fees today, tinkering with your fees is more common than it would be otherwise. You're probably not the average user either, but I doubt even you would bother messing with your fees if they were never more than a few pennies. Unless you were sending many transactions per day perhaps. But most people just arent going to bother changing settings for pennies. And if they're using exchanges and payment processors, as most people do, they likely wouldnt have a choice, because those businesses would be setting the fees for them, as they do today. >but I'm not sure what the timeline on that would be Sure you do. Bandwidth seems to be the bottleneck, as other things like storage capacity and processing speed are increasing faster than bandwidth. Available bandwidth per unit price has been growing at something like 15% per year. If 4mb blocks (the max theoretically possible with segwit) are reasonable today, that means in 23 years 100mb blocks could be processed with the same ease. Thats plenty of time to kick in before the block subsidy disappears.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 12, 2020 18:33:37
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gi0983/on_the_instability_of_bitcoin_without_the_block/fqdqhht/

There are several reasons. Firstly, theres always a chance that the mempool backs up temporarily, even if the blocksize is generally large enough to keep the mempool clear at most times, so a nominal insignificant fee as insurance that your transaction makes it to the next block makes sense, especially for payment processors and merchants who dont want hiccups in their order flow that could cause customer support issues. Secondly, wallets, exchanges, and desktop clients have an incentive to set their default fee to a level that supports orderly network operation. Even if users are allowed the option to set their own fee, if the default fee is insignificant, most people wont bother to change it, just as most people dont bother to bend over to pick up an old penny lying in the street.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 12, 2020 10:46:41
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gi0983/on_the_instability_of_bitcoin_without_the_block/fqdkvdn/

>That's true, but if you increase block size too much then the fee market totally collapses. Why do you think that? The point is that eventually we could get to a point where the transaction fee is completely insignificant for most people. All it would take is a few popular wallets/exchanges setting their default fee to a few pennies.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 12, 2020 09:56:26
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gi0983/on_the_instability_of_bitcoin_without_the_block/fqdked5/

> In the past, Bitcoin has had fees on an ongoing basis to half the subsidy (and that was with the subsidy twice what it is now) Which quickly led to a decrease in demand for bitcoin transactions in general. >I'm personally not worried. I think it's clear Bitcoin can be supported by fees You should be worried, because in the long term, bitcoin with $8 fees is not going to be able to compete with competitors who have a more rational strategy of providing security than relying on a relatively small amount of high cost transactions.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 12, 2020 09:51:57
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gi0983/on_the_instability_of_bitcoin_without_the_block/fqdjoi8/

You seem to be missing the fact that computational power, bandwidth, and storage are all getting cheaper and cheaper. By the time the block reward approaches 0, we could easily have 100x the transactions we have now, which would require only $0.08 transaction fees to retain the current level of security.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 12, 2020 09:45:03
/r/pics/comments/ghq1n2/armed_black_panthers_show_up_to_the_neighbourhood/fqbdmau/

None of the things you listed proves Stephen Miller is a white supremacist. He's clearly anti-immigration, but that doesnt mean he wants to disarm black people, who I might remind you, are generally not immigrants. Sending a link from an extremist website doesnt mean you agree with everything from that website, it was probably just some anti-immigration piece. If Trump, Sessions, Bannon and everyone in the white house are extremist white supremacists who want to ban guns from black people....why havent they pushed to ban guns in urban areas which have high concentrations of black people? Why havent they pushed to ban guns from black people in any way? How have they harmed black people....at all even? They controlled the house, senate and the presidency for the first 2 years of Trumps presidency. Oh right, because they dont actually want to ban guns from black people, arent white supremacists, and its a nonsense strawman argument you made up because of intellectual laziness and an unwillingness to confront their *actual* arguments and the policies they've actually implemented. Newsflash: wanting stronger immigration laws doesnt mean you're a white supremacist that wants to disarm black people....and asserting that is literally just pushing a strawman argument.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on May 11, 2020 18:10:44
/r/pics/comments/ghq1n2/armed_black_panthers_show_up_to_the_neighbourhood/fqb8vzc/

So even if we accept your assertation that Stephen Miller actually wants to take guns away from black people (which you didnt actually provide any direct evidence of...being anti-immigration and not wanting to tear down unpopular historical monuments doesnt mean youre a white supremacist that wants to ban guns from black people), there are about 2,000 people working in the executive office of the president, so one of them being a white supremacist means 0.05%. So yes, a tiny fringe.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on May 11, 2020 17:30:28
/r/pics/comments/ghq1n2/armed_black_panthers_show_up_to_the_neighbourhood/fqaz2rp/

I'd love to see a source detailing all the people working in the white house that want to prevent black people from having guns. You do have a source for that claim, right?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on May 11, 2020 16:09:12
/r/investing/comments/ghtk76/how_is_investing_in_gold_not_an_unintentional/fqaypum/

You just admitted yourself that gold has some fundamental value. The component of its value that is speculative, or based on monetary demand, is simply higher than you'd like. But many things have some component of their value which is speculative. But theres no fraud involved with gold. Whereas in a ponzi scheme investors are deliberately fooled into thinking theres a productive enterprise going on, which infact isnt. >"The scheme leads victims to believe that profits are coming from product sales or other means, and they remain **unaware** that other investors are the source of funds." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on May 11, 2020 16:06:15
/r/pics/comments/ghq1n2/armed_black_panthers_show_up_to_the_neighbourhood/fqawpqk/

Or maybe just accept the simple answer that most pro-gun advocates arent actually racists, and claiming they are is in fact a strawman argument.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on May 11, 2020 15:49:59
/r/pics/comments/ghq1n2/armed_black_panthers_show_up_to_the_neighbourhood/fqavolf/

Sure white supremacists might think that. But white supremacy is literally a miniscule lunatic fringe group, and isnt representative of right wing rhetoric. That'd be like me claiming that North American Man/Boy Love Association members or other open pedophiles are representative of left wing rhetoric.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on May 11, 2020 15:41:30
/r/pics/comments/ghq1n2/armed_black_panthers_show_up_to_the_neighbourhood/fqauehs/

Sure. But they said "hypocrisy of a lot of right wing rhetoric about guns and protest". I'd like to see some links to all that right wing rhetoric that black people shouldnt be able to open carry, because that doesnt seem like its a common position, yet his wording is implying that it is.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on May 11, 2020 15:30:54
/r/pics/comments/ghq1n2/armed_black_panthers_show_up_to_the_neighbourhood/fqau171/

> But arming blacks in a white neighborhood is a different situation and you end up with gun control law Maybe in 1960 you do. But this thread is literally about black people with guns in a white neighborhood, and I dont see many right wingers suddenly clamoring for gun control laws because of it.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on May 11, 2020 15:27:54
/r/pics/comments/ghq1n2/armed_black_panthers_show_up_to_the_neighbourhood/fqariho/

Why is it necessarily hypocritical? I support both right wing groups and black panthers right to open carry.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on May 11, 2020 15:07:11
/r/pics/comments/ghq1n2/armed_black_panthers_show_up_to_the_neighbourhood/fqar3zn/

So if you gave every black person a semi auto, you think they'd suddenly stop killing eachother and their neighbors and suddenly start killing rich white people in their country clubs?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on May 11, 2020 15:03:52
/r/investing/comments/ghkv0o/theres_a_huge_misconception_about_dividends/fqa1zae/

But as the value of the shares goes up, instead of selling a whole share you could sell a fractional share, or space your sales out longer since each is worth more. Ultimately in the longterm, holding company with the same cash flow is going to give you the same result whether they pay a dividend or not. The only functional difference would be tax treatment, but even that is irrelevant if youre trading in a retirement account.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on May 11, 2020 11:36:10
/r/todayilearned/comments/ggdi17/til_during_the_american_revolutionary_war_both/fq25xxl/

> Its fairly absurd to suggest they did it out of financial means You think so? Because thats a fairly accepted fact that there was an oversupply of sugar at the time, which led to profits being very low compared to the cost of defending Caribbean islands from foreign competitors in a region in which they had just lost a major war. Also, if money and spiting their competitors wasnt the deciding factor of early slave emancipations, why did British slavery continue in more profitable areas for several more decades? >cost of ending slavery was also so immense that the UK only finished paying off the debt in 2015. You act like this was some noble act too, yet the cost you're speaking of was basically a government handout to wealthy slave owning Brits. None of that money went to slaves. >such as by creating permanent fleets of warships to halt and track down slaveships, or by forcing other nations to ban slavery such as within the treaties at the end of the napoleonic wars. Like I said, the motivation being to prevent their competitors from benefitting from slave labor. Its hysterical to believe that Britain was waging an altruisticly motivated war against slavery while at the same time raping India. The reality is that by the 1800s, african slavery and triangle trade was no longer a net benefit to Britain's geopolitical goals, so they sought to sabotage it to hurt their competitors.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/todayilearned on May 9, 2020 15:38:46
/r/todayilearned/comments/ggdi17/til_during_the_american_revolutionary_war_both/fq1lc7w/

Do you think the British stance to slavery was due primarily to altruism, or do you think it had something to do with the fact that triangle trade profits had declined for Britain and at this point the practice was benefiting Britain's competitors much more than it was benefiting Britain? Furthermore, the title implies that the British were more true to their word (and implies that all slaves fighting for the revolution had been promised freedom, which is false), while in reality incidents like this occurred: > >Many thousands of African Americans who aided the British lost their freedom anyway. Many of them ended up in slavery in the Caribbean. Others, when they attempted to leave with the British, in places like Charleston and Savannah, were prevented. And there are incredible letters written by southerners of Africans after the siege of Charleston, swimming out to boats, and the British hacking away at their arms with cutlasses to keep them from following them. So it was a very tragic situation. And of the many thousands of Africans who left the plantations, not many of them actually got their freedom. - Margaret Washington, historian, on the evacuation of Charleston https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2narr4.html

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/todayilearned on May 9, 2020 13:51:10
/r/todayilearned/comments/ggdi17/til_during_the_american_revolutionary_war_both/fq0whz8/

Its not like this was some noble act....they freed what had been *american slaves* belonging to american revolutionaries which they had no use for in England. They didnt even free slaves belonging to american loyalists. For example: >The Governor of Virginia (a British loyalist), whose royal title was Lord Dunmore, on the other hand, sought to disrupt the American cause by promising freedom to any slaves owned by Patriot masters who would join the Loyalist forces. (**Runaway slaves belonging to Loyalists were returned to their masters.**) https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2narr4.html The Caribbean sugar plantations already had plenty of slaves to operate in the limited area available and profits were falling there, so they had no need to ship them south either.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/todayilearned on May 9, 2020 11:35:16
/r/geopolitics/comments/gd5im2/australia_is_not_alone_global_backlash_builds/fpierfe/

> You are conveniently overlooking the enormous damage suffered by the US. By all accounts their caseload and death count are exceptionally high. Do you think the numbers we currently have are an accurate assessment of the effect suffered by countries? Is the caseload and death count of the US really as bad as it seems compared to China, or are the numbers coming out of China just significantly understating the damage? It seems local beurocrats in China have an incentive to minimize reporting, while in the US hospitals actually have an incentive to even somewhat *over* report due to federal funding being distributed for coronavirus cases: https://revcycleintelligence.com/news/hospital-reimbursement-for-uninsured-covid-19-cases-may-total-42b

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/geopolitics on May 4, 2020 20:43:31
/r/investing/comments/gcy2gb/what_if_apple_bought_boeing/fpex6ec/

I think what hes saying is that the new planes have a higher fuel economy, so thats an incentive to upgrade earlier than they would due to general wear and tear on the old plane. Now that fuel is cheap theres less incentive to buy a newer more fuel efficient plane.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on May 3, 2020 21:48:06
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/gd0tgs/bought_crypto_years_ago_and_dont_know_how_to/fpemqdu/

Obviously its best to report your actual gains, and theres some crypto specific software you can use to help calculate this, like bitcoin.tax But in the worst case scenario where you absolutely cannot get records of your trades, I'd assume a worst case scenario and report any sales from here on out with a cost basis of $0, that way you're pretty much paying the maximum tax possible, so the IRS shouldnt have much reason to complain or suspect you're trying to dodge taxes. I think thats what they would do in an audit anyways....if you dont have records they assume the worst and assume that you got your coins for free, so you pay tax on the entire amount, rather than paying only on the different between your purchase price and sales price (your capital gains).

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 3, 2020 20:02:26
/r/PublicFreakout/comments/g9s89i/man_parks_on_the_bus_lane_and_dares_the_bus/fowbfn5/

Just because you're parked in the wrong place, doesnt mean someone can *purposely* run into you, even if youre being a a jerk. Legally thats a scenario where you're supposed to call the police rather than ram someone out of the way, even though ramming them might be much more satisfying. If you're in the wrong spot, someone can usually use that as an excuse as to how they accidentally ran into them because they didnt expect anyone to be parked there, which could shift blame to you in that case. But here its pretty clear it wasnt an accident at all.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/PublicFreakout on April 28, 2020 19:29:11
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/g6vazk/honest_question_why_do_cryptocurrencies_such_as/fovw8iz/

>The only one can be Bitcoin. Again, this is money. Not OSes or any other type of software. You ignored my chimp analogy. Here's another: the dollar using the same paper and monetary policy as the euro does not make them the same currency. Sorry but thats just not true. There are different forks of bitcoin. They're not the same currency just like the US Dollar and the Canadian Dollar are two currencies. One is not more inherently bitcoin than the other, because what is bitcoin depends on the rules your node is set to accept. If Canada split into French Canada and British Canada, and there were suddenly two competing currencies that called themselves Canadian Dollars and each claimed the otherside's money wasnt real dollars and was a scam....well you'd have alot in common with them ;). >It means absolutely everything - in all walks of life. We have to agree on what is and what is not gold, a real Rembrandt, a certain wine etc. You can't just say silver is now gold. Fuck what every else thinks. What is silver and what is gold is based on the laws of nature and there are centralized agencies which will test your gold and certify it for you based on the atoms it contains. What is bitcoin isnt so clear because all you have to hang your hat on is some vague notion of "consensus" and no clearly defined, let alone enforceable, rules.... theres no centralized entity which has the power to say what is or is not the "true" bitcoin. In reality bitcoin consists of many forks. The simple reality is that what is bitcoin depends on what each node sets his rules to accept as bitcoin. You can even use the name bitcoin to describe the system explained in the whitepaper rather than a specific currency resulting from that system. Its not what you want to hear and you want to hear that your prefered fork has some divine right to the name bitcoin...but you have no divine right, no trademark or copyright...you have nothing. So you have to share the name with competing forks. Sorry, but thats reality.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 28, 2020 17:16:50
/r/gifs/comments/g94hw2/laura_ingraham_forgets_which_rally_shes_at/foview4/

> vocalizing hate towards a single person or group of people not only incites fear and anger but a certain number of those listeners will adopt the speakers point of view. Guess we need to arrest anyone who says they hate Donald Trump then too. Or if someone says they hate Republicans, maybe we should arrest them too.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/gifs on April 28, 2020 15:24:06
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/g6vazk/honest_question_why_do_cryptocurrencies_such_as/fovhfx8/

>Then the supply is now 42million. Sorry, that's bullshit. Consensus decides what is Bitcoin, not code. We share 99% of our DNA with chimps. That doesn't make them human. Nope, theres not 42 million, because you cant use both forks at the same time, you have to choose one or the other when you send a transaction and whatever rules you're running has to exclude one or the other. >Consensus decides what is Bitcoin, not code. Consensus doesnt mean anything though. Who is the final arbitrator as to whether consensus has been achieved? The reality is that each individual user decides what is bitcoin when they decide which branch they want to use. >UASF was possible thanks to the nodes, who also stopped the corporate takeover Segwit2x. There were no threats - except from the NYA side. It was possible due to twitter trolls. And nodes can be faked, so there wasnt neccessarily anything real there. And if you dont understand that UASF was a threat to orphan blocks from miners who hadnt activated segwit, you dont really understand whats been going on.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 28, 2020 15:16:14
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/g6vazk/honest_question_why_do_cryptocurrencies_such_as/fov8f7d/

>That can't both be Bitcoin. And with a hashrate of almost 99% we can safely say BTC is Bitcoin. They can both be bitcoin, because they're both forks of the original bitcoin blockchain and are derived from the spirit of the bitcoin whitepaper. And as small blockers admitted when they resorted to threats of UASF, hashrate doesnt determine what bitcoin is. The individual rules running on each node determines what bitcoin is....but only for the person running the node because everyone can pick the rules they preffer. And if theres a community of miners, users, and businesses that also accept those rules, thats a valid and usable branch of bitcoin.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 28, 2020 14:04:33
/r/gifs/comments/g94hw2/laura_ingraham_forgets_which_rally_shes_at/fougdpk/

Like u/mordorderly said, direct calls to violence are already illegal in the USA. Saying something like "I dont like Jews", however, isnt a direct call to violence any more than saying something like "I dont like Donald Trump supporters" is.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/gifs on April 28, 2020 10:19:27
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/g6vazk/honest_question_why_do_cryptocurrencies_such_as/foug0vj/

>Then they would be fungible with one another Blocks produced before the BCH forks *are* fungible with blocks produced later with BCH. BCH and BTC arent fungible however, because they're on different branches. bcash would be backward compatible with Bitcoin False. Backwards compatibility is no holy grail. And you keep ignoring that even BTC isnt backwards compatible with the original bitcoin. >You're kidding no one but yourself. And a few others perhaps. You're kidding yourself. You, with some kind of religious beielf, want to believe your fork is the rightful heir for the bitcoin throne or some nonsense, and everything else is just a copy of your fork, when in reality theres no technical reason that would be true, sorry.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 28, 2020 10:16:13
/r/gifs/comments/g94hw2/laura_ingraham_forgets_which_rally_shes_at/fos659u/

No I'm a free speech advocate. Nazis are trash. If you agree that even pedophiles deserve a fair trial, does that mean you're a pedophile sympathizer? I think not.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/gifs on April 27, 2020 17:57:51
/r/gifs/comments/g94hw2/laura_ingraham_forgets_which_rally_shes_at/forz84c/

> Someone's "freedom of speech" is not more important that someone else's right to exist. Good thing its pretty hard to kill someone with words. And physically murdering someone is already illegal, so looks like we've got our bases covered here in the USA.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/gifs on April 27, 2020 16:58:19
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/g6vazk/honest_question_why_do_cryptocurrencies_such_as/fork369/

> Not backward compatible. It's more like a seed on a tree that fell off. Who cares? Your BTC fork isnt backwards compatible with the original bitcoin either. >If bcash has equal validity then so do the dozens of other Bitcoin clones. Technically they do, yes. Though, many of the forks like Bitcoin Gold have an actual premine, in which the dev team awarded themselves more than others. Another difference is that BCH actually has wide distribution and a wide variety of user, businesses, and services using it, while I wouldnt be surprised if Calvin owned something like 33% of BSV at this point. And BCH seems to be the only one that originated organically because of an actual split in the community, rather than some random devs trying to profit themselves after they saw the BCH fork. >No, it's not. Consensus decides. bcash lost. I think it's doing well to be on big exchanges which allow it to use "bitcoin" in its name. It's no more valid the "bitcoin gold". It is. Consensus doesnt actually mean anything. You can define consensus however you like, and the majority has no inherent power over the minority to force changes anyways, because you can just run software that considers the majority's rules invalid. >Only one was birthed from absolutely nothing. bcash failed to be the main chain. Nothing will ever change that now. BCH was birthed at the some time as BTC. They're both forks from the pre-fork bitcoin.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 27, 2020 14:52:39
/r/ABoringDystopia/comments/g8zrbu/sums_britain_up_perfectly/for7by1/

Wrong. With Obamacare I pay $20 per month for access to the most advanced healthcare system in the world. The US also has the most ICU beds per capita in the world.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/ABoringDystopia on April 27, 2020 13:10:05
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/g6vazk/honest_question_why_do_cryptocurrencies_such_as/fookg8q/

>That would suggest that it's not a forked path but two linear paths. Here's a visualization for you: https://imgur.com/a/ED5MT7C Small blockers like to pretend that BCH forked off of BTC (like this: https://imgur.com/a/LO04ohj), but in reality BCH forked off the pre-fork bitcoin blockchain (like this: https://imgur.com/a/ED5MT7C) . BTC also forked off the pre-fork blockchain. Ultimately both BCH and BTC existed simultaneously and in tandem. Which branch you consider valid is simply a matter of perspective, because even small blockers explicitly admitted that hashpower doesnt necessarily equal validity, when they threatened UASF if miners didnt activate segwit. Exchanges assigning the historical bitcoin ticker to the segwit branch doesnt equal validity either. No one has the authority to tell anyone which fork is the valid fork, its up to each individual. BCH during the fork changed the code to accept 8mb blocks. The historical pre-fork blockchain following those rules was not created instantaneously, merely extended with the new rules. BTC chose segwit instead, and extended the historical pre-fork blockchain with those rules. One is not inherently more derived from the other, they are both forks derived form the pre-fork bitcoin.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 26, 2020 18:39:07
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/g6vazk/honest_question_why_do_cryptocurrencies_such_as/fonk2xe/

>New Bitcoin units are still fungible with ones mined on day one. New BCH are still fungible with BCH mined on day one. That genesis created BCH and BTC simulaneously, because both reference the genesis block as the basis for their creation. >You're disregarding the fact that bcash doesn't now use the same blockchain. It's a copy. I know its hard for you to comprehend, but BCH is using the same blockchain its always been using, all the way back to the genesis block. In some sense you could claim that after any fork, the new blockchain is a copy of the pre-fork blockchain. But then you'd have to admit that BTC is also using a copy of the original blockchain, since BTC has also forked. >Please. They wanted to change Bitcoin itself - that was the struggle. That they failed is a testament to Bitcoin's immutability. Creating an offshoot wasn't so hard. All the infrastructure, exchanges, code etc is already in place. As I've probably said already, Bitcoin started from complete obscurity as software. There was no guarantee that it would ever work or ever have value. It's taken for granted now. It was a black swan event. What you're missing is that BCH supporters were also part of those early days, and the early days of bitcoin are every much a part of BCH's history as they are BTC's history. BCH is a solid history of blocks leading back to the genesis block, and many of the people using BCH today are the same people that were using it in 2011. Some consider BCH their original coins they've been using all along, and BTC as the invalid tokens. Its ultimately a matter of perspective. >That would be fees they deserve for creating Liquid. An altcoin just enriches the creator with little effort. They don't even have to develop the coin much. Just promise big things down the road. "deserve"....lol. Thats entirely subjective. Some "altcoins" have as much work put into them as liquid does, and many dont. But thats entirely irrelevant anyways. An altcoin only enriches the creator if the premined it and allocated themselves tokens that they didnt have to compete for in the open market, and BCH isnt premined. >Why was it going for at least $4000 at one point if it was given away for free? It reeks of manipulation. A few dollars would be enough. There's no good reason why it should't be a similar price to Litecoin. What the hell do you mean? Anyone who had bitcoin on Aug 1 2017 received that amount of BCH after the fork. Thats how forks work. And it wasnt free because you had to own bitcoin, and the existence of BCH ultimately just breaks a chunk out of the marketcap of BTC. Nothing was free there, it was extracted from the pre-fork value of bitcoin and freed that portion of the network that followed the BCH branch from the control of the small blockers. Just like how in 2013 anyone who had bitcoin before the value overflow incident had bitcoin after that fork. The other end of the fork was abandoned and is no longer traded on exchanges, but if some significant group was still using the now dead branch, they could consider it the valid branch. The price very well have been manipulated on Coinbase at launch, I have no idea. Its clear that 4000 was a temporary peak during a period of low liquidity and not reflective of the actual price for most market participants. >A few dollars would be enough. There's no good reason why it should't be a similar price to Litecoin. In the long term the price is what the market determines it to be. Unless you're exceedingly wealthy, what you personally think the price should be is almost entirely irrelevant.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 26, 2020 13:10:00
/r/Coronavirus/comments/g80ef5/chicago_nurse_told_friend_she_was_scared_to_death/fonc2w2/

Lol, I dont think you've thought this through. Your solution to keeping risk averse nurses from having to quit, is to prevent most other people in the country from being able to work? Why are you worried about risk averse nurses being homeless in the middle of the pandemic, but you're not worried about, for example, a hairdresser whose job has been deemed nonessential and is being prevented from working?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/Coronavirus on April 26, 2020 11:56:33
/r/Coronavirus/comments/g80ef5/chicago_nurse_told_friend_she_was_scared_to_death/fon9vow/

Actually many people are. House arrest doesnt necessarily mean you cant *ever* leave your house for *anything*. It often comes with conditions such as only being allowed to leave for work/groceries/etc. It means the government can dictate the conditions in which you're allowed outside. Which is the situation governments have forced on many people around the world today.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/Coronavirus on April 26, 2020 11:35:23
/r/Coronavirus/comments/g80ef5/chicago_nurse_told_friend_she_was_scared_to_death/fom0hyi/

You could maximize saved lives by putting most people in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives, but that doesnt mean the government has the right to do that. Its tragic that this woman died, but if she wasnt comfortable with the risks of working, she was free to quit, and I hope she knew that. It sounds like she bravely soldiered on, and there are many people who are willingly risking their lives so that we can live in a free and open society. If they're not willing to support society in that way they should quit and go self quarantine themselves at home.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/Coronavirus on April 26, 2020 00:23:35
/r/Coronavirus/comments/g80ef5/chicago_nurse_told_friend_she_was_scared_to_death/folzn2t/

You couldnt be more incorrect. Im practicing social distancing and self quarantining because I think its a good idea. I do not, however, support *government mandated* lockdowns. Theres a difference between thinking doing something is a good idea, and thinking the government has the right to *force* people to do that thing.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/Coronavirus on April 26, 2020 00:13:03
/r/Coronavirus/comments/g80ef5/chicago_nurse_told_friend_she_was_scared_to_death/folysn0/

Its not about whats convenient or practical in the short term. Its about governments not having the right to effectively put people under house arrest without trial. If governments could be indefinitely trusted with absolute power, they could force people to do all kinds of things for the greater good, but thats not how this country was designed to work. Freedom has costs. And continuing to work/shop/whatever doesnt infringe on anyone else's rights, because if they think its not safe for businesses to be open, they're free to quarantine themselves.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/Coronavirus on April 26, 2020 00:02:58
/r/Coronavirus/comments/g80ef5/chicago_nurse_told_friend_she_was_scared_to_death/folwgs8/

The US government sure doesnt. The US government exists to preserve rights and protect from foreign threats. You can do whatever you want if you're in some other country though.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/Coronavirus on April 25, 2020 23:35:38
/r/Coronavirus/comments/g80ef5/chicago_nurse_told_friend_she_was_scared_to_death/folv3v7/

>My work wants to open Monday and scared that with the way things are currently opening back up is going to be a huge mistake. Then quit if you want. Some people want to get back to work, and the government really shouldn't be infringing on their right to do so.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/Coronavirus on April 25, 2020 23:19:57
/r/Coronavirus/comments/g80ef5/chicago_nurse_told_friend_she_was_scared_to_death/folt7kk/

> then why are so many people protesting to open up businesses? Because they value freedom and dont like the idea of governments putting people under house arrest? Self-quarantine and social distancing are a good idea, but *government mandated* lockdowns are another beast entirely.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/Coronavirus on April 25, 2020 22:58:32
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/g6vazk/honest_question_why_do_cryptocurrencies_such_as/fokkhs7/

> A fork, in a road for example, by definition is a route that can be retraced. A cloned coin is not backwards compatible. And you're playing with words yourself. A Scotsman is a Scotsman. bcash is not Bitcoin. It's spinned off from Bitcoin. No hardfork is backwards compatible. BCH is a hardfork of bitcoin, so obviously its not backwards compatible with the prefork version. I'd remind you though that bitcoin itself has previous hard forks in its history. So what is your point? >I say your position is nonsensical. It being a "fork" or how they were issued makes no difference. One day the coins didn't exist, the next day they did. That's an instant creation of 15M or so coins which are not fungible with Bitcoin - which has a fixed supply. No, its simply a matter of which fork you consider valid. Its a valid position to consider BCH the valid fork and therefore is traceable to the genesis block. You're free to disagree, but its simply a matter of preference. Thats the freedom of forks....theres no authority to force anyone to accept a specific ruleset. If you want money by decree, we have the government central banks for that. So who are you to tell me which branch of the fork I will consider valid? >It still hard a much easier journey. Hard money should not be so easy to create. "Fork"! Pow! Instant money. That's no better than fiat money printing. Much easier journey? I disagree. BCH and the people who support onchain scaling have had to fight tooth and nail to free themselves from those who wish to prevent onchain scaling. And much of their work promoting and developing the bitcoin ecosystem in the early days was hijacked by people who showed up and changed bitcoin to prevent scaling, because they never believed in the original design plan. Honestly, the smallblockers are the ones who should have received a new ticker symbol and a new token created on exchanges to represent their fork, since their design is the one that differed from the original plan. >If they were so principled why not build a layer on Bitcoin that could handle more txs? I know - because there are no tokens to make money off of. You have it backwards honestly. Second layers are where theres money to be made by central authorities. For example: Blockstream collecting fees on liquid transactions. In a fork with no pre-mine like BCH, there is absolutely no redistribution of wealth because even those bitcoiners who hate onchain scaling receive coins and are free to keep or sell them as they see fit. Theres no "free money" because you had to own bitcoin to get BCH, and when the split happened, ultimately the value of BCH is simply subtracted from the value of BTC, since those users who prefer BCH switch some portion of their assets and network effect to BCH, which they have every right to do.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 25, 2020 15:42:36
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/g6vazk/honest_question_why_do_cryptocurrencies_such_as/fokh36l/

> It isn't. Phrase it for me then in this context. Using cryptocurrency. What, "no true Bitcoin is fork"? "A true hard fork is when the coin has been updated and a HF is necessary" Thats a classic no true scotsman argument. You claim Bitcoin Cash isnt a "true hard fork", because you claim the HF wasnt necessary? Give me a break. >Bcash is clearly an insta-mine. The coins didn't exist beforehand. An insta-mine is when the founder awards coins to himself with no mining competition. BCH, since it is a fork, was received only by people who had previously mined or bought bitcoin which was ultimately mined by someone else at some point, therefore the coins were distributed according to the work that had been done with SHA-256 miners in open competition. Like I said, this is a cut and dry issue. Some philosophical discussion about whether the coins resulting from a fork previously "existed" is irrelevant. Again, like I said, you could use the same argument to claim BTC is an instamine because it has also forked. Your position is nonsensical. >bcash benefitted from Bitcoin's established presence which it had to fight very hard to achieve. Starting as software, not as money. bcash went to $300 from day one. Bitcoin took years to get to a dollar. How does that make sense? bcash and every other clone are basically scams. You act like bitcoin is some autonomous individual, and you seem to forget that many BCH supporters ultimately played a major part in bitcoin's initial rise. BCH had a built in community users, devs, and major businesses from day one of token launch, so it makes sense it had value from day one. That community was built up over the course of years of Bitcoin Core stonewalling bitcoin's onchain scaling, and the day BCH launched was only the first day you could trade the token ultimately adopted by that group. But if you were paying attention, you'd know the group's rise happened over years.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 25, 2020 15:12:22
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/g6vazk/honest_question_why_do_cryptocurrencies_such_as/fok2m9z/

> Sounds like but it isn't. Its literally a no true Scotsman Fallacy. You're making up new definitions for words to try to exclude something you dont like. >We talking about definitions, not what supposedly commonly happens. We're talking about "Why cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and BitcoinSV (BSV) have such a high value and marketcap?" Then you show up with a retarded No True Scotsman fallacy and are trying to redefine the accepted meaning of words because you'd rather call BCH a pre-mine than a fork. >Sounds more like a pre-mine. And no doubt Wu and Ver benefited monetarily from this "fork". If they benefited monetarily from BCH, they did so after the fork and aquired any excess BCH on the open market. **They didnt allocate themselves extra BCH by mining before or during launch without competition, which is what a pre mine or insta mine means.** Unfortunately for you this is really a cut and dry issue and you're just factually incorrect.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 25, 2020 13:03:59
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/g6vazk/honest_question_why_do_cryptocurrencies_such_as/fok0cnh/

>I'm challenging the term as used in cryptocurrency. So you're trying to change the english language because you dont like reality. Got it. >And the new coins have obviously been insta-mined, as they didn't exist before. They existed before just as much as any coins on a chain thats been hard forked existed before. With your argument BTC itself has been instamined, as it has undergone hardforks too. The reality is that insta-mine refers to a redistribution of coins toward the development team through allocating them differently than a clean fork would have produced. Refering to any hardfork as an instamine takes away any meaning from the word, and you're just attempting to redefine it to suit your own bias. Here's a hint: When your argument is so bad that you feel the need to use your own personal definition of words...you need to re-evaluate your argument. >Why do those terms bother you? A true hard fork is when the coin has been updated and a HF is necessary - the "new" chain is compatible with the "old" one. A "true" hardfork? LOL. Sounds like a No true Scotsman Fallacy to me.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 25, 2020 12:43:03
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/g6vazk/honest_question_why_do_cryptocurrencies_such_as/fojy7xj/

Are you joking? Fork is a technical term in software developing.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 25, 2020 12:23:09
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/g6vazk/honest_question_why_do_cryptocurrencies_such_as/foiyl9e/

Counter argument? Literally nothing you said makes any sense. Lets start with this nonsense: >It isn't a fork in the true sense of the word anyway (fork here being a crypto marketing term). You can go backwards in a forked route. bcash is not backwards compatible with Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash is literally a hardfork of bitcoin. In what sense do you ever go "backwards in a forked route" when you're dealing with a hardfork? Or did you for some reason think only softforks are forks?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 25, 2020 03:58:52
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/g6vazk/honest_question_why_do_cryptocurrencies_such_as/fodpnx7/

No, its called a fork. Calling forks that do not alter the distribution of coins from the pre-fork blockchain, "pre-mined"....is clearly nonsensical.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 23, 2020 20:22:32
/r/technology/comments/g5z4ps/youtube_ceo_well_ban_any_coronavirus_content/fo6zdr7/

> At the time in which they said that it was far too late for travel restrictions to do anything. WHO was specifically saying not to restrict international travel all the way back in Jan 24, even before the mass exodus of Chinese during Chinese New year. How can you possibly believe restricting international travel on Jan 24 would have had no effect on the virus's spread?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/technology on April 22, 2020 11:31:57
/r/btc/comments/g45mig/reminder_bitcoin_ogs_left_for_bch_eth_and_xmr_the/fnxufl4/

> I've certainly never been as willing as you to commit crimes This is absolutely hilarious! Meanwhile, you were doing morally superior things like vandalizing wikipedia and sabotaging bitcoin's onchain scaling while working for a company with a direct conflict of interest in profiting from the limitations in onchain transactions. Thanks for the laugh.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on April 19, 2020 21:36:05
/r/pics/comments/g1x30z/protestors_against_the_stayathome_order_in/fnlqc6l/

Those are some of the people I was excluding by qualifying with "good chance". But those people dont have to work if they dont want to. Luckily there are plenty of people who work or want to work in those fields who respect freedom and are willing to take the risks of supporting a free society where government doesnt have the right to put the entire population under house arrest.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on April 16, 2020 13:25:01
/r/pics/comments/g1x30z/protestors_against_the_stayathome_order_in/fnlooa1/

If the other people the stupid people infected were worried about being infected, they could have quarantined themselves, so theres a good chance they're also stupid unfortunately.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on April 16, 2020 13:11:39
/r/pics/comments/g1x30z/protestors_against_the_stayathome_order_in/fnlmwpi/

>Like the freedom of a good healthcare system that isnt specifically designed to rip people off? You seem to be confused. Freedom means a lack of government control over you. It doesnt mean the government gives you 'free' shit. BTW, if US healthcare and policies are so bad, why does Britain have more coronavirus deaths per person than the US? Why does France have more deaths per person than the US? Why does the US have the most ICU beds per capita, in the world? https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2020/03/12/the-countries-with-the-most-critical-care-beds-per-capita-infographic/#355efbfd7f86 >Right ok so what happens if you go get some fixings for that shed you've been meaning to build for the past 2 years, catch the virus, then pass it on to your granny who then dies? How would that make you feel? Was that trip to the DIY store worth it? Would that make you proud of your "freedom"? I wouldnt go visit granny. Simple as that. And if she lived with me, I'm rational enough to not go out and risk bringing an infection back with me. I'd quarantine myself. I dont some nanny government to force it on me if its appropriate for my situation. >20k people are dead. And its rising every day because imbeciles like this think their "freedoms" (which ain't uniquely American btw) are more important than being alive. What good is "freedom" if you're dead? It's better to die free, than live as a slave. Life is inherently risky. Might as well ban people from roads and vehicles so no one dies in automobile accidents if you value safety over all else.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on April 16, 2020 12:57:32
/r/pics/comments/g1x30z/protestors_against_the_stayathome_order_in/fnlk9kq/

>House arrest ffs. Dont make me laugh. What do you mean? Its literally house arrest. House arrest often comes with exemptions for grocery shopping or work. >DIY and Hobbycraft ain't essential things. Simple as that. It doesnt matter what you or the government thinks is 'essential' or not, in America we have the freedom to do 'nonessential' things. And if you're worried about someone buying 'nonessential' things, lock *yourself* in your house. Simple as that.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on April 16, 2020 12:36:25
/r/pics/comments/g1x30z/protestors_against_the_stayathome_order_in/fnljkp8/

A *few* freedoms? Its basically house arrest. If people are worried about others getting DIY supplies, perhaps they can quarantine *themselves*.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on April 16, 2020 12:30:50
/r/pics/comments/g1x30z/protestors_against_the_stayathome_order_in/fnlje6c/

Only the stupid people that didnt quarantine themselves if it was really that bad.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on April 16, 2020 12:29:22
/r/pics/comments/g1x30z/protestors_against_the_stayathome_order_in/fnjwt5h/

> I still have to go outside to get animal food and buy food for myself once every two weeks, but it still puts me at risk. No you dont, you could have it delivered. Or you could have saved up a stockpile if you're super paranoid.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on April 15, 2020 23:47:46
/r/pics/comments/g1x30z/protestors_against_the_stayathome_order_in/fnjwgra/

People under house arrest often have exclusions to buy groceries and go to work too. Doesnt mean they're not under house arrest. >There's literally no argument against it. Actually there is. Rights arent automatically suspended simply because its convenient. Some people might believe everyone would be alot safer if the government had free reign to search your communications and property whenever it felt like it, but we have rights which cannot be alienated, because in the long run giving the government too much power is even more dangerous. Now if you were saying that people should take it upon themselves to socially isolate, then yes I'd say theres no argument against that. > I'm not dying for your fucking economy. Then quarantine *yourself*.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on April 15, 2020 23:43:50
/r/pics/comments/g1x30z/protestors_against_the_stayathome_order_in/fnjvloo/

Protesting against the government response that violates the Bill of Rights and effectively puts the entire population under house arrest, yes.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on April 15, 2020 23:33:56
/r/pics/comments/g1x30z/protestors_against_the_stayathome_order_in/fnjpa8g/

Yea, even states doing this bothers me, but yes, we were also talking about new Zealand, which is a country. >At what death rate would you find it acceptable to impact your convenience? There is no death rate that I think wholesale government bans on the freedom of assembly/travel are warrented actually. If people want to quarantine themselves they are free to though. If the death rate was bad enough, I'd quarantine myself, I dont need the government to quarantine me.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on April 15, 2020 22:24:28
/r/pics/comments/g1x30z/protestors_against_the_stayathome_order_in/fnjlhpt/

>If you meant a different level of confinement, then why not just say so. I did. I said: "an extraordinary lack of freedom to associate with other people" which was intentionally broad to include other such scenarios. >Or do you mean any level of confinement at all? No, the federal government should not have such power to put you under house arrest without trial, even if its convenient. These decisions should, at the very least, take place at a local level, if at all, so communities can decide their own risk tolerance. >Equating Michigan or new Zealand's current policy to solitary confinement, is dramatic. I didnt equate it, I used solitary confinement as an example of such a policy which would likely result in less deaths, yet is not warranted, to make an example that just because a place has enacted a policy that results in less deaths, that doesnt mean its a condition the govenment has the right to impose on you.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on April 15, 2020 21:44:40
/r/pics/comments/g1x30z/protestors_against_the_stayathome_order_in/fnjbcv2/

Wow, threatening to not lock you inside your home. What a threat. Total control Trump confirmed...

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on April 15, 2020 20:06:08
/r/pics/comments/g1x30z/protestors_against_the_stayathome_order_in/fnjb3jf/

> That actually doesn't make a great point. Oh ok. Convincing counterpoint on your end. /s >Is it solitary confinement? Lol. A bit dramatic don't you think? I used an example to illustrate a point, where did I claim that lockdowns are all exactly equal to solitary confinement? In any case its certainly an extreme restriction on freedom which many americans do not accept that the government should have the right to impose. Judges hand out house arrest sentences in a similar manner, which often include exclusions for groceries or work. The difference is that they do so with due process. If you want to lock yourself in your own home to avoid coronavirus, you're certainly free to. But there are certainly countries (for example Bahamas) where you arent even allowed to go out of your home for any reason....even grocery stores closed by government decree for a week at a time. Thats certainly equal to total house arrest, and an acceptance of total government control over your life.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on April 15, 2020 20:03:47
/r/pics/comments/g1x30z/protestors_against_the_stayathome_order_in/fnj7mdt/

Has Trump imposed a federally mandated lockdown of citizens in their homes?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on April 15, 2020 19:31:38
/r/pics/comments/g1x30z/protestors_against_the_stayathome_order_in/fnj5bfi/

I havent heard of any reports of people contracting and dieing from coronavirus while in solitary confinement. If you're too slow to pick up on it, the implication is that just because an extraordinary lack of freedom to associate with other people might have a positive effect on mitigating the spread of coronavirus, that doesnt mean the government should have the right to impose that level of confinement to an individual or group of individuals without due process. Otherwise you tacitly admit the government has total control of your life.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on April 15, 2020 19:10:50
/r/pics/comments/g1x30z/protestors_against_the_stayathome_order_in/fnj33v9/

You didnt answer my question though. I asked you "How many people have died from coronavirus **while in solitary confinement** in prison?"

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on April 15, 2020 18:50:57
/r/pics/comments/g1x30z/protestors_against_the_stayathome_order_in/fnj2ham/

They're intentionally blocking the capital. There just happens to be a hospital in the general area, but: "Sparrow Hospital, which is located a mile east of the Capitol on Michigan Avenue, had no issues getting ambulances into the hospital entrances, hospital spokesman John Foren said." Detroit News https://www.wlns.com/news/health/coronavirus/capitol-protesters-snarl-streets-including-sparrow-hospital-area

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on April 15, 2020 18:45:27
/r/pics/comments/g1x30z/protestors_against_the_stayathome_order_in/fnj234u/

They're not protesting about a virus, they're protesting about the government response to it.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on April 15, 2020 18:41:59
/r/pics/comments/g1x30z/protestors_against_the_stayathome_order_in/fnj1mmz/

How many people have died from coronavirus while in solitary confinement in prison?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on April 15, 2020 18:37:52
/r/pics/comments/g1x30z/protestors_against_the_stayathome_order_in/fnj127u/

>We are in our 4th week of total lockdown and we arent protesting, because we arent fuckwits. No, you dont protest because you *are* fuckwits and have apparently accepted total government control over your lives.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on April 15, 2020 18:32:47
/r/technology/comments/g17d3z/amazons_lawsuit_over_a_10_billion_pentagon/fng1cj5/

You're free to give unwanted advice, sure. You were definitely doing that. But you were also making a stupid argument about the value of opinion pieces in easily proving criminality. >You gonna finish your tantrum anytime soon? I'll keep posting until you stop deflecting and saying dumb things....so likely not.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/technology on April 14, 2020 23:07:09
/r/technology/comments/g17d3z/amazons_lawsuit_over_a_10_billion_pentagon/fng044b/

Yes, you can do multiple things at once. Such as being snarky/sarcastic, and also missing the point and being incorrect at the same time. But in the case of the person you were responding to, its pretty clear that he was making a commentary about all the downvotes being evidence of bias and close-mindedness on a topic. He wasnt asking you how to avoid downvotes.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/technology on April 14, 2020 22:53:54
/r/technology/comments/g17d3z/amazons_lawsuit_over_a_10_billion_pentagon/fnfvjhl/

> No, I was telling them how to avoid downvotes because they were complaining about it. Oh is that all you were doing? Here in reality its clear to see that you're arguing against the idea that the need to rely on opinion pieces as proof of Trumps status as an "easily proven criminal 100x over", weakens the claim: "and completely tossing aside opinion pieces" "Because you're dismissing evidence? How is that never a bad thing? Mind, Trump WAS impeached and it's still pertinent." "yeah, probably because even though there were articles regarding whistleblowers' accounts people like you decided to flat label them as opinion pieces." Furthermore, do you think he really was asking for advice on how to avoid downvotes, or rather making a commentary on the bias of the reddit userbase in general?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/technology on April 14, 2020 22:06:13
/r/technology/comments/g17d3z/amazons_lawsuit_over_a_10_billion_pentagon/fnfso5h/

So you spent the time also worrying about the downvotes and 'neutrality' of the person asking for something other than opinion pieces? Lol, even more useless.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/technology on April 14, 2020 21:37:15
/r/technology/comments/g17d3z/amazons_lawsuit_over_a_10_billion_pentagon/fnfc8lm/

No, I read and thats exactly what you did. Why cant you provide better evidence than opinion pieces anyways?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/technology on April 14, 2020 19:02:05
/r/technology/comments/g17d3z/amazons_lawsuit_over_a_10_billion_pentagon/fnf0b9i/

Did you really spend this whole time whining that you cant use opinion pieces as proof of 100 easily proven crimes? Wow.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/technology on April 14, 2020 17:18:04
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/g0gald/institutional_money_coming_they_said_btc_is_an/fne6bk0/

>But you’re not forced to use it We're talking about scaling bitcoin. If onchain fees arent affordable and LN still isnt ready for mass adoption, people ARE forced to use it. >it’s not for sale. What do you mean? Blockstream is literally charging fees and profiting from Liquid

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 14, 2020 13:03:46
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/g0gald/institutional_money_coming_they_said_btc_is_an/fne0gua/

Its not that side chains are in and of themselves "scary". Crippling the main chain's ability to scale so that people are *forced* onto side chains is where the problem lies. Create a problem, and then sell the solution.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 14, 2020 12:14:30
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/g0gald/institutional_money_coming_they_said_btc_is_an/fncdmxy/

In all fairness you can spend your coins without their permission *if* you had email 2fa enabled, saved the nLockTime transactions they emailed you, and have enough command line and python knowledge to run their recovery tool and broadcast the transaction, after waiting 40 days-ish.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 13, 2020 23:17:07
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/g0gald/institutional_money_coming_they_said_btc_is_an/fncbo50/

Blockstream now openly promoting liquid for consumer use...which was actually their plan all along, but they need to boil the frog slowly or else it jumps out of the pot. Its makes it all too clear that blockstream had a conflict of interest in preventing onchain transactions from scaling. They used to defend against it by claiming liquid was just for exchanges and institutions.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 13, 2020 22:55:21
/r/investing/comments/fykeyd/tim_apple_cook_announces_partnership_with_google/fn8zdxx/

> Oh wait, there is none, because you think communities can deal with it on their own. So now you're resorting to strawman arguments, huh? If you actually read and comprehend what I've written instead of constantly spewing low effort BS, you'd see I'm talking about federally mandated lockdowns of US cities being unnecessary. You cant think of any form of federal intervention besides that? So as to your question of appropriate federal intervention: How about federal funding for development/operation of testing? How about federal restrictions on *international* travel?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on April 13, 2020 01:08:34
/r/investing/comments/fykeyd/tim_apple_cook_announces_partnership_with_google/fn7c8nc/

>You're literally the only person I've ever met - from physicians to economists and everyone in between - that thinks no coordinated response to a pandemic would be a good thing If you thought rationally for a moment, youd realize theres a wide berth between "no coordinated response" and "federally mandated lockdowns". >My guess is, I have a pretty good understanding of both your level of education and your ability to relate to other people. Ironic coming from someone whose level of discourse amounts to responses such as "Blah Blah Blah" when they're not typing provably false information. Based on your lack of substance, I think its clear now that even you realize your argument is illogical and indefensible. If you'd like, you can read through the discussion and take note of the questions I posed to you which you've conveniently avoided answering.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on April 12, 2020 14:51:15
/r/investing/comments/fykeyd/tim_apple_cook_announces_partnership_with_google/fn6lwp8/

>And when you're in prison, you don't get to go buy eggs and chocolate from the supermarket. Many prisons have commissaries where you can buy chocolate. And when you're in prison at least you get to go out into the exercise yard! And according to many national governments today, you're not even allowed to go outside to exercise. The fact is that freedom has been severely restricted, and your excuse of "oh but prison is technically worse" isnt relevant. Whats relevant is that federal governments are taking an unprecidented amount of freedom from individuals, when local communities have the ability to deal with the risk as they see fit. > You're trying to compare federal-level guidance and restrictions around a pandemic to prison. Which means you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Lol, it was you that claimed you cant lock down a city without turning it into a prison. Your agrument is so convoluted and weak that you've turned to arguing against yourself without even realizing it.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on April 12, 2020 10:41:15
/r/investing/comments/fykeyd/tim_apple_cook_announces_partnership_with_google/fn5c2ih/

>There are no armed guards. But there is a collective expectation that people follow federal-level guidance. Lol, are you delusional? "Everyone in Spain has been told to stay inside their homes and there will be checkpoints **manned by all branches of Spain's security forces to enforce the orders.** " "police will be given the powers to stop and question people found outside" "Members of the public who disobey confinement rules could faces fines starting at €100 for minor infractions or up to **a year in prison**"

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on April 11, 2020 23:10:02
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fzj8cl/the_real_reason_bitcoin_cash_and_bitcoin_sv/fn56umr/

This guy cared so little, he wrote an article about it.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 11, 2020 22:09:05
/r/investing/comments/fykeyd/tim_apple_cook_announces_partnership_with_google/fn4weje/

"Spain is on lockdown. Everything except supermarkets and pharmacies is closed and from Monday people will not be allowed to leave their homes except to get supplies or for exceptional reasons." https://www.thelocal.es/20200314/coronavirus-what-you-can-and-cant-do-during-spains-state-of-alert How is that not like a prison like if you cant even leave your home except to buy food?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on April 11, 2020 20:13:58
/r/investing/comments/fykeyd/tim_apple_cook_announces_partnership_with_google/fn4k3n0/

> What you propose is literally impossible. You cannot prevent people from entering a major city without turning it into a prison. Well which is it? Is it impossible, or is it possible, but "turns it into a prison"? Why would it be more prison-like to prevent people from entering a county than it is to prevent them from entering a major city? Your logic makes no sense here.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on April 11, 2020 18:10:00
/r/investing/comments/fykeyd/tim_apple_cook_announces_partnership_with_google/fn4arto/

>No... they try to vet people who enter their community. Truck drivers, ambulance drivers, plumbers, electricians and many more people - who also service other communities - can come and go. I said *YOU*. If you got your ass in a car and drove to Monroe County, they would not let you in. They are only allowing the people they want and feel are worth the risk of letting in. And if they dont want to let outside plumbers or electricians in, they dont have to. >And the Keys are geographically isolated. Miami cannot possibly "prevent people from entering their community" because their community is millions upon millions of people. Miami has proportionally more resources to deal with such a lockdown if they wanted. have checkpoints at 20 roads and you're good to go. You think Miami cant operate 20 checkpoints? Lol.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on April 11, 2020 16:39:06
/r/investing/comments/fykeyd/tim_apple_cook_announces_partnership_with_google/fn47lhd/

Perhaps you can drive to Florida because they havent decided to prevent that. But counties like Monroe County (Florida Keys) are absolutely preventing you from entering their community. So like I said: communities have the ability to protect themselves.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on April 11, 2020 16:08:07
/r/investing/comments/fykeyd/tim_apple_cook_announces_partnership_with_google/fn46z7v/

>So what? That's irrelevant. No its very relevant, because it means that communities have the ability to protect themselves. So instead of complaining to the Federal government to restrict everyone's rights, you have the option of working with your community to do whats right for you. >What that means to you is, anyone who travels to Florida from your community - even if your community is self-isolated - has the potential to reinfect your entire community all over again. Then mandatory quarantine upon return for anyone who leaves the community if you think thats warranted. Theres always *some* risk potential, but you cant have perfect security without absolute tyranny.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on April 11, 2020 16:02:02
/r/investing/comments/fykeyd/tim_apple_cook_announces_partnership_with_google/fn459qe/

>They didn't close when they could have prevented that from happening in the first place. Which is the whole point. No, my point is that individual communities **have the ability** to self isolate themselves if they want and feel the downsides are worthwhile for them. Therefore you dont need the federal government to mandatorily restrict everyone's freedom, because communities that think the threat is worth locking themselves up for whatever time can lock themselves up.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on April 11, 2020 15:45:31
/r/investing/comments/fykeyd/tim_apple_cook_announces_partnership_with_google/fn43x8x/

No, reality disagrees with you: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/dominicholden/coronavirus-southern-counties-closing-borders-visitors

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on April 11, 2020 15:32:33
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fyhqzh/bitcoin_cash_51_attack_cost_is_crazy_cheap_right/fn3w78h/

>It was a 2 block non consensus reorg. A 51% attack by 2 miners performing co-ordiated mining. And so was BTC's incident during the value overflow. >You Bcashers are just doing the same thing you always do though. Trying to confuse people, you're doing it now by calling it an orphan chain/block (IDGAF what the central authority Bcash puppets at coinbase say) when the mechanics and the intention of an orphan block is a completely different scenario. You're the one trying to confuse people by latching onto a semantic argument, while failing to address how its logical to claim that BCH's incident was a 51% attack, while BTC's incident wasnt.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 11, 2020 14:18:38
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fyhqzh/bitcoin_cash_51_attack_cost_is_crazy_cheap_right/fn3vutp/

I think you're misread my post, because thats exactly what I said. I agree with you.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 11, 2020 14:15:22
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fyhqzh/bitcoin_cash_51_attack_cost_is_crazy_cheap_right/fn3io2x/

>An orphan block is a one block deep reorg due to a lag between miners. What central authority are you referencing here thats dictated this strict definition of orphan as it regards to cryptocurrency? The reality is that its common speech to refer to a minority chain as having been orphaned, even if it was intentional rather than only due to lag (although the lag scenario is much more common). For example, even in regards to this exact scenario, even Coinbase refers to it as an orphaning: "At 9:10 am PT, Coinbase observed a 2-block chain reorganization, where blocks at height 582698 and 582699 were **orphaned** by a longer chain with blocks at heights 582698 through 582701, mined by BTC.top and BTC.com." https://blog.coinbase.com/a-deep-dive-into-the-recent-bch-hard-fork-incident-2ee14132f435 It's telling as to the weakness of your position that you feel the need to get caught up in such semantics.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 11, 2020 12:11:56
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fyhqzh/bitcoin_cash_51_attack_cost_is_crazy_cheap_right/fn3e9bl/

> Again. It was a soft fork to fix a critical vulnerability. So was BCH's fork. >Do you want to keep pretending that this isn't how 51% attacks function ? Its disingenuous to refer to reversing the effects of a bug by an honest majority of miners as a "51% attack", because its clearly not an attack.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 11, 2020 11:29:03
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fyhqzh/bitcoin_cash_51_attack_cost_is_crazy_cheap_right/fn3cc05/

sorry im not clicking on some random link from you.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 11, 2020 11:09:22
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fyhqzh/bitcoin_cash_51_attack_cost_is_crazy_cheap_right/fn3c9zj/

> I don't know how things work in Bcash but in Bitcoin if a miner refuses to mine a transaction another one will pick it up and get the fees. You continue to fail to address the fact that the miner majority in BTC can also reject a transaction if they feel its invalid, as evidenced by bitcoin's value overflow incident. >Do you even know what an orphan block is ? Do you want to keep pretending that referring to blocks that ended up on a minority chain (whether intentionally or not) as the orphan chain isnt common speech?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 11, 2020 11:08:48
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fyhqzh/bitcoin_cash_51_attack_cost_is_crazy_cheap_right/fn3b17i/

>The overflow incident was a soft fork So? It was still a fork. Furthermore, what the BCH miners did was in effect a softfork as well, since it restricted the ruleset to exclude the attacking block. >It did not betray anyone trust. It was in consensus. The BTC incident had no more consensus at the time than the BCH incident. In neither case was there any actual time to judge widespread consensus, and the miners forked the chain immediately because its what they thought was best and required quick action to solve without causing instability in the network. >What a Bcash miner did was to take it upon himself to target two blocks that were verified by all nodes, co-ordinate with another miner to unwind those blocks and then within the new blocks 8000 tokens were double spent. This is not dissimilar to what BTC did. >It was a non-consensus reorg. Non-consent among who, exactly? >This is the definition of a 51% attack. Like I said, if you think this is the definition of a 51% attack, then BTC was 51% attacked too.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 11, 2020 10:56:02
/r/btc/comments/fytlbw/eli5_how_craig_wright_isnt_under_the_jail/fn39gk0/

because he tricked a billionaire into bankrolling his bullshit

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on April 11, 2020 10:39:42
/r/investing/comments/fykeyd/tim_apple_cook_announces_partnership_with_google/fn3374b/

> A cannot shut its own borders Your premise is incorrect. Counties can close their own borders. There are already counties that are closed down.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on April 11, 2020 09:27:38
/r/investing/comments/fykeyd/tim_apple_cook_announces_partnership_with_google/fn330zu/

Try to drive to Key West to spread the virus and let me kbow how that works out for you.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on April 11, 2020 09:25:31
/r/investing/comments/fykeyd/tim_apple_cook_announces_partnership_with_google/fn32rl2/

Yes I do. You think there are going to be human refugees trying to walk around police roadblocks under the threat of arrest, just to get to another state /county within the same country? Talk about a dreamworld.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on April 11, 2020 09:22:14
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fyhqzh/bitcoin_cash_51_attack_cost_is_crazy_cheap_right/fn32k0f/

>Well there you go folks. Miners are honest apparently Do you even bitcoin? The entire function of bitcoin depends on an honest majority of miners. And in the case the miners proved they were honest because they sent the stolen funds derived from the effects of the bug back to their original owners.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 11, 2020 09:19:35
/r/investing/comments/fykeyd/tim_apple_cook_announces_partnership_with_google/fn32bad/

How so? Even as we speak, there are currently counties that are completely closed to nonresidents.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on April 11, 2020 09:16:28
/r/investing/comments/fykeyd/tim_apple_cook_announces_partnership_with_google/fn320fa/

>Which will never be done if left to individual states. Sorry, but this is bullshit. Im not talking about just states but also counties. And even now there are counties where non-residents are not allowed to enter.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on April 11, 2020 09:12:33
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fyhqzh/bitcoin_cash_51_attack_cost_is_crazy_cheap_right/fn1zkxp/

Craig Wright and his billionaire pal calvin tried and failed.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 10, 2020 22:59:54
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fyhqzh/bitcoin_cash_51_attack_cost_is_crazy_cheap_right/fn1zgky/

You keep posting this everywhere, but for some reason fail to mention that by your own logic, BTC was 51% attacked during the value overflow incident, resulting in a 53 block reorg. A more sane approach would to be to refrain from calling honest miners reversing the effects of a bug, an attack.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 10, 2020 22:58:25
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fyhqzh/bitcoin_cash_51_attack_cost_is_crazy_cheap_right/fn1va48/

Get out of here with your measured response, we're here to pump our bags and sling poo at the competition.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 10, 2020 22:09:08
/r/investing/comments/fykeyd/tim_apple_cook_announces_partnership_with_google/fn1t8q1/

The virus does infact respect properly enforced borders because you can literally close your borders to the human hosts that could carry the virus.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on April 10, 2020 21:46:04
/r/investing/comments/fykeyd/tim_apple_cook_announces_partnership_with_google/fn1sz7d/

> No no no no no. The state that's open is harboring and spreading the virus, to other states as well. Viruses don't know about state borders. Huh? You can literally close the roads into your county/state. Virus might not care about that, but the human hosts that it depends on certainly do.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on April 10, 2020 21:43:09
/r/investing/comments/fykeyd/tim_apple_cook_announces_partnership_with_google/fn1peyq/

>So you'd be okay with the speed limit on an interstate changing from county to county? Well sure. It wouldnt be the worst thing in the world. Its not like other highways dont change speed limits when passing through different areas, and even interstates change speed between states. I think youd find however, that many counties could come to an agreement to a common speed limit amongst themsevles anyways, without it being dictated to them. >Things the Federal government could have done better: Everything you listed could have been done better by the states themselves.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on April 10, 2020 21:04:15
/r/investing/comments/fykeyd/tim_apple_cook_announces_partnership_with_google/fn1p2uo/

>A pandemic is a national threat. It is not a local threat. Its both. But if your community wants to a totally lock itself down, and another wants to keep working, thats their right. If your county is totally locked down, the one that is open isnt a threat to you anyways.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on April 10, 2020 21:00:37
/r/investing/comments/fykeyd/tim_apple_cook_announces_partnership_with_google/fn1jfqm/

Well the primary reason the United States was formed was to provide a common defense from foreign military threats. It wasnt formed to babysit people and tell them when its legal for them to venture outside their homes. Thats a decision much better left to local communities. Besides, from a financial standpoint, the federal government's response has been unprecedented.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on April 10, 2020 20:01:29
/r/investing/comments/fykeyd/tim_apple_cook_announces_partnership_with_google/fn155f8/

What is it that you 'want' from the federal government here? I prefer states to have the power to deal with the situation as their particular circumstances require, rather than force a one size fits all response on them.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on April 10, 2020 17:43:17
/r/btc/comments/fy7gj0/it_costs_less_than_a_cup_of_coffee_to_attack_bch/fn0i2r7/

So you have some idle outdated miners....but what about all the electricity and facility operating costs which would be the bulk of your expenses anyways?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on April 10, 2020 14:12:16
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fy0yn8/after_bitcoin_cash_halving/fn0e9bs/

> I look a it as choosing which block is correct via central authority. All nodes choose which blocks are correct under some set of rules. And BCH's "central authority" is less central than BTC's anyways, since there are independent node implementations. >longest chain with more work is irrelevant Obviously thats the case or else BCH would have never forked from BTC. Core supporters explicitly accepted this reality as well, when they promoted UASF as a threat to the miner majority which supported big blocks. Users ultimately choose which chain to follow, regardless of which chain is longer, and any block can be judged to be invalid according to your own personal ruleset. Hashpower is used for routine transaction ordering, but when theres a significant disagreement within the community ultimately user preference (or dev preference if users are passively following a specific node implementation) is what matters.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 10, 2020 13:38:57
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fy0yn8/after_bitcoin_cash_halving/fn0d394/

>An orphan block is when a block at the tip of the chain wasn't accepted due to a lag between miners. Sure, but the difference is largely semantic. "51% attack" is effectively an intentional orphaning. If you want to call it "unwinding" instead, go ahead. >What a Bcash miner did was take TWO blocks that were verified by all nodes, 20 minutes ago, co-ordinate with another miner to unwind those blocks Why shouldnt they? The transaction they were reverting was only possible due to the effects of a bug. And it only took a few blocks to overtake the attacking chain. It took 53 blocks for the new chain to overtake the attacking chain during bitcoin's value overflow incident. >This is the definition of a 51% attack A "51% attack" implies an actual attack, not honest miners reverting the effects of a bug. Otherwise, by your own definition, BTC has been 51% attacked as well.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 10, 2020 13:28:53
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fy0yn8/after_bitcoin_cash_halving/fn0bjpr/

The checkpoint only ensures that Bitcoin ABC client follows the rules that they want to support after a hard fork. If the people running ABC dont want to follow bitcoin SV even if it had greater hashpower, why should they have to? If nodes only found out about the checkpoint later and dont like it, they're free to switch to Bitcoin SV.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 10, 2020 13:15:26
/r/btc/comments/fxwwn6/the_btc_halving_is_going_to_have_more_impact_on/fmyuqqx/

its probably like 1.2% based on the rolling 24hr data (the only people are getting figures like 0.25% is cherry picking 3hr data points which are ridiculously unreliable), but even that could be partially due to variance. Based on price I'd expect it to level out at 1.75% until the halving, and then back up to 3.5% after BTC's halving.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on April 10, 2020 01:26:00
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fy0yn8/after_bitcoin_cash_halving/fmyujxb/

> They will just choose which block is correct via central authority again You're talking about checkpoints here too? If nodes dont trust that devs have implemented checkpointing correctly, they dont have to run their software. Thats the excuse you guys use for the BTC core dev's centralized power, right?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 10, 2020 01:23:14
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fy0yn8/after_bitcoin_cash_halving/fmyuc4b/

No one with any incentive to do it can. If you think they could, why do you think they havent done it?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 10, 2020 01:20:06
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fy0yn8/after_bitcoin_cash_halving/fmyu7uf/

>You seem to think it hasn't been done already. There was a 51% attack double spending 8000 tokens not long ago You're talking about miners orphaning the block that tried to steal all the funds erroneously sent to segwit addresses that had built up due to a bug? If you think thats a "51% attack", then BTC got 51% attacked years ago during the value overflow incident: https://coincodex.com/article/3669/the-184-billion-btc-bug-that-caused-a-transaction-revert/ >BCH was so scared of Craig Wright shadow mining that they put in a secret checkpoint which was then followed up by rolling checkpoints. Checkpoints make alot of sense regardless of how "scared" you think the dev team was, because theres no real scenario where to want 10+ block deep reorganizations anyways.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 10, 2020 01:18:26
/r/btc/comments/fxwwn6/the_btc_halving_is_going_to_have_more_impact_on/fmxsw6b/

>Where's the fork? The protocol wasn't changed. You dont have to change the protocol significantly to create a fork, and miners have as much right to initiate a fork as developers do. A fork who's only change is to exclude a malicious transaction that was exploiting the effects of a recently patched bug is still a fork. >The block was orphaned. So was the 184 million btc block.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on April 9, 2020 18:27:08
/r/btc/comments/fxwwn6/the_btc_halving_is_going_to_have_more_impact_on/fmxsg8n/

because anything less than a day of data isnt enough to reliably show the actual hashrate thats mining. Too much variance in shorter timeframes.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on April 9, 2020 18:23:02
/r/btc/comments/fxwwn6/the_btc_halving_is_going_to_have_more_impact_on/fmxs0pt/

>Where did I say malicious? I never said that you said it was a malicious transaction. If you read what I wrote, you'll see that **I** said it was a malicious transaction. >Nope. That was fork. Try again. So was BCH's. If you want to mine on the minority branch of either BTC's incident or BCH's incident, you're free to because they were both forks.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on April 9, 2020 18:19:04
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fy0yn8/after_bitcoin_cash_halving/fmxmxwt/

If you think its so easy to attack BCH then do it already.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 9, 2020 17:33:22
/r/btc/comments/fxwwn6/the_btc_halving_is_going_to_have_more_impact_on/fmxmegl/

Lol. If you want to consider honest miners reversing a specialized malicious transaction (a transaction that was essentially exploiting a bug that was caused by people sending to nonsupported segwit addresses) a "51% attack", BTC itself was 51% attacked during the number overflow incident: https://coincodex.com/article/3669/the-184-billion-btc-bug-that-caused-a-transaction-revert/

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on April 9, 2020 17:28:34
/r/btc/comments/fxwwn6/the_btc_halving_is_going_to_have_more_impact_on/fmx4gya/

And the 1 day hashrate is 1%. In reality we'll likely hang out around 2% until BTC's halving in 30 days and then we'll likely be back to 3.5% (since BCH price is currently 3.5% of BTC price) or so after BTC's halving occurs.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on April 9, 2020 14:51:34
/r/btc/comments/fxwwn6/the_btc_halving_is_going_to_have_more_impact_on/fmx1bq3/

> https://fork.lol/pow/hashrate From your link: "Disclaimer: Please note that using a 3 hour average is not the most reliable way of measuring this data. This data should be interpreted as an estimate. The real number can differ **by several percent**."

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on April 9, 2020 14:25:01
/r/btc/comments/fxwwn6/the_btc_halving_is_going_to_have_more_impact_on/fmx0whn/

You mean 2.5%, I hope: https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin%20cash-hashrate.html#3m

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on April 9, 2020 14:21:25
/r/btc/comments/fxx3e8/this_is_fine_bch_has_02_of_the_total_hash_rate/fmx0sxk/

Disclaimer: Please note that using a 3 hour average is not the most reliable way of measuring this data. This data should be interpreted as an estimate. The real number can differ by several percent.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on April 9, 2020 14:20:35
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fxcj56/btccom_is_mining_bch_at_a_huge_loss_right_now/fmujroo/

>Because the rational miners have left, blocks are coming so slow that difficulty is not having time to adjust down. At this rate, even the DAA might not be nimble enough to prevent a direct death spiral. Lol, there have been 7 blocks mined in the last hour alone. So much for your doom prediction.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 8, 2020 20:39:46
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fwj4x7/a_new_crypto_mining_patent_by_software_giant/fmpx383/

How exactly would you make mining with "human body data" or "body activity data" counterfeit resistant? You cant fake solving a computationally expensive math problem (as in traditional crypto mining), but it seems like itd be easy for someone to to trick your phone into thinking your heart rate went up or that you were emitting body heat or whatever.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 7, 2020 15:48:39
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fw0bp4/why_do_you_still_prefer_btc_over_bch/fmpiuyd/

Lol, I can't say that I'm surprised you've missed the point of what I typed....but I'm not saying Roger is 'good' because he promoted bitcoin in the past. What I'm asking is if he missed out on buying bitcoin during 2011-2016 because a "snake oil salesman" was promoting it.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 7, 2020 13:47:04
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fw0bp4/why_do_you_still_prefer_btc_over_bch/fmnbp7f/

>There was no bug exploit Yes it was a bug. When BCH enabled the cleanstack rule it was never the intended functionality to make the coins sent to segwit adresses unrecoverable. Because of this bug, a large backlog of stuck coins built up, creating a ripe target. A bugfix was implemented by making an exemption for these coins, and someone tried to take advantage of the situation to steal them for themselves. btc.com and btc.top pools orphaned two blocks to prevent a theft resulting from the bug, and they then returned the funds to the sending addresses so that the rightful owners have a chance to recover them. > instead you should of just hard coded them to Roger Ver and then put in the realease note "These unclaimed coins will now belong to btc.com" This *really* shows you have no idea what happened here, or whats going on in general. Firstly, btc.com pool isnt owned by roger ver. He owns the bitcoin.com pool, which is different from the btc.com pool. Secondly, btc.com didnt even keep the coins, they returned them to their owners by sending them to the address that they were orginally sent from. So much for an "attack", huh? Frankly, I dont have any more time to spare on someone who clearly has no idea what they're talking about, so bye.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 6, 2020 21:20:54
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fw0bp4/why_do_you_still_prefer_btc_over_bch/fmm6hjm/

Did the fact that Roger was promoting bitcoin from 2011-2016 keep you from buying bitcoin too?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 6, 2020 15:01:12
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fw0bp4/why_do_you_still_prefer_btc_over_bch/fmm2kpx/

Baloney. If you want to consider honest miners reversing a specialized malicious transaction (a transaction that was essentially exploiting a bug that was caused by people sending to nonsupported segwit addresses) a "51% attack", BTC itself was 51% attacked during the number overflow incident: https://coincodex.com/article/3669/the-184-billion-btc-bug-that-caused-a-transaction-revert/

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 6, 2020 14:26:51
/r/investing/comments/frvp3w/how_could_stocks_possibly_go_down_with_infinite/flygsyy/

> They're removing the potential for insolvency. So just maximize your leverage to where your result is skewed to favor either insolvency or very large gains.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on March 30, 2020 16:57:59
/r/investing/comments/frvp3w/how_could_stocks_possibly_go_down_with_infinite/flyeii5/

That may be true, but what you're saying doesnt address his point at all. By removing the potential for loss, you still have a guarantee of positive return, even if you dont know how big exactly that return will be. Might as well go all in with huge margin. If your trade blows up, just go crying to the fed for more liquidity until you're inevitably profitable again.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on March 30, 2020 16:37:39
/r/btc/comments/frntvx/almost_time_to_pop_the_champaign_sic/flxg6r2/

What a pathetic troll. 3 years and thousands of comments later (95.7% of them bitching on r/btc about bitcoin cash), and you're going to complain about nonstop bitching? What a hilarious lack of self awareness.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on March 30, 2020 11:31:04
/r/leanfire/comments/fgldtg/is_it_time_to_catch_our_bearings_with_the_current/fl5aq9n/

Epstein prob selling Little St. James on the cheap.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/leanfire on March 21, 2020 19:12:47
/r/investing/comments/fihkh0/fed_expected_to_cut_rates_to_zero_next_week_wont/fkh7ngt/

> he was saying that this is a hoax. How about some context: >“Now the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus, you know that, right?” he said. “Coronavirus, they’re politicizing it. We did one of the great jobs. You say, ‘How’s President Trump doing?’ They go, ‘Oh, not good, not good.’ They have no clue. They don’t have any clue. They can’t even count their votes in Iowa.” >Then the president, who often dismissed special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation as a hoax, continued, “They tried the impeachment hoax. That was on a perfect conversation. They tried anything. They tried it over and over. They’d been doing it since you got in. It’s all turning. They lost. It’s all turning. Think of it. Think of it. And this is their new hoax.” TLDR: he never called coronavirus a hoax. He called the democrat's response and politicization of it a hoax, as you can clearly see from the context of the actual quote. Isnt Trump bad enough by himself that you dont need to make things up to make him look bad?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on March 14, 2020 09:09:07
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fhgjqb/why_the_f_is_anyone_even_selling_btc_right_now/fkd25cs/

> The incentives between miners, exchanges and users were always out of whack. I dont think thats the case. I think developer power is whats out of whack. Satoshi was blind to it because he himself was the developer with all the power, so it wasnt a problem to him. If we had neutral devs that were simply coding several equally dev supported options for miners to choose from, the miners would consider how users and exchanges would react to their choice and choose accordingly. The problem is that we have activist devs who try to steer the decision process themselves, and so even if miners, users and exchanges are leaning one way, if theres not an established and respected dev team willing to code it, it prevents action from being taken. Especially since theres no precedent for bitcoin putting together a new dev team from scratch to code what market participants would actually like. Thats why Segwit2x failed.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on March 12, 2020 22:28:54
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fhgjqb/why_the_f_is_anyone_even_selling_btc_right_now/fkaxpfv/

> Yet you have the balls to blame devs for not implementing yet more tech that will never get used. We *were* using it before The idiot savant Core Devs crippled it.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on March 12, 2020 10:04:15
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fh77ef/daily_discussion_march_12_2020_gmt0/fkatz9v/

Here's the first real test of your store of value/ digital gold narrative during a significant market event....Bitcoin Core looking more incompetent and delusional every day.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on March 12, 2020 09:23:33
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fhf27g/what_will_btcs_narrative_of_digital_goldstore_of/fkat1sx/

Bitcoin ore is the one with the "digital gold"/ "store of value" sales pitch that they use to excuse their lack of scaling.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on March 12, 2020 09:12:45
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fhf6lg/close_to_13rd_of_the_entire_crypto_market_has/fkasl5w/

muh store of value really paying off. Good thinkg we dont need to encourage any actual usecases besides hodling.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on March 12, 2020 09:07:08
/r/investing/comments/fgzy0z/world_health_organization_declares_the/fk85atv/

Seems with an official WHO pandemic declaration, itd be hard for the World Bank to deny pandemic status has been reached regarding their pandemic bonds.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on March 11, 2020 14:00:26
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fgyq0b/question_about_tax/fk7tsge/

If your AGI is $69,000 or less, there are likely several options for free tax software that might work for you: https://apps.irs.gov/app/freeFile/

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on March 11, 2020 12:18:06
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fcmep6/nightclub_is_better_analogy_than_packed_restaurant/fjlmsya/

>if bitcoin core changed rules on its users we would keep on using the same old bitcoin. How do you know what everyone else would do? You can only make the decision for yourself. > changes are not accepted unless everyone agrees. incorrect. changes can be made with 51% hashpower. You can start a minority chain but you probably wont retain the ticker or price if exchanges go along with the miners.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on March 5, 2020 18:09:46
/r/btc/comments/fd2mk8/centralization_ahead_blockstream_getting_closer/fjf4ir8/

>L2 technologies are optional They're not optional if you dont have enough money in the budget to pay the inflated onchain fees that result from a stagnant blocksize.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 20:09:04
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fcmep6/nightclub_is_better_analogy_than_packed_restaurant/fjejms7/

>And then any of the other Bitcoin implementations like libbitcoin, bitcoinj, btcd **could** be picked up. Sure they *could* switch to a new node implementation. But we've never actually seen the majority of bitcoin nodes do this, so you're just hoping that thats the case with no actual evidence. Theres no way to know how obvious a compromised dev team would have to be be in order to overcome the schelling point that is Bitcoin Core, and cause a majority of real nodes to start running alternative software. >Many people are still running code from years ago. Indeed they are. Infact, we've seen that many nodes are very passive, and for months wont even update their nodes within the same codebase when critical bugs are found, if they ever update them at all. This gives support to the idea that Bitcoin Core's inertia is such that detrimental changes to bitcoin could be introduced discretely, and most nodes would remain with Bitcoin Core regardless, because the Core repo is a very strong schelling point. So why would you expect them to switch to an entirely new code repository simply because the handful of dev with commit access to Bitcoin Core start making controversal changes which suggest they might be compromised? We've never seen it happen in real life. You're justing trusting in the herd to be proactive, make the right choice, and not be swayed by a PR campaign that might be working against them.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on March 3, 2020 17:02:17
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fcmep6/nightclub_is_better_analogy_than_packed_restaurant/fjej13j/

> Laughable. > > You cannot fake the fact that I will not accept your transaction unless it passes *my* rules. Which has nothing to do with "majority consensus". You can make your own rules which align with others or doesnt, but the rules you personally choose dont have any effect on what others choose. Nor does it change the fact that you cant even identify what the majority of real nodes have chosen, because node counts are subject to sybil attack, which is the reason when have mining in the first place.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on March 3, 2020 16:56:38
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fcmep6/nightclub_is_better_analogy_than_packed_restaurant/fjdbos8/

> they doesnt change anything. the government could as well kidnap jeff garznik and make him code a consensus change. no one would upgrade. It does change something. They very fact the Bitcoin Core has so much inertia/stickiness is what makes it a problem. The fact that people are unlikely to switch to a new client run by Jeff Garzik, has nothing to do with the fact that the Bitcoin Core devs could be compromised, except that if they were discretely compromised, people would be unlikely to switch to a new client. > if core, which is made of thousands of devs, introduced a change, no one would upgrade. How many devs have commit access though? How do you know no one would upgrade? Every single time Core has released an upgrade so far, people have upgraded, even when those upgrades were later found to contain bugs. >we dont have to trust people. we read the code and upgrade if we want to. The fact is that something like 99.999% of people dont understand whats in the code and just upgrade when they find a new version is available. >if bitcoin was centralized it would have been attacked and the network would be down, like iota is right now. Not necessarily, no. Thats a non sequitur. If a government agency infiltrated bitcoin development, they would do so discretely and hamper the network's long term viability rather than just cause a short term network disruption.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on March 3, 2020 10:39:56
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fcmep6/nightclub_is_better_analogy_than_packed_restaurant/fjd511a/

The development of Bitcoin Core is a centralized attack vector. A government agency would only need to get ahold a the handful of devs with commit access, and they could then steer the project's direction.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on March 3, 2020 09:30:07
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fcmep6/nightclub_is_better_analogy_than_packed_restaurant/fjd39w4/

Thats the problem though...bitcoin isnt perfectly decentralized. Some people in Bitcoin Core have more power than others over the project's direction.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on March 3, 2020 09:09:59
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fcmep6/nightclub_is_better_analogy_than_packed_restaurant/fjbob75/

Bad analogy because bitcoin was never intended to become an expensive elitist club. If you want to be inclusive, you need to expand capacity.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on March 2, 2020 20:10:14
/r/investing/comments/fadua2/it_only_took_ten_days_for_the_market_to_go_from/fiytmhw/

Cant you say that about almost any risk though? There are people publicizing the threat of nuclear war, asteroids, etc. Doesnt mean its not unexpected when it actually happens.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on February 27, 2020 18:37:52
/r/investing/comments/f9t6fs/stock_market_experts_thought_the_20102019_decade/fivhsp1/

>And you've somehow managed to convince yourself that the record breaking earnings and employment numbers can't possibly be the cause of the record breaking stock market You think its one or the other, huh? Two things cant affect the market simultaneously? >your conspiracy theory about the fed....I was addressing the conspiracy theory that the Fed's repo market operations are a covert QE operation being done for Trump's political benefit. This is funny because I never said this is being done for Trump's benefit....I'm not even a Trump hater. What I'm saying is *regardless* of the motives or reasoning, the fed actions do infact have an effect on market prices.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on February 26, 2020 18:42:35
/r/investing/comments/f9t6fs/stock_market_experts_thought_the_20102019_decade/fiu7l79/

You can pontificate about reasoning and motives all you want, but ultimately its the effect that matters.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on February 26, 2020 12:01:41
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/f9loxz/bitcoin_tumbles_along_with_stocks_amid/fitxu8e/

Other cryptos have utility besides store of value. Bitcoin would too, if the idiot savants controlling its development didnt decide to cripple it.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 26, 2020 10:41:03
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/f8oiz1/bch_danger_of_hybrid_pow_node_fails_to_sync/fimt322/

Sure, but you was said "Imagine if this happened to an economically important node", as if this would cause a persistant chain split or something. But I'm telling you that nothing dramatic would happen, the node just isnt usable till it syncs.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 24, 2020 07:05:23
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/f8oiz1/bch_danger_of_hybrid_pow_node_fails_to_sync/fimqr8b/

>Imagine if this happened to an economically important node and some troll miner decided to grow some obscure fork They were syncing, so all that would have happened would be that the node would be unusable until the people running it realized they were running an outdated client thats not syncing.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 24, 2020 06:19:36
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/f7csud/research_shows_lightning_network_vulnerable_to/fiiuq88/

>as I just said, node being disconnected from other LN nodes, does not affect it's ability to close LN channel because such unilateral closure is done without contacting other LN nodes, just by sending an onchain transation. And as I just said: "Furthermore, even if you could theoretically close the channel without an active LN node (and how user friendly would that process be?), if LN was getting DDOSed and you LN node was down, you wouldnt know if someone was trying to force an old channel state on you in the first place, so you wouldnt know there was a need to close the channel." Its a simple fact that having to log in regularly or depend on a watchtower is a security risk, the risks of which could be amplified by a DDOS to the network.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 22, 2020 22:09:34
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/f7csud/research_shows_lightning_network_vulnerable_to/fiiqc6l/

> I do not think this papers are claiming any such attack as you imagine can take place. > > So the problem you mention does not exist, it is a FUD You dont think DDOS attacks can happen to LN that bring nodes offline? For your reading pleasure: https://www.trustnodes.com/2018/03/21/lightning-network-ddos-sends-20-nodes

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 22, 2020 21:25:03
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/f7csud/research_shows_lightning_network_vulnerable_to/fihpia6/

> Off LN network? Yes. >You need only layer1 access to close channel and take away your money, after proper delay, no? As far as I know, you need to be able to check the current channel state to close a channel safely. Furthermore, even if you could theoretically close the channel without an active LN node (and how user friendly would that process be?), if LN was getting DDOSed and you LN node was down, you wouldnt know if someone was trying to force an old channel state on you in the first place, so you wouldnt know there was a need to close the channel.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 22, 2020 18:07:10
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/f7csud/research_shows_lightning_network_vulnerable_to/fihj3mo/

> Then do log on within the needed time period. Have you even read this thread? We're talking about a scenario where a DDOS knocks you and/or your watchtower off the network.....

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 22, 2020 17:34:51
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/f7csud/research_shows_lightning_network_vulnerable_to/figajkw/

after your counterparty claims a false "account balance", if you dont log on within the needed time period, you have no way to dispute it and you lose all your funds. Sure your account balance will be returned to you, but the counterparty could falsely claim your account balance is 0 by using an old channel state.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 22, 2020 13:54:12
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/f7csud/research_shows_lightning_network_vulnerable_to/fic6nub/

I can tell you dont have any reading comprehension, because I was responding to your comment dismissing DDOS attacks in general, not commenting on the one specific example in the article. You do realize this isnt the only potential vulnerability of LN, don't you?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 21, 2020 21:35:41
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/f7csud/research_shows_lightning_network_vulnerable_to/fibkefd/

DDOS attacks seem potentially more serious when you have open channels. What if youre not using a watchtower (or your watchtower cant connect), and your channels get force closed?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 21, 2020 17:24:16
/r/btc/comments/f5ljot/how_bitcoin_btc_managed_to_scale/fhzlg5c/

Must have hit a nerve there....trolls dont seem to like it very much, truth hurts, huh?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 00:14:36
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/f3uxbz/altcoins_are_racing_past_bitcoin_ahead_of_its/fhnwry0/

> My full node is not so you know theres at least 1 full validating node....nice, but thats a long ways from knowing if the *majority* are controlled by a single entity. >Bitcoin is immune to Sybil Attacks ...because bitcoin is dependent on mining, not node counts. Node counts being subject to sybil attack is the whole reason mining exists.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 14, 2020 21:40:34
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/f3uxbz/altcoins_are_racing_past_bitcoin_ahead_of_its/fhnuxhw/

>Bitcoin is 55000 full validating nodes Useless figure....how do you know the majority of those nodes arent controled by a single entity?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 14, 2020 21:20:42
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/f3uxbz/altcoins_are_racing_past_bitcoin_ahead_of_its/fhnu3p3/

> Bandwidth is most expensive, then processing speeds, then disk space Yes, *all* those are getting cheaper, so i dont see how that supports your claim that "bandwidth... would have to seriously eclipse any potential percentage increase to the blocksize". >Not to mention the p2p nature of the gossip layer means propagation times are also a constraint. Which is mitigated by the above things getting cheaper, in addition to improvements to the software involved. >That's not even beginning to consider all of the variables involved with making a consensus breaking change like a flat blocksize increase. Core already broke consensus by adopting segwit while rejecting a traditional blocksize increase, evidenced by the resulting chainsplit that birthed BCH and alienated a not so insignificant portion of the bitcoin community. But you're drifting pretty far from your original claim now.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 14, 2020 21:11:03
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/f3uxbz/altcoins_are_racing_past_bitcoin_ahead_of_its/fhngkhn/

>regardless the rate at which bandwidth is being discounted would have to seriously eclipse any potential percentage increase to the blocksize because of the other variables that this equation balances on. such as?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 14, 2020 19:29:17
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/f3uxbz/altcoins_are_racing_past_bitcoin_ahead_of_its/fhndmmk/

>Is it? Yes, for example, if you compare the data from Q4 2019 to Q4 2018, global bandwidth prices per mbps dropped 15% from $0.47 to $0.40, which is in line with the trend that we've been seeing for years. http://point-topic.com/free-analysis/fixed-broadband-tariffs-in-q4-2019/ http://point-topic.com/free-analysis/fixed-broadband-tariffs-in-q4-2018/ >In america that's for sure not the case. Do you have any actual data to back that up? Anecdotal experiences arent very reliable.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 14, 2020 19:09:56
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/f3uxbz/altcoins_are_racing_past_bitcoin_ahead_of_its/fhmpuoz/

Bandwidth is getting cheaper too though

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 14, 2020 16:38:47
/r/btc/comments/f1s3ea/bitcoin_cash_is_pumping_we_could_cross_the_george/fhdmpsm/

He said he sold for USD at the time. Who knows what he did with it after that.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on February 12, 2020 02:17:05
/r/btc/comments/f1s3ea/bitcoin_cash_is_pumping_we_could_cross_the_george/fh9h3ww/

> The guy sold at a higher valuation than we have today. Well not really, because his sell included his BSV. BSV+BCH today is worth more than what he sold his for.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on February 10, 2020 19:33:01
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/f1qhrt/anypay_disables_btc_payments_due_to_rbf/fh9ffwg/

I was talking about the need to raise the bitcoin blocksize, not BCH in particular. The current popularity of BCH isnt relevant in the long term. And BCH is 4.5% now anyways. But in reality BCH is supported by even more than 4.5% of SHA-256 miners. Many BCH supporting miners mine on BTC. But yes, since BCH is so insecure, you BTC maximalists can go ahead and 51% attack it, right? Good luck.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 10, 2020 19:14:21
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/f1qhrt/anypay_disables_btc_payments_due_to_rbf/fh9b1qi/

> And that no tx is safe before it's confirmed, regardless of RBF? When your blockchain isnt full 0 conf is safer than with a full blockchain. Facts.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 10, 2020 18:25:29
/r/btc/comments/f1drn6/lots_of_people_still_dont_realize_the_origin_of/fh9417m/

>Then why am I responsible for it? Youre not. But regardless of your lack of responsibility, you dont have a right to ban us from denouncing BTC. >So, calling bitcoin cash is OK then. What are you moaning about then? I didnt say its ok. I said you're free to. Youre free to do all kinds of dumb things. And I'm free to attack the merits of the name you've called me. Just like Bcash is a name rooted in a takeover attempt. **DM me if you want to talk more. No since in continuing a thread 100 post deep that no ones ever going to read except us anyways. A direct chat would work better to clear things up.**

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on February 10, 2020 17:17:07
/r/btc/comments/f1drn6/lots_of_people_still_dont_realize_the_origin_of/fh8n6vf/

> P.S: I am ignoring your other comments, I only get limited posts around here because of your censorship, so I am only answering one. Good, your nonsense responses are a waste of time anyways. Rate limiting is doing its job well.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on February 10, 2020 14:34:53
/r/btc/comments/f1drn6/lots_of_people_still_dont_realize_the_origin_of/fh8n34b/

> I did none of those things. It doesnt matter what you personally did. What we call BTC has nothing to do with you. You're not important. >Can I decide that fact YOUR community-supported CSW in his fake satoshi shenanigans so it is OK for me? Sure if you want to make up some name based on that feel free to. But it'd be stupid because the BCH community has long since abandoned CSW.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on February 10, 2020 14:33:50
/r/btc/comments/f1drn6/lots_of_people_still_dont_realize_the_origin_of/fh8md1q/

>Why do YOU get to decide that and not its users? If YOU get to decide what you call other chains why don't other people get to do that too? Because the people that control BTC's roadmap have censored their community and initated hostilities against those that disagree with them, their token deserves to be called names. People have no right to make up names for BCH because its supporters didnt initiate hostilities against anyone, and the BCash naming campaign was ultimately a censorship campaign, designed to rename the fork into something they owned the web properties for.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on February 10, 2020 14:26:32
/r/btc/comments/f1drn6/lots_of_people_still_dont_realize_the_origin_of/fh8lzun/

> I am not responsible for thongs others do. I didnt say you were. I said you were responsible for choosing to support BTC, a cryptocurrency founded on censorship. That was your action, not anyone elses.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on February 10, 2020 14:22:54
/r/btc/comments/f1drn6/lots_of_people_still_dont_realize_the_origin_of/fh8lm2k/

>Just scroll up one comment. "If you look back at what happened you'd see that this community calling BTC Bitcoin Core started AFTER the Bcash campaign began. Its simply a natural reaction." Are you dense? Where in that quote do I say that I'm not responsible?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on February 10, 2020 14:19:01
/r/btc/comments/f1drn6/lots_of_people_still_dont_realize_the_origin_of/fh7udn5/

>Right, you are not responsible because "they started it". Sure, whatever you want to believe. But I never said that. You're constantly putting words in my mouth. >That is the opposite of what you just said, you are contradicting yourself again. Where did I contradict that? Quote it please. >Do you seriously think that "they started it" is a good defense? In this case yes, actually. >is it OK for me to now make slurs like bcash because someone else started it? No, because that would mean you're on the side of censorship. The side you've chosen is much more significant than the names you use. And you're on the side that was proven wrong during the fee crisis of Dec. 2017. And continued to be proven wrong later when fees regularly exceeded $1, when the Bitcoin wiki, maintained by Core Devs, had claimed that they didnt expect fees to ever exceed $1. Shows what they know huh?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on February 10, 2020 09:29:22
/r/btc/comments/f1drn6/lots_of_people_still_dont_realize_the_origin_of/fh75i80/

>You are justifying your actions because of something someone else did. The appropriateness of ones actions does in fact often depend on the actions of those who you are responding to, yes. Having the previous actions of others influence how you respond to them doesnt mean that you dont accept responsibility for your own actions, no. Any more questions? Im going to bed, so I'll try to get back to you later.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on February 10, 2020 01:24:42
/r/btc/comments/f1drn6/lots_of_people_still_dont_realize_the_origin_of/fh74k3x/

>That is because they are crap arguments. No, its because you inventing strawman arguments like this: "Furthermore, you say you are not responsible for your actions because, in your view, someone else started it." I never claimed that. Its a strawman argument you dreamed up. >Why do you keep bringing him up? Do you think somehow I am responsible for his actions or something? Because we have the right to complain about his actions which shaped what BTC is today. That the retaliation bothers you is, frankly, not our problem. Its your fault for supporting a bitcoin fork founded on censorship. >You are, you're saying it is OK for you to do something because "someone else started it". Yes you often can do something because someone "started it", or otherwise wronged you in some way. >The person who started it is responsible for your shitty behavior, not you. No you're responsible for your own actions. But the merits of those actions can depend on the actions of those who you're responding to. Theres a difference. >No strawman, I am talking about YOU. You say that this behavior is fine, because "someone else started it". Again, theres a big difference between "You say that this behavior is fine, because "someone else started it" and "you say you are not responsible for your actions".

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on February 10, 2020 01:08:06
/r/btc/comments/f1drn6/lots_of_people_still_dont_realize_the_origin_of/fh73rpx/

>I am repeating your arguments back to you. Well you're not doing a good job at it. Let me reexplain for you instead of you trying to strawman me: Bitcoin was supposed to be decentralized, but a guy named Theymos who controls r/bitcoin, bitcointalk.org, and bitcoin.org (the three of which contained the vast majority of online crypto discussion at the time) used his centralized power to stifle ideological opposition. We have a right to complain about that. We're not going to let it go, sorry. If you think big blockers wronged Theymos and the small blockers before that happened, I'd like to see it. >Furthermore, you say you are not responsible for your actions because, in your view, someone else started it. This is bullshit. I'm not saying I'm not responsible for my actions. Im saying the actions are justified. Stop strawmaning.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on February 10, 2020 00:54:51
/r/btc/comments/f1drn6/lots_of_people_still_dont_realize_the_origin_of/fh737de/

Youre rambling now and not really making sense. The point is that maximalists started all this animosity when they censored big blockers from being able to freely discuss their views for scaling on the major bitcoin discussion platforms. We have a right to complain, because we were wronged.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on February 10, 2020 00:45:34
/r/investing/comments/f14uqh/bitcoin_just_hit_10000_again_bubble_20_in_the/fh72zt3/

Government spending drives a significant portion of private sector output. Besides, its not only government institutions that could be hampered by being saturated with debt. Private institutions are affected as well.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on February 10, 2020 00:42:13
/r/btc/comments/f1drn6/lots_of_people_still_dont_realize_the_origin_of/fh72jdi/

> Someone else does something and I bear the consequences. Thats irrelevant to you being responsible or not. Thats just how life works sometimes. If Elon Musk decides to discontinue super chargers, Tesla owners bear the consequesnces of Elon's decision, but that doesnt mean they were responsible for the decision. Besides, you've stuck with a chain whose promoters censor their opposition, thats your fault and you should bear the consequences...especially insignificant ones like having your coin be called by the name of its reference implementation. >This is all your fault. Retaliation is often fair game. Who threw the first stone? Oh, right. It was Theymos and the maximalists who censored discussion of big blocks.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on February 10, 2020 00:35:03
/r/btc/comments/f1drn6/lots_of_people_still_dont_realize_the_origin_of/fh71rtq/

>Ahh, so I am responsible for something someone else did and I have constantly fought against? Is that right? Where did i say you're responsible? >(You logic is retarded) Its really not. Retaliation is often fair game. Who threw the first stone? Oh, right. It was Theymos and the maximalists who censored discussion of big blocks.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on February 10, 2020 00:23:19
/r/investing/comments/f14uqh/bitcoin_just_hit_10000_again_bubble_20_in_the/fh71o3y/

because those entities wouldnt be able to engage in any new spending/might go bankrupt if all their funds are going to paying interest

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on February 10, 2020 00:21:44
/r/btc/comments/f1drn6/lots_of_people_still_dont_realize_the_origin_of/fh6ynai/

>I mean, I have never used bcash as a slur for bitcoin cash, so someone else started it as far as I am concerned Its not really relevant what you personally did, its what the BTC community did, because its BTC we're labeling, not you. >So, because "someone else started it" it is fine right? (are you getting how childish your logic is yet?) Like I said earlier, you try to brush it off as childish, but tit for tat isnt just a child's game. The simple fact is that its not necessarily hypocritical to call someone out for initiating name calling, even if you later retaliated with names yourself. The instigator is relevant here. Its also relevant that the bcash name calling began as a concerted effort to control information about the fork by promoting a name in which the promoters own the web properties for.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on February 9, 2020 23:38:31
/r/investing/comments/f14uqh/bitcoin_just_hit_10000_again_bubble_20_in_the/fh6yenv/

Sure, but if the government and important institutions are struggling to make interest payments, that could dramatically affect output, so like I said, The central bank certainly has an interest in keeping debt at sustainable levels.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on February 9, 2020 23:35:20
/r/btc/comments/f1drn6/lots_of_people_still_dont_realize_the_origin_of/fh6xrd2/

>That bitcoin is actually named bitcoin core? (eyes rolling) No, that Bcash slurs were being used before Bitcoin Core was being used as a slur. >Do you have some sort of fact that a minority chain can rename another chain? Surely that would mean that a majority chain can rename a minority one?Is that a fact? That bitcoin trolls have every right to rename bitcoin cash to bcash? Are you serious? Critics had already started using their own slurs to refer to our chain, why exactly shouldnt we use one to refer to theirs?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on February 9, 2020 23:27:09
/r/btc/comments/f1drn6/lots_of_people_still_dont_realize_the_origin_of/fh6x6nk/

> Exactly what they say (can you hear my eyes rolling). The difference is that we have facts on our side. The Bcash name literally originated from a person/group who had registered the name on web properties before the fork had even happened. If we had not pushed back against the name, critics of BCH would control the BCH discussion venues. And after Theymos's coordinated campaign to silence big blockers on the pre-fork discussion venues, you could see why we might not like that. >On 27 July 2017, the /r/bcash subreddit was created, and the social media campaign to promote the alternative name 'bcash' was started by prominent Core Twitter personalities and subscribers of /r/Bitcoin such as user qubeqube. >On 28 July, the domain bcash.io was registered, a corresponding github set up at https://github.com/bcashio which registered first commits on July 31 and the website started publishing misleading information about the nature of the Bitcoin Cash fork, including directing visitors to r/bcash and its own github. It also started promoting a different ticker symbol from the initial 'BCC'. >https://archive.is/https://bcash.io >You can find snapshots at web.archive.org too. >On Twitter, a '@bcash' account appeared, doing the same misdirection to bcash.io website. It also featured a revised logo that looked very different from the Bitcoin Cash logo on the bitcoincash.org website. This logo incidentally being the same as on the /r/bcash subreddit (coincidence??) At the same time, the social media accounts heavily promoted the alternative name 'bcash'. It was clear that this promotion campaign had nothing to do with those who created Bitcoin Cash, but was just meant to disorient and confuse the public. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8dd5ij/why_bitcoin_cash_users_reject_the_name_bcash_so/

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on February 9, 2020 23:19:55
/r/btc/comments/f1drn6/lots_of_people_still_dont_realize_the_origin_of/fh6vec5/

>As I mentioned above, the "they started it" is a preschooler's defense. Cool insult, but that doesnt change the fact that when someone has treated you badly its natural and often fair to treat them badly in return. Even in courts of law the person/group that started the altercation is often judged more harshly than the one who is simply responding in turn. If you havent learned it yet, you'll soon find that tit for tat extends far beyond preschool.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on February 9, 2020 22:57:56
/r/investing/comments/f14uqh/bitcoin_just_hit_10000_again_bubble_20_in_the/fh6v2or/

A situation where a nation's institutions are having problems making their interest payments isnt really the simplest case. And inflation IS ultimately currency devaluation.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on February 9, 2020 22:54:01
/r/btc/comments/f1drn6/lots_of_people_still_dont_realize_the_origin_of/fh6svsf/

If you look back at what happened you'd see that this community calling BTC Bitcoin Core started AFTER the Bcash campaign began. Its simply a natural reaction.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on February 9, 2020 22:28:15
/r/investing/comments/f14uqh/bitcoin_just_hit_10000_again_bubble_20_in_the/fh5qbdq/

Bitcoin has properties that give it an underlying value as well, such as being able to be sent internationally without being intercepted by governments or middlemen. Transaction networks have real underlying value, and bitcoin is pretty unique one with unique benefits.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on February 9, 2020 18:35:09
/r/investing/comments/f14uqh/bitcoin_just_hit_10000_again_bubble_20_in_the/fh5n3es/

>The currency devaluation would be done by the central bank, but they don't care about paying down the debt. The central bank certainly has an interest in keeping debt at sustainable levels in which interest can be paid, rather than wholesale defaults. And at some point the most palatable way to achieve that may be currency devaluation.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on February 9, 2020 18:22:35
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/f0tise/how_to_get_rid_of_the_tokens_noone_wants_to_buy/fgynavn/

There might be a burn address you can send them to, depending on the tokens. Stocks sometimes become worthless, and you just claim them for tax purposes as if you sold them for $0. You dont need to *prove* they were worth $0 unless you get audited. If the tokens arent listed on any exchanges that you could reasonably use to sell them, and the value is negligible, it shouldnt be too hard to explain that to the IRS if you were audited. You could possible post the private key somewhere very public where you could have a record of the private keys being published. "However, tax experts say if you’re questioned by the IRS, you need to be prepared to show: There is no hope investors will ever get anything for their holdings. This isn’t always easy, so do your homework. When the security became worthless. You must reasonably determine the date the stock lost all its value."

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 8, 2020 13:03:18
/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/f0q4dr/but_we_are_getting_better_every_day_apparently/fgxsxe6/

Do you think college tuition would be so inflated if the government wasnt subsidizing student loans?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/LateStageCapitalism on February 8, 2020 10:39:28
/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/f0q4dr/but_we_are_getting_better_every_day_apparently/fgxskyc/

>CEO pay....is No, only average worker pay and minimum wage is inflation adjusted in this image. CEO pay is not inflation adjusted, nor are the 3 listings costs of goods, which makes this image extremely misleading.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/LateStageCapitalism on February 8, 2020 10:37:42
/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/f0q4dr/but_we_are_getting_better_every_day_apparently/fgxr1k2/

federal minimum wage was $2.65, now its $7.25. Thats an increase of 275%, not a decrease of 5.5%. I get what you're saying, but why would you use nominal figures for the cost of goods and CEO pay, but inflation adjusted figures only for minimum wage and average worker pay? Its extremely misleading and makes your argument look very weak.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/LateStageCapitalism on February 8, 2020 10:30:31
/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/f0q4dr/but_we_are_getting_better_every_day_apparently/fgxqiyd/

which makes the whole figure useless and extremely misleading edit: also the ceo pay is NOT inflation adjusted either. OP used inflation adjusted figures for worker pay, and non-inflation adjusted figures for the cost of goods and CEO pay.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/LateStageCapitalism on February 8, 2020 10:27:54
/r/btc/comments/ezclze/owner_of_an_address_craig_wright_claimed_to_own/fgp8yz8/

Saudi Arabia isnt a warzone...I personally have a friend living and working there currently. And your expectations of future wars arent equivalent to actual wars that exist here in reality. >Facts are malleable to people like you and I don’t have the patience. Facts arent malleable, you're just butthurt that the facts arent on your side on this issue. Reality is that that Trump hasnt gotten the US involved in a new warzone. There are alot of reasons to hate on Trump, but this isnt one of them.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on February 6, 2020 09:35:49
/r/btc/comments/ezclze/owner_of_an_address_craig_wright_claimed_to_own/fgp6n1v/

>He’s sent 14,000 of them to Iraq since May. I said new to US troops. US troops have been in Iraq constantly for like 15 years before Trump was even elected. How many US troops were in Syria before Obama sent them? Oh right, there werent any, because Obama is the one who engaged US troops in a brand new warzone.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on February 6, 2020 09:09:35
/r/btc/comments/ezclze/owner_of_an_address_craig_wright_claimed_to_own/fgp61cl/

> Was there ever a single president in the history of modern diplomacy where a US troop wasn’t deployed? Yes or no. Since we're talking about new warzones new to US troops, yes. What new warzone has Trump deployed troops into?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on February 6, 2020 09:02:29
/r/btc/comments/ezclze/owner_of_an_address_craig_wright_claimed_to_own/fgp3d8x/

Did US fighter jets start bombing Syria under Obama's watch? Yes or no?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on February 6, 2020 08:29:08
/r/btc/comments/ezclze/owner_of_an_address_craig_wright_claimed_to_own/fgnu1bj/

Lol... Yes I'm talking to you, but I'm talking to you about things that other people said...because thats literally what you're talking about... You were talking someone being correct in calling out this sub's past opinions...and I asked *why the need* to bring up the sub's past opinions in the first place? I never said that you were the one who brought it up. The person you're talking about brought it up....yet somehow you and others here have managed to fail at parsing even this simple conversation. Ironic, huh?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on February 5, 2020 20:34:56
/r/btc/comments/ezclze/owner_of_an_address_craig_wright_claimed_to_own/fgnniip/

>I didn't. Someone else did I didnt say you did. Hilariously, you later talk about parsing simple conversations in a post in which you yourself had immediately failed. >You see what you want instead of what is written, in your case a non-existent negative implication. An implication inherently means that it wasnt explicitly written. The tone and phrasing of the comment sounded negative, whether or not that was the intention.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on February 5, 2020 19:25:42
/r/btc/comments/ezclze/owner_of_an_address_craig_wright_claimed_to_own/fgnlix9/

> I'm not sure why you felt the need to interject that people are allowed to change their minds Well when you put it that way, why the need to bring up the sub's past opinions in the first place? It seems to me the change was brought up because the person thought it was negative, and then the other person defended it as being good to change your mind as new information arrises. Pretty simple really.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on February 5, 2020 19:03:51
/r/btc/comments/ezclze/owner_of_an_address_craig_wright_claimed_to_own/fgnkmkb/

Hasnt started a war yet, thats pretty good considering the last few presidents.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on February 5, 2020 18:54:07
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ew5qn7/after_not_having_a_block_for_almost_55_hours_bch/fgfw2td/

>Not expected. So could. Yea and its not expected that I travel to Pluto next week either....thats really all you've got? LMAO >Give evidence. Not conspiracy nonsense. You're the one that claims you know what nodes want and that nodes pushedSegwit through...so you're the one that needs to provide evidence that thats the case. Here in reality, we understand that nodes arent a reliable indicator of anything because they can be easily faked. >Says the guy making up bullshit. Like what? >Maintaining the economics would be to keep Bitcoin immutable. Actually thats false, because the economics of the system can change over time while the code is static.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 3, 2020 11:54:34
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ew5qn7/after_not_having_a_block_for_almost_55_hours_bch/fgfupyt/

> "Low" and "cheap" are completely relative terms. Did he specify in percentages at least? Im not sure if Satoshi specified a fee level, but its hard to believe he'd consider fees several orders of magnitude higher than originally "low". I do know that the Bitcoin wiki for years in the fee section stated "Fees are not expected to ever exceed $1". >You and your tinfoil hat have no clue. You have no actual rebuttal, huh? >And bcash ones can't? Did I say they cant? You're the one ignorantly claiming the majority of nodes supported small blocks and BTC, demonstrating you're ignorant of how the system works, and that you're making up bullshit, because theres no way you can measure such a thing. >Since Bitcoin has remained "stagnant" surely it's closer to the "original vision"? The original vision is economic in nature. The code is just a means to an end. BCH code has changed to maintain the economic vision.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 3, 2020 11:40:28
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ew5qn7/after_not_having_a_block_for_almost_55_hours_bch/fgft8jx/

>The original vision is to keep our money safe from governments. Not about entitled cheapskates fretting over fees. 2000% rise in 2017 and they are crying over fees? Bitcoin doesn't owe them anything. The original vision did actually include low fees. "The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions." >Bitcoin doesn't owe them anything. Its not about nonsense ideas like a system "owing" someone something. Its about the system being hijacked and crippled by people who never believed in the system and turned it into something else. >Because the nodes had to push Segwit through. No they didnt. Its clear you have no idea how bitcoin actually works. You have no idea what real node users actually did because node counts can be faked. If you're talking about "UASF", you have no idea how many real nodes actually supported it, and the "UASF" campaign was actually a twitter troll campaign. >Also after bcash was created the majority went with BTC. The majority of miners stayed with BTC yes. You dont know what the majoirty of real nodes did because node counts can be faked. >Satoshi doesn't own Bitcoin. No one does. So it cannot be hijacked. As I said the majority did not want to go in the direction of bcash. And since Bitcoin has kept value better I don't blame them. Its not about ownership, its about redirecting the original vision, and yes that can and did happen, and yes its absolutely fair to call that a hijacking and a crippling of the original goals. >As I said the majority did not want to go in the direction of bcash. The majority of what? Are you still pretending to know what the majority of real nodes want?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 3, 2020 11:24:54
/r/btc/comments/exkytq/miners_are_free_to_change_the_rules_however_they/fgdjiby/

I dont agree. The first step in initiating a fork is building the code to carry it out, and devs do that, not miners.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on February 2, 2020 17:38:49
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ew5qn7/after_not_having_a_block_for_almost_55_hours_bch/fgdioqx/

> Who gives a shit? The supply remaining constant is all that matters. It goes 10-50X every few years. Do you think people really care about fees? Which are far cheaper than fees to move gold around. Everyone who believed in the original vision of bitcoin cares. And I know personally several people who tried bitcoin in Dec 2017 and wrote it off forever because of fees. >Well no wonder - plenty of practice - BCH is bug-ridden. BCH has 4% of the marketcap of BTC, and much less press, so obviously it gets less developer attention. But I'd say with the resources available BCH devs are doing a much better job, even finding BTC dev's bugs for them. >The nodes chose it. It's nothing to do with the developers. Apart from developing the code. How do you know nodes chose it? What count are you using? How do you know more actual, active users werent using BitcoinXT? You cant know because node counts can be faked, which is the whole reason we having mining in the first place. What we actually know is that miners didnt want to switch to a new code repo and wanted Core to implement the changes themselves, but Core never did, so Bitcoin Core devs decided the outcome. Code repo centralization at its finest. >Immutability is what makes Bitcoin valuable, not hard forks, changes to the block size etc. Next it will be changes in the supply - like in Ethereum? Fuck that. Bitcoin was designed with hard forks as a valid mechanism for upgrades. "Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism." Satoshi himself planned to hard fork to increase the blocksize once demand increased. But as we know (and you tacitly admit by continuing to deflect instead of directly address) bitcoin was hijacked and crippled by people who dont believe in the original vision.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 2, 2020 17:35:07
/r/btc/comments/exkytq/miners_are_free_to_change_the_rules_however_they/fgdg0k9/

Devs have to code the fork. Dev centralization around the Bitcoin Core repo is what prevented the blocksize from being raised years ago, despite miners wanting the increase.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on February 2, 2020 17:21:10
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ew5qn7/after_not_having_a_block_for_almost_55_hours_bch/fgdbjh4/

>So those who want bigger blocks should not be wasting their time on an altcoin. Develop for Bitcoin. Run nodes. BTC doesnt have big enough blocks to prevent fees from regularly exceeding $1, so why would the people who want bigger blocks and low fees on chain use it? >The bcash devs are not good enough for Bitcoin however. Lol, a BCH dev was the one who found the worst BTC bug in years. >Because they didn't want big blocks as we saw in 2017. They chose Segwit instead. And soft forks are far safer. How did you see it? Node counts arent reliable, so wtf were you looking at exactly? All that you can actually see is that miner hashpower ultimately chose segwit (despite originally signaling for alternatives) because the Core Devs wouldnt code anything else. Its a clear case of code repository centralization.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 2, 2020 16:59:00
/r/leanfire/comments/evls1s/fi_at_18_by_living_with_parents/fgcf2cl/

4% SWR for 10 mill is 400k per year. Clearly thats enough to do nothing, lol

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/leanfire on February 2, 2020 14:33:35
/r/leanfire/comments/evfi90/currently_living_in_a_hostel_in_tbilisi_georgia/fgcbug0/

4% SWR of $1 mill is $40,000, not $4,000. Edit: it seems like OP may have edited his post from $100k to $1 mill to troll?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/leanfire on February 2, 2020 14:19:47
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ew5qn7/after_not_having_a_block_for_almost_55_hours_bch/fgbulw4/

>The hijack business is tinfoil hat stuff. No its not. Its clear that people came later who had a different vision for bitcoin than was originally intended. >The nodes don't want a Bitcoin that is mutable. How do you know that? Node count is an inherently useless metric because nodes can be easily spun up in the thousands, and sybil attacks can be carried out with little cost. If you actually understood bitcoin, you'd know thats why we have mining in the first place.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 2, 2020 12:57:25
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ew5qn7/after_not_having_a_block_for_almost_55_hours_bch/fgbqwyh/

See, despite all your previous rambling, now you dont even try to refute my point. You just try to shift the argument to suggest that its ok the bitcoin was hijacked, crippled, and turned into something else, because you claim that people didnt actually want what bitcoin's original vision was. And while its fine you believe that (The reality is that what most people who own bitcoin today want is volatility and the ability to speculate and trade in an unregulated market where they can spoof orders, wash trade, etc. Not exactly a glowing review of the state of bitcoin today.), you never actually refuted my point.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 2, 2020 12:40:17
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ew5qn7/after_not_having_a_block_for_almost_55_hours_bch/fgbk09t/

>All you are offering are evasions and non-sequitors. I ask you something then you try to divert. Lol you've gotten so off track you dont even know what your original point was. You're rambling and lost in the weeds. I said that bitcoin is crippled, because it was originally designed to be good at payments, but toxic latecomers like Greg Maxwell (who by his own admission, never actually believed in bitcoin) came along, hijacked the project, and crippled it with the support of actual autists and idiot savants (like Luke-Jr, who literally believes the sun orbits the earth). Nothing you've said actually refutes my point.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 2, 2020 12:00:54
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ew5qn7/after_not_having_a_block_for_almost_55_hours_bch/fg846z1/

>It has been - to 4mb by Segwit. Even with segwit blocks dont average above 1.4mb size. And it obviously wasnt enoughbecause we've had acute fee crises, and there are long periods of time where average fees are over $1, which the Bitcoin wiki used to say that Devs dont expect fees to ever exceed $1. Shows what they know. >Bigger blocks means more expensive to run nodes. Therefore fewer nodes. You completely missed this part: "as hardware and bandwidth become more affordable". which nullifies your point....why even bother responding when you do such a shit job with your responses? It just makes the Core position look stupid. >Bitcoin is being used for what it's best at - a safe haven and a hedge. Just accept it. There are already perfectly fine payment methods. As someone once said using Bitcoin to buy things is like using Concorde to go to the corner shop. Bitcoin provides something that wasn't there before. Why do you think I dont accept it? I've moved on from using bitcoin. What i don't accept is morons pretending that bitcoin hasnt been crippled. >The only reason people buy alts is because of Bitcoin. In what universe is that a meaningful statement? Thats like saying the only reason people buy Tesla is because of Ford. >Paypal doesn't have a currency. How can it be cash? Paypal uses whatever fiat currency you want. They dont have to have their own unique currency to offer electronic cash. >Don't you embarrass yourself. Bitcoin's hashrate, for a start, dwarfs bcash's. Not to mention its liquidity. Hashrate and liquidity are both only functions of the current level of adoption, and have absolutely nothing to do with the merits of its technical or economic design. >WITHOUT A MIDDLEMAN. I didn't say it was perfect. So its a natural ponzi without a middleman. So what? Doesnt change the fact that it was designed to be good for payments but it was hijacked and crippled. >Peer-to-peer means its decentralized. The supply and issuance make it suitable as a store of value. I think you have cash on the brain. Whats your point here? Satoshi literally said the its for payments and prioritized payments. Heres a thread talking about how: "The original Bitcoin whitepaper by Satoshi mentions “transaction” 69 times, “cash” or “payment” 18 times, “gold” 2 times, and “store of value” 0 times. 🤔🤔🤭 https://www.np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/ewy1o2/the_original_bitcoin_whitepaper_by_satoshi/ >If you're just going to continuously cite this fucking subtitle in an 11 year old white paper and ignore Bitcoin's design then this is just a waste of my time. Its literally the first sentence of the whitepaper that outline's bitcoin's design. What better evidence can there be of bitcoin's original intentions and goals? >To show it truly is crippled. Any crippling of BCH would be only due to loss of marketshare vs before the split with BTC. If BCH retained the BTC ticker and the 99% of crypto users who just defaulted to stay with BTC with no actual thought, bitcoin would still be electronic cash instead of being crippled and relegated to a lowly ponzi scheme. >So what's the problem? ....the problem is you're making stupid claims like "you ignore things that aren't in the white paper." as if thats a valid argument, but now we see that was a dead end for you once again. >People can lose their way after a brilliant start. You're entitled to feel that way. But it doesnt change the fact that the current Core team hijacked and crippled bitcoin. >It's basically the same as pre-mine. 15 million (or whatever it was) of the coins sprang instantly into existence. But any value was subtracted from the post fork BTC that corresponded to the BCH. >Because Roger Ver pumped it you mean. If people were getting free BCH why was it worth anything? It wasnt free because you had to have bought or mined BTC to get it. >Red herring. Bitcoin was never good at fast payments. Why do you keep lying to yourself? I could send first block transactions for less than a penny. And 0-confirmation services were viable for many usecases.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 1, 2020 21:04:37
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ew5qn7/after_not_having_a_block_for_almost_55_hours_bch/fg83n5o/

>It has been - to 4mb by Segwit. Even with segwit blocks dont average above 1.4mb size. And it obviously wasnt enoughbecause we've had acute fee crises, and there are long periods of time where average fees are over $1, which the Bitcoin wiki used to say that Devs dont expect fees to ever exceed $1. Shows what they know. >Bigger blocks means more expensive to run nodes. Therefore fewer nodes. You completely missed this part: "as hardware and bandwidth become more affordable". which nullifies your point....why even bother responding when you do such a shit job with your responses? It just makes the Core position look stupid. >Bitcoin is being used for what it's best at - a safe haven and a hedge. Just accept it. There are already perfectly fine payment methods. As someone once said using Bitcoin to buy things is like using Concorde to go to the corner shop. Bitcoin provides something that wasn't there before. Why do you think I dont accept it? I've moved on from using bitcoin. What i don't accept is morons pretending that bitcoin hasnt been crippled. >The only reason people buy alts is because of Bitcoin. In what universe is that a meaningful statement? Thats like saying the only reason people buy Tesla is because of Ford. >Paypal doesn't have a currency. How can it be cash? Paypal uses whatever fiat currency you want. They dont have to have their own unique currency to offer electronic cash. >Don't you embarrass yourself. Bitcoin's hashrate, for a start, dwarfs bcash's. Not to mention its liquidity. Hashrate and liquidity are both only functions of the current level of adoption, and have absolutely nothing to do with the merits of its technical or economic design. >WITHOUT A MIDDLEMAN. I didn't say it was perfect. So its a natural ponzi without a middleman. So what? Doesnt change the fact that it was designed to be good for payments but it was hijacked and crippled. >Peer-to-peer means its decentralized. The supply and issuance make it suitable as a store of value. I think you have cash on the brain. Whats your point here? Satoshi literally said the its for payments and prioritized payments. Heres a thread talking about how: "The original Bitcoin whitepaper by Satoshi mentions “transaction” 69 times, “cash” or “payment” 18 times, “gold” 2 times, and “store of value” 0 times. 🤔🤔🤭 https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/ewy1o2/the_original_bitcoin_whitepaper_by_satoshi/ >If you're just going to continuously cite this fucking subtitle in an 11 year old white paper and ignore Bitcoin's design then this is just a waste of my time. Its literally the first sentence of the whitepaper that outline's bitcoin's design. What better evidence can there be of bitcoin's original intentions and goals? >To show it truly is crippled. Any crippling of BCH would be only due to loss of marketshare vs before the split with BTC. If BCH retained the BTC ticker and the 99% of crypto users who just defaulted to stay with BTC with no actual thought, bitcoin would still be electronic cash instead of being crippled and relegated to a lowly ponzi scheme. >So what's the problem? ....the problem is you're making stupid claims like "you ignore things that aren't in the white paper." as if thats a valid argument, but now we see that was a dead end for you once again. >People can lose their way after a brilliant start. You're entitled to feel that way. But it doesnt change the fact that the current Core team hijacked and crippled bitcoin. >It's basically the same as pre-mine. 15 million (or whatever it was) of the coins sprang instantly into existence. But any value was subtracted from the BTC that corresponded to the BCH. >Because Roger Ver pumped it you mean. If people were getting free BCH why was it worth anything? It wasnt free because you had to buy BTC to get it. >Red herring. Bitcoin was never good at fast payments. Satoshi Dice would like to have a word with you. But you're not very good with words are you? The problems

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 1, 2020 20:57:34
/r/CelsiusNetwork/comments/esivbm/btc_bonus_rate_for_usa_residents/fg7wuec/

Has this been confirmed? Yours is the most definitive answer to this I've found.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CelsiusNetwork on February 1, 2020 19:31:43
/r/blockfi/comments/exerqd/why_arent_there_fiat_based_companies_offering_8/fg7t34g/

Those sites both look like they're just offering peer to peer lending, not giving you a straight 8%+ for your cash. I've used lendingclub, and while some notes offer interest rates as high as 25%, after all the defaults, you're lucky if you get more than 3.5% return on average.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/blockfi on February 1, 2020 18:46:18
/r/blockfi/comments/exerqd/why_arent_there_fiat_based_companies_offering_8/fg7sr7r/

Can you provide an example of a company that offers 8% interest on your fiat?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/blockfi on February 1, 2020 18:42:24
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ew5qn7/after_not_having_a_block_for_almost_55_hours_bch/fg7pd75/

>It has more users. What do you expect? Raise the blocksize to accomodate design, as was intended. >Sounds like it would lead to bloat and centralisation. How so? if blocksize is only increasing at a similar rate as hardware and bandwidth become more affordable, how does that increase centralization? >Let bcash try this route if it wants. You're the ones that changed the original intentions of the design. Why didnt you make an altcoin incstead of hijacking and crippling bitcoin? >But people will not buy something just because of low fees and speed. No one wants to buy Nano. They want a way to store value free of seizure and separate from traditional money. The only reason people buy bitcoin is because it has the BTC ticker. It inferior in every single way except for the adoption level that it inherited. >Bitcoin is the best means in existence to store value without a middleman. No its not, volatility is too high to be a good store of value. And the best way to reduce volatility is to get more people to transact with it and expand its acceptance. Storage was always secondary. Was it called "Bitcoin: a decentralized wealth storage mechanism"? The fact is the original design prioritized payments. >Txs or speed don't make something valuable. Gold is shit slow to send. All else being equal, faster tx speed does make something more valuable. But this is irrelevant to the fact that Bitcoin was designed for payments but has since been crippled. >So PayPal? Yes Paypal is electronic cash. But its not peer to peer electronic cash like Bitcoin. >I was talking about its problems in general. I didn't mean that they are all due to its throughput. I said: "Theres no evidence that the number of transactions per second couldnt increase by an order of magnitude without impacting security." Then you listed all those problems as if its because BCH allows too many tx per second. Why would you list those things as a response to what I said if it wasnt relevant? >https://doublespend.cash Funny, the only doublespends I see are for 0-conf transactions, which isnt even possible on BTC anymore. O-conf transactions *can* fail, but for many usecases the risk of failure is offset by the increased speed of the transaction. And BCH preserves that option, just as Bitcoin always did. >Since bcash cannot compete with Visa nor be a reliable store of value it's doubly crippled. Actually in the long term bitcoin can compete with Visa, so no I'm not missing anything then. >Because it fits his agenda. Why would he have an agenda if hes not even involved with bitcoin anymore? You think he doesnt have better things to do than to make fake satoshi messages using satoshi's spellings and phrasings to trick a community he doesnt even have anything to do with anymore? Bizarre. Its much more likely they're genuine. >But he says nothing about software updates in that quote. So? Everyone knew bitcoin would have updates. >Then Satoshi was an idiot. Because he designs a digital gold then claims it can take on Visa. Get it right to start with, Satoshi. Concentrate on tx throughput. Don't make the supply finite, or the rewards reducing every 4 years. It can take on Visa, you just have to increase the blocksize. And if you think a project's original vision is dumb, and you take control of it and change that vision, you've hijacked it, and you've crippled the original vision. >Do I have to go over this again? Two guys tinkering around with valueless math units is going to lead to something worth 9K some day? You would have been laughed at. No one would buy Bitcoin then. But bcash is born thanks to an industry and infrastructure Bitcoin created and goes straight to $300. That's why it and most alts are scams. This makes absolutely no sense. How can BCH be a scam when it was forked directly from bitcoin with no premine or founders award? BCH had instant value because there was instantly a large community ready to break free from Core's stranglehold. >Photoshop was designed originally just to fix scans. Is that all we should use it for? Poor example, because Photoshop's addition of features doesnt compromise its ability to fix scans.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 1, 2020 18:02:02
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ew5qn7/after_not_having_a_block_for_almost_55_hours_bch/fg7hzjz/

>It was never good at what you want it do. Thats a lie, I used to send transactions for less than 1 cent and have them in the next block every time. >1GB blocks would be needed to compete with Visa and goodbye decentralisation and security. No thanks. We dont need to compete with Visa immediately, we just need enough blocksize to keep steadily onboaring users with low fees, and then in 2 or 3 decades we can reach visa scale, which only takes 500mb blocks, not 1 GB. But in 2050 the difference between 500mb and 1gb would not be significant anyways. >Don't be disingenuous. I'm talking about stamp, art, comic collecting. You don't need to spend $1 million on a stamp or comic if you just want to use them. They are ponzis also by your definition. Including gold for that matter - as a money. They arent just ponzis because all those categories of things are still good at their primary function. If bitcoin isnt good at transactions it has no primary function besides being a ponzi scheme for people to park money in. >They have some. But only some. All use middleman. Until Bitcoin. Duh. Did you actually have a point here? >What a cop out of an answer. Then it's pointless to continue. If by cash you mean coins and banknotes Bitcoin can never replicate this. If by cash you mean those digits stored in the bank that is not your money and they are basically IOUs. So I assume you mean any kind of money, as in the second definition in the UK dictionary (and Apple's). I mean cash as in money for payments....the definition of cash. Money for payments does not need to be physical. >Really? Read again the story above. The double-spending. The blocks which are empty half the time. There's no such thing as free lunch. There are always trade offs. Wow. Listen to yourself. Do you really think BCh supposedly having too many tx per second has anything to do with BCh having empty blocks? BCH has empty blocks because its a minority chain, it has nothing to do having too much transaction capacity. Good lord, you're embarrassing yourself again. And what doublespending in particular are you even talking about? >Besides the point - you ignore things that aren't in the white paper. No thats **literally** the point of what we're talking about...bitcoin being crippled...which is relative to what bitcoin was originally designed to do. >you ignore things that aren't in the white paper. Like what exactly? What am I ignoring thats relevant to whether bitcoin has been crippled from its original state? >In an email Mike Hearn produced. Like he can be trusted. He shared them after he had already left the community. Why would he have incentive to start making up fake conversations with Satoshi. No one has any real reason to believe they're fake, because its all consistant with what Satoshi had already said. Its telling you feel the need to question the veracity of the quote, since its so damning to your position. >Anyway, even if true clearly Satoshi was wrong. He's only talking about hardware advances. Actually, he was right because bandwidth has been increasing exponentially as well. >The creator believing in it is one thing. One person (or two - Finney) can't give something value. What point were you even trying to make then? That only projects that no one believes in (besides the creator) can avoid being scams? How the fuck is that logical? >Says the guy arguing from authority all the time. Second guessing Satoshi just leads to centralization. Forget about Satoshi. He gave up. Or is dead. Fuck him. We don't eulogise over the inventor of the wheel. You still fail to understand that what Satoshi said is relevant to our argument, because we're literally talking about the original vision of bitcoin vs what is now, and how its been crippled.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 1, 2020 16:36:18
/r/btc/comments/ewy1o2/the_original_bitcoin_whitepaper_by_satoshi/fg76ydk/

Bitcoin was literally hijacked by people who never believed in the original design or purpose of bitcoin.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on February 1, 2020 14:30:41
/r/investing/comments/ex7he0/buying_google_shares_on_monday/fg76dxt/

> I mean, it's not like google needs to invent a new product. I mean, if everyone knew Google wouldnt be inventing any new products, their PE ration would contract significantly, no? I dont think user growth/advertising growth in their existing products would justify it.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on February 1, 2020 14:24:29
/r/nottheonion/comments/ewtl53/rubio_impeachable_actions_dont_necessarily_mean_a/fg73nso/

I dont think so. I think Trump doesnt just care about money, but does actually want to be liked and respected, so he's trying to do a good job. And ultimately, Trump's motivations for encouraging an investigation of Biden isnt very consequential. The fact is that as president, he has a right to suggest investigating anything that looks like it might be worth investigating. Trump has done better than any recent president in avoiding war. I think hes a giant douch, but you have to give him credit.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/nottheonion on February 1, 2020 13:53:59
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ew5qn7/after_not_having_a_block_for_almost_55_hours_bch/fg731qj/

>Bitcoin is what it is. As I said before gold and the dollar are also crippled in that case. Just because it doesn't do X doesn't make it crippled. When bitcoin was originally designed to do something, and then later people show up and dont let it do that, yes that means its clearly been crippled. >Now you're trolling. In that case any collectible is a ponzi. Stamps, comic books, art, wine. Txs don't give something value. If it did Visa would be worth a lot more than gold. Stamps are used for sending letters. Comic books are for reading. Art is for decorating. Wine is for drinking. All those things have primary uses, and their value simply for the sake of increasing in value is secondary. >Txs don't give something value. If it did Visa would be worth a lot more than gold. Look up the "transactional demand for money". Transaction networks have real value. Just because gold is worth more than most transaction networks doesnt mean transaction networks dont have value. >I asked you for your definition. I dont have a made up personal definition for cash. I use the dictionary definition like a sane person does. >You can have a thousand txs per second but the security will be shit. Theres no evidence that the number of transactions per second couldnt increase by an order of magnitude without impacting security. >Then block me. I'd rather expose you for what you are. >You think you are clever arguing from authority and dogmatically? The white paper is your bible. Do you know there are many things taken for granted about Bitcoin not in the paper such as the 21 million limit? We're literally talking about whether bitcoin has been crippled, in which case the original design is our base point for before bitcoin was crippled, and the whitepaper literally describes the intentions of the original design. >It can do all of that - but it's not implicit that it is a replacement for Visa. Satoshi literally said that Bitcoin could replace VISA: "The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. **Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost.** It never really hits a scale ceiling. If you're interested, I can go over the ways it would cope with extreme size. By Moore's Law, we can expect hardware speed to be 10 times faster in 5 years and 100 times faster in 10. Even if Bitcoin grows at crazy adoption rates, I think computer speeds will stay ahead of the number of transactions." >No one saw it coming. No one could be sure it would ever have value. Satoshi literally said that Bitcoin would be worth accumulating from the beginning: "It might make sense just to get some in case it catches on" And this ignores the fact that an expected distribution is beneficial for distribution, while you're claiming the opposite. >Everyone who doesn't agree with you is acting in bad faith apparently. I wouldn't be wasting my time if I didn't believe in what I was writing. Then you need to take a critical thinking class because your writing is absolutely full of logical fallacies, not to mention the demonstrable misinformation. >And your dogmatism is cringe making. Just like here you fail to recognize the relevance of Satoshi's writings. We're talking about whether bitcoin has been crippled, which neccessarily depends on what the early creators and investors intended for it.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 1, 2020 13:47:05
/r/nottheonion/comments/ewtl53/rubio_impeachable_actions_dont_necessarily_mean_a/fg71d81/

> I just don't buy that Trump wanted them actually investigated. Why wouldnt he want them investigated? Even if he would settle for just an announcement of an investigation, an actual drawn out investigation would be much better, wouldnt it? >extorting If you think this is extortion its clear you just dont understand of international diplomacy is carried out.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/nottheonion on February 1, 2020 13:28:22
/r/nottheonion/comments/ewtl53/rubio_impeachable_actions_dont_necessarily_mean_a/fg6zwhv/

> is because he was not investigating corrupt entities like Burisma This is actually entirely false. Shulken had seized property from the owner of Burisma only 2 weeks before Biden started pressuring Poroshenko to remove Shulken: https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/322395.html

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/nottheonion on February 1, 2020 13:12:17
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ew5qn7/after_not_having_a_block_for_almost_55_hours_bch/fg6zf1x/

> You're the one who thinks cash is only for payments. By defintion cash is money thats been optimized for payments. Thats different than *only* being for payments. >Having fewer txs per second compared to coins which make trade offs is not crippling. Bitcoin is crippled because it has less txs per second than the original designers intended it to have by now, other cryptos arent relevant to that issue. >However, you won't admit that most buy Bitcoin and alts because they think they will appreciate, not to buy things. At this stage of the game, where only moonboys are using BTC and retailers arent accepting it because of high fees and capital gains on every sale, sure. But if the only reason something has value is because you think you can sell it for more in the future, thats called a natural ponzi. Literally the only thing that underpins bitcoin having real value its it value as a *transaction network*. >Too vague. Ready money is just another term for cash. Its not too vague. Ready money is literally the Webster defintion of cash: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cash and the defintion of ready money is literally related to payments: ' money on hand or quickly available especially : money held ready for payment or actually paid at the time of a transaction https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ready%20money Its obvious to anyone that you're arguing against reality here, sorry. >Which means it has to be slow Lol, no it doesnt. having issuance and supply similar to gold doesnt mean transactions have to be similar to gold as well. Thats just stupid. >I see the insults are coming which means you know you are losing the argument. No it means I dont repect you because you're either dumb or you're arguing in bad faith. What you're saying is clearly illogical. >Bitcoin as designed is not a payments network. It never was. Literally the first sentence of the bitcoin whitepaper is talkeing about its use as a payment network: "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would **allow online payments to be sent** directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. " >Hindsight on your part. You were talking about what satoshi expected, not me, he clearly said many times that he was optimistic bitcoin would work. >Its creation was expected - which is not conducive to decentralization. Literally the opposite actually. If i create something in secret, mine in secret, and then only later open to the public, that hurts decentralization. Having an expected and well publicized start to distribution helps decentralization. >And please no more childish insults. Just stick to the points. Please fuck off, because its obvious to anyone that you're arguing in bad faith, and you're not even doing a good job of pretending otherwise.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 1, 2020 13:07:00
/r/nottheonion/comments/ewtl53/rubio_impeachable_actions_dont_necessarily_mean_a/fg6eziw/

I'm not so sure. Trump is head of law enforcement in this country, and its a legitimate use of law enforcement to ask a foreign country if a citizen has been doing anything illegal in that country. The foreign aspect is pretty irrelevant, especially since Ukranian linked people were actually helping the DNC with the anti-Trump russian collusion theory. Its only inappropriate that Trump directed his law enforcement activities against a rival at all. But honestly, it seemed a pretty mind ask. Its not like he tried to throw Biden in jail.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/nottheonion on February 1, 2020 09:07:14
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ew5qn7/after_not_having_a_block_for_almost_55_hours_bch/fg6eqju/

>So why add the last 7 words? Surely that makes it tautologous? And why not use supposed informalities? The paper was written after Bitcoin was coded. Wow! He adds context to clarify and make clear that cash is being used in the context of something for payments, and you really want to use that to argue that the definition of cash he's using *isnt* one thats used for payments! You're really something special! >Whatever. Consensus has agreed Bitcoin is Bitcoin. Those pretending their shitcoin is Bitcoin are the hijackers. Consensus...lol. You seem to have missed the fact that this is completely irrelevant to the point of BTC being crippled anyways. >Simply nonsense. Facts. >Most don't do that. And what is the point? Just use the fiat you were going to use to buy replacement coins to buy the product. More than likely the vendor will convert it to fiat anyway. Most dont do it because fees are too high and the current tax burden. To right off payments now because "most people dont want to spend deflationary asset" is stupid and anti-bitcoin. >Give me your definition of cash. Ready money...money thats ready and well suiting to being spent as currency. >There are still fees. So? >Do it right to begin with if you want a Visa killer. Don't model it on fucking gold. Only the distribution and inflation is modeled on gold. Nothing about the transaction itself is modeled on gold. Jesus, how dense are you? >Benefit of hindsight on your part. “If you don't believe it or don't get it, I don't have the time to try to convince you, sorry.” >Why not worth 3 cents? A scam riding on Bitcoin's success. Because many people realize BCH has a superior roadmap. Besides, the price is irrelevant to whether BCH is a scam, because the tokens werent awarded to the creators, they were distributed proportionally to anyone that owned bitcoin. And by splitting the community token value was taken from BTC, not created out of thin air.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on February 1, 2020 09:03:33
/r/nottheonion/comments/ewtl53/rubio_impeachable_actions_dont_necessarily_mean_a/fg4x39y/

> The new 'argument' is that they can't have a trial or remove him because 'the nation can't handle it'. And also that while what Trump did might have been inappropriate, it wasnt serious enough to warrant impeachment.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/nottheonion on January 31, 2020 18:24:02
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ew5qn7/after_not_having_a_block_for_almost_55_hours_bch/fg4wgay/

>And I'd prefer a UK dictionary as Satoshi used UK spelling. Interesting to note you picked the second, informal usage, when the context we're discussing is a formal whitepaper. Clearly cash denotes spending money, especially when the first sentence of the whitepaper specifically mentions the use being **payments** : "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash **would allow online payments to be sent"** >A hijacking suggests a few want a majority to do something against their will. A hijacking has nothing to do with majority or minority, it suggests those taking over are outsiders who wish to redirect the project. >The majority have chosen to continue to recognise Bitcoin as Bitcoin. The majority didnt choose anything. They simply continued running the only software they had by default. >Give me a break. You know perfectly well most prefer just to hold Bitcoin because its inflation is far lower than fiat. Who are fooling? Yourself? So now you're telling me you're too stupid to spend and replace? >Since Bitcoin is running just fine and bcash subject to stuff like in this post and 51% attacks and double-spending I would have to say the latter is crippled. I'd rather "slow" and secure any day. Unfortunately for you, that only has to do with the current level of adoption, and says nothing of the underlying technical merits and whether the design has been crippled. >Sure it is. Any HF is risky. Not hardforking is risky. >And don't say something for payments. Visa and PayPal are also. Why not? cash is inherently money for payments. Visa and paypal are also electronic cash, they're just not peer to peer. >Fees are fees. Paper cash has no fees. And what happens after all the coins have being mined? fees are fees? What kind of nonsense is that? Obviously smaller fees are preferable than larger fees. Negligible fees was always the goal, not 0 fees. >That's blurb, not a design. Huh? Its literally describing the problem set the design is seeking to solve. >Don't fix the supply, have millions of txs a day out of the box. What the fuck are you even talking about? >No expectation of it ever working. He clearly hoped and expected it to work. >What? It has a coin. Which went to $300 right away for doing absolutely nothing. And you only got BCH if you had BTC. There was no founders award or anything, so why would it matter?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 31, 2020 18:17:06
/r/politics/comments/ewcwdz/rand_paul_walks_out_of_senate_after_question_is/fg4v17u/

> not a third party witness, a direct witness Almost all the evidence presented by the whistleblower was second hand information. What exactly did the whistleblower witness personally? >But if the named person isn’t the whistleblower, and isn’t involved in this investigation (because if he isn’t the whistleblower than he is not involved) then it’s irrelevant. No, its perfectly reasonable to believe that people other than the whistleblower WERE involved, and they WOULD therefore be relevant whether they are the whistleblower or not. >But making sense, rational thought, and critics thinking isn’t your goal (or strength). Try some reasding comprehension some time. Perhaps youd be less baffled.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/politics on January 31, 2020 18:01:59
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ew5qn7/after_not_having_a_block_for_almost_55_hours_bch/fg3xh6e/

>Not necessarily. It can be for savings also. Yes necessarily. Websters says: "1: ready money 2: money or its equivalent (such as a check) paid for goods or services at the time of purchase or delivery" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cash >The second meaning of cash in the dictionary is "money in any form". Please link this definition. >Well, consensus says otherwise. Consensus has nothing to do with whether or not an organization has been hijacked. If China ships in 50 million people to Taiwan and registers them to vote, they might have a fairly strong consensus to rejoin China, but that doesnt mean Taiwanese systems werent hijacked. >And yet it's not good at that obviously. And no one will want to spend an asset that appreciates in value no matter what size the blocks. More evidence you never even believed in bitcoin and simply hijacked it to create a new project. Bitcoin was always about spending deflationary money instead of inflationary. >No one is using bcash anyway so the demand is not there. The current state of adoption is due to speculation, ticker symbols, and inertia, so thats irrelevant to whether the functionality of bitcoin has been crippled. >Simply hard forking is enough. No its not. >Seashells are lousy as a money. Why bring it up? You said Cash is money, gold is money, as if somehow that shows that gold is electronic cash. Because seashells were money too, but that doesnt mean we want bitcoin to function in all ways like shells. >Or in this case if it bears no resemblance to cash and more to gold. The original system bore more resemblance to cash before you idiots crippled it. >As I said it's nothing like paper cash. Which is fungible, anonymous, physical and has no fixed supply. Or by cash you means IOUs in some network? The original design clearly specified that bitcoin would have negligible fees, much like theres no prohibitive cost to spend cash. >Lightning and other layers the "cash". bitcoin was the cash before you idiots crippled it >It doesn't look like it judging by the design. The first sentence in the whitepaper is literally "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online **payments** to be sent" >Johnny come late-lies. Actually you guys are the Johnny come latelies that hijacked the project. OG bitcoiners that believed in the original project have left you behind. >All centralized because their launches were expected. This doesnt make any sense. A well publicized launch is actually critical to a fair distribution, just has Satoshi publicly announced before mining began. >Lightning at least doesn't have a token to enrich its creators. Neither does BCH.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 31, 2020 12:29:15
/r/politics/comments/ewcwdz/rand_paul_walks_out_of_senate_after_question_is/fg3vo0l/

>Ok.... then how is the question relevant in any way to the impeachment trial or determining if there was wrongdoing? Because the origins of an investigation are relevant to a trial to determine if there is any bias. And theres a clear pattern of Democrats in washington conspiring to implicate the president, first in manufacturing a fake Russian collusion story, and when that failed they shifted to trying to pretend the presidents actions in trying to expose that failed effort was in itself somehow illegal. >Are you suggesting that 2 random people wanting you to be convicted of a crime invalidates the investigation into actual crimes in some way? How so? Not neccessarily, but if individuals are conspiring to get someone arrested (and not for any specific thing, but for any crime they could possibly find), any evidence they produce should be taken with a grain of salt. >Unless this question was being used to invalidate a witness, or someone making a claim against the president, how does it make any sense being asked at all? It is actually. The whistleblower is simply a third party witness.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/politics on January 31, 2020 12:11:03
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ew5qn7/after_not_having_a_block_for_almost_55_hours_bch/fg3jc4i/

>Lazy. Where's your answer? You think payments isnt implicitly a part of a cash system? Amazing. >Better to make it future proof, no? Better? Sure. But it doesnt follow that just because a feature hasnt been future proofed, that you prevent it from being changed. Quite the opposite actually. >Not that it matters what he wanted. The white paper is not holy scripture. It does, it matters to the people that bought and worked on bitcoin to achieve the original goals. >There's a history of things not be used for supposedly what they were invented for. You'd insist the wheel is only for carts. Theres a difference between hijacking an organization and changing its goals, and using a product differently than was originally intended. >So why do you expect it to be good for payments? Because its an electronic cash mechanism that can scale to meet demand simply by raising the blocksize. Pretending bitcoin is gold and so inherently has all its drawbacks is intellectually lazy as fuck. >And you expect it to remain secure. Yep. You've provided no evidence that bitcoin could not be secure or censorship resistant with even 32mb blocks. >I wasn't saying that at all. Why randomly pick gold as your expectation target, and not seashells? > But aiming to be as good as gold is not a low expectation. For an electronic cash system, it is, sorry. >Better than your sophistrty. You already admitted its issuance and supply were like gold. Gold mining is even mentioned in the white paper. Satoshi even compared it to gold: Again, just because the inflation mechanism is like gold in no way means Bitcoin inherently has all of gold's other limitations. Anyone reading this could clearly see this is a stupid argument. >Look at the message in the genesis block to see where his priorities lay - killing central banks. Absolutely. Yet you hijacked bitcoin and change it to rely on the LN to actually scale, which is inherently centralizing in its hub design. > I've nothing against payments - but use another layer for that type of thing. Bitcoin was designed for payments. BTC is now bitcoin in ticker symbol only.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 31, 2020 10:01:54
/r/politics/comments/ewcwdz/rand_paul_walks_out_of_senate_after_question_is/fg3hgtc/

> Considering this is a question about whether these two people started the impeachment, and the impeachment was started because of a whistleblower, it's definitely alleging that one of them is the whistleblower. It would only be alleging one of them is the whistleblower, if the question alleged that one of them initiated the actual complaint, which it does not. The question only alleges that they may have been *plotting impeachment*. Some group could certainly have been plotting impeachment, and then found someone else to who was in a good position to do so, to be the actual whistleblower. There could have been many people plotting Trump's impeachment in Washington, and it doesnt follow that anyone who was plotting impeachment must be the whistleblower, or that the whistleblower must be one of these 2 people who might have been plotting Trump's impeachment.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/politics on January 31, 2020 09:40:32
/r/politics/comments/ewcwdz/rand_paul_walks_out_of_senate_after_question_is/fg3gkog/

So you accuse others of being intellectually bankrupt, yet you arent even willing to offer an actual substantive arguement yourself, amazing! I was hoping you could provide a compelling argument for the state banning extra large soft drinks and other nonsense you liberals do.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/politics on January 31, 2020 09:29:48
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ew5qn7/after_not_having_a_block_for_almost_55_hours_bch/fg3g9tp/

>Who cares what the name of the whitepaper is. Everyone who bought and worked on bitcoin in the early days to support that vision. >BTC is solving real world problems today, as we speak, and changing the rules via hardfork threatens those existing solutions. Bitcoin is lagging in actual real world applications vs competitors. >Why are you using crypto? What problems do you need solving? The answer to that question alone leads to the direction of the chain you choose. I want money that is convenient to transact and is issued independantly from the state. > Hard drives and bandwith get cheaper, yet node count doesn't seem to rising proportionally. Why would they? Fees have gone up, so why would more people use bitcoin? There are better alternatives. >Get 90% of the network running their own nodes and you'd easily have bigger blocks by now because the network would be supported by sufficient decentralization. You think it takes 90% of users running their own nodes to be "sufficiently decentralized"? Where is your evidence? Decentralization is only useful in that further decentralization provides further censorship resistance. Why you you think some entity would be able to censor bitcoin if only 1% of users ran full nodes (which depending on the current userbase could be as many as 70 million nodes spread across the world)?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 31, 2020 09:26:10
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ew5qn7/after_not_having_a_block_for_almost_55_hours_bch/fg3ffgq/

> There's nothing implicit about payments in that. LOL! >Blockchains are already too bloated. Wow, you're one of LukeJr's flat earther 250kb crew too? Amazing. >Why didn't he get it right in the first place? He did get it right in the first place. 1 mb was far beyond the current demand. The change was only to take place when demand picked up, but by that time Bitcoin development had been compromised. >And why model the supply and issuance on gold? Why not? Its simply an inflation and supply mechanism, you must pick one, and it fit well with mining. >You didn't answer why gold or whatever is not expected to do everything. Why would it? Gold is what it is and cant be modified. And like I said, we're not expecting Bitcoin to do everything, only to have more transaction capacity. >Cash is money. Gold is money. Seashells were money too at some times and in some places. That means if bitcoin is better than seashells, you're content, because its better than some other random money system? What pathetic low expectations. >This is irrelevant anyway. Gold is a competitor to Bitcoin. Goldbugs will not think Bitcoin expensive to use. "Bitcoin: A Peer to Peer electronic gold system" What a revistionist history you're peddling. Since you admit bitcoin is now crippled as an electronic cash system, you no longer even want to compare it to cash, only to archaic gold. How pathetic.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 31, 2020 09:15:52
/r/politics/comments/ewcwdz/rand_paul_walks_out_of_senate_after_question_is/fg2igko/

Doubly ironic, another intellectually bankrupt insult...keep going!

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/politics on January 30, 2020 23:40:37
/r/politics/comments/ewcwdz/rand_paul_walks_out_of_senate_after_question_is/fg2h9yy/

Ironic, because all you offered was an insult thats intellectually bankrupt in and of itself.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/politics on January 30, 2020 23:29:41
/r/politics/comments/ewcwdz/rand_paul_walks_out_of_senate_after_question_is/fg2fyzx/

>so it leaves the only possibility that the named person is involved, and unnamed, which is to say.... the whistleblower. This makes absolutely no sense, sorry.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/politics on January 30, 2020 23:17:50
/r/politics/comments/ewcwdz/rand_paul_walks_out_of_senate_after_question_is/fg2d4so/

>I'm blown away by how obsessed they are with the Whistleblower. Funny, because Rand's question didnt even mention anyone being a whistleblower...

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/politics on January 30, 2020 22:52:36
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ew5qn7/after_not_having_a_block_for_almost_55_hours_bch/fg2bx2v/

> It’s not crippled. Bitcoin is not trying to be Visa. Revistionist history. The name of the whitepaper is literally "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System". The changes prevented Bitcoin from achieving that and changed the original design plan to favor proprietary third party systems like liquid, therefore the base layer has been crippled relative to its original intentions. >1GB blocks would be needed to compete with Visa. Bitcoin doesnt need perfect parity with Visa immediately, but it obviously needs more capacity than it has, as evidenced by fee crises whenever mass adoption cycles are attempted. Just pegging the blocksize at a modest 12% growth per year would mean 500mb blocks (supporting 3500 transactions per second) in the 2050s arent any more of a burden than 4 mb blocks were then, yet core has failed to harness the free gains that technology advancement gives up continuously. Hard drives and bandwidth get cheaper every year, yet bitcoin is stuck with a static blocksize despite the plan having always been to raise it....bitcoin has been crippled. >Gold (or the dollar) is not expected to do everything (it doesn’t even have a network) why should Bitcoin? Because the designer and people using it originally expected blocksize to be raised to meet demand. Thats a simple expectation, a far cry from "doing everything". >The fees were high then because Segwit was hardly in use. Perhaps that played a part, but we precisely told you that Segwit would be too little too late to prevent a fee crisis. >Gold is far more expensive to ship - and there’s counter party risk. Gold isnt electronic cash

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 30, 2020 22:42:01
/r/politics/comments/ewcwdz/rand_paul_walks_out_of_senate_after_question_is/fg2aemq/

Seems like Roberts outed the whistleblower by making a big deal about the names Paul said. Paul didnt say anything about any of the names he mentioned being the whistleblower....

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/politics on January 30, 2020 22:29:25
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ew5qn7/after_not_having_a_block_for_almost_55_hours_bch/fg20s8o/

Surely you know what he means. BTC has crippled utility in that, a blocksize that was meant to increase enough to accommodate demand, was prevented from rising enough to accommodate that demand (hence being crippled). We argued about this for years, and the big blockers were proven right in DEC 2017 when bitcoin fees spiked to absurd levels and alienated many potential users forever.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 30, 2020 21:02:21
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ew7ei6/i_was_also_permanently_banned_from/fg070ax/

seems like r/cc is doing a r/bitcoin style purge or something?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 30, 2020 11:26:28
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ew7rvz/ubitcoinxio_exposing_his_altaccount_crying/fg06vb0/

Huh? you think kain_niak and BitcoinXio are the same person? Why? Just because BitcoinXio was banned around the same time that Kain was posting about being banned? Doesnt it seem more likely to you that some mod just banned them both around the same time?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 30, 2020 11:25:05
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/eusz81/the_bitcoin_cash_125_developer_fund_will_lower/ffticez/

> there is no money from bch people thats demonstrably false >Hashrate is added all the time. 3% extra hashrate added is normal. Hashrate is added all the time from mining efficiency improvements. If you think about it a little longer, you'd realize thats very different from hashrate going up because mining competition is consolidating on a smaller pool of available mining rewards.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 28, 2020 09:22:07
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/eusz81/the_bitcoin_cash_125_developer_fund_will_lower/ffslfmi/

>Are you for real? Maybe think about that for 2 more minutes.. Whether hashpower comes from increased computing efficient, or from new mining farms coming online or from miners fleeing worthless chains there is no difference. hashpower is hashpower. Some come in some go out. THE ATTACKER DOES NOT CARE about a tiny change in hashrate. If that was the case his plans would be spoiled by a slight drop in BTC price. or another mining farm coming online. You seem to be missing something here. BCH disappearing doesnt just increase the difficulty on BTC....it results in a permanent 4% decrease in the total value of tokens available for mining with SHA-256 machines. 160% increase in hashpower doesnt decrease the amount of money available to all miners, it just means their machines are getting more efficient. Hashrate increasing is very different from the point of view of the mining industry as a whole, than the total value of tokens available to be mined decreasing. While to a miner who is stuck with the hashrate they currently have, it may seem similar to their bottom line, for miners who design their own asics and are constantly increasing their mining efficiency anyways, its very different. >When it happens don't say you weren't warned. Lol, more useless hand waving from you.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 27, 2020 23:10:36
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/eusz81/the_bitcoin_cash_125_developer_fund_will_lower/ffshzzx/

>Hashrate has increased by 160% in the last 6 months (while price decreased by 10%). your 2.6% is nothing. This is nonsense, because the hashrate increase of 160% didnt reduce aggregate miner profitability...its simply a function of increasing computing power available to the miners, and didnt decrease the size of the market at all. On the other hand, BCH ceasing to exist literally decreases the size of the market available to SHA-256 miners by 4%. And if you havent noticed, BCH is now 4% of BTC, not 2.6%. >There hasn't been a successful attack on Banano coin either. That doesn't mean it wont happen. Banano isnt even a POW coin, its a DPOS so its not even comparable. >It's not safe. You keep saying that but have no proof. Its like if I have a safe with inch thick walls in my house, and you come up to me and say its not safe unless I have 10ft thick walls, despite my safe working fine for me. >My point all along has consistently been that these are not strong enough insensitive to keep a miner from attacking. History has proven you wrong.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 27, 2020 22:29:33
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/eusz81/the_bitcoin_cash_125_developer_fund_will_lower/ffsfwn2/

> So since profits are nearly identical for both chains, there's only one reason why someone would mine BCH over BTC: goodwill. Personal interest. Not economics. Not profits. Its so facinating watching someone so hilariously uninformed. There are literally software programs run by miners that switch automatically between BCH and BTC based on PROFITABILITY. >Now you're talking about individual chains. Im not just talking about individual chains. The scenario is 2 chains existing, and then 1 chain ceasing to exist. That leads to a decrease in profitability for all SHA-256 miners. Therefore miners have a rational economic interest to preserve the BCH chain.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 27, 2020 22:05:20
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/eusz81/the_bitcoin_cash_125_developer_fund_will_lower/ffsf1l8/

Variance averages out, a sustained 4% loss doesn't. If 4% of your ongoing revenue gets deleted and you "barely notice"....you're an idiot.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 27, 2020 21:55:26
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/eusz81/the_bitcoin_cash_125_developer_fund_will_lower/ffsearx/

>The economic realities of the system is that BTC and BCH mining rewards are nearly identical over time regardless of the near term oscilliations which randomly favor either. The thing that is "nearly identical over time" is the **amount** of coins per 10 minutes. And guess what happens in the hypothetical situation where all the miners that were mining BCH switch to mining BTC? More miners are competing for the same amount of coins, therefore difficulty goes up, and therefore **THEIR PROFIT GOES DOWN**. > So the 3% who continue to mine BCH are not doing it for any economic reasons whatsoever, but rather for the reasons the other guy said: goodwill from the few who promote that chain. You just made me LOL. The 3% mining BCH are literally mining BCH because it is profitable to do so.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 27, 2020 21:47:01
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/eusz81/the_bitcoin_cash_125_developer_fund_will_lower/ffs9lh6/

>The BTC hashrate swings more in a day than the entire BCH hashrate. And things keep ticking on. It would only take a 2.6% rise in BTC price for this loss to canceled out. It is very reasonable to expect BTC to increase in value by more than 2.6% in this scenario (or even just due to day to day price swings). Miners deal with this all the time. Hashrate swings average out, but a sustained 3% loss in revenue leads to a much greater loss in profit and is absolutely a significant factor. >This is not enough to deter an attacker Obviously it is enough to deter an attacker, otherwise can you point to a successful attack on BCH? As much animosity as BCH gets, why has there been no successful attack? >Not a permanent loss to the attacker. As difficulty adjusts up, some miners with older/less efficient hardware will drop out and profitability stabilizes. The effect of less profitable miners dropping out is a consistent consequence of a rising hashrate, but a net increase in hashrate is still a net decrease in profit. Profitability would eventually stabilize, yes, but it will stabilize at a lower point than when BCH coinbase rewards provided value to be extracted. >This is a terrible argument. If you want people to trust your coin, make it stand for itself. It's the fact that BCH is a minority chain and shares the same algorithm as BTC that makes it unsecure. Bitcoin is literally designed to eliminate the minority chain - Its called Nakamoto Consensus. BCH would be far less vulnerable if they switch algorithm. Satoshi never predicted the ability of multiple major cryptocurrencies existing concurrently, and if BCH holders wanted a coin with a different algorithm, they're free to sell BCH and buy some other coin. >Until then no intelligent person would hold any significant amount of money it there knowing that multiple entities could destroy it tomorrow. Regardless of your insults of the intelligence of BCH holders, obviously some people prefer to BTC. The multiple falsehoods you've claimed here dont give your opinion any value anyways, sorry.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 27, 2020 20:54:47
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/eusz81/the_bitcoin_cash_125_developer_fund_will_lower/ffs5v0h/

>Difficulty adjusts out and there is no net loss as long as they can continue mining something. Uh no. If one crypto and its underlying market ceases to exist and hashpower redirects to another crypto that runs on the same asics, there absolutely is a net loss for miners running those asics. The difficulty goes up on the remaining chain, which makes their miners less profitable. You literally just increased mining competition. >The very slight short term loss of profitability you are referring to (up to 2.6% if all BCH minders switch to BTC) is certainly not much loss and not a strong incentive against the potential profits. Its not a short term loss of profitability, its a permanent loss. BCH users like myself will not suddenly start buying up the BTC coinbase awards from the miners that switched to BTC. >BTC doesn't just rely on incentives to avoid attacks. There is physically not enough hardware available to even do it. You dont actually know that. A Nation like china certainly has the capability to stockpile (or seize) hardware to carry out such an attack. >enough rich friends Yea, all the rational miners that realize that BCh provides profit for them. Rational self interest and all that. >Good luck if its a nation state next time. You're the one that needs luck in such a scenario, because you're the bigger target.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 27, 2020 20:11:33
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/eusz81/the_bitcoin_cash_125_developer_fund_will_lower/ffs2vhd/

Just because you're ignorant to the economic realities of the system, doesnt mean thats all i care about, no.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 27, 2020 19:36:26
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/eusz81/the_bitcoin_cash_125_developer_fund_will_lower/ffs2fy5/

>If hashrate drops to 0, then no blocks get mined. Nothing is destroyed. You talk to me about not understanding blockchains and then you say this? Nothing is destroyed? How about the entire value proposition of being a transaction network? You think value of tokens wouldnt be destroyed in this scenario? >"Kept alive" obviously means continuing to mine, to produce blocks, to keep the chain moving forward. Which is a function of market price paying for hashpower. It requires no trust of goodwill of miners except that they're rationally self interested in profit, which is the basis of bitcoin's incentive model. Otherwise the only time you'd have to rely on trust or goodwill is if you think the hashpower isnt enough to discourage an attack, and in that case you certainly are talking about a chain potentially being destroyed by such an attack.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 27, 2020 19:31:24
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/eusz81/the_bitcoin_cash_125_developer_fund_will_lower/ffs1vyr/

>That goes out the window when you have two networks with the same hash algorithm. It doesnt because BCH provides additional value for their SHA-256 miners. You think if BCH ceases to exist BCH people will just move all their money back to BTC? Thanks for the laugh. >Miners could attack BCH while shorting it (profit), double spend it (profit), Both limited one time profits. Doublespending especially since you cant roll back more than 10 blocks anyways. >then immediately switch hardware over to mine BTC chain (profit). You say thats a profit, but its actually a loss. That would increase mining competition on the BTC chain and actually REDUCE their income.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 27, 2020 19:25:06
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/eusz81/the_bitcoin_cash_125_developer_fund_will_lower/ffs1h39/

>No one said anything about anyone trying to destroy anything. If we're trusting someone make sure the network is "kept alive", if they dont keep it alive its destroyed. You want to have a retarded semantic argument? Talking about low hashrate and trust implies defending from an attack, genius.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 27, 2020 19:20:29
/r/btc/comments/eup7vp/bitcoin_unlimiteds_buip_143_refuse_the_coinbase/ffryxlx/

This is how I feel. I'm on the fence about the dev fund, but it looks like theres pretty solid genuine disagreement on both sides, and I dont think this is worth splitting the community over.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 18:51:40
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/eusz81/the_bitcoin_cash_125_developer_fund_will_lower/ffry645/

And, you know, the fact that theres no economic incentive for miners to destroy something thats profitable for them?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 27, 2020 18:42:59
/r/btc/comments/eu9a3r/from_a_bch_security_perspective_users_are_far/ffq9d31/

>what, 1 GB blocks? I forgot what insanity you guys were doing nowadays with the lack of engineering talent) as 1 MB. This proves you dont even know wtf you're talking about, so why do you bother? >I'm not here to cure you of your destructive delusions though, I'm here to point and laugh. Have a good day :D Pathetic, get a life.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 07:08:50
/r/btc/comments/eu9a3r/from_a_bch_security_perspective_users_are_far/ffq8y7e/

> They are called users with full nodes, which barely exist in BCH. This is by design. And now you are living the consequences. What a load of bullshit. BCH would have just as many full nodes as BTC if it were the main chain. Its simply a matter of popularity. >Bitcoin is decentralized across users, miners, and devs while BCH is not. Actually it can be argued the BTC is highly centralized by the dev team and the organizations funding them.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 07:00:28
/r/btc/comments/eu9a3r/from_a_bch_security_perspective_users_are_far/ffoits3/

> The fact that 4 businessmen can unilaterally declare that they will be orphaning miners who don't pay the tax is what Bitcoiners have been warning you guys about since before the split. Its not like 4 entities representing a majority of something is rare in any field...how is this unique to BCH? At many points in BTC history a few entities controlled 51% hashpower as well. Bitcoin assumes a majority of miners are honest and seek to increase the value of the chain they are mining....not that there is no majority.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on January 26, 2020 17:34:49
/r/btc/comments/etj4ih/to_roger_ver_its_not_a_tax_its_a_service_fee/ffjl9vz/

we kicked them out to raise the blocksize. we still have to pay fees, they're just not inflated by an artificially small blocksize

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on January 25, 2020 20:07:14
/r/btc/comments/etj4ih/to_roger_ver_its_not_a_tax_its_a_service_fee/ffj133d/

>That's the lie right there. Some miners want it. Others do not. Tough shit. I want to send transactions, but I dont want to pay transaction fees too. >You're still a lying asshat. no u

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on January 25, 2020 16:28:46
/r/btc/comments/etj4ih/to_roger_ver_its_not_a_tax_its_a_service_fee/ffj09gb/

>They do want the transaction service, so they pay the service fee. Just like the pools mining blocks want other people to build on their blocks, so they contribute to the dev fund. >It's clear to me that you're a lying asshat. Please stop writing to me. Its clear to be me that you just want to be outraged and call names, but you dont own this forum, sorry.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on January 25, 2020 16:18:49
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/etcunt/critics_blast_bitcoin_cash_mining_tax_as_a/ffizvtd/

> No its not false. What I said is a fact. Bullshit its not a fact because its not a 1000% attack. Theres not financial incentive for Bitmain to send all of their hash to BCH when its not profitable to do so. Just like theres not financial incentive for the US Government to attack the BTC chain, although they could certainly do that if they wished, just as bitmain could if they wished to BCH. >Why would a bitcoin miner waste their time mining worthless blocks on BCH though? They'd be giving up real revenue by leaving the BTC chain. BCH blocks have inherent worth due to market value of the block subsidy whether you like it or not. The simple fact is that the existence of BCH provides aditional revenue for SHA-256 miners.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 25, 2020 16:14:11
/r/btc/comments/etj4ih/to_roger_ver_its_not_a_tax_its_a_service_fee/ffhxyu7/

>No, you cannot say the subsidy fee is a service fee. Some of the miners do not want that service and don't want to pay for it. some people who send transactions dont want to pay transactions fees either, but tough shit, huh? >Straw man argument. Nobody claimed there was violence involved. You made that shit up. Wrong. A tax requires the threat of violence. thats inherent in the definition of a tax. So calling the subsidy a tax is incorrect.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on January 25, 2020 08:25:38
/r/btc/comments/etj4ih/to_roger_ver_its_not_a_tax_its_a_service_fee/ffhwznd/

you could say the subsidy fee is a service fee. you pay the miners for building ontop of your block, that you wanted and decided to mine. taxes requires implied violence to be enforced. where is the violence here?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on January 25, 2020 08:06:51
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/etcunt/critics_blast_bitcoin_cash_mining_tax_as_a/ffhwwer/

> First of all, pools operators don't control 100% of the hashrate in their pool. If they ever pull something shady, individual miners will leave their pool. You can say the same thing about BCH pools. >Bitmain is able to pull this off with BCH so easily because it's really a 1000% attack. They have 10x more hashpower than the entire rest of the BCH miners. False, all SHA-256 miners are ultimately BCH miners as well. And since this BCH dev fund is recusing the profitability of all SHA-256 miners equally (Both BCH and BTC miners) and all miners are able to reject the subisidy blocks if they wish, calling this a 1000% attack is nonsense.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 25, 2020 08:05:04
/r/btc/comments/etj4ih/to_roger_ver_its_not_a_tax_its_a_service_fee/ffhwozy/

>Miners are not obligated to mine your transaction and the tip intensives them to do it. No compulsion here, thus no tax Miners are not obligated to build ontop of your blocks, and the tip (funding the dev fund) incentivizes them to do it. >No compulsion here, thus no tax Lol, if you dont think theres a compulsion to pay transaction fees, you must not have been here during the the winter 2017 fee crisis. >That is essentially a tax as non payment involves men with guns and night sticks. Where are the guns and night sticks that these bitcoin miners have?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on January 25, 2020 08:01:05
/r/btc/comments/eta1ua/why_the_silence_from_the_people_who_signed_their/ffhwhrx/

You dont seem to have thought about this fully, because you're wrong. Redirecting some of the coinbase award from miners toward a dev fund reduces the profitability of BCH mining, which will cause some miners to switch to BTC, which leads to more competition in BTC mining, the difficulty going up, and profitability going down on BTC mining as well. Shifting money to the dev fund ultimately reduces the profitability of all SHA-256 miners equally, and since 96% of SHA-256 miners are mining BTC, its mostly paid by BTC miners.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on January 25, 2020 07:57:10
/r/btc/comments/etfy8n/bitcoincoms_clarifications_on_the_miner/ffhwcfo/

> it does not need to do any work to get the funds actually, in reality, it has to do 51% of the work to get the funds >both fees and block reward goes to who does a work (PoW), and are open to anyone doing that work. redirecting some miner profits to a dev fund is also open to anyone who does 51% of the work

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on January 25, 2020 07:54:12
/r/btc/comments/etj4ih/to_roger_ver_its_not_a_tax_its_a_service_fee/ffgqa0n/

are transaction fees a tax on transactors? is the block subsidy a tax (through inflation) on people who already own coins? you cant just throw the word tax around in non-governmental use, it doesnt make sense.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on January 24, 2020 19:31:59
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/etcunt/critics_blast_bitcoin_cash_mining_tax_as_a/ffgmcb9/

They might not at this moment, but just a few months ago they certainly did.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 24, 2020 18:46:10
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/etcunt/critics_blast_bitcoin_cash_mining_tax_as_a/ffgg7rb/

Funny that you talk like Bitmain and their allied pools dont control 51% of BTC hashpower too.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 24, 2020 17:38:41
/r/btc/comments/etfy8n/bitcoincoms_clarifications_on_the_miner/ffgfa8y/

if you want to stretch the term to such an extent, you could argue the entire block reward subsidy itself is already a tax.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on January 24, 2020 17:28:54
/r/btc/comments/eta1ua/why_the_silence_from_the_people_who_signed_their/ffgeizy/

Perhaps, but that doesnt tell us that only ABC will be getting funds, which was my point.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on January 24, 2020 17:20:58
/r/btc/comments/eta1ua/why_the_silence_from_the_people_who_signed_their/fffhao6/

thats a bold claim considering we dont even know how these funds will be distributed yet

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on January 24, 2020 11:39:04
/r/btc/comments/eta1ua/why_the_silence_from_the_people_who_signed_their/fffe3ha/

Who is getting hostily taken over, when you consider that the vast majority of this funding will ultimately be paid by BTC (not BCH) miners?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on January 24, 2020 11:05:45
/r/btc/comments/eta1ua/why_the_silence_from_the_people_who_signed_their/fffdux4/

Yea the governance of the funds is a difficult question, but the fact that the vast majority of this is ultimately funded by BTC miners is pretty solid.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on January 24, 2020 11:03:10
/r/btc/comments/et7gtt/gavin_andresen_should_be_in_charge_of_the_funds/fffctht/

Or rather that you followed us, because its no fun having no diversity of opinion in your censored r/bitcoin circlejerk, huh?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on January 24, 2020 10:52:16
/r/btc/comments/et986f/i_just_want_to_thank_the_bitcoin_cash_rbtc/fffbtfz/

> users with simple nodes have no say in BCH compared to BTC and thats apparently good. Users with simple nodes have very little say in BTC either. Its no difference in actual power, only perceived.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on January 24, 2020 10:41:47
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/erge5b/new_house_bill_is_a_trap_it_changes_the_status_of/ff4we6k/

OP, you should delete this post because its misinformation, as others have explained: https://old.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/erge5b/new_house_bill_is_a_trap_it_changes_the_status_of/ff4gvos/

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 20, 2020 21:34:08
/r/btc/comments/er3gsb/us_congress_proposing_to_exclude_cryptocurrency/ff3mflv/

True, but maybe more effective to deal with that at the same time the foreign currency exemption get indexed to inflation, rather than decreasing the likelihood of this bill passing in any way.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on January 20, 2020 13:16:11
/r/btc/comments/er3gsb/us_congress_proposing_to_exclude_cryptocurrency/ff3h77j/

I think its easiest to keep it simple, and equivalent to the foreign currency exemption, which is also $200 if i remember correctly.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on January 20, 2020 12:22:37
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/erc6ev/proposed_bill_in_us_house_of_representatives_to/ff3efcm/

Emailed my representative to support the "Virtual Currency Tax Fairness Act of 2020"! https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 20, 2020 11:56:35
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/erdezf/bitcoin_hash_rate_hit_a_new_ath_and_its_crucial/ff3cw6a/

Why do people act like if the hash rate dropped to half or even a quarter it would be a bad thing? As if the current hashrate is barely high enough to discourage an attack? Please....

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 20, 2020 11:43:45
/r/btc/comments/eq1g8f/partial_list_of_the_funds_spent_by_bitcoincom_to/feoo529/

Why do you think thats so 'disturbing' exactly? ABC could have been relegated to a minorty fork susceptible to 51% attack if Roger had not put hashpower (at a loss) behind their software. That might not be "funding development", if thats all youre worried about specifically, but its definitely supporting ABC. Just sounds like a simple case of miscommunication.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on January 17, 2020 18:14:21
/r/btc/comments/eq1g8f/partial_list_of_the_funds_spent_by_bitcoincom_to/feon0k5/

He said it supported ABC directly, he didnt say it ONLY supported ABC. Putting hashpower behind ABC software at a loss during a critical time can certainly be seen as supporting ABC, but I dont think that means hes suggesting ABC owns BCH or that no one else benefited.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on January 17, 2020 18:07:40
/r/investing/comments/epnu62/would_you_buy_bitcoin_2020_to_sell_after_a_year/fem04cr/

i thought you said no homo

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on January 16, 2020 23:32:03
/r/investing/comments/epnu62/would_you_buy_bitcoin_2020_to_sell_after_a_year/felzshy/

satoshi cashing out would be dramatic, but some risk of that happening would already be priced in. Besides, there have already been 150,000 bitcoin sold in bulk by the FBI silk road seizure, and that went fine.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on January 16, 2020 23:27:27
/r/btc/comments/epjnq8/rbitcoin_allows_discussion_of_blockstreams_alt/fekz1ll/

If you repent and swear fealty to Theymos and Blockstream, the rightful rulers of bitcoin core, r/bitcoin, bitcointalk.org, and bitcoin.org, perhaps they'll let you back in to their flock of sheeple.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on January 16, 2020 16:36:05
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/epdqaz/blockfi_interest_account_too_good_to_be_true/feivwqk/

Not only are you giving up custody of your coins to BlockFi, but blockFi is taking your coins and loaning them to hedge funds and speculative traders whose trades could blow up and if theres not enough liquidity to sell off their collateral, you might be out of luck. Theres definitely risk here, and its not a free lunch.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 15, 2020 23:24:15
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/eooqmt/bsv_has_just_passed_bch_on_coinmarketcap/fefsslm/

> You can't admit that BSV's market cap is inflated, but pretend that BCH's is perfectly legitimate. Why do you keep pretending I care about BCH marketcap? Havent I already told you ALL marketcaps are inflated? That includes BTC because BTC has lost coins. You literally just made up a strawman argument. >But yet again, you're just acting so butthurt over this. It's just funny that after years of BCH pretending to be the "real bitcoin" and talking about flipping btc, you guys get flipped by bsv. It's ironic. It's funny. Laugh. After years of BTC pretending that no other chain will ever outcompete it, it gets flipped by Ripple. It's ironic. It's funny. Laugh.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 14, 2020 23:55:18
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/eooqmt/bsv_has_just_passed_bch_on_coinmarketcap/fefiz91/

> You know that fictitious market cap is comically inflated. Duh, just like Bitcoin SV. Yet here you are trolling about BCH getting flipped by BSV. Well guess what buddy, if you want to play that stupid game, BTC got flipped by XRP!

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 14, 2020 22:01:54
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/eooqmt/bsv_has_just_passed_bch_on_coinmarketcap/feey2ma/

When you consider that XRP has 100B tokens and reached 3.81 per token on Jan 4 2018, it did infact happen. Most people dont consider it a valid flippening because it has such a centralized supply and the founders own most of it.....so these days coinmarketcap only lists its circulating supply as 44B (xrp was likely the motivation for the distinction between total supply and circulating supply on such sites). Kinda like a same reason no one thinks BSV marketcap is significant because Calvin likely owns most of it at this point.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 14, 2020 18:15:29
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/eooqmt/bsv_has_just_passed_bch_on_coinmarketcap/feex73z/

Is it as funny as when Ripple flipped BTC and got a higher marketcap than BTC? What a shitcoin BTC is, amirite?!

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 14, 2020 18:06:10
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/eooqmt/bsv_has_just_passed_bch_on_coinmarketcap/feewb8k/

Dont even pretend you werent just trying to bash BCH here, as evidenced by you trying to bash BCH's marketcap and potential unclaimed coins as if it were somehow equivalent to BSV's current pump and dump. Seems like all you do is bash BCH. You've probably made 1000s of posts bashing BCH at this point, and by all accounts it seems like serious business to you. But you're right it is a joke....everything you post could ultimately be brushed off as a joke, because none of it ever has any substance behind it.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 14, 2020 17:56:44
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/eooqmt/bsv_has_just_passed_bch_on_coinmarketcap/feetvxs/

>No not about price, about the position on the charts regardless of price. Let me tell you something....No one gives a shit about that (except you and other trolls apparently). If BSV hit $50,000 per coin and BCH only hit $45,000 per coin, I can assure you BCH holders are not sad about that scenario. >Now is the day his own chain got flippened by a fork of his chain....It’s beautiful and you can’t take any of my joy away with semantics. When people talk about "flippenings" they arent talking about a short term pump and dump on a coin thats not even listed on major exchanges. That you get joy out of such an irrelvant thing is frankly, quite pathetic.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 14, 2020 17:31:47
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/eooqmt/bsv_has_just_passed_bch_on_coinmarketcap/feeof50/

>I can make a similar argument about BCH's market cap value too. But not the same argument, because BCH is listed on major fiat exchanges with real volume. Youre making a completely different argument based on claiming of the fork. But the reality is that it seems more likely that someone who hasnt claimed their BCH in over 2 years, is either hodling longterm, or dont care/are too dumb to ever claim them, which reduces the supply and is fine by me. I dont really care what the marketcap is, I care about actual adoption and longterm price per coin. >The reality is that the vast majority of BCH was never even claimed after the fork. Any actual proof of this, or just more hot air? And even if it was true, some of that amount would be due to longterm hodlers. >I'm just enjoying all you butt hurt BCH fanboys squirm over this. I mean, it seems like most BCH holders are thrilled with BCH being up 20% today, but you can believe whatever brings you joy....lol

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 14, 2020 16:37:45
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/eooqmt/bsv_has_just_passed_bch_on_coinmarketcap/feen0gy/

Lol, are you telling me you're unable to mentally connect the fact that you talking about "the flippening" being achieved today....is ultimately about the current price? Good lord.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 14, 2020 16:24:12
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/eooqmt/bsv_has_just_passed_bch_on_coinmarketcap/feelxr9/

Youre really trying to troll about price on a day BCH is up like 20%? Wierd flex but ok

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 14, 2020 16:13:47
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/eooqmt/bsv_has_just_passed_bch_on_coinmarketcap/feellxt/

>Since this was the solution that Roger preferred and it didn't have the Segwit 2x change, Ver considered the fork to actually be closer to the 'real' Bitcoin. That doesnt mean he prefered BCH over Segwit 2x. Segwit 2x had already failed by the time BCH forked. And other people organized and executed the fork, Roger just started promoting it afterwards.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 14, 2020 16:10:37
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/eooqmt/bsv_has_just_passed_bch_on_coinmarketcap/feel8us/

>But it's comical at how easily they were able to surpass BCH. They could never surpass Bitcoin, and that's the difference. This proves you have no idea whats going on. BSV hasnt 'surpassed' BCH anymore than if BSV was "trading" for $9,000 on an illiquid exchange owned by Calvin, it would have 'surpassed' BTC.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 14, 2020 16:07:07
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/eooqmt/bsv_has_just_passed_bch_on_coinmarketcap/feeg1dl/

>they themselves get flipped by BSV. If you think the price movement of BSV over BCH reflects anything more than the fact that BSV is illiquid and was delisted from most major exchanges, setting the stage for a grand pump and dump, you need to have your head checked.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 14, 2020 15:16:49
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/eooqmt/bsv_has_just_passed_bch_on_coinmarketcap/feefr20/

Roger Ver actually supported Segwit 2x initially and only got involved with BCH after the fork had already happened, so what you're saying doesnt even make much sense, sorry.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 14, 2020 15:14:02
/r/pics/comments/enasut/a_bars_bathroom_has_a_framed_a_punch_in_the_wall/fdyr4zj/

looks more like a fragile wall to me

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on January 11, 2020 17:45:53
/r/geopolitics/comments/emcums/wsj_reporting_us_intelligence_believes_737_shot/fdqepim/

Reagan issued the apology within a day or two of the accident. When do you expect Iran to apologize?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/geopolitics on January 10, 2020 08:58:55
/r/geopolitics/comments/emcums/wsj_reporting_us_intelligence_believes_737_shot/fdopgw2/

> and the Americans also denied liability, it is what belligerent countries do. Important to note that while the US might not have accepted *legal* liabilty to the Iranian government, they certainly accepted responsibility, and Reagan even issued an apology to Iran: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1988/07/06/reagan-apologized-to-iran-for-downing-of-jetliner/9523c6dc-a244-4b3b-90e9-054168d98c79/

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/geopolitics on January 9, 2020 17:45:49
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ellmhm/should_51_attacks_be_illegal/fdiufz7/

It depends on what you do with your 51%. If you use it to orphan random blocks and replace them with your own empty blocks or something...hard to say how thatd be illegal. But if, for example, you use your 51% power to purposefully execute doublespends, that could probably be considered illegal. Doublespends are really just a form of fraud, or theft.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 7, 2020 21:41:27
/r/investing/comments/ekkodb/has_there_ever_been_this_much_money_in_the_world/fdd2ela/

>If you put half the effort in to learning as you did trying to feel right you'd have actually picked something up by now. If you put half the effort into making a cohesive argument that actually addresses the underlying points of the person you're responding to, instead of trying to prove your superior knowledge of industry jargon, you might have more productive discussions. >I'm done here dude. Ride off on your high horse, oh wise one!

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on January 6, 2020 01:27:31
/r/investing/comments/ekkodb/has_there_ever_been_this_much_money_in_the_world/fdd298r/

>Ummm, we're talking about both. You can't discuss easing and skip over a fundamental aspect of it lol Those details arent relevant to the argument. The point is asset prices are higher and interest rates are lower. Whether thats done by placing cash in the real economy or swapping reserve credit to a bank balance sheet, isnt relevant. You're just getting lost in the weeds and pretending to have refuted the argument. >One places cash in the real economy and one swaps a reserve credit on to a bank balance sheet in lieu of a security. Again, not a relevant distinction to what we're talking about.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on January 6, 2020 01:24:48
/r/investing/comments/ekkodb/has_there_ever_been_this_much_money_in_the_world/fdd2028/

> First of all it's not government money. It's reserve credits, that's not anyone's money. In fact QE made the treasury about 100B/yr in profits so it actually gave the government money. So that's wrong. Typical. You're fixated on the term "gov money" when thats not even relevant to the point, and the fact that he didnt even spell it out should have been a clue to you that he didnt mean that literally as a technical term. Replace the term with "government power". It makes no difference to the underlying argument. What matters is asset prices are being driven up. >Most government debt is held by institutions such as qualified retirement vehicles, pensions, insurers, etc. Lol, who do you think owns insurers if not wealthy people? And you do you think has the most money in their retirement accounts if not wealthy people? If you cant even accept that wealthy people disproportionately benefit from increase in bond prices due to owning more bonds (as well as all other financial instruments)....just lol. And bonds becoming more expensive also drives other asset prices up. and since the top 0.1% owns as much as the bottom 90%....you get the picture. >More importantly monetary policy is in it's very nature agnostic towards socioeconomic status. Thats simply false. Monetary policy can effect asset prices, which leads to people without many assets being screwed. Let me ask you, have wages kept up with asset prices since QE started? I mean, I make more money from investments than wages, but that doesnt mean I have to pretend that QE doesnt disproportionately benefit wealthy people.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on January 6, 2020 01:20:19
/r/investing/comments/ekkodb/has_there_ever_been_this_much_money_in_the_world/fdd0f7n/

>What was that point? "The CB's QE program was using gov money to raise the value of bonds. Bonds held by the wealthy. All to lower interest rates, so that wealthy people can use debt to buy back stock shares." >You are unable to articulate why you believe it to be true What do I believe to be true exactly? >Eli5: banks stopped lending because they were worried about the underlying creditworthiness of borrowers. That alone would have pushed up the curve had QE not countered it down. This flooded reserves allowing banks to be comfortable lending again. How does that contradict anything I or the other guy has said? >It did not "bail out" banks or anything similar. I don't know how you got to that conclusion but it makes no sense. It did infact. You can just look at stock prices of banks and income inequality to see the effects of QE, and who benefits the most. >I don't know what you're trying to say here *WoosH*

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on January 6, 2020 00:51:48
/r/investing/comments/ekkodb/has_there_ever_been_this_much_money_in_the_world/fdczzzp/

>The difference between an asset swap for a reserve credit and a purchase is fucking gigantic Heres a few questions for you then. What is the end result of "an asset swap for a reserve credit"? What is the end result of a purchase? >because only one of those actually introduces new dollars in to the real economy. We're talking about the price of assets and interest rates, not just how many "new dollars" are in the "real economy."

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on January 6, 2020 00:44:54
/r/investing/comments/ekkodb/has_there_ever_been_this_much_money_in_the_world/fdczod6/

>Which underlying point? "The CB's QE program was using gov money to raise the value of bonds. Bonds held by the wealthy. All to lower interest rates, so that wealthy people can use debt to buy back stock shares." You spent so much time beating around the bush trying to create a "gotcha" moment related to the technical details and terms involved at various points in the process. But you never actually refuted that what he said is indeed the end result.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on January 6, 2020 00:39:43
/r/investing/comments/ekkodb/has_there_ever_been_this_much_money_in_the_world/fdczaka/

>No, this is an exercise to show you that you're wrong. The underlying point of the person you were responding to was never wrong. You're just making a poor attempt at bogging people down in jargon again. >How? You understand the term means banks aren't lending st scale right? Because if so you'd see that your comparison doesn't make sense. What term are you even refering to here? And instead of trying to quizing me on the details of the technicals of *how* it works, why cant you just accept the reality that I'm correct that banks derive income from lending and credit markets, which means they are highly benefitting from "counteracting credit destruction", and you rephrasing it as such doesnt change the reality of the situation? >Well one of us works in finance and it's not obvious to me so you're gonna need to do better here. Lol, very cringey. XD >It's important that you understand something before you criticize it and as of right now all of the criticism in this thread is coming from a place of deep ignorance. And it is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding. Thats very clear with you.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on January 6, 2020 00:33:42
/r/investing/comments/ekkodb/has_there_ever_been_this_much_money_in_the_world/fdcyhg1/

> Just to be clear here I have a lot more knowledge than you in this area and find your attempts at being condescending incredibly transparent. Drop the act, it doesn't make you look intelligent here. This is what all your posts seem boil down to. An attempt to appear more knowledgable about inner workings of the system, while you entirely miss the big picture, and you ramble on without even addressing people's underlying points.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on January 6, 2020 00:21:23
/r/investing/comments/ekkodb/has_there_ever_been_this_much_money_in_the_world/fdcycgu/

> You keep drawing distinctions between synonyms. Exactly. He keeps trying to nitpick technical details and get lost in the weeds of discussing the mechanics of the process when its not even relevant to the underlying argument, and the end result is, for our purposes, the same.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on January 6, 2020 00:19:20
/r/investing/comments/ekkodb/has_there_ever_been_this_much_money_in_the_world/fdcy1ad/

> Like QE exists to facilitate supply in credit markets when there was none due to general lack of lending. Please explain, in detail, why you think that's somehow a bailout? Good lord, do I really need to explain it to you? Banks derive income from lending and credit markets and other things which "credit destruction" would inherently effect. Its obvious that such a thing could be considered a bank bailout, or otherwise benefiting banks. It seems clear to me that anytime someone comes here with a negative opinion of wall st., you seem show up and quiz them on jargon and attempt to drag the disscussion out in the weeds without addressing the underlying points of their argument.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on January 6, 2020 00:14:46
/r/investing/comments/ekkodb/has_there_ever_been_this_much_money_in_the_world/fdcv4fq/

>He would be wrong because those two concepts aren't the same at all. They might not *always* be the same, but sometimes they are. You can certainly bail out banks by "counteracting credit destruction" and inflating asset prices.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on January 5, 2020 23:33:04
/r/investing/comments/ekkodb/has_there_ever_been_this_much_money_in_the_world/fdcunj0/

> Qe's purpose is to counteract credit destruction. Rephrasing it with more technical terms doesnt change the underlying facts though. What you call "counteracting credit destruction" he might call "bailing out the banks". You're dismissive, yet you provide no actual substance yourself besides whining about jargon.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on January 5, 2020 23:26:42
/r/politics/comments/ekc0il/ocasiocortez_says_trump_is_a_monster_for/fdb2azi/

Seems to me that decapitating strikes are much less monstrous than facilitating multi year proxy wars in Syria and Libya that kills hundreds of thousands and destroy entire nations, like Obama and Hillary did.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/politics on January 5, 2020 14:35:39
/r/reactiongifs/comments/ekclt8/mrw_the_leader_of_my_country_says_we_are_going_to/fda80rz/

Literally meeting with the local militia leader involved in the embassy attack when he got droned

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/reactiongifs on January 5, 2020 11:46:16
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ejzdao/crypto_kylies_interview_with_paul_for_edge_wallet/fd5q0r3/

Edge wallet is one of my favorites. I love their security model, which allows you a more traditional login experience, while still assuring only you have control of your coins.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 4, 2020 18:22:54
/r/Futurology/comments/ejw94e/australia_wont_stop_burning_though_polls_report/fd3nxdf/

> We don't have to have been here where we are right now, with close to 7 million hectares having burned this year. You dont know that if it was 1C cooler that there wouldnt have been a large fire in Australia recently. Fires are an essential part of the ecosystem. And besides, maybe being 1C warmer prevented a hard freeze or blizzard somewhere. Better to focus on more directly related and clearly attributable threats like species pressure due to rate of temperature changes and habitat loss, rather than blaming every natural disaster on climate change. >As I also said, part of the normal management couldn't be done this past year enough due to bad conditions (caused in large part by climate change). Have a link for this? Sounds like the kind of thing that might be a poor excuse made up after the fact.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/Futurology on January 4, 2020 12:48:50
/r/Futurology/comments/ejw94e/australia_wont_stop_burning_though_polls_report/fd3lnma/

> The point is, that it wouldn't be at this point without the rate increasing. But my point is that we'd eventually get there anyways, so we might as well get used to it, huh? Blaming every natural disaster on climate change makes you seem disingenuous. There have always been and will continue to be natural disasters. Better to focus on more directly related and clearly attributable threats like species pressure due to rate of temperature changes. >As I also said, part of the normal management couldn't be done this past year enough due to bad conditions (caused in large part by climate change). Have a link for this? Sounds like the kind of thing that might be a poor excuse made up after the fact.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/Futurology on January 4, 2020 12:38:37
/r/Futurology/comments/ejw94e/australia_wont_stop_burning_though_polls_report/fd3iwq7/

>Like I said, over the last century, the average temperature increase is 1.1C, which is not at all insignificant. I never said its insignificant. I said its been higher in the past from natural effects. >The rate is exactly the problem That rate of temperature change isnt relevant to droughts. the absolute temperature is whats relevant. And we can see from history that we would have eventually reached these temperatures naturally anyways. Which means we need to have procedures in place to control this level of fire risk. And it sounds like the Australian government slacked on their fire prevention.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/Futurology on January 4, 2020 12:25:57
/r/Futurology/comments/ejw94e/australia_wont_stop_burning_though_polls_report/fd3fjwq/

Your response doesnt seem to make a very good case. I can understand the argument that human effects might cause the *rate* of temperature change to exceed the change that can be dealt with by some species. But the rate of change isnt really relevant to droughts, as that would be more linked to absolute temperatures, rather than the rate of change of those temperatures. And absolute temperatures in Australia have been much higher in the past due to natural cycles.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/Futurology on January 4, 2020 12:10:03
/r/Futurology/comments/ejw94e/australia_wont_stop_burning_though_polls_report/fd30c0q/

Thanks I found a good explanation. I dont see any evidence that climate change caused these fires though. >These fires are largely due to the fact that 90% of the land burning was off limits to controlled fires making the shrubbery and more burnables extremely high and you can blame Labor for that not Liberals. Controlled fires to cut down the amount of fuel and to stop mass burnings like this was banned because people got too green and save the planet about it. And this is the outcome of it. This has nothing to do with the world being hotter or colder. This has nothing to do with climate change. These fires are spreading as big as they are because they refused to control the forests like we have been for decades before this.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/Futurology on January 4, 2020 10:58:32
/r/Futurology/comments/ejw94e/australia_wont_stop_burning_though_polls_report/fd2ywtw/

Are these fires actually due to climate change though?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/Futurology on January 4, 2020 10:52:22
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ej4vzm/bitcoinbchcom_accidentally_publishes_onchain/fcz0wcd/

Permanently banned for obvious vote manipulation. Instantly dozens of upvotes on an anti-bch thread in a pro-bch subreddit. Totally organic /s

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 3, 2020 17:43:57
/r/politics/comments/ejbyki/pelosi_says_trump_carried_out_strike_on_iranian/fcxgar6/

This wont start a war. Iran isnt stupid.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/politics on January 3, 2020 09:36:17
/r/gifs/comments/eiyhyr/bbcs_dracula_billboard_is_1000_iq_advertising/fcvehd8/

US has this as well (https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/disclosures-101-social-media-influencers). You think its actually enforced on reddit though? Does it even apply to pseudonymous accounts?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/gifs on January 2, 2020 16:26:46
/r/gifs/comments/eiyhyr/bbcs_dracula_billboard_is_1000_iq_advertising/fcvciv5/

Like I said, I don't buy your claim that viral marketing on reddit is illegal in the UK. Just because you have some vague statutes about advertising, doesnt mean they apply to viral marketing, or that viral marketing with anonymous reddit accounts is dishonest enough for the statutes to apply.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/gifs on January 2, 2020 16:07:14
/r/gifs/comments/eiyhyr/bbcs_dracula_billboard_is_1000_iq_advertising/fcvbwrf/

Thats all well and good. But has anyone ever actually gone to jail/been fined for viral marketing in the UK? I've never heard of such a thing. And just so you know, there are laws against dishonest advertising in the US as well. But I've never seen them applied to viral marketing.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/gifs on January 2, 2020 16:01:07
/r/gifs/comments/eiyhyr/bbcs_dracula_billboard_is_1000_iq_advertising/fcv8mmj/

>The BBC is too highly tied to the government to be using illegal forms of advertisement. I dont think buying reddit accounts is illegal. And even if it was, the marketing firm could create and age their own.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/gifs on January 2, 2020 15:28:44
/r/gifs/comments/eiyhyr/bbcs_dracula_billboard_is_1000_iq_advertising/fcv4wx3/

How do you know? I'm sure thats not their primary marketing strategy, but, for example, its certainly possible they've hired some outside marketing firm to do some of their social media promotion, and the outside firm buys used reddit accounts to assist with their reddit advertising.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/gifs on January 2, 2020 14:51:58
/r/gifs/comments/eiyhyr/bbcs_dracula_billboard_is_1000_iq_advertising/fcuoi7o/

So how much money does the BBC spend on social media (including things like Reddit) marketing then? Or are you claiming that the BBC doesnt do that?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/gifs on January 2, 2020 12:15:38
/r/investing/comments/eida1v/just_an_fyi_about_acre_gold_they_deleted_my/fcunxtr/

Im not talking about the ETF itself engaging in short selling. Im talking about the *shares* of the ETF being sold short by the custodians that hold them. And often the owners of these shares dont even understand that their brokerage is making profits by loaning their shares to short sellers.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on January 2, 2020 12:10:19
/r/gifs/comments/eiyhyr/bbcs_dracula_billboard_is_1000_iq_advertising/fcumhim/

Just because they're both public organizations, doesnt mean NASA has the same advertising budget as the BBC.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/gifs on January 2, 2020 11:56:20
/r/investing/comments/eida1v/just_an_fyi_about_acre_gold_they_deleted_my/fcsu7ij/

It might not be abnormal, but if theres any short interest at all, how can you claim something is 100% backed? If theres short interest, that means someone borrowed the stock and sold it to someone else, yet still owes the stock to the person that they bought it from. Thats inherently 2 claims on that stock.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on January 1, 2020 19:33:41
/r/investing/comments/eida1v/just_an_fyi_about_acre_gold_they_deleted_my/fcrw45l/

I figured as much. Even if there isnt otherwise any other rehypothecation going on, which would be hard to believe, just permitting short selling alone seems to cause a lack of backing for all claims. Since the short seller sells a share to someone else, which he simultaneously owes to the person he borrowed it from (which was often put up for loan in the first place not by the owner, but by the owners brokerage). If you somehow had 100% short interest, it seems that would double the current claims relative to the underlying asset. And if theres any naked shorting going on, the rate could be much higher.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on January 1, 2020 14:37:06
/r/investing/comments/eida1v/just_an_fyi_about_acre_gold_they_deleted_my/fcrbtya/

> It does represent holding actually gold because that's what's underlying the ETF. Do they actually hold enough gold to back all the claims though, or is it based on a fractional reserve model?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on January 1, 2020 12:28:27
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ei4pnc/theres_no_logic_behind_most_crypto_economics/fcr67e4/

Various cryptos have value as a transaction network. The transactional demand for money gives these tokens value. Then these foundations pop up to theoretically promote the network to create value for token holders. Its not a traditional business model, but whats wrong with it exactly?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on January 1, 2020 11:49:32
/r/todayilearned/comments/ei221j/til_that_romans_weaved_asbestos_fibers_into_a/fcng69a/

So Trump is trying to boost Russian asbestos business, but wants to ruin the Russian gas business. Got it.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/todayilearned on December 31, 2019 11:50:39
/r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/ehua19/at_age_71_jack_wilson_eliminates_would_be_mass/fcmzhpq/

>They are fighting for freedom every day by protesting. Not effectively. The CCP knows at any moment they can roll in and subdue people with teargas and zipties, just like they did at the university. >How did that oregon standoff work out for you guys? Didnt seem to go so well because they isolated themselves in a federal facility. The Bundy standoff seemed to work out for them though, didnt it?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/nextfuckinglevel on December 31, 2019 08:24:57
/r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/ehua19/at_age_71_jack_wilson_eliminates_would_be_mass/fcm5o8m/

> That's asking for war Well unfortunately they're going to find out that you cant maintain your freedom if you arent prepared to fight for it.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/nextfuckinglevel on December 30, 2019 23:01:24
/r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/ehua19/at_age_71_jack_wilson_eliminates_would_be_mass/fcm4wiu/

> The police escalated the situation. If the people had guns it would be way worse for them and the government would respond ten fold. If the most of the population was armed and they were risking an armed insurgency, maybe the government would think twice about escalating huh?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/nextfuckinglevel on December 30, 2019 22:52:00
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ehs24f/if_this_post_gets_100_upvotes_uindiainvestora/fclgojy/

you can still post, just limited to every 10 minutes

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on December 30, 2019 18:09:24
/r/AskReddit/comments/ehljus/what_is_the_male_equivalent_of_fck_this_ill_just/fclcer6/

> What proof do you have?...why is your theory the only indisputable fact? Wow man, why do you keep coming at me with these rediculous strawman aruments? I literally said "Seems like". How do you go from that to "indisputable fact"? >I've heard a number of theories to explain this discrepancy, appearance of the corpse What do you mean by this? Women are more worried about how their corpse is going to look than men? >access to firearms for example seems like a dumb theory, since countries with much less firearms than the US have similar discrepancies. I'm inclined to believe its due to societal pressure on men to be self sufficient, and are therefore less likely to seek help, and less likely to attempt a suicide thats likely to fail and leave them even more dependant on help from others. >It makes it seem like suicidal tendencies amongst women are to be taken less seriously. I dont know why an assessment of motive would be relevant to how seriously to take a suicide risk. It seems like how seriously you take it should depend on the level of risk the person presents to themselves. It is clear, however, that men present more risk to themselves than women do.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/AskReddit on December 30, 2019 17:23:02
/r/AskReddit/comments/ehljus/what_is_the_male_equivalent_of_fck_this_ill_just/fcl9l4b/

>men commit suicide more often because they are prevented from seeking mental health options? Thats not what I'm saying at all, sorry.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/AskReddit on December 30, 2019 16:53:02
/r/AskReddit/comments/ehljus/what_is_the_male_equivalent_of_fck_this_ill_just/fcl91gs/

>Saying that women are giving mental health options that men are not is dismissive of women who commit suicide. You're saying that those women are more at fault because they didn't take advantage of their supposed gender-based options. Nice strawman argument. Please quote me where I said that.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/AskReddit on December 30, 2019 16:47:18
/r/AskReddit/comments/ehljus/what_is_the_male_equivalent_of_fck_this_ill_just/fcl6sb3/

fyi, after he insulted me I discontinued not trying to be rude

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/AskReddit on December 30, 2019 16:23:56
/r/LifeProTips/comments/ehnjae/lpt_when_you_receive_a_hospital_bill_ask_them_for/fckwqys/

Get on that sweet, sweet obamacare and pay $20 month and have $0 deductible and $600 yearly maximum owed.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/LifeProTips on December 30, 2019 14:40:50
/r/LifeProTips/comments/ehnjae/lpt_when_you_receive_a_hospital_bill_ask_them_for/fckvtu3/

> Also, the US only published 3.5 times the medical research as the UK does, despite having 4.9 times the population... >You guys are slacking, fucking sort it out. As if the number of research articles translates evenly into actual treatments and drugs. US produced 7 times more new chemical entities than the UK, despite only having 4.9 times the population. US also had 12 times the life science venture capital You guys are slacking, fucking sort it out. http://assets1c.milkeninstitute.org/assets/Publication/ResearchReport/PDF/CASMIFullReport.pdf

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/LifeProTips on December 30, 2019 14:31:27
/r/AskReddit/comments/ehljus/what_is_the_male_equivalent_of_fck_this_ill_just/fcknkg9/

>I wasn’t trying to be rude nor was I, so why were you offended enough to comment that I was dismissive of suicidal women, when I was simply defending suicidal men? >I also didn’t say that more men commit suicide via effective methods(?). The person I was responding to did. >I was just trying to point out it isn’t some type of gender issue, but thank you for being completely unwelcoming and turning me off to your point entirely. calls me dismissive and then whines that I'm unwelcoming. Ok buddy. Believe whatever you want.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/AskReddit on December 30, 2019 13:06:34
/r/AskReddit/comments/ehljus/what_is_the_male_equivalent_of_fck_this_ill_just/fckmg75/

>I think I kinda get what you’re trying to say but this statement comes off as weirdly dismissive of suicidal women. Its not any more weirdly dismissive of suicidal women, than saying that the only reason more men commit suicide is because they pick more effective methods, is weirdly dismissive of suicidal men. >Im sure women aren’t attempting suicide **solely** for attention. I guess you missed the part where I said **more often**. Some people certainly do attempt suidide as a cry for help/attention.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/AskReddit on December 30, 2019 12:55:13
/r/AskReddit/comments/ehljus/what_is_the_male_equivalent_of_fck_this_ill_just/fckkmfh/

Seems like women's suicide attempts are more often a cry for help or attention, whereas men more often really want to die.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/AskReddit on December 30, 2019 12:36:25
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/egv9zz/un_all_in_on_blockchain_secretarygeneral_says/fciakfj/

Nice contribution. I use blockchain because I value permissionlessness, which is a big deal. Blockchain offers little beyond that, so I'm asking him why banks should really bother with blockchain at all (at least when dealing with consumers) since they dont value permissionlessness, and they dont need blockchain to have negative interest rates and be debt based.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on December 29, 2019 17:49:42
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/eh5vdb/as_global_debt_rises_the_maximum_possible/fcgnis3/

Just sell what you need when you need to spend it and only hold fiat short term. Its not ideal, but saving in bitcoin still gets around the negative interest rate problem, and prevents central banks from diluting your savings through money printing (the idea of which seems to be growing in popularity through MMT).

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on December 29, 2019 12:54:31
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/egv9zz/un_all_in_on_blockchain_secretarygeneral_says/fcg2vh6/

you dont need blockchain to do that with digital fiat even now, so why bother with the blockchain part?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on December 29, 2019 11:12:50
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/egdy9y/what_does_the_cryptocurrency_space_think_about/fcbxa66/

> The miners don't give qualitative preference to the transactions they process. The keys are the coins for all intents and purposes. They might not now, but they could. blacklists are a real risk on open ledgers like bitcoin

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on December 28, 2019 22:59:56
/r/worldnews/comments/eggsbg/trump_retweets_article_outing_name_of_alleged/fc74ykc/

> that confidential information. See, you're being delusional. It might have been confidential information at one time, but the reality is that for months already its been public information that been literally printed in newspapers. Infact, you're literally complaining about the president simply mentioning a newspaper article, its rediculous.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 27, 2019 20:47:38
/r/worldnews/comments/eggsbg/trump_retweets_article_outing_name_of_alleged/fc74733/

The article he retweeted isnt about the name of the whistleblower, it only mentions his name, but is otherwise about how the whistleblower has connections to Schiff. That Eric Ciarmella's name has been printed in newspapers and is in the public domain isnt Trump's problem.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 27, 2019 20:37:58
/r/worldnews/comments/eggsbg/trump_retweets_article_outing_name_of_alleged/fc73rfo/

> He just told the world who he believes the whistleblower to be. He said *"It's pretty simple. The CIA "whistleblower" is not a real whistleblower! "* And linked an article which isnt even about the identity of the whistleblower....it only mentions his name. The president has no legal obligation to tiptoe around a fact that is already publicly available information, yet in his tweet, he still didnt mention the whistleblower by name himself.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 27, 2019 20:32:30
/r/worldnews/comments/eggsbg/trump_retweets_article_outing_name_of_alleged/fc70fop/

The person didnt even make an argument. They said, "The president’s tweets count as official public statements." How is that even significant? What he tweeted as been posted publicly by the Washington Examiner for weeks.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 27, 2019 19:50:20
/r/worldnews/comments/eggsbg/trump_retweets_article_outing_name_of_alleged/fc707t3/

So? The Washington Examiner website is an official public statement from the Washington Examiner too.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 27, 2019 19:47:35
/r/worldnews/comments/eggsbg/trump_retweets_article_outing_name_of_alleged/fc6zgfn/

No thats incorrect. If he's retweeting an already published article, the article outed him, not Trump. Just like I'm not outing the whistleblower by telling you Eric Ciaramella is the whistleblower. Its been publicly available information for months now.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 27, 2019 19:38:11
/r/worldnews/comments/ef3p19/harry_dunns_family_launch_us_campaign_for/fc6v1ri/

> It says in any proceedings. And looking at previous cases where diplomatic immunity was questioned, the courts asked the Foreign Office to answer whether someone had immunity or not. The Foreign office, which is of course under the Secretary of State, has already publicly said that she did in fact have immunity. You're simply saying those statements don't count. Yup, the person you're responding to seems delusional and whats to pretend the people with authority to issue diplomatic immunity dont have that power. They also point to the fact that the Uk law says the Secretary of state should issue a notice in the papers, which is true. But they fail to realize that the immunity itself is not dependant on such a declaration. The law explicitly says regarding bilateral agreements that "that immunity and inviolability or exemption shall so extend, so long as that agreement or arrangement continues in force.". The requirement to issue a notice by the Secretary is secondary and has no actual effect on the immunity.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 27, 2019 18:43:54
/r/worldnews/comments/ef3p19/harry_dunns_family_launch_us_campaign_for/fc6uh5s/

> For Sacoolas to in FACT have any immunity under a side agreement: > > ​ > > The Secretary of State shall publish in the London, Edinburgh and Belfast Gazettes a notice specifying the States with which and the classes of person with respect to which such an agreement or arrangement as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section is in force and whether its effect is as mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of that subsection, and shall whenever necessary amend the notice by a further such notice; and the notice shall be conclusive evidence of the agreement or arrangement and the classes of person with respect to which it is in force. Actually the law doesnt say that for Sacoolas to have immunity, the UK needs to publish the notice. It says..."Where any special agreement or arrangement between the Government of any State and the Government of the United Kingdom in force....that immunity and inviolability or exemption **shall so extend, so long as that agreement or arrangement continues in force**." Only afterwards does it say that the Secretary of State should publish a notice. But nowhere does it even imply that the immunity is dependand on such a notice having been sent out. It only says the Secretary should publish. In which case, thats the Secretary of State's problem, not Ann Sacoolas's problem.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 27, 2019 18:36:51
/r/worldnews/comments/ef3p19/harry_dunns_family_launch_us_campaign_for/fc6ttpq/

> Does the US have any laws that say I can't just award myself immunity for killing someone? Just like the UK doesn't have any that say the secretary of state can arbitrarily give someone immunity either. US diplomatic immunity is governed by statute 22 U.S. Code § 254c, which says the president and secretary of state can issue immunity stronger or weaker than specified in the vienna convention. You cant award yourself immunity. But if one of those people that can is party to an agreement in which you are considered as part of the embassy, you have immunity.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 27, 2019 18:28:49
/r/worldnews/comments/ef3p19/harry_dunns_family_launch_us_campaign_for/fc5mo9q/

>Those are the guidelines of the crown prosecution service which say exactly how the law shall be applied And you think there cant be exceptions to general guidlines when specific agrements are drafted to address them? Lol. >and name all relevant statutes. Feel free to read the acts they refer to. So show me the statute that was broken here. Don't worry, I wont hold my breath.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 27, 2019 10:46:54
/r/worldnews/comments/ef3p19/harry_dunns_family_launch_us_campaign_for/fc5jz7i/

> Unlike the US, the UK is a nation of laws. Wheres the law that says the UK isnt alegally allowed to create a mutual agreement that give diplomatic immunity to technial staff in intelligence work? You just linked me to a page giving general guidance. Those arent actually laws, sorry.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 27, 2019 10:14:17
/r/worldnews/comments/ef3p19/harry_dunns_family_launch_us_campaign_for/fc5imvk/

> The Vienna convention also says diplomatic missions are invoiable. You dont seem to realize that Vienna Convention rights can be waived, do you? >Sacoolas doesn't qualify under the Vienna convention. I've proven that. Claming him and his family do is a breach of said convention. Lol, you're hopeless. <It sounds like an agreement has been made but until congress ratifies it and puts it into law, it's legally worthless. There probably was an agreement made but it was never made legal. BS. You have no proof the agreement has no legal basis. And if the Uk foreign secretary, who ultimately has authority over these matters, is telling you the agreement covers this, you need proof the agreement is invalid. You have none. >Here are guidelines on the only time diplomatic immunity can exist in the UK. Sacoolas qualifies for none of them. The specific agreement mentioned by the UK foreign secretary would supercede these general guidelines.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 27, 2019 09:57:11
/r/worldnews/comments/ef3p19/harry_dunns_family_launch_us_campaign_for/fc2rdfp/

> Not sensitive duties, diplomatic ones. So your issue is with intelligence activities being associated with diplomatic embassies then? Because thats not something new, nor is it "illegal", nor is it limited to the US or the UK. Sorry. >1) People who actually have diplomatic immunity who get caught spying get declared persona non grata. These people had permission from the UK to be there, and the UK knew what they were doing, sorry. According to the agreement between the US and UK, they were infact considered attached to the embassy, sorry. "Under those arrangements, US staff at RAF Croughton and their families were accepted as part of the US Embassy in the UK." >3) Even if Sacoolas had worked for the state department, he would have to be declared a member of the mission to the UK to qualify for immunity under the Vienna convention. He wasn't. He was. ""Under those arrangements, US staff at RAF Croughton and their families were accepted as part of the US Embassy in the UK."" >4) Even if he worked for the state department AND was accepted by the UK as a diplomat, he still wouldn't qualify if he started working at an RAF base instead of the mission. False. The UK and US have the right to mutually agree to considering multiple locations as part of the US embassy. "The sending State may not, without the prior express consent of the receiving State, establish offices forming part of the mission in localities other than those in which the mission itself is established*" >How is me showing you exactly how Sacoolas doesn't qualify for immunity relevant to me claiming he or his killer wife didn't have immunity? What is it about the UK and US government having the unresistricted ability to consider ANYONE they want as part of the US embassy in the UK, as long as they agree to it, that you dont understand? >Unless you can find any legal backup to your claim sacoolas had immunity other than 'a politician said it, so it must be true', might I suggest you could possibly be wrong in your assertions? I dont have to backup anything. You're the one claiming some law was broken, or that they "violated the Vienna Convention" with a mutual agreement between 2 countries to extend extra rights to a group. Like I said, the Vienna Convention states that certain groups of people are entitled to certain rights. Theres nothing in it preventing 2 countries from having a mutual agreement to extend those rights to technical staff functioning in an intelligence role, or anyone else for that matter. You're simply full of shit, sorry.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 26, 2019 09:49:49
/r/worldnews/comments/ef3p19/harry_dunns_family_launch_us_campaign_for/fc2filj/

Yes, the purpose is to allow workers from one nation to conduct sensitive work inside another nation. Which is exactly what this woman's husband was doing. Why would the US go through all this effort just to personally benefit this woman? The purpose is to support the intelligence collection being done, which is a common diplomatic function. Lol. And how is that even relevant to what you were saying? You're coming with a completely different argument now. You have no idea what the legal basis of dip[lomatic immunity is, and you're just slinging shit at the walls to see what sticks, arent you?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 26, 2019 05:47:59
/r/worldnews/comments/ef3p19/harry_dunns_family_launch_us_campaign_for/fc2by7a/

>Sure, there could be other immunity agreements and either government could have saved themselves a lot of problems if they said Sacoolas had immunity under such an agreement. Thats exactly what they did.... "This diplomatic immunity was the result of the arrangements agreed between the UK government and the US government in 1995. Under those arrangements, US staff at RAF Croughton and their families were accepted as part of the US Embassy in the UK." https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/foreign-secretary-update-to-parliament-on-harry-dunn-case >Instead they broke the Vienna convention by falsely trying to use it to claim immunity for someone who doesn't qualify. It doesnt *break* the vienna convention to claim someone is covered under the Vienna convention. If two countries have an agreement that some group of people will be considered technical staff of their embassy, thats between them. Theres nothing in the text that forbids that. Have a look for yourself: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1964/06/19640624%2002-10%20AM/Ch_III_3p.pdf

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 26, 2019 04:05:41
/r/worldnews/comments/ef3p19/harry_dunns_family_launch_us_campaign_for/fc1uqqa/

>Both involved governments have broken the Vienna convention by falsely claiming its protection for Mrs Sacoolas and now both are trying to make the whole thing go away to avoid political fallout. This shows an extreme lack of understanding on your part....Theres nothing in the Vienna convention that prevents two countries from having a mutual agreement to make some workers immune to the host countries laws. It might go beyond, or be outside the scope of the Vienna Convention, but it doesnt *break* the Vienna convention.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 25, 2019 22:18:52
/r/btc/comments/efan8b/they_are_not_bitcoin_maximalists_they_are_deep/fc1tbmv/

checked the guys comment history, and he really is a communist...lol.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on December 25, 2019 21:57:36
/r/worldnews/comments/ef3p19/harry_dunns_family_launch_us_campaign_for/fc13co0/

> Everywhere else in the developed world every single traffic cop has a breathalyser or something to test intoxication......How many places just use a 'field sobriety test' You realize the field sobriety test is just a pretext to give you a breathalyzer test right? You really think US police officers dont have breathalyzers? Im curious, what part of the world are you from? Either you're not from the US, or you're not very observant, because cops are extremely serious about DUI enforcement here.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 25, 2019 15:51:18
/r/worldnews/comments/ef3p19/harry_dunns_family_launch_us_campaign_for/fc05nse/

> Driving under the influence of alchohol doesn't even seem to be a thing US cops care about. Everywhere else in the developed world every single traffic cop has a breathalyser or something to test intoxication. In the US it's fine as long as you cantouch your own nose. Wtf? Have you even driven in America?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 25, 2019 08:14:44
/r/worldnews/comments/ef3p19/harry_dunns_family_launch_us_campaign_for/fbzadkw/

> Our death rate on the roads is less than 20% of the USA total. Much less. Do you think thats because penalties are harsher? Or do you think its because Americans generally drive more miles and do so at higher average speeds?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 24, 2019 21:15:34
/r/worldnews/comments/eej9jy/germany_on_saturday_accused_the_united_states_of/fby9ptt/

>So, according to you it's absolutely normal to use political and economical leverage that US have over Europe due to trade to prevent establishment of Russian leverage over Europe and that supposed to be some kind of greater good Yes >but at the same time it's not okay to demand from US to sign and follow treaty that was created by international community even if it benefits all? No, I think if Europe wants to sanction US companies for carbon emissions, good for them. They have every right to.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 24, 2019 13:18:33
/r/worldnews/comments/eej9jy/germany_on_saturday_accused_the_united_states_of/fby5evy/

>I think it's Germany and Russia business to make a business and US have no right to interfere and pretend that this is for the greater good and not their own objectives. Oh ok. So Everyone should be able to send money to North Korea and help them fund nuclear bombs too? /s Preventing people from trading with your enemies is a tactic as old as time. >EPA rules, so you okay with polluting your country and planet or what? EPA rules are lax as hell. Even if US companies follow all EPA rules, climate change will still get worse. And thats why Europe isnt just asking the US to follow EPA rules, they're asking them to follow outside rules. If you agree that Europe has the right to tell the US to reduce their carbon emmision, you agree that countries have the right to interfere in other countries business when their business has effects on them as well.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 24, 2019 12:28:42
/r/worldnews/comments/eej9jy/germany_on_saturday_accused_the_united_states_of/fbxwu9b/

>So, you want to compare US acting in self interests against other country and their foreign relationships with another country to behavior of Trans-Atlantic corporations that responsible for breaking rules on emissions are the same? Huh? whos rules? And why do you think we're just taking about transatlantic corporations? I'm talking about internal US carbon emissions. Its a clear example of something people might call an 'internal issue' that can still affect the countries around it. Do you really believe that Germany funding Russia has no possible effect on the USA?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 24, 2019 10:49:30
/r/worldnews/comments/eej9jy/germany_on_saturday_accused_the_united_states_of/fbxgu6n/

Just wishing Obama put some pressure on Nord Stream 2 early on

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 24, 2019 06:25:56
/r/worldnews/comments/eej9jy/germany_on_saturday_accused_the_united_states_of/fbxgghx/

The point is that Germany sending Russia money affects the US, just like US's (and everyone elses) carbon emissions affects Germany.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 24, 2019 06:16:25
/r/worldnews/comments/eej9jy/germany_on_saturday_accused_the_united_states_of/fbwqjrq/

Sanctioned the construction of Russian pipelines in Europe? When was that?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 23, 2019 22:06:27
/r/worldnews/comments/eej9jy/germany_on_saturday_accused_the_united_states_of/fbwi79q/

But the point is that placing sanctions now, even if not effective in stopping this pipeline, might have an effect on the next by clearly demonstrating that the US is taking a hard position against future Russian pipelines.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 23, 2019 20:23:10
/r/worldnews/comments/eej9jy/germany_on_saturday_accused_the_united_states_of/fbwb8t3/

Are you high? Trump has been talking about how Germany needs to cancel Nord Stream 2 for years.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 23, 2019 18:56:25
/r/worldnews/comments/eej9jy/germany_on_saturday_accused_the_united_states_of/fbwb5sw/

What about the next pipeline?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 23, 2019 18:55:24
/r/worldnews/comments/eej9jy/germany_on_saturday_accused_the_united_states_of/fbwb0g4/

So i guess you guys will stop bothering the US about climate change then? Since its a US internal issue? /s

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 23, 2019 18:53:32
/r/worldnews/comments/eej9jy/germany_on_saturday_accused_the_united_states_of/fbwavln/

How is sending money German money to Russia "domestic"? Its international trade.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 23, 2019 18:51:50
/r/worldnews/comments/eej9jy/germany_on_saturday_accused_the_united_states_of/fbwal3h/

> but if you disagree about a project like this you talk about it before it is started. thanks Obama

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 23, 2019 18:48:13
/r/worldnews/comments/ee61bz/effort_to_freeze_ukraine_aid_began_about_90/fbtckle/

>The House needs absolutely no reason to open an impeachment investigation. Oh, now you're admitting that its not actually a criminal proceeding then? Because actual criminal investigations do need a reason to be opened. Earlier you were saying "the head juror has stated openly he's going to work with the defense attorney on everything related to the trial"!! ....as if impeachment has to follow the same standards as a criminal proceeding. Yet you yourself are saying now that the standards dont apply when its convenient for you. Youd have to be stupid to pretend that the Senate is supposed to be unbiased when what the House is considering sending them is the most politically biased thing they could possibly send them. They literally impeached a president perfectly down party lines. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. What dont you get about the fact that removing a president has to be bipartisan? Trump has a 90% approval rating among republicans...a partisan impeachment effort is completely impotent against those kinds of numbers. >And yes, I really do believe Trump wants to punish them. For one, that's his entire MO. Your argument doesnt make any sense. If Trump had any intention of trying to 'punish' this person, saying Eric's name publicly should be the least of Eric's worries. >More directly to this case, Trump has called them a traitor and implied they should be put to death. More hysterics from you. He said *"You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now".* No where does that imply Trump actually intends to put this person to death. Youd have to be stupid to actually believe that. Did you believe Trump was going to lock Hillary up too? >Republican supporters have obliged and sent the person they think it is death threats. As if democrats dont send death threats to Trump because of the lies democrats have been spouting for years about Trump colluding with Russia to influence the election? >We have laws that protect the identity of whistleblowers for a reason Theres actually no law preventing Congress, the president, the media, or me from exposing the identity of Eric Ciaramella. >and Trump and his cult are emphasizing why we have them. No, Democrats are abusing the idea of protecting whistleblowers to hide the fact that this whole investigation was initiated by Democratic party insiders and is politically motivated from the beginning. Eric Ciaramella isnt some random innocent uninvolved whistleblower....he was literally involved in the Ukrainian interference that Trump wants to expose. You're going to learn more about that, trust me.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 22, 2019 23:15:23
/r/worldnews/comments/ee61bz/effort_to_freeze_ukraine_aid_began_about_90/fbt8i9x/

>No. The whistleblower is irrelevant. They didn't use any of his testimony in the articles of impeachment. Sorry, thats bullshit. How and why an investigation was initiated is relevant to any trial. >The only reason Republicans want them to testify is so they can find out who they are and punish them for telling the truth To punish him? Do you really believe that? Here in the real world, its clear that the reason they want to talk about Eric Ciaramella is to expose him as being biased and working with Joe Biden. Which would just make it even more clear for everyone that this whole charade is a biased politically motivated endeavor.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 22, 2019 22:20:10
/r/worldnews/comments/ee61bz/effort_to_freeze_ukraine_aid_began_about_90/fbt6ufv/

> There hasn't been a trial (that'll come in the Senate) (*Might* come in the senate. Democrats might not even proceed because they know they overplayed their hand.) >And his accuser is the HOR, so he'll get the opportunity to face them. So you agree Eric Ciaramella (the whistleblower) should have to testify in the senate? Lol. The HOR isnt the accusor, its more akin to the grand jury issuing the indictment. >I can be surprised because the Republicans used to fancy themselves the "party of law and order" and are now supporting flagrently ignoring the law. How have republicans ignored the law?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 22, 2019 21:58:02
/r/worldnews/comments/ee61bz/effort_to_freeze_ukraine_aid_began_about_90/fbt6cct/

> Try "the head juror has stated openly he's going to work with the defense attorney on everything related to the trial". But when Trump asked to face his accuser, you guys claimed he cant face his accusers because impeachment isnt actually a criminal trial? Which one is it? Furthermore, how can you be surprised that you're not going to get any help from Rebpublicans in the senate, when it only made it through the house on a vote divided perfectly down party lines? Dems didnt even let republicans call witnesses. Removing a president requires bipartisan support, and if that wasnt clear to you before, it will be soon.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 22, 2019 21:51:24
/r/worldnews/comments/ee61bz/effort_to_freeze_ukraine_aid_began_about_90/fbt480h/

> Trump is impeached. Full stop. Saying anything else is categorically false. What good is an impeachment vote straight down party lines if it doesnt even get sent to the Senate because they know its not going to pass? I cant think of anything more of a meaningless political theatre than this.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 22, 2019 21:24:22
/r/worldnews/comments/edpawh/russia_up_in_arms_over_chinese_theft_of_military/fbsim7i/

Lol, as opposed to your own anecdotal experience, which is highly interesting and really gets to the facts, huh? Its a fact that Russia doesnt have much commercial success from its scientists, which leads to a disproportionate amount of of its economy being dependent on oil. >The line about Russia's share of satellite market is especially funny, when NASA is still flying Russian. Whats funny is you thinking that having a cheap/reliable rocket that was designed in the 1960s by a government program is proof of an innovative society.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 22, 2019 18:02:20
/r/worldnews/comments/edpawh/russia_up_in_arms_over_chinese_theft_of_military/fbsdr9q/

>You have this silly idea that a country with authoritarian leadership must have no 'free thinking innovators', and a country with a democratic leadership must also be culturally and socially 'free' There are no absolutes, but things do generally trend that way, yes. But either way Chinese society values freedom of expression/free thinking relatively less than most other nations. > Nazi Germany...USSR Nazi Germany was a relatively short lived political regime, and so the long term societal effects of authoritarianism on creativity and innovation were less pronounced. And heres an interesting article on Russia in particular about their lack of innovation: https://theconversation.com/russias-great-at-invention-but-stinks-at-innovation-35940 >South Korea or Japan having democratic governments doesn't prevent them from being stifling and backwards socially; but that in turn clearly didn't stop them from becoming technological powerhouses Japanese society tends to value freedom of expression more than Korea, and you might call them both stifling, but both value it more than China. Ultimately, you seem to have this silly idea that being a technological powerhouse means youre innovative. It doesnt really. A country can spend alot of resources incrementally improving well described technologies, and still not be innovative.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 22, 2019 17:31:00
/r/worldnews/comments/edpawh/russia_up_in_arms_over_chinese_theft_of_military/fbrtvdo/

>How much of Korean, Chinese, or Japanese workplaces have you seen? I've been working in the region for over a decade, and I can assure you, you are completely wrong. More than you, it seems. That your anecdotal experience leads you to perceive that Chinese society is not more authoritarian/ less free thinking than Korea or especially Japan says more about your perception than anything else. >You seem to be confusing technological advances with product design. Really? the invention of cryptocurrency was simply "product design"? Thanks for the lol. But regardless, there are product designs that are infact innovative. We're talking about innovation, not just "technological advances". You really need to gain some perspective if you think human progress and innovation is limited to incremental technological advance.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 22, 2019 15:24:07
/r/worldnews/comments/edo6mx/uk_seeks_extradition_of_us_diplomats_wife_over/fbrexoo/

It only says "She subsequently claimed diplomatic immunity, despite the Foreign Office later saying that her husband was not a registered diplomat in a recognised role." You dont have to be a "registered diplomat in a regcognized role" to have diplomatic immunity, infact the UK's foreign secretary has clearly stated: "As it has been widely reported, at the time of the accident, the American involved had diplomatic immunity. The UK government had been notified of the family’s arrival in the UK in July 2019. This diplomatic immunity was the result of the arrangements agreed between the UK government and the US government in 1995. Under those arrangements, US staff at RAF Croughton and their families were accepted as part of the US Embassy in the UK."

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 22, 2019 14:17:22
/r/worldnews/comments/edpawh/russia_up_in_arms_over_chinese_theft_of_military/fbrbh1b/

>Bro, are you trying to tell me it's 'socially acceptable' to question authority in Korea or Japan? Well not to the same degree as America, but certainly more acceptable than in China from what I've seen. >We're long past the days when one guy with a crazy idea could change the world. Bullshit. Theres a big difference between, for example, designing the modern smartphone, and copying the design and sticking a faster processor or nicer camera in it. An American billionaire deciding that he can build a private sector rocket that lands itself, or making an electric sportscar mainstream is innovative. Satoshi Nakamoto designing bitcoin was innovative (and while we dont know where he was from, development occurred in English and the majority of contributors were based in freethinking non authoritarian countries). Theres a reason these things more often happen in America and countries with less authoritarian mindsets. Not thinking there are any crazy ideas left to be had is part of the problem. But thats what people without inspiration have always thought, and they've always been proven wrong.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 22, 2019 14:02:10
/r/worldnews/comments/edxr67/this_is_mass_rape_china_slammed_over_program_that/fbmqojq/

What do you mean 'need'? Everything I've seen indicates that there is a similar amount of gay women as there are gay men. Why wouldnt that mostly balance out?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 21, 2019 23:08:34
/r/worldnews/comments/edxr67/this_is_mass_rape_china_slammed_over_program_that/fbm61ve/

What about the gay women? Wouldnt that balance it out?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 21, 2019 20:43:55
/r/worldnews/comments/edo6mx/uk_seeks_extradition_of_us_diplomats_wife_over/fbm0zba/

No shame in initially being wrong as long as you're able to eventually come to the correct answer. Are you from the UK? Its wierd to me that so many people think this woman doesnt have immunity. Its almost like the UK government is allowing that rumor to persist so that it doesnt have to admit that there are thousands of US personel and their families running around with diplomatic immunity.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 21, 2019 19:43:45
/r/worldnews/comments/edo6mx/uk_seeks_extradition_of_us_diplomats_wife_over/fbm0dvd/

How do you go from this (from your own link): >The British government has given diplomatic immunity to intelligence agency technical officers at RAF Croughton because it regards their work as vital and sensitive and because its most important ally, the United States, no doubt asked for it. ....to claiming that they didnt have diplomatic immunity at all? Its clear this woman had immunity.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 21, 2019 19:36:30
/r/btc/comments/edq014/i_am_getting_in_to_bitcoins_got_anytips_for_me/fblzt5w/

First tip: dont say you're "getting into bitcoin**s**", say you're "getting into bitcoin"

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on December 21, 2019 19:29:33
/r/worldnews/comments/edo6mx/uk_seeks_extradition_of_us_diplomats_wife_over/fblzcue/

it seems you missed this part...."US staff at RAF Croughton **and their families**"

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 21, 2019 19:24:02
/r/worldnews/comments/edpawh/russia_up_in_arms_over_chinese_theft_of_military/fblz89p/

> No offense, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Being free to talk shit about your government doesn't make you a better doctor or a better engineer No offense, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Its not about being able to criticize your government. Its about it being culturally acceptable to question authority, buck tradition, and do something truely novel. China has not innovated much compared to nations of similar resources because of this. Progress in the fields you've listed is generally fairly incremental steps from firm foundations. True innovation takes more than that.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 21, 2019 19:22:29
/r/worldnews/comments/edo6mx/uk_seeks_extradition_of_us_diplomats_wife_over/fblyu9j/

upvote for learning something! Now if only the rest of the people that post this nonsense every time this issue gets brought up would inform themselves.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 21, 2019 19:17:42
/r/worldnews/comments/edo6mx/uk_seeks_extradition_of_us_diplomats_wife_over/fblyofb/

link? Th UK government has said she did have immunity: "As it has been widely reported, at the time of the accident, **the American involved had diplomatic immunity.** The UK government had been notified of the family’s arrival in the UK in July 2019. This diplomatic immunity was the result of the arrangements agreed between the UK government and the US government in 1995. Under those arrangements, US staff at RAF Croughton and their families were accepted as part of the US Embassy in the UK." https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/foreign-secretary-update-to-parliament-on-harry-dunn-case

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 21, 2019 19:15:43
/r/worldnews/comments/edo6mx/uk_seeks_extradition_of_us_diplomats_wife_over/fblyjc6/

Guess they never got this memo, huh?: "This diplomatic immunity was the result of the arrangements agreed between the UK government and the US government in 1995. Under those arrangements, US staff at RAF Croughton and their families were accepted as part of the US Embassy in the UK." https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/foreign-secretary-update-to-parliament-on-harry-dunn-case

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 21, 2019 19:13:58
/r/worldnews/comments/edpawh/russia_up_in_arms_over_chinese_theft_of_military/fbly6my/

Its not just a broad concept of freedom, but specifically, in Russia there hasnt been the same societal concepts of deferring to authority and the concept of 'face', which seems to discourage from challenging accepted ideas or doing things in new ways.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 21, 2019 19:09:31
/r/worldnews/comments/edo6mx/uk_seeks_extradition_of_us_diplomats_wife_over/fblr18f/

>She fled the scene of the accident Why do you people keep incessantly posting this misinformation? I see that youve edited the comment, but where did you first hear this lie?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 21, 2019 17:41:02
/r/worldnews/comments/edo6mx/uk_seeks_extradition_of_us_diplomats_wife_over/fblqsms/

Youre incorrect. Intelligence officers and their families at that base had diplomatic immunity.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 21, 2019 17:38:09
/r/worldnews/comments/edpawh/russia_up_in_arms_over_chinese_theft_of_military/fblqifc/

>does that mean all people Dutch are racist? actually i kind of feel that way. Lol, you post on r/sino on your alt, dont you?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 21, 2019 17:34:41
/r/worldnews/comments/edpawh/russia_up_in_arms_over_chinese_theft_of_military/fblq9g6/

Its not genetic, its societal. Japanese and Korean society have much more freedom which allows innovation to flourish. Chinese society would have to change alot for it to be widely innovative.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 21, 2019 17:31:42
/r/worldnews/comments/ed25p6/trump_reportedly_blamed_ukraine_for_election/fbi4pcm/

>There's no credible proof of that claim, which has left current and former White House officials thinking Trump got it from Russian President Vladimir Putin himself, The Washington Post reports. Lol what a trash article. Did Putin write this one then: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 20, 2019 20:11:50
/r/personalfinance/comments/ecelvv/an_issue_with_stock_bequeathed_from_an_estate/fbatsnt/

Im no expert, but I was under the impression that if you inherit stock, the cost basis is the value of the stock on the day the person that you're inheriting it from died.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/personalfinance on December 18, 2019 11:30:19
/r/worldnews/comments/ebxcda/greta_thunberg_slams_cop25_says_response_to/fb9j045/

No, but the guy I'm responding to has claimed in like 3 different comments that Greta was already popular on social media before the PR guy 'found' her. Thats verifiably incorrect.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 17, 2019 22:31:07
/r/worldnews/comments/ebxcda/greta_thunberg_slams_cop25_says_response_to/fb9afvy/

> She was already on twitter and instagram getting attention when he showed up, just like other media. No, she wasnt

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 17, 2019 20:45:20
/r/worldnews/comments/ebxcda/greta_thunberg_slams_cop25_says_response_to/fb9a6oe/

> they had never met before, he showed up with other journalist since she was getting attention on social media. thats a lie. If you read the article, youd see that he 'found' her on his way to work before she was getting attention on social media "It was August 20, 2018, and luckily for Greta Thunberg, PR guru Ingmar Rentzhog happened to be strolling past “on the way to work”. "

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 17, 2019 20:42:11
/r/worldnews/comments/ebxcda/greta_thunberg_slams_cop25_says_response_to/fb99ycj/

No, infact if you read the thread you're commenting on, you'd see that u/Pleaseshitonmychest explicitly says he believes in her cause

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 17, 2019 20:39:25
/r/worldnews/comments/ebxcda/greta_thunberg_slams_cop25_says_response_to/fb99sqz/

>Hmm, at the same time as other journalists... hmm No, actually he 'found' her before the other journalists. Many of whom seem to have picked up the story from the PR firm's promotion.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 17, 2019 20:37:34
/r/worldnews/comments/ebxcda/greta_thunberg_slams_cop25_says_response_to/fb99nyo/

Why didnt you answer the question? >Do you have any evidence or anything to support your tin foil? https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/the-pr-guru-behind-the-rise-of-greta-thunberg/news-story/fae7bd1704d58e8ff0dd4d93ec0b3560 and regardless of if you think the PR firm guy coordinated with Greta's parents beforehand, or if he really just happened to stumble upon her on his way to work on her first day of protest, its undeniable that a PR firm was involved from day 1.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 17, 2019 20:35:57
/r/worldnews/comments/ebxcda/greta_thunberg_slams_cop25_says_response_to/fb9991p/

We have evidence her mother attended a climate change conference with the PR firm guy a few months beforehand. And even if you don't believe that her parents *knew* the PR firm guy beforehand, whether they knew him or not, its undeniable that the PR firm was promoting Greta from day 1.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 17, 2019 20:30:52
/r/worldnews/comments/ebxcda/greta_thunberg_slams_cop25_says_response_to/fb98vpx/

thats a non sequitur

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 17, 2019 20:26:19
/r/worldnews/comments/ebxcda/greta_thunberg_slams_cop25_says_response_to/fb98s21/

> She was already on twitter and instagram getting attention when he showed up, just like other media. How many twitter/instagram likes did she get before the PR firm started promoting her the very same day?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 17, 2019 20:25:04
/r/worldnews/comments/ebxcda/greta_thunberg_slams_cop25_says_response_to/fb98lnx/

Greta says things like "But there is no one ”behind” me except for myself." despite the fact she had a PR firm promoting her from day 1. Alot of the work that goes into modern PR/advertising campaigns is in trying to make it look entirely grassroots.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 17, 2019 20:22:50
/r/worldnews/comments/ebxcda/greta_thunberg_slams_cop25_says_response_to/fb985u8/

> The PR guy found her Found her on the very first day, on his way to work....how convenient, huh? It just smells like a manufactured PR effort, despite alot of the work that goes into PR these days is in trying to make PR assisted campaigns look like they're entirely grassroots.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 17, 2019 20:17:24
/r/worldnews/comments/ebxcda/greta_thunberg_slams_cop25_says_response_to/fb97blz/

Obviously she's downplaying the PR firm connection, but not actually refuting anything that was said in the article. Furthermore, she mentions that "That was the first time I had ever met or spoken with him.", but doesnt mention if her parents had spoken with him (perhaps when they were both attending the same climate conference). Also, statements like this from her: "But there is no one ”behind” me except for myself." is very misleading, because she definately had a PR firm promoting her from early on. She might claim that her parents didnt set it up, and that the PR just 'stumbled upon her' or whatever, but the fact that the PR firm was involved in her early promotion is undeniable.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 17, 2019 20:07:02
/r/worldnews/comments/ebxcda/greta_thunberg_slams_cop25_says_response_to/fb8nfed/

I mean, its already 'out' to some degree: https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/the-pr-guru-behind-the-rise-of-greta-thunberg/news-story/fae7bd1704d58e8ff0dd4d93ec0b3560

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 17, 2019 16:21:18
/r/worldnews/comments/ebxcda/greta_thunberg_slams_cop25_says_response_to/fb8lyyk/

Doesnt look any better than the US according to test results: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA-results_ENGLISH.png Compared to the US, Sweden does better in math, but effectively the same in reading, and the US actually scores better in science.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 17, 2019 16:06:31
/r/worldnews/comments/ebxcda/greta_thunberg_slams_cop25_says_response_to/fb8ldl1/

She also had a PR firm start promoting her from day one of her protesting outside the Swedish parliament. They claim its 'coincidence' that the PR guy found her there, but he had previously attended climate conferences with Greta's parents. They've tried very hard to make Greta's rise to fame look organic, but it seems very deliberately manufactured to me.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 17, 2019 16:00:20
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ebhpja/why_isnt_hex_illegal_will_richard_heart_go_to/fb6zd0r/

Lol. How do you figure that? There are all kinds of other laws that could apply. If government agencies feel like Richard deceived investors he could be arrested. If this gets big the SEC would likely like to take a close look at this to see if they think it might be a security too. You seem to be a bit naive about how many laws there are and how widely applicable they are.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on December 17, 2019 02:05:32
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ebhpja/why_isnt_hex_illegal_will_richard_heart_go_to/fb6z4ho/

Laws for open source software that generates cryptocurrency? Lets see....the SEC has said that the tokens/coins generated by some open source software are securities. And the IRS has said that if your open source software produces coins/tokens that have value you owe taxes on it. Also plenty of existing laws apply to open source software/crypto as well. Using open source software doesnt exempt you from most laws.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on December 17, 2019 02:00:38
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ebhpja/why_isnt_hex_illegal_will_richard_heart_go_to/fb6yx6i/

You might think ponzis/pyramid schemes should be legal as long as you dont explicitly guarantee returns...but thats not how the laws are currently in the US at least. Sorry...

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on December 17, 2019 01:56:31
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ebhpja/why_isnt_hex_illegal_will_richard_heart_go_to/fb6ysf2/

I said emotionally, not financially.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on December 17, 2019 01:53:52
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ebhpja/why_isnt_hex_illegal_will_richard_heart_go_to/fb6ynm6/

>Bernie promised return... How much of a guarantee do you think he really gave? Everything I've read about Madoff is not that he was guaranteeing returns, so much as just promoting his ability to make returns *likely*, and then backing it up with what looked like a strong track record. > ....on investment in USD. Richard is not only not promising any return on investment, the “payouts” are in open source software. Lol, so you think since he's not using USD its not a ponzi? Thats not even relevant. It doesnt matter what unit of account hes using. >Get the fuck over it Lol, you sound emotionally invested in this, huh?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on December 17, 2019 01:51:14
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ebhpja/why_isnt_hex_illegal_will_richard_heart_go_to/fb6xp2l/

You think Richard is giving people less an impression of likely returns than Bernie Maddoff did? Why do you believe that?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on December 17, 2019 01:32:32
/r/worldnews/comments/eb8li2/ivanka_trump_interviewed_by_her_own_spokeswoman/fb62z8y/

she she's been pushing paid parental leave pretty heavily

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 16, 2019 18:48:14
/r/politics/comments/eayrcg/barr_dismisses_inspector_general_finding_russia/fb3a1ax/

>IG report says that political bias is a "likely explanation." I never said the report explicitly says that. I said that "The series of 'convenient mistakes' during the investigation itself does in fact **point towards** bias as a likely explanation".... Please pay attention, or if you are, stop intentionally making strawman arguments. Furthermore, what do you think this means: > “I think it’s fair for people to sit there and look at all of these 17 events and wonder how it could be purely incompetence.” - Horowitz How would it be fair for people to doubt that all these mistakes were due only to incompetence, if bias wasnt a likely explanation? If its not incompetence, and its not bias.....**what is it?** ;)

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/politics on December 15, 2019 22:42:42
/r/politics/comments/eayrcg/barr_dismisses_inspector_general_finding_russia/fb394sx/

He said there was "no evidence of bias" only in *opening* the investigation. The series of 'convenient mistakes' *during* the investigation itself does in fact point towards bias as a likely explanation, and he says that: "“I think it’s fair for people to sit there and look at all of these 17 events and wonder how it could be purely incompetence.”" Thats a far cry from "knowing there was no bias" in the investigation itself, and to try to spin it as such is pretty obviously incorrect. In fact his statement here implies that there *is* some evidence of bias but its just not enough to make a clear determination: "On the one hand, gross incompetence, negligence; on the other hand intentionality, and we’re in between—we weren’t in a position with the evidence we had, to make that conclusion, but we are not ruling it out,” - Horowitz

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/politics on December 15, 2019 22:32:28
/r/politics/comments/eayrcg/barr_dismisses_inspector_general_finding_russia/fb37wba/

Note that the opposite of "knowing that theres bias", would be "knowing that there was not bias". But thats not what horowitz says, he explicitly leaves open the possibility of bias playing a role due to the suspiciousness of all the convenient 'mistakes'. >Indeed, in his report, he said there was no evidence of bias in opening the investigations. Indeed, the bias would come into play in keeping the investigation going despite the exculpatory evidence, even hiding the exculpatory evidence from the FISA court and faking other evidence.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/politics on December 15, 2019 22:18:41
/r/politics/comments/eayrcg/barr_dismisses_inspector_general_finding_russia/fb35cyr/

> Again, this narrative is the exact opposite of his report and testimony. Opposite? Not so sure about that. Horowitz explicitly stated that all the convenient 'mistakes' add up to look alot like bias, but he doesnt have enough evidence to prove it. (Durham might with the greater scope of his investigation though) “I think it’s fair for people to sit there and look at all of these 17 events and wonder how it could be purely incompetence.” - Horowitz "On the one hand, gross incompetence, negligence; on the other hand intentionality, and we’re in between—we weren’t in a position with the evidence we had, to make that conclusion, but we are not ruling it out,” - Horowitz

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/politics on December 15, 2019 21:50:33
/r/worldnews/comments/eafluy/europe_threatens_us_with_carbon_tariffs_to_combat/fawqwba/

And then the US will just tariff EU products in retaliation.....

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 14, 2019 20:48:19
/r/btc/comments/eanyoj/gregory_maxwell_now_threatening_media_outlets/fav5qjd/

Looks like nullc *knowingly* attempted to assist a fraud, in or to damage the BCH community. He is the epitome of toxicity and deception. >“I emailed him– because I’m concerned that scammers like Roger Ver finally figured out that faketoshi isn’t convincing anyone anymore.”

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on December 14, 2019 15:38:18
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ea5mmk/dcinvestor_we_may_look_back_20_years_from_now_at/fapw2ap/

I dont think the comparison is very apt, because IPv4 address limitation is more like running out of bitcoin addresses than running out of transaction throughput. Limiting blocksize is more like refusing to increase the amount of independent fibers in a fiber optic cable.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on December 13, 2019 22:30:59
/r/worldnews/comments/ea56q2/democrats_approve_impeachment_of_trump_in/fao7r5z/

> Democracy in this country is dead. Just because you don't like what democracy has chosen, doesnt mean democracy is dead. Trump has 90% support among Republicans. If he didnt have the support of his party, the Senate would remove him....but he does so they wont. Its really that simple.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 13, 2019 12:42:02
/r/worldnews/comments/e9udd2/uk_election_exit_poll_predicts_tory_majority/fan1z7o/

Literally everything you typed is incorrect. You should be ashamed. >The plans included are very basic and only cover a percentage of the fees associated with needing medical assistance. Obamacare silver plans regularly cover 94% of the cost of healthcare for $20 per month. Its incredible coverage. In what way is it "basic"? >Most ambulances won't be covered for example, and they can cost up to $750 per KM of service in the United States. Bullshit, my insurance covers ambulence. copied strait from my plan documents: "Covered service expenses will include ambulance services for local transportation: 1. To the nearest hospital that can provide services appropriate to the member's illness or injury in cases of emergency. "

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 13, 2019 02:01:24
/r/worldnews/comments/e9udd2/uk_election_exit_poll_predicts_tory_majority/famznwk/

if you make under 20k a year, healthcare costs like $20 a month with a $0 deductible in the US currently. Ever heard of Obamacare? It still exists you know...

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 13, 2019 01:20:12
/r/worldnews/comments/e9udd2/uk_election_exit_poll_predicts_tory_majority/famz7wh/

people like you are why people vote Conservative, congratulations

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 13, 2019 01:12:17
/r/worldnews/comments/e9udd2/uk_election_exit_poll_predicts_tory_majority/famv98b/

> You will finally get to experience the delightful taste of US raised chicken washed with chlorine and processed in China. Tastes pretty good tbh. Ever had KFC?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 13, 2019 00:11:15
/r/worldnews/comments/e9pa1m/parents_of_uk_teen_killed_in_car_crash_to_file/famegsu/

The UK government litterally agreed that she had immunity

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 12, 2019 20:51:45
/r/worldnews/comments/e9qgbe/canadian_conservative_leader_andrew_scheer_to/fam460p/

Its a bit odd that you make these arguments. What is it about supposedly being an Elite that you think is inconsistant with not being "ready" for politics? Put another way, you think being an 'elite' means hes 'ready for politics'? As for carbon emmisions, you realize something can both be ineffective and also costly? I don't know enough about Trudeu or Canada's proposed carbon tax to judge either on their merits.....but your argument just doesnt make any sense.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 12, 2019 19:04:47
/r/btc/comments/e9gw8k/on_greg_maxwell_co_founder_of_blockstream_and_the/faj4uf0/

>Roger was involved with this company in some capacity and is going to have a microscope put on him. FACT. If this company wasnt actually using most of its funds to purchase mining equipment....wouldnt they just lie to Roger and tell him they were, just like they did everyone else?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on December 11, 2019 23:22:01
/r/btc/comments/e9gw8k/on_greg_maxwell_co_founder_of_blockstream_and_the/faj357w/

> Instead of going back and forth with Greg, why not address it directly? Why did you delete that tweet? I'd imagine they convinced him that they were using all their money to buy mining equipment.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on December 11, 2019 22:59:18
/r/btc/comments/e9gw8k/on_greg_maxwell_co_founder_of_blockstream_and_the/faj31w3/

If you wanted to approach this objectively, its worth noting that it seems like Joby Weeks was trying to keep the company honest, and likely presented it to Roger as if it was honest: >"Weeks remarked in an email to Goettsche and another accused conspirator in June 2017 that BitClub's selling shares and not using the money to buy mining equipment was "not right."" https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/five-charged-alleged-722-million-cryptocurrency-ponzi-scheme-n1099511

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on December 11, 2019 22:58:05
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/e93y1k/five_charged_in_alleged_722_million/faj0i77/

> This video is a promotional interview with Roger Ver, and his "long time friend" Joby Weeks. Weeks is one of the arrestees. Its worth noting that it seems like Joby Weeks was trying to keep the company honest, and likely presented it to Roger as if it was: >"Weeks remarked in an email to Goettsche and another accused conspirator in June 2017 that BitClub's selling shares and not using the money to buy mining equipment was "not right."" https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/five-charged-alleged-722-million-cryptocurrency-ponzi-scheme-n1099511

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on December 11, 2019 22:25:43
/r/btc/comments/e8zjpk/throwback_tuesday_two_years_ago_bitcoincom_was/faj00bw/

What makes you think Roger really knew any better than anyone else, if BitClub was actually buying mining equipment with their revenue? The guy he seemed to be interfacing with, Joby Weeks, looks like he was attempting (unsuccessfully) to steer the company in an honest direction: >"Weeks remarked in an email to Goettsche and another accused conspirator in June 2017 that BitClub's selling shares and not using the money to buy mining equipment was "not right."" https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/five-charged-alleged-722-million-cryptocurrency-ponzi-scheme-n1099511

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on December 11, 2019 22:19:34
/r/btc/comments/e8zjpk/throwback_tuesday_two_years_ago_bitcoincom_was/faizgut/

It seems like Joby Weeks was actually trying to run the company honestly: >"Weeks remarked in an email to Goettsche and another accused conspirator in June 2017 that BitClub's selling shares and not using the money to buy mining equipment was "not right."" https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/five-charged-alleged-722-million-cryptocurrency-ponzi-scheme-n1099511

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/btc on December 11, 2019 22:13:00
/r/worldnews/comments/e93swn/china_imprisoned_more_journalists_than_any_other/faiv2jr/

How many non-government journalists does China even have though?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 11, 2019 21:21:37
/r/worldnews/comments/e99gez/greta_thunberg_accuses_canada_and_norway_of/faihdj9/

Yet Norway is only beaten by Saudi Arabia and the UAE in barrels of oil produced per person. Interesting.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 11, 2019 18:44:25
/r/worldnews/comments/e8x36c/banned_recording_reveals_china_ambassador/fai50zu/

yea man, check out r/sino, its redicuous

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 11, 2019 16:33:00
/r/worldnews/comments/e8x36c/banned_recording_reveals_china_ambassador/fahln7v/

>Thus you will see contradictory statements such as “China only steal IP but they can’t innovate” and “77% of drones in the US, including ones used by the Military comes from one Chinese company”. You can’t not innovate and dominate the industry at the same time in an era where companies like Amazon can disrupt a market and be a monopoly within a decade. Its hilarious that you think drones/quadcopters are a chinese innovation. Other people invented them, China just produces them cheaply.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 11, 2019 13:20:05
/r/worldnews/comments/e8uf2n/nato_conference_is_canceled_after_us_ambassador/fahkh32/

> Trump has broken the historical trend that has persisted since the days of FDR being in office. How did he do that when his numbers arent significantly different than Reagan's?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 11, 2019 13:07:57
/r/worldnews/comments/e8x36c/banned_recording_reveals_china_ambassador/fahkdhf/

Looking through this guy's history, it looks like this person doesnt go more than 5 hours without posting about China. And is also an r/Sino poster....which says alot.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 11, 2019 13:06:54
/r/worldnews/comments/e8uf2n/nato_conference_is_canceled_after_us_ambassador/fahjkxy/

Its a significant change from Barack Obama, but Barack Obama is not the historical norm. Like I said, its not significantly different than Reagan, nor a significant change from the historical norm.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 11, 2019 12:58:39
/r/worldnews/comments/e8uf2n/nato_conference_is_canceled_after_us_ambassador/fah96l5/

yet barely any more than reagan

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 11, 2019 11:30:24
/r/worldnews/comments/e8uf2n/nato_conference_is_canceled_after_us_ambassador/fah2xi5/

looks like a pretty minor blip to me.... https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/deckler-output.png?w=620&h=472&crop=1&strip=all&quality=75

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 11, 2019 10:25:36
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/e8yrc9/is_it_just_me_or_does_it_seem_like_crypto_kind_of/fag3efb/

There are levels of acceptable risk in accepting payments. You might think that people "shouldnt" accept 0-conf, but the fact is that many do, because the level of risk is worth the speed/convenience benefit for the type of transaction they are making. And that level of risk is lower with BCH than BTC, which makes 0-conf more viable on BCH for more types of users than BTC. BCH is also implementing avalanche, which is a form of pre-consensus that will make the risk of accepting 0-conf even lower, making it viable for even more use cases.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on December 10, 2019 23:36:41
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/e8yrc9/is_it_just_me_or_does_it_seem_like_crypto_kind_of/fag2i46/

The existence of RBF and full blocks on BTC definately make 0 confirmation payments much more risky on BTC than alternatives like BCH.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on December 10, 2019 23:24:17
/r/worldnews/comments/e8x36c/banned_recording_reveals_china_ambassador/fafvhio/

Do you have any actual numbers to back up what you're saying? Because these figures say the opposite: https://tradingeconomics.com/china/exports >Exports from China **dropped** by 1.1 percent year-on-year to USD 221.74 billion in November 2019

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 10, 2019 21:55:09
/r/worldnews/comments/e8uf2n/nato_conference_is_canceled_after_us_ambassador/fafh1gb/

connections and stroking their own egos probably

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 10, 2019 19:02:24
/r/worldnews/comments/e8uf2n/nato_conference_is_canceled_after_us_ambassador/faf77ie/

Thats pretty much how ambassadors have always been chosen. Pretty dumb, but its not like this is a new trend.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 10, 2019 17:13:36
/r/worldnews/comments/e8qfj1/ivanka_trumps_relationship_with_british_spy/faf6fwd/

> Impeaching such a person is part of ensuring continuity of democracy. Trump has a 90% approval rating among Republicans. Impeachment has to be bipartisan. Its clear you want to kick out the president we elected, but that is going to have to wait until the voting booths open at the next election, sorry.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 10, 2019 17:05:42
/r/worldnews/comments/e8qfj1/ivanka_trumps_relationship_with_british_spy/faf3fn7/

Like what? >One source estimated the spreadsheet found upward of 90 percent of the dossier’s claims to be either wrong, nonverifiable or open-source intelligence found with a Google search. https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/453384-fbis-spreadsheet-puts-a-stake-through-the-heart-of-steeles-dossier

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 10, 2019 16:35:13
/r/worldnews/comments/e8qfj1/ivanka_trumps_relationship_with_british_spy/faf2u2r/

Who is a reliable informer? Steele? Steele literally wrote that there's a Russian consulate in Miami. The Steele Dossier is trash: https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/453384-fbis-spreadsheet-puts-a-stake-through-the-heart-of-steeles-dossier >She quoted Steele as saying, “Payments to those recruited are made out of the Russian Consulate in Miami,” according to a copy of her summary memo obtained under open records litigation by the conservative group Citizens United. Kavalec bluntly debunked that assertion in a bracketed comment: **“It is important to note that there is no Russian consulate in Miami.”** >and his relation with the trumps has plenty of documentation. but how is it even relevant?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 10, 2019 16:29:18
/r/worldnews/comments/e8qfj1/ivanka_trumps_relationship_with_british_spy/faf2179/

You do realize theres no actual evidence piss tapes exist...right?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 10, 2019 16:21:18
/r/worldnews/comments/e8qfj1/ivanka_trumps_relationship_with_british_spy/faf1i4z/

Oh please inform me then.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 10, 2019 16:15:58
/r/worldnews/comments/e8qfj1/ivanka_trumps_relationship_with_british_spy/faf1aqg/

Another poor attempt at deflection...yikes.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 10, 2019 16:13:56
/r/worldnews/comments/e8qfj1/ivanka_trumps_relationship_with_british_spy/faf19c4/

Who do you think paid Steele to go digging up dirt on Trump in Russia then? Some neutral bystander?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 10, 2019 16:13:33
/r/Whatcouldgowrong/comments/e8rhx7/acting_cool_over_a_rail_wcgw/faeu7f3/

Why is this such a meme, when the US generally performs fairly well on childrens education: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA-results_ENGLISH.png ?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/Whatcouldgowrong on December 10, 2019 15:04:28
/r/worldnews/comments/e8qfj1/ivanka_trumps_relationship_with_british_spy/faeohv9/

>Beyond that, would you care to address the contents of the dossier rather than speculating on Steele's motives? We're litterally in a thread discussing Steele's motives. Did you even read the article? The entire article is about Steele's motives.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 10, 2019 14:08:27
/r/worldnews/comments/e8qfj1/ivanka_trumps_relationship_with_british_spy/fae1b1o/

Lol, so because he used to keep in touch with Trump's young, hot, rich, blonde daughter before she was married, means that he couldnt have been biased against Trump, despite literally accepting a job to dig up as much Russian dirt as he could about him?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 10, 2019 10:25:04
/r/worldnews/comments/e7ywjv/danish_nato_event_cancelled_after_us_bars_trump/faa5370/

When has free speech ever applied to being a speaker at any conference you'd like? Conference speaking slots have also been exclusive affairs.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 9, 2019 09:40:06
/r/worldnews/comments/e7ywjv/danish_nato_event_cancelled_after_us_bars_trump/fa9d6vt/

Sure, and if they're trying to pretend to be an open and neutral platform for discussion, its bad when they do that too. Can you show me an example of a conservative social media *platform* though, let alone one thats pretending to be a neutral space? I don't think I've ever seen one. Usually they're just niche communities within a preexisting platform that spring up as a response to what they perceive as liberal bias, and are pretty open about what they are. > They don't really believe in free speech as a concept since they will agree with censorship under certain conditions. Especially when it works for them. Some do and some don't. >But you are proving my point either way. Not sure about that one.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 9, 2019 00:29:56
/r/worldnews/comments/e7ywjv/danish_nato_event_cancelled_after_us_bars_trump/fa9co48/

Thats because many argue public internet platforms are becoming the public squares of the modern age, and it ties into freedom of the internet, and internet as a public good. That has very little to do with speaking slots at conferences, which have always been exclusive. I certainly dont think I have the right to be a speaker at any conference I choose, regardless of if the conference organizers want me there. Its impractical if nothing else because speaker slots are limited.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 9, 2019 00:21:34
/r/worldnews/comments/e7zlp8/hud_withholds_18_billion_in_disaster_aid_from/fa960xr/

> it's money for infrastructure, there's no need to 'give it to' anyone other than those doing the rebuilding. ...as if awarding government contracts to their buddies hasnt been an avenue for politicians' to siphon away government funds for ages. How exactly do you think corruption in PR has been carried out in the past?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 8, 2019 22:49:10
/r/worldnews/comments/e7ywjv/danish_nato_event_cancelled_after_us_bars_trump/fa90aq6/

>These aren’t enemies, and you don’t seem to understand what that word means. I'm not interested in playing semantic games with you. Replace "enemies" with "people critical of them". It makes no difference to the argument. >Besides, do you honestly expect experts in different fields to never criticize Trump? He says and does stupid shit all the time, criticism is warranted. I absolutely expect criticism. I just dont expect them to be invited to speak at events sponsored by Trump's administration.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 8, 2019 21:38:49
/r/worldnews/comments/e7ywjv/danish_nato_event_cancelled_after_us_bars_trump/fa8zp74/

If you want to attribute blame for ambassadorships to friendly nations being handed out to campaign donors, you're going to have to go back alot further than Trump. Its pretty par for the course: https://publicintegrity.org/federal-politics/barack-obamas-ambassador-legacy-plum-postings-for-big-donors/ >"During his second term, Obama named 31 campaign “bundlers” — supporters who raised at least $50,000 to fund his presidential campaigns— as ambassadors. Obama tapped nearly all of these bundlers to serve in Western European nations or other highly developed and stable countries such as Canada and New Zealand." >"Another 39 of Obama’s second-term ambassador nominees are political appointees who either gave his campaign money or are known political allies."

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 8, 2019 21:31:40
/r/worldnews/comments/e7ywjv/danish_nato_event_cancelled_after_us_bars_trump/fa8z5zc/

Yea, its pretty typical for the representatives of the people sponsoring an event to have the final decision on who is invited to speak at the event.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 8, 2019 21:25:12
/r/worldnews/comments/e7ywjv/danish_nato_event_cancelled_after_us_bars_trump/fa8z1ij/

Its sad that people are so polarized that they assume anyone that doesnt hate Trump for every decision he makes, automatically supports Trump in everything he does. Its just false. For example, I think Trumps Iran/Israel policy is retarded.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 8, 2019 21:23:41
/r/worldnews/comments/e7ywjv/danish_nato_event_cancelled_after_us_bars_trump/fa8yuq7/

Yes, I firmly believe the organizers/sponsors of events should be able to choose who speaks at their own events. If Trump was whining about not being invited to speak at Democrat sponsored events I'd say he's out of line too.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 8, 2019 21:21:24
/r/worldnews/comments/e7ywjv/danish_nato_event_cancelled_after_us_bars_trump/fa8yijh/

Its literally what happened. How would you like to spin it instead?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 8, 2019 21:17:23
/r/worldnews/comments/e7ywjv/danish_nato_event_cancelled_after_us_bars_trump/fa8y4lj/

>This is NATO No, this isnt NATO, its an event **about** NATO, and sponsored by the US government. Other countries are free to organize their own events to discuss NATO as well, but this one was sponsored by the US.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 8, 2019 21:12:49
/r/worldnews/comments/e7ywjv/danish_nato_event_cancelled_after_us_bars_trump/fa8xvu6/

>Why is the President using his power to silence critics? That's what dictators do No, its what everyone that hosts/sponsors events does. Why doesnt the Democratic party invite Sean Hannity to speak at their events?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 8, 2019 21:09:58
/r/worldnews/comments/e7ywjv/danish_nato_event_cancelled_after_us_bars_trump/fa8xp5h/

You're missing the point. If Trump didnt control the event, why didnt the Danes just invite who they wanted instead of canceling it entirely? Its obvious that since the US was the primary (perhaps only) sponsor of the event, they had the decision making power to choose the speakers. Just like the Democratic party has the power to choose the speakers at the Democratic national convention.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 8, 2019 21:07:51
/r/worldnews/comments/e7ywjv/danish_nato_event_cancelled_after_us_bars_trump/fa8wril/

As the article said, "The seminar, on Nato and transatlantic relations, was sponsored by the US government."

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 8, 2019 20:56:58
/r/worldnews/comments/e7ywjv/danish_nato_event_cancelled_after_us_bars_trump/fa8w340/

Why would you expect Trump to invite enemies to speak at events he's hosting, when Democrats dont invite enemies to speak at their own events?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 8, 2019 20:48:58
/r/worldnews/comments/e7ywjv/danish_nato_event_cancelled_after_us_bars_trump/fa8uwx5/

People can criticize Trump all they want. That you expect to be invited to criticize Trump as a speaker at a conference sponsored by the Trump administration shows you dont really understand how rights work though.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 8, 2019 20:35:09
/r/worldnews/comments/e7ywjv/danish_nato_event_cancelled_after_us_bars_trump/fa8ulq5/

Not inviting someone to speak at your conference isnt infringing on their free speech. Thatd be like saying the Democrats not inviting Trump to speak at their Democratic national convention is infringing on Trump's free speech.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 8, 2019 20:31:36
/r/worldnews/comments/e7uejk/whistleblower_goes_public_after_leaked_documents/fa8tbtp/

> That's just it though, they're too busy dealing with Brexit. If they wanted to be done dealing with brexit, they always have the option of assuring Britain a good post-Brexit trade/visa deal. They dont want to though because they want to make leaving the EU painful, so as to discourage others from leaving the EU. But this is EU's own choosing. The amount of resources they allocate to raking the UK over the coals rather than actually confronting China or Russia is their own decision.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 8, 2019 20:16:58
/r/worldnews/comments/e7uejk/whistleblower_goes_public_after_leaked_documents/fa80fbt/

What do the leaders of the US and UK have to do with the rest of Europe? Europe should fucking do something about China already.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 8, 2019 16:16:46
/r/investing/comments/e7b5oa/elon_musk_found_not_liable_in_pedo_guy_defamation/fa07qar/

> if that had been the U.K. the first question would have been what evidence did Mr Musk have to substantiate his claim about Mr Unsworth? Elon getting off on this has nothing to do with billionaire status, its simply that in the US we have more freedom to insult eachother and arent so quick to get the nanny state involved. If anything being a billionaire made it much more likely that he ended up getting sued, because the potential payout was so high. No normal person in the US would have ended up in court about this at all.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on December 7, 2019 15:22:19
/r/investing/comments/e7b5oa/elon_musk_found_not_liable_in_pedo_guy_defamation/fa0788g/

> So it seems we can all tweet that that musk looks like a paedo without being sued. Let the games begin. Hold on I’m not on Twitter. If you were on twitter, maybe it wouldnt have taken you this long to realize people insult eachother on there all the time. If you're scared of freedom of speech and expect to be paid money everytime someone insults you, you'd better stay off the internet. Or at least dont tell people to shove a submarine up their ass.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on December 7, 2019 15:19:08
/r/investing/comments/e7b5oa/elon_musk_found_not_liable_in_pedo_guy_defamation/fa06r5g/

> Yes, but one person is using their power to bully another. When you tell someone to stick something up their ass, you can expect to be called names in retaliation.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/investing on December 7, 2019 15:14:53
/r/geopolitics/comments/e5x23n/us_house_passes_uyghur_act_calling_for_sanctions/f9ymk7m/

19% is over 50% more than 12%. Did you fail math and you dont understand that percents can also be compared as a percentage of eachother? If US was just a bit less than 12%, like 9.8%, China would be twice as dependent on exports as the US.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/geopolitics on December 7, 2019 09:58:51
/r/worldnews/comments/e715ne/german_petition_on_taiwan_forces_government_to/f9yfpd2/

The government may decide many things in China, such as how to allocate resources among industries, or which companies get loans, but the price of labor itself is generally determined by the free market there. China saw how the Soviet Union failed, and so has adopted free market principles in low level economic systems to try to avoid the same fate. The high level decisions are all made by the state though.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 7, 2019 09:13:45
/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/e70ilb/i_think_we_can_all_agree_that_this_sucks/f9w189i/

California Democrats....this is what you give us?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/CryptoCurrency on December 6, 2019 21:20:49
/r/worldnews/comments/e715ne/german_petition_on_taiwan_forces_government_to/f9w0p4d/

>$5 for "grueling labour" was the example given. $5 a day for any amount of work in an advanced economy is well below fair market value. Perhaps $5 is. I dont know what the exact lower bound is. But I do know that illegal immigrants work sometimes work for less than minimum wage. Maybe they make $7 per hour in some place. Maybe they work for $10 an hour in California where the minimum wage is $12. Doesnt change my point. >The market does not exist nor does it operate in a vacuum. The minimum wage definitely does impact the market value. I never said minimum wage doesnt "impact" market value. I said minimum wage doesnt "refect" market value. Those are very different things. >Like the stress, fear, and depression with comes with being homeless and afraid of starving? No, that wouldnt be a mental illness. If I cant afford to hire them for $12 an hour, why shouldnt I do the next best thing and hire them for $7 an hour? Better than letting them starve.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 6, 2019 21:14:20
/r/worldnews/comments/e715ne/german_petition_on_taiwan_forces_government_to/f9vz3er/

>Paying some below market value because of their desperation is by definition exploitation. You're not necessarily paying less than market value if you pay less than minimum wage. The market value of some things is simply less than minimum wage. Minimum wage is an arbitrary number set by government and doesnt reflect market value at all. >You're trying to tell me that if someone agrees to something then it can't be exploitation? No, it definitely could be. If someone had mental issues or you tricked them it might be exploitation. But for example, if someone's an illegal immigrant and wants to work on my farm and i agree, thats not neccesarily exploitation. I'm taking a risk by employing illegal immigrants, so the market value of their labor might be less than minimum wage. Otherwise I'd just hire high school kids off for summer break or something, and not have to worry about getting caught hiring illegals.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 6, 2019 20:53:52
/r/redditsecurity/comments/e74nml/suspected_campaign_from_russia_on_reddit/f9vta9r/

definitely, anyone posting anti-labor is probably a Russian troll.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/redditsecurity on December 6, 2019 19:39:21
/r/pics/comments/e724wy/a_chunk_of_quartz_found_in_arkansas_worth_4/f9vp9yg/

>That would be stupid. But it's what the 1% does right now. You're simply incorrect. They dont sit on their millions and never spend them. They invest in productive enterprises that create value and employ people. >You honestly think Stalin and Mao's countries are any different than where America is heading right now? Get our of your bubble. Mao killed like 50 million people. Yea, its a bit different than America. >Socialism doesn't result in unchecked power, psychopaths who are good public speakers do. The psychopath would have to convince the rich people in America to back them. Power is distributed. Thats alot harder to do than to simply rise up to the top of a bureaucracy that already controls all the resources in a country.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on December 6, 2019 18:48:54
/r/pics/comments/e724wy/a_chunk_of_quartz_found_in_arkansas_worth_4/f9vnscq/

> This guy can turn around and sit on that 4 million and literally never spend it. Thatd be stupid because if he did, itd just be inflated away. Whats more likely is that he invests it, which creates more jobs. >And good job mistaking socialism for dictatorships. Ffs, look at the wealth gap... How can you ever rationalize that existing? I didnt mistake anything. Mao and Stalin definitely were socialists. They were also dictators, true, but ultimately any fully socialist country will turn into a dicatorship, because the state has too much power.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on December 6, 2019 18:30:42
/r/pics/comments/e724wy/a_chunk_of_quartz_found_in_arkansas_worth_4/f9vm8sf/

>Because no one person, no matter their accomplishments, should be out above humanity. Just because you can spend alot of money on a rock doesnt mean you're above humanity. >Instead, that person just drops 4 million on a rock.... The money doesnt disappear when he spends it. It ends up in someone else's pocket. Now the guy with 4 mil can pay some construction workers to build him a nice big house, and people get paid for making bricks, sheetrock, roof tiles, wiring electricity, doing plumbing, etc, etc, etc. >Capatalism is evil and is ultimately leading us to a 99.9% vs .1‰ revolution. Capitalism only means that individuals are allowed to own private property and trade it how they please. If capitalism is evil, why have the largest killings the world has ever seen been conducted by governments seeking to distribute property in a centralized manner?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on December 6, 2019 18:12:10
/r/pics/comments/e724wy/a_chunk_of_quartz_found_in_arkansas_worth_4/f9vlb21/

What if the person invented computers? Why shouldnt that guy have enough money to buy a big rock someone found?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on December 6, 2019 18:01:00
/r/pics/comments/e724wy/a_chunk_of_quartz_found_in_arkansas_worth_4/f9vl1i6/

So now the random dude who found the crystals has 4 million. Whats the problem here?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/pics on December 6, 2019 17:57:53
/r/worldnews/comments/e715ne/german_petition_on_taiwan_forces_government_to/f9vjr1r/

> But that's not a fair or ethical exchange, that's exploitation. If the homeless man wasnt better off for it, he wouldnt take the deal. Whats your superior plan for a market based price for labor? You don't really have to answer though, I already know what you're going to say.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 6, 2019 17:42:49
/r/worldnews/comments/e715ne/german_petition_on_taiwan_forces_government_to/f9ve6td/

A free market literally means that the price paid for labor is where the employer is willing to pay, meets when the worker is willing to sell. This has resulted in steadily increasing pay in China.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 6, 2019 16:40:33
/r/worldnews/comments/e715ne/german_petition_on_taiwan_forces_government_to/f9vd89o/

Then how are Chinese wages rising, if supply and demand doesnt work for labor?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 6, 2019 16:30:09
/r/geopolitics/comments/e5x23n/us_house_passes_uyghur_act_calling_for_sanctions/f9u42o4/

Its not exactly bold to just google "percent gdp exports". https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS?name_desc=false US is 12.1% exports and China is 19.5% exports. That means China's exports represent 50% more of their GDP than exports represent for the US.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/geopolitics on December 6, 2019 09:53:18
/r/worldnews/comments/e6hu6d/north_korea_threatens_to_resume_calling_trump/f9t1ojj/

What an inspiration. If I lose enough, perhaps I too can become president of the USA.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 5, 2019 23:22:20
/r/worldnews/comments/e6ow1k/arab_princes_representative_who_illegally/f9t0li8/

You think divorce was uncommon in 1990? Here's a chart for your reference: http://www.allianceformarriage.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/us-divorce-rate-over-time.jpg

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 5, 2019 23:07:57
/r/worldnews/comments/e6ow1k/arab_princes_representative_who_illegally/f9t0a4u/

You think she was more worried about being a divorced woman, than losing access to ridding the coattails of a rising political star?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 5, 2019 23:03:49
/r/geopolitics/comments/e5x23n/us_house_passes_uyghur_act_calling_for_sanctions/f9roe58/

Because exports make up more of the Chinese economy than they do the US economy. Its not about claiming China is export oriented compared to the rest of the world, which would be false, its about recognizing that they're export oriented compared to the US. The fact that for both countries exports are fairly low, doesnt change the reality that they're relatively more important for China than for the US.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/geopolitics on December 5, 2019 15:51:13
/r/geopolitics/comments/e6hko7/how_can_the_us_combat_eu_efforts_to_weaken_its/f9r92w7/

Absolutely, the trend definitely extends to the Bush years. I would point out though, that France and the UK were strong supporters of the conflicts in Syria and Libya, so if Europe were to try to attribute blame for the rise of ISIS, they need to look in the mirror as well.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/geopolitics on December 5, 2019 14:10:04
/r/geopolitics/comments/e6hko7/how_can_the_us_combat_eu_efforts_to_weaken_its/f9qyx33/

It seems very short sighted to blame all EU-US tension on Trump (although he's certainly helped bring it out into the open), and statements like "Trump has caused the entire tension with the EU" are verifiably untrue. The US and EU have their own interests, and its not helpful to pretend that the EU pursuing its own interests plays no role in the cooling relations. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/rejected-why-obama-snubs-europe-12516 https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/a-crisis-in-trans-atlantic-relations-why-obama-is-ignoring-europe-a-676799.html https://www.ft.com/content/41d968d6-b5d2-11e4-b58d-00144feab7de

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/geopolitics on December 5, 2019 13:01:38
/r/rareinsults/comments/e6fm6z/the_french_have_got_your_back/f9qdu8p/

No, the French that helped America get independence were largely aristocrats that ended up being murdered in the French Revolution. Different France.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/rareinsults on December 5, 2019 10:25:04
/r/geopolitics/comments/e5x23n/us_house_passes_uyghur_act_calling_for_sanctions/f9os1w1/

> In a trade war you need to have a clear advantage. Like the fact that China's economy is significantly more dependant on exports to the US than the US is on exports to China?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/geopolitics on December 4, 2019 21:13:42
/r/geopolitics/comments/e5x23n/us_house_passes_uyghur_act_calling_for_sanctions/f9onzji/

> China has just been tanking the hits and even if its people suffer from the tariffs, why would the government care? Because it decreases the Chinese government's revenue?

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/geopolitics on December 4, 2019 20:27:34
/r/worldnews/comments/e5wo50/trudeau_macron_and_johnson_caught_on_camera/f9n65dz/

Leave it to a an idiot to worry about who is popular with world leaders instead of who is a mass murderer.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 4, 2019 11:43:57
/r/worldnews/comments/e5wo50/trudeau_macron_and_johnson_caught_on_camera/f9n3fvk/

> Trump would literally start a war against the advice of everyone in his cabinet if he knew it would serve him personally somehow. Well luckily he literally campaigned on anti interventionism, so apparently he doesnt think war serves him personally.

Commented by /u/Cmoz in /r/worldnews on December 4, 2019 11:16:15
Top