Reddit User Account Overview

/u/



https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/fayqp2/countering_misinformation_with_data_how_the/

The risk of a chainsplit due to the "IFP" (or tax) combined with the automated rolling checkpoints is **highly significant even in the absence of intentionally malicious behavior.** This fact is met with [incredulity and scorn](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/fagbq6/bitcoin_cash_node_v0210_is_now_available_get/fiyec25/?context=3) even among popular developers. This was also prompted by the [false assertion](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/fagbq6/bitcoin_cash_node_v0210_is_now_available_get/fixwbae/) that BCN would follow the 'longest chain': > For exchanges and users, this client will follow the longest chain whether it includes IFP soft forks or not. This is dangerously misleading. Rather than give another high-level argument, I decided to run the numbers on the actual risk. To that end, I wrote a simple [simulation](https://repl.it/repls/DistantRottenBrace). It makes some simplifying assumptions, but is generally conservative in that it probably *underestimates* the actual risk. Here are some assumptions: * The tax soft-fork gets locked in on ABC due to signalling at 2/3 hashrate * The ABC nodes reject any non-tax blocks * The BCN nodes do not reject them * The BCN miners do not pay the tax *at least initially* What do you think the probability is that a chainsplit will happen within *one day* if ABC miners have 2/3 hashrate and BCN miners have 1/3? If you guessed **greater than 90%**, then congratulations, you're right. (It's > 99% within 2 days.) In fact, the **average** time it takes for a chainsplit to happen with those parameters is about 10 hours, with an average of fewer than 10 blocks getting orphaned total. Even with ABC miners commanding 3/4 hashrate and BCN only 1/4 hashrate, the average time to a chainsplit is just over a day. Here are the raw numbers for the **average time and orphans until a chainsplit happens**: BCN Hash Hours Orphans 0.4 5.8 3.96 0.39 6.16 4.46 0.38 6.6 5.06 0.37 7.1 5.77 0.36 7.64 6.41 0.35 8.33 7.49 0.34 9.03 8.45 0.33 10.18 10.0 0.32 11.05 11.17 0.31 12.37 13.0 0.3 13.89 15.15 0.29 16.24 18.04 0.28 18.33 20.86 0.27 20.98 24.11 0.26 24.88 28.77 0.25 29.66 34.58 0.24 37.33 43.72 0.23 46.81 54.67 0.22 60.5 69.43 0.21 74.54 84.24 0.2 98.13 107.52 0.19 146.08 155.97 0.18 199.75 205.13 0.17 272.91 268.44 0.16 423.32 396.75 0.15 759.05 669.78 0.14 1134.56 946.42 Yesterday I posed [my own question](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/fagbq6/bitcoin_cash_node_v0210_is_now_available_get/fiygzte/) to /u/NilacTheGrim: > Parameters: ABC has 2/3 hashrate, BCN has 1/3. > How long do you think it takes before BCN locks in a chainsplit with p >= 0.25? The answer is around five hours, rather than his answer of "173 days". As is apparent from the data, one way to mitigate this risk is to make the signalling threshold for the tax much higher. Even with BCN miners having only 15% of hashrate, the probability of a natural chainsplit within two days is around 10%. After ~90-95% hashrate signalling, the risk of a chainsplit is negligible in normal conditions. **So if you take only one thing away from this, it's that the 2/3 hash signalling is FAR TOO LOW to prevent a natural chainsplit**, due to the automated rolling checkpoints and "unparking" PoW penalty in ABC and BCN. Alternatively, if BCN removed the automated checkpoints and unparking PoW penalty, the risk would also be minimal in normal conditions. Again, this analysis is in the absence of an intentional attack. The risk only increases with the presence of any malicious actors. (Thanks to these fine [comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/esebco/infrastructure_funding_plan_for_bitcoin_cash_by/ffapqej/) and [posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/am8fsl/bitcoin_abcs_parked_blocks_feature_allows/).)

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 28, 2020 12:59:20

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/dq56fu/some_numbers_behind_bchs_daa_oscillations_which/

In short, there are [winners and losers](https://i.imgur.com/aTgyobH.png) as a result of the DAA "gaming", which isn't surprising. However, I wanted to see exactly who's benefiting, so I graphed the average difficulty per solved block per pool for each day over the past few weeks. You can think of this as representing something close to "relative cost per hash". The percentage next to the pool's name is their share of blocks over the total time period. Consistently, BTC.TOP has benefited the most from the oscillations, and not *just* because they are the "largest pool". In fact, there is a significantly larger "pool" in the "Unknown miner" that has paid to the same address, and they have not topped BTC.TOP's performance. (In the chart, that's Unknown5.) In a similar vein, BTC.com has been one of the poorest performers (or the most honorable, depending on your perspective), despite being a comparatively large pool. The revenue differences may seem relatively insignificant (about an 8% difference separates the best from the worst performers), but in terms of *profitability*, it could have significant ramifications. [Here is my raw output](https://pastebin.com/jUEfvG1m). I guessed the pools from the coinbase scriptSig and/or their scriptPubKey clustering behavior.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on November 1, 2019 10:44:31

https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/bdxkrf/the_fraud_continues_craig_wright_just_purposely/

Craig Wright's fraud continues. Yesterday, he [submitted into evidence](https://www.scribd.com/document/406503654/Fake-email-from-Dave-to-Uyen) an email he says was from Dave Kleiman to Uyen Nguyen asking her to be a director of his 'bitcoin company' in **late 2012**. It is provably fake. **Craig didn't realize that the email's PGP signature includes a signing timestamp along with the ID of the key used as metadata.** Was the email actually sent **in 2012**? Let's find out! The beginning of the signature is as follows: iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTH+uQAAoJELiFsXrEW+0bCacH/3K Converted to hex, it's: 89 01 1c 04 01 01 02 00 06 05 02 *53 1f eb 90* 00 0a 09 10 **b8 85 b1 7a c4 5b ed 1b** 09 a7 07 ff 72 We [know](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4880) how to find the long ID of the key used and the timestamp of the signature. I've bolded the ID and italicized the timestamp. Looking on the MIT keyserver, we can [find the fake* key](https://i.imgur.com/5ooGihN.png). **The timestamp of the signature is 1394600848, which is March 12, 2014, two weeks before Craig filed to install Uyen as a director of Dave's old company, and almost a year after Dave died!** We can double-check with `gpg -vv`. Transcribe the email and paste it in. Here's the output: :signature packet: algo 1, keyid B885B17AC45BED1B version 4, created 1394600848, md5len 0, sigclass 0x01 digest algo 2, begin of digest 09 a7 hashed subpkt 2 len 4 (sig created 2014-03-12) subpkt 16 len 8 (issuer key ID B885B17AC45BED1B) (I'll note, as an aside, that Dave apparently spelled his name incorrectly and put a typo in the subject.) *The fake key has the same pref-hash-algos as Craig's fake keys, and were never updated.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 16, 2019 14:45:55

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/bdxjuy/the_fraud_continues_craig_wright_just_purposely/

Craig Wright's fraud continues. Yesterday, he [submitted into evidence](https://www.scribd.com/document/406503654/Fake-email-from-Dave-to-Uyen) an email he says was from Dave Kleiman to Uyen Nguyen asking her to be a director of his 'bitcoin company' in **late 2012**. It is provably fake. **Craig didn't realize that the email's PGP signature includes a signing timestamp along with the ID of the key used as metadata.** Was the email actually sent **in 2012**? Let's find out! The beginning of the signature is as follows: iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTH+uQAAoJELiFsXrEW+0bCacH/3K Converted to hex, it's: 89 01 1c 04 01 01 02 00 06 05 02 *53 1f eb 90* 00 0a 09 10 **b8 85 b1 7a c4 5b ed 1b** 09 a7 07 ff 72 We [know](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4880) how to find the long ID of the key used and the timestamp of the signature. I've bolded the ID and italicized the timestamp. Looking on the MIT keyserver, we can [find the fake* key](https://i.imgur.com/5ooGihN.png). **The timestamp of the signature is 1394600848, which is March 12, 2014, two weeks before Craig filed to install Uyen as a director of Dave's old company, and almost a year after Dave died!** We can double-check with `gpg -vv`. Transcribe the email and paste it in. Here's the output: :signature packet: algo 1, keyid B885B17AC45BED1B version 4, created 1394600848, md5len 0, sigclass 0x01 digest algo 2, begin of digest 09 a7 hashed subpkt 2 len 4 (sig created 2014-03-12) subpkt 16 len 8 (issuer key ID B885B17AC45BED1B) (I'll note, as an aside, that Dave apparently spelled his name incorrectly and put a typo in the subject.) *The fake key has the same pref-hash-algos as Craig's fake keys, and were never updated.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 16, 2019 14:43:53

https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/b47ysk/dr_dr_dr_prof_craig_wright_esq_accidentally/

In his [newest article](http://archive.is/qljA9), Craig says: > Bitcoin is not a cryptocurrency ... **At no point have I said that Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency, a currency in any form**, or anything monetary-wise other than digital electronic cash. Compare that to [when Satoshi announced Bitcoin 0.3](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=238.msg2004#msg2004): > Announcing version 0.3 of **Bitcoin, the P2P cryptocurrency! Bitcoin is a digital currency** using cryptography... Also of note, Craig himself called it a 'cryptocurrency' in one of his [faked blog posts](https://i.imgur.com/hAbPhW3.png) supposedly from August of 2008. > I have a **cryptocurrency** paper out soon. Of course, that doesn't match Satoshi's recorded thoughts on the word: > In one e-mail, **Satoshi pointed to a recent exchange on the Bitcoin e-mail list in which a user referred to Bitcoin as a “cryptocurrency,”** referring to the cryptographic functions that made it run. > “**Maybe it’s a word we should use when describing Bitcoin**. Do you like it?” Satoshi asked. “It sounds good,” Martti replied. “A peer to peer cryptocurrency could be the slogan.” From: Nathaniel Popper. “Digital Gold.” (That email exchange would have been around mid-2009, almost a year after Craig's **totally real** blog post.) I feel like he's not even trying anymore. Lest anyone get the wrong idea, this post isn't meant as a serious proof that Craig's not Satoshi. That's [already been well established](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/b318ih/in_honor_of_craig_wrights_ragequit_from_twitter_i/eiwho2w/). This is simply to point and laugh.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/Buttcoin on March 22, 2019 13:38:52

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/b479rk/please_excuse_the_craig_wright_spam_but_this_is/

In his [newest article](http://archive.is/qljA9), Craig says: > Bitcoin is not a cryptocurrency ... **At no point have I said that Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency, a currency in any form**, or anything monetary-wise other than digital electronic cash. Compare that to [when Satoshi announced Bitcoin 0.3](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=238.msg2004#msg2004): > Announcing version 0.3 of Bitcoin, the P2P **cryptocurrency! Bitcoin is a digital currency** using cryptography... Also of note, Craig himself called it a 'cryptocurrency' in one of his [faked blog posts](https://i.imgur.com/hAbPhW3.png) supposedly from August of 2008. > I have a **cryptocurrency** paper out soon. Of course, that doesn't match Satoshi's recorded thoughts on the word: > In one e-mail, **Satoshi pointed to a recent exchange on the Bitcoin e-mail list in which a user referred to Bitcoin as a “cryptocurrency,”** referring to the cryptographic functions that made it run. > “**Maybe it’s a word we should use when describing Bitcoin**. Do you like it?” Satoshi asked. “It sounds good,” Martti replied. “A peer to peer cryptocurrency could be the slogan.” From: Nathaniel Popper. “Digital Gold.” (That email exchange would have been around mid-2009, almost a year after Craig's **totally real** blog post.) I feel like he's not even trying anymore.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 22, 2019 12:40:17

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinsv/comments/axyra5/craig_accidentally_proves_hes_not_satoshi_again/

Here's [Craig](https://medium.com/@craig_10243/the-story-of-bitcoin-continued-2f1ec78ba38b): > "I worked on Bitcoin for a long time before I found something **that would not be able to be used in a manner that was anonymous**." > ... > "I designed Bitcoin to create an **immutable evidence trail**, money that is private and yet does not suffer the fate of Gyges. Anonymity is a curse. Nothing good comes of it." First, having Bitcoin participants be 'anonymous' is literally on the first [announcement](https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography%40metzdowd.com/msg09959.html) from Satoshi. Second, he [reaffirms](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=13.msg46#msg46) its importance [again and again](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=8.msg34#msg34). Third, (and most importantly) he even says that Bitcoin would be **better** if it didn't need every transaction to be public. Here's the [real Satoshi](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=770.msg8637#msg8637): > "If a solution was found [to avoid creating a public graph of every transaction], a much **better**, easier, more convenient implementation of Bitcoin would be possible." I mean, he conclusively states that the only reason for the 'public ledger' is to prevent double-spends: > "It's the need to check for the absence of double-spends that requires global knowledge of all transactions." A couple messages later he says: > "What we need is a way to generate additional blinded variations of a public key ... Then you need to be able to sign a signature such that you can't tell that two signatures came from the same private key. I'm not sure if always signing a different blinded public key would already give you this property. If not, I think that's where group signatures comes in. With group signatures, **it is possible for something to be signed but not know who signed it**." > "As an example, say some unpopular military attack has to be ordered, but nobody wants to go down in history as the one who ordered it. If 10 leaders have private keys, one of them could sign the order and you wouldn't know who did it." So, Satoshi was **highly interested in transaction anonymity** and leaving out 'immutable evidence trails'. This is basically how Monero works.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bitcoinsv on March 6, 2019 08:21:37

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinsv/comments/asc40q/craig_wright_accurately_accused_of_lying_under/

In this [recent thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinsv/comments/artxzb/craig_wright_falsely_accused_of_lying_under_oath/), /u/gjgjhyyt77645tyydhg5 accused me of lying or being mistaken about Craig Wright lying under oath, which I did [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9w3tzc/csw_appears_to_be_threatening_legal_actions_but/). However, unsurprisingly, it turns out **he** was lying (or mistaken). He said: > Part A of the afadavit mention 2 address's controlled by the "financier" Contrarian claims the addresses [https://www.scribd.com/document/379265751/Kleiman-Lawsuit-Exhibit-4](https://www.scribd.com/document/379265751/Kleiman-Lawsuit-Exhibit-4) . Contrarian then claims they are ,mentioned here. [https://blog.wizsec.jp/2018/02/kleiman-v-craig-wright-bitcoins.html](https://blog.wizsec.jp/2018/02/kleiman-v-craig-wright-bitcoins.html) >But they are not. Alas, they actually are. They are the [second and third](https://blog.wizsec.jp/2018/02/kleiman-v-craig-wright-bitcoins.html) addresses discussed. This statement he made becomes suddenly fairly ironic: > The idiots in r/btc never bother to check, they just cheer it on I didn't see any members of this sub or the other SV sub check the claim. They simply 'cheered it on'. I await his apology for that issue. Also, I must only assume he's changed his mind about Craig Wright's claim of being Satoshi. He further confused himself by saying: > In the other point Contrarian doesn't understand the difference between a joint shareholding and one in one persons name. Craig indicated the shares were held jointly. However, when one member of a jointly shared party dies, the shares go to the other member, even if the deceased had a will. Craig, moreover, claimed to subsequently be the sole shareholder and had a controlling vote in the shareholders' meeting. His shares were indicated to be in **his own name**, so he was undeniably a shareholder, which he subsequently denied, also under oath.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bitcoinsv on February 19, 2019 11:19:17

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9uua0y/bitcoin_sv_supporters_now_claiming_that/

I'm loath to give these people attention, so I'll just copy a snippet: > It is at this point that Bitmain will accuse Coingeek of being a malicious miner and an attacker, when Coingeek will be simply exercising its right as a miner to vote with CPU. It's insane on its face, but for those who need it spelled out explicitly, here's why: What distinguishes an 'attacking miner' from an 'honest' miner is intention. The white paper describes an ‘attack’ where a miner follows all the rules of bitcoin, yet is still labeled as an ‘attacker’: > We consider the scenario of an attacker trying to generate an alternate chain faster than the honest chain. Even if this is accomplished, it does not throw the system open to arbitrary changes, such as creating value out of thin air or taking money that never belonged to the attacker. Nodes are not going to accept an invalid transaction as payment, and honest nodes will never accept a block containing them. An attacker can only try to change one of his own transactions to take back money he recently spent. Clearly, the 'attacker' is following all the rules of Bitcoin, and could (as claimed above) say they were just 'voting with their CPU'. The reason they're an 'attacker' is not because they're breaking a rule in Bitcoin, but because they're doing something with *malicious intent*. In the whitepaper example, they're trying to steal; in the SV example, they're trying to starve or re-org, so exchanges won't function and people won't be able to use the chain.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on November 6, 2018 19:36:55

https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/9sznrc/calling_out_nchain_why_hasnt_nchain_addressed_the/

Over six months ago, Craig Wright, Chief Scientist of nChain, [was shown to have blatantly plagiarized](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8b9re2/craig_wright_accused_of_plagiarizing_his_research/) a paper he put out [in the name of nChain](https://i.imgur.com/U8XqRzL.png). There was no official response from nChain, other than Craig's [blaming it on other nChain employees](https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/983947880833732608), even though the issue wasn't merely a 'missed citation'. This week, I've given **undeniable** [proof](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9rddek/new_plagiarism_from_craig_wright_at_least_40_of_a/) of [two more instances](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9sexx0/craig_wright_actually_did_completely_original/) of *blatant and intentional* plagiarism (as well as potential copyright infringement) in academic-style papers, again put out **in nChain's name**. **There has still been no response from nChain,** and only [more lies](https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/1057163348226334720) from their Chief Scientist. The lead developers of the SV software have already [purposely](https://youtu.be/tPImTXFb_U8?t=4392) turned a blind eye to the fact that their Chief Scientist is almost certainly a [fraud](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9i3xj3/nchain_establishes_a_new_standard_of/e6gxz3b/) who used his dead friend as cover for his lie about being Satoshi Nakamoto: > Steve Shadders: “On the question of whether I believe Craig Wright is Satoshi, **it doesn’t matter to me, whether he is or not**. Thought hard about this, but I think if I was offered a cryptographic proof that I would probably say no because I think that would just fundamentally change something, and **it really just doesn’t matter."** > Dan Connolly: "When I came to join nChain, I had to have a think about it, and what it comes down to is: **it doesn't matter**." They both seriously considered the matter, but came to the conclusion that **it's not relevant whether their boss is a lying fraud**. If fraud is not important, then plagiarism (and potential copyright infringement) likely isn't, either. Is this type of behavior endemic to the culture at nChain? Are there any assurances that Bitcoin SV is free from copyrighted material? Ironically, nChain is primarily an intellectual property company; the fact that they apparently do not care about plagiarism (or potential copyright infringement) is quite hypocritical. **Why hasn't nChain addressed the multiple instances of blatant plagiarism by its Chief Scientist?** For anyone who'd like answers, here is nChain's [official Twitter](https://twitter.com/nChainGlobal), as well as their CEO's (Jimmy Nguyen) [Twitter](https://twitter.com/JimmyWinMedia). I've already notified them, but they've remained silent.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/CryptoCurrency on October 31, 2018 11:14:50

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9sz7qs/calling_out_nchain_why_hasnt_nchain_addressed_the/

Over six months ago, Craig Wright, Chief Scientist of nChain, [was shown to have blatantly plagiarized](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8b9re2/craig_wright_accused_of_plagiarizing_his_research/) a paper he put out [in the name of nChain](https://i.imgur.com/U8XqRzL.png). There was no official response from nChain, other than Craig's [blaming it on other nChain employees](https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/983947880833732608), even though the issue wasn't merely a 'missed citation'. This week, I've given **undeniable** [proof](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9rddek/new_plagiarism_from_craig_wright_at_least_40_of_a/) of [two more instances](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9sexx0/craig_wright_actually_did_completely_original/) of *blatant and intentional* plagiarism in academic-style papers, again put out **in nChain's name**. **There has still been no response from nChain,** and only [more lies](https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/1057163348226334720) from their Chief Scientist. The lead developers of the SV software have already purposely turned a blind eye to the fact that their Chief Scientist is almost certainly a [fraud](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9i3xj3/nchain_establishes_a_new_standard_of/e6gxz3b/) who used his dead friend as cover for his lie about being Satoshi Nakamoto: > Steve Shadders: “On the question of whether I believe Craig Wright is Satoshi, **it doesn’t matter to me, whether he is or not**. Thought hard about this, but I think if I was offered a cryptographic proof that I would probably say no because I think that would just fundamentally change something, and **it really just doesn’t matter."** > Dan Connolly: "When I came to join nChain, I had to have a think about it, and what it comes down to is: **it doesn't matter**." They both seriously considered the matter, but came to the conclusion that **it's not relevant whether their boss is a lying fraud**. If fraud is not important, then plagiarism (and potential copyright infringement) likely isn't, either. Is this type of behavior endemic to the culture at nChain? Are there any assurances that Bitcoin SV is free from copyrighted material? Ironically, nChain is primarily an intellectual property company; the fact that they apparently do not care about plagiarism (or potential copyright infringement) is quite hypocritical. **Why hasn't nChain addressed the multiple instances of blatant plagiarism by its Chief Scientist?** For anyone who'd like answers, here is nChain's [official Twitter](https://twitter.com/nChainGlobal), as well as their CEO's (Jimmy Nguyen) [Twitter](https://twitter.com/JimmyWinMedia). I've already notified them, but they've remained silent.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on October 31, 2018 10:25:57

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/9sghwl/craig_wright_actually_did_completely_original/

[Old plagiarism 1](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8b9re2/craig_wright_accused_of_plagiarizing_his_research/). [Old plagiarism 2](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9rddek/new_plagiarism_from_craig_wright_at_least_40_of_a/). New plagiarism from [this paper](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3151940). Here are the two uncited sources: [source 1](http://www.uvm.edu/pdodds/files/papers/others/2005/newman2005a.pdf) and [source 2](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00276314). There may be more uncited sources, but I got bored. These two sources cover almost half of the paper. As before, the plagiarism is blatant and intentional. He basically substituted the word 'transaction' for 'infection' and made minimal other textual changes. All the math has been stolen because Craig [simply can't do math](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8cmq15/nchain_releases_nakasendo_royaltyfree_software/dxjc4iu/). Various Examples: * [Craig's paper](https://i.imgur.com/MYEV0fg.png) * [Source 1](https://i.imgur.com/tj2U5EF.png) and (maybe the most obvious -- just click back and forth on these two images) * [Craig's paper](https://i.imgur.com/Xc47j7o.png) * [Source 2](https://i.imgur.com/S6M5MHn.png) and * [Craig's paper](https://i.imgur.com/DiWWSqu.png) * [Source 2](https://i.imgur.com/1pwPrYq.png) Serially taking credit for other people's work. It's the Craig Wright way.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/Bitcoin on October 29, 2018 15:43:14

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9sexx0/craig_wright_actually_did_completely_original/

[Old plagiarism 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8b9re2/craig_wright_accused_of_plagiarizing_his_research/). [Old plagiarism 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9rddek/new_plagiarism_from_craig_wright_at_least_40_of_a/). New plagiarism from [this paper](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3151940). Here are the two uncited sources: [source 1](http://www.uvm.edu/pdodds/files/papers/others/2005/newman2005a.pdf) and [source 2](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00276314). There may be more uncited sources, but I got bored. These two sources cover almost half of the paper. As before, the plagiarism is blatant and intentional. He basically substituted the word 'transaction' for 'infection' and made minimal other textual changes. All the math has been stolen because Craig [simply can't do math](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8cmq15/nchain_releases_nakasendo_royaltyfree_software/dxjc4iu/). Various Examples: * [Craig's paper](https://i.imgur.com/MYEV0fg.png) * [Source 1](https://i.imgur.com/tj2U5EF.png) and (maybe the most obvious -- just click back and forth on these two images) * [Craig's paper](https://i.imgur.com/Xc47j7o.png) * [Source 2](https://i.imgur.com/S6M5MHn.png) and * [Craig's paper](https://i.imgur.com/DiWWSqu.png) * [Source 2](https://i.imgur.com/1pwPrYq.png) Serially taking credit for other people's work. It's the Craig Wright way.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on October 29, 2018 13:01:31

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9rddek/new_plagiarism_from_craig_wright_at_least_40_of_a/

[Here is the old plagiarism](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8b9re2/craig_wright_accused_of_plagiarizing_his_research/). The new plagiarism is from [this paper that purports to show that Bitcoin Script is Turing Complete](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3147440). The paper itself is completely ridiculous, but let's ignore the [fallacious conclusion](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/86ljpe/this_was_lost_a_bit_in_the_shuffle_yesterday_dr/dw66xm9/) and focus on the plagiarism: From the bottom of page 5 in Wright's paper: > Starting from the simplest primitive recursive functions, we can build more complicated primitive recursive functions by functional composition and primitive recursion. In this entry, we have listed some basic examples using functional composition alone. In this entry, we list more basic examples, allowing the use of primitive recursion: From the [uncited source](https://planetmath.org/examplesofprimitiverecursivefunctions): > Starting from the simplest primitive recursive functions, we can build more complicated primitive recursive functions by functional composition and primitive recursion. In this entry, we have listed some basic examples using functional composition alone. In this entry, we list more basic examples, allowing the use of primitive recursion: Note the bizarre, double "in this entry" language. It goes on to list the **exact same 16 examples with the exact same names and symbols**. Here's how we know it's *intentionally plagiarized*: he slightly rewords many of the notes on the steps. For instance: Source: > To see that q is primitive recursive, we use equation Craig: > We can test that q is primitive recursive using the equation: Another instance: Source: > where sgn⁡(y) takes the case y=0 into account. Craig: > In this, sgn(y) takes the case of y = 0 into consideration --------------- The next section is just as bad. [Here is the uncited source](http://ii.fmph.uniba.sk/cl/oldcourses/lpi1-2004/lect/sli8.pdf), which is copied into Craig's paper starting on page 10. Source: > expects a program, which is a list of instructions which modify a stack of natural numbers. Such a machine is Turing complete iff any numerical function computable on a Turing machine can be computed on the stack machine Craig: > expects a script that acts as a program which is defined to be an ordered set of instructions that operate on and alter a Stack of natural numbers (the Stack Set). This machine is Turing Complete IFF* a decidable program can be run on the Stack machine when that program is also computable on a Turing Machine. (As a funny side note, Craig put a footnote to indicate that 'IFF' means 'if and only if'. He was too lazy to change it in-place.) Another instance: Source: > A functional term `a` denotes (has as its value, evaluates to) a number in an assignment of a number `v` to the variable `V` and a functional term `r` to the variable `R`. Craig: > A functional term `a` denotes a number in an assignment of a number `v` to the variable `V` and a functional term `r` to the variable `R` . Again, all of the notation is *perfectly identical* down to the subscripts and superscripts. Here's another instance: Source: > we will study a stack machine for the computation of functional terms which are the minimal set of expressions formed from: the variable `V` and decimal numerals `n` by `Incr(a)`, `Decr(a)`, `Head(a)`, `Tail(a)`, `Pair(a, b)`, `If(a, b, c)`, `Apply(a, b)`, and `R(a)` where `a`, `b`, and `c` are previously constructed functional terms. We can show that every Turing computable function f can be computed by evaluating a functional term for f. Craig: > We now extend our minimal machine into the computation of functional terms. As above, these are the minimal set of expressions formed using `∨` , `n` (an integer) by • `Incr(a)` , • `Decr(a)` , • `Head(a)` , • `Tail(a)` , • `Tail(a)` , • `Pair (a, b)` , • `IF (a, b, c)`, • `Apply (a, b)` , and • `R(a)` In this operation set, `a` , `b` and `c` are previous constructed functional terms. A Turing computable (or decidable) function f can be computed in an evaluation of a functional term of f . Note 1) the minor word-changing to avoid being detected, 2) the copy mistake where he put in `Tail(a)` twice, 3) and his use of 'logical or' instead of the variable `V`. This is only a sampling of the plagiarism. I invite you to compare the [sources](https://planetmath.org/examplesofprimitiverecursivefunctions) he [copied from](http://ii.fmph.uniba.sk/cl/oldcourses/lpi1-2004/lect/sli8.pdf) with ['his' paper](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3147440) directly. None of the references of his paper contain the plagiarized content.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on October 25, 2018 15:19:28

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9qrba2/so_far_all_of_the_arguments_against_op/

Here are the candidates: **1) OP_CHECKDATASIG is a ['subsidy'](https://www.yours.org/content/how-to-implement-ecdsa-signature-verification-in-script-and-why-datasi-9f113344542f).** Some have given [solid rebuttals](https://www.yours.org/content/dear-ryan--why-op_checkdatasig-is-not-a-subsidy-3c240f0b8f19); others have [pointed out](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9q6z9y/rxc_new_video_dear_roger_why_dsv_is_a_million/e88pikc/) that **Script size is not well correlated to computational complexity**, and [that](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9qi39n/dear_ryan_why_op_checkdatasig_is_not_a_subsidy/e89pnzc/) **computational complexity is not the main driver of fees anyway**. /u/jtoomim [pointed out](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9q6z9y/rxc_new_video_dear_roger_why_dsv_is_a_million/e8a1836/?context=3) that OP_CHECKDATASIG has a 'computational cost' of about 0.000000096 satoshis per byte. There's not much else to add except that Satoshi 'subsidized' several other opcodes in the same way as suggested here. OP_SHA1, OP_SHA256, and OP_RIPEMD160 all are **very rarely** used and, if implemented natively in Script, would require many *thousands* of opcodes. However, they all have *easy and well-optimized native implementations*, so it makes sense to include them as opcodes. The same applies to OP_CHECKDATASIG. **2) Miners will be [forced to support it forever once activated](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9qi39n/dear_ryan_why_op_checkdatasig_is_not_a_subsidy/e89jpg0/).** Besides being [factually inaccurate](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9qi39n/dear_ryan_why_op_checkdatasig_is_not_a_subsidy/e89on83/), this is a strange objection, since the opcode is simpler than OP_CHECKSIG (and reuses nearly all the same code), which is used in nearly every single transaction. **3) If only script limits were taken away and the protocol locked down, we could do this *exact thing* in Script already, so it's unnecessary.** This is a [non-starter](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9qi39n/dear_ryan_why_op_checkdatasig_is_not_a_subsidy/e89qt56/). **4) [Opcodes are precious](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9q3f7t/why_should_op_checkdatasigverify_be_privileged_to/) and one shouldn't be wasted on this.** There are about 60 unused single-byte opcodes and potentially tens of thousands of double-byte opcodes, which always seems to get left out of 'Satoshi's Vision', though they were coded by Satoshi himself and present in version 0.1. ------------------------------------------------------- Given all these poor arguments, one might naturally ask why there have been so many recently. I can't prove this in any rigorous way, but here's my best hypothesis: Ever since Dear Leader [decreed](https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/1027625508140474368) that OP_CHECKDATASIG was 'shitcoin code', there's been a race, mostly among his [acolytes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12-V_rDPkoY#), to see who can come up with some justification ('will no one [rid me](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest%3F) of this meddlesome opcode?'). After Dear Leader himself gave a [ridiculous reason](https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/1027424052724547584) ('the idea that unlicensed gambling will be tolerated is a joke'), he gave away the game by [admitting](https://twitter.com/proffaustus/status/1033653060004978689?lang=en) his 'patents' would be affected by it, along with bonus technobabble about enabling loops **in Script**. So it was left up to others to find compelling reasons to oppose CDS. And this is the result.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on October 23, 2018 13:44:33

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9djki0/heuristicpunch_has_an_entire_network_of_literal/

/u/heuristicpunch (aka, /u/geekmonk, as [he admitted to](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8yjilv/_/e2e2grl/)) accused me of being a sockpuppet. As usual, he was projecting. I've uncovered (at least part of) his vast array of shilling sockpuppet accounts: /u/geekmonk /u/3quality /u/connectionstatus /u/politicallyincorrecd /u/lalacarmen It's fine if people have multiple accounts. However, these accounts are almost all shilling deals and sales or evading bans. On to the evidence. I'll first prove that 3quality is heuristicpunch/geekmonk. * /u/3quality posts in the same unique subreddits as /u/geekmonk (/r/deals, /r/relationships, /r/entrepreneur) * They have a very similar style and idiosyncratic word usage ('ad hom' for 'ad hominem') * One of /u/3quality's first posts to /r/btc was to complain about /u/heuristicpunch's ban from /r/btc (**reddit rule breaking!**). [Here he is denying the obvious](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9chaom/dyor_there_is_no_abusive_pattern_with_heuristic/e5arq5c/). * They both like the rapper XXXTENTACION (from /u/heuristicpunch's [Twitter post](https://twitter.com/yovngbvcks/status/887836538272403457) and /u/3quality's [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/hiphopheads/comments/8sflrg/xxxtentacion_murder_witness_speaks_out_in/e10kwb6/). He publicly admits that's his Twitter handle [here](http://archive.is/PMBIi). That's probably sufficient, but it only gets worse from there. * They both post the **exact same deals and content** (and nobody else does): [3quality's post](https://www.removeddit.com/r/deals/comments/8jzvz6/use_promo_code_lisas_for_25_off_of_both_full_and/), and [/u/geekmonk's post](https://www.removeddit.com/r/deals/comments/6jg760/20_off_any_full_design_package_promo_code_lisas/) * And [here](https://www.removeddit.com/r/ethinvestor/comments/73cdcu/blockchain_company_less_than_24h_left_for_1000/) and [here](https://www.removeddit.com/r/icocrypto/comments/73c8rb/the_blockchain_company_less_than_24h_left_for/) Proof that /u/connectionstatus is part of the network: * [He basically admits it](https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/9cej7z/proof_of_censorship_in_rbtc_someone_proabc_just/). * Compare [this](https://www.removeddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/9arttg/wormhole_scam_eli5_burn_addresses_in_bitcoin_are/) to [this](https://www.removeddit.com/r/btc/comments/9arpa9/bitmain_wormhole_scam_eli5_burn_addresses_in/). By the way, how did geekmonk post that latter link only a week ago? He claimed that his account was removed by reddit. More lies, apparently. Proof that /u/politicallyincorrecd is part of the network: * [Same post as 3quality and geekmonk](https://www.removeddit.com/r/ICOAnalysis/comments/73capj/bctoken_sign_up_today_for_1000_free_tokens_ahead/). * Same subreddits (/r/relationships) * First /r/btc [post was during /u/heuristicpunch's ban trying to create a new subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9cxaok/i_have_just_created_a_new_subreddit_for_bch/) Proof that /u/lalacarmen is part of the network: * Same subreddits (/r/entrepreneur, /r/deals, etc) * Only crypto related comment is in [the post by connectionstatus](https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/9arttg/wormhole_scam_eli5_burn_addresses_in_bitcoin_are/e4y3d1c/) Again, it's fine to have multiple accounts, but these accounts are set up to **shill and push deals**. Here are merely a few examples: * [Here](https://www.removeddit.com/r/gaming/comments/77t1m1/business_strategy_game_computer_tycoon_came_out/) * [Here](https://www.removeddit.com/r/Gaming4Gamers/comments/77bqah/today_i_found_out_about_computer_tycoon_and_im/) * [Here](https://www.removeddit.com/r/teenagers/comments/7hmfhv/me_19f_with_a_guy_i_met_online_20_m_he_said/) **he's pretending to be a woman to push a chatroulette alternative**! * [Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/relationship_advice/comments/7jo19d/married_redditors_just_found_out_27_m_through_a/) he switches to being a man to push the same site. * [Here](https://www.removeddit.com/r/icocrypto/comments/7bqbil/geens_data_storage_with_zero_theft_risk_and/) he's shilling for another blockchain. * [Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8fdele/proof_that_ugeekmonk_is_likely_a_paid_csw_shill/) is a more comprehensive list of shilling activity just under his geekmonk account Is it any wonder people think he could be a shill for Craig? Also, [this post of his](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/7oo6u5/_/dsb5gug/) is funny, especially in light of his [post asking for /u/deadalnix for an apology](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9abny8/_/e4u7ks8/).

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on September 6, 2018 11:13:09

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9cyi3o/scronty_phil_wilson_is_not_satoshi/

His [story](http://vu.hn/bitcoin%20origins.html) is entertaining fan fiction, but it's still fiction. Right off the bat, he says there's no evidence of his involvement, which *should* be disqualifying on its own: > There is no verification of truth here. There is absolutely no evidential proof that I had any part in the project. However, even the *story itself* is nonsense. * He said Craig Wright and Dave Kleiman were involved. [They weren't](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/96p5e5/csw_effect/e426dwg/). * In one of his very first assertions, [he makes a provably false statement](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8c3hkv/bitcoin_origins_by_scronty_describing_satoshi_as/dxcmotb/) about registering a domain at the time: > I told Craig via Dave to generate a new TLD ( Top Level Domain ) for us to use for correspondence on the project so that any current 'net handles are not associated with what we do. ... Dave came back after Craig **obtained rcjbr.org** and created the two email handles for us. The problem is that rcjbr.org was first created in 2011. * He says that "12th March 2008 Craig asks Dave to help with his white paper and code", which is a reference to a [provably fake](https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/80fzhw/craig_s_wrights_email_to_dave_kleiman_is_provably/) email. * His description of Hal Finney's involvement is **utterly contradicted by the evidence**. Here's how he describes Hal's involvement: > Hal came on board almost immediately. > He was really quite interested in how we'd used ideas from his RPOW for Bitcoin. > One of the first things he did was to change the code to use a more modern form of C++. > Vectors and maps. > Suddenly, I was unable to read the source-code clearly. Compare that to Hal's [description of his early involvement](https://forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2014/03/25/satoshi-nakamotos-neighbor-the-bitcoin-ghostwriter-who-wasnt/#5b95eb682528): > As for your suspicion that I either am or at least helped Satoshi, I’m flattered but I deny categorically these allegations. I don’t know what more I can say. You have records of how I reacted to the announcement of Bitcoin, and I struggled to understand it. I suppose you could retort that I was able to fake it, but I don’t know what I can say to that. I’ve done some changes to the Bitcoin code, and my style is completely different from Satoshi’s. **I program in C, which is compatible with C++, but I don’t understand the tricks that Satoshi used.** We know that's true, since Hal's RPOW was all [C code](https://github.com/NakamotoInstitute/RPOW/tree/master/scc), his [Bitcoin key extractor](https://github.com/halfinney/bc_key/blob/master/bc_key.c) was written in C, and even his [Bitcoin contributions](https://github.com/halfinney/bitcoin/commit/dc411b51e0a3cffc4a599382ef0a9b92486f59d5) were practically pure C. * He endorses Craig's [fake blog posts](https://i.imgur.com/hAbPhW3.png) as genuinely made: > He'd pretty much announced the Bitcoin release in this website blog after stating his original attempt was a failure. > From Cracked, inSecure and Generally Broken > "Well.. e-gold is down the toilet. Good idea, but again centralised authority. The Beta of Bitcoin is live tomorrow. This is decentralized... We try until it works. Some good coders on this. The paper rocks" > "Are you [redacted] kidding me ?" I said. "You'd better take that down or remove to post." It's fine if he wants to pretend that Craig made it, then deleted it before it was archived, then undeleted it for some reason, let it be archived, then deleted it yet again. However, one remaining problem is that [one fake post](https://i.imgur.com/hAbPhW3.png) calls Bitcoin a 'cryptocurrency' in August of 2008. That fully contradicts the evidence of when that word was first used **from Satoshi's own description!**: > While Satoshi never discussed anything personal in these e-mails, he would banter with Martti about little things. In one e-mail, **Satoshi pointed to a recent exchange on the Bitcoin e-mail list in which a user referred to Bitcoin as a “cryptocurrency,” referring to the cryptographic functions that made it run.** > “Maybe it’s a word we should use when describing Bitcoin. Do you like it?” Satoshi asked. “It sounds good,” Martti replied. “A peer to peer cryptocurrency could be the slogan.” From: Nathaniel Popper. “Digital Gold.” (That email exchange would have been around mid-2009, almost a year after Craig's totally real blog post.) * The entire section entitled [51% Attack](http://vu.hn/bitcoin%20origins.html#51attack) is absurd. Scronty describes how **Hal** 'discovered' 51% attacks. In the story's timeline, this supposedly happens after the software has been written, yet the **entire whitepaper is premised around the fact that the majority of hashpower is honest**. It's **impossible** that this would be a new problem. If this is just out-of-order in this story, we're to assume that Hal was involved in the writing of the whitepaper, but **that's not part of the story**, either. Bonus hilarity: > On May 29th 2011 I make an archive of my Bitcoin-related emails. > During the archiving process Outlook crashed. > After a computer restart I found that the Bitcoin subfolder no-longer exists and that the archived file was corrupted. > As I was using POP3 at the time, I had no other copies of those emails and they were gone forever from my end. Compare that with how Craig's [excuse](http://archive.is/kjuLi#selection-1191.1508-1191.1961) for missing emails: > Wright told me that around this time he was in correspondence with Wei Dai, with Gavin Andresen, who would go on to lead the development of bitcoin, and Mike Hearn, a Google engineer who had ideas about the direction bitcoin should take. Yet when I asked for copies of the emails between Satoshi and these men **he said they had been wiped when he was running from the ATO**. It seemed odd, and still does, that some emails were lost while others were not. How utterly, utterly surprising...

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on September 4, 2018 14:45:02

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9cyg4b/scronty_phil_wilson_is_not_satoshi/

His [story](http://vu.hn/bitcoin%20origins.html) is entertaining fan fiction, but it's still fiction. Right off the bat, he says there's no evidence of his involvement, which *should* be disqualifying on its own: > There is no verification of truth here. There is absolutely no evidential proof that I had any part in the project. However, even the *story itself* is nonsense. * He said Craig Wright and Dave Kleiman were involved. [They weren't](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/96p5e5/csw_effect/e426dwg/). * Right off the bat, [he makes a provably false assertion](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8c3hkv/bitcoin_origins_by_scronty_describing_satoshi_as/dxcmotb/) about registering a domain at the time: > I told Craig via Dave to generate a new TLD ( Top Level Domain ) for us to use for correspondence on the project so that any current 'net handles are not associated with what we do. ... Dave came back after Craig **obtained rcjbr.org** and created the two email handles for us. The problem is that rcjbr.org was first created in 2011. * He says that "12th March 2008 Craig asks Dave to help with his white paper and code", which is a reference to a [provably fake](https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/80fzhw/craig_s_wrights_email_to_dave_kleiman_is_provably/) email. * His description of Hal Finney's involvement is **utterly contradicted by the evidence**. Here's how he describes Hal's involvement: > Hal came on board almost immediately. > He was really quite interested in how we'd used ideas from his RPOW for Bitcoin. > One of the first things he did was to change the code to use a more modern form of C++. > Vectors and maps. > Suddenly, I was unable to read the source-code clearly. Compare that to Hal's [description of his early involvement](https://cointelegraph.com/news/the_search_for_satoshi_nakamoto_on_memory_mind_and_brilliance): > As for your suspicion that I either am or at least helped Satoshi, I’m flattered but I deny categorically these allegations. I don’t know what more I can say. You have records of how I reacted to the announcement of Bitcoin, and I struggled to understand it. I suppose you could retort that I was able to fake it, but I don’t know what I can say to that. I’ve done some changes to the Bitcoin code, and my style is completely different from Satoshi’s. **I program in C, which is compatible with C++, but I don’t understand the tricks that Satoshi used.** We know that's true, since Hal's RPOW was all [C code](https://github.com/NakamotoInstitute/RPOW/tree/master/scc), his [Bitcoin key extractor](https://github.com/halfinney/bc_key/blob/master/bc_key.c) was written in C, and even his [Bitcoin contributions](https://github.com/halfinney/bitcoin/commit/dc411b51e0a3cffc4a599382ef0a9b92486f59d5) were practically pure C. * He endorses Craig's [fake blog posts](https://i.imgur.com/hAbPhW3.png) as genuinely made: > He'd pretty much announced the Bitcoin release in this website blog after stating his original attempt was a failure. > From Cracked, inSecure and Generally Broken > "Well.. e-gold is down the toilet. Good idea, but again centralised authority. The Beta of Bitcoin is live tomorrow. This is decentralized... We try until it works. Some good coders on this. The paper rocks" > "Are you [redacted] kidding me ?" I said. "You'd better take that down or remove to post." It's fine if he wants to pretend that Craig made it, then deleted it before it was archived, then undeleted it for some reason, let it be archived, then deleted it yet again. However, one remaining problem is that [one fake post](https://i.imgur.com/hAbPhW3.png) calls Bitcoin a 'cryptocurrency' in August of 2008. That fully contradicts the evidence of when that word was first used **from Satoshi's own description!**: > While Satoshi never discussed anything personal in these e-mails, he would banter with Martti about little things. In one e-mail, **Satoshi pointed to a recent exchange on the Bitcoin e-mail list in which a user referred to Bitcoin as a “cryptocurrency,” referring to the cryptographic functions that made it run.** > “Maybe it’s a word we should use when describing Bitcoin. Do you like it?” Satoshi asked. “It sounds good,” Martti replied. “A peer to peer cryptocurrency could be the slogan.” From: Nathaniel Popper. “Digital Gold.” (That email exchange would have been around mid-2009, almost a year after Craig's totally real blog post.) * The entire section entitled [51% Attack](http://vu.hn/bitcoin%20origins.html#51attack) is absurd. Scronty describes how **Hal** 'discovered' 51% attacks. In the story's timeline, this supposedly happens after the software has been written, yet the **entire whitepaper is premised around the fact that the majority of hashpower is honest**. It's **impossible** that this would be a new problem. If this is just out-of-order in this story, we're to assume that Hal was involved in the writing of the whitepaper, but **that's not part of the story**, either. Bonus hilarity: > On May 29th 2011 I make an archive of my Bitcoin-related emails. > During the archiving process Outlook crashed. > After a computer restart I found that the Bitcoin subfolder no-longer exists and that the archived file was corrupted. > As I was using POP3 at the time, I had no other copies of those emails and they were gone forever from my end. Compare that with how Craig's [excuse](http://archive.is/kjuLi#selection-1191.1508-1191.1961) for missing emails: > Wright told me that around this time he was in correspondence with Wei Dai, with Gavin Andresen, who would go on to lead the development of bitcoin, and Mike Hearn, a Google engineer who had ideas about the direction bitcoin should take. Yet when I asked for copies of the emails between Satoshi and these men **he said they had been wiped when he was running from the ATO**. It seemed odd, and still does, that some emails were lost while others were not. How utterly, utterly surprising...

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on September 4, 2018 14:38:28

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/97t67j/uhigherplane_is_a_serial_banevading_troll/

His latest trolling behavior is to try to spread ridiculous [conspiracy theories](http://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/959tbe/amaury_creator_of_bitcoin_cash_has_been_banned_from_the_bitcoin_cash_slack/e3rz92t?context=3) about Peter Rizun and Amaury Sechet, while simultaneously [supporting](http://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/96p5e5/csw_effect/e425djs?context=3) nChain/Craig Wright. This username is at least his sixth incarnation in this sub. Here are his previous ones, in order from oldest to newest: * /u/bitcoincashuser * /u/Contrarian- (LOL) * /u/wobsd * /u/apresents * /u/bchworldorder Each of those usernames was banned from /r/btc for one reason or another. Now he's back under the username /u/higher-plane. He was **slightly** more careful this time. He managed to not call anyone a "troll cuck" this time, which was his normal signature move. However, he's still been incredibly sloppy: * He always frequents the same subs (/r/btc, /r/CryptoCurrency, and /r/nba) * [He uses](http://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/96w0at/daily_discussion_megathread_-_august_13_2018/e44vie3?context=3) "lmao" [frequently](http://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/94a5q3/new_starbucks_partnership_with_microsoft_allows_customers_to_pay_for_frappu/e3jz8h6?context=3) (and always [lowercase](http://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/80upri/we_do_accept_btc/duyytoi?context=3)) * He [admits](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/96p5e5/csw_effect/e425nho/?context=3) he's been 'in bch' for about as long as his first username existed, despite his current account being much younger than that. * Nearly identical average words per comment in each account (14 in his last account, 16 in this account, both *much* less than the average for this sub) * All accounts indicate the same timezone (see [here](http://www.redditinvestigator.com/) for instance) * His post submissions are usually from coingeek or twitter * [Frequently](http://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/8vodgd/wojnarowskiceltics_were_among_final_teams_cousins_considered_joining/e1p0jle?context=3) talks about ["dick sucking"](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/81y32y/andreas_antonopoulos_caught_having_misled_the/dv64vr4/?context=3) * He created this new account **the same day** his last username (/u/bchworldorder) was banned from /r/btc. I can easily go on if there are still any doubters, but honestly, just skim some of the comments from each of the accounts I listed; it's obvious.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on August 16, 2018 11:17:52

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8aznnp/was_dave_kleiman_involved_in_bitcoin/

I've noticed that even generally skeptical members of this sub seem to [take it as an assumption](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8avoa3/psa_i_have_been_down_the_sm_rabbit_hole_for_weeks/dx26lwp/) that Dave Kleiman was an early bitcoiner, to be mentioned in the same breath as Hal Finney. It made me wonder if there's any evidence that I'm unaware of. The only shred of 'evidence' I could find is from the [lawsuit](https://www.scribd.com/document/372445546/Bitcoin-Lawsuit) that Dave Kleiman's brother, Ira, brought. In it, it's claimed: > On Thanksgiving Day 2009, Dave told Ira he was creating “digital money” with a wealthy foreign man, i.e., Craig. This strikes me as incredibly weak, due to the fact that it: 1) is in Ira's interest, 2) is an 8-year-old recollection, and 3) does not even mention bitcoin (or Craig) by name (there were a lot of people working on 'digital money'). Literally *all* of the other 'evidence' is connected to (or provably fabricated by) Craig Wright. Can anyone find a single, legitimate shred of evidence that Dave Kleiman ever contributed to bitcoin, owned a bitcoin, even said the word bitcoin, or even *heard* of the word bitcoin? Until there's evidence, can we leave Dave Kleiman out as one of the 'early bitcoiners'? As far as I can tell, Craig's just using his dead friend as convenient cover for his ridiculous story, which, if true, is utterly abhorrent.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 9, 2018 12:15:14

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8a05rx/here_is_a_selfish_mining_analogy_that_everyone/

Imagine a mom has two children. She gives her daughter $6 per week and her son $4 per week (for whatever reason). The son therefore has 40% of the weekly allowance. He doesn't like this and wants more. So, he figures out a plan to burn two of the daughter's dollars per week, but it costs him $1 to do it (this is basically what selfish mining is). So, each week, he ends up with $3, and she has $4. Now he has about 43% of the weekly allowance! Success! However, he has *less actual cash* than he started with! Failure! **But**, the mom responds to this behavior by giving out **more money per week** (difficulty adjustment), so they both end up with $10 total *after the burning*. So she gives them $13 total (60% to her daughter, $7.80, and 40% to her son, $5.20). He does the same thing again and spends $1 to burn two of her dollars. So she ends up with $5.80 and he ends up with $4.20. **This is an actual increase for him now compared with the beginning!** Remember, she used to get $6 and he got $4. Notice that the faster the difficulty adjustment happens, the faster the selfish miner will end up profiting. If you change it to a daily allowance, the son's strategy becomes *absolutely profitable* within a week. (With BCH, if a SM controls ~42% hashpower, they'd expect to be *absolutely profitable* in about a **day**.) As this relates to the 'selfish mining debate', basically Craig at first denied that this *could* happen at all for mathematical reasons (and was wrong, as Peter Rizun pointed out), then denied it would actually happen because everyone would realize what would happen and quickly put a stop to it somehow (which may be true, but is not proven). (Note: this is a highly simplified scenario, and the son's 'magic plan' to destroy $2 for the cost of $1 is detailed in the SM paper and only works under certain conditions (he controls > 1/3 of hashpower in bitcoin mining). The bottom line is that it actually does work.)

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 5, 2018 10:30:25

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/7a65ek/sockpuppet_detection_tool_beta/

Due to interest in my [recent submission](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/79hsfl/ubtcnewsupdates_is_uwilliaminlondon/) that showed /r/btc's /u/williaminlondon is /u/btcnewsupdates, I decided to spend a couple hours coding up a tool to help anyone find sockpuppet accounts. This only applies to a certain subset of sockpuppets: those where a single user is posting on two accounts *within the same time period*. That is, **it will not work with barely-active sockpuppets, or serial sockpuppet accounts**. Further, it's only effective if the poster is fairly prolific. Basically, the idea is that it takes a brief period of time to switch to a different account and post something. So, **it would be** *rare* **to see two accounts controlled by one user post something at almost the same time.** We can calculate what we'd **expect** the time gaps to be if they were *genuinely different users*. If the expected time gaps are *much smaller* than the actual minimum time gaps, then it's likely that it's a single user controlling two different accounts. For example, take two prolific /r/btc posters: /u/poorbrokebastard and /u/williaminlondon. They each post about 40 unedited comments per day. Just by random chance, we'd expect them to post within a second or two given about 1000 posts (reddit's API limit). And if we compare their *actual* minimum comment time difference, it's less than a second, so we can conclude that they're likely not controlled by the same user. However, if we compare /u/williaminlondon to /u/btcnewsupdates (who *also* post about 40 unedited comments each per day), we **expect** a minimum gap of only about 1 second. **However, the** *actual* **minimum gap is 55 seconds**. This happens in less than 1 in 1000 simulations. (Of course, this evidence is *in addition* to the [evidence here](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/79hsfl/ubtcnewsupdates_is_uwilliaminlondon/).) I wouldn't blindly accept the results of this tool. **If it comes out positive, you should do some other checking.** Also, don't just randomly check users. It's bound to give false positives every now and then. It's likely that there are bugs, and it's very slow because it doesn't cache comments. **Anyway, if you'd like to compare any two redditors (in any sub), you can try out the tool [here](https://83m6a1f16h.execute-api.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/prod/redditsockdetector/dectect/u/u).** No guarantees on how long it'll be available. Source code available upon request. (Before /u/williaminlondon responds quickly to a post by his other account to try to trick this tool, [here is a screenshot](https://i.imgur.com/kfwn2ay.png) of its current output.)

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/Bitcoin on November 1, 2017 16:00:30

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7a60za/sockpuppet_detection_tool_beta/

Due to interest in my [recent submission](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/79hsfl/ubtcnewsupdates_is_uwilliaminlondon/) that showed /u/williaminlondon is /u/btcnewsupdates, I decided to spend a couple hours coding up a tool to help anyone find sockpuppet accounts. This only applies to a certain subset of sockpuppets: those where a single user is posting on two accounts *within the same time period*. That is, **it will not work with barely-active sockpuppets, or serial sockpuppet accounts**. Further, it's only effective if the poster is fairly prolific. Basically, the idea is that it takes a brief period of time to switch to a different account and post something. So, **it would be** *rare* **to see two accounts controlled by one user post something at almost the same time.** We can calculate what we'd **expect** the time gaps to be if they were *genuinely different users*. If the expected time gaps are *much smaller* than the actual minimum time gaps, then it's likely that it's a single user controlling two different accounts. For example, take two prolific posters: /u/poorbrokebastard and /u/williaminlondon. They each post about 40 unedited comments per day. Just by random chance, we'd expect them to post within a second or two given about 1000 posts (reddit's API limit). And if we compare their *actual* minimum comment time difference, it's less than a second, so we can conclude that they're likely not controlled by the same user. However, if we compare /u/williaminlondon to /u/btcnewsupdates (who *also* post about 40 unedited comments each per day), we **expect** a minimum gap of only about 1 second. **However, the** *actual* **minimum gap is 55 seconds**. This happens in less than 1 in 1000 simulations. (Of course, this evidence is *in addition* to the [evidence here](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/79hsfl/ubtcnewsupdates_is_uwilliaminlondon/).) I wouldn't blindly accept the results of this tool. **If it comes out positive, you should do some other checking.** Also, don't just randomly check users. It's bound to give false positives every now and then. It's likely that there are bugs, and it's very slow because it doesn't cache comments. **Anyway, if you'd like to compare any two redditors (in any sub), you can try out the tool [here](https://83m6a1f16h.execute-api.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/prod/redditsockdetector/dectect/u/u).** No guarantees on how long it'll be available. Source code available upon request. (Before /u/williaminlondon responds quickly to a post by his other account to try to trick this tool, [here is a screenshot](https://i.imgur.com/kfwn2ay.png) of its current output.)

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on November 1, 2017 15:42:39

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/79hsfl/ubtcnewsupdates_is_uwilliaminlondon/

After he [accused me](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/75isx4/psa_the_amount_of_trolls_in_this_sub_has_spiked/do6t0lq/) of having multiple accounts without any evidence, I realized that /u/williaminlondon was likely projecting. I found his sockpuppet: /u/btcnewsupdates. The two accounts have this in common: * [Both](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/77t9uj/is_rbitcoinmarkets_also_censored_or_just_land_of/dooxmbq/) use [British spellings](http://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/79a7z8/93.1_of_blocks_mined_today_support_segwit2x/dp0cz1q?context=3). * [Both](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/787n43/the_worlds_first_bitcoin_cash_conference_focused/dorr4qt/) used the [phrase](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/79dlx9/if_by_pairing_he_cant_decide_craig_wright_has/dp1ppl6/) "Mummy said [he] lied to his Doctor" (with a capital D, which is **highly unusual**) * Both big fans of the interrobang, but [both](http://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/79gxg2/blockstream_vs_miners_-_looking_at_the_incentives_around_the_segwit2x_fork/dp1trqq?context=3) use it **exclusively** in [the less common form](http://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7823kh/coinbase_the_bitcoin_gold_fork_has_already_privately_occurred._question_is_/doqg36h?context=3): exclamation question (!?) instead of (?!). * Both have generally good (British) spelling and grammar, **BUT YOU [BOTH](https://i.imgur.com/iZJOBMG.png) MAKE THE TYPO "DON;T" [ALL THE TIME](https://i.imgur.com/VYakUii.png)!** * [Compare](https://snoopsnoo.com/u/btcnewsupdates) their top 5 [most used words](https://snoopsnoo.com/u/williaminlondon). **4 are the same! Try to find another user where 4 out of 5 match!** * Both **frequently** use colon-capital-D smiley :D * Both frequently call Charlie Lee "good boy" * Both [call people](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/77q461/roger_ver_nothing_attracts_trolls_like_telling/dooasmi/) "boy" as an [epithet](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/78proq/why_blockstream_cores_propaganda_strategy_failed/doytski/) in general * [Their](https://snoopsnoo.com/u/btcnewsupdates#by-hour) 'activity by time of day' is [practically identical](https://snoopsnoo.com/u/williaminlondon#by-hour). * [Both](http://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/79fjcg/block_the_stream_a_censorship-driven_artificial_network_constraint_to_drive/dp1r19w?context=3) call people "thugs" all the time ([specifically](http://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/77jd9a/craig_wright_you_talk_about_skin_in_the_game_but_its_just_talk._you_and_ver/don5opx?context=3) "Core thugs", capital-C, of course) * [Both](http://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/77smk7/how_to_obtain_b2x_safely_upon_the_segwit2x_hard_fork_in_november/dop6tyr?context=3) use the word "Sigh" as a [full sentence](https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoMarkets/comments/796kng/a_guy_called_francois_pretending_to_speak_for/dozjlww/). * [Even their](https://snoopsnoo.com/u/btcnewsupdates#corpus-stats) 'unique word percentage' is [practically identical](https://snoopsnoo.com/u/williaminlondon#corpus-stats) * [Compare](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/79hzt2/why_rbitcoin_censors_are_disabled_here/dp22kfb/) these [comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/75ow6c/remember_when_ubashco_pushed_the_narrative_that/do7vkv7/?context=3). After confronting him with the evidence, he [deflected and did not deny it](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/79dlx9/if_by_pairing_he_cant_decide_craig_wright_has/dp1zkjn/?context=5). I encourage everyone to check both user histories yourself. It's fairly obvious that they're the same user. Please add any confirmatory **or disconfirmatory** evidence if you find any. They're also both Craig Wright apologists (shocking, I know). **Edit: [It appears](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/79hsfl/ubtcnewsupdates_is_uwilliaminlondon/dp21c7a/?context=2) that he just accidentally confirmed it.**

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on October 29, 2017 13:28:10

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/75bhme/bitcoin_cash_block_size_soft_limits/

I've seen a lot of claims that Bitcoin Cash has 'soft limits' on block size and that a hard fork is not needed to raise the block size over 8MB. For example, [here](https://www.yours.org/content/understanding-the-implications-of-restricting-capacity-in-a-peer-to-pe-76ed09e51c84/), in a recent editorial by /u/poorbrokebastard: > Important to note that the 8MB limit on the Cash fork is not a hard limit, meaning miners can scale above 8MB **without needing another protocol upgrade (hard fork.)** The original Bitcoin protocol that Satoshi built scaled all the way to 32MB, before the 1MB spam protection limit was added. > Bitcoin Cash is the original protocol with the limit removed so it scales all the way to 32MB **before another hard fork (protocol upgrade) is needed.** I'm not sure this is the correct characterization. To the best of my knowledge (please correct me if I'm wrong!), the default configuration of 8MB block sizes limits what the miner will **produce** AND what they will **accept as valid**. In other words, if a miner produced a 16MB block, it would be rejected if other miners did not *actively and by consensus change the default*. Isn't this basically the same situation as a normal hard fork? The only significant difference I can see is that the limit can be changed via software configuration in Bitcoin Cash, whereas it would require a code change and recompile in Bitcoin. Is this an accurate characterization? If it is, is it fair to call it a 'soft limit' and pretend it's not *much* closer to a typical hard fork? Compare this with the 'soft limits' that were in the bitcoin client, which only put a default configuration limit on what miners would **produce** rather than what they'd **accept as valid**. It did not require any consensus to make a bigger block size (up to 1MB).

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on October 9, 2017 15:25:09

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/7387gq/craig_s_wright_facts/

I’ve seen several people claim that Craig S. Wright (Chief Scientist of nChain) has been unfairly smeared and libeled lately. Let’s stick to the facts: * Fact: Craig's businesses were [failing](http://archive.is/kjuLi#selection-721.1590-721.1706) and he needed money in 2015 - yes, 'Satoshi' needed money! * Fact: Craig signed a deal with nTrust that [bailed out his companies](http://archive.is/kjuLi#selection-729.989-732.0) in exchange for his patents and him agreeing to be 'unmasked as Satoshi’. [see note 1] * Fact: Craig [claimed](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/05/02/i-was-the-main-part-of-it-australian-computer-scientist-steps-forward-as-bitcoins-creator/) to be “the main part of [Satoshi]” * Fact: Craig *[literally admitted](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6xkn24/bcc_bch_are_bitcoin_they_follow_the_whitepaper/dmjcyou/?context=3)* lying about (fabricating) that [blog post](https://futurism.com/have-we-finally-found-the-creator-of-bitcoin/) claiming he was involved in bitcoin in 2009. * Fact: Craig lived in Australia during the Satoshi period. The [time zone](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=802869.0) means that, to be Satoshi, Craig would have *almost never* posted between 3pm and midnight, local time. His **peak posting times** would have been between 2am and 9:30am. This is practically the *opposite* of what one would expect. * Fact: Craig lost a bet on a [simple technical question](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6q2uak/peter_rizun_and_craig_wright_just_bet_1_btc_on_a/) related to bitcoin mining * Fact: I’m aware of *no evidence* that Craig could code at all, let alone had excellent C++ skills, despite many (*highly* detailed) [resumes](https://archive.is/Q66Gl) available online * Fact: Craig [traded bitcoins on MtGox in 2013 and 2014](https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hx3q9/according_to_the_mtgox_leaks_from_early_2014_our/) - [2] * Fact: In early 2008, Craig [wrote](http://seclists.org/basics/2008/Mar/42) this: "Anonymity is the shield of cowards, it is the cover used to defend their lies. My life is open and I have little care for my privacy". [3] * Fact: Craig produced a [‘math' paper](http://archive.is/6C3C9) recently - [4] * Fact: Craig’s own mother [admits](http://archive.is/kjuLi#selection-1655.0-1655.94) that he has a habit of fabricating stories. [1] - This [link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance-fee_scam) may be relevant. [2] - Why would Satoshi do this? [3] - Sounds like Satoshi, huh? [4] - I *urge* you to read the thread and look at the person doing the critique. Compare it with Satoshi’s [whitepaper](https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf)

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/Bitcoin on September 29, 2017 10:39:09

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7386vx/craig_s_wright_facts/

I’ve seen several people claim that Craig S. Wright (Chief Scientist of nChain) has been unfairly smeared and libeled lately. Let’s stick to the facts: * Fact: Craig's businesses were [failing](http://archive.is/kjuLi#selection-721.1590-721.1706) and he needed money in 2015 - yes, 'Satoshi' needed money! * Fact: Craig signed a deal with nTrust that [bailed out his companies](http://archive.is/kjuLi#selection-729.989-732.0) in exchange for his patents and him agreeing to be 'unmasked as Satoshi’. [see note 1] * Fact: Craig [claimed](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/05/02/i-was-the-main-part-of-it-australian-computer-scientist-steps-forward-as-bitcoins-creator/) to be “the main part of [Satoshi]” * Fact: Craig *[literally admitted](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6xkn24/bcc_bch_are_bitcoin_they_follow_the_whitepaper/dmjcyou/?context=3)* lying about (fabricating) that [blog post](https://futurism.com/have-we-finally-found-the-creator-of-bitcoin/) claiming he was involved in bitcoin in 2009. * Fact: Craig lived in Australia during the Satoshi period. The [time zone](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=802869.0) means that, to be Satoshi, Craig would have *almost never* posted between 3pm and midnight, local time. His **peak posting times** would have been between 2am and 9:30am. This is practically the *opposite* of what one would expect. * Fact: Craig lost a bet on a [simple technical question](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6q2uak/peter_rizun_and_craig_wright_just_bet_1_btc_on_a/) related to bitcoin mining * Fact: I’m aware of *no evidence* that Craig could code at all, let alone had excellent C++ skills, despite many (*highly* detailed) [resumes](https://archive.is/Q66Gl) available online * Fact: Craig [traded bitcoins on MtGox in 2013 and 2014](https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hx3q9/according_to_the_mtgox_leaks_from_early_2014_our/) - [2] * Fact: In early 2008, Craig [wrote](http://seclists.org/basics/2008/Mar/42) this: "Anonymity is the shield of cowards, it is the cover used to defend their lies. My life is open and I have little care for my privacy". [3] * Fact: Craig produced a [‘math' paper](http://archive.is/6C3C9) recently - [4] * Fact: Craig’s own mother [admits](http://archive.is/kjuLi#selection-1655.0-1655.94) that he has a habit of fabricating stories. [1] - This [link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance-fee_scam) may be relevant. [2] - Why would Satoshi do this? [3] - Sounds like Satoshi, huh? [4] - I *urge* you to read the thread and look at the person doing the critique. Compare it with Satoshi’s [whitepaper](https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf) Now, before the deluge of comments about how **”it doesn’t matter WHO he is, only that WHAT he says aligns with Satoshi’s vision”**, I’d like to say: Is it of **absolutely no relevance at all** if someone is a huge fraud and liar? If it’s not, then I hope you’ve never accused anyone of lying or being a member of ‘The Dragon’s Den’ or a troll or of spreading FUD. I hope you’ve never pre-judged someone’s comments because of their name or reputation. I hope you’ve **only ever considered technical arguments**. That said, *I am not even directly arguing against anything he’s currently saying* (other than random [clear lies](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6zulfs/csw_at_esliv_paris_conference/dmy9uhe/)). I’ve never said anything about Blockstream, positive or negative. I’ve never expressed an opinion about what the ideal block size should be right now. My account is over 6 years old and I post in many different subs. Compare that with these (very popular!) users who frequently call me a troll or member of the ‘dragon’s den’ (with zero facts or evidence): * [/u/poorbrokebastard](https://www.reddit.com/user/poorbrokebastard) (joined September 1, 2016, almost always posts in /r/btc) (frequently [straight-up lies](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6xkn24/bcc_bch_are_bitcoin_they_follow_the_whitepaper/dmzy73h/) about me) * [/u/williaminlondon](https://www.reddit.com/user/williaminlondon) (joined August 1, 2017, almost always posts in /r/btc) (reputation seems to mean *almost everything* to this person - yet he [just fabricated](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/70atwg/oped_searching_for_satoshi_an_el5_explanation_of/dn1zs4v/?context=3) lies about me) * [/u/evilrobotted](https://www.reddit.com/user/evilrobotted) (joined March 3, 2016, almost always posts in /r/btc) ([this](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/71gp8x/a_guys_asks_craig_wright_what_he_believes_to_be/dnb80y1/) is a good example of his ‘discussions’ with me)

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on September 29, 2017 10:36:39

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6y1e5t/craig_s_wright_is_not_satoshi_nakamoto_and_why/

(Note, [this](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6y1bnz/craig_s_wright_is_not_satoshi_nakamoto_and_why/) was mostly for the benefit of /r/btc (and subsequently buried, of course), since this sub is generally much more critical of Craig Wright. However, if anyone is not familiar with the situation, maybe it can be illuminating.) I'll start out with why it matters. It looks like [Craig](https://np.reddit.com/user/Craig_S_Wright) is active on reddit again, and his company (nChain) is applying for patents in the bitcoin space. I hope we can all agree that if CSW is not Satoshi, then CSW is a fraud and a liar. Some may consider this an *ad hominem* attack, but that's not the case, since I'm not trying to refute any one specific argument of his. I'm saying that *his word should have less credibility by default*. If your retort to that is "we should take all arguments **solely** by the merits", then I assume you trust everyone exactly the same and don't give 'experts' **any** additional weight. It is true that *arguments* should generally stand apart from the *arguer*, but it's not true that the credibility of the arguer is a **completely irrelevant** piece of information. Anyway, on to the issue of whether Craig is Satoshi or not. I'll put aside the obvious things (no evidence of Craig having C++ programming skills, writing style completely different from Satoshi's, being in practically the opposite timezone that Satoshi is suspected to have been in, etc. (because the common objection is that he was *part of the Satoshi team*, despite there being *no evidence* that there was more than just one person)), and focus on the timeline. According to the [London Review of Books author Andrew O'Hagan](http://archive.is/kjuLi#selection-2505.0-2505.153): > Wright had founded a number of businesses that were in trouble and he was deeply embedded in a dispute with the ATO ... After initial scepticism, and in spite of a slight aversion to Wright’s manner, MacGregor was persuaded, and struck a deal with Wright, signed on 29 June 2015. Here's a significant part: > Within a few months, according to evidence later given to me by Matthews and MacGregor, the deal would cost MacGregor’s company $15 million. ‘That’s right,’ Matthews said in February this year. ‘When we signed the deal, $1.5 million was given to Wright’s lawyers. But my main job was to set up an engagement with the new lawyers … and transfer Wright’s intellectual property to nCrypt’ – a newly formed subsidiary of nTrust. ‘The deal had the following components: **clear the outstanding debts that were preventing Wright’s business from getting back on its feet**, and work with the new lawyers on getting the agreements in place for the transfer of any non-corporate intellectual property, and work with the lawyers to get Craig’s story rights.’ **From that point on, the ‘Satoshi revelation’ would be part of the deal. ‘It was the cornerstone of the commercialisation plan,’ Matthews said, ‘with about ten million sunk into the Australian debts and setting up in London.’** So Wright had a financial motivation for claiming to be Satoshi. Some time passed, and eventually the company had a big 'reveal', which included privately 'signing' a message from the genesis block for Gavin Andresen and others, leaking supposedly 'hacked' documents (including a 'Tulip Trust' [document](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2644014-Tulip-Trust-Redacted.html) that **so conveniently** states that *no record of this transaction will be filed in the US or Australia*), and a [very clearly faked and post-dated](https://futurism.com/have-we-finally-found-the-creator-of-bitcoin/) blog entry 'proving' that CSW was involved in bitcoin from the very beginning. ([Here's](https://web.archive.org/web/20091120191009/http://gse-compliance.blogspot.com:80/2009/02/reasons-why-people-break-copyright.html) the archive link showing that blog post never existed.) When people were skeptical of Andresen's and Matonis's claim that CSW signed messages from early blocks, CSW said 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof'. He then went on to provide a [completely bogus](https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/technical-proof-craig-wright-not-satoshi-nakamoto/) 'proof' on his blog. When he was called out on it, he initially blamed others: > ‘I gave them the wrong thing,’ he said. ‘Then they changed it. Then I didn’t correct it because I was so angry. It's **only here** where his story changes from *I am Satoshi*, to *I've all along been trying to tear down the image of Satoshi*. First, let's note that the latter claim *does not require CSW to be Satoshi*. Second, note that it's been completely inconsistent with everything that's happened up to this point. As far as I know, there's no evidence that CSW had even *heard* of bitcoin before around 2014 or so. If that's not enough, please read this part of O'Hagan's story carefully: > We spoke about Wright’s possible lies. I said that all through these proof sessions, he’d acted this like this was the last thing he ever wanted. ‘That’s not true,’ MacGregor said. ‘**He freaking loves it. Why was I so certain he’d do that BBC interview the next day? It’s adoration.** He wants this more than we want this, but **he wants to come out of this looking like he got dragged into it.’ He told me if everything had gone to plan, the groundwork was laid for selling the patents**. It was a really big deal. **He said Ramona had said that if Wright doesn’t come out you still have this really smart guy who has made all these patents, who knows all about bitcoin**. So there you have it. An [admitted liar](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6xkn24/bcc_bch_are_bitcoin_they_follow_the_whitepaper/dmjcyou/?context=3) who has a strong financial motive to claim Satoshi's identity provides bogus proof and when confronted with it retreats to the excuse that *the plan has been to kill Satoshi the whole time!!*, despite that not making any sense, not fitting with the timeline, *or even helping the proposition that he is Satoshi if it's true.* Finally, I ([and /r/btc mod todu](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6wyng5/1900_11th_september_we_will_see_you_at_viabtc/dmcr1z8/) ) think it's sad that [Roger Ver](https://np.reddit.com/user/memorydealers) claims to [have an opinion](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6wyng5/1900_11th_september_we_will_see_you_at_viabtc/dmcqt4p/) on the matter but does not want to share it. Financial ties to nChain? If it's just to 'let people judge for themselves', then I hope this post helps.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/Bitcoin on September 4, 2017 12:33:19

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6y1bnz/craig_s_wright_is_not_satoshi_nakamoto_and_why/

I'll start out with why it matters. It looks like [Craig](https://www.reddit.com/user/Craig_S_Wright) is active on reddit again, and his company (nChain) is applying for patents in the bitcoin space. I hope we can all agree that if CSW is not Satoshi, then CSW is a fraud and a liar. Some may consider this an *ad hominem* attack, but that's not the case, since I'm not trying to refute any one specific argument of his. I'm saying that *his word should have less credibility by default*. If your retort to that is "we should take all arguments **solely** by the merits", then I point you to this sub's collective hate of Blockstream. I sincerely doubt that you treat their arguments with the *exact same skepticism* as, say, [Jonald Fyookball](https://www.reddit.com/user/jonald_fyookball) It is true that *arguments* should generally stand apart from the *arguer*, but it's not true that the credibility of the arguer is a **completely irrelevant** piece of information. Anyway, on to the issue of whether Craig is Satoshi or not. I'll put aside the obvious things (no evidence of Craig having C++ programming skills, writing style completely different from Satoshi's, being in practically the opposite timezone that Satoshi is suspected to have been in, etc. (because the common objection is that he was *part of the Satoshi team*, despite there being *no evidence* that there was more than just one person)), and focus on the timeline. According to the [London Review of Books author Andrew O'Hagan](http://archive.is/kjuLi#selection-2505.0-2505.153): > Wright had founded a number of businesses that were in trouble and he was deeply embedded in a dispute with the ATO ... After initial scepticism, and in spite of a slight aversion to Wright’s manner, MacGregor was persuaded, and struck a deal with Wright, signed on 29 June 2015. Here's a significant part: > Within a few months, according to evidence later given to me by Matthews and MacGregor, the deal would cost MacGregor’s company $15 million. ‘That’s right,’ Matthews said in February this year. ‘When we signed the deal, $1.5 million was given to Wright’s lawyers. But my main job was to set up an engagement with the new lawyers … and transfer Wright’s intellectual property to nCrypt’ – a newly formed subsidiary of nTrust. ‘The deal had the following components: **clear the outstanding debts that were preventing Wright’s business from getting back on its feet**, and work with the new lawyers on getting the agreements in place for the transfer of any non-corporate intellectual property, and work with the lawyers to get Craig’s story rights.’ **From that point on, the ‘Satoshi revelation’ would be part of the deal. ‘It was the cornerstone of the commercialisation plan,’ Matthews said, ‘with about ten million sunk into the Australian debts and setting up in London.’** So Wright had a financial motivation for claiming to be Satoshi. Some time passed, and eventually the company had a big 'reveal', which included privately 'signing' a message from the genesis block for Gavin Andresen and others, leaking supposedly 'hacked' documents (including a 'Tulip Trust' [document](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2644014-Tulip-Trust-Redacted.html) that **so conveniently** states that *no record of this transaction will be filed in the US or Australia*), and a [very clearly faked and post-dated](https://futurism.com/have-we-finally-found-the-creator-of-bitcoin/) blog entry 'proving' that CSW was involved in bitcoin from the very beginning. ([Here's](https://web.archive.org/web/20091120191009/http://gse-compliance.blogspot.com:80/2009/02/reasons-why-people-break-copyright.html) the archive link showing that blog post never existed.) When people were skeptical of Andresen's and Matonis's claim that CSW signed messages from early blocks, CSW said 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof'. He then went on to provide a [completely bogus](https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/technical-proof-craig-wright-not-satoshi-nakamoto/) 'proof' on his blog. When he was called out on it, he initially blamed others: > ‘I gave them the wrong thing,’ he said. ‘Then they changed it. Then I didn’t correct it because I was so angry. It's **only here** where his story changes from *I am Satoshi*, to *I've all along been trying to tear down the image of Satoshi*. First, let's note that the latter claim *does not require CSW to be Satoshi*. Second, note that it's been completely inconsistent with everything that's happened up to this point. As far as I know, there's no evidence that CSW had even *heard* of bitcoin before around 2014 or so. If that's not enough, please read this part of O'Hagan's story carefully: > We spoke about Wright’s possible lies. I said that all through these proof sessions, he’d acted this like this was the last thing he ever wanted. ‘That’s not true,’ MacGregor said. ‘**He freaking loves it. Why was I so certain he’d do that BBC interview the next day? It’s adoration.** He wants this more than we want this, but **he wants to come out of this looking like he got dragged into it.’ He told me if everything had gone to plan, the groundwork was laid for selling the patents**. It was a really big deal. **He said Ramona had said that if Wright doesn’t come out you still have this really smart guy who has made all these patents, who knows all about bitcoin**. So there you have it. An [admitted liar](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6xkn24/bcc_bch_are_bitcoin_they_follow_the_whitepaper/dmjcyou/?context=3) who has a strong financial motive to claim Satoshi's identity provides bogus proof and when confronted with it retreats to the excuse that *the plan has been to kill Satoshi the whole time!!*, despite that not making any sense, not fitting with the timeline, *or even helping the proposition that he is Satoshi if it's true.* Finally, I ([and /r/btc mod todu](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6wyng5/1900_11th_september_we_will_see_you_at_viabtc/dmcr1z8/) ) think it's sad that [Roger Ver](https://www.reddit.com/user/memorydealers) claims to [have an opinion](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6wyng5/1900_11th_september_we_will_see_you_at_viabtc/dmcqt4p/) on the matter but does not want to share it. Financial ties to nChain? If it's just to 'let people judge for themselves', then I hope this post helps.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on September 4, 2017 12:22:40

https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3ovlew/cmv_the_organ_transplant_scenario_is_a_bad/

The 'organ transplant scenario' goes something like this: 1. A hospital has 5 patients on life support. 2. Each patient needs a (different) organ transplant or they'll die 3. Each patient will make a full recovery if they get their transplant 4. Each needed organ is essential to life (eg - heart) 5. A healthy stranger walks in Opponents of utilitarianism claim that a hospital surgeon would be doing the right thing (according to utilitarian standards) by murdering the stranger and harvesting his organs to save the 5 patients. This is patently absurd to all but the most naive versions of utilitarianism. Just as a baseline, I'll give the definition of utilitarianism that I'm using: 1. The worst possible suffering is 'bad' 2. The greatest possible happiness/wellbeing is 'good' 3. An action's 'moral value' is determined by its effect **on the *long-term* balance of goodness/badness** (for the more mathematically inclined, assume an action produces a function *f(t)* that represents the sum of 'goodness' and 'badness' in all conscious creatures at time *t*. Let *A* represent the set of all possible actions and their resulting functions *f(t)*. An ideal action is the one that produces the function with the greatest integral from time=0 to infinity. Actions can be ordered by their resulting integral, so one can be better than another.) This leaves out a lot of detail, such as 'how do we measure value accurately?' 'how does level of consciousness (eg - an ant vs a human) affect the values?', etc. However, those questions can potentially be answered. Just as we have no perfect definition for the concept of 'healthy', we can still judge certain behaviors as definitely healthy or unhealthy. The same with morality. Back to the organ transplant scenario. **It's clear that people would avoid hospitals if this were to happen in the real world, resulting in more suffering over time.** Wait, though! **Some people try to add another stipulation: it's 100% guaranteed that nobody will ever find out about this. The stranger has no relatives, etc.** Without even addressing the issue of whether this would be, in fact, morally acceptable in the utilitarian sense, **it's unrealistic to the point of absurdity.** It's very easy to stretch a hypothetical to the point where it goes against your intuition and therefore becomes useless. Case in point: most people, especially on reddit, would agree with the tenet that 'torture is wrong.' However, I can easily come up with a scenario that would break that intuition. Imagine a serial child rapist and murderer who you know with 100% certainty has armed a mega nuclear bomb to go off 2 hours. It will destroy all of humanity. He knows the location and won't give it up. Is torture permitted? Of course! *Is this scenario in any way useful in justifying the use of torture? No. The same with the organ transplant scenario.* _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/changemyview on October 15, 2015 12:54:38

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/vr5jf/circumcision_isnt_the_villain_that_ratheism/

Is r/atheism the bastion of rationality it thinks it is? Here's some counterweight to the polemics against medical circumcision we've seen recently. First, let's start out with the patently bad arguments on both sides. Patently bad arguments **in favor** of circumcision: * I'm cut and I don't remember it and don't mind it now. (Anecdotes are not data) * God commands it. * Women prefer it this way. (This would probably be equally likely for an intact person in an area with low circ. rates) * I want my son to look like me. Patently bad arguments **against** circumcision: * It's unnatural. ([naturalistic fallacy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy)) * It's the same as female genital mutilation. (where the clitoris is removed) * It started as a religious tradition, therefore it's *inherently* bad. (Wrong and irrelevant from a medical point of view) Those out of the way, let's look at some of the medical benefits of circumcision. There is **extremely strong** medical evidence that **circumcision reduces HIV transmission**; so much, in fact, that the randomized controlled trials in Africa were stopped early because it was so efficacious. (Long term follow-up [here](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22210632)). There are several attacks to this result. (Note the trend of attacking the results you don't want.) First, people attempted to discredit the methods or call into question the validity of the studies. This is unconvincing; there were three separate RCTs and a plethora of observational data. The evidence is overwhelming. Second, people have argued that safe sex (eg - condom use, education) is more effective. This is not disputed; however, the studies' results were **with education on sex and condom use for all participants**. Additionally, this is akin to arguing that condoms shouldn't be used because abstinence-only education is 'more effective' in preventing HIV spread. Circumcision is cheap, permanent, and effective in preventing the spread of HIV, and the WHO [currently recommends](http://www.who.int/hiv/mediacentre/MCrecommendations_en.pdf) it as a tool to combat the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Finally, it's argued that this result can't be extrapolated to places where HIV is not endemic. Well, that very question was addressed in this [recent paper](http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0008723), which concluded that circumcision was likely cost-saving (and life saving) when applied to *only HIV transmission* in the United States. The paper does not take complications of circumcision into account, though they're unlikely to change the result. **Also, this makes no mention of the other benefits, like [reduced HPV transmission](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3119044/), lower [assorted STD rates](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16581731), reduced [penile cancer rates](http://www.springerlink.com/content/t38q2m0679375653/), and potentially [reduced prostate cancer rates](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.26653/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false).** The obvious rebuttal is that this makes no mention of the drawbacks of the procedure. A common argument is that 'we should cut off the breasts of women to prevent breast cancer'. This, too, is unconvincing. First, there are situations where mastectomy is medically indicated for prophylactic purposes. Second, the breasts have significant demonstrable positive health effects for newborns. Finally, the mastectomy procedure is much riskier than circumcision and requires a much longer recovery period. So what are the drawbacks? It's claimed that it has significant sexual effects, but there is [little medical evidence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision) for that claim, with an equal amount of evidence for the contrary. Opponents cite figures like 'half the sensory nerves are lost,' but again, without evidence of **actual effects**, this is irrelevant. It's also claimed that there are significant psychological side effects, but again, [there is no medical evidence of long-term adverse effects](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10930942). There is also the potential for complications from the surgery itself. These are generally considered extremely low (~0.2%) and most studies find that the short-term risk/benefit equation is fairly balanced considering the positive effects circumcision has on prevention of UTIs, phimosis, epididymitis, balanitis, etc. See, for example, [here](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1794670). Note that this analysis, and several others were done before the effects on HIV/HPV transmission were known. Another common argument against circumcision is that it should be left up to the child to decide when he comes 'of age'. However, this has some fatal flaws. First, most of the protective benefit comes with sexual activity, so the procedure should be done by age 11 or so (as with the HPV vaccine). Children that age are not capable of giving informed consent. Second, it's [much more costly](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16469634) to circumcise post-neonatal infants. Ten times, in fact. Third, childhood amnesia prevents the memory of the procedure's pain for neonates. This is not the case in children or adults, who will most likely carry painful memories through the rest of their lives. An apt comparison can be drawn with vaccination. In fact, circumcision could be called a 'physical vaccine.' All vaccines come with risks and benefits, including initial pain with administration, severe complications, and even death. There is a 'tipping point' for any vaccine that makes it 'worth it'. There is mounting evidence that *routine medical infant circumcision* has more positives than negatives. **It has undeniably saved thousands of lives**. Anti-circumcision activists may also point out that the AAP's policy (along with several other countries medical associations) is that there is no medical reason for circumcision. I would like to point out that this policy was enacted in 1999, well before this new data on HIV, HSV, and prostate cancer risk was available. Even if you're unconvinced that circumcision is a 'good thing', you must admit that there is a tipping point where you'd support its routine administration. If not, you're guilty of ignoring evidence and clinging to dogma. Who do we know does that?

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/atheism on June 28, 2012 14:45:24

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/heht6/hey_ratheism_why_the_hate_on_sam_harriss_views_on/

Why do so many atheists treat questions of morality with such deference? Neither science nor mathematics are self-justifying, yet they are both considered universal, and nobody would hesitate to say that someone is doing something mathematically 'wrong.' Morality is basically the only realm of knowledge that religion still has a stranglehold on, and we are just letting it continue. Before someone trots out the Hume's is-ought problem, consider this: you can't even get to 'is' without 'ought.' Science's values (of parsimony, logic, evidence, etc.) are built-in. Second, Hume said that you couldn't get there *deductively*, which is true, but we *inductively* reason all the time! The position of atheism is reached inductively. Just because we don't have a completely agreed-upon definition of morality shouldn't prevent us from making progress. Nobody has a perfect definition of health, but we still have medicine, and we're still making objectively positive progress. Anyone who doubts that maximal, unending suffering for all conscious creatures is 'objectively bad,' and that movement away from that state is 'objectively good' is deluded, in the same way that someone claiming that 2+2=5 is. Why should we listen to them? Why should we give them such deference? Why not take a stand? Extreme, terrible suffering is on the line, yet most scientific leaders continue to say that science has *nothing* to say about what is right or wrong.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/atheism on May 18, 2011 16:45:40
Top
/r/btc/comments/ixs8ws/what_exactly_does_it_mean_for_a_coin_or_token_to/g68luxk/

> A language is Turing-complete if it can be used to emulate a Turing machine. Emulate **any** Turing machine. >> Why is it important? > It is not. It is, actually. If Script *were* Turing complete, then people could submit transactions whose scripts may never complete their evaluation. Worse, there'd be no way to automatically tell whether they'll eventually stop their evaluation or not. Script was purposely made to be *not* Turing complete so this problem is avoided.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on September 22, 2020 14:26:51
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g60lckr/

> This doesn't answer anything i said. He switched data midstream. U cant do that. Can you give me evidence that “U” can’t do that? Literally the letter “U”, please, since you told me not to infer anything and only take your explicit assertions. By the way, this is my last comment, since you still haven’t answered my questions about your beliefs.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 20, 2020 15:09:14
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g60iz89/

> why guess? just ask. Jesus Christ. Did you even read what I wrote? > So my choices are to spend all of my time hyper-focused on getting you to tell me exactly what you're talking about, or sometimes make assumptions on what you mean. Either way, it's like pulling teeth. You could save us both a lot of time and start being precise. . > It is false **What** is false? I’m asking! You’re avoiding! See? Pulling teeth! At this point, I have to conclude you’re just trolling me. Either answer my questions about your beliefs about the climate change claims I made, or we're done here.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 20, 2020 14:55:39
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5zuwa4/

You two comments ago: > Go by my comments. Don’t in for things from my comments or what I do. Go by the explicit statements that I make. Don’t infer anything else. You just now: > This is false as well. Another example of your annoying habit of imprecision and broad-stroking. **What** exactly is "false"? I'm left to guess at it. Then, if I guess incorrectly, you get upset at me for either not asking for clarification or assuming something you didn't explicitly say. So my choices are to spend **all** of my time hyper-focused on getting you to tell me *exactly* what you're talking about, or sometimes make assumptions on what you mean. Either way, it's like pulling teeth. You could save us both a lot of time and start being precise. > I answer every question you ask. And if I don’t I’ll tell you why I won’t answer it. I asked about the "correct" global average temperatures from 1990 to 2020 and it took about twenty tries to get an answer, and it wasn't really an answer. I asked you about your beliefs in other conspiracy theory-type situations, and you took about 6 replies before I actually got an answer. Even *just now*, I asked you to list your beliefs about specific claims. You have not answered, and instead want to distract and focus on our conversation itself. Where are your answers? By the way, it also doesn't help that your responses are frequently mangled, grammar or spelling-wise. Either English is a second language to you, or you're using a speech-to-text thing that makes it hard to understand you. I guess it could be both. Or maybe you’re just a bad writer. Regardless, it’s not helping. (It’s also a bit funny. “Don’t in for [sic] things from my comments or what I do. Go by the explicit statements that I make.” Don’t “in for” things? Not even that you meant ‘infer’?!) > I told you what I want you to refute. The fraudulent hockey stick. I did. > I gave you the reasons. And I addressed them. > And you’re moving on to other things that you misunderstood. Regarding the sea level for example. No, that was a study *you* sent. *You* were "moving on". Who cares? Let's move on. > And when I explain to you what I meant you’re still going back and not discussing the actual evidence I want to discuss. I literally discussed it in great detail. > You don’t want to get to specifics about the hockey stick. I literally just discussed it in great detail. > I wonder why that is. Probably because you're ignoring the part where I just discussed it in great detail? How about you stop whining about the process of this conversation and actually focus on the details? Please answer my question about your beliefs on my list of climate change claims and respond to my rebuttal on the hockey stick data. Let's agree to leave the meta-argument over the conversation itself and re-focus on the details. Deal?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 20, 2020 12:25:13
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5zt14g/

> Explain to me where I said the sea level rise is decelerating and then not decelerating. I don’t know what you’re talking about. Copy and paste my exact comments please. That’s the **exact problem**. You almost never make actual claims other than broad stroke accusations of fraudulence. I’m left to try to piece together your beliefs and arguments based on things you link. I’m left scratching my head over what you actually believe, which is why I kept insisting on you sending me the temperatures you think are correct. Agreeing on common truths is a better starting point than just linking to various studies and having me “refute” them, **when I’m not even sure what you want me to refute**. So that’s why I’m asking you to commit to what you **do** believe or disbelieve. Are you going to do it?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 20, 2020 12:12:11
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5ywxta/

> So now that you know my position we can move on from that point. I think the problem is that you haven’t really made your positions clear. For instance, you sent a link to a “study” that purported to show that sea level rise decelerated. Now you say you don't believe they are decelerating (I think, you still haven’t made this clear). Maybe you believed that they *were* (briefly), but you never made that clear, naturally. >> Finally, the fact that you seem to not believe that sea levels are rising at the same rate as before led me to believe you simply didn't believe the recent data. > Again I never said that. You also paint things in broad strokes ("global fraudulent warming", "they are false") and leave it up to me to puzzle out your meaning. So, again, let’s clear things up rather than waste time. I’ll list some facts (claims, if you prefer) about climate change, and you tell me which you disagree with (or think are insufficiently supported by evidence). * a) the Earth is warming at an unprecedented (in the last 2,000 years at least) rate over the past ~100 years * b) the Earth has warmed significantly in the past ~100 years (most of which occurred recently (past 40 years)) * c) the Earth’s global average air temperature has warmed about 1.5 degrees in the past ~100 years (most of which occurred recently) * d) CO2 **emissions** (along with other gases like methane) have been rising in the past ~100 years (especially recently) * e) Human activity has been the main component of the rise in those **emissions** * f) The CO2 **concentration** in the atmosphere has been increasing in the past ~100 years (especially recently), basically like [this graph](https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/CO2_emissions_vs_concentrations_1751-2019_620.gif) shows. * g) The current atmospheric CO2 levels are [higher than they have been in the past ~800,000 years](https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/BAMS_SOTC_2019_co2_paleo_1000px.jpg). * h) Items d) and f) are causally related (ie - the increased **emissions** have *caused* the increase in atmospheric **concentration** of those gases) * i) Item f) has increased the greenhouse effect * i2) The greenhouse effect is real (ie - increasing certain thermally reactive gases in the atmosphere will result in a net increase in heat retention on Earth if other variables are held relatively constant). * j) This increase in CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) has led to an increase in the amount of heat retained by the Earth due to the greenhouse effect * k) Which explains the majority of the recent rise in air and water temperatures * l) This process will continue unless measures are taken to reduce CO2 emissions, or, alternatively, use other means (like reducing surface albedo, etc.) You can just list the ones you disagree with (e.g. - a, b, e, h, i). If you need further clarification, just ask. It'd be great if you could write a brief reason *why* you disagree with each one, but that's probably too much to ask. Now let's talk about the divergence problem. > Because he wanted to show warming. You're being imprecise again. You *admitted* recent warning (right?). You want to say, "because he wanted to show that warming *is limited to recent time and unprecedented*", right? I'd say that he wanted to use the most correct and complete data, which is scientifically totally fine. > do you think this charlatan would've had a problem with the tree ring data kept going up but the thermometer data kept going down. Hmmm... your feelings about this "charlatan" are blunting your tools of cognition. Please stick to facts rather than wild accusations. Thanks. > I insisted on exposing your confusion regarding the pause. Please keep the psychological projection to a minimum. Thanks. > When the tree ring data which he used for 2000 years was supporting what he wanted there was no problem. The rest of your comment is basically a rehash of this same point. Basically, it can be summed up like this: "how do we know there was no 'divergence problem' prior to ~1880 (instrumental record)?" Is that fair? Let's talk about it. In summary, the answer is that 1) the data is known to be well-correlated to around the year 1650, 2) the divergence problem seems to be more isolated to northern latitude trees, and prior to this recent divergence, the northern and southern hemispheres agreed with each other, and 3) **multiple independent [other proxies](https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=3&p=3) provide additional support for the temperatures reconstructed using the tree ring data prior to the divergence.** Here is a [useful summary](https://www.skepticalscience.com/Tree-ring-proxies-divergence-problem.htm): > Has this phenomenon happened before? In other words, can we rely on tree-ring growth as a proxy for temperature? Briffa 1998 shows that tree-ring width and density show close agreement with temperature back to 1880. To examine earlier periods, one study split a network of tree sites into northern and southern groups (Cook 2004). While the northern group showed significant divergence after the 1960s, the southern group was consistent with recent warming trends. This has been a general trend with the divergence problem - trees from high northern latitudes show divergence while low latitude trees show little to no divergence. The important result from Cook 2004 was that before the 1960s, the groups tracked each other reasonably well back to the Medieval Warm Period. **Thus, the study suggests that the current divergence problem is unique over the past thousand years and is restricted to recent decades.** > This suggests the decline in tree growth may have an anthropogenic cause. A thorough review of the many peer reviewed studies investigating possible contributing factors can be found in On the ’divergence problem’ in northern forests: A review of the tree-ring evidence and possible causes (D’Arrigo 2008).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 20, 2020 08:26:29
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5vwnvk/

> I do believe the earth is warming This comment led me to believe otherwise: "This is a fraudulent hockey stick graph they're still putting in Wikipedia entry on **global fraudulent warming**." Further, the fact that you refuse to admit that a small change in global temperature can make large differences also led me to believe that you simply don't believe the temperature is changing. Finally, the fact that you seem to not believe that sea levels are rising at the same rate as before led me to believe you simply didn't believe the recent data. > but nothing has been shown to conclusively prove that man-made activities is causing it. This feel like goal-post shifting, but ok, let's move to it. > I wouldn't be able to refute him on that merit. I would be able to. It's pretty easy to explain how an eye can develop in gradual steps naturally. > And it's not like that at all. I'd show you evidence of this fraud. and you're ignoring what I said. I'm not ignoring it at all. I'm happy to discuss the data about proxy measurements and tree rings. I'm even happy to talk about PCA, since I have a solid background in statistics. > If you don't want to discuss specifics and what are you doing here? WTF? I've been **practically begging** to discuss specifics. You insisted on a moronic detour about me "agreeing" with a "pause", the data for which you now admit was not manipulated, since you can't even see it yourself. Here's what I already said in another comment: You know about the divergence problem. You know that modern thermometers are much more accurate. You know that they did correspond to tree ring measurements prior to the divergence problem. You know that multiple independent proxy measurements corresponded to the tree rings up to the divergence point. He was trying to use the most accurate data, so he merged the two data sets, but got rid of the obviously incorrect data points from the tree ring data after the divergence. Would you like me to further explain how we know that the tree ring data is obviously wrong since around 1960? Why would he want to use bad data when there is better available? The fact that multiple, independent proxies all point in the same direction is hard to refute, as it's similar to how the evidence for evolution works (fossils, anatomy, embryology, DNA, etc.).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 19, 2020 19:47:41
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5vp573/

> You want to start with their data but you don't want to address the fraud which is obvious? It’s anything but obvious. In fact, it’s obviously not fraud, as I just explained to you. Why do you ignore all the other proxy temperature data? > Climate gate and the fraudulent hockey stick is where I start. Lol. This is like an anti evolutionist saying “the ‘impossible’ eye is where I start! It’s obviously intelligently designed!!” There was no fraud. The data (from multiple independent sources) is definitive and undeniable. Still no “correct” temperature data from 1990 to now, huh? Can’t say I’m surprised.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 19, 2020 19:05:10
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5uomg2/

> But I summarized the problem. In my own words in shorthand form. Where? Which problem? I was assuming you were talking about the dowser, which was the sea level guy. I don't recall you saying anything about that data except posting a bare link. > I would get down to the details in terms of him substituting tree ring data at what time etc. Now we're talking about air temperature again? I already explained about the divergence problem in another comment, in my own words. Again, can we try to start **from the bare data**? Can you tell me what you think the "correct" temperature data is since 1990? That's a simple question.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 19, 2020 15:35:24
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5uloit/

No, you [posted a link](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5qfisn/). That was it. I posted a link back, and now you demand that I explain the evidence, while you didn't actually do any discussing of real methods or data *yourself*. Pasted from my edit: By the way, for all your talk about liking to discuss data and evidence, and asking me to put things into my own words, you've done nothing but regurgitate links to articles or second-hand websites discussing articles. Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical? In fact, when I actually try to discuss data, you seem to prefer to avoid it and instead focus on my (bogus) "acceptance" of a "pause", which you seem to simultaneously deny exists ("do you see a pause? I don't!") and use as proof that climate change is bullshit (they have to "explain away the pause"). That's interesting. While we're on the topic, **can you provide what you think is the real temperature data since 1990**?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 19, 2020 15:16:22
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5ukktv/

Right after you do for his evidence? By the way, for all your talk about liking to discuss data and evidence, and asking me to put things into my own words, you've done nothing but regurgitate links to articles or second-hand websites discussing articles. Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical? In fact, when I actually try to discuss data, you seem to prefer to avoid it and instead focus on my (bogus) "acceptance" of a "pause", which you seem to simultaneously deny exists ("do you see a pause? I don't!") *and* use as proof that climate change is bullshit (they **have to** "explain away the pause"). That's interesting.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 19, 2020 15:09:29
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5uhokc/

> What's the evidence in this Link? Here's a direct link to the [academic article](https://sci-hub.st/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2005.04.001). Page 2 is where they show how his "evidence" is garbage.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 19, 2020 14:51:53
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5u9gjx/

> No I didn't. You said, "they are false". I listed "The Holocaust" as an example of something. Ergo, it seems like you think "The Holocaust" is false (fake). I'm glad you cleared it up, though. > What you mean by this? It's mostly a joke. The author of the sea level "study" you linked believes in "water dowsing", which is a nutcase magic pseudoscience. I joked that he used his powers of water dowsing (which "points" the holder of a magic stick to water) to "point" himself in the direction of the "truth" about climate change. Then I joked that he "pointed" himself to cherry-picked spots to take his sea level measurements, which he [basically did](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/dec/02/spectator-sea-level-claims). > Who are you talking about? I guess two different classes. First, just regular people who support the idea that the Earth is warming or think that it's bullshit. Second, *scientists* who think that. My prediction is that, in both cases, religiosity will be higher in denialists. What do you think? Edit: You added stuff. > this is an indirect way to look at climate change. I like to look at the data. It's a meta-observation based on your (utterly unsupported and unscientific) claim that "groupthink, stupidity, and leftism" has resulted in an unwitting global scientific conspiracy. Where's the data there? :) > I would have a much more logical conversation with a conservative who believes in God about every most other topics than liberals who are emotional. LOL. Suffice it to say that the data for this claim is nonexistent. > Which is why they like to chant And March and hold signs. Who does this? Just liberals? That's false. > The one irrational position they hold leads to them acting like leftists. Ooh, I just **love** the special pleading (with a mix of no-true-Scotsman) here. Perfection.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 19, 2020 14:04:39
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5syk2v/

Technically you still didn’t answer my question. Literally, you’re saying the Holocaust is fake. Is that what you mean? So climate change is just an *unwitting* global scientific conspiracy? Did that guy dowse for the truth, then? ;) (Hey, maybe that explains why he took measurements at the wrong spot -- he dowsed to get there!) Clearly, he and his ilk are *unswayable* by those naive leftists and can think independently. Speaking of independent thinking, what do you think about how religious belief is correlated with climate change denial or acceptance? I’ve never seen any data around it, but I’m willing to bet there is a correlation. Any thoughts on the topic?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 19, 2020 07:25:51
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5sy8w9/

You know quite well. It’s explained in many places, including the (something like) eleven independent committees that found he did nothing wrong. You know about the divergence problem. You know that modern thermometers are much more accurate. You know that they **did** correspond to tree ring measurements prior to the divergence problem. You know that other proxy measurements corresponded to the tree rings *up to the divergence point*. He was trying to use the most accurate data, so he merged the two data sets, but got rid of the *obviously incorrect* data points from the tree ring data after the divergence. Why would he *want* to use bad data when there is better available?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 19, 2020 07:20:19
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5sxq0p/

> What data did I say is fake? You said: > And why they felt the need to adjust it out of existence. What data did they adjust from 1998 to 2012? If none, **why did you say you couldn’t see a pause from 1998 to 2012 in the graph**? > Evidence of what? He's trying to explain it away. Your assertion is that they *needed* to “explain” it. I’m saying that they did not, and you are making up this urgency. While it’s possible that some models may have predicted a rise in that short time frame, that doesn’t mean they were outside of the error range, or that the whole idea needed to be tossed out. It’s the same as if I say there’s a 70% chance of rain in the next day and it’s dry for the next few days. Maybe I’d *want* to figure out what went “wrong”, but that doesn’t necessarily mean my model is garbage. After all, 30% is not insubstantial. You keep relying on arguments out of incredulity — like “1 degree is trivial because it seems crazy to me for it to be significant”, and “14 years is outside the range of variability because it sounds like a lot to me”.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 19, 2020 07:10:51
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5rcpe3/

Let me ask a more basic question. If the data is **fake**, why did they debate it so publicly? And what data has been manipulated after 2012 to “hide” it? Also, more to your point, here’s a quote from one of the links you just posted: > "Really, this seems pretty straightforward. The climate is complicated, and natural variability can mask trends seen over century-long timescales," says climate scientist David Easterling of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Thanks for the evidence for me.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 18, 2020 20:02:36
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5rc85z/

So they’re all fraudulent conspiracies? The Holocaust? Evolution **and** young earth creationism? (That’s a strange combo!) Seriously, are there other massive worldwide scientific conspiracies that you believe in?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 18, 2020 19:58:23
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5ra7pg/

Nothing in here suggest they thought they **needed** to explain it. It’s only that they gave some potential explanations. Do you have any sources where they said they needed to explain it or else the theory is not viable? Also, can you point to the data that existed from 1998-2012 that was “adjusted” to “erase” the “pause”?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 18, 2020 19:40:25
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5r9k0r/

You didn't answer my questions. Which ones are bullshit and which are real? I'll assume you mean evolution is real, given your response.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 18, 2020 19:34:02
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5qzwbm/

I thought you wanted to discuss the actual data itself, not manufactured controversy over its interpretation. I could come back with links to show you why “climate gate” is baloney, but we’ll get nowhere. Let’s start with raw data and try to generate our own graph using statistical methods we can agree on. How about that? Actually, that likely won’t work, either, since you apparently have a quasi-religious belief that the satellite data is incorrect or otherwise **fraudulent** due to a **global conspiracy**. How do I know you’re not going to pull the same stuff with the air temperature data? That is, just throw out any data you don’t like? I have a feeling we won’t even be able to agree on the datasets to use. I’m willing to give it a try, though! (By the way, are you ready to concede that a 1 degree change in global average temperature **would** be significant if not for the **GLOBAL CONSPIRACY TO FAKE THE DATA**? Or do you think that the **GLOBAL CONSPIRACY TO FAKE THE DATA** also **FAKED** the data showing that it was only about a 6 degree difference between the twentieth century and the height of the last glacial period about 20,000 years ago?) As a brief gauge of your personal opinions on things, can you give a quick "real" or "bullshit" for the following things? * Young Earth Creationism * Evolution * Vaccines generally being safe and effective * QAnon * Obama not being a US citizen * The Holocaust Thanks!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 18, 2020 18:08:01
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5qwd6u/

Do you have proof of all these assertions? That this variability **must** be explained? > And why they felt the need to adjust it out of existence. I mean, this is just a lie as far as I can tell. The 14-year interval is still there in the data. You [admitted](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5pcsal/?context=3) that you couldn’t even see it. Do you think there’s a different set of values from 1998-2012 that we should be using?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 18, 2020 17:41:25
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5qs3ed/

> You see that 2 thousand years without a pause? No. I see lots of “pauses” in the ‘constantly the same temperature trend’ if you treat them the same as here. That is, if you consider a pause a **temporary** deviation from the trend line. See all those ups and downs? That’s natural variability. It looks like they are on the order of dozens of years, too! How about that! Crazy, huh? > Would you like to discuss the data? I don't mean googling and finding a couple of articles that defend it. I'm talking about the actual data. Sure, but how will I know whether it’s “actual” data without checking sources for myself?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 18, 2020 17:09:14
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5qp2vl/

> I absolutely did not do that. Please explain how you think I did do that. You gave me a study that *relied* on that data to try to show that global sea levels were decelerating. > Just because I'm gonna give my argument later does it mean by "reject data." Again, until you actually provide the evidence or argument, you **are** just rejecting the data. > So while you're at it please provide evidence of why you reject my data. Read the articles I linked. They succinctly provide my evidence. Is there anything *specific* in them that you'd like to discuss? I already gave you the summary. Beyond that, what would you consider "evidence" that I could give you? > And the amazing Randy has nothing to do with that. I used that as a joke to show that your author is a bit of a kook, and I explicitly said it wasn't *actual evidence* that his data was wrong. It's merely a funny observation.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 18, 2020 16:46:33
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5qlnnp/

> I showed you data and you rejected it. With explicit cause that I shared, unlike you. > Earlier you showed me data and I rejected it too. Why am I refusing to except data but you're not? Because I gave good reason. When you "rejected" it, you merely stated that it was bad. You didn't give an argument or counter-evidence. > So explain to me why you can characterize me as rejecting data but I can't do the same for you? First, you *relied* on the very data you're rejecting, so it seems disingenuous to try to take both sides. Second, merely *stating* your disbelief is different from actually giving an argument. **I know you "reserved" your objection, but until you actually give your evidence, I consider it a mere belief.**

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 18, 2020 16:21:17
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5ql9is/

> I told you that that was your data that your people believe. And according to your data you were wrong. No, I wasn't. > I'm talking about your hypothetical which did accept the pause hypothetically of course. No, it didn't. > I'm defining pause as no appreciable global warming. This is meaningless. So you'd say fall "pauses" if there are a few days in a row with the same high temperature? Of course not. Don't be silly! > If global average temperatures didn't increase between 1998 in 2012 then that would be a pause. Global warming is a **process**, like the change of season is a **process** that has effects. The **process** didn't stop because of a few years (or a few days in the case of seasons) of natural variance. We can verify that because the trendline continued unabated after those years and wasn't appreciably affected! > Temporarily? You mean for 14 years? Yes, climate works on relatively long timeframes.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 18, 2020 16:18:28
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5qjqy6/

No. I just showed you why it's both wrong and insufficient. It's got nothing to do with belief. You may have missed my ninja edit: > In addition, using a set of a few local measurements is not sufficient to accurately determine the global sea level, since they are affected by various factors. You'd need hundreds (at least) in different locations over different times. He doesn't do that. In addition, his data is incongruent with all the other sea level data available. He's making an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence, yet his evidence doesn't even rise to "ordinary", since it is completely insufficient on its own. Can you give a better argument as to why you don't believe the satellite data?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 18, 2020 16:07:18
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5qj2hp/

OK, this ["water dowsing" believer](https://web.archive.org/web/20060927092030/http://www.randi.org/hotline/1998/0012.html) basically claims that the satellite data is just wrong (or manipulated), and trusts some coastal measurements as more accurate. (The fact that he believes in paranormal dowsing isn't exactly *proof* that he's a nutcase, but it's not helping his credibility.) [Here](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818105000780) is an article showing that his "measurements" were incorrect. In addition, using a set of a few local measurements is not sufficient to accurately determine the global sea level, since they are affected by various factors. You'd need *hundreds* (at least) in different locations over different times. He doesn't do that. And [here](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818106002049?via%3Dihub) is an article showing that his satellite claims are baseless. Next, please.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 18, 2020 16:02:25
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5pwkp2/

> It's not an argument to present data and when somebody disputes it say YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE DATA!? It's even less of an argument just to claim that you don't believe the data. At what point do you tell flat earthers that they're utterly deluded? How can you convince them with evidence when they think that evidence is all made up or fraudulent or maybe a thousand other reasons? Also, another big issue is that our discussion has been using the consensus data. Now you want to throw it away since your "pause" has been shown to be spurious. That seems disingenuous, too. It seems like a better idea to *agree on the data first*, then argue about the conclusions. Here's my (humorous) summary of the conversation so far: **You:** Look at this article. It shows that sea levels decelerated their climb at the same time as global air temperatures "paused". **Me:** OK, maybe the two are correlated, but neither "pause" is actually "real", since the trend has continued since that time range according to the data. **Me (later):** Actually, your article shows that it wasn't "really" decelerating anyway, because it doesn't take rain falling onto land into account, and shares a common cause with the (natural and accounted-for) "pause" in global average temperatures. **You:** BUT YOU ACCEPTED THE PAUSE AS REAL! **Me:** Huh? I don't know what you mean. I didn't do that. Anyway, let's talk about the data since then. **You:** NO! DON'T CHANGE SUBJECTS TO DATA! YOU ACCEPTED THE PAUSE AS REAL IN YOUR EXPLANATION! THIS IS SOME KIND OF GOTCHA THAT I CAN'T REALLY ARTICULATE, BUT IT FEELS LIKE A GOOD REASON TO GRANDSTAND INSTEAD OF DISCUSS THE ACTUAL DATA. **Me:** Not really. **You:** Plus the data isn't even correct! I don't believe it. Also, I have tons more articles where that one came from! **Me:** Jesus Christ... > by the way I have data that contradicts everything you're saying. Are you not to believe the data!?? I won't simply deny it; I'd show you why you're wrong if I wanted to actually make an argument. > THAT'S A DIFFERENT POINT You can't talk about two things simultaneously?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 18, 2020 12:56:56
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5pw8k8/

> You have no evidence of what the skeptics are doing regarding natural variability. Well, Thor caused the fall warm streak due to his hammer being brought down. Does it really matter *why* the skeptics demanded an "answer" about something that turned out to be a complete nothingburger? Go ahead and present your argument rather than beat a dead horse about how I'm accepting of a pause which I've never "accepted". Moreover, why would I even *get* to your argument if you deny that the Earth is actually warming now? > Your initial point that the sea level was not rising because of a pause had nothing to do with everything you're saying now. and AND I KNOW WAS HYPOTHETICAL your hypothetical point said nothing about La Niña My hypothetical only assumed they were **correlated**, and it turns out that it's probably true! If you're trying to say something like, "you asserted that the 'pause' in global air temp **directly** caused the 'slowdown' in global sea level and therefore you're wrong", then that's a disingenuous argument. I was speculating that they were correlated (which they very much appear to be) -- that is, they share an underlying cause. > I'm discussing your acceptance of the pause in the earlier comment. I don't know how many times you're going to beat this dead horse. I didn't "accept the pause" as "real", meaning "outside of the natural variance of the system".

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 18, 2020 12:54:26
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5pu3b2/

> If ipresent an article to other doctors and they disagree with it, do you think I start saying: "what! You don't believe the data? How dare you !" If they say, "I don't believe the data", then maybe you'd say that, right? That appears to be what you're doing -- simply denying that the data is real. Please clarify if you are asserting otherwise. > What is the relevance of the change in temperature since the last glacial period? Why do I have to answer that? It has nothing to do with why I don't believe in climate change. We started this thread because you asserted that a 1 degree change in global average temperature is trivial. I'm trying to help you understand that small changes in global average temperatures are *not* trivial. Maybe if you look up the delta, that would help you understand that.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 18, 2020 12:38:25
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5ptrzx/

> But now something happened which doesn't make sense to them so they have to explain it away. Not really. I think the skeptics demanded an answer to explain natural variability, and the scientists described one. Imagine if we didn't know about the jet stream, and season denialists started claiming that "FALL IS PAUSED!" and "EXPLAIN THIS SCIENTISTS!", even though we know that in the past, temporary warm streaks have occurred. > Your point earlier was that there was a pause that explains the sea level not rising. Please stop misrepresenting what I said. I said that the apparent (but not actual) decrease in sea level rising *could potentially be explained* by the apparent (but not "actual") "pause" in rising global temperatures. In fact, the two *do* appear to be correlated, and I explained to you already what common factor they share. (Cycles of La Nina.) > Again that pause is being denied today. By you included, if you go by the data. However, you appear to deny the very data itself, right? Again, see how you need to now deny the *very data* to explain your theory (that a global conspiracy is happening). On one hand, we have scientists giving an explanation for a natural occurrence that's not really unexpected, and on the other hand, we have people who deny that the data itself is real.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 18, 2020 12:36:01
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5pjm93/

> I’m OK with jet streams explaining momentary days of warming during winter. There’s nothing irrational about that. The thing is that the "pause" or "anomaly" or "plateau" wasn't even all that significant. However, there *was* a reasonable natural explanation for it, as given in the paper you pointed to. This **isn't even all that different from the 'jet stream' explanation**: > It has been suggested that this so-called global warming hiatus results from El Niño–Southern Oscillation- (ENSO-) related natural variability of the climate system and is tied to La Niña-related cooling of the equatorial Pacific surface. In effect, following the major El Niño of 1997/1998, the past decade has favoured La Niña episodes (that is, ENSO cold phases, reported as sometimes more frequent and more intensive than the warm El Niño events, a sign of ENSO asymmetry). The interannual (that is, detrended) GMSL record of the altimetry era seems to be closely related to ENSO, with positive/negative sea-level anomalies observed during El Niño/La Niña events. Recent studies have shown that the short-term fluctuations in the altimetry-based GMSL are mainly due to variations in global land water storage (mostly in the tropics), with a tendency for land water deficit (and temporary increase of the GMSL) during El Niño events and the opposite during La Niña. This directly results from rainfall excess over tropical oceans (mostly the Pacific Ocean) and rainfall deficit over land (mostly the tropics) during an El Niño event. The opposite situation prevails during La Niña. The succession of La Niña episodes during recent years has led to temporary negative anomalies of several millimetres in the GMSL (ref. 15), possibly causing the apparent reduction of the GMSL rate of the past decade. Basically, La Nina (do climate skeptics deny La Nina?) causes *both* global air temperatures to *temporarily* stop rising, and more rain to fall on the land rather than the ocean, which makes it *appear* that the sea level is slowing its increase, when, in fact, it's just temporary because the water has been [falling on land more than the ocean](https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id=PIA16294) during the La Nina periods. So if you define a "pause" as a temporary halt in the trend that's not unexpected or outside of natural variance, then it was a "pause" (this is how I was treating it and how they treated it in the article -- note their use of "so-called", "temporary", "apparent", and "variability"). But if you define a "pause" as something that's totally unexplainable or outside of the natural variance of the system, then it's absolutely not a "pause". (This is how I *think* you are treating it.) You now seem prepared to deny the very underlying data itself, though, so I'm afraid we'll not make any progress. That's a shame, because I like talking about the scientific evidence. If you'd rather talk about a global conspiracy, then I'll opt out.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 18, 2020 11:18:24
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5pfq7g/

> I don’t believe it. Now you're denying the data itself?! I'm afraid we'll have to end the conversation here if you don't even believe the actual data. By the way, you still haven't answered my question about change in temperature since the last glacial period. I assume, though, that you'll just dispute the data.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 18, 2020 10:45:36
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5pfj3r/

> At the time you entertained that there was I think we are not agreeing on what a "pause" actually "is". I never entertained the fact that there was a "real" pause (ie - one that's not explained by natural variance). I merely entertained the fact that the global temperatures didn't actually rise from 1998 to 2012, just like a warm streak in fall. > Because it’s more important for there not to be a pause. Again, there wasn't any *real* pause, but it's true that the measured temperatures didn't actually rise from 1998 to 2012. I'll ask you again: if there's a two-week warm streak in the fall, does that mean fall "paused"?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 18, 2020 10:43:54
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5pcsal/

> I never admitted anything of the sort. You [admitted it](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5nc00x/) for global average air temperature, at least: > I don't see a pause here. do you see a pause? > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg I thought, by not fighting my link that showed no pause in rising sea levels, you implicity admitted it. If not, I apologize for assuming that.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 18, 2020 10:19:35
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5pcjbk/

> So if there was no real pause then there should have been no real pause in sea level rising either. > > And there wasn't! > When a scientist tries to do that he’s called a denier instead. The difference is the amount of evidence, right? If all the evidence points to one explanation except for a very small amount, then "explaining" the tiny variance is acceptable. Of course, if it's unexplainable, then you have to modify the theory. However, if you end up having to explain a *ton* (basically all) of mismatching data, then you're a denialist. > The scientist have not been proven right. Look at the charts. Calculate the rise in sea levels yourself. > I’m discussing that entertaining. That entertaining made no sense. In light of What the rest of the climate change alarm us are claiming. You were trying to explain C levels by entertaining some thing that was way worse for the Global warming alarmists. You were entertaining something that would be much worse than lack of sea level rise. Lack of warming. No. I never "admitted" there was a lack of warming. At most, I "admitted" something along the lines of a week of warm temperatures in the fall. That is, I looked at the actual temperature data from 1998 to 2012, and saw that, if you **only look at those years** (ie - cherry pick them), then the temperature indeed does not appear to be rising, just like if you looked at the week of warm temperatures in the fall, you could see that the temperatures don't appear to be falling.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 18, 2020 10:17:21
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5pad96/

> but you're still accepting the fact that there is a slow down during a Time of allegedly increased warming No, I'm not. I was *entertaining the possibility of one*, but it turns out that it wasn't the case. > the dogma today is that not only was there no pause since 1998 but that we've experienced unprecedented warming since then. Which is it? It's both. They're not contradictory. Don't you see that? **There was no 'real' pause!** > This study stated there was a slowdown in sea level rise. funny how the explanations are never an issue when the data goes in the right direction. All they do is show a chart with sea level rising or temperature rising. But when it goes in the wrong direction we all of a sudden have to discuss explanations It didn't go "in the wrong direction". Again, the analogy to a few warm days in the fall is perfectly apt. If a "season denier" says, "**the past week has been warm! Explain that, seasonalist!!**", then the scientist may say that certain jet streams caused a temporary warming (or something like that). Moreover, **the climate scientists have been proven right by all the data since 2012**! I'm not sure why you're ignoring that? > and when discussing global warming admitting that there was a pause I never "admitted" there was an **actual** pause (ie - one that couldn't be explained by natural variance), and neither did climate scientists! You keep getting hung up on the concept of a "pause". Let me be clear: there was no *actual* pause. It was like a temporary warm streak in the fall. In other words, not an *actual* pause in seasons (or temperature change), only an *apparent* one. Do you understand? My assertion that the (apparent) slowdown in sea level rise could correspond to the (apparent) halt in rising global air temperatures doesn't mean I thought those (apparent) pauses were both **real and significant**. Do you understand? Another analogy: if you said, "jacket sales have slowed down in the past two weeks!", and I said, "well, maybe that could be explained by the fall warm-streak in the past week, but that doesn't mean winter isn't coming", that doesn't mean I am **accepting the fact that there was a real pause OR the fact that jacket sales have slowed**. If it turns out that either is untrue, that's doesn't mean I was "wrong". When looking at the actual data all the way to 2020, you can see that there's no pause in either global air temperature or sea level rise. You basically admitted that. Now you're just trying to have a "gotcha" with me where I "admit" that there was a real pause, when I never said that, and it's perfectly clear that there wasn't one.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 18, 2020 09:57:19
/r/Coronavirus/comments/iuwkn5/the_us_is_11_in_deathspercapita_and_51_in_case/g5p8tyq/

The correlation between state population density and deaths per capita is [relatively strong](https://i.imgur.com/PZ9UJTs.png). I haven't done the same thing with the county-level data, but I suspect it will be similar. The fact that New Jersey is the most densely populated state is likely relevant.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/Coronavirus on September 18, 2020 09:42:56
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5owcn3/

> First I sent you an article claiming that the sea level is not rising No, you sent a link to a climate skeptic site that misinterpreted an academic study. First, the study said that the raw data seemed to indicate that the sea levels were not rising *as quickly* as before. Second, it said that this *apparent* slowdown could be explained by other factors, which, when adjusted for, shows that it’s not actually slowing down. > And you said that was because of the pause. Am I getting anything wrong? Did you not start off by saying that? I didn’t read the actual study at the time and just read the cherry picked parts of it, and I *suggested* that it *could* coincide with the same period where global air temperatures did not rise (due to natural variability, not because the trend was broken or because there was a pause). I believe I said something like, “it seems to indicate they are linked”, which you didn’t contest. I never committed to that being **the actual** reason for what turned out to be not actually a pause at all. I was simply speculating. Let me give another example. Suppose a non supporter said, “what do you think of the fact that Trump said, ‘I like to shoot dogs in my spare time’?” And you said, “well, he’s probably joking. It’s perfectly explained if he’s joking, since he jokes a lot.” And then it turns out that he didn’t even say that quote. Would the non supporter then be entitled to say, “**you were wrong! He didn’t even say it!!! Shows how much you know!**”? I don’t think so. Anyway, it turns out that neither air temps nor sea levels have paused in their change. You already admitted as much about air temps, and now you ought to about sea levels, since I sent the additional clarification and evidence. Does that clear things up? Also, have you checked the temperature delta between now and the peak of the last glacial period?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 18, 2020 07:14:18
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5nug8o/

It didn’t really say that*, and the one I just sent you, which is more recent, shows that they definitely were. *It said “ We find that when correcting for interannual variability, the past decade’s slowdown of the global mean sea level disappears”. And the years 2015 to 2020 have proven that it wasn’t a “pause” or “slowdown” either, so it’s not like the paper’s “corrections” were unwarranted, which is what my second link was for. Is that helpful?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 17, 2020 22:21:29
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5nsgmg/

I just said they **are**. I’m not sure what’s unclear?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 17, 2020 22:03:07
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5nkxs5/

You may be happy to know that [there actually wasn’t a slowdown](https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3325). You can confirm [here](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level). Does that help?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 17, 2020 20:56:33
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5negor/

In a previous message, I thought I remember you accusing scientists of using different data for the 1998-2014 period, which corresponds better to the ocean data rather than air data. I could be wrong, though?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 17, 2020 19:56:25
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5ne4x9/

No, isn’t that the point? However, if you restrict that graph to only be from 1998 to 2012, it [appears that the temperature didn’t increase](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temperaturanstieg-vergleich-zwischen-ausschnitt-und-gesamtverlauf.gif). Wouldn’t you agree that it would be a spurious conclusion?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 17, 2020 19:53:17
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5nc880/

Because the trend line was clear and it turned out to not actually be anything but variance, which is fully expected? Exactly like a few warm days in the fall? I think you may be conflating the “pause” in global average air temperature with that of sea level, too.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 17, 2020 19:35:00
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5nb7ez/

> The pause has been going on since 1998. The “pause” seems to have ended in 2014 or thereabouts. Can you show me where 16 year “pauses” are not supposed to happen?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 17, 2020 19:25:17
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5n8k55/

Thanks. I don’t see where anyone says that these brief pauses are not “supposed” to occur. Can you give a source for that? In the “warm fall” analogy, surely some warm streaks are expected, right? And if it turns out that the “streak” didn’t even exist in the first place, that wouldn’t be contradictory, right?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 17, 2020 19:00:12
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5mk3j1/

> The pause is not supposed to exist. ... but there was not supposed to be a pause according to the IPCC. Can you define a "pause" mathematically and explain where the IPCC said there's not "supposed" to be one, and how this "pause" is outside of natural variance? Also, have you checked out the temp delta for the last glacial period?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 17, 2020 16:09:10
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/iuehj8/what_if_any_impact_has_this_sub_and_its_questions/g5lywxs/

> The facts (which naturally have a conservative bias anyway) Can you expand on what you mean by this? > I've collected a treasure trove of facts about our President Can you share any of these facts? > I would not know how deep his game goes as a leader. Would you consider his "depth" as a "leader" a fact, or is that your opinion?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 17, 2020 13:50:04
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/itw2j2/what_does_trump_mean_when_he_says_that_medicare/g5j9tng/

You didn’t answer my question. Why can’t private insurance cover everything the government doesn’t? I’m trying to understand your point, but I’m having trouble. Perhaps an example (even contrived) would help.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 16, 2020 21:09:06
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/itw2j2/what_does_trump_mean_when_he_says_that_medicare/g5j8x4e/

Assume some minimal oversight to combat fraud, like providers giving verifiable data on services provided and limits on certain services for patients that require approval for the government to pay. Why can’t private insurance coexist peacefully?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 16, 2020 21:00:32
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/itw2j2/what_does_trump_mean_when_he_says_that_medicare/g5j7y8p/

> It's a zero-sum game because you can't arbitrarily increase healthcare supply. Can you expand on your thoughts here? What’s to stop the government saying they’ll pay for all (insert set of standard, evidence-based procedures) and letting the free market handle the rest?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 16, 2020 20:51:34
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/itw2j2/what_does_trump_mean_when_he_says_that_medicare/g5j705m/

> Anyone who's qualified, yes. So all private insurances will *pay* for it, too, guaranteed? Or do you mean people can *access* those doctors/procedures? > For the most part, no, it doesn't. If I want surgery in, say, the UK I can't just go out and hire a doctor to do it. Do you think that’s an *inherent* part of government healthcare? It would be impossible not to have this as a part of our system?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 16, 2020 20:42:40
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/itw2j2/what_does_trump_mean_when_he_says_that_medicare/g5ix6d5/

So literally any government medical system would result in a situation like this? Can you elaborate on why?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 16, 2020 19:11:02
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/itw2j2/what_does_trump_mean_when_he_says_that_medicare/g5iwlhb/

> The UK govt wasn't having any of it even though it would cost them nothing. Is this an *inherent* part of any government medicine system?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 16, 2020 19:05:37
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/itw2j2/what_does_trump_mean_when_he_says_that_medicare/g5iv73g/

> There are tens of thousands of doctors capable of any given treatment, so I don't think this (or them saying no) is a serious problem. Are you under the impression that any doctor will do any treatment under private insurance? > Socialized medicine does away with the private sector. Are you aware that private insurance exists in countries with government healthcare?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 16, 2020 18:52:39
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/itghcj/how_do_you_feel_about_scientific_american/g5iikfg/

Do you still want to save it even though it’s incredibly misleading?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 16, 2020 17:17:13
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/itw2j2/what_does_trump_mean_when_he_says_that_medicare/g5iidgq/

> and no one can tell you no. Other than the doctors who say “no” to you? Do you just mean you’re free to find a plan that covers the doctor you want to see / treatment you want? What if you only have one or two options in the private sector? Why can’t private insurance exist in addition to medicare for all?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 16, 2020 17:15:56
/r/btc/comments/itx7r6/dont_forget_we_have_bitcoin_unlimited_and_other/g5ifmrk/

The cancer spreads, I see. > And even if this wasn't the case a node operator could use invalidateblock/reconsiderblock to make BU (or BCHN for that matter) follow whatever chain he deems valid. Right, which is why I specifically said “manual intervention”.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on September 16, 2020 16:57:57
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/itghcj/how_do_you_feel_about_scientific_american/g5hktdy/

> Wow why isn’t this the top comment. Could it be that the numbers are used very disingenuously? For instance, the "$90 trillion" includes $36 trillion for universal health care. It's also one estimate by a conservative source. Also, the "$1.5 trillion problem" isn't a one-time deal, so comparing those two numbers is pretty misleading. What do you think?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 16, 2020 13:01:17
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/itghcj/how_do_you_feel_about_scientific_american/g5hkin0/

> I take it you consider spending $50-90 trillion (total US GDP is $21 trillion for context) I take it you consider the $50-90 trillion **directly** on addressing climate change, right? There's no part of that $90 trillion that is for, say, universal health care? Since you wouldn't want to compare apples and oranges, right? > TS aren't anti-science, they're pro-math. Isn't math "math" only when it actually compares relevant numbers? > Is it more logical to spend a) $90 trillion (4.5x the US GDP) on a possible problem now or b) $1.5 trillion in 80 years? So the $1.5 trillion is a one-time cost for just that one year?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 16, 2020 12:58:55
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5hai1o/

I'm saying anyone could claim a "pause" by picking a very small interval on the data set, just like anyone could claim that fall "paused" by picking a few warm days (or days where the temperature increased) in the data. For instance, did fall "pause" in [NYC last October](https://www.wunderground.com/history/monthly/us/ny/new-york-city/KLGA/date/2019-10) from the 5th to the 14th? After all, the temperatures actually went **up** in that interval! The important thing is the trendline, right? Anyway, can we get back to the data and evidence? Have you found out what the temperature delta between now and the peak of the last glacial period is?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 16, 2020 11:37:58
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5h9b5e/

> Don’t you wanna understand what I’m saying or believe? Yes, I'm trying to understand what you mean by "pauses". > What’s up with the accusations of cherry picking? I said you *could* cherry pick the temperature data to find "pauses". ("You're free to")

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 16, 2020 11:28:08
/r/btc/comments/itx7r6/dont_forget_we_have_bitcoin_unlimited_and_other/g5h8lpd/

> All of these nodes except ABC will be compatible with the November upgrade. BCHN and BU aren't *fully* compatible, as BCHN has automatic finalization (the rolling "checkpoints") and BU doesn't (AFAIK) Edit: as pointed out, BU now does (or will) implement the automated finalization, so this no longer applies to them. In some circumstances, they may not end up on the same chain without manual intervention. I don't know whether or not the other node implementations have auto-finalization.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on September 16, 2020 11:22:22
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5h7fre/

I'm assuming the [one from 1998 to 2012](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus), but you're free to cherry-pick any brief (ie - less than ~30 year) interval to find "pauses". Again, how is this different from saying "fall *paused* because the past 6 days have been pretty summer-like"? And you continue to ignore my question. Would you like me to just tell you what the difference was?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 16, 2020 11:12:35
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5h4j66/

> So what? Did I say there was no connection? No, but I'm not sure what your point is otherwise. The theme I've been getting from you is that small* changes in global temperature averages are inconsequential. Sea levels being connected seems not inconsequential, no? *you haven't really quantified what you'd consider a small change > I've no idea why this variance affects the overall deceleration in sea level rise since 2002 which contradicts everything your hearing regarding sea level. Huh? It's explained perfectly. If global temperatures "pause" going up for a few years (normal variance -- like a couple warm days in fall), then you'd expect that global sea levels would *slow* their increase, right? That is, at least temporarily. Which is exactly what we see if we look at the data that comes after the paper you linked. Both [global average temperatures](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature) *and* [global mean sea level](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level) have resumed their climbs. > No. Why? Again, your whole premise seems to be that a one degree change in global average temperature is (obviously?) trivial, because the Earth has (local) temperature swings of 30-40 degrees every night. I'm trying to help you see that a small change in global average temperature is anything but inconsequential. So I'll ask again, what do you think the difference in global average temperature is between recent times and the peak of the last glacial period, where Boston was covered in a mile of ice?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 16, 2020 10:47:54
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5gkkhh/

This seems to show that global average temperature and sea level are connected, no? Also, since the earth has *some* natural variance in global average temperature (ie - it’s not **exactly** the same average each year), one wouldn’t expect it to monotonically increase perfectly, right? Like, when summer turns to fall, every day isn’t colder than the last. Sometimes you get a string of warmer days. That doesn’t mean fall isn’t coming. Have you looked up the difference in temperature from now to the height of the last glacial period?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 16, 2020 07:05:43
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/ipk8rv/what_are_your_thoughts_on_trump_privately_calling/g5emvcr/

> They dont have to ALL be waering masks. Only to wear them more. You may be interested in [this](https://www.ft.com/content/4e3e3e31-87ed-4631-af62-c649efb854ed): > National and regional officials largely blame the speed of the virus’s resurgence on uncontrolled groups of youths drinking and socialising — as well as gatherings of family members . > That opening schools for kids up unti l15-16 would be ok?right? Make it 12 rather than 15-16, and I’d be ok probably. Puberty seems to be the driving force. > Culture my fucking ass. Its something in the way the countries have managed themselves. For exmaple in EE most old people have homes of their own. While the US, Spain and other rich EUcountries have retirement homes. In the US abotu 30% of all deaths are in retirement homes. Maybe the nesting of old people is hwy this happens? You realize you’re describing cultural differences, right?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 15, 2020 17:39:46
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5ejfo3/

Why don’t we start with easier and more straightforward questions. What do you think the difference in global average temperature was during the peak of the last glacial period compared to now? Are sea levels currently rising and if so, why?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 15, 2020 17:13:13
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5eilrt/

On what? Sea levels rising? Antarctic ice loss? Global average temperatures in the last glacial period?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 15, 2020 17:07:28
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5ehmxs/

> Because the science is on my side. Would you like to discuss the science? You seem to be ignoring the evidence I've brought up in my [comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5dkxom/). Right now, it seems to me that your "science" is simply disbelieving that a > 1 degree change in global average temperature can have significant ramifications combined with accusations of academic fraud. Is there more actual science you'd like to discuss?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 15, 2020 17:00:47
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/ipk8rv/what_are_your_thoughts_on_trump_privately_calling/g5egsb1/

> If you go around Europe will meet all kind of different outcomes despite similar measures. Just saying it doesn't make it so, right? > People in Spain still walk with masks outside. AND THEY DID WORSE THAN ALL OF THE WORLD. So *all* people in Spain social distance and wear masks? Do you have any statistics on *actual* compliance? > yeah thats the SOCIOLOGIST answer: meaning I have no proof this did happen but I allege it happened because i am out of arguments. How about [this](https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Food/dining-restaurants-linked-increased-covid-19-transmission-cdc/story?id=72945843) evidence? > In sweden schools are open for kids up until 16yo. Sure, and kids (especially < 13) don't appear to transmit it as much as adults. > In sweden masks are not mandatory. In sweden NO businesses were closed outside of I think MMA/grapling classes?They had some mild limitations. And we see the great result. The great result is that their case rate and death rate was greater than their neighboring countries with very similar demographics and culture? > While at the same time countries that Still have mandatory mask orders like Spain are seeing resurgence Again, you're ignoring the fact that Spain had more severe restrictions, then recently lifted them and haven't re-established them. This would perfectly explain the pattern, right?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 15, 2020 16:55:00
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5dkxom/

> temperature does not. My point was that a small change in an *average* can have bad effects on the *whole organism* that mere daily fluctuation doesn't affect. The ocean is a giant heatsink, and the increase in the *ocean's* temperature has been a large driver of Antarctic ice loss. Further, the [process](https://www.stockholmresilience.org/images/18.55ead82716e7faa929d326/1574869072357/TP_1920.gif) just gets worse over time, since the melting ice makes the sea level rise, which, in turn, will melt *even more* ground-ice. And as the ocean's average temperature increases, the sea level rises *by itself* (ie - even in the absence of glacier melting) due to thermal expansion. Do you disagree with that? Your main point seems to be that 1 degree is so small as to be trivial. However, consider the end of the [last glacial period](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Period). How much colder (in degrees) was it back then (say 20,000 years ago) compared to now, on average? Keep in mind that Boston, MA was covered in about a **mile of ice**.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 15, 2020 13:18:54
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5df9lk/

> 1 degree is not 30 But why are you trying to compare those values? Maybe this analogy will help: some days I eat 1000 calories, some days I eat 5000. However, if my *average* caloric intake increases over a significant time period, I'm going to get fat and have potential health problems, because the body is a complicated machine, which can tolerate day-to-day variance quite well, but will eventually have negative outcomes if the *balance* is thrown off. > That's the debunked hockey stick You *yourself* admit that there's a 1 degree increase in the past century. Is your problem with it that it just doesn't accurately reflect past temperatures? I'll note that, even in the 'correct' chart you linked, the change in temperature didn't reach 1 degree over a century.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 15, 2020 12:40:47
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5dczvs/

> the earths temp changes in the course of a day 30 or 40 or more degress I'm not sure what conclusions you're trying to draw from this "observation". Do you think, therefore, that it wouldn't be a big deal if the Earth had an average temperature increase of 30 degrees over the past century? I'm having trouble following your logic. > Medieval Warm Period I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Do you think this period represented a greater than 1 degree increase of Earth's average annual temperature over a century? Can you point out in [this graph](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/2000%2B_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg) what you're talking about, please?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 15, 2020 12:25:40
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/it285v/trump_has_said_itll_start_getting_cooler_what_are/g5dae61/

> 1° average increase over a century is a trivial increase and I do not believe it causes any problems whatsoever. What do you base that belief on? Simply the fact that it feels like a small number? Also, do you have any other examples in our recent (~20,000 year) history of average temperatures changing that much in under a century?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 15, 2020 12:07:10
/r/btc/comments/ir7t6y/amidst_all_the_drama_trolling_shilling_and_other/g4y8aqg/

Citation needed, especially since BCH *didn't* have it for about the first 15 months of its existence, and I was around a lot back then (performing a public service for the benefit of BCH -- short memories here, apparently). In fact, the fear-mongering of an imminent 51% attack is why it was added. It's okay, though, with the amount of hate stoked by you and your fellows toward me, people will believe anything.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on September 12, 2020 13:27:30
/r/btc/comments/ir7t6y/amidst_all_the_drama_trolling_shilling_and_other/g4x7kx9/

> but simply follow the longest chain. * Exclusions apply. Ask your doctor if automated rolling ‘checkpoints’ are right for you.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on September 12, 2020 08:01:09
/r/btc/comments/iqu903/the_same_user_who_got_bitcoinxio_banned_also/g4x7dou/

Notice his shift into full conspiracy theory mode. Now it’s totally unfalsifiable. Even if I doxxed myself, it wouldn’t make a difference, because I’d just be one operative among many. In fact, no matter what I’ve done or will do (in terms of helping BCH), they will all be categorized as “building goodwill to infiltrate further”. Meanwhile, he can’t point to anything I’ve done to actually *harm* BCH, other than his perfectly accurate brain (ie - his imagination). Honestly, the guy is so unhinged that, were my identity actually known, I’d probably be anxious about my safety. I’m his “mortal enemy”. Wtf?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on September 12, 2020 07:58:08
/r/btc/comments/iqu903/the_same_user_who_got_bitcoinxio_banned_also/g4vyps0/

Now it’s down to 2. So it **must** be those downvote bots you deployed. Case closed. Ya downvote bot owner.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on September 11, 2020 21:28:32
/r/btc/comments/iqu903/the_same_user_who_got_bitcoinxio_banned_also/g4vw1j7/

Lol, it’s unimaginable to you that, even in this cesspool, a couple people could still see something is true and correct?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on September 11, 2020 21:02:08
/r/btc/comments/iqs7t1/ubitcoinxio_has_been_permanently_banned_from/g4vgbec/

You may have the last word.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on September 11, 2020 18:28:11
/r/btc/comments/iqs7t1/ubitcoinxio_has_been_permanently_banned_from/g4vfz5g/

Oh, jeez, just realized you're an [anti-vax nutcase](https://reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/i3zf2b/im_not_antivax_but_once_this_vaccine_comes_out_i/g0gjy72/) like Herman. Funny that you guys all seem to think I'm Greg.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on September 11, 2020 18:25:02
/r/btc/comments/iqs7t1/ubitcoinxio_has_been_permanently_banned_from/g4vfdro/

I'll take your word for it.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on September 11, 2020 18:19:25
/r/btc/comments/iqu903/the_same_user_who_got_bitcoinxio_banned_also/g4vf49u/

> diluting The word you want is "deluding".

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on September 11, 2020 18:16:56
/r/btc/comments/iqs7t1/ubitcoinxio_has_been_permanently_banned_from/g4vewx6/

There it is. Undeniable proof.^^^Of your ineptitude.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on September 11, 2020 18:15:02
/r/btc/comments/iqs7t1/ubitcoinxio_has_been_permanently_banned_from/g4varx7/

Hmmm.. so rather than give actual evidence, you gave a mix of conspiracy theories, circular reasoning, and baseless ‘suspicion’. Yup, checks out. You’ll be upvoted for it. :)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on September 11, 2020 17:43:13
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/iqq0vm/what_is_your_attitude_on_president_trumps_flaws/g4vag7h/

Sure, but my assertion was that the right is at least as susceptible to that behavior. You still think that’s untrue?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 11, 2020 17:40:50
/r/btc/comments/iqs7t1/ubitcoinxio_has_been_permanently_banned_from/g4v5veb/

> We all know who you are. Source please.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on September 11, 2020 17:07:16
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/iqq0vm/what_is_your_attitude_on_president_trumps_flaws/g4v5qe2/

It’s arguable whether it’s actually a ‘data point’, since it’s just an assertion of how you perceive it, but I digress. If provided evidence (of similar nature to what you’ve given here) of hypocrisy among Trump supporters on different positions, would you change your mind? Or do you think you’d try to excuse anything I came up with?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 11, 2020 17:06:14
/r/btc/comments/iqs7t1/ubitcoinxio_has_been_permanently_banned_from/g4v51t3/

> Hi Greg Source please.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on September 11, 2020 17:01:24
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/iqq0vm/what_is_your_attitude_on_president_trumps_flaws/g4v4s1f/

> That's the near uniform reasoning given. And you think that is good evidence that people who don’t like Trump act like lemmings? Follow-up, if I provided evidence of hypocrisy among Trump supporters on different positions, would you change your mind?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 11, 2020 16:59:12
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/iqq0vm/what_is_your_attitude_on_president_trumps_flaws/g4v1n1y/

> That's what I'd say is a likely misunderstanding. What's a misunderstanding? > As a opposed to a spoken stance about abiding by the lockdown, then a spoken stance of support for protests that break the lockdown rules. First, do you think *everyone* who doesn't like Trump thinks that protests that violate the lockdown are okay? Second, do you think it's possible that people could be in favor of lockdowns *generally*, but think that there could be certain things that can override it at times, and this might be one of those things?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 11, 2020 16:36:01
/r/btc/comments/iqs7t1/ubitcoinxio_has_been_permanently_banned_from/g4v135n/

It's probably [this](https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/87t3ot/delicious_proof_that_roger_employs_sockpuppets/), which is not the same person.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on September 11, 2020 16:31:36
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/iqq0vm/what_is_your_attitude_on_president_trumps_flaws/g4v00oy/

Maybe not, but that doesn't mean those who *did* believe it weren't acting in group-think -- it was just a smaller group. Trump never actually presented *evidence* that birtherism was a ridiculous conspiracy theory. He just said it was over, and then suddenly birtherism was over. According to you, that's evidence of groupthink: "If they change their opinion on a topic and all take a hypocritical view at the same time over the same time period" Right? Or have I misunderstood something?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on September 11, 2020 16:23:18
Top