Reddit User Account Overview


Redditor Since May 30, 2020 (72 days old)
Karma Posts: 1 Comments: -100 Combined: -99
Active in

Long time Vanced user here, never had any issues before. I have searched this sub, google and FAQs, tried many different things out and I just cannot get it to install. I'm stuck at the "Your device is contacting google to save information to your account, this may take a coupe of minutes." I always wait 10+ minutes for this message to disappear. **My device specifics;** * Odroid C4 * Android 9.0 * Non-Root * Google Play downloaded from []( "micro" version **Things I've already tried/other info;** * correct & latest non-root version of vanced downloaded, also tried an older version of vanced with appropriate version of MicroG * MicroG always installed first * Installed MicroG the normal way, then Vanced through SAI * Installed both MicroG and Vanced trhough SAI * Tried uninstalling everything, wiping all app caches and data and again using CCleaner, rebooting the device and starting fresh * Disabled power optimization for both MicroG and vanced * Vanced does allow me to stream videos correctly, I just cannot add YT account into the app * I'm signed into Google Play just fine The only thing I haven't tried is another version of Google Play from opengapps. Apparently, my device supports the micro, nano and pico versions of Google Play. Could this be it? Any help would be greatly appreciated! I really want to get vanced working on this device!

posted by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/Vanced on June 2, 2020 08:47:49

Yet more drivel copy/pasted directly from the bch propaganda handbook.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 10, 2020 05:54:15

>BTC would not be where it is today were it not for marketing and promotion by guys like Roger Ver. Rubbish. Bitcoin would be doing just the same as it is today without people like ver. In fact, by this point, very had done far, far more damage than good. Bitcoin doesn't need ver, very needed Bitcoin and now he uses that vast wealth in order to try and destroy the very thing that afforded it to him today. Disgusting behavior. >Unfortunately BTC continues to ride on the coat tails no, any altcoin that uses the Bitcoin name is doing exactly that. >when it actually functioned as intended. It functions precisely as intended today and much better than it did 11 years ago. That's a fact. The network is far more secure today too. >In their hostile takeover, Blockstream deceptively kept the Bitcoin branding for their own betterment. There was no hostile takeover. There was an attempt but it failed. Look at the bch price chart over 3 years. It's a catastrophe. None of this makes sense to rationally minded people. Blockstream owns Bitcoin but still took 2+ years to get segwit activated ...? Blockstream owns Bitcoin but it will likely get another 1-2 years to get taproot activated...? There are proponents of a blocksize decrease within Blockstream but for some reason they can't just get that change passed, despite taking over the entire project. Just another small minded simpleton that bought the blatent bch propaganda.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 10, 2020 04:59:21

When will this idiot learn that something that is supposed to be decentralized simply cannot have marketing.. Who decides the message to be portrayed? Who decides on the logo/imagery? Does this necessarily represent the views of the community as a whole? Altcoins basically operate like companies. If bch had any real network effect, **it simply wouldn't need any marketing - like Bitcoin.**

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 10, 2020 03:39:57

I never said that they did... 🤷‍♂️

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 8, 2020 14:33:52

You appear to be suffering from delusions of grandeur. You are a nothing and a nobody. I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to explain anything to you, at all. There are no requirements as to ones post history in order to be able to post in this sub. **Now grow up, get a life and stop stalking me online.**

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 8, 2020 14:23:54

You're a known online stalker and retard. >They aren't arguing in good faith. You guys say this to anybody that hasn't drank the bch cool aid.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 8, 2020 14:09:49

You're a known online stalker and retard. >They aren't arguing in good faith. You guys say this to anybody that hasn't drank the bch cool aid.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 8, 2020 13:53:09

And I'm sure that there is not one single person who gives a fuck.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 8, 2020 13:41:34

>If we have a friendly split, then the community, reddit, infrastructure developers and investors will not be forced to choose sides. You appear to be under the delusion that you have freedom of choice within the bch project. You don't. The blocksize increase from 8 to 32MB was mandatory, not optional. The 6 month hardforks are mandatory, not optional. If/when the current network splits, you *will* need to choose a side, it's not optional. Welcome to your centralized, vulnerable & minority hashrate altcoin.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 8, 2020 09:03:14

The whole project does. The very same individuals that used to mock me for justifying smaller blocks by indicating that's the best way to allow the maximum amount of people to run a full node - are now all scrambling to run a full node for themselves to defend whichever side of the network they're on. Hilarious. Fortunately, bch saw almost 0 demand, usage and adoption, otherwise they'd all be struggling to download a multi-terabyte blockchain on expensive hardware right now. You guys didn't need to learn the hard way. You could have just listened.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 8, 2020 08:53:05

Defi has been hacked 6 times this year alone though.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 8, 2020 08:10:05

Ha, it does actually serve to increase the average fee metric though.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/Bitcoin on August 8, 2020 05:40:29

How do you mistakenly pay $850 for a service that others are currently paying $2-$5 for?

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/Bitcoin on August 7, 2020 13:31:30

6 dapps within defi have been hacked this year alone. I haven't said it's something tangible.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 7, 2020 06:06:43

You really are this forum's leading moron. Congratulations.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 6, 2020 19:42:32

Ok, it's just going round and round in circles now.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 6, 2020 19:31:32

>They're a known shill account You're a known online stalker.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 6, 2020 18:38:16

Sure, we can make those broad statements regarding personal risk acceptance. My main contention is that eth is constantly hacked in this way ( almost once a month in 2020 ) and it appears to be getting a free pass on this.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 6, 2020 18:28:17

>Is Lightning Network and any funds that are lost there due to hacks, thefts, user error, bugs or internet/power outage also losses within the Bitcoin Protocol? I'm not aware of any. I recall one situation whereby somebody some Bitcoin held within LN channels due to blatent misuse of the software. They were warned not to restore old channel states but did so and therefore inadvertently appeared as though they were trying to cheat from their peers' perspective. As far as user error goes, you'll lose on chain funds that way also. >Would a successful RBF double spend count as Bitcoin Protocol loss No, that would be using the software as it's designed to be used. Unconfirmed transactions are not final and should not be considered so. You'll wait for at least 1 confirmation whist spending your Bitcoin with merchants today. 6+ confirmations is generally considered final. Furthermore, I'll point out that, in the last 30 days, there have been [1064 successful]( double spends on the bch chain. Almost 1/3 of all double spend attempts on bch in the last 30 days were successful. >or do a hypothetical successful 51% mining attack count as Bitcoin Protocol loss? Yes. What's your point? This applies to all pow blockchains. >In crypto funds gets lost all around independent of protocol due to user error, technical error, malware, randsomware, and the majority of the people that actually buy cryptocurrency as an speculative investment have no idea what it actually is, how it actually works or where the price comes from. This has nothing to do with the defi hacks we're discussing.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 6, 2020 17:56:03

>The same is true for anything that is built on top of ETH that crashes and burns. Anyone that says that it is the fault of ETH is fundamentally conflating the platform with what is built on top of it. I disagree with this. The lost defi funds were ultimately within the eth protocol which allowed and facilitated the risky behaviour/buggy contract. Bitcoin stolen from exchanges are not actually Bitcoin, they're a database entry, an iou. They're absolutely nothing to do with the Bitcoin protocol whatsoever. What's more, altcoin proponents often mock Bitcoin as being 'dinosaur tech' and lacking the richer functionality that eth provides.. Well, Bitcoin is wasn't effectively hacked 6 times this year. If this happened wit Bitcoin, it would be catastrophic. With eth however, it's business as usual at this point.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 6, 2020 17:03:07

>First point is that DeFi hacks do not reflect on the ETH protocol itself Bit it is all that eth proponents seem to talk about these days. It's where all the hype is (for now) >In 2018 a inflation bug was discovered in Bitcoin that was not exploited, but had it been exploited and Bitcoins had been stolen through double spending the aftermath would be that Bitcoin was a bit safer after that exploit than before because that exploit would have then been fixed and there would be additional vigilance against inflation bugs in the future both in testing and potentially as something that exchanges look out for. I agree that bug finding is positive, it's just that it seems to actually cost DeFi investors hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars each time it happens. There have been 6 Defi hacks this year alone. I'm not sure why eth gets a free pass on this front. If this was happening with Bitcoin, it would be savagely mocked by every single alt team going, especially bch and bsv.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 6, 2020 15:33:18

Perhaps check your setup or try another wallet. I've been using BLW for about 2 years and LND for about 1 year and the experience is always improving.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/lightningnetwork on August 6, 2020 14:45:09

>It was not someone breaking into the ETH protocol and stealing ETH. And? I didnt say that. From the linked article; >A bug in Defi's protocol Opyn allowed hackers to escape with 370,000 USDC.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 6, 2020 14:34:41

No it isn't. I said it was yet another DeFi hack and it is. From the linked article; >A bug in Defi's protocol Opyn allowed hackers to escape with 370,000 USDC. And most notable; >This marks the sixth DeFi hack in 2020 alone. A bug in Defi's protocol Opyn allowed hackers to escape with 370,000 USDC.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 6, 2020 14:03:52

As the creator, I'd say he deserves it.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 6, 2020 13:27:11

>Problem with LN is that's it's like locking money in to a gift card. It isn't like that. Someone could make the argument that you're locking Bitcoin into a particular utxo on chain. >I mean imagine paying people's wages over LN, it's not even possible Well to start, its intended usecase is micro transactions. Wages wouldn't qualify for this. However, it would really depend on the amount and frequency of your wage payments. >Or giving tips on reddit You can absolutely do this with no issue. >And so much more functionally that BCH has but Bitcoin lost and LN is not bringing it back. This is false. >But I don't mind LN. I open lots of channel with random idiots and then push all the BTC to their side when I buy BCH on an exchange that does LN. Then I try to steal the BTC back and 25% of the time they are not properly monitoring the network and I get my BTC back. And when people complain about it on Bitcoin related forums they just get censored. Lol. Oh, you're an idiot... I was responding to this as of it was a serious comment.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 6, 2020 12:30:01

So if the Bitcoin protocol was somehow hacked tomorrow and thousands of Bitcoin were lost, you'd say the exact same thing?

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 6, 2020 11:45:50

These LN transactions generally occur in 3-5 seconds as you can see from the video. >second layer vapor ware You're watching it in action. The code, while still technically in beta, is production ready and has been for at least a year now. How exactly is it vaporware?

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 6, 2020 11:24:39

Another day, another [DeFi hack.](

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 6, 2020 11:14:35

I see, so you can run code from 3 years ago and it will sync to the bch chain just fine then?

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 5, 2020 08:54:29

But all bch nodes incur a mandatory hard fork every 6 months. They aren't optional.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 5, 2020 08:42:16

Got a TX through today at 3 sat/byte (LN channel opening) For lower fees there's; *the Lightning Network *transaction batching *utxo consolidation when the mempool is quiet *pay a lower fee if the transaction is not urgent It's up to you. We're not just raising the blocksize for some people who want free transactions though. >Its $5 now, It makes payments which are less than $500 impractical. Not impractical if its the only way you can transfer the funds. It makes it more expensive than alts, that's about it.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/Bitcoin on August 5, 2020 08:05:30

>next scheduled upgrade? next **mandatory** upgrade.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 5, 2020 07:56:35

However, they may care in the future. People who aren't yet born may be interested in running their own node also. According to the free market, many don't appear to care about free transactions.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/Bitcoin on August 5, 2020 05:42:35

Well you just said it there so I guess that makes your statement 100% true by default.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 5, 2020 00:30:59

Deals and contracts have no place inside a decentralized system.. Nor do self-appointed leaders, roger. What if the deal turns sour, what are you going to do, sue them? After all this time, **you still just don't get it.**

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 5, 2020 00:17:14

I'd guess it was about 1 year ago. The link you provided is exactly what they should have provided. Either support are incompetent or that webpage didn't exist when I asked for it.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/Bitcoin on August 5, 2020 00:08:12

Unfortunately not. I'd guess this was about 1 year ago. Thinking about it now, I probably should have made a post here to warn people.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/Bitcoin on August 4, 2020 15:30:10

I don't anymore, this was probably a year ago and you'd still meed to use their software to install the coin apps you want to use.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/Bitcoin on August 4, 2020 13:20:41

>I would prefer a small block increase to help facilitate lightning adoption We already had one just 3 years ago. That's the issue, just another small increase, then another. **It's not a scaling plan.** >If u have to wait three weeks and spend a year's salary to use lightning network because I'm in Venezuela, then bitcoin isn't money for all. It's funny. The poorest can always seem to be able to afford a mobile phone with data plan but the last $1 to open a LN channel is the final straw.. >Enough of that garbage. These tired old arguments are the garbage. We've heard it all before.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/Bitcoin on August 4, 2020 13:18:19

Ha, while I don't have anything in particular against the French, I can tell you that the Trezor model T is by far the best hardware wallet I've ever used. I've never tried a ColdCard though admittedly.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/Bitcoin on August 4, 2020 12:40:23

Fuck Ledger. I emailed them once and asked where the signed file hash/PGP sig file was for their Ledger Live software (I think that's what its called) for verification purposes. They responded and said that I can "just trust any software that I download from their website." They're technically illiterate.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/Bitcoin on August 4, 2020 12:12:04

I'd likely start by booting into Linux and connecting up the drives. Then search for "wallet.dat" "electrum" "bitcoin" - and any other obvious search terms. Look for evidence of any installations of the most popular wallets from around that time. Might be an idea to clone all of the drives first before working on them in case they fail shortly after starting your project. As for the notebooks with the confusing text, you'll likely have to consider hiring a professional/hobbyist cryptographer who may be able to help. **Don't post pictures of those anywhere online.**

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/Bitcoin on August 4, 2020 10:57:48

I didn't omit the fact though, it's obvious and a given. So pay a smaller fee to open your channel and wait then. You can't pay the lowest fee and jump to the front of the queue in this life. Even with the mempool invite current state, I still managed to pay just 2.1 sat/byte for an on chain transaction yesterday. Theres a massive difference between having to pay $1 to open a LN channel (that may facilitate hundreds or thousands of transactions) and paying $1000 for a gaming PC to download massive full blocks, not to mention the electricity and high bandwidth internet connection costs. If you've got a better idea (that hasn't already been disgussed or has already failed like bch & bsv), post it. Upload code to github. All I seem to hear from people like you is, "I want want want, now now now free free free."

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/Bitcoin on August 4, 2020 10:47:35

>Transactions are not p2p. They are p2 ledger 2p. This. The Lightning Network facilities true p2p transactions. On chain transactions are not p2p.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/Bitcoin on August 4, 2020 09:59:40

>What I don't understand is, why do we need to run our nodes on this tiny weak computers? Obviously, the cost. For many, it's all they can afford.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/Bitcoin on August 4, 2020 09:00:06

I really wish you could see how retarded you sound from an outsider perspective.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 4, 2020 08:56:13

>They can if they want to No, they can't. They'd require overwhelming community support and >95% of the hashrate (assuming BIP9 activation method). They don't own or control these things. >people are more-or-less economically forced to participate, We're forced to scale the tech like this to keep it decentralized, first and foremost. >and this gives Core's "sponsors" a good stream of income, especially if LN is getting a lot of traffic. This is false, the vast majority of nodes are run by non-corporate entities or hobbyists. Mine is one of them. >You don't think they've tried to build that narrative? Luke Jr has already discussed the possibility of decreasing, and soft-forking the blocksize down to 450 KB, and Adam Back has also openly talked about how 1 MB is already too much. No. They're entitled to their own opinion. Actually, as far as network decentralization goes, Luke Dash has a valid point although I do not expect we'd ever gain community consensus for a blocksize decrease, especially to that degree. Actually, the Bitcoin network could have ran just fine with a smaller blocksize for the 2.5 years since the last market peak. Up until 10 days ago, all of my on chain transactions carried just a 1 sat/byte fee. That said, the mempool will likely clear out again, perhaps within a few days and we'll be back to "normal" again. Empty blocks are not good for chain security. bch proponents particularly should be aware of that. It doesn't make sense that they're trying to build a narrative to decrease the blocksize, but then backed a blocksize increase already. This tells you that at least one Core proponent absolutely didn't get his way... but they do control the network apparently ... do you see how stupid that mindset is now? >they wanted to hard-fork down to 100 KB, it would result in a split in the community, which would mean less potential customers, AND less profit. Which makes them.unlikely to want to do that.. You've just debunked yourself.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 4, 2020 07:49:06

>they already did arbitrarily cap the blocksize No, they didn't. You appear to have blindly bought the lies and propaganda that are posted here daily. Core were pro Segwit which the community, along with >95% of the hashrate voluntarily chose to activate. Segwit of a blocksize increase = Core backed a blocksize increase. >as for why don't they change it to 100kb? It would expose their scam instantly, instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt. It would get massive PR backlash and probably wouldn't get supported by miners. Pathetic. So they want to destroy it and.could easily do so as their sole purpose but....meh, we'll do it later. >And they can't have that happen until they've finished enriching themselves with VC funding for LN/Liquid People that fork Bitcoin enrich themselves with a free airdrop. And I've seen a few Core members admit that they own Bitcoin. Obviously, they'd destroy that wealth if they were able to destroy faith in Bitcoin, which they can't. >Blockstream will get exposed eventually No, you'll grow up eventually.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 4, 2020 07:25:28

>If BTC continues keeping the blocksize capped, and miners want a blocksize increase that Bitcoin Core refuses to do The Bitcoin Core dev team are absolutely unable to arbitrarily change the Bitcoin max blocksize cap. I don't know why you think they are able to do this. The narrative in here seems to be that "Core want to destroy Bitcoin" if so, then why don't they just arbitrarily reduce the blocksize cap down to 100kb and destroy the project outright? The obvious answer is that they couldn't, even if they wanted to. The Bitcoin community refuses to increase the blocksize, not one single dev team.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 4, 2020 00:29:56

>I need to spell this out for new users here. >Bitcoin Cash has been and continues to be the original immutable Bitcoin ledger since it was launched in 2008. I feel the need to point out to the newcomers that **this is a lie.** bch wasn't created until 2017, they just copy/pasted most of the code and the entire Bitcoin blockchain up to that point, then they created it. bch didn't exist in 2009 when Bitcoin was created.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 3, 2020 10:47:43

Imagine you've gone to the town square and you're striking up conversations with anyone that cares to. Then, some wierdo comes by, jumping up and down, shouting and waving his arms whilst standing physically in between you and the others you wish to speak with in an attempt to stop them from speaking to you... That's you. That's what you're doing here. Can you honestly say that this is normal, rational behavior? Take a long hard look at yourself and your behavior and realise the truth. Get a life & grow up.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 3, 2020 02:02:10

No idea what you're talking about.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 2, 2020 09:35:09

But under the context of this conversation, we're talking specifically about spamming the chain, which is very cheap and eeasy to do with bch and bsv. The context here is crucial.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 2, 2020 09:19:07

So; >to give you an honest answer which you yourself refused to give Then; >I´d say, I am pretty scared about persons like you driving the (paid) false narrative You did the **exact** same thing that you're accusing me of. And nobody is paying me to post here, you idiot. I wish they would. >this is a typical example how rotten this community has become *You're* telling *me!?* What a truly moronic response. **You** are a perfect example of how toxic this community has become. Since you doged the question, I can only guess that you're absolutely devistated by this horrific 3 year down-trend. It's perhaps the clearest signal that you made a very bad decision and backed the losing side.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 2, 2020 06:51:05

How do *you* feel about this little 3 year down-trend?

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 2, 2020 06:24:35

No, not really. Transaction cost and the sensibly limited blocksize with Bitcoin make this prohibitively expensive. It's almost free to spam the chain with bch and bsv.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 2, 2020 06:14:31

False. bch, bsv and ethereum certainly qualify as scams. You just wont admit or see it if you're a fan of them.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 2, 2020 05:50:39

It's false though. Scams are rampant in this space.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 13:12:20

>Almost nobody looks at the daily tx count Source?

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 12:05:31

>The difference between BCH and BSV is that the BCH fork was born from years of stalling No no.. just more gaslighting & propaganda. There is no stalling with Bitcoin, it regularly processes almost 20x more transactions than bch does today and that doesn't even count sidechains and the LN. After 3 years now there is almost 0 adoption, usage or demand for bch. All on chain metrics for bch have either stagnated or are already in decline. Not to mention the tragedy that is the market price. It's over.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 11:52:59

You really are a complete and utter moron.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 11:42:55

>Furthermore, I wouldn't see why any coin would be more likely to "spoof" the number of addresses than any other. To make it look as though there are more users of it, and demand for it, than actually exists. Obviously.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 11:27:25

I think this guy can speak for himself. Do you have any idea how utterly pathetic it is to follow me around Reddit and try to stop people from responding to my comments? (That's a rhetorical question)

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 10:34:57

False. The LN is constructed entirely of payment channels.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 10:22:31

>There absolutely IS a common tree. False. This is misinformation and propaganda. >If you would start QT - it will start with Bitcoin Cash's genesis block 00000000839a8e6886ab5951d76f411475428afc90947ee320161bbf18eb6048 Simply copy/pasting code and the blockchain data doesn't make it its Genesis block I'm afraid. Sorry. I already pointed out - if bch can legitimately do this then so can bsv. They can't. And that's it. >"If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry" - Satoshi Nakamoto. Ha! Right back at you.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 09:45:03

>The old QT client will probably (I'm not sure) sync the common tree of BCH, BSV and BTC up to March 2013 I believe, No it wont. There is no "common tree", this is misinformation and propaganda. Those other 2 projects didn't even exist up to March 2013, how could it possibly sync to them? Will it sync to an altcoin that's invented in 2030 too? Nonsense. The answer is that it syncs to Bitcoin and Bitcoin only. >Though I'm not exactly sure about exact point where it would break. It doesn't break. It syncs to the Bitcoin chain just fine. It doesn't recognize altcoins.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 09:06:07

A pretty meaningless response. Remember it is the bch narrative that their coin is the original bitcoin because it resembles the whitepaper and Bitcoin doesn't. I personally don't view the whitepaper as the 10 commandments. Like I already said, there are plenty of facts and quotes from satoshi that go completely against your narrative. Finally, open up an old version of qt, code that was written years before bch existed and well before the scaling debate began. Which "version" of Bitcoin do you think it will sync to? There you have your answer as to what qualifies as the real Bitcoin. Code that satoshi himself mostly wrote doesn't even acknowledge that bch exists.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 08:28:34

>Do I need to teach you Bitcoin? No, I'm well versed thanks. Take note of what I've written though. >I can send a transaction directly to the recipient and they themselves can mine it....even without broadcasting This is hilarious. Expressed as a percentage, what proportion of people transact like this? Have you ever don't it? Is it described within the whitepaper? What of your recipient isn't a miner? Lets be honest. That's nonsense, isn't it? >LN however depends on intermediaries which take a fee for routing. Not when a channel exists between 2 peers. Also, whilst p2p filesharing, the packets are automatically routed between the 2 peers via many intermediaries. It's still p2p. >Bitcoin itself is more peer to peer than LN. This is absolutely false and quite absurd. See above.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 08:18:28

Due to nothing more than the mindless downvoting **that happens in this sub only.**

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 08:08:29

>It's the point of reddit subs that mods can make and enforce rules. If you don't think mods have authority, you should start a sub and see what you can do as a mod. Doesn't this apply to r/bitcoin and their mod policy also?

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 07:55:58

You're broadcasting a signed transaction to the mempool which resides within the RAM of some random node. Then, this transaction gets mined into a block and the ledger is updated. **There is no interaction between peer and peer** unlike with the LN on Bitcoin and p2p filesharing, for example. Going by your own logic, PayPal qualifies as p2p cash because you just send directly to your recipient's email address. Even you must acknowledge that's false.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 07:43:14

Irrelevant. They're not immutable and "the mods" are certainly no authority figure in my book.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 07:21:47

The quote from the sidebar is meaningless, just something some guy wrote. It's not gospel. >You should go hang out in the other sub, they do what you want this sub to do. Choice is a wonderful thing! People actually post their ban notices from this sub quite regularly on other subs and twitter. The only reason that you think this sub respects freedom of speech is because you're one of the sheep, mindlessly repeating the echo in the chamber. You have your account and you don't have to wait 10 minutes to be allowed to post. You get a pat on the back for every single positive comment. The irony here is that you guys just wanted to have your own sub so you could do to the other side what you felt was happening to you. You're no better and you became exactly what you hated.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 07:11:29

You really should be careful when quoting satoshi or even the whitepaper, there's plenty of facts and quotes to find that also completely debunk your stance; * schnorr signatures are not described withinin the whitepaper * satoshi frequently compared Bitcoin to a precious metal, not fiat cash & suggested that most users should run full nodes * the 1MB blocksize limit was put into place to close a specific attack verctor. This attack vector still exists today * no rolling checkpoints, slp tokens, weather/market data or social media messaging etc described within the whitepaper. * any project that drastically alters the DAA automatically veers from the original plan * most of the supply of bch were printed out of thin air 3 years ago * satoshi described Bitcoin as being the longest chain with the most PoW which is clearly Bitcoin, not any altcoin * satoshi theorized and spoke positively of payment channels which exist and are used with Bitcoin today The list goes on. Finally, the bsv crowd can use your exact same logic to "prove" that their altcoin is the real Bitcoin which, of course, is also false. It's nonsense.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 07:00:32

>That's your kind of KYC/AML enabling centralization plan, right? No. No idea what this even means.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 06:48:51

You can report posts for misinformation, for *your* information.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 06:36:00

>of the number of active addresses, Meaning that this metric can be easily spoofed, which renders it useless.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 05:26:12

Nope. Not since pay-to-ip was removed in qt v-0 8.0. Even then it was only used to obtain an on chain address to send to. If you think that sending Bitcoin on chain today qualifies as p2p, then you claim to know the IP address of your recipient, which is obviously false.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 04:53:01

>Amaury Séchet should stop controlling the Bitcoin Cash protocol and allow others to implement their proposals. How anybody can call this project decentralized or "the real Bitcoin" is completely beyond me.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 03:31:32

You lost that argument then.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 03:20:59

I have no concerns because it isn't true. It's a mindless conspiracy theory that circles around this sub to explain why you lost. You guys all like to circlejerk over it and pat each other on the back, all the while your chain goes unused and the market price crashes. Have some "evil" people bought, used and contributed funds into the Bitcoin ecosystem? Yes. Should they be stopped? No, since the system is decentralized, you couldn't stop them, even if you wanted to. If someone wants to hire somebody to write code and upload it to github, let them. They're perfectly free to do so. They can't force me to run their code. And any code that I run is done so voluntarily. You can't stop anybody from using or contributing to Bitcoin. Even your worst enemy has the right to use Bitcoin. Sorry about that.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 01:38:57

>Because second layer is just that, a second layer it will never be as good as real p2p transactions. The LN actually facilitates true p2p transactions though. You couldn't be more wrong with that statement. On chain transactions do not qualify as p2p since there is no direct communication between you and the recipient.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 01:14:06

Regardless, satoshi certainly didn't create it.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 00:57:17

>That's not even a rule Check the sub rules.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on August 1, 2020 00:46:15

You lack a basic understanding of the Bitcoin tech and its journey so far then.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on July 31, 2020 14:56:40

You're an idiot. Absolutely beyond help.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on July 31, 2020 14:11:47

>ROFL I can't even read it Read what? >the bottom line is trying to win the argument with... CENSORSHIP!! I guess I won. *You're* talking about censorship ... in *this* sub!? That's a good one. You've violated one of the sub rules. You're lying to push an agenda. That's it. >Come back without coercion XD No idea what you're talking about.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on July 31, 2020 12:51:24

>Yeah, LN-BTC. This is false and a blatent misunderstanding of how the LN works. >I can't send BTC to your LN-BTC address There is no such thing as a LN-BTC address. >You can't send LN-BTC to my BTC address. I can close a LN channel and have the local balance sent to any on chain address I please. There are no LN-BTC. > It's a different product No it isn't. A LN channel is a valid, 2-of-2 multi-sig Bitcoin simple smart contract between 2 consenting peers. >and it costs one on-chain fee to convert LN-BTC to BTC. Nope, yet another falsehood. This is utter nonsense. >Or you can sell LN-BTC for BTC on sideshift for a 1% fee, but it does take an on-chain fee to send you the BTC. You're exchanging Bitcoin within L2 for Bitcoin on L1 to avoid closing the LN channel. They are all Bitcoin, just in different layers within the same protocol. You are the most misled and dishonest individual I've ever come across on the whole of reddit. **Reporting this for blatent misinformation.**

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on July 31, 2020 12:19:10

>when other coins do better (speed, fees) This isn't true, though.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/Bitcoin on July 31, 2020 08:55:45

No, just the facts. I'm not re-explaining it to you.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on July 31, 2020 07:23:19

False. Reported as misinformation.

Commented by /u/PleasantObjective0 in /r/btc on July 31, 2020 07:00:50