Sell all your clothes and buy more #bitcoin.
(#bitcoin maxis/cults are not allowed to complain. I was first to call it! 😅😋)
Referring to anything in particular?
Be careful. Better use a bigger glass next time. You only barely made it without spilling the wine.
I have read these kinds of statements so many times. Every time made eagerly by malicious people grab hold of a manipulated situation with both hands to attack someone.
If you still don't know that the whole situation is massively misrepresented, then there is little hope. But, regardless of awareness, I will never surrender to a situation that people have had 8 years straight to manipulate into a single-sided, deceptive, manipulated bullshit story without even allowing me to see what the supposed story is.
Who says I'm asking? Also, who says I'm a cypherpunk? Also, why am I responding to this?!?
Huh? Unspent transaction output? There are many possible utxos. I don't think I understand the question.
"Use the test vectors", they say. "You can verify your code", they say.
Your design has a hash function in it! The *only* thing the test vectors do, is scream "YOUR WRONG!!!" 😫😕😅
I have a memory pop up telling me that's the name of an AI in (HFT?) finance, but I'm probably wrong on this one.
1. Agreed, with the condition that this is subject to interpretation. That's not to say that sometimes the fact isn't truthful, but rather that sometimes people will derive the wrong truth from the fact. I.e. overreaching or overeager or biased in their conclusions. (This would include measuring badly or wrongly, in case of science.)
2. Sure. I get that. Then we seem to agree on that. I think they key point is that the receiver is the origin.
3. Notice that you're leaving out an intermediate step here: the original statement that was false remains false. The fool was still fooled. That reality is still only perceived. Now, that the fool (i.e. the one that was fooled, not intended as insult) takes (bad) actions because of incorrect information is real. Of course. I do not dispute that. But his action is still motivated by a perceived reality that is in fact false.
Don't leave out VR 😕
Check out Robert Lustig's talks on sugar (glucose, fructose). He has an explanation from the point of the digestive system that seems to make a lot of sense. He says, it's not all sugars but particular ones.
Having up-to-date knowledge of the blockchain means each client knows which unspent transactions are available. When the next block arrives, each transaction's inputs can be compared to available outputs (unspent txns). Each unspent transaction is processed as a whole, so each is registered as spent exactly once, and a new transaction may redirect some "change output" back to the same owner if not everything is transferred.
Each bitcoin client will itself qualify each block to see if it checks out completely and onlu then is it accepted as part of the blockchain. That way, the blockchain can only be extended with valid blocks, i.e. no cheating/fraud permitted, verified by each bitcoin client. (Referring here to full clients that themselves process the blockchain.)
Okay. Here's where our understanding diverges. In my understanding:
1. Data is neither truth, nor objective. (Maybe "objective" in a very abstract definition, but I'm sure that isn't what you meant. That's why I call it a data-carrier.)
2. Meaning is not ascribed. It has to be derived. In the case of words, i.e. speaking - communication, by the receiver. The best we can do is for the speaker to choose the right words where a common understanding is able to express the correct intention/meaning precisely (as possible).
3. I understand why you say "[..] the lie creates reality [..]". But the thing is, it's only a *perceived reality* for the receiver only, because he is (accidentally or on purpose) misled. It is not universal reality because anyone not receiving does not have this awareness. That's why I pointed out that this creates contradictions. For example, let's say I convince you of something that's false. You believe it for a bit but then you find out it was bad information. For a while you perceived it as truth until you learned otherwise.
Now imagine you walk close to a large tower and someone in that tower drops an anvil that's going to land on top of you. There are no amount or selection of words that I can use, that change the effect that anvil crushing you will have. Reality is that the anvil will crush you. If I manage to convince you that this isn't the case, then you might expect something else, but only until reality sets in. You might not be afraid, because my words calmed you, but the anvil is just as heavy.
You might have mentioned other points, but I'll leave it at these first three for now.
Not every choice is about someone else. Some choices enable further improvement. This tactic is only beneficial for some goals.