Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
gary oldmans diary
Sep 26, 2005

Uranium 235 posted:

if you read the message that coinbase sends to its users after closing their accounts, they say that the customer still has access to their balance and can transfer it elsewhere

they aren't just stealing their customer's poo poo
you should lead with that

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Uranium 235
Oct 12, 2004

univbee posted:

Yes and there's a process you can go through for dealing with that, not just a support email hole.

Also when a bank does it they explicitly tell you why, not just "we're closing your account down."
banks do the same thing, they give a vague explanation like "we noticed suspicious activity"

you're going off of reddit posts that people throw up the instant they get shut down, just lol at that

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015

There is a formal process to freezing a bank account. It involves being able to get that money back unless it is a freeze activated by law enforcement during an actual criminal investigation. Most attempts to transfer money out of Coinbase after a freeze do not work. (According to Google, so it could be wrong who knows)

Also I'm phone posting from work so I don't got my crazy prolix word choices

scott zoloft
Dec 7, 2015

yeah same

Who What Now posted:

"im not hacked! im not hacked!!", i continue to insist as my bank account slowly shrinks and transforms into a corn cob

*looks at his list of bank deposits (that means money going in) from coinbase and considers the severity of the magnitude in which he has been owned*

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

Ham Sandwiches posted:

Imagine if you had to substantiate your "8 transactions a second" into a coherent argument that was expanded, like "Scaling issues will doom Cryptocoin adoptions, given that bitcoins can't scale past 8 transactions per second and that's a hard limit, Bitcoin can never reach beyond X point or the transaction volume will be an issue"

that is all understood and is why you threw such a screeching shitfit. however again your shrivled, heat-stroke ridden brain has been unable to keep the discussion straight: you asked for a metric by which it could be judged if my analysis of bitcoin's technology blocking its adoption was wrong. that is the metric. you are so infuriated by that because it is a specific, concrete metric you can't blather your way around.

now, the question i asked you also has an understood subtext: the reason cryptocurrencies are garbage that will never go anywhere is because there is no way existing actual cryptocurrencies (no theoretical currencies or bitcoin features that are "on the wiki") provide the technical utility that is superior to existing mechanisms. the fact that something is technically inferior in every respect to existing options is why it will fail. however, you lack the knowledge and understanding to give even a curt, short reply to that question, while i do know enough about bitcoin to give a curt, short reply to your attempt at a gotcha question to shut you down

what makes you so angry is you don't actually understand how anything works but we do. that's why literally the entirety of your argument is handwaving at nonsense. you know you are our intellectual inferior. you know you can't manage even a simple post on technological details. that knowledge burns. it burns, this is a thing you think you're competent at and the harsh light of reality is burning that away. so painful.

Ham Sandwiches
Jul 7, 2000

Blade Runner posted:

There is a formal process to freezing a bank account. It involves being able to get that money back unless it is a freeze activated by law enforcement during an actual criminal investigation. Most attempts to transfer money out of Coinbase after a freeze do not work.

How do you know this stuff?? Checked your butt.. or??

When was the last time you tried to figure out how many attempts were being made and how successful they are and how rigorous were you about it, for real?

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

by Azathoth

scott zoloft posted:

*looks at his list of bank deposits (that means money going in) from coinbase and considers the severity of the magnitude in which he has been owned*

Which are totally real, I'm sure

Uranium 235
Oct 12, 2004

COMRADES posted:

And then if you do that you take on the risk of loss on your end through drive failure or forgetting the password to the wallet or whatever. Don't say that never happens either.
yeah the entire crypto space is fantastically risky and anyone who says otherwise is v dumb, but the potential gains are also extraordinary. imo the reward is well worth risking <5% of my overall investment portfolio, which is mostly in boring index funds

Ham Sandwiches
Jul 7, 2000

evilweasel posted:

that is all understood and is why you threw such a screeching shitfit. however again your shrivled, heat-stroke ridden brain has been unable to keep the discussion straight: you asked for a metric by which it could be judged if my analysis of bitcoin's technology blocking its adoption was wrong. that is the metric. you are so infuriated by that because it is a specific, concrete metric you can't blather your way around.

now, the question i asked you also has an understood subtext: the reason cryptocurrencies are garbage that will never go anywhere is because there is no way existing actual cryptocurrencies (no theoretical currencies or bitcoin features that are "on the wiki") provide the technical utility that is superior to existing mechanisms. the fact that something is technically inferior in every respect to existing options is why it will fail. however, you lack the knowledge and understanding to give even a curt, short reply to that question, while i do know enough about bitcoin to give a curt, short reply to your attempt at a gotcha question to shut you down

what makes you so angry is you don't actually understand how anything works but we do. that's why literally the entirety of your argument is handwaving at nonsense. you know you are our intellectual inferior. you know you can't manage even a simple post on technological details. that knowledge burns. it burns, this is a thing you think you're competent at and the harsh light of reality is burning that away. so painful.

This guy figured out that cross examining others arguments is way more fun than making any of your own, and decided to write 3 paragraphs about how hard he's owning me by not articulating a position and just constantly repeating some dumb claim.

Hey if you're claiming Bitcoin will not scale past 8 transactions per second and that's the doom of it, please explain why you think that and how that problem will come to pass. Other than that, I guess nobody is going to stop you from nitpicking other people's arguments while being too chickenshit to explain what you think for fear of being proven wrong (the thing you spend all your time doing to other people).

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

Ham Sandwiches posted:

This guy figured out that cross examining others arguments is way more fun than making any of your own, and decided to write 3 paragraphs about how hard he's owning me by not articulating a position and just constantly repeating some dumb claim.

you've literally posted that you do not have an argument of any sort and you've never said anything of substance

that is your defense, that you don't say bitcoin will succeed, you don't say anything, just that other people are wrong

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015

See edit before your post. A quick Google search, mostly. As for your bank account balance going up, you got every cent of that money (ten whole dollars, baby) by scamming some idiot into buying a virtual bridge, so your bare sense of ethics are entirely owned yes

Ham Sandwiches
Jul 7, 2000

evilweasel posted:

you've literally posted that you do not have an argument of any sort and you've never said anything of substance

Your posts are devoid of substance or merit, simply attacking others positions, while offering nothing of your own. it must feel terribly clever, but it's the opposite of discourse.

Waffle House
Oct 27, 2004

You follow the path
fitting into an infinite pattern.

Yours to manipulate, to destroy and rebuild.

Now, in the quantum moment
before the closure
when all become one.

One moment left.
One point of space and time.

I know who you are.

You are Destiny.


Ham Sandwiches posted:

Your posts are devoid of substance or merit, simply attacking others positions, while offering nothing of your own. it must feel terribly clever, but it's the opposite of discourse.

:ironicat:

Ham Sandwiches
Jul 7, 2000

Blade Runner posted:

See edit before your post. A quick Google search, mostly. As for your bank account balance going up, you got every cent of that money (ten whole dollars, baby) by scamming some idiot into buying a virtual bridge, so your bare sense of ethics are entirely owned yes

Hmm so you might, possibly, be talking out of your rear end? Can you link the search criteria you used? I'd like to see the results and how you interpreted them!

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

by Azathoth

Ham Sandwiches posted:

Hey if you're claiming Bitcoin will not scale past 8 transactions per second and that's the doom of it, please explain why you think that and how that problem will come to pass.

You're dumb enough that you don't think it's possible that 8 or more transactions happen in a single second and yet you wanna call other people idiots? :hmbol:

Ham Sandwiches
Jul 7, 2000

Who What Now posted:

You're dumb enough that you don't think it's possible that 8 or more transactions happen in a single second and yet you wanna call other people idiots? :hmbol:

This is what evilweasel is saying not me!! But he won't explain what he's saying just he keeps repeating 8 transactions per second!!

gary oldmans diary
Sep 26, 2005
i think the threads hit the 8 posts per minute hard limit

fbsw
Mar 3, 2016
i started using bitcoin for microstakes poker just to see what all the fuss was about, and it's pretty great!

univbee
Jun 3, 2004




fbsw posted:

i started using bitcoin for microstakes poker just to see what all the fuss was about, and it's pretty great!

To the moon!

(shoots the moon in Hearts)

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

Ham Sandwiches posted:

I guess nobody is going to stop you from nitpicking other people's arguments while being too chickenshit to explain what you think for fear of being proven wrong (the thing you spend all your time doing to other people).

hmm:

Ham Sandwiches posted:

No dude this is real simple. For the people that have spent years explaining how bitcoins will fail or be legitimate, I want them to explain why they think that. You are literally trying to gotcha me into explaining why I think bitcoins will succeed. I don't.

Ham Sandwiches posted:

I'm trying to take the position that I disagree with the consensus position that bitcoins are doomed to failure and a scam for a variety of reasons. I find cryptocurrencies interesting and something worth looking into / talking about. There's a bunch of wise SA posters that have already been to the future and they're back (just like the movies) and it's a bad place where Bitcoin failed. So I'm trying to get them to paint that picture, so we can see how close we are moving to this dire timeline.

Ham Sandwiches posted:

My story is that I'm here to talk to the posters of Something Awful about their stance re: bitcoins and how wrong they are. That's why I'm here, that's what I'm here to do, and that's what I'm doing.

Ham Sandwiches posted:

Yeah but I didn't say this. I didn't say everyone will make money. The something awful consensus is that *literally everyone* will lose money, which I feel is absolutely false and I challenge regularly. I am not saying *literally everyone* will make money. I disagree with the claim that *literally everyone* will lose money, a claim that has been repeated for years and has been used to mock every single redditor that tried it and bit of turbluence relating to cryptocurrencies, while ignoring scenarios where people made money.

there's loads more of course

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

by Azathoth

Ham Sandwiches posted:

This is what evilweasel is saying not me!! But he won't explain what he's saying just he keeps repeating 8 transactions per second!!

Holy poo poo, you don't even understand what his argument is, but you're so mad about it.

poorlifedecision
Feb 13, 2012
Lipstick Apathy
Anyone want to give me $25 worth of bit coin so I can record myself cashing it out and then getting the money from an atm or having my bank account frozen/losing all my coins so that this argument doesn't have to spiral around ad nauseam?

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

Who What Now posted:

Holy poo poo, you don't even understand what his argument is, but you're so mad about it.

he doesn't even remember it's an answer to a question he asked, multiple times

which is pretty impressive

Ham Sandwiches
Jul 7, 2000

evilweasel posted:

hmm:


there's loads more of course

Yeah look at all those posts explaining my position, now let's search yours and post nothing but critiques and refusal to substantiate! Isn't it telling?

How are you this loving cowardly dude, imagine being so scared to explain your position that you post 50+ times but won't do it. What a loving dipshit.

Nocheez
Sep 5, 2000

Can you spare a little cheddar?
Nap Ghost
I'll admit it, I wish I had the foresight to "invest" in bitcoins when they were cheap. But they would have probably been lost to some exchange or stolen anyways, so I'm out $0.

Also, I get to laugh at the inevitable crash.

Ham Sandwiches
Jul 7, 2000

evilweasel posted:

he doesn't even remember it's an answer to a question he asked, multiple times

which is pretty impressive

Oh I remember, it's a non responsive answer to a very simple general question. You are of course, refusing to acknowledge that response, something I explained in detail and get this: you responded with your one line poo poo back.

I think you might actually be incapable of anything other than this sort of salty contrarian crap, that seems a most unfortunate existence

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015

I have given technical explanations to you before, which you just refused to engage with, likely because you did not understand them. My effort posts were full of them. I am done doing the effort post thing, though, so oh well

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

Ham Sandwiches posted:

Yeah look at all those posts explaining my position, now let's search yours and post nothing but critiques and refusal to substantiate! Isn't it telling?

How are you this loving cowardly dude, imagine being so scared to explain your position that you post 50+ times but won't do it. What a loving dipshit.

your position is you don't have a position, you just criticize other people's imaginary position. thats what those four posts say, in plain english. the post above those four and this post right here is you whining that you think that thing, that you repeatedly admit to doing, is being done by other people

Ham Sandwiches
Jul 7, 2000

Blade Runner posted:

I have given technical explanations to you before, which you just refused to engage with, likely because you did not understand them. My effort posts were full of them. I am done doing the effort post thing, though, so oh well

Please post the link for your google search dude, and I'm talking to evilweasel about his posts not you about yours, I assume you can follow??

Ham Sandwiches
Jul 7, 2000

evilweasel posted:

your position is you don't have a position, you just criticize other people's imaginary position. thats what those four posts say, in plain english. the post above those four and this post right here is you whining that you think that thing, that you repeatedly admit to doing, is being done by other people

What's your position re: bitcoin's scaling, how will that 8 transactions per second be an issue?

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

by Azathoth
A Moron: "Being unable to process more than eight transactions a second is a big problem for scaling upwards."

Ham Sandwich, A Genius: "Provide a scenario where eight entire transactions happening every second is even possible. :smugdroid:"

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

Ham Sandwiches posted:

Oh I remember, it's a non responsive answer to a very simple general question. You are of course, refusing to acknowledge that response, something I explained in detail and get this: you responded with your one line poo poo back.

I think you might actually be incapable of anything other than this sort of salty contrarian crap, that seems a most unfortunate existence

you asked what level of transactions would prove i was wrong about bitcoin's technical capabilities (specifically, its lack of any useful capabilities compared to any alternative) blocking its widespread adoption. eight transactions per second is the precise kind of data point you asked for.

Waffle House
Oct 27, 2004

You follow the path
fitting into an infinite pattern.

Yours to manipulate, to destroy and rebuild.

Now, in the quantum moment
before the closure
when all become one.

One moment left.
One point of space and time.

I know who you are.

You are Destiny.


It's like watching a CHUD hard deflect to Hillary every time someone addresses them, just with bitcoins and non-substance instead

fbsw
Mar 3, 2016
a thread's value can be summed by the gayness of its posters' avatars

Ham Sandwiches
Jul 7, 2000

evilweasel posted:

you asked what level of transactions would prove i was wrong about bitcoin's technical capabilities (specifically, its lack of any useful capabilities compared to any alternative) blocking its widespread adoption. eight transactions per second is the precise kind of data point you asked for.

I was not asking "how many numerical transactions per second" I was asking what level of widescale adoption. That was the question I asked. You selectively interpreted (or are too dumb to understand what I ask) as "pick some retarded gotcha value with no explanation and throw it out smugly" which seems to be an issue on your processing end

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

by Azathoth

Ham Sandwiches posted:

What's your position re: bitcoin's scaling, how will that 8 transactions per second be an issue?

Well, consider this, and stay with me here cause it's gonna get pretty loving nuts, what if NINE people want to process a transaction?

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

Ham Sandwiches posted:

What's your position re: bitcoin's scaling, how will that 8 transactions per second be an issue?

no, i answered your irrelevant question, now you answer my specifically relevant question:

evilweasel posted:

ham sandwich please explain the technical aspects of existing bitcoin and/or existing actual cryptocurrencies (no theoretical currencies or bitcoin features that are "on the wiki") that provide the technical utility that is superior to existing mechanisms, and the manner in which it is superior to those mechanisms (identifying the mechanism) so we can discuss in what specific, tangible, verifiable way cryptocurrencies have value beyond being ugly e-tulips

the subtext of my post is "there are none" so you can rationalize your response as you attack my position instead of having one of your own

Blade Runner
Aug 14, 2015

No, I will not do that. You've never posted a single link to anything relevant, and have admitted that you have no technical knowledge in this while just refusing to acknowledge technical points made against the butts.

If you feel like saying that I am owned because of this, sure. I'm just here to make fun of you at this point.

Ham Sandwiches
Jul 7, 2000

Who What Now posted:

Well, consider this, and stay with me here cause it's gonna get pretty loving nuts, what if NINE people want to process a transaction?

Ok, I'm following there's 9 people that want to do a transaction

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002

Ham Sandwiches posted:

I was not asking "how many numerical transactions per second" I was asking what level of widescale adoption. That was the question I asked. You selectively interpreted (or are too dumb to understand what I ask) as "pick some retarded gotcha value with no explanation and throw it out smugly" which seems to be an issue on your processing end

a level of widespread adoption sufficient to cause at least eight transactions per second, holding (as you said) bitcoin's technical capabilities fixed

  • Locked thread