On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 03:35:29 +0000
Peter Fairbrother <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 08/11/2022 22:05, [email protected] wrote:
> > 
> > With Bitcoin being created as a byproduct of this mailing list
> 
> 
> Bitcoin was, very loosely speaking, a byproduct of the cryptography list.


        Most of bitcoin's 'building blocks'/concepts come from the cypherpunks 
: hash-cash, reusable-proof-of-work, b-money. So the claim "created as a 
byproduct of this mailing list" is accurate (although you could argue this 
isn't the original cpunks list).

        at any rate, your claim "byproduct of the cryptography list" is flatly 
wrong. 

> 
> It was in no way a byproduct the cypherpunks list.

        ....see above


> It was/is also a piece of scam which doesn't scale enough to be a 
> currency, 

        same problem monero has, except monero scales even less. You might also 
want to specify in which way bitcoin is a scam, and more importantly compare 
its scam properties to the scam properties of your government's fake money. 



> which wastes carbon-emitting resources, 

        wow that's such an original and unexpected...lie. You're parroting the 
dumbest pro-state, anti-freedom, cop-talk one could imagine. Shocking!



> and which doesn't provide reliable anonymity.
> 
> Beautiful structure and coding though. And starting off by providing 
> such a good a reference implementation ...
> 
> 
> 
> Punk once claimed Bitcoin was created by the man. I don't take much 
> notice of Punk's claims (though if we aren't looking for such attacks - 
> "paranoid" - we shouldn't be in this game), but who else but the man was 
> that good at writing code?
> 
> 
> > Does XMR solve the problems of Bitcoin?
> 
> No. Even with Seraphis it still isn't reliably anonymous. It wastes 
> carbon-dioxide producing resources. And it doesn't scale.
> 
> It may be a step or two in the right direction, but I don't know enough 
> about it (and what it may develop into) to say for sure. It has a 
> loooooonng way to go though before it gets really good though.
> 
> 
> 
> Peter Fairbrother
> 

Reply via email to