Other Coins - Price & Trading topic

Its electronic and couriers do not work on new years day anyhow.

Being electronic means it can be instant

And again that “email” looks as dodgy as anything

1 Like

I read that they would send him a magic courier. Maybe a Santa Claus :mage:

1 Like

Maybe some people in white suits with his free admission to their padded rooms, when he realises his imaginations of being Satoshi are wrong

But of course he is after making millions based on the illusion of him being Satoshi

1 Like

Some of you may have sensed it already, but here it comes. I am Satoshi. And my chickens could prove it if they wanted to! They tell me they just don’t feel like it right now. :chicken:

EDIT: Happy New Year, everybody!


I always thought satoshi translated to sascha in the native language of chicken :thinking:

Happy new year all :partying_face:


Indeed. And then we would have the (W)right instead of the Satoshi coin. But next year he better change his name to Craig Wrong.


I’m curious what you think @MerkleTree and @happybeing, Is Craig Satoshi or not?

1 Like

Not a single molecule in me doubts that this guy is a massive fraud, but he has kahunas like basketballs to do what he does.


-> cojones



It’s new years back off :rofl:


There are variable costs to providing resources to the network (I.e. bandwidth, electricity, etc.) beyond the simple fixed (and perhaps already sunk) cost of a hard drive.

If there are no economies of scale it means the network effect is inefficient and broken. What sets SAFE apart is that it democratized entry into and participation in a new form of data economy.

Just like in the agricultural world there are some who have small farms and others who farm at scale. It took thousands of years, but we’ve arrived at a point where it is no longer economically efficient to agriculturally farm unless you do so at some level of scale.

A thriving, evolving SAFE Network will be similar except the barrier of entry should always remain relatively low.

There’s more on this topic of discussion here: Can the SAFE network replace the current internet? and here Massive scale maidsafe farm


Frankly I don’t know. What I think it’s that is easy to make a good case either way and the two make it hard for me to believe one or the other.


Ok If you want a blockchain with no blocksize cap BSV the one you should put your money on. Forget about the Craig Drama, don’t follow the leaders just follow the technicals. Its great that it exists so we can see a real world example of what will happen. If you add turing complete smart contracts great even better we can see how things end up.

Lets take it one step further… Why have fees? Get rid of them its a hinderence to the users!! Replace fees with POW requirement for each tx.
Why have 10min wait times for confirmations… Lets make it so each user has there own blockchain so no one is waiting for one single chain to update.
Done we have found our saviour NANO!!!
Need Multisig? Use musig-nano
What do you want to build? I don’t really know. Are you just a holder? Gamble away…

1 Like

This is straight up painful to read. It is completely against the self sovereignty ethos of crypto.


Honestly, I didn’t understand your answer. What exactly do you mean by that? :joy:

1 Like

That’s a myth that you were buying into.“As long as no one individual holds control of more than 50% of the network, the system can maintain stability and not be arbitrarily altered. The requirement is three or more parties acting in competition. In any implementation with three competing miners any of which hold no more than 50% of the network hash power at any time, the system is decentralised.”

What then happens when one of those three drop out due to infrastructure failure?

I am cracking up at your rationalization. This is the best example of cognitive dissonance.


3 are the minimum and it’s hypothetical. You are aware there are more than 3, right? Every miner that drops provides an opportunity for new ones to enter the game.

This is a really interesting thought experiment. I think I’m with andyypants on this one. I think your example just shows the low cost/value of the “free” storage as opposed to the high value of safecoin. One safecoin can still buy more approaching-free storage at the same time the fiat price of that safecoin trends to zero.