Making non-fungible bit gold was decentralized. Making it fungible required a ShapeShift-like exchange, which at that time would have had to have been centralized.
-
1998 simply didn't have decentralized consensus. There's no reason to sugar coat it - it just hadn't been invented.
You are abusing the English language, not helping anyone understand this technology.
![Girαffe[NEW FRIDGE]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1176652352008478720/6owJurlR_normal.png)
![jimmyhomma⚡️[LN adoption]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/740824062260334592/Y-rAxOFn_normal.jpg)
-
-
I think you're abusing the English language, misleading people to think technologies that don't provide decentralized consensus do. And I suspect you're doing it because unlike myself, you're unwilling to admit that your efforts failed.
-
Bro,...Nick might literally be Satoshi...
-
Does that make it any less likely that either party here is correct?
-
No. We just went from zero to ad hominem real quick. Even for Bitcoin Twitter...
-
Show me the "ad hominem".
-
Yeah, I don't see any ad hominem fallacy. Just people disagreeing. It seems mostly on terminology.
-
I don't want to get into the different insults used on CT, but Todd calling the guy who's potentially Satoshi, or at least contributed a lot to the space, a failure, is a bit rich if not slander.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Can this be a live panel debate somewhere please lol
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Nick, Peter, Adam.... could this trio be at least part of the group called “Satoshi” if not it’s entirety?
- End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.