In this episode, Dr Craig Wright and Michael Hudson discuss the Bitcoin protocol including Wolfram 110 of cellular automation, quantum mechanics, the universal importance of numbers of 3, 6 and 9, and the ponder the concept of turing complete humans.
If you Don't believe he is part of satoshi /biz you'll never make it
Ayden Carter
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
bitcoinmagazine.com
en.wikipedia.org
arxiv.org
twitter.com
twitter.com
Jayden Russell
Here's the real problem.
If your brain is big enough to understand even 10% of the shit he tries to say, you would immediately say how fucking retarded he is.
What is: negative probability
Wyatt Powell
Nicola Tesla was a retard right?
Ryder Price
Link to video
Cameron Gray
Tesla was probably one of the smartest (and most troubled) men to have lived -- what does that have to do with Craig Wright's retarded statements?
Luis Gray
This guy is a legit 150+ IQer, could even be 160. Impressive.
Jaxson Phillips
fucking crawl back in to a shit pipe you came out of
Adrian Thompson
Which statement you're talking about
Cameron Edwards
I look forward for 2020
Will he (if) dump 1 million BTC if there's enough liquidity
Christian Roberts
Kys
Robert Allen
Brainlets hodl btc
Aiden Watson
This started off decent but now this mulatto is just droning about all the coincidences he can find between maths and how big the moon allegedly is. you can tell craig is getting tired of this dummy trying to have an intellectual discussion
Connor Foster
Low hanging fruit example
bitcoinmagazine.com
Nicholas Wood
This interviewer talks too much
But the subject matter is interesting.
Sebastian Jackson
lol
thank you based truth user
Isaac Kelly
LN still doesn't work user
Poonnnnn dek
Jack Rivera
Grayson Garcia
>negative economic growth is stooopidd
arxiv.org
Benjamin Richardson
What about distributed oracles?
Link is a scam right?
Jaxson Sanchez
:+1:
LN is shit, being exposed more and more as a centralization scam
I'm not going to argue the specifics of negative probability. If you understand the context (Gamma cannot be negative) you would understand how fucking retarded he sounds. I'm not as big brained as Vitalik by any means, but I'm smart enough to understand that CSW is a fraud.
Henry Rogers
>ywn travel the world with 10/10 boi pussy at your disposal
Why even live
Ian Harris
>>Fraud
How does he profit from this
Hudson Howard
He was an early BTC adopter, he doesn't need monetary profit -- he's an egomaniac, he just wants people to think he's really smart.
Look at his claims about how many papers he writes / reads per week. It's absurd.
Gabriel Sullivan
Ok
Why is this a fraud?
Daniel Bennett
Blatantly making shit up to sound smarter than you are to people that don't know better so you can further the pervasive lie that you're someone very famous and paradigm-changing is exactly the kind of thing one would refer to as "fraud".
Use your fucking brain.
Owen Reed
>he's satoshi
zero evidence
>non cult members aren't buying it
>he's part of satoshi
zero evidence
...
>the absolute state
Jaxson Gray
The sense negative probailties can exist is as very contrived tool in physics, like imaginary vectors.
I watched the video where he used the term, this is NOT what he intended. At all. He used it as a component of an expected value which was truly bullshit
CSW Is the biggest frauding faggot in the entire space, literally a clown. The fact that there are so many people who take him seriously just go to show why I've made so much money in this space: half of you are literally retarded.
t. MIT math major
Jordan Cook
>He used it as a component of an expected value which was truly bullshit
Exactly, thank you.
The best part is he tweeted some paper talking about negative probabilities in defense of it after the fact, and the actual author got called out and responded and said basically "that's not at all what the paper says".
He says bullshit with a sufficient amount of technobabble as to fool the uninitiated, but anyone that actually knows what they're talking about thinks he sounds like a fucking idiot.
Benjamin Garcia
Jordan Cruz
Nicholas Watson
MIT lost all credibility after the enigma vs link fiasco. Sorry fren.
Owen Reyes
So is the guy a sole arbiter on negative probabilities? He was positive on them at a certain point in time, so the concept is legit, even if to abstract to brainlets to grasp.
Evan Ortiz
He literally scammed the australian government ouf of research funds. He's a fraud through and through.
Oliver Sanders
You're completely missing the point, either purposefully or because you just don't understand. Either way, the gist is negative probabilities exist in the same way that imaginary numbers exist. You would never use an imaginary number to count how many times on average per day you jack off. It makes absolutely no sense in context.
Aiden Flores
imaginary numbers are important mathematical tools used. Why using neg probs should't be used in his case?
>because its dumb
thats not an answer. you sound like assblasted graduate who is not yet skilled in the concepts he studied, and insecure.
Xavier Long
Read the fucking paper they're talking about. The value for gamma was defined as a number between 0 and 1. It's about selfish mining. I'm not going to spoon feed you.
CSW shills are so cringy.
Isaac Ramirez
Wait, just checking to be sure, no one *actually* believes CSW is Satoshi, right? It's just a joke, right? You're pretending to believe that he is, for laughs, and to pump Bcash bags, right?
... user?
Jaxson Bailey
MIT supports LN
Kek
Jayden Rogers
*sniffs u*
Matthew Rodriguez
late. adopter. fucking. cringe.
Matthew Rodriguez
Who has the web archive of him editing his blogs to act like he was working on Bitcoin