|
Title: Gavineries Post by: hdbuck on January 12, 2016, 09:35:56 PM Keeping track and discussing our beloved Chief Scientist "Gavineries".
Some referenced list would have included: - Meeting with CIA - Association with bankrupted "Bitcoin Foundation" and renown criminals amongst which Mark Karpelese, peados and other attention-cash-burning-whores. - Meeting with CFR - MIT eg. US Gov payroll - Mike Hearn wingman in contentious social engineered fork attempt branded as "Bitcoin XT" And the last to date: yet another Bitcoin fork branded as "Bitcoin Classic (https://bitcoinclassic.com/)".. Note one of his new "partner in crime": https://i.imgur.com/mYGmEOs.png Spice it up with Cryptsy's unsurprising EXIT SCAM (http://www.coindesk.com/digital-currency-exchange-cryptsys-problems-partners/): http://www.imediaconnection.com/profiles/iMedia_PC_Bio.aspx?ID=66373 https://i.imgur.com/TGqoMjA.jpg http://insidebitcoins.com/chicago/2015/speakers https://i.imgur.com/Y6roDzb.jpg Thank you Gavin, but no thank you. :-* Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: hdbuck on January 12, 2016, 09:47:16 PM reserved for links and references.
Gavin and Toomim Present: "Classic" – Another Hard Fork Risk http://qntra.net/2016/01/gavin-and-toomim-present-classic-another-hard-fork-risk/ Concerns for the Toomim Brothers Mining http://qntra.net/2015/08/concerns-for-the-toomim-brothers-mining/ I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint. Good idea or not, SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (or co-opt it for their own use) sooner or later. They'll either hack the existing code or write their own version, and will be a menace to the network.I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it. I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel. That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends... Recent Bitcoin Direction http://qntra.net/2016/01/recent-bitcoin-direction/ A miners warning http://deedbot.org/deed-393913-1.txt That's right, time to move on. Please do. Bitcoin is really not for you. http://trilema.com/2016/thats-right-time-to-move-on-please-do-bitcoin-is-really-not-for-you/ Quote Since yesterday's recap of the sad track record of the USG, the toomim clown received some bad news, with which he coped in the usual manner : by having a rather amusing public meltdown under the influence. Meanwhile the poopaganda machine came out in force with a pathetic chorus bemoaning "Bitcoin's death". Whatever. For once we do agree : it's time to move on. Please do. Bitcoin was never for you. Bitcoin was never for the poor ; Bitcoin was never for the voluble if worthless "social media" tramp ; Bitcoin was never for the soi-dissant "activist" aka scammer. Bitcoin was not for you. And since we're doing this, let's proceed to dispell some myths. I. It is false that Bitcoin has to be used by you for it to be valuable. You believe man to be the measure of all things. This is a purely religious belief, exactly identical, and directly reducible, to the notion that there's a magical teapot spinning in the sky. You believe that you are man, in the strict and strictly laughable sense that everything is equal to everything else and thus therefore you see yourself as not merely a uniquely bent spoon, vaguely related to various other better implementations of an ideal spoon and thus twice removed from that ideal but instead fully and completely, in and by yourself, equal and idempotent to everything man is, ever was or ever could be. This is also a religious belief, I suppose, although more indicative of psychopathology than what usually is called religion - on the continuum between the buddhist chanting and the fanatic beheading this sort of nonsense is certainly past the fanatic, hapilly floating in a schizoid sea towards waxy flexibility. You put these two together and what comes out is the directly falsifiable notion that in order for Bitcoin to be valuable, it has to be usable by you. This is obviously not so : cars your whole bloodline could never, no matter what, ever afford are still cars, and valuable and enjoyed by those of your betters that can actually buy one. That nobody in your family ever wore shoes does not imply that shoes are now worthless, or "not usable". It certainly does not imply that shoes should be doing things differently. Learn a trade, marry well, do something with your life so that you too might enjoy the glory of footwear, perhaps, however briefly, however distantly in the future. II. It is false that Bitcoin has to "do good" in order to continue to exist. Bitcoin can kill all your friends, and all the people you respect, and every other kitten. It can poop in your drink and insult your friendship and rape your pets for all the difference it makes. If lightning strikes where you sit, whether you feel a warm cozy sort of love for it or the most burning hatred imaginable is strictly irrelevant - electricity stays. If tomorrow your house burns down you'll be advised to take more care - blaming the victim as it were. Nobody's ever going to try change the fire. More generally : the world is not built on emotions, whether you "love" world peace or "hate" world peace or both or neither makes exactly not one grain of difference to world peace. Bitcoin is not a product, like a belt that's tied too tight and so you can adjust to be less tight, or like an engine that runs too hot and so you can adjust to run a little cooler. Bitcoin is a rule, and if you're not happy with how it works you have to change, just like if you're unhappy with the effects gravitation has on your planned plane, you must change the plan. You can't attempt to change gravitation. And there is no such thing as voting rules. The things you vote upon are laws, not rules. They really don't matter one bit. There are other silly things ESLi muppets believe, such as that they are creative (they're not, and I don't mean that they aren't the most creative - I mean they're below average, and markedly so) and that they're "civilised" (god help you), and that the only way they've ever seen things done is necessarily the best possible way (do read Voltaire when you have a moment) and on it goesii. But let's keep things simple and sweet, in step with the comprehension and attention span of five year olds captive in seemingly adult bodies : it's time to move on. Please do. Bitcoin really is not for you. Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: AgentofCoin on January 12, 2016, 10:00:34 PM ... And the last to date: yet another Bitcoin fork branded as "Bitcoin Classic".. https://bitcoinclassic.com/ (https://bitcoinclassic.com/) ... I wonder if the miners on the bottom of the page are going to mine both chains (Core & Classic), or only mine this "Classic" chain. Interesting to see how those miners will proceed. Not surprising there is another attempt at a way to get a higher block limit. This will continue forever, till there is a raise in the limit. Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: Gyrsur on January 12, 2016, 10:07:19 PM nothing to fear!
http://qntra.net/2015/01/the-hard-fork-missile-crisis/ Quote mircea_popescu: ben_vulpes if one block's large and the other small, all i need a tx that's included in the large block but not the small one. then doublespend it on the small one, which will be rejected necessarily by the large block blockchain mircea_popescu: now i have bitcoin separated in two addresses, one for each chain. mircea_popescu: the attempt may fail, but the cost to me of this failure is not significant, so i can keep on trying until it succeeds. mircea_popescu: the only way to guard against it is, obviously,for the ."large" chain to maintain 1:1 identity with the "small" one. because you don't just fork bitcoin., ben_vulpes: i still fail to see how you're going to make a txn that gets included in the large block chain and not the small block chain. artifexd: ben_vulpes: You don't. You keep sending money to yourself until it happens. mircea_popescu: ben_vulpes what do you mean ? it necessarily will occur. mircea_popescu: since one contains more txn than the other by definition. mircea_popescu: suppose i make 50k 1btc txn. they don't fit in a 1mn block. they do fit in a 10mb block. what now ? Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: GermanGiant on January 12, 2016, 10:10:47 PM This is gonna be interesting. After https://bitcoinxt.software it is https://bitcoinclassic.com. In a fair world development the primary resources like https://github.com/bitcoin should stop and each team should try to push their product to gain adoption. The one, that would win, should be incorporated in https://github.com/bitcoin. But, unfortunately, the world is not fair...
Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: manselr on January 12, 2016, 10:22:34 PM Good find. I wonder what the next iteration of this series will be after no one cares to run nodes of this one as well. How about "Bitcoin HardFork Attempt 3: Revolutions" to end the trilogy.
Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: bambou on January 12, 2016, 11:08:57 PM "Bitcoin Original", reserved.
Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: franky1 on January 12, 2016, 11:28:11 PM i have to ask.
as i asked the same thing for the SW lovers too how many that like the 2mb blocks have actually run the ful bitcoin core continuously in the last month how many that do not like the 2mb blocks have actually fun the full bitcoin core continuously in the last month. i would like to see, when people reply to saying one of these 4 options along with whatever you were going to reply with "for 2mb - i run a full node" "not 2mb - i run a full node" "for 2mb - i dont run a full node" "not 2mb - i dont run a full node" now onto the point i was going to make.. i find it funny that gavin has lobbied miners first before the community.. kinda bad way to force a fork by letting miners have more than 1mb blocks before the community has even shown they are using a version of bitcoin capable of taking it Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: hdbuck on January 12, 2016, 11:36:04 PM "not 2mb - i run a full node"
+ currently experimenting the setting up of another full node from scratch, still waiting. i find it funny that gavin has lobbied miners first before the community.. kinda bad way to force a fork by letting miners have more than 1mb blocks before the community has even shown they are using a version of bitcoin capable of taking it It just emphasizes how desperate he is about his govcoin. Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: keepdoing on January 13, 2016, 01:54:39 AM It just emphasizes how desperate he is about his govcoin. Llama boy wastes no time kicking off with the shilling manipulation lies. Won't do you any good this time blockstream fanboy.... time to ditch blockstream, and everybody is ready for this. Soooo... FORK YOU!!!! LOL https://bitcoinclassic.com/ <<< on to the future! Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: keepdoing on January 13, 2016, 03:20:56 AM reserved for links and references. Here's a reference for ya Llama boy! https://bitcoinclassic.com/ Ka BOOM! * world is back to normal, progress again being made, blockstream hijaakers being rounded up for a good drobbing of ridicule! Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: danielW on January 13, 2016, 05:11:42 AM I would suggest that everybody who thinks we should follow Bitcoin scaling road map, should NACK the proposal here:
https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/website/issues/3 Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: Kakmakr on January 13, 2016, 05:43:03 AM Looks like his goal is to divide and conquer or some strategy like that. You suggest many forks and break the community into smaller pieces, in the hope that your fork will have a bigger chance to form the longest chain. This is a old political strategy used by governments to split people into groups and to target smaller chucks of voters.
Once again a percentage of Core or XT supporters will fork off to the new Gavin proposal and the community will be divided even more than it was before. Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: Bitcoinpro on January 13, 2016, 05:58:56 AM Bitcoin Classic now thats a really funny name,
Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: bri912678 on January 13, 2016, 06:08:58 AM Bitcoin Classic now thats a really funny name, Multibit used multibit classic for its first version, after which it released multibit hd. I always think of a classic version of any software as the oldest version that it began with. I probably picked it up from the term classic cars which people use to describe old cars. It doesn't seem right using classic to describe a new version/fork of a wallet. Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: Kakmakr on January 13, 2016, 06:32:49 AM Bitcoin Classic now thats a really funny name, Multibit used multibit classic for its first version, after which it released multibit hd. I always think of a classic version of any software as the oldest version that it began with. I probably picked it up from the term classic cars which people use to describe old cars. It doesn't seem right using classic to describe a new version/fork of a wallet. They can call it what they like, we can just adapt and call Bitcoin Core something else like Bitcoin Original. The Classic label is actually something negative for them, because it is usually associated with something old and outdated. Some vintage model, replaced with something new and innovative. Who would have thought you could paint yourself into a corner with a bad choice in a name for your technology. ^smile^ Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: hdbuck on January 13, 2016, 09:05:45 AM Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: sAt0sHiFanClub on January 13, 2016, 09:47:30 AM Ah, hdbuck, you have a place where all you right wing collaborators can hang out and lick shiny jack boots together. (What? no theymos yet????)
Im genuinely happy for you. PS - your buddy icebreaker quickly dumped his National Front banner. Why was that? Not quite the quisling you hoped for? Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: Bergmann_Christoph on January 13, 2016, 09:59:01 AM Hei hdbuck, here you are. Did you escape the thread where you and your gang where exposed as french fascist?
Readers, please don't make too complicated answers to hdbuck, cause he prooved himself unable to understand it and has in his desperation no other option than to get aggressive. Also you shouldn't make posts that go against hdbuck's line, cause he will be unable to react other than with uninnovative insults. Also please don't try to argue with him. Many people tried, but after some pages of senseless discussions full of untalented insults they came to the conclusion that it's not worth the time, since hdbuck NEVER reads your arguments. if you don't believe, your are free to try. Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: Lauda on January 13, 2016, 10:29:15 AM Please rename the title to fit the discussion. Some could argue that it doesn't matter who is behind the code, but it does even though Bitcoin is trustless. If there is going to be a switch of the developers, then we need people who are better than the current ones; not suspicious and controversial. Also the signatures by bad actors (e.g. Long) are worthless.
Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: iCEBREAKER on January 13, 2016, 10:38:15 AM your buddy icebreaker quickly dumped his National Front banner. Why was that? Not quite the quisling you hoped for? Don't ask other people to speak for me. If you have a question, be a brave boy and ask me directly. I've only changed my avatar once, for the duration of the last French election, in honor of those slain by invaders in Paris. It's over, so now the Classic avatar is back. Sputter all the Far-Left Spartacist boilerplate defamation you want. Marion is going to finish the job her grandfather and aunt began. All you tranzis and pinko types are going to be driven back to Brussels, where you belong. The avenging angel of French liberty is rising; I hope you choke on your bilious jealousy and impotent rage. Go cry to Frau Merkel if you like, but there is nothing you can to do stop her. https://i.imgur.com/8k0Gxns.jpg https://i.imgur.com/gPazej4.jpg Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: sAt0sHiFanClub on January 13, 2016, 10:47:41 AM your buddy icebreaker quickly dumped his National Front banner. Why was that? Not quite the quisling you hoped for? Don't ask other people to speak for me. If you have a question, be a brave boy and ask me directly. I've only changed my avatar once, for the duration of the last French election, in honor of those slain by invaders in Paris. Im sure Parisians can sleep at night knowing you have their back.... http://www.sharegif.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/chicken-gif4.gif already asked you directly here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg13536780#msg13536780) Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: pogress on January 13, 2016, 10:53:19 AM I always think of a classic version of any software as the oldest version that it began with... It doesn't seem right using classic to describe a new version/fork of a wallet. The point of Bitcoin Classic is indeed follow the original Bitcoin vision and dont adding new planned Bitcoin Core features going against this. Bitcoin Core attempt to ignore majority view and the censorship of its supporteers really shed bad light on Bitcoin, but luckilly the situation is resolved before features like RBF were implemented. It is clear Blockstream devs cannot expect such features will be added to Bitcoin anymore. BTW brilliant move to get support from all major Bitcoin players to follow original Bitcoin vision from now on again, definitivelly yesterday will come to Bitcoin history as very important day when the attempt of censorship and overtaking the Bitcoin project to Blockstream goals ended. Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: notbatman on January 13, 2016, 11:21:38 AM Keeping track and discussing the Chief Scientist "Gavineries". Some referenced list would have included: - Meeting with CIA - Association with bankrupted "Bitcoin Foundation" and renown scammers a la Mark Karpelese - MIT eg. US Gov payroll - Hearnia wingman in contentious social engineered fork attempt branded as "Bitcoin XT" And the last to date: yet another Bitcoin fork branded as "Bitcoin Classic".. https://bitcoinclassic.com/ (https://bitcoinclassic.com/) Note one of his new "partner in crime": https://i.imgur.com/mYGmEOs.png Spice it up with Cryptsy's unsurprising EXIT SCAM (http://www.coindesk.com/digital-currency-exchange-cryptsys-problems-partners/): http://www.imediaconnection.com/profiles/iMedia_PC_Bio.aspx?ID=66373 https://i.imgur.com/TGqoMjA.jpg http://insidebitcoins.com/chicago/2015/speakers https://i.imgur.com/Y6roDzb.jpg Thank you Gavin, but no thank you. :-* Don't forget his meeting with the CFR! Oh, and Bitcoin Classic, sounds like a new brand of fags; smoke 'em if you got 'em! Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: Denker on January 13, 2016, 12:07:23 PM Please rename the title to fit the discussion. Some could argue that it doesn't matter who is behind the code, but it does even though Bitcoin is trustless. If there is going to be a switch of the developers, then we need people who are better than the current ones; not suspicious and controversial. Also the signatures by bad actors (e.g. Long) are worthless. Beside that I never would run a client anymore where Gavin is head of, crooks like Marshall Long make me even more stay away from it. And yes like someone else has already posted it seems to be the typical strategy of divide and conquer. Now where XT has failed this is attempt number two. By the way has any of you guys read the report of Rand Corporation? The report suggests that the U.S. Department of Defense should disrupt decentralized digital currencies to prevent “unprecedented global access to information and communication services that, at its core, is agnostic to the national security interests of the United States.” Quote The RAND report goes one step further and suggests that governments should use advanced technical means to actively disrupt virtual currencies. That includes terrorist groups, but also peaceful deployments of digital currencies by other non-state actors, and a general war on privacy and encryption. http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1200/RR1231/RAND_RR1231.pdf (http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1200/RR1231/RAND_RR1231.pdf) Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: siameze on January 13, 2016, 12:39:37 PM Keeping track and discussing the Chief Scientist "Gavineries". Some referenced list would have included: - Meeting with CIA - Association with bankrupted "Bitcoin Foundation" and renown scammers a la Mark Karpelese - MIT eg. US Gov payroll - Hearnia wingman in contentious social engineered fork attempt branded as "Bitcoin XT" I always found it quite interesting that Satoshi vanished right after Gavin announced his meeting with the CIA. Coincidence? Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: onemorexmr on January 13, 2016, 12:41:58 PM Keeping track and discussing the Chief Scientist "Gavineries". Some referenced list would have included: - Meeting with CIA - Association with bankrupted "Bitcoin Foundation" and renown scammers a la Mark Karpelese - MIT eg. US Gov payroll - Hearnia wingman in contentious social engineered fork attempt branded as "Bitcoin XT" I always found it quite interesting that Satoshi vanished right after Gavin announced his meeting with the CIA. Coincidence? probably not a coincidence. but thinking gavin works together with CIA to harm bitcoin is a stretch IMHO Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: hdbuck on January 13, 2016, 12:54:23 PM Don't forget his meeting with the CFR! Oh, and Bitcoin Classic, sounds like a new brand of fags; smoke 'em if you got 'em! CFR gavinerie added to the list! :) Please rename the title to fit the discussion. Some could argue that it doesn't matter who is behind the code, but it does even though Bitcoin is trustless. If there is going to be a switch of the developers, then we need people who are better than the current ones; not suspicious and controversial. Also the signatures by bad actors (e.g. Long) are worthless. Sorry, I found the name quite fitting the discussion about all the actions gavin will/has undertook to discredit himself and bring cryptoshame to his name. Gavineries: https://i.imgur.com/zeHWpE9.png Keeping track and discussing the Chief Scientist "Gavineries". Some referenced list would have included: - Meeting with CIA - Association with bankrupted "Bitcoin Foundation" and renown scammers a la Mark Karpelese - MIT eg. US Gov payroll - Hearnia wingman in contentious social engineered fork attempt branded as "Bitcoin XT" I always found it quite interesting that Satoshi vanished right after Gavin announced his meeting with the CIA. Coincidence? probably not a coincidence. but thinking gavin works together with CIA to harm bitcoin is a stretch IMHO No coincidence, he even admitted it himself: Gavin had just received the alert keys to the Bitcoin network. Right afterwards, he tells Satoshi that he is visiting the CIA. Satoshi leaves for good coincidentally. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113609.0This is quoted from the defunct Bruce Wagner Bitcoin podcast: Bruce Wagner : When was the last time you chatted to satoshi <laugh> Gavin Andresen: Um... I haven't had email from satoshi in a couple months actually. The last email I sent him I actually told him I was going to talk at the CIA. So it's possible , that.... that may have um had something to with his deciding Based on this, do you think Gavin fully meets Satoshi's vision for Bitcoin? You just don't friendly chitchat with the CIA.. And it is even more critical when involving such disruptive technology as Bitcoin. Taking a coffee break and counting flowers with them would be much more of a stretch imo. Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: siameze on January 13, 2016, 12:58:40 PM No coincidence, he even admitted it himself: Gavin had just received the alert keys to the Bitcoin network. Right afterwards, he tells Satoshi that he is visiting the CIA. Satoshi leaves for good coincidentally. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113609.0This is quoted from the defunct Bruce Wagner Bitcoin podcast: Bruce Wagner : When was the last time you chatted to satoshi <laugh> Gavin Andresen: Um... I haven't had email from satoshi in a couple months actually. The last email I sent him I actually told him I was going to talk at the CIA. So it's possible , that.... that may have um had something to with his deciding Based on this, do you think Gavin fully meets Satoshi's vision for Bitcoin? Ah! thanks for the link to that. I still cannot fathom how Gavin expected a meeting with the fucking CIA would help advance the cause at all? Was Satoshi filled with regret, saying to himself "Why the fuck did I ever trust this nitwit?" ;D Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: QuestionAuthority on January 13, 2016, 01:24:12 PM Meh, I was against Andresen before it was cool. Actually, I started many years ago and it was met by a lynch mob of Gavin homosexual fanboys. I still have the rope burns on my neck. You may as well leave Napoleon Bitaparte alone now. He's outed himself time and time again. I don't think anyone is missing who he really is at this point.
Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: bhodson on January 13, 2016, 04:06:00 PM I've only been following bitcoin for the last 6 months. I am guessing that Satoshi is shaking his head in disbelief when observing what Gavin is trying to do to Bitcoin.
Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: keepdoing on January 13, 2016, 04:12:27 PM reserved for links and references. Here's a reference for ya Llama boy! https://bitcoinclassic.com/ Ka BOOM! * world is back to normal, progress again being made, blockstream hijaakers being rounded up for a good drobbing of ridicule! https://bitcoinclassic.com/ <<< BACK to the future! (by back, I mean, putting Bitcoin BACK on the original path Satoshi intended, rescued from the Blockstream Hijaakers) Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: Lauda on January 13, 2016, 04:29:08 PM Meh, I was against Andresen before it was cool. Actually, I started many years ago and it was met by a lynch mob of Gavin homosexual fanboys. I still have the rope burns on my neck. You may as well leave Napoleon Bitaparte alone now. He's outed himself time and time again. I don't think anyone is missing who he really is at this point. There was a time where I used to "trust" (might not be the right word) his opinions. Even back when he suggested 20 MB blocks; this was probably because I misunderstood everything related to the block size debate just as many do today. Over time one could easily see that he can't be trusted as he used to. 20 MB would have definitely harmed the system that we are using right now.I've only been following bitcoin for the last 6 months. I am guessing that Satoshi is shaking his head in disbelief when observing what Gavin is trying to do to Bitcoin. Most likely. He left the project to the wrong person; luckily he's not in charge of the Core project anymore. Beside that I never would run a client anymore where Gavin is head of, crooks like Marshall Long make me even more stay away from it. You probably forgot about Bitcoin Unlimited. This is attempt number three. And yes like someone else has already posted it seems to be the typical strategy of divide and conquer. Now where XT has failed this is attempt number two. Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: Kprawn on January 13, 2016, 04:38:47 PM Gavin's choice on partners leave a lot of open questions.... At first it was Hearn with XT and now it's Long with suppository Bitcoin Classic? ::) What is he thinking... ???
I kind of liked Gavin, when he was one of the Lead developers of Bitcoin Core, but his head grew a little and I think he lost the plot. Satoshi saw something in him, and we should respect that, but people change and we have to realize and accept that too.. I always look for the good in people and that might be my downfall some day. :( Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: Bergmann_Christoph on January 13, 2016, 04:46:36 PM reserved for links and references. Here's a reference for ya Llama boy! https://bitcoinclassic.com/ Ka BOOM! * world is back to normal, progress again being made, blockstream hijaakers being rounded up for a good drobbing of ridicule! https://bitcoinclassic.com/ <<< BACK to the future! (by back, I mean, putting Bitcoin BACK on the original path Satoshi intended, rescued from the Blockstream Hijaakers) ++ I love how even core distances itself from bitcoin.org and accepts multiple clients. The authorative, in-eloquent, aggressive, hate-spreading small block militia is left without masters. What will those poor kids do, when they find out that there is nobody who hugs and pats them for their media-engagement? Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: Bergmann_Christoph on January 13, 2016, 04:50:35 PM And yes like someone else has already posted it seems to be the typical strategy of divide and conquer. Now where XT has failed this is attempt number two. You probably forgot about Bitcoin Unlimited. This is attempt number three. Neither XT nor Unlimited have failed. They are here if they are needed. If the growth in transactions slows down and Core's approach is early successfull, they will not be needed. But as soon as the highway is full, mempool growths continuosly and core's approaches fail you'll be thankfull for every alternative client that saves bitcoin. (this said, classic may have chosen the wrong timing to come out. Otherwise they can now built a community and develop an own roadmap to be prepared when / if the need for some alternative to core will be urgent) Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: Zarathustra on January 13, 2016, 04:58:08 PM reserved for links and references. Here's a reference for ya Llama boy! https://bitcoinclassic.com/ Ka BOOM! * world is back to normal, progress again being made, blockstream hijaakers being rounded up for a good drobbing of ridicule! https://bitcoinclassic.com/ <<< BACK to the future! (by back, I mean, putting Bitcoin BACK on the original path Satoshi intended, rescued from the Blockstream Hijaakers) ++ I love how even core distances itself from bitcoin.org and accepts multiple clients. The authorative, in-eloquent, aggressive, hate-spreading small block militia is left without masters. What will those poor kids do, when they find out that there is nobody who hugs and pats them for their media-engagement? Then they still have their 'Geliebte Führerin': https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1325375.msg13536859#msg13536859 “The cheapest sort of pride is national pride; for if a man is proud of his own nation, it argues that he has no qualities of his own of which he can be proud; otherwise he would not have recourse to those which he shares with so many millions of his fellowmen. The man who is endowed with important personal qualities will be only too ready to see clearly in what respects his own nation falls short, since their failings will be constantly before his eyes. But every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud adopts, as a last resource, pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and glad to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority.” Arthur Schopenhauer Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: Bergmann_Christoph on January 13, 2016, 05:04:10 PM reserved for links and references. Here's a reference for ya Llama boy! https://bitcoinclassic.com/ Ka BOOM! * world is back to normal, progress again being made, blockstream hijaakers being rounded up for a good drobbing of ridicule! https://bitcoinclassic.com/ <<< BACK to the future! (by back, I mean, putting Bitcoin BACK on the original path Satoshi intended, rescued from the Blockstream Hijaakers) ++ I love how even core distances itself from bitcoin.org and accepts multiple clients. The authorative, in-eloquent, aggressive, hate-spreading small block militia is left without masters. What will those poor kids do, when they find out that there is nobody who hugs and pats them for their media-engagement? Then they still have their 'Geliebte Führerin': https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1325375.msg13536859#msg13536859 Hehe ... Marie will be the first to bann bitcoin, cause it's new and alien and unknown and she and none of their fanboys understand it. As it is, our small block militia seems neither to understand bitcoin nor their 'Geliebte Führerin' :) But I'm sure they'll promote the plan to restrict travel in the metro to 2-3 passengers / second (to protect the historical metro, and because without this nobody will pay for a ticket, etc.) Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: hdbuck on January 13, 2016, 05:09:12 PM fuck. shitposters spamming the discussion.
Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: Bergmann_Christoph on January 13, 2016, 05:11:01 PM fuck. shitposters spamming the discussion. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D You really call that ... a discussion? The dissonance is great with you, my boy Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: siameze on January 13, 2016, 05:13:35 PM And yes like someone else has already posted it seems to be the typical strategy of divide and conquer. Now where XT has failed this is attempt number two. You probably forgot about Bitcoin Unlimited. This is attempt number three. Neither XT nor Unlimited have failed. They are here if they are needed. If the growth in transactions slows down and Core's approach is early successfull, they will not be needed. But as soon as the highway is full, mempool growths continuosly and core's approaches fail you'll be thankfull for every alternative client that saves bitcoin. (this said, classic may have chosen the wrong timing to come out. Otherwise they can now built a community and develop an own roadmap to be prepared when / if the need for some alternative to core will be urgent) https://i.imgur.com/eerc2gj.jpg?2 Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: Zarathustra on January 13, 2016, 05:41:38 PM Ka Boooom !!
And now Jeff Garzik jumps on the Bitcoin Classic Train: https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/687062040133955584 Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: Lauda on January 13, 2016, 05:51:41 PM Neither XT nor Unlimited have failed. They are here if they are needed. If the growth in transactions slows down and Core's approach is early successfull, they will not be needed. But as soon as the highway is full, mempool growths continuosly and core's approaches fail you'll be thankfull for every alternative client that saves bitcoin. XT is definitely dead and has failed. Even its creator has abandoned. Unlimited it not even worth discussing and can be harmed by bad actors. Core's approach should be okay for 2016. SegWit actually needs less code than XT needed for the increase (according to Maxwell). Let's just hope that it gets tested and implemented quickly. After SegWit there are certainly interesting things on the roadmap for Core; hopefully later there will be a standard block size increase. (this said, classic may have chosen the wrong timing to come out. Otherwise they can now built a community and develop an own roadmap to be prepared when / if the need for some alternative to core will be urgent) Update: Have you seen the segwit changeset? And what about the changes to wallets, exchanges, block explorers, etc. etc???? I'm talking about changes to the Core project on Github as opposed to changes on Github for XT (changes to services are irrelevant in this comparison). Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: Zarathustra on January 13, 2016, 06:15:31 PM Neither XT nor Unlimited have failed. They are here if they are needed. If the growth in transactions slows down and Core's approach is early successfull, they will not be needed. But as soon as the highway is full, mempool growths continuosly and core's approaches fail you'll be thankfull for every alternative client that saves bitcoin. Let's just hope that it gets tested and implemented quickly. After SegWit there are certainly interesting things on the roadmap for Core; hopefully later there will be a standard block size increase. (this said, classic may have chosen the wrong timing to come out. Otherwise they can now built a community and develop an own roadmap to be prepared when / if the need for some alternative to core will be urgent) Hope is a strategy for fools. Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: hdbuck on January 13, 2016, 06:23:41 PM Neither XT nor Unlimited have failed. They are here if they are needed. If the growth in transactions slows down and Core's approach is early successfull, they will not be needed. But as soon as the highway is full, mempool growths continuosly and core's approaches fail you'll be thankfull for every alternative client that saves bitcoin. Let's just hope that it gets tested and implemented quickly. After SegWit there are certainly interesting things on the roadmap for Core; hopefully later there will be a standard block size increase. (this said, classic may have chosen the wrong timing to come out. Otherwise they can now built a community and develop an own roadmap to be prepared when / if the need for some alternative to core will be urgent) Hope is a strategy for fools. Indeed. Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: QuestionAuthority on January 13, 2016, 06:46:35 PM Meh, I was against Andresen before it was cool. Actually, I started many years ago and it was met by a lynch mob of Gavin homosexual fanboys. I still have the rope burns on my neck. You may as well leave Napoleon Bitaparte alone now. He's outed himself time and time again. I don't think anyone is missing who he really is at this point. There was a time where I used to "trust" (might not be the right word) his opinions. Even back when he suggested 20 MB blocks; this was probably because I misunderstood everything related to the block size debate just as many do today. Over time one could easily see that he can't be trusted as he used to. 20 MB would have definitely harmed the system that we are using right now.That's not even part of it for me. I've been closely watching the little dictator react since the BIP 16/17 debates and he's been on the edge of reality for years. I've accused him, in posts here multiple times, of being a self serving power hungry manipulator. I haven't seen anything lately that changes my opinion. Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: sAt0sHiFanClub on January 13, 2016, 08:45:19 PM SegWit actually needs less code than XT needed for the increase (according to Maxwell). What in the name of F*ck are you talking about? Have you seen the segwit changeset? And what about the changes to wallets, exchanges, block explorers, etc. etc???? btw - where is maxwell? what have you done with him? Any word on the Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: keepdoing on January 13, 2016, 09:05:07 PM Core's approach should be okay for 2016. SegWit actually needs less code than XT needed for the increase (according to Maxwell). Let's just hope that it gets tested and implemented quickly. After SegWit there are certainly interesting things on the roadmap for Core; hopefully later there will be a standard block size increase. Oh Look! How cute! The little kitty is in denial :)LOL - close your eyes and tap your heels three times and say, "nothing has changed!" .... and then open your eyes, and ...... KaaBOOOM! www.BitcoinClassic.com In Your Burger Eating Face Lil Kitty! Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: ATguy on January 13, 2016, 09:31:18 PM And the last to date: yet another Bitcoin fork branded as "Bitcoin Classic (https://bitcoinclassic.com/)".. Note one of his new "partner in crime": https://i.imgur.com/mYGmEOs.png Spice it up with Cryptsy's unsurprising EXIT SCAM (http://www.coindesk.com/digital-currency-exchange-cryptsys-problems-partners/): http://www.imediaconnection.com/profiles/iMedia_PC_Bio.aspx?ID=66373 https://i.imgur.com/TGqoMjA.jpg http://insidebitcoins.com/chicago/2015/speakers https://i.imgur.com/Y6roDzb.jpg There is no reason to list Marshall Long as the 1st minner on the list, this I agree. But recent censoring in Bitcoin showed how this kind of censorship is bad. After Marshall Long become convicted, then it makes sence to de-list him from miner supporter of Bitcoin Classic. Before this happen, he should be considered inocent until proven guilty, unless your just tyran with strong and quick opinion to everyone. Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: hdbuck on January 13, 2016, 11:17:56 PM oops
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint. Good idea or not, SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (or co-opt it for their own use) sooner or later. They'll either hack the existing code or write their own version, and will be a menace to the network.I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it. I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel. That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends... :D Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: notbatman on January 13, 2016, 11:39:05 PM oops I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint. Good idea or not, SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (or co-opt it for their own use) sooner or later. They'll either hack the existing code or write their own version, and will be a menace to the network.I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it. I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel. That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends... :D https://i.imgur.com/pvxe66m.png Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: brg444 on January 14, 2016, 12:11:06 AM I like this thread. Lemme add to it by way of the Mircea vault
http://trilema.com/2013/and-gavin-moves-on-to-the-dark-side-the-bitcoin-project-is-officially-hijacked/ Quote Recently Bitcoin came close to unmitigated disaster, in the following way: Gavin diplomatically suggested that miners increase their block size, from the previous magic number of "250k" to something they themselves pick. This approach is flawed: the solution to the problem of having a magic number in the code is not passing the responsibility of choosing it to a larger group. It may work politically, in the sense that where large, vague groups are responsible for a bad move nobody will ever be hung. It does not work practically. Quote It's quite plain to anyone with a clue that 2FA/GA/whatever is roughly speaking the equivalent of the Windows antivirus, or more classically of the "spray some holy water on it". Originally it was devised to patch a fundamentally broken security systemii and it works about as well as you'd expect a patch to a fundamentally broken security system to work. It doesn't do anything for security, but it does a lot for security theater, and so it's incredibly popular among the fetishistic mass, which feels a lot safer if it has something to physically clutch. Win-win, right ? Under the guise of this nonsense, which offers no value, no utility and no benefit, Gavin artfully inserts the proposal of utterly breaking Bitcoin. Having a server allow your transactions is simply taking Bitcoin and turning it back into PayPal. Does your government want a way to block Bitcoin transactions, Gavin ? Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: Cconvert2G36 on January 14, 2016, 02:31:21 AM The sheer intellectual candlepower being demonstrated in this thread is nearly blinding.
To continue in the vein of the previous poster, lemme add to it by way of the Mircea vault (http://trilema.com/2015/theres-a-one-bitcoin-reward-for-the-death-of-pieter-wuille-details-below/) Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: Lauda on January 14, 2016, 05:51:12 AM oops I'll also just leave this jewel here:I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint. Quote A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me. It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in. If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version. If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version. This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1617#msg1617) Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: johnyj on January 14, 2016, 05:53:21 AM I think people should have a clear understanding that a fork without major consensus will double the money supply thus break the fundamental promise of limited total money supply of bitcoin, it is just self destruction. Everyone should make sure to kill it immediately when it shows up
Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: Cconvert2G36 on January 14, 2016, 06:21:11 AM I think people should have a clear understanding that a fork without major consensus will double the money supply thus break the fundamental promise of limited total money supply of bitcoin, it is just self destruction. Everyone should make sure to kill it immediately when it shows up A fork that requires 75% of the last 1000 blocks will be over pretty quickly. The <25% jump ship to the main fork or are stuck mining worthless coins at a huge difficulty for a long time before adjustment. If they survive that... they are at a constant risk of being attacked by the greater power of the 75% hashers. This is how Bitcoin works... it's there in the whitepaper. Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: iCEBREAKER on January 14, 2016, 07:29:49 AM I think people should have a clear understanding that a fork without major consensus will double the money supply thus break the fundamental promise of limited total money supply of bitcoin, it is just self destruction. Everyone should make sure to kill it immediately when it shows up A fork that requires 75% of the last 1000 blocks will be over pretty quickly. The <25% jump ship to the main fork or are stuck mining worthless coins at a huge difficulty for a long time before adjustment. If they survive that... they are at a constant risk of being attacked by the greater power of the 75% hashers. This is how Bitcoin works... it's there in the whitepaper. You don't know how Bitcoin variance works. Much less than an actual 75% of mining power But as that variance is smoothed out over time by reversion to normal distribution, the >25% remaining miners will inevitably orphan the attacking Gavinista blockchain by solving several consecutive 1MB blocks. Here is your next remedial lesson on Bitcoin Civil Wars: Hearn picked the least optimal 'magic number' with "75%" just like he went about creating XT in the least optimal way possible (Great Schism). Cite: http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2015/08/bip101-implementation-flaws.html From the POV of Core defense, XT's idiotic choice of "75%" is great, as it minimizes XT's chances of success! 8) Please hurry and catch up to the rest of the class. You are (at minimum) 4.5 months behind. ;) Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: Cconvert2G36 on January 14, 2016, 07:39:39 AM I think people should have a clear understanding that a fork without major consensus will double the money supply thus break the fundamental promise of limited total money supply of bitcoin, it is just self destruction. Everyone should make sure to kill it immediately when it shows up A fork that requires 75% of the last 1000 blocks will be over pretty quickly. The <25% jump ship to the main fork or are stuck mining worthless coins at a huge difficulty for a long time before adjustment. If they survive that... they are at a constant risk of being attacked by the greater power of the 75% hashers. This is how Bitcoin works... it's there in the whitepaper. You don't know how Bitcoin variance works. Much less than an actual 75% of mining power But as that variance is smoothed out over time by reversion to normal distribution, the >25% remaining miners will inevitably orphan the attacking Gavinista blockchain by solving several consecutive 1MB blocks. Here is your next remedial lesson on Bitcoin Civil Wars: Hearn picked the least optimal 'magic number' with "75%" just like he went about creating XT in the least optimal way possible (Great Schism). Cite: http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2015/08/bip101-implementation-flaws.html From the POV of Core defense, XT's idiotic choice of "75%" is great, as it minimizes XT's chances of success! 8) Please hurry and catch up to the rest of the class. You are (at minimum) 4.5 months behind. ;) So... 750/1000 may be us just getting lucky... https://media.giphy.com/media/n0LZiwUqJ5Zvy/giphy.gif Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: Bergmann_Christoph on January 14, 2016, 09:02:38 AM I think people should have a clear understanding that a fork without major consensus will double the money supply thus break the fundamental promise of limited total money supply of bitcoin, it is just self destruction. Everyone should make sure to kill it immediately when it shows up A fork that requires 75% of the last 1000 blocks will be over pretty quickly. The <25% jump ship to the main fork or are stuck mining worthless coins at a huge difficulty for a long time before adjustment. If they survive that... they are at a constant risk of being attacked by the greater power of the 75% hashers. This is how Bitcoin works... it's there in the whitepaper. You don't know how Bitcoin variance works. Much less than an actual 75% of mining power But as that variance is smoothed out over time by reversion to normal distribution, the >25% remaining miners will inevitably orphan the attacking Gavinista blockchain by solving several consecutive 1MB blocks. Here is your next remedial lesson on Bitcoin Civil Wars: Hearn picked the least optimal 'magic number' with "75%" just like he went about creating XT in the least optimal way possible (Great Schism). Cite: http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2015/08/bip101-implementation-flaws.html From the POV of Core defense, XT's idiotic choice of "75%" is great, as it minimizes XT's chances of success! 8) Please hurry and catch up to the rest of the class. You are (at minimum) 4.5 months behind. ;) If classic reaches 51 percent, the rest will follow soon. The process is absolutely transparent. Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: iCEBREAKER on January 14, 2016, 01:34:01 PM If classic reaches 51 percent, the rest will follow soon. The process is absolutely transparent. That is incorrect. Due to the presence of spoofed Not_Classic and Pseudo_Classic nodes, the process is absolutely opaque. Uncertainty about the authenticity/provenance/intent of Gavinblocks creates a moment of maximized risk, at the exact time (potential) defectors from Core's socioeconomic majority most need reassurance they will not lose coins when the attacking chain is orphaned. Are you going to read OrganOfCorti's definitive study on the subject, or am I going to have to re-explain this every 6 months when the latest trendy Gavinista vanity fork fad comes along? It's like Groundhog Day, but with Gavin's Reddit Army replacing Chris Elliot Which is fine, because you goofy lolcows are almost as hilariously daft. :D Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: keepdoing on January 14, 2016, 02:48:58 PM If classic reaches 51 percent, the rest will follow soon. The process is absolutely transparent. That is incorrect. Due to the presence of spoofed Not_Classic and Pseudo_Classic nodes, the process is absolutely opaque. Uncertainty about the authenticity/provenance/intent of Gavinblocks creates a moment of maximized risk, at the exact time (potential) defectors from Core's socioeconomic majority most need reassurance they will not lose coins when the attacking chain is orphaned. The way you use so many fancy sounding words tied together in ways that mean absolutely nothing - totally convinces me that something scary must be up! And the Classic Code hasn't even been released, and yet there are Pseudo-Nodes circulating! Will the technological miracles that these evil gavinista minds come up with never cease! OH Wait! I seee.... it's just a bunch of Hijaaking Losers panicking, because they know the jigs up, and most likely their credibility and trust will be FOREVER lost to the overall community. Honestly I have always been rather pro-blockstream from a conceptual standpoint. Always thought they had some solid downstream potential in the bitcoin ecosystem. But the way this has unfolded is really leaving a bigger sour taste in the mouth than I can imagine. If they keep this fight and denial up - I can see their brand being permanently damaged. blockstream #REKT Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: johnyj on January 15, 2016, 07:00:18 AM Paranoid atmosphere here is healthy, better than risk taken gamblers :D
Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: iCEBREAKER on January 16, 2016, 08:23:14 PM yet another Bitcoin fork branded as "Bitcoin Classic (https://bitcoinclassic.com/)".. Note one of his new "partner in crime": https://i.imgur.com/mYGmEOs.png Spice it up with Cryptsy's unsurprising EXIT SCAM (http://www.coindesk.com/digital-currency-exchange-cryptsys-problems-partners/): http://www.imediaconnection.com/profiles/iMedia_PC_Bio.aspx?ID=66373 https://i.imgur.com/TGqoMjA.jpg http://insidebitcoins.com/chicago/2015/speakers https://i.imgur.com/Y6roDzb.jpg For 18 months Cryptsy failed to report to law enforcement the fact they had been robbed and disclose they are insolvent, instead choosing to operate on a fraudulent fractional reserve basis. Now the site is gone entirely, leaving 100s of angry Goxed customers in its wake. Small wonder Team_Classic has thrown Marshall Long down the memory hole and removed his name from their esteemed roster, which includes renowned devs like Peter Rizun. Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: sAt0sHiFanClub on January 16, 2016, 10:19:56 PM .... irrelevant shit #CORERAGE Are you pissed off coz its a scam that you weren't involved with? Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: btcusury on January 18, 2016, 11:14:14 AM Meh, I was against Andresen before it was cool. Actually, I started many years ago and it was met by a lynch mob of Gavin homosexual fanboys. I still have the rope burns on my neck. You may as well leave Napoleon Bitaparte alone now. He's outed himself time and time again. I don't think anyone is missing who he really is at this point. There was a time where I used to "trust" (might not be the right word) his opinions. Even back when he suggested 20 MB blocks; this was probably because I misunderstood everything related to the block size debate just as many do today. Over time one could easily see that he can't be trusted as he used to. 20 MB would have definitely harmed the system that we are using right now.That's not even part of it for me. I've been closely watching the little dictator react since the BIP 16/17 debates and he's been on the edge of reality for years. I've accused him, in posts here multiple times, of being a self serving power hungry manipulator. I haven't seen anything lately that changes my opinion. Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: QuestionAuthority on January 18, 2016, 01:13:52 PM Meh, I was against Andresen before it was cool. Actually, I started many years ago and it was met by a lynch mob of Gavin homosexual fanboys. I still have the rope burns on my neck. You may as well leave Napoleon Bitaparte alone now. He's outed himself time and time again. I don't think anyone is missing who he really is at this point. There was a time where I used to "trust" (might not be the right word) his opinions. Even back when he suggested 20 MB blocks; this was probably because I misunderstood everything related to the block size debate just as many do today. Over time one could easily see that he can't be trusted as he used to. 20 MB would have definitely harmed the system that we are using right now.That's not even part of it for me. I've been closely watching the little dictator react since the BIP 16/17 debates and he's been on the edge of reality for years. I've accused him, in posts here multiple times, of being a self serving power hungry manipulator. I haven't seen anything lately that changes my opinion. Yes, success and power are his only motivations and it shows. If you want to see ego based nerd rage at its finest read this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62037.0 I doubt the CIA cares much about Bitcoin. The entire Bitcoin market cap wouldn't hide enough money to cover overthrowing even one government or funding one puppet regime. The CIA doesn't care about illegal drugs or illegal guns they buy and use both of them in their overseas operations (read up on Air America). Most likely they wanted to understand Bitcoin to find out if they could use it to launder money. Bitcoin isn't big enough yet to be useful to the CIA. The entire Bitcoin market cap is probably smaller than the CIAs budget for snacks. The agency in charge of fucking up interstate commerce that would worry about small time crimes using Bitcoin would be the FBI. Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: Bergmann_Christoph on January 18, 2016, 01:27:54 PM Meh, I was against Andresen before it was cool. Actually, I started many years ago and it was met by a lynch mob of Gavin homosexual fanboys. I still have the rope burns on my neck. You may as well leave Napoleon Bitaparte alone now. He's outed himself time and time again. I don't think anyone is missing who he really is at this point. There was a time where I used to "trust" (might not be the right word) his opinions. Even back when he suggested 20 MB blocks; this was probably because I misunderstood everything related to the block size debate just as many do today. Over time one could easily see that he can't be trusted as he used to. 20 MB would have definitely harmed the system that we are using right now.That's not even part of it for me. I've been closely watching the little dictator react since the BIP 16/17 debates and he's been on the edge of reality for years. I've accused him, in posts here multiple times, of being a self serving power hungry manipulator. I haven't seen anything lately that changes my opinion. Yes, success and power are his only motivations and it shows. If you want to see ego based nerd rage at its finest read this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62037.0 Thanks for that link. It's interesting how luke-jr was considered at this time Quote from: CoinHunter I've read many of the developer logs from Bitcoin and I must say I'm surprised this hasn't really come to a head earlier. If you read luke-jrs response to pretty much anything he disagrees with he does the "you do that and I'm not going to mine it" approach. "If you do that I'm going to fork the chain" . Basically turning every minor problem into a major one and using his pool as his body guard. Does anyone actually think Luke-Jr is a positive presence? Attacking other currencies, filing false claims to hosts, inserting religious text into Bitcoin and finally holding Bitcoin development team to ransom to stall development? With that sort of positive presence I'm glad he's over here rather than focusing on SolidCoin. Tongue Now, can you explain why GregMaxwell handed him over the key to his Push Access? Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: QuestionAuthority on January 18, 2016, 01:35:38 PM Meh, I was against Andresen before it was cool. Actually, I started many years ago and it was met by a lynch mob of Gavin homosexual fanboys. I still have the rope burns on my neck. You may as well leave Napoleon Bitaparte alone now. He's outed himself time and time again. I don't think anyone is missing who he really is at this point. There was a time where I used to "trust" (might not be the right word) his opinions. Even back when he suggested 20 MB blocks; this was probably because I misunderstood everything related to the block size debate just as many do today. Over time one could easily see that he can't be trusted as he used to. 20 MB would have definitely harmed the system that we are using right now.That's not even part of it for me. I've been closely watching the little dictator react since the BIP 16/17 debates and he's been on the edge of reality for years. I've accused him, in posts here multiple times, of being a self serving power hungry manipulator. I haven't seen anything lately that changes my opinion. Yes, success and power are his only motivations and it shows. If you want to see ego based nerd rage at its finest read this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62037.0 Thanks for that link. It's interesting how luke-jr was considered at this time Quote from: CoinHunter I've read many of the developer logs from Bitcoin and I must say I'm surprised this hasn't really come to a head earlier. If you read luke-jrs response to pretty much anything he disagrees with he does the "you do that and I'm not going to mine it" approach. "If you do that I'm going to fork the chain" . Basically turning every minor problem into a major one and using his pool as his body guard. Does anyone actually think Luke-Jr is a positive presence? Attacking other currencies, filing false claims to hosts, inserting religious text into Bitcoin and finally holding Bitcoin development team to ransom to stall development? With that sort of positive presence I'm glad he's over here rather than focusing on SolidCoin. Tongue Now, can you explain why GregMaxwell handed him over the key to his Push Access? Remember back to high school or college. Now think about the biggest asshole you knew there. The asshole had friends, right? Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: Bergmann_Christoph on January 18, 2016, 01:41:55 PM Meh, I was against Andresen before it was cool. Actually, I started many years ago and it was met by a lynch mob of Gavin homosexual fanboys. I still have the rope burns on my neck. You may as well leave Napoleon Bitaparte alone now. He's outed himself time and time again. I don't think anyone is missing who he really is at this point. There was a time where I used to "trust" (might not be the right word) his opinions. Even back when he suggested 20 MB blocks; this was probably because I misunderstood everything related to the block size debate just as many do today. Over time one could easily see that he can't be trusted as he used to. 20 MB would have definitely harmed the system that we are using right now.That's not even part of it for me. I've been closely watching the little dictator react since the BIP 16/17 debates and he's been on the edge of reality for years. I've accused him, in posts here multiple times, of being a self serving power hungry manipulator. I haven't seen anything lately that changes my opinion. Yes, success and power are his only motivations and it shows. If you want to see ego based nerd rage at its finest read this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62037.0 Thanks for that link. It's interesting how luke-jr was considered at this time Quote from: CoinHunter I've read many of the developer logs from Bitcoin and I must say I'm surprised this hasn't really come to a head earlier. If you read luke-jrs response to pretty much anything he disagrees with he does the "you do that and I'm not going to mine it" approach. "If you do that I'm going to fork the chain" . Basically turning every minor problem into a major one and using his pool as his body guard. Does anyone actually think Luke-Jr is a positive presence? Attacking other currencies, filing false claims to hosts, inserting religious text into Bitcoin and finally holding Bitcoin development team to ransom to stall development? With that sort of positive presence I'm glad he's over here rather than focusing on SolidCoin. Tongue Now, can you explain why GregMaxwell handed him over the key to his Push Access? Remember back to high school or college. Now think about the biggest asshole you knew there. The asshole had friends, right? All right :) I hoped there were better reasons ... Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: sAt0sHiFanClub on January 18, 2016, 01:42:02 PM Thanks for that link. It's interesting how luke-jr was considered at this time Quote from: CoinHunter I've read many of the developer logs from Bitcoin and I must say I'm surprised this hasn't really come to a head earlier. If you read luke-jrs response to pretty much anything he disagrees with he does the "you do that and I'm not going to mine it" approach. "If you do that I'm going to fork the chain" . Basically turning every minor problem into a major one and using his pool as his body guard. Does anyone actually think Luke-Jr is a positive presence? Attacking other currencies, filing false claims to hosts, inserting religious text into Bitcoin and finally holding Bitcoin development team to ransom to stall development? With that sort of positive presence I'm glad he's over here rather than focusing on SolidCoin. Tongue Now, can you explain why GregMaxwell handed him over the key to his Push Access? Have a look at his contributions to PR#6 on Bitcoin Classic. Core can keep him. Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: QuestionAuthority on January 18, 2016, 01:52:29 PM Meh, I was against Andresen before it was cool. Actually, I started many years ago and it was met by a lynch mob of Gavin homosexual fanboys. I still have the rope burns on my neck. You may as well leave Napoleon Bitaparte alone now. He's outed himself time and time again. I don't think anyone is missing who he really is at this point. There was a time where I used to "trust" (might not be the right word) his opinions. Even back when he suggested 20 MB blocks; this was probably because I misunderstood everything related to the block size debate just as many do today. Over time one could easily see that he can't be trusted as he used to. 20 MB would have definitely harmed the system that we are using right now.That's not even part of it for me. I've been closely watching the little dictator react since the BIP 16/17 debates and he's been on the edge of reality for years. I've accused him, in posts here multiple times, of being a self serving power hungry manipulator. I haven't seen anything lately that changes my opinion. Yes, success and power are his only motivations and it shows. If you want to see ego based nerd rage at its finest read this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62037.0 Thanks for that link. It's interesting how luke-jr was considered at this time Quote from: CoinHunter I've read many of the developer logs from Bitcoin and I must say I'm surprised this hasn't really come to a head earlier. If you read luke-jrs response to pretty much anything he disagrees with he does the "you do that and I'm not going to mine it" approach. "If you do that I'm going to fork the chain" . Basically turning every minor problem into a major one and using his pool as his body guard. Does anyone actually think Luke-Jr is a positive presence? Attacking other currencies, filing false claims to hosts, inserting religious text into Bitcoin and finally holding Bitcoin development team to ransom to stall development? With that sort of positive presence I'm glad he's over here rather than focusing on SolidCoin. Tongue Now, can you explain why GregMaxwell handed him over the key to his Push Access? Remember back to high school or college. Now think about the biggest asshole you knew there. The asshole had friends, right? All right :) I hoped there were better reasons ... Sophisticated adults like to believe they put away childish things when they left school but in reality we never really grow out of them. Cliques of people develop at work just like they did in school. It's human nature and can't be helped. Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: btcusury on January 18, 2016, 03:04:00 PM Meh, I was against Andresen before it was cool. Actually, I started many years ago and it was met by a lynch mob of Gavin homosexual fanboys. I still have the rope burns on my neck. You may as well leave Napoleon Bitaparte alone now. He's outed himself time and time again. I don't think anyone is missing who he really is at this point. There was a time where I used to "trust" (might not be the right word) his opinions. Even back when he suggested 20 MB blocks; this was probably because I misunderstood everything related to the block size debate just as many do today. Over time one could easily see that he can't be trusted as he used to. 20 MB would have definitely harmed the system that we are using right now.That's not even part of it for me. I've been closely watching the little dictator react since the BIP 16/17 debates and he's been on the edge of reality for years. I've accused him, in posts here multiple times, of being a self serving power hungry manipulator. I haven't seen anything lately that changes my opinion. Yes, success and power are his only motivations and it shows. If you want to see ego based nerd rage at its finest read this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62037.0 You mean a distorted sense of "success and power", by climbing up the "authority" ladder set up for him since childhood? Yeah, seems accurate. CIA probably realized they didn't need to recruit him; just perhaps give him some "hints" to make him believe that he's "serving his country" and being a good "patriot". Quote I doubt the CIA cares much about Bitcoin. The entire Bitcoin market cap wouldn't hide enough money to cover overthrowing even one government or funding one puppet regime. The CIA doesn't care about illegal drugs or illegal guns they buy and use both of them in their overseas operations (read up on Air America). Most likely they wanted to understand Bitcoin to find out if they could use it to launder money. Bitcoin isn't big enough yet to be useful to the CIA. The entire Bitcoin market cap is probably smaller than the CIAs budget for snacks. The agency in charge of fucking up interstate commerce that would worry about small time crimes using Bitcoin would be the FBI. Well, do you think CIA has a will of its own, and is not directed by a more central compartment such as DNI and various dark budget interests? Coups, weapons, drugs, are just some (difficult to hide) aspects of what the IC do. They wanted to find out if they could use Bitcoin to launder money, yes, that's a given, but their interest is always comprehensive, not limited to just one idea. Even back then before the banksters may have begun to perceive Bitcoin/cryptocurrency/decentralization as a threat, their main interest would probably still have been to control it, by attempting to introduce control vectors that might eventually result in such control. Sophisticated adults like to believe they put away childish things when they left school but in reality we never really grow out of them. Cliques of people develop at work just like they did in school. It's human nature and can't be helped. Of course it can! It already is! Sure there are many egos still clashing and feeling good by "being right" (hell, even I still succumb to that at times!), but if you're not noticing the changing energy on our planet you're not paying attention! ;)Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: QuestionAuthority on January 18, 2016, 03:25:58 PM My belief in the "changing energy on our planet" died in a hippie commune in 1975. That's the year I went to work for Lockheed Martin.
https://revistatrendy.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/hippies1.jpg Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: btcusury on January 18, 2016, 05:20:39 PM LOL, but this is 2016 bro, a year of unprecedented change. Are you aware that life beyond the Earth even exists? By the end of the year, once the "authorities" have "officially" announced such a "discovery", I suspect you will! ;)
Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: QuestionAuthority on January 18, 2016, 05:40:36 PM LOL, but this is 2016 bro, a year of unprecedented change. Are you aware that life beyond the Earth even exists? By the end of the year, once the "authorities" have "officially" announced such a "discovery", I suspect you will! ;) No, I never heard. I missed the whole "life beyond Earth" briefing. I was getting a bikini wax and pedicure that day. Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: hdbuck on January 19, 2016, 02:49:57 PM Recent Bitcoin Direction
http://qntra.net/2016/01/recent-bitcoin-direction/ A miners warning http://deedbot.org/deed-393913-1.txt Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: watashi-kokoto on January 20, 2016, 01:12:31 PM Recent Bitcoin Direction http://qntra.net/2016/01/recent-bitcoin-direction/ A miners warning http://deedbot.org/deed-393913-1.txt If Bitcoin survives a hardfork, It'll be unstoppable. Title: Re: Gavineries Post by: hdbuck on January 21, 2016, 07:59:39 AM That's right, time to move on. Please do. Bitcoin is really not for you.
http://trilema.com/2016/thats-right-time-to-move-on-please-do-bitcoin-is-really-not-for-you/ Quote Since yesterday's recap of the sad track record of the USG, the toomim clown received some bad news, with which he coped in the usual manner : by having a rather amusing public meltdown under the influence. Meanwhile the poopaganda machine came out in force with a pathetic chorus bemoaning "Bitcoin's death". Whatever. For once we do agree : it's time to move on. Please do. Bitcoin was never for you. Bitcoin was never for the poor ; Bitcoin was never for the voluble if worthless "social media" tramp ; Bitcoin was never for the soi-dissant "activist" aka scammer. Bitcoin was not for you. And since we're doing this, let's proceed to dispell some myths. I. It is false that Bitcoin has to be used by you for it to be valuable. You believe man to be the measure of all things. This is a purely religious belief, exactly identical, and directly reducible, to the notion that there's a magical teapot spinning in the sky. You believe that you are man, in the strict and strictly laughable sense that everything is equal to everything else and thus therefore you see yourself as not merely a uniquely bent spoon, vaguely related to various other better implementations of an ideal spoon and thus twice removed from that ideal but instead fully and completely, in and by yourself, equal and idempotent to everything man is, ever was or ever could be. This is also a religious belief, I suppose, although more indicative of psychopathology than what usually is called religion - on the continuum between the buddhist chanting and the fanatic beheading this sort of nonsense is certainly past the fanatic, hapilly floating in a schizoid sea towards waxy flexibility. You put these two together and what comes out is the directly falsifiable notion that in order for Bitcoin to be valuable, it has to be usable by you. This is obviously not so : cars your whole bloodline could never, no matter what, ever afford are still cars, and valuable and enjoyed by those of your betters that can actually buy one. That nobody in your family ever wore shoes does not imply that shoes are now worthless, or "not usable". It certainly does not imply that shoes should be doing things differently. Learn a trade, marry well, do something with your life so that you too might enjoy the glory of footwear, perhaps, however briefly, however distantly in the future. II. It is false that Bitcoin has to "do good" in order to continue to exist. Bitcoin can kill all your friends, and all the people you respect, and every other kitten. It can poop in your drink and insult your friendship and rape your pets for all the difference it makes. If lightning strikes where you sit, whether you feel a warm cozy sort of love for it or the most burning hatred imaginable is strictly irrelevant - electricity stays. If tomorrow your house burns down you'll be advised to take more care - blaming the victim as it were. Nobody's ever going to try change the fire. More generally : the world is not built on emotions, whether you "love" world peace or "hate" world peace or both or neither makes exactly not one grain of difference to world peace. Bitcoin is not a product, like a belt that's tied too tight and so you can adjust to be less tight, or like an engine that runs too hot and so you can adjust to run a little cooler. Bitcoin is a rule, and if you're not happy with how it works you have to change, just like if you're unhappy with the effects gravitation has on your planned plane, you must change the plan. You can't attempt to change gravitation. And there is no such thing as voting rules. The things you vote upon are laws, not rules. They really don't matter one bit. There are other silly things ESLi muppets believe, such as that they are creative (they're not, and I don't mean that they aren't the most creative - I mean they're below average, and markedly so) and that they're "civilised" (god help you), and that the only way they've ever seen things done is necessarily the best possible way (do read Voltaire when you have a moment) and on it goesii. But let's keep things simple and sweet, in step with the comprehension and attention span of five year olds captive in seemingly adult bodies : it's time to move on. Please do. Bitcoin really is not for you. |
