Bitcoin Forum

Shit.

I don’t think we should reach to any kind of conclusion at this moment, things might be confusing at the moment but it would be too much hurry to jump to any conclusion. One should express your opinion but should not try to impose it on others because it might create the negative impact on others and especially newbies.

Additionally, it would be great if you quote links and add detailed view about it because the title and one word in the post are not enough to have a clear picture.

Is there a link about this, I've been out of it for a while?

Here's a bit of back story

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4klqtg/people_are_starting_to_realize_how_toxic_gregory/

so in a nutshell why he is the owner? i think he had good contribution  right? what he exactly did in the wrong way to take all those shit against him? and bitcoin is open source there is no one controlling it, who can join and is talented can do so

It's just fun to say that, but everyone knows that even if 95% wanted some change, if Greg and Core and Blockstream were in that 5%, they could manage to 'convince' dumb Chinese miners that a hard fork would result and they should stick with Core. 

It isn't really Open Source.  A tiny minority can prevent a very popular change due to the difficulty reaching 'concensus'.  Threat of possible hard fork scares Chinese.

Greg maxwellhas thegift of coding but that does not mean he is controlling bitcoin.yes he has effected many open source peojects just how many open source projects can be compared with bitcoin.

r/btc quote = instant death spiral of credibility no matter what the subject matter,  but super especially this one.

I don't know anything about him myself. I don't massively care. If Bitcoin does look like it's permanently crippled then it deserves to go down in flames.

I'll pick up the ideas again with a descendant that does follow the original principles.

And then the 95% could hard fork and leave Greg and Core and Blockstream and the "dumb Chinese miners" holding worthless "oldcoins" while the rest of the world moves on with the new Bitcoin.

That's how the decentralized consensus sytem works.  The miners and the small minority can't keep the vast majority of users and merchants from doing something that they all want.


Of course it is.  I can read every line of the source.  None of it is hidden.  I can copy it and change it however I like.  If I can get a significant majority of the users to use my software, then I will be in control (until someone else gets a significant majority of users to use their software).


Nope.  It requires a rather large minority to prevent a popular change.  A tiny minority can't prevent anything.


They are welcome to be as scared as they like.  In the end, they will have to either do what the vast majority wants, or they will be left holding worthless blocks.

#GMAX rocks.. Simple as that.

Anyone who has issue with a crypto maths genius contributing to bitcoin as heavily as he does, is clearly insane..

If someone wants to step up, no one's stopping you.

I'm not sure that I agree with that statement, but...


That is quite true.

Greg have contributed so much on development of bitcoin as well as he has very good coding skill sets, i think being offended about him is just like being jealous of him. Bitcoin being open source nobody stopping anyone from releasing and suggesting other devs codes/suggestion but those idea should be accepted by majority of bitcoin community to be considered as valid, where most other dev fails.

thought there is evidence to say core AKA blockstream is in control.
after all even if some fanboy wants to say there are 100 contributors, it actually equates to a dozen main devs and 90 'spell checkers', thus being more central while mascarading as decentralized. (a dozen peoples desires to go down one code route, dominates the route everyone else follows blindly)

where amungst the dozen dominant devs, the majority of the main devs are blockstream funded. and headed up by maxwell..
meaning his word directs several people, who direct several others and so the ripple effect expands.. like a pyramid

even a big name in the forums fails to deny core has control, by using an example that core actually does have control
translate, if blockstream can get a significant majority of the users to use their code, then blockstream will be in control (until someone else gets a significant majority of users to use their software, then blockstream will direct their employees do do a REKT campain and that will ripples down to their friends and friends of friends).

core has majority=core controls.

but with all that said im thinking the OP is bringing up these known facts from months ago, purely as a bit of price speculation in an attempt to bring the price down again now that its nudged over $600 again.
im thinking the OP missed the oppertunity to buy under $600 and is finding the most 'scary' bitcoin facts there is, in hopes to affect the price negatively

I was under the impression that bitcoin was an open source project, so with that said, how can anyone be determined the owner of bitcoin?  I have read a little about what has been said and I do not understand how they can consider him the owner let alone an issue??

Thats really big issue :|, sad reality in a nutshell.
Anyone can fork a Bitcoin project on github, but convince majority to follow is hard task, some geniue, smart and honest people tried already and failed.

I understand what you are saying, however; I am still not understanding how this guy will make such an impact.  I think that there is enough information out there about him where people will make informed decisions based on history and not because some one specific says something. 

Cool story bro!

(Worthless thread gets worthless response.)

So, to translate your translation...

Control is what the users give to whomever they want.

If the vast majority of users choose to give control to a group of people then that group of people will continue to have control for as long as the vast majority of users give them that control.

That seems a bit obvious.

Each user chooses for themselves what software to use.  If lots of users choose a single piece of software, then that software has control over what those users can do with it, and the creators of that software have control over what that software does.

That's pretty much how decentralized control is intended to work, isn't it?  Nobody has any more control than they are given by the users, and can't maintain control if the users choose to take it away.

Why you here on bitcoin talk if you post this ? Clear to everyone you dont understand the basics of bitcoin.  Its decentralized so it is not owned by anyone that is the whole point of bitcoin. Maybe you must have your brain checked because this is the first thing you learn with bitcoin.  :-X :-\

Oh, r/btc. :D The OP of that thread is laughable -- more of the same nutty conspiracies that the r/btc crowd keeps recycling and reposting day after day, month after month. The quotes are all from a handful of nobodies in r/btc, though the author tries to make it appear as if most people actually hold these opinions -- LOL. Then he throws in a couple choice quotes from Mike Hearn, Gavin Andresen and a BU developer. This is completely predictable.

What power does Greg have? None. He is one developer in a decentralized project. He doesn't even have commit access to the Core repo -- he gave it up because of these kinds of hissy fits (thrown by parties promoting alternative incompatible versions of "Bitcoin"). Some people may not like Greg's attitude, but I don't blame him, given the endless undeserved hostility aimed at him and Blockstream. He's incredibly intelligent and is always fighting for decentralization, privacy and fungibility in Bitcoin. Big blockers are generally upset that Greg has garnered such respect in the community over several years of contributions, while simultaneously opposing any hard fork. It's pretty clear that this is the 876th or so attempt by r/btc to smear Greg without an ounce of compelling evidence of, well...anything. It all boils down to, "He opposes a hard fork? Burn him. BURN HIM!"

Great thread.Writing a catchy title and no clarification at all. ;D

Next time,i will make a topic:"Donald Trump is now the owner of bitcoin.That`s all."

Any evidence,any proof?

You have wasted your time reading that bs over there on r/btc.
These guys are crazy and circlejerking 24/7.
They are flaming against Core, Greg and Blockstream since a very long time.Conspiracy theorists at it's finest!
The hate against Greg is their oxygen.Without Greg and Core they all would collapse.

some of the comment are abit harsh but then again i dont know greg personally and have never worked with him either, maybe they are true.  :D

It could have been worst, and be in the hands of Gavin or Mike Hearn and the banking buddies. ^rofl^ Some people do not understand what majority means in a consensus scenario, so they dream up all these conspiracy theories. Get over it,
Bitcoin is in good hands with the current Core developers. ^smile^

now for the facts about control
(blockstream heavy) core can veto a hard fork with just 5%-10% sheep nodes(miners wont change if 5-10% chance of orphans)
yet core can implement a softfork that can totally change bitcoin by making old nodes blind, passing data they cant check, without any resistance or refusal.(softforks don't cause orphans even if the data cant be checked)

thats right a softfork can be implemented at any point and there is no opt-out..
cores "activation parameters" are not necessary for function, but just a comfort blanket to appear that users have a choice. but as i say, its not required because old nodes cant veto new nodes.

softforks just render old clients into litenodes by not allowing them to validate data, but still blindly pass it on. the only choice in a soft fork is upgrade and accept the change, or dont upgrade and become paralized..
softforks can introduce new bugs without choice or veto. but hey, everyone is ok with it because they trust 12 paid developers and 90 spell checkers.

but im still laughing each time i see people call non-core fans "bigblockers"
for years the bloat debate went on and the COMMUNITY settled that 2mb was a reasonable and acceptable amount of bloat. (this was even before the gavin and hearn stuff as they wanted 8mb+, so don't bring gavin or hearn into this point as your rebuttal, ur just misdirecting if you do)

how can 2mb be the "big blockers" if blockstream heavy core want 4mb??  2mb vs 4mb.. come on its easy to see who big blockers really are
its obvious those that call non-core fans bigblockers have never read a single line of code or able to comprehend simple maths.. yet they still try to push their blockstream heavy agenda.



now with the community wanting 2mb and also something logical like BU where the nodes make the capacity growth decisions instead of being dependant on a dev team(like some oliver twist 'please sir can i have some more' slave).. so that no single dev team can have control...
the whole REKT campaigns started where core devs started becoming factions.. to try turning bitcoin into something controlled by blockstream.
core even evicted some of its own devs who didn't support the blockstream plan to make core-dev team blockstream heavy. rather than open to all sides.

even now gmaxwell is planning a REKT campaign against one of his own (LukeJr) purely because luke is going to release a codebase of core with the desired true capacity growth the COMMUNITY originally wanted.

core pretend that they are open by having their main PAID devs.. and then throw in 90 or so spellcheckers just to hide the powerhouse, by trying to say they have 100+ devs all on equal levels as each other.

even now anyone wanting 2mb with 2x capacity is deemed evil. because blockstream heavy core devs want 4mb with 1.8x capacity.
and their main selling point to try pushing for 4mb with 1.8x is to remove double spend mechanism(malleability)... but... secretly adding double spend mechanisms(RBF,CPFP), making double spends still an issue.

and here is the kicker..
if there really was no one controlling bitcoin. then there would be no need to defend a single group or person as that group or person has no more power than anyone else.
but by defending someone out of fear that if they stop their plans, bitcoin cant function. then they are subconsciously admitting bitcoin does have kings in control and that we are all blindly reliant on those kings

my ideology is that decisions should not be made by any one faction and then bribing miners to implement it.. but instead the devs treat each other as equals. that means instead of going to miners meetings. they go to meetings with ALL the different bitcoin dev groups and settle on a community solution.

that way miners do not need to be bribed by any one team because no matter what team the miners like most. the rules are all the same.

anyway goodluck to greg on his ploy to throw another dev off the bus due to not siding with blockstream plans, goodluck to greg trying to twist bitcoin into something to try getting people over to his monero coin. and goodluck to greg when he moves 100% over to monero so that others can bring bitcoin back to being something the whole community want and need it to be.

How did you measure that the community wants this? All of us? I sure as hell don't want it. I see a lot of opposition to it everywhere I look -- the forum, the mailing lists, Twitter, Reddit. Did you read the transcripts of the July dev/miner meeting? Lots of good food for thought about what can go wrong in a hard fork and why so much of the community is rightfully opposed. For many people, only one [made up] word needs to be said: Ethereum.

Luke can release whatever pull request he wants, but if there is any momentum behind it, there will be a network split. Unless he releases a soft-served hard fork -- in that case, I hope we call agree that this is literally a miner attack on the network. In that case, many users and developers would view this as the ultimate betrayal.

A soft-served hard fork is a 51% attack by miners that makes node validation on the original network impossible. It is an attempt to force users to switch to the hard fork by destroying their network, making it unusable. It is by definition an attack because it is a 51% attack that censors the entire network.


What if this is not about 2 vs. 4, but rather about respecting user consensus and preventing a network split? If you don't consent, you can opt out of the network.

attacking who?
betraying who?

oh yea the blockstream heavy devs..

did you not even take your fanboy hat off to consider that hardforks need consensus(majority upgrading to accept) and softforks dont.
did you not even think to yourself if bitcoin is decentralised and the community were all equal then there is no one to betray?
did you not even think that devs should work together to settle on acceptable parameters and all release versions that fit those rules instead of force their own rules by bribing miners..

ok lets skip that stuff, maybe its over your head, lets just raise the main funny part of your mindset .. "bigblockers"
lets test your understanding of logic and maths... 2mb vs 4mb.. which do you consider "bigblock"

if you pass the test.. then answer this:
which is more dangerous
a rule change that requires 95%+ of nodes to accept(upgrade to) before its activated?
a rule change that requires no majority to accept(upgrade to) before its activated?

if you pass that test then answer this:
which is better capacity
2mb for ~average 5000tx
4mb for ~average 4500tx

if you pass that test answer this:
is pretending the real reason to go soft instead of hard is to remove malleability, but then replace it for RBF/CPFP meaning double spends are not solved, reason enough to continue to push soft.

if you have got this far without putting your fanboy hat on, then here is a final question..
who are you protecting exactly. why are you protecting them exactly..
(in context of there being no power house and everything is decentralized)

so your saying that going soft is basically: accept controlled bitcoins new route change or fuck off and dont use bitcoin??
seriously that is not respecting consensus.

i also have to ask where are you even getting such crap information that there would be a hard fork at 51%
please please please tell me why miners would risk 49%+ of their income by causing loads of orphans.. seriously use logic and not propaganda.. explain your point why anyone would consider a hardfork without majority acceptance..

Bitcoin consensus doesn't require that the users voluntarily "respect consensus".

Consensus is a feature of the design, no matter who wants to make a change or why.

There are a lot of sheep out there that have chosen to simply follow "Bitcoin Core" regardless of what they do.  Therefore, acquiring consensus is much easier if you can convince Bitcoin Core to include it.

However, if you are convincing enough, you can get consensus without Bitcoin Core.

lol but core want to change the rules without even needing users to upgrade. thats what softforks are..
the only reason they use the fluffy blanket of 'activation parameters' are not due to acquiring a consensus (consent) but to fool people into thinking consent is needed.(its not needed fundamentally, its just added later to pretend its needed)

put it a different way
if 5500 did not upgrade to version 0.13.. core can still change the consensus rules, without anyone able to stop them
i think you fanboys are forgetting the logical, moral, and even the dictionary definition of these words
decentralized
trustless
consensus

put it a different way
you fanboys dont want people to fundamentally consent to a 95% requirement for a hard fork
you fanboys prefer sheep to blindly let changes happen and just pretend that everyone is consenting to it.

seems many of you have been sipping to much on the core soup that greg and his boss prepared for you.

I suppose perhaps english isn't your native language.

Your lack of typical capitalization and sentence structures makes it very difficult to follow your thought processes.  As such, I often find it difficult to understand what point you are trying to make.  Fortunately, with some effort though, I can usually work out what you are trying to say.

Unfortunately, at this point you seem to be saying things that don't make any sense at all.  As such, I'm no longer able to maintain a conversation with you.  You're making declarations that your beliefs are fact without evidence and without explaining why those declarations should be believed.  I can't follow your thought processes any longer, and am unable to comprehend why you think the things you think.

You've often accused me of being a "sheep" or "fanboy" of whatever you are opposing (even when I agree with you), and you've used me as an example of your beliefs (even when I've disagreed with you).  Your rants are getting tiresome, and your inability to accept that a differing opinion can exist in anyone other than a "fanboy" or "sheep" is insulting.

You're welcome to your opinion.  I'll be moving on from this thread.  It doesn't feel like productive conversation is possible any longer.

im starting to think you are not the same danny hamilton from years ago.

if you cant comprehend that core want to change the rules without consent, then you cant comprehend the true meaning of a soft fork or consensus.
if you dont care that core want to change the rules without consent, then you cant comprehend the true meaning of decentralized and trustless

also if capitalization and full stops prevent you from reading, then its not just technical stuff that seems to be your problem.

by the way this is a forum not a white paper being submitted to earn a degree. if you care more about grammar then content,
then many things in life will be lost on you.

so enjoy blindly believing in fluffy spoonfed propaganda simply because its been constructively written to look degree level grammar(even if the content lacks merit). and enjoy ignoring the people that are more concerned with content, not capitalization.

1F Y0U C4N R34D 7H15 7H3N 9R4MM4R 15 N07 7H47 1MP074N7 4ND Y0UR M1ND 15 0P3N 3N0U9H 70 7H1NK 0U751D3 7H3 80X

on a separate subject.
maxwell and friends are blaming the need to restrict capacity, by saying its because of spam causing the UTXO(unspents) list being so big.
that restricting capacity and raising the fee's is the only way to solve it..

when in actual fact the reason for the unspents list being so big is not due to "spam". but due to their own pushy idea a couple years ago that people should be doing "use once" addresses... but you will never seen greg and his friends admit his idea back then is the cause of the UTXO "spam" he is talking about lately

have a nice day.

Give up Danny, he's an idiot.  ::)

Oh, and I'm so glad we finally figured out who owns Bitcoin. Now I can stop tossing and turning in my sleep. I guess I should give Maxwell's contact info to my attorney for all the money I've lost.

You have it backwards. Core isn't trying to change rules without consent. They have not proposed to break consensus at all. Soft forks are implicitly accepted by bitcoin users since the Bitcoin software accepts the longest, valid chain. Arguing against soft forks is arguing that the longest, valid chain is not Bitcoin. Pretty silly.

consensus=consent.

the NEW RULES and new verification requirements doesnt require consent in a softfork. old nodes cant block or invalidate or orphan a softforks new rules.. they just blindly pass it on unchecked

passing it on unchecked is not consenting, or agreeing. its no longer being fully part of the consensus mechanism. because they dont have the full list of rules any more.

infact what they think is "blocksize" has a totally different meaning to softfork nodes..

but hey lets just tell everyone that their nodes are perfectly fin being blind, no longer verifying the new data.. infact lets just tell everyone that old nodes are (wrongly) still full nodes).

lets pretend there isnt any consensus (consent) issues purely to let bitcoin change without nodes having to make a choice, lets just brush consensus(consent) under the carpet and pretend consensus(consent) was never part of bitcoin.
lets just call it CORE rules instead of consensus rules.

Can we have quiet period of time without all that drama around bitcoin developers or institutions?
First Bitcoin Foundation turned out to be scandalous useless entity. Later one of the developer left and labeled bitcoin as failed experiment.
And now we have another developer blamed for being toxic and destructive individual. What next? Core dev team will split?

Consent isn't required to soft fork. Did you not read the above post? Because it's accurate. Soft forks are a matter of processing power (i.e. longest chain), not a matter of consensus rules. A hard fork breaks the rules that users consented to. Soft forks don't.


Nodes implicitly agree by accepting the longest valid chain. That's bitcoin. Since Segwit transactions are valid according to the consensus rules (and non-updated nodes do validate transactions against the consensus rules), there is no consensus issue.


The only consensus issue relevant here is maxblocksize. Segwit will not allow the violation of it. Non-issue.


Not verifying new data suggests that non-updated nodes will allow invalid transactions/blocks onto their chain. That is not true. Non-updated nodes are still validating transactions against the consensus rules.


Consent = agreeing to the software's rules. You consent by running the software. Soft forking has nothing to do with the software's rules. They are network rules imposed by miners.

Shall we abolish P2SH now? Because you don't want to accept the longest valid chain?

If you have a hidden agenda, you will always find a stick to hit someone with, and this is the case with these people attacking Greg and the other Core developers. Most of them are spectators on the couch, with nothing more to do, than pointing fingers.

They should use those fingers to come up with some good code, and then see if someone would actually like it enough to use it. Consensus is a Bitch. ^smile^

How can we believe that. I know everybody wants to get famous by publishing his/her name but buddy if his name gets famous the definitely he will become throne of everybody eye as we don't want to hear ordinary person's name as the owner of bitcoin. Ofcourse hoi could say that you are owner of bitcoin if you own all the btc mined till date.

That's right,  don't be hurry to get negative conclusion,  at least we need to see the article/news of it. We don't know yet all about it, how could that happened, what impact to bitcoin, if something bad then we should be worry but if there's nothing that could be negative feedback to us, be calm down.

Greg Maxwell is the owner of bitcoin?! How come?! Is there any proof that he really is?! I thought it was Satoshi Nakamoto? Where did you get that information?

Stop it now pls.
tia

Stop what? I'm curious that is why I'm asking if it is true or what. I was shocked when I read this that's why I asked. What do you want me to stop?

There is no "owner of bitcoin", that was just a provocative OP to restart the never ending debate about where the real power in deciding Bitcoin's future lies.

Stop this trolling shit.  Nobody around here needs your type of reason.  This forum operates on entirely different principles and logic isn't welcome here.

I think his not actually the owner of bitcoin and don't conclude that he is already are in your title, he is a core developer because on contributing so much in the industry of bitcoin that is why I think certain people like you think that he is now a owner of it, I think that nobody can actually owned bitcoin and keep it for himself a large number of community is needed to increase it's value from the past so the way I think of bitcoin we are the real owners of bitcoin everyone that are holding bitcoins from their wallets and keeping it alive until now.

This applies pretty perfectly also to USD and FED and so they are also perfectly decentralized. New stuff learned every day. I cannot think of anything that is not perfectly decentralized except maybe something in north korea.

But let's get back to reality. I have not heard any such definition for "decentralized control" which is intended to work like you say. "Decentralized control" is something where the system works having the control itself decentralized.

centralized control= one person/group makes the decision and everyone else either follows or they can get lost
decentralized control = everyone is equal, and if there shows a majority of consent that something should change, then it changes.

EG
centralized = one team change code and say upgrade or be paralysed, or f**koff
decentralized = every users flags a desire. if a majority show similar desires then that desire activates.

EG
softfork does not need 5700 of 6000 nodes(95%) 'permission' / consent to activate, it can function with just 2 nodes. causing the other 5998 nodes to not understanding the data that the 2 nodes are transmitting, but pass it along anyway

Never heard his name and never know him.  So what will happen if ever that he is the owner?  I do not think he will shutdown the bitcoin and get it all.  They needed us for bitcoin to become stable in the market.  As long as there would be no harm with bitcoin I will continue to make some money through it.  I would not care whoever is the owner. ;D

FTFY.

Sounds too darmatic. As for me no one can takeover bitcoin by design

Very true. No one owns bitcoin currently bcz its already announce by US government, that no can place patent for things which are already public.

So its totally worth nothing to such arguments or statements.

As well as Bitcoin is open source and even developer himself cannot control it, So who is Greg Maxwell. I never find or even hear this name since bitcoin born.

Many of claiming that they invent bitcoin. But everything just taking credit.

But I think its all worthless. Bcz currently Bitcoin is the only Virtual digital currency which no one can control.

The people on reddit /r/btc are losing their mind. They want to have a decentralized bitcoin and at the same time they want to have a big block size to have cheap onchain transactions of high volume. They still have not understood that this is not physically possible and lightning network is the best method possible to scale it to massive amounts of transactions per second. It seems they cannot deal with this fact and spend all day complaining about it and saying blockstream is the next Umbrella Corp or some shit.

The most important thing we have to understand is Bitcoin is P2P currency.

P2p stand for Peer to Peer currency. Which means that users who get into bitcoin, contribute to build strong network. As many users join this network there will be more strong network. And users embedded in system decide price of bitcoin by considering low of demand and supply.

I personally believe that building any cryptocurrency at initial stage is can be centralized but after certain period when it goes public no one can claim that thing independently or with group of people. Already Satoshi Nakamoto is the name behind Bitcoin. But still no one know this is one person or group of people.

owning bitcoin is a term to cause misunderstanding because some think bitcoin is the brand, OR bitcoin is the currency unit OR bitcoin is the network, OR bitcoin is the chain data connected to satoshis genesis block.

so
EG the BRANDNAME, was already copyrighted years ago
EG the CODE, though many teams open their code to open licence(MIT) those teams then slag off anyone who uses the code, from outside the 'team'. so although open, be prepared to be slagged off unless your willing to re-write the code from the start to follow the rules. or join the main team.
EG the CURRENCY, as long as people dont hand out their private keys, no one can own your coins on your private key
EG the CONSENSUS, is slowly being diluted down so that nodes are no longer part of voting, (softforks dont need majority nodes to vote)
EG the LEDGER, is slowly being diluted down, by fear mongers other implementations to gain one dominant implementation. which then wants other nodes to not validate and also be pruned.

decentralized:
imagine that we had 6000 nodes split up as 500 nodes per different 'team'
imagine that we had 6000 nodes where all nodes had the same validation rules

centralized
but now its 5000 under one one 'team'. where of those 5000 only 500 are validating the new rules, and only 200 of the 500 are actually storing full ledger data..

that means there are only 200 full validating nodes with full ledger history all running from one 'teams' implementation

Very depth information of basic concept of Blockchain fundamentals. Many of contracts are being used by various teams to connect nodes for open ledger to make it public. But still have some networks providing same services with centralized platforms.

Development of Bitcoin is now centralized in core/blockstream/Greg and they want to do as little on chain scaling as possible.

Sad.

More desperate FUD from a well known XT/ClassicCoin shill. The grab for power by Hearn, Andresen and their gov' bootlicking gang has failed. I suggest you get used to it. Nobody wants a spam-transaction ridden, centralized bigblock Bitcoin-clone.

Core team has done a great job in finding an intelligent way to allow Bitcoin to scale without compromising decentralization. Greg Maxwell is a highly valuable contributor to the project. The attacks on his personality are unwarranted and motivated by pure envy. The road map for Core is exactly right: Trying to scale Bitcoin by exclusively increasing the blocksize is inefficient and dangerous.

The constant smear campaigning of XT/ClassicCoin shills is leading nowhere, because intelligent people quickly discover the truth.

ya.ya.yo!

So that means he will be going to control bitcoin ? If that Greg is now actually and truly the owner of bitcoin he has the power to do anything he want such as making it as a centralized . To make it as centralized i guess it would become our nightmare i couldn't even imagine what would be the effect if ever that thing would happen.

see Bitcoin is owned by the whole community involved in it and not a  single person. on what aspects, he has come to this conclusion? please stop posting like this bull shit

There are many people who have bitcoin right now and it will growing up in my prediction, (include me) even if just 0.001 BTC and bitcoin is for every people and not one people or one country.

Nope.  I want bigger blocks and I choose my own opinion freely.


So, if I understand you correctly, wanting to increase the blocksize is a powergrab, but Blockstream
accepting millions in venture capital to develop offchain scaling while employing the most prominent
core developers is not? 

Claiming a blocksize increase will lead to centralization is a dubious argument and nobody is talking
about "clones".  That isn't even the argument being made by the small-blockers.
But, good job squeezing in as much hyperbole in one paragraph as possible.


It's not about decentralization.  That was an argument from 2 years ago. 
Greg doesn't like to talk much to the public but his latest arguments
seem to be around fee based security (which we won't have to worry about
for decades).  Try to keep up.


Seems like he made great contributions in the past, but I don't agree with the direction
he wants to take bitcoin.



Who said it should be scaled EXCLUSIVELY by increasing blocksize?  Yet Blockstream is on the other extreme.


This is your opinion. 

Mine:

People already know the truth about blockstream but the miners have for now chosen to
value risk avoidance over everything else.  I'm not saying they're wrong for their values,
but many people know about the clear conflict of interest Blockstream has and do not
agree with core's direction.  The blocksize should not be a part of the protocol rules.

well yeah it is centralized though the bitcoin as a currency is decentralized, i think that it is still ok enough because of that

Even getting some kind of patent won't help taking over bitcoin. it's distributed p2p network...

before blindly hailing core as your god.
realise this.. the statement i quoted of you is actually something core is doing.
again "bigblocks"  4mb vs 2mb  which is bigger.

secondly you think people are against core should automatically be deemed wanting another team to dominate.
to me this is you revealing that you understand that bitcoin is already controlled by dev's. meaning your ok with that, as long as its core

your unending desire to want core to dominate continues to prove you want big blocks of spam that cant be validated and where decisions are controlled by a single small team and a flock of 90 spellcheckers.


the hypocracy of core fanboys is so loud that i think they put their fingers in their own ears and n longer want to hear anything else

I did not understand why it is so bad. Well, first of all I don't have an idea who is Greg Maxwell. I would like to hear all the story. So, if anyone has a link or a video, please, post the link. Thanks in advance.

Is he threatening to do something against the majority's desire and or interest?
Does the  recent late confirms has anything to do with this?

Of course "the owner of bitcoin" is obvious nonsense of the same style as "the owner of English" or "the emperor of gravity".  

Perhaps the guy has substantial influence on the open-source bitcoin node software project known as "core"?  

Well that's fine by me.  

The guy has demonstrated intellectual leadership including patience with us retards on bitcointalk and our infantile questions for nearly a decade, and appears to be motivated to educate us, you know, like any sane literate person would do.  And he hasn't demonstrated himself clearly senile or infantile, though perhaps with time he will crack, who knows.  

As far as reputation goes (which shouldn't be that far other than as a guide to get you started), the guy is in my book one of the best in understanding bitcoin related crypto.  This makes him influential?  Yes.  Dangerous?  Not at all.  He pushes some nonsense into Core and that shit will be dumped faster than lightning.  

You don't like core?  Then go use another client already.  I know you're used to fiat slavery but there's no owner here.  Take responsibility and just go ahead and do what you need to do.  




  

What do you mean by owner? If he’s the owner of bitcoin so then all my bitcoin which I’ve been working hard to get belongs to him too huh? Or do you mean that he is the one who is controlling all the bitcoin in the world? As far as I know that no one control it, you only can have some impact on it. So a topic with that title and one-word post doesn’t really persuade me.

No one owns Bitcoin right?

Not possible for 1 person to "own" bitcoin. This is more paranoia than anything. Cant believe I clicked on the post.

 :D

You dove right into that one didn't you.

Good thing this wasn't actually a puddle.

That might of hurt.

Of course it's bullshit, everyone knows the real owner (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1692661.msg16991558#msg16991558) of Bitcoin is Stephen Mollah



Even the "Decentralised Patent Office" (wow much official) acknowledges him as Satoshi


 :)

 

 :D :D :D :D

nobody owns bitcoin

Not until the patents are settled.

As I said recently, the owner of Bitcoin doesn't have to be Satoshi Nakamoto - that's just a made up name (you can choose just any two names you want and create something while you're going to be anonymous all the time). I was sure about that and still am, I mean.. The guy who created Bitcoin seems to be hiding away from the public.

This is all so complicated. I've been reading through the comments here. If indeed Maxwell does create his hard fork, what happens? Do we have two kinds of bitcoin or do we still have the same thing but somethings changes? What happens to the bitcoins in my wallet right now? Can someone point me to an infographic about or a document describing this fork we are all talking about?  ???

ROFL

Nice joke, or is it?

http://www.bastiansolutions.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/guy-thinking-thumb.jpg

Not a joke to the guys applying for patents, that's for sure.

I do not think seriously about the owners of bitcoin bitcoin as long as it does not significantly affect bitcoin itself. I just found out about their owners bitcoin
whether there is a link?

Can I buy bitcoins and then sell whenever I want or not? can the imaginary owner of bitcoin withdraw coins from any wallet?
Bitcoin with or without an owner still is traded and can be mined.
Who owns dollar? besides the US government having the power to print them literally anyone holding any amount owns the dollar, makes any sens now?

About the hard fork I think the best thing is to inform the community first and even post a sticky topic in main forum section with a poll to gather a few thousands votes at the very least, because people will never trust the system again if the decision made by a few experts and developers only.

A lot of news stating that there was someone who dominated the bitcoin, if so, surely they can do speculation and full control. But when prices go up they are not attempting to sell even though profit was more than 300%. I think it is just an opinion, rise and fall of the price of the bitcoin I noticed was natural, not domination by someone.

Noone can own bitcoin. Get a brain.

The OP is just trying to imply that Gmaxwell is calling the shots in how and where to bring and steer Bitcoin's development. What the OP did not think of is that the miners must first achieve and have consensus if the changes be accepted and be implemented or not. So if Bitcoin was forked from the Core developers by the Bitcoin Unlimited fellows, can we say that Roger Ver now owns Bitcoin?

Yep.. that's my thought too... The thread has a kind of bad premise, even if Maxwell has quite a bit of influence, he only has influence as long as he is making sense to convince others to go along with whatever he happens to be proposing to do or not do.

I doubt it! I don't think so that there is an owner of bitcoin. All I know is all of us own it as long as we have in our wallets, I just knew is the creator only. Upon reading, many developers hates him because they say that he is a toxic and not a good contributor.

Too many people are gullible. Who would want to not go Anonymous?

This is correct.  Many hate him and he is not a good contributor.  We just can't get him to leave.  Somebody needs to delete his commit access like they did to Gavin

I don't know a lot about the topic, but my understanding is that there is a considerable difference between Gavin and Maxwell, just in terms of their level of activism in bitcoin.

Gavin had not contributed any code for years, he submitted some proposals that were not accepted (XT and Classic) and then he did the questionable thing with Craig Wright.

I thought that Maxwell did contribute code from time to time, and is very involved in core development issues.  You may not agree with some of the politics or methodologies of Maxwell or his way of expressing some of his views, but he seems to be actively involved and actively participating in core meetings on a regular basis, no?  so why would anyone have their commit access pulled when they are actively involved in software development, as a contrasting point to the lack of involvement of Gavin.. from my understanding of the matter.

Pretty much. And claiming so is also pretty much a slap in the face to literally the hundreds of other contributors sending patches to wumpus—since the implication is clearly that they're too braindead to make up their own mind and instead just go along with whatever gmax says. This is partly the reason why the crazy people have basically zero developers helping them seize control.

And gmax doesn't have commit access to the repo anyway. Duh.

Is this all real or just a joke. So what will happen if somebody owns bitcoin, that is the next question. Will bitcoin be controlled by maxwell, will decentralization of  bitcoin remains or not? Will the blocksize changes or not?

Im not going to react neagatively as of now, but if things go out of control due to maxwell owning bitcoin then thats another story. Lets just hope that if maxwell owns bitcoin, bitcoin will be better than ever.

Maxwell owns bitcoin and things are not better than ever.  Worse than ever.  High fees, and terrible transaction throughput.  more than 50,000 stuck in the fucked up system.  With large blocks - bitcoin price would be over $1,500.

If many people are very unhappy with Bitcoin because it is slow and has low transaction throughput, why not support Litecoin? It has 4 times the speed and 4 times the allowed transaction throughput. Roger Ver should start supporting it instead of advocating for his hard fork.

So he is Satoshi Nakamoto?
Why he is the owner of bitcoin? Can he control bitcoin? Ofcourse not! No one is controljng bitcoin and no one can control it. Where the hell did you get that news? It making me laugh.

i agree with this as we all having bitcoin in our wallet and we should be the owner of bitcoin too. bitcoin is belong for every people which want to make profit and they should be proud for this and maybe its only the hoax news to make that guy famous in bitcoin industry.

Nobody can lay claim to Bitcoin even Greg Maxwell, although I will agree with you that we have more influencial people than others but who really care the folks on the street only care about the security of their BTC that is the primary thing.

stephen mollah made some false companies in the last couple years.. not as far back as 2007
 no proof of any connection prior to well after bitcoin was released.
(dude cant even backdate properly)

moving on

Hi franky1, How are you ? Thanks for your coments.
 Why are you saying it is false companies ?  
(dude cant even backdate properly) What is that ?
When did you heard of the word 'Bitcoin' for the first time ?

mollah appointed 2014+  not prior to 2009
false companies because thier accounts look empty compared to real functioning company accounts
he failed to backdate anything that actually alludes to a true date proof of 2007

i first heard of bitcoin in 2011 and got high involved in 2012

Do you have any proof of what you are claiming? What is that popular change you mean?

He has no proof of anything.  He doesn't need proof. 

So you do know many things about Bitcoin. That is good. God Created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Does God has any proof that He created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden ?
the answer will be who knows? If some one say that Satan who created Adam and Eve in the garden of Ethiopia and he produced a proof, many will believe in it. Why do you think he need to backdate ?

In contrast to Roger Ver and his army of trolls active in this thread, Greg did contribute significantly to Bitcoin progress and did a lot of work to improve security, scalability and privacy of Bitcoin. And I'm grateful for his work.

Roger Ver and his possibly bribed mining pools act out of pure self-interest. He is not trustworthy - not a bit.

totally off topic, but ill have a stab at it

what if i told you the story of adam and eve was a story of biological evolution told to simpletons of many centuries ago (before books were public) in a camp storytime that they would remember via listening. told/preached by educated preachers (the religious order) to keep people from asking too many questions or trying to seek answer through learning to read or other sources. because reading was a skill only for the religious order and the rich.

so here it goes

Neanderthal males and females were the same species they shared the same DNA. so to explain that they are made from the same 'stuff' it was
simplified to. eve[female] was made using adams[male] rib (same bone marrow, dna and cells as adam). but subtle said this way to make females appear inferior to men aswell.

they became humans physically and gained knowledge and desire to learn and grasp ideas and concepts of good and evil after evolving a thyroid gland that changed them from Neanderthal to human.

(heres the science bit that even modern people cant grasp.. hence the word twisting of the middle ages)
the thyroid gland is in the throat some say its the shape of a butterfly others say the outline of an apple.. but the thyroid gland is what causes a lump in the throat by way of it and the thyroid cartilage .. this lump.. is called... the adams apple
simplified to. after eating[having] the adams apple [in their throat] they gained knowledge and skills and how they seen their bodies have changed too.

then their cousins appeared [the unevolved old Neanderthals] and they cross bred so the offspring too had a thyroid gland which strung a new dimension to the mental/physical capacity of the next generation. thus neanderphals died out and humans grew

the purpose of the adam and eve story is two fold.
give people basic knowledge of evolution because they couldnt read so it was told in story form preached around through the ages.
it was also a scare story that too much knowledge is bad and a sin. as a way to keep the preachers in power as the only story tellers
by making it impossible or hard to learn to read unless your in the religious order or super rich.[basically consultants dont want to give away all their knowledge or they will gain new competing consultants doing lecture tours stealing their business]

things like the normal little silent voice in your head that tells you not to put your hand in the fire, or not to be a thief [your subconscious] is just a part of your brain evolved thanks to the thyroid gland. but those rich controlling preachers needed to scare their flock, saying they will be punished
if people done bad things. so invented an explanation about human subconsciousness, while adding the (modern day fear concept) of someone is always watching you (big brother/government surveillance) as a way to keep the naive in check even when the preachers were not around.

where the truth is preachers wanted their naive flock[sheeple] to fear their own actions and punish themself with paranoia and worries of bad things happening to them.... and all "god" is, is our own sub-conscience

ill leave you to look at latest medical science as to all the functions of the thyroid gland. and why the derogatory term of not having a functioning thyroid gland [being a cretin] is used by rich snobby UK politicians for people acting like Neanderthals.

so to answer your question.
our own sub-conscience[god] is what tells us to evolve. by having sex and evolving by having new offspring thats a new mix that supposedly meant to be better than ourselves.

we are god and we evolved