Bitcoin Forum

Former Bitcoin Core’s Gavin Andresen Hits Blockstream, Labels Greg Maxwell and Samson Mow Toxic Trolls

Looks like Gavin finally see G.Maxwell for what he is.  ;)

https://cointelegraph.com/news/former-bitcoin-cores-gavin-andresen-hits-blockstream-labels-greg-maxwell-and-samson-mow




 8)

is Bitcoin imploding?

We have well respected Bitcoin advocates claiming conspiracy theories or blaming core bitcoin organizations and then we have this whole hard fork fight going on.

What's happening? Maybe it's time to walk away...

Haha. Gavin always showed such public deference to the blockstream/core devs. Wonder what finally set him over the edge?

mewn.

Andresen is a CIA informant, Satoshi disappeared because of him.  :(

The same toxic trolls have a $24B market running on their software and they definitely didn't kill our beloved Satoshi and burned his body in acid.

Seriously though all they want is the name brand of BTC otherwise they could've easily create a clone with another name and mining with the same ASICcough coughboost machines.
Why wont they do it already? if they are so good then I'm sure people will see and abandon bitcoin to join them.

Greg trolling one of his newest open source side projects on reddit or twitter.

Gavin Andersen has zero reliability, don't forget that he was the guy who believed that Craig Wright is the person who invented Bitcoin. (http://gavinandresen.ninja/satoshi)

Gavin had his chance to be a Lead Developer and then he could not handle it and left. Now he wants to throw stones at the people who are in control and he even tried to take them down with XT and that failed miserably. When that did not work, he teamed up with BU to try another angle and that is looking bad too. < poor coding and bad flaws >

So if you cannot beat them with your code, try attacking them personally. ^Ooooooo^

That is not their software.  That is Satoshi's software.  Their software is full of shit like SegWit and Lightning hooks.  Fuck them.  They are toxic and Gavin knew it all along but tried to be decent until it became impossible.

GMaxwell can just fuck right off.  It'd be even better if he managed to do it yesterday.



You see there!  Even the Blockstream shills admit that Blockstream is "in control"  I thought the distributed users/miners were in control?  Blockstream believes they are "in control".  This is the primary reason Blockstream is fucked up and people need to stand up and resist now.  Even if you just make one post, do fucking SOMETHING.  Sitting there like a lamb is the only thing that assures your slaughter.

Yea, the master troll in action again. So you saying the users/miners should be in control of the coding and developing? How fucked up would that be, if the users and miners were in control of programming the code. If I were getting paid to shill for Blockstream, I would probably not be able to afford a McDonald burger with my post history. ^LoL^

Whoever has the best code, will have the users/miners support, or that is the theory.... Lately the people with the most money to spam the network and to use backdoors <ASICBOOST> seem to control the consensus. ^grrrrrr^

the only implementation that has bypassed users support.. is blockstream(core)
asic boost has nothing to do with it. just like opencl had nothing to do with any decisions of core back in the day of the GPU mining.

imagine it. imagine core in 2012 wanted to change something but couldnt because it would cause issues with ATI's openCL. people would laugh at core if they started blaming ATI.
same goes for now.. if segwit hits a wall before being active, then REWRITE SEGWIT!!

its all just finger pointing drama, to get everyon looking in every direction apart from blockstream.
so just look at blockstream
EG blockstream made cludgy code instead of a clean node upgrade event.
EG blockstream made it so only pools get the vote('going soft').
EG blockstream going soft is an admitted backdoor exploit and they admit they want to add more backdoors to be able to go soft more often. (in th wrong hands its called a trojan)
EG blockstream now crying because all them all-inclusive exotic weekends didnt buy the pools into flag waving by last christmas (due to 65% abstaining/ objecting to the cludgy code)
EG blockstream now found out their 2merkle cludge is not as compatible as first thought (so now asking abstainers/objectors to reprogram themselves, to use filter/bridging nodes, to fork off, to add code to avoid attack vectors segwit causes, even offering to PoW bomb just to get the cludgy code in)

yep. instead of just backing down and going for a plan B of a 1 merkle segwit with proper block size increase for the entire network benefit, blockstream still want to bypass the idea of a network consensus upgrade and go straight to a controversial bilateral split..

much simpler blockstream just redo segwit as a proper 1 merkle version, remove the cludge and add the other features the community want too instead of pointing the fingers to blame pools, other implementations (which have done nothing for 2 years) and wasting upto 3 years just to push the cludgy version (UASF 'late2018' mandatory activation) and then make yet again half baked promises that they will remove the cludge and make it 1merkle full proper upgrade after that.. (no one believes them anymore)

a 1 merkle rewrite with the extra features the community want to unite the community. is safer AND FASTER to implement than the 2merkle cludge and all the threats half promises and features that wont 100% fix the network issues.. that blockstream are 'demanding get implemented or else'

Lots of FUD coming up now that Bitcoin has jumped a crapton. First some vs post about how Litecoin has jumped up (Mind you, it's market was relatively small and with all the segwit hype it's blown up, only by $30 or so. You can say it's a 500% increase, but it's market cap hadn't increased nearly as much as Bitcoin's has.

I think that with all these big names attacking each other, they'll only continue to do so. It's evident that Segwit will not activate, and Unlimited is a very risky business. Is it really that hard to come up with a compromise?

Kaka-makr = Fucking moron.  Holy fuck.  

I didn't say user/miners in charge of coding.  Are you stupid?  They are and should be in charge of the network.  


Precisely.  And this is why those assholes at Blockstream are losing.  It is not because of paid shills or FUD or ASICBOOST.  It is because SegWit is garbage that renders the network control over to Blockstream via LN and does nearly nothing to address capacity.  

Pretty much this. His credibility in the bitcoin world is zero these days.

I don't wanna get into the drama silliness but Mow really does troll pretty hard on twitter lol

he is well funded  now as a blockstream employee.

i guess bobbly lee wasnt paying him enough or the DCG cartel thought he would be more useful under the blockstream subsiduary rather than the btcc subsiduary

http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b

http://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-55-million-series-a/

Gavin is the reason bitcoin went from about $5 in 2011 to $1000 in 2013. He held things together, his original faucet which gave away free whole bitcoins had a massive impact on spreading the word, he did marketing as well as developing. Bitcoin simply wouldn't be where it is without him. It's all gone a bit downhill since he left.

Well if it is good enough for the leader of the free world, then it is good enough for Bitcoin!

But in all seriousness, wouldn't it be nice if people could sit down together, even if that means remotely, and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the different block sizes, respect each others opinions, and not troll each other or bad mouth each other afterwards?

I know that when money is involved, that won't happen, but it would be nice!

Satoshi introduced payment channels himself (the foundation for lightning network) you dumbass.

Anyway, keep praising Gavin Andersen, the guy that wanted to set a benevolent dictator in bitcoin:

http://coinjournal.net/gavin-andresen-mike-hearn-will-be-the-benevolent-dictator-of-bitcoinxt/

And the same idiot that got trolled by Craig Wright into being satoshi.

This pathetic moron should be hiding under a rock for the rest of his life, but idiots always have idiots following them so he'll keep tweeting as long as there are idiots circlejerking about anything he says.

It's because nullc criticized Gavin's new private key inspector service:
https://www.randomsanity.org/

How Blockstream was rewarded to make BIP and promote Bitcoin dev solution ? Every Business have an economic model my friends. The politician world and developper world is by nature opposite ;)

FUD Thread from Kiklo. = Lambie. Lambie's 9384673764th troll account. She's trolling only to try to get cheaper coins.

Followed by BU troll Rawdog.

Followed by R.I.P BU troll Jonald Fyookball

Followed by copy/paste noob and paid shill Franky1.

When this initially happened I assumed Gavin Andresen was in on the joke, or was intentionally trying to muddy the waters to protect Satoshi.  It's still hard to believe he would fall for Craig Wright's BS.

No, he genuinely thought Craig Wright was Satoshi... and by doing this...showed how easily he could be fooled. They would not have revoked

his commit access rights, if there were no merit for it.... after all... Satoshi trusted him enough to carry the flame... and he dropped it. Gavin

should just accept defeat and start working on his own projects and stop challenging people who actually know what they doing with Bitcoin.

so Blockstream is great, then?

I do not even know how to answer your question, but the fact that many are already trying to speculate on the name of Satosh and others perhaps their creators Bitcoin.

Core devs should change the PoW algo and let BU shills eat shit.

Only then we can see who is more right/serious about bitcoin.

If Ver/Wu/Shills are really serious about their code (BU) then they would dump their bitcoins and fund their own altcoin (BTU) with that money and wait the community's support.
If bitcoin recovers after the PoW change, then the winner will be clear.

Takes one to know one.

http://aussiememes.com.au/media/created/Gavin-Remember-when.jpg

FTFY.

please do.

so you admited, that you're BU shill, at last. Waitin for fyookboll's coming out...

Tell me you're joking right? do you really think changing POW is like changing a kitchen knife?
In order for such drastic change miners which are currently mining the POW algo will have to vote for the change of POW.
You can't go ask the president for example to sign a bill which will eventually lead to a new law that says we no longer need a president.

I appreciate the information, it's always difficult to stay on top of these sort of things. Is he the same guy that was involved with bitfinex before they crashed the market? Or am I thinking of the wrong person.

@ Darkbot aka Mr. DumbAss,

It is a link to a news article, so if you want to cry fud like a retard, contact the reporter.
Maybe read a dictionary and learn more words than fud and troll.     :P


 8)

bad analogy
pools are not the president.

here is a better analogy

pools are more like a secretary that just collates data of the employee's and customers and has to file it in a certain way that regional bosses can read and accept

the nodes are the regional bosses they set the rules and read the secretaries work and sign off on if its acceptable or not. the bosses syncing up as a network to ensur they all have the same documents to hand that are all acceptable.
the secretary can type up chapter of files as fast as she likes.. but if the bosses/nodes dont like it. in the reject/orphan pile it ends up.

devs are the employee's they can make new product that the bosses may choose to adopt. but the bosses can still say nay/abstain.
devs are the employee's they can make new product and try to by pass the bosses and try getting the secretary to use the new products hoping it forces the bosses to change their mind..

but the secretary(pools) would still prefer to only do things the bosses(nodes) would accept. after all it affects the secretaries income(reward) if the bosses reject her work.

---

having many regional managers (diverse nodes) avoids a dictatorship
having many secretaries (diverse pools) avoids network delays if one pool(secretary) fouls up (offsick, resigns, makes mistakes, intentionally frauds the books)
having many employees (diverse dev teams) avoids devs going on strike or dictating what direction a company should move in. because the bosses can choose to avoid certain employee's idea's and find whats best for the company.

imagine the company as the symbiotic peer network.. there is no CEO .. just lots of regional managers(nodes) that ask many secretaries to give them a report of customer data(block of tx's) every ~10 minutes. the fastest secretary that sends the regional managers a good collection of data gets a reward

---

now..
to sack all the secretaries is not a soft decision. it requires the bosses(nodes) having to change who what and how the company(network) data is collated and distributed.

if this kind of event were to happen where the whole retail chain network has to change.. they might aswell use that opportunity to do the other stuff customers and employee's can all unite around too, which will make the (network) better for all.. rather than just sack the secretary because 65% of secretaries wont collate data in a way only one team of employee's from one region want.

Don't be dumb, the ones that are CIA informants are the current Core/blockstream devs, Gavin put a step away precissely to avoid this.

I know you might be slightly stupid, but did you know that I support many scaling proposals (not just Bitcoin Unlimited)?

Let me guess -- you support only one, and its the core roadmap.

Lol bitcoin unlimited viable?
Haven't you heard the news about the recent crashing down of nodes of BU these past few weeks ?
BU is not an solution, it's the road to destruction for bitcoin.

what if i told you all the gmax/gavin/hearne was all drama and secretly in the background they are partners

gavin - Bloq
gmax - blockstream
IBM - government intelliagence
hearn - R3
samson mow - BTCC and blockstream

hyperledger members - bloq and blockstream and IBM and R3
https://www.hyperledger.org/about/members

DCG cartel - bloq and blockstream and BTCC
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b

in the UK its well known the ties of IBM managing the police/defense and many public services including GCHQ(uk version of CIA)

read the names on the sign
https://i.imgur.com/Vd53dRM.png

its all just drama of distractions where hearne/gavin are used as the scapegoat. even now samson mow is becoming the scapegoat(face to point and scream at) to be the future person to point the finger at while the CTO gmaxwell carries on doing what he wants and blaming others

EG
gmax+luke, 'lets bypass nodes and make it a pool only vote'
gmax+luke, 'noo the pools have control blame the pools, PoW bomb the pools.'

Nope.

Imagine a circle called Bitcoin. Imagine a circle called Dodgy Bank. Imagine a circle called Monsanto supermarket.

Inside a circle.
Miners/cashiers/till operators are employees of Bitcoin/Dodgy/Monsanto and get subsidy/wage plus btc/shares.
Noders/managers/managers are employees of Bitcoin/Dodgy/Monsanto and protect their btc/shares.
Users/customers/customers uses Bitcoin/Dodgy/Monsanto services but do next to nothing to protect their btc/shares. Their contribution is most probably screaming "to da moon."

Devs are outside the circle, same as all centralised companies such as exchanges etc. They can propose changes but only those inside the circle can decide whether they want the changes. However devs and companies can be users/noders/miners too. They have a dual role. Devs can compete with other devs. None are employees.

Bitcoin in the free market compete with altcoins. Dodgy bank competes with other banks. Monsanto supermarket competes with organic supermarket.

The idea that inside the Bitcoin circle there is a free-market fee market is hilarious. User Alice jumping the queue by paying a higher fee - stupid. Those inside the circle work as a team for the greater good of Bitcoin.

The idea that inside the Dodgy bank circle there is a free-market fee market doesn't exist. Alice can not jump the queue as those in front will tell her to piss off to the back of the queue. Cashiers do not accept queue jumping. Those inside the circle work as a team for the greater good of the bank.

The idea that inside the Monsanto supermarket circle there is a free-market fee market doesn't exist. Alice can not jump the queue as those in front will tell her to piss off to the back of the queue. Till operators do not accept queue jumping. Those inside the circle work as a team for the greater good of the supermarket.

Shill? How do you figure? Nobody pays me to shill BU. I advocate BU because so much of my personal net worth is in BTC. Which needs to eliminate the stupid centrally planned production quota in order to release its true potential.

You are over-complicating/confusing things.
Nodes and miners are one and the same.
You think if majority of nodes start a new protocol then miners will sit back and allow it? some one invested enough money to be a miner in the first place will spend more to have enough nodes to avoid the majority take over.

You say diversification of node versions while we all know that all the results across the entire network must be identical otherwise not accepted.

Lets have 50 different versions, they will all have to follow only one rule and that is the Bitcoin's code, and as we know running a program on different platforms is much harder and requires more work to be done just like when you have a software which can be executed in Linux/Windows/Mac but for a developer is much easier to just compile it to run on Windows, regardless it's still the same software only runs in different OS systems and that's a feature which makes the software available for all kinds of people.
In Bitcoin's case it's something else, if you are trying to run the node on any platform you are free to do so but what is your goal to run different versions of a software in the same network with same internet ports and same brand name?

How could anyone change POW without the majority of hash power support/vote?
Why would miners vote for something that makes their mining machines useless?

If I have 1BTC no matter the versions of nodes I still have my coin sitting in my address, devs and miners should notice this fact that end user doesn't really care about those stuff what we care is when we send a transaction with a normal fee it gets confirmed after 30 minutes no matter what.

10 hours ago I sent some bitcoins to an exchange to buy some cheap alts but now while my transaction is pending and there are 150K unconfirmed TX I have lost a perfect opportunity. I don't want that, so what other choice do I really have besides moving to another alt?

Moreover we have diversification already but that seems not the issue with you rather you want both, you can't have heads and tails in one side of the coin.

anyone who knew nothing about the background would surmise that samson mow is an asshole purely by reading his tweets.

over aggressive and derisory. I don't think he's a good recruitment by them.

Good to see Gavin say this. He needs to come more out to the forefront and challenge the fudders who are being toxic.

We need more insightful explanations and podcasts or something from Gavin. We need some reasonable people getting back to the forefront and less of the Jihan drama crap.