Bitcoin Forum

http://web.archive.org/web/20170314164356/https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5z7wzj/ways_to_enhance_postfork_withering_of_core_chain/dewynk0/?context=3

"Post-fork withering of core chain" = Destroying bitcoin so the BTUcoin can survive and people are forced to accept it as a replacement. Except we won't, as the ongoing migration to Dash, ether, etc. shows.

You are not making friends or persuading people with these antics, Bitcoin Unlimited partisans.

Economic majority need to act, Andresen has gone full retard.


They won't stop. Playing nice is over, and should have finished long ago.

LOL, so let me get this straight.

BU devs announce bug in BU.

Kore devs see it before it's hotfixed, PURPOSEFULLY exploit it in an  a blatant attack against BU.

r/bitcoin goes berserk, deletes any comments defending BU in their ongoing campaign of censorship & deceit.

Now Kore is going full retard in their continued desperation attacks against BU.

All dissenting opinions are silenced.

Man, you shameless people really are desperate.

I'm not surprised, we all know it was BlockstreamKore that spent hundreds of thousands of $$$ DDoS'ing XT / Classic / BU nodes in the first place.

Except I'm not a core supporter except in the sense that I am most definitely not a BU supporter.

Go ahead and activate. I'm beginning to think the only way to end this is by goading BU into locking in a majority of miners, activating, and then getting annihilated by the economic majority as we sell their fork to zero and the humiliated surviving miners defect back to the Core blockchain.

Economic majority?

LOL

You people really do live in la-la land.

The "economic majority" want to use Bitcoin with low fees as an electronic peer 2 peer cash payments system.

Core has ruined these features, making Paypal or Visa or Mastercard better options for many people.

How many businesses have been forced to remove Bitcoin as a payment method? Too many.

Then go ahead and activate, since you are so convinced. We'll find out who is living in la-la land.

right now i'm holding and expecting BU to win... If core retains control and activates segwit, i'll sell most of my coins.

BU will activate once hashrate is >70%. It will happen eventually. Then you can kiss your Banker-stream Settlement Coin goodbye, your campaign of censorship was for nothing.

And if it never happens, then DASH or Monero or ETH will end up commanding the majority of the Crypto industry marketshare.

Either way it's lose lose for you morons.

Who would have guessed? CIA sponsored Gavin Andresen plotting to get bitcoin XT, bitcoin classic and now bitcoin unlimited at all costs, even if it means destroying the whole project, which is what I suspect is the end goal.

"It would be even more destructive to mine an eleven-block-long empty chain, then wait until the slow chain gets 9 blocks until announcing it to the network."

How much hash power do you need to mine 11 blocks before the rest of the network mines 9?

Well this could have been an inside job brought in by the CIA, the user "Satoshi Nakamoto" had found the Currency blueprints or something and brought the information to the public net before the real thing actually happened by the CIA. This is only a speculative point of course so we could only see how this will unravel within the years.
Last I checked, the CIA was pretty hard to contact unless you knew somebody that was in that Business. Gavin Andresen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Andresen) decides that he will speak to the CIA and just does it like nothing doesn't seem right at all. So this could very well be an inside job, Bitcoin will eventually end. No one really knows when though.

One word describes support of BTU...LUNACY

lol
not verbatim but generalising the silly mindset

blockstreamer: "everyone be afraid, non core will split
community: "nah they wont, they as a community want consensus of everyone playing on an even playing field"
blockstreamer: "you wont get consensus, so you should split and see what happens"

lol
create fear of a non planned event that wont happen. then demand it happen.... lol

so lame

I'm not trying to address anybody here directly, but there seems to be a divide among those who hold bitcoin (as means to store value) and those who use bitcoin (as a medium of exchange).  The transaction costs hurt those who use bitcoin....the price per coin isn't as important to them as the price per transaction.  If those who are holding get upset with the direction the community pursues and dumps their coin (which would probably be their best move), then the platform may stabilize and become more utilitarian.  Am I right?  Is that the divide?  Gavin == "medium of exchange guy," and Otherside == "means of storing value guy?"

The problem is that it shouldn't have been a problem in the first place. Bitcoin can easily be used both for transactions and for storing value. All they had to do was remove the artificial blocksize limit. Instead it has been weaponized and turned against Bitcoin by the present team of bought-off developers.

I agree man... its like there's this false dichotomy and this myth that bitcoin can't be both instead of just scaling it overtime naturally.  what's up with that?  When does this myth start?

though increasing blocksize has been in conversations as far back as 2010..

after 2014 [blockstream setupshop] things started heating up with the myths of
"gigabytes by midnight" <-illogical myth. it wont get to that so soon. relax think growth over years-decades
"billion users by midnight" <-illogical myth it wont get to that so soon. relax think growth over years-decades
"tech cant advance by midnight" <-illogical. relax think growth over years-decades

jonald_fyookball, franky1, Hyena, how much does Roger and Julian pay you guys to support their shitcoin attempt BTU?

sadly, i can't think of a witty way to tell you that i'm not being paid.

hint: calling it "BTU" instead of "BU" to make it look like an altcoin won't help you win.

sorry to tell you but im an advocate for:
dynamic diverse nodes using consensus without any dev-kings.
and not any particular 'brand name' of implementation

this is why all the REKT campaigns couldnt categorise and get me with their 2015 'xt shill' 2016 'classic shill' and 2017 'BU shill'

if core (cough not cough) independent devs got rid of the blockstreams oversight and management and censorship you would see totally different debates going on in the community.

but hey if anyone hates blockstreams agenda then blockstream just throw them in the current non-core brand to be rekt category.

kind of boring really,
well not as boring as the same scripts the blockstream defenders keep spewing out since 2014 of how bitcoin needs to centralise, but then needs everyone else to f*rk off so they can command bitcoin.. while playing the victim card of "they f*rked off* while simultaneously begging non-core implementations to "f*ork off"

also boring but stupid how ignorant blockstream defenders are.. (not sure if actual stupidly or actual informed/intentional script plans willingfully spread)
blockstream gave only pools the vote intentionally.
blockstream defenders - "spew out nonsense hating miners voting and non-core nodes being on the network"

Core supporters must be done away with all this trolling. Its better to focus on a positive campaign.

I'm all for not supporting Core/Blockstream if you believe they have dropped the ball and have questionable intentions moving forward, however, fanatical devotion to BTU's failed development and oblivious Chinese centralized takeover is sheer lunacy.

lol

think you need to check your fact sheet on that one.

EG antpool distributed into mongolia too
btcc has stuff st up in georgia and iceland
shush managed in thailand.
bitfury also world wide..

even though those 4 are dumbly classed as "china"
lastly.. remember which team went "soft" (bypassing nodes and only allowing pools the vote)

I know that everyone is entitled to an opinion and everything, but how are you so delusional? Or to put it another way, how much are you getting paid to shill this?

better to have a creaking system that works than one that's sexier in theory but doesn't get the job done. they are not competent enough and act like children.

and can you point to a list of non btu vested interest businesses that are keen to make the switch? the ones who are behind core are the ones who the economic majority use.

i don't like the way core operates but at least they have competence, the confidence of most and no victim complex.

big block supporters have a very valid point. they should also be bright enough to know bitcoin unlimited is a shitty implementation that will be rejected by the majority.

They do not.

There are a multitude of ways to increase the transaction rate WITHOUT increasing the blocksize. The blocksize is perhaps the most dangerous way to increase the tx rate, why do that at all until every other avenue has been exhausted?


And you've been here far too long not to have heard this perspective, can you not read?

I agree. Bitcoin should not have an "official" implementation. Satoshi stated how bitcoin should operate. Implementations should follow what he said. If you want a centralized crypto, fork it and make an altcoin.

I also think block size is an issue that needs to be fixed. It must be a sustainable solution that wont require another hard fork in a few years. I don't think any of the proposed solutions in their current state are acceptable.

I'm sorry, I try to be more polite but I don't think there's a friendly way to call somebody insane.

I don't think there's an issue with other implementations, as you said, diversity is a good thing. As reckless as I think the changes Bitcoin Unlimited/XT/Classic make are, of course people are always free to pick and choose whichever client they want to use. (The recent crash of BU nodes showed that sometimes people don't always make the best choices though ;))

Could be an account bought and used as a sock puppet  :o

Who controls Antpool? A Brazilian? Maybe south African?  I never said anything about BTCC, Slush, or Bitfury. Slush signals all the proposals I think. The majority of BTU hash is coming from China in one form or another (Antpool, BTC.TOP, ViaBTC all based out of China), prove me wrong, show evidence to the contrary.