So in your view it's more likely that he's ego-driven rather than having been recruited by CIA/other?

Hilarious!! Very well done! Tipped you.

Has anyone with high technical knowledge taken the time to deconstruct his post point-by-point? He does make some interesting points that even I (not by any means a "big blockist") feel should be addressed.

You mean "democracy"? (dictatorship+popularity)

Why would Satoshi not sign his post, thus proving that it really is him? Surely that would be a big blow to the ph0rkers, no?

Don't you think then, if that really is the case, that Bitcoin has failed?

That's an interesting perception. Do you feel that the world isn't in need of "saving"?

I'm not sure any of us really know exactly what Bitcoin is (as in what it will become)... Let me ask you this: Can you sum up your understanding of the legacy economic system?

Given how fast things change in the crypto space, are you sure that isn't a bit of a premature conclusion?



While I find some of the things you've put out to be... questionable and sometimes even absurd... this I like! That's a great way to visualize the way we each are compartmentalized in regards to our understanding of Bitcoin, cryptocurrency, the decentralized ledger technology, and decentralization. Many people are ignoring some or many of those "sectors". To me the toughest one to grasp is #1, but I'm getting there. My primary area of research has been #5. I'd suggest we all make use of this chart to notice where our understanding might be weak, helping lead to a more wholistic understanding of what it is we really are dealing with.

Well done, Peter R, "big blockist" or not!

Why is it that "big blockists" (impatient/reckless side) keep insisting that "small blockists" (conservative/careful side) want to stay at 1MB? The issue is the way it's being introduced as a contentious/risky hard fork. Since others have already thoroughly explained this and since everyone loves to bash theymos for his moderation/censorship, I'll just quote his whole post, so that you have no excuse to continue to ignore the term "hard fork" and call it merely a "proposal":


And this is exactly the kind of asset we'd want controlling centralized discussion hubs.

I do get the strong impression that most of the "big blockists" are thinking very short-term, not quite realizing what decentralized ledgers mean to the banksters and their subtle puppets on the thrones.

And very short-term memory, indeed. We have been trained to be led; it's what many of us are used to.

Zarathustra, I think you are wrong about your perception of the Bitcoin ph0rking phenomena, but about this you are correct, in that you are seeing a bigger picture than iCEBREAKER.

Yes, FN are more honest, less obfuscatory, more reasonable, more populist, than the "leftist" groups, and yes, JM LePen and even his daughter have been saying and are saying far more of what is representative of the people of France despite the false picture painted by the MSM... but both "sides" (of the same statist coin) are indeed absolutely collectivists, and it's THAT that is the actual underlying, root problem. We all awaken to this understanding eventually. iCEBREAKER, I strongly recommend you check this out:

Mark Passio Interviews Larken Rose - The Religion of Statism

Remember folks, the picture one has of what's going on is largely dependent on the sources of information one chooses to expose oneself to. Broaden your sources!



Exactly. Almost certainly the results of a plan, i.e. a deliberate propaganda effort to promote a "problem" in order to generate a reaction which is geared toward the introduction of the "solution" (XT, Classic). As iCEBREAKER put it, it's "an imaginary solution in search of a problem."



A quick glance at Jeff Garzik's twitter reveals him to be a bit of a clueless statist and MSM consumer... skilled as he may be in terms of coding and crypto. Is it really a "coincidence" that Gavin and Hearn are the same?

There cannot be "good government", because by definition "government" is based on the idea of the legitimacy of involuntaryism. When you wake up to who and what you are you understand that you are sovereign, and nobody can or ever has ruled/governed you. Why don't you watch that short video and tell me what you think about it?

Hey, you said something smart! So it's not really that you don't have a clue, it's that you are being extremely selective with the sources of information you expose yourself to, and very focused on one particular subject. You see, the reality is -- and this is why I referred you to that short video of those two gentlemen deconstructing this poisonous superstitious belief -- is that there really is no "government". There are only people calling themselves "government". Nobody has any rights ("authority") that you don't have, and you cannot delegate a right you do not have to anyone else. See how obvious that is?

I'll tell you why it's relevant, and why it's always relevant. Suppose for a moment that you only exposed yourself to Marxist sources of information, and were therefore completely convinced that communism is a reasonable system of human organization. You would then tend to support whatever ideas you perceive to be closest to that idea. This is how human minds are herded into desired destructive geopolitcal goals, by means of compartmentalization and control of information sources people are exposed to, and repetition of particular ideas (propaganda). Ideology is not your friend; it's the invisible prison of your mind.

What I'm saying is that you aren't quite a full human being until you have come to understand your sovereignty, and therefore the sovereignty of every other human being.



You took out the quote I was replying to, by VeritasSapere, thus de-contextualizing my post, how clever! I recommend that video to your attention as well, if you are still somehow under the impression that there is such as a thing and could ever be such a thing as a "legitimate government".



That's not quite what's happening, though. You are essentially dumbing down the situation to soundbites, MSM-style. And the reason you're doing that is, I would suggest, because you're not actually paying attention. Or, rather, you are only paying attention to one side of the argument. You are going with what sounds/feels good to you rather than examining the technicalities involved (which requires, you know, research). You can have a look in Technical Discussion or on /r/Bitcoin, e.g. here. Poster spoonXT sums up the situation perfectly:


You probably don't even know what "Problem-Reaction-Solution" refers to, do you, DooMAD?

Poster Ilogy also sums it up very well:


Mikey Hearn also openly reveals how much of a pro-bankster pro-"authority" brown-noser he is:


This guy isn't aware of the existence of the control system, and thinks the world is all fine and dandy, that humans aren't being oppressed at all. He is so mainstream he hardly needs to have been or ever be co-opted. He's already a mind-controlled asset.

One of Hearn's main problems with Theymos' moderation policy / censorship is this:

Yeah, that's exactly right. "Democracy", as with all forms of "government", is a euphemism for "legitimized" violence and slavery. The slavish reactionary sheep who like to believe that Bitcoin is some kind of "democracy" are the ones whose energy is easily herded and harnessed into the planned "solution" (in the Problem-Reaction-Solution stratagem) that the creators of the "problem" (urgent need for increasing max block size) are hoping for.




Nailed it! +1

Absolutely, it's truly remarkable, and it's why his posts now read "This user is currently ignored."

Yep, which would be part of the agenda itself: to make it seem as if there is a contentious debate and that this contentious debate is being censored.


And this is why you are called a liar. The Core people do believe (understand) that Bitcoin needs to scale (hence, you know, the Scaling Bitcoin conferences?), just not in the discredited reckless ways you insist on baselessly continuing to promote, while ignoring all new information and arguments thrown at you.

Yeah, you'd rather have a technocratic group of social engineers, which is what the people calling themselves "government" are, to dictate to you what to do... yet at the same time you talk about being an "ideologue" whose dream it is to create a better world!


The "impending sense of doom lately" comes from the XT people who falsely insisted that there is an urgent need to increase the max block size. Quoting iCEBREAKER's brilliant observation again, "Their Big Lie is that Bitcoin was created to replace commercial banking, not central banking (as if the Genesis Text was about $2 ATM fees instead of TBTF bailouts)." The people behind it happen to be committed statists (believers in "authority" and collectivism and moral relativism).

Exit door? It sounds like you are treating Bitcoin purely as an investment. Boo hoo, you might lose some digital tokens that you take as representing fiat tokens, how scary! It's the invention of the decentralized ledger that is the threat to the banksters and "the powers that were" (but never really were), not Bitcoin.


Ooooohhh, so shocking that no censorship is applied to free speech but discernment of dishonest shills is. This PC mentality you espouse is what every single authoritarian control system requires to get anywhere at all. It's very interesting how you are substituting "hooligan" for "Nazi", but that's what your German unconscious mind is thinking, isn't it? Just for the fun of it and to keep it short, I'll say this one time: Almost everything you have been told about WWII is a lie. I think you, as with many Germans today, have been indoctrinated into always trying to be so over-the-top "nice" ("tolerant") to people that you are easily taken for a ride by anyone pretending to be nice.


So you openly admit that you're a statist (i.e. an involuntaryist, an advocate of slavery), but you call other people "authoritarian" WTF?


Wow, this is clear proof of sAt0sHiFanClub's dishonesty. Compare his post to my original post here.

That's very true, yes, but the interesting phenomena we are witnessing here is that one side of the argument are seemingly completely closed to any new input. Surely many are mindless followers who still watch MSM (i.e. people with a need to be told what to do who go with initial impressions of what feels best and then listen only to confirmatory sources, because they have unknowingly lost the ability to think for themselves), of course, but some seem far too sophisticated in their understanding and writing. Your "Confirmed Gavinista" is reflective of this closed mindset.


That's a premature assumption you're making. Obviously it should be discussed, and is being discussed. The point is the observation that one side, or at least the most visible posters of one side, amazingly do not accept new input at all, and just keep reiterating the same false arguments ad nauseum.

Are you operating under the assumption that the "bad guys" are sitting idly by while decentralization undoes their millennia-old consolidation of centralized control over resources? Or do you not even believe there are any "bad guys" and that everything is as the MSM says?


You must be joking. The strongest statists among the core devs are the big-blockers! Gavin, Hearn, Garzik, etc. Do some research before you make ridiculous assumptions.

But it was obviously just a coincidence that Larry made such a bad move, just as it was just a coincidence that Larry and his kids didn't show up at the WTC that morning, and it was just a coincidence that Larry is personal friends with 3 different Israeli prime ministers, one of whom fought the Palestinians alongside Larry's business partner Frank Lowy who controlled the mall underneath the towers...

And on and on it goes... Yet somehow the coincidence theorists (i.e. MSM consumers of false information) feel comfortable ignoring all information they have been told, and continue to be told, is "conspiracy theory".

So because he was Jewish and/or pro-Communist he had nothing interesting to say and therefore the term "Orwellian" that we have adopted from "1984" should not be used? Great logic bro.


I'd say the most effective way to expose (not so much "oppose") him is to assemble the strongest evidence and construct a clear case that showcases how improbably it is that he is just a regular clueless follower/fanboy.

You are correct, but you are completely missing the largest form of fundamentalism:

Mark Passio Interviews Larken Rose - The Religion of Statism

The purpose of this thread was/is to assemble the evidence.

In Orwellian slave-think, "conspiracy theories" is a euphemism for "cannot possibly be true, so I'll ignore it".

Your arguments have been deconstructed over and over and over and over, but you just ignore them and pretend that you still have (the same old tired) valid arguments. Hence why it's very difficult to imagine that you aren't being paid to do what you do.

Unknowable, huh? I would not have gone beyond "unprovable". It can be known with some degree of certainty by apophatic inquiry.

Well, let's then test whether that is true. You obviously have a lot of spare time (or is it work time?), given your posts on this forum, so certainly you have time to increase your "true knowledge" regarding "political philosophy" by researching the information from other researchers who also have "a thirst for true knowledge". So let's start with these two:

Mark Passio Interviews Larken Rose - The Religion of Statism  (a very short video)

Apply your "dare to be wise" philosophy so that you can come to understand the true nature of "politics", "government", and "authority", so that you may stop operating under ridiculously false premises such as...


... and join the human race.

Clearly Be3.

Unless of course it's artificially induced! Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

Yes, agreed, and this is where you are missing the 2nd idea I alluded to: how much research have you done into centralized "authority"-based systems of control? Your "personal philosophy" depends entirely on the sources of information you have exposed yourself to, you see. Do you agree with the idea that we humans on this planet are born into a kind of prison world, wherein our minds are molded to become subservient?

How do you imagine that "philosophical view points" are relevant here? It's a technical, engineering issue. If we want the best for Bitcoin, then the focus is on resilience, not on adoption rate or some other arbitrary measure. As iCEBREAKER observed, "Their Big Lie is that Bitcoin was created to replace commercial banking, not central banking (as if the Genesis Text was about $2 ATM fees instead of TBTF bailouts)."

Are you suggesting then that the central banksters are not actively engaged in mobilizing their resources in the grandest ways they can conceive of in order to protect and preserve their millennia-old consolidation of centralized control over money? Are you of the impression, or de facto belief, that debt-based money is a reasonable and benevolent way for humans to engage in commerce?

You won't see me suggesting that you are a shill. Everything you have written so far fits exactly into the idea you are describing of someone thinking differently for innocuous reasons.

Yeah, assuming good faith... when the idea really is that blockchain technology by its very nature undoes the primary control vector of the control system by enabling an unstoppable transition to decentralized money. Unstoppable it is (short of some really drastic measures that would also destroy the existing financial system), whether it be Bitcoin or another, but you really think it's reasonable to assume good faith in all players? At what point, if at all, do you suppose an organized effort to protect the dying old comes into play?

A further distinction is the idea of accidental (market-driven) centralization vs. deliberate (maliciously-driven) centralization.

Much higher than carefully scaling from 1MB to a safer number. But more interestingly, it's clearly not needed urgently, in the way Gavin & Hearn rushed to introduce XT. If you assume that all the players involved are acting in good faith, then, unless your technical understanding is on the level of the core developers, you will be basing your understanding on the false premise that there is no incentive for cryptocurrency to be undergoing the most sophisticated type of attack that could be conceived of, i.e. by co-opting and using the strongest statist minds involved in development (which just so happen to be Gavin & Hearn, and perhaps a few others like Garzik).

The dev proponents on one side being only a few, you might wish to note. Their clueless followers, whether organic or artificial, may have skewed your impression a bit -- that being the purpose of such an operation.

They are though; they are very different, even if perhaps subtly so. And this can be determined even without a dev-level understanding of the code.

I would suggest that it's already being superseded, in a process of creative destruction, and this is why the people with the greatest interest in keeping the "current" (dying) global financial system afloat -- the same people who have the ability to create wars -- are playing their best cards, which is what we are witnessing here with these posters pretending to be retards.

Absolutely, but without foolish naivete. The "bad guys" do the research, you see.

Indeed, but that idea is a subset of the larger idea of decentralization. Bitcoin can fail tomorrow and it wouldn't change anything! It would at most delay the inevitable.

Does the idea of shills make more sense now?

Is Maxwell assuming that the attacks are coming from clueless followers/fanboys rather than a sophisticated attacker group? That's the only reason I could imagine for him to leave the Bitcoin project: if he believes that what he has been doing is pointless. Otherwise, he's probably just taking a break... a very useful thing to do when things get heated.

This is a game of consensus, right? Anyone want to join me for a 51% attack?

I don't know how much technical blockchain understanding you have or how much research you've done into centralized "authority"-based systems of control, or how much you have been paying attention to the goings-on... but I don't think you really know what you're talking about here, if you think this thread is about "attacking other people for having a different opinion".

Bf5