If your IQ is below 50, yeah.

So you don't like it when someone else beat you at your own games? My points are backed by facts, the shills kept using arguments are completely fucking retarded, proven wrong over and over again by facts, but they ignored them and just kept spewing the same moronic bullshits for months.

I find it hard to believe anyone can really stay that stupid for that long, unless it's their job to stay stupid.


We have them, just not in this thread, this thread is just another bullshit shill script. 1000 words smearing attempt base on something Bitmain didn't even use.
 
Only a complete dumb fuck would accuse Jihan of blocking SegWit due to ASICBoost, when ASICBoost doesn't even work on Ext Blocks, which Jihan also support. When you're dealing with this level of weaponized idiocracy, 'discussion' was already over the moment they opened their mouths.

The problem is you shills need to tell your handler to write you better PR scripts, your scripts are getting more and more moronic by the minute.

The arguments coming from you shill's mouth are so fucking idiotic, why the fuck aren't you people even fired from the PR team? If I run a PR campaign and I see staffs making stupid arguments like this, they'll be fired immediately.

Some facts:
1. Jihan supported SegWit in the HK agreement, it was Greg that broke it.
2. Now Jihan is supporting Ext Blocks, which is incompatible with ASICBoost, the 'exploit' he was accused of using.
3. Core devs have zero proof Jihan is using ASICBoost in production. (Is the any evidence of ANYONE using ASICBOOST?)
4. Facts indicate Jihan/AntPool isn't using ASICBoost at all: (If the shuffling of transactions is required for ASICBOOST to work, I don’t see any evidence that AntPool uses it)
5. In recent blocks, about 14% of AntPool's income come from fees.
6. Greg's math is wrong, again. Bitmain: Regarding Recent Allegations and Smear Campaigns

And here is the kicker, wait for it: Everyone expects miners to work for their own gain, that's how Bitcoin was designed to work.

I see we have our new "Blockstream's lie of the week", this time the enemy is the ASICs, again.

Looks like the block extension proposal really fucked Blockstream big time.
It is simple and it solves immediate blocksize problems.
 
What's even better is that the Block Extension is "party neutral" so Blockstream can't even go against it by bashing the BU strawman, so they needed to create another enemy to distract people for another week, they ran out of excuses so they recycled the same excuse they used to push for a hard fork last year:


It didn't work then, it doesn't work now.

If you're a newbie all you need to know is every time people from Blockstream open their mouth, it's a lie. Blockstream spent millions on SegWit, they have a deadline coming, but their walls are crumbling and even devs from LN are going against them now.

The good thing about this ASICboost bullshit is that it makes it so obvious who the paid shills are on this forum. These dumb fucks are paid to jump to conclusion with zero facts, all you need to do is ask them for prove, then they break down and disappear (the stupid ones argue back and make their shilling look even more obvious).

Passing along a link posted by jonald_fyookball:

http://archive.is/XpI8a

Once only complex and unnecessary code, I have become immortalized as a brand name by my creators

Getting the inside scoop on the Segregated Witness. The truth shall set you free.

Segwit Resources

Segregated Witness: A Fork Too Far
https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-fork-too-far-87d6e57a4179
This paper first examines Segregated Witness (SW), then demonstrates how it can only fail to realize its designed purpose, how it encumbers Bitcoin with irreversible technical debt, and how it threatens the fungibility of the currency.

Bitcoin is Being Hot-Wired for Settlement
https://medium.com/@jgarzik/bitcoin-is-being-hot-wired-for-settlement-a5beb1df223a
SW avoids an ecosystem-wide hard fork through ecosystem-wide upgrades to bitcoin transactions, blocks, addresses, scripts, full nodes, miners, wallets, explorers, libraries, and APIs. All to provide partial relief to core block pressure assuming users upgrade — 1.6M if 100% upgrade, based on current usage.

SW roll-out requires extensive software modifications just to maintain current functionality in the face of rising transaction volume. SW complicates bitcoin economics by splitting a “block” into a basket of two economic resources — core block and extended block — each with unique price incentives and (heavily intersecting) sets of actors.

Bitcoin Upgrade Governance, Hard Forks and Segregated Witness
https://medium.com/@jgarzik/bitcoin-upgrade-governance-hard-forks-and-segregated-witness-942885e0ce58
In terms of updates to production software, Segregated Witness pushes complexity up-layer, with a ripple-out impact of changes, from one team (bitcoin core) to many teams out in the ecosystem.

Core Segwit — Thinking of upgrading? You need to read this!
http://www.wallstreettechnologist.com/2016/12/03/core-segwit-you-need-to-read-this/
Segwit cannot be rolled back because to unupgraded clients, a segwit txn looks to pay ANYONE (technically, anyone can spend the outputs). After activation, if segwit is rolled back via voluntary downgrade of a majority of miners software, then all funds locked in segwit outputs can be taken by unscrupulous miners. As more funds gets locked up in segwit outputs, the incentive for miners to collude to claim them grows. Compare this to a block limit increase hardfork, which can be rolled back by a block limit decreasing softfork.

Segwit doesn’t actually increase the blocksize, it just counts blocksize differently giving a discount for the segregated witness data.

Segwit doesn’t actually fix malleability bug or quadratic hashing, for outputs which are not segwit outputs. Yes, this means that as long as there are non-segwit outputs in the blockchain (for instance, long untouched coins like Satoshi Nakamoto’s) these problems will still be exploitable on the network.

Presently the danger of a 51% miner collusion is just the danger that txn can be censored, or that a miner can double spend their own txn. There is nothing that a 51% cartel can do to steal your bitcoins. But if everyone was using segwit, then that [stealing] actually becomes a reality.

Segwit grows technical debt. The idea of shoehorning the merkel root of the signatures into the coinbase message is a cludge made just so that segwit could be deployed as a soft-fork. How many kludges do we want to put into the Bitcoin base layer? Are we going to make soft-forks (and thus kludges) the normal practice?

SegWit is not great
http://www.deadalnix.me/2016/10/17/segwit-is-not-great/
On the other hand, SegWit is essentially a hard fork disguised as a soft fork. It strips the regular block out of most meaningful information and moves it to the extension block. While software that isn’t updated to support SegWit will still accept the blockchain, it has lost all ability to actually understand and validate it.

An old wallet won’t understand if its owner is being sent money. It won’t be able able to spend it. A node is unable to validate the transactions in the blockchain as they all look valid no matter what. Overall, while SegWit can be technically qualified as a soft fork, it puts anyone who does not upgrade at risk.

How Software Gets Bloated: From Telephony to Bitcoin
http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/04/05/how-software-gets-bloated/
Some Bitcoin devs are considering a trick where they repurpose “anyone can spend” transactions into supporting something called segregated witnesses.

To older versions of Bitcoin software deployed in the wild, it looks like someone is throwing cash, literally, into the air in a way where anyone can grab it and make it theirs.
Except newer versions of software make sure that only the intended people catch it, if they have the right kind of signature, separated appropriately from the transaction so it can be transmitted, validated and stored, or discarded, independently.

Amazingly, the old legacy software that is difficult to change sees that money got thrown into the air and got picked up by someone, while new software knew all along that it could only have been picked up by its intended recipient.

How do SegWit and FlexTrans compare?
https://bitcoinclassic.com/devel/FlexTrans-vs-SegWit.html
People that receive a payment from a SegWit user will not have any progress reports of that payment unless they have a SegWit wallet. Users pay more to users that don’t have a SegWit wallet. The networked basis of money makes it a certainty that practically all people need to upgrade. And that begs the question if there really is a benefit to the SegWit solution.

Why We Must Oppose Core’s Segwit Soft Fork, Bitcoin Miner Jiang Zhuo’er Tells You Why!
https://medium.com/@zhangsanbtc/why-we-must-oppose-cores-segwit-soft-fork-bitcoin-miner-jiang-zhuo-er-tells-you-why-28f820d51f98
Bitcoin Core plans to implement Segwit as a soft fork, and then to forever limit the block size to a piddling 1MB, turning the blockchain into a settlement network that is hard to distinguish from SWIFT.

Scaling Bitcoin: Reflections from the DCG Portfolio
https://medium.com/@DCGco/scaling-bitcoin-reflections-from-the-dcg-portfolio-35b9a065b2a4
One company notes, “Last year we got on the Bitcoin Classic bandwagon out of desperation. Our stance was: Segwit sounds complex and Classic seems easy and buys us time.

Segwit has “only been tested by core devs on testnet… the main worry would be that this testing may not match what enterprises actually need on a production level”.

Bitcoin company CTO here. Why I oppose Segwit.
https://archive.is/5rb0e
Largely out of technical objections, and political ones also. I see Segwit as a crudely-designed kludge, and an unnecessary complication to the protocol. Open Transactions was working on a sidechain implementation years ago that didn’t require Segwit, it only required deterministic ordering of UTXOs when creating new tx, which still doesn’t have a BIP and it’s a damn shame because that was a great idea.

Segwit: The Poison Pill for Bitcoin
https://archive.is/3u8Ny
Direct scaling has a 1.0 marginal scaling impact. Segwit has a 0.42 marginal scaling impact. I think the miners realize this. In addition to scaling more efficiently, direct scaling also is projected to yield more fees per block, a better user experience at lower TX fees, and a higher price creating larger block reward.

Why soft fork is a very bad idea and should be avoided at all costs
https://archive.is/NZHqM
I was surprised by the latest announcement of Pieter that a SegWit implementation which changes pretty much everything in bitcoin can be implemented via a soft fork, where it does not require all the nodes to upgrade to be compatible.

After a bit research, this is possible because you can always give old data new meaning in a new implementation, while the old nodes simply do not know how to parse that data.

As a result, a new block will be accepted by the old nodes because they appear to be valid. But in the new implementation, they are just a small subset of the new data structure, all the transaction data is in another related block.

Translation Of Chinese Miner Consensus Meeting
https://blog.bitmex.com/translation-of-chinese-miner-consensus-meeting/
First, assuming Seg Wit is used by all one-signature tx, the effectiveness of it is only equivalent to a 1.6MB block size. Because of the complexity and development needed for Seg Wit, some may refuse to employ the update. Assuming 50% of tx use Seg Wit in 12 months, this is equivalent to a 1.3MB block size, which is pretty useless.

Second, Seg Wit requires a lot of manipulation of core components of Bitcoin, which carries a lot of risk. Bitmain CEO: “Currently Core devs are working overtime to catch up with the development schedule. We all know what will happen if we can’t get enough sleep and code on…”

backup: http://archive.is/XpI8a

Ok you're getting into a loop here, so I'll keep it real simple, I am going to assume you have no ability to prove me wrong, because you don't actually know how Bitcoin works, but you want to keep telling me you're hurt and you hate me for calling you out.

Do you want a hug or what?

I mean I don't know what you expected, if I walk in to a room full of people and start making baseless accusation to 'most people', on a subject I know nothing about, I expect to get bitchslapped, and when I do, I'd actually feel embarrassed and apologize for being that stupid, instead of blaming other people for not respecting my stupidity.

Judging from this wall of:
"traincarswreck - This user is currently ignored."

I am going to assume he is trying to get my attention like a little puppy again.
I don't think he even knows he've been ignored by most people a long time ago.

I don't just think that, I know that, and I am sick and tired of you people's endless bullshit, I've already dumbed it down 10 notches, removed all the tech jargon and skipped explaining all the exceptions, so why don't you try and prove me wrong instead of making childish comebacks.

Just look at this bullshit:

You are entitled to your opinion, but when you're in public, you're only entitled to your informed opinion, if you say stupid shit in public long enough you will eventually get bitchslapped by someone who knows what he's talking about.

Don't make stupid uninformed baseless accusations then pretend it's just your opinion when called out on, research before you spew bullshit, then you won't get bitchslapped, simple as that.

It's my impression as well as opinion that you talked a lot of shit, and I just scientifically proved it.

Respect goes both ways, so either respect your own rules, that is, also respect other people's opinion, or prove me wrong, or shut the fuck up.

Looking at all the recent ETH news spam, and the fact that ETH is heavily funded by wall street, don't be surprised if Greg Maxwell 'moves on' to work with ETH in a few years after ETH is a success and Bitcoin is fucked.

ETH is actually very interesting, I look forward to its success, I just don't like seeing Bitcoin being sacrificed for it, if it is.

Most of the FukWit shills don't even know how FukWit works themselves, because that piece of shit is 50000 lines long, changes everything and haven't even been fucking tested in the real world yet.

You sure talk a lot of shit for someone who knows next to nothing about the actual problem, if you do, you wouldn't use 'my impression', you would use actual numbers and basic math.

Here is the technical details on why Blockstream/Core is a bunch of lying fucks, I just fact slapped another shill in another thread, so I'll just copy it here (already translated to layman terms):

The 1MB limit IS causing the spam problem, and Blockstream/Core continue to do nothing about it.

Today Bitcoin tx traffic have already reached 1MB every 10mins, since the blocksize limit is also 1MB and you only get 1 block every 10mins on average, spammers can now easily flood the mempool by generating a small amount of tx.

Once the mempool is flooded, tx takes longer to process, users get impatient, they pay more fees, fees go up, miners process higher fee tx first, all the minimum fee spam stay stuck at the bottom of the mempool, they timeout and get deleted before being processed by miners.

If spammers don't set a minimum fee in their spam, the spam will be dropped by nodes before reaching the mempool, but spammer only pay the fee when the tx is actually processed by miners.

So, once the mempool is full and the fee is high, spammer's spam never get processed, spammer can continue to flood the mempool for days paying zero fee.

Blockstream refused to increase the blocksize, so we get huge 50000tx mempool backlog today, because spammers don't have to pay their fees.

If they increase the blocksize, then for every 1MB blocksize increase, we can fit another 2000 tx per block, at 4MB we can fit 8000tx per block.

If normal traffic is 1M and the limit is 4M, spammer have to pay a very high combined min fee to flood a block (min fee x 8000 per block), then, if they continue to spam, any mishap, such as miners get lucky and mine a few blocks quickly within 10 minutes, 'eating' all the spam, then spammers have to pay the fee for almost the entire 4MB spam block.

At 4MB, it'll be too costly for spammers to spam, until normal traffic reaches 4MB and they can flood without paying fee again.

If we increase the blocksize from 1MB to 2MB or 4MB now, it will give room for Bitcoin to grow as well as reduce spam.

This truth is so simple that's why Blockstream/Core have to create all kinds of red herrings/bullshit excuses/censorships/trolls to justify keeping the blocksize at 1MB. If they stop distracting you from the actual and simple problem for just 1 second, you'll immediately find out they've been lying their asses off for years.

The 1MB limit was added in 2010 because tx fee was 0 at the time, the network was young and was growing slowly, average block size was less than 1k, and Satoshi didn't want to see the blockchain full of 32MB blocks filled with 0 fee spam.

You keep hearing all these fuck face morons talking about how SW/LN will save the day, or that we can't keep increasing the blocksize forever, but at this moment Bitcoin isn't even popular enough for SW/LN, the safety limit is above 4MB, we shouldn't even talk about side chains until we have enough tx to fill 4MB blocks every 10 minutes, or 13tx/sec (we are only at 3tx/sec at the moment).

We are having a tx jam right now, so by not increasing the blocksize limit, Blockstream/Core either have absolutely no idea what they're doing, or they're just pricks blatantly lying their asses off.

The 1MB limit IS causing the spam problem, and Blockstream/Core continue to do nothing about it.

Today Bitcoin tx traffic have already reached 1MB every 10mins, since the blocksize limit is also 1MB and you only get 1 block every 10mins on average, spammers can now easily flood the mempool by generating a small amount of tx.

Once the mempool is flooded, tx takes longer to process, users get impatient, they pay more fees, fees go up, miners process higher fee tx first, all the minimum fee spam stay stuck at the bottom of the mempool, they timeout and get deleted before being processed by miners.

If spammers don't set a minimum fee in their spam, the spam will be dropped by nodes before reaching the mempool, but spammer only pay the fee when the tx is actually processed by miners.

So, once the mempool is full and the fee is high, spammer's spam never get processed, spammer can continue to flood the mempool for days paying zero fee.

Blockstream refused to increase the blocksize, so we get huge 50000tx mempool backlog today, because spammers don't have to pay their fees.

If they increase the blocksize, then for every 1MB blocksize increase, we can fit another 2000 tx per block, at 4MB we can fit 8000tx per block.

If normal traffic is 1M and the limit is 4M, spammer have to pay a very high combined min fee to flood a block (min fee x 8000 per block), then, if they continue to spam, any mishap, such as miners get lucky and mine a few blocks quickly within 10 minutes, 'eating' all the spam, then spammers have to pay the fee for almost the entire 4MB spam block.

At 4MB, it'll be too costly for spammers to spam, until normal traffic reaches 4MB and they can flood without paying fee again.

If we increase the blocksize from 1MB to 2MB or 4MB now, it will give room for Bitcoin to grow as well as reduce spam.

This truth is so simple that's why Blockstream/Core have to create all kinds of red herrings/bullshit excuses/censorships/trolls to justify keeping the blocksize at 1MB. If they stop distracting you from the actual and simple problem for just 1 second, you'll immediately find out they've been lying their asses off for years.

The 1MB limit was added in 2010 because tx fee was 0 at the time, the network was young and was growing slowly, average block size was less than 1k, and Satoshi didn't want to see the blockchain full of 32MB blocks filled with 0 fee spam.

You keep hearing all these fuck face morons talking about how SW/LN will save the day, or that we can't keep increasing the blocksize forever, but at this moment Bitcoin isn't even popular enough for SW/LN, the safety limit is above 4MB, we shouldn't even talk about side chains until we have enough tx to fill 4MB blocks every 10 minutes, or 13tx/sec (we are only at 3tx/sec at the moment).

We are having a tx jam right now, so by not increasing the blocksize limit, Blockstream/Core either have absolutely no idea what they're doing, or they're just pricks blatantly lying their asses off.

Yes I double checked before posting, it really was that low:
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=all
https://data.bitcoinity.org/bitcoin/blocksize/all?r=day&t=l

In year 2010 Bitcoin only had like 400tx per day on average.
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=all
https://data.bitcoinity.org/bitcoin/tx_count/all?r=day&t=l

Satoshi disappeared before he could layout more ground works, now the vultures are circling.

Man I didn't know so many people felt the same way.

I've always had high hopes for Bitcoin, and when I wrote the letter I was in a state of disappointment and felt somewhat hopeless about Bitcoin's future. It was a reflex to just say something before watching Bitcoin hit rock bottom.

The truth is I got even angrier after writing the letter. Because the process of writing it actually sorted out my own thoughts, and right after I wrote it I realized for years I've misplaced my trust on Core and I was duped. That is why there is now a small rant at the end, I actually went back to add it.

Core really didn't care about the main chain at all, they considered it some kind of mini cash cow they could lock in a small cage to keep squeezing its milk to feed their new SegWit/LN baby. For them, nothing else mattered, not the main chain, not the users, not the miners, not the white paper, in Core's eye, these were all irrelevant.

And for years I was just another idiot standing around looking at stats and charts, following the herd from time to time, my instinct kept telling me something was wrong, but my hopes and expectations for Bitcoin made me ignore these warnings.

So I kept telling myself I was going through one of the greatest time in human history, as if watching Bitcoin grow is like watching a new Internet being born all over again, and this time I can watch its every step, and in the future, when it've grown so big, I can brag about being there in the beginning and chat about the good old days. I quietly watched Core drive Bitcoin up the wall, telling myself no developers would be stupid enough to ruin it, things would eventually improve.

Meanwhile, Core was playing double speak and dirty tactics, thinking we were idiots and was laughing behind our backs.

The backlog and high fee finally woke me up from that fantasy, Core really is going to ruin Bitcoin for everyone, one of the greatest invention of this century, going down the drain because of a few selfish pricks, just like Tesla's wireless electricity.

Fuck them. Core can kiss my ass and fuck off.

You can't make this stuff up, Greg is at it again:
Update consensus.h #10092
Do you guys need assistance updating that block size? #10028


I can see why some people would consider my previous peaceful advice to Greg a 'rant': They haven't seen me rant before. For hours I've been reloading the blockchain stats waiting for my coin dump to go through, then I saw Greg talking to people like there is a stick up his ass again. Obviously giving advice here doesn't work, so here is my real rant, no, this is not constructive, this is just an angry Bitcoin user speaking his mind:

Just look at the audacity of Greg and Pieter blatantly lying like that, it's as if they don't even know they're on the internet and whatever bullshit they spew will stay there for eternity.

50,000 lines of overly complex hard fork equivalent bloated piece of shit got merged using dirty tactics, while simple 1 liner code change that could solve actual problem for everyone got blocked instantly.

All Hyena did was trying to help Core change the block size limit from 1M to 4M, and a pull request is really just a suggestion, but they immediately locked the request, blocked others from replying, then accused Hyena of being a troll trying to break the Bitcoin network.

Greg, seriously, are you fucking kidding me? Do you even understand Bitcoin? Do you even know Bitcoin is having a transaction jam right now? Satoshi wanted to increase the block size a long time ago at block 115,000, we're now at block 459,000, that is 344,000 blocks late, at 10 minutes per block that is 3,440,000 minutes late, so we are already 6.5 years late on increasing that limit.

As of this moment the mempool has 52,400 unconfirmed transactions, at average 1800 tx per block, it will take 30 blocks just to clear the backlog, 30 blocks x 10 minutes per block = 300 minutes = 5 hours.

So 5 hours just to clear this jam even if there are no more new transactions, which there are, arriving at over 3 per second.

You say 'people are working here', but just wtf are you guys actually doing? What is so god damn difficult changing just one line of code to remove the jam?

And that arrogance, fuck me, it's as if everyone at Blockstream, not being able to solve simple problems, somehow think they are all smarter than Satoshi. Seriously, just go back to http://nakamotoinstitute.org/ and read the first line:

See that bold part Greg? That's right, developers ARE the third party, Satoshi didn't trust developers and he didn't fucking trust you.

So print that quote, stick it on your monitor, read it over and over again every morning until that simple message gets through your head, then, slowly and carefully, step off that imaginary pedestal and stop pretending to be the fucking embodiment of Bitcoin itself.

You guys weren't even there until 4 years after Satoshi was gone, and you guys wasted 2 years but still haven't solved the simple transaction jam problem everyone else saw coming, over 6 years ago.

Regarding what you call your 'work', that 50,000 lines bloated sad excuse of a SegFukWit you've been shoving up everybody's ass. Look, I support side chain developments so I am going to give you guys some slack here, I am going to assume you guys are the best coders that have ever existed, your code is always flawless right from the get-go and the FukWit is the fucking panacea that can move coins while curing cancer.

But, after reading your code, I found a big problem, that FukWit of yours is so complex it actually changed the entire transaction mechanism, so it requires everyone else to rewrite their clients and APIs to support it, that means it'll take months if not years for everyone else to adapt and sort through THEIR bugs.

We are in a transaction jam right now, not a year later, it IS happening to millions of Bitcoin users, people were trying to help you solve this real problem, but instead of thanking them, you insulted them, so what's going on? Are you telling me we have to give you another year to sit on your ass, just because Satoshi vanished and some fucking late comer funded by AXA kicked Gavin out and took the Bitcoin code base hostage?

Greg, I know they own you so I never expected much from you, but the miners already compromised on FukWit in 2016 and then you guys lied and broke the agreement. Now I have to wait hours to dump my coins and your stall tactics, messiah complex and that air of cockiness really irritates me. You've been slowing everyone down and now you're flat out insulting people who is just offering to help, seriously, just who the hell do you think you are? This is not an online game, you're playing with real people's real investment here. Why do you even call yourself a developer anyway? You're standing on shoulders of giants, your job depends entirely on Satoshi's work, so get the fuck off that high horse and stop acting like you're better than Satoshi, nobody is buying it. If you are so fucking good then build your own damn coin and stop fucking around with other people's invention that have already proven to work and people was already using without your 'help'.

For your homework, read this again:
http://nakamotoinstitute.org/

Grasp the basic concept of you, a Bitcoin developer, is only one of the many UNTRUSTED THIRD PARTY using the blockchain.
 
Then read what Satoshi said in 2010 about increasing the blocksize limit:

And know that we are now 6.5 years late on increasing such limit.

Know that Satoshi added the limit of 1M in 2010 because the average blocksize at the time was less than 1k, and he wanted to prevent people from spamming something a thousand times larger, that 1M limit was never supposed to be permanent and it was supposed to be increased 6.5 years ago, when you lock the limit at 1M today, you're not fighting BU, XT or miners, you're fighting against common sense and everyone who is actually using Bitcoin, and no, increasing the limit won't kill the network like you boss told you it would, that was just the lubricant Blockstream put on your fingers to shove FukWit up millions of people's ass, sideways, simultaneously.

Once you understand the actual problem, put FukWit down, wash your fingers then start looking at the 52,400 unconfirmed transactions currently stuck inside the mempool:
https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

Start thinking about the problem Bitcoin users in the real world are actually facing, no, stop looking at the Blockstream paycheck, stop dreaming about future stock options and stop inventing bullshit scenarios to justify your existence, just get back to reality for one second and think about what we, Bitcoin users, are actually facing, right now, at this very moment.

Then take your time, sleep on it, and decide your next move wisely, while you still have a choice in this matter.

You're responding to a misinformation agent, a normal person simply doesn't think or respond like that, not with this kind of pattern. If you look beyond the bs he's spewing, you can see his pain, he is obviously someone who is forced to support something he doesn't even believe in, he has no passion, his reply is robotic and he is tired, but he can't stop because it is part of his job and his boss is watching, can you imagine how boring and stressful it is to have to think and respond like a broken robot all the time.

His first post here, back in 2014, was a thread claiming "Satoshi = Wei Dai = John Nash".

And this was his feedback:

You can't wake someone who is pretending to be asleep.

Closed within 7 minutes, that is extremely fast for pull request standards, you can almost hear the alarm bells going off.

I've always found the name 'SegWit' too technical and too confusing to non developers. They really should just name the whole thing after the desperate Blockstream cut outs and call it FukWit instead.

This way people can get the gist of it immediately without going through the technical manual.

I welcome side chain developments, just don't do it at the cost of limiting the main chain and stop using dirty tactics.

Yes, the lies and the trolls are obvious. But if we're honest to ourselves, did we really expect anything less?

Bitcoin was designed to remove financial power from the hands of the few to the hands of the many, even the hidden message Satoshi embedded in the first block is a taunt to the existing financial system, Bitcoin's success will directly threaten the bottom line of that system, naturally they'll try everything to stop it, if it's not Blockstream, it would be someone else, there would be bribes, blackmails, threats, if you've lived long enough, you know who they are and you know their playbook.

Bitcoin is a unique threat they've never faced before, they don't have complete control of the internet and they don't control the production of ASICs, if they bribe devs to change the algorithm too abruptly, there will be an uproar and another coin will simply take its place, so they have to slow Bitcoin down and quickly develop their own blockchain to replace it.

Bitcoin is already standing on its own, any more increase of its transaction per second will bring Bitcoin towards critical mass, they simply cannot afford to let that happen. It's unfortunate that Gavin didn't force an increase on the limit before he quit, that would be epic.

The future of bitcoin is now in the miners hand, the online media and trolls are just theatrics, the real battle is in the hash rate, there is going to be a hash rate war.

You just said changing the Bitcoin block size limit would 'destroy its digital gold properties' and 'would tank the system', then I shown you Satoshi had always wanted to increase the block size limit, a long time ago.

So either Satoshi wanted to 'tank the system' himself, or you are wrong, it can't get any more simpler than that. Going off on another tangent doesn't change that. You lack hierarchical problem solving skill that's why you treat every tangent with equal priority, not knowing once your key argument is proven wrong, the smaller details no longer matter.

Why are you speaking for everyone anyway, from what I've seen, 'everyone' here knows you're a troll.

It's ok, maybe you need the money to put your kids through college or something, I know you're a troll too but I replied you anyway because you presented yourself as a low hanging fruit I could pick to further explain Satoshi's vision.

It's important for people to know that the 1MB limit is absolute BS, there is simply no valid reason to keep it at 1M, many top devs used to agree, until they started working for Blockstream.