I don't know, Peter has demonstrated such poor faith so openly that I doubt genuine actors in the Bitcoin space are fooled by it.
It's the opposite. Just the notorious ad hominem charlatans are applauding to the 'arguments' of you, muyuu, iCE, hdbuck, brg444 et al. You can choose to ignore his blatant lies displayed right there and in the conversation with Adam Black, but most people with a brain who care about Bitcoin won't. And this is why it's for the best that the opinion of idiots doesn't weight as much as mining power and dev control over Core. q.e.d. Ad hominem charlatans exposing themselves over and over again. A community with such friends doesn't need enemies. |
|
|
|
I don't know, Peter has demonstrated such poor faith so openly that I doubt genuine actors in the Bitcoin space are fooled by it.
It's the opposite. Just the notorious ad hominem charlatans are applauding to the 'arguments' of you, muyuu, iCE, hdbuck, brg444 et al. |
|
|
|
That's the 'language' of a core moderator.
Is it? I'm not a moderator and I'm only contributing occasionally to Core under a different pseudonym, but thanks for the heads up. EDIT: by the way he got his shadowban lifted now, it was around a week. Must keep an eye on him and remember to report the admins  The latest 'contributions' to the community by muyuu, an /r/Bitcoin_Core 'moderator' exposing himself in another thread: Reddittards are mostly statist socialists Looks like the ban on aquentin expired and he's back on his usual moron mode, since minute zero.
Loud XTard and renown fraudster Marc A. Lowe is incredibly butthurt about the release of sidechains in production
Today of all days, this is the top post in XTard land
To be expected from small men like Hearndresen
Peter_tRoll is increasingly pathetic |
|
|
|
Are you still shadowbanned in reddit, knight22? Aww isn't it a shame that admins shadowban brigadiers like you? But your opinions are so important, it's just not fair that you wouldn't be allowed to brigade. Oh yes you are. https://www.reddit.com/user/knight222It's a good job there's no brigading here, although you XTards can of course try to appear to dominate the discussion by bringing over your motley crew. https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3opees/trying_to_talk_some_sense/Oh well. We are still aware. You guys need to resort to these dirty tricks all the time, ain't that a shame? That's the 'language' of a core moderator. |
|
|
|
Since there are clearly a lot more people doing Bitcoin development who DON'T work for Blockstream than there are that DO work for Blockstream, why is it that so many people seem to presume that Blockstream will somehow dominate Bitcoin development and pervert it into their own personal corporate tool?
Because there is nothing that guarantees they won't and everything already points that they already are. But HOW will they do that? Since they are greatly outnumbered by non-Blockstream devs, how will they force changes that are self-serving on the rest of the development team? Simply by not allowing consensus on any change on the bitcoin protocol. Wladimir already requires consensus among Core devs to do any changes. You only need 1 Blockstream dev that also work for Core to disagree with a change that threaten their business model and that change won't happen. That's why Blockstream and Core dev should be completely disassociated or otherwise Core development is being perverted by a for profit company. I imagine that many, if not most, core devs are employed by various Bitcoin-related businesses, ALL of which, presumably, are capable of having a conflict of interest - indeed, I would imagine that such conflicts are absolutely unavoidable, given a long enough time-frame. Why single-out Blockstream? Just because they disagree with a change that you want? It is the nature of all critical systems that one has to be very, very conservative about making changes to vital components, and Bitcoin is no exception. That necessity for conservatism is advantageous to anyone whose interest is served by maintaining the status quo, and I think that is unavoidable. It seems to me that your argument assumes a priori that increasing block size is the correct and proper solution to the scaling problem (and a superior solution to the Blockstream/LN solution), and also assumes that the only reason many devs (Blockstream employees AND others) might oppose that solution is because it serves their business interests to oppose it - even though I have not seen you present much in the way of actual facts to support either of those suppositions. It does not seem fair to me to just say "the possibility of a conflict of interest exists, so therefore they are wrong". It seems to me possible that the Blockstream solution does a better job of maintaining decentralization while still allowing scaling of Bitcoin performance. We should always be wary of conflicts of interest; however, as I point out in the first paragraph above, those possibilities will ALWAYS exist - and we shouldn't presume that just because a potential conflict of interest exists that any solution proposed by the possibly conflicted party are immediately wrong. If you really want to change people's minds, then you should make it clear why increasing block size is a technically superior solution to the problem at hand, rather than just screaming "conflict of interest!" ad infinitum. The conflict of interest has nothing to do with the block size itself but any other potential solutions that threaten Blockstream profits. Good to know that you are fine with that situation. I am not and never will. Of course you wouldn't adress this question: I imagine that many, if not most, core devs are employed by various Bitcoin-related businesses, ALL of which, presumably, are capable of having a conflict of interest - indeed, I would imagine that such conflicts are absolutely unavoidable, given a long enough time-frame.
Why single-out Blockstream? Just because they disagree with a change that you want? Because the Blockstream one is the most obvious at the moment. If you know any other conflict of interests I would like you to expose them. Well there is Gavin getting paid by MIT, a known NSA farm. Who knows what their handlers interest toward Bitcoin are? Did you know he is also sitting on the board of Coinbase who themselves have several traditional banking ties? Mike Hearn himself sits on the advisory board of Circle. Who can tell what their interest are? What about those of their banking investors (Goldman Sachs)? It is no problem if someone comes from MIT and someone from Blockstream. It is a problem, if many of the core devs represent MIT or Blockstream. But the trolls know it very well. There is no reason to ask silly questions. |
|
|
|
Hell... this can't be happening. It seems we will have a new struggle in our hands. If this so happens it can be the beginning of Bitcoin's demise.
It already happened! Blockstream has investors - $21 million. Blockchain wants to charge fees and centralize their private chains. Investors want returns. The core devs associated with Blockstream are full of bullshit when they say there is no conflict. 8MB is a great idea for everyone - except those involved with Blockstream because their project won't make money if we go to 8MB. I know the facts, you retard, and 8MB only favors Blockstream's business plan.
You are absolutely clueless, please abandon your own thread before you cause even more damage to your reputation.
This guy is just an idiot who says 8MB favors BS. That is full bullshit. Blockstream is totally dead and unneeded if bitcoin has 8MB blocks. That is why only the blockstream core devs pushed Gavin/Hearn away. Hey! We're trying to rid this thread of retards, we were doing good till now  Said the fulltime BS shill who's shilling everywhere, in every thread where somebody writes something against Blockthestream. I'd much rather shill for BS A fulltime volunteer ... |
|
|
|
Hell... this can't be happening. It seems we will have a new struggle in our hands. If this so happens it can be the beginning of Bitcoin's demise.
It already happened! Blockstream has investors - $21 million. Blockchain wants to charge fees and centralize their private chains. Investors want returns. The core devs associated with Blockstream are full of bullshit when they say there is no conflict. 8MB is a great idea for everyone - except those involved with Blockstream because their project won't make money if we go to 8MB. I know the facts, you retard, and 8MB only favors Blockstream's business plan.
You are absolutely clueless, please abandon your own thread before you cause even more damage to your reputation.
This guy is just an idiot who says 8MB favors BS. That is full bullshit. Blockstream is totally dead and unneeded if bitcoin has 8MB blocks. That is why only the blockstream core devs pushed Gavin/Hearn away. Hey! We're trying to rid this thread of retards, we were doing good till now Said the fulltime BS shill who's shilling everywhere, in every thread where somebody writes something against Blockthestream. |
|
|
|
Hell... this can't be happening. It seems we will have a new struggle in our hands. If this so happens it can be the beginning of Bitcoin's demise.
It already happened! Blockstream has investors - $21 million. Blockchain wants to charge fees and centralize their private chains. Investors want returns. The core devs associated with Blockstream are full of bullshit when they say there is no conflict. 8MB is a great idea for everyone - except those involved with Blockstream because their project won't make money if we go to 8MB. I know the facts, you retard, and 8MB only favors Blockstream's business plan.
You are absolutely clueless, please abandon your own thread before you cause even more damage to your reputation.
This guy is just an idiot who says 8MB favors BS. That is full bullshit. Blockstream is totally dead and unneeded if bitcoin has 8MB blocks. That is why only the blockstream core devs pushed Gavin/Hearn away. The fulltime BS shill captures also your thread. He's shilling everywhere, in every thread where somebody writes something against Blockthestream. |
|
|
|
The Gavinista suits their Redditurd Army have no hope against the cypherpunks and radical individualists. We shaped the battlefield long ago; your defeat is assured by math and the physical properties of the universe. As well as your obsequious, yet easily irritated nature.
Radical individualism is sociopathy and not possible beyond a statist society. You're an n00b in anthropology. Your 'language' says it all. What could be more ridiculous than radical individualists spouting platidudes about consensus? |
|
|
|
Stupid, dumb, idiot, asshole, bastard, noob, fucker, Jesus Christ!
ROFL - this thread just gets funnier by the minute.
Indeed. Nobody is better in damaging the reputation of the small blockers than this 'Bitcoiners'. We dont care about reputation. Yes, you dont care about your reputation. You promised to leave the thread and were not able to. You even can't trust yourself. |
|
|
|
You think that most people should rely on off chain solutions? Yes, that's their agenda (core agenda / blockthestream agenda). |
|
|
|
Stupid, dumb, idiot, asshole, bastard, noob, fucker, Jesus Christ!
ROFL - this thread just gets funnier by the minute.
Indeed. Nobody is better in damaging the reputation of the small blockers than such 'Bitcoiners'. |
|
|
|
Either they are paid by a big block institution to show how disgusting the small blockers are; or they do not realize how repulsive and counterproductive they act for the cause that they postulate. Both possibilities seem nearly impossible: To be that corrupt and to be that stupid.
Stop speculating about motivations. You are not a psychic mind-reader. As one of the few remaining (nearly extinct?) zero-percenter Gavinista dead-enders, this is what you should be worried about. I don't speculate. I said it is either this or that. While you are still fighting your ridiculous Gavin proxy war, because you know that you'll get big blocks. |
|
|
|
XT opened a debate
There you go again, thinking you know WTF you're talking about when you actually do not. The block size debate has been ongoing, in the proper Lserv/IRC/BIP channels, for many years. Just because your Redditurd Army recently discovered the topic and quickly developed Strong Opinions does not indicate XT "opened a debate." The debate has been open since 2009. The subjective appearance of novelty by which you are afflicted is a cognitive artifact resulting from your status as a N00B who should listen more and talk less, or GTFO. you are the person that thinks its dead  I wish you all the best in your grieving transitions from the denial stage, on through bargaining, and to a final acceptance. Pedanticism and arrogance don't make for good arguments. Of course I know that there has been prior discussion of removing the 1MB limit. Thats not the same as 'the block size debate' though. You know it, but you'd rather avoid acknowledging the specific difference for fear of exposing the reality of the situation that the 1MB limit is temporary and should be removed. That much is true. Back to form you are. Mudslinging, pithy, obnoxious. These are characteristics of someone who has a weak argument and just wants to try and bully those who disagree into submission. This argumentative thread makes no difference, the market will decide, so you and beg can get as angry as you like about everyone not agreeing with you but ultimately its only yourselves you are hurting. Either they are paid by a big block institution to show how disgusting the small blockers are; or they do not realize how repulsive and counterproductive they act for the cause they postulate. Both possibilities seem nearly impossible: To be that corrupt and to be that stupid. It remains a mystery. |
|
|
|
Those against BIP101 20-year fixed plan pulled out of Gavin's arse and Hearn's XT trojaned code
.... we have a basic tragedy of the commons scenario.
C'mon! Your 'language' is the tragedy of the commons. A common can't have consensus with people using such language. They are determined to fork. The tragedy of the commons is selfish interest clashing with the common interest (talking about tx inclusion). As for Hearndresen forking forcibly in mining minority with checkpoints, I can't wait. Bring it on. BTW: back down to 3/1000. Hearndresen triggered an inflation in discussions about how to raise the limit. Which is good, because it will lead to raise that limit. Can't wait to see small blockers claiming victory when their idols are forced to implement big blocks. |
|
|
|
Those against BIP101 20-year fixed plan pulled out of Gavin's arse and Hearn's XT trojaned code
.... we have a basic tragedy of the commons scenario.
C'mon! Your 'language' is the tragedy of the commons. A common can't have consensus with people using such language. They are determined to fork. |
|
|
|
How dare you!? I am most certainly in the "just you wait until december" camp, my xt-nodes blazing as a futile show of dissent!
Alright, fair enough. You are in a (supremely nutty) third camp, which believes both 'XT died for our 1MB sins' and 'XT will return for the Gavinista rapture.' Alas, if only you could understand the superlinear relationship between tx size and verification time, we could put this civil war behind us. Unless you are determined to destroy Bitcoin's decentralization-cum-survivability, and thus subvert the engineering requirement that it be above the law... XT opened a debate, you are the person that thinks its dead Sure its a bit beat up right now, but just you wait till xmas, remember we hit $560k in november so we are bound to need a little more room! XT stifled the discussion, please spare us your revisionist history. The whole act has been a huge drain on the attention and focus of the developing community. You say drain, I say motivate. *poof* A BIP100 appears! History is always revised according the viewpoint of the person recounting it. In those tricky cases where its recorded in black and white, it can be dismissed as an appeal to authority. Thank you, BIP100 is a great example of totally wasted efforts and focus. It never had any chance of being adopted and is nothing more than a distraction. *poof* as if by magic another BIP appears! http://coinjournal.net/a-new-block-size-increase-bip-is-planned-for-the-rough-consensus-from-montreal/#all this "wasted effort" *rolls eyes* I wonder if both sides will claim 'victory'. Yes. The idols of the small blockers will be forced to present a big block implementation and then the same small blockers will claim victory because they'll have their 'own' big block implementation, presented by their idols. That's how religion works. |
|
|
|
Laughed so hard I almost puked coffee. Eyes excreting liquid mirth.  And U2? Experts for the most stupid analogies? "Bigger blocks = higher prices (92% correlation)" is true a statement.
It doesn't mean that higher prices cause bigger blocks or that bigger blocks cause higher prices. It just means that the two quantities have been highly correlated with each other. A percentage increase in the average size of the block has equated with an increase in the price of a bitcoin with a strength of 92%.
(BTW: I actually do think that a higher block size limit would cause higher prices, but that is my opinion.) |
|
|
|
I barely have the heart to tell Zarasstua I intentionally used Cunningham's Law to get him to provide the actual lulzy figure, so we could proceed to make fun of it! Compare the discussions of the 200+ there ... https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-56#post-2078... with the childish behavior of the small blockers here in this thread. You can't have the same level in a discussion if a thread is full of 'censorship cheerleaders', 'consensus communists', 'childish picture and meme posters', 'competition haters', 'faked nodes and DDoS enthusiasts', vulgar poets and alikes. That this minority will get big blocks next year and beeing forked off the game if they'll be stupid enough to clamp on funny small block implementations, should be crystal clear. Shouln'd it? |
|
|
|
I downloaded and ran an XT node, but it was DDoS'd. More accurately, my ISP was DDoS'd and my neighbors suffered collateral damage. #REKT confirmed. Mwah-haw-haw-ha. I love these stories of genuine surprise that XT's hostility would be returned in kind. Did you inform your ISP/neighbors the reason they suffered collateral damage is you were attacking Bitcoin with only an infinitesimal fraction of the power required for success? I warned you Gavinistas what would happen if you started a hot war with the socioeconomic majority. You didn't listen. Who are you? Nobody. Nobody out there discusses your 'visions'. We are discussing Gavin, Mike, Peter R. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
