^ You actually paid $27 for that image?


Which is why you have that avatar, right? It's also why your post read as "This user is currently ignored."  


Please note that this thread is for analysis of (apparent) shills, not for shills to shill or for clueless fanboys to display their lack of critical thinking ability.

So what's happening is that people are betting that Bitcoin will not be able to maintain its fungibility -- that blacklists will eventually be implemented somehow -- thus hoarding/hodling "untainted" freshly mined coins? Wow.

Just for the fun of it and for the sake of curiosity, let's compile the (seemingly unmistakable) evidence of shillery. The nature of some of the posters who inexplicably blindly support clearly-unsafe big blocks (8MB?? Unlimited?), whether XT or BU (anything other than Core), in complete disregard for not only contrary evidence but plain facts, makes it very difficult to imagine that they could somehow be clueless fanboys with permanent blinders on and a penchant for absurd levels of sophistry...

From now on, if I may suggest, let's log/save/harvest/compile the strongest cases of inexplicable irrationality by the (suspected) shills, so that we can eventually make a crystal clear case for this idea that there are actually people employed by a group whose goal it is to destroy Bitcoin.

For now, dump your evidence and/or observations (or even just the case you feel showcases the most obvious shilling) in this thread! Preferrably concisely summarized, though the more detailed and hyperlinked the better.

To my mind, the most obvious case is VeritasSapere. What is the probability that this guy is not employed full-time by a group whose goal it is to destroy Bitcoin? The username itself seems like a clue.

While they do bring up some good points, authoritarian statists Jeff Garzik and Gavin Andresen write:


There's that word again! It seems to me that anyone talking about "compromises" or "compromising" is coming from a position of pushing a pre-set agenda, not from the mindset of a dialogue in which all the participants share their ideas/arguments for the purpose of arriving at the best solution.

And as commenter Eric Voskuil observes:


More and more and more it looks like it's all about "compromising" the greatest threat to the central banksters since Andrew fucking Jackson.



That should be voluntaryism, you statist shill. When was the last time you had a thought that was your own?

That's my impression too, that he has some serious daddy issues (strong belief in authority, overwhelming desire for approval from perceived authority/father figures). Yet, when Satoshi left, he said that "it's in good hands with Gavin and the others". A severe error in judgment, or subsequent co-opting by perceived authority figures (e.g. CIA)?

The same question (of agenda/motivation) applies to Mike Hearn, who obviously is also a very strong believer in "authority", and seems to have no problem whatsoever with the banksters and their centralized debt-based money mega-scam.

I think tvbcof has a fascinating hypothesis about this:

People keep talking about the storage space, as if that were the main issue with larger blocks. I haven't been on top of the discussions lately, but I thought the main issue is the attack vectors that would be opened, such as withholding attacks becoming viable due to increased latency of block propagation.

@gmaxwell, Could you perhaps remind us, in summary, what the main problem(s) is (are) with increasing the max block size?



In your view, do you think it's possible/probable that Gavin and Hearn have been compromised in some way, working for a different agenda than that which they started out with?

Nobody is that obtuse by mistake. Notice his username... if that isn't a clue...



Brilliant observation, thank you.

No non-government-backed currencies are accepted into the ISO 4217 standard (except as X__). Hence, country codes = government codes. "Protocol" = government protocol. LOL, thanks for a great example of "I don't mind conforming to the invisible bars of my prison."


"International" = government-approved.


That completely depends on what kind of standard you are dealing with. How "standardized" do you suppose the people in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany were? Extremely standardized. Unless you learn to apply discernment (thinking for yourself rather than equating truth with "authoritativeness"), standardization/normalization can be a euphemism for enslavement.

Thank you for asking these questions. Do you happen to have a list of XTurds (with or without their activity status or notes)?

No, there isn't.

As I explained here,


Nobody in that thread was able to provide a reasonable reason. Read it for more info and ideas.

The reasoning seems to boil down to, "I don't mind conforming to the invisible bars of my prison."

Why would someone create an account with the username 'hearnshouldburn' and then post this kind of gibberish? You don't suppose it's most likely that it has something to do with the idea of creating the perception that anti-XT people are on the same level as the incomprehensibly nonsensical pro-XT people?

Yeah, despite his signature exposing the debt-based central banking mega-scam! Isn't that highly... peculiar? The retarded arguments of some of these bizarro posters is flabbergasting, their motivations hard to imagine...



THIS is the big question. This is what we want to figure out. Assuming motives is equally as silly as assuming that the most advanced malicious and sophisticated attackers are sitting idly by while decentralization undoes their millennia-old process of consolidation of centralized power structures.

Interesting... You may have noticed how, of the early/core developers, the most brown-nosing of perceived authority appear to be Hearn and Gavin... i.e. they are the most "conformal". These people cannot get their heads (or noses) out of the fatherly figure of the state, which cryptographic decentralization protocols like Bitcoin have emerged precisely to render technologically obsolete and irrelevant. Do you have a more developed theory or theoretical scenario of your hypothesis?



Also very possible, yes, but how do you explain Gavin?

Thank you for deconstructing his ridiculous post. As I was reading his post I was getting more and more motivated to do the same, but decided to first see if someone had already done so.



LOL! Why the hell would you want to "justify the existence of the state", especially in these terms, unless you are a proud, ultra-dogmatic, foaming-at-the-mouth slave?

This just shows that you don't know what Natural Law is. You are talking about self-defense (also known as the sacred masculine principle), which is distinct from the non-aggression principle (the sacred feminine principle). The keyword is the initiation of violence. You have the right of self-defense, but NEVER the right to initiate violence. You are not a moral human being if you don't embrace the non-aggression principle. Again I reiterate that I bet Mark Passio will help clarify your belief system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgRjTuQ039g

I've seen a few videos from Karl Lentz... he's good at understanding THEIR game, but like you, he doesn't quite understand the real game that is the reality you are experiencing, which is "governed" not by rich old fucks in suits, but by the Natural Law. Check it out bro.



So you've been religiously indocrinated? You can't break free from the belief in "authority" if you worship an external demiurgic entity... YOU are God, my friend... just temporarily pretending that you're not.

YOU get out there and find the truth. Don't assume you already know.

You are presuming the legitimacy of man-made law systems, when that whole idea is a distortion of the real law, which is Natural Law. In other words, you are operating under the assumption of moral relativism, not understanding what Natural Law is. You seem to be saying, for instance, that the Vatican owns your soul, because a papal decree (i.e. a piece of paper somewhere) says so, and you haven't done anything to refute the claim. Did you watch that video by Mark Passio?

Can you answer this: From where does the IRS, or any other gang of thugs, derive/obtain/acquire its supposed "authority"?

What you seem to be saying is that Larken's piece of paper "authorizing" him to rob you is valid and applies to you UNLESS you show him that it doesn't apply to you. Do you not see how ridiculous that is? You seem to have fallen for a 2-dimensional mind-trap wherein pieces of paper with symbols on them ("foundational law"?) override the 3/4-dimensional reality (Natural Law) that you are experiencing... If Larken doesn't do it, I bet Mark Passio will help clarify your belief system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgRjTuQ039g

I'll check out Karl Lentz though and get back to you on that.

Alright, so please walk me through it again... how does a piece of paper somewhere, written by some slave-owning men some centuries ago, somehow have anything at all to do with the idea of "foundational law" (which, btw, is Natural Law)?

What. Are. You. Talking. About?

Do you listen to anyone or anything other than your own thoughts?

(Or are you high? LOL)

I'm reviving this topic to propose a simple solution: we need to innovate hash-rate anonymity to scale proof-of-work blocks. Ideally, we'd want to sign verified megahashes so as to optimize electronic cash difficulty in order to revolutionize private-key infrastructures. But to engage public-key coins we'd need to harness merchant wallets and incentivize generated infrastructures, if not integrate time-stamped meta coins to deliver secure-key confirmations, otherwise bad actors might engage low-difficulty double spending or unleash 51-percent-proof miners to exploit P2P mixing services.