The biggest XT shills and their true motives

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Taking pride in being defined in one camp or another shows you are closed off to rational discussion.

Rational discussion??? He only started this thread out of spite - as me and meono called him out for being a hypocrite - one minute calling on devs to block malicious peers, and then coming on here to denounce them when they do....

The butthurt is strong.

Spite. 

[1714785179]

1714785179

[1714785179]

1714785179

[1714785179]

1714785179

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

meono - account was created just for the blocksize debate; spends a lot of energy perpetuating lies and deflecting from facts. Knows more about those leters and number things in bitcoin ( is it called cody?) so i dont like arguing with him. So I call him "big nose" instead. qed.
sAt0sHiFanClub - shorts Bitcoin; profits from Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Made me look a complete tit.
LiteCoinGuy - is invested in Litecoin; profits from FUD and Bitcoin's schism. He isa lot cleverer than me. I really hate him.
JorgeStolfi - Buttcoin veteran; multi-year FUD expert; measures his profit in comedy gold derived from misery in the Bitcoin sphere. Acting all smart on here, with nbig words and well thught out arguments. Clever Clogs
Coinwallet.eu - 'stress test' Bitcoin through dust spam to create an artifical urgency for increased blocksize; have been quoted supporting XT.
Cryddit - altcoin developer; profits from alienating Bitcoin's userbase towards alternative crypto currencies
BitProdigy - is invested in Bitcoin; believes that the block size must be increased for the good of bitcoin; wants bitcoin to succeed and be mass adopted; thinks XT is the best current solution and so supports it until a practical alternative arrises such as increasing the block size on Core; in which case he would support Core and no longer support XT; but for now he's a XT shill which is his evil plan to support bitcoin by destroying it somehow; all I know is whoever supports XT is evil and wants to destroy Bitcoin so even though his reasoning for supporting XT is because he wants Bitcoin to succeed and feels that XT is the best way currently proposed for that to happen, still he must want to destroy bitcoin because by default supporting XT means you want to destroy bitcoin as a direct result of the laws of physics; therefore he is evil and is on the wall of shame

[Sourgummies]

Taking pride in being defined in one camp or another shows you are closed off to rational discussion.

Rational discussion??? He only started this thread out of spite - as me and meono called him out for being a hypocrite - one minute calling on devs to block malicious peers, and then coming on here to denounce them when they do....

The butthurt is strong.

Spite. 

The comment is in reference to all the similar threads. I am in the core camp but doesnt mean I will smear people that are XT driven.
Should have been more clear in my choice of words.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Taking pride in being defined in one camp or another shows you are closed off to rational discussion.

Rational discussion??? He only started this thread out of spite - as me and meono called him out for being a hypocrite - one minute calling on devs to block malicious peers, and then coming on here to denounce them when they do....

The butthurt is strong.

Spite. 

The comment is in reference to all the similar threads. I am in the core camp but doesnt mean I will smear people that are XT driven.
Should have been more clear in my choice of words.

Okay, got you now. 

I've no problem with people being pro-Core. There are several valid reasons for doing so. And a reasoned debate between to 2 can only be good for bitcoin.

It only descends to this when some people ( on both sides) resort to misinformation and lies to discredit one side or the other. And this insistence on personalizing the issue  is a real low point.

[hdbuck]

Two known CIA/NSA assets infiltrated in the Bitcoin community - Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn - have joined forces to push a hastily concocted privacy nightmare/scamcoin, which they call Bitcoin-XT.

It is currently completely irrelevant, owing to an absolute lack of financial, economical, technical or social support.

[Delek]

XT will never reach 75%, dont worry guys.

[tvbcof]

XT will never reach 75%, dont worry guys.

The 75% was just an arbitrary target the Hearn pulled out of his ass as something which would hopefully be tenable and provide some excuse to flip the switch.  Certainly it is not near the 'consensus' that Satoshi seemed to have been shooting for as a number needed to alter the character of the Bitcoin system.

Note that there is no problem with two chains (competing or not) existing.  People who go on and on about 'the longest chain' don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.  Core will continue to run just fine because of the thoughtfulllness of the designer to gaurd against all of the attacks he/they could think of.  XT's chain is illegal and irrelevant to Core.

A distinct minority in terms of count would be OK for XT to fork if need be.  Hearn could go ahead and flip the switch as soon as the number of 'compliment' SPV clients could be installed or upgraded on Joe Sixpack's device.  These would honor 'checkpointing' if he cannot get enough miners on-board.  The biggest necessity would be to get the corporates (Coinbase, TigerDirect, etc) on-board, but this is trivial; the state just needs to mandate a 'crypto-currency license.'

[desired_username]

How much Blockstream pays for trolls and shills?

[mallard]

How much Blockstream pays for trolls and shills?

Both Blockstream and XT are awful.
Why can't I use Bitcoin as it is? 

[desired_username]

XT will never reach 75%, dont worry guys.

The 75% was just an arbitrary target the Hearn pulled out of his ass as something which would hopefully be tenable and provide some excuse to flip the switch.  Certainly it is not near the 'consensus' that Satoshi seemed to have been shooting for as a number needed to alter the character of the Bitcoin system.

Note that there is no problem with two chains (competing or not) existing.  People who go on and on about 'the longest chain' don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.  Core will continue to run just fine because of the thoughtfulllness of the designer to gaurd against all of the attacks he/they could think of.  XT's chain is illegal and irrelevant to Core.

A distinct minority in terms of count would be OK for XT to fork if need be.  Hearn could go ahead and flip the switch as soon as the number of 'compliment' SPV clients could be installed or upgraded on Joe Sixpack's device.  These would honor 'checkpointing' if he cannot get enough miners on-board.  The biggest necessity would be to get the corporates (Coinbase, TigerDirect, etc) on-board, but this is trivial; the state just needs to mandate a 'crypto-currency license.'

Another idiot who don't know anything about XT or bitcoin for that matter.

75% has been chosen to not allow a single entity to veto the fork.

The 75% mined blocks ensures that there can't be a split of the bitcoin blockchain. The minority has the incentive to switch, as they would be mining a worthless chain otherwise.

The amount of FUD and lies spread is just mind blowing both on /r/bitcoin and bitcointalk.org.

[desired_username]

How much Blockstream pays for trolls and shills?

Both Blockstream and XT are awful.
Why can't I use Bitcoin as it is? 

As a user you're not affected at all.

Why do you think that XT is awful?

It's a fork of Bitcoin Core with BIP101 implemented and a few optional patches.

Hearn and Andresen released the transparent code. They are not the ones who spread lies and FUD and attack the other side.

[mallard]

How much Blockstream pays for trolls and shills?

Both Blockstream and XT are awful.
Why can't I use Bitcoin as it is? 

They are not the ones who spread lies and FUD and attack the other side.

How am I supposed to know what to believe?
All I see is two groups needlessly shitting on eachother.

[Lauda]

How am I supposed to know what to believe?
All I see is two groups needlessly shitting on eachother.

Only facts and evidence. Ad hominem should be completely ignored and so should most assumptions that aren't backed without evidence. We can all just agree that there are shills on both sides and that it is nothing new to this forum. Both sides have switched from discussing to fighting it out (trying to slander each other).

It's a fork of Bitcoin Core with BIP101 implemented and a few optional patches.
-snip-

I would not call them patches, since they were rejected by Core because of their flaws? Unless Hearn fixed everything and tested on his own (which I doubt). There is more information related to this on reddit.

[hdbuck]

How much Blockstream pays for trolls and shills?

Both Blockstream and XT are awful.
Why can't I use Bitcoin as it is?  

They are not the ones who spread lies and FUD and attack the other side.

How am I supposed to know what to believe?
All I see is two groups needlessly shitting on eachother.

blockstream wont touch bitcoin's core whilst bitcoin xt is a coup on the very fundamental of bitcoin by two usg moles.

no need to overthink this.

core devs consensus is anti xt.

hearn is no core dev, and gavin, chief scientist of my ass working at the very center of tptb at MIT does not even have a phd.

easy.

[tvbcof]

How much Blockstream pays for trolls and shills?

Ask them.  Chances are they'd just say the truth and I, for one, would be interested to know.

I personally 'shill for nothing'* for Blockstream and here's why:  Back in 2011 I concluded that the only tenable (though not necessarily the 'best') method of scaling was what I called 'subordinate chains'.  Parenthetically, this would also produce a lot of other strong possibilities in terms of security, anonymity, end-user flexibility, etc, etc.

When Blockstream was _finally_ formed to work on exactly the problem I hoped to see addressed, I was utterly delighted to see it composed of some of the people I had the highest respect for in terms of technical skill, ethics, and energy.  You cannot realistically criticize these aspects of sidechains developed under Blockstream without making the same criticisms of Bitcoin itself because these same people are in large part the very same people who got Bitcoin to where it is today  As an example, the collaboration between Maxwell and ~sipa to get rid of some of the potential problems in OpenSSL are really impressive works in computer science and security generally.

As has been pointed out, Mike has had very little to do with Bitcoin core to date and Gavin has had minimal input for some years.  I would argue (and have for years) that even when Gavin was more active, the crap he worked on was mostly either trivial or counter-productive and the priorities he set were stupid.

---

(*) 'nothing' is a bit strong.  I am a hodler, and I want my hoard to do well for me on a personal financial level, and for the betterment of free society if possible.  I see Blockstream as by far the most promising way for this hope to be realized.  As a disclosure, I've exchanged two messages with one of the blockstream guys about general technical and social matters and that is my extent interaction with them.  I've met Peter Todd and helped financially with one of the videos he spearheaded, but he's not part of Blockstream as far as I know.

[desired_username]

How much Blockstream pays for trolls and shills?

Both Blockstream and XT are awful.
Why can't I use Bitcoin as it is?  

They are not the ones who spread lies and FUD and attack the other side.

How am I supposed to know what to believe?
All I see is two groups needlessly shitting on eachother.

blockstream wont touch bitcoin's core whilst bitcoin xt is a coup on the very fundamental of bitcoin by two usg moles.

no need to overthink this.

core devs consensus is anti xt.

hearn is no core dev, and gavin, chief scientist of my ass working at the very center of tptb at MIT does not even have a phd.

easy.

Ah, the authority card. How unexpected. /s

Bitcoin is not Core or XT but the mutually accepted rules by the network building on the historical bitcoin blockchain.

Consensus shouldn't mean the consensus of 4 Blockstream developers who have apparent conflict of interest.

let the ecosystem decide.

Back and his gang already acted unprofessionally, despite their PHDs...I didn't see hearn or Gavin attacking anyone.

[hdbuck]

Bitcoin is not about the ecosystem deciding. And surely not noobs like you.

[desired_username]

Bitcoin is not about the ecosystem deciding. And surely not noobs like you.

I rest my case.

[greenlion]

JorgeStolfi - Buttcoin veteran; multi-year FUD expert; measures his profit in comedy gold derived from misery in the Bitcoin sphere

I don't think this is a fair inclusion. As much as I find this guy an insufferable asshole at times, there doesn't appear to be any nefarious alterior motives going on.

What about Peter Todd - Buttcoin moderator??

[bassclef]

must read. tweeted by szabo
http://wallstreettechnologist.com/2015/08/19/bitcoin-xt-vs-core-blocksize-limit-the-schism-that-divides-us-all/

Excellent.