Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers)

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

It is pretty funny you believe the new Bitcoin will lead to more centralised direction, yet all your post has totalitarian view with a lot of censorship suggested to keep control in what you believe to be best for Bitcoin regardless of outside support - basically a tyran description. It is very surprising here are so many people with totalitarian view when Bitcoin is meant to be libertarian project instead...

Yes, you summarised it pretty succinctly there. They will never see the incongruity of condoning censorship  in 'censorship resistant' Bitcoin. Indeed, a lot of the anger displayed by the likes of iCE, brg, et al. can be explained as being a result of the mental stress they suffer from this cognitive dissonance.

[Carlton Banks]

The "Classic Party" is clearly the latest attempt to start another open party, inside this open party, with the usual charming calibre of cheerleaders. It will be the latest to fail.

[keepdoing]

The "Classic Party" is clearly the latest attempt to start another open party, inside this open party, with the usual charming calibre of cheerleaders. It will be the latest to fail.

The whole reason "Classic" is even needed as a "brand" is because the hijaaking of Bitcoin was so heavy handed and so filled with shilling FUD, manipulation, lies etc.... that it is the only way to allow people to understand what is going on, which is simply put....

Bitcoin is about to undergo a simple "patch", or "software upgrade" if it please you.  That is ALL that is happening.  Nothing spooky, scary or out of the ordinary.

I mean, we're not all still running Windows 3.1.  No.... Bill Gates had a vision, and it grew.
We're not still running Lisa OS (original Apple/Macintosh software).  No.... Steve Jobs had a vision, and it grew.

And Satoshi had a vision - called Bitcoin, but Team Blockhead (Blockstream/Core) hijaaked it and wanted to freeze it in time, and cut its nuts off and profit off it....  put it in a box and control it.

Hell, if you guys had your way we'd still be sending messages by jungle drum, and you'd be trying to charge us for the sonic vibration.  I am completely serious when I say that if the antics continue, I won't be surprised to see the entire bitcoin ecosystem turn against blockstream to the point that investors and customers shun them like the plague.

www.BitcoinClassic.com  < upcoming upgrade/patch to Bitcoin, increases blocksize to 2mb.  Simple.  Clean.

[keepdoing]

The "Classic Party" is clearly the latest attempt to start another open party, inside this open party.....

Seriously?  Censorship?  Banning people for speaking an opinion?  Petty rule making referring to BIPs as "altcoins"?  And you want to know why nobody wants to hang out at your "Team Blockstream Open Party".   

[Carlton Banks]

I want Bitcoin in a box, and I want it's code controlled by people like Pieter Wuille.

If anyone else wants to give the whole world the chance to vote on any/every code change, or a dictator less benevolent than Wuille, then by all means start that. In an altcoin. Stop trying to install someone who's not Wuille or van der Laan, it's really unsubtle.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

I want Bitcoin in a box..

I'm sure you do, and the way you are going about it I'm afraid you might succeed.

[Bergmann_Christoph]

I want Bitcoin in a box, and I want it's code controlled by people like Pieter Wuille.

If anyone else wants to give the whole world the chance to vote on any/every code change, or a dictator less benevolent than Wuille, then by all means start that. In an altcoin. Stop trying to install someone who's not Wuille or van der Laan, it's really unsubtle.

Thanks God it doesn't matter what you want, and you are not the one to define what an altcoin is and what bitcoin is.

[Bergmann_Christoph]

I though all this was about the freedom of choice.

This is about easily manipulating the masses into the wrong direction.

No. The masses just want bigger blocks. The miner are ok with bigger blocks. Some developer want bigger blocks. Exchanges want bigger blocks. Payment-Provider want bigger blocks.

That you don't want them doesn't mean the others are manipulated. If there is any kind of manipulation it's obviously the censorship.

It's really ridiculous how you now quote satoshi while you ignored his message about scaling bitcoin to visa-level.

I would like to request that you show me where I stated something like that, my memory is a bit stuck. I have no idea what I have/might have said. I agree with scaling Bitcoin to a certain level, it just might be that I disagree with the method. Regardless, I'll wait for that link.

I don't know. What do you think about his message, that we can simply raise the block-limit when we're knocking on it?

[Carlton Banks]

Lol at the usual piss-poor trolling attempts.

Let's not forget the reason all these trolls-for-hire are here at all: Bitcoin is a roaring success. There's nothing to argue about if not. I endorse the continued success of the Core dev team, because good crypto is like everything that's good: you need to take your time over getting it right, but then you can enjoy quality and quantity.

Don't get washed away with another "there's a problem with Bitcoin" client-fork; if Bitcoin is too successful, that's a good problem to have. Let's solve it like adults, instead of acting like shouting really loudly can overtrump reason. It has not, and will not.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

 First you say this:

Lol at the usual piss-poor trolling attempts.  Let's not forget the reason all these trolls-for-hire are here at all

And then you say this:

Let's solve it like adults, instead of acting like shouting really loudly....

And you expect intelligent people to take you seriously.

[Carlton Banks]

Let's not play the "first you say this" "then you say this game", shall we?

Or shall we?

I invite anyone interested to assess the "satoshi fan club" record for itself: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=462682;sa=showPosts




Keep talking

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

drone drone drone

Care to make a point? But not as contradictory this time, mkay?  

edit: Actually, don't bother. You are just a lightweight, less colourful version of icebreaker. I fall asleep reading your arguments.

[Carlton Banks]

That's really appealing, I'm sure you'll pick up plenty of new Satoshis for your fanclub that way.

[iCEBREAKER]

It is pretty funny you believe the new Bitcoin will lead to more centralised direction, yet all your post has totalitarian view with a lot of censorship suggested to keep control in what you believe to be best for Bitcoin regardless of outside support - basically a tyran description. It is very surprising here are so many people with totalitarian view when Bitcoin is meant to be libertarian project instead...

Yes, you summarised it pretty succinctly there. They will never see the incongruity of condoning censorship  in 'censorship resistant' Bitcoin. Indeed, a lot of the anger displayed by the likes of iCE, brg, et al. can be explained as being a result of the mental stress they suffer from this cognitive dissonance.

Who are you trying to fool?  I haven't stopped grinning since hearing the fantastic news about Hearn's rage-quit and rage-dump.

His Bitcoin Obituary Medium post of epic poutrage provided more schadenfreude than I can remember previously experiencing.

Who is going to make the 'final call' for Gavinista vanity forks now?  Garzik?  I must admit that's an improvement.

Hearn@sigint.google.mil (or is it Hearn@gnome.zurich.ch now?) taking his ball and going home doesn't come remotely close to making up for Core's loss of Gmax, but that won't stop me from having the shitlord's head stuffed and mounted in my trophy case.

Aww, poor Mikey didn't get is way!  Nobody except Galvin, Frap.doc, and Peter_R cared about his demands for blacklists, checkpoints, and contentious hard forks.

[danielW]

“It’s likely that the current developers will get fired, and some other team will replace them because they are not listening to their customers,” he said in an interview last week.

Well that other team is to be led by Gavin and backed by coinbase and similar companies. Reiterating what I said, I am suspicious that some people want to remove todays decentralised consensus development strongly influenced by cypherpunk ideology.

They want to centralise development under a team that will play ball with regulators/gov and large centralised gov bootlicking companies.

This will be a danger to Bitcoins value. It will allow easier coopting of Bitcoin and take away some of its benefits as an alternative financial system.


This needs to be fought and companies like Coinbase should not be promoted.

[danielW]

It is pretty funny you believe the new Bitcoin will lead to more centralised direction, yet all your post has totalitarian view with a lot of censorship suggested to keep control in what you believe to be best for Bitcoin regardless of outside support - basically a tyran description. It is very surprising here are so many people with totalitarian view when Bitcoin is meant to be libertarian project instead...

Absolute nonsense. So how come you don't you criticise xtnodes.com ? They censor bitcoin core and do not provide choice. Why only links to bitcoinxt and classic? The most popular client is censored.

The bitcoin.org site is also censored by 'your side'. The arguments of small-blockers are censored and only Mikes and Gavins side of the debate is shown by 'your' censors.

/hyperbole


Bitcoin.org choosing not to promote coinbase or XT is not censorship. Its free speech. They have a right to free speech and their speech should choose not to promote coinbase. This is because there are many better alternative wallets to coinbase that are not trying to launch a governance coup of bitcoin in a more pro-regulation direction.

So you do not believe in bitcoin.org's right to free speech?



---
Im being a bit of a troll with the last line but I am doing it to show the ridiculousness of the hyperbole and nonsense labels and terms being thrown around whenever centralised coin opponents do not do what centralised coiners want. (yes I did it again )

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

It is pretty funny you believe the new Bitcoin will lead to more centralised direction, yet all your post has totalitarian view with a lot of censorship suggested to keep control in what you believe to be best for Bitcoin regardless of outside support - basically a tyran description. It is very surprising here are so many people with totalitarian view when Bitcoin is meant to be libertarian project instead...

Yes, you summarised it pretty succinctly there. They will never see the incongruity of condoning censorship  in 'censorship resistant' Bitcoin. Indeed, a lot of the anger displayed by the likes of iCE, brg, et al. can be explained as being a result of the mental stress they suffer from this cognitive dissonance.

Who are you trying to fool?  I haven't stopped grinning since hearing the fantastic news about Hearn's rage-quit and rage-dump.

If its a victory at all for your fascist agenda, then its a Pyrrhic one. You have only succeeded in galvanising (see what I did there) the opposition to Blockstream and further polarising the community.  The tactics used to destroy XT will probably come back to haunt you.

In fact, it has already started.

[ATguy]

“It’s likely that the current developers will get fired, and some other team will replace them because they are not listening to their customers,” he said in an interview last week.

Well that other team is to be led by Gavin and backed by coinbase and similar companies. Reiterating what I said, I am suspicious that some people want to remove todays decentralised consensus development strongly influenced by cypherpunk ideology.

They want to centralise development under a team that will play ball with regulators/gov and large centralised gov bootlicking companies.

This will be a danger to Bitcoins value. It will allow easier coopting of Bitcoin and take away some of its benefits as an alternative financial system.


This needs to be fought and companies like Coinbase should not be promoted.

While code contributors are good in developing software solutions, you cannot expect them to take always the best stance to economy or other decission areas. Thus you will never have decentralized Bitcoin development with granted monopoly to one group of developers defining Bitcoin consensus rules.

I can argue the current Bitcoin Core development failed in refusing hard forks as valid way to make the code more effecient and to change consensus rules (happened in the past already by changing about 30MB blocksize to 1MB blocksize limit so dont bite consensus rules are unchangable or harmfull for Bitcoin), only focusing on soft forks (as less elegant software solution - what a fail in area of their expertise!) and completly failing to protect Bitcoin from overfilled blocks (thus reducing good user experience with Bitcoin) by not having the decentralized solutions ready before this happens - probably not understanding economy principes well (they are not economy experts afterall) thus not giving it high enought priority.

With one developer group failing to deliver consumer expectations from Bitcoin, what are other options to choose from if there is not alternative? But decentralization means the ability to choose alternative to prevent point of failure possible with just one group.

[Bergmann_Christoph]

“It’s likely that the current developers will get fired, and some other team will replace them because they are not listening to their customers,” he said in an interview last week.

Well that other team is to be led by Gavin and backed by coinbase and similar companies. Reiterating what I said, I am suspicious that some people want to remove todays decentralised consensus development strongly influenced by cypherpunk ideology.

They want to centralise development under a team that will play ball with regulators/gov and large centralised gov bootlicking companies.

This will be a danger to Bitcoins value. It will allow easier coopting of Bitcoin and take away some of its benefits as an alternative financial system.


This needs to be fought and companies like Coinbase should not be promoted.

development is currently centralized in a couple of persons.

Coinbase and other companies support an alternative development because the current team goes sharply against their inerest - as it goes against the interest of users.

The danger to bitcoin is what core is currently fabricating: they don't raise the blocklimit and plan things like rbf. If there are more than 1 client, this is always better and more secure

[danielW]

Bitcoin Core development failed in refusing hard forks as valid way to make the code more effecient

Not true, hard forks will be done and core developers are not opposed to them if necessary, but core prefers other methods if they can be done. Segwit Softfork > hardfork to 2mb so that is the better plan for now. Sounds good.

If there will be a need for a hardfork it will be done, right now there is no need.

completly failing to protect Bitcoin from overfilled blocks (thus reducing good user experience with Bitcoin)

Again, false, Bitcoin is functioning very well right now, and with the scaling roadmap I am confident it will go from strength to strength in the future (if it is not derailed by opponents).