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

[Bergmann_Christoph]

In the context of Bitcoin, "consensus" refers to "technical consensus" at the protocol level, not "economic consensus" at the user level or "political consensus" at opinion level ...

You don't get it, even if it is demonstrated right before your eyes. The "consensus" of the technicians is meaningless, if it is no "consensus" / "compromise" with the miners. This is Bitcoins security against a a failure in development.

I don't want to say core failed. In fact I think they do the best they can and do a hard, brillant work, and they don't deserve what happens to them now. But they have been warned for a long time and it would have been easy for them to prevent it. It's just a fact, that the economy lost it's patience in core and is not satisfied with core's scaling roadmap.

... despite how much the latter two ideas/memes have been spread lately. Yes, it's permissionless, so you are free to create a hardforked chain bootstrapped off the Bitcoin blockchain, but don't pretend there is "consensus" if the "consensus" is only at a user (economic/political) level after (what at least appears to be) a relentless disinformation campaign to direct the technology into a particular untested/risky nonreversible territory.

If a large majority of users and economic acteurs agree - it's not relevant, because they could be manipulated.
But if 35 developers agree, even if it is against the will of users and economy - than that's the way. As if they couldn't be manipulated.

Coinbase is just a business trying to benefit from a particular technology, without much regard for the direction of the technology -

Sure. Just a greedy and instrusive business, hem?

Coinbase enables people to buy/sell bitcoins. Entrepreneurs like Brian Armstrong risked their freedom and their wealth to make this real. Think on Charlie Shrem. Which developer got imprisoned for submitting a bip? Which one got highly indepted because a hacker had stolen a mass of bitcoins from the website?

Without companies like Coinbase Bitcoin would be not more than any loosy altcoin.

The question is, why are you into Bitcoin? To make money? Or to help move us toward a fairer economic system free from central control and manipulation (debt-based fractional reserve fiat bankster "money")?

Why is this the question? Mind-check? Are you Stalin?

Read my answer: curiosity, ideology and money. In this direction. ok?

As a technologist you could say: yes, it was a coup de liberation, we have SW (there are reasons to discusss this, but here I don't mind). As a politician seeking consensus through compromise, you can only say, it's a disaster.

The premise of "a politician seeking consensus through compromise", and even the premise of a politician itself, is highly questionable, to say the least.

Ok, I don't like politician either. Unfortunately their talents - negotiation and diplomacy - are needed, whenever humans built something like society.

Just as politicians (and their spokespeople, the mainstream media "news" outlets) manipulate minds by means of filtering out other information sources,

Everybody does that if needed. It happens anytime whenever there is a discours with non-agreeing positions. Sciences are full of it.

thus exposing minds to particular agenda-driven ideas to the exclusion of more relevant/interesting/better ones, so any opposition group, be it a "radical" political party or grassroots organization or terrorist group or foreign "leader" of a country or (you can safely bet) a decentralized payment system, is targeted by means of getting people to promote disinformation as misinformation.

Fine, that's right, this happens in society. You don't need a media campaign to let people squeeze exotic minorities. Whenever people build a mass of people, there are some assholes that love to punch the weakest - you see this behavior here when people are outlawed as trolls - which results in discriminating and misunderstanding of Minorities. That's not a nice feature of men ...

Do you really need a conspiracious takeover to understand why businesses support classic en mass?

No, but

= yes

wouldn't it be the perfect opportunity for such a "takeover" to be executed?

You mean, when you seek controll over bitcoin-development, than it would be a good opporunity, when developers have brought miners, business' and users in a revolt? Yes, it would be.

But ... wouldn't it be easier to fund a company that hires 4 core devs, instead of using long-term media campaign to start a revolt and wait more than a year till core fails to deliver a solution the miners are satisfied with? I never believed or told the blockstream-conspiracy. But I don't understand why you are heavy paranoid when it comes to Coinbase / Andresen, but not a bit paranoid when it comes to Maxwell/Blockstream.

[jonald_fyookball]

Experience in programming is one thing.  Deciding what Bitcoin should be is another.

So people who major in economics and politics/other random field should decide what the best technical approach is?
 

Obviously Bitcoin presents an overlap of technology and socioeconomics.
My point was that I (and many others) aren't willing to follow a group
of developers simply because they are experienced technicians.

I think Mike Hearn pointed out some of the key philosophical/technical
points held by Greg Maxwell.  Greg is obviously bright, but
based on everything I've heard from equally smart people
such as Gavin Andressen and Peter Rizun, I've
decided that I also disagree with Greg Maxwell's position and vision
for what Bitcoin should be and how to scale it.

As someone pointed out in a recent thread "people are not satifisfied
with Core's scalability roadmap".

You can disagree; I'm not here to try to change your opinion.  I'm
simply telling you mine.


 

 

[Zarathustra]

Pieter Wuille 2013 and Pieter Blockstream Wuille 2015 are not the same persons:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41jw7z/pieter_wullie_my_suggestion_would_be_a_onetime/cz30pya

[jonald_fyookball]

Pieter Wuille 2013 and Pieter Blockstream Wuille 2015 are not the same persons:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41jw7z/pieter_wullie_my_suggestion_would_be_a_onetime/cz30pya

omg so busted.

And the fact that he wasn't laughed out of the community for suggesting 100 MB
blocks in 2013, versus today getting consensus on 2 MB is like pulling teeth...
just shows you how political this has all become and how dangerous centralized
development is.

This really deserves its own thread.  Great find Zarathustra!

[muyuu]

When XTards sob alone in the forest, do they make a sound?

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Pieter Wuille 2013 and Pieter Blockstream Wuille 2015 are not the same persons:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41jw7z/pieter_wullie_my_suggestion_would_be_a_onetime/cz30pya

21 million reasons for 'thought re-alignment".  It will be interesting to hear him reason out his change of view.

[jonald_fyookball]

Pieter Wuille 2013 and Pieter Blockstream Wuille 2015 are not the same persons:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41jw7z/pieter_wullie_my_suggestion_would_be_a_onetime/cz30pya

21 million reasons for 'thought re-alignment".  It will be interesting to hear him rationalize reason out his change of view.

FTFY

[Lauda]

21 million reasons for 'thought re-alignment".  It will be interesting to hear him reason out his change of view.

Maybe after 2 years everyone has learned a lot more or do you think that this is not possible? I don't agree with a fee market right now, but I don't see a problem with a change of view. You are just finding ways of attacking individuals which does not benefit anyone.

I think that by not officially speaking out against the censorship Core is complicit in the censorship. They have even honored Theymos by allowing him to be one of the signatories of the road map when he is not even a developer himself.

This is another example of their unethical behavior, from the perspective of freedom loving people at least.

So basically if I don't comment on a issue that means that I'm supportive of a side? That does not sense.

When XTards sob alone in the forest, do they make a sound?

There's no end to them.
Update:

Pieter Blockstream Wuille 2015

This is what I meant.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Theymos wanted bigger blocks 2 years ago!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.msg1492629#msg1492629

Satoshi definitely intended to increase the hard max block size. See:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.0

I believe that Satoshi expected most people to use some sort of lightweight node, with only companies and true enthusiasts being full nodes. Mike Hearn's view is similar to Satoshi's view.

I strongly disagree with the idea that changing the max block size is a violation of the "Bitcoin currency guarantees". Satoshi said that the max block size could be increased, and the max block size is never mentioned in any of the standard descriptions of the Bitcoin system.

[theymos]

Theymos wanted bigger blocks 2 years ago!

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3k3kli/theymos_mike_hearns_view_is_similar_to_satoshis/cuugy1p

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Theymos wanted bigger blocks 2 years ago!

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3k3kli/theymos_mike_hearns_view_is_similar_to_satoshis/cuugy1p

I still agree with what I said there: increasing the max block size is compatible with the idea of Bitcoin. That doesn't mean that it's not extremely dangerous/damaging to attempt a "hostile hardfork", nor does it mean that any such hostile hardfork would be equal to Bitcoin at the time of its creation. Hardforks need to be done with consensus.

Fair enough..

[VeritasSapere]

I think that by not officially speaking out against the censorship Core is complicit in the censorship. They have even honored Theymos by allowing him to be one of the signatories of the road map when he is not even a developer himself.

This is another example of their unethical behavior, from the perspective of freedom loving people at least.

So basically if I don't comment on a issue that means that I'm supportive of a side? That does not sense.

Considering their position they should speak out against the censorship, not doing so is unethical because they are in a position of influence. Further on lifting Theymos up to developer status within Core by making him one of their signatories makes them even more complicit of his actions, they should not be supportive of people that carry out this sort of censorship. Inaction sometimes is wrong, I am sorry if you can not understand that. There is an old quote which I think is relevant here:

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

[jonald_fyookball]

Theymos wanted bigger blocks 2 years ago!

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3k3kli/theymos_mike_hearns_view_is_similar_to_satoshis/cuugy1p

I think consensus according to your definition of "no significant disagreements" is no longer possible when
we're talking about the current situation with Bitcoin scalability.

It seems even less likely than it did before Hearn left.

[Lauda]

Further on lifting Theymos up to developer status within Core by making him one of their signatories makes them even more complicit of his actions, they should not be supportive of people that carry out this sort of censorship. Inaction sometimes is wrong, I am sorry if you can not understand that. There is an old quote which I think is relevant here:

You mean the same way as Classic lifted Peter Rizun to a developer on their list? You didn't complain about that. Definitely not biased, right?

Fair enough..

I don't get the point of pulling up opinions that are 2 years old (or older). Are you trying to say that we have learned nothing since then?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I think that by not officially speaking out against the censorship Core is complicit in the censorship. They have even honored Theymos by allowing him to be one of the signatories of the road map when he is not even a developer himself.

This is another example of their unethical behavior, from the perspective of freedom loving people at least.

So basically if I don't comment on a issue that means that I'm supportive of a side? That does not sense.

Considering their position they should speak out against the censorship, not doing so is unethical because they are in a position of influence. Further on lifting Theymos up to developer status within Core by making him one of their signatories makes them even more complicit of his actions, they should not be supportive of people that carry out this sort of censorship. Inaction sometimes is wrong, I am sorry if you can not understand that. There is an old quote which I think is relevant here:

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Devil's advocate: I don't think censorship is the right word. We've been going on about this stuff in daily threads forever. But thread after thread promoting contentious hard forks is probably pushing it. No?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Further on lifting Theymos up to developer status within Core by making him one of their signatories makes them even more complicit of his actions, they should not be supportive of people that carry out this sort of censorship. Inaction sometimes is wrong, I am sorry if you can not understand that. There is an old quote which I think is relevant here:

You mean the same way as Classic lifted Peter Rizun to a developer on their list? You didn't complain about that. Definitely not biased, right?

Fair enough..

I don't get the point of pulling up opinions that are 2 years old (or older). Are you trying to say that we have learned nothing since then?

Don't be grumpy. I'm just trying to understand.

[Zarathustra]

It is really unbelievable. They intend to rush this monster on us as a scaling 'solution' before the halving:

https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/688796294194704385

[jonald_fyookball]

It is really unbelievable. They intend to rush this monster on us as a scaling 'solution' before the halving:

https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/688796294194704385

Oh great...Now Adam Back is trying to seduce Garzik over to the dark side.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

21 million reasons for 'thought re-alignment".  It will be interesting to hear him reason out his change of view.

You are just finding ways of attacking individuals which does not benefit anyone.

Being willing to listen someones arguments is equivalent to an attack now, is it?  Thats what we used to call a debate.

You have a pretty perverse understanding of it.

[Peter R]

Hey Lauda, I took your advice to learn C [1].  I've been playing around with pointers and I think I've found a technical solution to the block size limit debate:

Code:

#include <stdio.h>

#define N 100000

int x;

int main()
{
   int * ptr = &x;
   *(ptr+N) = 0;
   printf("stick with core\n");
}

When I run my program, it gave me the answer:

Code:

>./decentralize_development
segmentation fault (core dumped)

It's time to dump the core!!

/stupid programmer joke

[1] Just kidding.  My C code is running in semiconductor fabs all over the world including at Intel and Samsung.