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

[DooMAD]

Only the charlatans are not brave/honest enough to come up with a proper name and instead leech on bitcoin's name notoriety.

Only the authoritarians are not brave/honest enough to live by the free market they claim they espouse to.  People calling themselves libertarians, but demanding protectionism in what's supposed to be an open and permissionless system, free from restrictions.  I'm pretty left wing myself, you'd probably even call me "statist", but apparently even I have more stomach for an open market than you do, coward.

Free market: you can choose to use bitcoin... or whatver alternative bitcoin client fork altcoin SHITCOIN.

FTFY.  It's the choice of which client each user freely decides to use.  The client with the most users determines the rules that govern the Bitcoin network.  Free Market.  No altcoins in sight.

FTFY FTW.

There is no problem with alternative client if they still abide by bitcoin's protocol. Lots of miners and nodes run in house bitcoind.
If you change unilaterally a parameter and break the consensus (eg. differs from 'majority', obviously and because there is A LOT of idiots, statists and sheeps).

Otherwise, it is about time you jump to bitcoin XT. Much alternative client.. pardon.. SHIT-VAPOR-COIN.

If it forks without consensus, then and only then does it break consensus and become an altcoin.  If it sends and receives bitcoin transactions using bitcoin's blockchain, it is an alternative client.  If enough users adopt a client with different rules governing the network, that becomes the new consensus.  If you're truly a libertarian who believes in a free market, this should be acceptable to you.  If you're a spineless authoritarian, you'll continue to demand protectionism for the present consensus because you can't stomach a free and open market where users are allowed to choose.  

So far it is too late to implement various bitcoin implementations and 'hope' for consensus because network effect. Obviously not everybody will upgrade.

It will only split/harm the network and introduce attack vectors, having a direct impact over bitcoin's trust ie. value.

Adding some fancy adjective next to bitcoin to trap the noobs and reddit whatnots in some federal-centralized-corp-coin is outright lying.

Fascists.

So protectionism and a healthy dose of fear-mongering it is, then.  You've clearly made your choice.  No one is ever allowed to disagree because you think it's too late and everything should be set in stone forever.  If you genuinely believed in a free market, you wouldn't be so afraid of the possibility of it changing.  

Kindly hand in your libertarian credentials at the front desk, protectionist.    

[Fatman3001]

..but there is also a surreptitious judean's people front "splitter" strategy in effect: bitcoin xt, bitcoin unlimited, bip101010101010, segwit, soft/hard/easy ph0rkers.. dat nuthouse.

Ya but WTF is this supposed to mean!? I mean, srsly ppl!

Just srsly

It means Galvinista malcontents won't stop splitting once they begin.  Their rump consensus will inevitably cleave further, as crazed pro and anti CLTV/RBF/segwit factions create more incompatible forks.

Bitcoin Reloaded (XT +softfork segwit -RBF -blacklists -checkpoints), Bitcoin Extreme (Unlimited +hardfork segwit -CLTV +FSSRBF), Bitcoin Unbound (something something Sensor Ships blah blah blah Because Fuck Peter Todd amirite) etc.



Edit: Don't forget ICantBelieveItsNotBitcoin (Classic -anything Blockstream is in favor of +1 minute blocks +eternal 25BTC block reward +Frap.doc).   

Maybe people are just worried that anything you're backing is bound to fail.

[hdbuck]

Only the charlatans are not brave/honest enough to come up with a proper name and instead leech on bitcoin's name notoriety.

Only the authoritarians are not brave/honest enough to live by the free market they claim they espouse to.  People calling themselves libertarians, but demanding protectionism in what's supposed to be an open and permissionless system, free from restrictions.  I'm pretty left wing myself, you'd probably even call me "statist", but apparently even I have more stomach for an open market than you do, coward.

Free market: you can choose to use bitcoin... or whatver alternative bitcoin client fork altcoin SHITCOIN.

FTFY.  It's the choice of which client each user freely decides to use.  The client with the most users determines the rules that govern the Bitcoin network.  Free Market.  No altcoins in sight.

FTFY FTW.

There is no problem with alternative client if they still abide by bitcoin's protocol. Lots of miners and nodes run in house bitcoind.
If you change unilaterally a parameter and break the consensus (eg. differs from 'majority', obviously and because there is A LOT of idiots, statists and sheeps).

Otherwise, it is about time you jump to bitcoin XT. Much alternative client.. pardon.. SHIT-VAPOR-COIN.

If it forks without consensus, then and only then does it break consensus and become an altcoin.  If it sends and receives bitcoin transactions using bitcoin's blockchain, it is an alternative client.  If enough users adopt a client with different rules governing the network, that becomes the new consensus.  If you're truly a libertarian who believes in a free market, this should be acceptable to you.  If you're a spineless authoritarian, you'll continue to demand protectionism for the present consensus because you can't stomach a free and open market where users are allowed to choose.  

So far it is too late to implement various bitcoin implementations and 'hope' for consensus because network effect. Obviously not everybody will upgrade.

It will only split/harm the network and introduce attack vectors, having a direct impact over bitcoin's trust ie. value.

Adding some fancy adjective next to bitcoin to trap the noobs and reddit whatnots in some federal-centralized-corp-coin is outright lying.

Fascists.

So protectionism and a healthy dose of fear-mongering it is, then.  You've clearly made your choice.  No one is ever allowed to disagree because you think it's too late and everything should be set in stone forever.  If you genuinely believed in a free market, you wouldn't be so afraid of the possibility of it changing.  

Kindly hand in your libertarian credentials at the front desk, protectionist.    

I'm afraid you noobs and authority cravers handle bitcoin to USG and corporations for the Big Brother Finale. (FASCIST! )

Bitcoin is about freedom, but freedom is not about democracy.
It is about the individual (as in the individual must be able to mine, run a full node, access the blockchain and cryptographic signatures by himself).
Not the illusion of the greater number of stupid 'marketed' sheeple precipitating the rest into the abyss.

Bitcoin consensus mechanism fights exactly this by preventing social/populist coup over its protocol.

You are stupid if you think any fork attempt will be successful as the previous ones lamely failed and with not even as much people involved as of now.

Bitcoin's protocol is not some incorporated IOS that has to be upgraded every two weeks^tm.

[DooMAD]

Only the charlatans are not brave/honest enough to come up with a proper name and instead leech on bitcoin's name notoriety.

Only the authoritarians are not brave/honest enough to live by the free market they claim they espouse to.  People calling themselves libertarians, but demanding protectionism in what's supposed to be an open and permissionless system, free from restrictions.  I'm pretty left wing myself, you'd probably even call me "statist", but apparently even I have more stomach for an open market than you do, coward.

Free market: you can choose to use bitcoin... or whatver alternative bitcoin client fork altcoin SHITCOIN.

FTFY.  It's the choice of which client each user freely decides to use.  The client with the most users determines the rules that govern the Bitcoin network.  Free Market.  No altcoins in sight.

FTFY FTW.

There is no problem with alternative client if they still abide by bitcoin's protocol. Lots of miners and nodes run in house bitcoind.
If you change unilaterally a parameter and break the consensus (eg. differs from 'majority', obviously and because there is A LOT of idiots, statists and sheeps).

Otherwise, it is about time you jump to bitcoin XT. Much alternative client.. pardon.. SHIT-VAPOR-COIN.

If it forks without consensus, then and only then does it break consensus and become an altcoin.  If it sends and receives bitcoin transactions using bitcoin's blockchain, it is an alternative client.  If enough users adopt a client with different rules governing the network, that becomes the new consensus.  If you're truly a libertarian who believes in a free market, this should be acceptable to you.  If you're a spineless authoritarian, you'll continue to demand protectionism for the present consensus because you can't stomach a free and open market where users are allowed to choose.  

So far it is too late to implement various bitcoin implementations and 'hope' for consensus because network effect. Obviously not everybody will upgrade.

It will only split/harm the network and introduce attack vectors, having a direct impact over bitcoin's trust ie. value.

Adding some fancy adjective next to bitcoin to trap the noobs and reddit whatnots in some federal-centralized-corp-coin is outright lying.

Fascists.

So protectionism and a healthy dose of fear-mongering it is, then.  You've clearly made your choice.  No one is ever allowed to disagree because you think it's too late and everything should be set in stone forever.  If you genuinely believed in a free market, you wouldn't be so afraid of the possibility of it changing.  

Kindly hand in your libertarian credentials at the front desk, protectionist.    

I'm afraid you noobs and authority cravers handle bitcoin to USG and corporations for the Big Brother Finale. (FASCIST! )

Bitcoin is about freedom, but freedom is not about democracy.
It is about the individual (as in the individual must be able to mine, run a full node, access the blockchain and cryptographic signatures by himself).
Not the illusion of the greater number of stupid 'marketed' sheeple precipitating the rest into the abyss.

Bitcoin consensus mechanism fights exactly this by preventing social/populist coup over its protocol.

You are stupid if you think any fork attempt will be successful as the previous ones lamely failed and with not even as much people involved as of now.

Bitcoin's protocol is not some incorporated IOS that has to be upgraded every two weeks^tm.

I crave the opposite of authority, you're the one who thinks they can tell other people what kind of software they can and can't run to suit your own agenda.  You're the authoritarian fascist here.  I say let the chips fall where they may, because I embrace a free and open market.  I don't fear it as you do.  Bitcoin is and should be whatever its users define by the code they run.  If you don't want people to have a choice, a closed-source coin would be far better suited to your goals.

[Fatman3001]

Only the charlatans are not brave/honest enough to come up with a proper name and instead leech on bitcoin's name notoriety.

Only the authoritarians are not brave/honest enough to live by the free market they claim they espouse to.  People calling themselves libertarians, but demanding protectionism in what's supposed to be an open and permissionless system, free from restrictions.  I'm pretty left wing myself, you'd probably even call me "statist", but apparently even I have more stomach for an open market than you do, coward.

Free market: you can choose to use bitcoin... or whatver alternative bitcoin client fork altcoin SHITCOIN.

FTFY.  It's the choice of which client each user freely decides to use.  The client with the most users determines the rules that govern the Bitcoin network.  Free Market.  No altcoins in sight.

FTFY FTW.

There is no problem with alternative client if they still abide by bitcoin's protocol. Lots of miners and nodes run in house bitcoind.
If you change unilaterally a parameter and break the consensus (eg. differs from 'majority', obviously and because there is A LOT of idiots, statists and sheeps).

Otherwise, it is about time you jump to bitcoin XT. Much alternative client.. pardon.. SHIT-VAPOR-COIN.

If it forks without consensus, then and only then does it break consensus and become an altcoin.  If it sends and receives bitcoin transactions using bitcoin's blockchain, it is an alternative client.  If enough users adopt a client with different rules governing the network, that becomes the new consensus.  If you're truly a libertarian who believes in a free market, this should be acceptable to you.  If you're a spineless authoritarian, you'll continue to demand protectionism for the present consensus because you can't stomach a free and open market where users are allowed to choose.  

So far it is too late to implement various bitcoin implementations and 'hope' for consensus because network effect. Obviously not everybody will upgrade.

It will only split/harm the network and introduce attack vectors, having a direct impact over bitcoin's trust ie. value.

Adding some fancy adjective next to bitcoin to trap the noobs and reddit whatnots in some federal-centralized-corp-coin is outright lying.

Fascists.

So protectionism and a healthy dose of fear-mongering it is, then.  You've clearly made your choice.  No one is ever allowed to disagree because you think it's too late and everything should be set in stone forever.  If you genuinely believed in a free market, you wouldn't be so afraid of the possibility of it changing.  

Kindly hand in your libertarian credentials at the front desk, protectionist.    

I'm afraid you noobs and authority cravers handle bitcoin to USG and corporations for the Big Brother Finale. (FASCIST! )

Bitcoin is about freedom, but freedom is not about democracy.
It is about the individual (as in the individual must be able to mine, run a full node, access the blockchain and cryptographic signatures by himself).
Not the illusion of the greater number of stupid 'marketed' sheeple precipitating the rest into the abyss.

Bitcoin consensus mechanism fights exactly this by preventing social/populist coup over its protocol.

You are stupid if you think any fork attempt will be successful as the previous ones lamely failed and with not even as much people involved as of now.

Bitcoin's protocol is not some incorporated IOS that has to be upgraded every two weeks^tm.

Read up, hdbuck: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Maybe you'll use your head next time before you start hurling stupidity at people.

[bargainbin]

~same embarrassing, spergy crap that got him laughed outa 4chan, but now with extra embarrassing because constant regurgitation~

Maybe people are just worried that anything you're backing is bound to fail.

Played right into his hands. Obvious false flag is obvious.

[siameze]

I'm afraid you noobs and authority cravers handle bitcoin to USG and corporations for the Big Brother Finale. (FASCIST! )

Bitcoin is about freedom, but freedom is not about democracy.
It is about the individual (as in the individual must be able to mine, run a full node, access the blockchain and cryptographic signatures by himself).
Not the illusion of the greater number of stupid 'marketed' sheeple precipitating the rest into the abyss.

Bitcoin consensus mechanism fights exactly this by preventing social/populist coup over its protocol.

You are stupid if you think any fork attempt will be successful as the previous ones lamely failed and with not even as much people involved as of now.

Bitcoin's protocol is not some incorporated IOS that has to be upgraded every two weeks^tm.

This is the core of why I don't agree with a lot of the proposals out there. They seek to weaken Bitcoin's cryptography in some way or pass off complete signatures as not necessary. Without a fully verified node you may as well be using pebbles recorded in the rockchain.

[bargainbin]

... using pebbles recorded in the rockchain,

Isn't that BIP 203.07?

[Lauda]

This is the core of why I don't agree with a lot of the proposals out there. They seek to weaken Bitcoin's cryptography in some way or pass off complete signatures as not necessary. Without a fully verified node you may as well be using pebbles recorded in the rockchain,

While SegWit might not be a favored solution nor a simple one, it does not weaken the security model that Bitcoin uses. You can run your own tests on the testnet.

Dear huge block shills, stop talking and FORK OFF!

That would be very nice wouldn't it?

Whoever thought that the idea to implement a competing BIP with dire consequences to the privacy of the Bitcoin users, must be stir crazy. I would rather kick the can down the road and not bend the knee to make sacrifices to my privacy. We need a scalable alternative without these funny add-on's.

Exactly. Why should we sacrifice anything just because some think that they should be paying for coffee with Bitcoin? Once the ecosystem is ready then we can increase the block size properly/implement other solutions. Increasing the block size limit is the same as adding more payload to a airplane; it can only take so much before it crashes. It would be wiser to first improve the plane itself.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

~same embarrassing, spergy crap that got him laughed outa 4chan, but now with extra embarrassing because constant regurgitation~

Maybe people are just worried that anything you're backing is bound to fail.

Played right into his hands. Obvious false flag is obvious.

A quick survey of this forum might lead an outsider to conclude the supporters of small blocks are anti-social, Jew-hating narcissists. It's unfortunate.

[jonald_fyookball]

I'm afraid you noobs and authority cravers handle bitcoin to USG and corporations for the Big Brother Finale. (FASCIST! )

Bitcoin is about freedom, but freedom is not about democracy.
It is about the individual (as in the individual must be able to mine, run a full node, access the blockchain and cryptographic signatures by himself).
Not the illusion of the greater number of stupid 'marketed' sheeple precipitating the rest into the abyss.

Bitcoin consensus mechanism fights exactly this by preventing social/populist coup over its protocol.

You are stupid if you think any fork attempt will be successful as the previous ones lamely failed and with not even as much people involved as of now.

Bitcoin's protocol is not some incorporated IOS that has to be upgraded every two weeks^tm.

This is the core of why I don't agree with a lot of the proposals out there. They seek to weaken Bitcoin's cryptography in some way or pass off complete signatures as not necessary. Without a fully verified node you may as well be using pebbles recorded in the rockchain,

You do realize that Simplified Payment Verification (SPV) was a major section in Satoshi's original white paper right?
It was part of the Bitcoin vision from day 1.  So where you do get this shit from?

SPV doesn't weaken the cryptography at all.  You're spouting nonsense.

[Fatman3001]

Why should we sacrifice anything just because some think that they should be paying for coffee with Bitcoin?

Where does this idea come from? Do you genuinely think this is about coffee?

~same embarrassing, spergy crap that got him laughed outa 4chan, but now with extra embarrassing because constant regurgitation~

Maybe people are just worried that anything you're backing is bound to fail.

Played right into his hands. Obvious false flag is obvious.

A quick survey of this forum might lead an outsider to conclude the supporters of small blocks are anti-social, Jew-hating narcissists. It's unfortunate.

And a deeper survey?

[siameze]

I'm afraid you noobs and authority cravers handle bitcoin to USG and corporations for the Big Brother Finale. (FASCIST! )

Bitcoin is about freedom, but freedom is not about democracy.
It is about the individual (as in the individual must be able to mine, run a full node, access the blockchain and cryptographic signatures by himself).
Not the illusion of the greater number of stupid 'marketed' sheeple precipitating the rest into the abyss.

Bitcoin consensus mechanism fights exactly this by preventing social/populist coup over its protocol.

You are stupid if you think any fork attempt will be successful as the previous ones lamely failed and with not even as much people involved as of now.

Bitcoin's protocol is not some incorporated IOS that has to be upgraded every two weeks^tm.

This is the core of why I don't agree with a lot of the proposals out there. They seek to weaken Bitcoin's cryptography in some way or pass off complete signatures as not necessary. Without a fully verified node you may as well be using pebbles recorded in the rockchain,

You do realize that Simplified Payment Verification (SPV) was a major section in Satoshi's original white paper right?
It was part of the Bitcoin vision from day 1.  So where you do get this shit from?

SPV doesn't weaken the cryptography at all.  You're spouting nonsense.

I have no issues with SPV wallets in general. It is possible to use one that verifies off your own personal server.

[shinohai]

I'm afraid you noobs and authority cravers handle bitcoin to USG and corporations for the Big Brother Finale. (FASCIST! )

Bitcoin is about freedom, but freedom is not about democracy.
It is about the individual (as in the individual must be able to mine, run a full node, access the blockchain and cryptographic signatures by himself).
Not the illusion of the greater number of stupid 'marketed' sheeple precipitating the rest into the abyss.

Bitcoin consensus mechanism fights exactly this by preventing social/populist coup over its protocol.

You are stupid if you think any fork attempt will be successful as the previous ones lamely failed and with not even as much people involved as of now.

Bitcoin's protocol is not some incorporated IOS that has to be upgraded every two weeks^tm.

This is the core of why I don't agree with a lot of the proposals out there. They seek to weaken Bitcoin's cryptography in some way or pass off complete signatures as not necessary. Without a fully verified node you may as well be using pebbles recorded in the rockchain,

You do realize that Simplified Payment Verification (SPV) was a major section in Satoshi's original white paper right?
It was part of the Bitcoin vision from day 1.  So where you do get this shit from?

SPV doesn't weaken the cryptography at all.  You're spouting nonsense.

I have no issues with SPV wallets in general. It is possible to use one that verifies off your own personal server.

It's not nonsense at all. I sense a redditard. http://therealbitcoin.org/ml/btc-dev/2015-December/000184.html

[blunderer]

Why should we sacrifice anything just because some think that they should be paying for coffee with Bitcoin?

Where does this idea come from? Do you genuinely think this is about coffee?

It's about coffee, free beer and airplanes.

Increasing the block size limit is the same as adding more payload to a airplane; it can only take so much before it crashes. It would be wiser to first improve the plane itself.

[jonald_fyookball]

I'm afraid you noobs and authority cravers handle bitcoin to USG and corporations for the Big Brother Finale. (FASCIST! )

Bitcoin is about freedom, but freedom is not about democracy.
It is about the individual (as in the individual must be able to mine, run a full node, access the blockchain and cryptographic signatures by himself).
Not the illusion of the greater number of stupid 'marketed' sheeple precipitating the rest into the abyss.

Bitcoin consensus mechanism fights exactly this by preventing social/populist coup over its protocol.

You are stupid if you think any fork attempt will be successful as the previous ones lamely failed and with not even as much people involved as of now.

Bitcoin's protocol is not some incorporated IOS that has to be upgraded every two weeks^tm.

This is the core of why I don't agree with a lot of the proposals out there. They seek to weaken Bitcoin's cryptography in some way or pass off complete signatures as not necessary. Without a fully verified node you may as well be using pebbles recorded in the rockchain,

You do realize that Simplified Payment Verification (SPV) was a major section in Satoshi's original white paper right?
It was part of the Bitcoin vision from day 1.  So where you do get this shit from?

SPV doesn't weaken the cryptography at all.  You're spouting nonsense.

I have no issues with SPV wallets in general. It is possible to use one that verifies off your own personal server.

It's not nonsense at all. I sense a redditard. http://therealbitcoin.org/ml/btc-dev/2015-December/000184.html

Just because it is appropriate for the bitcoin foundation (an institution) to run a full node doesn't mean
every individual user has to...which was the whole point of Satoshi's SPV...So yeah, it IS nonsense.

[btcusury]

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.

There is no evidence of shilling on either side of the debate, so what is the point in per suing this line of argument? Accusing other people of being shills without evidence is just ad hominem and not conductive towards productive discussion.

The purpose of this thread was/is to assemble the evidence.

It does the opposite of strengthening your cause since you are just revealing that your rationality is weak by supporting such "conspiracy theories".

In Orwellian slave-think, "conspiracy theories" is a euphemism for "cannot possibly be true, so I'll ignore it".

Your time is better spent countering my arguments as opposed to accusing me of being a shill, which I am not for the record. Even if I where a shill it is unproductive and even damaging to the discourse here to accuse me of this without evidence.

Your arguments have been deconstructed over and over and over and over, but you just ignore them and pretend that you still have (the same old tired) valid arguments. Hence why it's very difficult to imagine that you aren't being paid to do what you do.

I could just as easily accuse certain small block proponents of being shills for either blockstream or governments. I will not do that however since accusing people of such things without evidence is wrong and it is more productive to stick to rational discussion, logic, reason and what can be known instead of futilely focusing on the unknowable.

Unknowable, huh? I would not have gone beyond "unprovable". It can be known with some degree of certainty by apophatic inquiry.

I can explain what my alias means. It is latin, I am also a history buff as well as having a political philosophy background. Veritas means truth and it was also the name of the main character in the movie "V for Vendetta", the mask that he wears has now become a symbol for the cypherpunk movement and anonymous movement as well. Sapere is a bit harder to pin down in terms of meaning, but it can be described as knowledge, or a thirst for knowledge. I took it from an older phrase which is "Sapere Aude". Which means "dare to be wise", which has significant meaning in terms of enlightenment and philosophical thinking. So you could translate my alias to mean something along the lines of "A thirst for true knowledge".

Well, let's then test whether that is true. You obviously have a lot of spare time (or is it work time?), given your posts on this forum, so certainly you have time to increase your "true knowledge" regarding "political philosophy" by researching the information from other researchers who also have "a thirst for true knowledge". So let's start with these two:

Mark Passio Interviews Larken Rose - The Religion of Statism  (a very short video)

Apply your "dare to be wise" philosophy so that you can come to understand the true nature of "politics", "government", and "authority", so that you may stop operating under ridiculously false premises such as...

Since I do think that the block size limit should be increased, and right now I have to choose between Core or BIP101, I choose BIP101, even if it a choice between the lesser of two evils. This is a case of political realism. In political thought the lesser of two evils is often the pragmatic reality we have to accept in order to even justify the existence of the state, and we should not think that 90% consensus is practical considering how democracies actually and practically function.

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?

... and join the human race.

[johnyj]

Mining nodes are all already in data centres. We are already far past this point, so I would not consider that to be a good reason not to increase the blocksize. Miners can not "raise the fee" they simply just choose what transactions to include and not to include, collectively this creates a free market for fees. With an arbitrarily small block size limit it has more in common with a centrally planned economy.

This is back to Peter Todd's famous question: If it is already centralized then why make it worse

The relay network that miners are using right now are a perfect example of now we are relying on private company to provide the bitcoin network necessary service. Following this route, in future all the mining nodes will operate on a private company's network, so that a couple of phone call can shut them down right away

Small block size does not preventing you from inventing fee-free transaction services off-chain. In fact, limited at 1MB or limited at 8MB is the same effect
because bitcoin is never going to scale indefinitely. So, if you sooner or later have to limit the block size, then why not do it now when bitcoin core software is still relatively light weight. It is the direction that matters, not parameters

This is the engineers nirvana fallacy, just because Bitcoin does not scale efficiently it does not mean we should not scale Bitcoin at all. I think this is wrong and even small increases to the blocksize will bring massive practical benefits to both people and the protocol as a whole.

Even if one megabyte is the practical limit of the network today, which I do not think is the case, in the future this limit should still be increased in order to reflect the true technological capabilities of the time.

I can agree with the principle that we should not increase the blocksize limit more then our technology will allow, even if one megabyte currently represent this limit which I find hard to believe that this is the case. It does stand that this limit should be increased in the future if we want to see Bitcoin bring about as much utility and benefit as possible. This whole one megabyte forever idea really does not make any sense, I also doubt that Satoshi somehow magically choose this number which would reflect this technological limit now and for all time. Satoshi was actually quite clear on this subject, he thought that the blocksize should be increased when the need to do so arose.

The protocol block size limit was added as a temporary anti-spam measure, not a technocratic market-manipulation measure.

So your idea of the block size limit is the technology, but technology can be very different for different parts of the world, you can not expect everywhere in the world have 1GB fiber. Besides, there is the great firewall of China. Just try to open some chinese website like tudou.com or youku.com you will see how slow it is. If most of the cheap electricity and chip manufacturing exists in china, then other miners are limited by the chinese connection speed. A larger block in western will just make it orphaned more frequently by the chinese miners since they have higher hash power and you don't have enough time to broadcast your block to them before they mined their next block

[hdbuck]

...

Read up, hdbuck: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Maybe you'll use your head next time before you start hurling stupidity at people.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini.

Since I do think that the block size limit should be increased, and right now I have to choose between Core or BIP101, I choose BIP101, even if it a choice between the lesser of two evils. This is a case of political realism. In political thought the lesser of two evils is often the pragmatic reality we have to accept in order to even justify the existence of the state, and we should not think that 90% consensus is practical considering how democracies actually and practically function.

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?

The poor kid apparently studied "political philosophy"

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.

There is no evidence of shilling on either side of the debate, so what is the point in per suing this line of argument? Accusing other people of being shills without evidence is just ad hominem and not conductive towards productive discussion.

The purpose of this thread was/is to assemble the evidence.

Evidence provided with this nonsense spam spewing bot looped into interacting with one of the biggest troll in here (lampnotchop or something)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1318519.msg13521447#msg13521447
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1318519.msg13521944#msg13521944
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1318519.msg13521442#msg13521442

[blunderer]

<>
In Orwellian slave-think, "conspiracy theories" is a euphemism for "cannot possibly be true, so I'll ignore it".
<>

George Orwell (Real name: Eric Arthur Blair[stein]) is a Jew. Orwell has often visited Communist meetings and was pro-Stalin. https://shadowmasterminds.wordpress.com/george-orwell-a-jew/
And I ain't too sure about you, either.