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

[Lauda]

“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.

Where did you quote this from? This isn't going to happen. Even if it did I'd start a opposite campaign for Bitcoin. I would be spreading the word to people not to use it at any cost and would probably advise them to use an altcoin if necessary. Coinbase is evil.

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).

They're using speculation as an argument which right now is pretty ignorant. It all comes down to if you're a reasonable and intelligent person or you're falling for charlatans like Peter R. Bitcoin does not have a problem and is most likely not going to experience a network 'overload' before we have SegWit (which will double the potential transaction output).

[iCEBREAKER]

development is currently centralized in a couple of persons

[ATguy]

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).

They're using speculation as an argument which right now is pretty ignorant. It all comes down to if you're a reasonable and intelligent person or you're falling for charlatans like Peter R. Bitcoin does not have a problem and is most likely not going to experience a network 'overload' before we have SegWit (which will double the potential transaction output).

Blocklimit cappacity already make the user experince with Bitcoin worse because everytime completly full block is mined it is reasonable to expect more transactions would be added if there is more space in the block, thus unnecessary delaying 1st confirmation for some users already - the point is miners have no choice to add these transactions even if they wanted the fees + users have unnecessary to wait - both losing.

Also raising blocklimit is much easier solution than questionable SegWit which is not user friendly anyway (now average Joe has to choose to use between standard and SegWit transaction without understanding benefits+risks). Doing something more complicated than necessary just to avoid hard fork (which they plan latter anyway) tells a lot about Core Developers.

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.

Again, these are centralized decissions which I dont agree with and only free market can choose what is best *, not one group of developers.

* If you want Bitcoin keep freedoom and not under governance of one group

[btcusury]

I still think that good government is possible, its just that it requires a highly enlightened civilization and culture in order for it be functional. Cryptocurrency has changed my ideological objective you could say since it has made possible what was previously impossible, in regards to political theory.

There cannot be "good government", because by definition "government" is based on the idea of the legitimacy of involuntaryism. When you wake up to who and what you are you understand that you are sovereign, and nobody can or ever has ruled/governed you. Why don't you watch that short video and tell me what you think about it?

This has changed my ideology over the last year, so I presently describe myself as a crypto anarcho libertarian. The goal is anarchism (freedom), this possibility is enabled through crypto (technology), and the practical strategy is libertarianism where we shrink the government down over a long period of time until it possibly ceases to exist completely, most likely in more then a century from now.

Hey, you said something smart! So it's not really that you don't have a clue, it's that you are being extremely selective with the sources of information you expose yourself to, and very focused on one particular subject. You see, the reality is -- and this is why I referred you to that short video of those two gentlemen deconstructing this poisonous superstitious belief -- is that there really is no "government". There are only people calling themselves "government". Nobody has any rights ("authority") that you don't have, and you cannot delegate a right you do not have to anyone else. See how obvious that is?

I would further add that it is actually irrelevant what my own personal political philosophy is in regards to this discussion.

I'll tell you why it's relevant, and why it's always relevant. Suppose for a moment that you only exposed yourself to Marxist sources of information, and were therefore completely convinced that communism is a reasonable system of human organization. You would then tend to support whatever ideas you perceive to be closest to that idea. This is how human minds are herded into desired destructive geopolitcal goals, by means of compartmentalization and control of information sources people are exposed to, and repetition of particular ideas (propaganda). Ideology is not your friend; it's the invisible prison of your mind.

... and join the human race.

Yet you are the the one attempting to dehumanize me.

What I'm saying is that you aren't quite a full human being until you have come to understand your sovereignty, and therefore the sovereignty of every other human being.

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)

All right -- I gotta stop you right there.

I have had direct, face-2-face convos with Larken dating back to the last millennium. Yes, he (intermittently) uses Bitcoin. But what exactly are you trying to convey here, that has anything whatsoever about the discussion at hand?

Tell me how this particular interview with Larken has anything to do with the 'death of bitcoin due to starvation' vs. 'death to bitcoin due to centralization' debate.

Or are you just trying to steal some unearned 'my lib is better than your lib' cred?

You took out the quote I was replying to, by VeritasSapere, thus de-contextualizing my post, how clever! I recommend that video to your attention as well, if you are still somehow under the impression that there is such as a thing and could ever be such a thing as a "legitimate government".

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.
[...]
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.

So you openly admit that you're a statist (i.e. an involuntaryist, an advocate of slavery), but you call other people "authoritarian" WTF?

That was an attempt at mockery, seeing as people like hdbuck, icebreaker and a few of the other hardcore MP fanboys seem to enjoy calling everyone with even the slightest left-wing leaning a statist.  And the jab remains that I still respect the free market more than fake libertarian pretenders like them.  

Which is the more authoritarian attitude in your mind?

a) Unilaterally changing network parameters is a threat to the network and should be derided / ridiculed / dismissed / etc.

or

b) Any user can unilaterally change any network parameters as they wish because it's an open and permissionless system.

I'm of the opinion that hdbuck's view, "a)", is authoritarian.  My view, "b)", is the complete opposite of authoritarian.  Thus concludes another edition of "why do I always have to spell it out for people like they're not all there upstairs?"    

That's not quite what's happening, though. You are essentially dumbing down the situation to soundbites, MSM-style. And the reason you're doing that is, I would suggest, because you're not actually paying attention. Or, rather, you are only paying attention to one side of the argument. You are going with what sounds/feels good to you rather than examining the technicalities involved (which requires, you know, research). You can have a look in Technical Discussion or on /r/Bitcoin, e.g. here. Poster spoonXT sums up the situation perfectly:

Yes, I think the urgency pushed by larger block proponets plays into a power grab. Right now they are fighting against Core's roadmap that is sufficient to take the pressure off; it also lays the groundwork to solve the rest of the problem in successive stages.

When dealing with urgent emergencies, one must keep in mind the USA PATRIOT Act, the Reichstag Fire Decree, and Problem-Reaction-Solution in general.
Regarding why not 2MB now, there is a known validation DDoS attack (chewing CPU), that must be addressed first. It could delay blocks by more than 10 minutes if the blocksize were 2MB. Core devs will never allow it, until they've rolled out the fix, as planned in their roadmap.

You probably don't even know what "Problem-Reaction-Solution" refers to, do you, DooMAD?

Poster Ilogy also sums it up very well:

I thought things were looking relatively bright with segregated witness, in particular, an exciting development that likely flowered into existence because of the healthy and measured way the community approached all of this without resorting to falling for the FUD. The scaling Bitcoin conferences and the intrinsically decentralized, communal nature of this approach toward reaching consensus, rather than relying on a CEO, seems to me to have spoken directly to what is good about Bitcoin.

But then you Gavin and Hearn and the community behind them. Their method is not to participate in the larger community's discussion -- they didn't attend the last scaling Bitcion conference at all, for instance -- but instead they created a hard fork which in lay men's term is simply, "it's our way or the highway."

In other words, they want us to hand Bitcoin over to them. That is their solution to the complicated nature of open source, let's just install a CEO. Essentially, they are saying, "give up on the community, no one at those conferences matter . . . give us power, scrap Bitcoin and come over to our new Bitcoin." That's scary, at least to me.

I could understand XT, as it certainly spawned an urgency that otherwise wasn't being addressed with enough haste, and I applaud them for that. But then when things are looking bright, and the urgency far less dramatic, they just rekindle the fight with even more desperation in the form of "Bitcoin Classic." There is something else going on here. Why the urgency? Why the desperation? Why do we need to restart the civil war?

What further disturbs and concerns me is that Mike Hearn, one of the two brains behind XT along with Gavin, actually gladly accepted the position of developing R3, the block chain being created by the coordinated effort of the international bankers. He works for the banks. This demonstrates a mindset intent on power.

Mikey Hearn also openly reveals how much of a pro-bankster pro-"authority" brown-noser he is:

I’ve spent more than 5 years being a Bitcoin developer. The software I’ve written has been used by millions of users, hundreds of developers, and the talks I’ve given have led directly to the creation of several startups. I’ve talked about Bitcoin on Sky TV and BBC News. I have been repeatedly cited by the Economist as a Bitcoin expert and prominent developer. I have explained Bitcoin to the SEC, to bankers and to ordinary people I met at cafes.

From the start, I’ve always said the same thing: Bitcoin is an experiment and like all experiments, it can fail. So don’t invest what you can’t afford to lose. I’ve said this in interviews, on stage at conferences, and over email. So have other well known developers like Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik.

But despite knowing that Bitcoin could fail all along, the now inescapable conclusion that it has failed still saddens me greatly. The fundamentals are broken and whatever happens to the price in the short term, the long term trend should probably be downwards. I will no longer be taking part in Bitcoin development and have sold all my coins.

This guy isn't aware of the existence of the control system, and thinks the world is all fine and dandy, that humans aren't being oppressed at all. He is so mainstream he hardly needs to have been or ever be co-opted. He's already a mind-controlled asset.

One of Hearn's main problems with Theymos' moderation policy / censorship is this:

[...]
The release of Bitcoin XT somehow pushed powerful emotional buttons in a small number of people. One of them was a guy who is the admin of the bitcoin.org website and top discussion forums. He had frequently allowed discussion of outright criminal activity on the forums he controlled, on the grounds of freedom of speech. But when XT launched, he made a surprising decision. XT, he claimed, did not represent the “developer consensus” and was therefore not really Bitcoin. Voting was an abomination, he said, because:

“One of the great things about Bitcoin is its lack of democracy”

Yeah, that's exactly right. "Democracy", as with all forms of "government", is a euphemism for "legitimized" violence and slavery. The slavish reactionary sheep who like to believe that Bitcoin is some kind of "democracy" are the ones whose energy is easily herded and harnessed into the planned "solution" (in the Problem-Reaction-Solution stratagem) that the creators of the "problem" (urgent need for increasing max block size) are hoping for.

After the failure of XT Gavin moved to "Bitcoin Classic" and he calls it the vision of Satoshi.  

Gavinista 9 months ago: "We need 20MB blocks Right Fucking Now, or Bitcoin is dooomed!!1!"

*Bitcoin continues to thrive*

Gavinista 6 months ago: "We need 20MB 8MB blocks Right Fucking Now, or Bitcoin is dooomed!!1!"

*Bitcoin continues to thrive*

Gavinista 1 month ago: "We need 20MB 8MB 2MB blocks Right Fucking Now, or Bitcoin is dooomed!!1!"

There is only one plausible/parsimonious explanation for such an utter lack of concern about their continual loss of credibility, which is that they are executing a 'thin wedge' strategy.

The Gavinistas would be happy with 1.001MB blocks, because such a hard fork would get their camel's nose into the tent.

The point isn't larger blocks will save Bitcoin from certain dooom, it's to undermine the socioeconomic majority's diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient system.  It's about sending a message, that Bitcoin's engineering decisions can be controlled by manufacturing dissent.

Nailed it! +1

[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.
[...]
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.

So you openly admit that you're a statist (i.e. an involuntaryist, an advocate of slavery), but you call other people "authoritarian" WTF?

That was an attempt at mockery, seeing as people like hdbuck, icebreaker and a few of the other hardcore MP fanboys seem to enjoy calling everyone with even the slightest left-wing leaning a statist.  And the jab remains that I still respect the free market more than fake libertarian pretenders like them.  

Which is the more authoritarian attitude in your mind?

a) Unilaterally changing network parameters is a threat to the network and should be derided / ridiculed / dismissed / etc.

or

b) Any user can unilaterally change any network parameters as they wish because it's an open and permissionless system.

I'm of the opinion that hdbuck's view, "a)", is authoritarian.  My view, "b)", is the complete opposite of authoritarian.  Thus concludes another edition of "why do I always have to spell it out for people like they're not all there upstairs?"    

That's not quite what's happening, though. You are essentially dumbing down the situation to soundbites, MSM-style. And the reason you're doing that is, I would suggest, because you're not actually paying attention. Or, rather, you are only paying attention to one side of the argument. You are going with what sounds/feels good to you rather than examining the technicalities involved (which requires, you know, research). You can have a look in Technical Discussion or on /r/Bitcoin, e.g. here. Poster spoonXT sums up the situation perfectly:

Yes, I think the urgency pushed by larger block proponets plays into a power grab. Right now they are fighting against Core's roadmap that is sufficient to take the pressure off; it also lays the groundwork to solve the rest of the problem in successive stages.

When dealing with urgent emergencies, one must keep in mind the USA PATRIOT Act, the Reichstag Fire Decree, and Problem-Reaction-Solution in general.
Regarding why not 2MB now, there is a known validation DDoS attack (chewing CPU), that must be addressed first. It could delay blocks by more than 10 minutes if the blocksize were 2MB. Core devs will never allow it, until they've rolled out the fix, as planned in their roadmap.

You probably don't even know what "Problem-Reaction-Solution" refers to, do you, DooMAD?

Poster Ilogy also sums it up very well:

I thought things were looking relatively bright with segregated witness, in particular, an exciting development that likely flowered into existence because of the healthy and measured way the community approached all of this without resorting to falling for the FUD. The scaling Bitcoin conferences and the intrinsically decentralized, communal nature of this approach toward reaching consensus, rather than relying on a CEO, seems to me to have spoken directly to what is good about Bitcoin.

But then you Gavin and Hearn and the community behind them. Their method is not to participate in the larger community's discussion -- they didn't attend the last scaling Bitcion conference at all, for instance -- but instead they created a hard fork which in lay men's term is simply, "it's our way or the highway."

In other words, they want us to hand Bitcoin over to them. That is their solution to the complicated nature of open source, let's just install a CEO. Essentially, they are saying, "give up on the community, no one at those conferences matter . . . give us power, scrap Bitcoin and come over to our new Bitcoin." That's scary, at least to me.

I could understand XT, as it certainly spawned an urgency that otherwise wasn't being addressed with enough haste, and I applaud them for that. But then when things are looking bright, and the urgency far less dramatic, they just rekindle the fight with even more desperation in the form of "Bitcoin Classic." There is something else going on here. Why the urgency? Why the desperation? Why do we need to restart the civil war?

What further disturbs and concerns me is that Mike Hearn, one of the two brains behind XT along with Gavin, actually gladly accepted the position of developing R3, the block chain being created by the coordinated effort of the international bankers. He works for the banks. This demonstrates a mindset intent on power.

Mikey Hearn also openly reveals how much of a pro-bankster pro-"authority" brown-noser he is:

I’ve spent more than 5 years being a Bitcoin developer. The software I’ve written has been used by millions of users, hundreds of developers, and the talks I’ve given have led directly to the creation of several startups. I’ve talked about Bitcoin on Sky TV and BBC News. I have been repeatedly cited by the Economist as a Bitcoin expert and prominent developer. I have explained Bitcoin to the SEC, to bankers and to ordinary people I met at cafes.

From the start, I’ve always said the same thing: Bitcoin is an experiment and like all experiments, it can fail. So don’t invest what you can’t afford to lose. I’ve said this in interviews, on stage at conferences, and over email. So have other well known developers like Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik.

But despite knowing that Bitcoin could fail all along, the now inescapable conclusion that it has failed still saddens me greatly. The fundamentals are broken and whatever happens to the price in the short term, the long term trend should probably be downwards. I will no longer be taking part in Bitcoin development and have sold all my coins.

This guy isn't aware of the existence of the control system, and thinks the world is all fine and dandy, that humans aren't being oppressed at all. He is so mainstream he hardly needs to have been or ever be co-opted. He's already a mind-controlled asset.

One of Hearn's main problems with Theymos' moderation policy / censorship is this:

[...]
The release of Bitcoin XT somehow pushed powerful emotional buttons in a small number of people. One of them was a guy who is the admin of the bitcoin.org website and top discussion forums. He had frequently allowed discussion of outright criminal activity on the forums he controlled, on the grounds of freedom of speech. But when XT launched, he made a surprising decision. XT, he claimed, did not represent the “developer consensus” and was therefore not really Bitcoin. Voting was an abomination, he said, because:

“One of the great things about Bitcoin is its lack of democracy”

Yeah, that's exactly right. "Democracy", as with all forms of "government", is a euphemism for "legitimized" violence and slavery. The slavish reactionary sheep who like to believe that Bitcoin is some kind of "democracy" are the ones whose energy is easily herded and harnessed into the planned "solution" (in the Problem-Reaction-Solution stratagem) that the creators of the "problem" (urgent need for increasing max block size) are hoping for.

That's a considerably long winded way of saying that because core have proposed their solution, no one else can propose a different one, because if they do, it's a coup/hostile takeover/power grab/dictatorship/CEO/all the other scary-sounding-yet-entirely-bullshit examples you fear-mongerers keep coming up with.  It's not "dumbing down" to phrase it as I did, it's "succinctly getting to the point".  Your point appears to consist of nothing more than "Hearn = Bad, so everyone has to agree with Core".  Your "Problem-Reaction-Solution" spiel is just a rehash of your previous attempt at stating anyone who disagrees with you has been brainwashed by mainstream media.  It's just one thinly veiled insult after another with you.  If all you've got left are character assassinations and boogeymen, then it's clear you're out of arguments. 

My favourite argument for supporting larger block sizes is still this:

The greatest benefit of supporting larger block sizes is that it causes tremendous annoyance to Mircea Popescu and his merry little band of crony fanatics:

link

Because it is my considered opinion that Bitcoin is perfect as it is and that it doesn't need to be "fixed" to provide tremendous value to humanity at large.

It's time to be greedy and defend our safe-haven

I see a fair amount of utility in having an XT fork which siphoned off a sizable number of 'bitcoiners' who are deeply ignorant about the principles of the system and are mostly MultiBitch-class users who add no value.

the peasants' desire to trade security for adoption is met with indifference/hostility/scorn from the people who matter.

Keep Bitcoin Elite!™

The wealthy will continue to rule Bitcoin and there is no amount of "new users" tears that will change this.

A "one-percenter blockchain" is the only rational vision for Bitcoin, whether you like it or not. Fortunately for the first time ever you will be allowed a seat at their table. It will cost you some if you wanna trade with them but you will have other options to enjoy the security of your wealth.

Bitcoin isn't for everybody.

Who else is looking forward to not sharing a chain with these vile creatures? 

To say that those views are not representative of the open, permissionless system I signed up for would be an understatement.  If all the people who support small blocks are as repellent as the ones quoted there, then as far as I'm concerned, that's reason enough to support larger blocks.  Bitcoin is and should be whatever its users define by the code they run.  There is no arguing with this.  If people continue to run code supporting 1mb, that's fair enough.  But if enough users run code that supports a larger blocksize, that doesn't suddenly make it a coup/hostile takeover/power grab/dictatorship/CEO/etc.  That becomes the new consensus.  That's the open, permissionless system I signed up for.

[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.
[...]
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.

So you openly admit that you're a statist (i.e. an involuntaryist, an advocate of slavery), but you call other people "authoritarian" WTF?

That was an attempt at mockery, seeing as people like hdbuck, icebreaker and a few of the other hardcore MP fanboys seem to enjoy calling everyone with even the slightest left-wing leaning a statist.  And the jab remains that I still respect the free market more than fake libertarian pretenders like them.  

Which is the more authoritarian attitude in your mind?

a) Unilaterally changing network parameters is a threat to the network and should be derided / ridiculed / dismissed / etc.

or

b) Any user can unilaterally change any network parameters as they wish because it's an open and permissionless system.

I'm of the opinion that hdbuck's view, "a)", is authoritarian.  My view, "b)", is the complete opposite of authoritarian.  Thus concludes another edition of "why do I always have to spell it out for people like they're not all there upstairs?"    

That's not quite what's happening, though. You are essentially dumbing down the situation to soundbites, MSM-style. And the reason you're doing that is, I would suggest, because you're not actually paying attention. Or, rather, you are only paying attention to one side of the argument. You are going with what sounds/feels good to you rather than examining the technicalities involved (which requires, you know, research). You can have a look in Technical Discussion or on /r/Bitcoin, e.g. here. Poster spoonXT sums up the situation perfectly:

Yes, I think the urgency pushed by larger block proponets plays into a power grab. Right now they are fighting against Core's roadmap that is sufficient to take the pressure off; it also lays the groundwork to solve the rest of the problem in successive stages.

When dealing with urgent emergencies, one must keep in mind the USA PATRIOT Act, the Reichstag Fire Decree, and Problem-Reaction-Solution in general.
Regarding why not 2MB now, there is a known validation DDoS attack (chewing CPU), that must be addressed first. It could delay blocks by more than 10 minutes if the blocksize were 2MB. Core devs will never allow it, until they've rolled out the fix, as planned in their roadmap.

You probably don't even know what "Problem-Reaction-Solution" refers to, do you, DooMAD?

Poster Ilogy also sums it up very well:

I thought things were looking relatively bright with segregated witness, in particular, an exciting development that likely flowered into existence because of the healthy and measured way the community approached all of this without resorting to falling for the FUD. The scaling Bitcoin conferences and the intrinsically decentralized, communal nature of this approach toward reaching consensus, rather than relying on a CEO, seems to me to have spoken directly to what is good about Bitcoin.

But then you Gavin and Hearn and the community behind them. Their method is not to participate in the larger community's discussion -- they didn't attend the last scaling Bitcion conference at all, for instance -- but instead they created a hard fork which in lay men's term is simply, "it's our way or the highway."

In other words, they want us to hand Bitcoin over to them. That is their solution to the complicated nature of open source, let's just install a CEO. Essentially, they are saying, "give up on the community, no one at those conferences matter . . . give us power, scrap Bitcoin and come over to our new Bitcoin." That's scary, at least to me.

I could understand XT, as it certainly spawned an urgency that otherwise wasn't being addressed with enough haste, and I applaud them for that. But then when things are looking bright, and the urgency far less dramatic, they just rekindle the fight with even more desperation in the form of "Bitcoin Classic." There is something else going on here. Why the urgency? Why the desperation? Why do we need to restart the civil war?

What further disturbs and concerns me is that Mike Hearn, one of the two brains behind XT along with Gavin, actually gladly accepted the position of developing R3, the block chain being created by the coordinated effort of the international bankers. He works for the banks. This demonstrates a mindset intent on power.

Mikey Hearn also openly reveals how much of a pro-bankster pro-"authority" brown-noser he is:

I’ve spent more than 5 years being a Bitcoin developer. The software I’ve written has been used by millions of users, hundreds of developers, and the talks I’ve given have led directly to the creation of several startups. I’ve talked about Bitcoin on Sky TV and BBC News. I have been repeatedly cited by the Economist as a Bitcoin expert and prominent developer. I have explained Bitcoin to the SEC, to bankers and to ordinary people I met at cafes.

From the start, I’ve always said the same thing: Bitcoin is an experiment and like all experiments, it can fail. So don’t invest what you can’t afford to lose. I’ve said this in interviews, on stage at conferences, and over email. So have other well known developers like Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik.

But despite knowing that Bitcoin could fail all along, the now inescapable conclusion that it has failed still saddens me greatly. The fundamentals are broken and whatever happens to the price in the short term, the long term trend should probably be downwards. I will no longer be taking part in Bitcoin development and have sold all my coins.

This guy isn't aware of the existence of the control system, and thinks the world is all fine and dandy, that humans aren't being oppressed at all. He is so mainstream he hardly needs to have been or ever be co-opted. He's already a mind-controlled asset.

One of Hearn's main problems with Theymos' moderation policy / censorship is this:

[...]
The release of Bitcoin XT somehow pushed powerful emotional buttons in a small number of people. One of them was a guy who is the admin of the bitcoin.org website and top discussion forums. He had frequently allowed discussion of outright criminal activity on the forums he controlled, on the grounds of freedom of speech. But when XT launched, he made a surprising decision. XT, he claimed, did not represent the “developer consensus” and was therefore not really Bitcoin. Voting was an abomination, he said, because:

“One of the great things about Bitcoin is its lack of democracy”

Yeah, that's exactly right. "Democracy", as with all forms of "government", is a euphemism for "legitimized" violence and slavery. The slavish reactionary sheep who like to believe that Bitcoin is some kind of "democracy" are the ones whose energy is easily herded and harnessed into the planned "solution" (in the Problem-Reaction-Solution stratagem) that the creators of the "problem" (urgent need for increasing max block size) are hoping for.

That's a considerably long winded way of saying that because core have proposed their solution, no one else can propose a different one, because if they do, it's a coup/hostile takeover/power grab/dictatorship/CEO/all the other scary-sounding-yet-entirely-bullshit examples you fear-mongerers keep coming up with.  It's not "dumbing down" to phrase it as I did, it's "succinctly getting to the point".  Your point appears to consist of nothing more than "Hearn = Bad, so everyone has to agree with Core".  Your "Problem-Reaction-Solution" spiel is just a rehash of your previous attempt at stating anyone who disagrees with you has been brainwashed by mainstream media.  It's just one thinly veiled insult after another with you.  If all you've got left are character assassinations and boogeymen, then it's clear you're out of arguments.  

My favourite argument for supporting larger block sizes is still this:

The greatest benefit of supporting larger block sizes is that it causes tremendous annoyance to Mircea Popescu and his merry little band of crony fanatics:

link

Because it is my considered opinion that Bitcoin is perfect as it is and that it doesn't need to be "fixed" to provide tremendous value to humanity at large.

It's time to be greedy and defend our safe-haven

I see a fair amount of utility in having an XT fork which siphoned off a sizable number of 'bitcoiners' who are deeply ignorant about the principles of the system and are mostly MultiBitch-class users who add no value.

the peasants' desire to trade security for adoption is met with indifference/hostility/scorn from the people who matter.

Keep Bitcoin Elite!™

The wealthy will continue to rule Bitcoin and there is no amount of "new users" tears that will change this.

A "one-percenter blockchain" is the only rational vision for Bitcoin, whether you like it or not. Fortunately for the first time ever you will be allowed a seat at their table. It will cost you some if you wanna trade with them but you will have other options to enjoy the security of your wealth.

Bitcoin isn't for everybody.

Who else is looking forward to not sharing a chain with these vile creatures?  

To say that those views are not representative of the open, permissionless system I signed up for would be an understatement.  If all the people who support small blocks are as repellent as the ones quoted there, then as far as I'm concerned, that's reason enough to support larger blocks.  Bitcoin is and should be whatever its users define by the code they run.  There is no arguing with this.  If people continue to run code supporting 1mb, that's fair enough.  But if enough users run code that supports a larger blocksize, that doesn't suddenly make it a coup/hostile takeover/power grab/dictatorship/CEO/etc.  That becomes the new consensus.  That's the open, permissionless system I signed up for.

You are poor, both financially and intellectually.

Who gives a shit about you ph0rker and your redditard alikes? NOBODY. And certainly not Bitcoin.

Please proceed forking off ASAP. You are wasting your time here, not that it is worth anything in the first place.

[Bergmann_Christoph]

My favourite argument for supporting larger block sizes is still this:

The greatest benefit of supporting larger block sizes is that it causes tremendous annoyance to Mircea Popescu and his merry little band of crony fanatics:

link

Because it is my considered opinion that Bitcoin is perfect as it is and that it doesn't need to be "fixed" to provide tremendous value to humanity at large.

It's time to be greedy and defend our safe-haven

I see a fair amount of utility in having an XT fork which siphoned off a sizable number of 'bitcoiners' who are deeply ignorant about the principles of the system and are mostly MultiBitch-class users who add no value.

the peasants' desire to trade security for adoption is met with indifference/hostility/scorn from the people who matter.

Keep Bitcoin Elite!™

The wealthy will continue to rule Bitcoin and there is no amount of "new users" tears that will change this.

A "one-percenter blockchain" is the only rational vision for Bitcoin, whether you like it or not. Fortunately for the first time ever you will be allowed a seat at their table. It will cost you some if you wanna trade with them but you will have other options to enjoy the security of your wealth.

Bitcoin isn't for everybody.

Who else is looking forward to not sharing a chain with these vile creatures?  

To say that those views are not representative of the open, permissionless system I signed up for would be an understatement.  If all the people who support small blocks are as repellent as the ones quoted there, then as far as I'm concerned, that's reason enough to support larger blocks.  Bitcoin is and should be whatever its users define by the code they run.  There is no arguing with this.  If people continue to run code supporting 1mb, that's fair enough.  But if enough users run code that supports a larger blocksize, that doesn't suddenly make it a coup/hostile takeover/power grab/dictatorship/CEO/etc.  That becomes the new consensus.  That's the open, permissionless system I signed up for.

Great quotes.

The funny thing is, I'm absolutely sure, our small block fanatics are nothing but important or rich by themselves. They are in the forum day and night and try to earn some money by investing in altcoins.

But it often happened that a lamp supported the ideology of the wolve because it liked to feel like a wolve. And often the poor support an unfair system cause this makes them feel as being rich.

Currently we are in a strange situation. Most people want to scale Bitcoin and want that as many people as possible enjoy bitcoin. The core dev's problem is that they care too much and fear larger blocks will hurt decentralization. Without wanting it they support with this the other group which thinks bitcoin should be a privilegium.

The thing is: except from a tiny minority everyone here wants to bringt bitcoin to as many people as possible.

You are poor, both financially and intellectually.

Who gives a shit about you ph0rker and your redditard alikes? NOBODY. And certainly not Bitcoin.

Please proceed forking off ASAP. You are wasting your time here, not that it is worth anything in the first place.

And now hdbuck looses his last capacities to talk. When you challenge him he regrets back into his 3-year-old-mind or into some neanterthaler. Really funny.  He seems to suffer from a serious form of digital tourette syndrom.

Let's say it this way: Small blocks are in favor of anti-democratic, pseudo-elitist nationalists with a restricted capability to speak and discuss.

And by all their anti-democratic yelling they don't even ask who should controll those who are ruling.

[Bergmann_Christoph]

Ha!

KnC joined the team classic.

With antpool and bw.com they now have more than 35% of the haspower.

With Coinbase, BitStamp and OKCoin major exchanges are on board.

If btcchina, bitfury and bitfinex join, it's done.

You're right, hdbuck & all.: this is not a democracy. There are forces who decide, whether you like it or not.

[btcusury]

LOL. Comical Ali from the Front National still believes that their alliance with North Korea will win the battle.

NK is Marxist; FN opposes Marxists.  

Zarathustra  

LOL. Right wing collectivists and left wing collectivists are essentially the same. Mirror images of each other. Judean Peoples Front (JPF) 'against' the People's Front of Judea (PFJ).
Their hooligans are sitting in the same stadium.
As we all know, the soviet marxists turned their hyperflexible necks easily from marxism to fascism, because all of you represent the same kind of 'humans': Collectivists marching in fours behind a totalitarian Führer. The opposition to your left- and rightwing collectivist fronts are the anarchists. We are spitting at the door of the stadium.

Zarathustra, I think you are wrong about your perception of the Bitcoin ph0rking phenomena, but about this you are correct, in that you are seeing a bigger picture than iCEBREAKER.

Yes, FN are more honest, less obfuscatory, more reasonable, more populist, than the "leftist" groups, and yes, JM LePen and even his daughter have been saying and are saying far more of what is representative of the people of France despite the false picture painted by the MSM... but both "sides" (of the same statist coin) are indeed absolutely collectivists, and it's THAT that is the actual underlying, root problem. We all awaken to this understanding eventually. iCEBREAKER, I strongly recommend you check this out:

Mark Passio Interviews Larken Rose - The Religion of Statism

Remember folks, the picture one has of what's going on is largely dependent on the sources of information one chooses to expose oneself to. Broaden your sources!

There still isn't clarity if this is a 2MB kick the can proposal, and 2MB immediate, and 4MB later proposal , or and 2MB immediate and doubling every 2 years BIP 101 style proposal. (We are also unaware of the specifics to the hardfork transition) Since the normal BIP process isn't being followed and no whitepaper exists, I cannot give my opinion on Bitcoin Classic. I would suggest that I do find it backwards and disheartening that so many are ACk'ing a proposal that isn't even clarified formally in either a whitepaper, BIP, or code which should all come before people judge it, IMHO.

Voting for this at this moment appears to be more of a political anti-vote against core than any technical vote upon the merits of the proposal.

Exactly. Almost certainly the results of a plan, i.e. a deliberate propaganda effort to promote a "problem" in order to generate a reaction which is geared toward the introduction of the "solution" (XT, Classic). As iCEBREAKER put it, it's "an imaginary solution in search of a problem."

Don't get it twisted the totalitarians are the forkers attempting to subvert Bitcoin with the tyranny of the majority.

I know it's the oldest trick in the book to point fingers and say the other one did it but you're not 5 years old, are you?

Finally: Jeff is leaving the sinking ship of the Totalitarians. I never understood why he tried to compromise with the compromised for so many month. This was a promising day:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/40tuhy/the_bitcoin_community_should_get_behind_bitcoin/

A quick glance at Jeff Garzik's twitter reveals him to be a bit of a clueless statist and MSM consumer... skilled as he may be in terms of coding and crypto. Is it really a "coincidence" that Gavin and Hearn are the same?

[Lauda]

You guys have started directly attacking each other; this does not benefit anyone and the "discussion" is pretty useless then. How about you guys shift your focus to something else?

The funny thing is, I'm absolutely sure, our small block fanatics are nothing but important or rich by themselves.

It is not as simple as small block proponents vs big blockers. It is more about the conservative side vs the impatient side, however there are different "groups" that are currently present.

Currently we are in a strange situation. Most people want to scale Bitcoin and want that as many people as possible enjoy bitcoin. The core dev's problem is that they care too much and fear larger blocks will hurt decentralization. Without wanting it they support with this the other group which thinks bitcoin should be a privilegium.

The thing is: except from a tiny minority everyone here wants to bringt bitcoin to as many people as possible.

The developers are working on a proposal to scale short term before improving the infrastructure and scaling again. SegWit will bring the needed space within a few months.

Classic..

They don't even have code. Classic is a huge joke IMO. However, I wouldn't mind if this eventually forces Core to bump to 2 MB. It is actually sad how you guys forget everything due to being manipulated by others.

[Bergmann_Christoph]

You guys have started directly attacking each other; this does not benefit anyone and the "discussion" is pretty useless then. How about you guys shift your focus to something else?

I complain about this for days. But as long as it was just small block militia attacking everyone else you didn't care.

The funny thing is, I'm absolutely sure, our small block fanatics are nothing but important or rich by themselves.

It is not as simple as small block proponents vs big blockers. It is more about the conservative side vs the impatient side, however there are different "groups" that are currently present.

You are no small block fanatic. I think I made clear enough what kind of people and mindset here I mean with "small block militia". You have reasons, you are open to arguments and you have another capacity to express than yelling and insulting.

Conservative vs. impatient, gold vs payment may be good for some arguments. But what we see here, organized by a couple of posters, has nothing to do with arguments. I tried to discuss, but I don't see any sense in it as long as these characters dominate the threads. I just stay here to let them not possess the battlefield completely and warn other users.

Currently we are in a strange situation. Most people want to scale Bitcoin and want that as many people as possible enjoy bitcoin. The core dev's problem is that they care too much and fear larger blocks will hurt decentralization. Without wanting it they support with this the other group which thinks bitcoin should be a privilegium.

The thing is: except from a tiny minority everyone here wants to bringt bitcoin to as many people as possible.

The developers are working on a proposal to scale short term before improving the infrastructure and scaling again. SegWit will bring the needed space within a few months.

I know, I know, I know. Maybe it will be ok, than everything is good, but I think it will come to late and will be not enough.

Classic..

They don't even have code. Classic is a huge joke IMO. However, I wouldn't mind if this eventually forces Core to bump to 2 MB.

They don't need so much code, they just change blocksize with an xt-like voting to 2MB. And as long as they have the support of major miners they will succeed with it.

if this forces Code to bump to 2 MB it would also be ok. Some people of team big block think we should get rid of core. I don't think so, I believe them to be of a great value for Bitcoin.

edit: why did you add this?

It is actually sad how you guys forget everything due to being manipulated by others.

If you say everybody supporting bigger blocks is manipulated you attack their intelligence. This makes discussion, as you say, completely useless, because you reject the idea big blocker could have valid arguments. If you know that their arguments are just manipulation, you can stopp thinking.

[hdbuck]

You guys have started directly attacking each other; this does not benefit anyone and the "discussion" is pretty useless then. How about you guys shift your focus to something else?

The funny thing is, I'm absolutely sure, our small block fanatics are nothing but important or rich by themselves.

It is not as simple as small block proponents vs big blockers. It is more about the conservative side vs the impatient side, however there are different "groups" that are currently present.

Currently we are in a strange situation. Most people want to scale Bitcoin and want that as many people as possible enjoy bitcoin. The core dev's problem is that they care too much and fear larger blocks will hurt decentralization. Without wanting it they support with this the other group which thinks bitcoin should be a privilegium.

The thing is: except from a tiny minority everyone here wants to bringt bitcoin to as many people as possible.

The developers are working on a proposal to scale short term before improving the infrastructure and scaling again. SegWit will bring the needed space within a few months.

Classic..

They don't even have code. Classic is a huge joke IMO. However, I wouldn't mind if this eventually forces Core to bump to 2 MB. It is actually sad how you guys forget everything due to being manipulated by others.

I applaud your bravery debunking the forkers wannabes, yet you still cling on to the idea taht the blocksize should be raised to fix the scaling non-issue.

Bitcoin is not meant to scale on the protocol level because it will foster centralization and introduce attack vectors.

Poeple got brainwashed by the antonopoulos socialist propaganda that bitcoin will save the world and other gavineries populist nonsense.

This are lies I am done argumenting politely. It is time people realise what bitcoin is and is not.

I've personnaly come to the conclusion that scaling bitcoin will only be possible and effective via offchain solutions and corporations will ahve to abide to new transparent business models and standards if they ever want to get some customers.

Although bitcoin would still not care about corporation failing and reddit whatnots being scammed.

 

[Lauda]

I complain about this for days. But as long as it was just small block militia attacking everyone else you didn't care.

Some people tend to overreact.

You are no small block fanatic. I think I made clear enough what kind of people and mindset here I mean with "small block militia". You have reasons, you are open to arguments and you have another capacity to express than yelling and insulting.

I'm definitely not. I'm open to various scaling solutions that are conservative and can be deemed as safe (i.e. 2 MB block size/SegWit/other).

I know, I know, I know. Maybe it will be ok, than everything is good, but I think it will come to late and will be not enough.

It should be okay. Testnet is running right now and tests are being done.

They don't need so much code, they just change blocksize with an xt-like voting to 2MB. And as long as they have the support of major miners they will succeed with it.
if this forces Code to bump to 2 MB it would also be ok. Some people of team big block think we should get rid of core. I don't think so, I believe them to be of a great value for Bitcoin.

If it is easy to code it what are they waiting for then? This is why it is suspicious for me. I could edit the code to 2 MB myself without knowledge of the required languages.

If you say everybody supporting bigger blocks is manipulated you attack their intelligence. This makes discussion, as you say, completely useless, because you reject the idea big blocker could have valid arguments. If you know that their arguments are just manipulation, you can stopp thinking.

With this I meant people are being manipulated so that they forget the original statements/stances of others. Interestingly at first 20 MB blocks were urgent, now a 2 MB compromise is okay. This is what I'm talking about.

I applaud your bravery debunking the forkers wannabes, yet you still cling on to the idea taht the blocksize should be raised to fix the scaling non-issue.
Bitcoin is not meant to scale on the protocol level because it will foster centralization and introduce attack vectors.

Why do you think so? The most easiest change would be a block size increase which might not be safe right now (depending on the size), but it certainly is going to be safe someday. e.g. 10 MB blocks might not be safe today, but with the development of technology it might be safe in 5 years (random numbers). This does not introduce attack vectors; scaling based on speculation (BIP 101 and XT) is dangerous though.

[Bergmann_Christoph]

I complain about this for days. But as long as it was just small block militia attacking everyone else you didn't care.

Some people tend to overreact.

You are no small block fanatic. I think I made clear enough what kind of people and mindset here I mean with "small block militia". You have reasons, you are open to arguments and you have another capacity to express than yelling and insulting.

I'm definitely not. I'm open to various scaling solutions that are conservative and can be deemed as safe (i.e. 2 MB block size/SegWit/other).

I know, I know, I know. Maybe it will be ok, than everything is good, but I think it will come to late and will be not enough.

It should be okay. Testnet is running right now and tests are being done.

So we see it technically nearly identical. I think we most differ politically.

They don't need so much code, they just change blocksize with an xt-like voting to 2MB. And as long as they have the support of major miners they will succeed with it.
if this forces Code to bump to 2 MB it would also be ok. Some people of team big block think we should get rid of core. I don't think so, I believe them to be of a great value for Bitcoin.

If it is easy to code it what are they waiting for then? This is why it is suspicious for me. I could edit the code to 2 MB myself without knowledge of the required languages.

Don't know. But I don't think this to be suspicous. Maybe they are enhencing the voting-mechanism? maybe they want to get more people on board before releasing the code? We'll see.

If you say everybody supporting bigger blocks is manipulated you attack their intelligence. This makes discussion, as you say, completely useless, because you reject the idea big blocker could have valid arguments. If you know that their arguments are just manipulation, you can stopp thinking.

With this I meant people are being manipulated so that they forget the original statements/stances of others. Interestingly at first 20 MB blocks were urgent, now a 2 MB compromise is okay. This is what I'm talking about.

Nobody forgot. Some people, like me, call this consens-finding resp finding of a compromise.

[hdbuck]

I applaud your bravery debunking the forkers wannabes, yet you still cling on to the idea taht the blocksize should be raised to fix the scaling non-issue.
Bitcoin is not meant to scale on the protocol level because it will foster centralization and introduce attack vectors.

Why do you think so? The most easiest change would be a block size increase which might not be safe right now (depending on the size), but it certainly is going to be safe someday. e.g. 10 MB blocks might not be safe today, but with the development of technology it might be safe in 5 years (random numbers). This does not introduce attack vectors; scaling based on speculation (BIP 101 and XT) is dangerous though.

Think twice before posting such contradictory out of gavin's ass sorta hypothetical nonsense.

PS: Moore is dead.

[Lauda]

Pro tip: read yourself twice before posting such contradictory hypothetical nonsense.

PS: Moore is dead.

You're the one who fails to understand basic concepts. I never said that we should increase blocksize to X in X amount of time, I was making an example. I said that it is possible that the network can safely take a much bigger block size in the future. We would only know this by running tests at said time; only after those tests are successful would we increase the block size. This is not contradictory nor nonsense. Either get a degree in IT or stop posting false information related to what the network can take and what it can not.

So we see it technically nearly identical. I think we most differ politically.

That's possible but I'm not into politics nor am I familiar with many terms due to English not being my native language.

Don't know. But I don't think this to be suspicous. Maybe they are enhencing the voting-mechanism? maybe they want to get more people on board before releasing the code? We'll see.

They're planning something.

Nobody forgot. Some people, like me, call this consens-finding resp finding of a compromise.

The word 'urgent' is contradictory to a compromise. If something is urgent you can't compromise on something much lesser, else it was not urgent in the first place.
Something nice from IRC:

They're at it again. Bitcoin XT/Unlimited/Classic developers are shilling emotionally charged rhetoric declaring the failure of Bitcoin. These blog posts are promoted by their connections in the (((international media))) to try to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt [nytimes.com] around the status of Bitcoin and bully people into accepting their suicidal "solutions" to problems that don't really exist [medium.com] involving block size limits.

[BitUsher]

Don't know. But I don't think this to be suspicous. Maybe they are enhencing the voting-mechanism? maybe they want to get more people on board before releasing the code? We'll see.

They're planning something.

Perhaps no code is needed because they prefer to reconcile with Core as the differences between both implementations are so small that all they need to accomplish is get enough consensus to bring Core around to the idea of a hardfork in 2016?

Consensus is soon, I just wish there were more details as to what Bitcoin Classic represents as I cannot give my opinion on the matters until there is.

My best guess is that it is a 2 -4 plan with Segwit hardforked???
https://bitcoinclassic.consider.it/merge-3-v0112-2mb-4mb?results=true

Miners supporting Classic

    Bitmain/Antpool - 27%
    BitFury - 13%
    BW.COM - 4%
    HAOBTC.com -
    KnCMiner - 5%
    Genesis Mining

= over 49%

Companies supporting Classic

    Coinbase
    OKCoin
    Bitstamp
    Foldapp
    Bitcoin.com
    Bread Wallet
    Snapcard.io
    Cubits


Developers

    Jonathan Toomim
    Gavin Andresen
    Ahmed Bodiwala
    Jeff Garzik
    Peter Rizun



Hopefully there will be some reconciliation between Core and Classic and the can find consensus together as there is a lot of support and talent within both groups.

[xyzzy099]

Developers

    Jonathan Toomim
    Gavin Andresen
    Ahmed Bodiwala
    Jeff Garzik
    Peter Rizun



Hopefully there will be some reconciliation between Core and Classic and the can find consensus together as there is a lot of support and talent within both groups.

What does Peter Rizun develop exactly?

[Lauda]

Developers

    Jonathan Toomim
    Gavin Andresen
    Ahmed Bodiwala
    Jeff Garzik
    Peter Rizun

What does Peter Rizun develop exactly?

I was just about to ask the same question. He does nothing and is full of nonsense. They'd put anyone on that list just to show that they have support.
Hearn is a manipulative person.

I don't know what time it is, but any minute now there will be a New York Times article saying Mike Hearn broke up with Bitcoin and called it a failed experiment.

Well played R3CEV.

[BitUsher]

Developers

    Jonathan Toomim
    Gavin Andresen
    Ahmed Bodiwala
    Jeff Garzik
    Peter Rizun

What does Peter Rizun develop exactly?

I was just about to ask the same question. He does nothing and is full of nonsense. They'd put anyone on that list just to show that they have support.

Fair Enough ... He does maintain and code - Bitcoin unlimited... although some would be correct to question his abilities as a developer. Smart of them to remove Marshall Long from their list.

I wasn't expecting Bitfury to jump on board as they have been primarily conservative with blocksizes. One thing to be aware of is not just the total hashing power but the total combined ASIC manufacturing in support of classic now ... Between KnCMiner, Bitmain/antminer, and Bitfury that is most of the ASICs being produced these days. Bitfury alone is believed to have a chip that could increase their hashing percentage from 13% to over 50% if they didn't resell them...

Classic and Core need to start collaborating, and give up a bit for the good of consensus. Perhaps Segwit released softfork in 1-2 months and than a 2-4 hardfork BIP later in 2016 with collaboration between all devs.