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

[Zarathustra]

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.

 

What? Collaborate with the totalitarian idiots?
Game over for Core:

https://twitter.com/valeryvavilov/status/688054411650818048?s=09
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/413w2s/check_out_bitcoinclassics_miners_support_list_now/cyzd9ds

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

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.

There will be no collaboration between Classic and Core - Core's objectives will never align with Classic. There was plenty of opportunity to reach agreement, but I think we are well past that now. The community will be offered an alternative to Core, with an alternative roadmap for segwit-like functionality, and it will be a free choice to run with it or run with Core.

Thats what bitcoin was always about. If you dont like what one product does, you can fork off to another.  

Over 50% Mining behind Classic now, Its not looking good for Core.

[BitUsher]

There will be no collaboration between Classic and Core - Core's objectives will never align with Classic. There was plenty of opportunity to reach agreement, but I think we are well past that now. The community will be offered an alternative to Core, with an alternative roadmap for segwit-like functionality, and it will be a free choice to run with it or run with Core.

Thats what bitcoin was always about. If you dont like what one product does, you can fork off to another.  

You think its a good idea to alienate 45 developers and replace them with 5? Even if half of those core devs start contributing towards classic eventually that will be a huge loss for our community ... all in the name of what? Bitterness? Hopefully both groups can move beyond this for the sake of everyone,.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIt7GLxxIpY
 

[Lauda]

You think its a good idea to alienate 45 developers and replace them with 5? Even if half of those core devs start contributing towards classic eventually that will be a huge loss for our community ... all in the name of what? Bitterness? Hopefully both groups can move beyond this for the sake of everyone,.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIt7GLxxIpY

Of course it is a bad idea. What people also seem to forget with such moves is that it is not about the miners.

<Luke-Jr> what matters there is the economy: NewEgg, TigerDirect, etc

The value of the (almost) "unspendable" coins would quickly approach dust like levels. Do these guys proposing takeovers do not realize this? There are way too many players in the ecosystem and they risk them (if they stay on the wrong chain and whatnot). It would be perfect if we could work together, but perfection is non existent in this world.

Most of those merchants will simply follow Coinbase and Bitpay which both are in favor increasing this year with a hardfork. The chinese miners seem the most reasonable as they have such narrow margins and large investments that they want the talent of the 45 Core devs , but with the consensus of the community to come together.

We can only hope that 'most' means almost everyone (99%) stays on the right chain.

[BitUsher]

You think its a good idea to alienate 45 developers and replace them with 5? Even if half of those core devs start contributing towards classic eventually that will be a huge loss for our community ... all in the name of what? Bitterness? Hopefully both groups can move beyond this for the sake of everyone,.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIt7GLxxIpY

Of course it is a bad idea. What people also seem to forget with such moves is that it is not about the miners.

<Luke-Jr> what matters there is the economy: NewEgg, TigerDirect, etc

The value of the (almost) "unspendable" coins would quickly approach dust like levels. Do these guys proposing takeovers do not realize this? There are way too many players in the ecosystem and they risk them (if they stay on the wrong chain and whatnot). It would be perfect if we could work together, but perfection is non existent in this world.

Most of those merchants will simply follow Coinbase and Bitpay which both are in favor increasing this year with a hardfork. The chinese miners seem the most reasonable as they have such narrow margins and large investments that they want the talent of the 45 Core devs , but with the consensus of the community to come together.

This hardfork discussion has renewed my faith in the fact that increasing the 21 million limit will never happen ever .... If doing something as small as increasing maxBlockSize from 1-2 MB is so contentious , we are safe from Inflation, blacklists, and KYC ever being added to the protocol.

[Peter R]

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.

Lauda, I understand that you think my fee market work [paper, talk] is wrong; do you think Subchains [paper, animations] are nonsense too?

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

There will be no collaboration between Classic and Core - Core's objectives will never align with Classic. There was plenty of opportunity to reach agreement, but I think we are well past that now. The community will be offered an alternative to Core, with an alternative roadmap for segwit-like functionality, and it will be a free choice to run with it or run with Core.

Thats what bitcoin was always about. If you dont like what one product does, you can fork off to another.  

You think its a good idea to alienate 45 developers and replace them with 5? Even if half of those core devs start contributing towards classic eventually that will be a huge loss for our community ... all in the name of what? Bitterness? Hopefully both groups can move beyond this for the sake of everyone,.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIt7GLxxIpY
 

Its a lot more than 5, mate. Most existing core contributors are welcome to join, I dont believe there is any issue in that respect - its a free choice.

As for bitterness - I will leave that to others.

edit: looks like even peterTodd has dropped into Classic for a chat......

[Lauda]

Lauda, I understand that you think my fee market work [paper, talk] is wrong; do you think Subchains [paper, animations] are nonsense too?

It is wrong. You think it is right but you can't really prove this anyhow. I have only quickly looked at the subchains and I can't quickly judge, but they seem rather interesting (I'd need a 3rd party opinion first unless I read it soon). This doesn't answer the question though and is somewhat off-topic; what are you developing? Probably nothing; if this is the case they should move you from the Developers list.

[Peter R]

I have only quickly looked at the subchains and I can't quickly judge, but they seem rather interesting (I'd need a 3rd party opinion first unless I read it soon).

Glad to hear you think Subchains are interesting!  There are several of us that hope to continue developing them through Unlimited and Classic, in cooperation with some of the bigger miners.

what are you developing? Probably nothing...

Do you mean what am I writing code for?  I haven't written much Bitcoin-related code since working on Sigsafe [video, paper, dev] last year.  

If instead you mean what am I working on, well one of the things I'm working on is to make "Unlimited" the preferred client for users and "Classic" the preferred client for miners.  I see these two implementations as not only complementary, but symbiotic.  I'm working on getting the first 1.1 MB block mined into the Blockchain and decentralizing development away from Core.  

You do bring up a good point with the semantics behind the word "developer" though.  Due to perhaps some historical accident, there is a lot of emphasis placed on "writing code" in the Bitcoin community and less emphasis on scientific research and engineering development (and even less emphasis on the social sciences).  As Bitcoin matures in industry and academia, I wonder if we'll adopt labels such as "researcher", "engineer," "programmer," "scholar," etc.

One of my goals with Ledger was to build an academic and interdisciplinary communication channel that would allow bright minds in economics, sociology, physics, law and political science to contribute at the highest-level towards the evolution of Bitcoin--something previously dominated by those writing the code.  One of the ideas I'm working on is the "five sectors of cryptocurrency knowledge" shown below:



I like this diagram because "consensus and mining" is right in the middle where (IMO) it belongs.  Bitcoin achieves consensus not for technical reasons alone, but because of the interaction between technology and the people running that technology.

The "Bitcoin System" boundary encloses not only the node software and mining hardware--it encloses each and every one of us too.

[jonald_fyookball]

The Coon strikes again!

[btcusury]

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.

Why is it that "big blockists" (impatient/reckless side) keep insisting that "small blockists" (conservative/careful side) want to stay at 1MB? The issue is the way it's being introduced as a contentious/risky hard fork. Since others have already thoroughly explained this and since everyone loves to bash theymos for his moderation/censorship, I'll just quote his whole post, so that you have no excuse to continue to ignore the term "hard fork" and call it merely a "proposal":

I suppose that's true, but Theymos' propositions are still incredibly harsh on any change whatsoever.

No, I support making a certain class of change (hard fork changes) very difficult. This the only correct position. If hard fork changes are not very difficult, then the hard, "mathematical" guarantees that we have about Bitcoin such as coin ownership and limited supply are pretty much worthless.

(Did you know that it's possible to increase the max block size with a soft fork using a proposal called extension blocks? This proposal isn't very popular because it's considered inelegant, but if consensus is impossible and you think that Bitcoin cannot survive without more transaction volume, then extension blocks would be better than splitting the economy up with a hostile hard fork. You don't need the same level of consensus for soft forks.)

My main motivation is for Bitcoin to succeed long-term (for ideological reasons). I have less potential conflict of interest than most people here, since I am self-employed.

Things I don't particularly care about:
- The value of bitcointalk.org, /r/Bitcoin, and bitcoin.org
- The short & medium-term market value of BTC
- My personal fame/power/reputation/wealth
- What random people who I don't know or respect think about what I'm doing

Things I do care about:
- Bitcoin's long-term decentralization
- The long-term ability of Bitcoin to provide anonymity
- The long-term price/usefulness of BTC
- Rational technical/economic arguments

To a large extent, the above is why have I have so much power in the community. I didn't create any of the important things that I now have some amount of control over -- in all cases I was given control by other people who trusted that I would do the right thing with them. Here's what /r/Bitcoin's creator recently said: "Theymos doesn't kneel, he doesn't sacrifice and is willing to stand up for what HE believes to be true, rather than some external authority."

And this is exactly the kind of asset we'd want controlling centralized discussion hubs.

I do get the strong impression that most of the "big blockists" are thinking very short-term, not quite realizing what decentralized ledgers mean to the banksters and their subtle puppets on the thrones.

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.

And very short-term memory, indeed. We have been trained to be led; it's what many of us are used to.

[btcusury]

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

Don't you think then, if that really is the case, that Bitcoin has failed?

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

That's an interesting perception. Do you feel that the world isn't in need of "saving"?

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

I'm not sure any of us really know exactly what Bitcoin is (as in what it will become)... Let me ask you this: Can you sum up your understanding of the legacy economic system?

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.

Given how fast things change in the crypto space, are you sure that isn't a bit of a premature conclusion?

I like this diagram because "consensus and mining" is right in the middle where (IMO) it belongs.  Bitcoin achieves consensus not for technical reasons alone, but because of the interaction between technology and the people running that technology.

The "Bitcoin System" boundary encloses not only the node software and mining hardware--it encloses each and every one of us too.

While I find some of the things you've put out to be... questionable and sometimes even absurd... this I like! That's a great way to visualize the way we each are compartmentalized in regards to our understanding of Bitcoin, cryptocurrency, the decentralized ledger technology, and decentralization. Many people are ignoring some or many of those "sectors". To me the toughest one to grasp is #1, but I'm getting there. My primary area of research has been #5. I'd suggest we all make use of this chart to notice where our understanding might be weak, helping lead to a more wholistic understanding of what it is we really are dealing with.

Well done, Peter R, "big blockist" or not!

[DooMAD]

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

Don't you think then, if that really is the case, that Bitcoin has failed?

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

That's an interesting perception. Do you feel that the world isn't in need of "saving"?

The reason he doesn't want the system to scale on the protocol level is because he wants that level to be the elitist and privileged level.  The clear message to everyone else is "GTFO my chain, peasants" and to hell with the rest of the world.  Force everyone else onto a less secure and more centralised level.  He's been quite clear about his true goals in all this.  I personally don't see Bitcoin as a get-rich-quick scheme.  I think when the legacy economic system does inevitably collapse into some gaping debt vortex, Bitcoin shouldn't just be there to create a new 1% to replace the old one.  Obviously it can't help everyone, but I'd like to see it benefit more than just a few lucky people who got in early.  If that makes me a filthy socialist then so be it.  

[foxbitcoin]

Mile Hearn is the most influential XT shill. He is supporting big block size increase. Due to his giving up bitcoin, it caused the price crash 20% in one day. You guys are against big block shills, what is the matter of their opinion? why do you dump bitcoin?

[hdbuck]

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

Don't you think then, if that really is the case, that Bitcoin has failed?

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

That's an interesting perception. Do you feel that the world isn't in need of "saving"?

The reason he doesn't want the system to scale on the protocol level is because he wants that level to be the elitist and privileged level.  The clear message to everyone else is "GTFO my chain, peasants" and to hell with the rest of the world.  Force everyone else onto a less secure and more centralised level. He's been quite clear about his true goals in all this.  I personally don't see Bitcoin as a get-rich-quick scheme.  I think when the legacy economic system does inevitably collapse into some gaping debt vortex, Bitcoin shouldn't just be there to create a new 1% to replace the old one.  Obviously it can't help everyone, but I'd like to see it benefit more than just a few lucky people who got in early.  If that makes me a filthy socialist then so be it.  

Fuck you the bolded part is exactly what i am against. You poor scumbag are irrelevant to saving whatsoever in the damn world and I do not give a shit about your opinion.

Raising the bocksize will only lead to a more centralised fedcoin. Ergo Hearn R3CEV banking shit.

Bitcoin as a get-rich-quick scheme?!

FUCK YOU AGAIN I GOT ALL MY TIME FOR YOU NOOBS GETTING OUT OF BITCOIN, EVEN IF IT HAS TO DROP BACK <10$.

[hdbuck]

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.

Making example^TM?!  

I know by fact that the current bitcoin protocol by which I abided and invested was the one not allowing on chain mass adoption scaling coffee tipping bullshit whilst staying in the reach of low technology hardware so everybody got their access to it.

So sorry I am not AWS/USG/BITPAY/SPV/COINBASE/WALLSTREET PUSSY MUNCHER.

[hdbuck]

But hey, if you bitches prefer it by Peter Rizun coding shit, go for the fucking it.

Good riddance!

The sooner the better noobs.

[Cconvert2G36]

But hey, if you bitches prefer it by Peter Rizun coding shit, go for the fucking it.
Good riddance! The sooner the better noobs.

How's your day going hdbuck? Seems that they're coming at you from all sides... Power Rangers want segwit signature separation for old nodes... Classic has endorsement from 50% of the hashrate... eek.

[iCEBREAKER]

Over 50% Mining behind Classic now, Its not looking good for Core.

It's easy getting people to support glittering generalities and project their desires onto nebulous, feel-good project pitches.

Actual software engineering is much harder, especially when done by a committee of competing companies and ideological frenemies.

Did you see what happened when Gavinista idealism met reality, as they tried to design Unlimited?

It was an epic fail.  Even Frap.doc's tiny group at bitco.in couldn't find a Schelling point and decide on exactly WTF they were doing.

The wheels came off as the dev lost patience with the endless dithering over whether or not Unlimited would really be literally unlimited.

Recursive nested loops of bikeshedding slowed progress to a halt, then reversed it.

Most hilariously of all, Frap.doc reverted to his ugly attack dog persona and the mod deleted (sensor shipped) his shit posts.


With more cooks in the kitchen, the same fate awaits _Classic as its proponents, while temporarily united with their anti-Core Do Something Now feelings, will be unable to agree on

-RBF (full or FSS or neither?)

-CLTV? (enables Evil Sidechains and Scary Lightning and tainted by The Todd)

-SegWit (if Blockstream is for it, should _Classic be against it?)

-timing (2MB Right Fucking Now or at the halving or )

-trigger (OrganOfCorti showed 75% is the worst possible threshold...or did he???)

-algorithm (after 2MB, when/how is the move to 4MB?  Sudden or smooth?  And after that?  Repeat all of the above?)


As Theymos said "Bitcoin Classic...is poised to be the greatest cryptocurrency since Bitcoin XT."

Welcome to the Bikeshed from Hell, bitch!   

[theymos]

Looks like Classic isn't so "democratic" after all: https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/pull/6