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

[siameze]

A nullcoin in the making:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41ps56/q_for_gregory_maxwell_would_it_be_within/cz49v1l

If miners want to play dictators, going separate ways seems logic.
Bitcoin certainly does not need 4 corporate mastodonte ruling over.

http://qntra.net/2016/01/recent-bitcoin-direction/

Y'all been warned.


http://deedbot.org/deed-393913-1.txt

To any miners contemplating deserting Bitcoin in favour of pursuing an USG-sponsored would-be competitor :

1. Bear in mind that the actual Bitcoin chain, with a patch to disable current ASIC miners, will continue to exist, and will continue to be used.

2. Make sure that you obtain ~upfront~ payment sufficient to cover whatever The Most Serene Republic might dump on your alternate chain plus whatever you yourselves need to sell in order to cover your own costs. You will not be able to return after you leave, nor will your capital goods have any further utility in this world.

3. Remember that your pontifical "allies", while very much inclined to promise and posture, have an unbroken track record of not actually delivering upon those promises. In this case, as generally the case with them, they don't even actually have the resources to indemnify you in the first place.

That is all.

In other words, sorry for your loss. ^^

This sounds interesting, I was wondering when qntra would weigh in on this.

Point #2 sounds a bit ominous. I'm left wondering where all this will end up lately but it does seem as if these guys care about keeping Bitcoin free of gov influence.

[sgbett]

...
Point #2 sounds a bit ominous. I'm left wondering where all this will end up lately but it does seem as if these guys care about keeping Bitcoin free of gov influence.

Doesn't anyone else see the irony in the proposed solution to "keeping Bitcoin free of gov influence" is to make sure its only usable by a small group of elite's headed up my MP

Frying pan / Fire.

[Carlton Banks]

...
Point #2 sounds a bit ominous. I'm left wondering where all this will end up lately but it does seem as if these guys care about keeping Bitcoin free of gov influence.

Doesn't anyone else see the irony in the proposed solution to "keeping Bitcoin free of gov influence" is to make sure its only usable by a small group of elite's headed up my MP

Frying pan / Fire.

When your proposed solution is, what, exactly? To transfer influence over the code to an even smaller group of devs, sans their big friend, banking shill Mike Hearn?

Bitcoin already has dozens of devs competing to get good code into the client, and Bitcoin takeover shills (like yourself) can't change that for "Bitcoin Classic" with conceited statements any more than you could for "Bitcoin XT"

[Cconvert2G36]

Found another shill... a BIG one.

Either Loaded   is back... or his reddit account was compromised...

Edit: The author of the post indicates that they will provide a properly signed statement on Thurs.

[sgbett]

...
Point #2 sounds a bit ominous. I'm left wondering where all this will end up lately but it does seem as if these guys care about keeping Bitcoin free of gov influence.

Doesn't anyone else see the irony in the proposed solution to "keeping Bitcoin free of gov influence" is to make sure its only usable by a small group of elite's headed up my MP

Frying pan / Fire.

When your proposed solution is, what, exactly? To transfer influence over the code to an even smaller group of devs, sans their big friend, banking shill Mike Hearn?

Bitcoin already has dozens of devs competing to get good code into the client, and Bitcoin takeover shills (like yourself) can't change that for "Bitcoin Classic" with conceited statements any more than you could for "Bitcoin XT"

Hand waves, look at those guys building something else, they are the baddest, pay no attention to the guy overtly threatening to destroy things.

[jonald_fyookball]

...
Point #2 sounds a bit ominous. I'm left wondering where all this will end up lately but it does seem as if these guys care about keeping Bitcoin free of gov influence.

Doesn't anyone else see the irony in the proposed solution to "keeping Bitcoin free of gov influence" is to make sure its only usable by a small group of elite's headed up my MP

Frying pan / Fire.

When your proposed solution is, what, exactly? To transfer influence over the code to an even smaller group of devs, sans their big friend, banking shill Mike Hearn?

Bitcoin already has dozens of devs competing to get good code into the client, and Bitcoin takeover shills (like yourself) can't change that for "Bitcoin Classic" with conceited statements any more than you could for "Bitcoin XT"

No the idea is to decentralize development that way NO group of devs has much influence over the anything but their own implementation.
 

[Lauda]

No the idea is to decentralize development that way NO group of devs has much influence over the anything but their own implementation.

So that the CEO and the customers tell you what the best way of configuring the server (or network, whichever analogy you prefer) is, even though you're a server (or network) engineer? Does this make sense to you?
 
Let's not forget here that there would be a major change if something like Classic would take of:

think of this team of newbies (Gavin excluded, but he's not a permanent team member) taking control of the consensus rules?

Let's not forget the fact that 2 MB blocks essentially solve nothing. They kick the can down the road (the question is by how much).

[sgbett]

No the idea is to decentralize development that way NO group of devs has much influence over the anything but their own implementation.

So that the CEO and the customers tell you what the best way of configuring the server (or network, whichever analogy you prefer) is, even though you're a server (or network) engineer? Does this make sense to you?
 
Let's not forget here that there would be a major change if something like Classic would take of:

think of this team of newbies (Gavin excluded, but he's not a permanent team member) taking control of the consensus rules?

Let's not forget the fact that 2 MB blocks essentially solve nothing. They kick the can down the road (the question is by how much).

A client can do things. Miners decide if they use it. The ceo and customers can only petition the client maintainers.

Can kicking is preferable to nothing. Unless you have a strong motive to do nothing?

[Lauda]

A client can do things. Miners decide if they use it. The ceo and customers can only petition the client maintainers.

You must have misunderstood my point, but nevermind.

Can kicking is preferable to nothing. Unless you have a strong motive to do nothing?

In what world does SegWit equal to 'doing nothing'? The time needed for SegWit will probably be very similar to the time at which the fork would active (if Classic had enough support). So it is not really a question about time.

[BitUsher]

A client can do things. Miners decide if they use it. The ceo and customers can only petition the client maintainers.

Can kicking is preferable to nothing. Unless you have a strong motive to do nothing?

This is exactly what I am talking about. This is why I am can consider dumping the miners if they pick classic. It doesn't matter how many times we correct the misleading statements, they are being repeated ad nasseum over and over. I don't know if this is a deliberate tactic or they really have been propagandized so much that they believe the what they are saying.

One last time ... segwit has essentially the same capacity as bitcoin classic. It is "kicking the can" just the same and will likely be deployed faster than classic.... I really am getting sick of this mudslinging, conspiracy theories, and misrepresentations... If the SHA256 miners listen to this crowd than I want nothing to do with them ... I was open to using bitcoin classic in the past now I won't even consider touching it with my experience talking with their supporters...

[jonald_fyookball]

.. I was open to using bitcoin classic in the past now I won't even consider touching it with my experience talking with their supporters...

awww..billy gonna take his ball and go home?   

[BitUsher]

.. I was open to using bitcoin classic in the past now I won't even consider touching it with my experience talking with their supporters...

awww..billy gonna take his ball and go home?  

I am more puzzled and disappointing than upset as profit is a much lower priority to what interests me with bitcoin . You are another example of a bitcoin classic supporter who is very poorly educated and constantly spreading misinformation. Its almost as if you are a troll... but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are merely very misinformed.

[jonald_fyookball]

.. I was open to using bitcoin classic in the past now I won't even consider touching it with my experience talking with their supporters...

awww..billy gonna take his ball and go home?  

I am more puzzled and disappointing than upset as profit is a much lower priority to what interests me with bitcoin . You are another example of a bitcoin classic supporter who is very poorly educated and constantly spreading misinformation. Its almost as if you are a troll... but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are merely very misinformed.

Ok, so enlighten me then.  What's the #1 thing in your opinion that you believe I'm misinformed about?

[BitUsher]

.. I was open to using bitcoin classic in the past now I won't even consider touching it with my experience talking with their supporters...

awww..billy gonna take his ball and go home?  

I am more puzzled and disappointing than upset as profit is a much lower priority to what interests me with bitcoin . You are another example of a bitcoin classic supporter who is very poorly educated and constantly spreading misinformation. Its almost as if you are a troll... but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are merely very misinformed.

Ok, so enlighten me then.  What's the #1 thing in your opinion that you believe I'm misinformed about?

look through your own post history, I and others have seen you repeatedly spreading false statements:

Here is one example among many :

 That's why we're in this mess and should be
as obvious as the fact that the emperor is wearing no clothes.  Those that
can't tell have bought into some dogma that "core must be right" while ignoring
the obvious facts that Core has done nothing but stall and fail to increase
transaction capacity, despite a lot of good sounding "ideas" like "lightning",
"scalability conferences", "segwit",...and that the same guys in core (everyone
except Gavin and Garzik) who are against meaningful blocksize increases work
for a private company called Blockstream who is in the business of blockchain
technology.

I'm sure I sound like a broken record by now to some, but you asked me directly
and I'm telling you the reality as I see it.

In the statement above you are supporting the conspiracy theory that Core is delibretely and secretly stalling. You assert they are just spreading a lot of "ideas" or marketing rhetoric. The evidence, Code and testing,  suggests otherwise.

Than you go on to suggest the lie that everyone who works for core, "besides Gavin and Garzik"  who are against meaningful blocksize increases work for blockstream. Really? All remaining 43(active commits in 2015)  core devs either support large blocks or work for Blockstream?...You can't be serious, as this is easily dis-proven.

[Carlton Banks]

you can't be serious, as this is easily dis-proven.

Oh but he is, and him and Veritas Sapere will argue with you all day long about who turns the handle that runs Niagara Falls, or how Michael Jackson was actually neither black or white. Amongst other non-sequiturs.

[jonald_fyookball]

In the statement above you are supporting the conspiracy theory that Core is delibretely and secretly stalling.

I don't know how secret it is, but yes I believe they intend to delay increases in blocksize for
as long as they can and minimize their magnitude.  It's no secret that Greg Maxwell has
been against increasing the blocksize, at least any time soon.

I believe keeping the blocksize limit fits with their business model.
Blockstream has funded development of LN, and
obviously they need to create profits somewhere.

Sorry BitUsher, but I don't see that I've been misinformed about anything.  

I know you believe that I'm not seeing things clearly.
And I in turn, believe you are not seeing things clearly.
(Specifically, that we easily can and should increase main chain capacity now,
but that Blockstream doesn't want to do it for business reasons.)
 
Both sides of the debate have their opinions and biases
and both sides feel they have good reasons and are right.

I'm ok with others having a different opinion than me.
 



  

[BitUsher]

In the statement above you are supporting the conspiracy theory that Core is delibretely and secretly stalling.

I don't know how secret it is, but yes I believe they intend to delay increases in blocksize for
as long as they can and minimize their magnitude.  It's no secret that Greg Maxwell has
been against increasing the blocksize, at least any time soon.

I believe keeping the blocksize limit fits with their business model.
Blockstream has funded development of LN, and
obviously they need to create profits somewhere.

Sorry BitUsher, but I don't see that I've been misinformed about anything.  

I know you believe that I'm not seeing things clearly.
And I in turn, believe you are not seeing things clearly.
(Specifically, that we easily can and should increase main chain capacity now,
but that Blockstream doesn't want to do it for business reasons.)
 
Both sides of the debate have their opinions and biases
and both sides feel they have good reasons and are right.

I'm ok with others having a different opinion than me.

So you stand behind your statement ".and that the same guys in core (everyone
except Gavin and Garzik) who are against meaningful blocksize increases work
for a private company called Blockstream" as well ? How do you rationalize this lie?

(Specifically, that we easily can and should increase main chain capacity now,
but that Blockstream doesn't want to do it for business reasons.)

There you go again... deliberately misleading the general public ... you can't just help yourself can you?
To others reading : The reality is SegWit has the same effective capacity increase as Bitcoin classic and is on schedule
 and will likely be released sooner than Bitcoin classic.

[jonald_fyookball]

So you stand behind your statement ".and that the same guys in core (everyone
except Gavin and Garzik) who are against meaningful blocksize increases work
for a private company called Blockstream" as well ? How do you rationalize this lie?

generalization (ok not "EVERYONE" who has made a commit) but
you can see some info here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/

[BitUsher]

So you stand behind your statement ".and that the same guys in core (everyone
except Gavin and Garzik) who are against meaningful blocksize increases work
for a private company called Blockstream" as well ? How do you rationalize this lie?

generalization (ok not "EVERYONE" who has made a commit) but
you can see some info here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/

So 8 of the remaining 43 work for blockstream. Are you suggesting most of the other 35 are big block supporters too?

You call 8 out of 43 only a generalization to represent everyone! You can't see how that isn't somewhat misleading if not completely distorted?

[jonald_fyookball]

So you stand behind your statement ".and that the same guys in core (everyone
except Gavin and Garzik) who are against meaningful blocksize increases work
for a private company called Blockstream" as well ? How do you rationalize this lie?

generalization (ok not "EVERYONE" who has made a commit) but
you can see some info here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/

So 8 of the remaining 43 work for blockstream. Are you suggesting most of the other 35 are big block supporters too?

You call 8 out of 43 only a generalization to represent everyone! You can't see how that isn't somewhat misleading if not completely distorted?

Some are far more influential than others obviously.  Why don't you add up the commits (excluding Gavin and garzik) and see how far off I was.  Have fun

We all know core won't do anything without "consensus" so it might as well be everyone as its most of the major voices.