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

[franky1]

I heard that Toomim is a stoner and Rizun is a charlatan who farms spherical cows.  

Both are correct.

So let's remove the alert keys from a known and very trustworthy person of the community where there has been zero evidence of any kind of potential abuse? Smart move. Who should get access to this kind of key; Toomin, Rizun?  What a joke.

I didn't mean to imply I approved or disapproved of the move. I don't vote.

I wasn't talking to you directly although it might seem like I was. I'm talking about those who voted in favor.

i think those that voted for removing theymos, was because theymos has already shown public bias and censorship towards gavins proposals..
(moving posts in favour to gavins proposals to the altcoin category, and also the drama on reddit that is biased against gavins proposals)

so i think some would assume that theymos might send out malicious alerts to scare people from using it.

to be honest i no longer care about gavin, theymos, lukejr or gmaxwell personal opinions. i havent even bothered to find out who toomim is.. its all just drama.. all that should be made important is the code itself and what the code will or wont do.

putting the code into scenario's is important.. but the social drama is starting to over shadow what bitcoin is really about. CODE

[Peter R]

I heard that Toomim is a stoner and Rizun is a charlatan who farms spherical cows.  

Both are correct.

Have you ever tried filet mignon from a spherical cow?  It pairs well with big blocks and segmentation faults.  

The sacred 1 MB cow is being prepared for slaughter.

Don't you think this business about forever threatening contentious hard forks is potentially disasterous? And almost certainly bad for business?

Is this really how open source projects 'function'?

There is no block size limit--it is a shared dream from which we're now waking up from.

Bitcoin is governed by the code people freely choose to run.

This is the way I see things playing out in the short term:

[hdbuck]

I heard that Toomim is a stoner and Rizun is a charlatan who farms spherical cows.  

Both are correct.

So let's remove the alert keys from a known and very trustworthy person of the community where there has been zero evidence of any kind of potential abuse? Smart move. Who should get access to this kind of key; Toomin, Rizun?  What a joke.

I didn't mean to imply I approved or disapproved of the move. I don't vote.

I wasn't talking to you directly although it might seem like I was. I'm talking about those who voted in favor.

i think those that voted for removing theymos, was because theymos has already shown public bias and censorship towards gavins proposals..
(moving posts in favour to gavins proposals to the altcoin category, and also the drama on reddit that is biased against gavins proposals)

so i think some would assume that theymos might send out malicious alerts to scare people from using it.

to be honest i no longer care about gavin, theymos, lukejr or gmaxwell personal opinions. i havent even bothered to find out who toomim is.. its all just drama.. all that should be made important is the code itself and what the code will or wont do.

putting the code into scenario's is important.. but the social drama is starting to over shadow what bitcoin is really about. CODE

there is no biais towards gavin but the natural STFU that goes for this useless USG braintard.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I heard that Toomim is a stoner and Rizun is a charlatan who farms spherical cows.  

Both are correct.

Have you ever tried filet mignon from a spherical cow?  It pairs well with big blocks and segmentation faults.  

The sacred 1 MB cow is being prepared for slaughter.

Don't you think this business about forever threatening contentious hard forks is potentially disasterous? And almost certainly bad for business?

Is this really how open source projects 'function'?

There is no block size limit--it is a shared dream from which we're now waking up from.

Bitcoin is governed by the code people freely choose to run.

This is the way I see things playing out in the short term:

There must be a better answer to this somewhere.

[Peter R]

I heard that Toomim is a stoner and Rizun is a charlatan who farms spherical cows.  

Both are correct.

Have you ever tried filet mignon from a spherical cow?  It pairs well with big blocks and segmentation faults.  

The sacred 1 MB cow is being prepared for slaughter.

Don't you think this business about forever threatening contentious hard forks is potentially disasterous? And almost certainly bad for business?

Is this really how open source projects 'function'?

There is no block size limit--it is a shared dream from which we're now waking up from.

Bitcoin is governed by the code people freely choose to run.

This is the way I see things playing out in the short term:

There must be a better answer to this somewhere.

Please come provide some comic relief at the new forum once and a while: https://bitco.in

[hdbuck]

I heard that Toomim is a stoner and Rizun is a charlatan who farms spherical cows. 

Both are correct.

Have you ever tried filet mignon from a spherical cow?  It pairs well with big blocks and segmentation faults. 

The sacred 1 MB cow is being prepared for slaughter.

Don't you think this business about forever threatening contentious hard forks is potentially disasterous? And almost certainly bad for business?

Is this really how open source projects 'function'?

There is no block size limit--it is a shared dream from which we're now waking up from.

Bitcoin is governed by the code people freely choose to run.

This is the way I see things playing out in the short term:

There must be a better answer to this somewhere.

Please come provide some comic relief at the new forum once and a while: https://bitco.in

consider staying there as well.

[Peter R]

@hdbuck

You seem to believe that those who (like myself) wish to give node operators the ability to easily adjust their block size acceptance limits are "statists."  Can you explain?  Do you believe it is critical that people NOT be able to easily adjust their node's block size limit?

[hdbuck]

That's right, time to move on. Please do. Bitcoin is really not for you.

http://trilema.com/2016/thats-right-time-to-move-on-please-do-bitcoin-is-really-not-for-you/

Since yesterday's recap of the sad track record of the USG, the toomim clown received some bad news, with which he coped in the usual manner : by having a rather amusing public meltdown under the influence. Meanwhile the poopaganda machine came out in force with a pathetic chorus bemoaning "Bitcoin's death".

Whatever. For once we do agree : it's time to move on. Please do.

Bitcoin was never for you. Bitcoin was never for the poor ; Bitcoin was never for the voluble if worthless "social media" tramp ; Bitcoin was never for the soi-dissant "activist" aka scammer. Bitcoin was not for you.

And since we're doing this, let's proceed to dispell some myths.

I. It is false that Bitcoin has to be used by you for it to be valuable.

You believe man to be the measure of all things. This is a purely religious belief, exactly identical, and directly reducible, to the notion that there's a magical teapot spinning in the sky.

You believe that you are man, in the strict and strictly laughable sense that everything is equal to everything else and thus therefore you see yourself as not merely a uniquely bent spoon, vaguely related to various other better implementations of an ideal spoon and thus twice removed from that ideal but instead fully and completely, in and by yourself, equal and idempotent to everything man is, ever was or ever could be. This is also a religious belief, I suppose, although more indicative of psychopathology than what usually is called religion - on the continuum between the buddhist chanting and the fanatic beheading this sort of nonsense is certainly past the fanatic, hapilly floating in a schizoid sea towards waxy flexibility.

You put these two together and what comes out is the directly falsifiable notion that in order for Bitcoin to be valuable, it has to be usable by you. This is obviously not so : cars your whole bloodline could never, no matter what, ever afford are still cars, and valuable and enjoyed by those of your betters that can actually buy one. That nobody in your family ever wore shoes does not imply that shoes are now worthless, or "not usable". It certainly does not imply that shoes should be doing things differently. Learn a trade, marry well, do something with your life so that you too might enjoy the glory of footwear, perhaps, however briefly, however distantly in the future.

II. It is false that Bitcoin has to "do good" in order to continue to exist.

Bitcoin can kill all your friends, and all the people you respect, and every other kitten. It can poop in your drink and insult your friendship and rape your pets for all the difference it makes. If lightning strikes where you sit, whether you feel a warm cozy sort of love for it or the most burning hatred imaginable is strictly irrelevant - electricity stays. If tomorrow your house burns down you'll be advised to take more care - blaming the victim as it were. Nobody's ever going to try change the fire. More generally : the world is not built on emotions, whether you "love" world peace or "hate" world peace or both or neither makes exactly not one grain of difference to world peace.

Bitcoin is not a product, like a belt that's tied too tight and so you can adjust to be less tight, or like an engine that runs too hot and so you can adjust to run a little cooler. Bitcoin is a rule, and if you're not happy with how it works you have to change, just like if you're unhappy with the effects gravitation has on your planned plane, you must change the plan. You can't attempt to change gravitation.

And there is no such thing as voting rules. The things you vote upon are laws, not rules. They really don't matter one bit.

There are other silly things ESLi muppets believe, such as that they are creative (they're not, and I don't mean that they aren't the most creative - I mean they're below average, and markedly so) and that they're "civilised" (god help you), and that the only way they've ever seen things done is necessarily the best possible way (do read Voltaire when you have a moment) and on it goesii. But let's keep things simple and sweet, in step with the comprehension and attention span of five year olds captive in seemingly adult bodies : it's time to move on. Please do.

Bitcoin really is not for you.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I've been told I post a lot for someone without any real technical insights. I actually come here to learn. Mr. Buck is right to be hostile.

You seem to believe that those who (like myself) wish to give node operators the ability to easily adjust their block size acceptance limits ...

Doesn't this give nodes the ability to unilaterally change consensus? Once somebody mines a bigger block, boom, bigger blocks?

[Peter R]

I've been told I post a lot for someone without any real technical insights. I actually come here to learn. Mr. Buck is right to be hostile.

You seem to believe that those who (like myself) wish to give node operators the ability to easily adjust their block size acceptance limits ...

Doesn't this give nodes the ability to unilaterally change consensus? Once somebody mines a bigger block, boom, bigger blocks?

Yes, it would give nodes (but only in aggregate) the ability to change consensus on what constitutes a valid block, and only as long as the miners agreed to produce such blocks.

Yes, once the first 1.1 MB block is in the blockchain, the empirical block size limit becomes 1.1 MB.    

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

The fact Bitcoin doesn't better incentivize running a node is a problem. I guess that was bound to happen once mining became an industry?

[iCEBREAKER]

The sacred 1 MB cow is being prepared for slaughter.

Don't you think this business about forever threatening contentious hard forks is potentially disasterous? And almost certainly bad for business?

I can't wait to see Coinbase's public statement (not to mention legally required Investor Disclosure) about WTF they're going to do in the event of warring forks and competing markets for Bitcoins and ToominCoins.

"Oh no, we accidentally all the Bitcoins.  LOL, oops!" -Brian Armstrong, probably

[Peter R]

The sacred 1 MB cow is being prepared for slaughter.

Don't you think this business about forever threatening contentious hard forks is potentially disasterous? And almost certainly bad for business?

I can't wait to see Coinbase's public statement (not to mention legally required Investor Disclosure) about WTF they're going to do in the event of warring forks and competing markets for Bitcoins and ToominCoins.

"Oh no, we accidentally all the Bitcoins.  LOL, oops!" -Brian Armstrong, probably

They "accidentally all the Bitcoins"?

Accidentally what? Accidentally considered listening to you, before coming to their senses?  

[iCEBREAKER]

The sacred 1 MB cow is being led to the slaughter house.

Promises, promises.

Last year, that was supposed to happen this year.

This year, it's supposed to happen next year.

One thing is certain - max block size will be raised eventually, but Sorry, not tonight Dear.

[iCEBREAKER]

The sacred 1 MB cow is being prepared for slaughter.

Don't you think this business about forever threatening contentious hard forks is potentially disasterous? And almost certainly bad for business?

I can't wait to see Coinbase's public statement (not to mention legally required Investor Disclosure) about WTF they're going to do in the event of warring forks and competing markets for Bitcoins and ToominCoins.

"Oh no, we accidentally all the Bitcoins.  LOL, oops!" -Brian Armstrong, probably

They "accidentally all the Bitcoins"?

Accidentally what? Accidentally considered listening to you, before coming to their senses?  

"Accidentally" = Coinbase supported a contentious hard fork, then lost all their (customers' Toomin-tainted) coins to catastrophic consensus failure, as the 2MB fork was intentionally activated prematurely, then orphaned.

[valiz]

There is no block size limit--it is a shared dream from which we're now waking up from.

Bitcoin is governed by the code people freely choose to run.

It's not that simple. Your oversimplification comes from one of the requirements of effective propaganda. Simple enough to be understood by the masses. What do they want? They want democracy, they want to feel they have the power. Tell them what they want to hear.

The current block size limit comes from the current consensus rules. Changing it requires creating a blockchain fork, like cloning bitcoin and hoping to kill the original.

Bitcoin is not 'governed' by anyone.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

They've voted 89% in favour of removing Theymos alert key access.

Satoshi's greatest (external) triumph.

I went to town on the Blockstream conflict of interest because of the implications in principle of having a for-profit have any kind of influence on the code. But only because I thought any kind of external influence was bad. Now I realize that not only will there always be external influence, that it's necessary to maintain the code. I have to admit, appeals to change the protocol based on popularity sort of concern me. Shouldn't consensus be based on technical merit?

Bitcoin is not 'governed' by anyone.

That's what I used to think.

[valiz]

They've voted 89% in favour of removing Theymos alert key access.

Satoshi's greatest (external) triumph.

I went to town on the Blockstream conflict of interest because of the implications in principle of having a for-profit have any kind of influence on the code. But only because I thought any kind of external influence was bad. Now I realize that not only will there always be external influence, that it's necessary to maintain the code. I have to admit, appeals to change the protocol based on popularity sort of concern me. Shouldn't consensus be based on technical merit?

Bitcoin is not 'governed' by anyone.

That's what I used to think.

How do you think the Blockstream people can coerce me to run their software on my node?

Perhaps you believe that all full nodes are maintained by Blockstream stakeholders?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

They've voted 89% in favour of removing Theymos alert key access.

Satoshi's greatest (external) triumph.

I went to town on the Blockstream conflict of interest because of the implications in principle of having a for-profit have any kind of influence on the code. But only because I thought any kind of external influence was bad. Now I realize that not only will there always be external influence, that it's necessary to maintain the code. I have to admit, appeals to change the protocol based on popularity sort of concern me. Shouldn't consensus be based on technical merit?

Bitcoin is not 'governed' by anyone.

That's what I used to think.

How do you think the Blockstream people can coerce me to run their software on my node?

Perhaps you believe that all full nodes are maintained by Blockstream stakeholders?

No. I don't think those things. Was that implied by my post? If it was I should have been more careful.

[valiz]

They've voted 89% in favour of removing Theymos alert key access.

Satoshi's greatest (external) triumph.

I went to town on the Blockstream conflict of interest because of the implications in principle of having a for-profit have any kind of influence on the code. But only because I thought any kind of external influence was bad. Now I realize that not only will there always be external influence, that it's necessary to maintain the code. I have to admit, appeals to change the protocol based on popularity sort of concern me. Shouldn't consensus be based on technical merit?

Bitcoin is not 'governed' by anyone.

That's what I used to think.

How do you think the Blockstream people can coerce me to run their software on my node?

Perhaps you believe that all full nodes are maintained by Blockstream stakeholders?

No. I don't think those things. Was that implied by my post? If it was I should have been more careful.

Ok, perhaps I poorly understood what you meant. But let's say Blockstream has an evil for profit influence on the Bitcoin Core software. In this case, if they introduce something bad that people don't agree with, then there is nothing to coerce the node maintainers to use the bad Bitcoin Core.

In case Blockstream implements something evil, we can always fork the software and circumvent that evilness.

Anyway, I don't think that company has such a large influence on Bitcoin Core development. But one can't know for sure.