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

[watashi-kokoto]

I believe in Satoshi Nakamoto.

[VeritasSapere]

You either believe "Core"
(a small group of developers) should
decide what Bitcoin is (even if 75%
of the miners disagree),  or you
believe a majority can fork Bitcoin
and change it and its still Bitcoin.

I think that you are spot on Jonald.

Some people do not understand yet that it is not the case of choosing one implementation over another to rule over us. But that it is a case of having multiple implementations for us to freely choose from, this is how the governance of Bitcoin should work. The three most popular alternative implementations are all compatible with each other after all, only Core is incompatible with a blocksize increase, even if the economic and mining majority wants a blocksize increase.

XT, Classic, and Unlimited have now formed a Nakamoto coalition.

[VeritasSapere]

I believe in Satoshi Nakamoto.

I also believe in his original vision. What I find confusing about your posts, is that you come on here saying that you support the original vision of Satoshi, yet you side with the small blockists. Satoshi was very clearly in favor of increasing the blocksize. Not increasing the blocksize represents a divergence from this original vision.

[watashi-kokoto]

I believe in Satoshi Nakamoto.

[bargainbin]

... Perhaps something as simple as having an open BIP submission process but force it to be completely anonymous to insure that we are required to study, test and peer review it thoroughly without appeals to authority or a popularity contest which would corrupt the process. ...

But peer review is an appeal to authority. Can anyone be a peer in your peer review process, only the qualified peers, or ...how would that work?

[valiz]

You either believe "Core"
(a small group of developers) should
decide what Bitcoin is (even if 75%
of the miners disagree),  or you
believe a majority can fork Bitcoin
and change it and its still Bitcoin.

False dichotomy.

Some people do not understand yet that it is not the case of choosing one implementation over another to rule over us. But that it is a case of having multiple implementations for us to freely choose from, this is how the governance of Bitcoin should work. The three most popular alternative implementations are all compatible with each other after all, only Core is incompatible with a blocksize increase, even if the economic and mining majority wants a blocksize increase.

Straw man as usual.

You guys are good propagandists (and shills).

What part of 'you are free to fork off' do you disagree with?

I say you are free to fork off - you reply Blockstream is totalitarian.
I say after a blockchain fork, you end up with an altcoin - you reply no, miners decide what Bitcoin is.
I say what people accept as Bitcoin is what Bitcoin is - you reply no, Bitcoin should be governed by node owners, miners, developers, etc.

And usually you find a small issue with my posts and imply that I'm evil. I don't think non-shills usually do this.

[Lauda]

-snip-
And usually you find a small issue with my posts and imply that I'm evil. I don't think non-shills usually do this.

That is correct, they don't. I've noticed this pattern among a few people cheering for a fork. Nice post though.
There is no 'my camp', nor do I ignore Core shills. I have banned some newbies/accounts created for this very purpose (since XT "wars").

[YarkoL]

-snip-
And usually you find a small issue with my posts and imply that I'm evil. I don't think non-shills usually do this.

That is correct, they don't. I've noticed this pattern among a few people cheering for a fork. Nice post though.

In other words, those shills are themselves evil. Now, a newsflash: there are Core shills too, and I think they're evil.
What is more, since you deliberately ignore shills in your camp, that makes you evil too. Now that I've pointed
this out, I would not be surprised in the least if you were to think that I'm quite evil. And I await your forthcoming
response that will convince me yet more that you're all really evil.

See the pattern?  

[pawel7777]

There is no 'my camp', nor do I ignore Core shills. I have banned some newbies/accounts created for this very purpose (since XT "wars").

You don't? Lets see, can you name a few of them?

[sgbett]

There is no 'my camp', nor do I ignore Core shills. I have banned some newbies/accounts created for this very purpose (since XT "wars").

You don't? Lets see, can you name a few of them?

Attempting to compile a list of shills is just one of the various examples of shitty debate floating about. It's really hard for people not to get sucked into this, but my advice would be to end that line of inquiry right now. I'm not interested in who may or may not be a shill. Arguments on merit will always rise above those that are pure propaganda.

[Fatman3001]

A shill is a very specific phenomenon. Bitcoin has a lot of interconnected actors with loyalties and financial interests which will colour their reasoning with regards to contentious issues. Add finance nerds, computer nerds and conspiracy theory nutters into the mix and you have one very spicy soup.

I am certain that very, very few in this forum are purposefully hiding their affiliations in order to thunder in the forums to manipulate the mood.

Besides, it shouldn't matter. Most engaged in this debate have enough understanding of the issues and are stubborn enough to make up their own minds.

[Lauda]

You don't? Lets see, can you name a few of them?

Attempting to compile a list of shills is just one of the various examples of shitty debate floating about. It's really hard for people not to get sucked into this, but my advice would be to end that line of inquiry right now. I'm not interested in who may or may not be a shill. Arguments on merit will always rise above those that are pure propaganda.

Thank you for answering this for me. While it might be easier for me to "make a list of shills" for people related to XT/Classic/BU because I'm on the other side of the debate, I would rather not do it for either side. What does anyone get from my (subjective) list of shills for any side? Does this solve the scaleability problem?

[Fatman3001]

You don't? Lets see, can you name a few of them?

Attempting to compile a list of shills is just one of the various examples of shitty debate floating about. It's really hard for people not to get sucked into this, but my advice would be to end that line of inquiry right now. I'm not interested in who may or may not be a shill. Arguments on merit will always rise above those that are pure propaganda.

Thank you for answering this for me. While it might be easier for me to "make a list of shills" for people related to XT/Classic/BU because I'm on the other side of the debate, I would rather not do it for either side. What does anyone get from my (subjective) list of shills for any side? Does this solve the scaleability problem?

A list can't be subjective either. A person either is a shill or he/she is not a shill. It is not an opinion others have of him/her. For that to be determined you need very convincing proof. If you call it a list of people whose opinion you don't like or who agrees with people whose opinion you don't like, then the absurdity of it would be much more obvious, but it would also be more honest.

Edit: If this thread was called "Analysis and list of top big blocks proponents" that would be far less objectionable.

[hdbuck]

You don't? Lets see, can you name a few of them?

Attempting to compile a list of shills is just one of the various examples of shitty debate floating about. It's really hard for people not to get sucked into this, but my advice would be to end that line of inquiry right now. I'm not interested in who may or may not be a shill. Arguments on merit will always rise above those that are pure propaganda.

Thank you for answering this for me. While it might be easier for me to "make a list of shills" for people related to XT/Classic/BU because I'm on the other side of the debate, I would rather not do it for either side. What does anyone get from my (subjective) list of shills for any side? Does this solve the scaleability problem?

Let us not slide in this false argument for there would be no such thing as shills for the BITCOIN camp as XT/BU/Classic and all the crooks within the ecosystem are the one exclusively using proselyte tactics and invading social media to promote their scam.

Bitcoin works. Status Quo is not about some shills.

Core are to be respected for their work, and Blockstream are welcome to innovate (whilst not denaturing bitcoin obviously).

Anyhow, debunking (and insulting, for sometimes it just feels good) the socialist wannabes that spew their constant hate and political nonsense is not shilling but merely a natural response against those vile USGtrolls using Hegelian dialectics and raising the malicious stupidity of the herd, eg.Malpidity to try to instigate some governance coup whilst forking the shit of our sovereignty/money.

[Fatman3001]

You don't? Lets see, can you name a few of them?

Attempting to compile a list of shills is just one of the various examples of shitty debate floating about. It's really hard for people not to get sucked into this, but my advice would be to end that line of inquiry right now. I'm not interested in who may or may not be a shill. Arguments on merit will always rise above those that are pure propaganda.

Thank you for answering this for me. While it might be easier for me to "make a list of shills" for people related to XT/Classic/BU because I'm on the other side of the debate, I would rather not do it for either side. What does anyone get from my (subjective) list of shills for any side? Does this solve the scaleability problem?

Let us not slide in this false argument for there would be no such thing as shills for the BITCOIN camp as XT/BU/Classic and all the crooks within the ecosystem are the one exclusively using proselyte tactics and invading social media to promote their scam.

Bitcoin works. Status Quo is not about some shills.

Core are to be respected for their work, and Blockstream are welcome to innovate (whilst not denaturing bitcoin obviously).

Anyhow, debunking (and insulting, for sometimes it just feels good) the socialist wannabes that spew their constant hate and political nonsense is not shilling but merely a natural response against those vile USGtrolls using Hegelian dialectics and raising the malicious stupidity of the herd, eg.Malpidity to try to instigate some governance coup whilst forking the shit of our sovereignty/money.

Let's look past the fact that you have no clue what Hegelian dialectics is and why it's a very random point to make in this situation. Let's look at what it says in the ... blog:

"Activists trained in methods derived from this tradition can be counted on to reliably attack by framing both poles of the debate they want to have as movements."

The people who's most forcefully introduced and perpetuated this framing of movements are in large part hdbuck, iCEBREAKER and brg444.

In your defence I'd say I seriously doubt it was due to a conspiracy whose goal was to apply "Hegelian dialectics" to "attack" Bitcoin on behalf of the USG. You are far-right bullies and that's what you do.

[VeritasSapere]

You either believe "Core"
(a small group of developers) should
decide what Bitcoin is (even if 75%
of the miners disagree),  or you
believe a majority can fork Bitcoin
and change it and its still Bitcoin.

False dichotomy.

It is not a false dichotomy at all, it is not a false choice, it is a case of consistence. We need to choice between these two positions because they are contradictory, both can not be true at the same time.

Some people do not understand yet that it is not the case of choosing one implementation over another to rule over us. But that it is a case of having multiple implementations for us to freely choose from, this is how the governance of Bitcoin should work. The three most popular alternative implementations are all compatible with each other after all, only Core is incompatible with a blocksize increase, even if the economic and mining majority wants a blocksize increase.

Straw man as usual.

It is not a straw man argument because I was saying that some people think that adopting another implementation is the same as just choosing a different group of developers to rule over Bitcoin, that is not the case since it is more about distributing this power, not centralising it more or moving the central point of control. This is not a straw man argument since I am responding accurately to what other people have said on this thread.

You guys are good propagandists (and shills).

It is not productive going around calling people shills without evidence. It would be better to focus on the content of peoples arguments instead.

What part of 'you are free to fork off' do you disagree with?

I do not disagree with this notion and I will not carry out a straw man argument by claiming that you have said otherwise. As far back as I remember you have been consistent on this point at least. There have been other people however that claim that we should not be free to fork and or that Bitcoin is not free. These are the types of totalitarian arguments I have been arguing against.

I say you are free to fork off - you reply Blockstream is totalitarian.

I consider their mentality and actions to be totalitarian, fortunately the rest of the community is starting to see that now.

I say after a blockchain fork, you end up with an altcoin - you reply no, miners decide what Bitcoin is.

If you think that the economic and mining majority forking Bitcoin in order to increase the blocksize turns it into an altcoin then that is fine, I will stick to the definition in the whitepaper and say that the longest chain is what defines Bitcoin in this situation. Ultimately I do not even really care which chain gets the original name, it is just semantics. I just do not want to see the Bitcoin I hold and care about to be crippled by arbitrarily restricting its capacity, even if that leads to a split.

I say what people accept as Bitcoin is what Bitcoin is - you reply no, Bitcoin should be governed by node owners, miners, developers, etc

Now you are arguing a straw man, I never said this. Bitcoin is ultimately what the economic majority wants it to be and the economic majority is made up of people. I think that the miners act as a type of proxy for the economic majority in the governance mechanism of Bitcoin, which we now call the consensus mechanism.

This brings me back to a very important point. If Bitcoin is what people accept it is, then it follows that if the majority of people want a two megabyte blocksize and we justifiably fork to express this will, then Bitcoin with a two megabyte limit is Bitcoin. This is the contradiction that has been pointed out to you in your position previously, which so far you have still failed to acknowledge.

And usually you find a small issue with my posts and imply that I'm evil. I don't think non-shills usually do this.

Another straw man I suppose, I never said this. Genuinely rational people usually do not accuse other people of being shills without evidence. It does not strengthen your argument, it actually weakens it.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

You don't? Lets see, can you name a few of them?

Attempting to compile a list of shills is just one of the various examples of shitty debate floating about. It's really hard for people not to get sucked into this, but my advice would be to end that line of inquiry right now. I'm not interested in who may or may not be a shill. Arguments on merit will always rise above those that are pure propaganda.

Thank you for answering this for me. While it might be easier for me to "make a list of shills" for people related to XT/Classic/BU because I'm on the other side of the debate, I would rather not do it for either side. What does anyone get from my (subjective) list of shills for any side? Does this solve the scaleability problem?

A list can't be subjective either. A person either is a shill or he/she is not a shill. It is not an opinion others have of him/her. For that to be determined you need very convincing proof. If you call it a list of people whose opinion you don't like or who agrees with people whose opinion you don't like, then the absurdity of it would be much more obvious, but it would also be more honest.

Edit: If this thread was called "Analysis and list of top big blocks proponents" that would be far less objectionable.

@Lardo  Your moderate political views and high-minded approach to social problems has no place here. Go be reasonable somewhere else.

[bargainbin]

...
Let's look past the fact that you have no clue what Hegelian dialectics is ...

That's just some cold-blooded shit to say to a motherfucker before he poops a cap in his ass.
Shalom!

[valiz]

...

Excellent post there Veritas, you are clearly highly sophisticated

The part below I find more tricky:

I say what people accept as Bitcoin is what Bitcoin is - you reply no, Bitcoin should be governed by node owners, miners, developers, etc

Now you are arguing a straw man, I never said this. Bitcoin is ultimately what the economic majority wants it to be and the economic majority is made up of people. I think that the miners act as a type of proxy for the economic majority in the governance mechanism of Bitcoin, which we now call the consensus mechanism.

No straw man. You always say Bitcoin should be governed by 'economic majority', whatever that means.

I still don't understand what you define as being 'economic majority'. If it has something to do with what people accept as being Bitcoin, then I don't think the miners act as a type of proxy for them. They only mine what is profitable to mine (price of the coin / forked coin / altcoin vs. quantity and quality of competition for that mined coin). I also think there is no governance mechanism for Bitcoin and there shouldn't be one, same as for gold.

This brings me back to a very important point. If Bitcoin is what people accept it is, then it follows that if the majority of people want a two megabyte blocksize and we justifiably fork to express this will, then Bitcoin with a two megabyte limit is Bitcoin. This is the contradiction that has been pointed out to you in your position previously, which so far you have still failed to acknowledge.

What contradiction?

Ok, so... fork off right now to express your will for a 2MB max blocksize. You are confident the 'economic majority' (whatever that means) wants the 2MB max block size. What keeps you from forking?

You don't need 75% of hashpower to perform the fork. It is not a limitation.

But you are still trying to convince people what is good for them and how Bitcoin should be governed. Let them be free. Use your freedom, fork off, and let them come by their free will. Don't use persuasion. If the forked altcoin is better, they will come. And it will reign supreme. And it shall be called Bitcoin.

By repeating your points over and over, your discouse becomes similar to marketing techniques and propaganda.

[bargainbin]

...

Excellent post there Veritas, you are clearly highly sophisticated

The part below I find more tricky:

I say what people accept as Bitcoin is what Bitcoin is - you reply no, Bitcoin should be governed by node owners, miners, developers, etc

Now you are arguing a straw man, I never said this. Bitcoin is ultimately what the economic majority wants it to be and the economic majority is made up of people. I think that the miners act as a type of proxy for the economic majority in the governance mechanism of Bitcoin, which we now call the consensus mechanism.

No straw man. You always say Bitcoin should be governed by 'economic majority', whatever that means.

I still don't understand what you define as being 'economic majority'. If it has something to do with what people accept as being Bitcoin, then I don't think the miners act as a type of proxy for them. They only mine what is profitable to mine (price of the coin / forked coin / altcoin vs. quantity and quality of competition for that mined coin). ...

^That. "Economic majority" is a misleading bit of jargon, implying that the interests of the miners [always] coincide with the interests of the holders.