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

[CuntChocula]

This toxic community doesn't *want* it. Take your wooden pony & go home.

Then saying that the community is dumb would be a huge understatement. Bitcoin will never be able to scale to a global level without technologies such as LN.

The trick is not to give people what they do not want, just because you think it's for their own good.
Begging gubermint analogy.

>They have only 1 developer on the payroll working on it IIRC.
Other core devs on their payroll, like Wuille and Maxwell. One's enough tho. Hard to ignore the potential for conflict of interests.

1 developer working on LN. Mentioning Wuille and Maxwell is a straw man argument. Since you've mentioned 'conflict of interest': The Toomin brothers are working hard to make consider.it the main platform (decision wise) for Bitcoin. There's no conflict of interest there obviously.  

Blockstream is funding SegWit. Blockstream employs top core apparatchiks, who are championing SegWit. Blockstream employs a SegWit dev. What more do you want?

And don't misunderstand me, not pushing the Toomin bros, just saying that a fox guarding your chickens is a bad idea, not that you should hire a weasel to do the job.
A fundamental problem: you gotta trust somebody. One that Bitcoin hasn't quite solved

[hdbuck]

A fundamental problem: you gotta trust somebody. One that Bitcoin hasn't quite solved

You WE trust the fucking code you dummy.

[CuntChocula]

A fundamental problem: you gotta trust somebody. One that Bitcoin hasn't quite solved

You WE trust the fucking code you dummy.

That ain't enough, clearly. Otherwise we wouldn't be chatting & BTC price wouldn't be where it is
P.S. I'm sorry your trusting nature got you into this predicament, SFYL.

[Fatman3001]

>They have only 1 developer on the payroll working on it IIRC.
Other core devs on their payroll, like Wuille and Maxwell. One's enough tho. Hard to ignore the potential for conflict of interests.

1 developer working on LN. Mentioning Wuille and Maxwell is a straw man argument. Since you've mentioned 'conflict of interest': The Toomin brothers are working hard to make consider.it the main platform (decision wise) for Bitcoin. There's no conflict of interest there obviously.  

Please explain how that particular setup becomes a pressing conflict of interest issue. Who gets money from whom? What is implemented into the Bitcoin code due to this voting solution rather than any other voting solution?

[Lauda]

Please explain how that particular setup becomes a pressing conflict of interest issue. Who gets money from whom? What is implemented into the Bitcoin code due to this voting solution rather than any other voting solution?

The more popular Consider.it becomes the more valuable it becomes? Centralized voting systems are useless anyhow and vulnerable (as recently demonstrated by a Sybil attack).

You WE trust the fucking code you dummy.

Just ignore the 'Blockstream is evil' shill. I gave up already.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Blockstream is evil

I don't think that's fair. Just because someone sells their soul doesn't necessarily make them evil.

(Does it Fatty?)

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

This toxic community doesn't *want* it. Take your wooden pony & go home.

Then saying that the community is dumb would be a huge understatement. Bitcoin will never be able to scale to a global level without technologies such as LN.

Bitcoin will eventually need some form of L2 meta chain. Your mistake is to believe that LN, as it currently stands, will be that solution. Unless Rusty can address some of the fundamental flaws inherent in its design, it should self-immolate in the near future to allow a fresh approach to be taken.
 

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

The [bitcoin core] roadmap is based on assumptions about economics, group psychology, ethics, and many other things which we have no reason to believe Core developers have any special skill in

[CuntChocula]

...
Just ignore the 'Blockstream is evil' shill. I gave up already.

Who am I shilling for? (Unless you're simply trying to be rude, in which case disregard)
Have explicitly stated that

... not pushing the Toomin bros, just saying that a fox guarding your chickens is a bad idea, not that you should hire a weasel to do the job.

[Lauda]

Bitcoin will eventually need some form of L2 meta chain. Your mistake is to believe that LN, as it currently stands, will be that solution. Unless Rusty can address some of the fundamental flaws inherent in its design, it should self-immolate in the near future to allow a fresh approach to be taken.

You can't go around talking about 'fundamental flaws' without listing any of them if you want someone to take you seriously. I've encountered nothing about any flaws yet. May you list them? It's highly likely that they're a result of misinformation but let's see.

The [bitcoin core] roadmap is based on assumptions about economics, group psychology, ethics, and many other things which we have no reason to believe Core developers have any special skill in

Where did this quote come from? I see nothing but nonsense.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Bitcoin will eventually need some form of L2 meta chain. Your mistake is to believe that LN, as it currently stands, will be that solution. Unless Rusty can address some of the fundamental flaws inherent in its design, it should self-immolate in the near future to allow a fresh approach to be taken.

You can't go around talking about 'fundamental flaws' without listing any of them if you want someone to take you seriously. I've encountered nothing about any flaws yet. May you list them? It's highly likely that they're a result of misinformation but let's see.

try this

The [bitcoin core] roadmap is based on assumptions about economics, group psychology, ethics, and many other things which we have no reason to believe Core developers have any special skill in

Where did this quote come from? I see nothing but nonsense.

From here

[hdbuck]

The [classitards] roadmap is based on assumptions about economics, group psychology, ethics, and many other things which we have no reason to believe classic developers (if any?? )have any special skill in

Where did this quote come from? I see nothing but nonsense.

FTFY

[Fatman3001]

Please explain how that particular setup becomes a pressing conflict of interest issue. Who gets money from whom? What is implemented into the Bitcoin code due to this voting solution rather than any other voting solution?

The more popular Consider.it becomes the more valuable it becomes?

So nobody gets money from anyone and no code is added exclusively due to this solution. But it becomes more valuable because it gets more exposure.

Wouldn't anything the Toomim bros do get more exposure if they become lead devs?

Centralized voting systems are useless anyhow and vulnerable (as recently demonstrated by a Sybil attack).

I would have preferred a decentralized solution where people were uniquely identifiable. But that doesn't have much to do with conflict of interest.

[watashi-kokoto]

Shill activity intensifies, these are the major topics:

Classic vaporware - There is no alternative qualified team other than Core.

Hardfork to crash economy - The proposed block size increase hard fork is dangerous for many reasons. Large blocks will be spammed and full from the start.

Hardfork freeze coins - No matter the fork, the weak chain will be destroyed. This means the weak chain coins will become frozen, speculation will be impossible.

Hardfork cause loss of funds - If user pays during a hard fork, the payment can be reorganized and lead to the loss of funds.

Classic cannot VISA Scale - There is no proposal to reach 1000 transactions per second. Currently Bitcoin process 4 tps, Classic offers 8 tps.

Spam and 1MB cap are temporary - Because the "stress test" never ends, so will the blocks be forever full. Spam cannot be detected because wallets are anonymous.

0-confirmations are unsafe - 1% of blocks become orphaned, in this situation even 1-confirmed transaction can be reversed.

All miners mine 1MB now - There is no miner who has the balls to disrespect the Satoshi Nakamoto 1MB rule and mine a large block.

1MB +fee fast confirmation - With proper fees, transactions get confirmed without any delay

[bargainbin]

Shill activity intensifies, these are the major topics:

Classic vaporware - There is no alternative qualified team other than Core.
...

If by "qualified" you mean "on Blockstream's tip"

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Shill activity intensifies, these are the major topics:

Classic vaporware - There is no alternative qualified team other than Core.
...

If by "qualified" you mean "on Blockstream's tip"

You seem to be suggesting this represents some sort of conflict of interest for Blockstream. Care to elaborate?

[bargainbin]

^^

...

Perfect!

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

if you don't like it... fork.

I never thought I'd see the day that fork became the battle cry for liberty.

 

[sgbett]

Bitcoin will eventually need some form of L2 meta chain. Your mistake is to believe that LN, as it currently stands, will be that solution. Unless Rusty can address some of the fundamental flaws inherent in its design, it should self-immolate in the near future to allow a fresh approach to be taken.

You can't go around talking about 'fundamental flaws' without listing any of them if you want someone to take you seriously. I've encountered nothing about any flaws yet. May you list them? It's highly likely that they're a result of misinformation but let's see.

I absolutely second that. What fundamental flaws?

[iCEBREAKER]

Blockstream is evil

I don't think that's fair. Just because someone sells their soul doesn't necessarily make them evil.

Blockstream isn't selling its soul to PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Rather, it is PwC that is selling its soul to the blockchain.  It's their Come To Jesus moment, wherein they seek forgiveness and redemption.

PwC knows which way the wind is blowing; it's blowing in the direction of davout's famous maxim.

The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".  -davout

And here you are, trying to spin the new era of sane/transparent/honest Big Four accounting as some sort of deal with the devil.

Are you mad Bitcoin is being used (as Satoshi intended) for heavy lifting, instead of yet another trivial retail payment rail disruption?