Gavineries

[hdbuck]

Keeping track and discussing our beloved Chief Scientist "Gavineries".


Some referenced list would have included:

- Meeting with CIA
- Association with bankrupted "Bitcoin Foundation" and renown criminals amongst which Mark Karpelese, peados and other attention-cash-burning-whores.
- Meeting with CFR
- MIT eg. US Gov payroll
- Mike Hearn wingman in contentious social engineered fork attempt branded as "Bitcoin XT"


And the last to date: yet another Bitcoin fork branded as "Bitcoin Classic"..

Note one of his new "partner in crime":





Spice it up with Cryptsy's unsurprising EXIT SCAM:

http://www.imediaconnection.com/profiles/iMedia_PC_Bio.aspx?ID=66373



http://insidebitcoins.com/chicago/2015/speakers

Thank you Gavin, but no thank you.

[1714979522]

1714979522

[hdbuck]

reserved for links and references.


Gavin and Toomim Present: "Classic" – Another Hard Fork Risk
http://qntra.net/2016/01/gavin-and-toomim-present-classic-another-hard-fork-risk/

Concerns for the Toomim Brothers Mining
http://qntra.net/2015/08/concerns-for-the-toomim-brothers-mining/

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.  The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

Good idea or not, SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (or co-opt it for their own use) sooner or later.  They'll either hack the existing code or write their own version, and will be a menace to the network.

I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it.  I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.

That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1613#msg1613


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

A miners warning
http://deedbot.org/deed-393913-1.txt


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.

[AgentofCoin]

...
And the last to date: yet another Bitcoin fork branded as "Bitcoin Classic"..

https://bitcoinclassic.com/
...

I wonder if the miners on the bottom of the page are going to mine both chains (Core & Classic),
or only mine this "Classic" chain. Interesting to see how those miners will proceed.

Not surprising there is another attempt at a way to get a higher block limit.
This will continue forever, till there is a raise in the limit.

[Gyrsur]

nothing to fear!

http://qntra.net/2015/01/the-hard-fork-missile-crisis/

mircea_popescu: ben_vulpes if one block's large and the other small, all i need a tx that's included in the large block but not the small one. then doublespend it on the small one, which will be rejected necessarily by the large block blockchain

mircea_popescu: now i have bitcoin separated in two addresses, one for each chain.

mircea_popescu: the attempt may fail, but the cost to me of this failure is not significant, so i can keep on trying until it succeeds.

mircea_popescu: the only way to guard against it is, obviously,for the ."large" chain to maintain 1:1 identity with the "small" one. because you don't just fork bitcoin.,

ben_vulpes: i still fail to see how you're going to make a txn that gets included in the large block chain and not the small block chain.

artifexd: ben_vulpes: You don't. You keep sending money to yourself until it happens.

mircea_popescu: ben_vulpes what do you mean ? it necessarily will occur.

mircea_popescu: since one contains more txn than the other by definition.

mircea_popescu: suppose i make 50k 1btc txn. they don't fit in a 1mn block. they do fit in a 10mb block. what now ?

[GermanGiant]

This is gonna be interesting. After https://bitcoinxt.software it is https://bitcoinclassic.com. In a fair world development the primary resources like https://github.com/bitcoin should stop and each team should try to push their product to gain adoption. The one, that would win, should be incorporated in https://github.com/bitcoin. But, unfortunately, the world is not fair...

[manselr]

Good find. I wonder what the next iteration of this series will be after no one cares to run nodes of this one as well. How about "Bitcoin HardFork Attempt 3: Revolutions" to end the trilogy.

[bambou]

"Bitcoin Original", reserved.

[franky1]

i have to ask.
as i asked the same thing for the SW lovers too

how many that like the 2mb blocks have actually run the ful bitcoin core continuously in the last month

how many that do not like the 2mb blocks have actually fun the full bitcoin core continuously in the last month.

i would like to see, when people reply to saying one of these 4 options along with whatever you were going to reply with
"for 2mb - i run a full node"
"not 2mb - i run a full node"
"for 2mb - i dont run a full node"
"not 2mb - i dont run a full node"

now onto the point i was going to make.. i find it funny that gavin has lobbied miners first before the community.. kinda bad way to force a fork by letting miners have more than 1mb blocks before the community has even shown they are using a version of bitcoin capable of taking it

[hdbuck]

"not 2mb - i run a full node"

+ currently experimenting the setting up of another full node from scratch, still waiting.

i find it funny that gavin has lobbied miners first before the community.. kinda bad way to force a fork by letting miners have more than 1mb blocks before the community has even shown they are using a version of bitcoin capable of taking it

It just emphasizes how desperate he is about his govcoin.

[keepdoing]

It just emphasizes how desperate he is about his govcoin.

Llama boy wastes no time kicking off with the shilling manipulation lies.

Won't do you any good this time blockstream fanboy.... time to ditch blockstream, and everybody is ready for this.

Soooo... FORK YOU!!!!  LOL

https://bitcoinclassic.com/   <<< on to the future!

[keepdoing]

reserved for links and references.

Here's a reference for ya Llama boy! 

https://bitcoinclassic.com/
Ka BOOM!

* world is back to normal, progress again being made, blockstream hijaakers being rounded up for a good drobbing of ridicule!

[danielW]

I would suggest that everybody who thinks we should follow Bitcoin scaling road map, should NACK the proposal here:

https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/website/issues/3

[Kakmakr]

Looks like his goal is to divide and conquer or some strategy like that. You suggest many forks and break the community into smaller pieces, in the hope that your fork will have a bigger chance to form the longest chain. This is a old political strategy used by governments to split people into groups and to target smaller chucks of voters.

Once again a percentage of Core or XT supporters will fork off to the new Gavin proposal and the community will be divided even more than it was before.

[Bitcoinpro]

Bitcoin Classic now thats a really funny name,

[bri912678]

Bitcoin Classic now thats a really funny name,

Multibit used multibit classic for its first version, after which it released multibit hd. I always think of a classic version of any software as the oldest version that it began with. I probably picked it up from the term classic cars which people use to describe old cars. It doesn't seem right using classic to describe a new version/fork of a wallet.

[Kakmakr]

Bitcoin Classic now thats a really funny name,

Multibit used multibit classic for its first version, after which it released multibit hd. I always think of a classic version of any software as the oldest version that it began with. I probably picked it up from the term classic cars which people use to describe old cars. It doesn't seem right using classic to describe a new version/fork of a wallet.

They can call it what they like, we can just adapt and call Bitcoin Core something else like Bitcoin Original. The Classic label is actually something negative for them, because it is usually associated with something old and outdated. Some vintage model, replaced with something new and innovative.

Who would have thought you could paint yourself into a corner with a bad choice in a name for your technology. ^smile^

[hdbuck]

More gavineries:




Sweet irony.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

More gavineries:




Sweet irony.

Ah, hdbuck, you have a place where all you right wing collaborators can hang out and lick shiny jack boots together. (What? no theymos yet?)

Im genuinely happy for you.

PS - your buddy icebreaker quickly dumped his National Front banner. Why was that?  Not quite the quisling you hoped for?

[Bergmann_Christoph]

Hei hdbuck, here you are. Did you escape the thread where you and your gang where exposed as french fascist?

Readers, please don't make too complicated answers to hdbuck, cause he prooved himself unable to understand it and has in his desperation no other option than to get aggressive.

Also you shouldn't make posts that go against hdbuck's line, cause he will be unable to react other than with uninnovative insults.

Also please don't try to argue with him. Many people tried, but after some pages of senseless discussions full of untalented insults they came to the conclusion that it's not worth the time, since hdbuck NEVER reads your arguments.

if you don't believe, your are free to try.

[Lauda]

Please rename the title to fit the discussion. Some could argue that it doesn't matter who is behind the code, but it does even though Bitcoin is trustless. If there is going to be a switch of the developers, then we need people who are better than the current ones; not suspicious and controversial. Also the signatures by bad actors (e.g. Long) are worthless.