ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[JayJuanGee]

You are correct... sometimes Adam seems to be all over the place......

being opened minded and willing to be a blacksheep, does that to you.
core is trying to get the flow of bitcoin TX into there blockstream projects?
not sure, but i'm willing to entertain the idea, and throw out crazy actuations to get some reactions.
in the heat of the moment ( getting banned from bitcointalk.org, and talking to the bitco.in ), i may has said some nutty stuff.

In these various speculation threads, I think that it is healthy to speculate to some degree, but sometimes, any of us can sound nutty if we speculate too much or if we begin to describe speculative scenarios as being more likely than they really are.  That seems to be a kind of practice of what trolls do.  They take some plausible 1% scenario, and begin to send it around as if it is 30% or some other higher probability and then begin to string a variety of these 1% scenarios together to spread FUCD.

Personally, I have kind of evolved on some of this blocksize limit, governance and hardfork discussion.    About 5 months ago, I could give less than a shit about these issues, but over the past few months the discussions have become more and more persistent, prevalent and invasive, and even though I was attempting to stay out of such discussions, from the deluge of repetitive posts and the sky is falling scenarios, my hand (and head) was forced to some extent to have to look into it and to realize that a kind of sabotage of bitcoin seemed to have been occurring with the framing of an emergency and the assertions that hard forking, block size limit increase, governance change blah blah blah were absolutely necessary blah blah blah. 

You have been around long enough too, and should have been able to see through some of this recent bullshit, by now.. no?   a lot of it seems to boil down to change for the sake of change rather than really being an emergency or even necessary... in sum a way to attempt to undermine bitcoin in a variety of ways.

Discussion of blockstream as being unduly influential in bitcoin's governance or future direction remains a distraction to what had really been taking place in recent times...

[BitUsher]

core is trying to get the flow of bitcoin TX into there blockstream projects?

Still willing to mislead others I see... LN isn't controlled, invented or owned by blockstream. Sidechains are opensource and anyone can run an elements alpha sidechain, you can even setup and run your own liquid sidechain yourself. You are also conflating core with blockstream which is both misleading and insulting to core which has a diverse set of backgrounds opinions and funding sources. Even if your were to ignore the fact that almost all devs aren't associated with blockstream and just focus on devs with commit access you will see this -


    gavinandresen (Gavin Andresen)  - funded by MIT Media Lab and coinbase and bloq
    jgarzik (Jeff Garzik) - bloq (formerly supported by bitpay )
    jonasschnelli (Jonas Schnelli) - digitalbitbox.com
    laanwj (Wladimir J. van der Laan) - MIT Media Lab
    sipa (Pieter Wuille Sort) - blockstream

That is only 1 dev of 5 within core with commit access and 2 of those devs have even started their own competing implementations.

How could you not know this by now ? Will you stop spreading misleading statements meant to spread unfounded conspiracy theories?

[adamstgBit]

core is trying to get the flow of bitcoin TX into there blockstream projects?

Still willing to mislead others I see... LN isn't controlled, invented or owned by blockstream. Sidechains are opensource and anyone can run an elements alpha sidechain, you can even setup and run your own liquid sidechain yourself. You are also conflating core with blockstream which is both misleading and insulting to core which has a diverse set of backgrounds opinions and funding sources. Even if your were to ignore the fact that almost all devs aren't associated with blockstream and just focus on devs with commit access you will see this -


    gavinandresen (Gavin Andresen)  - funded by MIT Media Lab and coinbase and bloq
    jgarzik (Jeff Garzik) - bloq (formerly supported by bitpay )
    jonasschnelli (Jonas Schnelli) - digitalbitbox.com
    laanwj (Wladimir J. van der Laan) - MIT Media Lab
    sipa (Pieter Wuille Sort) - blockstream

That is only 1 dev of 5 within core with commit access and 2 of those devs have even started their own competing implementations.

How could you not know this by now ? Will you stop spreading misleading statements meant to spread unfounded conspiracy theories?

Gavin and Jeff arent core devs... (  imagine Gavin committing his 2MB code into core Bahahahahah )

where jr luke in this list? and gmax ( they dont have commit access ?  isn't segwit their baby? )

i'm not sure of the exact ties between core and blockstream. at the time, poeple arguing that there was a conflict of interest in the Core dev team seemed to have compelling evidence. I took that "info" as is, and assumed that most of the Core team was also getting paid by blockstream.

[brg444]

Still entertaining the adam useful idiot I see 

[BitUsher]

Gavin and Jeff arent core devs...

Sigh... another false statement.....

This is the up to date list of devs with commit access. Regardless of Gavin and Jeff being distracted by other ventures and implementations they both do indeed participate and control the private keys to make commits to core. They have not given up this priveledge and not made any indications that they are no longer core devs, in fact they have indicated the opposite.

where jr luke in this list? and gmax ( they dont have commit access ?

Greg Gave up commit access a long while ago and luke never had it.

i'm not sure of the exact ties between core and blockstream. at the time, poeple arguing that there was a conflict of interest in the Core dev team seemed to have compelling evidence. I took that "info" as is, and assumed that most of the Core team was also getting paid by blockstream.

So since you are now learning the truth , that can all be backed up with evidence , will you correct those that spread those lies and apologize for not verifying the misinformation that you helped spread?

[yochdog]

NT

[adamstgBit]

look you see threads with the title

True or False? Blockstream having so many Core developers is a conflict/centralization of interest.

and no one is disputing "Blockstream having so many Core developers" as not factual and you assume its the truth.

[BitUsher]

look you see threads with the title

True or False? Blockstream having so many Core developers is a conflict/centralization of interest.

and no one is disputing "Blockstream having so many Core developers" as not factual and you assume its the truth.

Please quote where I indicated this. You are now spreading misinformation about me.
Or are you so confused that you think this statement :

core is trying to get the flow of bitcoin TX into there blockstream projects?

is equal to this statement:

True or False? Blockstream having so many Core developers is a conflict/centralization of interest.

and no one is disputing "Blockstream having so many Core developers" as not factual and you assume its the truth.

If you find a quote where I suggested such I will openly apologize.
Otherwise when you apologize for conflating the two I will be happy answer your new question.

[beastmodeBiscuitGravy]

 gavinandresen (Gavin Andresen)  - funded by MIT Media Lab and coinbase and bloq    Compromised by CIA
    jgarzik (Jeff Garzik) - bloq (formerly supported by bitpay )   Wrote a few lines of code many years ago, irrelevant.
    jonasschnelli (Jonas Schnelli) - digitalbitbox.com   https://twitter.com/_jonasschnelli_/status/706792094841573376
    laanwj (Wladimir J. van der Laan) - MIT Media Lab   Lead Consensus Observer
    sipa (Pieter Wuille Sort) - blockstream
    nullc (Gregory Maxwell) - Lead Wizard - blockstream -   Altruistically rescinded commit access around the time he undertook a short seclusion in the west wing, totally NOT for political reasons and bad "optics".

Good to see this section of the forum is still inhabited by legions of sig farmers hardworking laborers, children mature professionals, and illiterate rubes srs investors... Give them a taste of some back-and-forth between the Blockstream shills, a stockholmed adam, and the always graceful Jay Juan Gee... they won't be able to say "no".

Digital gold has never been shinier. Mewn boyz... sewn.

[adamstgBit]

look you see threads with the title

True or False? Blockstream having so many Core developers is a conflict/centralization of interest.

and no one is disputing "Blockstream having so many Core developers" as not factual and you assume its the truth.

Please quote where I indicated this. You are now spreading misinformation about me.

i'm not implying you said these things, i'm saying other users have

[Carlton Banks]

look you see threads with the title

True or False? Blockstream having so many Core developers is a conflict/centralization of interest.

and no one is disputing "Blockstream having so many Core developers" as not factual and you assume its the truth.

So, because someone made a thread with that title, it's true? Are you ok? Everything alright at home, etc?

[BitUsher]

look you see threads with the title

True or False? Blockstream having so many Core developers is a conflict/centralization of interest.

and no one is disputing "Blockstream having so many Core developers" as not factual and you assume its the truth.

Please quote where I indicated this. You are now spreading misinformation about me.

i'm not implying you said these things, i'm saying other users have

No , you clearly said I assumed it is the truth and quoted me.

In all seriousness, and with no intentions to denigrate you directly , do you smoke a lot of marijuana or do harder drugs or have any mental illnesses? You appear to be unstable and lack clarity even between posts. I'm trying to determine if you have a problem or if you are merely trolling.

[valiz]

Please bring in smarter shills 

It's a shame if they can't afford Veritas's services anymore . Adam's shilling is boring.

Btw, fork off already. I want to sell some Toomincoins to get more real coins. 

[jbreher]

there available now, no? the code has been written and is working on some nodes ( BU nodes right? )

I'm here to talk about Bitcoin, you're clearly here to talk about some other currency that doesn't exist. You should use BU yourself ...

BU is an alternative Bitcoin client, not a client for an alt currency. It is running right now on the Bitcoin network, processing Bitcoin transactions.

[adamstgBit]

look you see threads with the title

True or False? Blockstream having so many Core developers is a conflict/centralization of interest.

and no one is disputing "Blockstream having so many Core developers" as not factual and you assume its the truth.

Please quote where I indicated this. You are now spreading misinformation about me.

i'm not implying you said these things, i'm saying other users have

No , you clearly said "I assumed" it is the truth and quoted me.

In all seriousness, and with no intentions to denigrate you directly , do you smoke a lot of marijuana or do harder drugs or have any mental illnesses? You appear to be unstable and lack clarity even between posts. I'm trying to determine if you have a problem or if you are merely trolling.

omfg....


and no one is disputing "Blockstream having so many Core developers" as not factual and you one assumes its the truth.

better?

[adamstgBit]

fuck this shit.

[BitUsher]

fuck this shit.

Yes, you are indeed very unstable or just trolling. No use discussing technical aspects until you get help. I hope you get better soon.

BU is an alternative Bitcoin client, not a client for an alt currency. It is running right now on the Bitcoin network, processing Bitcoin transactions.

I agree that we shouldn't call BU, XT, or classic alts. While they are in a different category as implementations like libbitcoin or bitcore which don't attempt to break consensus rules. They are clearly bitcoin at the moment.

[jbreher]

Therefore, if segwit does not achieve 95% or whatever is the level needed, then the old system will continue to carry out. 

Unless, of course, some other client amasses its activation threshold (e.g. Classic @ 75%).

[blunderer]

If anyone asks me how Bitcoin works (lol, like that actually happened IRL to anyone ever), I'll just direct them to this thread

[BitUsher]

Therefore, if segwit does not achieve 95% or whatever is the level needed, then the old system will continue to carry out.  

Unless, of course, some other client amasses its activation threshold (e.g. Classic @ 75%).

Very true, the old Bitcoin , would definitely need to make big changes to bitcoin core if classic miners controlled over 75% hashing power. Personally, I have enough problems with the direction of the Classic Scaling roadmap that I would support these changes and stay on the original/different chain regardless of it leaving merchant processors and a majority of SHA256 ASIC hashing power, but I agree , either way you are right the old protocol would be dead.

Luckily , Classic support seems to be dying or at least stabilizing between 5-8%  of blocks , thus this isn't much of a concern.