Is Bitcoin being corrupted right now?
In some ways, yes. The Bitcoin Foundation is trying to establish itself as a central point of Bitcoin through which it can fund and steer development, while at the same time working together with the state and Wall Street. What's going to happen, is that governments will use the Foundation to pressure Bitcoin development in certain directions.Chief scientist and former lead-developer Gavin Andresen is paid by the Bitcoin Foundation, while his friends are the big Bitcoin-corporations. So, naturally, he's more favourable towards their outlook of Bitcoin. And if you look at his actions and decisions...He talks about Bitcoin as a payments-innovation, he developed the payments protocol, and now he's pushing to increase the blocksize limit which would raise the maximum number of transactions on the network at the cost of even further centralization of mining. That is in effect in direct opposition to the idea of Bitcoin as a decentralized, private and uncensored system.
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-technology-worth-nothing-interview-dark-wallet-front-man-amir-taaki-1412722833---
Does anyone know what the hell is happening?
a) normal_BTC ... you know no fork!
b) "classic
TM"_BTC : classic as in hard forking 'just 2MB' but now with a name that sounds like you're not forking a $7 billion dolliar's decentralized chain
c) CORE ... something about side chains, lightening GMAX stuff ... tradehouse cartel product ... diamond market is controlled by very similar structuring ...
https://i.imgur.com/FCqIBSM.gifd) TX ...
... to lazy to research into that dead turkey ... something giga blocks and normal blocks
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1115016.160https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ilbit/mike_hearn_responds_to_xt_critics/cuiwqv6 nullc
e) ETH ... looks like long term capital saw the 'fork' in the road and dev'd a product that is forkable anytime 51% of the capital decides to add or remove features ... the life boat is already inflated
f) UnLimited ... as in unlimited hardforking?
----
But because some transactions that would have been invalid under the old rules would become suddenly valid after, a hard fork requires almost unanimous consensus from every single Bitcoin holder. If consensus is not clearly achieved, miners who lag in adopting to the hard fork may reject certain transactions that would have violated the old rules, while miners who have upgraded proceed to add them to their blocks. The result: two or more chains that coexist within the Bitcoin network, creating confusion among users and wreaking havoc on the price and viability of the network’s future. Gathering the consensus required for
a hard fork would be a near Herculean feat—and even then, the highly risky unintended consequences introduced by the change could be far more damaging than the ultimately manageable problem it would aim to address.
http://reason.com/archives/2016/02/02/bitcoin-is-not-dead-but
XT and Unlimited were failed implementations by Gavin to alter the Bitcoin protocol. Classic is merely the "3rd times a charm" try for this camp, hoping they will rush out a blocksize increase.
and here is that "Rush Out"
https://bitcoinclassic.com/http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbloomberg/2016/02/07/double-your-money-looming-hard-fork-uncovers-fatal-bitcoin-flaw/#171f7a233cefhttp://www.riddellwilliams.com/blog/articles/post/hard-fork-conspiracy-treacherous
