Who have right and which is the best?

[keepdoing]

......seems a totally stupidity and bullshit to be such situation only for only 1 MB difference on the increase of the size of the new block of production of bitcoins. But for sure it will be not so. Cannot be a stupidity or a bullshit create such big trouble for a pearl like bitcoin. Must be much more.

Nope... you've pretty much got the concept.  Blockstream/Core supporters and some core devs that are totally operating out of a position of selfish conflict-of-interest are full of stupidity and bullshit, and are willing to throw a monkey wrench into the entire bitcoin ecosytem in order to ...... well...... to be stupid and full of bullshit I guess.

[blunderer]

Yeah, I'll tell you about row transactions after you answer my riddles three:

1. If you're so smart, what was Ty Warner eating when he solved the BTCeanie Propagation Problem?
Go!
No Googling!

How cute - our little troll here can't even spell a simple three letter word (or perhaps you think transactions need to be propelled manually across water by people in boats).

Lol @ grasping at typos.
Here, learn all you need to know about raw transactions, pedant https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Raw_Transactions

So you don't know shit about BTCeanies or BTC++ . Kepp scripting Perl, and mebby learn ROM Basic.

[keepdoing]

Oh, an d don't forget CIYAM.  His business model depends much on Blockstream survival, so he's sort of chained to the sinking ship by default.  Poor guy.... fighting and casting wildly about as the ship goes down.  Shame... a good fight, but he'll drown all the same.  See ya Ciyam!  Don't let the anchor hit you in the ass on the way down!

[CIYAM]

... His business model depends much on Blockstream survival...

Huh? What business model are you talking about?

CIYAM is an open source project that is entirely funded by myself (there is no business model as it isn't a business).

[blunderer]

... His business model depends much on Blockstream survival...

Huh? What business model are you talking about?

CIYAM is an open source project that is entirely funded by myself (there is no business model as it isn't a business).

Clearly CIYAM ain't paying your bills. Who is it then, sugar mama or Blockstream?

[CIYAM]

Clearly CIYAM ain't paying your bills. Who is it then, sugar mama or Blockstream?

Sorry - you think you have the right to ask me who is paying my bills now?

Who is paying yours?

[keepdoing]

... His business model depends much on Blockstream survival...

Huh? What business model are you talking about?

CIYAM is an open source project that is entirely funded by myself (there is no business model as it isn't a business).

Clearly CIYAM ain't paying your bills. Who is it then, sugar mama or Blockstream?

I forgot.  He's independently wealthy and does this as a charity project!

Or..... HE'S A SCUMBAG LIAR!

* you decide  

[blunderer]

Clearly CIYAM ain't paying your bills. Who is it then, sugar mama or Blockstream?

Sorry - you think you have the right to ask me who is paying my bills now?

Who is paying yours?

Hit a nerve. I see...
K, you don't need to tell me if admitting source of income too painful 4U

[keepdoing]

actually he's probably independently wealthy and does charity coding.  As they say... you get what you pay for.  Sort of like Blockstream.... people are paying for working code..... but what they get is angry Core/Blockstream shills wasting all their time in forum chats spreading FUD.

Go back to work CIYAM!  Your code won't write itself!

[CIYAM]

Hit a nerve. I see...

Not at all - not even close - keep trying to troll me but I'm not worried about you at all.

[cjmoles]

We know that there are companies who are willing to concede some sort of regulation for a share in the US market....Who are they and what are they proposing in backroom negotiations?

You can't "regulate science" it works the way that it does (no amount of government agreements will make it quicker to verify ECDSA signatures).

So, I'm no scientist, are you saying that Bitcoin cannot handle a large  increase in adoption because transaction times would be too slow?  What are the solutions?

[CIYAM]

Go back to work CIYAM!  Your code won't write itself!

It's interesting that all the trolls are trying to attack me (someone who doesn't work for any Bitcoin company and never has).

You are getting kind of desperate aren't you?

(shouldn't you be trolling the core devs instead of me?)

[keepdoing]

We know that there are companies who are willing to concede some sort of regulation for a share in the US market....Who are they and what are they proposing in backroom negotiations?

You can't "regulate science" it works the way that it does (no amount of government agreements will make it quicker to verify ECDSA signatures).

So, I'm no scientist, are you saying that Bitcoin cannot handle a large  increase in adoption because transaction times would be too slow?  What are the solutions?

Well, the 1st solution is to implement the Classic Fork.  Check!
Step Two - throw party for return of a Development Team that isn't STUPID and operating on Conflict-Of-Interest.
Step 3 - allow the return of intelligent governance to do its thing.

[keepdoing]

Go back to work CIYAM!  Your code won't write itself!

It's interesting that all the trolls are trying to attack me (someone who doesn't work for any Bitcoin company and never has).

You are getting kind of desperate aren't you?

(shouldn't you be trolling the core devs instead of me?)

No.  I think I have you pegged pretty squarely as a FUD spreading Core/Blockstream supporter that is contributing to the problem.

[CIYAM]

Well, the 1st solution is to implement the Classic Fork.  Check!
Step Two - throw party for return of a Development Team that isn't STUPID and operating on Conflict-Of-Interest.
Step 3 - allow the return of intelligent governance to do its thing.

The first thing is to ignore the advice of the poster of this nonsense.

[CIYAM]

No.  I think I have you pegged pretty squarely as a FUD spreading Core/Blockstream supporter that is contributing to the problem.

You are entitled to think whatever you like - but I think that the FUD is "stronger with you".

(although I would not quite call you a FUD-Master yet - so you'd better keep on working at it)

[blunderer]

actually he's probably independently wealthy and does charity coding.  As they say... you get what you pay for.  Sort of like Blockstream.... people are paying for working code..... but what they get is angry Core/Blockstream shills wasting all their time in forum chats spreading FUD.

Go back to work CIYAM!  Your code won't write itself!

No man, he tries to make money by extorting it from the Bitcoin community, see here

Yup, this criminal would stop at nothing to get his way

[CIYAM]

No man, he tries to make money by extorting it from the Bitcoin community, see here

No forum money was lost (or therefore made by me) over that.

So another trolling stupid comment.

I am really not worried about your stupid personal attacks at me - it just shows how desperate Gavin is.

[Kprawn]

CIYAM is 100% correct... The whole thing started with the exit of Gavin and Mike Hearn... they thought they could go on their own and a huge percentage of

the community would follow them like sheep. They clearly underestimated the intelligence of the community and the Bitcoin community stood up to them and

said NO to their XT proposal. Mike Hearn accepted the defeat and he ran after the money to work for the competition and Gavin came back with a new

proposal, which is a bit better on the ear for most people. It's all about the power.... very little has to do with the actual need for bigger block sizes. Yes, it has

to increase over time, but it was rushed and blown up to hasten a power grab, before the Core team could bring out their solution. {SegWit etc..}

[blunderer]

No man, he tries to make money by extorting it from the Bitcoin community, see here

No forum money was lost (or therefore made by me) over that.

So another trolling stupid comment.

Not for your lack of trying, you lying criminal