All new nodes are virtual server ... attack in progress to switch to 2Mb

[hdbuck]

all these fake nodes still relaying only <1MB blocks.

watta pity.

[1715617666]

1715617666

[1715617666]

1715617666

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

Why has Blockstream become this evil company that people hate?

Realistically you're overreacting. This rant just shows how unreasonable you're being.

It's an attempt at a power grab. Nothing more.

[chek2fire]

Why has Blockstream become this evil company that people hate?

Realistically you're overreacting. This rant just shows how unreasonable you're being.

It's an attempt at a power grab. Nothing more.

yeah if you have 5 developer from blockstream among the 80+ core developers is an attemp at power control of bitcoin. Instead if you have 1 of 3 Classic developers from Bloq is nothing more but a revolution

[Zarathustra]

how can anyone support this idiots with that cheap tactics?

How can anyone support those idiots who sign backroom deals with 3 chinese people who control 70% of hash power?

[valiz]

How can anyone support those who place 95% of their nodes in tech clouds that can be eliminated with a phone call?

[chek2fire]

I remember that the same attempt has done before from Classic team and they proudly post their mining supporters to their site. Then you dont have a problem with this heh? And the deal if you remember was not only with miners but and with the biggest exchanges in the world and has and the user support the most part of them.

[Zarathustra]

all these fake nodes still relaying only <1MB blocks.

watta pity.

Yes, a pity to Bitcoin, but not to the altcoin trolls here who profit from this unspellable stupidity of the miners.

[franky1]

Why has Blockstream become this evil company that people hate?

Realistically you're overreacting. This rant just shows how unreasonable you're being.

It's an attempt at a power grab. Nothing more.

its not about power.
Core can also add in the maxblocksize=2000000
bitcoinJ can also add in the maxblocksize=2000000
bitgo(btcd) can also add in the maxblocksize=2000000

and then everyone is on an equal playing field with a BUFFER to protect themselves for the future when MINERS decide to slowly make blocks slightly more than 1mb.

its just a buffer. just like the 1mb us a buffer when miners were only making 0.3mb blocks in 2012 0.5mb blocks in 2013 and 0.7mb blocks in 2014

the "POWER GRAB" is those causing contention by not releasing code to protect people. and forcing a contension hard fork, instead of every implementation having the code.

the "power grab" is those wanting to control when users get to have more buffer space and vetoing any natural growth because they have an agenda to push people offchain.

so if you are supporting anyone that refuses to expand the buffer. then you might aswell be stuck in 2013 making 500k blocks because someone you admire tells you not to upgrade

EVERYONE should be protected against any change. and with 2mb buffer everyone would be.
core still gets to do its segwit agenda. the 2mb buffer doesnt eradicate cores ability to create segwit.
because thats naively and ignorantly believing that getting passed the 2013 500k DB-bug was bad and by getting passed it no one can make new features again

what it does do is free users from needing to rely on core. and be free to use any of the 12 implementations available

avoiding adding the buffer hurts the community

[chek2fire]

Why has Blockstream become this evil company that people hate?

Realistically you're overreacting. This rant just shows how unreasonable you're being.

It's an attempt at a power grab. Nothing more.

its not about power.
Core can also add in the maxblocksize=2000000
bitcoinJ can also add in the maxblocksize=2000000
bitgo(btcd) can also add in the maxblocksize=2000000

and then everyone is on an equal playing field with a BUFFER to protect themselves for the future when MINERS decide to slowly make blocks slightly more than 1mb.

its just a buffer. just like the 1mb us a buffer when miners were only making 0.3mb blocks in 2012 0.5mb blocks in 2013 and 0.7mb blocks in 2014

the "POWER GRAB" is those causing contention by not releasing code to protect people. and forcing a contension hard fork, instead of every implementation having the code.

the "power grab" is those wanting to control when users get to have more buffer space and vetoing any natural growth because they have an agenda to push people offchain.

so if you are supporting anyone that refuses to expand the buffer. then you might aswell be stuck in 2013 making 500k blocks because someone you admire tells you not to upgrade

EVERYONE should be protected against any change. and with 2mb buffer everyone would be.
core still gets to do its segwit agenda. the 2mb buffer doesnt eradicate cores ability to create segwit.
because thats naively and ignorantly believing that getting passed the 2013 500k DB-bug was bad and by getting passed it no one can make new features again

what it does do is free users from needing to rely on core. and be free to use any of the 12 implementations available

avoiding adding the buffer hurts the community

I am very sure that whining and this drama from a small group and especially from Armstrong, Gavin and Garzik hurts bitcoin. we all see this all of the recent months and you must be blind to not see this.
How can anyone trust and give power to only three developers and to a small group community that act like a religious secta with no technical background.
And is obvious that and you have no tech background with what you just write. There are much more problems with the block size increase than a simple switch that it seems you dont understand at all. Like you is all the Classic supporters unfortunately.

[hdbuck]

all these fake nodes still relaying only <1MB blocks.

watta pity.

Yes, a pity to Bitcoin, but not to the altcoin trolls here who profit from this unspellable stupidity of the miners.

ohh so that's what it is about: classic stupid attempt at attacking bitcoin to pump some altcoin.


good job, still...

~not tonight dearies...

[Lauda]

I am very sure that whining and this drama from a small group and especially from Armstrong, Gavin and Garzik hurts bitcoin. we all see this all of the recent months and you must be blind to not see this.
How can anyone trust and give power to only three developers and to a small group community that act like a religious secta with no technical background.
And is obvious that and you have no tech background with what you just write. There are much more problems with the block size increase than a simple switch that it seems you dont understand at all. Like you is all the Classic supporters unfortunately.

This is where their logic starts failing. They're claiming that Core is trying to restrict the network because of Blockstream. However, if you look at the people who signed the Core roadmap (as an example), you'd see 23/25 [1] agreement (where those two represent Gavin and Garzik). Both of them have not been significantly active in the Bitcoin development in recent times (coincidence?). Additionally, it makes zero sense to claim that development is centralized and then try to push it into even a smaller team. Armstrong is a separate story (promoting a Sybil attack and such).

ohh so that's what it is about: classic stupid attempt at attacking bitcoin to pump some altcoin.

Stall Bitcoin development by giving the keys to inexperienced people and stoners.
[1] - Arbitrary number used to compare the amount of people that support it and those that don't (it was in some recent interview). I haven't counted the exact number of people.

[HostFat]

Why is this an attack? It is not.
No one is forced to install a classic node, and even miners aren't forced to switch to 2MB.

The main reason so that there are so many nodes on cloud is that before this situation all local classic nodes were under DOS attack.

[chek2fire]

Why is this an attack? It is not.
No one is forced to install a classic node, and even miners aren't forced to switch to 2MB.

The main reason so that there are so many nodes on cloud is that before this situation all local classic nodes were under DOS attack.

i really can't understand how a staff legendary member of bitcoin community has so poor arguments

[Zarathustra]

all these fake nodes still relaying only <1MB blocks.

watta pity.

Yes, a pity to Bitcoin, but not to the altcoin trolls here who profit from this unspellable stupidity of the miners.

ohh so that's what it is about: classic stupid attempt at attacking bitcoin to pump some altcoin.


good job, still...

~not tonight dearies...

The backroom deal by Antfool/F2Fool/Bitfooly with BlockstR3eam/Core/PWC/AXA is either founded by suicidal stupidity of those pool admins, or it is collaboration with TPTB.
No third possibility.

[chek2fire]

and today this Classic user wake up and decide all together to switch off their nodes



what a crap

[poupatudo]

I don't get the point of all this talk... now blockstream really need to add the 2mb code into their implementation otherwise they would be the ones causing the contention.

[Lauda]

I don't get the point of all this talk... now blockstream really need to add the 2mb code into their implementation otherwise they would be the ones causing the contention.

I don't understand the mindset: "I don't understand this thing, but let me tell you how it should be.". Blockstream has nothing to do with the Bitcoin Core code; they are working on their own solutions/products. From what I see, you don't have any knowledge about the development/consensus process.

[Zarathustra]

and today this Classic user wake up and decide all together to switch off their nodes



what a crap

By far less dangerous than if the BlockstR3eam/PWC/AXA/Core collaborators behind the Great Firewall decide to switch off the machines.

[chek2fire]

and today this Classic user wake up and decide all together to switch off their nodes



what a crap

By far less dangerous than if the BlockstR3eam/PWC/AXA/Core collaborators behind the Great Firewall decide to switch off the machines.

and i ask you again. I am very sure that if miners was white ppl in zyrich or Usa i am very sure that you will not have problem at all. Do you vote and Trump?

[franky1]

I am very sure that whining and this drama from a small group and especially from Armstrong, Gavin and Garzik hurts bitcoin. we all see this all of the recent months and you must be blind to not see this.
How can anyone trust and give power to only three developers and to a small group community that act like a religious secta with no technical background.
And is obvious that and you have no tech background with what you just write. There are much more problems with the block size increase than a simple switch that it seems you dont understand at all. Like you is all the Classic supporters unfortunately.

the answer is you dont give power to ANY developer.
instead you find a non classic codebase and you put in the 2000000 buffer

there is no power grab.

there is no problem with increasing the buffer. and like i said you dont have to fall for the classic crap to do it, even core can do it even btcd can do it even bitcoinj can do it.

its not a situation that only one corporation can lead.
it has never been a core vs classic debate. its about having independant code that no one controls.

so fill free to grab the 2mb code and the segwit code and have it all.
its not a one or other debate its an everything together debate

its not a choice of feature a or feature B. its all features together so that your covered for any future change and then you have the freedom to choose which one to use.

by the way im not a classic fanboy, or a blockstream fanboy.. im just a bitcoin needs more buffer capacity to allow for natural unhindered growth without begging a corporation for more porridge (oliver twist reference: please sir can i have some more)