Greg Maxwell is now the owner of Bitcoin. That's all.

[davis196]

Shit.

Great thread.Writing a catchy title and no clarification at all.

Next time,i will make a topic:"Donald Trump is now the owner of bitcoin.That`s all."

Any evidence,any proof?

[Denker]

I was under the impression that bitcoin was an open source project, so with that said, how can anyone be determined the owner of bitcoin?  I have read a little about what has been said and I do not understand how they can consider him the owner let alone an issue??

You have wasted your time reading that bs over there on r/btc.
These guys are crazy and circlejerking 24/7.
They are flaming against Core, Greg and Blockstream since a very long time.Conspiracy theorists at it's finest!
The hate against Greg is their oxygen.Without Greg and Core they all would collapse.

[calkob]

some of the comment are abit harsh but then again i dont know greg personally and have never worked with him either, maybe they are true. 

[Kakmakr]

It could have been worst, and be in the hands of Gavin or Mike Hearn and the banking buddies. ^rofl^ Some people do not understand what majority means in a consensus scenario, so they dream up all these conspiracy theories. Get over it,
Bitcoin is in good hands with the current Core developers. ^smile^

[franky1]

now for the facts about control
(blockstream heavy) core can veto a hard fork with just 5%-10% sheep nodes(miners wont change if 5-10% chance of orphans)
yet core can implement a softfork that can totally change bitcoin by making old nodes blind, passing data they cant check, without any resistance or refusal.(softforks don't cause orphans even if the data cant be checked)

thats right a softfork can be implemented at any point and there is no opt-out..
cores "activation parameters" are not necessary for function, but just a comfort blanket to appear that users have a choice. but as i say, its not required because old nodes cant veto new nodes.

softforks just render old clients into litenodes by not allowing them to validate data, but still blindly pass it on. the only choice in a soft fork is upgrade and accept the change, or dont upgrade and become paralized..
softforks can introduce new bugs without choice or veto. but hey, everyone is ok with it because they trust 12 paid developers and 90 spell checkers.

but im still laughing each time i see people call non-core fans "bigblockers"
for years the bloat debate went on and the COMMUNITY settled that 2mb was a reasonable and acceptable amount of bloat. (this was even before the gavin and hearn stuff as they wanted 8mb+, so don't bring gavin or hearn into this point as your rebuttal, ur just misdirecting if you do)

how can 2mb be the "big blockers" if blockstream heavy core want 4mb??  2mb vs 4mb.. come on its easy to see who big blockers really are
its obvious those that call non-core fans bigblockers have never read a single line of code or able to comprehend simple maths.. yet they still try to push their blockstream heavy agenda.



now with the community wanting 2mb and also something logical like BU where the nodes make the capacity growth decisions instead of being dependant on a dev team(like some oliver twist 'please sir can i have some more' slave).. so that no single dev team can have control...
the whole REKT campaigns started where core devs started becoming factions.. to try turning bitcoin into something controlled by blockstream.
core even evicted some of its own devs who didn't support the blockstream plan to make core-dev team blockstream heavy. rather than open to all sides.

even now gmaxwell is planning a REKT campaign against one of his own (LukeJr) purely because luke is going to release a codebase of core with the desired true capacity growth the COMMUNITY originally wanted.

core pretend that they are open by having their main PAID devs.. and then throw in 90 or so spellcheckers just to hide the powerhouse, by trying to say they have 100+ devs all on equal levels as each other.

even now anyone wanting 2mb with 2x capacity is deemed evil. because blockstream heavy core devs want 4mb with 1.8x capacity.
and their main selling point to try pushing for 4mb with 1.8x is to remove double spend mechanism(malleability)... but... secretly adding double spend mechanisms(RBF,CPFP), making double spends still an issue.

and here is the kicker..
if there really was no one controlling bitcoin. then there would be no need to defend a single group or person as that group or person has no more power than anyone else.
but by defending someone out of fear that if they stop their plans, bitcoin cant function. then they are subconsciously admitting bitcoin does have kings in control and that we are all blindly reliant on those kings

my ideology is that decisions should not be made by any one faction and then bribing miners to implement it.. but instead the devs treat each other as equals. that means instead of going to miners meetings. they go to meetings with ALL the different bitcoin dev groups and settle on a community solution.

that way miners do not need to be bribed by any one team because no matter what team the miners like most. the rules are all the same.

anyway goodluck to greg on his ploy to throw another dev off the bus due to not siding with blockstream plans, goodluck to greg trying to twist bitcoin into something to try getting people over to his monero coin. and goodluck to greg when he moves 100% over to monero so that others can bring bitcoin back to being something the whole community want and need it to be.

[marky89]

even now gmaxwell is planning a REKT campaign against one of his own (LukeJr) purely because luke is going to release a codebase of core with the desired true capacity growth the COMMUNITY originally wanted.

How did you measure that the community wants this? All of us? I sure as hell don't want it. I see a lot of opposition to it everywhere I look -- the forum, the mailing lists, Twitter, Reddit. Did you read the transcripts of the July dev/miner meeting? Lots of good food for thought about what can go wrong in a hard fork and why so much of the community is rightfully opposed. For many people, only one [made up] word needs to be said: Ethereum.

Luke can release whatever pull request he wants, but if there is any momentum behind it, there will be a network split. Unless he releases a soft-served hard fork -- in that case, I hope we call agree that this is literally a miner attack on the network. In that case, many users and developers would view this as the ultimate betrayal.

[marky89]

ATTACK?
against who.??

Unless he releases a soft-served hard fork -- in that case, I hope we call agree that this is literally a miner attack on the network.

A soft-served hard fork is a 51% attack by miners that makes node validation on the original network impossible. It is an attempt to force users to switch to the hard fork by destroying their network, making it unusable. It is by definition an attack because it is a 51% attack that censors the entire network.

2mb block vs 4mb block.. which is the "big block".
please answer this question completely honestly and unbiasedly to show your understanding of logic and maths.

What if this is not about 2 vs. 4, but rather about respecting user consensus and preventing a network split? If you don't consent, you can opt out of the network.

[franky1]

attacking who?
betraying who?

oh yea the blockstream heavy devs..

did you not even take your fanboy hat off to consider that hardforks need consensus(majority upgrading to accept) and softforks dont.
did you not even think to yourself if bitcoin is decentralised and the community were all equal then there is no one to betray?
did you not even think that devs should work together to settle on acceptable parameters and all release versions that fit those rules instead of force their own rules by bribing miners..

ok lets skip that stuff, maybe its over your head, lets just raise the main funny part of your mindset .. "bigblockers"
lets test your understanding of logic and maths... 2mb vs 4mb.. which do you consider "bigblock"

if you pass the test.. then answer this:
which is more dangerous
a rule change that requires 95%+ of nodes to accept(upgrade to) before its activated?
a rule change that requires no majority to accept(upgrade to) before its activated?

if you pass that test then answer this:
which is better capacity
2mb for ~average 5000tx
4mb for ~average 4500tx

if you pass that test answer this:
is pretending the real reason to go soft instead of hard is to remove malleability, but then replace it for RBF/CPFP meaning double spends are not solved, reason enough to continue to push soft.

if you have got this far without putting your fanboy hat on, then here is a final question..
who are you protecting exactly. why are you protecting them exactly..
(in context of there being no power house and everything is decentralized)

[franky1]

What if this is not about 2 vs. 4, but rather about respecting user consensus and preventing a network split? If you don't consent, you can opt out of the network.

so your saying that going soft is basically: accept controlled bitcoins new route change or fuck off and dont use bitcoin??
seriously that is not respecting consensus.

i also have to ask where are you even getting such crap information that there would be a hard fork at 51%
please please please tell me why miners would risk 49%+ of their income by causing loads of orphans.. seriously use logic and not propaganda.. explain your point why anyone would consider a hardfork without majority acceptance..

[DannyHamilton]

- snip -
seriously that is not respecting consensus.
- snip -

Bitcoin consensus doesn't require that the users voluntarily "respect consensus".

Consensus is a feature of the design, no matter who wants to make a change or why.

There are a lot of sheep out there that have chosen to simply follow "Bitcoin Core" regardless of what they do.  Therefore, acquiring consensus is much easier if you can convince Bitcoin Core to include it.

However, if you are convincing enough, you can get consensus without Bitcoin Core.

[franky1]

- snip -
seriously that is not respecting consensus.
- snip -

Bitcoin consensus doesn't require that the users voluntarily "respect consensus".

Consensus is a feature of the design, no matter who wants to make a change or why.

There are a lot of sheep out there that have chosen to simply follow "Bitcoin Core" regardless of what they do.  Therefore, acquiring consensus is much easier if you can convince Bitcoin Core to include it.

However, if you are convincing enough, you can get consensus without Bitcoin Core.

lol but core want to change the rules without even needing users to upgrade. thats what softforks are..
the only reason they use the fluffy blanket of 'activation parameters' are not due to acquiring a consensus (consent) but to fool people into thinking consent is needed.(its not needed fundamentally, its just added later to pretend its needed)

put it a different way
if 5500 did not upgrade to version 0.13.. core can still change the consensus rules, without anyone able to stop them
i think you fanboys are forgetting the logical, moral, and even the dictionary definition of these words
decentralized
trustless
consensus

put it a different way
you fanboys dont want people to fundamentally consent to a 95% requirement for a hard fork
you fanboys prefer sheep to blindly let changes happen and just pretend that everyone is consenting to it.

seems many of you have been sipping to much on the core soup that greg and his boss prepared for you.

[DannyHamilton]

- snip -

I suppose perhaps english isn't your native language.

Your lack of typical capitalization and sentence structures makes it very difficult to follow your thought processes.  As such, I often find it difficult to understand what point you are trying to make.  Fortunately, with some effort though, I can usually work out what you are trying to say.

Unfortunately, at this point you seem to be saying things that don't make any sense at all.  As such, I'm no longer able to maintain a conversation with you.  You're making declarations that your beliefs are fact without evidence and without explaining why those declarations should be believed.  I can't follow your thought processes any longer, and am unable to comprehend why you think the things you think.

You've often accused me of being a "sheep" or "fanboy" of whatever you are opposing (even when I agree with you), and you've used me as an example of your beliefs (even when I've disagreed with you).  Your rants are getting tiresome, and your inability to accept that a differing opinion can exist in anyone other than a "fanboy" or "sheep" is insulting.

You're welcome to your opinion.  I'll be moving on from this thread.  It doesn't feel like productive conversation is possible any longer.

[franky1]

im starting to think you are not the same danny hamilton from years ago.

if you cant comprehend that core want to change the rules without consent, then you cant comprehend the true meaning of a soft fork or consensus.
if you dont care that core want to change the rules without consent, then you cant comprehend the true meaning of decentralized and trustless

also if capitalization and full stops prevent you from reading, then its not just technical stuff that seems to be your problem.

by the way this is a forum not a white paper being submitted to earn a degree. if you care more about grammar then content,
then many things in life will be lost on you.

so enjoy blindly believing in fluffy spoonfed propaganda simply because its been constructively written to look degree level grammar(even if the content lacks merit). and enjoy ignoring the people that are more concerned with content, not capitalization.

1F Y0U C4N R34D 7H15 7H3N 9R4MM4R 15 N07 7H47 1MP074N7 4ND Y0UR M1ND 15 0P3N 3N0U9H 70 7H1NK 0U751D3 7H3 80X

on a separate subject.
maxwell and friends are blaming the need to restrict capacity, by saying its because of spam causing the UTXO(unspents) list being so big.
that restricting capacity and raising the fee's is the only way to solve it..

when in actual fact the reason for the unspents list being so big is not due to "spam". but due to their own pushy idea a couple years ago that people should be doing "use once" addresses... but you will never seen greg and his friends admit his idea back then is the cause of the UTXO "spam" he is talking about lately

have a nice day.

[QuestionAuthority]

Give up Danny, he's an idiot. 

Oh, and I'm so glad we finally figured out who owns Bitcoin. Now I can stop tossing and turning in my sleep. I guess I should give Maxwell's contact info to my attorney for all the money I've lost.

[Sam Weir]

if you cant comprehend that core want to change the rules without consent

You have it backwards. Core isn't trying to change rules without consent. They have not proposed to break consensus at all. Soft forks are implicitly accepted by bitcoin users since the Bitcoin software accepts the longest, valid chain. Arguing against soft forks is arguing that the longest, valid chain is not Bitcoin. Pretty silly.

[franky1]

if you cant comprehend that core want to change the rules without consent

You have it backwards. Core isn't trying to change rules without consent. They have not proposed to break consensus at all. Soft forks are implicitly accepted by bitcoin users since the Bitcoin software accepts the longest, valid chain. Arguing against soft forks is arguing that the longest, valid chain is not Bitcoin. Pretty silly.

consensus=consent.

the NEW RULES and new verification requirements doesnt require consent in a softfork. old nodes cant block or invalidate or orphan a softforks new rules.. they just blindly pass it on unchecked

passing it on unchecked is not consenting, or agreeing. its no longer being fully part of the consensus mechanism. because they dont have the full list of rules any more.

infact what they think is "blocksize" has a totally different meaning to softfork nodes..

but hey lets just tell everyone that their nodes are perfectly fin being blind, no longer verifying the new data.. infact lets just tell everyone that old nodes are (wrongly) still full nodes).

lets pretend there isnt any consensus (consent) issues purely to let bitcoin change without nodes having to make a choice, lets just brush consensus(consent) under the carpet and pretend consensus(consent) was never part of bitcoin.
lets just call it CORE rules instead of consensus rules.

[Hazir]

Can we have quiet period of time without all that drama around bitcoin developers or institutions?
First Bitcoin Foundation turned out to be scandalous useless entity. Later one of the developer left and labeled bitcoin as failed experiment.
And now we have another developer blamed for being toxic and destructive individual. What next? Core dev team will split?

[marky89]

if you cant comprehend that core want to change the rules without consent

You have it backwards. Core isn't trying to change rules without consent. They have not proposed to break consensus at all. Soft forks are implicitly accepted by bitcoin users since the Bitcoin software accepts the longest, valid chain. Arguing against soft forks is arguing that the longest, valid chain is not Bitcoin. Pretty silly.

consensus=consent.

the NEW RULES and new verification requirements doesnt require consent in a softfork. old nodes cant block or invalidate or orphan a softforks new rules.. they just blindly pass it on unchecked

Consent isn't required to soft fork. Did you not read the above post? Because it's accurate. Soft forks are a matter of processing power (i.e. longest chain), not a matter of consensus rules. A hard fork breaks the rules that users consented to. Soft forks don't.

passing it on unchecked is not consenting, or agreeing. its no longer being fully part of the consensus mechanism. because they dont have the full list of rules any more.

Nodes implicitly agree by accepting the longest valid chain. That's bitcoin. Since Segwit transactions are valid according to the consensus rules (and non-updated nodes do validate transactions against the consensus rules), there is no consensus issue.

infact what they think is "blocksize" has a totally different meaning to softfork nodes..

The only consensus issue relevant here is maxblocksize. Segwit will not allow the violation of it. Non-issue.

but hey lets just tell everyone that their nodes are perfectly fin being blind, no longer verifying the new data.. infact lets just tell everyone that old nodes are (wrongly) still full nodes).

Not verifying new data suggests that non-updated nodes will allow invalid transactions/blocks onto their chain. That is not true. Non-updated nodes are still validating transactions against the consensus rules.

lets pretend there isnt any consensus (consent) issues purely to let bitcoin change without nodes having to make a choice, lets just brush consensus(consent) under the carpet and pretend consensus(consent) was never part of bitcoin.
lets just call it CORE rules instead of consensus rules.

Consent = agreeing to the software's rules. You consent by running the software. Soft forking has nothing to do with the software's rules. They are network rules imposed by miners.

Shall we abolish P2SH now? Because you don't want to accept the longest valid chain?

[Kakmakr]

Can we have quiet period of time without all that drama around bitcoin developers or institutions?
First Bitcoin Foundation turned out to be scandalous useless entity. Later one of the developer left and labeled bitcoin as failed experiment.
And now we have another developer blamed for being toxic and destructive individual. What next? Core dev team will split?

If you have a hidden agenda, you will always find a stick to hit someone with, and this is the case with these people attacking Greg and the other Core developers. Most of them are spectators on the couch, with nothing more to do, than pointing fingers.

They should use those fingers to come up with some good code, and then see if someone would actually like it enough to use it. Consensus is a Bitch. ^smile^

[coynedterm]

How can we believe that. I know everybody wants to get famous by publishing his/her name but buddy if his name gets famous the definitely he will become throne of everybody eye as we don't want to hear ordinary person's name as the owner of bitcoin. Ofcourse hoi could say that you are owner of bitcoin if you own all the btc mined till date.