Austin Hill and Blockstream can just fuck right off.

[RawDog]

the hypocrisy is loud with core fanboys.

Yayayo is a real nut job.  Don't know where they got him from.

[Kakmakr]

OP, how much code did you write for any project as proof of your value? Looking at your post history, it seems as though you only moan and bitch about Bitcoin and bring nothing positive to the table. These trolls/shills are only a pain in the ass. The Blockstream people are adding a lot of value, and they are trying to make a difference. < Positive or negative, depending on what side you are looking from >

I side against the pessimists of this world. ^LoL^

Idiot.  Making negative value is fucked up.  Blockstream has ruined bitcoin.  If I wrote ZERO lines of code - it would be far better than the contribution that 1MB blocksize freeze has done.  Blockstream ruined bitcoin so everyone would pay them fees to have their transactions on a proprietary side chain.  These guys are 100% bullshit - and now their boss is fired.  Finally.  Still think my code is less than theirs?

I just love it when you get personal. I am saying these guys has been contributing code and you have been contributing fuck@l. The spectators are always the first to throw the stones, but they are not the ones playing the game. All of their code will count for nothing, if the people using it, has not decided to do that.

If you are so hell bent on trying to sink these guys, get a team together and create alternative and see if the majority rather wants to support your version. ^hmmmm^

Then again, you are here for other reasons, not to improve Bitcoin. ^SkitMakr signing off^

[RawDog]

If you are so hell bent on trying to sink these guys, get a team together and create alternative and see if the majority rather wants to support your version. ^hmmmm^

The majority, by far, wants >2MB.  But you and your Blockstream idiots keep pointing to that little point knowing that you've been able to 'trick' the system by having just one guy (1Meg Greg) convince a few scared whimpy Chinese miners to keep mining their bullshit version.  1Meg Greg and Blockstream have achieved control over a centralized system. 

If 20,000 bitcoiners all had CPU miners going today and there were no ASICS, the blocksize would surely be 8Mb and Greg and his fucktard team would have control of nothing at all. 

Bitcoin unfortunately has become centralized and the bad actors at the top keep control all the while they say "well a majority would switch if it were such a good idea!" which is complete bullshit.

Once the entire mining capacity got under the control of just a few superminers - it became very easy to manipulate the system.  Today it is laughable that you say "well gee, a majority says they want small blocks."  Small blocks do one thing: drive the demand for the sidechain product Blockstream is building. 

Blockstream has successfully corrupted the network and eliminated decentralization. 

[jbreher]

Gavin was the guy who proudly accepted an invitation to the CIA

Seeing as you were not around at the time, you may not realize that at the time Gavin visited the CIA, the future of Bitcoin was nowhere near an assured thing. Many in the community felt that any attention from any quarter would be a good thing. Are you insinuating that Gavin had ulterior motives in accepting the invitation? Do you think he engineered the invitation? What motives do you posit? What negatives came out of this visit?

And before you spout that this act drove Satoshi out (a view I have had articulated by several), then why would Satoshi left such a nemesis in charge of the project?

and other highly questionable governmental bodies

Insert list here, please:
1)
2)
3)
.
.
.

around the time Satoshi left. He also tried to open the door for political influence on Bitcoin development via funding a Bitcoin Foundation...

Gavin's proposal to start the Bitcoin Foundation was expressly in order to:
1) create a mechanism for the funding of Bitcoin development
2) provide a point of contact so that journalists and governmental bodies could get true info on Bitcoin

On #1, yes he directly benefited. But so did Bitcoin as a whole.
On #2, at the time, there were many instances of outright falsehoods in the press, and driving policy. Early actions by BF countered this trend.

In the long run, the BF did indeed devolve into an insiders' boondoggle. However, some of the early work accomplished by BF may have been instrumental in keeping the gov at bay. Perhaps most notably the early senatorial hearings during which Jennifer Shasky Calvery(?) - chief of FinCEN, was led to proclaim that the legitimate uses of cryptocurrency far outweighed the nefarious uses. Regardless, perhaps you can list Gavin's actions on behalf of the BF that set back the cause:

1)
2)
3)
.
.
.

 Oh - you got nothing? Unsurprised.

[RawDog]

Oh - you got nothing? Unsurprised.

I think the Bitcoin Foundation is now being converted over to a pedophile organization.

[yayayo]

Gavin was the guy who proudly accepted an invitation to the CIA

Seeing as you were not around at the time, you may not realize that at the time Gavin visited the CIA, the future of Bitcoin was nowhere near an assured thing. Many in the community felt that any attention from any quarter would be a good thing. Are you insinuating that Gavin had ulterior motives in accepting the invitation? Do you think he engineered the invitation? What motives do you posit? What negatives came out of this visit?

And before you spout that this act drove Satoshi out (a view I have had articulated by several), then why would Satoshi left such a nemesis in charge of the project?

[...]

What exactly makes you think I was not around at the time? My registration date at this forum?

You belong to the group of people (like Gavin), who think that Bitcoin's future can be assured by negotiating with government. That's pretty naive. You can't negotiate with a much more powerful entity and expect that your wishes will be respected.

In the case of Bitcoin, it's outright idiocy to approach governmental bodies, because Bitcoin poses a direct threat to their power. It's even dangerous, because you hand over information to people, whose sole interest is to maintain and expand their superior position. In addition you open the door for (coerced) political influence on Bitcoin development, because you identify yourself as a central access gate of an otherwise decentralized system. Ever asked yourself, why Satoshi remained anonymous?

The existing elites will not voluntarily relinquish their power over financial policy. Therefore Bitcoin's future can only assured by secure and privacy enhanced decentralized technology. Trying to please the elites by changing Bitcoin to make it more controllable (for example by making operation of independent full nodes harder by allowing excessive block sizes) will not help Bitcoin. In fact it betrays the original motive for its creation.

It's a myth that Satoshi handed over the Bitcoin project to Gavin Andresen as the only leader. It was a number of Core developers - yet only Gavin Andresen exploited the leap of faith to expand his power and sought frequent media attention.

Gavin Andresen accepting invitations to speak at the CIA and the Council on Foreign relations thwart the motive for Bitcoin's creation. In addition Gavin never made full disclosure of the contents of his discussions during these meetings. Instead he founded The Bitcoin Foundation shortly after.

ya.ya.yo!

[franky1]

blah blah blah dev speaks to government blah

its public knowledge about the gavin-cia invitation of 2011
he actually publicly told people he was attending, months before attending.
there was even videos of him at that conference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoSWnxieScw
ill leave yayaya to actually research more.

but here is a mind opening thought for yayaya
yayaya should replace the word "gavin" with the word "adam back" and the same applies. because, guess what... adam back has had talks with government departments too.
using "business partners" adam back is actually paid by corporations and government departments.
(replace R3 with PwC and you start to see it)

i know yayaya wont research that hard so here is some easy finds
google: "Digital Asset Holdings RTGS" - DAH work with bank of england, bank of india, deutsche bank to make their banking systems into blockchain
google: "hyperledger: Digital Asset Holdings blockstream" - formed at the same time as blockstream inventing the "roadmap"
meaning "Digital Asset Holdings" which is the blockstream banking partner that resembles classics R3 banking partner.
also worth noting that r3 are part of hyperledger.... funny that!
http://www.coindesk.com/hyperledger-technical-steering-committee/ - IBM, jpmorgan, multiple banks(DAH), multiple banks(r3)
http://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-10-new-firms-hyperledger-blockchain-project/ - blockstream is part of hyperledger

the hypocrisy of trying to hide the corporate agenda of one group by talking about another group does not work.
wake up and realise who your being a sheep to.

this is why there should be NO dev team dominance. so that no dev team can be corrupted enough to change bitcoin negatively

have a nice day

[jbreher]

Your complete and utter refusal to answer a single question I posed to you is duly noted.

What exactly makes you think I was not around at the time? My registration date at this forum?

Yes. Were you active in the community under another name at the time?

You belong to the group of people (like Gavin), who think that Bitcoin's future can be assured by negotiating with government.

Now you are just fabricating things of whole cloth. Complete and utter bullshit. First, I don't believe -- and never have believed -- that negotiating with government is important to Bitcoin's success. Use your brain - nobody in a decentralized system is in any position whatsoever to negotiate on behalf of the system. Any such negotiations are null and void by definition. Second, please cite any evidence that you have supporting your assertion that "Gavin... think(s) that Bitcoin's future can be assured by negotiating with government." I'm going to guess you are going to once more completely evade this challenge. Surprise me?
 

In the case of Bitcoin, it's outright idiocy to approach governmental bodies, because Bitcoin poses a direct threat to their power.
 It's even dangerous, because you hand over information to people, whose sole interest is to maintain and expand their superior position.

Now you've gone full-on stupid. Just what secret knowledge, with which the CIA could crush this nascent uprising, was available from Gavin alone in a freeking open source project?

Gavin Andresen accepting invitations to speak at the CIA and the Council on Foreign relations thwart the motive for Bitcoin's creation.

Another wild ass assertion, completely devoid of any supporting evidence. In what way did Gavin's accepting these speaking invitations 'thwart the motive for Bitcoin's creation'?

In addition Gavin never made full disclosure of the contents of his discussions during these meetings.

He described the discussions in general terms. What do you expect? A line-by-line transcript rendered accurately word-for-word from memory?

[RawDog]

Your complete and utter refusal to answer a single question I posed to you is duly noted.

What exactly makes you think I was not around at the time? My registration date at this forum?

Yes. Were you active in the community under another name at the time?

You belong to the group of people (like Gavin), who think that Bitcoin's future can be assured by negotiating with government.

Now you are just fabricating things of whole cloth. Complete and utter bullshit. First, I don't believe -- and never have believed -- that negotiating with government is important to Bitcoin's success. Use your brain - nobody in a decentralized system is in any position whatsoever to negotiate on behalf of the system. Any such negotiations are null and void by definition. Second, please cite any evidence that you have supporting your assertion that "Gavin... think(s) that Bitcoin's future can be assured by negotiating with government." I'm going to guess you are going to once more completely evade this challenge. Surprise me?
 

In the case of Bitcoin, it's outright idiocy to approach governmental bodies, because Bitcoin poses a direct threat to their power.
 It's even dangerous, because you hand over information to people, whose sole interest is to maintain and expand their superior position.

Now you've gone full-on stupid. Just what secret knowledge, with which the CIA could crush this nascent uprising, was available from Gavin alone in a freeking open source project?

Gavin Andresen accepting invitations to speak at the CIA and the Council on Foreign relations thwart the motive for Bitcoin's creation.

Another wild ass assertion, completely devoid of any supporting evidence. In what way did Gavin's accepting these speaking invitations 'thwart the motive for Bitcoin's creation'?

In addition Gavin never made full disclosure of the contents of his discussions during these meetings.

He described the discussions in general terms. What do you expect? A line-by-line transcript rendered accurately word-for-word from memory?

Has the new leadership of Blockstream changed their objectives and motivations to take over Bitcoin?