Austin Hill and Blockstream can just fuck right off.

[RawDog]

Ding-dong the witch is dead.  Good fuckin' riddance.  Now, we've just got to find some way to kill Blockstream entirely.  Owning Bitcoin is just not a good business plan.  Hopefully Adam will wind down the company in quick time.

[7788bitcoin]

Then what about the 70 millions of investment? I don't think the investor will allow the money down the drain. All the best, Adam!

[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^

[RawDog]

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?

[pawel7777]

For those in need of context:

http://www.coindesk.com/adam-back-appointed-blockstream-ceo-leadership-shake/

Bitcoin startup Blockstream has a new CEO.

The company said today that its first CEO, Austin Hill, is formally stepping aside, with current president Adam Back being appointed to the role.

As part of Hill's exit from the firm, he has also stepped down from the board. Blockstream said that Hill was leaving the company to "pursue other opportunities".

[franky1]

adam back has been "informally" in control for a while of what mattered (the dictatorship of the code).
austin hill was just the smiling financial face to go on the VC money grab
i always thought of austin as the CFO even if their corporate documents said differently.

it was purely to have a experienced VC heading up investment meetings to get trust from investors.
while adam back done the code dictatorship deals with miners and devs.

it also must be noted that there will obviously be alot of blockstream fanboys raining in to reveal the ass kissing devotions to blockstream which goes against the whole purpose of why bitcoin needed to be invented.
we will see alot of these blockstream fanboys over sell the blockstream employees involvement by pretending blockstream invented bitcoin.

i look forward to laughing at the first blockstream fanboy to oversell adam backs "hashcash" and twist everything to say adam back is possibly satoshi.

i look forward to laughing at the same blockstream fanboys saying how bitcoin cannot survive without corporate control and the dozen corporate paid devs.

though all it is doing is revealing the dictatorship they desire and the utopia of making bitcoin not fit for a zero barrier open payment system. and instead fit to become FIAT2.0 again ruled and controlled by corporations.

[yayayo]

Oh, what is this? Are the bigblock-fanatics now mobilizing all their shills to fight their last stand?

For me it's inconceivable why so many people think that the Bitcoin blockchain can be efficiently used for microtransactions. Following the Gavinista bigblock path would endanger the value proposition of Bitcoin as a whole. Running a node would become so burdensome that the network would become completely centralized - provided that network speeds would even be sufficient to support the network in future.

The solutions offered by Core team and Blockstream are the best possible solution for scaling Bitcoin in a way that preserves decentralization. Microtransactions do not require the same level of security like ordinary transactions. With the proposed solutions, microtransactions can be executed much faster and at much lower costs than today. At the same time, once payment channels are closed, these transactions will profit from the same level of security like ordinary transactions.

There are only two possible reasons for attacking the current work of Core developers and blockstream:
1) Trying to put Bitcoin under centralized control;

2) lack of technical understanding.

ya.ya.yo!

[coins101]

...

There are only two possible reasons for attacking the current work of Core developers and blockstream:
1) Trying to put Bitcoin under centralized control;

2) lack of technical understanding.

ya.ya.yo!

1) By saying the core devs and blockstream are being undermined, you are already saying Bitcoin is under centralized control. That's the problem.

2) Lack of technical understanding? Seriously? Gavin bootstrapped the network when Satoshi left. We basically reached all time high under his technical leadership. And let's not forget Jeff. Are you saying he is a nob dev?

Get real.

I don't think Blockcstream or Austin Hill should 'just fuck right off.' We need less entrenchment and overt control, and as many contributors as possible.

[spartacusrex]

There are only two possible reasons for attacking the current work of Core developers and blockstream:
1) Trying to put Bitcoin under centralized control;

2) lack of technical understanding.

ya.ya.yo!

Actually - I think (know) that if Blockstream wanted to, they could implement a system that was as good as bigger blocks.. almost overnight (without the complexity of Sidechains / Lightning etc..).

1) Only include the txn hash (not the whole txn) in a block. (Everyone already has the txn)

2) Prune all the SpentTXO from the data.

Then a 1 megabyte block could hold 10-20 times more txns.. and the blocksize / total-data would increase only 'marginally' (as the UTXO grows). It really is that simple.

I rate blockstream, go for it lads, but I feel that they are playing this situation badly. They could EASILY get everyone onboard, but are choosing not to..

..

In fairness, they are behaving like every other techie I know.. lol.
 

[RawDog]

There are only two possible reasons for attacking the current work of Core developers and blockstream:
1) Trying to put Bitcoin under centralized control;

2) lack of technical understanding.

ya.ya.yo!

Exactly how long have you been sucking their dicks?  Blockstream owning bitcoin is not 'preserving decentralization'.  It is bullshit.  Core/Blockstream needs to die yesterday for trying to take over control - 'to prevent others from taking over control'.  Fucking idiots should have to pay twice in blockchain fees.  YaYaYo should probably pay three times.

[yayayo]

1) By saying the core devs and blockstream are being undermined, you are already saying Bitcoin is under centralized control. That's the problem.

I can't see any logical reasoning behind your claim. In addition you're mixing different levels of centralization: Centralization of development and centralization of the network. None of these are realized today. Note that you can still have a decentralized network when development is centralized. On the other hand even decentralized development can lead to a centralized network, when certain technical provisions (like an allowance for excessive block sizes) are implemented.

2) Lack of technical understanding? Seriously? Gavin bootstrapped the network when Satoshi left. We basically reached all time high under his technical leadership. And let's not forget Jeff. Are you saying he is a nob dev?

While Gavin made some contributions to Core, the major part of the work was done by others - especially in the security field. Your focus on fiat price valuation is revealing the true underlying motive for your support of big blocks: You want to generate the biggest possible return in fiat money - no matter how. You are not truly caring about Bitcoin.

The reasons for Bitcoin's last ATH were market manipulation by Mt.Gox trading bots. Even if the last ATH was reached due to normal trading activity it is totally irrelevant as an indicator of the health of Bitcoin technology and its network.

Gavin was the guy who proudly accepted an invitation to the CIA and other highly questionable governmental bodies around the time Satoshi left. He also tried to open the door for political influence on Bitcoin development via funding a Bitcoin Foundation...

Get real.

Yeah, you should definitely inform yourself.

ya.ya.yo!

[coins101]

...
I can't see any logical reasoning behind your claim. In addition you're mixing different levels of centralization: Centralization of development and centralization of the network. None of these are realized today. ..

Seriously?

Do you have any clue about what is going on with mining, you know the thing that secures the network? C.E.N.T.R.A.L.I.Z.E.D.

Centralized network and centralized development control. It's centralized. All that is missing is a Microsoft type logo on the Core release to remove the facade of decentralization.

[franky1]

to: yayayo

lesson one blockstreams desire for 4mb blockweight makes blockstream fanboys the big blockers.
lesson two by quoting one dev team should dominate due to x,y,z you are revealing you want to be dominated.
lesson three look at the dates of when gmaxwell and adam back joined github.. it wasnt 2009, so why blindly pretend they have always been involved.
lesson four. all i can see is social politics rhetoric from you. and no technical understanding of why 5000 nodes running one biased codebase is better/worse than say 1200 nodes running 4 different codebases. with no codebase having more than 25% of the nodes

think long and hard about lesson four. it will enlighten you. it may actually in the research required to understand the subtle point, help you realise the purpose of bitcoin, the purpose of decentralization.

[yayayo]

Anyone examining the post history and use of language of RawDog and coins101 will be able to form their own impression.

As it turns out, altcoiners tend to have a different and often more negative view of Bitcoin. On the one hand it's possible that these people turned into altcoiners out of dissatisfaction with Bitcoin. On the other hand it's equally possible that these people are frustrated with their altcoin investments and now paint doomsday scenarios for Bitcoin in the hope that their altcoins appreciate in value relative to BTC.

Whatever the motivation for the spreading of misinformation is, the attempt to force an irresponsible bigblock scheme on Bitcoin has failed. Bitcoin is in good shape and time will prove that the decision to implement segregated witness and lightning networks was the right one.

ya.ya.yo!

[franky1]

All that is missing is a Microsoft type logo on the Core release to remove the facade of decentralization.

it would be an IBM logo on the software and then we would have other corporations with patent ownership of LN and sidechains.
while all three corps would work together to price people out of holding funds on bitcoin private keys(tx fee war) to spend onchain and instead sway/force people to lock funds into corporate owned LN hubs and sidechains (multisigs requiring corporate authorisation(signing)).

[franky1]

time will prove that the decision to implement segregated witness and lightning networks was the right one.

.. for corporations

[DooMAD]

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

So instead, we should hold the door wide open for a commercial entity to have an increasingly large influence?  Lawmakers love commercial entities.  Very easy to gain leverage over.  It would be handy for them to have a say on code contributions that regulators would deem favourable.  What could possibly go wrong?   

Bitcoin development must remain decentralised.  As soon as too much power is in the hands of too few people, things could go badly wrong.  Suddenly, alternative clients and implementations could look like the lesser of two evils, even for the most ardent of smallblockists.  Or will you still be a Blockstream fan when the only option is running government-approved code? 

[pawel7777]

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

Why 'proudly'? And what was actually wrong with that?

and other highly questionable governmental bodies

Such as?

On the other hand it's equally possible that these people are frustrated with their altcoin investments and now paint doomsday scenarios for Bitcoin in the hope that their altcoins appreciate in value relative to BTC.

Not following alts too much, but ETH and Monero long term holders are probably far from being frustrated.

[coins101]

Anyone examining the post history and use of language of RawDog and coins101 will be able to form their own impression.

As it turns out, altcoiners tend to have a different and often more negative view of Bitcoin. On the one hand it's possible that these people turned into altcoiners out of dissatisfaction with Bitcoin. On the other hand it's equally possible that these people are frustrated with their altcoin investments and now paint doomsday scenarios for Bitcoin in the hope that their altcoins appreciate in value relative to BTC.

Whatever the motivation for the spreading of misinformation is, the attempt to force an irresponsible bigblock scheme on Bitcoin has failed. Bitcoin is in good shape and time will prove that the decision to implement segregated witness and lightning networks was the right one.

ya.ya.yo!

I seem to remember that Core^TM CEO, GMaxwell, has an XMR address in his sig.

Are you saying Bitcoin is being undermined by Monero? Wow, now it all makes sense. Small blocks is a reverse attack on Bitcoin, by XMR.

[franky1]

I seem to remember that Core CEO, GMaxwell, has an XMR address in his sig.

Are you saying Bitcoin is being undermined by Monero? Wow, now it all makes sense. Small blocks is a reverse attack on Bitcoin, by XMR.

coins101
its worth noting that when talking to core fanboys such as yayaya.. they use all the real reasons to hate core, but twists them to falsely make other dev groups look guilty of the same act just to falsely make core look innocent.
yet people see through that plan, but core fanboys still dont wake up to it.

core=bigblockers(4mb weight)
core=corporate backing(blockstream->PwC->IBM, banks, insurance)
core=altcoin lovers(monero, liquid, sidechains)

the hypocrisy is loud with core fanboys. yet i cannot put it down to core fanboys knowing the hypocrisy of their own words and still spouting it out because they are part of the corporate agenda... but more so they are simple minded and are getting spoon fed the false narratives, and then left to just shout it out like sheep without any thought.