Bitcoin is being invaded by Leftists

[franky1]

You're trying to take over a privately owned sound-money business, Franky, not a public institution. So you don't get any freedom to vote on the business, because the Bitcoin project is not your property. Your BTC are your property. Understand yet? lol

earlier i thought carlton was wearing a libertarian hat, (yes even i was positively surprised)

but in the last hour, carlton has now changed clothes and is wearing the same hat as "realbitcoin".

bitcoin is not a BUSINESS its a open monetary system. i just want blockstream to not monopolise and control it and turn an open monetary system into a dictating business

seems you have lost your libertarian mindset in the last hour.. what happened? something you ate or smoked or was the initial libertarian mindset in earlier posts today just a bait, and now your showing the switch

but to address the point your trying to make.
mining is not the devs 'business' yet the community and devs persuaded that 51% mining dominance was bad.
same should be said about the diversity of nodes too

we should not have dominant control of block creation by one entity just as much as we shouldnt have domination of consensus by one entity doing changes without opposition.

it should be open consensus where agreements and compromises are made by a diverse combinations of nodes who find an equal and fair level that the majority agree with
and not a 'follow like sheep into the woods where the wolves live, because its the sheep's job to only follow blindly to feed the wolves'

[RealBitcoin]

"realbitcoin" your a hypocrite

hypocrisy one:
with one hand he say corporate monopoly is bad
with another hand he says competition is bad..

There is no corporate monopoly over bitcoin, and competition is good, I am not sure where you get that from, I have never said such contradictory things.

hypocrisy two:
with one hand he says freedom (freedom is having no barriers of entry)
with another hand he says its an invasion(invasion is deciding certain people are not allowed in)

No, no barriers of entry is good but only in the context of private property.

Is it good if people enter in your property without permission? I'd say no, so yes joining bitcoin is free, but it comes with no special rights or privileges.

Only the owners of bitcoin should have a say.

hypocrisy three:
with one hand he says individual ownership
with another hand he says loves the idea of moving everyone to duel signing authorisation of LN and sidechains and liquid alts

Sidechains will become in some ways more robust, but it will need a solid basis, that is why the protocol should be unchanged.

hypocrisy four:
with one hand he says dont steal 50%
with another hand he says fee war is good

That makes no sense.

[Carlton Banks]

You're trying to take over a privately owned sound-money business, Franky, not a public institution. So you don't get any freedom to vote on the business, because the Bitcoin project is not your property. Your BTC are your property. Understand yet? lol

earlier i thought carlton was wearing a libertarian hat, (yes even i was positively surprised)

but in the last hour, carlton has now changed clothes and is wearing the same hat as "realbitcoin".

bitcoin is not a BUSINESS its a open monetary system. i just want blockstream to not monopolise and control it and turn an open monetary system into a dictating business

seems you have lost your libertarian mindset in the last hour.. what happened? something you ate or smoked or was the initial libertarian mindset in earlier posts today just a bait, and now your showing the switch

Bitcoin's design is a meritocracy, not a democracy (another aspect of Libertariansim you're glossing over). If it was, then the majority can be predicted to choose something foolish. I think we all know by now that getting an ignorant majority to make a foolish choice is what you're angling for.

If you think your ideas are good, propose them to the Core developers. Let me tell you, your ideas are destructive and dangerous, the devs already know, and you will be ignored.

Or, (and I've never heard a reply to this point) CODE UP YOUR BITCOIN KILLER AS A NEW CRYPTOCURRENCY. There is nothing stopping you, except owning masses of this new cryptocurrency that solved all Bitcoin's problems, oh and you'd be a total Satoshi style cypher-punk hero, right?

That's Libertarianism Franky, the developers legitimately control the codebase, because it's theirs. Stop trying to steal/disrupt other people's work, get a real job.

[franky1]

You're trying to take over a privately owned sound-money business, Franky, not a public institution. So you don't get any freedom to vote on the business, because the Bitcoin project is not your property. Your BTC are your property. Understand yet? lol

earlier i thought carlton was wearing a libertarian hat, (yes even i was positively surprised)

but in the last hour, carlton has now changed clothes and is wearing the same hat as "realbitcoin".

bitcoin is not a BUSINESS its a open monetary system. i just want blockstream to not monopolise and control it and turn an open monetary system into a dictating business

seems you have lost your libertarian mindset in the last hour.. what happened? something you ate or smoked or was the initial libertarian mindset in earlier posts today just a bait, and now your showing the switch

Bitcoin's design is a meritocracy, not a democracy (another aspect of Libertariansim you're glossing over). If it was, then the majority can be predicted to choose something foolish. I think we all know by now that getting an ignorant majority to make a foolish choice is what you're angling for.

If you think your ideas are good, propose them to the Core developers. Let me tell you, your ideas are destructive and dangerous, the devs already know, and you will be ignored.


That's Libertarianism Franky, the developers legitimately control the codebase, because it's theirs. Stop trying to steal/disrupt other people's work, get a real job.

LOL i highlighted your mindset of corporate business dictatorship

core(blockstream) should only control core.. they should not control the entire financial system known as bitcoin.
EG Barclays controls Barclays bank branches that use the pound. they should not control the pound
barclays is free to make its own "pingit" app to make transfers faster.. but emphasis. not control the pound
EG Lloyds controls Lloyds bank branches that use the pound. they should not control the pound
Lloyds is free to make its own mobile app to make transfers faster.. but emphasis. not control the pound

your mindset is that barclays should control the pound and Lloyds should F off and make a new currency.

wake up!

oh and there is a subtle reason i used barclays as the example of wanting to control the currency. it involved the blockstream funding and partnerships.

[Carlton Banks]

No, I'm saying the Bank of Satoshi should control Bitcoin, and the Bitcoin Barclay's out there (i.e. the users in the "be your own bank" system lol), like you suggest, don't control
Bitcoin. Exactly how it is, and how it always has been

Again, seeing as you're a coding genius that thinks in binary code (lol): CODE UP YOUR BITCOIN KILLER AS A NEW CRYPTOCURRENCY. There is nothing stopping you, except owning masses of this new cryptocurrency that solved all Bitcoin's problems, oh and you'd be a total Satoshi style cypher-punk hero, right?

Why would you want to change the "doomed" Bitcoin dictatorship system when you could fix all the problems and get rid of the dictators, huh? Answer the question

[Milkduds]

Nothing that happens in the world can be completely isolated from the rest of the world. The identity of anything in the world is the result of the clash of prevailing forces and can never be 100% pure. Bitcoin is no different, its identity is being molded from pressure on all sides. Nothing that anyone can do about it, unless you want to take up arms and try to enforce your ideals  
BTW I don't think democracy is any better than dictatorship, they are both flawed.

I'd just wish bitcoin users were intelligent and rational, but even this is too much to ask.

Bitcoin started out very good, with intelligent people leading it, but now more and more dumb people come up with their stupid ideas is concerning to me.

The interesting aspect that is coming through for me reading the replies you give,is you seem to see this issue as very black and white. Those that are not in agreement are dumb and left leaning.
This is actually more scary than what you are worried about in my eyes and perception is really all we have.
Also think you have a issue of seeing commies everywhere and in turn they show up everywhere you look. The right are still active you just need to go deeper into conversations to see that bitcoin offers a stage for all people.

[DooMAD]

There is no corporate monopoly over bitcoin, and competition is good, I am not sure where you get that from, I have never said such contradictory things.

If you're in favour of competition and a free and open market, then how do you square that with the rampant protectionism going on in the community right now?  Protectionism can be defined as actions or policies that restrict or restrain external competition.   Core is seen as the "native" code, which some people feel has to be protected or shielded from any outside, external developers, working on their own implementations.  If competition is good, you should welcome more alternative clients.

Also, if were are going to head down the route of corporate entities paying developers, many would feel more comfortable if there were a greater number of corporate entities involved.  As things stand right now, how many companies are directly paying developers?  I'm only aware of five main contributors: Blockstream, MIT, Chaincode Labs, Ciphrex, and BTCC.  And two of those, Chaincode Labs and Ciphrex, are companies run *by* developers themselves, so I'm not even sure that counts.  They're basically self-funded coders.  So it's certainly not a monopoly, but it's not exactly diverse either.

[Carlton Banks]

There is no corporate monopoly over bitcoin, and competition is good, I am not sure where you get that from, I have never said such contradictory things.

If you're in favour of competition and a free and open market, then how do you square that with the rampant protectionism going on in the community right now?  Protectionism can be defined as actions or policies that restrict or restrain external competition.   Core is seen as the "native" code, which some people feel has to be protected or shielded from any outside, external developers, working on their own implementations.  If competition is good, you should welcome more alternative clients.

But Bitcoin development is not a free and open market, it is an individual participant in a free and open market.

That means that the project is not some kind of public institution. You have a right to choose which coin, but not to tell the coin devs what to do with their coin. Design your own coin.


And you have designed your own coin! But what's so wrong with your coin, that it can't compete with Bitcoin as a coin in it's own right? I thought you claimed it was a better coin?

[Kprawn]

I do not see left & right people here, but I diverse bunch of people interested in the same technology, but for different reasons. The whole

bitcoin network, are in a way built on a democracy principle, where the public vote with their choices and the majority rules. Politics are

clearly shown, with the big block & small block propaganda being spread. I am lovin it. 

[franky1]

No, I'm saying the Bank of Satoshi should control Bitcoin, and the Bitcoin Barclay's out there (i.e. the users in the "be your own bank" system lol), like you suggest, don't control
Bitcoin. Exactly how it is, and how it always has been

Again, seeing as you're a coding genius that thinks in binary code (lol): CODE UP YOUR BITCOIN KILLER AS A NEW CRYPTOCURRENCY. There is nothing stopping you, except owning masses of this new cryptocurrency that solved all Bitcoin's problems, oh and you'd be a total Satoshi style cypher-punk hero, right?

Why would you want to change the "doomed" Bitcoin dictatorship system when you could fix all the problems and get rid of the dictators, huh? Answer the question

bank of satoshi, lol seriously.. CORE is not bank of satoshi.

CORE popped onto the scene in 2013

core has not been around since 2009, gmaxwell has not been around since 2009, adam back has not been around since 2009.
you really need to do your research better and realise core did not invent bitcoin

and the second part of your post. saying to take down a dictatorship is not to remove their control, but to invent a new country(land analogy) and hope people leave the dictatorship for a new country.
OMG your that deluded..

hmm so dont remove ISIL from syria, instead set up asylum camps in another country and hope all syrians move out of syria.. is that your idea??

wake up

seriously wake up

[Carlton Banks]

Answer the question Franky.



If Bitcoin Unlimited, or whatever cryptocurrency design you prefer, is such a good design, why can't it withstand the actual marketplace, as it's own coin?

Why wouldn't you savvy crypto investors want a chance to be first to invest in the king of crypto, without any of the evil Bitcoin dictators? Hmmmm?

[franky1]

Answer the question Franky.

If Bitcoin Unlimited, or whatever cryptocurrency design you prefer, is such a good design, why can't it withstand the actual marketplace, as it's own coin?

Why wouldn't you savvy crypto investors want a chance to be first to invest in the king of crypto, without any of the evil Bitcoin dictators? Hmmmm?

because i believe in bitcoin more then you.
you have proven you prefer to systematically screw with bitcoin until your leaders alt becomes famous. so instead of asking me to make an alt, i prefer to make people aware of blockstream and their fanboys tactics, to try keeping bitcoin away from 100% control and hope blockstream skip off to their altcoin sooner then they planned.

syria analogy again
carlton wants. ISIL(blockstream) to take over syria(bitcoin) and destroy it and then go live in lybia, lebenon and other countries (monero/liquid/sidechain)
i prefer to fight ISIL(blockstream). ignore their pathetic claims that they own syria(bitcoin) and ensure syria remains free for the innocent people there

you really need to wake up

[Carlton Banks]

No, not Syrians, Bitcoin.


Why can't your favourite design for a crypto currency stand on it's own 2 feet?

Why won't you invest in your favourite design? It's irrelevant whether it's called Bitcoin or not. Surely you want well designed sound money, not money called Bitcoin?

[DooMAD]

There is no corporate monopoly over bitcoin, and competition is good, I am not sure where you get that from, I have never said such contradictory things.

If you're in favour of competition and a free and open market, then how do you square that with the rampant protectionism going on in the community right now?  Protectionism can be defined as actions or policies that restrict or restrain external competition.   Core is seen as the "native" code, which some people feel has to be protected or shielded from any outside, external developers, working on their own implementations.  If competition is good, you should welcome more alternative clients.

But Bitcoin development is not a free and open market, it is an individual participant in a free and open market.

That means that the project is not some kind of public institution. You have a right to choose which coin, but not to tell the coin devs what to do with their coin. Design your own coin.

If you elect to take part in a closed source project, then you are freely agreeing that the dev team are ultimately in control and have the final say on every aspect of the code.  Like it or not, that simply isn't the case here.  Bitcoin is open source.  It's undeniably a free and open market because alternative clients are right now competing for both hashrate and node count, anyone can modify the code at will, without permission, and users are free to decide on what code they choose to run.  It's the absolute epitome of freedom and liberalism.  

If you can't handle that, maybe Bitcoin is not what you thought it was.  I, for one, love it.  

It's gotta be a pretty sad day when one of the people the OP perceives as a filthy, commie lefty has a greater appreciation for a free and open market than the OP does.  

OP thinks the market can be co-opted and needs protectionism to save it.  I trust the market to regulate itself.

[Carlton Banks]

If you elect to take part in a closed source project, then you are freely agreeing that the dev team are ultimately in control and have the final say on every aspect of the code.  Like it or not, that simply isn't the case here.  Bitcoin is open source.  It's undeniably a free and open market because alternative clients are right now competing for both hashrate and node count, anyone can modify the code at will, without permission, and users are free to decide on what code they choose to run.  It's the absolute epitome of freedom and liberalism.  If you can't handle that, maybe Bitcoin is not what you thought it was.

If that was true, how did unknown or new developers ever get their code into Bitcoin? Answer: they wrote good code. It may be open source, but that doesn't mean anyone can change the original, far from it.

Original code can be forked, but trying to argue that a software network is the same thing as the code base is mindless stuff.

The code repo (and every other code repo) is private property. Only certain people have access. That's a working definition of what property actually is. But the Bitcoin network is openly accessible by anyone. Why are you confusing the two so consistently?

Your argument essentially says that any 5 year old with a GitHub account should be able to change the code. Not. The. Case. There is a peer review process, and the contingent you're cheerleading for got drubbed in that peer review process, because their suggestion were (likely deliberate) garbage.

The meritocracy has spoken, and your team's ideas didn't make it. Don't let the door hit you on your way out.

[mindrust]

It is decentralized dude. No one can invade bitcoin. (I don't know what are the devs' political views though) Leftists cant invade a shit anyway, they will just talk and talk and talk over useless craps and soon they will forget what they were arguing for and will fight themselves.

[franky1]

not sure if carlton is just trolling because he doesnt own any bitcoin so doesnt care what happens to bitcoin...
or
if he really has been spoonfed so much that he has gone full sheeple follower of blockstream

[DooMAD]

It may be open source, but that doesn't mean anyone can change the original, far from it.

Original code can be forked, but trying to argue that a software network is the same thing as the code base is mindless stuff.

The code repo (and every other code repo) is private property.

The MIT License (MIT)

Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

Nope, sorry to all the protectionist apologists out there, but I see no mention in the licence about the code being private property.  Anyone is free to modify the code.  It's all there in black and white for those who aren't blinded by their own agendas.

[Carlton Banks]

The place were the code is published is private. Not the code itself.

If the code was private, it couldn't be open sourced, that's called proprietary code. Good luck with winning any future arguments with cheap semantic tricks

[franky1]

The place were the code is published is private.

ooooh so github now own bitcoin.. not the community, not the devs, not blockstream not even satoshi.. but github owns bitcoin?
hmm lets check that out

github:
F. Copyright and Content Ownership
We claim no intellectual property rights over the material you provide to the Service. Your profile and materials uploaded remain yours. However, by setting your pages to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view your Content. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your repositories.

care to bait and switch some more until the hole your digging is so deep your cant escape?