Bitcoin Forum
April 07, 2020, 08:39:30 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Gavin Andresen now plotting to attack and destroy bitcoin  (Read 1197 times)
firstglobal
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 15, 2017, 07:24:27 PM
 #21

Core supporters must be done away with all this trolling. Its better to focus on a positive campaign.
1586291970
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1586291970

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1586291970
Reply with quote  #2

1586291970
Report to moderator
1586291970
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1586291970

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1586291970
Reply with quote  #2

1586291970
Report to moderator
1586291970
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1586291970

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1586291970
Reply with quote  #2

1586291970
Report to moderator
Best Rates For Exchanging Cryptocurrency Buy Crypto With Credit Card Smooth Exchange Multiple E-Payment Systems Check Now Check Now
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
FiendCoin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 262


The devil is in the detail.


View Profile
March 15, 2017, 07:59:31 PM
 #22

jonald_fyookball, franky1, Hyena, how much does Roger and Julian pay you guys to support their shitcoin attempt BTU?

sorry to tell you but im an advocate for:
dynamic diverse nodes using consensus without any dev-kings.
and not any particular 'brand name' of implementation

this is why all the REKT campaigns couldnt categorise and get me with their 2015 'xt shill' 2016 'classic shill' and 2017 'BU shill'

if core (cough not cough) independent devs got rid of the blockstreams oversight and management and censorship you would see totally different debates going on in the community.

but hey if anyone hates blockstreams agenda then blockstream just throw them in the current non-core brand to be rekt category.

kind of boring really,
well not as boring as the same scripts the blockstream defenders keep spewing out since 2014 of how bitcoin needs to centralise, but then needs everyone else to f*rk off so they can command bitcoin.. while playing the victim card of "they f*rked off* while simultaneously begging non-core implementations to "f*ork off"

also boring but stupid how ignorant blockstream defenders are.. (not sure if actual stupidly or actual informed/intentional script plans willingfully spread)
blockstream gave only pools the vote intentionally.
blockstream defenders - "spew out nonsense hating miners voting and non-core nodes being on the network"



I'm all for not supporting Core/Blockstream if you believe they have dropped the ball and have questionable intentions moving forward, however, fanatical devotion to BTU's failed development and oblivious Chinese centralized takeover is sheer lunacy.

"Darkness is good. Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power." -Steve Bannon
franky1
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2716
Merit: 1668



View Profile
March 15, 2017, 08:20:47 PM
 #23

oblivious Chinese centralized takeover is sheer lunacy.

lol

think you need to check your fact sheet on that one.

EG antpool distributed into mongolia too
btcc has stuff st up in georgia and iceland
shush managed in thailand.
bitfury also world wide..

even though those 4 are dumbly classed as "china"
lastly.. remember which team went "soft" (bypassing nodes and only allowing pools the vote)

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
matt11235
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 57
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 15, 2017, 08:26:18 PM
 #24

LOL, so let me get this straight.

BU devs announce bug in BU.

Kore devs see it before it's hotfixed, PURPOSEFULLY exploit it in an  a blatant attack against BU.

r/bitcoin goes berserk, deletes any comments defending BU in their ongoing campaign of censorship & deceit.

Now Kore is going full retard in their continued desperation attacks against BU.

All dissenting opinions are silenced.

Man, you shameless people really are desperate.

I'm not surprised, we all know it was BlockstreamKore that spent hundreds of thousands of $$$ DDoS'ing XT / Classic / BU nodes in the first place.
I know that everyone is entitled to an opinion and everything, but how are you so delusional? Or to put it another way, how much are you getting paid to shill this?
European Central Bank
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1080



View Profile
March 15, 2017, 08:34:37 PM
 #25

Economic majority?

LOL

You people really do live in la-la land.

The "economic majority" want to use Bitcoin with low fees as an electronic peer 2 peer cash payments system.

Core has ruined these features, making Paypal or Visa or Mastercard better options for many people.

How many businesses have been forced to remove Bitcoin as a payment method? Too many.

better to have a creaking system that works than one that's sexier in theory but doesn't get the job done. they are not competent enough and act like children.

and can you point to a list of non btu vested interest businesses that are keen to make the switch? the ones who are behind core are the ones who the economic majority use.

i don't like the way core operates but at least they have competence, the confidence of most and no victim complex.

big block supporters have a very valid point. they should also be bright enough to know bitcoin unlimited is a shitty implementation that will be rejected by the majority.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2688
Merit: 2216



View Profile
March 15, 2017, 08:41:05 PM
 #26

big block supporters have a very valid point.

They do not.

There are a multitude of ways to increase the transaction rate WITHOUT increasing the blocksize. The blocksize is perhaps the most dangerous way to increase the tx rate, why do that at all until every other avenue has been exhausted?


And you've been here far too long not to have heard this perspective, can you not read?

Vires in numeris
0xfff
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 15, 2017, 08:44:24 PM
 #27

latest script from blockstream defender.
call any non-core a delusional lunatic.

[yawn]
th script writers are scraping hard at the bottom of the barrel.. the $70m repayment day must be coming real soon if they trying this hard.

yet xt, classic, bitcoinj, and a dozen other implementations just continue on in the background trying to keep the network diverse and decentralised

I agree. Bitcoin should not have an "official" implementation. Satoshi stated how bitcoin should operate. Implementations should follow what he said. If you want a centralized crypto, fork it and make an altcoin.

I also think block size is an issue that needs to be fixed. It must be a sustainable solution that wont require another hard fork in a few years. I don't think any of the proposed solutions in their current state are acceptable.
matt11235
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 57
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 15, 2017, 08:46:02 PM
 #28

latest script from blockstream defender.
call any non-core a delusional lunatic.
I'm sorry, I try to be more polite but I don't think there's a friendly way to call somebody insane.

yet xt, classic, bitcoinj, and a dozen other implementations just continue on in the background trying to keep the network diverse and decentralised
I don't think there's an issue with other implementations, as you said, diversity is a good thing. As reckless as I think the changes Bitcoin Unlimited/XT/Classic make are, of course people are always free to pick and choose whichever client they want to use. (The recent crash of BU nodes showed that sometimes people don't always make the best choices though Wink)

And you've been here far too long not to have heard this perspective, can you not read?
Could be an account bought and used as a sock puppet  Shocked
FiendCoin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 262


The devil is in the detail.


View Profile
March 15, 2017, 09:24:18 PM
 #29

oblivious Chinese centralized takeover is sheer lunacy.

lol

think you need to check your fact sheet on that one.

EG antpool distributed into mongolia too
btcc has stuff st up in georgia and iceland
shush managed in thailand.
bitfury also world wide..

even though those 4 are dumbly classed as "china"
lastly.. remember which team went "soft" (bypassing nodes and only allowing pools the vote)

Who controls Antpool? A Brazilian? Maybe south African?  I never said anything about BTCC, Slush, or Bitfury. Slush signals all the proposals I think. The majority of BTU hash is coming from China in one form or another (Antpool, BTC.TOP, ViaBTC all based out of China), prove me wrong, show evidence to the contrary.

"Darkness is good. Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power." -Steve Bannon
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!