@RogerVer lets make a deal. At least 60k, my BTU for your BTC.

[traincarswreck]

I don't like Theymos because of his censorhip, manipulation and lies:  https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-in-r-bitcoin-c85a290fe43

Can I be unbanned from r/btc please!  Actually there is a list of people who would like to participate but don't agree with the r/btc agenda: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6qauyy/ver_theymos_and_his_censorship_can_go_to_hell/

[1714140527]

1714140527

[1714140527]

1714140527

[1714140527]

1714140527

[1714140527]

1714140527

[1714140527]

1714140527

[manselr]

WTF?

I initially thought Satoshis Bitcoin was about economic, tech and game theory... -> perfect eCash for ALL.

Now I see here its rather about people and soap opera?

Looks like that many 'users' are mostly active in posting nonsense and horsing around, rather not in directing all our power and brains in a better solution, community and most important Bitcoin's REPUTATION to the inner and outer side this entire opera is seen in the end ...?

Back to work! Make Bitcoin great again - not soapy!


 


My work here is to do pure analysis of WHY we have this opera:

Its all about a single line of the protocol

Where many would agree about, it is not a consensus pillar

Rather a user specific setting to allow free optimization and adjustments to market reactions

Such a minor param, that even Satoshi lost not much brain upon, rather sth like, it needs to be lifted when time is near and Moores law helps for the rest.

And due to growth and work scaling issues Satoshi resigned, not to be seen as a person, a king like leader, not to be a single point of failure and he diversified himself to a bunch of new dev persons. Carrying the responsibilities to next levels.

Now we need to do the next level, which is clearly diversifying TEAMs to spread responsibilites.

If core does like Satioshi did and showed it works, they need to step back (from behaving like a king) and lets diversify ideas, work and responsibilities through many, but friendly competing teams.

This is the big future for Satoshi Bitcoin!

Satoshi showed us all and we know, he will never come back as Satoshi, or this diversification mechanics will be obsolete.

Satoshi clearly said he didn't want his software forked and he didn't believe in several implementations of bitcoin:

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.  The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

Why are we even still disusing this? It's clear that the game theory behind how bitcoin works does not benefit from "several competing bitcoins".

If your ideas don't make the cut in the main branch it's because they aren't good enough. If you want to compete, then make your own altcoin and if people think it's better than the existing Bitcoin, then people will sell their Bitcoins for your supposed "better-than-current-Bitcoin" altcoin, but don't pretend to cause this hardfork drama every now an then thinking you are doing a favor to anyone, because you are just making the price crash, all for nothing because at the end of the day, people aren't going to trust hardforking amateurs with their money.

Im still waiting for a clear statement of Roger Ver claiming that he will sell all of his BTC for BCC. If he really thinks BCC is better than BTC, he surely will dump them right?

I said nothing about different Bitcoins. Only about different teams.

Anyone can create their own different repositories, a lot of people run their own bitcoin full node software, but these guys don't want that, they want to change consensus rules, creating a hardfork and thus creating a price crash, uncertainty, and all the hell that breaks loose during a god damn hardfork.

Mark my words: In november or so, we will have another price crash thanks to btc1/segwit2x hardfork attempt. If they did just shut the fuck up and let segwit run for an entire year then talk about a blocksize increase, but no, their ego says that the fork must happen in 3 months. Well good luck with that.

[hv_]

WTF?

I initially thought Satoshis Bitcoin was about economic, tech and game theory... -> perfect eCash for ALL.

Now I see here its rather about people and soap opera?

Looks like that many 'users' are mostly active in posting nonsense and horsing around, rather not in directing all our power and brains in a better solution, community and most important Bitcoin's REPUTATION to the inner and outer side this entire opera is seen in the end ...?

Back to work! Make Bitcoin great again - not soapy!


 


My work here is to do pure analysis of WHY we have this opera:

Its all about a single line of the protocol

Where many would agree about, it is not a consensus pillar

Rather a user specific setting to allow free optimization and adjustments to market reactions

Such a minor param, that even Satoshi lost not much brain upon, rather sth like, it needs to be lifted when time is near and Moores law helps for the rest.

And due to growth and work scaling issues Satoshi resigned, not to be seen as a person, a king like leader, not to be a single point of failure and he diversified himself to a bunch of new dev persons. Carrying the responsibilities to next levels.

Now we need to do the next level, which is clearly diversifying TEAMs to spread responsibilites.

If core does like Satioshi did and showed it works, they need to step back (from behaving like a king) and lets diversify ideas, work and responsibilities through many, but friendly competing teams.

This is the big future for Satoshi Bitcoin!

Satoshi showed us all and we know, he will never come back as Satoshi, or this diversification mechanics will be obsolete.

Satoshi clearly said he didn't want his software forked and he didn't believe in several implementations of bitcoin:

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.  The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

Why are we even still disusing this? It's clear that the game theory behind how bitcoin works does not benefit from "several competing bitcoins".

If your ideas don't make the cut in the main branch it's because they aren't good enough. If you want to compete, then make your own altcoin and if people think it's better than the existing Bitcoin, then people will sell their Bitcoins for your supposed "better-than-current-Bitcoin" altcoin, but don't pretend to cause this hardfork drama every now an then thinking you are doing a favor to anyone, because you are just making the price crash, all for nothing because at the end of the day, people aren't going to trust hardforking amateurs with their money.

Im still waiting for a clear statement of Roger Ver claiming that he will sell all of his BTC for BCC. If he really thinks BCC is better than BTC, he surely will dump them right?

I said nothing about different Bitcoins. Only about different teams.

Anyone can create their own different repositories, a lot of people run their own bitcoin full node software, but these guys don't want that, they want to change consensus rules, creating a hardfork and thus creating a price crash, uncertainty, and all the hell that breaks loose during a god damn hardfork.

Mark my words: In november or so, we will have another price crash thanks to btc1/segwit2x hardfork attempt. If they did just shut the fuck up and let segwit run for an entire year then talk about a blocksize increase, but no, their ego says that the fork must happen in 3 months. Well good luck with that.

Changing the code to SW is much more risky than change a 1 -> 2 .

You are just trapped by the invisible HF monster. Buuaaaaa. 

[manselr]

WTF?

I initially thought Satoshis Bitcoin was about economic, tech and game theory... -> perfect eCash for ALL.

Now I see here its rather about people and soap opera?

Looks like that many 'users' are mostly active in posting nonsense and horsing around, rather not in directing all our power and brains in a better solution, community and most important Bitcoin's REPUTATION to the inner and outer side this entire opera is seen in the end ...?

Back to work! Make Bitcoin great again - not soapy!


 


My work here is to do pure analysis of WHY we have this opera:

Its all about a single line of the protocol

Where many would agree about, it is not a consensus pillar

Rather a user specific setting to allow free optimization and adjustments to market reactions

Such a minor param, that even Satoshi lost not much brain upon, rather sth like, it needs to be lifted when time is near and Moores law helps for the rest.

And due to growth and work scaling issues Satoshi resigned, not to be seen as a person, a king like leader, not to be a single point of failure and he diversified himself to a bunch of new dev persons. Carrying the responsibilities to next levels.

Now we need to do the next level, which is clearly diversifying TEAMs to spread responsibilites.

If core does like Satioshi did and showed it works, they need to step back (from behaving like a king) and lets diversify ideas, work and responsibilities through many, but friendly competing teams.

This is the big future for Satoshi Bitcoin!

Satoshi showed us all and we know, he will never come back as Satoshi, or this diversification mechanics will be obsolete.

Satoshi clearly said he didn't want his software forked and he didn't believe in several implementations of bitcoin:

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.  The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

Why are we even still disusing this? It's clear that the game theory behind how bitcoin works does not benefit from "several competing bitcoins".

If your ideas don't make the cut in the main branch it's because they aren't good enough. If you want to compete, then make your own altcoin and if people think it's better than the existing Bitcoin, then people will sell their Bitcoins for your supposed "better-than-current-Bitcoin" altcoin, but don't pretend to cause this hardfork drama every now an then thinking you are doing a favor to anyone, because you are just making the price crash, all for nothing because at the end of the day, people aren't going to trust hardforking amateurs with their money.

Im still waiting for a clear statement of Roger Ver claiming that he will sell all of his BTC for BCC. If he really thinks BCC is better than BTC, he surely will dump them right?

I said nothing about different Bitcoins. Only about different teams.

Anyone can create their own different repositories, a lot of people run their own bitcoin full node software, but these guys don't want that, they want to change consensus rules, creating a hardfork and thus creating a price crash, uncertainty, and all the hell that breaks loose during a god damn hardfork.

Mark my words: In november or so, we will have another price crash thanks to btc1/segwit2x hardfork attempt. If they did just shut the fuck up and let segwit run for an entire year then talk about a blocksize increase, but no, their ego says that the fork must happen in 3 months. Well good luck with that.

Changing the code to SW is much more risky than change a 1 -> 2 .

You are just trapped by the invisible HF monster. Buuaaaaa. 

Segwit is opt in. If you don't like segwit then just get another client.

The market OBVIOUSLY wants segwit, look at how we went from $1800 to $3000.

The market OBVIOUSLY does not want two tokens. Look at XT crash, look at Classic crash, look at Unlimited crash, look at segwit2x/BIP148 crash.

We don't want two fucking bitcoins, it's not that hard to understand.

[hv_]

WTF?

I initially thought Satoshis Bitcoin was about economic, tech and game theory... -> perfect eCash for ALL.

Now I see here its rather about people and soap opera?

Looks like that many 'users' are mostly active in posting nonsense and horsing around, rather not in directing all our power and brains in a better solution, community and most important Bitcoin's REPUTATION to the inner and outer side this entire opera is seen in the end ...?

Back to work! Make Bitcoin great again - not soapy!


 


My work here is to do pure analysis of WHY we have this opera:

Its all about a single line of the protocol

Where many would agree about, it is not a consensus pillar

Rather a user specific setting to allow free optimization and adjustments to market reactions

Such a minor param, that even Satoshi lost not much brain upon, rather sth like, it needs to be lifted when time is near and Moores law helps for the rest.

And due to growth and work scaling issues Satoshi resigned, not to be seen as a person, a king like leader, not to be a single point of failure and he diversified himself to a bunch of new dev persons. Carrying the responsibilities to next levels.

Now we need to do the next level, which is clearly diversifying TEAMs to spread responsibilites.

If core does like Satioshi did and showed it works, they need to step back (from behaving like a king) and lets diversify ideas, work and responsibilities through many, but friendly competing teams.

This is the big future for Satoshi Bitcoin!

Satoshi showed us all and we know, he will never come back as Satoshi, or this diversification mechanics will be obsolete.

Satoshi clearly said he didn't want his software forked and he didn't believe in several implementations of bitcoin:

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.  The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

Why are we even still disusing this? It's clear that the game theory behind how bitcoin works does not benefit from "several competing bitcoins".

If your ideas don't make the cut in the main branch it's because they aren't good enough. If you want to compete, then make your own altcoin and if people think it's better than the existing Bitcoin, then people will sell their Bitcoins for your supposed "better-than-current-Bitcoin" altcoin, but don't pretend to cause this hardfork drama every now an then thinking you are doing a favor to anyone, because you are just making the price crash, all for nothing because at the end of the day, people aren't going to trust hardforking amateurs with their money.

Im still waiting for a clear statement of Roger Ver claiming that he will sell all of his BTC for BCC. If he really thinks BCC is better than BTC, he surely will dump them right?

I said nothing about different Bitcoins. Only about different teams.

Anyone can create their own different repositories, a lot of people run their own bitcoin full node software, but these guys don't want that, they want to change consensus rules, creating a hardfork and thus creating a price crash, uncertainty, and all the hell that breaks loose during a god damn hardfork.

Mark my words: In november or so, we will have another price crash thanks to btc1/segwit2x hardfork attempt. If they did just shut the fuck up and let segwit run for an entire year then talk about a blocksize increase, but no, their ego says that the fork must happen in 3 months. Well good luck with that.

Changing the code to SW is much more risky than change a 1 -> 2 .

You are just trapped by the invisible HF monster. Buuaaaaa. 

Segwit is opt in. If you don't like segwit then just get another client.

The market OBVIOUSLY wants segwit, look at how we went from $1800 to $3000.

The market OBVIOUSLY does not want two tokens. Look at XT crash, look at Classic crash, look at Unlimited crash, look at segwit2x/BIP148 crash.

We don't want two fucking bitcoins, it's not that hard to understand.

Yeah, its hard to understand. And markets are hardest to.
Could you think of a premium for BCC that IS traded?
Hm.... Maket wants SW... Hm.. Not so sure

But finally market will tell us and make everybody understand but rather the hard way, thats for sure.

[johnsmithx]

I'm sick of the dishonest lying, cheating...

Said a convicted felon who has been sentenced to a federal prison.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I don't like Theymos because of his censorhip, manipulation and lies:  https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-in-r-bitcoin-c85a290fe43

Can I be unbanned from r/btc please!  Actually there is a list of people who would like to participate but don't agree with the r/btc agenda: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6qauyy/ver_theymos_and_his_censorship_can_go_to_hell/

I don't like Roger because of his censorship, manipulation and lies.

[muyuu]

I don't like Roger because of his censorship, manipulation and lies.

[600watt]

I'm sick of the dishonest lying, cheating...

Said a convicted felon who has been sentenced to a federal prison.

i am not taking a side here but imho a federal prison sentence does not say anything about a persons reputation.

[traincarswreck]

i am not taking a side here but imho a federal prison sentence does not say anything about a persons reputation.

man I read so much stupid shit all day on the internet wtf is going on with this world!

[mindrust]

I don't like Roger because of his censorship, manipulation and lies.

r/btc is heavily censored. More than anything.

1- Any shitpost they made in r/btc can get upvoted to +200 in a matter of seconds. Especially if the title is about bashing the core devs. Everyday there are 5-10 posts like this. I never saw anything like this in r/bitcoin
2- There is a 10 minute time limit to post another message. Not sure if this applies to everybody.

r/btc is h*tler unlimited.

[freedomsr40]

I'm just here to see how Loaded will reply now. If the deal can be concluded, it will be surely marked in history (and wikipedia as well).

[600watt]

i am not taking a side here but imho a federal prison sentence does not say anything about a persons reputation.

man I read so much stupid shit all day on the internet wtf is going on with this world!

that´s what I thought as well....   

[johnsmithx]

I'm sick of the dishonest lying, cheating...

Said a convicted felon who has been sentenced to a federal prison.

i am not taking a side here but imho a federal prison sentence does not say anything about a persons reputation.

If that wasn't a (bad) joke then you should go see a psychiatrist asap.

[BitcoinBarrel]

WTF?

I initially thought Satoshis Bitcoin was about economic, tech and game theory... -> perfect eCash for ALL.

Now I see here its rather about people and soap opera?

Looks like that many 'users' are mostly active in posting nonsense and horsing around, rather not in directing all our power and brains in a better solution, community and most important Bitcoin's REPUTATION to the inner and outer side this entire opera is seen in the end ...?

Back to work! Make Bitcoin great again - not soapy!


 


My work here is to do pure analysis of WHY we have this opera:

Its all about a single line of the protocol

Where many would agree about, it is not a consensus pillar

Rather a user specific setting to allow free optimization and adjustments to market reactions

Such a minor param, that even Satoshi lost not much brain upon, rather sth like, it needs to be lifted when time is near and Moores law helps for the rest.

And due to growth and work scaling issues Satoshi resigned, not to be seen as a person, a king like leader, not to be a single point of failure and he diversified himself to a bunch of new dev persons. Carrying the responsibilities to next levels.

Now we need to do the next level, which is clearly diversifying TEAMs to spread responsibilites.

If core does like Satioshi did and showed it works, they need to step back (from behaving like a king) and lets diversify ideas, work and responsibilities through many, but friendly competing teams.

This is the big future for Satoshi Bitcoin!

Satoshi showed us all and we know, he will never come back as Satoshi, or this diversification mechanics will be obsolete.

Satoshi clearly said he didn't want his software forked and he didn't believe in several implementations of bitcoin:

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.  The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

Why are we even still disusing this? It's clear that the game theory behind how bitcoin works does not benefit from "several competing bitcoins".

If your ideas don't make the cut in the main branch it's because they aren't good enough. If you want to compete, then make your own altcoin and if people think it's better than the existing Bitcoin, then people will sell their Bitcoins for your supposed "better-than-current-Bitcoin" altcoin, but don't pretend to cause this hardfork drama every now an then thinking you are doing a favor to anyone, because you are just making the price crash, all for nothing because at the end of the day, people aren't going to trust hardforking amateurs with their money.

Im still waiting for a clear statement of Roger Ver claiming that he will sell all of his BTC for BCC. If he really thinks BCC is better than BTC, he surely will dump them right?

+1 for Satoshi

[JollyGood]

Im still waiting for a clear statement of Roger Ver claiming that he will sell all of his BTC for BCC. If he really thinks BCC is better than BTC, he surely will dump them right?

Well I look forward to seeing whether he will or not.

At the end of the day if Roger Ver is going to instigate the biggest tragedy on bitcoin since its conception simply because he has several hundred million dollars worth of coins then he should put his money where his mouth is.

First and foremost this is not the time for him or anyone else to play the role of bitcoin king. No need to change anything, everything can stay as is the status quo is fine. If he wants to go for it then that is his decision but he MUST dump all his BTC in favour of his newly found BTU otherwise it means he has no confidence in his own agenda.

Whether he does or not, Ver has lost respect in the majority of the crypto community.

[nizamcc]

Looks like they had a deal already. 19Mz2o9RDABT74SA9njZqMtJXKEzj2qUoH sent 40k BTC to 1PzGnXGvoGGtCcGpqzkJHebZVgM48VL2x4 in a single transaction, here's the tx id - 2248452e2122ff2d446565462cac276bbc8420c5874695a9b5c8e3bca8afa2b2
So there's still something shady behind BCH atm and a game is yet to begin. Let's wait for Aug 8 as that will prove to be the deciding day.
Looks like they were not interested in giving higher fee that's why even 10 sats/byte got them all their confirmations with a 0.00016201 BTC fee. (/sarcasm)

[BitcoinHodler]

Looks like they had a deal already. 19Mz2o9RDABT74SA9njZqMtJXKEzj2qUoH sent 40k BTC to 1PzGnXGvoGGtCcGpqzkJHebZVgM48VL2x4 in a single transaction, here's the tx id - 2248452e2122ff2d446565462cac276bbc8420c5874695a9b5c8e3bca8afa2b2
So there's still something shady behind BCH atm and a game is yet to begin. Let's wait for Aug 8 as that will prove to be the deciding day.
Looks like they were not interested in giving higher fee that's why even 10 sats/byte got them all their confirmations with a 0.00016201 BTC fee. (/sarcasm)

why do you think the 1PzGn... belongs to Roger Ver?
i can't find anything on that address linking it to anyone.

also a deal like that won't be as simple as sending a transaction! it is not 100 bucks it is about 130 million dollar, if you send it like that, the other person will take it and run.
what you do is using a multisig with some trusted third party with 3 keys. and these addresses are all starting with 1 (single key)

[cloverme]

The only thing this thread made me realize is that if Roger got a VIP badge, now I want one too!  lol

[jonald_fyookball]

when Bitcoin unlimited / Emergent consensus was set to activate, it was under the assumption that it would be at least 60-70% hashpower.  obviously the situation is very different currently as of 8/6/2017 with Bitcoin Cash.  You can't expect Roger to make a 1:1 trade now.  if you do, you're an idiot.