Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell

[singular]

Alex.BTC same here, I agree 100%.

I post rarely but Alexs post got me to also post my stance on this. I don't have any special attachment to any dev team, but I also preferred Core, even now I'm still running Core fullnode. I only want whats best for Bitcoin.

Only bitcoin stake holders and miners (even more so, since their investment is very iliquid they are in it for the long run so to me their interests are sincere, because we want the same thing) should have a say. If they fuck it they fuck themselves, so they will do anything to have Bitcoin succeed.
Any dev no matter how smart he says he is shouldn't get to impose anything - you write your code, miners will decide if its ok, I trust them much more than anyone else in the system because their interests are my interests as bitcoin stake holder.

Also with Core being so against HFing, when miners said they will be orphaning blocks of smaller chain, HFing is suddenly ok with Core to change POW. If HF is non avoidable which now seems so, at least choose the sane option.

Let go of your ego and do blocksize increase hardfork (2 or 4 MB) with SegWit and be done with this nonsense.

[1713884202]

1713884202

[1713884202]

1713884202

[1713884202]

1713884202

[1713884202]

1713884202

[1713884202]

1713884202

[traincarswreck]

Any dev no matter how smart he says he is shouldn't get to impose anything - you write your code, miners will decide if its ok, I trust them much more than anyone else in the system because their interests are my interests as bitcoin stake holder.

Also with Core being so against HFing, when miners said they will be orphaning blocks of smaller chain, HFing is suddenly ok with Core to change POW. If HF is non avoidable which now seems so, at least choose the sane option.

Let go of your ego and do blocksize increase hardfork (2 or 4 MB) with SegWit and be done with this nonsense.

But why should we be listening to YOUR opinion on who we should trust when you think we shouldn't listen to the people that are actually learning about the technical details of the system "no matter how smart" they are?

Why should be believe its nonsense because YOU say so but the actual people with technical knowledge, expertise, and experience don't agree with you?

And do you claim your argument is scientifically founded, because if you do, then I urge you to bring forth the supporting literature.

[jonald_fyookball]

Clear evidence of Blockstream controlling the Core code base to prevent block size increase can be seen here,  someone offered to help increasing the blocksize, but the issue was closed immediately by sipa (Pieter Wuille, Blockstream co-founder):
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10028

You can see Pieter Wuille closed the issue immediately but then try to justify it with the usual corporate double speak by claiming the issue is up to the community and out of his hand.

This is what we call 'lying'.

Many of us have been trying to point out the truth for some time with frustrating results.
It is like pointing out that the emperor has no clothes and then being laughed at like you're crazy.
But eventually, reality catches up and it seems the tide is turning.

"Yeah we can't upgrade the blocksize because theres no consensus but we can write 5000
lines of code for Segwit and radically change the transaction structure." 

[singular]

Any dev no matter how smart he says he is shouldn't get to impose anything - you write your code, miners will decide if its ok, I trust them much more than anyone else in the system because their interests are my interests as bitcoin stake holder.

Also with Core being so against HFing, when miners said they will be orphaning blocks of smaller chain, HFing is suddenly ok with Core to change POW. If HF is non avoidable which now seems so, at least choose the sane option.

Let go of your ego and do blocksize increase hardfork (2 or 4 MB) with SegWit and be done with this nonsense.

But why should we be listening to YOUR opinion on who we should trust when you think we shouldn't listen to the people that are actually learning about the technical details of the system "no matter how smart" they are?

Why should be believe its nonsense because YOU say so but the actual people with technical knowledge, expertise, and experience don't agree with you?

And do you claim your argument is scientifically founded, because if you do, then I urge you to bring forth the supporting literature.

You don't need any literature to understand that if someone has 100s of millions invested he thinks real hard about what he will do.

[franky1]

Clear evidence of Blockstream controlling the Core code base to prevent block size increase can be seen here,  someone offered to help increasing the blocksize, but the issue was closed immediately by sipa (Pieter Wuille, Blockstream co-founder):
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10028

You can see Pieter Wuille closed the issue immediately but then try to justify it with the usual corporate double speak by claiming the issue is up to the community and out of his hand.

This is what we call 'lying'.

Many of us have been trying to point out the truth for some time with frustrating results.

It is like pointing out that the emperor has no clothes and then being laughed at like you're crazy.

But eventually, reality catches up and it seems the tide is turning.

the thing is they know the emperor is naked. but they think.. if they kiss his naked ass they may get part of the emperors $70m.

the issue is for years they will play games arguing that he is clothed just to avoid talking about his nakedness because they want to distract and abstract the conversation of the nakedness subject

but yea eventually they will realise that the $70m is not a pot of gold for future employment chances. but debt that the emperor needs to repay. and all the suck ups realise they have be loyal to DEBT while trying to destroy real ASSETS

[traincarswreck]

Clear evidence of Blockstream controlling the Core code base to prevent block size increase can be seen here,  someone offered to help increasing the blocksize, but the issue was closed immediately by sipa (Pieter Wuille, Blockstream co-founder):
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10028

You can see Pieter Wuille closed the issue immediately but then try to justify it with the usual corporate double speak by claiming the issue is up to the community and out of his hand.

This is what we call 'lying'.

Many of us have been trying to point out the truth for some time with frustrating results.
It is like pointing out that the emperor has no clothes and then being laughed at like you're crazy.
But eventually, reality catches up and it seems the tide is turning.

"Yeah we can't upgrade the blocksize because theres no consensus but we can write 5000
lines of code for Segwit and radically change the transaction structure."  

I wonder what your metric for "radical" changes are and whether or not it is objectively defined or simply YOUR SUBJECTIVE opinion on the matter.

A lot of people are frustrated but its never seems to be the ones with the most knowledge and experience with the system or those that like to base their arguments on science and empirical evidence.

It might be your frustration and other's who hold the same attitude comes directly from your ignorance on the subject.

You don't need any literature to understand that if someone has 100s of millions invested he thinks real hard about what he will do.

I'm not sure who you are implying has invested or will invest 100's of millions.  Nonetheless you have made an implication here but given no argument and so of course (consequently) no basis for an argument. Also you might not want to start technical and economic debates with "You don't need any literature to understand..." Its basically an admission of ignorance.

[Alex.BTC]

I understand the system well enough and there is no scientific argument that not removing the limit will tank the system. And you have grossly misinterpreted what you have quoted.  He did not state the bold and there is nothing in his quote that is such a statement.  He said "it can" and then gave an example.  

No one else will agree with you that he was saying the exact block that we should change the limit at, you are alone in this, no one wants to be caught lying about a quote like you.

I've said and addressed nothing tangential, every point I have made is perfectly relevant. And I am not claiming to be smarter than Satoshi or claiming that Satoshi is wrong in any way.  I am pointing out that what you are saying he said isn't the truth, and we can call read that I am correct to point out that your interpretation of what was actually said is bias and untrue.

You just said changing the Bitcoin block size limit would 'destroy its digital gold properties' and 'would tank the system', then I shown you Satoshi had always wanted to increase the block size limit, a long time ago.

So either Satoshi wanted to 'tank the system' himself, or you are wrong, it can't get any more simpler than that. Going off on another tangent doesn't change that. You lack hierarchical problem solving skill that's why you treat every tangent with equal priority, not knowing once your key argument is proven wrong, the smaller details no longer matter.

Why are you speaking for everyone anyway, from what I've seen, 'everyone' here knows you're a troll.

It's ok, maybe you need the money to put your kids through college or something, I know you're a troll too but I replied you anyway because you presented yourself as a low hanging fruit I could pick to further explain Satoshi's vision.

It's important for people to know that the 1MB limit is absolute BS, there is simply no valid reason to keep it at 1M, many top devs used to agree, until they started working for Blockstream.

[jonald_fyookball]

It's important for people to know that the 1MB limit is absolute BS, there is simply no valid reason to keep it at 1M, many top devs used to agree, until they started working for Blockstream.

quote of the day. im stealing for my sig.

[traincarswreck]

You just said changing the Bitcoin block size limit would 'destroy its digital gold properties' and 'would tank the system', then I shown you Satoshi had always wanted to increase the block size limit, a long time ago.

So either Satoshi wanted to 'tank the system' himself, or you are wrong, it can't get any more simpler than that. Going off on another tangent doesn't change that. You lack hierarchical problem solving skill that's why you treat every tangent with equal priority, not knowing once your key argument is proven wrong, the smaller details no longer matter.

Why are you speaking for everyone anyway, from what I've seen, 'everyone' here knows you're a troll.

It's ok, maybe you need the money to put your kids through college or something, I know you're a troll too but I replied you anyway because you presented yourself as a low hanging fruit I could pick to further explain Satoshi's vision.

Satoshi showed how it could be done if we decided to do it, and the subsequent posts were people complaining on how obviously difficult it would be to remove as time went by.  Satoshi never responded but assuming he was smarter than the others its obvious that he realized the truth of this too. 

He gave the people a pacifier, an example of how it COULD be done, it was nothing more, and there is nothing more in the quote to suggest he implied more. He basically said, "You can change it, but you all just have to agree when and how" and he disappeared and choose not to participate in this debate.

It's important for people to know that the 1MB limit is absolute BS, there is simply no valid reason to keep it at 1M, many top devs used to agree, until they started working for Blockstream.

There is a valid reason and I stated it, that parameter is holding bitcoin's value proposition which guards its properties as a digital gold.

And correlation doesn't imply causation.  It's you that is not a dev and isn't educated on the system or experienced with it, calling those that are wrong and betrayers of the philosophy behind it.  Why should we listen to you and not the talented experienced people that are ACTUALLY working on the solutions?

All you are doing is telling the engineers how to solve their problems, but who are you?

[Killerpotleaf]

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

[Alex.BTC]

Many of us have been trying to point out the truth for some time with frustrating results.
It is like pointing out that the emperor has no clothes and then being laughed at like you're crazy.
But eventually, reality catches up and it seems the tide is turning.

"Yeah we can't upgrade the blocksize because theres no consensus but we can write 5000
lines of code for Segwit and radically change the transaction structure."  

Yes, the lies and the trolls are obvious. But if we're honest to ourselves, did we really expect anything less?

Bitcoin was designed to remove financial power from the hands of the few to the hands of the many, even the hidden message Satoshi embedded in the first block is a taunt to the existing financial system, Bitcoin's success will directly threaten the bottom line of that system, naturally they'll try everything to stop it, if it's not Blockstream, it would be someone else, there would be bribes, blackmails, threats, if you've lived long enough, you know who they are and you know their playbook.

Bitcoin is a unique threat they've never faced before, they don't have complete control of the internet and they don't control the production of ASICs, if they bribe devs to change the algorithm too abruptly, there will be an uproar and another coin will simply take its place, so they have to slow Bitcoin down and quickly develop their own blockchain to replace it.

Bitcoin is already standing on its own, any more increase of its transaction per second will bring Bitcoin towards critical mass, they simply cannot afford to let that happen. It's unfortunate that Gavin didn't force an increase on the limit before he quit, that would be epic.

The future of bitcoin is now in the miners hand, the online media and trolls are just theatrics, the real battle is in the hash rate, there is going to be a hash rate war.

[traincarswreck]

Bitcoin is already standing on its own, any more increase of its transaction per second will bring Bitcoin towards critical mass, they simply cannot afford to let that happen.

What scientific theories and literature are you basing your argument on? Or is it just your opinion and its not founded at all?

[traincarswreck]

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

^^^THIS is called trolling. Not contributing whatsoever and derailing otherwise sincere dialogue.

[jonald_fyookball]

Many of us have been trying to point out the truth for some time with frustrating results.
It is like pointing out that the emperor has no clothes and then being laughed at like you're crazy.
But eventually, reality catches up and it seems the tide is turning.

"Yeah we can't upgrade the blocksize because theres no consensus but we can write 5000
lines of code for Segwit and radically change the transaction structure."  

Yes, the lies and the trolls are obvious. But if we're honest to ourselves, did we really expect anything less?

Bitcoin was designed to remove financial power from the hands of the few to the hands of the many, even the hidden message Satoshi embedded in the first block is a taunt to the existing financial system, Bitcoin's success will directly threaten the bottom line of that system, naturally they'll try everything to stop it, if it's not Blockstream, it would be someone else, there would be bribes, blackmails, threats, if you've lived long enough, you know who they are and you know their playbook.

Bitcoin is a unique threat they've never faced before, they don't have complete control of the internet and they don't control the production of ASICs, if they bribe devs to change the algorithm too abruptly, there will be an uproar and another coin will simply take its place, so they have to slow Bitcoin down and quickly develop their own blockchain to replace it.

Bitcoin is already standing on its own, any more increase of its transaction per second will bring Bitcoin towards critical mass, they simply cannot afford to let that happen. It's unfortunate that Gavin didn't force an increase on the limit before he quit, that would be epic.

The future of bitcoin is now in the miners hand, the online media and trolls are just theatrics, the real battle is in the hash rate, there is going to be a hash rate war.

Fuck.

lol...

Well, on the bright side there's a lot of smart people that love liberty and we're not so easy to fool anymore.  Blockstream was a really good try though.

[Killerpotleaf]

Bitcoin is already standing on its own, any more increase of its transaction per second will bring Bitcoin towards critical mass, they simply cannot afford to let that happen.

What scientific theories and literature are you basing your argument on? Or is it just your opinion and its not founded at all?

the most conservative analysis concluded that a blocksize of 4MB would be just fine and have no negative effect on decentralization.

[agath]

Early adopter here. I also agree with ALEX-BTC and I am really fed up and disappointed by core and how they manage things. I really wish that BU/Classic/EC and maybe updated XT will reach the supermajority with their PoW and kick core out of the way.

[traincarswreck]

the most conservative analysis concluded that a blocksize of 4MB would be just fine and have no negative effect on decentralization.

I don't think everyone agrees with that, and I'm not sure if you are even referring to a peer reviewed paper, nonetheless that there would be no negative effect on decentralization was not the claim made in the quote:

Quote from: Alex.BTC on Today at 02:38:37 AM


Bitcoin is already standing on its own, any more increase of its transaction per second will bring Bitcoin towards critical mass, they simply cannot afford to let that happen.

[traincarswreck]

Early adopter here. I also agree with ALEX-BTC and I am really fed up and disappointed by core and how they manage things. I really wish that BU/Classic/EC and maybe updated XT will reach the supermajority with their PoW and kick core out of the way.

Do you have a foundation for your opinion that is based on accepted scientific/economic theory or are you just another BU supporter that has a loud opinion not based on scientific reason?

[Killerpotleaf]

the most conservative analysis concluded that a blocksize of 4MB would be just fine and have no negative effect on decentralization.

I don't think everyone agrees with that,
[/quote]

your right a few other independent studies all came up with higher "harmless  MB  limit"

[traincarswreck]

your right a few other independent studies all came up with higher "harmless  MB  limit"

independence is not the most important quality of a valid study, peer review by other ACTIVE experts in the field is. And you are speaking to decentralization which is not the only risk.

#science.