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

[Hyena]

Hypocrisy overload. Come on, this is hilarious, you see a threat to decentralization in mining but you don't see it in reference client implementation.

What don't you like about client implementation? are you a cool programmer? or just fart in a puddle

The more independent wallet implementations the better because it will dramatically reduce the attack surface of the network as a whole.

OR, alternatively I would be very happy if the Bitcoin's reference implementation had a convenient way for independent developers to add plugins. SegWit would then be a plugin instead of an intrinsic part of the reference client implementation. And I would be very happy to disable that plugin.

[1714018943]

1714018943

[1714018943]

1714018943

[1714018943]

1714018943

[aarturka]

Hypocrisy overload. Come on, this is hilarious, you see a threat to decentralization in mining but you don't see it in reference client implementation.

What don't you like about client implementation? are you a cool programmer? or just fart in a puddle

The more independent wallet implementations the better because it will dramatically reduce the attack surface of the network as a whole.

OR, alternatively I would be very happy if the Bitcoin's reference implementation had a convenient way for independent developers to add plugins. SegWit would then be a plugin instead of an intrinsic part of the reference client implementation. And I would be very happy to disable that plugin.

Ok, learn some C++ create your implementation and people will see if it's worth considering. Now I see what suggest Core - complete exquisite technological sollution on scalling and some others problems, from very proficient devs on one side and buggy incompetent dumb block increase from some lamers pushed only for political reasons by greedy Wu and Vermin on the other

[Hyena]

Hypocrisy overload. Come on, this is hilarious, you see a threat to decentralization in mining but you don't see it in reference client implementation.

What don't you like about client implementation? are you a cool programmer? or just fart in a puddle

The more independent wallet implementations the better because it will dramatically reduce the attack surface of the network as a whole.

OR, alternatively I would be very happy if the Bitcoin's reference implementation had a convenient way for independent developers to add plugins. SegWit would then be a plugin instead of an intrinsic part of the reference client implementation. And I would be very happy to disable that plugin.

Ok, learn some C++ create your implementation and people will see if it's worth considering. Now I see what suggest Core - complete exquisite technological sollution on scalling and some others problems, from very proficient devs on one side and buggy incompetent dumb block increase from some lamers pushed only for political reasons by greedy Wu and Vermin

I've been programming in C++ for the past 12 years, and yes the situation is evolving to the direction where I would make my own branch of the Bitcoin's reference client if no established party is willing to implement a plugin system.

The reference client should not have any soft-forky constraints to neither the block size nor dust threshold nor anything. It should just have a script engine for easily developing and adding soft-fork plugins. For example, let's say I don't want my node to relay TXs that have more than 100 inputs to solve the quadratic hashing problem as a soft fork. I would quickly slap together some Lua script that works as a transaction filter between the wallet server's mempool and the p2p network. With such a filter system full nodes could already gain enormous power that they currently don't have because Core refuses to give this power to the full nodes.

[manselr]

MMmm looks like Jihan Wu is going to lose more and more supporters with that covert patented anti segwit tech on the ASIC machines he sells... he was ripping off people basically.

[aarturka]

I've been programming in C++ for the past 12 years, and yes the situation is evolving to the direction where I would make my own branch of the Bitcoin's reference client if no established party is willing to implement a plugin system.

The reference client should not have any soft-forky constraints to neither the block size nor dust threshold nor anything. It should just have a script engine for easily developing and adding soft-fork plugins. For example, let's say I don't want my node to relay TXs that have more than 100 inputs to solve the quadratic hashing problem as a soft fork. I would quickly slap together some Lua script that works as a transaction filter between the wallet server's mempool and the p2p network. With such a filter system full nodes could already gain enormous power that they currently don't have because Core refuses to give this power to the full nodes.

Get er done, till then bitcoiners stick to Segwit and not communist china coin

[cryptoanarchist]

Finally, Core is dying. I've been waiting for 5 years. 

[DGulari]

Finally, Core is dying. I've been waiting for 5 years.  

Me too.  Core and Blockstream need and deserve nothing less than a sure and miserable death.  Yesterday wouldn't be soon enough.

[lurker10]

MMmm looks like Jihan Wu is going to lose more and more supporters with that covert patented anti segwit tech on the ASIC machines he sells... he was ripping off people basically.

Ripping people off how? Why does it matter what any miner does as long as they do the hashing?

[jonald_fyookball]

MMmm looks like Jihan Wu is going to lose more and more supporters with that covert patented anti segwit tech on the ASIC machines he sells... he was ripping off people basically.

Ripping people off how? Why does it matter what any miner does as long as they do the hashing?

He won't have a good answer. 

Greg, you must be quite pleased at the effectiveness of the propaganda your camp is putting out.

[Alex.BTC]

We have our new "Blockstream's lie of the week", this time the enemy is the ASICs, again.

Looks like the block extension proposal really fucked Blockstream big time.
It is simple and it solves immediate blocksize problems.
 
What's even better is that the Block Extension is "party neutral" so Blockstream can't even go against it by bashing the BU straw man, so they needed to create another enemy to distract people for another week, Blockstream ran out of excuses so now they have to regurgitate bullshits from a year ago:

https://twitter.com/olivierjanss/status/731198742968291329
Olivier Janssens, 12:05 PM - 13 May 2016 - ‏@olivierjanss: Note to miners: We, the core devs, discovered a patented optimization in your ASIC. We will make it obsolete in the next update. Thank you.

Luke Parker, 30 Apr 2016 - AsicBoost claims 20% efficiency improvement in Bitcoin mining
https://bravenewcoin.com/news/asicboost-claims-20-efficiency-improvement-in-bitcoin-mining/

The bullshit didn't work then, it doesn't work now.

If you're a newbie all you need to know is every time people from Blockstream open their mouth, it's a lie. Blockstream spent millions on SegWit, they have a deadline coming, but their walls are crumbling and even LN devs are going against them now.

The good thing about this ASICboost bullshit is that it makes it so obvious who the paid shills are on this forum. These dumb fucks are paid to jump to conclusion with zero facts, all you need to do is ask them for proofs, then they break down and disappear (the stupid ones argue back and make their shilling look even more obvious).

[Alex.BTC]

You know Blockstream is fucked when even the leading LN devs go against them in public, stating what everyone knew all along: Core runs PR and trolling campaigns:

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-core-runs-trolling-campaigns-says-lightning-network-developer/
Bitcoin Core Runs “Trolling Campaigns”, Says Lightning Network Developer

Joseph Poon, Lightning Network developer, has publicly stated today that Bitcoin Core has “a secret channel where they organize their PR and trolling campaigns.” He further stated that “many people have talked about it (more than 5 people) and it’s alluded to it in various places which are publicly accessible since it’s basically where a lot of decisions around PR happens.”

Speculations regarding organized trollings by Blockstream specifically have been made for quite some time, especially after Alex Bergeron, better known on reddit as brg444, who constantly argued in favor of Blockstream in a somewhat trolling manner, was actually hired by Blockstream.

However, it is the first time someone prominent and well-known has publicly stated Bitcoin Core is running trolling campaigns in secret channels which may explain some of the toxicity coming out of some parts of bitcoin’s community.

[Alex.BTC]

This just in:

http://telegra.ph/Inside-the-Dragons-Den-Bitcoin-Cores-Troll-Army-04-07
Inside the Dragon's Den: Bitcoin Core's Troll Army
April 07, 2017

Here's what is known:

1. Poon alluded to "a secret channel where they organize their PR and trolling campaigns" which is "basically where a lot of decisions around PR happens."

2. There is a secret channel on the Bitcoin Core slack called #dragonsden

3. There are 21 members in this chat group, as of January 27th, 2017 (the date of Cohen's talk)

4. The known members of this channel, based on the information in the above glimpse of the channel are: BashCo (/r/bitcoin moderator), mrhodl (twitter troll), alp (twitter troll), moli (unknown), belcher (JoinMarket developer), BtcDrak (Bitcoin Core developer/activist) and Bram Cohen. These seven members represent 1/3rd of the total members in the channel.

5. BashCo is Theymos's second in command. Fellow /r/bitcoin moderator ThePiachu wrote in a blog post:
   
6. This establishes proof that there is collusion between Bitcoin Core and the moderation team of /r/Bitcoin.

7. At least one Bitcoin Core developer is present in this chat. There are 14 more chat members we cannot see.

This information provides further evidence of the Bitcoin Core propaganda machine and demonstrates the conclusive link between Bitcoin Core and the /r/Bitcoin moderation team. Everything written above is factual and verifiable.

[TKeenan]

You know Blockstream is fucked when even the leading LN devs go against them in public, stating what everyone knew all along: Core runs PR and trolling campaigns:

It is disgusting how arrogant the fuckers are.  Just because they have commit access and a few PhDs, they think they own the blockchain and can convert it to their personal profits via Lightning. 

Even if BU is total shit and buggy, it can be fixed.  You can never fix those assholes Adam Back and G Maxwell with the corrupt censorship and dishonest PR campaigns.  Time to flush the toilet.

[Rakete4]

Guess the majority of the Bitcoin miners are not bitcoiners then. 

you mean stupid greedy Wu and his puppets? I can't call them solid bitcoiners, obviously they think only about their income and not about essential Bitcoin value like decentralization, they are using their hash advantage to break and hinder bitcoin progress, they may short bitcoin and pump some alts like Roger Ver does.

Hypocrisy overload. Come on, this is hilarious, you see a threat to decentralization in mining but you don't see it in reference client implementation. I'll bet there's a documented mental pathology to describe your condition ... probably something to do with the frontal lobe.

Client implementations are always centralized, that's how Github works. Try to get a commit accepted by BU devs that removes the EC code. They won't accept it.
Glad you aren't involved in Peercoin anymore.

[Rakete4]

So what is this thread not censored if the title is "Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell", and it has 27 pages already.

Looks like the censorship claims were all fake.

[Alex.BTC]

It is disgusting how arrogant the fuckers are.  Just because they have commit access and a few PhDs, they think they own the blockchain and can convert it to their personal profits via Lightning.  

Even if BU is total shit and buggy, it can be fixed.  You can never fix those assholes Adam Back and G Maxwell with the corrupt censorship and dishonest PR campaigns.  Time to flush the toilet.

Well said.

If they have the talent, they may afford this kind of arrogance.
But SegWit is such an overly complex bloated piece of shit, they clearly don't have it, or they're intentionally fucking up Bitcoin.

Nobody worth their salt will stay working with these arrogant but untalented kidults.
That's why people like Joseph Poon (first author of Lightning Network) is now going against Blockstream.

Here is the funny part, the Blockstream/Core walk around acting like they represent the 'Bitcoin Community', but Adam Back, the 'President' of Blockstream, never believed in Bitcoin and never even committed a single line of code to the Bitcoin Core code base.

[Invincible]

BTU has president not Bitcoin. You are BTU shill and your nick contains 'BTC' pretty strange

[BillyBobZorton]

So much hate by people that don't contribute anything else but forum posts. Meanwhile Gmaxwell has uncovered the ASICBOOT thing and continues improving Core software. You are all amateurs.

[TKeenan]

So much hate by people that don't contribute anything else but forum posts. Meanwhile Gmaxwell has uncovered the ASICBOOT thing and continues improving Core software. You are all amateurs.

Go read Sam Cole's piece on ASICBOOST.  You are the fucking amateur.

[DooMAD]

So what is this thread not censored if the title is "Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell", and it has 27 pages already.

Looks like the censorship claims were all fake.

There was definitely a time when threads discussing alternative clients would have been silently swept into the altcoins section, but I think it finally dawned on the admins that it wasn't achieving the intended goal (quite the opposite, in fact), so I haven't noticed them doing it lately.  Talk about learning your lesson the hard way, though.  As for this particular thread, since it doesn't directly discuss an alternative client, it's unlikely this thread would have been moved anyway, even under the old rules. 

Personally, I feel that even if people don't agree with alternative clients, it's better to shine a light on the pros and particularly the cons, allowing people to make up their own mind, rather than trying to railroad discussions in one particular direction.  Bias is just one of the reasons this scaling topic has become so toxic and polarised.  Discussions should ideally be as open and transparent as the blockchain itself.  If one "side" feels dismissed or overlooked, it only entrenches their views.  Also, sometimes people just like rooting for what might be perceived as the plucky underdog fighting against unfair odds, so it's best if people don't get the impression that one implementation is given preferential treatment over others.