Bitcoin Forum
November 23, 2017, 09:06:53 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node  (Read 3770 times)
cryptoanarchist
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106



View Profile
April 05, 2017, 11:11:08 PM
 #21

 Both franky1 and Carlton Banks like to make up creative insults and direct them at me.

lol...I've had franky1 on ignore since 2012. I think Garzik makes a lot of good points as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNAe5OWIBT8
1511471213
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511471213

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511471213
Reply with quote  #2

1511471213
Report to moderator
1511471213
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511471213

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511471213
Reply with quote  #2

1511471213
Report to moderator
1511471213
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511471213

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511471213
Reply with quote  #2

1511471213
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511471213
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511471213

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511471213
Reply with quote  #2

1511471213
Report to moderator
1511471213
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511471213

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511471213
Reply with quote  #2

1511471213
Report to moderator
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834



View Profile
April 06, 2017, 06:12:49 AM
 #22

I'm not saying that the Core team is not attempting to reconcile the two sides.  

You literally did say that, and also that the Core team both began and perpetuated the conflict.

And I have demonstrated you are lying. It's impossible for you or anyone else to claim Core began the conflict and expect to be taken seriously as one who is interested in the truth of the matter.

It's so simple, you decided to tell a lie, and used your reputation to sell the lie. You're a liar and a manipulator.

I've got most of them on ignore.  The less tempted I am to respond to their nonsense, the less I feed their sense of superiority.  I focus on answering questions and responding to civil discussions instead.  Hopefully if enough of us do so, the whole community can learn from each other and dismiss the nonsense.


You're using up that social capital rather quickly, Danny. This haughty aloofness of yours is in fact the manifestation of a genuine superiority complex, another weapon in your rhetoric box.

If what I say is nonsense, dismiss it with words, not the ad hominem labelling you use against me (and for which you provide no evidence), yet hypocritically direct ad hominem insults towards me (and you do so passive aggressively, without making a direct reference, knowing that people will realise who you are not referring to by name)


You cannot dismiss what I'm saying about you, because it's the truth. You cannot explain why I am labelling your behaviour unfairly, because what I am saying about you is the truth.

If I'm lying, distorting or making clever editorial decisions in what I say, be a man and address it directly. Instead, you have no choice but to defend yourself with veiled insults, whereas I am upfront and direct about who and what I am dismissing, and I give soundly argued reasons for doing so.

You provide no reason, you just bandy labels around, like childish playground name calling. I call you out for what you are, loudly and proudly, because your demonstrably insidious rhetoric is a danger to the value of mine and others BTC assets.


I've been in support of both sides at various times. I've been called a "blockstream shill"

That wouldn't be credible even if it ever happened. I doubt anyone would take that seriously, you've suddenly revealed a consistent big-blocks position only just recently. You say nothing in respect of supporting or rejecting the Core position that I've seen.

Both franky1 and Carlton Banks like to make up creative insults and direct them at me.  I tend to think of them both as my own little troll puppies following me around and yipping at my heels.

Interesting that you follow a claim of being a victim of "creative insults" with..... rather a creative insult of your own.


But my claims that you are a liar are plain for all to see. You said that Core both started and perpetuated the big blocks debate, demonstrably and obviously false. That you are a liar is not an insult at all, it is the truth.

I'm more interested in both learning and teaching as much about the concerns both sides have as possible.  Knowledge helps reduce fear, anger, and hate.

If you are so interested in knowledge, why are you telling easily debunked lies?

I will not tolerate you or anyone else suggesting that I am the person behaving in bad faith when I am simply standing up for what is right and for the truth.


You are a malevolent liar, and I will call you out on it each and every time you perpetrate falsehoods, against Core's management or anything else (although I expect your gameplan is to stick to attacking the people at Core and their decisions)

Vires in numeris
Iranus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504


View Profile
April 06, 2017, 06:56:33 AM
 #23

I'm not saying that the Core team is not attempting to reconcile the two sides.  

You literally did say that, and also that the Core team both began and perpetuated the conflict.
Actually, he said that they had failed, not that they were not trying (and he was objectively correct, as a consensus has not been reached).  His points about division were clearly addressed to you and to others who are divisive and close-minded (for example, arguing with a fascist does not make you one).

Quote
It's so simple, you decided to tell a lie, and used your reputation to sell the lie. You're a liar and a manipulator.
Objective truth.  And this seems like a creative insult to me.  Your repeated use of the term "liar" and attempts to discredit Danny are unhelpful (and I hope this is addressing your "clever editorial decisions" "like a man").

X7
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784


An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind


View Profile WWW
April 06, 2017, 08:00:28 AM
 #24

Please change the subject of the topic. I thought the fork had already happened when in fact it didn't yet and I was worried. Until the fork is officially done please change the subject of the thread to something else as is misleading.

There is nothing misleading about saying he is running a bitcoin unlimited node, if he is actually running a bitcoin unlimited node. He doesn't say anything about a fork at all in his subject.

Perhaps we should check the unlimited intergalactic accords and ask the future president if he would be comfortable with our projected plans, you don't seem stupid. So clearly you have an insidious ulterior motive.


Helping to create the world's first loving economy, not something based on fear or greed. Principles of love, abundance, consistency, automation, decentralisation, open source, economic multifunctionality. Scientific analysis will be uploaded to my site shortly for peer review.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834



View Profile
April 06, 2017, 08:38:23 AM
 #25

I'm not saying that the Core team is not attempting to reconcile the two sides.  

You literally did say that, and also that the Core team both began and perpetuated the conflict.
Actually, he said that they had failed, not that they were not trying (and he was objectively correct, as a consensus has not been reached).  His points about division were clearly addressed to you and to others who are divisive and close-minded (for example, arguing with a fascist does not make you one).

You're wrong.

You can't maintain consensus by alienating half the miners and a huge population of users. Forcing a wedge between people with "us vs. them" mentality, accusations, insults, fear, uncertainty, doubt, and belittling is cutting off your nose to spite your face.  In a consensus system it is pretty much the best way to destroy the entire system.

If you actually want Bitcoin to be a success, you'll need to stop trying to rip it apart at the seams


Above, Danny states that Core forced a wedge, created an us & them mentality, that they incited FUD and that Core needs to stop trying to tear Bitcoin apart.

All wrong.


The perpetrators of all of Danny's unfounded accusations was the succession of pressure created first by Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn (using XT and "Classic"), then by Peter Rizun and his Unlimited merry men. Danny Hamilton is simply the latest in a long line of people lying about real world events and the systemic effects of blocksize increases on the system, and as I say, he's an exceptionally insidious example of that strategy, as he's been uninvolved up to now, building trust in his readers. Now, Danny Hamilton is using the trust he's built up to sway opinions toward the big blocks position, and it's a very crafty strategy.

I have demonstrated everything I'm saying as a fact, with reasoning. Where are your facts? You're saying little more than "Danny is right". Why is Danny right? Can you tell us without avoiding the falsehoods Danny has presented (as is the typical tactic for lie-driven big blocks rhetoric)

Why does the big blocks position always require lies to convince Bitcoiners? Why must the lies (and the liars telling them) become more sophisticated and subtle, as they lose battle after battle?



Objective truth.  And this seems like a creative insult to me.  Your repeated use of the term "liar" and attempts to discredit Danny are unhelpful (and I hope this is addressing your "clever editorial decisions" "like a man".

Nope. Unbacked assertions. I have demonstrated that Danny is obscuring the truth and replacing it with carefully constructed lies. What have you proven?

Vires in numeris
cryptoanarchist
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106



View Profile
April 06, 2017, 01:39:40 PM
 #26

I'm not saying that the Core team is not attempting to reconcile the two sides.  

You literally did say that, and also that the Core team both began and perpetuated the conflict.
Actually, he said that they had failed, not that they were not trying (and he was objectively correct, as a consensus has not been reached).  His points about division were clearly addressed to you and to others who are divisive and close-minded (for example, arguing with a fascist does not make you one).

Quote
It's so simple, you decided to tell a lie, and used your reputation to sell the lie. You're a liar and a manipulator.
Objective truth.  And this seems like a creative insult to me.  Your repeated use of the term "liar" and attempts to discredit Danny are unhelpful (and I hope this is addressing your "clever editorial decisions" "like a man".

Iranus, Carlton's definitely ignore-worthy.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834



View Profile
April 06, 2017, 01:59:51 PM
 #27

For what reason?

Prove me wrong. Demonstrate I'm wrong or being deceptive. You can't, and so you must try to use repetitive rhetoric to censor me instead.

Vires in numeris
DannyHamilton
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988



View Profile
April 06, 2017, 03:55:15 PM
 #28

You can't maintain consensus by alienating half the miners and a huge population of users. Forcing a wedge between people with "us vs. them" mentality, accusations, insults, fear, uncertainty, doubt, and belittling is cutting off your nose to spite your face.  In a consensus system it is pretty much the best way to destroy the entire system.

If you actually want Bitcoin to be a success, you'll need to stop trying to rip it apart at the seams


Above, Danny states that Core forced a wedge, created an us & them mentality, that they incited FUD and that Core needs to stop trying to tear Bitcoin apart.

Work on your reading comprehension.

You'll notice that in the part of that paragraph you conveniently left out I either refer to Core by name or use "they" or "their", not "your", when referring to Core. I'm not telling Core that they aren't "official", they already know that.  I'm not telling Core that they are the reference client ONLY because a significant majority run it, they already know that. I'm talking "to the reader about Core", not "to Core about Core":
Remember, there is nothing "official" about Core.  The ONLY thing that makes their software the "reference client" is the fact that a significant majority run it.  If a significant majority run something else, then Core is an alt-client and any fork they trigger is an alt-coin.  That is how Bitcoin is designed to work, and that is the only way that Bitcoin CAN work.  Maintain consensus, or fall apart.  You can't maintain consensus by alienating half the miners and a huge population of users. Forcing a wedge between people with "us vs. them" mentality, accusations, insults, fear, uncertainty, doubt, and belittling is cutting off your nose to spite your face.  In a consensus system it is pretty much the best way to destroy the entire system.

I switch to "you", and "your" when explaining to the reader (Among others that's you Carlton, in case you didn't notice) that if the reader attacks anyone the reader doesn't agree with then the reader is part of the problem.  The reader is part of the consensus that needs to be reached.  That the reader should understand that both sides have valid concerns. The reader should understand that the reader "can't maintain consensus by alienating half the miners and a huge population of users". The reader should understand that "Forcing a wedge between people with "us vs. them" mentality, accusations, insults, fear, uncertainty, doubt, and belittling is cutting off the reader's nose to spite the reader's face."

I even include 2 transition sentences to modify the tone and make it clear that this is about Bitcoin, and not about Core or Unlimited.

Pay a bit more attention to what you read, and perhaps you could have avoided filling this thread with nonsense:

You are a disgraceful liar,
to try to state the opposite as the truth.
Only cowards and thieves lie
one cannot exist uncovered for long as a liar in the information age.
shut your lying mouth
stop telling lies
a cacophony of falsehoods
you use fraud
You are a liar
such basic and blatant falsehoods?
you are lying.
you decided to tell a lie,
and used your reputation to sell the lie.
You're a liar
you are a liar
That you are a liar is not an insult at all
why are you telling easily debunked lies?
You are a malevolent liar,
you perpetrate falsehoods,

Core developers aren't the problem.  Unlimited developers aren't the problem. Developers just write code. This isn't a technical problem.

The problem is one of consensus forming, and the vilifying of anyone that wants something different than one's self is a big part of that problem.  It's gotten so bad, that some people will even attack those that want the same as themselves if any appearance of empathy, sympathy, or understanding is given to the "other side" at all.  That's not a way to bring people together, but it's a great way to drive them apart.  I've even wondered at times if franky1, Carlton Banks, jonald_fyookball, RawDog, and achow101 are all just paid (government? fed reserve? altcoin?) shills tasked with keeping the community from coming together on anything under any circumstances.  If they aren't, then they are certainly doing a good job of helping out those entities for free.

Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834



View Profile
April 06, 2017, 04:20:34 PM
 #29

Really, Danny? Semantic sleight of hand, that's all you've got in your defence? My ostensible "trolling" requires you to come down from your ivory tower, huh?


But then again, I'd expect you to start trying to twist the meaning of your own sentences to prosecute your position. And oh how much rhetoric (the colours are very pretty) you need to do it.


If it's a consensus system, as you constantly re-iterate, how can addressing one user make any difference? Because if we are to accept your version of events, you are implicitly targeting the small number of Bitcointalk users that are advocating the truth with your hypocritical and cowardly ad hominem attack, aren't you Danny Hamilton?




Edit:

And I'll tell you something else Danny Hamilton.



If we assume that your re-interpretation of context in the English language is correct, then the substance of what you said is still wrong, i.e. you're still a shameless liar


How can you possibly declare that the opposition to blocksize-pushing began the argument? Or that blocksize opponents maintained the argument?


"Big-Blocks" Andresen began the debate, pushed it, and every day of every week of every year since, a horde of big block promoters have been brigading this forum and others like it, with constant distortions of the facts and outright lies. We're the reaction to the antagonists, we are not the antagonists, as you falsely (and knowingly) state.


And you're no different, are you Danny Hamilton? You distorted the facts, claiming Core started and maintained the blocksize (read: putsch for control) war, and then you distorted your own lie, attempting to alter the addressee of your original lie, as if that somehow made what you said about the culpability for the instigation and continuation of the debate magically truthful?


It's clever little lie after clever little lie with you, isn't it Danny Hamilton?

Vires in numeris
Iranus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504


View Profile
April 07, 2017, 12:25:31 PM
 #30

Just a couple of posts ago, Carlton, you said:
Quote
If I'm lying, distorting or making clever editorial decisions in what I say, be a man and address it directly.
Danny clearly addressed it directly by suggesting that you were distorting his wording - suggesting that he was talking about Core when it was addressed at divisive users.

However, you cannot respond to that directly, instead you insult the argument ("semantic sleight of hand") which responds to your attempts to twist the grammar used in his sentence.  You also refer to the colouring, which is used as a sign of frustration at the lack of thought in your post (note, do not call this an ad hominem, I'm insulting your post not you) and also to make it as clear as possible for the reader to comprehend.

If it's a consensus system, as you constantly re-iterate, how can addressing one user make any difference? Because if we are to accept your version of events, you are implicitly targeting the small number of Bitcointalk users that are advocating the truth with your hypocritical and cowardly ad hominem attack, aren't you Danny Hamilton?
A consensus system is based on individuals.  It requires a large majority of users to support a specific version of the network - a large majority of individuals, that is.  You are an individual.  Arguments are being presented to you and other individuals which are believed to frequently harm the debate for other individuals.

Please give an example of an ad hominem used.  I only see attacks on posting and content, not on individuals - the closest to an ad hominem is your "sense of superiority" which in my view you are displaying from your belief that your opinion is "the truth", whereas as Danny Hamilton showed in his previous post, you called him a "liar" and "manipulative" (attacking an individual, regardless of whether or not it's true or you believe it's true) over 10 times.
Quote
How can you possibly declare that the opposition to blocksize-pushing began the argument? Or that blocksize opponents maintained the argument?
As with everything that requires a new consensus, the previous one was viewed as insufficient by a significant enough amount of people to result in open argument favouring a new one (which Danny Hamilton did not take part in).  Therefore regardless of whether or not they were right, which I actually generally believe that they were, the beginning of the argument was their inaction.  Danny Hamilton, notably, does not say the argument you suggest he did at any point even though I do.





Edit: You said the following earlier.

Quote
Demonstrate I'm wrong or being deceptive. You can't, and so you must try to use repetitive rhetoric to censor me instead.
censorship
ˈsɛnsəʃɪp/
noun
1.
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

To put it differently, censorship is preventing public information from being viewed by others.  On the contrary, no one has done that.  Danny Hamilton suggested putting you on ignore - which I might do if you direct any ad hominems in your reply (which I have carefully avoided doing to you) but this could not prevent it reaching a wider audience.  This hyperbole does not help for reaching a consensus - it helps for spreading fear, and is divisive in debates.

I know very little about technical aspects of either side, but I know that when a post is centered around hyperbole I can display my understanding of context and interpretation in the English language instead.



Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834



View Profile
April 07, 2017, 01:32:31 PM
 #31

Where do you actually refute the charge that Danny Hamilton was lying and manipulating? Nowhere


All your wall of text serves to illustrate is that you're talking alot and saying nothing.


I proved Danny Hamilton is a liar. It's that simple, and it's not attacking his character, it's attacking his specific behaviour, behaviour which is pertinent to the issues at hand. Not ad hominem, in other words. And it's proof positive that he knowingly lied and manipulated the discourse.
 


Iranus:

Do you accept Danny Hamilton's clarification that Core users and/or supporters began the blocksize debate, and that Core users and/or supporters perpetuated it? That's where Danny is lying, to which he could only add further manipulation in an attempt to stem the damage to his reputation.


Answer the question without diversion, or there is nothing left to talk about (you avoid it entirely in your above reply, despite that being the central point I was making)

Vires in numeris
Iranus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504


View Profile
April 07, 2017, 02:01:28 PM
 #32

Where do you actually refute the charge that Danny Hamilton was lying and manipulating? Nowhere
I refuted it in the post before the one above, by analysing his language - his language was arguing that Core had failed to create consensus, which is true.  There isn't consensus.  You grudgingly admitted that that was the intended meaning by arguing against it in your edit.

Quote
All your wall of text serves to illustrate is that you're talking alot and saying nothing.
Or maybe you just didn't read it, as I clearly said "Please give me an example of an ad hominem used", about Danny Hamilton.  You didn't respond to this, showing that you either didn't read it or didn't care.

Quote
I proved Danny Hamilton is a liar. It's that simple, and it's not attacking his character, it's attacking his specific behaviour, behaviour which is pertinent to the issues at hand. Not ad hominem, in other words. And it's proof positive that he knowingly lied and manipulated the discourse.
Unless you think liar isn't a negative trait, it's definitely attacking his character.  Your word that he's a liar, repeated over and over again now about 15 times, does not make it so and you constantly claim to have proved it with still no proof that I cannot at least argue against (if evidence is clearly arguable, it isn't evidence, it's an argument).
 


In case you didn't read the rest of my post, the Big Question:
Quote
Iranus:

Do you accept Danny Hamilton's clarification that Core users and/or supporters began the blocksize debate, and that Core users and/or supporters perpetuated it? That's where Danny is lying, to which he could only add further manipulation in an attempt to stem the damage to his reputation.
I answered that question in my above post:
Quote
As with everything that requires a new consensus, the previous one was viewed as insufficient by a significant enough amount of people to result in open argument favouring a new one (which Danny Hamilton did not take part in).  Therefore regardless of whether or not they were right, which I actually generally believe that they were, the beginning of the argument was their inaction.
If you had bothered to read it, you would have seen that.  However it is impossible to answer the question without diversion as the question itself is biased, assuming an implied meaning of Danny Hamilton's post which you had not explained beforehand despite your supposed "proof".

Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834



View Profile
April 07, 2017, 02:35:51 PM
 #33

You refuse to answer the pertinent question, and instead continue to derail with over-complicated and diversionary walls-of-text full of unproven assertions. Done here, hope you're getting paid by the line

Vires in numeris
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442



View Profile WWW
April 07, 2017, 02:36:57 PM
 #34

I'm not saying that the Core team is not attempting to reconcile the two sides.  

You literally did say that, and also that the Core team both began and perpetuated the conflict.
Actually, he said that they had failed, not that they were not trying (and he was objectively correct, as a consensus has not been reached).  His points about division were clearly addressed to you and to others who are divisive and close-minded (for example, arguing with a fascist does not make you one).

You're wrong.

You can't maintain consensus by alienating half the miners and a huge population of users. Forcing a wedge between people with "us vs. them" mentality, accusations, insults, fear, uncertainty, doubt, and belittling is cutting off your nose to spite your face.  In a consensus system it is pretty much the best way to destroy the entire system.

If you actually want Bitcoin to be a success, you'll need to stop trying to rip it apart at the seams


Above, Danny states that Core forced a wedge, created an us & them mentality, that they incited FUD and that Core needs to stop trying to tear Bitcoin apart.

All wrong.


The perpetrators of all of Danny's unfounded accusations was the succession of pressure created first by Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn (using XT and "Classic"), then by Peter Rizun and his Unlimited merry men. Danny Hamilton is simply the latest in a long line of people lying about real world events and the systemic effects of blocksize increases on the system, and as I say, he's an exceptionally insidious example of that strategy, as he's been uninvolved up to now, building trust in his readers. Now, Danny Hamilton is using the trust he's built up to sway opinions toward the big blocks position, and it's a very crafty strategy.

I have demonstrated everything I'm saying as a fact, with reasoning. Where are your facts? You're saying little more than "Danny is right". Why is Danny right? Can you tell us without avoiding the falsehoods Danny has presented (as is the typical tactic for lie-driven big blocks rhetoric)

Why does the big blocks position always require lies to convince Bitcoiners? Why must the lies (and the liars telling them) become more sophisticated and subtle, as they lose battle after battle?
 
OMFG.  Seriously.

Look, it takes two to tango.  It's called an argument because both sides can't agree.  Neither side created the wedge, it just happened that way because one wants to emphasise onchain scaling and one wants to emphasise offchain scaling.  No one is lying and it's not some grand fucking conspiracy, so stop blowing it out of all proportion.  People are just playing the blame game over who supposedly "started it", like squabbling children do.  

It is a perfectly fair assessment to say that things in the development team degraded to the point where the decision was made by some to not work together and some people left to work on their own implementation.  The wider community immediately started to pick a side based on their own opinions and personal preferences and certain parties began to attack/dismiss/ridicule the side they disagreed with, reinforcing the wedge.

Now either calm the shit down and quit with the character assassinations, or I'll have to assume you are dramatising this intentionally, deliberately stirring shit up in an attempt to discredit people you still seem to perceive as insidious subversives, when in fact they're probably just ordinary people who see things differently to you.  

mindrust
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 896


Vegeta, What does the scouter say!?


View Profile
April 07, 2017, 02:40:27 PM
 #35

I personally don't like the people working on Core, and I don't trust them. I'm not sure I trust Roger Ver, but I KNOW I don't trust Core.

Can someone here explain in an honest, intelligent way why I'm making a bad decision?

So you don't trust the people who created the original bitcoin? If you don't trust them why do you even care about bitcoin? Just dump your position and buy your favorite alternative scam coin. Is it really worth to fight over BU/Core thing?

And, You can't say i don't trust Ver but I run BU node. You are lying.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834



View Profile
April 07, 2017, 02:56:40 PM
 #36

Neither side created the wedge

I never initiated that claim. For what reason are you directing your indignation at me?

This thread happened in a sequence, and Danny Hamilton started the very blame game you're implying is my responsibility. Yet he escapes your indignation, how exactly?


it just happened that way because one wants to emphasise onchain scaling and one wants to emphasise offchain scaling.  No one is lying and it's not some grand fucking conspiracy, so stop blowing it out of all proportion.  People are just playing the blame game over who supposedly "started it", like squabbling children do.


Again, you're telling me this for what reason, exactly? I responded to antagonism, it's plain to see for any who reads the thread


The wider community immediately started to pick a side based on their own opinions and personal preferences and certain parties began to attack/dismiss/ridicule the side they disagreed with, reinforcing the wedge.

Now either calm the shit down and quit with the character assassinations, or I'll have to assume you are dramatising this intentionally, deliberately stirring shit up in an attempt to discredit people you still seem to perceive as insidious subversives, when in fact they're probably just ordinary people who see things differently to you.  

The wider community is responding to some really crafty trolling, of which you are no small part, DooMAD. No-one invited the trolling, you jackals turned up of your own accord, and hilariously perpetrate malignant and deceptive acts, then accuse those that defend themselves of that which only you are all guilty. I will defend myself and my property from liars and manipulators, such as you and Danny Hamilton, at all times.

Vires in numeris
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442



View Profile WWW
April 07, 2017, 03:12:16 PM
 #37

Neither side created the wedge

I never initiated that claim. For what reason are you directing your indignation at me?

This thread happened in a sequence, and Danny Hamilton started the very blame game you're implying is my responsibility. Yet he escapes your indignation, how exactly?


it just happened that way because one wants to emphasise onchain scaling and one wants to emphasise offchain scaling.  No one is lying and it's not some grand fucking conspiracy, so stop blowing it out of all proportion.  People are just playing the blame game over who supposedly "started it", like squabbling children do.


Again, you're telling me this for what reason, exactly? I responded to antagonism, it's plain to see for any who reads the thread


The wider community immediately started to pick a side based on their own opinions and personal preferences and certain parties began to attack/dismiss/ridicule the side they disagreed with, reinforcing the wedge.

Now either calm the shit down and quit with the character assassinations, or I'll have to assume you are dramatising this intentionally, deliberately stirring shit up in an attempt to discredit people you still seem to perceive as insidious subversives, when in fact they're probably just ordinary people who see things differently to you.  

The wider community is responding to some really crafty trolling, of which you are no small part, DooMAD. No-one invited the trolling, you jackals turned up of your own accord, and hilariously perpetrate malignant and deceptive acts, then accuse those that defend themselves of that which only you are all guilty. I will defend myself and my property from liars and manipulators, such as you and Danny Hamilton, at all times.

You somehow perceived an insult in DannyHamilton's post that isn't there.  You're defending yourself from the shadows you're jumping at, like usual.  DannyHamilton's post is stating that other clients, in this instance Unlimited, exist because there is a market Core's product doesn't satiate.  The post then goes on to say:

Remember, there is nothing "official" about Core.  The ONLY thing that makes their software the "reference client" is the fact that a significant majority run it.  If a significant majority run something else, then Core is an alt-client and any fork they trigger is an alt-coin.  That is how Bitcoin is designed to work, and that is the only way that Bitcoin CAN work.  Maintain consensus, or fall apart.  You can't maintain consensus by alienating half the miners and a huge population of users. Forcing a wedge between people with "us vs. them" mentality, accusations, insults, fear, uncertainty, doubt, and belittling is cutting off your nose to spite your face.  In a consensus system it is pretty much the best way to destroy the entire system.

If you actually want Bitcoin to be a success, you'll need to stop trying to rip it apart at the seams.

Governments and central banks don't need to destroy bitcoin.  They can just sit back and watch a bunch of children do it to themselves.

which you managed to misinterpret as an implied insult that the Core team themselves perpetuated a wedge, which wasn't the claim at all.  The post is clearly stating that Bitcoin won't work without consensus and the wedge you are helping to reinforce right now with your usual mindless attack dog routine is not helping with that.  I see nothing wrong with DannyHamilton's post and everything wrong with your skewed and twisted regurgitation of it.

Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834



View Profile
April 07, 2017, 03:35:56 PM
 #38

Danny's alternative explanation is that those defending Core's current position are the instigators and perpetuators of the wedge.

Do you agree with that assessment DooMAD? Answer directly or not all

Vires in numeris
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442



View Profile WWW
April 07, 2017, 04:11:59 PM
 #39

Danny's alternative explanation is that those defending Core's current position are the instigators and perpetuators of the wedge.

Do you agree with that assessment DooMAD? Answer directly or not all

Actually, the phrase used was (although bolded emphasis mine):

trolls on both sides that attack anyone with an opinion and spread fear and doubt to force both sides farther apart.

So no, I categorically do not agree with your fragile/delicate/paranoid victim mentality or your frankly bizarre and delusional assessment of how events in this thread unfolded.  Is that direct enough for you? 

spartacusrex
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 604



View Profile
April 07, 2017, 07:06:34 PM
 #40

This thread is making me chuckle..

As for the OP.

Is there anything anyone could say to make you switch back to Core ?

( The arguments for both sides have been made ..err.. like a quadrillion times..  and if after all that you still decided to run a BU node, I'm not sure there's anyway 'someone can explain in an honest, intelligent way why you're making a bad decision'.. So I guess my answer to your question, would be.. No. )


Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  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!