Banks have bought the Core Team

[melbourne33]

Satoshi Nakamoto quote:

"on: December 11, 2010, 11:39:16 PM"" 'It would have been nice to get this attention in any other context. WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet's nest, and the swarm is headed towards us.'

Current Core Devs are compromised.

Banks/Goverments thought about a way to stop Bitcoin, but Bitcoin can't be stopped not even compromising the "Dev Team" so they saw this block size debate and they saw the perfect opportunity to do it: if bitcoin can't be stopped: lets transform it into another of us.

Nothing with the same specifications as money created by Banks or Paypal alike institutions can compete with them, because they are and will be the best on their space, so converting Bitcoin into another one means anihilating it or stopping its rise, only a superior technology can kill them.


Segwit is created

Segwit plans to launch an off-chain network AKA fractional reserve system.

A lighting network AKA paypal scheme.

A high fees for on chain txs AKA bank wires fees.


And the above mentioned is the worst option this secret organism has in play; their best option is their 95% approval consensus that will never happen since 25% of miners don't even care about consensus, do you really believe segwit was really made to been approved? wake up!

Any lock or deletion of this topic is clear evidence of current Bitcoin sabotage by the well known secret entities.

[1714080099]

1714080099

[1714080099]

1714080099

[1714080099]

1714080099

[1714080099]

1714080099

[1714080099]

1714080099

[1714080099]

1714080099

[leopard2]

I do not understand. Segwit makes blocks larger and more efficient.

No one is forced to use LN (right?). You can do more onchain transactions with Segwit than you can today.

So even if what you say was true (LN=banks fractional reserver shit) it hurts no one.

Asicboost on the other hand, would hand over BTC to just one Chinese entity on the planet...much worse. 

I like extension blocks best to be honest; Segwit is risky due to the all the extra code and vulnerability but so is BU.

[odolvlobo]

Gentlemen, please don your tinfoil hats!

[jonald_fyookball]

I do not understand. Segwit makes blocks larger and more efficient.

No one is forced to use LN (right?). You can do more onchain transactions with Segwit than you can today.
 

Core's goal has to be stall onchain scaling as much as possible.  Segwit offers only a modest increase in transaction capacity while
actually making transactions more complicated and likely taking more capacity... and years later than most have wanted it.

By artificially restricting on chain capacity, Blockstream hopes to price ordinary users off the main chain and force them to use their
LN solution.

It is better to simply increase the blocksize but Core has done everything possible to stop that.

[Kanine Awe]

Gentlemen, please don your tinfoil hats!

I never took it off haha

[Killerpotleaf]

considering how bitcoin poses an existential threat to the world's fiat money it would be HARD to believe "they" haven't tried to co-opt bitcoin somehow.

but i dont think ( however it is possible i guess ) that they tried to do what op suggests.

Instead they tried to dev there own "private blockchains"  in an attempt to eventually make bitcoin irrelevant. they failed. they missed the point.

"private permissioned blockchains"  Bahahaha, this has got to be the worlds most epic techno fail. they POURED MILLIONS into "private permissioned blockchains" i can't even! LOL!

we'll be fine.

[vintagetrex]

Gentlemen, please don your tinfoil hats!

faggot

[vintagetrex]

Gentlemen, please don your tinfoil hats!

I hope Buterin mutates you into a bug using Google's system.  You might think about wearing one as well. 

[kiklo]

I do not understand. Segwit makes blocks larger and more efficient.

No one is forced to use LN (right?). You can do more onchain transactions with Segwit than you can today.

So even if what you say was true (LN=banks fractional reserver shit) it hurts no one.

Asicboost on the other hand, would hand over BTC to just one Chinese entity on the planet...much worse.  

I like extension blocks best to be honest; Segwit is risky due to the all the extra code and vulnerability but so is BU.

Lets take your comments, one at a time shall we.  

No one is forced to use LN (right?). You can do more onchain transactions with Segwit than you can today.

Wrong,
Activating Segwit means it is forever ingrained in the Blockchain , it can never be removed.
Onchain transactions can be increased by simply increasing blocksize or moving to a faster blockspeed, without corrupting the blockchain.
Example, blocksize could be decreased or blockspeed could be returned to original specs with a simple hard fork.
Segwit if ever activated can never be removed.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5vbofp/initially_i_liked_segwit_but_then_i_learned/

The damage which would be caused by SegWit (at the financial, software, and governance level) would be massive:

    Millions of lines of other Bitcoin code would have to be rewritten (in wallets, on exchanges, at businesses) in order to become compatible with all the messy non-standard kludges and workarounds which Blockstream was forced into adding to the code (the famous "technical debt") in order to get SegWit to work as a soft fork.

    SegWit was originally sold to us as a "code clean-up". Heck, even I intially fell for it when I saw an early presentation by Pieter Wuille on YouTube from one of Blockstream's many, censored Bitcoin scaling stalling conferences)

    But as we all later all discovered, SegWit is just a messy hack.

    Probably the most dangerous aspect of SegWit is that it changes all transactions into "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" without SegWit - all because of the messy workarounds necessary to do SegWit as a soft-fork. The kludges and workarounds involving SegWit's "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" semantics would only work as long as SegWit is still installed.

    This means that it would be impossible to roll-back SegWit - because all SegWit transactions that get recorded on the blockchain would now be interpreted as "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" - so, SegWit's dangerous and messy "kludges and workarounds and hacks" would have to be made permanent - otherwise, anyone could spend those "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" SegWit coins!

    Segwit cannot be rolled back because to non-upgraded clients, ANYONE can spend Segwit txn outputs. If Segwit is rolled back, all funds locked in Segwit outputs can be taken by anyone. As more funds gets locked up in segwit outputs, incentive for miners to collude to claim them grows.

So even if what you say was true (LN=banks fractional reserver shit) it hurts no one.

In this comment you show how naive you are,
Allowing others to create wealth out of thin air and you accepting that falsehoods makes you their slave, as they can create endless wealth, and you obey their commands trying to attain it.   If you truly feel the corrupt banking system is ok, you should stick with fiat.



Asicboost on the other hand, would hand over BTC to just one Chinese entity on the planet...much worse.

Chinese have over ~68% control of the ASICS, asic boost working or nonworking will not decrease that % at all.


I like extension blocks best to be honest; Segwit is risky due to the all the extra code and vulnerability but so is BU.

Extension blocks may be a valuable improvement in the future, but it will take time to study the benefits & dangers adding them would pose.
BTU is a simple blocksize increase, that requires agreement among the miners to reach consensus on the size.
It cuts out the years wasted , while people argue back and for what should be done.
Look at all of the time wasted, because btc core was stupid and made segwit a soft fork,
hard fork would have already been approved or denied, instead of wasting our time.

 

[ebliever]

The pathetic thing is you come up with this without a shred of evidence. Just prejudice.

Obviously BU has been bought by banks. See how easy it is? Anyone can say anything, but without evidence the claim is garbage.

[jonald_fyookball]

The pathetic thing is you come up with this without a shred of evidence. Just prejudice.

Obviously BU has been bought by banks. See how easy it is? Anyone can say anything, but without evidence the claim is garbage.

Core is controlled by Blockstream which is funded by AXA, which is tied to Bilderberg. 

Even if you don't believe the conspiracy, it should be clear Blockstream seeks to profit from Bitcoin at the expense of the users.  This is why they are blocking on chain scaling. 

[GreenBits]

The pathetic thing is you come up with this without a shred of evidence. Just prejudice.

Obviously BU has been bought by banks. See how easy it is? Anyone can say anything, but without evidence the claim is garbage.

I don't know. As far as banks are concerned,  bitcoin is a lost cause. Too hard to influence it's policy, and bitcoin isnver anti bank. So.much easier to make a.consortium with a new, malleable coin  (ETH cough ETH) then to pay the dues it would take to corrupt such an old, established coin.

[kiklo]

The pathetic thing is you come up with this without a shred of evidence. Just prejudice.

Obviously BU has been bought by banks. See how easy it is? Anyone can say anything, but without evidence the claim is garbage.

Lack of Logic is your problem.

BTU keeps control of the coin with the miners, where it was anyway by satoshi's original design.
Which is why they are patiently waiting for consensus.

BTC core is threatening to replace the PoW algo,  threatening with UASF, constantly claiming BTC can't increase blocksize or blockspeed.
LTC has a 4X faster block speed.  Moving BTC blockspeed to 5 minutes would be a minor change, which would double transaction capacity.
ie: BTC core is LYING!

If you are unable to use Logic to piece the facts together , you will be easy prey to Liars like G.Maxwell.


 

FYI:

Statements of fact should be based on observation, not on unsupported authority.   by Bertrand Russell

Observations
Litecoin and other Altcoins can be observed running at faster BlockSpeeds with no issues.
BTC Core claims that BTC is unable to move to the faster blockspeeds.

Facts
Litecoin & Altcoins moving at these faster blockspeeds, all derived from BTC code originally.
Therefore it becomes apparent BTC Core is Lying!

If that is not now clear to you , you're not that bright.  

[The One]

I do not understand. Segwit makes blocks larger and more efficient.

No one is forced to use LN (right?). You can do more onchain transactions with Segwit than you can today.

So even if what you say was true (LN=banks fractional reserver shit) it hurts no one.

Asicboost on the other hand, would hand over BTC to just one Chinese entity on the planet...much worse.  

I like extension blocks best to be honest; Segwit is risky due to the all the extra code and vulnerability but so is BU.

Lets take your comments, one at a time shall we.  

No one is forced to use LN (right?). You can do more onchain transactions with Segwit than you can today.


Activating Segwit means it is forever ingrained in the Blockchain , it can never be removed.
Onchain transactions can be increased by simply increasing blocksize or moving to a faster blockspeed, without corrupting the blockchain.
Example, blocksize could be decreased or blockspeed could be returned to original specs with a simple hard fork.
Segwit if ever activated can never be removed.

Can you explain why codes can't be removed? That's unusual.

[kiklo]

I do not understand. Segwit makes blocks larger and more efficient.

No one is forced to use LN (right?). You can do more onchain transactions with Segwit than you can today.

So even if what you say was true (LN=banks fractional reserver shit) it hurts no one.

Asicboost on the other hand, would hand over BTC to just one Chinese entity on the planet...much worse.  

I like extension blocks best to be honest; Segwit is risky due to the all the extra code and vulnerability but so is BU.

Lets take your comments, one at a time shall we.  

No one is forced to use LN (right?). You can do more onchain transactions with Segwit than you can today.


Activating Segwit means it is forever ingrained in the Blockchain , it can never be removed.
Onchain transactions can be increased by simply increasing blocksize or moving to a faster blockspeed, without corrupting the blockchain.
Example, blocksize could be decreased or blockspeed could be returned to original specs with a simple hard fork.
Segwit if ever activated can never be removed.

Can you explain why codes can't be removed? That's unusual.

Segwit cannot be rolled back because to non-upgraded clients, ANYONE can spend Segwit txn outputs.
If Segwit is rolled back, all funds locked in Segwit outputs can be taken by anyone.
As more funds gets locked up in segwit outputs, incentive for miners to collude to claim them grows.
Reference:  https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5vbofp/initially_i_liked_segwit_but_then_i_learned/

 

[hardtime]

One thing in which I fully believe is that if the banks wanted us to become irrelevant, it really wouldn't take much for them to lobby some money into some state legislators or congress itself to have new regulations passed to completely fuck Bitcoin. It's something that probably wouldn't even take much to go ahead and do, it's sad but it's how our government works as a whole.

I think they've probably tried, but not to a full extent yet as they don't think we're much of an issue at the moment.

[dinofelis]

Segwit cannot be rolled back because to non-upgraded clients, ANYONE can spend Segwit txn outputs.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5aktik/segwit_and_anyone_can_spend_questions/

In any case, the correct remark in that thread is that rolling back a soft fork, is a hard fork.

In the same way that imposing a 1 MB block limit was a soft fork, to UNDO it, you need a hard fork.

So, if you do a hard fork to roll back, you have to correct for that "anyone can spend" trick to introduce new stuff that the old nodes don't understand, but will accept as valid.

[dinofelis]

To the OP: there's no need for tin foil hats.   The fundamental problem with bitcoin and its block chain technology (like most alts BTW), is that there's no simple, fluid way for it to become a mainstream payment system.  That was pointed out to Satoshi very early in the discussion, and he waved that away, but the fact is that a system that needs everybody to know, in a cryptographically secured way, all transactions by everybody else, world-wide, before being able to accept a payment, is bound to be "computationally heavy" to say the least.

Satoshi's initial view on that problem was re-centralization: a few big data centres/centralized miners, which are the few big nodes in the network, no more P2P network, and those few data centres with those few big nodes (the "bitcoin facebook servers") are then connected to directly by all users.

In other words, those few data centres are then the "unique world bank".

He considered the P2P phase of enthusiasts (useful idiots) just a phase to get bitcoin accepted, but that would be fading away when network and mining competition would naturally lead to an oligarchy of miners/full nodes,  with blocks of about 1 GB.

So in a way, Satoshi realized that bitcoin was, finally, not going to get rid of centralized banking, only, those banks would now be the few full nodes/miners.  In a way, he admitted, without saying so, that bitcoin's invention was doomed not to succeed in what its outlined purpose was: a P2P "people's own money" system.  Nevertheless, he might have considered that those few data centres/miners/full nodes/world banks would at least be bound to something (even though they would have all the power needed to, for instance, increase the total amount of bitcoin, give themselves all the rewards they'd like, change the PoW or whatever.... if bitcoin were the unique world currency, people wouldn't have any recourse either).

So, Satoshi's long term vision of bitcoin was in any case a centralized banking/mining/node system, and not a P2P network.  I don't think that it is because he was paid by the Rothschilds, but simply because at a certain point he realized that his invention wasn't going to live up to the goal he set about: namely a peer-to-peer money for the people.  That was only sustainable on smaller scales, but not on world scale.

Is this the reason why he introduced the 1 MB limit, to keep bitcoin from becoming that horrible world bank unique money, and keep it small scale enough ?

That said, whatever is bitcoin, its basic idea is too heavy to become a light-weight P2P worldwide universal payment system.

When there is a valuable payment system that has some friction in "paying for coffee", then it is a NORMAL EVOLUTION that a banking layer is put on top of that, that fluidizes the underlying asset, with all that comes with it (fees, fractional banking, ....).  This is how normal banking got running on top of gold, which also had a fluidizing problem (security, weight, ....).  It was more practical to leave one's gold in the bank, and have paper substitutes, because the gold itself couldn't always be used easily.

In the same way as bitcoin cannot be used easily enough to pay coffee to anyone everywhere, a banking layer will naturally get on top of that.  LN is such a banking layer.

-->  banking is unavoidable in monetary affairs, until we invent something that is less clunky than bitcoin.

 

[dwieyani]

Wah it sounds good plus just love it.

[Kakmakr]

The pathetic thing is you come up with this without a shred of evidence. Just prejudice.

Obviously BU has been bought by banks. See how easy it is? Anyone can say anything, but without evidence the claim is garbage.

Core is controlled by Blockstream which is funded by AXA, which is tied to Bilderberg. 

Even if you don't believe the conspiracy, it should be clear Blockstream seeks to profit from Bitcoin at the expense of the users.  This is why they are blocking on chain scaling. 

Do you really think, developers will spend time on a project that are funded by millions of dollars and not plan to make some profit from this? Nobody does anything for free anymore and if you think Gavin and Ver are into this because they love the principle of this technology, then you are more gullible than I thought.

Everyone has some hidden agenda, including your beloved BU team. ^hmmmmmm^