Blockstream/Core lost. It is only a matter of time now.

[RawDog]

I think the argument is finished.  It is now clear that Blockstream won't be able to take over the blockchain to run their proprietary (patented) bullshit and pay back their $70 million to AXA.  Whew!, that was close.  But in the end, people are watching out and they don't like private takeovers.  

The 'Antbleed' thing might be the last final effort to shit the bed.

It won't be long and we will have 8MB blocks and finally get rid of those Core idiots who think they own the world.

[1714830202]

1714830202

[1714830202]

1714830202

[1714830202]

1714830202

[AbsentSixth]

Who have they lost to?

[youdamushi]

I haven't followed anything in the last months...

When did Core lost? I mean last time I checked they were still pretty dominant here.
Oh not that I have a side, I don't really understand what's at stake here anyway, it just seems that 2 teams are fighting like hell each of them trying to keep control over the blockchain xD

[Lauda]

The 'Antbleed' thing might be the last final effort to shit the bed.

If you're dismissing Antbleed for political reasons, regardless of who you're supporting, you're nothing but an outright idiot. There is nothing that can justify planting backdoors is over half the network.

Who have they lost to?

Nobody. This is a classic propaganda post.

When did Core lost? I mean last time I checked they were still pretty dominant here.

They haven't.

Oh not that I have a side, I don't really understand what's at stake here anyway, it just seems that 2 teams are fighting like hell each of them trying to keep control over the blockchain xD

What you wrote is complete nonsense. Bitcoin Core is not fighting anything nor anyone. They don't even want any kind of control, i.e. they do not attempt to force any consensus change. On the other hand, BU is trying to force an unwanted HF.

[youdamushi]

Oh not that I have a side, I don't really understand what's at stake here anyway, it just seems that 2 teams are fighting like hell each of them trying to keep control over the blockchain xD

What you wrote is complete nonsense. Bitcoin Core is not fighting anything nor anyone. They don't even want any kind of control, i.e. they do not attempt to force any consensus change. On the other hand, BU is trying to force an unwanted HF.

Disagreed:
You got one side trying to force HF. You got one side trying to stop it.
Pretty fair to say that both sides are trying to keep control on the blockchain...

Though I do agree that "control" was maybe not the right word because it could refer to actively being able to change the blockchain at will which is not what I wanted to say.

[Lauda]

You got one side trying to force HF. You got one side trying to stop it.

Core isn't trying to stop anything. The community & economy is against the fork; those are the people who are actively trying to stop it.

Pretty fair to say that both sides are trying to keep control on the blockchain...

I'm calling you out on this bullshit until you can properly elaborate how and provide sources. As I have clearly stated, most of the people contributing to Core are not doing anything in regards to this. They continue to develop, which is what they should be doing.

[youdamushi]

Pretty fair to say that both sides are trying to keep control on the blockchain...

I'm calling you out on this bullshit until you can properly elaborate how and provide sources. As I have clearly stated, most of the people contributing to Core are not doing anything in regards to this. They continue to develop, which is what they should be doing.

Isn't developping and working on current system the same thing as trying to keep control over its development? Oo

You say it like I think it's a bad thing... I'm not putting any judgement here. Just saying that Core is dominant and they're the ones deciding how the blockchain evolve simply because they work on it and people use it. That's all I'm saying, there is no conspiracy theory or whatever.

[mindrust]

You got one side trying to force HF. You got one side trying to stop it.

Core isn't trying to stop anything. The community & economy is against the fork; those are the people who are actively trying to stop it.

Pretty fair to say that both sides are trying to keep control on the blockchain...

I'm calling you out on this bullshit until you can properly elaborate how and provide sources. As I have clearly stated, most of the people contributing to Core are not doing anything in regards to this. They continue to develop, which is what they should be doing.

I am not against Hard Fork. I support it as a core fanboy. Working to prevent it will make the core supporters to look "weak".

Sooner they have it, better for us. Let them have their HF so they won't be posting nonsense crap anymore. Let them have their "altshitcoin." So bitcoin can reach its true potential without any disruptions.

[Lauda]

Isn't developping and working on current system the same thing as trying to keep control over its development? Oo

No. You can't force anybody to run your client, therefore you are not in a position of any control. The recent developments of Bitcoin Core do not attempt to alter consensus rules.

You say it like I think it's a bad thing... I'm not putting any judgement here. Just saying that Core is dominant and they're the ones deciding how the blockchain evolve simply because they work on it and people use it. That's all I'm saying, there is no conspiracy theory or whatever.

No. Bitcoin Core does not decide anything for the network. You apparently don't understand how Bitcoin works.

[AbsentSixth]

If there were the win/lose battles they would have to take place in the same ring, they haven't as far as I can tell. Maybe something important happened? 70% network security? Lots of noise from the fringe while works getting done going forward. The inertia and resistance of bitcoin is allowing for safe as possible progress while working.  And then there is WU/BU but I don't have a side except for bitcoins side. If it breaks it breaks. Guess that's trust for ya. If you try and succeed to control it, just burn it to the ground and start over.

[youdamushi]

Isn't developping and working on current system the same thing as trying to keep control over its development? Oo

No. You can't force anybody to run your client, therefore you are not in a position of any control. The recent developments of Bitcoin Core do not attempt to alter consensus rules.

You say it like I think it's a bad thing... I'm not putting any judgement here. Just saying that Core is dominant and they're the ones deciding how the blockchain evolve simply because they work on it and people use it. That's all I'm saying, there is no conspiracy theory or whatever.

No. Bitcoin Core does not decide anything for the network. You apparently don't understand how Bitcoin works.

Rha you're just very picky about the meaning of words xD

I perfectly understand that what Core develops, the clients have no obligation to use.
I'm not saying they're some kind of God that decide how things work. I'm just saying they're in a dominant position of power: they're trusted, their development are used by nearly everyone etc...
And some challengers are trying to force a HF. So you got people "in control" (and by that I mean that they're the one currently in force position) and people challenging them.

[Xester]

The last time I see the charts Bitcoin unlimited has 49% votes leaving the core at somewhere between 30 to 40%. But this does not mean that the core has lost since there are still group of miners who have not placed their sides. Even with the lead of the BU the core have not yet lost nor BU has won. We will only be convinced that the core had lost when BU is activated and the Core will be disabled.

[Lauda]

Rha you're just very picky about the meaning of words xD

Don't use strong words when you don't know the meaning behind them.

I'm not saying they're some kind of God that decide how things work. I'm just saying they're in a dominant position of power: they're trusted, their development are used by nearly everyone etc...

They have deserved this. I take it that you haven't been keeping track of the development on GitHub. Whilst BU tries to fill in all of their loop holes (whilst using an outdated Bitcoin Core version), there have been some pretty nice changes proposed.

The last time I see the charts Bitcoin unlimited has 49% votes leaving the core at somewhere between 30 to 40%. But this does not mean that the core has lost since there are still group of miners who have not placed their sides.

Even with the lead of the BU the core have not yet lost nor BU has won. We will only be convinced that the core had lost when BU is activated and the Core will be disabled.

I'm not sure whether you're a signature campaign spammer or just very ignorant or both. "Core will be disabled" makes no sense, in any context.

[youdamushi]

Rha you're just very picky about the meaning of words xD

Don't use strong words when you don't know the meaning behind them.

I'm not saying they're some kind of God that decide how things work. I'm just saying they're in a dominant position of power: they're trusted, their development are used by nearly everyone etc...

They have deserved this. I take it that you haven't been keeping track of the development on GitHub. Whilst BU tries to fill in all of their loop holes (whilst using an outdated Bitcoin Core version), there have been some pretty nice changes proposed.

And I've never said they haven't deserved it. You're the one interpreting my words here

[franky1]

dont worry about lauda he has not learned c++ to learn/read the code or read more than a couple paragraphs of the documentation. he spends too much time on reddit with the tl:dr; short scripted bias thoughts to defend blockstream.... not the bitcoin network

but i will not waffle and will keep things short for his benefit

1. blockstream(core) went soft to bypass node consensus.
2. blockstream(core) are getting angry all their all-inclusive long weekends they paid for pools, was not enough to buy pools into automatic yays
3. blockstream(core) have now employed their pool banning ambassador to turn say 80% to 95% or above
4. blockstream(core) and their flock of fanboys pretend chain splits are bad, but then demand all implementations not core to F**k off

evidence
1. december 2015 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki
2. round table events.. p.s BTCC jumped in real quick due to the DCG funding linking blockstream to http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b
3. samson mow USAF https://blockstream.com/team/samson-mow/ - chief strategy officer @ blockstream, marketing strategist,
4. ReKT campaigns, calling them altcoins begging them to fork off

however its the other implementations that are not core that are the ones plodding along, no threats, no demands, no deadlines no biased node/pool killing code.. just letting people have a free open choice . infact when actually offered a change to split off. they refused and laughed at the desparation

lauda may post "wrong because wrong" or "wrong because i insult you to make you sound bad" or "you are just a shill"
but all he is doing is protecting blockstream by trying to put people into different groups. a couple years ago it was xt, then classic now bu.. purely because he doesnt understand people care more about a diverse decentralised peer network.. rather than blockstreams puppet master devs

[RawDog]

The last time I see the charts Bitcoin unlimited has 49% votes leaving the core at somewhere between 30 to 40%. But this does not mean that the core has lost since there are still group of miners who have not placed their sides.

It is only a matter of time.  It is now clear that the community is not prepared to have 1MegGreg and AdamBack be the overlords.  Blockstream tried lots of very dirty tricks - the people figured it out. 

That low down censorship stuff sometimes comes back to haunt you.  Fuck them.  Can't wait for them to be sitting on the minority fork. 

[jonald_fyookball]

You got one side trying to force HF. You got one side trying to stop it.

Core isn't trying to stop anything. The community & economy is against the fork; those are the people who are actively trying to stop it.

Pretty fair to say that both sides are trying to keep control on the blockchain...

I'm calling you out on this bullshit until you can properly elaborate how and provide sources. As I have clearly stated, most of the people contributing to Core are not doing anything in regards to this. They continue to develop, which is what they should be doing.

I am not against Hard Fork. I support it as a core fanboy. Working to prevent it will make the core supporters to look "weak".

Sooner they have it, better for us. Let them have their HF so they won't be posting nonsense crap anymore. Let them have their "altshitcoin." So bitcoin can reach its true potential without any disruptions.

^ self admitted "core fanboy"    

[ebliever]

I think the argument is finished.  It is now clear that Blockstream won't be able to take over the blockchain to run their proprietary (patented) bullshit and pay back their $70 million to AXA.  Whew!, that was close.  But in the end, people are watching out and they don't like private takeovers.  

The 'Antbleed' thing might be the last final effort to shit the bed.

It won't be long and we will have 8MB blocks and finally get rid of those Core idiots who think they own the world.

I was wondering if the Antbleed news would finally cause BU/Bitmain defenders to admit they have been wrong, or if they would go full bore insane. Guess I have my answer. Defending an exploit that could be used to wipe out much of the network is stark raving insane, as is the notion that exposing it somehow helps the clowns who perpetrated the exploit.

[franky1]

I was wondering if the Antbleed news would finally cause BU/Bitmain defenders to admit they have been wrong, or if they would go full bore insane. Guess I have my answer. Defending an exploit that could be used to wipe out much of the network is stark raving insane, as is the notion that exposing it somehow helps the clowns who perpetrated the exploit.

bitmain having a switch in its own server, that only affects only its own equipment, which will cause its customers to request refunds.
hmm

oh and also if they wanted it as a weapon they would have pulled the trigger already

however
this last month has all been about blockstream flock trying to find any bug in anything not blockstream advocated.. but not willing to listen when code made by blockstream has flaws

[jonald_fyookball]

I think the argument is finished.  It is now clear that Blockstream won't be able to take over the blockchain to run their proprietary (patented) bullshit and pay back their $70 million to AXA.  Whew!, that was close.  But in the end, people are watching out and they don't like private takeovers.  

The 'Antbleed' thing might be the last final effort to shit the bed.

It won't be long and we will have 8MB blocks and finally get rid of those Core idiots who think they own the world.

I was wondering if the Antbleed news would finally cause BU/Bitmain defenders to admit they have been wrong, or if they would go full bore insane. Guess I have my answer. Defending an exploit that could be used to wipe out much of the network is stark raving insane, as is the notion that exposing it somehow helps the clowns who perpetrated the exploit.

You're a clown if you think anyone is going to say "derppp antminers have a flaw, now i need to change my whole opinion about the blocksize debate."

https://blog.bitmain.com/en/antminer-firmware-update-april-2017/