Andreas redpills /r/btc loons

[Emoclaw]

I'm under the impression that the whole /r/btc is a private party room of Roger Ver's paid trolls. It seems to be quite a waste of time trying to educate these shills. They are not accessible to rational argument, because they only care about their fiat/shitcoin paycheck.

Franky1 is one prime example for that type of character.

The right way to deal with these enemies of Bitcoin is to sideline them. They are free to construct their centralized Paypal 3.0, but they are not part of the Bitcoin community.

Actually, the overwhelming majority of /r/btc is now all the people who got banned on /r/Bitcoin for voicing concerns about SegWit/LN, Core and Blockstream.
Many shill for BU simply because of that, and are not open to be reasoned with.

[1715151421]

1715151421

[BillyBobZorton]

I'm under the impression that the whole /r/btc is a private party room of Roger Ver's paid trolls. It seems to be quite a waste of time trying to educate these shills. They are not accessible to rational argument, because they only care about their fiat/shitcoin paycheck.

Franky1 is one prime example for that type of character.

The right way to deal with these enemies of Bitcoin is to sideline them. They are free to construct their centralized Paypal 3.0, but they are not part of the Bitcoin community.

Actually, the overwhelming majority of /r/btc is now all the people who got banned on /r/Bitcoin for voicing concerns about SegWit/LN, Core and Blockstream.
Many shill for BU simply because of that, and are not open to be reasoned with.

There's a lot of people that have deep hatred for theymos because he banned them, and they accuse him of being an evil actor in the community, yet, I haven't seen anyone getting banned for no logical reason. Most people that get banned is due spamming 100's of messages per hour, or spamming links etc. This forum is cool because is very permissive if you are posting in the right section.

The reddit is another story because I barely use it, but I haven't seen clear evidence of theymos being a tyrannical dictator. /r/bitcoin is about satoshi's client mostly, and satoshi didn't want other competing clients himself. Im ok with discussing the other clients but I remember an obvious shilling campaign for other clients while indiscriminately FUDding back in the XT days, and that had to be stopped.

[franky1]

There's a lot of people that have deep hatred for theymos because he banned them, and they accuse him of being an evil actor in the community, yet, I haven't seen anyone getting banned for no logical reason. Most people that get banned is due spamming 100's of messages per hour, or spamming links etc. This forum is cool because is very permissive if you are posting in the right section.

The reddit is another story because I barely use it, but I haven't seen clear evidence of theymos being a tyrannical dictator. /r/bitcoin is about satoshi's client mostly, and satoshi didn't want other competing clients himself. Im ok with discussing the other clients but I remember an obvious shilling campaign for other clients while indiscriminately FUDding back in the XT days, and that had to be stopped.

from all the drama of the last 3 years theymos has been more famous about censoring any chatter thats CORE ngative or non-cor positive,


core was just a brand invented in 2013 from one of the forks that started in 2010 (july 2010 to be precise) its not the original 'satoshi client', even if it pretends to be

yep satoshis original was a sourceforge that continued right until winter 2010.

yet the github was gavins implementation of bitcoin which started summer 2010 meaning the github version was a second implementation. not the single brand of satoshi from (sourceforge).

satoshi continued to work on source forge version right upto december 2010..

Builds:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.3.19/

where as others used git hub.. and forked their own. aswell (there have been 7993 variants of the github since 2010)

the one that was made by and managed by gavin in 2010 got a rebrand in 2013 and that was the birth of 'core'

the birth was to separate it from being confused with the network protocol.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/3203

This has been discussed a lot before, but the following is the proposal by @gavinandresen and I agree:

Bitcoin-Qt -->  btcore (full name 'Bitcoin Core')
bitcoind --> btcored (full name 'Bitcoin Core Daemon')
bitcoin-cli --> btcore-cli (full name 'Bitcoin Core CLI Client')

Bitcoin-the-system has always been abbreviated as 'bc', not 'bt' - wouldn't 'bccore'* make more sense here?

I think it would be better to keep Bitcoin-Qt and bitcoind more distinct. After all, someone may develop another GUI client sharing the same codebase someday as well.

because the 'protocol' became much bigger than one brand/control point

[squatz1]

/r/btc has become just as poisonous as /r/Bitcoin and all the other forums where Bitcoin is being discussed these days. Most of these forums are

infiltrated by paid shills from both side. I think Andreas is just as fed up with this whole situation as anyone else that frequent these platforms.

I feel sorry for the newbies that enter these poisonous grounds. 

I feel bad for the newbies too, but I don't even think most of them know what's going on in the least and don't want to try to learn. It takes a lot to understand what the two scaling solutions are -- gosh let a fucking alone try to go ahead and parse through all the drama here to find out the stuff you need to know.

But yeah, I'll have to full agree with you and say that both sides have pretty much started a mud slinging money guided effort to put them in front.

Though personally, I do think Segwit is the way to go as BTU is just going to put VER and Wu in power which I think isn't the direction in the least for our decentralized bitcoin.

[franky1]

Though personally, I do think Segwit is the way to go as BTU is just going to put VER and Wu in power which I think isn't the direction in the least for our decentralized bitcoin.

shows why you shouldnt read reddit.

your confused with who wants the peer network and who wants the tier network

[jonald_fyookball]

Though personally, I do think Segwit is the way to go as BTU is just going to put VER and Wu in power which I think isn't the direction in the least for our decentralized bitcoin.

shows why you shouldnt read reddit.

your confused with who wants the peer network and who wants the tier network

Franky,  you should explain what you mean by tier network.  I don't think anyone understands.

[buwaytress]

Wow. I just googled some stuff from the posts above me and found out about a "scaling war" that happened in 2015 and something about $1.5m already paid in advance of this forum development.

I didn't dig deeper, because I honestly am not keen on diving into politics, but it would seem that some of this resentment and mud-slinging has its roots in something that started two years ago!

It's a bit sad for a newbie like me reading this ReadMe/FAQ in Sep 2016
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/61s75o/rbitcoin_faq_newcomers_please_read/

Then the experience of the last few months reading bct threads.

[classicsucks]

Of course Core should have asked the community what they want.  Gavin's been saying that for 4 years.  

I don't know if you explained this point very clearly Franky..not sure many got it (i'm just getting it now)
even though you've said it 50 times.... but even if you explained it,  many Core supporters are just
loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever... they will just scream "stop blocking segwit".

Therein lies the problem. I can safety say that >95% of the loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever don't understand segwit or LN.

I was one of them. I freely admit that. I didn't waste any of my time getting involve in the debates of the last 3 years. I did read some of the debates, but i was busy doing other things. Now, there is a "civil war," thus a stalemate. Now I understand Segwit and LN (not 100%) but better than most on here based on their posts. However the more i looked at the previous version of Bitcoin, the more i realised that bit by bit, version by version, it has gone all wrong, especially the how the calculation of fee works. The problem is that the developers are mostly computer programmers, thus do not understand how the real world works and do not understand economics, marketing, accountancy, etc.

Hence loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever do not understand that bit by bit, bitcoin has established one system for the rich and one system for the poor. Thus cronyism is what bitcoin has become. I believe that we are all equal and no one has the right to harm others - government does this all the time giving state privileges to one small group at the expense of the rest = victims. Bitcoin now function for one group at the expense of others.

Good post.... thanks for sharing that.  Mind if I repost on reddit.  people will find it interesting.

I was a Core Fanboi too, look at my username. I'll take the hit to my ego and admit I was lapping up Maxwell's dog drivel.

When Segwit came, I knew I was on the wrong ship. Reading the spec made my eyes burn - I suddenly realized that this was another over-engineered Spruce Goose that would never fly. Watching Core's behavior since then has been instructive. The pilots of a sinking ship, not even any rats left.

And yes, Andreas is nearly a god. The guy is smart. But he's dead wrong about Segwit.

[FiendCoin]

Of course Core should have asked the community what they want.  Gavin's been saying that for 4 years.  

I don't know if you explained this point very clearly Franky..not sure many got it (i'm just getting it now)
even though you've said it 50 times.... but even if you explained it,  many Core supporters are just
loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever... they will just scream "stop blocking segwit".

Therein lies the problem. I can safety say that >95% of the loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever don't understand segwit or LN.

I was one of them. I freely admit that. I didn't waste any of my time getting involve in the debates of the last 3 years. I did read some of the debates, but i was busy doing other things. Now, there is a "civil war," thus a stalemate. Now I understand Segwit and LN (not 100%) but better than most on here based on their posts. However the more i looked at the previous version of Bitcoin, the more i realised that bit by bit, version by version, it has gone all wrong, especially the how the calculation of fee works. The problem is that the developers are mostly computer programmers, thus do not understand how the real world works and do not understand economics, marketing, accountancy, etc.

Hence loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever do not understand that bit by bit, bitcoin has established one system for the rich and one system for the poor. Thus cronyism is what bitcoin has become. I believe that we are all equal and no one has the right to harm others - government does this all the time giving state privileges to one small group at the expense of the rest = victims. Bitcoin now function for one group at the expense of others.

Good post.... thanks for sharing that.  Mind if I repost on reddit.  people will find it interesting.

I was a Core Fanboi too, look at my username. I'll take the hit to my ego and admit I was lapping up Maxwell's dog drivel.

When Segwit came, I knew I was on the wrong ship. Reading the spec made my eyes burn - I suddenly realized that this was another over-engineered Spruce Goose that would never fly. Watching Core's behavior since then has been instructive. The pilots of a sinking ship, not even any rats left.

And yes, Andreas is nearly a god. The guy is smart. But he's dead wrong about Segwit.

Judging by your post history, you're a bought sock-puppet account. You had normal posts up to Nov 16, 2016 and then stopped posting. You didn't post again until Dec 10th 2016 when you made your first Core/SegWit bash post. Since then you been ramping up your Core bashing and BU shilling. My guess is sometime between Nov 16th and Dec 10th you bought this account or Roger Ver did and employed you to bash Core.

[jonald_fyookball]

Of course Core should have asked the community what they want.  Gavin's been saying that for 4 years.  

I don't know if you explained this point very clearly Franky..not sure many got it (i'm just getting it now)
even though you've said it 50 times.... but even if you explained it,  many Core supporters are just
loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever... they will just scream "stop blocking segwit".

Therein lies the problem. I can safety say that >95% of the loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever don't understand segwit or LN.

I was one of them. I freely admit that. I didn't waste any of my time getting involve in the debates of the last 3 years. I did read some of the debates, but i was busy doing other things. Now, there is a "civil war," thus a stalemate. Now I understand Segwit and LN (not 100%) but better than most on here based on their posts. However the more i looked at the previous version of Bitcoin, the more i realised that bit by bit, version by version, it has gone all wrong, especially the how the calculation of fee works. The problem is that the developers are mostly computer programmers, thus do not understand how the real world works and do not understand economics, marketing, accountancy, etc.

Hence loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever do not understand that bit by bit, bitcoin has established one system for the rich and one system for the poor. Thus cronyism is what bitcoin has become. I believe that we are all equal and no one has the right to harm others - government does this all the time giving state privileges to one small group at the expense of the rest = victims. Bitcoin now function for one group at the expense of others.

Good post.... thanks for sharing that.  Mind if I repost on reddit.  people will find it interesting.

I was a Core Fanboi too, look at my username. I'll take the hit to my ego and admit I was lapping up Maxwell's dog drivel.

When Segwit came, I knew I was on the wrong ship. Reading the spec made my eyes burn - I suddenly realized that this was another over-engineered Spruce Goose that would never fly. Watching Core's behavior since then has been instructive. The pilots of a sinking ship, not even any rats left.

And yes, Andreas is nearly a god. The guy is smart. But he's dead wrong about Segwit.

Good to know.  Was wondering about your name lol

[Paashaas]

The pilots of a sinking ship, not even any rats left.

Atleast 80% of the entire Bitcoin market wants Segwit and you think they're all rats?

Welcome on my ignore list, enjoy.

[jonald_fyookball]

The pilots of a sinking ship, not even any rats left.

Atleast 80% of the entire Bitcoin market wants Segwit and you think they're all rats?

Welcome on my ignore list, enjoy.

its about 35 percent.  poW decides the rules in bitcoin.

[FiendCoin]

The pilots of a sinking ship, not even any rats left.

Atleast 80% of the entire Bitcoin market wants Segwit and you think they're all rats?

Welcome on my ignore list, enjoy.

its about 35 percent.  poW decides the rules in bitcoin.

If a handful of Chinese miners can dictate the direction of Bitcoin it is DOOMED!

Thankfully, that won't happen. Its only a matter of time now before SegWit makes it way to Bitcoin and we can head to 10k per coin!

Unless of course SegWit truly does suck and only time on Litecoin will tell 

[jonald_fyookball]

one thing has nothing to do with the other.  segwit won't stop miner centralization.  I don't know why some people think it will.

but don't worry, its not a 'handful of Chinese guys'... look at antpool, there's almost 100k workers in it.  and that's just one pool.

[FiendCoin]

one thing has nothing to do with the other.  segwit won't stop miner centralization.  I don't know why some people think it will.

but don't worry, its not a 'handful of Chinese guys'... look at antpool, there's almost 100k workers in it.  and that's just one pool.

Seriously? It doesn't matter how many "workers" are in a pool, most pools are controlled by 1 dude and Antpool is controlled by Jihan Wu (1 dude).

I'm glad you think miner centralization is a problem, now you can stop shilling for BU and find another solution or what you say is meaningless.

[franky1]

Franky,  you should explain what you mean by tier network.  I don't think anyone understands.

ever ask yourself why there are no 0.8 or below nodes on the network
and how easy it could be to start making other implementations not have access.
EG anything below 0.13.1 (70014) can find themselves 'lost' in the future

Code:

#define REQUIRE_VERSION 70001
 if (clientVersion && clientVersion < REQUIRE_VERSION) return false;

simply change to

Code:

#define REQUIRE_VERSION 70014
 if (clientVersion && clientVersion < REQUIRE_VERSION) return false;

and anything not segwit just wouldnt get a list of nodes from a DNS

and most of the segwit users wont want to manually white list old nodes to offer up a nodes list the other way(addnode).
hence why even the segwit documentations says

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/#not-upgrading-1

The easiest way to prevent this problem is to upgrade to Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 or another full node release that is compatible with the segwit soft fork. If you still don’t wish to upgrade, it is possible to use a newer Bitcoin Core release as a filter for older Bitcoin Core releases.

Filtering by an upgraded node


In this configuration, you set your current Bitcoin Core node (which we’ll call the “older node”) to connect exclusively to a node running Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 or later (which we’ll call the “newer node”). The newer node is connected to the Bitcoin P2P network as usual.
For the older node, first wait for the newer node to finish syncing the blockchain and then restart the older node with the following command line parameter (this may also be placed in the Bitcoin Core configuration file):

yep if you dont want to upgrade. you have to still download a segwit node just to whitelist yourself, to be filtered down data from segwit nodes that ar upstream (a layer above, of a tier network).

which makes me laugh about the whole "everything is fine segwit is backward compatible and no need to upgrade" promises of segwit going soft

i hope this wakes you up to the TIER network of gmaxwells (upstream filter) and (luke JRs bridge node) word twisting of said tier network of control
where blockstream becomes top of the foodchain..

by tier, it means LAYERS. as oppose to a PEER network where the implementations are on the same layer (same level playing field)

[Lauda]

its about 35 percent.  poW decides the rules in bitcoin.

PoW alone does not decide anything. For those that are reading, this is classic delusional shill talk.

If a handful of Chinese miners can dictate the direction of Bitcoin it is DOOMED!

No amount of miners dictate what Bitcoin is or isn't.

Unless of course SegWit truly does suck and only time on Litecoin will tell 

SegWit has been activated on GRS for months now. It's about to activate on LTC and at least 2 other altcoins. It has already proven itself.

but don't worry, its not a 'handful of Chinese guys'... look at antpool, there's almost 100k workers in it.  and that's just one pool.

That is absurd. The number of works != number of miners.

[franky1]

one thing has nothing to do with the other.  segwit won't stop miner centralization.  I don't know why some people think it will.

but don't worry, its not a 'handful of Chinese guys'... look at antpool, there's almost 100k workers in it.  and that's just one pool.

firstly pools do not have ultimate control.

its a symbiotic relationship between pools and nodes.

yes pools can collate data in new ways and re-invent a blockstructure, but if the nodes do not accept it. then the blocks get ignored.
even if a pool had 50billion exahash. if the block doesnt propagate and get accepted by nodes. then its just wasting pools time. because all the merchants have trashed that block in 3 seconds.

knowing they cant spend rewards for 100 confirms they wont do funky blocks in the morning unless they know the block would still exist and have 100 confirms (blocks accepted ontop) that are viewable from merchants nodes in the afternoon to be able to spend that mornings block reward.

everyone has already seen that blocks that dont fit the nodes rules get rejected in just 3 seconds. and pools then realise their mistake and the very next block they make are blocks that fit the rules.

every week we see pools making blocks either by mistake or intentionally that dont fit the rules. and within seconds or a couple blocks (rarely) pools learn their lesson and ensure their block fits the rules of the majority of nodes
https://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks

because its not just about the cost of creating a block (electric+time) its also about who has a node that would see their funky block to spend the reward with in 100 blocks+ time.

EG
you might see for instance 80 merchants have a node that would accept it.. but if that pool wants to spend the reward with the 800 other merchant nodes who wont see the block. then there is no point making a block that wont get seen

Seriously? It doesn't matter how many "workers" are in a pool, most pools are controlled by 1 dude and Antpool is controlled by Jihan Wu (1 dude).
I'm glad you think miner centralization is a problem,

location is not much of an issue. you will be surprised that for instance antpool is not located in one location, but dozens.

even pools claimed as being "chinese" are managed by people that are not in china. (slush is managed in thailand) and ontop of this pools have many stratums spread out around the world. so if one stratum is shut down. in 2 seconds the farms are 'pool hopped' to another stratum else where.

lastly thinking that one guy has 70% control of pools is an utter laugh that no one can prove using real statistics. but only unbacked whispers from twitter and reddit.

[franky1]

all this finger pointing to blame xt in 2013, classic in 2014 bu in 2016 and pools in 2017 is just social distractions to avoid people looking at where the real centralisation is happening.

pools and nodes have a symbiotic relationship.
pools 'could' get power if they can hold out and make new formed funky blocks for a many hours or a few days, weeks, months to delay the network syncing to blackmail the community into upgrading their node to a version that pools make, that allows node users to see transactions rather than only seeing rejects/orphans and their node unsynced.
but so far that has only happened once. the 2013 leveldb fork. which made all the nodes move to a new version0.8 and the DNS seed to cut off allowing connections to 0.7 and below(old nodes)
(yes i mention the 2013 event often, because its an actual event that actually occurred. not a 'what if' fud doomsday)

since then pools have been more cautious about doing things that dont get accepted by the majority of nodes because of the drama and risks to pools costs/spendability could occur.

the last time a pool made an obvious out of majority block structure, it got rejected in 3 seconds and the pool didnt push it. they decide to just follow the nodes rules that are/were majority accepted.

every week pools make mistakes that dont follow the rules and find their blocks getting rejected/orphaned. they learn their lesson the hard way, by not winning the node acceptance to get their block added to blockheight.

in short. nodes hold the power.
even if pools could collude where pools are all onside doing funky blocks,.. they still need to survive pushing their blocks for hours/days/weeks to blackmail the unsynced nodes to download new nodes, just to see the funky block as acceptable... but thats alot of effort, and a very costly risk.

for pools to get power is not just about one pool having hashpower. its about having their competition not fighting them to ensure the blocks keep adding on. and then. keeping it going long enough to blackmail the nodes to switch too.


so ultimately its still nodes that hold the power. as long as the nodes dont give in and give up the power so easily.
nodes could simply ban a malicious pool thats causing endless orphans if its not following the rules.

whats more important than worrying about the "what if's" of pools.. is the real network threat of node centralisation.

this is where node diversity is needed. so that we do not have one node dev team that create a version and change the DNS to force the network into following like sheep.

we need to realise that trying to bypass the security mechanisms of consensus (yep orphans are part of security) with these 'going soft approaches' may seem good if the community as a whole want the change. but can be abused by bad actors who may want to trojan horse changes that are not wanted.

wasting 3 years for something that is (now seen as not) backward compatible by going soft. should be a neon red flag that something else should be tried.

not blackmail, not threats of killing off nodes/pools. but instead making something that the community would accept and uniting the community. by doing something properly that uses consensus. to avoid the risks, backdoor tactics and politics and civil war drama

[classicsucks]

Unless of course SegWit truly does suck and only time on Litecoin will tell 

SegWit has been activated on GRS for months now. It's about to activate on LTC and at least 2 other altcoins. It has already proven itself.

So a few coins with very low volume and a small number of nodes needed a soft fork to increase (not capacity?), but Lightning compatbility? And this is proof of... what exactly? I think it's largely pointless, since coins the size and traffic of Litecoin can easily do hard forks.

ORLY