Andreas redpills /r/btc loons

[BillyBobZorton]

The fact that this reached a point so ridiculous that Andreas Antonopoulos had to say things the way they are should tell you how far the /r/btc loons took this.

The fact that loons/paid shills will deny those facts claiming Andreas is now part of the cult beucase what he says doesn't meet their agenda further proves the point

[Lauda]

He isn't wrong though. Even if every single developer was brought up by some malicious individuals right now, it wouldn't make a difference. The developers can not force any change on the network. An ASIC monopoly on the other hand, as mentioned, is quite dangerous. BITMAIN could for example refuse to sell devices to individuals who don't support them in something. Essentially you could get a "it's my way or the high way" type of mining monopoly. However, I'm sure if there was reasonable evidence for this to be happening then the whole ecosystem would fight this *disease*.
A simple tl;dr can be made out of r/btc: censorship, theymos, maxwell, *insert anyone who doesn't agree with their view* character attacks, blockstream, AXA, *random and unsafe number* block size, Blockstream Core. It is really a very bad place to read up on Bitcoin and almost always a waste of time.

[Kprawn]

/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. 

[Carlton Banks]

Andreas isn't saying anything different ro the argements made on this forum, though


These arguments aren't "special" because "special" Andreas Antonopoolos makes them, they stand on they're own (not unlike Andreas' own comment that "Segwit is good tech regardless of who wrote it", ironically)


Be careful with these "thought leaders", because the more we increase their status, the more danger there is that people will blindly follow people like Andreas when he's suggesting something that's bad for Bitcoin (which he's never done, yet)

[jonald_fyookball]

pretty sad how Andreas used to be so passionate about helping the worlds' unbanked with low fees...and talking about permissionless innovation...

...now shilling for Blockstream/Core , supporting their high fees and permissioned second layers.

[The One]

He isn't a god.

Is this suppose to make those who disagree with Segwit and/or LN fall in line?

[BillyBobZorton]

pretty sad how Andreas used to be so passionate about helping the worlds' unbanked with low fees...and talking about permissionless innovation...

...now shilling for Blockstream/Core , supporting their high fees and permissioned second layers.

How can you cater for mainstream global transactions on-chain while calling it permissionless? If poor africans can use fast, cheap transactions on-chain, it means the blockchain is insanely big, which means you are asking permission for the centralized corporations running the nodes (basically the same centralized corporations running minning now) to validate your transaction.

[jonald_fyookball]

pretty sad how Andreas used to be so passionate about helping the worlds' unbanked with low fees...and talking about permissionless innovation...

...now shilling for Blockstream/Core , supporting their high fees and permissioned second layers.

How can you cater for mainstream global transactions on-chain while calling it permissionless? If poor africans can use fast, cheap transactions on-chain, it means the blockchain is insanely big, which means you are asking permission for the centralized corporations running the nodes (basically the same centralized corporations running minning now) to validate your transaction.

You probably won't like any of my answers because you seem to have made up your mind already but here's a try:

1.  I would rather have everyone be able to transact than everyone run a node, this was Satoshi's vision

2.  Non-mining nodes do not fundamentally secure the network, only mining nodes secure and extend the ledger.  As you put it "validate".
  
3. Currently mining is centralized in China.  Small blocks won't help that.

4. People that are running nodes now with fast interent home speeds can handle much bigger blocks (8-24mb?)   Once tx capacity exceeds
that, Bitcoin will be so big that it will be even more decentralized.

5. most importantly, i never said we need 100% on chain scaling.  I'm for letting the free market decide.  
But the last thing we need to do is say that 1mb is acceptable and 2mb isn't...which is exactly what BS/Core is doing.  

 

[Lauda]

1.  I would rather have everyone be able to transact than everyone run a node, this was Satoshi's vision

Appeal to authority, and wishful thinking. This statement is useless.

2.  Non-mining nodes do not fundamentally secure the network, only mining nodes secure and extend the ledger.  As you put it "validate".

I'm not sure if trolling or just plain stupid. Non-mining nodes do not validate the consensus rules? Nodes are the vital back bone of the whole network.
  

3. Currently mining is centralized in China.  Small big blocks will make that worse won't help that.

FTFY.

4. People that are running nodes now with fast interent home speeds can handle much bigger blocks (8-24mb?)

Wrong. In reality, such a block size would boot a very decent amount of nodes of the network. Bandwidth is not the only constraint here.

Once tx capacity exceeds that, Bitcoin will be so big that it will be even more decentralized.

Non sequitur.

5. most importantly, i never said we need 100% on chain scaling.  I'm for letting the free market decide.  

Market deciding technological safety limits is basically opening the gates to manipulation and destruction. Every free market ever was heavily manipulated at some point.

But the last thing we need to do is say that 1mb is acceptable and 2mb isn't...which is exactly what BS/Core is doing.  

What you're looking for is: Segwit > big blocks > trashcan > BU.

[franky1]

if bitmain refuses to sell rigs to competitors, then competitors buy something else

if blockstream wanted to change the network they can
look at the DNS seeds

[pixie85]

I agree with him on the Bitmain part. Having a monopoly like that makes the whole system open to bribes and swaying.
We have a system where miners are voting, you are the biggest player with the most hashpower, it's inevitable that you will start receiving offers of money for backing certain projects. The situation with Roger Ver and Antpool comes to mind. I don't think they backed him because they like the idea of BU taking over. It's just business.

[franky1]

I agree with him on the Bitmain part. Having a monopoly like that makes the whole system open to bribes and swaying.

monopoly?
proof of claim.

please dont quote reddit or twitter. show source of real stats.

We have a system where miners are voting,

no.. CORE has an implementation where miners are voting
because core CHOSE to avoid a real node and pool consensus and INTENTIONALLY gave only pools the vote

other implementations rely on real consensus, nodes and pools

also many implementations rely on a PEER network if diverse nodes. segwit relies on everyone not DCG funded to be downstream from the segwit TIER network.

[jonald_fyookball]

because core CHOSE to avoid a real node and pool consensus and INTENTIONALLY gave only pools the vote

ive never understood what you meant by this.  please explain.

[franky1]

because core CHOSE to avoid a real node and pool consensus and INTENTIONALLY gave only pools the vote

ive never understood what you meant by this.  please explain.

instead of using other methods that can activate segwit. core chose only block count.
meaning core chose to only use pools flagging as the activation method.

and now they cry when pools didnt jump onboard before christmas and then not a couple months later so then the drama of blaming pools and saying pools have nukes that can kill the network so the network has to kill the pools

(instead of rationally asking what do pools want code wise that will make them say yes, and then make a plan B that is more community acceptable)

[jonald_fyookball]

because core CHOSE to avoid a real node and pool consensus and INTENTIONALLY gave only pools the vote

ive never understood what you meant by this.  please explain.

instead of using other methods that can activate segwit. core chose only block count.
meaning core chose to only use pools flagging as the activation method.

and now they cry when pools didnt jump onboard before christmas and then not a couple months later so then the drama of blaming pools and saying pools have nukes that can kill the network so the network has to kill the pools

(instead of rationally asking what do pools want code wise that will make them say yes, and then make a plan B that is more community acceptable)

huh?? 

its not like core is going to give anyone a choice on different things,... they have one dish on the menu.  its called segwit.

uasf is kind of like giving nodes the vote ... on that one thing... which is even dumber.

sorry if i dont totally follow you.

[franky1]

huh??  

its not like core is going to give anyone a choice on different things,... they have one dish on the menu.  its called segwit.
uasf is kind of like giving nodes the vote ... on that one thing... which is even dumber.
sorry if i dont totally follow you.

people are screaming that "pools control the vote"...
no. core gave pools the vote.

pools didnt ask to be the only ones to vote
pools did not force core to give them the only voting power.

the problem is that core gave pools the vote. and pools are now saying no,
because not all of them believe segwit is 'as promised' or the right solution.

but core instead of asking pools whats the hold up or what core could do better.
core fanboys are speculating what the hold up is and causing alot of fud and now trying to push UASF. and shouting out threats that pools ned to be killed off with PoW bombs

core should ask the community what does the community want,
and then make a planB. one that is a node first pools second full community uniting event.. instead of push push push until late 2018 with the half gesture segwit as is version.

[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".


 

[European Central Bank]

How did I guess what this thread would turn into? Quicker off the mark than usual though. You're doing great work, but I think you'd give more to the world by digging wells in Africa.

[franky1]

How did I guess what this thread would turn into? Quicker off the mark than usual though. You're doing great work, but I think you'd give more to the world by digging wells in Africa.

nah.
quicker to evict the rich guys in the african cities that pushed people into shanty towns in the first place, which resulted in them needing to search for water.
but i think you prefer the fox news version where people strangely just appeard 20 miles from water for no reason. and prefer to live 20 miles "half a day from a water source"..

i bet after years of watching fox news and oxfam adverts you still have not asked "why do they live 20 miles from water" and instead just wnt with the "they need money and half gesture wells to fix the problem

my point is. too many people are not thinking critically. they see a group of people that pretend to be like gods.. and people just follow them. not asking questions.

andreas for instance was kissing segwits ass before april 2016. (yep before devs got together to start actually debugging elements:segwit to then be bitcoin compatible

andrea's has not really even described segwit in detail last year about the requirement of needing people to move funds to segwit keys. nor has he explained that spammers will continue on native keys and continue spamming

just look at the OP screenshot
"even if blockstream could control the devs (they cant)" - lol blockstream ARE THE DEVS. all the other guys are just fanboys and spellcheckers. EG segwit is wrote by Pwuille (blockstream) some edits are done by luke jr and gmaxwell (blockstream, blockstream)

segwit was a altcoin and part of the blockstream project. not something core devs independently thought up all by themselves

who decided to go soft instead of full network consensus lukejr(blockstream)
who is now heading up UASF, samson mow (blockstream)

[Jordan23]

How did I guess what this thread would turn into? Quicker off the mark than usual though. You're doing great work, but I think you'd give more to the world by digging wells in Africa.

nah.
quicker to evict the rich guys in the african cities that pushed people into shanty towns in the first place, which resulted in them needing to search for water.
but i think you prefer the fox news version where people strangely just appeard 20 miles from water for no reason. and prefer to live 20 miles "half a day from a water source"..

i bet after years of watching fox news and oxfam adverts you still have not asked "why do they live 20 miles from water" and instead just wnt with the "they need money and half gesture wells to fix the problem

my point is. too many people are not thinking critically. they see a group of people that pretend to be like gods.. and people just follow them. not asking questions.

andreas for instance was kissing segwits ass before april 2016. (yep before devs got together to start actually debugging elements:segwit to then be bitcoin compatible

andrea's has not really even described segwit in detail last year about the requirement of needing people to move funds to segwit keys. nor has he explained that spammers will continue on native keys and continue spamming

just look at the OP screenshot
"even if blockstream could control the devs (they cant)" - lol blockstream ARE THE DEVS. all the other guys are just fanboys and spellcheckers. EG segwit is wrote by Pwuille (blockstream) some edits are done by luke jr and gmaxwell (blockstream, blockstream)

segwit was a altcoin and part of the blockstream project. not something core devs independently thought up all by themselves

who decided to go soft instead of full network consensus lukejr(blockstream)
who is now heading up UASF, samson mow (blockstream)

FOX news! Take your critically thinking advice. Now tell us your reliable news source. Watch the crickets everyone. I agree Fox is trash but all media is. That's critically thinking snowflake. You forgot racist. Andreas wiped you up lol