Andreas redpills /r/btc loons

[btcxyzzz]

More like we're redpilling him.

[1714186189]

1714186189

[1714186189]

1714186189

[Andre_Goldman]

watching his lasted Youtube video ...

Blockchain vs. Bullshit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMEOKDVXlUo

I thought to my self ... such Tech Evangelist ...  

[Lauda]

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

What other options are there for standard consumers? Bitmain is already a dangerous monopoly.
 

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

Nonsense. Someone responded to it in another thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1888573.msg18809626#msg18809626

watching his lasted Youtube video ...

Blockchain vs. Bullshit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMEOKDVXlUo

I thought to my self ... such Tech Evangelist ...  

He's right about most of it though. Most of the coins have bamboozled the people who are just in here due to their own weaknesses, i.e. greed.

[IIOII]

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.

[BillyBobZorton]

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

But satoshi's vision was "p2p cash" too. How can you call a network that is centralized by monopolies of nodes validating the transactions "p2p cash"?

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

How isnt't validating the transactions in a decentralized way vs a corporation validating them a part of the security model?
  

3. Currently mining is centralized in China.  Small blocks won't help that.

But they do help in keeping them in check by threatening them with UASFs and whatnot. If they full control over nodes too, it would already be game over. Might as well use a bank?

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.

Bitcoin is decentralized if people can run nodes at home, if this basic principle is broken then it's not decentralized. People will not be able to run nodes at home to cater for mainstream volume transactions, not now and not in 10 years, the blocksize will be too big for technology to progress at the same time and don't compromise the network.

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.  

All Core devs want to eventually raise the blocksize. Market already decided. It's miners that are blocking progress.

[franky1]

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

What other options are there for standard consumers? Bitmain is already a dangerous monopoly.
 

i guess i was a little tooo subtle in the other topic... please read it slowly word for word


here ill save you searching for it.. im sure other people will notice the subtle hints

i canaan should mention a few, but ill leave you to ebang your heads against a wall to show your "estimates" and "assessments" claims. also i am not gonna get baited into the loaded questions of useless hardware such as USB devices. so i will just let you get a bitfuryous about me not spoonfeeding you the data, and instead wait for you to show where you lot got your 70% figures from.

too many people are quoting 70% so i want to see your source

hopefully i have not been too subtle

[franky1]

blockstream are the ones that implemented CLTV and CSV to be the paypal-esq features of 3-5 business day funds maturity after withdrawal(cltv after channel close confirm) and chargebacks(csv after channel close confirm)

blockstream want LN as the dominant end goal for bitcoin (multisig channels = permissioned)

please research, and yea that does not mean reading reddit scripts

[jonald_fyookball]

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

But satoshi's vision was "p2p cash" too. How can you call a network that is centralized by monopolies of nodes validating the transactions "p2p cash"?

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

How isnt't validating the transactions in a decentralized way vs a corporation validating them a part of the security model?
  

3. Currently mining is centralized in China.  Small blocks won't help that.

But they do help in keeping them in check by threatening them with UASFs and whatnot. If they full control over nodes too, it would already be game over. Might as well use a bank?

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.

Bitcoin is decentralized if people can run nodes at home, if this basic principle is broken then it's not decentralized. People will not be able to run nodes at home to cater for mainstream volume transactions, not now and not in 10 years, the blocksize will be too big for technology to progress at the same time and don't compromise the network.

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.  

All Core devs want to eventually raise the blocksize. Market already decided. It's miners that are blocking progress.

1. its not centralized at all.  We have greater pool decentralization than we did a few years ago.  You can say there's
geographic centralization (China) of miners but that's another topic.

2. Not sure what you mean.  As I said , only miners extend and secure the ledger.  SPV clients can validate.
Have you seen this btw: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1891411.0  This will help decentralization.

3. Small blocks help to keep miners in check?  We don't need to keep miners in check.  Bitcoin already does that.

4. Again, SPV clients with increasingly effective fraud proofs, unless you are mining.

5.  "Eventually".... exactly.  

[BillyBobZorton]

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

But satoshi's vision was "p2p cash" too. How can you call a network that is centralized by monopolies of nodes validating the transactions "p2p cash"?

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

How isnt't validating the transactions in a decentralized way vs a corporation validating them a part of the security model?
  

3. Currently mining is centralized in China.  Small blocks won't help that.

But they do help in keeping them in check by threatening them with UASFs and whatnot. If they full control over nodes too, it would already be game over. Might as well use a bank?

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.

Bitcoin is decentralized if people can run nodes at home, if this basic principle is broken then it's not decentralized. People will not be able to run nodes at home to cater for mainstream volume transactions, not now and not in 10 years, the blocksize will be too big for technology to progress at the same time and don't compromise the network.

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.  

All Core devs want to eventually raise the blocksize. Market already decided. It's miners that are blocking progress.

1. its not centralized at all.  We have greater pool decentralization than we did a few years ago.  You can say there's
geographic centralization (China) of miners but that's another topic.

2. Not sure what you mean.  As I said , only miners extend and secure the ledger.  SPV clients can validate.
Have you seen this btw: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1891411.0  This will help decentralization.

3. Small blocks help to keep miners in check?  We don't need to keep miners in check.  Bitcoin already does that.

4. Again, SPV clients with increasingly effective fraud proofs, unless you are mining.

5.  "Eventually".... exactly.  

1. It's obviously centralized. The company supplying the ASICs is the same for more than 70% of the hashrate. We've already seen with antbleed, how bad this is. If this went unnoticed and PBOC told Jihan to stop all of his machines remotely, we would have been fucked.

2. Full nodes validate transactions. If you get rid of people running full nodes and put it inside the same corporations that are running mines, then the government of a country can take bitcoin hostage by telling this corporation to censor certain transactions. They have the validating nodes and the hashrate.

3. Yes, it keeps them in check. Bitcoin does what? bitcoin is just a set of rules, those rules can be gamed as the chinese are trying to do. If miners become tyrannical then users can put them in trouble by selecting what software they run to validate nodes. This is no longer the case with mainstream-tier blocks.

4. Irrelevant, points above.

5. When needed. Segwit would give us time, then we can consider a blocksize increase. It will be needed in order to make LN run properly anyway.

[franky1]

1. It's obviously centralized. The company supplying the ASICs is the same for more than 70% of the hashrate. We've already seen with antbleed, how bad this is. If this went unnoticed and PBOC told Jihan to stop all of his machines remotely, we would have been fucked.

please show source of claim for 70% of hashrate is under the thump of china or jihan
please dont reference a tweet or reddit post.

2. Full nodes validate transactions. If you get rid of people running full nodes and put it inside the same corporations that are running mines, then the government of a country can take bitcoin hostage by telling this corporation to censor certain transactions. They have the validating nodes and the hashrate.

much like BTCC being under the came cartel as blockstream and coinbase...
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b  -btcc   -blockstream
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#c  -coinbase

those rules can be gamed as the chinese are trying to do.

you mean where blockstream bypassed nodes to hand the only vote of segwit to pools..
also

please show source of claim for 70% of hashrate is under the thump of china
please dont reference a tweet or reddit post.

[BillyBobZorton]

1. It's obviously centralized. The company supplying the ASICs is the same for more than 70% of the hashrate. We've already seen with antbleed, how bad this is. If this went unnoticed and PBOC told Jihan to stop all of his machines remotely, we would have been fucked.

please show source of claim for 70% of hashrate is under the thump of china or jihan
please dont reference a tweet or reddit post.

2. Full nodes validate transactions. If you get rid of people running full nodes and put it inside the same corporations that are running mines, then the government of a country can take bitcoin hostage by telling this corporation to censor certain transactions. They have the validating nodes and the hashrate.

much like BTCC being under the came cartel as blockstream and coinbase...
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b  -btcc   -blockstream
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#c  -coinbase

those rules can be gamed as the chinese are trying to do.

you mean where blockstream bypassed nodes to hand the only vote of segwit to pools..
also

please show source of claim for 70% of hashrate is under the thump of china
please dont reference a tweet or reddit post.

Prove it isn't? Just look at what gear are the big pools using, most people are using bitmain gear, there's no actual competition, they have checkmated the entire mining game.

And there's people want to give miners even more power with the BUcoin idea.

Gladly, economic majority supports segwit and rejects BU. Which is where conservative blocksize will shine in the case of a situation where we go UASF and miners go BU.

It will not be pretty but segwit will win the war eventually.

Meanwhile LTC will shine with no drama.

[franky1]

1. It's obviously centralized. The company supplying the ASICs is the same for more than 70% of the hashrate. We've already seen with antbleed, how bad this is. If this went unnoticed and PBOC told Jihan to stop all of his machines remotely, we would have been fucked.

please show source of claim for 70% of hashrate is under the thump of china or jihan
please dont reference a tweet or reddit post.

2. Full nodes validate transactions. If you get rid of people running full nodes and put it inside the same corporations that are running mines, then the government of a country can take bitcoin hostage by telling this corporation to censor certain transactions. They have the validating nodes and the hashrate.

much like BTCC being under the came cartel as blockstream and coinbase...
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b  -btcc   -blockstream
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#c  -coinbase

those rules can be gamed as the chinese are trying to do.

you mean where blockstream bypassed nodes to hand the only vote of segwit to pools..
also

please show source of claim for 70% of hashrate is under the thump of china
please dont reference a tweet or reddit post.

Prove it isn't? Just look at what gear are the big pools using, most people are using bitmain gear, there's no actual competition, they have checkmated the entire mining game.

Gladly, economic majority supports segwit and rejects BU. Which is where conservative blocksize will shine in the case of a situation where we go UASF and miners go BU.

you have no clue. spend less time on reddit. it will help you

here is a hint im sure you could guess where you can find this data (hint: blockreward decoded message)
$Mined by AntPool usa1
$Mined by AntPool usa2
$Mined by AntPool usa3
$Mined by AntPool usa4

there are farms in iceland, georgia, canada, usa and many other places.
the stratums are spread out all over the world

And there's people want to give miners even more power with the BUcoin idea.

sorry but core bypassed node consensus by going soft. and are the only team giving pools sole voting capability.
other implementations are NODE and POOL consensus.. plus they dont need to UASF force anything in, and instead just let the community decide or not.
only core have shouted out killing pools, banning nodes, PoW nuking asics, mandatory flags.. without actually doing a real listen to the community and unite the community.

so i have asked you and your buddies a few times..
what if hearne done exactly line for line decision for decision the same as core. would you support hearnes implementation

[The One]

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.

[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.

[The One]

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.

No need to ask - freedom of speech, expression, etc. If i don't want my opinion known, then i wouldn't be on here 

Check this if it helps. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1887619.msg18814437#msg18814437
Example of "Bitcoin now function for one group at the expense of others."

[Rakete4]

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.

So many words and not one concise argument against SegWit.

[franky1]

So many words and not one concise argument against SegWit.

1. tier network of core as upstream filters
2. no fixes because even with 99% users moving funds to segwit keys (taking alot of mempool bloat for months). 1% left over of quadratic/bloat spammers can remain with native keys and cause MORE disruption than ever before (16ksigops instead of 4k). thus no 'fix'
3. the 1mb blockspace will be its own cesspit of native spammers making the 'witness/weight' area not be utilised as promoted
4. promises to remove malleation to lower double spend risk of unconfirmed. but then adds RBF and CPFP to increase double spend risk of unconfirmed
5. due to native tx's even malleation is not 'fixed', just has a 'opt-in' tx type for INNOCENT users to use to disarm themselves from making malleated tx's

concise enough?

[jonald_fyookball]

So many words and not one concise argument against SegWit.

https://medium.com/@SegWit/segwit-resources-6b7432b42b1e

[The One]

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.

So many words and not one concise argument against SegWit.

Never was going too as that wasn't the "question."

[pereira4]

More like we're redpilling him.

Maybe in your delusional mind, but Buggy Unlimited is only losing ground, meanwhile the general public rejects Buggy Unlimited as seen in node counts, big actorsni the game like people running services, exchanges etc, want segwit and reject Buggy Unlimited, and Buggy Unlimited futures are at all time lows.

Another defeat for the trojan horse attempt.