I am being given neg feedback for political reasons

[Quickseller]

Several months ago, Lauda gave a negative rating to franky1 that was clearly a political rating (source), however it was removed after being called out about it (archive for both).

No.

I'm sorry, but there is proof linked in that quote (at least the original).

It seems that AztekPhoenix is right in that you are unable to respond to criticism (at least in this thread, but really in general) without resorting to personal attacks (that are honestly more or less baseless).

The sole reason for which mister Quickseller wants me out of DT is because that would void a unknown number of my ratings on scammers and various types of account trafficking. Of which the latter are his business. This includes, but is not limited to, selling DT accounts to scammers.

Time to move out of the basement snowflake?

Actually your definition of "scammer" is more broad than what pretty much anyone else within the community has, and appears to include anyone who disagrees with you (at least this is what appears to be the case based on recent trends, and your history of leaving negative ratings for things that happened a very long time ago that you had been long aware of). The majority of your ratings do not appear to be in line with what the rest of the community would consider to be a "scammer" and you respond to concerns about your ratings with trolling.

[1713889024]

1713889024

[1713889024]

1713889024

[1713889024]

1713889024

[1713889024]

1713889024

[1713889024]

1713889024

[Lauda]

I'm sorry, but there is proof linked in that quote (at least the original).

No. Unless I have clearly stated the reason behind my rating(s), all you can do is speculate (assuming you are neutral, which you are not). Unless of course, you want to claim that you can read my mind.

Actually your definition of "scammer" is more broad than what pretty much anyone else within the community has, and appears to include anyone who disagrees with you..

Absolutely untrue. Trying to mislead new readers?

at least this is what appears to be the case based on recent trends, and your history of leaving negative ratings for things that happened a very long time ago that you had been long aware of..

Can you *prove* that I was "long aware of" any of these things? If not, speculation again.

The majority of your ratings do not appear to be in line with what the rest of the community would consider to be a "scammer" and you respond to concerns about your ratings with trolling.

Ambiguous claim. I'm certain that almost all of my ratings are in line, and quite a lot of them were backed up later on either for the same reason or after the person had exposed themselves (see Margon as your closest example).

[jonald_fyookball]

@quickseller, good idea (blazed) --  i will get around to that.

more important things are going on today

[Lauda]

@quickseller, good idea (blazed) --  i will get around to that.

You can try that, yes. A certain someone tried it a lot of times, but ultimately it does not work.

more important things are going on today

Do you, by any chance, mean the planned attack by BITMAIN? I've just neg. rated them.

[TheKing247]

Red trust for political reasons? Must be Donald Trump giving you negative trust.

[jonald_fyookball]

@quickseller, good idea (blazed) --  i will get around to that.

You can try that, yes. A certain someone tried it a lot of times, but ultimately it does not work.

more important things are going on today

Do you, by any chance, mean the planned attack by BITMAIN? I've just neg. rated them.

 a fork is an attack is Bitmain is doing it, but its not if its led by puke junior.

right?

[Nagadota]

@quickseller, good idea (blazed) --  i will get around to that.

You can try that, yes. A certain someone tried it a lot of times, but ultimately it does not work.

more important things are going on today

Do you, by any chance, mean the planned attack by BITMAIN? I've just neg. rated them.

 a fork is an attack is Bitmain is doing it, but its not if its led by puke junior.

right?

Luke Jr is a developer, not a miner.

I fail to see why anyone should support a single private company creating a new chain.  If they want to "ignore short-term economic incentives" to mine on their new chain, they will end up with >51% hashrate and the chain will be susceptible to 51% attacks from BITMAIN.  This is blindingly obvious, because most pools will not ignore economic incentives.

[jonald_fyookball]

@quickseller, good idea (blazed) --  i will get around to that.

You can try that, yes. A certain someone tried it a lot of times, but ultimately it does not work.

more important things are going on today

Do you, by any chance, mean the planned attack by BITMAIN? I've just neg. rated them.

 a fork is an attack is Bitmain is doing it, but its not if its led by puke junior.

right?

Luke Jr is a developer, not a miner.

I fail to see why anyone should support a single private company creating a new chain.  If they want to "ignore short-term economic incentives" to mine on their new chain, they will end up with >51% hashrate and the chain will be susceptible to 51% attacks from BITMAIN.  This is blindingly obvious, because most pools will not ignore economic incentives.

Community has been asking for big blocks for years and how bitcon was always supposed to scale back to the original whitepaper.  Honesty requires accounting for that context and not making it sound like a 'private company is just creating a new chain'. 

Other pools already signaling for big blocks will undoubtedly mine the big block chain.

Segwit will collapse.

[Lauda]

Honesty requires accounting for that context and not making it sound like a 'private company is just creating a new chain'. 

Bitmain will mine the chain for a minimum of 72 hours after the BIP148 forking point with a certain percentage of hash rate supplied by our own mining operations.

Bitmain will likely not release immediately the mined blocks to the public network unless circumstances call for it, which means that Bitmain will mine such chain privately first.

Definitely not a private chain.
Source: https://blog.bitmain.com/en/uahf-contingency-plan-uasf-bip148/

Community has been asking for big blocks for years and how bitcon was always supposed to scale back to the original whitepaper. 

You can keep trying to spread misinformation but that won't change the fact that Jihancoin is the altcoin.

[Nagadota]

@quickseller, good idea (blazed) --  i will get around to that.

You can try that, yes. A certain someone tried it a lot of times, but ultimately it does not work.

more important things are going on today

Do you, by any chance, mean the planned attack by BITMAIN? I've just neg. rated them.

 a fork is an attack is Bitmain is doing it, but its not if its led by puke junior.

right?

Luke Jr is a developer, not a miner.

I fail to see why anyone should support a single private company creating a new chain.  If they want to "ignore short-term economic incentives" to mine on their new chain, they will end up with >51% hashrate and the chain will be susceptible to 51% attacks from BITMAIN.  This is blindingly obvious, because most pools will not ignore economic incentives.

Community has been asking for big blocks for years

I question this.  I don't think there's strong enough evidence to prove that the community supports one side or another (feel free to try and prove me wrong - the only resources I have so far are F2Pool and ViaBTC's polls).  There was a lot of questioning about the "temporary" 1MB limit several years ago, but I don't know if this holds true today.

and how bitcon was always supposed to scale back to the original whitepaper.  Honesty requires accounting for that context and not making it sound like a 'private company is just creating a new chain'.  

I think honesty requires accounting for whether this is genuinely a community movement or a private company's power grab.  The origin of UAHF is BITMAIN's blog post - is that really not a problem to you?

Other pools already signaling for big blocks will undoubtedly mine the big block chain.

By this logic, all pools signalling for SegWit will mine the UASF chain, and I doubt this will happen.  Even if they did, BITMAIN would have a disturbing amount of hashrate on the new chain.

And for neutrality's sake:

You can keep trying to spread misinformation but that won't change the fact that Jihancoin is the altcoin.

I think this is pretty childish sentiment.  A chain split is not an altcoin, and that doesn't matter whether it's UASF, UAHF or just a hard fork.  The majority chain is Bitcoin, and the rest are "forks of Bitcoin", nothing more.

[Lauda]

I think this is pretty childish sentiment.  A chain split is not an altcoin, and that doesn't matter whether it's UASF, UAHF or just a hard fork.  The majority chain is Bitcoin, and the rest are "forks of Bitcoin", nothing more.

No. That's not what Bitcoin is, otherwise a few power players get to decide what Bitcoin is and change however they want it. Bitcoin is supposed to empower the users by giving them sovereignty and being resistant to change. It is not, in any way or form, a proof-of-proxy coin. Anyhow, this is not the place for this discussion. Either way, the rating is not "political" and is well deserved. The user even continued to spread false information.

[jonald_fyookball]

 There was a lot of questioning about the "temporary" 1MB limit several years ago, but I don't know if this holds true today.

it doesn't hold true if you buy into Blockstream propaganda, I suppose.

[Nagadota]

 There was a lot of questioning about the "temporary" 1MB limit several years ago, but I don't know if this holds true today.

it doesn't hold true if you buy into Blockstream propaganda, I suppose.

Christ, this is boring.  At least I mentioned the ViaBTC and F2Pool's polls, while you haven't mentioned any information whatsoever except for generic comments about "propaganda".  I'm waiting for your response, I'm not anyone's enemy.  Chill.

Bitcoin is supposed to empower the users by giving them sovereignty and being resistant to change.

A fork doesn't become an altcoin because of this.  It just becomes something unfavourable which Bitcoin has become.  If Bitcoin needs to be resistant to change, would UASF be an altcoin too?  Or is your view based around the fact that BITMAIN is dictating this UAHF?

IMO at this point any fork would be a few private companies dictating the decision, just a few more in UASF's case than in UAHF.

Anyhow, this is not the place for this discussion. Either way, the rating is not "political" and is well deserved. The user even continued to spread false information.

Got it, I'd better leave the thread now.  It's not going anywhere so jonald should probably lock it.

[jonald_fyookball]

 There was a lot of questioning about the "temporary" 1MB limit several years ago, but I don't know if this holds true today.

it doesn't hold true if you buy into Blockstream propaganda, I suppose.

Christ, this is boring.  At least I mentioned the ViaBTC and F2Pool's polls, while you haven't mentioned any information whatsoever except for generic comments about "propaganda".  I'm waiting for your response, I'm not anyone's enemy.  Chill.
 

Not sure what you don't understand.  This is very simple.

Bitcoin was always supposed to scale on chain with bigger blocks.  Go read early satoshi writings, or my letter to the miners.  It's all there.

Segwit was literally made up to solve a problem that didn't exist.  No one asked for it..it was created by core devs, mostly by Pieter W. and Gmax  (both of whom work for Blockstream).

There was a lot of "hardforks are bad" rhertoric and Segwit soft fork was supposed to be the savior. 

If you don't believe me, that's fine, but there's nothing else to explain. 

[jonald_fyookball]

I now see both Lauda and Gmax left negative feedback for Bitmain...

What a coincidence, geez.

nah, this isn't political at all.

[Nagadota]

 There was a lot of questioning about the "temporary" 1MB limit several years ago, but I don't know if this holds true today.

it doesn't hold true if you buy into Blockstream propaganda, I suppose.

Christ, this is boring.  At least I mentioned the ViaBTC and F2Pool's polls, while you haven't mentioned any information whatsoever except for generic comments about "propaganda".  I'm waiting for your response, I'm not anyone's enemy.  Chill.
 

Bitcoin was always supposed to scale on chain with bigger blocks.  Go read early satoshi writings, or my letter to the miners.  It's all there.

This looks like an argument of your own rather than a reference proving that the "community has been asking for big blocks for years".

It's not there, you've argued that people used to agree with a large block size a long time ago, which is true, but you've provided no recent evidence about "the community".

Or does the "community" only consist of people you like?

If you don't believe me, that's fine, but there's nothing else to explain. 

There is.  All you need to do is answer what I actually said instead of some hypothetical statement.

There was a lot of questioning about the "temporary" 1MB limit several years ago, but I don't know if this holds true today.

Can you show that it holds true today?

[Lauda]

I now see both Lauda and Gmax left negative feedback for Bitmain...

What a coincidence, geez.

nah, this isn't political at all.

Of course it isn't. If it were political, I would have given them a negative rating as soon as they were intentionally blocking Segwit. The rating is well deserved and arguably even late.

[jonald_fyookball]

 There was a lot of questioning about the "temporary" 1MB limit several years ago, but I don't know if this holds true today.

it doesn't hold true if you buy into Blockstream propaganda, I suppose.

Christ, this is boring.  At least I mentioned the ViaBTC and F2Pool's polls, while you haven't mentioned any information whatsoever except for generic comments about "propaganda".  I'm waiting for your response, I'm not anyone's enemy.  Chill.
 

Bitcoin was always supposed to scale on chain with bigger blocks.  Go read early satoshi writings, or my letter to the miners.  It's all there.

This looks like an argument of your own rather than a reference proving that the "community has been asking for big blocks for years".

It's not there, you've argued that people used to agree with a large block size a long time ago, which is true, but you've provided no recent evidence about "the community".

Or does the "community" only consist of people you like?

If you don't believe me, that's fine, but there's nothing else to explain.  

There is.  All you need to do is answer what I actually said instead of some hypothetical statement.

There was a lot of questioning about the "temporary" 1MB limit several years ago, but I don't know if this holds true today.

Can you show that it holds true today?

Even Adam Back said in 2015 we should be having bigger blocks.

"Questioning" the 1mb limit isn't the right word -- its totally clear that the limit is ludicrous.  Go to r/btc , the uncensored bitcoin redit,
and you'll find nearly everyone agrees.

Stop playing dumb.

[minifrij]

Go to r/btc , the uncensored bitcoin redit,
and you'll find nearly everyone agrees.

Uncensored or not, r/btc (as with every other Bitcoin subreddit it seems) is a hive mind of anti-segwit big blocks. Just like this, for somewhat fair analysis, r/bitcoin is also a hive mind for pro-segwit pro-blockstream.

Telling someone to go to r/btc to find that big blocks are good is like telling someone to go to an alcoholics anonymous meeting to find drinking is bad.


Either way this topic has gotten very off it's original track. I don't think that people's opinions of the bitcoin scaling scenario is relevant to whether Lauda was in line leaving their feedback.

[jonald_fyookball]

Go to r/btc , the uncensored bitcoin redit,
and you'll find nearly everyone agrees.

Uncensored or not, r/btc (as with every other Bitcoin subreddit it seems) is a hive mind of anti-segwit big blocks. Just like this, for somewhat fair analysis, r/bitcoin is also a hive mind for pro-segwit pro-blockstream.

Telling someone to go to r/btc to find that big blocks are good is like telling someone to go to an alcoholics anonymous meeting to find drinking is bad.

Agree 100%.  Hashpower is the least spoofable method and that's how Bitcoin works.