Poll: Has Theymos been hacked or hijacked?

[johnscoin]

Theymos, I know how many Bitcoiners have been banned by you in Reddit for opposing UASF, how many posts have been hidden by you for supporting SegWit2X, let alone UAHF. You have done the worst thing that the enemies of Bitcoin were expected to do.

I really doubt if you are still the "theymos" in 2010. I spent much time reading old posts, and you were ever polite and respectful to different opinions. How did you become so arrogant and reckless?

PS: It looks that this forum only allows posts to defame miners and people who disagree with current Core, with or without lies. And if you debunk such misinformation or propaganda, your post will be moved to trash sub-forum quickly. Only posts fitting admin's narrative will last. A textbook example of "censorship".

[1713933201]

1713933201

[1713933201]

1713933201

[luv2drnkbr]

The thing you have to understand about the ardent small-blockers is that they really genuinely believe they are protecting Bitcoin from a very real existential threat.  If Bitcoin's security properties get diminished, there's no going back, no undoes or fixing the problem.  It is a permanent change that irreparably weakens Bitcoin.  What you view as overly zealous conservatism they view as appropriate caution given the risks involved.  Now, I happen to think even given the risks that they are overly conservative, and I support a hard fork blocksize increase... but I don't begrudge them for sticking to their guns when from their point of view, they are defending Bitcoin's very existence from what they perceive as a very real threat that might destroy Bitcoin.

[johnscoin]

The thing you have to understand about the ardent small-blockers is that they really genuinely believe they are protecting Bitcoin from a very real existential threat.  If Bitcoin's security properties get diminished, there's no going back, no undoes or fixing the problem.  It is a permanent change that irreparably weakens Bitcoin.  What you view as overly zealous conservatism they view as appropriate caution given the risks involved.  Now, I happen to think even given the risks that they are overly conservative, and I support a hard fork blocksize increase... but I don't begrudge them for sticking to their guns when from their point of view, they are defending Bitcoin's very existence from what they perceive as a very real threat that might destroy Bitcoin.

Thank you for your heartwarming comment.

I thought so, and I appreciated their opinion even when I believed it was wrong...Until one day I realized that they had played too dirty and too reckless.


Satoshi predicted that there would be only mining farms that mine BTC, Satoshi predicted there would be only specialists who run nodes and finally data centers. And Satoshi was okay with it, so did every Bitcoiner including Theymos back then. We followed Satoshi's vision and walked here. Why suddenly all these predictions are dismissed as "centralization"?


If there is any constitution, that shall be Satoshi's vision and Bitcoin Paper. Why dismissing the whole constitution without any consensus? Why forcing the community by censorship and propaganda? If they have shown any sincerity or been honest, I would not have begrudged them even if I disagreed with them. But what I saw were only self-contrary lies and indifference.

Anyway, I hope I am wrong. I hope one day Blockstream, current Core and Theymos prove us that we are all wrong and they are the ones who really want Bitcoin to succeed. But TBH, I don't believe it at all.

[The One]

The thing you have to understand about the ardent small-blockers is that they really genuinely believe they are protecting Bitcoin from a very real existential threat.  If Bitcoin's security properties get diminished, there's no going back, no undoes or fixing the problem.  It is a permanent change that irreparably weakens Bitcoin.  What you view as overly zealous conservatism they view as appropriate caution given the risks involved.  Now, I happen to think even given the risks that they are overly conservative, and I support a hard fork blocksize increase... but I don't begrudge them for sticking to their guns when from their point of view, they are defending Bitcoin's very existence from what they perceive as a very real threat that might destroy Bitcoin.

Irrational fear. They just want the fees to go up and drive users off-chain onto LN controlled by outside centralised entities.

[krishnapramod]

The thing you have to understand about the ardent small-blockers is that they really genuinely believe they are protecting Bitcoin from a very real existential threat.  If Bitcoin's security properties get diminished, there's no going back, no undoes or fixing the problem.  It is a permanent change that irreparably weakens Bitcoin.  What you view as overly zealous conservatism they view as appropriate caution given the risks involved.  Now, I happen to think even given the risks that they are overly conservative, and I support a hard fork blocksize increase... but I don't begrudge them for sticking to their guns when from their point of view, they are defending Bitcoin's very existence from what they perceive as a very real threat that might destroy Bitcoin.

Irrational fear. They just want the fees to go up and drive users off-chain onto LN controlled by outside centralised entities.

IMO the current bitcoin mining operation is centralized by the likes of Bitmain and some mining pools. As far as I have read, LN would lower the fee a lot, off-chain transactions would lead to more user privacy, and exchanges would not be prone to hackers. Payment channels/hubs getting centralized is a possibility, you would need a lot of revenue backup to operate hubs and some big players like Coinbase would dominate, but the same thing is happening now. Hard fork is not backwards compatible, and with the rate bitcoin is getting adopted increasing blocksize would be a temporary solution, what happens when limit is reached, another hard fork? Segwit alone is not a scaling solution, LN is. If it could be said that LN would lead to centralization then it is not wrong to say that bigger blocks would lead to centralization simply because only a few miners would be able to afford to run full nodes, centralized entities.

As a user, I do not see why not LN. I am not against bigger blocks, but LN could be the permanent scaling solution. Using temporary solutions and letting bitcoin users go through periods of uncertainty would be bad to the community as a whole. The prolonged scaling debate and increased fee has already affected bitcoin, alts have increased in value during this time, continuing this would be illogical.

[franky1]

IMO the current bitcoin mining operation is centralized by the likes of Bitmain and some mining pools. As far as I have read, LN would lower the fee a lot, off-chain transactions would lead to more user privacy, and exchanges would not be prone to hackers. Payment channels/hubs getting centralized is a possibility, you would need a lot of revenue backup to operate hubs and some big players like Coinbase would dominate, but the same thing is happening now. Hard fork is not backwards compatible, and with the rate bitcoin is getting adopted increasing blocksize would be a temporary solution, what happens when limit is reached, another hard fork? Segwit alone is not a scaling solution, LN is. If it could be said that LN would lead to centralization then it is not wrong to say that bigger blocks would lead to centralization simply because only a few miners would be able to afford to run full nodes, centralized entities.

As a user, I do not see why not LN. I am not against bigger blocks, but LN could be the permanent scaling solution. Using temporary solutions and letting bitcoin users go through periods of uncertainty would be bad to the community as a whole. The prolonged scaling debate and increased fee has already affected bitcoin, alts have increased in value during this time, continuing this would be illogical.

LN does have a niche.. but if you actually look beyond the utopian propaganda illusion and see it for what it is. its not a solution for everyone. so dont be under the impression that LN is the solution... its just a OPTION.

as for the bigger blocks kills miners.. LOL
miners just use ASICS, which connect to pools.. an ASIC does NOT have a hard drive. an asic does not handle the blockchain, an asic does not validate transactions.
miners dont have any worries about the blockchain. all they get is a few hundred bytes of data. that the asic re-hashes a few trillion times a second and then sends out a solution thats only a few hundred bytes long.. not megabytes, not gigabytes..

as for nodes..
the fact that most dynamic proposals (if using real network consensus) would grow only when the majority of nodes accept such change.. then its not going to cause issues.
what is going to cause bigger node dilution issues is all the prunned/stripped/filter node crap that (using torrent analogy) means there is less seeds of full data for other nodes to leach from

[krishnapramod]

IMO the current bitcoin mining operation is centralized by the likes of Bitmain and some mining pools. As far as I have read, LN would lower the fee a lot, off-chain transactions would lead to more user privacy, and exchanges would not be prone to hackers. Payment channels/hubs getting centralized is a possibility, you would need a lot of revenue backup to operate hubs and some big players like Coinbase would dominate, but the same thing is happening now. Hard fork is not backwards compatible, and with the rate bitcoin is getting adopted increasing blocksize would be a temporary solution, what happens when limit is reached, another hard fork? Segwit alone is not a scaling solution, LN is. If it could be said that LN would lead to centralization then it is not wrong to say that bigger blocks would lead to centralization simply because only a few miners would be able to afford to run full nodes, centralized entities.

As a user, I do not see why not LN. I am not against bigger blocks, but LN could be the permanent scaling solution. Using temporary solutions and letting bitcoin users go through periods of uncertainty would be bad to the community as a whole. The prolonged scaling debate and increased fee has already affected bitcoin, alts have increased in value during this time, continuing this would be illogical.

LN does have a niche.. but if you actually look beyond the utopian propaganda illusion and see it for what it is. its not a solution for everyone. so dont be under the impression that LN is the solution... its just a OPTION.

as for the bigger blocks kills miners.. LOL
miners just use ASICS, which connect to pools.. an ASIC does NOT have a hard drive. an asic does not handle the blockchain, an asic does not validate transactions.
miners dont have any worries about the blockchain. all they get is a few hundred bytes of data. that the asic re-hashes a few trillion times a second and then sends out a solution thats only a few hundred bytes long.. not megabytes, not gigabytes..

as for nodes..
the fact that most dynamic proposals (if using real network consensus) would grow only when the majority of nodes accept such change.. then its not going to cause issues.
what is going to cause bigger node dilution issues is all the prunned/stripped/filter node crap that (using torrent analogy) means there is less seeds of full data for other nodes to leach from

I found one of your old posts.

LN can be considered a bank network.
afterall.. what is a bank

a system where your not in full control of your funds.
the bank can put limits on your spending habits by refusing to authorise transactions
customers require the banks authorisation/agreement.
the only recourse in a disagreement is to close the account

although LN is not a central bank. it is a next gen localised bank. where LN hubs become the new bank branch managers

you can glorify LN as being linked to the open bitcoin network should a customer want to close channel.

but thats just like saying a bank manager of a local bank branch is a glorified accountant supervisor who has no control of SWIFT/cheque clearing house should a customer wish to close their account and take funds elsewhere.

accepting what LN is.. a side option/service. rather then an endgoal solution to bitcoin.. is the way to think about it.
LN has utility for fast action users like satoshidice, faucets, etc. but its not the solution for everyone

No third-party trust: the two peers in a channel pay each other directly using regular Bitcoin transactions (of which only one is broadcast) so at no point does any third party control their funds.

Their earlier version had time locked channels.

Channels can stay open indefinitely: as long as the two parties in the channel continue to cooperate with each other, the channel can stay open indefinitely -- there is no mandatory timeout period. This can further reduce the load on the blockchain as well as allow the fees for opening and closing the channel to be amortized over a longer period of time.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Lightning_Network

I am not arguing with you. You are too well versed in the technical aspects of bitcoin than I ever would be. As far as control of funds is concerned, once a user deposits funds into a channel it is moved to a multi-sig address, smart contract, now only when the user signs that these funds need to be moved or transferred then only it is done, the channel itself cannot do anything without the user signing, right. The channel is just the middleman who does not have any control over the funds.

LN is an open source code, anyone can start a node, but yeah eventually some nodes may become bigger, but still I would not compare it to a bank since you have full control of your funds.

I did not meant that bigger blocks would kill miners, that bigger blocks would lead to less miners running full nodes so in the long run a miner might have control over a substantial amount of hashpower which in turn would make bitcoin more centralized.

[franky1]

Their earlier version had time locked channels.

LN is an open source code, anyone can start a node, but yeah eventually some nodes may become bigger, but still I would not compare it to a bank since you have full control of your funds.

I did not meant that bigger blocks would kill miners, that bigger blocks would lead to less miners running full nodes so in the long run a miner might have control over a substantial amount of hashpower which in turn would make bitcoin more centralized.

issues
1. instead of being your own bank. you have to partner with someone else.  like getting a joint bank account with your spouse. where you need their signature to agree.. if you wanted to find a separate person to pay. you have to find a route to that person involving alot more agreements to be signed just to allow your 'payment' to get to the destination.
thus its not peer to peer direct 'push' transactions.. it relies on other people

2. for LN to work you have to fund a channel. know certain attack vectors it is not advisable to throw your entire btc hoard into a channel. plus most people dont know/predict their spending habits beyond a few weeks so although LN 'could' remain open for eternity the REALITY is people will only use channels for a fortnight/month sessions

3. if people lock in funds to a LN channel. they are no longer going to require looking at the blockchain. because their transactions are being done via LN. so most people will only run a full node once a fortnight/month/once in eternity(lol) just to setup-close a channel... and then turn a bitcoin node off to just run an LN node

4. again miners/blocksizes dont affect each other, its merchants and srious investors that are in the 'run a node' category. not miners

5. but as i said the real reality check is all the methods to prun/strip/filtr blocks so many nodes no longer become full validation archival nodes.. then add on the whole side chain nodes and ln nodes(3) will be the real cause of node dilution

and again to emphasis
6. node network only upgrades to Xmb if the NODES have the code to accept Xmb blocks.. which logically / psychologically means that growth happens naturally at a pace that nodes accept. because the nodes have to accept the rules of a new blocksize for the blocks to be accepts

to further point out(6)
we are no longer in 2009 of raspberry Pi 1 hardware min requirements.. nor the 0.5mb adsl/3g average internet speeds of the last decade.. we are in 2017, with raspberry Pi3 min specs, average internet is 5mb and pushing fast to being fibre/5g...
which is where even core agree that 8mb is safe. even if they try to aimlessly argue there is reasons to keep to 1mb, they are slowly losing their fud war of why 1mb should remain


the best way to think about LN is the niche market that coinbase/shapeshift/xapo currently fill (faucet raiding/day trading/coin swapping). not so much for infrequent/random payments to differing people sporadically

[25hashcoin]

The thing you have to understand about the ardent small-blockers is that they really genuinely believe they are protecting Bitcoin from a very real existential threat. 

Yeah... sure.... https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/636410827969421312

More like big money from AXA/Blockstream stepped in and "corrected" their way of thinking.

[squatz1]

The thing you have to understand about the ardent small-blockers is that they really genuinely believe they are protecting Bitcoin from a very real existential threat.  If Bitcoin's security properties get diminished, there's no going back, no undoes or fixing the problem.  It is a permanent change that irreparably weakens Bitcoin.  What you view as overly zealous conservatism they view as appropriate caution given the risks involved.  Now, I happen to think even given the risks that they are overly conservative, and I support a hard fork blocksize increase... but I don't begrudge them for sticking to their guns when from their point of view, they are defending Bitcoin's very existence from what they perceive as a very real threat that might destroy Bitcoin.

Yeah, I wouldn't completely destroy someones opinion for doing what they think is right. Even if I, and the quote above me aren't keen on supporting their opinion you have to give it to them for fighting with ALL SIDES in a time where a good amount of people are coming out saying that WE NEED to fix this network.Though, I will have to agree with Theymos and others that I think we're going to have to work out the kinks of a block increase as there's going to be some issues with Bitcoin coming out after it-- I don't think this threat is as serious as they think it is, but I will acknowledge it is also there.

I don't think he's been hacked either, he's just supporting his side and his groups side leave the man be.

[franky1]

The thing you have to understand about the ardent small-blockers is that they really genuinely believe they are protecting Bitcoin from a very real existential threat. 

Yeah... sure.... https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/636410827969421312

More like big money from AXA/Blockstream stepped in and "corrected" their way of thinking.

more like barry silbert who is the big money of bitcoin corrected their way of thinking.

check out barries portfolio
DCG.co
-blockstream

[classicsucks]

The thing you have to understand about the ardent small-blockers is that they really genuinely believe they are protecting Bitcoin from a very real existential threat.  If Bitcoin's security properties get diminished, there's no going back, no undoes or fixing the problem.  It is a permanent change that irreparably weakens Bitcoin. 

Very true.

Ironic, however, because this is precisely many people's opinion about Segwit. 6,000 lines of code that completely alter the blockchain structure, change the transaction format to "anyone can spend", and force the entire bitcoin space to rewrite millions of line of code (exchanges, mobile+hardware wallets, utilities, explorers, etc.)

Of course there won't be any bugs or exploits created along the way [/sarc]

[DooMAD]

And if you debunk such misinformation or propaganda, your post will be moved to trash sub-forum quickly. Only posts fitting admin's narrative will last. A textbook example of "censorship".

If your post is about how the forum is moderated, or the actions of specific person on the forum, that's precisely what the Meta subforum is for.  I wouldn't be surprised if this thread ends up there as well because it's basically a re-hash of your other threads on the matter.  If you want to discuss Bitcoin itself and the wider implications of what effect abuses of position in centralised authority and attempting to dictate the narrative will have on the future of the coin, then you can post it in Bitcoin Discussion.

The thing you have to understand about the ardent small-blockers is that they really genuinely believe they are protecting Bitcoin from a very real existential threat.  If Bitcoin's security properties get diminished, there's no going back, no undoes or fixing the problem.  It is a permanent change that irreparably weakens Bitcoin.  What you view as overly zealous conservatism they view as appropriate caution given the risks involved.  Now, I happen to think even given the risks that they are overly conservative, and I support a hard fork blocksize increase... but I don't begrudge them for sticking to their guns when from their point of view, they are defending Bitcoin's very existence from what they perceive as a very real threat that might destroy Bitcoin.

For what it's worth, even if they do genuinely believe they have the best intentions, I don't see the sense in trying to twist, manipulate or coerce the discussion by sweeping dissenting views under the carpet.  Time and again, this has only proven to strengthen and entrench opposing views and create needless divisions within the community.  It's no wonder we find ourselves in the position we're in when people insist on driving a wedge between the opposing views instead of trying to overcome our differences and find some common ground.  The Reddit split is a prime example and a possible case of foreshadowing, because if Reddit can split into two because no one is willing to budge on their stance, the same can absolutely happen with Bitcoin's protocol itself.  

Either we move forward together, or everyone accepts the consequences of not doing that.