Bitmain-Ver agenda exposed

[classicsucks]

Greg Maxwell thinks UASF BIP148 is nonsense. Everyone on Core think segwit2x is a scam. You are missing the points here. This is an obvious XT/Classic/Unlimited situation. Another hardfork-excuse to fire Core devs. How can you not see this yet? You don't seem new so you must be a troll or just missing the game theory at play.

You have to think a bit critically.

Greg Maxwell says he thinks UASF BIP148 is a scam.

He knows that it has the miners feeling nervous about August 1. And he knows that it moves them closer to Segwit adoption via segwit2x. At this point he doesn't care how Segwit gets adopted, as long as it does. The Core devs pretend to take a hard line, while behind the scenes, they quietly help the other efforts toward "Segwit at any cost".

My opinion is that Segwit2x signalling is a ruse, and support will be dropped and/nor never come at the key moment when it is supposed to activate. There is no guarantee of the "hard fork in 3 months", and the miners are not stupid enough to get bitten by the "bait and switch" false promise of a future blocksize increase again.

[1715035361]

1715035361

[1715035361]

1715035361

[1715035361]

1715035361

[1715035361]

1715035361

[1715035361]

1715035361

[classicsucks]

I am still not able to see how can one pinpoint a spam attack to someone or an entity or even prove successfully that there was a spam attack.

Well, you could start by searching for "spam" on the forum... it's well-documented in several threads that I'm too lazy to find right now. Here's an address in the blockchain that was spammed to hell: https://blockchain.info/address/3QQB6AWxaga6wTs6Xwq8FYppgrGinGu15f

The transactions are invalid and serve no purpose other than to clog the mempool.

I've asked this many times on the forum and haven't got any answer, and I will ask again, since this thread has everything to do with it: why would people supporting a block size increase spam the network? That's counter productive. These people want bigger blocks because the 1MB ones we have are congested enough. Spamming the network will congest these blocks further. So people wanting a less congestioned Bitcoin are going to spam it? Makes no sense to me.

Of course, the people pushing Segwit are the ones who stood to gain from the mempool spam, by herding people into the Segwit solution because of the high fees and unconfirmed transactions that resulted in the mempool spam. There is no hard evidence yet, but the circumstantial evidence is strong...

#2 Block size was never the issue, the real problem was nefarious activity which couldn't be classified as legitimate user behavior.

Dear god... reality denial is strong in this one...

[25hashcoin]

Surely the insane price action had nothing to do with it. </sarcasm>

Talk about a reach OP. Bitmain and Ver are pro Satoshis vision. The only anti bitcoin agenda is Blockstream and Core.

[HabBear]

Sorry, no hard forks for you.

Give us one reason why expanding the transaction throughput size (as has been done in the past) should not happen again, now?

Are you against bitcoin being used as a currency? Do you have a big position in Litecoin, Dash, or Monero and hope that Bitcoin will die so your preferred alt will flourish?

And segwit seems to open a lot of risk if we're going to separate the actual transaction from the thing that verifies the who, what, and when of the transaction.

No response from anyone? That's what I thought. It doesn't have to be a fork. When everyone realizes that scaling is required to keep Bitcoin from becoming antiquated technology, becoming expensive and slow like it's fiat-based payments system Father it will cease to be called "a fork"...and instead it'll just be called "the way".

Still waiting for reasons against scaling, if anyone has any. Let's talk.

[Wind_FURY]

lol

segwit2x = barry silbert

barry silbert = blockstream puppet master. all barry wants is segwit activated ASAP, all spam+propaganda leads back to barry even the tx spam that started when core bips "needed" to be pushed,

check out the mempool spam accelerate in october-november 2016.. oh and a spike around the june '16 period the other core bip needed some attention..

and if you dont think that barry is a puppetmaster. go check out his portfolio of companies he has OWNERSHIP stake in
http://dcg.co/portfolio/
blockstream
coinbase
BTCC
bloq


people can point fingers in different directions all they like, but if you follow the money and drama, its clear to see the strings

nice try pereira4, but next time you and billy really should stop trying to grasp empty staws from reddit and do some real research

A month or 2 ago I would have disagreed with you. But now the we see how things are going, it could also be Barry Silbert and friends flooding the mempool. I am not saying Roger Ver and Jihan Wu are not involved. All of them are involved at the top, directly or indirectly.

The sad thing is Core is all caught up in the middle and all they want to do is get Segwit activated in the safest way possible through a 95% supported MASF.

[Kakmakr]

I can see how Jihan Wu can profit from a spam attack like this. < higher fees earned, might cancel out the expense to do these attacks > I doubt if Roger Ver will dump money into a black hole like that, but he might be invested in a Mining Pool or he might benefit from the result of the outcome of this scaling debate. < manipulation of the Bitcoin price > The timing of these attacks and the dates when these announcements are made, cannot be a coincidence. ^hmmmmmmm^   

[deisik]

I am still not able to see how can one pinpoint a spam attack to someone or an entity or even prove successfully that there was a spam attack.

I've asked this many times on the forum and haven't got any answer, and I will ask again, since this thread has everything to do with it: why would people supporting a block size increase spam the network? That's counter productive. These people want bigger blocks because the 1MB ones we have are congested enough. Spamming the network will congest these blocks further. So people wanting a less congestioned Bitcoin are going to spam it? Makes no sense to me

I'm curious if you really don't see the forest for the trees

The answer is rather straightforward, and that's likely the reason why no one wants to explain it to you. Your mistake is that you already implicitly assume that these transactions are spam (though you yourself voice concerns if it is really so, which, to me, is a bit hypocritical). But even in this thread people are seriously questioning (let's assume for a moment that they are sincere) if these transactions are really spammy. So if you don't know anything about spam transactions, you see the network overflown with transactions, and take everything at its face-value (say, that Bitcoin is quickly expanding), your first impulse would be to increase the block size for procuring more space where to fit all these transactions

[pereira4]

More spam from the department on Advanced Verconomics:



Bitmain gets all that mining revenue due their mining monopoly and ASICBOOST cheap, they mine empty blocks too, and when they want to spam they re-invest some to spam the network. A nice wheel of perpetual machine to scare noobs into supporting JarzikCoin.

Sorry, not going to work. Segwit2x hardfork is already dead, they are wasting money (again).

Surely the insane price action had nothing to do with it. </sarcasm>

Talk about a reach OP. Bitmain and Ver are pro Satoshis vision. The only anti bitcoin agenda is Blockstream and Core.

hi Roger.

[pereira4]

I am still not able to see how can one pinpoint a spam attack to someone or an entity or even prove successfully that there was a spam attack.

I've asked this many times on the forum and haven't got any answer, and I will ask again, since this thread has everything to do with it: why would people supporting a block size increase spam the network? That's counter productive. These people want bigger blocks because the 1MB ones we have are congested enough. Spamming the network will congest these blocks further. So people wanting a less congestioned Bitcoin are going to spam it? Makes no sense to me.

#2 Block size was never the issue, the real problem was nefarious activity which couldn't be classified as legitimate user behavior.

Block size is and will be an issue (this doesn't mean that SegWit or DDoS is irrelevant)

Have you not understood anything yet?

This is a fight for power, they don't give a shit about the blocksize, fees or anything else. They've found that they can spam the network in order to push a hardfork developed by developers under their control (Jeff Garzik and the other devs are Bitmain-sponsored). This is all about kicking Core out to put Bitmain/Ver-bribed goons. Stop believing into the fake narrative of BTC needing an urgent blocksize increase when it's evident that's bullshit and start looking at what's actually going on.

[BitcoinNewsMagazine]

We will know within two weeks if miners move to btc1 as planned. Kind of hard to miss that much hash power switching over to a different client.

[pereira4]

We will know within two weeks if miners move to btc1 as planned. Kind of hard to miss that much hash power switching over to a different client.

Miners will not move, and exchanges will not risk massive losses on clients due a potential bug in the rushed out software. Jeff Garzik has failed once again to deliver solid code, the whole planning is a rushed mess, it has no substance, it's stupid, we don't need a blocksize increase in a matter on months in the dumbest way possible, this is empirical facts against nonsense. Therefore the logical conclusion is that they just want to fire Core, and this is their opportunity to do it, but what they don't know is, they have fucked for life, everyone involved in segwit2x is blacklisted on bitcoin for life.