A conspiracy against Bitcoin?

[Wind_FURY]

Or should I say, a "conspiracy theory?". Hahaha. Tinfoil hats on.

This topic should be fun to discuss, especially for some of us that came here to learn about Bitcoin during the small blocks, big blocks "scalability debate". I used to believe that Core should compromise, and hard fork to 2mb block sizes! What did I know, I was a newbie. Haha!

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1091099725925888000.html

Did you know: Between 2010 and 2013 former Mike Hearn, then a tech lead at Google’s offices in Zurich, Switzerland, designed a security system that was later tapped by the NSA and GCHQ. The Snowden leaks revealed the existence of the surveillance taps in late 2013.

Did you know: Craig S Wright a.k.a. Faketoshi works with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on tracking users etc?

Did you know: Gavin Andresen worked with the CIA, explaining details on bitcoin etc?

Now what was the one thing Mike Hearn, Craig Wright and Gavin Andresen were pushing in bitcoin ... and why?

Big Blocks .. because that undermines Bitcoin's P2P / decentralized nature, and forces Bitcoin back onto a central server that can be easily controlled and/or taken down (as indeed happened with some Bitcoin predecessors, and many altcoins like Ethereum/Infura, Ripple etc).

Opinions?

[1715183819]

1715183819

[1715183819]

1715183819

[franky1]

funny thing

those against scaling BITCOIN
are the ones that want users to not use the bitcoin network, and instead lock funds up to custodians and pay fee's for payments on a different network that are not immutable and not guaranteed to be immutable
and where the fee's for actual bitcoin transactions are going to be high enough to sway people to not want to settle bitcoin transactions, but instead convert to altcoins..

seems the OP of this topic is pushing too hard to try making it sound like scaling bitcoin should be avoided
pretty sad the depths that those who dont want bitcoin to scale will go to

but here is the subtle point th OP just admitted to. thinking that "core should compromise".. which is his mindset saying to himself that he knows and justifies that core CONTROL the changes

what he next will admit is how the main devs of core are actually partners with the names mentioned in his conspiracy
follow the money

DCG -> bloq -> gavinA
DCG -> blockstream -> main core devs
DCG -> bitcoinj -> hearne
DCG -> blockchain -> BCH - > craig
DCG -> blockstream -> hyperledger (governments crypto project)
hyperledger -> hearne

[OmegaStarScream]

funny thing

those against scaling BITCOIN
are the ones that want users to not use the bitcoin network, and instead lock funds up to custodians and pay fee's for payments on a different network that are not immutable and not guaranteed to be immutable
and where the fee's for actual bitcoin transactions are going to be high enough to sway people to not want to settle bitcoin transactions, but instead convert to altcoins..

seems the OP of this topic is pushing too hard to try making it sound like scaling bitcoin should be avoided
pretty sad the depths that those who dont want bitcoin to scale will go to

but here is the subtle point th OP just admitted to. thinking that "core should compromise".. which is his mindset saying to himself that he knows and justifies that core CONTROL the changes

what he next will admit is how the main devs of core are actually partners with the names mentioned in his conspiracy
follow the money

DCG -> bloq -> gavinA
DCG -> blockstream -> main core devs
DCG -> bitcoinj -> hearne
DCG -> blockchain -> BCH - > craig
DCG -> blockstream -> hyperledger (governments crypto project)
hyperledger -> hearne

The core developers seem to be motivated by passion and not by money, just from looking at their presentations, proposals and the effort they put.

DCG is? Digital Currency Group? I just googled and apparently, they were founded in 2015. So before that, what was happening in your opinion?

I'm really interested in knowing your thoughts because you seem to have something against them or a lot of stuff they do, and lightning network etc.

[NeuroticFish]

Well, if we go in this direction, Bitcoin is already the Facebook of finances(*) because of its pseudo-anonymous nature and because the exchanges now use KYC and because most people are not careful with the addresses they use..
And LN will clearly make it worse.

And sorry Franky1, but I don't think that bigger blocks would help much in this matter. The damage is already done.
People don't use mixers much (maybe they fear they may get linked with criminals?), anon coins are still considered "low rank" even between altcoins, so.. not a great image.

What would be the solution?
One direction would be pushing wallets that already mix the coins.
Another (better imho) direction would be to implement inside Bitcoin something to increase the levels of privacy / anonymity.


The fact that these directions are not too much pushed could be seen very bad in a conspiracy theory. (But I hope the not so far future will give us nice surprises in this direction.)
On the other hand, Bitcoin was never fast in taking "next" development steps, so the non-conspirationists can have good reasons too.
Most probably the truth is somewhere in the middle



(*) you know that many call FB the greatest surveillance tool ever invented and people post their things by themselves!!

[Wind_FURY]

funny thing

those against scaling BITCOIN
are the ones that want users to not use the bitcoin network, and instead lock funds up to custodians and pay fee's for payments on a different network that are not immutable and not guaranteed to be immutable
and where the fee's for actual bitcoin transactions are going to be high enough to sway people to not want to settle bitcoin transactions, but instead convert to altcoins..

seems the OP of this topic is pushing too hard to try making it sound like scaling bitcoin should be avoided
pretty sad the depths that those who dont want bitcoin to scale will go to

"Scaling Bitcoin". You mean to say "hard fork to big blocks"? I already told you that there are trade-offs. Bigger blocks are inherently centralizing.

but here is the subtle point th OP just admitted to. thinking that "core should compromise".. which is his mindset saying to himself that he knows and justifies that core CONTROL the changes

Did I say that ? Haha. No, I said I was stupid enough to believe that Core should have compromised to 2mb blocks. I listened to the wrong people.

what he next will admit is how the main devs of core are actually partners with the names mentioned in his conspiracy
follow the money

Partners? No, let me show you.

DCG -> bloq -> gavinA

For big blocks. Centralizing.

DCG -> blockstream -> main core devs

For small blocks. Maintain decentralization.

DCG -> bitcoinj -> hearne

For big blocks. Centralizing.

DCG -> blockchain -> BCH - > craig

For big blocks. Centralizing.

DCG -> blockstream -> hyperledger (governments crypto project)
hyperledger -> hearne

Centralized ledger.

For big blocks. Centralizing.

Plus DCG has invested in many things despite some companies being in competition with one another.



Let's go back to the topic of conspiracy which you might be derailing.

To quote, "Now what was the one thing Mike Hearn, Craig Wright and Gavin Andresen were pushing in bitcoin, and why?

Big Blocks .. because that undermines Bitcoin's P2P / decentralized nature, and forces Bitcoin back onto a central server that can be easily controlled and/or taken down"

[davis196]

Awesome "infographics" including all those crypto companies.Very informative stuff.
I really didn't knew that Wright,Andersen and Hearn have worked for the CIA/DHS.I'm not really into their biographies.Perhaps the original Satoshi Nakamoto was a CIA agent too,but he refused to follow orders and created bitcoin,which leads to his death(maybe?).

[franky1]

"Scaling Bitcoin". You mean to say "hard fork to big blocks"? I already told you that there are trade-offs. Bigger blocks are inherently centralizing.

Big Blocks .. because that undermines Bitcoin's P2P / decentralized nature, and forces Bitcoin back onto a central server that can be easily controlled and/or taken down"[/b]

1a. scaling bitcoin is about bitcoin not other networks(LN)
1b. scaling bitcoin is NOT about jumping to "gigabytes by midnight" to cause "central server".. its about scaling. meaning progressive step by step growth. such as the 0.25mb, 0.5mb, 0.75mb, 1mb SCALING that occured before core decidd 1mb was enough and halted SCALING
(and dont pretend scaling continued because with witness scale factor=4 means we still have legacy at 1mb and transaction counts have not surpassed the 600k level known about since 2010 of what a 1mb limit implies)

2a. here is your mindset "gaslighting" scaling with FUD of "bigblocks". firstly many many many of the community compromised down to a scale of 2mb. but CORE's actions with their centralised control of the code pushed off any opposers to segwit1x because core only wanted legacy at 1mb. core only had 35% vote for segwit1x. but instead of core compromising to 2x or something else. they instead done controversial tactics to push opposers off the network to fake approval vote of segwit1x

2b. the whole social drama around hearne, gavin, and the others was just that, social drama. all in an affort to sway people away from wanting diversity and to blindly accept a central control of the code. by trying to convince people diversity on the network was bad.

2c. the NYA agreement of 2017's version of segwit2x (not the 2015 segwit2mb).. the 2x was just social drama to again try to attain more people to atleast accept segwit. and then slam down the 2x part as soon as they got enough 'vote' to get segwit active

i find it truly funny how you and your buddies keep thinking that scaling bitcoin is a "gigabytes by midnight" concept. when the reality of such is all just a ploy to centralise the code to a group that DCG can manage so that the DCG portfolio can get their commercial network(LN) so that businesses can get income from a crypto payment system

i also find it funny how the roadmap of core had been laid out to cause a fee war and make it appear that blockchains are not successful and only LN is the solution.

seriously do your research
gavin and all the rest are all in it together and paid by the same group. it was all just one big 3 sea-shell game of distractions

but if you really think that scaling bitcoin (progressively) is bad and you think it will lead to a central server. then you are definetly stuck with the wrong information being echo'd into your ear.

if you really think the internet cannot cope with a few mb every 10minutes. then go tell that to the hundreds of internet businesses that billions of people use alot to upload. such as twitch, online gaming, skype facetime, facebook. where users can happily upload and download more than you think.

statistics show that the internet average for the world is not dial-up and hard drive capacities are not floppy disks. so if you want to exaggerate to pretend your "gigabyte by midnight central server" mindset has a point. atleast back it up with stats that show that scaling (to atleast move passed the 600k tx a day legacy limit) has actually some legitimacy in staying at 600k a day.
if your only rebuttal is about the linear sigops issue.. guess what. solution is to not let transactions have thousands of sigops
yep thats right core actually allow a block to be filled with just 5tx of bloated sigops.. reduce the limit to being around a limit to allow atleast 1000tx instead of 5 means that less sigops per tx can be performed = no sigops problem


but to get to the topic
it was jsut social drama distraction to sway people into accepting a centralised controller of the protocol so that commercial networks can be implemented and push people off bitcoins network that dont want commercial networks.

P.S if your admiration and defense of this group is purely in spirit of hopes that one day you will get to have some income stream from running a LN hub... sorry. but you might want to look at the infographic you provided to see who will be the ones actually running the factories, hubs and watchtowers and getting the income to repay DCG
remember blockstream are inDEBT to DCG to a tune of many millions. they really needed to push for making bitcoin compatible with LN so that they can start giving DCG returns on investment. this is why the devs paid by investors have been so loud to say that blockchains cant scale/dont work and how non blockchains are are future... (so that goes against your pretense that devs love bitcoin, when devs have been pushing against bitcoin and for alternative networks)

[Wind_FURY]

words

Ok franky1, you have the right to your own opinion, I respect them. But we have already debated about everything in that post, you can believe in whatever you like. I will not engage to derail this topic. Next time maybe.

[pooya87]

I used to believe that Core should compromise, and hard fork to 2mb block sizes! What did I know, I was a newbie. Haha!

i honestly don't understand how you made that conclusion based on the things you mentioned here!
basically you are saying that because the people who support a proposal might have been dishonest that makes the proposal bad! so technically if someday Roger Ver publicly announces that Segregated Witness is one of the best proposals of all time, you must dump bitcoin and get out because a dishonest person supported a certain proposal!
well that mentality doesn't make any sense to me.

with that said i still support the 2 MB hard fork aka the SegWit2x proposal and don't give a shit who started it. and am still against the exaggerated hard forks to much bigger blocks that BCH hard fork was proposing and similarly don't give a shit who started it.
and i do believe that eventually we have to also increase the block size if we want things such as LN to work. but before that we hopefully get other things such as Schnorr and signature aggregation to squeeze as much scaling as possible out of the current 4 MB block weight.

p.s. remember that you are only a newbie if you blindly follow a herd just because the social media tells you to. the code is law, the rest like reddit is just noise.

[Kakmakr]

Mike Hearn is definitely connected to some government agency, because we saw the code that they wanted to sneak in as part of the Bitcoin XT fork. <The Core team highlighted it and it was quickly removed>

Gavin was not working for these government agencies, but he was ordered to come to their offices to explain the technology. I cannot guarantee that they might have recruited him during that session or that he was forced to help them. <Getting some promise that he would not be prosecuted for his involvement in Bitcoin, when they found out who Satoshi was.>

Do you have a source for the statement that Craig S Wright worked for the Department of Homeland Security?

 

[Wind_FURY]

I used to believe that Core should compromise, and hard fork to 2mb block sizes! What did I know, I was a newbie. Haha!

i honestly don't understand how you made that conclusion based on the things you mentioned here!
basically you are saying that because the people who support a proposal might have been dishonest that makes the proposal bad! so technically if someday Roger Ver publicly announces that Segregated Witness is one of the best proposals of all time, you must dump bitcoin and get out because a dishonest person supported a certain proposal!
well that mentality doesn't make any sense to me.

I told you, I listened to the wrong people in the forum, and I was a newbie. Segwit is the compromise.

If someday Roger Ver publicly announces he supports Segwit? Then I would say he saw the light. Welcome back Mr. Ver.

with that said i still support the 2 MB hard fork aka the SegWit2x proposal and don't give a shit who started it. and am still against the exaggerated hard forks to much bigger blocks that BCH hard fork was proposing and similarly don't give a shit who started it.
and i do believe that eventually we have to also increase the block size if we want things such as LN to work. but before that we hopefully get other things such as Schnorr and signature aggregation to squeeze as much scaling as possible out of the current 4 MB block weight.

p.s. remember that you are only a newbie if you blindly follow a herd just because the social media tells you to. the code is law, the rest like reddit is just noise.

You support the group behind the NYA which tried to undermine the community? Ok, that's no problem for me, it failed at any rate.

But let's get back on the conspiracy theory of Gavin, Faketosi, and Mike Hearn's push for big blocks. Is there a probability that their objective was to undermine Bitcoin's decentralization?

P.S. Yes, I was a newbie. I know better now. A hard fork to bigger blocks will amputate the network of nodes, it will split it because it would never have consensus, plus big blocks are inherently centralizing. Segwit is the compromise.

[franky1]

seeing as how the OP is just interested in social drama distractions.

hearn worked for google.. and it was google that sold certain apps to 3lettr agencies
guess who else worked for google.. pieter wuille (Mr. segwit)

[Wind_FURY]

seeing as how the OP is just interested in social drama distractions.

hearn worked for google.. and it was google that sold certain apps to 3lettr agencies

Wants big blocks.

Conspiracy theory. He might want it to undermine Bitcoin's decentralized, and make easier to control, take down.

guess who else worked for google.. pieter wuille (Mr. segwit)

For maintaining small blocks.

Wants to preserve Bitcoin's decentralized nature, and make it hard to control, take down.

[franky1]

You support the group behind the NYA which tried to undermine the community?

not to confuse the 2015 segwit2mb... with the 2017 segwit2x

the 2017 segwit2x which was promoted by DCG (NYA as you call it) was just a false flag. false choice. purely done to make people believe that there was an option to increase legacy on bitcoins mainnet.. but only if they allow segwit(1x) acceptance first

the reality was that 2x would never actually have got adopted as core designed and implemented code to REKT it as soon as segwit(x1) got its threshold
(go ask your buddy doomad for the link to the code. he is dead proud of cores(blockstram devs) efforts and was happy to advocate and promote his adoration for that agenda)

[franky1]

hearn. wanted to offer different brands of full nodes
bitcoinj, bitcoin XT = diversity and decentralisation

hearn. wanted to offer blocks that would allow more transactions on the bitcoin network bitcoin growth/scaling

....
Pieter wuille wanted a new TX format that would:
allow people to lock funds up with a counterparty, thus reduce self control(more centralisation of funds)
push people off the network and into other networks

but hey. you will ignore that as you just want to talk about social drama, not reality of WHO wants centralisation

[squatter]

Did you know: Craig S Wright a.k.a. Faketoshi works with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on tracking users etc?

The Hearn connection is understandable -- probably more so related to his work at Google than his work on Bitcoin stuff. The Gavin Andresen / CIA conspiracies have been around for years; we know he talked to the CIA.

The Faketoshi thing came out of left field, though. Is there a real source for this? Any details on what he actually did for DHS?

guess who else worked for google.. pieter wuille (Mr. segwit)

Source?

[pooya87]

If someday Roger Ver publicly announces he supports Segwit? Then I would say he saw the light. Welcome back Mr. Ver.

then you would be changing your whole ideology!

You support the group behind the NYA which tried to undermine the community? Ok, that's no problem for me, it failed at any rate.

i don't support any groups, i support proposals. if we start supporting "groups" then we are effectively centralizing bitcoin to that group. it doesn't matter who they are and what they have done so far.  you have to check the code itself.
i don't claim to be an expert though. but with little knowledge that i have i checked out different proposals regardless of who started them. to my understanding the hard fork to 8 MB (BCH) was the worst and SegWit fork was the best although it has its own downsides too.
additionally i do believe that a hard fork to increase the block size itself is requires. we may not need it now, as i said hopefully we get other things such as Schnorr before that but eventually it needs to happen.

But let's get back on the conspiracy theory of Gavin, Faketosi, and Mike Hearn's push for big blocks. Is there a probability that their objective was to undermine Bitcoin's decentralization?

i agree the possibility exists but my whole point is that you should not reject or accept any proposal based on who proposed it. if you start doing it then YOU are centralizing bitcoin to that group. in other words you should do:
- accept SegWit if you understand the implications of it, not because core team proposed it
- reject hard fork to X MB blocks if you understand the implications of it not because people you named here were pushing for it.

[bitbunnny]

seeing as how the OP is just interested in social drama distractions.

hearn worked for google.. and it was google that sold certain apps to 3lettr agencies
guess who else worked for google.. pieter wuille (Mr. segwit)

This might look to have some connection and deeper cause but honesty I don't believe in conspiracy theories. It's true that such theories are something that follow Bitcoin from the very beginning but to my opinion they are only excuse for some things that can't be explained or justified on any other way, especialy those bad ones.

[Wind_FURY]

Did you know: Craig S Wright a.k.a. Faketoshi works with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on tracking users etc?

The Hearn connection is understandable -- probably more so related to his work at Google than his work on Bitcoin stuff. The Gavin Andresen / CIA conspiracies have been around for years; we know he talked to the CIA.

The Faketoshi thing came out of left field, though. Is there a real source for this? Any details on what he actually did for DHS?

He tweeted about it,



Go to the link posted in the OP. The complete version is there.

[poptok1]

-snip- but honesty I don't believe in conspiracy theories.

You can't be serious about that statement. So you are claiming that never, nowhere, under any circumstances no group of influential and powerful people met secretly, to plot a scheme designed to strengthen their position of power? C'mon it would be naive to think that way. As long as some form of power centres exist, there will be people who plot how to influence it for their own benefit. History is full of plots, pop-culture even "higher" types of entertainment, heavily depend on conspiracy cliches.

As to this particular thesis... kinda lacking under evidence department. Definitely justified to keep an wary eye though.
  

[squatter]

He tweeted about it,



Go to the link posted in the OP. The complete version is there.

Okay, "working with DHS on tracking users" sounded quite a bit more involved than that.

In any case, I was hoping for something a bit more reliable than Wright tweeting about himself. The guy seems like a narcissist. Many of things he lays claim to -- including being Satoshi -- are fabrications that only exist to massage his ego. I don't see why this would be any different. I assume 90% of what comes out of his mouth are lies.

[franky1]

anyway

gavin and hearns XT was not a mandated activation force.. it was a try it or dont open choice
gavins classic was not a mandated activation force.. it was a try it or dont open choice
hearns XT and bitcoinj was not a mandated activation force.. it was a try it or dont open choice
vers unlimited  was not a mandated activation force.. it was a try it or dont open choice
craig wright wrote no code and was not actually a bitcoin influencer(he was just a scammer)
the NYA sw2x was a false option to accept sw1x and then by default remove 2x

in short. social drama distractions purely to sway people into wanting core centralism, whether they knew it or not

[DooMAD]

the reality was that 2x would never actually have got adopted as core designed and implemented code to REKT it as soon as segwit(x1) got its threshold

And don't forget the part where the /btc1 devs pulled the plug in November 2017.  It's kinda hard for forks to gain adoption if the devs abandon them completely.  Another potential barrier to adoption is if your chain potentially stalls at block 494782 because there was a bug and there weren't nearly enough people testing the code to notice.  But yeah, definitely all Core's fault again.    

Keep in mind, I'm saying this as someone who supported SegWit2x as a viable option.  I was genuinely interested in seeing how it was going to unfold with what looked to be a looming three-way fork and believed SegWit2x had the potential to outperform BCH in terms of market share and overall usage.  But ultimately, I recognise there wasn't adequate support from non-mining nodes and there's little doubt it would have been more centralised.  Perhaps in future, this may change.  You might call it "REKT", but some might call it "users not feeling comfortable being pressured into a change they didn't support".  It's all a matter of perspective and opinion.  But the one thing that should be abundantly clear by this point is that supporters of SegWit2x failed to present a convincing enough argument (and also working code, but that's beside the point).

You support the group behind the NYA which tried to undermine the community? Ok, that's no problem for me, it failed at any rate.

i don't support any groups, i support proposals. if we start supporting "groups" then we are effectively centralizing bitcoin to that group. it doesn't matter who they are and what they have done so far.  you have to check the code itself.
i don't claim to be an expert though. but with little knowledge that i have i checked out different proposals regardless of who started them.

My stance is pretty similar.  It's difficult to find a way to summarise it succinctly.  Beyond what you've said, I'd add that there's a balance to be struck between supporting proposals that we might personally agree with, but not getting so attached to them that it potentially clouds our judgement to the fact that other users may be unlikely to accept that proposal because it potentially hampers their own usage and needs.  

People can certainly try to argue that "no change" could be hampering their usage and needs when it comes to topics like throughput, but if you can't get what you want without taking away what other people already have (and deem valuable, like decentralisation), it shouldn't come as a surprise when those other people decide that what you want is not very good.  Why should they give up what they have for what you want?

I might, for example, think a given proposal is the greatest thing in the world, but if other users don't agree and won't get behind it because it has a negative impact on them, I then have two options.  Either to respect their choices, go with the flow and accept the current consensus.  Or to take the plunge on a minority fork that then has to fight for survival in the open market.  I might mistakenly believe I have the third option to delay or block a different proposal those other users support by running code that doesn't support it.  But I could potentially find that option fails if those other users deem my code invalid and remove me from their network, which is their right.

If an individual does believe in a proposal strongly enough and there isn't wide support for it, they might suddenly find the need to be willing and prepared to move forward as a fork without expecting to somehow inherit BTC's userbase, hashrate, adoption, etc.  It's not like you can put a gun to the heads of those securing the chain and make them tag along.  It's up to other users if they want to join you or not.  It's strange how often people forget this and just vehemently nail their colours to the mast without compromise.  They think if they shout loudly and often enough that it might change things.  But it doesn't.

[franky1]

the reality was that 2x would never actually have got adopted as core designed and implemented code to REKT it as soon as segwit(x1) got its threshold

And don't forget the part where the /btc1 devs pulled the plug in November 2017.  It's kinda hard for forks to gain adoption if the devs abandon them completely.

need you forget the 2x was dropped in august.. even though the activation wasnt due until atleast november.

2x was a non event of fake choice.. many knew it was not a real viable option, and was just a ruse to simply try to get 1x opposers to accept 1x by saying 2x was an option.. right up to the date that 1x got adopted..

in a different topic u provided the link and you were very loudly proud of their attempts to kill off 2x

Pretty sure I just said I'm not denying that incompatible nodes were disconnected.  Here's the rationale for it.  
....
 I agreed with it then and I agree with it now.

mmhmm.. u agreed that nodes should be disconnected 3 months BEFORE an activation of those nodes bips
mmhmm.. u agreed that nodes should disconnect BTC1  (Segwit2x) nodes 3 months before segwit2x activates

anyway. im done trying to translate ur flip flops. might be worth u doing some research on what bitcoin is all about and how bitcoin was invented to stay away from needing a "core"
and then maybe finally you can decide if ur a flip or a flop. and atleast stick with one narrative

[Wind_FURY]

He tweeted about it,



Go to the link posted in the OP. The complete version is there.

Okay, "working with DHS on tracking users" sounded quite a bit more involved than that.

Hahaha. This is a conspiracy theory.

In any case, I was hoping for something a bit more reliable than Wright tweeting about himself. The guy seems like a narcissist. Many of things he lays claim to -- including being Satoshi -- are fabrications that only exist to massage his ego. I don't see why this would be any different. I assume 90% of what comes out of his mouth are lies.

The point of the topic is "what do Mike Hearn, Gavin Andresen, and Craig Wright have in common, and why?".

Bigger blocks. But why? I know Mike Hearn, and Gavin Andresen understand the ramifications of it on the network, but why were they pushing for it? What was their agenda?

[DooMAD]

And don't forget the part where the /btc1 devs pulled the plug in November 2017.  It's kinda hard for forks to gain adoption if the devs abandon them completely.

need you forget the 2x was dropped in august.. even though the activation wasnt due until atleast november.

Learn to read, FFS.  If I am certain I don't approve of a feature being proposed in an alternative client, I am under no obligation to remain connected to the clients proposing that feature (particularly if remaining connected to them could result in replay attacks).  

How many more times do you need this explained before it is finally absorbed through your dense cranium?  The date on which features are due to activate is immaterial.  If users do not want clients with incompatible proposals connecting to them, there is absolutely nothing you can do about that.  They don't have to wait for a feature to activate in order to disconnect the client proposing it.  What is it with your arbitrary fixation with dates?  No one cares.  It's literally irrelevant.  Doesn't matter in the slightest.  

in a different topic u provided the link and you were very loudly proud of their attempts to kill off 2x

Pretty sure I just said I'm not denying that incompatible nodes were disconnected.  Here's the rationale for it.  
....
 I agreed with it then and I agree with it now.

mmhmm.. u agreed that nodes should be disconnected 3 months BEFORE an activation of those nodes bips
mmhmm.. u agreed that nodes should disconnect BTC1  (Segwit2x) nodes 3 months before segwit2x activates

anyway. im done trying to translate ur flip flops. might be worth u doing some research on what bitcoin is all about and how bitcoin was invented to stay away from needing a "core"
and then maybe finally you can decide if ur a flip or a flop. and atleast stick with one narrative

There is no flip flop.  You are just incapable of understanding what is being explained to you, because you are under the entirely mistaken impression that consensus means only alternative clients can initiate a fork by activating new features.  That belief is not correct.  The other option, which apparently needs to be explained to you a billion times over, is that users can enforce rules that disconnect alternative clients.  To reiterate, clients following current consensus rules can introduce new rules that effectively fork other clients off the network.  That's entirely their prerogative.  Not your call.  Your obsession with dates is as meaningless as the utter drivel you spout in every topic you derail.  Kindly get a clue.

[franky1]

There is no flip flop.  You are just incapable of understanding what is being explained to you, because you are under the entirely mistaken impression that consensus means only alternative clients can initiate a fork by activating new features.

you have no clue
what you dont understand is the usage of throwing nodes off the network before activation is CONTENSIOUS
consensus is about nothing bad happening before activation, and only activating a feature when there is enough majority to AVOID a fork.
consensus is about not using contensious-forks to instigate a activation.


what you dont understand is the in the event of a minority left over AFTER a true consensus activation is not a fork. but a minority STALL. in short the small minority just stop validating blocks. they are not forked to a different network. they just stop relaying

you really do need to learn this stuff..
learn the byzantine generals issue. then look at how it was solved via the invention called bitcoin/blockchain

what your not learning is you strangely think the solution to the byzantine generals problem is about killing off the diverse generals until one leader is left..

seriously learn about consensus, byzantine generals and the real meaning of decentralisation... actually learn why bitcoin was so revolutionary

That belief is not correct.  The other option, which apparently needs to be explained to you a billion times over, is that users can enforce rules that disconnect alternative clients.  To reiterate, clients following current consensus rules can introduce new rules that effectively fork other clients off the network.  That's entirely their prerogative.  Not your call.  Your obsession with dates is as meaningless as the utter drivel you spout in every topic you derail.  Kindly get a clue.

^ that statement i just quoted, is called CONTENTIOUS event. and nothing to do with consensus.
i do not deny that it could happen. i just have been repeatedly informing you that doing contentious forks to bypass/fake a consensus activation, is not what bitcoins purpose was about 2009-2013
the whole point of bitcoins invention and blockchains is to have a system where diversity can come to an agreement without fighting to then progress the rules and without creating an ultimate central leader..

atleast wake up
by the way.. the contentious event such as august first 2017 didnt need "users". it just needed the devs.. particularly the dev in control of the FIBRE network to ensure what information got from the pools through the ring fence of FIBRE to the users, was controlled.
so trying to shift the blame to users. who didnt write a single line of code, nor manually done anything to their node independently, shows that you are too deep into defending devs by shifting the blame.
even your flip flop about "compatibility" proves that users were not to blame.

so before doing anything else. do some research and sort out your flip flops and atleast try to stick with one narrative

[franky1]

as for windfury's theory

knowing bitcoinJ, classic, xt, unlimited, and other diverse nodes had NO contentious code to disrupt anything, because they didnt instigate any contentious event to attempt to inact a false consensus on the bitcoin network.
(no mandated deadlines to throw core off the network pre consensus)

it appears that windfury theory is more about social drama distractions to make people not look at core devs(those who do and have made bitcoin network changes) by trying to get people to discuss social drama of people that didnt cause any actual code controversy, but were part of social controversy

EG scammer craig wright has nothing to do with the bitcoin network (hence why i dont care about CW because he is just some non-influencer and none participant of bitcoin. he is just some social distraction glory hound/scammer, that should be ignored and not talked about)

it also appears that windfuries theory is more about trying to sway people to think diversity is bad because anything thats not core based must be 'nsa' based

yet if we take windfuries theory about hearn (via google) then he also should include wuille (via google) in the same regard

[DooMAD]

what you dont understand is the usage of throwing nodes off the network before activation is CONTENSIOUS

Oh, boo-hoo.  Cry me a river.

consensus is about nothing bad happening before activation, and only activating a feature when there is enough majority to AVOID a fork.
consensus is about not using contensious-forks to instigate a activation.

Consensus is whatever users decide it is.  Your wishful thinking is inconsequential.  It's about what you can enforce in code.  If you can't enforce your wishes in code (and you definitely can't), then you are wasting your time telling us how you'd like it to be.

That belief is not correct.  The other option, which apparently needs to be explained to you a billion times over, is that users can enforce rules that disconnect alternative clients.  To reiterate, clients following current consensus rules can introduce new rules that effectively fork other clients off the network.  That's entirely their prerogative.  Not your call.  Your obsession with dates is as meaningless as the utter drivel you spout in every topic you derail.  Kindly get a clue.

^ that statement i just quoted, is called CONTENTIOUS event. and nothing to do with consensus.
i do not deny that it could happen. i just have been repeatedly informing you that doing contentious forks to bypass/fake a consensus activation, is not what bitcoins purpose was about 2009-2013
the whole point of bitcoins invention and blockchains is to have a system where diversity can come to an agreement without fighting to then progress the rules and without creating an ultimate central leader..

Please quote the part of the whitepaper where it declares the purpose of Bitcoin is to have a bunch of incompatible proposals in a constant state of deadlock, where no one is able to move forward with any new ideas. 

While more diversity would be nice, it has never been a prerequisite.  The level of diversity other users are willing to accept is yet another one of those things you don't get to decide for them. 

Run what you want.  Respect what others run.  It's really not that hard.

[franky1]

Please quote the part of the whitepaper where it declares the purpose of Bitcoin is to have a bunch of incompatible proposals in a constant state of deadlock, where no one is able to move forward with any new ideas.  

While more diversity would be nice, it has never been a prerequisite.  The level of diversity other users are willing to accept is yet another one of those things you don't get to decide for them.  

Run what you want.  Respect what others run.  It's really not that hard.

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
^ read it.. seriously, read it.. it seems you have not read it or you would have your answer
here are just some parts explaining that satoshi knew thr would be diversity and incompatibility

The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision
making.  If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone
able   to   allocate   many   IPs.     Proof-of-work   is   essentially   one-CPU-one-vote.     The   majority
decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested
in it.  If a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the
fastest and outpace any competing chains.

Nodes   always   consider   the   longest   chain   to   be   the   correct   one   and   will   keep   working   on
extending it.   If two nodes broadcast different versions of the next block simultaneously, some
nodes may receive one or the other first.  In that case, they work on the first one they received,
but save the other branch in case it becomes longer.  The tie will be broken when the next proof-
of-work   is   found   and   one   branch   becomes   longer;   the   nodes   that   were   working   on   the   other
branch will then switch to the longer one

They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of
valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on
them.  Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism

^ this is about the orphan mechanism of consensus

.. care to wonder why core dislike diversity and kills off other nodes early. .. to prevent there being votes against their desires

the idea WAS that diverse nodes would aim to follow the active rules via remaining HONEST to ensure they got to spend their incentives. thus not causing orphans/rejects purposefully so that the majority stays with the mainchain
and only activating new rules when they had HONEST majority

The   incentive   may   help   encourage   nodes   to   stay   honest.     If   a   greedy   attacker   is   able   to
assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes,
..
 He ought to
find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than
everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth.

To   solve   this,   we
proposed a peer-to-peer network using proof-of-work to record a public history of transactions
that   quickly   becomes   computationally   impractical   for   an   attacker   to   change   if   honest   nodes
control a majority of CPU power.   The network is robust in its unstructured simplicity.   Nodes
work all at once with little coordination.   They do not need to be identified, since messages are
not routed to any particular place and only need to be delivered on a best effort basis.  Nodes can
leave   and   rejoin   the   network   at   will,   accepting   the   proof-of-work   chain   as   proof   of   what
happened while they were gone.  They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of
valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on
them.  Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism

but core instead want to ignore the consensus, and just get rid of competition early.
this making core become the 'trusted party' of code rules by having no competition thus no vote required(compatibility/inflight upgrades/mandated changes).

and yes you trust and admire and are devoted to wanting core to remain as a trusted group without competition

now...
show me in the white paper where it says the network should be run by one team of devs code where everyone has to be sheep to that one trusted party

[squatter]

The point of the topic is "what do Mike Hearn, Gavin Andresen, and Craig Wright have in common, and why?".

Bigger blocks. But why? I know Mike Hearn, and Gavin Andresen understand the ramifications of it on the network, but why were they pushing for it? What was their agenda?

They may have been okay with the idea of mostly SPV users and vastly fewer full nodes. I think many big blockers believe that non-mining nodes aren't relevant to the consensus. I also think a lot of people legitimately don't understand Bitcoin's economic design and think infinite near-zero fees are actually viable.

It's possible they had a deliberate agenda to centralize the network, but I don't think we'll ever find out either way. If they did, at least we know they failed.

[franky1]

The point of the topic is "what do Mike Hearn, Gavin Andresen, and Craig Wright have in common, and why?".

Bigger blocks. But why? I know Mike Hearn, and Gavin Andresen understand the ramifications of it on the network, but why were they pushing for it? What was their agenda?

They may have been okay with the idea of mostly SPV users and vastly fewer full nodes. I think many big blockers believe that non-mining nodes aren't relevant to the consensus. I also think a lot of people legitimately don't understand Bitcoin's economic design and think infinite near-zero fees are actually viable.

It's possible they had a deliberate agenda to centralize the network, but I don't think we'll ever find out either way. If they did, at least we know they failed.

strangely those wanting smll blocks and LN want people to lock funds into factories and let the factories be the fullnodes(multinetwork masternode servers) while millions of users just use auto-piloted phone apps that trust that the servers are not going to mess around

after all whos going to carry around their PC to buy coffee on LN

also
those that want bitcoin network scaling dont want gigabytes by midnight. they just want some actual movement in the scaling to get passed the implied 600k tx limit a day known about since 2010
i really find is amusing at the same time as facepalming that small blockers still think the options are only server farms of LN hubs or server farms of gigabyte bitcoin blocks... and then they go on to presume that server farms of LN hubs are the solution. and that people should avoid using bitcoins blockchain

[DooMAD]

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision
making.  If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone
able   to   allocate   many   IPs.     Proof-of-work   is   essentially   one-CPU-one-vote.     The   majority
decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested
in it.

Thank you for proving my point.  The longest chain told incompatible clients to gtfo and they did.  It's almost as though it does exactly what it says on the tin.

Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism

Yes.  A rule was enforced with the consensus mechanism to disconnect nodes flagging bit 6 and bit 8.  It literally says right there in the whitepaper that new rules can be enforced and that's precisely what happened.  Now that you've literally just explained it to yourself, does it make sense now? 

I swear if Inigo Montoya were here, he'd tell you that he doesn't think those words mean what you think they mean.  And he'd be right.   

now...
show me in the white paper where it says the network should be run by one team of devs code where everyone has to be sheep to that one trusted party

First you'd have to convince me that's what we currently have.  I can't use written documents to confirm or deny things that only exist in your imagination.  You should try speaking to a therapist.

strangely those wanting smll blocks and LN want people to lock funds into factories and let the factories be the fullnodes(multinetwork masternode servers) while millions of users just use auto-piloted phone apps that trust that the servers are not going to mess around

Strangely, those who can't understand that Lightning now has more nodes than every forkcoin combined are not taken seriously by anyone when they spread FUD about technologies that haven't even finished being developed yet.  Troll harder.

I think many big blockers believe that non-mining nodes aren't relevant to the consensus.

Which becomes all the more amusing when they deny that non-mining nodes are the very reason why they aren't getting all the "improvements" they think should be implemented. 

The point of the topic is "what do Mike Hearn, Gavin Andresen, and Craig Wright have in common, and why?".

Bigger blocks. But why? I know Mike Hearn, and Gavin Andresen understand the ramifications of it on the network, but why were they pushing for it? What was their agenda?

I don't doubt that Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen believed they were doing the right thing.  I just think they miscalculated (as did I, along with many others at the time) the level of resistance they would encounter.  I think in the earlier stages of the dreaded blocksize debate, some people (again, myself included) generally weren't aware of the now-self-evident phenomenon I raised earlier in this topic:

if you can't get what you want without taking away what other people already have (and deem valuable, like decentralisation), it shouldn't come as a surprise when those other people decide that what you want is not very good.  Why should they give up what they have for what you want?

It wasn't until we saw consensus in action that it became more apparent just how strongly people feel about it.  Those people who are supporting this network without reimbursement by running a non-mining node have already paid a cost, so understandably they will enforce rules on the network which prevent increasing that cost against their will.  More people now seem to respect this logic.

[franky1]

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision
making.  If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone
able   to   allocate   many   IPs.     Proof-of-work   is   essentially   one-CPU-one-vote.     The   majority
decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested
in it.

Thank you for proving my point.  The longest chain told incompatible clients to gtfo and they did.  It's almost as though it does exactly what it says on the tin.

thats talking about if nodes ACTIVATED differing rules.. (dishonest nodes) that dont wait for consensus
try to do some research

Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism

Yes.  A rule was enforced with the consensus mechanism to disconnect nodes flagging bit 6 and bit 8.  It literally says right there in the whitepaper that new rules can be enforced and that's precisely what happened.  Now that you've literally just explained it to yourself, does it make sense now? 

I swear if Inigo Montoya were here, he'd tell you that he doesn't think those words mean what you think they mean.  And he'd be right.   

thats talking consensus.. YOUR talking about enforcing rules by bypassing consensus by controversially disconnecting nodes before HONEST MAJORITY

now...
show me in the white paper where it says the network should be run by one team of devs code where everyone has to be sheep to that one trusted party

First you'd have to convince me that's what we currently have.  I can't use written documents to confirm or deny things that only exist in your imagination.  You should try speaking to a therapist.

your own flip flop statements and showing how you love core and saying how core has majority
node count websites

and by the way. the minority of diverse nodes are not part of the main relay network. they are ringfensed as 'downstream' 'filtered' nodes as a layer below the main relay network.. should you want to do some research devs will tell you this. they even made those buzzwords and even pretty pictures to show its true and they also went as far as making a guide to say that those not upgrading to cores new rules will be set as a lower tier than the fullnode relay network.

try to do some research. its been months but your still stuck at the same echo excuses and fud of previous myths which even the devs were happy to admit were myths.

[franky1]

It wasn't until we saw consensus in action that it became more apparent just how strongly people feel about it.

and under HONEST consensus.. core only got 35%

Those people who are supporting this network without reimbursement by running a non-mining node have already paid a cost, so understandably they will enforce rules on the network which prevent increasing that cost against their will.  More people now seem to respect this logic.

yet core implemented an activation that was done via controversial means.....

seems you really need to get out of your echo chamber of myths.
again the devs themselves will happily admit their actions.. so i wonder why are you still defending them as innocent when they plead guilty to their actions

so mr flip flop who in one post admits that disconnecting nodes PRE activation occured..
where is the "network that prevents x against their will" where is the "respect"
(pre-empt echo:
mandated controversial bilateral split
inflight upgrade
controversial forks
compatible sheep nodes of abstaining counted as approval)

you can flip and flop in and out for many more  months..(i dont see why you prefer to continue that, as its no longer funny, but making me yawn at you now)

 or just sit back do some research, update your echo chamber and then comeback with a single narative.. or you can skip your flip flop narative and just get to the point that you want bitcoin to remain low utility so that commercial networks become popular in the hopes that you can get paid for running a commercial hub on such commercial networks..

but. to help you out and pr-empt future echo's about your desires of geting paid as a full node.. you will run into the infographic windfury provided that will show who will actually get to be the commercial hubs making income from running full nodes.

meaning your not gonna get rich supporting cores roadmap. so atleast wake up to your motives and how they wont manifest into you getting rich by sticking with the myth echos of supporting core centralists

[Wind_FURY]

It wasn't until we saw consensus in action that it became more apparent just how strongly people feel about it.

and under HONEST consensus.. core only got 35%

Has the topic derailed into Segwit activation again? Hahaha.

Under what benchmark did you base that on? Not under "miner signaling" I hope. Because you know Jihan Wu has turned miner signaling, which was only supposed to be to signal for its readiness to fork, into a political weapon.

What about the economic majority? Aren't they supposed to be represented too?

[DooMAD]

HONEST MAJORITY

Said the dishonest minority.   

Has the topic derailed into Segwit activation again? Hahaha.

Yep.  Just about every topic he posts in.  I'm almost tempted to propose he gets his own subforum where he is safely quarantined and can derail every topic in there.  Doesn't matter what the subject is, he has to find a way to turn it into SegWit/LN bashing.

[Wind_FURY]

I like it, because the discussion would give everyone the opportunity to judge for themselves what's the truth, and what's bullshit.

I used to also believe that scaling Bitcoin would be as easy as a hard fork to big blocks. But the more I learned, I found out that it wasn't. Big blocks are inherently centralizing. We know that Gavin, Mike Hearn, and Faketoshi know it, but why were they pushing for it?

[Crupps]

I like it, because the discussion would give everyone the opportunity to judge for themselves what's the truth, and what's bullshit.

I used to also believe that scaling Bitcoin would be as easy as a hard fork to big blocks. But the more I learned, I found out that it wasn't. Big blocks are inherently centralizing. We know that Gavin, Mike Hearn, and Faketoshi know it, but why were they pushing for it?

I'm a newbie to crypto and having skin in the game from late 2017 and fucked up all the way down where we are today if fiat prices matter (you can become rich by speculating but much richer by worldwide adoption). So I've had to do a lot of research from bitcoins and other coins history because I verify I don't trust. It seems that this crypto space, especially bitcoin space, have turned to a battle ground of different belief systems which accuses each other with various fictions and facts. I rather stick to facts what has actually happened and don't want to push a narrative that "This is right because I believe so".

I've learned to a degree that I know that the chaos around any bitcoin related topics is directly or indirectly caused by the privite central banksters who have felt that this crypto thing might threaten their worldwide ponzi scheme of debt-based fiat currencies which are sold to governments with great profits impoverishing the whole world. These banksters have hired social media warriors to wreak havoc among crypto communities because "divide and conquer" still works very efficiently today and distracts people from the real issues and tries to prevent postive forward going development. The ones who attack others the most show only their more mentally primitive state of mind.

In this topic I see childish arguments that go in the level of "my toy is better than yours because my toy is better" and then I see more mature arguments which try to discuss the topic from various viewpoints. There might be some hired chaos infilcters here or just useful idiots promoting stuff that actually hurts their coin. I don't have to call any names here because everyone knows themselves quite clearly how established they really are with their arguments.

[maldini]

If there are a lot of conspiracies, is the true purpose of bitcoin a mere conspiracy? and what is the current state of bitcoin due to the conspiracy? wait, it's not natural that bitcoin has a very long correction, is this also a conspiracy

[Wind_FURY]

I like it, because the discussion would give everyone the opportunity to judge for themselves what's the truth, and what's bullshit.

I used to also believe that scaling Bitcoin would be as easy as a hard fork to big blocks. But the more I learned, I found out that it wasn't. Big blocks are inherently centralizing. We know that Gavin, Mike Hearn, and Faketoshi know it, but why were they pushing for it?

I'm a newbie to crypto and having skin in the game from late 2017 and fucked up all the way down where we are today if fiat prices matter (you can become rich by speculating but much richer by worldwide adoption). So I've had to do a lot of research from bitcoins and other coins history because I verify I don't trust. It seems that this crypto space, especially bitcoin space, have turned to a battle ground of different belief systems which accuses each other with various fictions and facts. I rather stick to facts what has actually happened and don't want to push a narrative that "This is right because I believe so".

Then I want to know, what are the facts, and what's your opinion on the small blocks - big blocks debate? Because sometimes, some newbies have started their "Bitcoin education" by listening to the wrong people.

[miningd]

very hard to believe

[Kakmakr]

I like it, because the discussion would give everyone the opportunity to judge for themselves what's the truth, and what's bullshit.

I used to also believe that scaling Bitcoin would be as easy as a hard fork to big blocks. But the more I learned, I found out that it wasn't. Big blocks are inherently centralizing. We know that Gavin, Mike Hearn, and Faketoshi know it, but why were they pushing for it?

They were against anything that Core developed and implemented, because they wanted the control. This is why they forked off  , for them to have full control over their own shitcoin.

They could not take over Bitcoin with XT, so they tried a new angle with Bitcoin Cash and this gave them control over their own coin to implement what they wanted. <Divide and conquer and also spreading FUD and confusion to break up the competition>

Classic 3 Letter agency strategies.  

[RivAngE]

I can see Assassin's Creed game in 2025 coming up with a conspiracy theory of what happened somewhere in 2017-2019 with Bitcoin! Maybe a Piece of Eden controls the price!
Well... that's something only Assassin's Creed fans will understand!

Jokes aside, I'm sure there are two possible cases,
1) Bitcoin is underestimated as a fools' game and is ignored by "them".
2) Bitcoin was seen as a threat in 2017 and big amounts were bought from "them" in order to be able to later on control the price.

[Wind_FURY]

I like it, because the discussion would give everyone the opportunity to judge for themselves what's the truth, and what's bullshit.

I used to also believe that scaling Bitcoin would be as easy as a hard fork to big blocks. But the more I learned, I found out that it wasn't. Big blocks are inherently centralizing. We know that Gavin, Mike Hearn, and Faketoshi know it, but why were they pushing for it?

They were against anything that Core developed and implemented, because they wanted the control. This is why they forked off  , for them to have full control over their own shitcoin.

I believe they forked off because they really thought that a large part of the community will follow them. Bitmain would never risk selling Bitcoin for Bitcoin Cash if they didn't, and it cost them a lot in my opinion.

They could not take over Bitcoin with XT, so they tried a new angle with Bitcoin Cash and this gave them control over their own coin to implement what they wanted. <Divide and conquer and also spreading FUD and confusion to break up the competition>

There was Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited before that. It was a socio-political attack that failed.

[BitcoinFX]

What about Matonis ?

- https://top.cointelegraph.com/people/Jon-Matonis/

"Matonis is an e-money researcher and crypto economist focused on expanding the circulation of non-political digital currencies. His career has included senior influential posts at Sumitomo Bank, Visa, VeriSign, and Hushmail. He was an Executive Director of the Bitcoin Foundation until December 2014. Matonis also provides e-money consulting services to companies on alternative currency programs, Bitcoin processing, compliance, jurisdiction selection, monetisation strategies, risk management, and virtual currency platforms."

He willingly gave up speaking time to CSW ...

Jon Matonis and Craig Wright - Shinseiki Evangerion - Arnhem 2017
- https://youtu.be/dgqtcu0zo-k

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hushmail

"Developments in November 2007 led to doubts, amongst security-conscious users, about Hushmail's security, specifically, concern over a backdoor."

[Crupps]

I like it, because the discussion would give everyone the opportunity to judge for themselves what's the truth, and what's bullshit.

I used to also believe that scaling Bitcoin would be as easy as a hard fork to big blocks. But the more I learned, I found out that it wasn't. Big blocks are inherently centralizing. We know that Gavin, Mike Hearn, and Faketoshi know it, but why were they pushing for it?

I'm a newbie to crypto and having skin in the game from late 2017 and fucked up all the way down where we are today if fiat prices matter (you can become rich by speculating but much richer by worldwide adoption). So I've had to do a lot of research from bitcoins and other coins history because I verify I don't trust. It seems that this crypto space, especially bitcoin space, have turned to a battle ground of different belief systems which accuses each other with various fictions and facts. I rather stick to facts what has actually happened and don't want to push a narrative that "This is right because I believe so".

Then I want to know, what are the facts, and what's your opinion on the small blocks - big blocks debate? Because sometimes, some newbies have started their "Bitcoin education" by listening to the wrong people.

So I guess you have already mentioned the "wrong people". Well I think there's actually no wrong or right there. If a bigger community wants to reach a consensus on something there must be compromises on every front or else there'll be situations like the BTC/BCH hard fork which causes lots of hate, grudge and stalemate situations. But of course humans are difficult animals and this kind of compromising consensus is hard to achieve so then comes the beauty of this FREE SOURCE stuff - everyone can do/fork their own thing and "nature" tests it if it's fit enough to survive in the long run.

So back to blocks .. I'd watch the whole picture, iterate and maybe go to the golden middle road. Regarding block size maybe there could be a solution somewhere in the middle? Perhaps something like dynamic block size which automatically increases the block size when the current one is say about 80-90% full and vice versa when blocks get empy it decreases the block size accordingly. For example 1MB gets 90% full then it's increased to 2MB and when 2MB is 90% full it's increased to 4MB etc. and when the traffic slows down and blocks get empty the code decreases the blocks first to 2MB and finally back to 1MB if it's possible. This way the code decides and people don't have to argue about it and developers could concentrate on BTCs privacy/anonymity "flaw". Dynamic block size offers small blocks as the optimum solution and also bigger blocks when needed. Bigger blocks are needed especially during the "rush hour" like late 2017 and early 2018.

But this thread is also about consipracy theory regarding bitcoin and I have something to add in my next post.

[OuterHeaven_]

Well it is used for shady transactions etc but as far as a conspiracy goes, it's not that bad honestly.