A conspiracy against Bitcoin?

[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.

[1715264222]

1715264222

[1715264222]

1715264222

[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