Bitcoin Forum
June 23, 2024, 04:22:42 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Whats up with Craig Wright?  (Read 1461 times)
bitcoinisbest
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 557


View Profile
February 23, 2019, 03:17:47 PM
 #81

The Craig Wright is nobody to me because i don't want to know satoshi. I like the fact that he is a faceless man so please let us stop talking about this Craig Wright guy.


If Craig white was Satoshi it would have being proved last time when he tried to prove himself and fall apart. So their is no point now left just for him to prove again. Also their was no need to come out as in so many years it was not done so why someone would come now and try to claim int.
jeromix
Copper Member
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 2

Ako Bayot!


View Profile
February 23, 2019, 03:25:27 PM
 #82

If one is claiming that he is the SATOSHI then it should be supported with evidences. The words used to claim that he is SATOSHI is not a valid basis without proof. If he really think would like to get acknowledge as the real owner of bitcoin then he/she should start revealing evidences so that we wi credit him/her the creation of cryptocurrency.

Savemore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 952
Merit: 274



View Profile
February 23, 2019, 03:52:19 PM
 #83

Today I happened across a recent interview with him, in a bitcoin discussion.

He stated at the end, "I was Satoshi".

The interesting thing I noted is a well educated smart individual using the word "was", is very past tense.

It could have been nothing really, but from someone who hasn't even begun to touch his wallets for some time, sounded odd.

Is he for real? He doesn't seem fraudulent to me.

But that is a big statement to make to the crypto world.

I apologize if this has been posted to death, I didnt want to necro any old stuff.
Satoshi will never impose his identity. Satoshi will remain anonymous forever. Craig Wright is one of the self proclaimed satoshi. We should not believe to them because it is a false information.
seoincorporation
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3192
Merit: 2984


Top Crypto Casino


View Profile
February 23, 2019, 03:58:51 PM
 #84

Anyone can claim to be satoshi nakamoto, the problem is when they have to prove it. The only prof we are asking for is a signed message with the first bitcoin addys, and since Craig wasn't able to do it, then he was lying.

█████████████████████████
████▐██▄█████████████████
████▐██████▄▄▄███████████
████▐████▄█████▄▄████████
████▐█████▀▀▀▀▀███▄██████
████▐███▀████████████████
████▐█████████▄█████▌████
████▐██▌█████▀██████▌████
████▐██████████▀████▌████
█████▀███▄█████▄███▀█████
███████▀█████████▀███████
██████████▀███▀██████████
█████████████████████████
.
BC.GAME
▄▄░░░▄▀▀▄████████
▄▄▄
██████████████
█████░░▄▄▄▄████████
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██▄██████▄▄▄▄████
▄███▄█▄▄██████████▄████▄████
███████████████████████████▀███
▀████▄██▄██▄░░░░▄████████████
▀▀▀█████▄▄▄███████████▀██
███████████████████▀██
███████████████████▄██
▄███████████████████▄██
█████████████████████▀██
██████████████████████▄
.
..CASINO....SPORTS....RACING..
█░░░░░░█░░░░░░█
▀███▀░░▀███▀░░▀███▀
▀░▀░░░░▀░▀░░░░▀░▀
░░░░░░░░░░░░
▀██████████
░░░░░███░░░░
░░█░░░███▄█░░░
░░██▌░░███░▀░░██▌
░█░██░░███░░░█░██
░█▀▀▀█▌░███░░█▀▀▀█▌
▄█▄░░░██▄███▄█▄░░▄██▄
▄███▄
░░░░▀██▄▀


▄▄████▄▄
▄███▀▀███▄
██████████
▀███▄░▄██▀
▄▄████▄▄░▀█▀▄██▀▄▄████▄▄
▄███▀▀▀████▄▄██▀▄███▀▀███▄
███████▄▄▀▀████▄▄▀▀███████
▀███▄▄███▀░░░▀▀████▄▄▄███▀
▀▀████▀▀████████▀▀████▀▀
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3822
Merit: 3160


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile
February 23, 2019, 04:06:07 PM
 #85

while completely missing the point that X did happen. and it happened by not using the consensus that has been existant for years.

It used the consensus that the rules allow.  BIP34, for example, was being developed in 2012, before you even started using Bitcoin.  Why did you even bother joining this network in the first place if you can't abide by softforks and believe them to be "bypassing consensus"?.  You don't even understand what has been "existent for years".
Classified: Top Secret (OP)
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 37
Merit: 8


View Profile
February 23, 2019, 05:10:33 PM
 #86

Ok, I started this thread out of curiosity over who this guy was and what he represents.

I was in for quite an eye opener for me and I certainly appreciate everything everyone has posted. I can say quite interesting to say the least.

I did see he wants to be interviewed by some crypto experts or something in order to clear his name. I look forward to the entertainment at the least.

franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4256
Merit: 4532



View Profile
February 23, 2019, 05:34:19 PM
Last edit: February 23, 2019, 06:28:43 PM by franky1
 #87

while completely missing the point that X did happen. and it happened by not using the consensus that has been existant for years.

It used the consensus that the rules allow.  BIP34, for example, was being developed in 2012, before you even started using Bitcoin.  Why did you even bother joining this network in the first place if you can't abide by softforks and believe them to be "bypassing consensus"?.  You don't even understand what has been "existent for years".

shows you didnt read
"All older clients are compatible with this change. Users and merchants should not be impacted. Miners are strongly recommended to upgrade to version 2 blocks. Once 95% of the miners have upgraded to version 2, the remainder will be orphaned if they fail to upgrade."

the MANDATED fork...
the PRE upgrade disconnect.
has nothing to do with bip 34

so you saying that core in 2017 used something that was available in 2012 is YOUR FAIL

spend less time flip flopping and try and do some deeper thought stuff on actual events.

read it. blocks are orphaned off AFTER 95% is achieved. not before.
read it. blocks are orphaned off AFTER 95% is achieved. not before.
read it. blocks are orphaned off AFTER 95% is achieved. not before.

core in summer 2017 did not follow the wait for majority. then activate IF miners agree to suggestion, which would then cause fork
core in summer 2017 did controversially fork off opposition using mandated force via forking early. then fake 95% to activate,

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
Tamilson
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022
Merit: 503



View Profile
February 24, 2019, 03:40:37 AM
 #88

Anyone can claim to be satoshi nakamoto, the problem is when they have to prove it. The only prof we are asking for is a signed message with the first bitcoin addys, and since Craig wasn't able to do it, then he was lying.

This Craig Wright thinks that people will just believe what he says and whoever believes is also stupid.
If he's real then signing a message in genesis block will be easy for him and yes he can't and he will never can.
Then I won't be surprise if Craig will soon launch his own coin and just withdrawn his claims. Goosebumps***

Happy Coding Life Smiley
cellard
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1252


View Profile
February 24, 2019, 04:54:00 AM
 #89

It has to be made clear to people that Core isn't forcing anyone to use their software. Anyone is free to start their own client and convince the rest of the network that their software is the best without forks involved.

This is the tricky part.  What happens when someone feels the "best" software needs to include something that would result in a fork?  It's not something easily avoidable.  I think it's just something we have to be mature about.  We can't treat every fork proposal as a "coup" or "power grab", because that's not a healthy attitude.  But at the same time, if those proposing a fork feel strongly enough about their ideas, it's only fair for them to understand that they might need to move forward without support, as an altcoin, if the two sides can't reconcile their differences.  Longstanding deadlocks are not healthy for anyone in the community.

I guess segwit is again being discussed and how it got added via soft fork on former replies.

You aren't really forced to use segwit if you don't like it. There's other's clients that bypass segwit and you just ignore segwit addresses. If segwit ever got "unsegwitted" out of the network, you wouldn't suffer any losses, given that you are holding on addresses that begin with 1 matured after a couple of blocks.

So just like that, Core cannot really force you to do anything that you don't want to do.

The way I see it is it's just impossible to fork Bitcoin at this point. 1MB and all those things are just like 21 million coin limit, in theory it can be changed, but in practice consensus will never be reached, so Bitcoin has achieved immutable status, and forks will end up as BCash and co.
cool4y
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 494
Merit: 12


View Profile
February 24, 2019, 05:29:21 AM
 #90

It has to be made clear to people that Core isn't forcing anyone to use their software. Anyone is free to start their own client and convince the rest of the network that their software is the best without forks involved.

This is the tricky part.  What happens when someone feels the "best" software needs to include something that would result in a fork?  It's not something easily avoidable.  I think it's just something we have to be mature about.  We can't treat every fork proposal as a "coup" or "power grab", because that's not a healthy attitude.  But at the same time, if those proposing a fork feel strongly enough about their ideas, it's only fair for them to understand that they might need to move forward without support, as an altcoin, if the two sides can't reconcile their differences.  Longstanding deadlocks are not healthy for anyone in the community.

I guess segwit is again being discussed and how it got added via soft fork on former replies.

You aren't really forced to use segwit if you don't like it. There's other's clients that bypass segwit and you just ignore segwit addresses. If segwit ever got "unsegwitted" out of the network, you wouldn't suffer any losses, given that you are holding on addresses that begin with 1 matured after a couple of blocks.

So just like that, Core cannot really force you to do anything that you don't want to do.

The way I see it is it's just impossible to fork Bitcoin at this point. 1MB and all those things are just like 21 million coin limit, in theory it can be changed, but in practice consensus will never be reached, so Bitcoin has achieved immutable status, and forks will end up as BCash and co.

Craihg Wright is mad man desperate for attention, aiming to make himself relevant. It's really disappointing that the media is covering this guy.
X7
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1009


Let he who is without sin cast the first stone


View Profile
February 24, 2019, 12:01:27 PM
 #91

Also worth noting that Satoshi was a very private individual, there was no ego involved in both his communications and his/her actions. Craig has a very contrasting attitude by comparison, It seems very doubtful that the real Satoshi would pose in front of a glass board full of math to take a professional headshot.

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the world, and lose his own soul?
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3822
Merit: 3160


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile
February 24, 2019, 12:29:20 PM
 #92

while completely missing the point that X did happen. and it happened by not using the consensus that has been existant for years.

It used the consensus that the rules allow.  BIP34, for example, was being developed in 2012, before you even started using Bitcoin.  Why did you even bother joining this network in the first place if you can't abide by softforks and believe them to be "bypassing consensus"?.  You don't even understand what has been "existent for years".

shows you didnt read
"All older clients are compatible with this change. Users and merchants should not be impacted. Miners are strongly recommended to upgrade to version 2 blocks. Once 95% of the miners have upgraded to version 2, the remainder will be orphaned if they fail to upgrade."

the MANDATED fork...
the PRE upgrade disconnect.
has nothing to do with bip 34

so you saying that core in 2017 used something that was available in 2012 is YOUR FAIL

spend less time flip flopping and try and do some deeper thought stuff on actual events.

read it. blocks are orphaned off AFTER 95% is achieved. not before.
read it. blocks are orphaned off AFTER 95% is achieved. not before.
read it. blocks are orphaned off AFTER 95% is achieved. not before.

core in summer 2017 did not follow the wait for majority. then activate IF miners agree to suggestion, which would then cause fork
core in summer 2017 did controversially fork off opposition using mandated force via forking early. then fake 95% to activate,


I'm going to walk you slowly through what just happened here, step by step:

  • I made the points that you can't prevent disconnecting nodes or using activation dates.

  • You made a post which completely failed to overcome those points and then added the false assertion about "not using the consensus that has been existant(sic) for years".

  • I pointed out that you don't even understand the consensus that has existed for years, since you incessantly whine about "in-flight updates" and softforks in general, claiming that's not how Bitcoin "should" be.  Despite the fact it has been within the rules to do that for a long time.

  • You then use that statement in an attempt to disprove my initial points that you can't prevent disconnecting nodes or using activation dates, even though it doesn't disprove those points at all.  Those points still stand and your broken logic doesn't change that.  Again, you can't prevent disconnecting nodes or using activation dates.  You have failed to refute those points, whilst also demonstrating in the process that you don't understand Bitcoin.
 

Other people would need to agree with you for any of this to change.  They would have to run code enforcing different rules.  Rules that don't permit softforks, activation dates, disconnecting nodes, or whatever else it is you don't like about Bitcoin depending on what day it is and whether it suits your argument at the time or not.  The users on this network clearly don't agree with you, based on the code they appear to generally be running.  Also, your reasoning skills are abysmal.  Quit while you're behind, it's just getting sad now.


BitcoinFX
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2646
Merit: 1720


https://youtu.be/DsAVx0u9Cw4 ... Dr. WHO < KLF


View Profile WWW
February 26, 2019, 06:16:32 PM
Last edit: February 26, 2019, 06:36:28 PM by BitcoinFX
 #93

Dr Craig S Wright
- https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/1100437200234266624

"The ONLY legal means to create a new consensus method, to alter the protocol is to start a new blockchain from scratch.

That like Core or ETH is simply an Airdrop and sham offer.

Time will show this."


...

Dr Craig S Wright
- https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/1100440103883886600

"As with the Harwyn case, unregistered spin-offs violate the intent of the 1933 act.

What in Bitcoin is a commodity in standard form, can be treated as a security sale when in other forms and issue.

#BTC is a sham and airdrop
Not bitcoin"


 Roll Eyes

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
"... definition of knowledge: S knows that P if and only if:

    P;
    S believes that P;
    if P were false, S would not believe that P;
    if P were true, S would believe that P. ..."


...

🔴 🔴 It's now possible for everybody to be Satoshi ⭕ ⭕
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5113610.0

"Bitcoin OG" 1JXFXUBGs2ZtEDAQMdZ3tkCKo38nT2XSEp | Bitcoin logo™ Enforcer? | Bitcoin is BTC | CSW is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto | I Mine BTC, LTC, ZEC, XMR and GAP | BTC on Tor addnodes Project | Media enquiries : Wu Ming | Enjoy The Money Machine | "You cannot compete with Open Source" and "Cryptography != Banana" | BSV and BCH are COUNTERFEIT.
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4256
Merit: 4532



View Profile
February 26, 2019, 09:20:52 PM
Last edit: February 26, 2019, 09:42:53 PM by franky1
 #94

I made the points that you can't prevent disconnecting nodes or using activation dates.

Other people would need to agree with you for any of this to change.

your flip flops is saying how your buddies can do what they like and no one can prevent it.
but anyone opposing your buddies.. their attempt requires permission("need to agree")

do you now see the point of centralising your admitting to.. how core dont need permission(your words) but other groups would need permission

a. cant prevent
b. need agreement

your the one flip flopping about only one side has control basically

anyway. the 2012 consensus bip34 is something coded back in 2012...
BUT was not used AS -IS in 2017
again you admit to the august first bip148 that was a pre-fork method to scew and falsify a consensus by doing a controversial split. you were even extremely happy about the NYA x2 attempt too a few days later.. you seemed very happy that the consensus was abused by pushing people off thee network before a consensus to fake a consensus, to force in something that would not have got activated without the forced pressure (as it only had 35% agreement pre threat)

you trying to even suggest 2017 was a fair true honest consensus of bip 34 is just more flip flops.
anyway

go back to your social drama of thinking bitcoin is cores private property and the community should not tell core what to do when core want to activate network changing code.
but then be happy to tell a forum how a private property should listen to its userbase

point is core SHOULD not OWN the network and be the CORE / Reference... no one should be a CORE REFERNCE.
that was the whole innovation and magic lightbulb moment of 2008-2009 that there doesnt and shouldnt be a core centre of code decision

you are more of a flip flop than a fish out of water. only thing you dont realise the more you just lay there flip flopping with no single chosen direction to move in.. the more your left struggling and weakening yourself.

so spend less time flip flopping, do some real research and choose a mindset to have and stick with it. choose a narrative that has some stats and data to back it up and stick with it. because your flip flops are getting boring and winning you no sympathy even after i have tried to tell you many times to atleast try learning bitcoin more (being helpful, but you treated it as an insult)

as for your flip flop of thinking 2017 used bip 34
hint: bip 148&bip9 is not the same thing as bip 34.
bitcoin ntwork has not used 34 for years.
[/list]

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4256
Merit: 4532



View Profile
February 26, 2019, 09:36:09 PM
 #95

anyway.
i hope doomad drops his flip flops for a few months and spends the time just researching, learning and gaining a few independant thoughts beyond the reddit scripts he reads of 2015+

but as for CW
he is not a influencer and not important to bitcoin so best to just not treat him as important. let him sizzle into the background

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
BurgerCash
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 187
Merit: 1


View Profile
February 26, 2019, 09:40:08 PM
 #96

All his statements are contradictory, in fact some don't make any sense at all. He's trying to be "scandalous" in order to stay relevant, he stopped caring about people calling him out on his bullshit.
Just ignore.

Borderless trading with the Jarvis Exchanges.
Buy Apple stocks with Bitcoin. Jarvis.exchange (http://Jarvis.exchange)
prasad87
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 242
Merit: 7


View Profile
February 26, 2019, 09:45:29 PM
 #97

Most folks don't even know who really won the Bcash / ABC / SV 'hash' wars ...

there is no winner as long as they both exist and can take hash rate from bitcoin's network! the war has a winner when the other side(s) gets annihilated, or at least we see one 51% attack from one chain against the other. SV is a good candidate for getting 51% attacked since it has a low hashrate already .
With the hash power that Jihan and Roger used to defend BCH they could have easily destroyed BSV as well. But they're not dickheads like CSW, and in this instance I regret it. BSV is a stain on cryptocurrencies.

Borderless trading with the Jarvis Exchanges.
Buy Apple stocks with Bitcoin. Jarvis.exchange (http://Jarvis.exchange)
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3822
Merit: 3160


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile
February 26, 2019, 10:53:26 PM
 #98

your flip flops is saying how your buddies can do what they like and no one can prevent it.
but anyone opposing your buddies.. their attempt requires permission("need to agree")

Anyone can code anything they like.  How many more times do I have to say it?  You are the one saying people shouldn't code softforks/activation dates/code that disconnects other clients/"wishy-washy scale factor"/anything even remotely to do with "other networks", or LN as most people tend to call it/etc.  Anyone can code those things.  There are no rules that state people can't code what they like.  Any other dev team can add such code to any client they are developing.  It's not like one dev team have the exclusive usage rights on code which does things that you don't like.  But whoever writes it, the code doesn't mean anything unless people run it.  

And just in case you call flip-flop yet again, I'm not saying that "no one can prevent" changes when it comes to consensus.  Lone extremists out there on the fringes are definitely not in a position to effect change.  As such, the singular "you", as in, specifically, YOU, can't do anything about anything.  You're a speck in the wind.  You literally don't matter in the slightest.  You don't have any numbers behind you.  Because you don't have any numbers behind you, you are limited to running the code you want to run and deciding which chain(s) you wish to follow.  But if a large proportion of those securing the network disagree with what a dev team are doing, they would be in a position to prevent change by simply not running the new code.  No one can prevent a dev team from coding what they like, but they are more than free to continue running the code they already have, or run an entirely different client if they so choose.  Those securing the network do not have to accept changes to the code.  That's why devs can code whatever they like and still not be "in charge".  Do you need me to repeat this a few more times?  Can I explain it to you any more simplistically?  Do you need a drawing to aid in your learning?  I'm pretty sure I say it to you often enough.  Yet it still somehow doesn't sink in.

If I don't personally agree with something, I wouldn't tell people not to code it.  I would certainly tell them why I think their ideas are terrible/stupid/dangerous/etc, sure.  But if you code it, you have my blessing.  Not least because there's nothing I can do to stop you, but primarily because I believe in permissionless freedom.  Anyone can code what they want and if you express views counter to that belief, I'm naturally going to give you a hard time.  Complain about insults all you like, but it'll keep happening because you are so quick to state what you think people "should" do.  It's none of your business.  You're free to code and run what you want, but you don't get to interfere with what other people are coding or running.  And no, before you ask, I don't see a risk of bad code being run as a result, because I feel confident that people, for the most part, recognise terrible ideas when they see them.  I'm happy to let the market decide, because it has a pretty good track record of making sensible decisions.  You can make your excuses for why other clients have failed.  You can pretend it's some sort of sinister collusion.  You can say it's all "social drama".  But at the end of the day, it's meaningless.  The only thing that matters is what people run.

For what must be the hundredth time of explaining it:
 
Your problem is not that Core are "in control" (because they aren't).
Your problem is not that consensus has "been bypassed" (because it can't be).
Your problem is not that we "don't have a level playing field" (because we do).

Your problem is that whenever someone creates code you actually like, very few people choose to run it.  It's not a conspiracy.  People just don't agree with you.
Your problem is that whenever Core creates code you utterly despise, lots and lots of people choose to run it.  It's not a conspiracy.  People just don't agree with you.


do you now see the point of centralising your admitting to.. how core dont need permission(your words) but other groups would

No one needs permission.  Bitcoin is permissionless.  Again, anyone can code anything.  Code means nothing unless people run it.  Stop denying reality.  This is how it works.


being helpful

Insanity is rarely considered helpful.  


but as for CW
he is not a influencer and not important to bitcoin so best to just not treat him as important. let him sizzle into the background

No thanks.  Leave no FUD unchallenged.  It applies to you and Craig "Scammer" Wright in equal measure.  Shine a spotlight on the bullshit and call it out for what it is.  If he ever decides to disappear, we'll let him disappear.  Until then, the more he lies, the more we'll refute it.  Ditto for you.
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4256
Merit: 4532



View Profile
February 27, 2019, 12:18:57 AM
Last edit: February 27, 2019, 12:54:18 AM by franky1
 #99

your flip flops is saying how your buddies can do what they like and no one can prevent it.
but anyone opposing your buddies.. their attempt requires permission("need to agree")

Anyone can code anything they like.  How many more times do I have to say it?  You are the one saying people shouldn't code softforks/activation dates/code that disconnects other clients/"wishy-washy scale factor"/anything even remotely to do with "other networks", or LN as most people tend to call it/etc.


anyone can code what they like. they can write code on paper, . they can use their finger and write it by pushing their finger through the dust on their computer desks. they can hand write it, type it, draw it..

but the ACTIVATION that affects the network. should not be that CORE can activate anything they like to affect the whole network but other groups cant.

no one disagrees that writing code is/is not allowed.... so stop trying to meander the discussion to be about the writing of code.
its about the method of activation my point has always been about the method of activation and how a certain feature that only garnished 35%, didnt just get sidelined and then cor went away and re-wrote new code that could be (without controversy) more universally acceptable.. instead of listening to the community.. they decided to use force and threats.. PRE feature.. to fake vote for a feature, just to activate their feature.
in short
if core stuck to bip 34 or just bip9 for thir sgwit1x they would have lost.
but their 148+NYA+bip9 that is NOT the same as 34.. is what core group done to bypass and twist and force their code onto the network.
and now as you say because nodes are following core. those core nodes can now EASILY kick out any opposition thus not giving much/any hope of diverse groups from forming to offer something that could be a true opposing free choice option in the future.

for months you have been poking at me when i have discussed cores method of activation. and you have always meandered it to sound like core deserve and have the right to dictate NETWORK rules. and then hypocritically then said how your happy that anyone not core has to seek permission.

anyway. mr flip flop. you have kept up your flip flops for months now and not progressed your research or understanding one bit. yea there have been times it appeared you finally cottoned on to the reality.. but days later you flip back and pretend the opposite occured.. hense why im saying instead of spending yt another 6 months of YOU flip flopping. please take a step back have some coffee, do not go reading your usual reddit/twitter sources and instead do some independent research, learn the cod, learn what bitcoins ethos/innovation/creation was about 2008-2013. for get the social drama of 2013+ and learn what tru bitcoin was before core. and truly have a independent thought about what, why and how bitcoin was initially created for.. then go pick a narrative of either your flip or your flop that fits the CODE, the network stats, the blockchain data..(not the social drama opinion groups) and stick to a narrative that fits whats important to the network(not core social group mantra)

then and only then will i find you less of a yawn, having to correct your core centralist mindset.
i know you wil always disregard my corrections by just throwing a bottom of the barrel personal insult.
hense why i just simply say dont take my word for it, do your own INDEPENDENT research.. but so far you just reply back with the standard scripted echo chamber remarks that dont sound independant at all.
(in short, you have become a boring echo chamber sounding off the same remarks as people like icebreaker, carlton,lauda and that group of core centralists.. even shorter.. nothing original)

lastly you keep implying that CW is some influencer.
you also seem to get emotional that when i say my opinion, that you think i am some revolutionary force trying to trojan horse the network.. what you dont realise is bitcoin is code. so unless you see code, dont treat it as an issue.
this forum is not bitcoin code. (something you need to learn in context of your recent meta category post about this forum)

the point being. stop spending months on social drama and concentrate on the code and those that write code. which in bitcoins case is core.

so yea you will continue to see me poking at core because these last couple years its been the core group that have been writing the code.. it doesnt magically appear. its not some self typing AI.. its wrote by core and lately only core. and thats the problem. lately only core.
emphasis: no diversity/decentralisation away from the core roadmap of 2015 that only want to lead things to stifling bitcoin to promote other networks to take over and "de-burden" bitcoin of its utility

so before pressing reply to have yet another social drama meander/flip flop.. try your darn hardest to chill your emotions, take a break, have a coffee and do some research. try to talk about the bitcoin network, not the core defense strategy. because i got your point months ago you want to defend core. even though they have admitted many things you 'pretend' your defending that they didnt do(further proof you lack the research of the group your even trying to defend)

again please take some time and think about "bitcoin a decentralised diverse network". and less about "core needs defending"

lastly, if you want to reply saying im insulting you, you waving the victim card will fail. people can read your post history and see your whole history of actual pokes and insults and social drama every time people dare to even question core code. so remember who is the instigator. hint: you

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3822
Merit: 3160


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile
February 27, 2019, 08:25:52 AM
 #100

your flip flops is saying how your buddies can do what they like and no one can prevent it.
but anyone opposing your buddies.. their attempt requires permission("need to agree")

Anyone can code anything they like.  How many more times do I have to say it?  You are the one saying people shouldn't code softforks/activation dates/code that disconnects other clients/"wishy-washy scale factor"/anything even remotely to do with "other networks", or LN as most people tend to call it/etc.


anyone can code what they like. they can write code on paper, . they can use their finger and write it by pushing their finger through the dust on their computer desks. they can hand write it, type it, draw it..

but the ACTIVATION that affects the network. should not be that CORE can activate anything they like to affect the whole network but other groups cant.

Those securing the network choose what activates.  This is the crux of your inability to comprehend.  "Other groups" can make changes if users agree and activate those changes.  BIP91 is a prime example.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!