Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[brg444]

Satoshis recent comments were right and I agree that bitcoin wasnt designed to be at the whim of central authority which is what it is trying to destroy. So with that im with bitcoin original thick or thin.

You're joking, right?
Is there anyone that really thinks that Satoshi wrote that?
Even though I largely agree with what was written, it should be considered simply "anonymous".

The beauty of the message is precisely the presence of plausible deniability so as to let the ideas stand on their own

[1713959351]

1713959351

[1713959351]

1713959351

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Satoshis recent comments were right and I agree that bitcoin wasnt designed to be at the whim of central authority which is what it is trying to destroy. So with that im with bitcoin original thick or thin.

Central authority like the bitcoin core devs?

The core devs have historically worked using a consensus based model of decision making. Gavin & Mike are the ones attempting to force through a contentious fork.

Historically, perhaps. But that was history, and that was certainly before Blockstream. Now their interest is to preserve a bottleneck in Bitcoin that makes up the only value proposition for their sidechain alt coins. They have $21m reasons to fight this.

And as people begin to realise this, they are getting behind the fork, something most (including me) wouldn't have countenanced just a few months ago.

[brg444]

Satoshis recent comments were right and I agree that bitcoin wasnt designed to be at the whim of central authority which is what it is trying to destroy. So with that im with bitcoin original thick or thin.

Central authority like the bitcoin core devs?

The core devs have historically worked using a consensus based model of decision making. Gavin & Mike are the ones attempting to force through a contentious fork.

Historically, perhaps. But that was history, and that was certainly before Blockstream. Now their interest is to preserve a bottleneck in Bitcoin that makes up the only value proposition for their sidechain alt coins. They have $21m reasons to fight this.

And as people begin to realise this, they are getting behind the fork, something most (including me) wouldn't have countenanced just a few months ago.

Thank you for yet another demonstration of your group's lazy argumentation

The fact that this debate has turned very early on into character assassination and personality contests tells the whole story.

Gavin, Mike & their supporters have made it a political battle that necessarily undermine their arguments and ultimately weaken their position.

About sidechains: they will be of very little use under current block size constraints so you're really grasping at straws here.

You'd think they are goddamned stubborn at Blockstream. Why worry about innovating zero-knowledge proof to scale their sidechain when we can just inflate the block size to infinity!

[brg444]

Satoshis recent comments were right and I agree that bitcoin wasnt designed to be at the whim of central authority which is what it is trying to destroy. So with that im with bitcoin original thick or thin.

Central authority like the bitcoin core devs?

The core devs have historically worked using a consensus based model of decision making. Gavin & Mike are the ones attempting to force through a contentious fork.

Explain how this works exactly.  Will gavin and Mike visit each miner, put a gun to their head, and force them to switch to XT.  Explain what mechanism they will use to force miners and users to upgrade to XT against their will.

The issue is not whether they will succeed or not. It's about undermining the value of the original decision model using fear & propaganda.

The original decision model Satoshi designed is consensus through POW based mining as representative of individual voting.

You think consensus among devs somehow means something, it doesn't.

The reason you and others are throwing so much venom at XT is you are fighting bitcoin's built in consensus mechanism, thinking it should be something its not.

Maybe you tell that to your friend Mike

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

The issue is not whether they will succeed or not.

Obvious fallacy. Thats the only thing its about. Its about wresting control from a compromised few to the many.

It's about undermining the value of the original decision model using fear & propaganda.

Thats exactly what you are trying to do - your just not doing it very well anymore. As a shill, I'm afraid you really need to up your game.

Everything you have written is designed to instill fear - it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Calm and informed rebuttals are weakening your case with every post.

[brg444]

The issue is not whether they will succeed or not.

Obvious fallacy. Thats the only thing its about. Its about wresting control from a compromised few to the many.

It's about undermining the value of the original decision model using fear & propaganda.

Thats exactly what you are trying to do - your just not doing it very well anymore. As a shill, I'm afraid you really need to up your game.

Everything you have written is designed to instill fear - it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Calm and informed rebuttals are weakening your case with every post.

See post above. It's more about wrestling control from a compromised few to..... Mike Hearn.

Now about accusations of being compromised, let's compare the facts : http://trilema.com/2013/and-gavin-moves-on-to-the-dark-side-the-bitcoin-project-is-officially-hijacked/

[hdbuck]

Gavin Andresen On Future Blockchain Security: I Dunno LOL!

http://qntra.net/2015/01/gavin-andresen-on-future-blockchain-security-i-dunno-lol/#comment-7830

So how will blockchain security get paid for in the future?

I honestly don't know.

fuck you gavin.

[brg444]

See post above. It's more about wrestling control from a compromised few to..... Mike Hearn.

Now about accusations of being compromised, let's compare the facts : http://trilema.com/2013/and-gavin-moves-on-to-the-dark-side-the-bitcoin-project-is-officially-hijacked/

Bruce Wagner : When was the last time you chatted to satoshi

Gavin Andresen: Um… I haven't had email from satoshi in a couple months actually. The last email I sent him I actually told him I was going to talk at the CIA. So it's possible , that…. that may have um had something to with his deciding.

Possible ? 

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Thank you for yet another demonstration of your group's lazy argumentation

Another powerful point not made. Its right up there with your false "Bitcoin is already sidechain ready^tm!!' claim

[smooth]

I don't think Blockstream has a deliberate financial agenda to mess up Bitcoin or hold it hostage.

I do think the founders of Blockstream (mostly gmaxwell and adam3us; the perspectives of the others are somewhat less apparent) have (and, importantly, had; see next paragraph) a different vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work. Different, that is, from most of the community and also from satoshi's public writings (including the white paper).

Here's where things get a bit complicated because their vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work has in part motivated the creation of the business and the requirements to realize that vision are the needs they aim to satisfy with their business plan.

But claiming they want to do such and such to Bitcoin because it makes their business succeed is reversing the actual causality.

I may be completely wrong, but probably not.

[brg444]

Thank you for yet another demonstration of your group's lazy argumentation

Another powerful point not made. Its right up there with your false "Bitcoin is already sidechain ready^tm!!' claim

https://github.com/ElementsProject/elementsproject.github.io

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

 It's more about wrestling control from a compromised few to..... Mike Hearn.

At least you are now starting to accept that point that they are compromised. Some progress finally.

I really dont value the opinion of that guy to spend time on that blog. I'm aware of him - that is sufficient.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Thank you for yet another demonstration of your group's lazy argumentation

Another powerful point not made. Its right up there with your false "Bitcoin is already sidechain ready^tm!!' claim

https://github.com/ElementsProject/elementsproject.github.io

It doesnt work on bitcoin.  It uses federated peg servers to fake the functionality ( contract like scripts) until they can shoehorn it into bitcoin.
Nothing these guys are doing at the moment is above PoC level. Its interesting, its just not ready.

[brg444]

I don't think Blockstream has a deliberate financial agenda to mess up Bitcoin or hold it hostage.

I do think the founders of Blockstream (mostly gmaxwell and adam3us; the perspectives of the others are somewhat less apparent) have (and, importantly, had; see next paragraph) a different vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work. Different, that is, from most of the community and also from satoshi's public writings (including the white paper).

Here's where things get a bit complicated because their vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work has in part motivated the creation of the business and the requirements to realize that vision are the needs they aim to satisfy with their business plan.

But claiming they want to do such and such to Bitcoin because it makes their business succeed is reversing the actual casualty.

I may be completely wrong, but probably not.

Never have I seen sidechains be proposed as an actual solution to scaling Bitcoin so I'm not certain how that holds true.

If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth.

[smooth]

I don't think Blockstream has a deliberate financial agenda to mess up Bitcoin or hold it hostage.

I do think the founders of Blockstream (mostly gmaxwell and adam3us; the perspectives of the others are somewhat less apparent) have (and, importantly, had; see next paragraph) a different vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work. Different, that is, from most of the community and also from satoshi's public writings (including the white paper).

Here's where things get a bit complicated because their vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work has in part motivated the creation of the business and the requirements to realize that vision are the needs they aim to satisfy with their business plan.

But claiming they want to do such and such to Bitcoin because it makes their business succeed is reversing the actual casualty.

I may be completely wrong, but probably not.

Never have I seen sidechains be proposed as an actual solution to scaling Bitcoin so I'm not certain how that holds true.

If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth.

The word scaling did not appear in my post. Nor did I claim they propose to profit (undue or otherwise) by restricting block growth.

Read it again, slowly and carefully, if you are in fact not a paid or brainwashed shill and and want to understand what is going on. From my perspective that is around 50/50.

[brg444]

I don't think Blockstream has a deliberate financial agenda to mess up Bitcoin or hold it hostage.

I do think the founders of Blockstream (mostly gmaxwell and adam3us; the perspectives of the others are somewhat less apparent) have (and, importantly, had; see next paragraph) a different vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work. Different, that is, from most of the community and also from satoshi's public writings (including the white paper).

Here's where things get a bit complicated because their vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work has in part motivated the creation of the business and the requirements to realize that vision are the needs they aim to satisfy with their business plan.

But claiming they want to do such and such to Bitcoin because it makes their business succeed is reversing the actual casualty.

I may be completely wrong, but probably not.

Never have I seen sidechains be proposed as an actual solution to scaling Bitcoin so I'm not certain how that holds true.

If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth.

The word scaling did not appear in my post. Nor did I claim they propose to profit (undue or otherwise) by restricting block growth.

Read it again, slowly and carefully, if you are in fact not a paid or brainwashed shill and and want to understand what is going on. From my perspective that is around 50/50.

By difference in their vision for how Bitcoin work are you referring to their opinion that the network cannot possibly scale to accommodate the infinite demand for transactions without irreparably damaging its decentralized nature?

[smooth]

I don't think Blockstream has a deliberate financial agenda to mess up Bitcoin or hold it hostage.

I do think the founders of Blockstream (mostly gmaxwell and adam3us; the perspectives of the others are somewhat less apparent) have (and, importantly, had; see next paragraph) a different vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work. Different, that is, from most of the community and also from satoshi's public writings (including the white paper).

Here's where things get a bit complicated because their vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work has in part motivated the creation of the business and the requirements to realize that vision are the needs they aim to satisfy with their business plan.

But claiming they want to do such and such to Bitcoin because it makes their business succeed is reversing the actual casualty.

I may be completely wrong, but probably not.

Never have I seen sidechains be proposed as an actual solution to scaling Bitcoin so I'm not certain how that holds true.

If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth.

The word scaling did not appear in my post. Nor did I claim they propose to profit (undue or otherwise) by restricting block growth.

Read it again, slowly and carefully, if you are in fact not a paid or brainwashed shill and and want to understand what is going on. From my perspective that is around 50/50.

By difference in their vision for how Bitcoin work are you referring to their opinion that the network cannot possibly scale to accommodate the infinite demand for transactions without irreparably damaging its decentralized nature?

Yes, in part.

[brg444]

I don't think Blockstream has a deliberate financial agenda to mess up Bitcoin or hold it hostage.

I do think the founders of Blockstream (mostly gmaxwell and adam3us; the perspectives of the others are somewhat less apparent) have (and, importantly, had; see next paragraph) a different vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work. Different, that is, from most of the community and also from satoshi's public writings (including the white paper).

Here's where things get a bit complicated because their vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work has in part motivated the creation of the business and the requirements to realize that vision are the needs they aim to satisfy with their business plan.

But claiming they want to do such and such to Bitcoin because it makes their business succeed is reversing the actual casualty.

I may be completely wrong, but probably not.

Never have I seen sidechains be proposed as an actual solution to scaling Bitcoin so I'm not certain how that holds true.

If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth.

The word scaling did not appear in my post. Nor did I claim they propose to profit (undue or otherwise) by restricting block growth.

Read it again, slowly and carefully, if you are in fact not a paid or brainwashed shill and and want to understand what is going on. From my perspective that is around 50/50.

By difference in their vision for how Bitcoin work are you referring to their opinion that the network cannot possibly scale to accommodate the infinite demand for transactions without irreparably damaging its decentralized nature?

Yes, in part.

From where I stand it always seemed to me Blockstream was about scaling the features of Bitcoin, not its capacity, so I'm not certain how this conflicts with their position on the block size debate.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

From where I stand it always seemed to me Blockstream was about scaling the features of Bitcoin, not its capacity, so I'm not certain how this conflicts with their position on the block size debate.

Read page 1, section 1 of the LN white paper. For large scale payments, it says that bitcoin is not fit for purpose, and we need something else. It says nothing about scaling the features of bitcoin,  just how bitcoin can be used to support LN, which would be a separate system.

IOW, their value proposition is based on the limits of bitcoin.

[Zarathustra]

You - brg444 - captured this thread with 18 (!) posts this morning alone. Not funny. Do you really think it's necessary that you comment everything?