Topic: A conspiracy against Bitcoin? - page 2. (Read 456 times)

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

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 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

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.  




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.

Hahaha. This is a conspiracy theory.


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?

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


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

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).

---

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.

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

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.

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.
  

He tweeted about it,



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

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.

then you would be changing your whole ideology!

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.

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.

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?


Source?

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

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)

Wants big blocks.

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


For maintaining small blocks.

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

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)

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.


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.

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.

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.

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

 

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.