Topic: A conspiracy against Bitcoin? - page 3. (Read 456 times)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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


Partners? No, let me show you.


For big blocks. Centralizing.


For small blocks. Maintain decentralization.


For big blocks. Centralizing.


For big blocks. Centralizing.


Centralized ledger.

For big blocks. Centralizing.

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



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

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

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

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

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

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


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



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

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

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

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

Your 1st thought of hard forking to 2mb blocks, was a better solution, than what was implemented.
Whoever convinced you that was incorrect did you a disservice.

Maybe they Gaslight you.

funny thing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





Opinions?