Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 12. (Read 46564 times)

Aaaand Fatman ignores everything that's being said and repeats the same old argument once again...


In the interest of using most precise terminology, I think we should use Greg Maxwell's term "the bigger-blocks-at-any-cost community" to refer to the "big blockists". There's nothing intrinsically reprehensible about being a "big blockist", but it's hard to logically justify being a "bigger-blocks-at-any-cost" promoter.

I don't think gmax ever implied 'bitcoin has to burn' but I don't think people are as interested in "being able to justify claims of fantastic upside growth"
as they are simply in having a clear picture in where we are going and when.

The so called scalability roadmap is vague and it would be much better if there were clear milestones markers with ETAs.
Even if there is not agreement on the best way to scale, anyone publishing a 'scalability roadmap' should provide
a lot of detail IMO if they want people to buy into their vision.

So, don't succumb to heard mentality. Follow Core blindly?

We all remember that Gavin and Hearn wanted a solution which was more than a can-kick. But that wasn't possible to get through.

2MB is nothing. Because we'll have to settle for a can kick we're guaranteed to spend the next couple of years dealing with the block size limit.

What's Gmazwell's point with bringing this stuff up? Someone disagreed with him back then so Bitcoin has to burn?

If they just introduced BIP101 back then, the community could have spent its precious energy on actually solving problems, rather than bickering.

Bitcoiners don't need a place to store their money. They ain't got any.
Because blew it all on magic BTCeans & BTCeanies. prudently invested it all in BTC.

Bitcoiners need a safe haven from TPTB and banksters in which they can store their money.

Poor kids hoping to catch a train are hopeless.

Bitcoin doesn't need moar money, bitcoiners do.

Bitcoin does not need moar people/transactions to gain value. It needs moar money.

A reddit user sums up the perspectives very neutrally:


So yeah, one perspective insists on focusing on minor temporary short-term usability issues while not paying any attention to the long-term feasibility and security of the system itself. It's just like the television's "elections", where every 4 years the same routinary meaningless jabber fools countless millions of unthinking people into putting their energies and hope into a new icon with a different name and slightly altered slogan.

But it's not even that for most big blockists, as Greg Maxwell observes:



We have a great invention here, please don't help ruin it by sheer herd stupidity. Yeah, it's hard to contain judgment energies! (Make sure to always withdraw them at the end of the day!)

Well, you know.

Bitcoins are for closers!!!

I posted that here. But it didn't have REKT in the title. It was my own fault, really.

At least there is some hope for sanity:

http://coinjournal.net/bitcoin-cores-jonas-schnelli-core-would-need-to-increase-block-size-if-classic-succeeds/

Yay we won. 1MB blocks mined constantly. But make no mistake big blockers! I'm keeping an eye on you.

Yes, it's over. Everybody won.

I see what you did there.

Core did improve themselves though. They are trying to better their communication with the community (website and twitter both up). There is even a very good post about Segwit now for those who don't understand it or improperly understood it. The other side doesn't really have any good argument aside from hanging onto the 'influenced by Blockstream' campaign. This is a very ignorant claim especially for people who are supporting Classic (Toomin brothers pushing their project Consider.it as the main platform there; for the sake of Bitcoin right?).

enlighten me gentlemen, is the war over? I keep reading that core developers demand peace, but I disagree. We must continue until we annihilate the "big blocks" camp, there is no room for compromise.



This is a major threat to the survival of Bitcoin and politically correctness is thus irrelevant. 1 MB blocks.

I'd like to make it really clear that I don't want FREE TX 4EVA, and that I agree entirely with the right honourable gentleman when he says that it is bunk.

However I would like the right honorouble gentleman to wake *me* up if fee markets fail to develop as block subsidies decline, and if there is less incentive for miners to secure the One True Blockchain, and if there is talk of a tail emission, which might entail raising the 21e6 coin limit.

Because taking action because something *might* be a problem is clearly crazy!

I'm still here in the middle - perhaps you are so far off to one side that the middle doesn't look like the middle anymore!

The 'that-threatens-bitcoin' was implicit in my asterisk, because when people post these rekt statements they are opinions. I'd go further and say 'that-threatens-what-i-think-bitcoin-is'

But really that's missing the point. Which is that regardless of what someone thinks bitcoin is, posting about how everything that doesn't fit their view is automatically rekt is hyperbole.

These people post in such a way to suggest they think they *know* the future, when in fact that is impossible, because the future is uncertain. A statement in which someone claims to know the future is by definition a lie.

Posting that statement repeatedly is exactly what you described when you said "repeat the lie so often that it becomes the truth"

You could accuse me of the same thing "Keep at it; not long now" could allude to me thinking that one particular outcome is foregone conclusion, but it could also just be that I think that a resolution either way could be coming soon. The crowd will decide what they decide

I think that somewhat similarly you are very careful about what you post. I think you recognise that publicly stating extreme views only alienates the undecided. Adam back does great job of that too and as a result I've spent a lot more mind time on understanding his point of view. Its tricky though because although nobody will acknowledge it (because that weakens the credibility - so in doing so I am taking that hit), the reality is that sometimes charged debates (such as blocksize limit) become about debating and the relative merits of the positions can sometimes play second fiddle to this. In that respect Back is a huge asset for the small block camp, because he does know how to play that game. Small wonder he is in the position he is in!

You can all now go ahead and pretend I'm crazy for suggesting that is the case (and in doing so confirm it to be true)

Anyway thats kind of a meta argument, what I was getting to is that here:


I think you dropped the ball. You're stating the community has rejected all three of the alternatives, admittedly XT is not very popular and so you could argue it has been 'rejected' (for now).

Unlimited - its out there right now its really only early days, but you are stating that it has been rejected? I'd say we are in opinion territory here.

Classic - its not even been released yet. So here you cannot possibly say it has been rejected by the community, but you have. The "In reality" makes it really hard for you to argue that you weren't presenting this as fact.

So whilst you haven't specifically said "classic is #rekt", you kinda have. Which puts you amongst the ice'n'brgs and hdbuck's of the thread, and I'm definitely not exaggerating their position!

Is this an attempt at irony? Now you are repeating lies in the aforementioned fashion. Although I'd settle for a less controversial manipulative populist, like Donald Trump.

No, bett.

*that-threatens-bitcoin is #REKT. Inherently.


That's another one from the Goebbels school, eh bett? Exaggerate your adversary's position out of all recognition... And I always thought you occupied the reasonable-middle-ground?