December 20, 2024, 09:55:24 PM

Welcome, Guest

News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 28.0 [Torrent]

Bitcoin Forum>Bitcoin>Bitcoin Discussion

Pages:

Author

Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 37. (Read 46564 times)

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Lauda on January 15, 2016, 11:46:25 AM

You guys have started directly attacking each other; this does not benefit anyone and the "discussion" is pretty useless then. How about you guys shift your focus to something else?

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on January 15, 2016, 11:21:23 AM

The funny thing is, I'm absolutely sure, our small block fanatics are nothing but important or rich by themselves.

It is not as simple as small block proponents vs big blockers. It is more about the conservative side vs the impatient side, however there are different "groups" that are currently present.

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on January 15, 2016, 11:21:23 AM

Currently we are in a strange situation. Most people want to scale Bitcoin and want that as many people as possible enjoy bitcoin. The core dev's problem is that they care too much and fear larger blocks will hurt decentralization. Without wanting it they support with this the other group which thinks bitcoin should be a privilegium.

The thing is: except from a tiny minority everyone here wants to bringt bitcoin to as many people as possible.

The developers are working on a proposal to scale short term before improving the infrastructure and scaling again. SegWit will bring the needed space within a few months.

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on January 15, 2016, 11:39:05 AM

Classic..

They don't even have code. Classic is a huge joke IMO. However, I wouldn't mind if this eventually forces Core to bump to 2 MB. It is actually sad how you guys forget everything due to being manipulated by others.

I applaud your bravery debunking the forkers wannabes, yet you still cling on to the idea taht the blocksize should be raised to fix the scaling non-issue.

Bitcoin is not meant to scale on the protocol level because it will foster centralization and introduce attack vectors.

Poeple got brainwashed by the antonopoulos socialist propaganda that bitcoin will save the world and other gavineries populist nonsense.

This are lies I am done argumenting politely. It is time people realise what bitcoin is and is not.

I've personnaly come to the conclusion that scaling bitcoin will only be possible and effective via offchain solutions and corporations will ahve to abide to new transparent business models and standards if they ever want to get some customers.

Although bitcoin would still not care about corporation failing and reddit whatnots being scammed.

Bergmann_Christoph

sr. member

Activity: 409

Merit: 286

Quote from: Lauda on January 15, 2016, 11:46:25 AM

You guys have started directly attacking each other; this does not benefit anyone and the "discussion" is pretty useless then. How about you guys shift your focus to something else?

I complain about this for days. But as long as it was just small block militia attacking everyone else you didn't care.

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on January 15, 2016, 11:21:23 AM

The funny thing is, I'm absolutely sure, our small block fanatics are nothing but important or rich by themselves.

It is not as simple as small block proponents vs big blockers. It is more about the conservative side vs the impatient side, however there are different "groups" that are currently present.

You are no small block fanatic. I think I made clear enough what kind of people and mindset here I mean with "small block militia". You have reasons, you are open to arguments and you have another capacity to express than yelling and insulting.

Conservative vs. impatient, gold vs payment may be good for some arguments. But what we see here, organized by a couple of posters, has nothing to do with arguments. I tried to discuss, but I don't see any sense in it as long as these characters dominate the threads. I just stay here to let them not possess the battlefield completely and warn other users.

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on January 15, 2016, 11:21:23 AM

The developers are working on a proposal to scale short term before improving the infrastructure and scaling again. SegWit will bring the needed space within a few months.

I know, I know, I know. Maybe it will be ok, than everything is good, but I think it will come to late and will be not enough.

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on January 15, 2016, 11:39:05 AM

Classic..

They don't even have code. Classic is a huge joke IMO. However, I wouldn't mind if this eventually forces Core to bump to 2 MB.

They don't need so much code, they just change blocksize with an xt-like voting to 2MB. And as long as they have the support of major miners they will succeed with it.

if this forces Code to bump to 2 MB it would also be ok. Some people of team big block think we should get rid of core. I don't think so, I believe them to be of a great value for Bitcoin.

edit: why did you add this?

Quote from: Lauda

It is actually sad how you guys forget everything due to being manipulated by others.

If you say everybody supporting bigger blocks is manipulated you attack their intelligence. This makes discussion, as you say, completely useless, because you reject the idea big blocker could have valid arguments. If you know that their arguments are just manipulation, you can stopp thinking.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

You guys have started directly attacking each other; this does not benefit anyone and the "discussion" is pretty useless then. How about you guys shift your focus to something else?

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on January 15, 2016, 11:21:23 AM

The funny thing is, I'm absolutely sure, our small block fanatics are nothing but important or rich by themselves.

It is not as simple as small block proponents vs big blockers. It is more about the conservative side vs the impatient side, however there are different "groups" that are currently present.

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on January 15, 2016, 11:21:23 AM

The developers are working on a proposal to scale short term before improving the infrastructure and scaling again. SegWit will bring the needed space within a few months.

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on January 15, 2016, 11:39:05 AM

Classic..

btcusury

sr. member

Activity: 433

Merit: 260

Quote from: Zarathustra on January 14, 2016, 03:12:24 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on January 14, 2016, 02:08:38 AM

Quote from: Zarathustra on January 14, 2016, 01:51:56 AM

LOL. Comical Ali from the Front National still believes that their alliance with North Korea will win the battle.

NK is Marxist; FN opposes Marxists.

Zarathustra Sad

LOL. Right wing collectivists and left wing collectivists are essentially the same. Mirror images of each other. Judean Peoples Front (JPF) 'against' the People's Front of Judea (PFJ).
Their hooligans are sitting in the same stadium.
As we all know, the soviet marxists turned their hyperflexible necks easily from marxism to fascism, because all of you represent the same kind of 'humans': Collectivists marching in fours behind a totalitarian Führer. The opposition to your left- and rightwing collectivist fronts are the anarchists. We are spitting at the door of the stadium.

Zarathustra, I think you are wrong about your perception of the Bitcoin ph0rking phenomena, but about this you are correct, in that you are seeing a bigger picture than iCEBREAKER.

Yes, FN are more honest, less obfuscatory, more reasonable, more populist, than the "leftist" groups, and yes, JM LePen and even his daughter have been saying and are saying far more of what is representative of the people of France despite the false picture painted by the MSM... but both "sides" (of the same statist coin) are indeed absolutely collectivists, and it's THAT that is the actual underlying, root problem. We all awaken to this understanding eventually. iCEBREAKER, I strongly recommend you check this out:

Mark Passio Interviews Larken Rose - The Religion of Statism

Remember folks, the picture one has of what's going on is largely dependent on the sources of information one chooses to expose oneself to. Broaden your sources!

Quote from: BitUsher on January 13, 2016, 09:07:49 AM

There still isn't clarity if this is a 2MB kick the can proposal, and 2MB immediate, and 4MB later proposal , or and 2MB immediate and doubling every 2 years BIP 101 style proposal. (We are also unaware of the specifics to the hardfork transition) Since the normal BIP process isn't being followed and no whitepaper exists, I cannot give my opinion on Bitcoin Classic. I would suggest that I do find it backwards and disheartening that so many are ACk'ing a proposal that isn't even clarified formally in either a whitepaper, BIP, or code which should all come before people judge it, IMHO.

Voting for this at this moment appears to be more of a political anti-vote against core than any technical vote upon the merits of the proposal.

Exactly. Almost certainly the results of a plan, i.e. a deliberate propaganda effort to promote a "problem" in order to generate a reaction which is geared toward the introduction of the "solution" (XT, Classic). As iCEBREAKER put it, it's "an imaginary solution in search of a problem."

Quote from: Zarathustra on January 13, 2016, 05:35:27 PM

Quote from: brg444 on January 13, 2016, 05:30:28 PM

Don't get it twisted the totalitarians are the forkers attempting to subvert Bitcoin with the tyranny of the majority.

I know it's the oldest trick in the book to point fingers and say the other one did it but you're not 5 years old, are you?

Finally: Jeff is leaving the sinking ship of the Totalitarians. I never understood why he tried to compromise with the compromised for so many month. This was a promising day:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/40tuhy/the_bitcoin_community_should_get_behind_bitcoin/

A quick glance at Jeff Garzik's twitter reveals him to be a bit of a clueless statist and MSM consumer... skilled as he may be in terms of coding and crypto. Is it really a "coincidence" that Gavin and Hearn are the same?

Bergmann_Christoph

sr. member

Activity: 409

Merit: 286

Ha!

KnC joined the team classic.

With antpool and bw.com they now have more than 35% of the haspower.

With Coinbase, BitStamp and OKCoin major exchanges are on board.

If btcchina, bitfury and bitfinex join, it's done.

You're right, hdbuck & all.: this is not a democracy. There are forces who decide, whether you like it or not.

Bergmann_Christoph

sr. member

Activity: 409

Merit: 286

Quote from: DooMAD on January 15, 2016, 10:52:06 AM

My favourite argument for supporting larger block sizes is still this:

Quote from: DooMAD on September 09, 2015, 05:02:18 PM

The greatest benefit of supporting larger block sizes is that it causes tremendous annoyance to Mircea Popescu and his merry little band of crony fanatics:

link

Quote from: hdbuck on August 24, 2015, 07:06:50 PM

It's time to be greedy and defend our safe-haven

Quote from: tvbcof on August 24, 2015, 12:50:57 PM

I see a fair amount of utility in having an XT fork which siphoned off a sizable number of 'bitcoiners' who are deeply ignorant about the principles of the system and are mostly MultiBitch-class users who add no value.

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 22, 2015, 04:38:02 PM

the peasants' desire to trade security for adoption is met with indifference/hostility/scorn from the people who matter.

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 22, 2015, 06:27:23 PM

Keep Bitcoin Elite!™

Quote from: brg444 on September 09, 2015, 01:06:28 PM

The wealthy will continue to rule Bitcoin and there is no amount of "new users" tears that will change this.

Quote from: brg444 on September 08, 2015, 02:05:41 PM

A "one-percenter blockchain" is the only rational vision for Bitcoin, whether you like it or not. Fortunately for the first time ever you will be allowed a seat at their table. It will cost you some if you wanna trade with them but you will have other options to enjoy the security of your wealth.

Quote from: danielpbarron on January 31, 2015, 02:16:10 PM

Bitcoin isn't for everybody.

Who else is looking forward to not sharing a chain with these vile creatures?

To say that those views are not representative of the open, permissionless system I signed up for would be an understatement. If all the people who support small blocks are as repellent as the ones quoted there, then as far as I'm concerned, that's reason enough to support larger blocks. Bitcoin is and should be whatever its users define by the code they run. There is no arguing with this. If people continue to run code supporting 1mb, that's fair enough. But if enough users run code that supports a larger blocksize, that doesn't suddenly make it a coup/hostile takeover/power grab/dictatorship/CEO/etc. That becomes the new consensus. That's the open, permissionless system I signed up for.

Great quotes.

The funny thing is, I'm absolutely sure, our small block fanatics are nothing but important or rich by themselves. They are in the forum day and night and try to earn some money by investing in altcoins.

But it often happened that a lamp supported the ideology of the wolve because it liked to feel like a wolve. And often the poor support an unfair system cause this makes them feel as being rich.

Currently we are in a strange situation. Most people want to scale Bitcoin and want that as many people as possible enjoy bitcoin. The core dev's problem is that they care too much and fear larger blocks will hurt decentralization. Without wanting it they support with this the other group which thinks bitcoin should be a privilegium.

The thing is: except from a tiny minority everyone here wants to bringt bitcoin to as many people as possible.

Quote from: hdbuck

You are poor, both financially and intellectually.

Who gives a shit about you ph0rker and your redditard alikes? NOBODY. And certainly not Bitcoin.

Please proceed forking off ASAP. You are wasting your time here, not that it is worth anything in the first place.

And now hdbuck looses his last capacities to talk. When you challenge him he regrets back into his 3-year-old-mind or into some neanterthaler. Really funny. He seems to suffer from a serious form of digital tourette syndrom.

Let's say it this way: Small blocks are in favor of anti-democratic, pseudo-elitist nationalists with a restricted capability to speak and discuss.

And by all their anti-democratic yelling they don't even ask who should controll those who are ruling.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 3191

Leave no FUD unchallenged

btcusury

sr. member

Activity: 433

Merit: 260

Quote from: VeritasSapere on January 12, 2016, 03:28:49 PM

I still think that good government is possible, its just that it requires a highly enlightened civilization and culture in order for it be functional. Cryptocurrency has changed my ideological objective you could say since it has made possible what was previously impossible, in regards to political theory.

There cannot be "good government", because by definition "government" is based on the idea of the legitimacy of involuntaryism. When you wake up to who and what you are you understand that you are sovereign, and nobody can or ever has ruled/governed you. Why don't you watch that short video and tell me what you think about it?

Quote from: btcusury on January 12, 2016, 10:32:22 AM

... and join the human race.

Yet you are the the one attempting to dehumanize me.

What I'm saying is that you aren't quite a full human being until you have come to understand your sovereignty, and therefore the sovereignty of every other human being.

Quote from: jbreher on January 13, 2016, 03:14:11 AM

Quote from: btcusury on January 12, 2016, 10:32:22 AM

Well, let's then test whether that is true. You obviously have a lot of spare time (or is it work time?), given your posts on this forum, so certainly you have time to increase your "true knowledge" regarding "political philosophy" by researching the information from other researchers who also have "a thirst for true knowledge". So let's start with these two:

Mark Passio Interviews Larken Rose - The Religion of Statism (a very short video)

All right -- I gotta stop you right there.

I have had direct, face-2-face convos with Larken dating back to the last millennium. Yes, he (intermittently) uses Bitcoin. But what exactly are you trying to convey here, that has anything whatsoever about the discussion at hand?

Tell me how this particular interview with Larken has anything to do with the 'death of bitcoin due to starvation' vs. 'death to bitcoin due to centralization' debate.

Or are you just trying to steal some unearned 'my lib is better than your lib' cred?

You took out the quote I was replying to, by VeritasSapere, thus de-contextualizing my post, how clever! I recommend that video to your attention as well, if you are still somehow under the impression that there is such as a thing and could ever be such a thing as a "legitimate government".

Quote from: DooMAD on January 12, 2016, 04:15:51 PM

Quote from: btcusury on January 12, 2016, 03:21:41 PM

Quote from: DooMAD on January 12, 2016, 06:55:04 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on January 12, 2016, 05:24:04 AM

Only the charlatans are not brave/honest enough to come up with a proper name and instead leech on bitcoin's name notoriety.

Only the authoritarians are not brave/honest enough to live by the free market they claim they espouse to. People calling themselves libertarians, but demanding protectionism in what's supposed to be an open and permissionless system, free from restrictions. I'm pretty left wing myself, you'd probably even call me "statist", but apparently even I have more stomach for an open market than you do, coward.
[...]
I crave the opposite of authority, you're the one who thinks they can tell other people what kind of software they can and can't run to suit your own agenda. You're the authoritarian fascist here. I say let the chips fall where they may, because I embrace a free and open market. I don't fear it as you do. Bitcoin is and should be whatever its users define by the code they run. If you don't want people to have a choice, a closed-source coin would be far better suited to your goals.

So you openly admit that you're a statist (i.e. an involuntaryist, an advocate of slavery), but you call other people "authoritarian" Huh

WTF?

That was an attempt at mockery, seeing as people like hdbuck, icebreaker and a few of the other hardcore MP fanboys seem to enjoy calling everyone with even the slightest left-wing leaning a statist. And the jab remains that I still respect the free market more than fake libertarian pretenders like them.

Which is the more authoritarian attitude in your mind?

I'm of the opinion that hdbuck's view, "a)", is authoritarian. My view, "b)", is the complete opposite of authoritarian. Thus concludes another edition of "why do I always have to spell it out for people like they're not all there upstairs?" Roll Eyes

That's not quite what's happening, though. You are essentially dumbing down the situation to soundbites, MSM-style. And the reason you're doing that is, I would suggest, because you're not actually paying attention. Or, rather, you are only paying attention to one side of the argument. You are going with what sounds/feels good to you rather than examining the technicalities involved (which requires, you know, research). You can have a look in Technical Discussion or on /r/Bitcoin, e.g. here. Poster spoonXT sums up the situation perfectly:

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on January 12, 2016, 07:11:58 PM

Quote from: worhiper_-_ on January 12, 2016, 06:36:59 PM

After the failure of XT Gavin moved to "Bitcoin Classic" and he calls it the vision of Satoshi. Roll Eyes

Gavinista 9 months ago: "We need 20MB blocks Right Fucking Now, or Bitcoin is dooomed!!1!"

*Bitcoin continues to thrive*

Gavinista 6 months ago: "We need ~~20MB~~ 8MB blocks Right Fucking Now, or Bitcoin is dooomed!!1!"

*Bitcoin continues to thrive*

Gavinista 1 month ago: "We need ~~20MB~~ ~~8MB~~ 2MB blocks Right Fucking Now, or Bitcoin is dooomed!!1!"

There is only one plausible/parsimonious explanation for such an utter lack of concern about their continual loss of credibility, which is that they are executing a 'thin wedge' strategy.

The Gavinistas would be happy with 1.001MB blocks, because such a hard fork would get their camel's nose into the tent.

The point isn't larger blocks will save Bitcoin from certain dooom, it's to undermine the socioeconomic majority's diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient system. It's about sending a message, that Bitcoin's engineering decisions can be controlled by manufacturing dissent.

Nailed it! +1

ATguy

sr. member

Activity: 423

Merit: 250

Quote from: Lauda on January 15, 2016, 04:21:37 AM

Quote from: danielW on January 15, 2016, 04:01:07 AM

Quote from: ATguy on January 15, 2016, 03:12:42 AM

completly failing to protect Bitcoin from overfilled blocks (thus reducing good user experience with Bitcoin)

Again, false, Bitcoin is functioning very well right now, and with the scaling roadmap I am confident it will go from strength to strength in the future (if it is not derailed by opponents).

They're using speculation as an argument which right now is pretty ignorant. It all comes down to if you're a reasonable and intelligent person or you're falling for charlatans like Peter R. Bitcoin does not have a problem and is most likely not going to experience a network 'overload' before we have SegWit (which will double the potential transaction output).

Blocklimit cappacity already make the user experince with Bitcoin worse because everytime completly full block is mined it is reasonable to expect more transactions would be added if there is more space in the block, thus unnecessary delaying 1st confirmation for some users already - the point is miners have no choice to add these transactions even if they wanted the fees + users have unnecessary to wait - both losing.

Also raising blocklimit is much easier solution than questionable SegWit which is not user friendly anyway (now average Joe has to choose to use between standard and SegWit transaction without understanding benefits+risks). Doing something more complicated than necessary just to avoid hard fork (which they plan latter anyway) tells a lot about Core Developers.

Quote from: danielW on January 15, 2016, 04:01:07 AM

Quote from: ATguy on January 15, 2016, 03:12:42 AM

Bitcoin Core development failed in refusing hard forks as valid way to make the code more effecient

Not true, hard forks will be done and core developers are not opposed to them if necessary, but core prefers other methods if they can be done. Segwit Softfork > hardfork to 2mb so that is the better plan for now. Sounds good.

If there will be a need for a hardfork it will be done, right now there is no need.

Again, these are centralized decissions which I dont agree with and only free market can choose what is best *, not one group of developers.

* If you want Bitcoin keep freedoom and not under governance of one group

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: danielW on January 14, 2016, 08:29:16 PM

Quote

“It’s likely that the current developers will get fired, and some other team will replace them because they are not listening to their customers,” he said in an interview last week.

Well that other team is to be led by Gavin and backed by coinbase and similar companies. Reiterating what I said, I am suspicious that some people want to remove todays decentralised consensus development strongly influenced by cypherpunk ideology.

They want to centralise development under a team that will play ball with regulators/gov and large centralised gov bootlicking companies. This will be a danger to Bitcoins value. It will allow easier coopting of Bitcoin and take away some of its benefits as an alternative financial system. This needs to be fought and companies like Coinbase should not be promoted.

Where did you quote this from? This isn't going to happen. Even if it did I'd start a opposite campaign for Bitcoin. I would be spreading the word to people not to use it at any cost and would probably advise them to use an altcoin if necessary. Coinbase is evil.

Quote from: danielW on January 15, 2016, 04:01:07 AM

Quote from: ATguy on January 15, 2016, 03:12:42 AM

completly failing to protect Bitcoin from overfilled blocks (thus reducing good user experience with Bitcoin)

Again, false, Bitcoin is functioning very well right now, and with the scaling roadmap I am confident it will go from strength to strength in the future (if it is not derailed by opponents).

danielW

sr. member

Activity: 277

Merit: 257

Quote from: ATguy on January 15, 2016, 03:12:42 AM

Bitcoin Core development failed in refusing hard forks as valid way to make the code more effecient

Not true, hard forks will be done and core developers are not opposed to them if necessary, but core prefers other methods if they can be done. Segwit Softfork > hardfork to 2mb so that is the better plan for now. Sounds good.

If there will be a need for a hardfork it will be done, right now there is no need.

Quote from: ATguy on January 15, 2016, 03:12:42 AM

completly failing to protect Bitcoin from overfilled blocks (thus reducing good user experience with Bitcoin)

Again, false, Bitcoin is functioning very well right now, and with the scaling roadmap I am confident it will go from strength to strength in the future (if it is not derailed by opponents).

Bergmann_Christoph

sr. member

Activity: 409

Merit: 286

Quote from: danielW on January 14, 2016, 08:29:16 PM

Quote

“It’s likely that the current developers will get fired, and some other team will replace them because they are not listening to their customers,” he said in an interview last week.

Well that other team is to be led by Gavin and backed by coinbase and similar companies. Reiterating what I said, I am suspicious that some people want to remove todays decentralised consensus development strongly influenced by cypherpunk ideology.

They want to centralise development under a team that will play ball with regulators/gov and large centralised gov bootlicking companies.

This will be a danger to Bitcoins value. It will allow easier coopting of Bitcoin and take away some of its benefits as an alternative financial system.

This needs to be fought and companies like Coinbase should not be promoted.

development is currently centralized in a couple of persons.

Coinbase and other companies support an alternative development because the current team goes sharply against their inerest - as it goes against the interest of users.

The danger to bitcoin is what core is currently fabricating: they don't raise the blocklimit and plan things like rbf. If there are more than 1 client, this is always better and more secure

ATguy

sr. member

Activity: 423

Merit: 250

Quote from: danielW on January 14, 2016, 08:29:16 PM

Quote

“It’s likely that the current developers will get fired, and some other team will replace them because they are not listening to their customers,” he said in an interview last week.

Well that other team is to be led by Gavin and backed by coinbase and similar companies. Reiterating what I said, I am suspicious that some people want to remove todays decentralised consensus development strongly influenced by cypherpunk ideology.

They want to centralise development under a team that will play ball with regulators/gov and large centralised gov bootlicking companies.

This will be a danger to Bitcoins value. It will allow easier coopting of Bitcoin and take away some of its benefits as an alternative financial system.

This needs to be fought and companies like Coinbase should not be promoted.

While code contributors are good in developing software solutions, you cannot expect them to take always the best stance to economy or other decission areas. Thus you will never have decentralized Bitcoin development with granted monopoly to one group of developers defining Bitcoin consensus rules.

I can argue the current Bitcoin Core development failed in refusing hard forks as valid way to make the code more effecient and to change consensus rules (happened in the past already by changing about 30MB blocksize to 1MB blocksize limit so dont bite consensus rules are unchangable or harmfull for Bitcoin), only focusing on soft forks (as less elegant software solution - what a fail in area of their expertise!) and completly failing to protect Bitcoin from overfilled blocks (thus reducing good user experience with Bitcoin) by not having the decentralized solutions ready before this happens - probably not understanding economy principes well (they are not economy experts afterall) thus not giving it high enought priority.

With one developer group failing to deliver consumer expectations from Bitcoin, what are other options to choose from if there is not alternative? But decentralization means the ability to choose alternative to prevent point of failure possible with just one group.

sAt0sHiFanClub

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on January 14, 2016, 07:23:26 PM

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on January 14, 2016, 02:25:01 PM

Quote from: Cuidler on January 14, 2016, 10:57:59 AM

It is pretty funny you believe the new Bitcoin will lead to more centralised direction, yet all your post has totalitarian view with a lot of censorship suggested to keep control in what you believe to be best for Bitcoin regardless of outside support - basically a tyran description. It is very surprising here are so many people with totalitarian view when Bitcoin is meant to be libertarian project instead...

Yes, you summarised it pretty succinctly there. They will never see the incongruity of condoning censorship in 'censorship resistant' Bitcoin. Indeed, a lot of the anger displayed by the likes of iCE, brg, et al. can be explained as being a result of the mental stress they suffer from this cognitive dissonance.

Who are you trying to fool? I haven't stopped grinning since hearing the fantastic news about Hearn's rage-quit and rage-dump.

If its a victory at all for your fascist agenda, then its a Pyrrhic one. You have only succeeded in galvanising (see what I did there) the opposition to Blockstream and further polarising the community. The tactics used to destroy XT will probably come back to haunt you.

In fact, it has already started.

danielW

sr. member

Activity: 277

Merit: 257

Quote from: Cuidler on January 14, 2016, 10:57:59 AM

Absolute nonsense. So how come you don't you criticise xtnodes.com ? They censor bitcoin core and do not provide choice. Why only links to bitcoinxt and classic? The most popular client is censored.

The bitcoin.org site is also censored by 'your side'. The arguments of small-blockers are censored and only Mikes and Gavins side of the debate is shown by 'your' censors.

/hyperbole

Bitcoin.org choosing not to promote coinbase or XT is not censorship. Its free speech. They have a right to free speech and their speech should choose not to promote coinbase. This is because there are many better alternative wallets to coinbase that are not trying to launch a governance coup of bitcoin in a more pro-regulation direction.

So you do not believe in bitcoin.org's right to free speech?

---
Im being a bit of a troll with the last line but I am doing it to show the ridiculousness of the hyperbole and nonsense labels and terms being thrown around whenever centralised coin opponents do not do what centralised coiners want. (yes I did it again Grin

)

danielW

sr. member

Activity: 277

Merit: 257

Quote

“It’s likely that the current developers will get fired, and some other team will replace them because they are not listening to their customers,” he said in an interview last week.

Well that other team is to be led by Gavin and backed by coinbase and similar companies. Reiterating what I said, I am suspicious that some people want to remove todays decentralised consensus development strongly influenced by cypherpunk ideology.

They want to centralise development under a team that will play ball with regulators/gov and large centralised gov bootlicking companies.

This will be a danger to Bitcoins value. It will allow easier coopting of Bitcoin and take away some of its benefits as an alternative financial system.

This needs to be fought and companies like Coinbase should not be promoted.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on January 14, 2016, 02:25:01 PM

Quote from: Cuidler on January 14, 2016, 10:57:59 AM

Who are you trying to fool? I haven't stopped grinning since hearing the fantastic news about Hearn's rage-quit and rage-dump.

His Bitcoin Obituary Medium post of epic poutrage provided more schadenfreude than I can remember previously experiencing.

Who is going to make the 'final call' for Gavinista vanity forks now? Garzik? I must admit that's an improvement.

[email protected] (or is it [email protected] now?) taking his ball and going home doesn't come remotely close to making up for Core's loss of Gmax, but that won't stop me from having the shitlord's head stuffed and mounted in my trophy case.

Aww, poor Mikey didn't get is way! Nobody except Galvin, Frap.doc, and Peter_R cared about his demands for blacklists, checkpoints, and contentious hard forks.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

That's really appealing, I'm sure you'll pick up plenty of new Satoshis for your fanclub that way.

Pages:

Bitcoin Forum>Bitcoin>Bitcoin Discussion

Jump to: