Topic: Andreas redpills /r/btc loons - page 4. (Read 5242 times)

Prove it isn't? Just look at what gear are the big pools using, most people are using bitmain gear, there's no actual competition, they have checkmated the entire mining game.

And there's people want to give miners even more power with the BUcoin idea.

Gladly, economic majority supports segwit and rejects BU. Which is where conservative blocksize will shine in the case of a situation where we go UASF and miners go BU.

It will not be pretty but segwit will win the war eventually.

Meanwhile LTC will shine with no drama.

please show source of claim for 70% of hashrate is under the thump of china or jihan
please dont reference a tweet or reddit post.


much like BTCC being under the came cartel as blockstream and coinbase...
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b  -btcc   -blockstream
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#c  -coinbase


you mean where blockstream bypassed nodes to hand the only vote of segwit to pools..
also

please show source of claim for 70% of hashrate is under the thump of china
please dont reference a tweet or reddit post.

1. It's obviously centralized. The company supplying the ASICs is the same for more than 70% of the hashrate. We've already seen with antbleed, how bad this is. If this went unnoticed and PBOC told Jihan to stop all of his machines remotely, we would have been fucked.

2. Full nodes validate transactions. If you get rid of people running full nodes and put it inside the same corporations that are running mines, then the government of a country can take bitcoin hostage by telling this corporation to censor certain transactions. They have the validating nodes and the hashrate.

3. Yes, it keeps them in check. Bitcoin does what? bitcoin is just a set of rules, those rules can be gamed as the chinese are trying to do. If miners become tyrannical then users can put them in trouble by selecting what software they run to validate nodes. This is no longer the case with mainstream-tier blocks.

4. Irrelevant, points above.

5. When needed. Segwit would give us time, then we can consider a blocksize increase. It will be needed in order to make LN run properly anyway.

1. its not centralized at all.  We have greater pool decentralization than we did a few years ago.  You can say there's
geographic centralization (China) of miners but that's another topic.

2. Not sure what you mean.  As I said , only miners extend and secure the ledger.  SPV clients can validate.
Have you seen this btw: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fraud-proofs-for-spv-using-the-spend-tree-1891411  This will help decentralization.

3. Small blocks help to keep miners in check?  We don't need to keep miners in check.  Bitcoin already does that.

4. Again, SPV clients with increasingly effective fraud proofs, unless you are mining.

5.  "Eventually".... exactly.  

blockstream are the ones that implemented CLTV and CSV to be the paypal-esq features of 3-5 business day funds maturity after withdrawal(cltv after channel close confirm) and chargebacks(csv after channel close confirm)

blockstream want LN as the dominant end goal for bitcoin (multisig channels = permissioned)

please research, and yea that does not mean reading reddit scripts

i guess i was a little tooo subtle in the other topic... please read it slowly word for word


here ill save you searching for it.. im sure other people will notice the subtle hints

But satoshi's vision was "p2p cash" too. How can you call a network that is centralized by monopolies of nodes validating the transactions "p2p cash"?

How isnt't validating the transactions in a decentralized way vs a corporation validating them a part of the security model?
  
But they do help in keeping them in check by threatening them with UASFs and whatnot. If they full control over nodes too, it would already be game over. Might as well use a bank?

Bitcoin is decentralized if people can run nodes at home, if this basic principle is broken then it's not decentralized. People will not be able to run nodes at home to cater for mainstream volume transactions, not now and not in 10 years, the blocksize will be too big for technology to progress at the same time and don't compromise the network.


All Core devs want to eventually raise the blocksize. Market already decided. It's miners that are blocking progress.

I'm under the impression that the whole /r/btc is a private party room of Roger Ver's paid trolls. It seems to be quite a waste of time trying to educate these shills. They are not accessible to rational argument, because they only care about their fiat/shitcoin paycheck.

Franky1 is one prime example for that type of character.

The right way to deal with these enemies of Bitcoin is to sideline them. They are free to construct their centralized Paypal 3.0, but they are not part of the Bitcoin community.

What other options are there for standard consumers? Bitmain is already a dangerous monopoly.
 
Nonsense. Someone responded to it in another thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18809626

He's right about most of it though. Most of the coins have bamboozled the people who are just in here due to their own weaknesses, i.e. greed.

watching his lasted Youtube video ...

Blockchain vs. Bullshit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMEOKDVXlUo

I thought to my self ... such Tech Evangelist ...  

More like we're redpilling him.

FOX news! Take your critically thinking advice. Now tell us your reliable news source. Watch the crickets everyone. I agree Fox is trash but all media is. That's critically thinking snowflake. You forgot racist. Andreas wiped you up lol

nah.
quicker to evict the rich guys in the african cities that pushed people into shanty towns in the first place, which resulted in them needing to search for water.
but i think you prefer the fox news version where people strangely just appeard 20 miles from water for no reason. and prefer to live 20 miles "half a day from a water source"..

i bet after years of watching fox news and oxfam adverts you still have not asked "why do they live 20 miles from water" and instead just wnt with the "they need money and half gesture wells to fix the problem

my point is. too many people are not thinking critically. they see a group of people that pretend to be like gods.. and people just follow them. not asking questions.

andreas for instance was kissing segwits ass before april 2016. (yep before devs got together to start actually debugging elements:segwit to then be bitcoin compatible

andrea's has not really even described segwit in detail last year about the requirement of needing people to move funds to segwit keys. nor has he explained that spammers will continue on native keys and continue spamming

just look at the OP screenshot
"even if blockstream could control the devs (they cant)" - lol blockstream ARE THE DEVS. all the other guys are just fanboys and spellcheckers. EG segwit is wrote by Pwuille (blockstream) some edits are done by luke jr and gmaxwell (blockstream, blockstream)

segwit was a altcoin and part of the blockstream project. not something core devs independently thought up all by themselves

who decided to go soft instead of full network consensus lukejr(blockstream)
who is now heading up UASF, samson mow (blockstream)

How did I guess what this thread would turn into? Quicker off the mark than usual though. You're doing great work, but I think you'd give more to the world by digging wells in Africa.

Of course Core should have asked the community what they want.  Gavin's been saying that for 4 years.   

I don't know if you explained this point very clearly Franky..not sure many got it (i'm just getting it now)
even though you've said it 50 times.... but even if you explained it,  many Core supporters are just
loyalists/fanboys/zealots/shills/whatever... they will just scream "stop blocking segwit".


 

people are screaming that "pools control the vote"...
no. core gave pools the vote.

pools didnt ask to be the only ones to vote
pools did not force core to give them the only voting power.

the problem is that core gave pools the vote. and pools are now saying no,
because not all of them believe segwit is 'as promised' or the right solution.

but core instead of asking pools whats the hold up or what core could do better.
core fanboys are speculating what the hold up is and causing alot of fud and now trying to push UASF. and shouting out threats that pools ned to be killed off with PoW bombs

core should ask the community what does the community want,
and then make a planB. one that is a node first pools second full community uniting event.. instead of push push push until late 2018 with the half gesture segwit as is version.

huh?? 

its not like core is going to give anyone a choice on different things,... they have one dish on the menu.  its called segwit.

uasf is kind of like giving nodes the vote ... on that one thing... which is even dumber.

sorry if i dont totally follow you.

instead of using other methods that can activate segwit. core chose only block count.
meaning core chose to only use pools flagging as the activation method.

and now they cry when pools didnt jump onboard before christmas and then not a couple months later so then the drama of blaming pools and saying pools have nukes that can kill the network so the network has to kill the pools

(instead of rationally asking what do pools want code wise that will make them say yes, and then make a plan B that is more community acceptable)

ive never understood what you meant by this.  please explain.

monopoly?
proof of claim.

please dont quote reddit or twitter. show source of real stats.


no.. CORE has an implementation where miners are voting
because core CHOSE to avoid a real node and pool consensus and INTENTIONALLY gave only pools the vote

other implementations rely on real consensus, nodes and pools

also many implementations rely on a PEER network if diverse nodes. segwit relies on everyone not DCG funded to be downstream from the segwit TIER network.