Topic: Austin Hill and Blockstream can just fuck right off. (Read 1518 times)

Has the new leadership of Blockstream changed their objectives and motivations to take over Bitcoin?

Your complete and utter refusal to answer a single question I posed to you is duly noted.


Yes. Were you active in the community under another name at the time?


Now you are just fabricating things of whole cloth. Complete and utter bullshit. First, I don't believe -- and never have believed -- that negotiating with government is important to Bitcoin's success. Use your brain - nobody in a decentralized system is in any position whatsoever to negotiate on behalf of the system. Any such negotiations are null and void by definition. Second, please cite any evidence that you have supporting your assertion that "Gavin... think(s) that Bitcoin's future can be assured by negotiating with government." I'm going to guess you are going to once more completely evade this challenge. Surprise me?
 

Now you've gone full-on stupid. Just what secret knowledge, with which the CIA could crush this nascent uprising, was available from Gavin alone in a freeking open source project?


Another wild ass assertion, completely devoid of any supporting evidence. In what way did Gavin's accepting these speaking invitations 'thwart the motive for Bitcoin's creation'?


He described the discussions in general terms. What do you expect? A line-by-line transcript rendered accurately word-for-word from memory?

its public knowledge about the gavin-cia invitation of 2011
he actually publicly told people he was attending, months before attending.
there was even videos of him at that conference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoSWnxieScw
ill leave yayaya to actually research more.

but here is a mind opening thought for yayaya
yayaya should replace the word "gavin" with the word "adam back" and the same applies. because, guess what... adam back has had talks with government departments too.
using "business partners" adam back is actually paid by corporations and government departments.
(replace R3 with PwC and you start to see it)

i know yayaya wont research that hard so here is some easy finds
google: "Digital Asset Holdings RTGS" - DAH work with bank of england, bank of india, deutsche bank to make their banking systems into blockchain
google: "hyperledger: Digital Asset Holdings blockstream" - formed at the same time as blockstream inventing the "roadmap"
meaning "Digital Asset Holdings" which is the blockstream banking partner that resembles classics R3 banking partner.
also worth noting that r3 are part of hyperledger.... funny that!
http://www.coindesk.com/hyperledger-technical-steering-committee/ - IBM, jpmorgan, multiple banks(DAH), multiple banks(r3)
http://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-10-new-firms-hyperledger-blockchain-project/ - blockstream is part of hyperledger

the hypocrisy of trying to hide the corporate agenda of one group by talking about another group does not work.
wake up and realise who your being a sheep to.

this is why there should be NO dev team dominance. so that no dev team can be corrupted enough to change bitcoin negatively

have a nice day

What exactly makes you think I was not around at the time? My registration date at this forum?

You belong to the group of people (like Gavin), who think that Bitcoin's future can be assured by negotiating with government. That's pretty naive. You can't negotiate with a much more powerful entity and expect that your wishes will be respected.

In the case of Bitcoin, it's outright idiocy to approach governmental bodies, because Bitcoin poses a direct threat to their power. It's even dangerous, because you hand over information to people, whose sole interest is to maintain and expand their superior position. In addition you open the door for (coerced) political influence on Bitcoin development, because you identify yourself as a central access gate of an otherwise decentralized system. Ever asked yourself, why Satoshi remained anonymous?

The existing elites will not voluntarily relinquish their power over financial policy. Therefore Bitcoin's future can only assured by secure and privacy enhanced decentralized technology. Trying to please the elites by changing Bitcoin to make it more controllable (for example by making operation of independent full nodes harder by allowing excessive block sizes) will not help Bitcoin. In fact it betrays the original motive for its creation.

It's a myth that Satoshi handed over the Bitcoin project to Gavin Andresen as the only leader. It was a number of Core developers - yet only Gavin Andresen exploited the leap of faith to expand his power and sought frequent media attention.

Gavin Andresen accepting invitations to speak at the CIA and the Council on Foreign relations thwart the motive for Bitcoin's creation. In addition Gavin never made full disclosure of the contents of his discussions during these meetings. Instead he founded The Bitcoin Foundation shortly after.

ya.ya.yo!

I think the Bitcoin Foundation is now being converted over to a pedophile organization.

Seeing as you were not around at the time, you may not realize that at the time Gavin visited the CIA, the future of Bitcoin was nowhere near an assured thing. Many in the community felt that any attention from any quarter would be a good thing. Are you insinuating that Gavin had ulterior motives in accepting the invitation? Do you think he engineered the invitation? What motives do you posit? What negatives came out of this visit?

And before you spout that this act drove Satoshi out (a view I have had articulated by several), then why would Satoshi left such a nemesis in charge of the project?


Insert list here, please:
1)
2)
3)
.
.
.



Gavin's proposal to start the Bitcoin Foundation was expressly in order to:
1) create a mechanism for the funding of Bitcoin development
2) provide a point of contact so that journalists and governmental bodies could get true info on Bitcoin

On #1, yes he directly benefited. But so did Bitcoin as a whole.
On #2, at the time, there were many instances of outright falsehoods in the press, and driving policy. Early actions by BF countered this trend.

In the long run, the BF did indeed devolve into an insiders' boondoggle. However, some of the early work accomplished by BF may have been instrumental in keeping the gov at bay. Perhaps most notably the early senatorial hearings during which Jennifer Shasky Calvery(?) - chief of FinCEN, was led to proclaim that the legitimate uses of cryptocurrency far outweighed the nefarious uses. Regardless, perhaps you can list Gavin's actions on behalf of the BF that set back the cause:

1)
2)
3)
.
.
.

 Oh - you got nothing? Unsurprised.

The majority, by far, wants >2MB.  But you and your Blockstream idiots keep pointing to that little point knowing that you've been able to 'trick' the system by having just one guy (1Meg Greg) convince a few scared whimpy Chinese miners to keep mining their bullshit version.  1Meg Greg and Blockstream have achieved control over a centralized system. 

If 20,000 bitcoiners all had CPU miners going today and there were no ASICS, the blocksize would surely be 8Mb and Greg and his fucktard team would have control of nothing at all. 

Bitcoin unfortunately has become centralized and the bad actors at the top keep control all the while they say "well a majority would switch if it were such a good idea!" which is complete bullshit.

Once the entire mining capacity got under the control of just a few superminers - it became very easy to manipulate the system.  Today it is laughable that you say "well gee, a majority says they want small blocks."  Small blocks do one thing: drive the demand for the sidechain product Blockstream is building. 

Blockstream has successfully corrupted the network and eliminated decentralization. 

I just love it when you get personal. I am saying these guys has been contributing code and you have been contributing fuck@l. The spectators are always the first to throw the stones, but they are not the ones playing the game. All of their code will count for nothing, if the people using it, has not decided to do that.

If you are so hell bent on trying to sink these guys, get a team together and create alternative and see if the majority rather wants to support your version. ^hmmmm^

Then again, you are here for other reasons, not to improve Bitcoin. ^SkitMakr signing off^

Yayayo is a real nut job.  Don't know where they got him from.

coins101
its worth noting that when talking to core fanboys such as yayaya.. they use all the real reasons to hate core, but twists them to falsely make other dev groups look guilty of the same act just to falsely make core look innocent.
yet people see through that plan, but core fanboys still dont wake up to it.

core=bigblockers(4mb weight)
core=corporate backing(blockstream->PwC->IBM, banks, insurance)
core=altcoin lovers(monero, liquid, sidechains)

the hypocrisy is loud with core fanboys. yet i cannot put it down to core fanboys knowing the hypocrisy of their own words and still spouting it out because they are part of the corporate agenda... but more so they are simple minded and are getting spoon fed the false narratives, and then left to just shout it out like sheep without any thought.

I seem to remember that Core^TM CEO, GMaxwell, has an XMR address in his sig.

Are you saying Bitcoin is being undermined by Monero? Wow, now it all makes sense. Small blocks is a reverse attack on Bitcoin, by XMR.

Why 'proudly'? And what was actually wrong with that?

Such as?


Not following alts too much, but ETH and Monero long term holders are probably far from being frustrated.

So instead, we should hold the door wide open for a commercial entity to have an increasingly large influence?  Lawmakers love commercial entities.  Very easy to gain leverage over.  It would be handy for them to have a say on code contributions that regulators would deem favourable.  What could possibly go wrong?   

Bitcoin development must remain decentralised.  As soon as too much power is in the hands of too few people, things could go badly wrong.  Suddenly, alternative clients and implementations could look like the lesser of two evils, even for the most ardent of smallblockists.  Or will you still be a Blockstream fan when the only option is running government-approved code? 

.. for corporations

it would be an IBM logo on the software and then we would have other corporations with patent ownership of LN and sidechains.
while all three corps would work together to price people out of holding funds on bitcoin private keys(tx fee war) to spend onchain and instead sway/force people to lock funds into corporate owned LN hubs and sidechains (multisigs requiring corporate authorisation(signing)).

Anyone examining the post history and use of language of RawDog and coins101 will be able to form their own impression.

As it turns out, altcoiners tend to have a different and often more negative view of Bitcoin. On the one hand it's possible that these people turned into altcoiners out of dissatisfaction with Bitcoin. On the other hand it's equally possible that these people are frustrated with their altcoin investments and now paint doomsday scenarios for Bitcoin in the hope that their altcoins appreciate in value relative to BTC.

Whatever the motivation for the spreading of misinformation is, the attempt to force an irresponsible bigblock scheme on Bitcoin has failed. Bitcoin is in good shape and time will prove that the decision to implement segregated witness and lightning networks was the right one.

ya.ya.yo!

to: yayayo

lesson one blockstreams desire for 4mb blockweight makes blockstream fanboys the big blockers.
lesson two by quoting one dev team should dominate due to x,y,z you are revealing you want to be dominated.
lesson three look at the dates of when gmaxwell and adam back joined github.. it wasnt 2009, so why blindly pretend they have always been involved.
lesson four. all i can see is social politics rhetoric from you. and no technical understanding of why 5000 nodes running one biased codebase is better/worse than say 1200 nodes running 4 different codebases. with no codebase having more than 25% of the nodes

think long and hard about lesson four. it will enlighten you. it may actually in the research required to understand the subtle point, help you realise the purpose of bitcoin, the purpose of decentralization.

Seriously?

Do you have any clue about what is going on with mining, you know the thing that secures the network? C.E.N.T.R.A.L.I.Z.E.D.

Centralized network and centralized development control. It's centralized. All that is missing is a Microsoft type logo on the Core release to remove the facade of decentralization.

I can't see any logical reasoning behind your claim. In addition you're mixing different levels of centralization: Centralization of development and centralization of the network. None of these are realized today. Note that you can still have a decentralized network when development is centralized. On the other hand even decentralized development can lead to a centralized network, when certain technical provisions (like an allowance for excessive block sizes) are implemented.


While Gavin made some contributions to Core, the major part of the work was done by others - especially in the security field. Your focus on fiat price valuation is revealing the true underlying motive for your support of big blocks: You want to generate the biggest possible return in fiat money - no matter how. You are not truly caring about Bitcoin.

The reasons for Bitcoin's last ATH were market manipulation by Mt.Gox trading bots. Even if the last ATH was reached due to normal trading activity it is totally irrelevant as an indicator of the health of Bitcoin technology and its network.

Gavin was the guy who proudly accepted an invitation to the CIA and other highly questionable governmental bodies around the time Satoshi left. He also tried to open the door for political influence on Bitcoin development via funding a Bitcoin Foundation...


Yeah, you should definitely inform yourself.

ya.ya.yo!

Exactly how long have you been sucking their dicks?  Blockstream owning bitcoin is not 'preserving decentralization'.  It is bullshit.  Core/Blockstream needs to die yesterday for trying to take over control - 'to prevent others from taking over control'.  Fucking idiots should have to pay twice in blockchain fees.  YaYaYo should probably pay three times.