Banks have bought the Core Team | Bitcointalksearch.org

The One

legendary

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Quote from: dinofelis on April 22, 2017, 11:17:22 PM

Quote from: The One on April 22, 2017, 10:42:31 AM

Quote from: dinofelis on April 22, 2017, 01:11:57 AM

Quote from: gmaxwell on April 21, 2017, 11:35:30 PM

I think it's no coincidence that the leaked hacking team newsletter was warning governments that blockstream might fund privacy technology for Bitcoin and then later all these absurd attacks started when I published the confidential transactions design and implementation.

This is a pretty ridiculous accusation, isn't it ? Monero is already a private crypto currency, and ZCASH an optional private crypto currency. So the tech is out, up and running since 3 years now. Hell, even DASH has some privacy elements to it (somewhat doubtful, I agree).

BTW, I consider the open ledger of bitcoin one of its biggest failures and dangers, but bitcoin is bitcoin now, and will, if it becomes sufficiently decentralized, never change fundamentally.

Privacy from whom?

The others. A financial transaction is a private affair between two entities, that is nobody else's business.

In another word privacy from the law enforcement. If crimes committed by using bitcoin which currently can be traceable to a certain degree like cash, cheque, etc - you then want to stop the law enforcement from doing their job? What do you think will happen? The police will go to the politicians and complain about Bitcoin. Politicians then agrees and ....... you can imagine what will happen next.

Quote from: satoshi on December 11, 2010, 06:39:16 PM

It would have been nice to get this attention in any other context. WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet's nest, and the swarm is headed towards us.

Forget about the swarm - a shitstorm of bricks will land on Bitcoin.

dinofelis

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 629

Quote from: franky1 on April 22, 2017, 06:02:27 PM

Quote from: mindrust on April 22, 2017, 01:48:57 PM

Those two don't have enough wisdom and education to rule over bitcoin.

"rule over bitcoin"?

no one should rule over bitcoin.

I agree with that, at least, if one considers the protocol. The protocol is what it is, without segwit, and with 1 MB blocks. That's bitcoin, for now, and most probably for ever.

However, people are free to make software that follows that protocol, or they are free to make other coins, that have new genesis blocks, or that fork off bitcoin's chain.

This whole battle is only about a NAME. People want a new protocol (one with bigger blocks, one with segwit, one with this, one with that), but they want to keep the name of bitcoin (the brand), and for that reason, they don't want the old chain, the actual bitcoin, to survive: that's the only way to get the name to a new coin as the original bitcoin then doesn't exist any more.

If it weren't for any brand name, people could make as many forks as they like. In fact, a big error has been that bitcoin doesn't have a version number in its name. (I'm not talking about the *software*, I'm talking about the protocol).

It is even more amazing that litecoin doesn't fork off, and lets a litecoin with segwit, and a litecoin without segwit, exist. Because bitcoin being the first mover, its brand is what makes its value ; but for litecoin, I don't see what is the problem to create a LTS (lite coin segwit), which is a bilateral hardfork of LTC at an announced point, and which will exist next to LTC as another alt coin.

dinofelis

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 629

Quote from: AngryDwarf on April 22, 2017, 01:04:10 PM

He didn't need to create 20 github clones, because anyone can clone it and have their own keys!

Yes, that's what happened, and people made alt coins. But as there was one team "singled out" with the "real, original" code, that propagated the centralized authority of Satoshi in this single one team. There was a breaking in the symmetry.

In fact, you have a better idea. He shouldn't have given the keys to anyone, you're right. That's even better.

dinofelis

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 629

Quote from: The One on April 22, 2017, 10:42:31 AM

Quote from: dinofelis on April 22, 2017, 01:11:57 AM

Quote from: gmaxwell on April 21, 2017, 11:35:30 PM

I think it's no coincidence that the leaked hacking team newsletter was warning governments that blockstream might fund privacy technology for Bitcoin and then later all these absurd attacks started when I published the confidential transactions design and implementation.

This is a pretty ridiculous accusation, isn't it ? Monero is already a private crypto currency, and ZCASH an optional private crypto currency. So the tech is out, up and running since 3 years now. Hell, even DASH has some privacy elements to it (somewhat doubtful, I agree).

BTW, I consider the open ledger of bitcoin one of its biggest failures and dangers, but bitcoin is bitcoin now, and will, if it becomes sufficiently decentralized, never change fundamentally.

Privacy from whom?

The others. A financial transaction is a private affair between two entities, that is nobody else's business.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: The One on April 22, 2017, 09:14:05 PM

LN - crap idea.

LN isn't a crap idea.

But its also not the scaling panacea some falsely believe it to be, it is not implementable as a p2p solution as easily as some believe it to be, and it is absolutely, positively not a reason to restrict the blocksize as some people believe it to be.

The One

legendary

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Quote from: mindrust on April 22, 2017, 06:05:55 PM

Quote from: franky1 on April 22, 2017, 06:02:27 PM

Quote from: mindrust on April 22, 2017, 01:48:57 PM

Those two don't have enough wisdom and education to rule over bitcoin.

"rule over bitcoin"?

no one should rule over bitcoin.
as others have said there are dozens of different implementations that can all run side by side on a diverse decentralised peer network.
thats what all the different implementations want a single network of diverse decentralisation..
only core oppose this and want a TIER network

if you think that only core should "rule over bitcoin" then take a step back from the keyboard have a cup of coffee and actually think about the words you are saying

I agree 100 percent. That's why i don't support BU. Ver and Wu do want to rule over bitcoin, that's clear as day. If you think Bitcoin won't be a centralized piece of shit after BU becomes thee "bitcoin", then you must be high.

Luckily even if they get their fork, nobody will care because what they get will be another pump&dump ultra scamcoin.

I support the dude who created bitcoin in the first place and if the current dev team are the descendants of him, then i agree with them as well. I don't agree with a bitcoin angel guy or a chinese turd.

So basically you only support Core because the developers are "white"? Your judgement is clouded by nationality. Just focus on the offers.
Core - Segwit, poor idea and no guarantee of higher capacity as it requires users to use segwit. Roughly 5000 lines of codes. Follow by LN - crap idea.
BU - dynamic mb decided by miners/market - crap idea. Flextrans, better than Segwit.

Common proposal by users - raise the blocksize to 2mb for now.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: digaran on April 22, 2017, 06:38:35 PM

Imagine the DNA sequence if DNA didn't have the sequence that it has none of us would be here, there needs to be someone to set rules and enforce them, you guys please don't act as UV light and come in with your BU fork causing cancer.

since when do i need some tyrant to tell me who i can get pregnant and be part of the same DNA as me..
thats a decision between only the parties involved on the same equal and mutual decision agreement.

its called consensus. a relationship of unity. which is different to centralised control

it seems you prefer the domestic abuse BDSM relationship. so i think you are missing the whole point of bitcoin

you live in the fiat world of control and dominance where you have to reply on someone above you.

it appears you also need to rely on the reddit scripts of FuD to spoonfeed you. please take a step back from the keyboard for 5 minutes and really think what you are advocating.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: mindrust on April 22, 2017, 06:05:55 PM

I support the dude who created bitcoin in the first place and if the current dev team are the descendants of him, then i agree with them as well. I don't agree with a bitcoin angel guy or a chinese turd.

But you've actually got it backwards.

Satoshi always wanted big blocks and big nodes. The current dev team wants small blocks and small nodes.

digaran

copper member

Activity: 1330

Merit: 899

🖤😏

These freaks want to have a harlot of a system where everyone can come make love(make changes) and go their own ways, it's like $20B ecosystem is a play ground for some snob coders and nerds to do whatever they want.
Who do you think brought the price up to $1200+? not BU nor any other wannabe boss implementations, I think most of you have forgotten why there are some rules in the universe.

Have you ever asked yourselves why there were so many kings and queens and still are? besides the man power and armies supporting them of course yet most of the people were living in happy and healthy communities.

Show me one community without a leader, without some sort of overlord, or whatever you want to call it.

Imagine the DNA sequence if DNA didn't have the sequence that it has none of us would be here, there needs to be someone to set rules and enforce them, you guys please don't act as UV light and come in with your BU fork causing cancer.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: mindrust on April 22, 2017, 06:05:55 PM

I agree %100 percent. That's why i don't support BU. Ver and Wu do want to rule over bitcoin, that's clear as day. If you think Bitcoin won't be a centralized piece of shit after BU becomes thee "bitcoin", then you must be high.

Luckily even if they get their fork, nobody will care because what they get will be another pump&dump ultra scamcoin.

its time you put reddit on your blocked site list. its filling your mind with FuD

all the implementations such as classic bitcoin ec bitcoin xt and bitcoin BU all can happily play side by side on a peer network. core can be part of it by just allowing a base block size increase.

its only core opposing being a peer network supporter.

core want a controlled and ruled TIER network. its literally written in their code and documentation (upstream filters)
core are the ones begging all other implementations to F**k off, get REKT,

however the other implementations that want to remain as a single network are just going to use consensus and stay as a diverse decentralised peer network

look at cores tactics
1. go soft, avoid node decision of consensus vote
2. go soft to give only pools the vote
3. if pools say no, UASF bomb the pools.
4. if the community say no to UASF then do a mandatory activation with a trigger for late 2018 no matter how many pools or nodes vote or veto

core cannot take no for an answer.

yet other implementations that have been running for 2+ years have made no threats of bombing pools, or threats of killing opposing nodes.
and are jst plodding along waiting for natural consensus to form, no deadlines, no threats

now before you reply. please take a step back from the key board and think about it.
remember to not wear a core defence hat.

and answer this simple question.
if hearne wrote segwit and it was line for line identical. would you support it?

mindrust

legendary

Activity: 3276

Merit: 2442

Quote from: franky1 on April 22, 2017, 06:02:27 PM

Quote from: mindrust on April 22, 2017, 01:48:57 PM

Those two don't have enough wisdom and education to rule over bitcoin.

"rule over bitcoin"?

no one should rule over bitcoin.
as others have said there are dozens of different implementations that can all run side by side on a diverse decentralised peer network.
thats what all the different implementations want a single network of diverse decentralisation..
only core oppose this and want a TIER network

if you think that only core should "rule over bitcoin" then take a step back from the keyboard have a cup of coffee and actually think about the words you are saying

I agree 100 percent. That's why i don't support BU. Ver and Wu do want to rule over bitcoin, that's clear as day. If you think Bitcoin won't be a centralized piece of shit after BU becomes thee "bitcoin", then you must be high.

Luckily even if they get their fork, nobody will care because what they get will be another pump&dump ultra scamcoin.

I support the dude who created bitcoin in the first place and if the current dev team are the descendants of him, then i agree with them as well. I don't agree with a bitcoin angel guy or a chinese turd.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: mindrust on April 22, 2017, 01:48:57 PM

Those two don't have enough wisdom and education to rule over bitcoin.

"rule over bitcoin"?

no one should rule over bitcoin.
as others have said there are dozens of different implementations that can all run side by side on a diverse decentralised peer network.
thats what all the different implementations want a single network of diverse decentralisation..
only core oppose this and want a TIER network

if you think that only core should "rule over bitcoin" then take a step back from the keyboard have a cup of coffee and actually think about the words you are saying

CyberKuro

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 506

Quote from: melbourne33 on April 19, 2017, 01:10:30 PM

Satoshi Nakamoto quote:
"on: December 11, 2010, 11:39:16 PM"" 'It would have been nice to get this attention in any other context. WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet's nest, and the swarm is headed towards us.'
Current Core Devs are compromised.
Banks/Goverments thought about a way to stop Bitcoin, but Bitcoin can't be stopped not even compromising the "Dev Team" so they saw this block size debate and they saw the perfect opportunity to do it: if bitcoin can't be stopped: lets transform it into another of us.

Nothing with the same specifications as money created by Banks or Paypal alike institutions can compete with them, because they are and will be the best on their space, so converting Bitcoin into another one means anihilating it or stopping its rise, only a superior technology can kill them.

Segwit is created

Segwit plans to launch an off-chain network AKA fractional reserve system.
A lighting network AKA paypal scheme.
A high fees for on chain txs AKA bank wires fees.

And the above mentioned is the worst option this secret organism has in play; their best option is their 95% approval consensus that will never happen since 25% of miners don't even care about consensus, do you really believe segwit was really made to been approved? wake up!

Any lock or deletion of this topic is clear evidence of current Bitcoin sabotage by the well known secret entities.

Honestly, I do not know why you (and others) said or speculate that government hate bitcoin, trying to kick it out of the game.
Bitcoin just a little currency compare to others official currency such as Euro, Pounds, USD. Bitcoin just provide another alternative medium of exchange, it won't harm a country instead giving great opportunity for many citizens to earn profits through bitcoin business.

However, bitcoin value rated from fiat money and people need it in the first place then make bitcoin worth.
We can't buy anything using bitcoin, so we do need banks and fiat money to fullfil/support bitcoin environment.
Yes, I think SegWit won't ever be activated as 95% approval consensus cannot be achieved, so what we have to worry about? Core devs won't harm bitcoin for government.

mindrust

legendary

Activity: 3276

Merit: 2442

So you are saying that Ver and WU are the ones to save us from being annihilated by big banks?

No kid. You are clearly mistaken. Let alone that you are another alt account of the Fyooked dude, Those two don't have enough wisdom and education to rule over bitcoin. Whoever created bitcoin was a smart person (satoshi) and i trust him till the end. Not those incompetent fucks.

If team BUer wants to have their own bitcoin, nobody's stopping them to create their own.

dongajow

full member

Activity: 289

Merit: 100

Quote from: melbourne33 on April 19, 2017, 01:10:30 PM

Satoshi Nakamoto quote:

"on: December 11, 2010, 11:39:16 PM"" 'It would have been nice to get this attention in any other context. WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet's nest, and the swarm is headed towards us.'

Current Core Devs are compromised.

Banks/Goverments thought about a way to stop Bitcoin, but Bitcoin can't be stopped not even compromising the "Dev Team" so they saw this block size debate and they saw the perfect opportunity to do it: if bitcoin can't be stopped: lets transform it into another of us.

Nothing with the same specifications as money created by Banks or Paypal alike institutions can compete with them, because they are and will be the best on their space, so converting Bitcoin into another one means anihilating it or stopping its rise, only a superior technology can kill them.

Segwit is created

Segwit plans to launch an off-chain network AKA fractional reserve system.

A lighting network AKA paypal scheme.

A high fees for on chain txs AKA bank wires fees.

And the above mentioned is the worst option this secret organism has in play; their best option is their 95% approval consensus that will never happen since 25% of miners don't even care about consensus, do you really believe segwit was really made to been approved? wake up!

Any lock or deletion of this topic is clear evidence of current Bitcoin sabotage by the well known secret entities.

Why do I always hate the Government?. I willingly quit College to become the Government's not interested. I've understand how Government works. their work almost 100% with politics. and politics that his works lie

AngryDwarf

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 501

Quote from: Hydrogen on April 21, 2017, 11:12:10 PM

Quote from: cryptoanarchist on April 21, 2017, 10:57:34 PM

I agreed with everything until you said centralization of miners. I've been around long enough to know that mining has never been more decentralized than it is now. How many pools were there in 2012? Like 3?

If a single entity like Bitcoin Unlimited controls 50% of miners & seeks to gain majority control to fork and kill bitcoin core.

That's not decentralization.

Its the opposite.

No, because classic, xt, BU, BitcoinEC, Core infinity patch etc.. would happily accept blocks created by each other. Think of it as a bigger block vote, not BU vote. Only core would stop working if the blocks are created above 1 MB in size, unless they changed their code.

AngryDwarf

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 501

Quote from: dinofelis on April 21, 2017, 10:45:32 PM

Yes, I think Satoshi made a fundamental error by giving the "keys to the kingdom" to only one team, Core. He should have created 20 different copies on github, and handed them out to 20 different and competing teams. He was of course the centralized force at the start, but that was inevitable. Him leaving was most probably done to avoid the continuation of this centralization, but by having one Pope, (Gavin at the time), the central authority remained. If there would have been 20 different Sultans, that would have been much more decentraized. But, as you say, I think this is the fight that bitcoin is now fighting. The funny thing is that it needed centralization of the miners, to have enough muscle to attack the centralization of the protocol in Core's hands.

He didn't need to create 20 github clones, because anyone can clone it and have their own keys!

The One

legendary

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Quote from: dinofelis on April 22, 2017, 01:11:57 AM

Quote from: gmaxwell on April 21, 2017, 11:35:30 PM

I think it's no coincidence that the leaked hacking team newsletter was warning governments that blockstream might fund privacy technology for Bitcoin and then later all these absurd attacks started when I published the confidential transactions design and implementation.

This is a pretty ridiculous accusation, isn't it ? Monero is already a private crypto currency, and ZCASH an optional private crypto currency. So the tech is out, up and running since 3 years now. Hell, even DASH has some privacy elements to it (somewhat doubtful, I agree).

BTW, I consider the open ledger of bitcoin one of its biggest failures and dangers, but bitcoin is bitcoin now, and will, if it becomes sufficiently decentralized, never change fundamentally.

Privacy from whom?

The One

legendary

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 22, 2017, 12:43:24 AM

Quote from: gmaxwell on April 21, 2017, 11:35:30 PM

Quote from: dinofelis on April 21, 2017, 11:20:07 PM

only one single "reference implementation", by a single team. That is total centralisation in my book.

Bitcoin is developed by dozens and dozens of people (something like over 400 total contributors to the Core project overall). It is a bit open source collaboration of many independent parties. Not a single team.

Bitcoin's creator was vigorously opposed to multiple implementations for sound technical reasons, https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1611

Satoshi understood the dynamics, and so do most competent potential contributors-- which is why they choose to collaborate with the Bitcoin project rather than go off and create something that will almost certainly be incompatible.

To the originators of this awful troll thread: What banks? If you can't name them you're fking full of shit.

It's so absurd we went _YEARS_ with the whole fking bitcoin industry barely spending a cent to support development, and then when a couple developers founded a generic blockchain services company and choose to fund just one and a half full time headcount to contribute to the Bitcoin project the shills rain down about bank take over-- never mind that our company isn't even funded by banks.

I think it's no coincidence that the leaked hacking team newsletter was warning governments that blockstream might fund privacy technology for Bitcoin and then later all these absurd attacks started when I published the confidential transactions design and implementation.

Welcome to being pawns of state actor driven social manipulation teams, all of you.

Greg, can we discuss this? The last time I tried to engage in a dialogue with you, all I got was accusations of harassment and some ominous warnings.

Let me ask some polite questions here:

1. Why do you only talk about centralization threats via node cost increases and never (at least that I've seen) discuss the possible centralization that comes from forcing users off the main chain via high fees. This moving of users from 'Layer 1' to 'Layer 2' is the obvious outcome of transforming the peer to peer electronic cash system envisioned by Satoshi into a 'Bitcoin-as-a-Settlement-Network'.

Will you even confirm or deny that you want Bitcoin to be a settlement network? You should at least be able to answer this simple question.

2. Why do you still refuse to give the community the blocksize increase we've been asking for, for years? Please, no political answers of "but Segwit IS an increase". The miners are rejecting this. 50%+ of hashpower today is signaling for big blocks. Why can't you accept the 2mb+segwit proposal? Are we still stuck on the "HF are bad" narrative?

You accuse everyone of being manipulated pawns when we don't embrace the core roadmap, but what is so bad about 2mb or a well coordinated HF? Can you admit that a large section of community (including prominent developers) feels the arguments against these things are unconvincing?

3. You called for a 'fee market', you got it. Are you happy with the high fees and network congestion? Are you aware of the significant decline in Bitcoin marketcap dominance, or that companies like Dell and Fiverr no longer accept Bitcoin? In other words, do you still think your economic policies are good? These are serious questions.

Can you understand why some people have rational, logical reasons to believe that you actually WANT to either cripple Bitcoin or radically change it?

I would love to believe you are not a bad actor and that your "generic blockchain services company" is benign.

You say Core is not controlled by banks... you say your motives are pure...

...but are you willing to actually compromise instead of dictating your roadmap?

We will see. Actions speak louder than words.

Most important of all, the simplest solution one at a time is better and easier to implement. I.E 2MB block. Analyse block creation and propagation using time. Check for stability. 6 months later 3 or 4 MB block. Analyse block creation and propagation using time. Check for stability.

The roadmap isn't working, self-evidence by the division of two main developers, Core and BU, and miners in 2 main camps.

Fee market is rubbish and needs to be scrap.

The One

legendary

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Quote from: franky1 on April 22, 2017, 12:00:31 AM

"couple developers founded a generic blockchain services company and choose to fund just one and a half full time headcount to contribute"

lets see who is in the blockstream team and also have bitcoin github commits.
1. Gmax
2. PWuille
3. LDash
4. Matt corallo
5. JTimon
6. MFriedenbach
theres more i just cant be assed to go full hog to disprove gmax

but only 1 and a half people get $70m... DANNNGG
is that $45m for Gmax and $25m for im guessing PWuille

no wonder why (in gmax's own non verbatim words) matt corrallo walked away from blockstream to work for chaincode..
...but still has a blockstream namebadge

P.S how can you have half a fulltimer??

In UK it's part-timer.

Topic: Banks have bought the Core Team (Read 5088 times)