Pages:
Author

Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 50. (Read 378992 times)

hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
There is a major hole in your ad hominem and conspiracy theory. Gavin willfully gave up his power in Core out of principle to further distribute development.

Great leaders do not desire power. He gave up his leadership position in Core out of principle only to have Core turn against him to disallow the changes he wanted to implement. This reminds me of the story of Cincinatius, who was a roman dictator who also freely laid down his power, this should be considered admirable.

I should not have even responded to such a silly post, however that was to glaring of a fault in your reasoning not to point out.

He didn't give up anything, he never had "control" over the Bitcoin Core code. No one does.

In practice Wladimir had been the actual maintainer of the repo even before Gavin's announcement.

The announcement stemmed from Gavin's inactivity in terms of contributing code & ideas, nothing more. He more or less realized the project & state of the technology was now out of his league.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
Gavin Andresen gave up his role as lead dev at Bitcoin Core to take a role as Chief Scientist at the Bitcoin Foundation, which had nothing to do with decentralising development at all, and everything to do with centralising Bitcoin public relations. So, you're wrong Veritas Sapere.
He gave up control over the Bitcoin Core code, I am not wrong about this.

I am not even going to debate such accusations like Gavin and Mike are working for the CIA, even if that was true. You do not have the evidence, so even discussing this is ad hominem and not productive for constructive discussion, you are attacking these people without proper grounds instead of actually countering their arguments. I could have easily started attacking Core on the same grounds but I have not because I realized that this would not have achieved anything.

legendary
Activity: 3696
Merit: 4343
The hacker spirit breaks any spell
Maybe he doesn't have that much money or risk tolerance.

Still, you should bet at least .01 BTC if you are that confident
you are right.  Think of it as a gentlemen's multisig bet

agree
newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
Maybe he doesn't have that much money or risk tolerance.

Still, you should bet at least .01 BTC if you are that confident
you are right.  Think of it as a gentlemen's multisig bet
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Gavin Andresen gave up his role as lead dev at Bitcoin Core to take a role as Chief Scientist at the Bitcoin Foundation, which had nothing to do with decentralising development at all, and everything to do with centralising Bitcoin public relations. So, you're wrong Veritas Sapere.
He gave up control over the Bitcoin Core code, I am not wrong about this.

I am not even going to debate such accusations like Gavin and Mike are working for the CIA, even if that was true. You do not have the evidence, so even discussing this is ad hominem and not productive for constructive discussion, you are attacking these people without proper grounds instead of actually countering their arguments. I could have easily started attacking Core on the same grounds but I have not because I realized that this would not have achieved anything.
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1393
You lead and I'll watch you walk away.
In your view, do you think it's possible/probable that Gavin and Hearn have been compromised in some way, working for a different agenda than that which they started out with?
Andresen hasn't changed at all. It's been obvious from the beginning that his primary motivation is power, money, control and then some more power. Everything he's done from the media spotlight to centralizing control of Bitcoin in the hands of the foundation has been aimed at that. Refuse to agree with him and prepare to be attacked. I guess no one can remember his behavior during the BIP16/17 arguments. He's a sad little man that controlled Bitcoin's direction for too long.
That's my impression too, that he has some serious daddy issues (strong belief in authority, overwhelming desire for approval from perceived authority/father figures). Yet, when Satoshi left, he said that "it's in good hands with Gavin and the others". A severe error in judgment, or subsequent co-opting by perceived authority figures (e.g. CIA)?

The same question (of agenda/motivation) applies to Mike Hearn, who obviously is also a very strong believer in "authority", and seems to have no problem whatsoever with the banksters and their centralized debt-based money mega-scam.

I think tvbcof has a fascinating hypothesis about this:

I actively entertain the hypothesis that Hearn (and now Andresen to some extent) are associated with the shadowy Conformal entity who has their own clean-slate implementation of the Bitcoin protocol 'btcd'.  For a few months they were pushing pretty hard to have Bitcoin shift over to their implementation with the argument that it is 'better' in some ways (and I personally don't doubt that it is.)  'justusranvier' was most active in pushing it, but he seems to have disappeared from this forum.

If this hypothesis is basically valid then it would make a lot of sense for someone in Hearn's position to try to do as much damage to the 'satoshi-based' protocol support structures as possible on his way out the door.
Interesting... You may have noticed how, of the early/core developers, the most brown-nosing of perceived authority appear to be Hearn and Gavin... i.e. they are the most "conformal". These people cannot get their heads (or noses) out of the fatherly figure of the state, which cryptographic decentralization protocols like Bitcoin have emerged precisely to render technologically obsolete and irrelevant. Do you have a more developed theory or theoretical scenario of your hypothesis?


tvbcof is right of course. I said years ago that Andresen was being controlled and controlling Bitcoin for a private parties interest and to further his own career. I was attacked back then because everyone on this forum considered Andresen to be the reincarnation of the Christ child. If you look at the founding membership of TBF you can easily see the actors attempting to control Bitcoin and the associated windfall of this new technology. I said so many things against Andresen, Pirate@40, Clipse, Goat, LukeJr, Tycho, Nefario and others that I eventually ditched my nick and came back as QA. Bitcoin is about money. Most people can rationalize supporting the devil himself if the devil is making them money. Morality and what's true and right take second place to lining ones pocket. All of the people I slammed, at some point, were either perceived as making the group money or actually making the group money.
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
Gavin Andresen gave up his role as lead dev at Bitcoin Core to take a role as Chief Scientist at the Bitcoin Foundation, which had nothing to do with decentralising development at all, and everything to do with centralising Bitcoin public relations. So, you're wrong Veritas Sapere.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
In your view, do you think it's possible/probable that Gavin and Hearn have been compromised in some way, working for a different agenda than that which they started out with?
Andresen hasn't changed at all. It's been obvious from the beginning that his primary motivation is power, money, control and then some more power. Everything he's done from the media spotlight to centralizing control of Bitcoin in the hands of the foundation has been aimed at that. Refuse to agree with him and prepare to be attacked. I guess no one can remember his behavior during the BIP16/17 arguments. He's a sad little man that controlled Bitcoin's direction for too long.
That's my impression too, that he has some serious daddy issues (strong belief in authority, overwhelming desire for approval from perceived authority/father figures). Yet, when Satoshi left, he said that "it's in good hands with Gavin and the others". A severe error in judgment, or subsequent co-opting by perceived authority figures (e.g. CIA)?

The same question (of agenda/motivation) applies to Mike Hearn, who obviously is also a very strong believer in "authority", and seems to have no problem whatsoever with the banksters and their centralized debt-based money mega-scam.

I think tvbcof has a fascinating hypothesis about this:

There is a major hole in your ad hominem and conspiracy theory. Gavin willfully gave up his power in Core out of principle to further distribute development.

Great leaders do not desire power. He gave up his leadership position in Core out of principle only to have Core turn against him to disallow the changes he wanted to implement. This reminds me of the story of Cincinatius, who was a roman dictator who also freely laid down his power, this should be considered admirable.

I should not have even responded to such a silly post, however that was to glaring of a fault in your reasoning not to point out.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
50% of the hashrate strongly against BIP101. It is time to give up. This is not happening.
More then seventy five percent of the hashrate supports a blocksize increase, read the writing on the wall.

I do hope that some of you will realize one day that these ad hominem attacks are irrelevant, unless you can prove these accusations you are not doing your self any favors by focusing your energy on such silly attacks. I think that increasing the blocksize is what will lead to the most decentralization and financial freedom over the long run compared to other alternatives, I will continue to believe this as long as this remains the conclusion of my own independent reasoning, regardless of what the majority or the technical authority believes, I will vote and speak according to my own conscience.


sr. member
Activity: 433
Merit: 260
In your view, do you think it's possible/probable that Gavin and Hearn have been compromised in some way, working for a different agenda than that which they started out with?
Andresen hasn't changed at all. It's been obvious from the beginning that his primary motivation is power, money, control and then some more power. Everything he's done from the media spotlight to centralizing control of Bitcoin in the hands of the foundation has been aimed at that. Refuse to agree with him and prepare to be attacked. I guess no one can remember his behavior during the BIP16/17 arguments. He's a sad little man that controlled Bitcoin's direction for too long.
That's my impression too, that he has some serious daddy issues (strong belief in authority, overwhelming desire for approval from perceived authority/father figures). Yet, when Satoshi left, he said that "it's in good hands with Gavin and the others". A severe error in judgment, or subsequent co-opting by perceived authority figures (e.g. CIA)?

The same question (of agenda/motivation) applies to Mike Hearn, who obviously is also a very strong believer in "authority", and seems to have no problem whatsoever with the banksters and their centralized debt-based money mega-scam.

I think tvbcof has a fascinating hypothesis about this:

I actively entertain the hypothesis that Hearn (and now Andresen to some extent) are associated with the shadowy Conformal entity who has their own clean-slate implementation of the Bitcoin protocol 'btcd'.  For a few months they were pushing pretty hard to have Bitcoin shift over to their implementation with the argument that it is 'better' in some ways (and I personally don't doubt that it is.)  'justusranvier' was most active in pushing it, but he seems to have disappeared from this forum.

If this hypothesis is basically valid then it would make a lot of sense for someone in Hearn's position to try to do as much damage to the 'satoshi-based' protocol support structures as possible on his way out the door.
Interesting... You may have noticed how, of the early/core developers, the most brown-nosing of perceived authority appear to be Hearn and Gavin... i.e. they are the most "conformal". These people cannot get their heads (or noses) out of the fatherly figure of the state, which cryptographic decentralization protocols like Bitcoin have emerged precisely to render technologically obsolete and irrelevant. Do you have a more developed theory or theoretical scenario of your hypothesis?
sr. member
Activity: 471
Merit: 250
BTC trader
I'm curious what will happen when miners will not be able to pay for their bills.
This doesn't make any sense. I'm also curious what will happen when pigs will battle sheep for domination of the skies.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 3000
Terminated.
I'm curious what will happen when miners will not be able to pay for their bills.
What are you implying by this? Unable to sell their coins or unable to earn enough by mining?


Update:
No ad hominem here, stop posting nonsense.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1007
50% of the hashrate strongly against BIP101. It is time to give up. This is not happening.

I'm curious what will happen when miners will not be able to pay for their bills.
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice
sorry to tell this but the bip101 (and bitcoin xt) supporters will never really give up until their hashrate will be a total 0%....
It is already at 0% and has been like that for quite some time.

well if is so i don't get why people still goes behind a dead protocol.... sounds something that at the end only harms instead of making stronger....
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 3000
Terminated.
sorry to tell this but the bip101 (and bitcoin xt) supporters will never really give up until their hashrate will be a total 0%....
It is already at 0% and has been like that for quite some time.
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice
50% of the hashrate strongly against BIP101. It is time to give up. This is not happening.

sorry to tell this but the bip101 (and bitcoin xt) supporters will never really give up until their hashrate will be a total 0%.... this is what is clear, bip101 failed but people doesn't want to give up instead are more determined on doing more chaos
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 3000
Terminated.
50% of the hashrate strongly against BIP101. It is time to give up. This is not happening.
legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 2349
Eadem mutata resurgo
I'm curious why Charlie Lee has not been able to knock some sense into Brian Armstrong.



edit: actually I'm not.


There is a possibility that Armstrong wants to change leadership to root out the cypherpunk element. He might view it against his interests as someone who favours a cooperative  approach to working with government.

From his perspective getting rid of cypherpunks could make Bitcoin sellable to government and wall street, that is the environment he comes from.

When Maxwell implements things like Coinjoin and privacy, some people will simply see it as harder to sell to government and therefore bad for business. Actually Mike Hearn said something very similar about Coinjoin.

I dont know if he thinks like that but I am sure a lot of people do.


... not only is such thinking in denial of the philosophical roots of the technology they are also technically ignorant of the possibilities inherent in the underlying mathematics.

Do they seriously think they can control human thought, curiosity and invention with mere "governance" or "authority"? That would be sociopathic behaviour.

sr. member
Activity: 277
Merit: 257
I'm curious why Charlie Lee has not been able to knock some sense into Brian Armstrong.



edit: actually I'm not.


There is a possibility that Armstrong wants to change leadership to root out the cypherpunk element. He might view it against his interests as someone who favours a cooperative  approach to working with government.

From his perspective getting rid of cypherpunks could make Bitcoin sellable to government and wall street, that is the environment he comes from.

When Maxwell implements things like Coinjoin and privacy, some people will simply see it as harder to sell to government and therefore bad for business. Actually Mike Hearn said something very similar about Coinjoin.

I dont know if he thinks like that but I am sure a lot of people do.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
I'm curious why Charlie Lee has not been able to knock some sense into Brian Armstrong.



Pointy Headed CEOs do not listen to their Dilberts and Wallys (IE coders/engineers).

I'm pretty sure Brian is not calling the shots anymore anyway...
Pages:
Jump to: