Bitmain-Ver agenda exposed | Bitcointalksearch.org

pereira4

legendary

Activity: 1610

Merit: 1183

Quote from: BitcoinNewsMagazine on July 10, 2017, 02:14:08 PM

We will know within two weeks if miners move to btc1 as planned. Kind of hard to miss that much hash power switching over to a different client.

Miners will not move, and exchanges will not risk massive losses on clients due a potential bug in the rushed out software. Jeff Garzik has failed once again to deliver solid code, the whole planning is a rushed mess, it has no substance, it's stupid, we don't need a blocksize increase in a matter on months in the dumbest way possible, this is empirical facts against nonsense. Therefore the logical conclusion is that they just want to fire Core, and this is their opportunity to do it, but what they don't know is, they have fucked for life, everyone involved in segwit2x is blacklisted on bitcoin for life.

BitcoinNewsMagazine

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1164

We will know within two weeks if miners move to btc1 as planned. Kind of hard to miss that much hash power switching over to a different client.

pereira4

legendary

Activity: 1610

Merit: 1183

Quote from: unamis76 on July 09, 2017, 03:56:14 PM

I am still not able to see how can one pinpoint a spam attack to someone or an entity or even prove successfully that there was a spam attack.

I've asked this many times on the forum and haven't got any answer, and I will ask again, since this thread has everything to do with it: why would people supporting a block size increase spam the network? That's counter productive. These people want bigger blocks because the 1MB ones we have are congested enough. Spamming the network will congest these blocks further. So people wanting a less congestioned Bitcoin are going to spam it? Makes no sense to me.

Quote from: Hydrogen on July 08, 2017, 02:44:14 PM

#2 Block size was never the issue, the real problem was nefarious activity which couldn't be classified as legitimate user behavior.

Block size is and will be an issue (this doesn't mean that SegWit or DDoS is irrelevant)

Have you not understood anything yet?

This is a fight for power, they don't give a shit about the blocksize, fees or anything else. They've found that they can spam the network in order to push a hardfork developed by developers under their control (Jeff Garzik and the other devs are Bitmain-sponsored). This is all about kicking Core out to put Bitmain/Ver-bribed goons. Stop believing into the fake narrative of BTC needing an urgent blocksize increase when it's evident that's bullshit and start looking at what's actually going on.

pereira4

legendary

Activity: 1610

Merit: 1183

More spam from the department on Advanced Verconomics:

Bitmain gets all that mining revenue due their mining monopoly and ASICBOOST cheap, they mine empty blocks too, and when they want to spam they re-invest some to spam the network. A nice wheel of perpetual machine to scare noobs into supporting JarzikCoin.

Sorry, not going to work. Segwit2x hardfork is already dead, they are wasting money (again).

Quote from: 25hashcoin on July 09, 2017, 08:18:38 PM

Surely the insane price action had nothing to do with it.

Talk about a reach OP. Bitmain and Ver are pro Satoshis vision. The only anti bitcoin agenda is Blockstream and Core.

hi Roger.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: unamis76 on July 09, 2017, 03:56:14 PM

I am still not able to see how can one pinpoint a spam attack to someone or an entity or even prove successfully that there was a spam attack.

I've asked this many times on the forum and haven't got any answer, and I will ask again, since this thread has everything to do with it: why would people supporting a block size increase spam the network? That's counter productive. These people want bigger blocks because the 1MB ones we have are congested enough. Spamming the network will congest these blocks further. So people wanting a less congestioned Bitcoin are going to spam it? Makes no sense to me

I'm curious if you really don't see the forest for the trees

The answer is rather straightforward, and that's likely the reason why no one wants to explain it to you. Your mistake is that you already implicitly assume that these transactions are spam (though you yourself voice concerns if it is really so, which, to me, is a bit hypocritical). But even in this thread people are seriously questioning (let's assume for a moment that they are sincere) if these transactions are really spammy. So if you don't know anything about spam transactions, you see the network overflown with transactions, and take everything at its face-value (say, that Bitcoin is quickly expanding), your first impulse would be to increase the block size for procuring more space where to fit all these transactions

Kakmakr

legendary

Activity: 3542

Merit: 1965

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

I can see how Jihan Wu can profit from a spam attack like this. < higher fees earned, might cancel out the expense to do these attacks > I doubt if Roger Ver will dump money into a black hole like that, but he might be invested in a Mining Pool or he might benefit from the result of the outcome of this scaling debate. < manipulation of the Bitcoin price > The timing of these attacks and the dates when these announcements are made, cannot be a coincidence. ^hmmmmmmm^

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: franky1 on July 08, 2017, 01:48:15 PM

lol

segwit2x = barry silbert

barry silbert = blockstream puppet master. all barry wants is segwit activated ASAP, all spam+propaganda leads back to barry even the tx spam that started when core bips "needed" to be pushed,

check out the mempool spam accelerate in october-november 2016.. oh and a spike around the june '16 period the other core bip needed some attention..

and if you dont think that barry is a puppetmaster. go check out his portfolio of companies he has OWNERSHIP stake in
http://dcg.co/portfolio/
blockstream
coinbase
BTCC
bloq

people can point fingers in different directions all they like, but if you follow the money and drama, its clear to see the strings

nice try pereira4, but next time you and billy really should stop trying to grasp empty staws from reddit and do some real research

A month or 2 ago I would have disagreed with you. But now the we see how things are going, it could also be Barry Silbert and friends flooding the mempool. I am not saying Roger Ver and Jihan Wu are not involved. All of them are involved at the top, directly or indirectly.

The sad thing is Core is all caught up in the middle and all they want to do is get Segwit activated in the safest way possible through a 95% supported MASF.

HabBear

hero member

Activity: 1106

Merit: 638

Quote from: HabBear on July 09, 2017, 12:56:24 AM

Quote from: pereira4 on July 08, 2017, 11:59:42 AM

Sorry, no hard forks for you.

Give us one reason why expanding the transaction throughput size (as has been done in the past) should not happen again, now?

Are you against bitcoin being used as a currency? Do you have a big position in Litecoin, Dash, or Monero and hope that Bitcoin will die so your preferred alt will flourish?

And segwit seems to open a lot of risk if we're going to separate the actual transaction from the thing that verifies the who, what, and when of the transaction.

No response from anyone? That's what I thought. It doesn't have to be a fork. When everyone realizes that scaling is required to keep Bitcoin from becoming antiquated technology, becoming expensive and slow like it's fiat-based payments system Father it will cease to be called "a fork"...and instead it'll just be called "the way".

Still waiting for reasons against scaling, if anyone has any. Let's talk.

25hashcoin

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Surely the insane price action had nothing to do with it.

Talk about a reach OP. Bitmain and Ver are pro Satoshis vision. The only anti bitcoin agenda is Blockstream and Core.

classicsucks

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 504

Quote from: unamis76 on July 09, 2017, 03:56:14 PM

I am still not able to see how can one pinpoint a spam attack to someone or an entity or even prove successfully that there was a spam attack.

Well, you could start by searching for "spam" on the forum... it's well-documented in several threads that I'm too lazy to find right now. Here's an address in the blockchain that was spammed to hell: https://blockchain.info/address/3QQB6AWxaga6wTs6Xwq8FYppgrGinGu15f

The transactions are invalid and serve no purpose other than to clog the mempool.

Quote from: unamis76 on July 09, 2017, 03:56:14 PM

I've asked this many times on the forum and haven't got any answer, and I will ask again, since this thread has everything to do with it: why would people supporting a block size increase spam the network? That's counter productive. These people want bigger blocks because the 1MB ones we have are congested enough. Spamming the network will congest these blocks further. So people wanting a less congestioned Bitcoin are going to spam it? Makes no sense to me.

Of course, the people pushing Segwit are the ones who stood to gain from the mempool spam, by herding people into the Segwit solution because of the high fees and unconfirmed transactions that resulted in the mempool spam. There is no hard evidence yet, but the circumstantial evidence is strong...

Quote from: Hydrogen on July 08, 2017, 02:44:14 PM

#2 Block size was never the issue, the real problem was nefarious activity which couldn't be classified as legitimate user behavior.

Dear god... reality denial is strong in this one...

classicsucks

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 504

Quote from: pereira4 on July 09, 2017, 02:35:07 PM

Greg Maxwell thinks UASF BIP148 is nonsense. Everyone on Core think segwit2x is a scam. You are missing the points here. This is an obvious XT/Classic/Unlimited situation. Another hardfork-excuse to fire Core devs. How can you not see this yet? You don't seem new so you must be a troll or just missing the game theory at play.

You have to think a bit critically.

Greg Maxwell says he thinks UASF BIP148 is a scam.

He knows that it has the miners feeling nervous about August 1. And he knows that it moves them closer to Segwit adoption via segwit2x. At this point he doesn't care how Segwit gets adopted, as long as it does. The Core devs pretend to take a hard line, while behind the scenes, they quietly help the other efforts toward "Segwit at any cost".

My opinion is that Segwit2x signalling is a ruse, and support will be dropped and/nor never come at the key moment when it is supposed to activate. There is no guarantee of the "hard fork in 3 months", and the miners are not stupid enough to get bitten by the "bait and switch" false promise of a future blocksize increase again.

Variogam

sr. member

Activity: 276

Merit: 254

Quote from: pereira4 on July 08, 2017, 11:59:42 AM

Sorry, no hard forks for you.

Sorry, but no one need your permission. If you feel butthurt there is agreement SegWit2x is Bitcoin, feel free to use some altcoin instead.

unamis76

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

I am still not able to see how can one pinpoint a spam attack to someone or an entity or even prove successfully that there was a spam attack.

I've asked this many times on the forum and haven't got any answer, and I will ask again, since this thread has everything to do with it: why would people supporting a block size increase spam the network? That's counter productive. These people want bigger blocks because the 1MB ones we have are congested enough. Spamming the network will congest these blocks further. So people wanting a less congestioned Bitcoin are going to spam it? Makes no sense to me.

Quote from: Hydrogen on July 08, 2017, 02:44:14 PM

#2 Block size was never the issue, the real problem was nefarious activity which couldn't be classified as legitimate user behavior.

Block size is and will be an issue (this doesn't mean that SegWit or DDoS is irrelevant)

pereira4

legendary

Activity: 1610

Merit: 1183

Quote from: classicsucks on July 08, 2017, 04:59:50 PM

Quote from: mayax on July 08, 2017, 04:48:37 PM

Quote from: franky1 on July 08, 2017, 01:48:15 PM

lol

segwit2x = barry silbert

barry silbert = blockstream puppet master. all barry wants is segwit activated ASAP, all spam+propaganda leads back to barry even the tx spam that started when core bips "needed" to be pushed,

check out the mempool spam accelerate in october-november 2016.. oh and a spike around the june '16 period the other core bip needed some attention..

nice try pereira4, but next time you and billy really should stop trying to grasp empty staws from reddit and do some real research

you are right !
see where DGC (Digital Currency Group) is shareholder too. there SO MANY shills and brainwashed here. the last ones think that they really count. LOL

few gangs "own" the e-currency called Bitcoin. they manipulate the market, they own the biggest exchangers, the BTC developers(yes, they pay them) , biggest wallets , miners and BTC media.

Bingo franky1. Funny that he would try to pin the mempool spam on Ver, obviously it was Core/DCG/Blockstream shills FUDing for Segwit adoption. It didn't work so they switched to the UASF tactic. Peter Todd is working behind the scenes (shaolinfry) as Ethereum takes more and more Bitcoin market share away.

Greg Maxwell thinks UASF BIP148 is nonsense. Everyone on Core think segwit2x is a scam. You are missing the points here. This is an obvious XT/Classic/Unlimited situation. Another hardfork-excuse to fire Core devs. How can you not see this yet? You don't seem new so you must be a troll or just missing the game theory at play.

classicsucks

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 504

Quote from: franky1 on July 09, 2017, 01:41:31 AM

Quote from: classicsucks on July 08, 2017, 04:59:50 PM

Bingo franky1. Funny that he would try to pin the mempool spam on Ver, obviously it was Core/DCG/Blockstream shills FUDing for Segwit adoption. It didn't work so they switched to the UASF tactic. Peter Todd is working behind the scenes (shaolinfry) as Ethereum takes more and more Bitcoin market share away.

LOL
your wrong about the bold part
the market CAP is a empty bubble number of empty maths and no financial backing. and has nothing to do with REAL MARKET SHARE
...
as i explained with the scenario of creating an alt in 10 seconds.. anyone can fake a market cap

Who said anything about market cap? It's a fact that Ethereum has seen a huge increase in transaction volume and fiat exchange rate. Several times in recent history the daily total USD transaction volume for ETH has exceeded BTC's. That's not fake. Don't trust me, check https://etherscan.io/charts

Don't get me wrong, I think ETH is crap. It's just an indicator of market interest and just how unable Bitcoin has been to deliver on it in 2017, mostly due to the scaling deadlock and refusal increase the blocksize.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

Quote from: classicsucks on July 08, 2017, 04:59:50 PM

Bingo franky1. Funny that he would try to pin the mempool spam on Ver, obviously it was Core/DCG/Blockstream shills FUDing for Segwit adoption. It didn't work so they switched to the UASF tactic. Peter Todd is working behind the scenes (shaolinfry) as Ethereum takes more and more Bitcoin market share away.

LOL
your wrong about the bold part
the market CAP is a empty bubble number of empty maths and no financial backing. and has nothing to do with REAL MARKET SHARE

until ethereum shows real stats of USERS.. MERCHANTS and also public knowledge/utility.. ethereum is meaningless

i can set up an altcoin in 10 seconds with 5trillion coins. sell one coin on a exchange for $1 and bam, $5trillion market CAP
but my alt will have no users, no financial backing, no merchants. no public knowledge.. thus is NOT taking away from the REAL MARKET SHARE

the market cap is taking a price of a SINGLE TRADE and multiplying it
not by the volume processed that day.
not by the volume of users
not by the volume coins spent, moved

but by the empty number of coins created.

as i explained with the scenario of creating an alt in 10 seconds.. anyone can fake a market cap
the market cap is not a market share statistic. its just a speculators empty bubble number to scream about

HabBear

hero member

Activity: 1106

Merit: 638

Quote from: pereira4 on July 08, 2017, 11:59:42 AM

Sorry, no hard forks for you.

Give us one reason why expanding the transaction throughput size (as has been done in the past) should not happen again, now?

Are you against bitcoin being used as a currency? Do you have a big position in Litecoin, Dash, or Monero and hope that Bitcoin will die so your preferred alt will flourish?

And segwit seems to open a lot of risk if we're going to separate the actual transaction from the thing that verifies the who, what, and when of the transaction.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

funny stuff here

RoommateAgreement

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 500

Bazinga!

i no longer know what is going on with bitcoin Cheesy

i was actually excited about SegWit2x and thought with the big miners support we can finally get SegWit but i don't get why all the fights are about anymore and each time i read one of these topics i don't see any clues either, just the same things being repeated!

BitcoinNewsMagazine

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1164

July 21 to July 29 cards are on the table.

Topic: Bitmain-Ver agenda exposed (Read 1417 times)