Topic: De-nazify Bitcoin! A brief intro into Bitcoin's neo-nazi and military problems (Read 276 times)

While there are many Bitcoin full node implementation out there, i'm not aware any of them using Python. If you really want to use full node implementation which doesn't implement SegWit or Taproot, you could check older version of alternative implementation such as bcoin, gocoin, btcd, libbitcoin, stratis or parity bitcoin.

No idea where your claim about them being in bed with someone comes from, but clearly there are changes not voted on = centralised control.
e.g. show me where the votes were done for adding full-RBF? (currently optional and soon to be on by default)

Well, if bitcoin had a clear and step by step roadmap we wouldn't be here discussing this. However one has to ask, if the core devs decide what to add and or change in the code, wouldn't they need majority of nodes/ miners to vote on new changes? If that is so, why do people say core is centralised and in bed with the states?

No wayyyy! man  need to add that to the list next time this comes up!   and you Know there Will Be a Next Time.   

Since I have made this comment a number of times and alas few people seem care about it,
I will agree with the context of what franky1 is saying and point out why.

Bitcoin allows for consensus.
If consensus is no good, why is the code there?
Why shouldn't it always be used?

Not using it is indeed allowing core to make their own internal decisions about what changes they want in bitcoin.
Alas what 'they want' is not in any way related to the 'consensus' code.

Alas bringing this issue up in a thread about personal political opinions, and trying to tie them to bitcoin software development really isn't a good idea ...

Doomad. when the main maintainer of core speaks out and says core are too centralised[1] . ..
what are you left with to defend? in your fantasy that core is whatever dream you dream about

if you are pretending to defend the developers. actually try to read and look at what the developers are saying.

developers can code what they like on their PC's. but when it comes to what should be actually activated as a rule for the decentralised bitcoin protocol. it should not be a centralised group deciding, whilst ignoring anyone thats not part of the "core" roadmap.. because if its only reviewed and accepted by the small group that make the decisions then thats not how independent peer review works.

i know you believe and dream that if you defend core long enough they will offer you a job. but after so many years you have to realise you are not going to get the dream job you hope for.

i know you like to attack bitcoin by your weird actions of thinking that it helps you defend developers. but have you ever had that moment of thought that you should be defending bitcoin... not the developers of one node brand.

you always think bitcoin and core are one-in-the-same and you think that is how it has always been and always shall. where you want user nodes to not upgrade, not archive and be lulled into the deluded belief they are defending bitcoin whilst the inaction is actually weakening the security of the protocol. all in your game of promoting a sub-par network you think people should use instead, so you can syphon off fee's aswell as full funds due to flaws you describe as features.

but you dont seem to be getting rich from it after 5 years, as your keep upping the stupidity in regards to how much you want people to stop using bitcoin

just accept that after 5 years the amount of coin your small group has managed to lock up. to play on your pegged iou network. is an insignificant amount. where other features have managed to lock up 5x amounts in just 1 year without advertising

if you wish to continue adoring and supporting central points of failure and networks without consensus where you think consensus is a useless feature. .. well thats on you
there is a massive difference between an open community vs open source
there is a massive difference between a decentralised development vs core
there is a massive difference between a onchain solution vs a faulty subnetwork promoted as "solution"
there is a massive difference between a consensus-to-activate(or not) vs forking-to-activate(remove opposition)

if you dont understand consensus and decentralisation and full nodes and open-community, vs the diatribe of crap you support. that again is on you.

you have refused to learn by people teaching you and you refuse to do research. so again thats on you.

instead of finding excuses and playing victim of "why should i research, dont tell me what to do".. maybe stop wasting 5 years defending a dev group that dont need your defence*, and actually do some research for once, stop pleading ignorance and then cry when someone calls you ignorant. stop pleading dumb, and cry when someone calls you an idiot. you are not a victim

*because they admit things you are denying(they plead guilty to centralisation and even brand themselves as such, but you cry how they are innocent)

[1] "One thing is clear: this is a serious project now, and we need to start taking decentralization seriously."
"I realize I am myself somewhat of a centralized bottleneck. "

You spelled "spurious" wrong. 

---

Oh joy, a franky1 tribute act!  Just what the forum needed.   
Everyone has to "do more research" until we can see their make-believe fantasies.   
Are you two related?  Or do you just have a similar mental health issue?

The thing with open-source code is that everyone can see for themselves what the function of the code is.  Provided said code is neutral in purpose and in no way malicious, it doesn't matter who wrote it.  The only reason anyone would care what nationality a particular developer is would be if they are indoctrinated by their own nation state.  The bias here is palpable. 

These are serious allegations and people need to come here and discuss about them, not the signature spamers with no meaningful insight about the matter at hand.

Show me a fully functional Python implementation that isn't stuffed with Blockstream's segwit, taproot shit.


That's bullshit!
Satoshi's first Bitcoin release was ~1.5 MiB, and the most recent 0.3.19 release was even smaller at ~1.3 MiB.  Today, we have a pile of shit that is over 8 MiB in size, with coding that looks like an 8-year-old wrote it, with everything just vomited together and stuffed with copyright notices, and navigating in the source code is impossible.  It's amusing to see that both segwit and taproot have caused over 1000 issues on GitHub, implying that the entire Bitcoin software has been hijacked.


Bitcoin cannot be forked; it is impossible and even dangerous due to the headers added with segwit.
Nobody would even attempt to fork Bitcoin at this point; the only thing people can do is completely rewrite it, preferably using a version from when Gavin still had access to GitHub.

Americans have a mania for running around yelling conspiracy when they learn the truth about their bellowed agencies or government, or when they hear something they don't like.


As far as I am aware, the European Union and the United States, both self-proclaimed champions of free speech, have banned RT.com.
You are only permitted to hear EU, US, and NATO-approved news about the greatness of the "freedom fighter" neo-nazis trained by NATO in Ukraine for the past eight years.

You're only getting NATO propaganda, so you're bouncing around like a monkey who discovered a banana.
You certainly don't realize the implications until you are directly impacted by either hunger or a nuclear warhead.

Consider the recent protesters in Canada who were forced to use Bitcoin because the Canadian government seized their bank accounts simply for protesting.
Furthermore, cops are brutally beating up everyone, including young girls and the elderly.
Do I need to remind you about Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street?
Freedom!

Let's see how free you are by stripping down to your underwear and going down to the street while drinking beer.

Sir, Bitcoin is cryptographic software which is open source and helps anyone regardless their religion, political position, nationality and background to transmit value in an independent way, sir.

If you want to talk about the political position of software developers that is a different discussion, also why focus on Bitcoin developers and do not mention the political positions of the developers of more widespread services like Windows, Paypal or Adobe? (All of them closed-source).

If you are pro-Russian that is up to you, but expect people to argue your thoughts, since this is an free-speech site, unlike most of the Russian media, Sir.

Good day, Sir.

---

Soon Bitcoin will be blamed for the assassination of the USA president J.F Kennedy.
Lee. Oswald was a patsy set by Satoshi Nakamoto, the one who actually pulled the trigger from the sniper nest.

 

This software is good quality it is nice to use it can do all the work properly

So if this Bitcoin you talk about because obviously is a different one is developed by the CIA, NATO, Illuminati, Reptilians, Five Eyes, and so on, why can't you go back to your izba and fu, sorry, fork a new version of Bitcoin that will only suit your own needs.


He has a lot of grudges against all developers, I'm 99% sure he's a clone of humanrightsfoundation or whatever that madman was called.
So there is no point in trying to convince him even of the fact that water is wet.

ignoring the topic creators rants about racial politics
ignoring the topic creators rants about government agents

..
bitcoin development does however have a close-nit centralised group
its called core for MANY reasons
they declared it the only reference and new rule proposal source
where by other brands have to shadow follow core

the core group declared themselves the sole arbiters of bitcoin protocol changes. where anyone opposing their roadmap is to be defined as enemies of bitcoin even when the debate is the small group central point of failure

even some EX core devs have admitted core are a central point of failure
including the top(maintainer) for the last 5 years Wladimir van der Laan

they have pushed in "features" to by-pass the byzantine generals solution called consensus and this to has been admitted by such devs that merged in the changes
done using "backward compatible, "mandated" changes without needing majority nodes to upgrade pre activation to support the slid in new features/rules. which is a security risk
activating a new rule without mass node readiness to understand/validate new ruled data is a security risk as it weakens data integrity


this core group are a hierarchy, they have censored moderation where anyone opposing them or even having a critique are removed or banned. which is not the path of their so called "open peer review"

yes there are some low hanging fruit contributors who do spell checks/translations/reviews and acknowledgements just to get their name credit on releases. but these small time contributors are not the main coders of new features

the main coders of new features are also the ones with merge capability so in short they merge in their own plans, while removing and ignoring outsiders idea's

though github is not the place to debate the "team" dynamics/centralisation.. it appears neither is the development boards of this forum nor the development IRC nor the mailing list. becasue they do not like open peer review they simply want their roadmap followed at all costs

or to put it simply


but to expand
those with merge and commit privilege are not just some randomly chosen people. they are known to be following a certain roadmap of corporate sponsored design

bitcoins natural design was "sole custody" yet the main features of bitcoin in the last 5 years are co-custody, group custody features which supposedly meant to offer greater tx count per block(more availability to transact on chain), but never prospers as a solution to allow more sole custody opportunity on the bitcoin network

now ill say it again many devs within core have admitted about the central point of failure of core and have tried to split up the core control. but as of yet, its been a long 5 years with little to no results that have helped bitcoin be what it was suppose to be

alot of work still needs to be done

Welp.   There it is.  Was only a matter of time i guess...   

Bitcoin is now a nazi on top of being....a ponzi scheme, rat poison, a threat to the environment and on and on and on....


(sarc)IS THERE ANYTHING BTC CANNOT DO?


Oh lets stir the pot some more.   Were you aware that the Nazi josef mengele (i shall not capitalize his name) also known as the angel of death.  Killed a rather large number of jews in horrible experiments? 

But.  He did advance medical science a good 50 years with his zero moral and ethics.   The medical community still used his research.    Are they nazi's as well then?

Also just for shits and giggles,  hes one of the very few nazis that they Never caught.  Israel managed to track him down to his headstone 10 years after he died of old age.   

What, no evidence?

Everything is available on Google, so do your homework before coming here to troll and run your dirty mouth about something you don't understand or know.

Bitcoin doesn't care about politics?

You need a magnifying glass to read what so-called "Bitcoin Core" developers are saying on Twitter and elsewhere, openly fascist, even neo-nazi statements.

Bitcoin is concerned about politics, which is why it is currently trading around $16,000 per coin.
In the event of a nuclear war, Bitcoin will eventually become worthless.

I've read your post last night when it was still readable. I didn't read the other replies you've made because it hurts my eyes and I don't think that they bring anything meaningful into the discussion.
1. Bitcoin doesn't care about politics. The fact you do, it's your own problem.
2. On Bitcoin git it doesn't matter who is what, it only matter whether he brings meaningful/useful changes to bitcoin or not.
3. You came with a lot of accusations and no proof. That's meaningless and it makes me believe you don't deserve attention.

You can start using bigger fonts, you can write long texts, but that won't help.
Next time start by doing your homework properly.

Where did I say the CIA invented Bitcoin?
You're attempting to whitewash the 32 white, NATO-affiliated individuals who control a bogus Bitcoin organization on GitHub.


Taproot may have been the idea of some people since Segwit, but I can name them all, and they are all from Blockstream Inc.  In the end, it was a cryptographer from the French National Cybersecurity Agency who implemented taproot, not Blockstream.  Without the French Ministry of Defense, taproot would not exist.
Blockstream's collaboration with the French Ministry of Defense is obviously very serious!

When segwit and taproot were implemented, many people associated with them resigned from the phony Bitcoin organization.

The GitHub-based fake Bitcoin organization is clearly hostile and does not represent the Bitcoin community; rather, it represents for-profit corporations, secret services, and defense ministries; its members openly make NATO-aligned political statements on Twitter.

If Bitcoin were truly decentralized, there would be no need for the so-called "Bitcoin Core" in the first place.
The name implies that there is only one core that is authoritative.

There is no way to know for sure that there are no Russian or Chinese contributors because some people choose not to put their country in their profile, or use completely anonymous handles to contribute code.



The org is only to prevent random contributors from uploading unauthorized code to Bitcoin Core and related projects. That is also the reason why the branches are protected - for instance, I contributed code to Bitcoin Core, but I can't just upload whatever I like because only the Bitcoin organization can do that (which is strictly limited to merging pull requests).

Someone could buy the Github account of a Bitcoin Core contributor for $2000 and then use it to make unauthorized changes to the codebase without the org.


I know it's tempting to say agency created bitcoin and such, but the ideas that were incorporated in BIPS 340-342 (taproot) were formulated many years ago on the bitcoin-dev mailing list and also in previous BIPs, by several different people.

The "Bitcoin contributors" are as follows:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/graphs/contributors

All of which are neither Russian nor Chinese!

In fact, GitHub suspended all Russian accounts in April, with only "American-Russians" permitted to use the platform.

If you look closely, you'll notice that Bitcoin is completely controlled by a bogus "Bitcoin organization" on GitHub with only 32 "members.":
https://github.com/orgs/bitcoin/people

Nobody elected them, and their addition of new members is not justified in any way.


Second, it appears that no one is talking about Yannick Seurin, who works for the French National Cybersecurity Agency (ANSSI) and is the only qualified cryptographer who worked on taproot.

Given the French hostility towards Bitcoin anonymity, crack down on anonymous transactions because as the French Economic Minister said: "Bitcoin is used by terrorists", it is completely absurd to see an actual employee of the French Ministry of Defense as "contributor" to Bitcoin's latest "soft-fork".

Let me remind everyone that Satoshi Nakamoto vanished while Gavin was giving a speech at the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency of the United States of America), and yet here we are, where actual workers from the French Ministry of Defense are allowed to "contribute" to Bitcoin with no public outcry.

It wouldn't surprise me if the CIA killed Satoshi Nakamoto; that's what they do, kidnap, torture, and kill people all over the world; if you think they'd leave Satoshi Nakamoto alone, you're mistaken.

It should be noted that the French National Cybersecurity Agency (ANSSI), which created taproot, is equivalent to the US National Security Agency (NSA) and US Cyber Command.

Bitcoin is not only completely centralized and fully controlled by those residing in NATO and the Five Eyes Alliance, but it is also openly developed by one of NATO's Defense Ministry.

He has a personal grudge against some Bitcoin developer and is using the fact that they are Ukrainian as ammunition for some kind of personal problem.