Topic: Domain name update - page 2. (Read 2474 times)

But Satoshi needs to be aligned on this ?  Was he aligned with the changes  
(P.S Its Just a joke)

Amusing that I am seeing this many years after I had first seen it used for "X is evil" (unrelated to you). 

Bitcoin Cash had no chance of ever getting called "Bitcoin" on major consumer services like Coinbase and wallets and payment rails. The attempts I fought against would have been presented as "Bitcoin" had they succeeded. At best, Bitcoin Cash might have confused and tricked a few people, but it wasn't as bad as the three wave of attacks that I was against. Adam Back supported something called the "Hong Kong agreement", a precursor to the "New York agreement" which Segwit2x was based off. Unfortunately, Adam for a brief moment also bought into the idea that Bitcoin could be changed by deals made between businesses.

There was no need for me to fight against Bitcoin Cash, because it clearly posed no risk to Bitcoin. It helped Bitcoin since big blockers left Bitcoin and focused their efforts on Bitcoin Cash. Some people just believe in scaling on-chain, others with solutions like Lighting, there was always going to be a split. The question was just whether it would happen by Bitcoin tearing itself apart, or by the big blockers just forking off into an altcoin.


For a company's who's motto is "don't trust, verify", all their products require quite a bit of trust. Let's go through and evaluate:

• Blockstream Satellite: A service that broadcasts the Bitcoin blockchain to the entire world with the aim of reducing Bitcoin's dependency on internet access. It isn't hard to see where things fall apart here. First, you can't obviously do an initial sync from a satellite, it just broadcasts the latest blocks. Secondly, if you run the satellite receiver, you are putting all your faith in Blockstream's uplink to give you the right blocks. Should you find yourself in a situation with no internet, and only a satellite, you are blindly putting faith in Blockstream's version of the Bitcoin blockchain. It's even worse than running an SPV node, Blockstream is basically sybil attacking you. At any time they can just choose to stop sending you new blocks and you're shit out of luck.
• Blockstream Green: Claims to be a simple and secure Bitcoin wallet. It isn't simple, nor secure. It uses 2-of-2 multi-sig, between you and Blockstreams' server. All transactions you do require Blockstream's signature. If their server goes down, you can't do any transactions, since they can't sign off on it. All your amounts are co-owned by Blockstream. It's even worse than running an SPV wallet. Because they sign all your transactions, they can also see all your transactions, and your IP addresses, destroying your privacy.
• Blockstream's Liquid sidechain: A federated sidechain that lets you do faster transactions and apparently gives you privacy. Here, users are asked to hand over their BTC to a federation, so that it can become L-BTC, the federation can literally steal all your bitcoins and block any transactions you make. They tried to market it as "trustless", until one of their own co-founders called them out on it: https://twitter.com/TheBlueMatt/status/1060101587584991233.

They present themselves as in support of trustless solutions, but everything they put out there is inevitably worse than the very stuff they used to criticize so much. These were the guys rallying hard against SPV wallets, and now they push a wallet in which you can't even transact without their permission. These were the guys criticizing other projects because their networks were too centralized, now they run a network that will gladly gobble up your BTC, give you some L-BTC, to let you transact faster, all while giving them the power to steal every last satoshi from you, but "Bitcoin Cash is a scam!" right?

Let's assume for a moment that Adam Back owned bitcoin.org, would you character assassinate him for supporting the Hong Kong agreements? Or what about Luke-jr, would you smear him because he pushed UASF very hard which could have split the network? What about Peter Todd, for pushing that shady coin Viacoin? Maybe you would claim Jameson Lopp is a scammer because he once supported Bitcoin XT? Andreas is obviously a scammer too, he says good things about Ethereum and wrote a book about it, ETH is pre-mined garbage, fuck him too right? Can't trust him. theymos must be a scammer too, he said too many good things about Grin, screw him too right?

Some of you really need to chill out. The Blockstream propaganda of "Cobra is evil!" really has you totally duped.

That statement does not refute my assertion that if a person wrote vod is very likely a pedo under the guise of a neutral feedback that you would believe that was a neutral comment or was intended to give a neutral impression to the reader.

So yes that is a negative comment but placed under a neutral rating.

Anyway, I don't think approaching the new sole owner of bitcoin.org in this manner that lauda the scammer is trying to pull this thread is the optimal path to take.

Character attacks are best reserved for those where there is strong or irrefutable evidence of wrong doing like in Laura's history here.
Lauda is actually throwing dirt on theymos judgement here also. So I hope that is clear.
You believe theymos has not considered all of this plus a lot of other information that we are not privy to?
Ask questions...don't leave known scammers to attempt character assassination based on weak sauce evidence

" very likely for malicious intent" 

Too strong and too viscous based on the evidence presented.  "Possible danger"  or " less secure"  okay fine. Very likely Malicious  intent NO.

The immediate support from nullius was predictable  

Forks are good, forks claiming that they are Bitcoin or have Bitcoin in their name are evil (even if they were 100x technologically superior) and anyone making pro-such-fork-statements is evil too.

Would I be right in assuming it's not the existence of forkcoins you oppose, but rather just the false advertising part to sucker in new users?  Because I'd argue that being opposed to forks unconditionally simply isn't practical.  If people vehemently want to incorporate ideas into Bitcoin that are fundamentally incompatible with its underlying principles, do we really want them to stick around forever, still desperately trying to inflict their delusions on the Bitcoin protocol?  Surely it's better to excrete such toxins?  It's never "dilution" to release waste.  Let them build their faulty clones and pretend it's the real thing.  I'd argue it's still preferable to an alternative outcome where no forks had taken place and the toxic "blocksize debate", instead of being a footnote in the annals of history like it is now, had still raged on to this day because those people never got what they believed they wanted.

The fact they still market their shitcoins as "Bitcoin" is inexcusable, but they're off doing their own thing now, leaving us to get on unopposed with our thing.  

Sorry, I have corrected it. You are very right about this!

I hope you mean the US.  THe northern people in North America are very intelligent - we manage to outperform the US in per capita production despite the hardships of living in a frozen wasteland. 

AmericaThe US and brains often don't correlate.

Right now Cøbra is sitting back laughing because with this split he has absolutely zero obligations to the very people that think they're bitcoin bigshots in this thread. Sorry theymos.. 100% your baby now that you've nurtured and let fester.

Is Cøbra seriously pretending not to know the meaning of the term “neutral” in the context of forum feedback?  

I myself have been critical of the avoidance of responsibility for substantively negative neutral feedback based on only rumour and innuendo.  But that is clearly not what is happening here.  Lauda made a well-supported observation, and marked it as “neutral”.  Why is Cøbra deliberately confusing the issue by speaking as if she red-tagged him?

Also, it’s always nice to see whom the troll brigade is defending.  Anyway, as to the substance of the matter...

---

If you showed the foresight and wise judgment to distrust the clusterfork misadvertised as the so-called “Bitcoin Foundation”, then you should damn well know why people are worried about the potential that you may turn out to be another Gavin Andresen.

I so note this as the first and, thus far, only person who has red-tagged Gavin’s forum account.  Yes, that is symbolic; but if people won’t step up even that much...  Anyway, I think my point is clear about why people do not trust you to exclusively control bitcoin-dot-org:


References:
https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/929377620000681984
https://twitter.com/CobraBitcoin/status/1023566782001541120
https://twitter.com/CobraBitcoin/status/1037102542537334785
https://twitter.com/CobraBitcoin/status/1036652944916140032

---

I was around at the time; and I do recall that it was specifically the “denounce-segwit2x” page linked above that gave bitcoin.org sufficient ongoing credibility for me to continue recommending it to newbies.

Should you doubt how hard I myself was against S2X particularly, back in 2017:

---

Within the four corners of what I just quoted, it is a good analysis.  However, you are drawing a false dichotomy between the threat of XT/BU/2X types of fork-attacks, and the threat of BCH/BSV/“Bitcoin Super Diamond Gold Mauve” types of fork-attacks.

Both are destructive to Bitcoin.  Both are based on lies, greed, and mass-manipulation.  This argument is like positing that it’s better for a cancer to metastasize outside the original tumour:


Say what?


Have you not been around for long enough to see all the “Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin” arguments?


That is one of my “Newbie” posts, from the same thread as:


I quote that specifically because n.b. that Jet Cash is neither a n00b nor a shill.  That makes it particularly alarming that he would fall for this type of scam argument.

---

Although bitcoin.org is a very influential site (and we would not be otherwise having this discussion), the set of all people who know that bitcoin-dot-org is “the first Bitcoin site started by Satoshi himself” is numerically minuscule relative to the set of all people who see bitcoin-dot-com as legitimate because it is the Dot-Com.

Ultimately, what has actively stopped BCH from winning the public-relations mindshare war is that an unorganized, decentralized cadre of Bitcoiners who have pushed back unequivocally.  This set very visibly includes Greg Maxwell, and also his former colleagues at Blockstream—Dr. Back, et al.  It very visibly includes laanwj and harding, whom Lauda mentioned.  It very visibly does not include you, the exclusive controller of bitcoin-dot-org.


The day that Blockstream starts pushing Liquid as something other than a private commercial venture that is complementary to Bitcoin, primarily for the handling of non-Bitcoin assets, is the day that I unequivocally condemn Blockstream and everybody involved in it.  Whereas there are no indications of any such thing; and as it stands, Blockstream has a stainless track record for promoting privacy, decentralization, solid Bitcoin R&D, and Lightning.  (Also as a coder, I appreciate the cleanliness of their open-source code.)  Thus your statement is basically FUD on Dr. Back, Dr. Wuille, and their current and former colleagues at Blockstream.

To be execruciatingly clear, I don’t trust Blockstream!  To anyone with technical expertise, their self-evident agenda is, “Don’t trust us:  Keep Bitcoin trustless.”  I like that:  Keep down the blocksize so that ordinary people can keep running nodes (I say this with real-world experience needing to run Bitcoin on inexpensive hardware), and promote Lightning as the future of scaling and privacy.  For as long as that remains the agenda demonstrated by their actions and their code (not merely their words), I will continue to defend Blockstream’s reputation in public discussions.

(I have been intending to write a forum essay about this.  Disclosure:  I have no affiliation with Dr. Back, other than that I always liked his cypherpunks stuff, and I first discovered Hashcash in the 90s.)

Whereas, with a different emphasis:


Thanks for clarifying.  The highlighted portion is exactly why people don’t trust you to be the exclusive controller of bitcoin-dot-org.


We don’t actually need a reason beyond that.


Fear has nothing to do with it, I assure you.


laanwj et al. bend to groupthink and public pressure?  LOL.  Try pushing them around, and see how far you get.

---

Edit 2020-04-22:  Fixed a very embarrassing typo.  Alas, I erred!  :-(

Cute ninja edit Lauda (emphasis mine to show Lauda's edit, quoted by Cøbra but then Foxpup merited it after Lauda's personal attack). Goes to show how your opinion sways when Foxpup, DdmrDdmr and others merit the post aswell. Scaredy cat.

What the coward changed it to once their friends started to merit.

Cøbra sums you up perfectly here Lauda so no need for me to repeat anything. This is truly believed by well over half of the forum.

The exact point of neutrals is that you can rant whatever you want in there, anything that is not a valid reason to give somebody a negative. Theymoses rules.

As long as it's not negative and puts a -1 in my account to new members - people can write whatever they want in feedback - it's not moderated.  

Anyone reading the actual comment would not agree. Very likely you are a pedo? Is that neutral enough for you?
How would you view that under the guise of a neutral tag?
Not that i believe you are, but I hope you get the point

It 101% is - negative comments are in red. 

It's 100% not a neutral comment.

Lauda is known for lashing out using the trust system as a weapon.
The merit system is totally broken. Trust is being conflated with merit.

Nobody in their right mind would have lauda anywhere near a trust system.

This is a character assassination and is totally the wrong way to approach this matter.
If you want cobra to be reasonable then you are going the wrong way about it.

Best case he and theymos revert things to how they were.

Who suggested it theymos or cobra first?
Either way best to debate this change without a scammer like lauda going full hate on the new sole controller of bitcoin.org.
Lose lose

Lauda did enter it as neutral, and he is the one who best understands the tone of his feedback.  

This centralized DT system is broken (Techy is proof).  Maybe the new system will use AI and auto generate the feedback type based on the tone.  Until then, we should view trust as it was intended by the person leaving it.   We ALL know the difference to accounts for a negative vs neutral rating.

You could have not done anything and you know it, because I have known it for a long time. Try again. "Random", I wish.

1. If theymos who knows him better than you trusts him enough to hand it to him?
2. If he has had opportunities before to sabotage but has not done so?
3. Many years he has been solid in terms of correctly defending btc as bitcoin?

I will not heed the warnings of a proven scammer like you lauda nor the old perv nullius that seems to be their first to support your every whim over the judgement of theymos and the key points listed above. Also cobras post seems level headed and courteous in light of the snipes at him.

The only slight worry is that GM seemed not to be in the loop, because I would have assumed theymos and cobra may have mentioned the idea to him prior. Without hearing his detailed objections it is impossible to analyse and evaluate them.

I expect many will continue to use bitcoin.org

I accept there is risk in having a sole individual controlling bitcoin.org, but this hachette job a scumbag scammer and extortionist like lauda and that old perv nullius that follows lauda around are attempting is grotesque and unfair.

Let's hear theymos reasoning and GM  reasoning on it in detail before we start butchering a guys reputation to get what "we" think is best. Perhaps there are set in place some measures we are not aware of.

I don't see cobra has done anything against bitcoin that deserves this kind of abuse by the likes of lauda.

I liked it best when cobra and theymos shared ownership of both. I think both have served bitcoin well to this point so no need to start attacking either one in this way.

For sure it seems undeniably more risky for a sole controller, but character assassination is not fair at this point. You are likely to get a more desirable result with a reasonable and honest person if you treat them reasonably.

Lauda seems to be pushing cobra out all together that is not the way to approach it.

If the community really really disliked the idea,  Its possible they may reconsider.

End of the day I don't immediately see how this is better for bitcoin but I will hear more details of the concerns from trusted and solid members before becoming super concerned.  It does seem a very big change.