Topic: EXPERT: Bitcoin has Been Infiltrated - page 2. (Read 2205 times)

wait a fu..n minute.. go back to the bit where you said bitcoins performance was poor.. then try and back that up.. go on.

I'm neither a bear nor do i redside in a forest.. you make a lot of weird assumptions, dude.

Feckin' thrill shills man.. 

And you have a bias bias. The blind assumption that you are less biased than other bears in the forest.

How condescending of you.  Sure, they should have watched the whole thing to form a genuine opinion, but it's hardly going to help a discussion to just question someone's view - instead, you could try presenting more information about your view so that they will hopefully take it into account.

Yeah, but disagreeing that bitcoin's performance has been 'poor' doesn't count as cognitive bias in any sane person's book.

So, to conclude.. you're the idiot here and tabnloz is spot on.

Next.

Not at all. But bitcoins performance has not really been poor.

I don't discount the possibility that some bad actors have tried to influence Bitcoin but that isn't a reason why there is no Google coin. I would assume the regulatory hurdles for a Google or Apple to create their own currency would be enormous, as would the target on their back and the risk of failure.

But getting to the real crux here, I see both sides of the blocksize argument. But still it should be made clear, isn't this Amanda from DASH? If so, she has her own conflict of interest in damning Bitcoin.

Anyway,
Her argument (after watching more) is that Blockstream is paying the devs and they are funded by outside interests. But there are over 100 core devs, right? So unless there is a massive case of groupthink, the code should speak for itself as anyone with the skill can review it. It would follow that if lead core devs were being 'turned', a migration away from Core would ensue.

I sympathize with Big Blockers. For those running a business and conducting multiple transactions frequently, rising fees are a big negative. The LN solution would enable scaling but pay fees to certain groups which can be interpreted as not being in line with Satoshi's vision.

Maybe that is right. Or maybe as the system matures it morphs into a more comp sci coder led tool than anarcho-cap one and this is Ver losing relevance as the ecosystem outgrows the need for an evangelist? I don't know.

Don't judge people by what they say, judge them by their actions. If you look at the code changes proposed by SegWitCoin then we see a trojan horse (evil). If you look at code changes proposed by Bitcoin Unlimited then we see what the community wants (smaller TX fees). When SegWit goes through banksters will have a way to cut a profit from BTC transactions (being the middle men that they are). When BU goes through the last window of opportunity for banksters to corrupt Bitcoin will effectively close. So it's not really a big question whether BU does not impose the same threat on Bitcoin as SegWitCoin does. You just have to look what they are proposing and accept the good stuff. Whenever in the future it happens that BU is trying to centralize Bitcoin and work against the will of BTC community we can ditch them too the same way we are going to ditch SegWitCoin.

We can all agree that this technical issue is alarming for bitcoin's development. First of all what will happen when they accept Segwit inspite of btc unlimited? I am not a technical expert on this matter. What are the effects on the price, adoption etc, and most important why will bitcoin be infiltrated by Segwit and not by bitcoin unlimited? And we should not talk about eth scam. When windows sees that it is nothing more than an fancy monkey in a nice looking suit they will dump it and eth will collapse. dash is going to explode , huge nuke explosion incoming. They are just building their final buble right here. It will be fun to watch when it explodes.

Classic cognitive bias case. You refuse to consume information that contradicts with your established belief system.

Im not sure if this is a joke? I stopped watching after her first sentence:

"Bitcoin has been infiltrated. That's why its performance has been so poor."

Well this sucks, I knew it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp6DaMiORBU

But at least it proves SegWit is evil and should be rejected ASAP if we want BTC to keep ruling them all.

BTW, ETH, DASH and monero are all PnD vapourware/shitcoins. Only buy/sell it to profit on idiots who actually believe in those. The true innovation is ByteBall but it is probably going to take a while when it becomes popular mainly because there is no ICO. No ICO = no ICO funds to be spent on paid ads and marketing (point @ ETH and other shit).

Ethereum is no threat because it's not even a currency and their branding is just awful. A taxidriver would never buy ethereum. Dash got it semi-right by ditching "darkcoin" but it has no innovation so it will fade away as soon as the whales have unloaded their stash.