Topic: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell - page 22. (Read 46265 times)

Don't attribute that quote to me. Nick Szabo wrote that. Learn how to use a forum properly please.

You don't even understand what he means by social scalability. It is about trust minimization and how that enables greater economies of exchange and matching.

somehow i think this isn't exactly " socially scalable " but,
I would argue that increasing node requirements will help in that regard. much like increased difficulty means a 51% is more costly. higher node requirements means sybil attack becomes more expensive, which is good...

He implied it by the context and what LN is (and that LN is not trustless):

They took the Bitcoin Core repository as hostage when Gavin stepped down and spent 1.5 years developing the controversial SegWit. Inaction is still action.

Don't you think something is up when users and miners are forced to run a buggy client just because Core was not neutral in the features and miner signalling it added?
You still did not refute my economic points regarding a larger block size which I posted yesterday because you CAN'T, no one can. Get the fuck out of here, stop praising fractional reserve banks and stop telling me what my machine(s) can and cannot handle.

Competition will not fucking stop banks from making bad loans, when they have a reserve rate to meet they throw credit out the fucking door no matter how many banks there are. Who will set the reserve rate? A CENTRAL FUCKING BANK. It doesn't matter what the underlying currency is, never has.

Thanks.

Can you quote the exact part where he says this?  I couldn't find it. 

Nick Szabo admits that LN is not socially scalable. @traincarswreck is lying when he drops Szabo's name.

But your view on how things should be isn't scientifically based, you are just a kid posting on a forum about something you aren't actually involved in developing and disagreeing with the ACTIVE experts in the field.

A part of me wants to be nice and say: Give Greg the benefit of the doubt -- maybe he really truly believes in his heart of hearts that he's acting in the best interest of Bitcoin.

But the fact of the matter is that Greg really has no choice to but follow through on his promises to his investors and continue with his plan of turning Bitcoin into a settlement network.  
 
So, nothing personal  (at least from me)... but we see exactly what you are doing, we oppose it, and we will not be silenced.
    

Do you think now that you made this thread touting conspiracy and crying to maxwell that core will magically bend to YOUR wishes?

Was gavin then in control before, what do you mean "they" "took".  Core is just a mish mash of devs from around the world that actively work on bitcoin.  You could join the open source project if you want, anyone can.

These words actually mean the opposite of each other.

No one forced anyone to run BU and not many people are running BU anyways.

You didn't make any economic points grounded in science and I never said anything about "your machine."

Nash Szabo Hayek and Smith all disagree and I have cited and quoted their arguments all throughout this thread.  Do you have any scientifically based arguments to put forth?

Yes I double checked before posting, it really was that low:
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=all
https://data.bitcoinity.org/bitcoin/blocksize/all?r=day&t=l

In year 2010 Bitcoin only had like 400tx per day on average.
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=all
https://data.bitcoinity.org/bitcoin/tx_count/all?r=day&t=l

Satoshi disappeared before he could layout more ground works, now the vultures are circling.

No what Core was doing was working on the code for bitcoin and explaining to you that your understanding is not scientifically based but rather emotionally based. 

Core doesn't control bitcoin you just think they do because you don't understand how bitcoin works.

Yup emotional.  Go get another coin, bitcoin is not yours and its not for you.

Man I didn't know so many people felt the same way.

I've always had high hopes for Bitcoin, and when I wrote the letter I was in a state of disappointment and felt somewhat hopeless about Bitcoin's future. It was a reflex to just say something before watching Bitcoin hit rock bottom.

The truth is I got even angrier after writing the letter. Because the process of writing it actually sorted out my own thoughts, and right after I wrote it I realized for years I've misplaced my trust on Core and I was duped. That is why there is now a small rant at the end, I actually went back to add it.

Core really didn't care about the main chain at all, they considered it some kind of mini cash cow they could lock in a small cage to keep squeezing its milk to feed their new SegWit/LN baby. For them, nothing else mattered, not the main chain, not the users, not the miners, not the white paper, in Core's eye, these were all irrelevant.

And for years I was just another idiot standing around looking at stats and charts, following the herd from time to time, my instinct kept telling me something was wrong, but my hopes and expectations for Bitcoin made me ignore these warnings.

So I kept telling myself I was going through one of the greatest time in human history, as if watching Bitcoin grow is like watching a new Internet being born all over again, and this time I can watch its every step, and in the future, when it've grown so big, I can brag about being there in the beginning and chat about the good old days. I quietly watched Core drive Bitcoin up the wall, telling myself no developers would be stupid enough to ruin it, things would eventually improve.

Meanwhile, Core was playing double speak and dirty tactics, thinking we were idiots and was laughing behind our backs.

The backlog and high fee finally woke me up from that fantasy, Core really is going to ruin Bitcoin for everyone, one of the greatest invention of this century, going down the drain because of a few selfish pricks, just like Tesla's wireless electricity.

Fuck them. Core can kiss my ass and fuck off.

This poster still hasn't given a specific explanation to the claims that the events in the 1800's refute Hayek, otherwise its just an assertion if you aren't specific about the exact period.  How can I refute and implication to no proper reference to what is implied.

You also claimed your argument is backed up by a paper you cited that doesn't exist and you admitted you knew it didn't exist.

I'll bet you think I talk to much, I'll you want me to stop pointing out that you don't understand what it means to base your argument on founded principles, or how to cite material that actually exists.

Homeboy you talkprotesth too much, and you never shut up.

I already linked to quotes by Szabo and Finney that show your argument to be wrong and silly.  But well I guess if you Alex and a 1000 unnamed people say so...

Alex, of course we know that mAXAwell is acting willfully here.  It is pretty sad.  Like you said , they own him.  Don't worry Greg... we'll let them know its not your fault.  We won't let them kill you. You did the best you could to kill Bitcoin or mold it into bankster coin but if you couldn't pull it off its just because there's really sharp people like Frankie and Alex and 1000 other people who were able to see through your clever deceptions.  Heck, even I was able to see what was going on.  It's really not that hard because reality is on our side.

One question though Alex -- how was it less than 1k -- that's like only a few transactions per hours isn't it?

Lol. The bold is your argument and its a ridiculous lie.

@traincarswreck been put on Ignore for not making any substantive arguments. Meaning I won't be responding to him because I can't read what ever vacuous, diversionary name dropping tactics he is employing.

The thread is much shorter now and easier to read.