Topic: Gavin Andresen: stay away from Blockstream, Greg and Samson are toxic trolls. (Read 2079 times)

Good to see Gavin say this. He needs to come more out to the forefront and challenge the fudders who are being toxic.

We need more insightful explanations and podcasts or something from Gavin. We need some reasonable people getting back to the forefront and less of the Jihan drama crap.

anyone who knew nothing about the background would surmise that samson mow is an asshole purely by reading his tweets.

over aggressive and derisory. I don't think he's a good recruitment by them.

You are over-complicating/confusing things.
Nodes and miners are one and the same.
You think if majority of nodes start a new protocol then miners will sit back and allow it? some one invested enough money to be a miner in the first place will spend more to have enough nodes to avoid the majority take over.

You say diversification of node versions while we all know that all the results across the entire network must be identical otherwise not accepted.

Lets have 50 different versions, they will all have to follow only one rule and that is the Bitcoin's code, and as we know running a program on different platforms is much harder and requires more work to be done just like when you have a software which can be executed in Linux/Windows/Mac but for a developer is much easier to just compile it to run on Windows, regardless it's still the same software only runs in different OS systems and that's a feature which makes the software available for all kinds of people.
In Bitcoin's case it's something else, if you are trying to run the node on any platform you are free to do so but what is your goal to run different versions of a software in the same network with same internet ports and same brand name?

How could anyone change POW without the majority of hash power support/vote?
Why would miners vote for something that makes their mining machines useless?

If I have 1BTC no matter the versions of nodes I still have my coin sitting in my address, devs and miners should notice this fact that end user doesn't really care about those stuff what we care is when we send a transaction with a normal fee it gets confirmed after 30 minutes no matter what.

10 hours ago I sent some bitcoins to an exchange to buy some cheap alts but now while my transaction is pending and there are 150K unconfirmed TX I have lost a perfect opportunity. I don't want that, so what other choice do I really have besides moving to another alt?

Moreover we have diversification already but that seems not the issue with you rather you want both, you can't have heads and tails in one side of the coin.

Shill? How do you figure? Nobody pays me to shill BU. I advocate BU because so much of my personal net worth is in BTC. Which needs to eliminate the stupid centrally planned production quota in order to release its true potential.

Nope.

Imagine a circle called Bitcoin. Imagine a circle called Dodgy Bank. Imagine a circle called Monsanto supermarket.

Inside a circle.
Miners/cashiers/till operators are employees of Bitcoin/Dodgy/Monsanto and get subsidy/wage plus btc/shares.
Noders/managers/managers are employees of Bitcoin/Dodgy/Monsanto and protect their btc/shares.
Users/customers/customers uses Bitcoin/Dodgy/Monsanto services but do next to nothing to protect their btc/shares. Their contribution is most probably screaming "to da moon."

Devs are outside the circle, same as all centralised companies such as exchanges etc. They can propose changes but only those inside the circle can decide whether they want the changes. However devs and companies can be users/noders/miners too. They have a dual role. Devs can compete with other devs. None are employees.

Bitcoin in the free market compete with altcoins. Dodgy bank competes with other banks. Monsanto supermarket competes with organic supermarket.

The idea that inside the Bitcoin circle there is a free-market fee market is hilarious. User Alice jumping the queue by paying a higher fee - stupid. Those inside the circle work as a team for the greater good of Bitcoin.

The idea that inside the Dodgy bank circle there is a free-market fee market doesn't exist. Alice can not jump the queue as those in front will tell her to piss off to the back of the queue. Cashiers do not accept queue jumping. Those inside the circle work as a team for the greater good of the bank.

The idea that inside the Monsanto supermarket circle there is a free-market fee market doesn't exist. Alice can not jump the queue as those in front will tell her to piss off to the back of the queue. Till operators do not accept queue jumping. Those inside the circle work as a team for the greater good of the supermarket.

what if i told you all the gmax/gavin/hearne was all drama and secretly in the background they are partners

gavin - Bloq
gmax - blockstream
IBM - government intelliagence
hearn - R3
samson mow - BTCC and blockstream

hyperledger members - bloq and blockstream and IBM and R3
https://www.hyperledger.org/about/members

DCG cartel - bloq and blockstream and BTCC
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b

in the UK its well known the ties of IBM managing the police/defense and many public services including GCHQ(uk version of CIA)

read the names on the sign


its all just drama of distractions where hearne/gavin are used as the scapegoat. even now samson mow is becoming the scapegoat(face to point and scream at) to be the future person to point the finger at while the CTO gmaxwell carries on doing what he wants and blaming others

EG
gmax+luke, 'lets bypass nodes and make it a pool only vote'
gmax+luke, 'noo the pools have control blame the pools, PoW bomb the pools.'

Lol bitcoin unlimited viable?
Haven't you heard the news about the recent crashing down of nodes of BU these past few weeks ?
BU is not an solution, it's the road to destruction for bitcoin.

I know you might be slightly stupid, but did you know that I support many scaling proposals (not just Bitcoin Unlimited)?

Let me guess -- you support only one, and its the core roadmap.

Don't be dumb, the ones that are CIA informants are the current Core/blockstream devs, Gavin put a step away precissely to avoid this.

bad analogy
pools are not the president.

here is a better analogy

pools are more like a secretary that just collates data of the employee's and customers and has to file it in a certain way that regional bosses can read and accept

the nodes are the regional bosses they set the rules and read the secretaries work and sign off on if its acceptable or not. the bosses syncing up as a network to ensur they all have the same documents to hand that are all acceptable.
the secretary can type up chapter of files as fast as she likes.. but if the bosses/nodes dont like it. in the reject/orphan pile it ends up.

devs are the employee's they can make new product that the bosses may choose to adopt. but the bosses can still say nay/abstain.
devs are the employee's they can make new product and try to by pass the bosses and try getting the secretary to use the new products hoping it forces the bosses to change their mind..

but the secretary(pools) would still prefer to only do things the bosses(nodes) would accept. after all it affects the secretaries income(reward) if the bosses reject her work.

---

having many regional managers (diverse nodes) avoids a dictatorship
having many secretaries (diverse pools) avoids network delays if one pool(secretary) fouls up (offsick, resigns, makes mistakes, intentionally frauds the books)
having many employees (diverse dev teams) avoids devs going on strike or dictating what direction a company should move in. because the bosses can choose to avoid certain employee's idea's and find whats best for the company.

imagine the company as the symbiotic peer network.. there is no CEO .. just lots of regional managers(nodes) that ask many secretaries to give them a report of customer data(block of tx's) every ~10 minutes. the fastest secretary that sends the regional managers a good collection of data gets a reward

---

now..
to sack all the secretaries is not a soft decision. it requires the bosses(nodes) having to change who what and how the company(network) data is collated and distributed.

if this kind of event were to happen where the whole retail chain network has to change.. they might aswell use that opportunity to do the other stuff customers and employee's can all unite around too, which will make the (network) better for all.. rather than just sack the secretary because 65% of secretaries wont collate data in a way only one team of employee's from one region want.

@ Darkbot aka Mr. DumbAss,

It is a link to a news article, so if you want to cry fud like a retard, contact the reporter.
Maybe read a dictionary and learn more words than fud and troll.    


 

I appreciate the information, it's always difficult to stay on top of these sort of things. Is he the same guy that was involved with bitfinex before they crashed the market? Or am I thinking of the wrong person.

Tell me you're joking right? do you really think changing POW is like changing a kitchen knife?
In order for such drastic change miners which are currently mining the POW algo will have to vote for the change of POW.
You can't go ask the president for example to sign a bill which will eventually lead to a new law that says we no longer need a president.

so you admited, that you're BU shill, at last. Waitin for fyookboll's coming out...

FTFY.

please do.

Takes one to know one.

Core devs should change the PoW algo and let BU shills eat shit.

Only then we can see who is more right/serious about bitcoin.

If Ver/Wu/Shills are really serious about their code (BU) then they would dump their bitcoins and fund their own altcoin (BTU) with that money and wait the community's support.
If bitcoin recovers after the PoW change, then the winner will be clear.

I do not even know how to answer your question, but the fact that many are already trying to speculate on the name of Satosh and others perhaps their creators Bitcoin.

so Blockstream is great, then?

No, he genuinely thought Craig Wright was Satoshi... and by doing this...showed how easily he could be fooled. They would not have revoked

his commit access rights, if there were no merit for it.... after all... Satoshi trusted him enough to carry the flame... and he dropped it. Gavin

should just accept defeat and start working on his own projects and stop challenging people who actually know what they doing with Bitcoin.