Topic: Greg Maxwell is now the owner of Bitcoin. That's all. - page 5. (Read 5080 times)

Bitcoin consensus doesn't require that the users voluntarily "respect consensus".

Consensus is a feature of the design, no matter who wants to make a change or why.

There are a lot of sheep out there that have chosen to simply follow "Bitcoin Core" regardless of what they do.  Therefore, acquiring consensus is much easier if you can convince Bitcoin Core to include it.

However, if you are convincing enough, you can get consensus without Bitcoin Core.

so your saying that going soft is basically: accept controlled bitcoins new route change or fuck off and dont use bitcoin??
seriously that is not respecting consensus.

i also have to ask where are you even getting such crap information that there would be a hard fork at 51%
please please please tell me why miners would risk 49%+ of their income by causing loads of orphans.. seriously use logic and not propaganda.. explain your point why anyone would consider a hardfork without majority acceptance..

attacking who?
betraying who?

oh yea the blockstream heavy devs..

did you not even take your fanboy hat off to consider that hardforks need consensus(majority upgrading to accept) and softforks dont.
did you not even think to yourself if bitcoin is decentralised and the community were all equal then there is no one to betray?
did you not even think that devs should work together to settle on acceptable parameters and all release versions that fit those rules instead of force their own rules by bribing miners..

ok lets skip that stuff, maybe its over your head, lets just raise the main funny part of your mindset .. "bigblockers"
lets test your understanding of logic and maths... 2mb vs 4mb.. which do you consider "bigblock"

if you pass the test.. then answer this:
which is more dangerous
a rule change that requires 95%+ of nodes to accept(upgrade to) before its activated?
a rule change that requires no majority to accept(upgrade to) before its activated?

if you pass that test then answer this:
which is better capacity
2mb for ~average 5000tx
4mb for ~average 4500tx

if you pass that test answer this:
is pretending the real reason to go soft instead of hard is to remove malleability, but then replace it for RBF/CPFP meaning double spends are not solved, reason enough to continue to push soft.

if you have got this far without putting your fanboy hat on, then here is a final question..
who are you protecting exactly. why are you protecting them exactly..
(in context of there being no power house and everything is decentralized)

A soft-served hard fork is a 51% attack by miners that makes node validation on the original network impossible. It is an attempt to force users to switch to the hard fork by destroying their network, making it unusable. It is by definition an attack because it is a 51% attack that censors the entire network.


What if this is not about 2 vs. 4, but rather about respecting user consensus and preventing a network split? If you don't consent, you can opt out of the network.

How did you measure that the community wants this? All of us? I sure as hell don't want it. I see a lot of opposition to it everywhere I look -- the forum, the mailing lists, Twitter, Reddit. Did you read the transcripts of the July dev/miner meeting? Lots of good food for thought about what can go wrong in a hard fork and why so much of the community is rightfully opposed. For many people, only one [made up] word needs to be said: Ethereum.

Luke can release whatever pull request he wants, but if there is any momentum behind it, there will be a network split. Unless he releases a soft-served hard fork -- in that case, I hope we call agree that this is literally a miner attack on the network. In that case, many users and developers would view this as the ultimate betrayal.

now for the facts about control
(blockstream heavy) core can veto a hard fork with just 5%-10% sheep nodes(miners wont change if 5-10% chance of orphans)
yet core can implement a softfork that can totally change bitcoin by making old nodes blind, passing data they cant check, without any resistance or refusal.(softforks don't cause orphans even if the data cant be checked)

thats right a softfork can be implemented at any point and there is no opt-out..
cores "activation parameters" are not necessary for function, but just a comfort blanket to appear that users have a choice. but as i say, its not required because old nodes cant veto new nodes.

softforks just render old clients into litenodes by not allowing them to validate data, but still blindly pass it on. the only choice in a soft fork is upgrade and accept the change, or dont upgrade and become paralized..
softforks can introduce new bugs without choice or veto. but hey, everyone is ok with it because they trust 12 paid developers and 90 spell checkers.

but im still laughing each time i see people call non-core fans "bigblockers"
for years the bloat debate went on and the COMMUNITY settled that 2mb was a reasonable and acceptable amount of bloat. (this was even before the gavin and hearn stuff as they wanted 8mb+, so don't bring gavin or hearn into this point as your rebuttal, ur just misdirecting if you do)

how can 2mb be the "big blockers" if blockstream heavy core want 4mb??  2mb vs 4mb.. come on its easy to see who big blockers really are
its obvious those that call non-core fans bigblockers have never read a single line of code or able to comprehend simple maths.. yet they still try to push their blockstream heavy agenda.



now with the community wanting 2mb and also something logical like BU where the nodes make the capacity growth decisions instead of being dependant on a dev team(like some oliver twist 'please sir can i have some more' slave).. so that no single dev team can have control...
the whole REKT campaigns started where core devs started becoming factions.. to try turning bitcoin into something controlled by blockstream.
core even evicted some of its own devs who didn't support the blockstream plan to make core-dev team blockstream heavy. rather than open to all sides.

even now gmaxwell is planning a REKT campaign against one of his own (LukeJr) purely because luke is going to release a codebase of core with the desired true capacity growth the COMMUNITY originally wanted.

core pretend that they are open by having their main PAID devs.. and then throw in 90 or so spellcheckers just to hide the powerhouse, by trying to say they have 100+ devs all on equal levels as each other.

even now anyone wanting 2mb with 2x capacity is deemed evil. because blockstream heavy core devs want 4mb with 1.8x capacity.
and their main selling point to try pushing for 4mb with 1.8x is to remove double spend mechanism(malleability)... but... secretly adding double spend mechanisms(RBF,CPFP), making double spends still an issue.

and here is the kicker..
if there really was no one controlling bitcoin. then there would be no need to defend a single group or person as that group or person has no more power than anyone else.
but by defending someone out of fear that if they stop their plans, bitcoin cant function. then they are subconsciously admitting bitcoin does have kings in control and that we are all blindly reliant on those kings

my ideology is that decisions should not be made by any one faction and then bribing miners to implement it.. but instead the devs treat each other as equals. that means instead of going to miners meetings. they go to meetings with ALL the different bitcoin dev groups and settle on a community solution.

that way miners do not need to be bribed by any one team because no matter what team the miners like most. the rules are all the same.

anyway goodluck to greg on his ploy to throw another dev off the bus due to not siding with blockstream plans, goodluck to greg trying to twist bitcoin into something to try getting people over to his monero coin. and goodluck to greg when he moves 100% over to monero so that others can bring bitcoin back to being something the whole community want and need it to be.

It could have been worst, and be in the hands of Gavin or Mike Hearn and the banking buddies. ^rofl^ Some people do not understand what majority means in a consensus scenario, so they dream up all these conspiracy theories. Get over it,
Bitcoin is in good hands with the current Core developers. ^smile^

some of the comment are abit harsh but then again i dont know greg personally and have never worked with him either, maybe they are true. 

You have wasted your time reading that bs over there on r/btc.
These guys are crazy and circlejerking 24/7.
They are flaming against Core, Greg and Blockstream since a very long time.Conspiracy theorists at it's finest!
The hate against Greg is their oxygen.Without Greg and Core they all would collapse.

Great thread.Writing a catchy title and no clarification at all.

Next time,i will make a topic:"Donald Trump is now the owner of bitcoin.That`s all."

Any evidence,any proof?

Oh, r/btc. The OP of that thread is laughable -- more of the same nutty conspiracies that the r/btc crowd keeps recycling and reposting day after day, month after month. The quotes are all from a handful of nobodies in r/btc, though the author tries to make it appear as if most people actually hold these opinions -- LOL. Then he throws in a couple choice quotes from Mike Hearn, Gavin Andresen and a BU developer. This is completely predictable.

What power does Greg have? None. He is one developer in a decentralized project. He doesn't even have commit access to the Core repo -- he gave it up because of these kinds of hissy fits (thrown by parties promoting alternative incompatible versions of "Bitcoin"). Some people may not like Greg's attitude, but I don't blame him, given the endless undeserved hostility aimed at him and Blockstream. He's incredibly intelligent and is always fighting for decentralization, privacy and fungibility in Bitcoin. Big blockers are generally upset that Greg has garnered such respect in the community over several years of contributions, while simultaneously opposing any hard fork. It's pretty clear that this is the 876th or so attempt by r/btc to smear Greg without an ounce of compelling evidence of, well...anything. It all boils down to, "He opposes a hard fork? Burn him. BURN HIM!"

Why you here on bitcoin talk if you post this ? Clear to everyone you dont understand the basics of bitcoin.  Its decentralized so it is not owned by anyone that is the whole point of bitcoin. Maybe you must have your brain checked because this is the first thing you learn with bitcoin.  

So, to translate your translation...

Control is what the users give to whomever they want.

If the vast majority of users choose to give control to a group of people then that group of people will continue to have control for as long as the vast majority of users give them that control.

That seems a bit obvious.

Each user chooses for themselves what software to use.  If lots of users choose a single piece of software, then that software has control over what those users can do with it, and the creators of that software have control over what that software does.

That's pretty much how decentralized control is intended to work, isn't it?  Nobody has any more control than they are given by the users, and can't maintain control if the users choose to take it away.

Cool story bro!

(Worthless thread gets worthless response.)

I understand what you are saying, however; I am still not understanding how this guy will make such an impact.  I think that there is enough information out there about him where people will make informed decisions based on history and not because some one specific says something. 

Thats really big issue :|, sad reality in a nutshell.
Anyone can fork a Bitcoin project on github, but convince majority to follow is hard task, some geniue, smart and honest people tried already and failed.

I was under the impression that bitcoin was an open source project, so with that said, how can anyone be determined the owner of bitcoin?  I have read a little about what has been said and I do not understand how they can consider him the owner let alone an issue??

thought there is evidence to say core AKA blockstream is in control.
after all even if some fanboy wants to say there are 100 contributors, it actually equates to a dozen main devs and 90 'spell checkers', thus being more central while mascarading as decentralized. (a dozen peoples desires to go down one code route, dominates the route everyone else follows blindly)

where amungst the dozen dominant devs, the majority of the main devs are blockstream funded. and headed up by maxwell..
meaning his word directs several people, who direct several others and so the ripple effect expands.. like a pyramid

even a big name in the forums fails to deny core has control, by using an example that core actually does have control
translate, if blockstream can get a significant majority of the users to use their code, then blockstream will be in control (until someone else gets a significant majority of users to use their software, then blockstream will direct their employees do do a REKT campain and that will ripples down to their friends and friends of friends).

core has majority=core controls.

but with all that said im thinking the OP is bringing up these known facts from months ago, purely as a bit of price speculation in an attempt to bring the price down again now that its nudged over $600 again.
im thinking the OP missed the oppertunity to buy under $600 and is finding the most 'scary' bitcoin facts there is, in hopes to affect the price negatively

Greg have contributed so much on development of bitcoin as well as he has very good coding skill sets, i think being offended about him is just like being jealous of him. Bitcoin being open source nobody stopping anyone from releasing and suggesting other devs codes/suggestion but those idea should be accepted by majority of bitcoin community to be considered as valid, where most other dev fails.

I'm not sure that I agree with that statement, but...


That is quite true.