Pages:
Author

Topic: I am being given neg feedback for political reasons - page 2. (Read 3650 times)

full member
Activity: 1428
Merit: 129
The first decentralized crypto betting platform
I now see both Lauda and Gmax left negative feedback for Bitmain...

What a coincidence, geez.

nah, this isn't political at all.


The merits of jonald_fyookball's opinions are irrelevant to this thread. What is clear here is that he has certain opinions and is being discredited for having those opinions.  
I believe that both jonald_fyookball and Lauda have frequently posted manipulative or misleading posts and threads.  However as a member of Default Trust, Lauda should have a responsibility to upkeep normal discussion by keeping the discussion (or lack thereof) to the thread where it occurs, and not giving negative trust to their opponents.  Jonald does not have this responsibility because he is not given extra power.

Lauda is a member of Default Trust who gives negative trust to many potential scammers every day, and is one of the best at monitoring the forum in this way.  However when being this active, biases become very clear after a while, and Lauda needs to recognise those biases by removing the negative trust on jonald_fyookball and on BITMAIN.

Not removing that trust would be detrimental to discussions on the whole forum, especially when Lauda considers doing things like blocking people with negative trust from posting their views in relevant places.

Lauda can make points about Quickseller's hypocrisy all they want, and they make some level of sense.  But they don't actually contradict his point, they just show further biases.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
Agree 100%.  Hashpower is the least spoofable method and that's how Bitcoin works.  
Let's not go off spreading false knowledge that miners dictate the system. Smiley

Yes, they both very clearly gave the negative ratings to Bitmain, a company that although does not accept deposits/pre-orders, has been entrusted with tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars worth of obligations at a time and has followed through, for political reasons.
The amount of money that an entity handles is completely irrelevant. If it was relevant, then you'd need to stop throwing my name in the dirt, hypocrite.

What is clear here is that he has certain opinions and is being discredited for having those opinions.  
He has not been given any rating for any kind of "opinions of his own". He has been given one primarily due to his constant lies, most likely from his script.
copper member
Activity: 2870
Merit: 2298
I now see both Lauda and Gmax left negative feedback for Bitmain...

What a coincidence, geez.

nah, this isn't political at all.


Yes, they both very clearly gave the negative ratings to Bitmain, a company that although does not accept deposits/pre-orders, has been entrusted with tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars worth of obligations at a time and has followed through, for political reasons.



The merits of jonald_fyookball's opinions are irrelevant to this thread. What is clear here is that he has certain opinions and is being discredited for having those opinions. 
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Go to r/btc , the uncensored bitcoin redit,
and you'll find nearly everyone agrees.
Uncensored or not, r/btc (as with every other Bitcoin subreddit it seems) is a hive mind of anti-segwit big blocks. Just like this, for somewhat fair analysis, r/bitcoin is also a hive mind for pro-segwit pro-blockstream.

Telling someone to go to r/btc to find that big blocks are good is like telling someone to go to an alcoholics anonymous meeting to find drinking is bad.

Agree 100%.  Hashpower is the least spoofable method and that's how Bitcoin works. 
legendary
Activity: 2324
Merit: 1267
In Memory of Zepher
Go to r/btc , the uncensored bitcoin redit,
and you'll find nearly everyone agrees.
Uncensored or not, r/btc (as with every other Bitcoin subreddit it seems) is a hive mind of anti-segwit big blocks. Just like this, for somewhat fair analysis, r/bitcoin is also a hive mind for pro-segwit pro-blockstream.

Telling someone to go to r/btc to find that big blocks are good is like telling someone to go to an alcoholics anonymous meeting to find drinking is bad.



Either way this topic has gotten very off it's original track. I don't think that people's opinions of the bitcoin scaling scenario is relevant to whether Lauda was in line leaving their feedback.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
 There was a lot of questioning about the "temporary" 1MB limit several years ago, but I don't know if this holds true today.


it doesn't hold true if you buy into Blockstream propaganda, I suppose.
Christ, this is boring.  At least I mentioned the ViaBTC and F2Pool's polls, while you haven't mentioned any information whatsoever except for generic comments about "propaganda".  I'm waiting for your response, I'm not anyone's enemy.  Chill.
 
Bitcoin was always supposed to scale on chain with bigger blocks.  Go read early satoshi writings, or my letter to the miners.  It's all there.
This looks like an argument of your own rather than a reference proving that the "community has been asking for big blocks for years".

It's not there, you've argued that people used to agree with a large block size a long time ago, which is true, but you've provided no recent evidence about "the community".

Or does the "community" only consist of people you like?
Quote from: jonald_fyookball
If you don't believe me, that's fine, but there's nothing else to explain.  
There is.  All you need to do is answer what I actually said instead of some hypothetical statement.
Quote from: Nagadota
There was a lot of questioning about the "temporary" 1MB limit several years ago, but I don't know if this holds true today.
Can you show that it holds true today?


Even Adam Back said in 2015 we should be having bigger blocks.

"Questioning" the 1mb limit isn't the right word -- its totally clear that the limit is ludicrous.  Go to r/btc , the uncensored bitcoin redit,
and you'll find nearly everyone agrees.

Stop playing dumb.

legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
I now see both Lauda and Gmax left negative feedback for Bitmain...

What a coincidence, geez.

nah, this isn't political at all.
Of course it isn't. If it were political, I would have given them a negative rating as soon as they were intentionally blocking Segwit. The rating is well deserved and arguably even late.
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
ClaimWithMe - the most paying faucet of all times!
 There was a lot of questioning about the "temporary" 1MB limit several years ago, but I don't know if this holds true today.


it doesn't hold true if you buy into Blockstream propaganda, I suppose.
Christ, this is boring.  At least I mentioned the ViaBTC and F2Pool's polls, while you haven't mentioned any information whatsoever except for generic comments about "propaganda".  I'm waiting for your response, I'm not anyone's enemy.  Chill.
 
Bitcoin was always supposed to scale on chain with bigger blocks.  Go read early satoshi writings, or my letter to the miners.  It's all there.
This looks like an argument of your own rather than a reference proving that the "community has been asking for big blocks for years".

It's not there, you've argued that people used to agree with a large block size a long time ago, which is true, but you've provided no recent evidence about "the community".

Or does the "community" only consist of people you like?
Quote from: jonald_fyookball
If you don't believe me, that's fine, but there's nothing else to explain. 
There is.  All you need to do is answer what I actually said instead of some hypothetical statement.
Quote from: Nagadota
There was a lot of questioning about the "temporary" 1MB limit several years ago, but I don't know if this holds true today.
Can you show that it holds true today?
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
I now see both Lauda and Gmax left negative feedback for Bitmain...

What a coincidence, geez.

nah, this isn't political at all.

legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
 There was a lot of questioning about the "temporary" 1MB limit several years ago, but I don't know if this holds true today.


it doesn't hold true if you buy into Blockstream propaganda, I suppose.
Christ, this is boring.  At least I mentioned the ViaBTC and F2Pool's polls, while you haven't mentioned any information whatsoever except for generic comments about "propaganda".  I'm waiting for your response, I'm not anyone's enemy.  Chill.
 

Not sure what you don't understand.  This is very simple.

Bitcoin was always supposed to scale on chain with bigger blocks.  Go read early satoshi writings, or my letter to the miners.  It's all there.

Segwit was literally made up to solve a problem that didn't exist.  No one asked for it..it was created by core devs, mostly by Pieter W. and Gmax  (both of whom work for Blockstream).

There was a lot of "hardforks are bad" rhertoric and Segwit soft fork was supposed to be the savior. 

If you don't believe me, that's fine, but there's nothing else to explain. 
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
ClaimWithMe - the most paying faucet of all times!
 There was a lot of questioning about the "temporary" 1MB limit several years ago, but I don't know if this holds true today.


it doesn't hold true if you buy into Blockstream propaganda, I suppose.
Christ, this is boring.  At least I mentioned the ViaBTC and F2Pool's polls, while you haven't mentioned any information whatsoever except for generic comments about "propaganda".  I'm waiting for your response, I'm not anyone's enemy.  Chill.

Quote from: Lauda
Bitcoin is supposed to empower the users by giving them sovereignty and being resistant to change.
A fork doesn't become an altcoin because of this.  It just becomes something unfavourable which Bitcoin has become.  If Bitcoin needs to be resistant to change, would UASF be an altcoin too?  Or is your view based around the fact that BITMAIN is dictating this UAHF?

IMO at this point any fork would be a few private companies dictating the decision, just a few more in UASF's case than in UAHF.
Quote from: Lauda
Anyhow, this is not the place for this discussion. Either way, the rating is not "political" and is well deserved. The user even continued to spread false information.
Got it, I'd better leave the thread now.  It's not going anywhere so jonald should probably lock it.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
 There was a lot of questioning about the "temporary" 1MB limit several years ago, but I don't know if this holds true today.


it doesn't hold true if you buy into Blockstream propaganda, I suppose.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
I think this is pretty childish sentiment.  A chain split is not an altcoin, and that doesn't matter whether it's UASF, UAHF or just a hard fork.  The majority chain is Bitcoin, and the rest are "forks of Bitcoin", nothing more.
No. That's not what Bitcoin is, otherwise a few power players get to decide what Bitcoin is and change however they want it. Bitcoin is supposed to empower the users by giving them sovereignty and being resistant to change. It is not, in any way or form, a proof-of-proxy coin. Anyhow, this is not the place for this discussion. Either way, the rating is not "political" and is well deserved. The user even continued to spread false information.
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
ClaimWithMe - the most paying faucet of all times!
@quickseller, good idea (blazed) --  i will get around to that.
You can try that, yes. A certain someone tried it a lot of times, but ultimately it does not work.

more important things are going on today Smiley
Do you, by any chance, mean the planned attack by BITMAIN? I've just neg. rated them.

 a fork is an attack is Bitmain is doing it, but its not if its led by puke junior.

right?
Luke Jr is a developer, not a miner.

I fail to see why anyone should support a single private company creating a new chain.  If they want to "ignore short-term economic incentives" to mine on their new chain, they will end up with >51% hashrate and the chain will be susceptible to 51% attacks from BITMAIN.  This is blindingly obvious, because most pools will not ignore economic incentives.

Community has been asking for big blocks for years
I question this.  I don't think there's strong enough evidence to prove that the community supports one side or another (feel free to try and prove me wrong - the only resources I have so far are F2Pool and ViaBTC's polls).  There was a lot of questioning about the "temporary" 1MB limit several years ago, but I don't know if this holds true today.
Quote from: jonald_fyookball
and how bitcon was always supposed to scale back to the original whitepaper.  Honesty requires accounting for that context and not making it sound like a 'private company is just creating a new chain'.  
I think honesty requires accounting for whether this is genuinely a community movement or a private company's power grab.  The origin of UAHF is BITMAIN's blog post - is that really not a problem to you?
Quote from: jonald_fyookball
Other pools already signaling for big blocks will undoubtedly mine the big block chain.
By this logic, all pools signalling for SegWit will mine the UASF chain, and I doubt this will happen.  Even if they did, BITMAIN would have a disturbing amount of hashrate on the new chain.

And for neutrality's sake:

Quote from: Lauda
You can keep trying to spread misinformation but that won't change the fact that Jihancoin is the altcoin.
I think this is pretty childish sentiment.  A chain split is not an altcoin, and that doesn't matter whether it's UASF, UAHF or just a hard fork.  The majority chain is Bitcoin, and the rest are "forks of Bitcoin", nothing more.

legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
Honesty requires accounting for that context and not making it sound like a 'private company is just creating a new chain'. 
Community has been asking for big blocks for years and how bitcon was always supposed to scale back to the original whitepaper. 
You can keep trying to spread misinformation but that won't change the fact that Jihancoin is the altcoin. Kiss
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
@quickseller, good idea (blazed) --  i will get around to that.
You can try that, yes. A certain someone tried it a lot of times, but ultimately it does not work.

more important things are going on today Smiley
Do you, by any chance, mean the planned attack by BITMAIN? I've just neg. rated them.

 a fork is an attack is Bitmain is doing it, but its not if its led by puke junior.

right?
Luke Jr is a developer, not a miner.

I fail to see why anyone should support a single private company creating a new chain.  If they want to "ignore short-term economic incentives" to mine on their new chain, they will end up with >51% hashrate and the chain will be susceptible to 51% attacks from BITMAIN.  This is blindingly obvious, because most pools will not ignore economic incentives.

Community has been asking for big blocks for years and how bitcon was always supposed to scale back to the original whitepaper.  Honesty requires accounting for that context and not making it sound like a 'private company is just creating a new chain'. 

Other pools already signaling for big blocks will undoubtedly mine the big block chain.

Segwit will collapse.

hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
ClaimWithMe - the most paying faucet of all times!
@quickseller, good idea (blazed) --  i will get around to that.
You can try that, yes. A certain someone tried it a lot of times, but ultimately it does not work.

more important things are going on today Smiley
Do you, by any chance, mean the planned attack by BITMAIN? I've just neg. rated them.

 a fork is an attack is Bitmain is doing it, but its not if its led by puke junior.

right?
Luke Jr is a developer, not a miner.

I fail to see why anyone should support a single private company creating a new chain.  If they want to "ignore short-term economic incentives" to mine on their new chain, they will end up with >51% hashrate and the chain will be susceptible to 51% attacks from BITMAIN.  This is blindingly obvious, because most pools will not ignore economic incentives.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
@quickseller, good idea (blazed) --  i will get around to that.
You can try that, yes. A certain someone tried it a lot of times, but ultimately it does not work.

more important things are going on today Smiley
Do you, by any chance, mean the planned attack by BITMAIN? I've just neg. rated them.

 a fork is an attack is Bitmain is doing it, but its not if its led by puke junior.

right?
member
Activity: 62
Merit: 10
Red trust for political reasons? Must be Donald Trump giving you negative trust.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
@quickseller, good idea (blazed) --  i will get around to that.
You can try that, yes. A certain someone tried it a lot of times, but ultimately it does not work.

more important things are going on today Smiley
Do you, by any chance, mean the planned attack by BITMAIN? I've just neg. rated them.
Pages:
Jump to: