Topic: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node - page 2. (Read 4213 times)

I never initiated that claim. For what reason are you directing your indignation at me?

This thread happened in a sequence, and Danny Hamilton started the very blame game you're implying is my responsibility. Yet he escapes your indignation, how exactly?




Again, you're telling me this for what reason, exactly? I responded to antagonism, it's plain to see for any who reads the thread



The wider community is responding to some really crafty trolling, of which you are no small part, DooMAD. No-one invited the trolling, you jackals turned up of your own accord, and hilariously perpetrate malignant and deceptive acts, then accuse those that defend themselves of that which only you are all guilty. I will defend myself and my property from liars and manipulators, such as you and Danny Hamilton, at all times.

So you don't trust the people who created the original bitcoin? If you don't trust them why do you even care about bitcoin? Just dump your position and buy your favorite alternative scam coin. Is it really worth to fight over BU/Core thing?

And, You can't say i don't trust Ver but I run BU node. You are lying.

 
OMFG.  Seriously.

Look, it takes two to tango.  It's called an argument because both sides can't agree.  Neither side created the wedge, it just happened that way because one wants to emphasise onchain scaling and one wants to emphasise offchain scaling.  No one is lying and it's not some grand fucking conspiracy, so stop blowing it out of all proportion.  People are just playing the blame game over who supposedly "started it", like squabbling children do.  

It is a perfectly fair assessment to say that things in the development team degraded to the point where the decision was made by some to not work together and some people left to work on their own implementation.  The wider community immediately started to pick a side based on their own opinions and personal preferences and certain parties began to attack/dismiss/ridicule the side they disagreed with, reinforcing the wedge.

Now either calm the shit down and quit with the character assassinations, or I'll have to assume you are dramatising this intentionally, deliberately stirring shit up in an attempt to discredit people you still seem to perceive as insidious subversives, when in fact they're probably just ordinary people who see things differently to you.  

You refuse to answer the pertinent question, and instead continue to derail with over-complicated and diversionary walls-of-text full of unproven assertions. Done here, hope you're getting paid by the line

I refuted it in the post before the one above, by analysing his language - his language was arguing that Core had failed to create consensus, which is true.  There isn't consensus.  You grudgingly admitted that that was the intended meaning by arguing against it in your edit.

Or maybe you just didn't read it, as I clearly said "Please give me an example of an ad hominem used", about Danny Hamilton.  You didn't respond to this, showing that you either didn't read it or didn't care.

Unless you think liar isn't a negative trait, it's definitely attacking his character.  Your word that he's a liar, repeated over and over again now about 15 times, does not make it so and you constantly claim to have proved it with still no proof that I cannot at least argue against (if evidence is clearly arguable, it isn't evidence, it's an argument).
 


In case you didn't read the rest of my post, the Big Question:
I answered that question in my above post:
If you had bothered to read it, you would have seen that.  However it is impossible to answer the question without diversion as the question itself is biased, assuming an implied meaning of Danny Hamilton's post which you had not explained beforehand despite your supposed "proof".

Where do you actually refute the charge that Danny Hamilton was lying and manipulating? Nowhere


All your wall of text serves to illustrate is that you're talking alot and saying nothing.


I proved Danny Hamilton is a liar. It's that simple, and it's not attacking his character, it's attacking his specific behaviour, behaviour which is pertinent to the issues at hand. Not ad hominem, in other words. And it's proof positive that he knowingly lied and manipulated the discourse.
 


Iranus:

Do you accept Danny Hamilton's clarification that Core users and/or supporters began the blocksize debate, and that Core users and/or supporters perpetuated it? That's where Danny is lying, to which he could only add further manipulation in an attempt to stem the damage to his reputation.


Answer the question without diversion, or there is nothing left to talk about (you avoid it entirely in your above reply, despite that being the central point I was making)

Just a couple of posts ago, Carlton, you said:
A consensus system is based on individuals.  It requires a large majority of users to support a specific version of the network - a large majority of individuals, that is.  You are an individual.  Arguments are being presented to you and other individuals which are believed to frequently harm the debate for other individuals.

Please give an example of an ad hominem used.  I only see attacks on posting and content, not on individuals - the closest to an ad hominem is your "sense of superiority" which in my view you are displaying from your belief that your opinion is "the truth", whereas as Danny Hamilton showed in his previous post, you called him a "liar" and "manipulative" (attacking an individual, regardless of whether or not it's true or you believe it's true) over 10 times.
As with everything that requires a new consensus, the previous one was viewed as insufficient by a significant enough amount of people to result in open argument favouring a new one (which Danny Hamilton did not take part in).  Therefore regardless of whether or not they were right, which I actually generally believe that they were, the beginning of the argument was their inaction.  Danny Hamilton, notably, does not say the argument you suggest he did at any point even though I do.





Edit: You said the following earlier.

censorship
ˈsɛnsəʃɪp/
noun
1.
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

To put it differently, censorship is preventing public information from being viewed by others.  On the contrary, no one has done that.  Danny Hamilton suggested putting you on ignore - which I might do if you direct any ad hominems in your reply (which I have carefully avoided doing to you) but this could not prevent it reaching a wider audience.  This hyperbole does not help for reaching a consensus - it helps for spreading fear, and is divisive in debates.

I know very little about technical aspects of either side, but I know that when a post is centered around hyperbole I can display my understanding of context and interpretation in the English language instead.

Really, Danny? Semantic sleight of hand, that's all you've got in your defence? My ostensible "trolling" requires you to come down from your ivory tower, huh?


But then again, I'd expect you to start trying to twist the meaning of your own sentences to prosecute your position. And oh how much rhetoric (the colours are very pretty) you need to do it.


If it's a consensus system, as you constantly re-iterate, how can addressing one user make any difference? Because if we are to accept your version of events, you are implicitly targeting the small number of Bitcointalk users that are advocating the truth with your hypocritical and cowardly ad hominem attack, aren't you Danny Hamilton?




Edit:

And I'll tell you something else Danny Hamilton.



If we assume that your re-interpretation of context in the English language is correct, then the substance of what you said is still wrong, i.e. you're still a shameless liar


How can you possibly declare that the opposition to blocksize-pushing began the argument? Or that blocksize opponents maintained the argument?


"Big-Blocks" Andresen began the debate, pushed it, and every day of every week of every year since, a horde of big block promoters have been brigading this forum and others like it, with constant distortions of the facts and outright lies. We're the reaction to the antagonists, we are not the antagonists, as you falsely (and knowingly) state.


And you're no different, are you Danny Hamilton? You distorted the facts, claiming Core started and maintained the blocksize (read: putsch for control) war, and then you distorted your own lie, attempting to alter the addressee of your original lie, as if that somehow made what you said about the culpability for the instigation and continuation of the debate magically truthful?


It's clever little lie after clever little lie with you, isn't it Danny Hamilton?

Work on your reading comprehension.

You'll notice that in the part of that paragraph you conveniently left out I either refer to Core by name or use "they" or "their", not "your", when referring to Core. I'm not telling Core that they aren't "official", they already know that.  I'm not telling Core that they are the reference client ONLY because a significant majority run it, they already know that. I'm talking "to the reader about Core", not "to Core about Core":

I switch to "you", and "your" when explaining to the reader (Among others that's you Carlton, in case you didn't notice) that if the reader attacks anyone the reader doesn't agree with then the reader is part of the problem.  The reader is part of the consensus that needs to be reached.  That the reader should understand that both sides have valid concerns. The reader should understand that the reader "can't maintain consensus by alienating half the miners and a huge population of users". The reader should understand that "Forcing a wedge between people with "us vs. them" mentality, accusations, insults, fear, uncertainty, doubt, and belittling is cutting off the reader's nose to spite the reader's face."

I even include 2 transition sentences to modify the tone and make it clear that this is about Bitcoin, and not about Core or Unlimited.

Pay a bit more attention to what you read, and perhaps you could have avoided filling this thread with nonsense:


Core developers aren't the problem.  Unlimited developers aren't the problem. Developers just write code. This isn't a technical problem.

The problem is one of consensus forming, and the vilifying of anyone that wants something different than one's self is a big part of that problem.  It's gotten so bad, that some people will even attack those that want the same as themselves if any appearance of empathy, sympathy, or understanding is given to the "other side" at all.  That's not a way to bring people together, but it's a great way to drive them apart.  I've even wondered at times if franky1, Carlton Banks, jonald_fyookball, RawDog, and achow101 are all just paid (government? fed reserve? altcoin?) shills tasked with keeping the community from coming together on anything under any circumstances.  If they aren't, then they are certainly doing a good job of helping out those entities for free.

For what reason?

Prove me wrong. Demonstrate I'm wrong or being deceptive. You can't, and so you must try to use repetitive rhetoric to censor me instead.

Iranus, Carlton's definitely ignore-worthy.

You're wrong.



Above, Danny states that Core forced a wedge, created an us & them mentality, that they incited FUD and that Core needs to stop trying to tear Bitcoin apart.

All wrong.


The perpetrators of all of Danny's unfounded accusations was the succession of pressure created first by Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn (using XT and "Classic"), then by Peter Rizun and his Unlimited merry men. Danny Hamilton is simply the latest in a long line of people lying about real world events and the systemic effects of blocksize increases on the system, and as I say, he's an exceptionally insidious example of that strategy, as he's been uninvolved up to now, building trust in his readers. Now, Danny Hamilton is using the trust he's built up to sway opinions toward the big blocks position, and it's a very crafty strategy.

I have demonstrated everything I'm saying as a fact, with reasoning. Where are your facts? You're saying little more than "Danny is right". Why is Danny right? Can you tell us without avoiding the falsehoods Danny has presented (as is the typical tactic for lie-driven big blocks rhetoric)

Why does the big blocks position always require lies to convince Bitcoiners? Why must the lies (and the liars telling them) become more sophisticated and subtle, as they lose battle after battle?




Nope. Unbacked assertions. I have demonstrated that Danny is obscuring the truth and replacing it with carefully constructed lies. What have you proven?

Perhaps we should check the unlimited intergalactic accords and ask the future president if he would be comfortable with our projected plans, you don't seem stupid. So clearly you have an insidious ulterior motive.

Actually, he said that they had failed, not that they were not trying (and he was objectively correct, as a consensus has not been reached).  His points about division were clearly addressed to you and to others who are divisive and close-minded (for example, arguing with a fascist does not make you one).

Objective truth.  And this seems like a creative insult to me.  Your repeated use of the term "liar" and attempts to discredit Danny are unhelpful (and I hope this is addressing your "clever editorial decisions" "like a man").

You literally did say that, and also that the Core team both began and perpetuated the conflict.

And I have demonstrated you are lying. It's impossible for you or anyone else to claim Core began the conflict and expect to be taken seriously as one who is interested in the truth of the matter.

It's so simple, you decided to tell a lie, and used your reputation to sell the lie. You're a liar and a manipulator.



You're using up that social capital rather quickly, Danny. This haughty aloofness of yours is in fact the manifestation of a genuine superiority complex, another weapon in your rhetoric box.

If what I say is nonsense, dismiss it with words, not the ad hominem labelling you use against me (and for which you provide no evidence), yet hypocritically direct ad hominem insults towards me (and you do so passive aggressively, without making a direct reference, knowing that people will realise who you are not referring to by name)


You cannot dismiss what I'm saying about you, because it's the truth. You cannot explain why I am labelling your behaviour unfairly, because what I am saying about you is the truth.

If I'm lying, distorting or making clever editorial decisions in what I say, be a man and address it directly. Instead, you have no choice but to defend yourself with veiled insults, whereas I am upfront and direct about who and what I am dismissing, and I give soundly argued reasons for doing so.

You provide no reason, you just bandy labels around, like childish playground name calling. I call you out for what you are, loudly and proudly, because your demonstrably insidious rhetoric is a danger to the value of mine and others BTC assets.



That wouldn't be credible even if it ever happened. I doubt anyone would take that seriously, you've suddenly revealed a consistent big-blocks position only just recently. You say nothing in respect of supporting or rejecting the Core position that I've seen.


Interesting that you follow a claim of being a victim of "creative insults" with..... rather a creative insult of your own.


But my claims that you are a liar are plain for all to see. You said that Core both started and perpetuated the big blocks debate, demonstrably and obviously false. That you are a liar is not an insult at all, it is the truth.


If you are so interested in knowledge, why are you telling easily debunked lies?

I will not tolerate you or anyone else suggesting that I am the person behaving in bad faith when I am simply standing up for what is right and for the truth.


You are a malevolent liar, and I will call you out on it each and every time you perpetrate falsehoods, against Core's management or anything else (although I expect your gameplan is to stick to attacking the people at Core and their decisions)

lol...I've had franky1 on ignore since 2012. I think Garzik makes a lot of good points as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNAe5OWIBT8

EDIT: I wrote the following before Danny responded and now when I post, see
that Danny has commented. For the sake of responding to the question to me,
I will post this anyway, even though it is not really necessary.
I think it is important to say, even if I am incorrect in different aspects.


Without actually speaking for him, because in reality I do not really know anything,
and I was just addressing the "forcefulness" in your response to him, but if I had to
address the specific situation at hand, the following is my opinion about Danny, and
may actually windup being my projection, lol.

IMO, Danny is not about to cash out his social capital, but has become frustrated with the
current status quo because he sees Bitcoin as something different than the majority. IMO,
Danny thinks Bitcoin is still a "running experiment" and currently the experiment is stalling
and causing secondary issues (altcoins are rising, community is splitting, etc). The
experiment was designed so that stalling shouldn't normally take effect. If stalling persists,
people need to go back to the drawing board and start again. Though that is unfortunate
and wasted many peoples time and hard work & money, the reality is that, that is our only
choice now. If the system can not come to an answer soon, we need brand new answers.
This is how I personally interpreted Danny. He is not like RawDog coming on and saying,
"Bitcoin is fucked you dumb Core nubs fucked it, raise the blocks to the sky, ye bitches!!1!".
He has just finally become visibly frustrated.

IMO, Danny thinks the Core devs have more power than they are willing to use
and that maybe they should make more efforts to create compromises, instead of doing what
they are currently doing. With Consensus, there should always be an ongoing negotiation over
time. The longer a compromise is not reached the worse the problem becomes irreconcilable
which could lead to two chains. If both sides continue as is, there is good chance there will be
a "big block chain" and a "small block chain", which not only hurts the community, but hurts
the "experiment" overall. Some in the community want a splitting away, since they think it is
alright and acceptable, but that is outside of the Consensus mechanism and is a "cheat".
Danny wants Consensus between the parties, even if it is impossible due to the ideologies.

IMO Danny has seen throughout the community, and even in Core, walls are being created
that may become so high, that even worthy possible compromises will be entirely dismissed.
The wedge that he described really applies to all sides and not just Core, but that Core is the
only entity that has the power to control or stop that. So Danny is frustrated because those
who have some power (whether they want that power or not, or acknowledge that power) are
potentially not using it to heal the community. The issue he is really talking about is division
created on purpose for the intention of forcing these parties away. For Bitcoin to be truly
successful, it should be able to account and include these parties in some meaningful way.

In reality, we all know that the blocksize issue is very complex and include issues such as:
Hardforks vs Softforks, Centralization vs Decentralization, Satoshi's original plan vs Satoshi
wasn't infallible, On-chain Scaling vs Off-chain Scaling, Sig_Ops and things that I have no
true knowledge of as a noob, and so on and so forth. Due to the complexity of this issue,
two camps have formed and may never come back together now. Some individuals who have
been patiently waiting for a resolution are now becoming frustrated. This is how I see Danny.

Everything I have stated is my personal belief and I really have no knowledge as to Danny's
true intentions or beliefs, but I would not jump to attack him as " an enemy" until it is clear
what his true intentions are. Danny's silence, IMO, has more to do with "not intervening with the
experiment" then as an admission that he fully supports BU. But ultimately, my response here
may be my own projection on to Danny, but I still don't think long time respectable members
should be spoken to as such, since that feeds into the division. If the member is a blatant shill/
troll on the other hand, I have no issue and they need to be whacked down.

Edit: Ultimately, I have placed words in Danny's mouth. So, if so desired, you could
substitute "Danny" and "he", with me, since I think what i wrote holds true to my opinion. I
am no expert nor know computer programming and etc, I am just a 2013 Bitcoin noob who
came along and fell in love with its different aspects. I have no power and am subject to
whatever the final outcome will be in this "blocksize debate". The question now is: is
reconciliation still possible or have we proven that two chains will be our reality?

I'm not saying that the Core team is not attempting to reconcile the two sides.  I'm saying that there are a lot of confused and uncertain people that are being influenced by trolls on both sides that attack anyone with an opinion and spread fear and doubt to force both sides farther apart.


Please don't feed the trolls.  It only encourages them.


There are half a dozen or so users here at bitcointalk that have become hardcore [pick-a-side] pumper lately and that account is shilling conspiracy, misrepresentations, and accusing [the-other-side] of "fill in the blank".

I've got most of them on ignore.  The less tempted I am to respond to their nonsense, the less I feed their sense of superiority.  I focus on answering questions and responding to civil discussions instead.  Hopefully if enough of us do so, the whole community can learn from each other and dismiss the nonsense.



I've been in support of both sides at various times. I've been called a "blockstream shill" and I've been called a "big-blocker".  Both franky1 and Carlton Banks like to make up creative insults and direct them at me.  I tend to think of them both as my own little troll puppies following me around and yipping at my heels.

I'm more interested in both learning and teaching as much about the concerns both sides have as possible.  Knowledge helps reduce fear, anger, and hate.

Except no one has been able to replicate it. Greg also showed that he tried to replicate the bug but got the expected error.

They certainly don't understand it to the degree that they want everyone to think they understand it.

Here's a reddit thread with links and sources detailing most of the incompetency of the BU devs: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/61bkqe/the_astounding_incompetence_negligence_and/

There's also a video showing the bug in core. I think its a bit silly to say they "don't understand the code".