Is there any hard proof of these claims?
Topic: Jihan Wu's patent: The resume (Read 985 times)
I think everyone knows what Franky1 is.
Thanks for bumping the OP Franky1
You do realize most people just read the OP, not all your damage control, right? Just keep bumping all these threads while you sink deeper and deeper.
You do realize most people just read the OP, not all your damage control, right? Just keep bumping all these threads while you sink deeper and deeper.
The only thing that'll sort it is a successfully implemented upgrade that ... addresses the qualms of the few sane ones.
yp its called decentralised consensus where nodes set the rules, pools follow and devs just work on making things which the users accept or deny.
no dev mandated crap, no dev-king nuke bombs
starting with dynamic blocksize
with a few tweaks to drop maxTXsigop limits to way way way below 20% of maxBLOCKsigop limit (real quadratic spam fix)
and LN as a voluntary side service. not the end goal only resort
nodes=king
pools=secretary
devs=manual labour
So Blockstream wants the bitcoin market to be centralized through a few central companies and hubs?
• Nope, that was Bitmain that wanted to maintain centralization of mining hardware and hashing power through their company and hubs.
• Nope, that was Bitmain that wanted to maintain centralization of mining hardware and hashing power through their company and hubs.
LOL
check out DCG portfolio
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b
blockstream
bitpay
BTCC
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#c
coinbase
blah blah blah..
yep all the big names of the blockstream cartels cabin fever mindset of REKTing anything not blockstream sanctioned, as a altcoin are all on the portfolio
P.S
while its the DCG/bockstream cartel that are fearmungering, making deadlines shouting threats, mandatory activations, going soft to avoid node consensus, adding PoW nukes.
the other decentralised peer implementations are just plodding along letting consensus decide.. no threats no deadlines.
and saying no to splitting the network
What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.
I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral ... Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.
The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--
I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral ... Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.
The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--
This needs to be kept at the forefront until the BU shill crowd gives up. I don't know what they think they are accomplishing at this point but they sure aren't going quietly as their world falls around them.
They will never give up. It'll be given some wonderful spin and they'll carry on as before. Even if it's comprehensively drilled as an epic failure, that'll just give more ammo for sniping and grudges.
The only thing that'll sort it is a successfully implemented upgrade that either leaves them behind or addresses the qualms of the few sane ones. And if the people behind Unlimited had the requisite competence, level headedness and non shrill PR skills they could've been the winners.
Has Ver commented on this scandal yet? Can't find anything currently.
If I had a position, I would certainly keep holding LTC.
Quote
This should cause fruther drama in the BTC community while LTC gains traction. Im holding my LTC for the time being, we will see what happens in the following 72 hours, I think LTC is a winning pick right now over BTC.
If I had a position, I would certainly keep holding LTC.
Why would Roger Ver want to comment on this whole scandal? He will just say that he did not know about this and that this has nothing to do
with him. Just look at his response when he came out after the MtGox collapse. Copy & Paste that response on this scandal and you would
find the "exit" plan for him. Roger will not be phased by this scandal...
Is this the truth or it is just a conspiracy theory?
For over 65 years, regular newspapers and TV news in the Western world maintained the lie that the 1953 coup d'etat in Iran that deposed President Mossadegh was "just a conspiracy theory"
Now, no-one credible, including regular newspapers (many of whom covered this "news" in the year 2013) and historians, accept the lies that newspapers and TV news used to repeat about the 1953 Iranian coup. The fact is, CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt (a nephew or cousin of former US president Theodore Roosevelt) created the coup and sold the lies to the world, using lots of money and faked news pictures of small numbers of paid Iranians pretending to riot in the streets.
So please, get with the 21st century. "Conspiracy theory" doesn't mean "fake story", it's psychological language used by state intelligence services covering the tracks of their crimes.
Some conspiracy theories acutally are BS, and some are the truth. Which is which? Only you can decide. No authorities will tell you now, the world you thought you knew is gone
Has Ver commented on this scandal yet? Can't find anything currently.
If I had a position, I would certainly keep holding LTC.
Quote
This should cause fruther drama in the BTC community while LTC gains traction. Im holding my LTC for the time being, we will see what happens in the following 72 hours, I think LTC is a winning pick right now over BTC.
If I had a position, I would certainly keep holding LTC.
This should cause fruther drama in the BTC community while LTC gains traction. Im holding my LTC for the time being, we will see what happens in the following 72 hours, I think LTC is a winning pick right now over BTC.
This needs to be kept at the forefront until the BU shill crowd gives up. I don't know what they think they are accomplishing at this point but they sure aren't going quietly as their world falls around them.
Now appears they backed off for further instructions from Ver and their chinese daddies on this situation 
This needs to be kept at the forefront until the BU shill crowd gives up. I don't know what they think they are accomplishing at this point but they sure aren't going quietly as their world falls around them.
So, Blockstream is holding back bitcoin scaling so they can profit from their centralized product?
• Nope, that was Bitmain
So, SegWit is just overly complex code to sneak in discounts for Blockstream's "products"?
• Nope... that was Bitmain realizing SegWit negated their already profitable discount and ruined their product.
So Blockstream wants the bitcoin market to be centralized through a few central companies and hubs?
• Nope, that was Bitmain that wanted to maintain centralization of mining hardware and hashing power through their company and hubs.
So, Blockstream is centralized development and wants everyone to run the code that makes their company valuable?
• Nope, it is Bitmain that supports any competing client, regardless of the effect on Bitcoin, in order to maintain the code that is specifically profitable for them and them alone.
r Lite coin guy
• Nope, that was Bitmain
So, SegWit is just overly complex code to sneak in discounts for Blockstream's "products"?
• Nope... that was Bitmain realizing SegWit negated their already profitable discount and ruined their product.
So Blockstream wants the bitcoin market to be centralized through a few central companies and hubs?
• Nope, that was Bitmain that wanted to maintain centralization of mining hardware and hashing power through their company and hubs.
So, Blockstream is centralized development and wants everyone to run the code that makes their company valuable?
• Nope, it is Bitmain that supports any competing client, regardless of the effect on Bitcoin, in order to maintain the code that is specifically profitable for them and them alone.
r Lite coin guy
Is this the truth or it is just a conspiracy theory?
So, Blockstream is holding back bitcoin scaling so they can profit from their centralized product?
• Nope, that was Bitmain
So, SegWit is just overly complex code to sneak in discounts for Blockstream's "products"?
• Nope... that was Bitmain realizing SegWit negated their already profitable discount and ruined their product.
So Blockstream wants the bitcoin market to be centralized through a few central companies and hubs?
• Nope, that was Bitmain that wanted to maintain centralization of mining hardware and hashing power through their company and hubs.
So, Blockstream is centralized development and wants everyone to run the code that makes their company valuable?
• Nope, it is Bitmain that supports any competing client, regardless of the effect on Bitcoin, in order to maintain the code that is specifically profitable for them and them alone.
r Lite coin guy
• Nope, that was Bitmain
So, SegWit is just overly complex code to sneak in discounts for Blockstream's "products"?
• Nope... that was Bitmain realizing SegWit negated their already profitable discount and ruined their product.
So Blockstream wants the bitcoin market to be centralized through a few central companies and hubs?
• Nope, that was Bitmain that wanted to maintain centralization of mining hardware and hashing power through their company and hubs.
So, Blockstream is centralized development and wants everyone to run the code that makes their company valuable?
• Nope, it is Bitmain that supports any competing client, regardless of the effect on Bitcoin, in order to maintain the code that is specifically profitable for them and them alone.
r Lite coin guy
Is this the truth or it is just a conspiracy theory? This may sound and anti-thesis against Bitmain as a mastermind of disrupting blockstream to get more profit in bitcoin network. Well if this is true then supporting segwit would be for the better cause but if this is just purely a hypothesis made to destroy bitmain then it is unfair for them. But whatever the truth is we all hope the best for bitcoin.
So, Blockstream is holding back bitcoin scaling so they can profit from their centralized product?
• Nope, that was Bitmain
So, SegWit is just overly complex code to sneak in discounts for Blockstream's "products"?
• Nope... that was Bitmain realizing SegWit negated their already profitable discount and ruined their product.
So Blockstream wants the bitcoin market to be centralized through a few central companies and hubs?
• Nope, that was Bitmain that wanted to maintain centralization of mining hardware and hashing power through their company and hubs.
So, Blockstream is centralized development and wants everyone to run the code that makes their company valuable?
• Nope, it is Bitmain that supports any competing client, regardless of the effect on Bitcoin, in order to maintain the code that is specifically profitable for them and them alone.
r Lite coin guy
• Nope, that was Bitmain
So, SegWit is just overly complex code to sneak in discounts for Blockstream's "products"?
• Nope... that was Bitmain realizing SegWit negated their already profitable discount and ruined their product.
So Blockstream wants the bitcoin market to be centralized through a few central companies and hubs?
• Nope, that was Bitmain that wanted to maintain centralization of mining hardware and hashing power through their company and hubs.
So, Blockstream is centralized development and wants everyone to run the code that makes their company valuable?
• Nope, it is Bitmain that supports any competing client, regardless of the effect on Bitcoin, in order to maintain the code that is specifically profitable for them and them alone.
r Lite coin guy
Jump to: