Topic: Maxwell + Wiuelle = Hearn (Read 1082 times)

If only I could be so lucky.  Let's test the idiot.... see if he's really gone.

BUT BACK TO THE CENTRAL IDEA OF THIS DISCUSSION, aside from all the drama and side issues, this is really about Bitcoin Governance, and the fact that currently we have a dangerously broken system, and the reason it is broken is because we have people in Comitt positions that are utterly biased, and have serious conflicts of interest.  And the reason it is dangerous is because it is increasing the odds of a divisive hard fork.

You believe that spouting nonsense covers things?



(and yes I am going to ignore you)

I believe I covered the concept when I directly stated "offline solution".  

PS... as you stated earlier, you could just ignore me.  Feel free.

CIYAM is not a sidechain at all (it is actually a software engineering platform that includes blockchain processing amongst many other things).

CIYAM can work with Bitcoin or with alts (or with no blockchain at all) - so it is not involved in any way about what changes may or may not happen to any of them.

If you want to have a meaningful debate then it would help if you educated yourself rather than spout off nonsense.

Well, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't CIYAM in its own way a sidechain / offline solution?  If you limit onchain transaction capability - then by default your business model grows. 

Bigger blocks doesn't stop your business model, but keeping smaller blocks does strengthen your business model.  Conflict of interest in regards to central leadership decision making ability.

I wish you well with your business.  Looks interesting and promising.  I just wish you weren't taking a side to limit other business models.

For a start you couldn't frustrate me if you tried.

But assuming that I am frustrated then what exactly are my special interests (that seemingly you should know)?

I like it when you get so frustrated that you don't even make any sense 

And nobody pays me to shill.  I have my own agenda.... justice, equality, fair play, etc etc.  Not really complicated, but when you are blinded by your own special interests I can see how it could be.

That's interesting - the guy didn't actually propose anything yet you stated that he did. What does that mean?

(it means that you are making up crap)

If you want to be taken seriously then why not accurately quote people rather than "put words into their mouths" to suit your own arguments?

No matter how much you guys are paid to shill it won't increase your IQ.

Yes, Lets look at the facts.....

1) No one is claiming that LN isn't a productive expansion of the blockchain technology, and very much a positive addition.  So this argument busted as FUD.
2) Blockstream Players are consistently on record as saying that Bitcoin is for Banks, not for individuals buying coffee.  So this argument is busted as Lying FUD.
3) Mike Hearn is working for the banks.  True.  Blockstream is working for the banks also.  True.  Blockstream Customers = Banks.   They just have different size Bank Customers in mind.  More FUD.

Also... correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Maxwells work in confidential transaction WITHIN the sidechain.  You may be confidential within the sidechain (Bank), but the Bank (sidechain) has ALL your data.  No more confidentiality than you get by opening an account with a local bank branch, or Coinbase for that matter.

This argument is so dishonest.  What you are proposing is WORSE than the current Fiat System.  You would basically FORCE people to have Sidechain Bank Accounts to operate on the Bitcoin Network.  People who want to use Bitcoin on the main chain as "Cash" would be subjected to increasingly prohibitive fees. 

This guy has been posting so much anti blockstream nonsense. Let's look at the facts:
1) Bitcoin will never scale without LN to mass levels
2) Blocksize at 2 mb or 20 does nothing to help mass level of adoption it's just a cop out
3) Maxwell working in confidential transactions to increase user privacy and trying to keep bitcoin's nodes as decentralized as possible by keeping blocksize small with the hel pof Wiuelle with genius stuff like sigwit vs Mike Hearn the guy working for banks

So no, Maxwell and Wiuelle are not Hearn, fork off and stop FUDing. No one cares about XT that's why no one run nodes for that crap.

When you reply like this:


it is not surprising that no-one wants to engage with any meaningful debate with you.

It would appear to me that "being right" is about all that matters to you (logic and reasoned arguments are not actually what you are interested in hence your attack of @brg444 for pointing out that your very approach is not one of reasoned arguments).

Bitcoin is not stagnating (and therefore is certainly in no jeopardy of dying at the moment).

Perhaps you'd like to present some "proof" that Bitcoin is stagnating for a start?

I really would like to hear someone offer some good supporting debate on the other side....  Please explain how blatant conflict of interest entitles a person(s) to be a comitter.

But in the end you need a Lead Mechanic who can make the final decision about WHAT you actually put under the hood.  You can have a thousand fantastic mechanics all building the world's top of the line super charged engines - but if none of the ever get installed it means nothing.  This is the current, HUGE, flaw in bitcoin...... it is democratic process that is highly divided, but with no tie-breaker process in place.   Sort of like watching American politics..... you end up with a divided bickering mess that slowly corrodes and not only doesn't make progress, but the progress that is made is diluted and often not the best because people are too busy pandering to special interests.

Special Interests are currently crippling bitcoin.

That's the most important part of the matter even though I think we already show what we are capable of: as of what OP is saying I said somewhere else that BTC needs less faces on the spots and more work under the hood. BTC don't need people, it is the other way around!

Right now the future of bitcoin is pretty uncertain.  People don't like uncertainty because it doesn't make for good long term business plans.   You can't get people to commit to loaning you money for startup ventures when there is uncertainty. 

And blockstream is loving this environment because they get to buy time, and any competition is being slowed.   The problem is that the current global financial systems are very fragile right now.   If anything sudden and scary were to happen right now - the only clear path that could immediately handle an EXPLOSION of interest in Bitcoin..... is XT.

It is no accident that the News Media is starting to run Bitcoin stories.   Bitcoin doesn't make it into the news by accident.  News Anchors don't have freedom of choice to run stories about Bitcoin, unless Bitcoin is "approved" for media discussion.  Suddenly the leash has come off.  Suddenly Coinbase launches XT. 

The gloves are getting ready to come off.  And at some point you start to see engineered financial crisises.

And XT will be the default winner, because Blockstream Morons have been so d@mn pigheaded, selfish and greedy.

I do NOT like XT as it is.  But it's the XT you are going to get most likely - because time has been wasted.  And you watch how fast people that would never go to XT - WILL - in the midst of a financial panic.

It was SO easy to fix XT, take a middle course, tweek it, make a decision and run with it.  But the little group of monkeys couldn't learn how to share the banana without wanting it all.

It is getting close to showtime people, and you don't have nearly as much time as you think.

It's operating just fine right now. The issue is its future direction. There are plenty of people who have way more of a clue than me, but it all hangs what direction they believe is the right one. BTC has yet to prove itself to the rest of the world. If it becomes an elitist irrelevance before it has even gotten on its feet then it's goodnight.

No, not as it currently stands, it isn't.  But clearly you're against just about any change to the code at this point, so it's not unsurprising to see you make that claim.  You'd happily freeze development right now if you had the opportunity.  You want all the benefits of the security that comes from many users securing the system, but at the same time, you don't want to hear the opinion of any of those users if it differs to your own narrow view.  I'd make the argument again that you can't expect a majority to contribute to a system that only benefits a small minority, but I'm sure you're still going to ignore it.  Everyone knows that's what you're pushing for.  A privileged and elitist chain for the early adopters and whales.  But that's fine, you can ossify all you like on your old, dead chain after everyone else forks and leaves you behind.  

Are really things that bad? I think Bitcoin is pretty healthy, and do not feel banks will make something similar anytime soon. It would be great for us that the developers had agreement and more leadership, but do not think it is really that bad. There are lots of money at stake, and, being geniuses, I think they will take care of not going wrong with their own money.

Actually, I know I am striking a nerve every time you resort to Shouting "FUD!".

It's all you've got.  You're just a one trick pony who relies on people's natural distrust and fear of the system in order to keep from having to intelligently engage.  And I get that - the fear and mistrust.  But the problem is... YOU are the system, or at least one of the systems.  And your One Trick is to pretend you aren't.

But your problem is.... at the end of the day, people want Bitcoin to survive and prosper, and every time you speak you are making it clear that all you care about is your own interests, and your unintelligent speech is getting old as people get impatient with the stagnation and rot that is spreading outwards from your ideas.

Bye Bye little pony  

It's more than welcome to ossify when it's capable of accommodating all potential future traffic. Maybe that'll be off chain stuff, maybe not. Nothing's settled yet. Until then it's vulnerable to becoming a total irrelevance very rapidly and rightly so.