You specifically are one of the reasons Bitcoin is stagnating, and in jeopardy of dying at some point, or becoming irrelevant.
I know I hurt some feelings everytime you shills need to resort to FUD to emphasize your arguments
Topic: Maxwell + Wiuelle = Hearn - page 2. (Read 1085 times)
I know I hurt some feelings everytime you shills need to resort to FUD to emphasize your arguments
The protocol ossifying is a good thing.
You don't see people trying to add features to tcp/ip every day do you?
It's pretty simple actually.... You are an idiot. And as you are so fond of saying, you may very well get your wish, and someone will "Fork Off". And then you are going to cry like a baby when you see the consequences.
You specifically are one of the reasons Bitcoin is stagnating, and in jeopardy of dying at some point, or becoming irrelevant. Because you are not mature enough to see beyond your own selfish, idealistic viewpoint.
It's always those pesky humans who wreck everything. If BTC can't get past this then it deserves to die. If it keeps growing then at some point the protocol will be totally ossified by countless conflicting interests. It's still small enough to be relatively responsive but the clock is ticking. The only thing that'll really get a rocket up collective arses is a threat to the bottom line. I hope it comes sooner rather than later.
The above is a very good addition to the thought process. Every day that passes, this moldy apathy of stagnation gets further entrenched. Somebody has to act now, but do it with wisdom. Hearns tried BLUNT ARROGANT FORCE with XT. Sad really, because he was on the right track, but way overly ambitious, way to subservient to powerful special interests, and showed absolutely no tact or respect to the greater community. His actions really have poisoned the well - but that has to be overcome.The funny thing is though - I can easily see the day coming that a sudden shock happens, and suddenly everyone is more than willing to run to XT. Coinbase's recent move proves that XT is still a very real possibility.
What did XT do? It increased block size and put software in control of future increases. It also screwed with IP's.
What was the problem with the course set? It was way too ambitious, and too inflexible. Probably should have started with an increase to 2mb, and then implemented the increases on a more flexible path intended to keep a bit ahead of the free market range. The next thing XT does is deal with the whole IP track/blocking issue. Bitcoin is never going to be totally anonymous, but obviously it isn't necessary to do anything to hasten that aspect. The NSA, other Govt entities can and will develop means and methods to track bitcoin. They already have. The very nature of the commerce "system" itself will limit anonymity. Can't really ship your Amazon Goodies to a non-account can you? But take that part OUT because it is political death to the process of getting a deal done here.
The bottomline is that something needs to be done NOW to enable the explosive exponential growth that is coming. None of this is going to kill sidechains, but neither is it going to give sidechains an unfair advantage. Mike Hearn / XT approach favored the banks in a very lopsided way. It pissed off the sidechain (& privacy advocates). Sidechain advocates retaliated by stubbornly walking as far as they could to the far side of the seesaw.
It is time for leadership that is unbiased that can walk all this back to the center, and create something that allows both forces to fight it out in the free market. If sidechains want smaller blocks, then all they have to do is win marketshare, and the block increase will slow due to built in speed breakers. The system will grow accordingly.
We need strong leadership to get us through this hurdle. Then everyone can get back to focusing on their businesses and doing what they do best, and fighting where the fighting belongs - in competitive economics. And it will all work out.
But step 1 is to isolate all lopsided conflict of interest from final decision making. If that isn't possible, then the alternatives are simple.....
(1) Welcome Back Satoshi ; (2) Welcome Fiat Coin ; (3) Accept XT
It's always those pesky humans who wreck everything. If BTC can't get past this then it deserves to die. If it keeps growing then at some point the protocol will be totally ossified by countless conflicting interests. It's still small enough to be relatively responsive but the clock is ticking. The only thing that'll really get a rocket up collective arses is a threat to the bottom line. I hope it comes sooner rather than later.
The protocol ossifying is a good thing.
You don't see people trying to add features to tcp/ip every day do you?
When Wikileaks started wanting to take donations in Bitcoins Satoshi said it could destroy Bitcoin because it was too new and its community was too small. However, he left it to fend for itself when it was still small, and even now it's not gone mainstream. Bitcoin could use his help to guide it in a suitable direction, but he's probably frightened to return now the whole world want to know who he is.
It's always those pesky humans who wreck everything. If BTC can't get past this then it deserves to die. If it keeps growing then at some point the protocol will be totally ossified by countless conflicting interests. It's still small enough to be relatively responsive but the clock is ticking. The only thing that'll really get a rocket up collective arses is a threat to the bottom line. I hope it comes sooner rather than later.
I feel like I am watching a slow motion trainweck that keeps looping. Hearn is a brilliant guy who is completely untrustworthy and biased. He's been in the pocket of the big banks from the begining.
Now we've got Gregory Maxwell & Peter Wiuelle, whose entire loyalty is to Blockstream.
All of these guys are obviously technological geniuses, but totally biased and untrustworthy in regards to the greater good.... and therefore unqualified to be Core Committers (x-Hearn, 2 strikes to go).
It can be summed so simply in 3 words: "Conflict Of Interest"
I started warning about this back in late summer..... Bitcoin could "go to zero" and the path that will lead to that end will be one in which Uncertainty, Infighting, Conflict of Interest Power-Plays lead to the eventual development and support of a Global Fiat Coin. I mean - all of this indecision and infighting is basically paving the way for a fiat coin to arise.
Things are getting ready to start happening VERY fast in the global financial world in 2016. There is an amazing amount of work being done behind the scenes in secret labs to develop and release and tie in a "Global Fiat Coin" - and one of those labs is NOT on any of your inside radars.
If Bitcoin is going to survive, someone is going to have to take the lead quickly. The only way that works is for players with "Conflict of Interest" to exit their Comitt status. I think right now Jeff Garzik and Gavin Andressen need to take a crash course in leadership. I think they need to increasingly demonstrate a willingness to take the middle road, and to fight for it.
In short, if you don't want Satoshi back - then act like you can make Satoshi-like decisions. You cannot have it both ways. No formal Satoshi, but neither a functional decision making central authority.
Clock is ticking. As for me, I am simply hoping Satoshi grows a pair, boots up his alter ego, and reenters the debate - because the children he turned this over to are busy either squabbling greedily, or paralyzed and afraid to act because they might hurt someone's feelings.
Now we've got Gregory Maxwell & Peter Wiuelle, whose entire loyalty is to Blockstream.
All of these guys are obviously technological geniuses, but totally biased and untrustworthy in regards to the greater good.... and therefore unqualified to be Core Committers (x-Hearn, 2 strikes to go).
It can be summed so simply in 3 words: "Conflict Of Interest"
I started warning about this back in late summer..... Bitcoin could "go to zero" and the path that will lead to that end will be one in which Uncertainty, Infighting, Conflict of Interest Power-Plays lead to the eventual development and support of a Global Fiat Coin. I mean - all of this indecision and infighting is basically paving the way for a fiat coin to arise.
Things are getting ready to start happening VERY fast in the global financial world in 2016. There is an amazing amount of work being done behind the scenes in secret labs to develop and release and tie in a "Global Fiat Coin" - and one of those labs is NOT on any of your inside radars.
If Bitcoin is going to survive, someone is going to have to take the lead quickly. The only way that works is for players with "Conflict of Interest" to exit their Comitt status. I think right now Jeff Garzik and Gavin Andressen need to take a crash course in leadership. I think they need to increasingly demonstrate a willingness to take the middle road, and to fight for it.
In short, if you don't want Satoshi back - then act like you can make Satoshi-like decisions. You cannot have it both ways. No formal Satoshi, but neither a functional decision making central authority.
Clock is ticking. As for me, I am simply hoping Satoshi grows a pair, boots up his alter ego, and reenters the debate - because the children he turned this over to are busy either squabbling greedily, or paralyzed and afraid to act because they might hurt someone's feelings.
maybe thats part of the satoshi experiment
I feel like I am watching a slow motion trainweck that keeps looping. Hearn is a brilliant guy who is completely untrustworthy and biased. He's been in the pocket of the big banks from the begining.
Now we've got Gregory Maxwell & Peter Wiuelle, whose entire loyalty is to Blockstream.
All of these guys are obviously technological geniuses, but totally biased and untrustworthy in regards to the greater good.... and therefore unqualified to be Core Committers (x-Hearn, 2 strikes to go).
It can be summed so simply in 3 words: "Conflict Of Interest"
I started warning about this back in late summer..... Bitcoin could "go to zero" and the path that will lead to that end will be one in which Uncertainty, Infighting, Conflict of Interest Power-Plays lead to the eventual development and support of a Global Fiat Coin. I mean - all of this indecision and infighting is basically paving the way for a fiat coin to arise.
Things are getting ready to start happening VERY fast in the global financial world in 2016. There is an amazing amount of work being done behind the scenes in secret labs to develop and release and tie in a "Global Fiat Coin" - and one of those labs is NOT on any of your inside radars.
If Bitcoin is going to survive, someone is going to have to take the lead quickly. The only way that works is for players with "Conflict of Interest" to exit their Comitt status. I think right now Jeff Garzik and Gavin Andressen need to take a crash course in leadership. I think they need to increasingly demonstrate a willingness to take the middle road, and to fight for it.
In short, if you don't want Satoshi back - then act like you can make Satoshi-like decisions. You cannot have it both ways. No formal Satoshi, but neither a functional decision making central authority.
Clock is ticking. As for me, I am simply hoping Satoshi grows a pair, boots up his alter ego, and reenters the debate - because the children he turned this over to are busy either squabbling greedily, or paralyzed and afraid to act because they might hurt someone's feelings.
Now we've got Gregory Maxwell & Peter Wiuelle, whose entire loyalty is to Blockstream.
All of these guys are obviously technological geniuses, but totally biased and untrustworthy in regards to the greater good.... and therefore unqualified to be Core Committers (x-Hearn, 2 strikes to go).
It can be summed so simply in 3 words: "Conflict Of Interest"
I started warning about this back in late summer..... Bitcoin could "go to zero" and the path that will lead to that end will be one in which Uncertainty, Infighting, Conflict of Interest Power-Plays lead to the eventual development and support of a Global Fiat Coin. I mean - all of this indecision and infighting is basically paving the way for a fiat coin to arise.
Things are getting ready to start happening VERY fast in the global financial world in 2016. There is an amazing amount of work being done behind the scenes in secret labs to develop and release and tie in a "Global Fiat Coin" - and one of those labs is NOT on any of your inside radars.
If Bitcoin is going to survive, someone is going to have to take the lead quickly. The only way that works is for players with "Conflict of Interest" to exit their Comitt status. I think right now Jeff Garzik and Gavin Andressen need to take a crash course in leadership. I think they need to increasingly demonstrate a willingness to take the middle road, and to fight for it.
In short, if you don't want Satoshi back - then act like you can make Satoshi-like decisions. You cannot have it both ways. No formal Satoshi, but neither a functional decision making central authority.
Clock is ticking. As for me, I am simply hoping Satoshi grows a pair, boots up his alter ego, and reenters the debate - because the children he turned this over to are busy either squabbling greedily, or paralyzed and afraid to act because they might hurt someone's feelings.
Jump to: