Topic: [SHOCK] Core dev and Blockstream employee tells bitcoin users to use fiat! - page 8. (Read 6040 times)
June 03, 2017, 09:04:57 AM
Idk about you but Lukejr for me seemed to be one of those guys who has the capability to make changes in a very desperate manner but is somehow arrogant and wants to make changes for his personal agenda. Coming from one of the main devs of the code, why the need to express his irritation to the people who only want to use their money wisely? The people who advocates changes for bitcoin are also the ones stalling the development all in all. Nice.
June 03, 2017, 08:56:34 AM
This is something I am worried about, if this continues and there is no suitable direction, the bitcoin may be left behind, and the other altcoin throne. Currently, bitcoin is in the development process, it should not get into any trouble. Conversely, altcoin is growing so quickly, it surprised me.
firstly, dont worry about price.. or market cap drama. thats all just ups and downs that will always occur, anyone can make an alt with 5 trillion coins premined, sell 1 coin on an exchange for just $1 and cause that altcoin to get a $5trillion market cap.
devs can be ass-hats.. the sooner they change their ways the better. i just wish blockstream would hurry up and jump ship to hyper ledger so the real bitcoin passionate devs can get on with improving bitcoin without the puppet strings holding them up
what does concern most and can significantly change the paradigm is if bitpay/coinbase switched their merchant tools from bitcoin to something else.. which many of the DCG cartel are thinking litecoin would be the option if it came down to it.
in short if you can no longer buy real world items from the thousands of merchants that accept bitcoin currently, because it all switched over to another coin.. then bitcoin will get affected
Perhaps that's the intention by known/unknown forces wanting to destroy Bitcoin by stiffling its capacity and scaling. Until they get their way.
June 03, 2017, 08:56:00 AM
Superb, this is where you got cornered
You have just given the miners a perfect reason to loudly and vocally scream about virtually anything. Since the community is everyone (and don't forget about his mangy dog) but no one will ever be happy with everything, the miners can safely claim whatever they want about how much they care for Bitcoin and everything, and then go on squeezing profits as per usual without any fear that their proposals will ever get implemented for real. BU is a glaringly conspicuous example of just that, no one meant it to kick off for real
You have just given the miners a perfect reason to loudly and vocally scream about virtually anything. Since the community is everyone (and don't forget about his mangy dog) but no one will ever be happy with everything, the miners can safely claim whatever they want about how much they care for Bitcoin and everything, and then go on squeezing profits as per usual without any fear that their proposals will ever get implemented for real. BU is a glaringly conspicuous example of just that, no one meant it to kick off for real
you seem obsessed about miners
lol
if you were to imagine bitcoin as a company.. miners are just the secretary. they just get paid for collating the data in a certain format.
nodes are the bosses who decide what is acceptable and devs are the employee's that make the product that the bosses want
yes we the users are the bosses, we verify the secretaries work and trash the secretaries work thats not right. we decide what should happen to bitcoin and the devs (employees) listen and do what the bosses say
but right now the devs are on strike. they want to take bitcoin in a new direction. refusing to make products we want and only wanting to make what they think is best.
they tried to bypass the bosses consent thinking that if they got the secretary to sign off on the paperwork that the devs/employees could take over the company.. but no..
now the devs are trying to sack the secretary by trying to sway the bosses to presume the strike is the secretaries fault.. and then to give into employee(dev) demands to change the companies product into what the devs want to produce. but that wont really work either.
the ultimate solution is the obstructionist devs should just go get another job for another company(coin) and the the bosses(nodes) can find other employee's to make the products the bosses want.
...
we should not be treating devs as gods. they are temporary and yes miners are temporary too..
many devs hav moved onto other projects and many more will in the future.. blockstream dont care about bitcoin. they just want to fill their C.V with certain work history to impress their next boss (hyperledger). they are even willing to jump over to competing companies(litecoin). but that should not mean we give into their whims just to keep them around a few months longer. especially with their actions that have caused issues over the last 3 years.
yes devs removed fee control mechanisms, ignored orders to make real bigger blocks, ignored orders to truly get txsigops under control, they just done some cludgy math workaround patches rather then real clean work.
segwit is not a solution. its still a patchwork of cludge to send bitcoin in circles with the same empty HOPE of 7tx/s with no actual promise/guarantee of achieving.
while leaving the backdoor open to mess with bitcoin more. doing all of that while pointing their fingers at the secretary(pool)..
its time bitcoin remembers its manifesto/ethos and purpose for existing.. and let the blockstreamist devs go. rather then promote them into bing the boss
This is last the girl needing to be calling out obsession. You're pathetically obsessed. Look at all your post. Seriously go get laid. At least you didn't blame racism this time.
June 03, 2017, 08:55:29 AM
We can mince words about how to define 'the community'.
'Miners' and 'users' are two different groups of people and their interests are completely contrary to one another.
Proof of Work is perverse. Bitcoin is the fat bloated canary in the coalmine and when it dies the miners move on moving on to throttle the next coin they can mine, control and suck dry, like a swarm of locusts.
Why do you think so many coins are desperately trying to move to Proof of Stake?
'Miners' and 'users' are two different groups of people and their interests are completely contrary to one another.
Proof of Work is perverse. Bitcoin is the fat bloated canary in the coalmine and when it dies the miners move on moving on to throttle the next coin they can mine, control and suck dry, like a swarm of locusts.
Why do you think so many coins are desperately trying to move to Proof of Stake?
consensus, when actually acknowledged and utilised properly, works
but devs avoid consensus.
also those wanting PoS dont care about longevity/security. they just hope for a slice of the reward pie without doing any work. EG they dont want to be the boss validating secretaries/ reviewing devs work and they dont want the secretary to be paid better than the boss. instead they just want to be share holders getting weekly dividends, all for the cost of signing a piece of paper
June 03, 2017, 08:48:22 AM
Superb, this is where you got cornered
You have just given the miners a perfect reason to loudly and vocally scream about virtually anything. Since the community is everyone (and don't forget about his mangy dog) but no one will ever be happy with everything, the miners can safely claim whatever they want about how much they care for Bitcoin and everything, and then go on squeezing profits as per usual without any fear that their proposals will ever get implemented for real. BU is a glaringly conspicuous example of just that, no one meant it to kick off for real
You have just given the miners a perfect reason to loudly and vocally scream about virtually anything. Since the community is everyone (and don't forget about his mangy dog) but no one will ever be happy with everything, the miners can safely claim whatever they want about how much they care for Bitcoin and everything, and then go on squeezing profits as per usual without any fear that their proposals will ever get implemented for real. BU is a glaringly conspicuous example of just that, no one meant it to kick off for real
you seem obsessed about miners
lol
if you were to imagine bitcoin as a company.. miners are just the secretary. they just get paid for collating the data in a certain format.
nodes are the bosses who decide what is acceptable and devs are the employee's that make the product that the bosses want
yes we the users are the bosses, we verify the secretaries work and trash the secretaries work thats not right. we decide what should happen to bitcoin and the devs (employees) listen and do what the bosses say
but right now the devs are on strike. they want to take bitcoin in a new direction. refusing to make products we want and only wanting to make what they think is best.
they tried to bypass the bosses consent thinking that if they got the secretary to sign off on the paperwork that the devs/employees could take over the company.. but no..
now the devs are trying to sack the secretary by trying to sway the bosses to presume the strike is the secretaries fault.. and then to give into employee(dev) demands to change the companies product into what the devs want to produce. but that wont really work either.
the ultimate solution is the obstructionist devs should just go get another job for another company(coin) and the the bosses(nodes) can find other employee's to make the products the bosses want.
...
we should not be treating devs as gods. they are temporary and yes miners are temporary too..
many devs hav moved onto other projects and many more will in the future.. blockstream dont care about bitcoin. they just want to fill their C.V with certain work history to impress their next boss (hyperledger). they are even willing to jump over to competing companies(litecoin). but that should not mean we give into their whims just to keep them around a few months longer. especially with their actions that have caused issues over the last 3 years.
yes devs removed fee control mechanisms, ignored orders to make real bigger blocks, ignored orders to truly get txsigops under control, they just done some cludgy math workaround patches rather then real clean work.
segwit is not a solution. its still a patchwork of cludge to send bitcoin in circles with the same empty HOPE of 7tx/s with no actual promise/guarantee of achieving.
while leaving the backdoor open to mess with bitcoin more. doing all of that while pointing their fingers at the secretary(pool)..
its time bitcoin remembers its manifesto/ethos and purpose for existing.. and let the blockstreamist devs go. rather then promote them into bing the boss
June 03, 2017, 07:36:05 AM
We can mince words about how to define 'the community'.
'Miners' and 'users' are two different groups of people and their interests are completely contrary to one another.
Proof of Work is perverse. Bitcoin is the fat bloated canary in the coalmine and when it dies the miners move on moving on to throttle the next coin they can mine, control and suck dry, like a swarm of locusts.
Why do you think so many coins are desperately trying to move to Proof of Stake?
'Miners' and 'users' are two different groups of people and their interests are completely contrary to one another.
Proof of Work is perverse. Bitcoin is the fat bloated canary in the coalmine and when it dies the miners move on moving on to throttle the next coin they can mine, control and suck dry, like a swarm of locusts.
Why do you think so many coins are desperately trying to move to Proof of Stake?
June 03, 2017, 07:29:58 AM
until you understand what consensus is. because its not about miners. its about nodes and miners in a symbiotic relationship. so telling miners to do X while the nodes can only do Y is not consensus.
No problem with that
But it just proves that you don't see my point altogether. Basically, you say that nodes (which seem to be representing community) don't agree to what miners are allegedly screaming so loudly about (at least, that's what some dudes here are asserting). The latter necessarily means that what these miners are saying and claiming is not in fact as urgent as they want it to look. That pretty much proves that their real intents and purposes are different from what they claim (which is what my point essentially revolves around). As I said before, you can't have it both ways
nooo
the community is everyone
Superb, this is where you get cornered
You have just given the miners a perfect reason to loudly and vocally scream about virtually anything. Since the community is everyone (and don't forget about his mangy dog) but no one will ever be happy with everything, the miners can safely claim whatever they want about how much they care for Bitcoin and everything, and then go on squeezing profits as per usual without any fear that their proposals will ever get implemented for real. BU is a glaringly conspicuous example of just that, no one meant it to kick off for real
June 03, 2017, 07:05:25 AM
until you understand what consensus is. because its not about miners. its about nodes and miners in a symbiotic relationship. so telling miners to do X while the nodes can only do Y is not consensus.
No problem with that
But it just proves that you don't see my point altogether. Basically, you say that nodes (which seem to be representing community) don't agree to what miners are allegedly screaming so loudly about (at least, that's what some dudes here are asserting). The latter necessarily means that what these miners are saying and claiming is not in fact as urgent as they want it to look. That pretty much proves that their real intents and purposes are different from what they claim (which is what my point essentially revolves around). As I said before, you can't have it both ways
nooo
the community is everyone.
its not just miners screaming for more tx capacity.. please stick with reality.
pools cant just make big blocks because user nodes are not set to accept them.
users nodes cant accept big blocks, because half a dozen devs wont get their head out the sand and code a clean version for users and pools
June 03, 2017, 06:58:38 AM
LOL
the bait of the 'cheap segwit'
2015 - blockstream: WE promise you 75% discount
... blockstream remove fee control mechanisms, raise price 200x (2000%)
2018 - blockstream: WE promised you 75% discount, but never promised you 75% cheaper than 2015's prices
the bait of the 'cheap segwit'
2015 - blockstream: WE promise you 75% discount
... blockstream remove fee control mechanisms, raise price 200x (2000%)
2018 - blockstream: WE promised you 75% discount, but never promised you 75% cheaper than 2015's prices
June 03, 2017, 06:31:14 AM
June 03, 2017, 06:14:08 AM
until you understand what consensus is. because its not about miners. its about nodes and miners in a symbiotic relationship. so telling miners to do X while the nodes can only do Y is not consensus.
No problem with that
But it just proves that you don't see my point altogether. Basically, you say that nodes (which seem to be representing community) don't agree to what miners are allegedly screaming so loudly about (at least, that's what some dudes here are asserting). The latter necessarily means that what these miners are saying and claiming is not in fact as urgent as they want it to look. That pretty much proves that their real intents and purposes are different from what they claim (which is what my point essentially revolves around). As I said before, you can't have it both ways
June 03, 2017, 05:50:46 AM
And so what?
You already said that the community had voiced the problem. You didn't say that someone from that community complained about something (which wouldn't count as a "majority report"). As to me, that pretty much counts as consensus. Basically, the community tells miners that they should fix the problem and they already have their agreement. Other than that, you still ignore my major point, i.e. if there is a real problem as severe as some claim here (a question of life and death, so to speak), there shouldn't be any issues with reaching the consensus you talk about so much
You already said that the community had voiced the problem. You didn't say that someone from that community complained about something (which wouldn't count as a "majority report"). As to me, that pretty much counts as consensus. Basically, the community tells miners that they should fix the problem and they already have their agreement. Other than that, you still ignore my major point, i.e. if there is a real problem as severe as some claim here (a question of life and death, so to speak), there shouldn't be any issues with reaching the consensus you talk about so much
there is a problem..
there have now been 3.. yes THREE 'agreements' of a consensus... but then the blockstreamist cartel go and rip up that agreement.
also
your obsessed about miners!!
until you understand what consensus is. because its not about miners. its about nodes and miners in a symbiotic relationship. so telling miners to do X while the nodes can only do Y is not consensus.
June 03, 2017, 05:44:25 AM
Did any of you even read the comment you are supposedly outraged over?
Someone complains about the fee their wallet is assessing for a 71 input transaction-- one as large as 40 or so median sized transactions.
Luke suggests that they'd get charged more if they used fiat instead.
You can happily debate if Luke is write or wrong there (esp. if you consider the value preservation of the currency...
), but it's incorrect to say that he's just telling someone to use fiat.
Quote
Then use fiat. Pretty sure they'll charge you more than 0.5% for the same service.
Someone complains about the fee their wallet is assessing for a 71 input transaction-- one as large as 40 or so median sized transactions.
Luke suggests that they'd get charged more if they used fiat instead.
You can happily debate if Luke is write or wrong there (esp. if you consider the value preservation of the currency...
), but it's incorrect to say that he's just telling someone to use fiat.Gmaxwell your the one that removed many of the fee controls.. so shut up and go make some new fee priority formulae's instead of the blockstream mantra 'just pay more or go play with fiat'
in the UK i can wire transfer money to family at NO cost!! and guess what else they receive it in seconds.
i can access funds at an ATM at NO cost!!
i can buy stuff at a grocery store at no transaction fee cost!!
yep. people buying bitcoin via localbitcoins wire transfer are not being charged "0.5%" by banks in the UK. so get your head out the sand stop trying to make bitcoin become fiat. and make bitcoin better than fiat
June 03, 2017, 05:35:49 AM
community voices a problem.. blockstream solution: cut off tongues until no problems can be voiced. then announce that all problems must have been solved due to no one voicing problems anymore
devs should be coming up with solutions to problems not fairy tale hopes of solutions with promises of dreams coming true if everyone just goes to sleep for a couple years
devs should be coming up with solutions to problems not fairy tale hopes of solutions with promises of dreams coming true if everyone just goes to sleep for a couple years
Okay, community voices a problem, miners can solve the problem, as simple as it gets. So what the fuck are you talking about consensus here? And whose consensus miners need, that of developers or that of community after all? Make up you mind finally. If it is community, then you can't possibly say something like "community voices a problem" since that essentially means they are giving miners their consent to fork Bitcoin while the latter don't do anything. Or should I thus conclude that this is not what miners actually want?
And they in fact don't want to solve the problem voiced by community?
you dont understand consensus
consensus is about making BITCOIN grow in a way the community can unite around
And so what?
You already said that the community had voiced the problem. You didn't say that someone from that community complained about something (which wouldn't count as a "majority report"). As to me, that pretty much counts as consensus. Basically, the community tells miners that they should fix the problem and they already have their agreement. Other than that, you still ignore my major point, i.e. if there is a real problem as severe as some claim here (a question of life and death, so to speak), there shouldn't be any issues with reaching the consensus you talk about so much
June 03, 2017, 05:17:03 AM
Did any of you even read the comment you are supposedly outraged over?
Someone complains about the fee their wallet is assessing for a 71 input transaction-- one as large as 40 or so median sized transactions.
Luke suggests that they'd get charged more if they used fiat instead.
You can happily debate if Luke is write or wrong there (esp. if you consider the value preservation of the currency... ), but it's incorrect to say that he's just telling someone to use fiat.
Quote
Then use fiat. Pretty sure they'll charge you more than 0.5% for the same service.
Someone complains about the fee their wallet is assessing for a 71 input transaction-- one as large as 40 or so median sized transactions.
Luke suggests that they'd get charged more if they used fiat instead.
You can happily debate if Luke is write or wrong there (esp. if you consider the value preservation of the currency...
), but it's incorrect to say that he's just telling someone to use fiat. June 03, 2017, 05:12:58 AM
community voices a problem.. blockstream solution: cut off tongues until no problems can be voiced. then announce that all problems must have been solved due to no one voicing problems anymore
devs should be coming up with solutions to problems not fairy tale hopes of solutions with promises of dreams coming true if everyone just goes to sleep for a couple years
devs should be coming up with solutions to problems not fairy tale hopes of solutions with promises of dreams coming true if everyone just goes to sleep for a couple years
Okay, community voices a problem, miners can solve the problem, as simple as it gets. So what the fuck are you talking about consensus here? And whose consensus miners need, that of developers or that of community after all? Make up you mind finally. If it is community, then you can't possibly say something like "community voices a problem" since that essentially means they are giving miners their consent to fork Bitcoin while the latter don't do anything. Or should I thus conclude that this is not what miners actually want?
And they in fact don't want to solve the problem voiced by community?
you dont understand consensus
consensus is about making BITCOIN grow in a way the community can unite around..
your posts about miners do x.. is just "well miners can just F**K off and go play in another sandbox"
thats not a community growth.. thats tribal conflict.
native indian: 'you no like chief maxwell, go move herd of horses to other side of mountain'
June 03, 2017, 04:50:49 AM
community voices a problem.. blockstream solution: cut off tongues until no problems can be voiced. then announce that all problems must have been solved due to no one voicing problems anymore
devs should be coming up with solutions to problems not fairy tale hopes of solutions with promises of dreams coming true if everyone just goes to sleep for a couple years
devs should be coming up with solutions to problems not fairy tale hopes of solutions with promises of dreams coming true if everyone just goes to sleep for a couple years
Okay, community voices a problem, miners can solve the problem, as simple as it gets. So what the fuck are you talking about consensus here? And whose consensus miners need, that of developers or that of community after all? Make up you mind finally. If it is community, then you can't possibly say something like "community voices a problem" since that essentially means they are giving miners their consent to fork Bitcoin while the latter don't do anything. Or should I thus conclude that this is not what miners actually want?
And they in fact don't want to solve the problem voiced by community?
June 03, 2017, 04:41:52 AM
This is something I am worried about, if this continues and there is no suitable direction, the bitcoin may be left behind, and the other altcoin throne. Currently, bitcoin is in the development process, it should not get into any trouble. Conversely, altcoin is growing so quickly, it surprised me.
firstly, dont worry about price.. or market cap drama. thats all just ups and downs that will always occur, anyone can make an alt with 5 trillion coins premined, sell 1 coin on an exchange for just $1 and cause that altcoin to get a $5trillion market cap.
devs can be ass-hats.. the sooner they change their ways the better. i just wish blockstream would hurry up and jump ship to hyper ledger so the real bitcoin passionate devs can get on with improving bitcoin without the puppet strings holding them up
what does concern most and can significantly change the paradigm is if bitpay/coinbase switched their merchant tools from bitcoin to something else.. which many of the DCG cartel are thinking litecoin would be the option if it came down to it.
in short if you can no longer buy real world items from the thousands of merchants that accept bitcoin currently, because it all switched over to another coin.. then bitcoin will get affected
June 03, 2017, 04:18:02 AM
Users complaining about high bitcoin fees....Core dev and Blockstream worker Lukejr mocks them and tells them to "just use fiat". https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6ereib/these_fees_are_unacceptable/dicq95v/
These are the people responsible for stalling bitcoin. These are the people we are trusting to let bitcoin grow into mainstream.
If you seriously haven't realized the BlockstreamCore is attempting to overthrow bitcoin and constrict the blocksize forever to turn it into a settlement only system then I seriously feel sorry for you.
The BlockstreamCore devs do not understand the purpose of bitcoin which is peer to peer cash. The have been compromised from $55 million from AXA from the former Bilderberg chairman.
Wake Up!!!
These are the people responsible for stalling bitcoin. These are the people we are trusting to let bitcoin grow into mainstream.
If you seriously haven't realized the BlockstreamCore is attempting to overthrow bitcoin and constrict the blocksize forever to turn it into a settlement only system then I seriously feel sorry for you.
The BlockstreamCore devs do not understand the purpose of bitcoin which is peer to peer cash. The have been compromised from $55 million from AXA from the former Bilderberg chairman.
Wake Up!!!
This is something I am worried about, if this continues and there is no suitable direction, the bitcoin may be left behind, and the other altcoin throne. Currently, bitcoin is in the development process, it should not get into any trouble. Conversely, altcoin is growing so quickly, it surprised me.
June 03, 2017, 03:55:33 AM
Why are you laying yourself out to evade addressing the dilemma I pointed out?
You can call that coin an altcoin or whatever, but this doesn't change anything. If things are as bad in respect to blocksizes as miners are claiming them to be (not actually miners but some dudes here that are pretending that they are), then, as I said, forking Bitcoin (making an altcoin, in your speak) would be inevitable, and it would be welcomed by virtually anyone (since the situation was dire and no longer tolerable or acceptable). If it is in fact "evitable", then the miners are lying, or the dudes who are telling that the miners "have been screaming for years about the blocksize increase" are lying. So who is lying here?
You can call that coin an altcoin or whatever, but this doesn't change anything. If things are as bad in respect to blocksizes as miners are claiming them to be (not actually miners but some dudes here that are pretending that they are), then, as I said, forking Bitcoin (making an altcoin, in your speak) would be inevitable, and it would be welcomed by virtually anyone (since the situation was dire and no longer tolerable or acceptable). If it is in fact "evitable", then the miners are lying, or the dudes who are telling that the miners "have been screaming for years about the blocksize increase" are lying. So who is lying here?
i am not evading anything.
you are evading the drama of the last 2 years+
all the REKT campaigns by the blockstream fanboys.
the censorship army
all the crap to surpress the need and desires of many for more tx capacity onchain(without the cludgy half baked promises of blockstream devs)
EG
community voices a problem.. blockstream solution: cut off tongues until no problems can be voiced. then announce that all problems must have been solved due to no one voicing problems anymore
devs should be coming up with solutions to problems not fairy tale hopes of solutions with promises of dreams coming true if everyone just goes to sleep for a couple years
Jump to: