There's something to be said for the fact that you've copy/pasted that unedited line so many times that you even posted it on a DASH thread. 
sorry for my english
Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 21. (Read 120014 times)
It's this crap that makes all pro SegWit folks suspect in my mind...
I wouldn't say "all", but a good chunk. The fanboys and stakeholders are usually pretty easy to separate from the logical believers.I lump all righteously pro SegWit posters together because I can't discern their true motives.
The movement has lost all credibility in my view because of their censorship, scare tactics and strategic media campaigning. All of their arguments conveniently leave out the part about how Blockstream will fail if it's not implemented.
Have you checked the code diffs (before & after SW) ? The design diffs to Satoshi's (drop the witness) ? The deployment diffs (SF vs HF) ? The miners acceptance (stalling) ?
Fishy, fishy, fishy, fishy .... phhhhhh
gmaxwell's reply to that article:
as well is that ^Quote
Gregory Maxwell
Blockstream does not have any patents, patent applications, provisional patent applications, or anything similar, related to segwit. As is the case for other major protocol features, the Bitcoin developers worked carefully to not create patent complications. Segwit was a large-scale collaboration across the community, which included people who work for Blockstream among its many contributors.
Moreover, because the public disclosure of segwit was more than a year ago, we could not apply for patents now.
In the prior thread where this absurdity was alleged on Reddit I debunked it forcefully. Considering that Rick directly repeated the tortured misinterpretation of our patent pledge from that thread (a pledge which took an approach that was lauded by multiple online groups), I find it hard to believe that he missed these corrections, doubly so in that he provides an incomplete response to them as though he were anticipating a reply, when really he’d already seen the rebuttal and should have known that there was nothing to these claims.
As an executive of Blockstream and one of the contributors to segwit, my straightforward public responses 1) that we do not, have not, will not, and can not apply for patents on segwit, 2) that if had we done so we would have been ethically obligated to disclose it, and 3) that even if we had done so our pledge would have made it available to everyone not engaging in patent aggression (just as the plain language of our pledge states): If others depended upon these responses, it would create a reliance which would preclude enforcement by Blockstream or our successors in interest even if the statements were somehow all untrue–or so the lawyers tell me.
In short, Rick Falkvinge’s allegations are entirely without merit and are supported by nothing more than pure speculation which had already been debunked.
Blockstream does not have any patents, patent applications, provisional patent applications, or anything similar, related to segwit. As is the case for other major protocol features, the Bitcoin developers worked carefully to not create patent complications. Segwit was a large-scale collaboration across the community, which included people who work for Blockstream among its many contributors.
Moreover, because the public disclosure of segwit was more than a year ago, we could not apply for patents now.
In the prior thread where this absurdity was alleged on Reddit I debunked it forcefully. Considering that Rick directly repeated the tortured misinterpretation of our patent pledge from that thread (a pledge which took an approach that was lauded by multiple online groups), I find it hard to believe that he missed these corrections, doubly so in that he provides an incomplete response to them as though he were anticipating a reply, when really he’d already seen the rebuttal and should have known that there was nothing to these claims.
As an executive of Blockstream and one of the contributors to segwit, my straightforward public responses 1) that we do not, have not, will not, and can not apply for patents on segwit, 2) that if had we done so we would have been ethically obligated to disclose it, and 3) that even if we had done so our pledge would have made it available to everyone not engaging in patent aggression (just as the plain language of our pledge states): If others depended upon these responses, it would create a reliance which would preclude enforcement by Blockstream or our successors in interest even if the statements were somehow all untrue–or so the lawyers tell me.
In short, Rick Falkvinge’s allegations are entirely without merit and are supported by nothing more than pure speculation which had already been debunked.
So why on earth is GMAX's brain bound to legal shit?
Should he not better be providing open source solutions for REAL BITCOINERS in a competitive open and fair / supporting way ?
When does this childish stuff finally ends? We need a way of choosing parts & modules of competing teams- not a full singleton solution provider that also needs to care about legal, economics , game theory ... ?
gmaxwell's reply to that article:
Quote
Gregory Maxwell
Blockstream does not have any patents, patent applications, provisional patent applications, or anything similar, related to segwit. As is the case for other major protocol features, the Bitcoin developers worked carefully to not create patent complications. Segwit was a large-scale collaboration across the community, which included people who work for Blockstream among its many contributors.
Moreover, because the public disclosure of segwit was more than a year ago, we could not apply for patents now.
In the prior thread where this absurdity was alleged on Reddit I debunked it forcefully. Considering that Rick directly repeated the tortured misinterpretation of our patent pledge from that thread (a pledge which took an approach that was lauded by multiple online groups), I find it hard to believe that he missed these corrections, doubly so in that he provides an incomplete response to them as though he were anticipating a reply, when really he’d already seen the rebuttal and should have known that there was nothing to these claims.
As an executive of Blockstream and one of the contributors to segwit, my straightforward public responses 1) that we do not, have not, will not, and can not apply for patents on segwit, 2) that if had we done so we would have been ethically obligated to disclose it, and 3) that even if we had done so our pledge would have made it available to everyone not engaging in patent aggression (just as the plain language of our pledge states): If others depended upon these responses, it would create a reliance which would preclude enforcement by Blockstream or our successors in interest even if the statements were somehow all untrue–or so the lawyers tell me.
In short, Rick Falkvinge’s allegations are entirely without merit and are supported by nothing more than pure speculation which had already been debunked.
[/quote
Blockstream does not have any patents, patent applications, provisional patent applications, or anything similar, related to segwit. As is the case for other major protocol features, the Bitcoin developers worked carefully to not create patent complications. Segwit was a large-scale collaboration across the community, which included people who work for Blockstream among its many contributors.
Moreover, because the public disclosure of segwit was more than a year ago, we could not apply for patents now.
In the prior thread where this absurdity was alleged on Reddit I debunked it forcefully. Considering that Rick directly repeated the tortured misinterpretation of our patent pledge from that thread (a pledge which took an approach that was lauded by multiple online groups), I find it hard to believe that he missed these corrections, doubly so in that he provides an incomplete response to them as though he were anticipating a reply, when really he’d already seen the rebuttal and should have known that there was nothing to these claims.
As an executive of Blockstream and one of the contributors to segwit, my straightforward public responses 1) that we do not, have not, will not, and can not apply for patents on segwit, 2) that if had we done so we would have been ethically obligated to disclose it, and 3) that even if we had done so our pledge would have made it available to everyone not engaging in patent aggression (just as the plain language of our pledge states): If others depended upon these responses, it would create a reliance which would preclude enforcement by Blockstream or our successors in interest even if the statements were somehow all untrue–or so the lawyers tell me.
In short, Rick Falkvinge’s allegations are entirely without merit and are supported by nothing more than pure speculation which had already been debunked.
[/quote
It's this crap that makes all pro SegWit folks suspect in my mind...
I wouldn't say "all", but a good chunk. The fanboys and stakeholders are usually pretty easy to separate from the logical believers.I lump all righteously pro SegWit posters together because I can't discern their true motives.
The movement has lost all credibility in my view because of their censorship, scare tactics and strategic media campaigning. All of their arguments conveniently leave out the part about how Blockstream will fail if it's not implemented.
https://falkvinge.net/2017/05/01/blockstream-patents-segwit-makes-pieces-fall-place/
It's this crap that makes all pro SegWit folks suspect in my mind...
I wouldn't say "all", but a good chunk. The fanboys and stakeholders are usually pretty easy to separate from the logical believers.I lump all righteously pro SegWit posters together because I can't discern their true motives.
The movement has lost all credibility in my view because of their censorship, scare tactics and strategic media campaigning. All of their arguments conveniently leave out the part about how Blockstream will fail if it's not implemented.
It's this crap that makes all pro SegWit folks suspect in my mind...
I wouldn't say "all", but a good chunk. The fanboys and stakeholders are usually pretty easy to separate from the logical believers. BTC SegWit is needed as air, at the moment the transaction fee is too high, the transmission timeout is too long. BTC urgently needs to activate SegWit as soon as possible for the sake of the future BTC.
BTC SegWit is needed as air, at the moment the transaction fee is too high, the transmission timeout is too long. BTC urgently needs to activate SegWit as soon as possible for the sake of the future BTC.
It's this crap that makes all pro SegWit folks suspect in my mind. I read this, but in my head I see:
"BTC urgently needs to activate SegWit as soon as possible for the sake of MY BLOCKSTREAM HOLDINGS!"
I began to understand...I can not trust this coin if it does not have links from bitcoin.org
There's something to be said for the fact that you've copy/pasted that unedited line so many times that you even posted it on a DASH thread. BTC SegWit is needed as air, at the moment the transaction fee is too high, the transmission timeout is too long. BTC urgently needs to activate SegWit as soon as possible for the sake of the future BTC.
BTC SegWit is needed as air, at the moment the transaction fee is too high, the transmission timeout is too long. BTC urgently needs to activate SegWit as soon as possible for the sake of the future BTC.
I began to understand why the exchange BTC-E called ETC scam. The exchange primarily cares about the safety of customer funds, and under the guise of a ETC it could be a coin-virus to get purse files from ETX. For example, I trust the bitcoin.org site and the files on it, but I do not trust the new sites, it will soon be in the bitcoin like classic, I can not trust this coin if it does not have links from bitcoin.org
I think that you are suggesting that a lot of these variables are much beyond the ability of folks to know because there is game theory and emotions and attempting to play whatever leverage might be available in order to persuade or cajole self interests, yet even you seem to be playing into the misleading factors such as seeming to blame bitcoin's current design for transaction times and fees.... One thing is having a high volume of useage that is going to bring more contentiousness and even more technical difficulties. Other coins do not really have that, and even ethereum seems to have more limited liquidation avenues.
Correct. I am indeed suggesting that. Bitcoin is now big enough that there are a wide variety of players in the arena each with their own agenda and various motivations and interests. I wish we could know the entire picture but I don't think people like me or you will. There was definite transaction spam on the network which has recently miraculously disappeared. I wonder who it was that did it! I guess you are right in the sense that my statement could be construed as me playing into the false idea that bitcoin's inherent design is responsible for the high fees and transaction spam. It is clearly not from a certain perspective. Anyone on the network can spam it with transactions and the network has no mechanism of saying which is a legit transaction and which is not. I for one did not mind the high fees so much as the ridiculously long confirmation times. At the moment I don't personally see or use Bitcoin as a high volume cheap to transact payment system. In the future though there may come a time when the legitimate transaction volume will be so great that it will put a serious strain on the network like the spam attack did. It is better to prepare and upgrade the network now. Perhaps whomever performed the spam attack was trying to teach the users a lesson about thinking ahead in the hope that users complaining would spur the core devs to deal with the issue. The scalability problem has been a known issue for a really long time now (super long in this fast moving industry). Whether the core devs have been lackadaisical about it is a matter up for debate. I can understand the pressure on their shoulders though. They can't make huge mistakes because the potential damage could be vast.
SegWit should help by making blocks "lighter" and that should give us some breathing room for a bit. Making blocks bigger is just a dumb brute force way of approaching the problem, and yep you are right someone could spam the network even with 2 MB , 4 MB , 8 MB ,etc blocks. It would be very neat if we could come up with a technology that will allow the nodes to filter out spam transaction and share some sort of distributed blacklist. This is but an idea and I'm sure I'm not the first to suggest this nor am I an advanced coder to be able to put this out myself.
Yep you're right there is a ton of misinformation and mind games being played. For a sincere and genuine user who doesn't have a favorite horse in the race it can be mind numbing to sort through all the rhetoric.
Hang in there my friend and let's stay optimistic.
[edited out]
...... Bitcoin users should realize that Bitcoin may not be the best mouse trap there is and because Bitcoin is open source and exists in a free and competitive market it better compete or risk becoming the equivalent of a crypto dinosaur. ........
You sound as if you are legit and genuine, allinvain; however, this competition point really seems to irk me.
Yes, bitcoin is open source, and so any crypto can steal its code and then innovate on top of it in such a way that it becomes better - but in the end, who cares? Why does it matter? Aren't we just going to gravitate towards whichever systems serve our purposes, and so why does it matter whether bitcoin wins out in the end or it gets improved upon and loses most, if not all, of its user base to some improved upon system?
I believe what bothers me about this quote is that it is frequently used to suggest that core are a bunch of lazy dweebs, who need to be more innovative - and who fucking cares? They are not getting paid right? They still seem to be inspired to put out pretty awesome code as a loosely affiliated group of volunteers.
To me, it seems that the suggestion/argument is that core is not innovative enough and bitcoin needs to be easier to change - however, being difficult to change is a bitcoin feature and not a bug... so people complain that bitcoin is inferior in regard to its very essential feature of being difficult to change in order that a bunch of nutjobs cannot take it over and turn it into corporate/gov shillcoin, right?
Anyhow, I tend to find disingenuineness and lack of recognition in statements pertaining to innovate or perish.
I understand how you feel. I did not mean competitive in the dog-eat-dog capitalist sense that it may have come across. But I do feel that bitcoin should at the very least meet the use demand of its user base. If you have to wait 6 hours for your transaction to confirm or some other obstacle exists that prevents the smooth flow of transactions then I can totally understand why someone may be tempted to look elsewhere - ie the altcoin route. On the flip side being too malleable is also not a good thing. Finding the right balance between wise innovation and conserving the solid foundation is not easy no doubt. Then you have their detractors who for whatever reasons don't like Core and think they know better and are trying to pull bitcoin into the direction of their vision. I hope it doesn't end up being a shillcoin or a chinacoin or whatever the case may be. The biggest threat to the Core team are the hashpower heavy miners who think they know better or are smarter than Core. I am counting on economic self interest to prevent them from rocking the bitcoin boat too hard and sink us all.
More drama and "fun" is sure to come!
I think that you are suggesting that a lot of these variables are much beyond the ability of folks to know because there is game theory and emotions and attempting to play whatever leverage might be available in order to persuade or cajole self interests, yet even you seem to be playing into the misleading factors such as seeming to blame bitcoin's current design for transaction times and fees.... One thing is having a high volume of useage that is going to bring more contentiousness and even more technical difficulties. Other coins do not really have that, and even ethereum seems to have more limited liquidation avenues.
I imagine that some of the technical folks in core might know things that we do not know and might even have some ideas about how to possibly fix spamming attacks - but a mere increase of the blocksize from 1mb to 2mb does not seem like a smart fix because spammers are still going to spam.. or malicious miners are directing hash power to create impressions of clogging..... and even that get's expensive after a while, but we have signs of malicious clogging of the tubes rather than seemingly inaccurate assertions of not keeping up with organic growth.
I am not much of a technical person, but it seems to me that segwit is also going to provide some sufficient relief that allows some better abilities to undermine some of the economics of maliciously directing mining power to clog up regular users.. so yeah, I get pissed off too, because I did have some issues with a couple of transactions getting rejected and then losing money because of it ; however, in one case, I got the guy to pay me back... .. but another guy disappeared on me (even someone I thought that I could trust, but when money is involved sometimes people can become untrustworthy when transaction gets reversed or does not go through)... my point is that I sympathize witht he issue about clogging causing additional issues.. but there is too much misinformation out there suggesting that core's supposed lackadaisical approach is the culprit..
[edited out]
...... Bitcoin users should realize that Bitcoin may not be the best mouse trap there is and because Bitcoin is open source and exists in a free and competitive market it better compete or risk becoming the equivalent of a crypto dinosaur. ........
You sound as if you are legit and genuine, allinvain; however, this competition point really seems to irk me.
Yes, bitcoin is open source, and so any crypto can steal its code and then innovate on top of it in such a way that it becomes better - but in the end, who cares? Why does it matter? Aren't we just going to gravitate towards whichever systems serve our purposes, and so why does it matter whether bitcoin wins out in the end or it gets improved upon and loses most, if not all, of its user base to some improved upon system?
I believe what bothers me about this quote is that it is frequently used to suggest that core are a bunch of lazy dweebs, who need to be more innovative - and who fucking cares? They are not getting paid right? They still seem to be inspired to put out pretty awesome code as a loosely affiliated group of volunteers.
To me, it seems that the suggestion/argument is that core is not innovative enough and bitcoin needs to be easier to change - however, being difficult to change is a bitcoin feature and not a bug... so people complain that bitcoin is inferior in regard to its very essential feature of being difficult to change in order that a bunch of nutjobs cannot take it over and turn it into corporate/gov shillcoin, right?
Anyhow, I tend to find disingenuineness and lack of recognition in statements pertaining to innovate or perish.
I understand how you feel. I did not mean competitive in the dog-eat-dog capitalist sense that it may have come across. But I do feel that bitcoin should at the very least meet the use demand of its user base. If you have to wait 6 hours for your transaction to confirm or some other obstacle exists that prevents the smooth flow of transactions then I can totally understand why someone may be tempted to look elsewhere - ie the altcoin route. On the flip side being too malleable is also not a good thing. Finding the right balance between wise innovation and conserving the solid foundation is not easy no doubt. Then you have their detractors who for whatever reasons don't like Core and think they know better and are trying to pull bitcoin into the direction of their vision. I hope it doesn't end up being a shillcoin or a chinacoin or whatever the case may be. The biggest threat to the Core team are the hashpower heavy miners who think they know better or are smarter than Core. I am counting on economic self interest to prevent them from rocking the bitcoin boat too hard and sink us all.
More drama and "fun" is sure to come!
[edited out]
...... Bitcoin users should realize that Bitcoin may not be the best mouse trap there is and because Bitcoin is open source and exists in a free and competitive market it better compete or risk becoming the equivalent of a crypto dinosaur. ........
You sound as if you are legit and genuine, allinvain; however, this competition point really seems to irk me.
Yes, bitcoin is open source, and so any crypto can steal its code and then innovate on top of it in such a way that it becomes better - but in the end, who cares? Why does it matter? Aren't we just going to gravitate towards whichever systems serve our purposes, and so why does it matter whether bitcoin wins out in the end or it gets improved upon and loses most, if not all, of its user base to some improved upon system?
I believe what bothers me about this quote is that it is frequently used to suggest that core are a bunch of lazy dweebs, who need to be more innovative - and who fucking cares? They are not getting paid right? They still seem to be inspired to put out pretty awesome code as a loosely affiliated group of volunteers.
To me, it seems that the suggestion/argument is that core is not innovative enough and bitcoin needs to be easier to change - however, being difficult to change is a bitcoin feature and not a bug... so people complain that bitcoin is inferior in regard to its very essential feature of being difficult to change in order that a bunch of nutjobs cannot take it over and turn it into corporate/gov shillcoin, right?
Anyhow, I tend to find disingenuineness and lack of recognition in statements pertaining to innovate or perish.
The other thing we must keep in mind is that the only reason some of these altcoins exist is because the entry into the btc sphere is so expensive - ie some people just cannot afford to grab a stake in btc. If btc tanks the average Joe is going to be thinking "well shit, if this bullshit can happen with bitcoin the same thing can happen with my shitcoin too! I better sell right away before I lose my entire life savings that I invested in this shitcoin in the hope that I will be a billionaire!"
Regarding this point, I am frequently of the opinion that various alts have only been able to become pump and dump scams - because they act like they are something like bitcoin and they play off of the credibility of bitcoin.. and they would have not been able to garner so much capital (and maybe even in a kind of freeloader way) were it not for the robustness of the bitcoin system.... so frequently, they are not even close to providing any kind of similar level of innovation (decentralized and double spend security for example), but they can imitate such a system to make mucho dollars...
True! They feed off the credibility and trust scraps that fall off the bitcoin table. Not all of them but quite a lot of them. A few of them are truly innovative and these innovative coins should get the respect and adoption they deserve. On that note Bitcoin users should realize that Bitcoin may not be the best mouse trap there is and because Bitcoin is open source and exists in a free and competitive market it better compete or risk becoming the equivalent of a crypto dinosaur.
As for the pump and dump scams, in a truly free market it's inevitable that people will fall victim to these scams. There isn't anything we can do about this. Since this is bitcoin talk after all we should focus on how to get through the current segwit activation hurdle.
True story:
Because x fails due to y, then z will fail just because!
Because x fails due to y, then z will fail just because!
lol I see what your role is here on this thread - to be the resident smart ass
ok noted.I was not implying a hard causal link, just a probable causal chain due to herd mentality and basic principles of human psychology and group think. I'm pretty sure you understood the core of the argument and at the back of your head you too share the same concern, but you had to tap your twinkle digits on that magical keyboard of yours
Or maybe you just have a large investment in altcoins and were deeply offended by my use of the term "shitcoins" Who knows! Let's just hope that x doesn't fail in the first place and then we won't have to worry about z failing just because
That would be the best scenario for both the bitcoin fanatics and the shitcoin aficionados.The herd mentality is what sparks the brand loyalty to Bitcoin and the idea that Bitcoin is all there is. I take no offense to the term "shitcoins" because shitcoins are shitcoins and alts are alts (and yes I'm heavily invested in both Bitcoin and alts, because I lkie money); however, I do instantly subtract IQ points from anyone that openly states their belief that "if it isn't Bitcoin than it's a shitcoin" (because I live in the real world where brand loyalty is stupid and having choices is a good thing).
Ah sorry if I misunderstood. I am on the same boat as you. Mindless brand loyalty is silly and yes there is a lot of that around. However if we're all honest there are quite a lot of altcoins that are just pointless and are created as mere pump and dump scam attempts. There are a few altcoins that merit attention but the wheat to chaff ratio is pretty small
The other thing we must keep in mind is that the only reason some of these altcoins exist is because the entry into the btc sphere is so expensive - ie some people just cannot afford to grab a stake in btc. If btc tanks the average Joe is going to be thinking "well shit, if this bullshit can happen with bitcoin the same thing can happen with my shitcoin too! I better sell right away before I lose my entire life savings that I invested in this shitcoin in the hope that I will be a billionaire!"
Regarding this point, I am frequently of the opinion that various alts have only been able to become pump and dump scams - because they act like they are something like bitcoin and they play off of the credibility of bitcoin.. and they would have not been able to garner so much capital (and maybe even in a kind of freeloader way) were it not for the robustness of the bitcoin system.... so frequently, they are not even close to providing any kind of similar level of innovation (decentralized and double spend security for example), but they can imitate such a system to make mucho dollars...
True story:
Because x fails due to y, then z will fail just because!
Because x fails due to y, then z will fail just because!
lol I see what your role is here on this thread - to be the resident smart ass
ok noted.I was not implying a hard causal link, just a probable causal chain due to herd mentality and basic principles of human psychology and group think. I'm pretty sure you understood the core of the argument and at the back of your head you too share the same concern, but you had to tap your twinkle digits on that magical keyboard of yours
Or maybe you just have a large investment in altcoins and were deeply offended by my use of the term "shitcoins" Who knows! Let's just hope that x doesn't fail in the first place and then we won't have to worry about z failing just because
That would be the best scenario for both the bitcoin fanatics and the shitcoin aficionados.The herd mentality is what sparks the brand loyalty to Bitcoin and the idea that Bitcoin is all there is. I take no offense to the term "shitcoins" because shitcoins are shitcoins and alts are alts (and yes I'm heavily invested in both Bitcoin and alts, because I lkie money); however, I do instantly subtract IQ points from anyone that openly states their belief that "if it isn't Bitcoin than it's a shitcoin" (because I live in the real world where brand loyalty is stupid and having choices is a good thing).
True story:
Because x fails due to y, then z will fail just because!
Because x fails due to y, then z will fail just because!
lol I see what your role is here on this thread - to be the resident smart ass
ok noted.I was not implying a hard causal link, just a probable causal chain due to herd mentality and basic principles of human psychology and group think. I'm pretty sure you understood the core of the argument and at the back of your head you too share the same concern, but you had to tap your twinkle digits on that magical keyboard of yours
Or maybe you just have a large investment in altcoins and were deeply offended by my use of the term "shitcoins" Who knows! Let's just hope that x doesn't fail in the first place and then we won't have to worry about z failing just because
That would be the best scenario for both the bitcoin fanatics and the shitcoin aficionados.
True story:
Because x fails due to y, then z will fail just because!
Because x fails due to y, then z will fail just because!
Jump to: