Topic: The biggest XT shills and their true motives (Read 3607 times)

Excellent.

I don't think this is a fair inclusion. As much as I find this guy an insufferable asshole at times, there doesn't appear to be any nefarious alterior motives going on.

What about Peter Todd - Buttcoin moderator??

I rest my case.

Bitcoin is not about the ecosystem deciding. And surely not noobs like you.

Ah, the authority card. How unexpected. /s

Bitcoin is not Core or XT but the mutually accepted rules by the network building on the historical bitcoin blockchain.

Consensus shouldn't mean the consensus of 4 Blockstream developers who have apparent conflict of interest.

let the ecosystem decide.

Back and his gang already acted unprofessionally, despite their PHDs...I didn't see hearn or Gavin attacking anyone.

Ask them.  Chances are they'd just say the truth and I, for one, would be interested to know.

I personally 'shill for nothing'* for Blockstream and here's why:  Back in 2011 I concluded that the only tenable (though not necessarily the 'best') method of scaling was what I called 'subordinate chains'.  Parenthetically, this would also produce a lot of other strong possibilities in terms of security, anonymity, end-user flexibility, etc, etc.

When Blockstream was _finally_ formed to work on exactly the problem I hoped to see addressed, I was utterly delighted to see it composed of some of the people I had the highest respect for in terms of technical skill, ethics, and energy.  You cannot realistically criticize these aspects of sidechains developed under Blockstream without making the same criticisms of Bitcoin itself because these same people are in large part the very same people who got Bitcoin to where it is today  As an example, the collaboration between Maxwell and ~sipa to get rid of some of the potential problems in OpenSSL are really impressive works in computer science and security generally.

As has been pointed out, Mike has had very little to do with Bitcoin core to date and Gavin has had minimal input for some years.  I would argue (and have for years) that even when Gavin was more active, the crap he worked on was mostly either trivial or counter-productive and the priorities he set were stupid.

---

(*) 'nothing' is a bit strong.  I am a hodler, and I want my hoard to do well for me on a personal financial level, and for the betterment of free society if possible.  I see Blockstream as by far the most promising way for this hope to be realized.  As a disclosure, I've exchanged two messages with one of the blockstream guys about general technical and social matters and that is my extent interaction with them.  I've met Peter Todd and helped financially with one of the videos he spearheaded, but he's not part of Blockstream as far as I know.

blockstream wont touch bitcoin's core whilst bitcoin xt is a coup on the very fundamental of bitcoin by two usg moles.

no need to overthink this.

core devs consensus is anti xt.

hearn is no core dev, and gavin, chief scientist of my ass working at the very center of tptb at MIT does not even have a phd.

easy.

Only facts and evidence. Ad hominem should be completely ignored and so should most assumptions that aren't backed without evidence. We can all just agree that there are shills on both sides and that it is nothing new to this forum. Both sides have switched from discussing to fighting it out (trying to slander each other).

I would not call them patches, since they were rejected by Core because of their flaws? Unless Hearn fixed everything and tested on his own (which I doubt). There is more information related to this on reddit.

How am I supposed to know what to believe?
All I see is two groups needlessly shitting on eachother.

As a user you're not affected at all.

Why do you think that XT is awful?

It's a fork of Bitcoin Core with BIP101 implemented and a few optional patches.

Hearn and Andresen released the transparent code. They are not the ones who spread lies and FUD and attack the other side.

Another idiot who don't know anything about XT or bitcoin for that matter.

75% has been chosen to not allow a single entity to veto the fork.

The 75% mined blocks ensures that there can't be a split of the bitcoin blockchain. The minority has the incentive to switch, as they would be mining a worthless chain otherwise.

The amount of FUD and lies spread is just mind blowing both on /r/bitcoin and bitcointalk.org.

Both Blockstream and XT are awful.
Why can't I use Bitcoin as it is? 

How much Blockstream pays for trolls and shills?

The 75% was just an arbitrary target the Hearn pulled out of his ass as something which would hopefully be tenable and provide some excuse to flip the switch.  Certainly it is not near the 'consensus' that Satoshi seemed to have been shooting for as a number needed to alter the character of the Bitcoin system.

Note that there is no problem with two chains (competing or not) existing.  People who go on and on about 'the longest chain' don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.  Core will continue to run just fine because of the thoughtfulllness of the designer to gaurd against all of the attacks he/they could think of.  XT's chain is illegal and irrelevant to Core.

A distinct minority in terms of count would be OK for XT to fork if need be.  Hearn could go ahead and flip the switch as soon as the number of 'compliment' SPV clients could be installed or upgraded on Joe Sixpack's device.  These would honor 'checkpointing' if he cannot get enough miners on-board.  The biggest necessity would be to get the corporates (Coinbase, TigerDirect, etc) on-board, but this is trivial; the state just needs to mandate a 'crypto-currency license.'

XT will never reach 75%, dont worry guys.

Two known CIA/NSA assets infiltrated in the Bitcoin community - Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn - have joined forces to push a hastily concocted privacy nightmare/scamcoin, which they call Bitcoin-XT.

It is currently completely irrelevant, owing to an absolute lack of financial, economical, technical or social support.

Okay, got you now. 

I've no problem with people being pro-Core. There are several valid reasons for doing so. And a reasoned debate between to 2 can only be good for bitcoin.

It only descends to this when some people ( on both sides) resort to misinformation and lies to discredit one side or the other. And this insistence on personalizing the issue  is a real low point.

The comment is in reference to all the similar threads. I am in the core camp but doesnt mean I will smear people that are XT driven.
Should have been more clear in my choice of words.

Rational discussion??? He only started this thread out of spite - as me and meono called him out for being a hypocrite - one minute calling on devs to block malicious peers, and then coming on here to denounce them when they do....

The butthurt is strong.

Spite.