Topic: The biggest XT shills and their true motives - page 3. (Read 3607 times)

he should put bitpay on his list too
they just twittered they support BIP101

Ok, that's it. You even put LiteCoinGuy on that list, but not me?
That is outrageous, I am out.

Lets compile a nice list of all the various attackers and professional FUD spreaders whose alterior motives in supporting XT shine through.


meono - account was created just for the blocksize debate; spends a lot of energy perpetuating lies and deflecting from facts
satoshifanclub - shorts Bitcoin; profits from Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt
LiteCoinGuy - is invested in Litecoin; profits from FUD and Bitcoin's schism
JorgeStolfi - Buttcoin veteran; multi-year FUD expert; measures his profit in comedy gold derived from misery in the Bitcoin sphere
Coinwallet.eu - 'stress test' Bitcoin through dust spam to create an artifical urgency for increased blocksize; have been quoted supporting XT

Updated: LiteCoinGuy

What we do know, is that [Satoshi Nakamoto] was able to combine many interesting technologies into a system that worked. That doesn't make her a saint, it doesn't make her a prophet, it doesn't make her a god -- it doesn't even make her a good programmer; the first version of Bitcoin was a fucking mess! Absolutely we should use the incredible insights and intelligence shown by Satoshi Nakamoto in her paper, and in the rest of her writings online, but we shouldn't just accept this kind of appeal to authority -- so if, the prophet Nakamoto said this was the case, then that's the truth. Nobody could predict 5 years out what's going to happen with a system at this scale, and we need to be flexible and dynamic, and not start appealing. People were asking me, "do you endorse big blocks or small blocks?". Who gives a fuck wether I endorse it or not? What is this, is this some kind of celebrity vote? Do I have data? Do I have analysis, do I have interesting opinions that I can back with data and analysis? Maybe, and where I do have those I've expressed them -- but this isn't some kind of thing where Bitcoin will proceed according to the plan that received the maximum number of celebrity endorsements among the core developers, and a few talking heads like myself -- that's ridiculous, that's not how you do engineering. And neither do you do engineering in a system of mutually assured destruction and heckler's veto, where no progress can be made because one person says no. We all need to be a bit more flexible and less dogmatic on this issue. I'm glad this debate is happening, I'm disappointed in some of the dogma that's in it, but nevertheless, I'm confident that in the end, what it's showing is that Bitcoin consensus is much more broad, amorphous, and involves many more constituents than we see. Merchants, exchanges, miners, wallets, core developers -- they all have a role to play, and they all have a voice in the consensus mechanism, and in the end I think that consensus mechanism works. What I will say is -- this is my ultimate aphorism:

You can be a small-blockist, or you can be a large-blockist. What you can't do is go against consensus. That will punish you with a 100% loss of income.

[source: Andreas Antonopoulos: "We live in an era where fear has overcome reason" [at 39min] (2015-07-27)]

So with all these scary uncertainties, you may ask why hasn’t Satoshi come out to speak on the behalf of one side or the other in order to settle the dispute? Indeed it would be akin to him coming out to act as a 3rd party mediator, such as when a parent comes in to break up a fight among siblings. There has in fact been a post by someone claiming to be Satoshi, from a valid known Satoshi email address, claiming pretty much that the XT fork is unnecessarily dangerous, see here: Satoshi? Despite the many allegations that if this was really Satoshi, he would have signed his message with a known PGP key or perhaps moved some of his coins to prove that it was him, he has not done so. I for one do not believe that he would. If you read the message, (ignoring for a second who it is from) he is saying that Bitcoin’s vision is not one where it is subject to the egos of charismatic leaders, including Satoshi Nakamoto. People who harp on the fact that Satoshi has not made a provably authenticated statement is clearly missing the whole point of this message. If he were to do so, rest assured the whole of the community will rally with him, but that is exactly what he doesn’t want to happen, a whole community blindly following authority! Consistently so, the author points out that if it takes a benevolent dictator to pull us out of this mess “deux ex machina” then Bitcoin, as a project in decentralized money resistant to authority, has failed. That tautological statement, is provably true if you can wrap your head around it. Therefore, if Satoshi wants it to succeed, he won’t use his ‘God card’ and settle disputes. If Bitcoin continually needs Satoshi to keep us from going astray, then Bitcoin isn’t worth saving. Considering that Satoshi has likely the most coins at risk than anyone else, and him coming forward to break the impasse would likely save us (and the value of his own coins) it is truly commendable that he has not done so. The fact that he hasn’t tells me that he (where ever he or she is) is truly acting in an altruistic manner. He is more willing to let Bitcoin die, than to let it continue on as a system that does not value consensus as its first and foremost priority.
[...]
Gavin and Hearn are trying to force consensus in an “Inception” like manner, betting on the fact that if 75% agree with him (whether they are well informed actors or not) then the 25% remaining will be forced to fall in line otherwise risk breaking Bitcoin for everyone. Why are they doing this? One can only imagine they feel that Bitcoin needs to grow otherwise risk being overtaken by a competing cryptocurrency. Although current transaction volumes are not hitting the limit yet, they believe that adding capacity will stimulate growth. That sounds more like strategy that Ben Bernanke or Janet Yellen might believe. What they may end up doing is that they will cause the end of Bitcoin themselves if the 25% minority believe it is better to continue running a reduced (hash power) version of Bitcoin that values consensus, over one that is run by a charismatic leader who is willing to force changes onto the network, or split it off into separate sects if he doesn’t get his way. If we choose that to be the overriding model of Bitcoin, then Bitcoin as Satoshi envisioned it, as far as an experiment in “collective consensus building money, free from authority”, has failed. So just ask yourself one question, given all the unknowns and potential existential risks to Bitcoin, — What is the rush? Why the urgency?

[source: Bitcoin XT vs Core, Blocksize limit, the schism that divides us all (2015-08-19)]

NoXT doesn't cause any problems. It is a joke. But if it would succeed, it would also cause problems for Bitcoin as a whole, since the split wouldn't be 75/25.

I don't know, about misinformation, I really try hard to keep to the facts here. Facts are(as far as I know):
There is only BitcoinXT with an BIP101-implementation(and there is an only-bigblocks-version)
There are no other implementation about blocksize increase.

And speaking about misinformation: What about the blacklisting-lie? Why not giving that example? Because it is an example of an anti-XT-lie?

btw. to pick up another discussion we had in another thread: Ilove-Obama seems like an account, that was just created to bash XT, doesn't it?

I think the XT project is a manipulation of the price of Bitcoin

So essentially you're saying:"Okay, let's not do anything and let the dangerous and risky fork happen." We are only gambling on a $3.4Bn market cap.   If we were never taking actions, then stuff would go terribly wrong. NoXT can cause problems for XT, not Bitcoin itself.

The problem is that both sides are spreading misinformation. Usually I see things like BIP 101 can only be implemented in XT, or that the block size limit will never be changed in Core, and similar. These are manipulation attempts. They need to stop.

i feel the samt about noxt folks.
why not just wait and see what happens? no need to make such a drama about it

Lets compile a nice list of all the various attackers and professional FUD spreaders whose alterior motives in supporting XT shine through.

meono - account was created just for the blocksize debate; spends a lot of energy perpetuating lies and deflecting from facts
satoshifanclub - shorts Bitcoin; profits from Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt

So essentially you're saying:"Okay, let's not do anything and let the dangerous and risky fork happen." We are only gambling on a $3.4Bn market cap.   If we were never taking actions, then stuff would go terribly wrong. NoXT can cause problems for XT, not Bitcoin itself.

The problem is that both sides are spreading misinformation. Usually I see things like BIP 101 can only be implemented in XT, or that the block size limit will never be changed in Core, and similar. These are manipulation attempts. They need to stop.

i feel the samt about noxt folks.
why not just wait and see what happens? no need to make such a drama about it

Like ASIC pre-orders, mtGOX, and the endless ponzi scams XT is clearly yet another attempt to screw the crypto community and fracture Bitcoin.

I find the XT shills reminiscent of the Gaw Hashlet/XPY shills that graced the pages of this forum just recently. There's still Paycoin shit stains all over the place!