Topic: Whats up with Craig Wright? - page 3. (Read 1491 times)

I'm going to walk you slowly through what just happened here, step by step:

• I made the points that you can't prevent disconnecting nodes or using activation dates.
  
  
• You made a post which completely failed to overcome those points and then added the false assertion about "not using the consensus that has been existant^(sic) for years".
  
  
• I pointed out that you don't even understand the consensus that has existed for years, since you incessantly whine about "in-flight updates" and softforks in general, claiming that's not how Bitcoin "should" be.  Despite the fact it has been within the rules to do that for a long time.
  
  
• You then use that statement in an attempt to disprove my initial points that you can't prevent disconnecting nodes or using activation dates, even though it doesn't disprove those points at all.  Those points still stand and your broken logic doesn't change that.  Again, you can't prevent disconnecting nodes or using activation dates.  You have failed to refute those points, whilst also demonstrating in the process that you don't understand Bitcoin.
  

 

Other people would need to agree with you for any of this to change.  They would have to run code enforcing different rules.  Rules that don't permit softforks, activation dates, disconnecting nodes, or whatever else it is you don't like about Bitcoin depending on what day it is and whether it suits your argument at the time or not.  The users on this network clearly don't agree with you, based on the code they appear to generally be running.  Also, your reasoning skills are abysmal.  Quit while you're behind, it's just getting sad now.

Also worth noting that Satoshi was a very private individual, there was no ego involved in both his communications and his/her actions. Craig has a very contrasting attitude by comparison, It seems very doubtful that the real Satoshi would pose in front of a glass board full of math to take a professional headshot.

Craihg Wright is mad man desperate for attention, aiming to make himself relevant. It's really disappointing that the media is covering this guy.

I guess segwit is again being discussed and how it got added via soft fork on former replies.

You aren't really forced to use segwit if you don't like it. There's other's clients that bypass segwit and you just ignore segwit addresses. If segwit ever got "unsegwitted" out of the network, you wouldn't suffer any losses, given that you are holding on addresses that begin with 1 matured after a couple of blocks.

So just like that, Core cannot really force you to do anything that you don't want to do.

The way I see it is it's just impossible to fork Bitcoin at this point. 1MB and all those things are just like 21 million coin limit, in theory it can be changed, but in practice consensus will never be reached, so Bitcoin has achieved immutable status, and forks will end up as BCash and co.

This Craig Wright thinks that people will just believe what he says and whoever believes is also stupid.
If he's real then signing a message in genesis block will be easy for him and yes he can't and he will never can.
Then I won't be surprise if Craig will soon launch his own coin and just withdrawn his claims. Goosebumps***

shows you didnt read
"All older clients are compatible with this change. Users and merchants should not be impacted. Miners are strongly recommended to upgrade to version 2 blocks. Once 95% of the miners have upgraded to version 2, the remainder will be orphaned if they fail to upgrade."

the MANDATED fork...
the PRE upgrade disconnect.
has nothing to do with bip 34

so you saying that core in 2017 used something that was available in 2012 is YOUR FAIL

spend less time flip flopping and try and do some deeper thought stuff on actual events.

read it. blocks are orphaned off AFTER 95% is achieved. not before.
read it. blocks are orphaned off AFTER 95% is achieved. not before.
read it. blocks are orphaned off AFTER 95% is achieved. not before.

core in summer 2017 did not follow the wait for majority. then activate IF miners agree to suggestion, which would then cause fork
core in summer 2017 did controversially fork off opposition using mandated force via forking early. then fake 95% to activate,

Ok, I started this thread out of curiosity over who this guy was and what he represents.

I was in for quite an eye opener for me and I certainly appreciate everything everyone has posted. I can say quite interesting to say the least.

I did see he wants to be interviewed by some crypto experts or something in order to clear his name. I look forward to the entertainment at the least.

It used the consensus that the rules allow.  BIP34, for example, was being developed in 2012, before you even started using Bitcoin.  Why did you even bother joining this network in the first place if you can't abide by softforks and believe them to be "bypassing consensus"?.  You don't even understand what has been "existent for years".

Anyone can claim to be satoshi nakamoto, the problem is when they have to prove it. The only prof we are asking for is a signed message with the first bitcoin addys, and since Craig wasn't able to do it, then he was lying.

Satoshi will never impose his identity. Satoshi will remain anonymous forever. Craig Wright is one of the self proclaimed satoshi. We should not believe to them because it is a false information.

If one is claiming that he is the SATOSHI then it should be supported with evidences. The words used to claim that he is SATOSHI is not a valid basis without proof. If he really think would like to get acknowledge as the real owner of bitcoin then he/she should start revealing evidences so that we wi credit him/her the creation of cryptocurrency.

If Craig white was Satoshi it would have being proved last time when he tried to prove himself and fall apart. So their is no point now left just for him to prove again. Also their was no need to come out as in so many years it was not done so why someone would come now and try to claim int.

and then he will later say "you cant enforce either of those things"
typical flip flopping

anyway the point is. using a fork (not feature activation) purely to cut out a certain group of people. to then SEPARATELY activate a feature. is not consensus.

but hey.. flip flop like a fish out of water all you like.
but atleast try understanding the whole point of what bitcoin is about. even if core have bypassed consensus to do as the blockchain, code and as you now FINALLY admit. mandate forks via dates and disconnecting nodes. atleast admit that core do have power and they aint just some chimney sweeper, powerless to do anything.
and dont even try to insinuate or meander it back into some social drama that i (on a discussion board) am some how a network threat or that i am the one that is changing the network maliciously and how core have to defend themselves against me.

find logic, do research and understand the point of bitcoin. stop the social drama games with your flip flops

doomad
for months now you and your echo chamber have been basically saying
X cant happen because it involves people to agree to X
X cant happen because Y
Y cant stop X
Y has no power
franky needs to stop trying to change the network with Y
Y Y Y
no one talk about X
franky stop trying to force Y
lets all talk about Y
X never happened
X happened and no one can stop them
X can do as they please
franky is forcing Y changes on the network and core should stop Y
franky franky franky

while completely missing the point that X did happen. and it happened by not using the consensus that has been existant for years.
trying to make it sound as if cores the unicorn and im the network attacker is foolish meandering and just social drama.
trying to make it out that consenus and the byzantine gnrals issue is something that only existed by some altcoiner speach of 2015+ is foolish.
trying to be a core lover but then hide it, but then admit it, but then hide it is foolish.
all your doing is flip flopping for social drama and not actually recognising the point.


trying to meander DEV/CODE/NETWORK events into "shh lets talk about people that dont write network changing code".. thats your goal.. i get it.
now move on and try something new.

meanwhile.
ill continue to highlight when the network code has changed due to devs, whre the change has been controversial and not actually benefited the network but done to promote some central agenda
if you dont like open discussion of such, hit the ignore button

The only logic fail is yours.  You see flips flops because you don't understand English.  

You whine about disconnecting nodes.
You whine about "mandated" activations where someone picks a date for a fork to occur.  

You can't prevent either of those things.  If people run the code that does those things, they happen.  There is no flip flop, you are just a simpleton.

funny thing.
switch the "you" for core. and put it against the 2017 events and try to actually keep up your pretense once the shoe is put on the other foot.
your whole last X months of flip flopping fail when you swap your comments around to be aimed at core instead of me

here is another prime example of a massive logic failure
"but you can't stop someone running code to disconnect a client which is signalling a bit they don't agree with.
You also can't prevent people coding date-based activations."

translation.
you cant stop someone doing something. you cant stop someone preventing something

translation.
someone cannot stop you driving a car. you cant stop someone taking your car away

just shows how you dont understand the byzantine generals issue and how satoshi found a solution to it called consensus in 2008-9
all your concerned about is how cor bypassed consensus and your happy that they can now do as they please

again for emphasis doomad. as its been your main social drama switch
you keep thinking code does not matter and how a discussion on a forum has more network effect.. seriously sort out that silly echo you keep using as it just makes no logic sense.

doomad you keep sweeping things under the rug and then move and meander the crap you spew out as "my idea"
do your research. and dont find someone from 2015+ who is just some mouthpiece.
i mean go all the way back to 2008-2015 and research devs, code, whitepapers, technical stuff that will teach you about what bitcoin truly is (pre core manipulation)

you really love turning real network changing events into social drama. purely because you love centralisation.
but your missing the whole point of bitcoin

though 'my idea' is just discussion... you pretend its code that is somehow actually causing network conflict.. again your not thinking logically

the only network conflict has been caused by core devs
you pretend no on is able to force their 'idea' in.. yet then say core can do as they please and activate things by dat and force things in.
again. stop flip flopping. do some research, find the blockdata, stats, dev admissions and code which supports a flip or a flop.. and then stick with one narrative.
admit core now control the network. or admit they never should control the network. stop flip flopping

p. s stop trying to insinuate that core are just chimney sweepers and that somehow my forum discussions are more powerful than code.. as that is your massive logic error which you try to use to deflect the discussion away from CODE that DEVS write

its why i dont give a crap about CW. because he aint a dev and he aint playing with bitcoin. if you think CW is an influencer. then your really missing the point of bitcoin and the understanding of devs, code, network,and how things work

Note the part where I said it's something we have to be mature about, then cue franky1 being totally immature and fixating on his one favourite date where he can refer to an arbitrary 65% figure that doesn't actually mean anything in practice.  Then a bunch of fanciful wish-list stuff.



Call it "TRUE" consensus all you like, but you are powerless to make everyone accept your definition of what that is.  What you can't reconcile is that if you don't like date-based activations, then the method you'd naturally lean towards is bit signalling, but you can't stop someone running code to disconnect a client which is signalling a bit they don't agree with.  You also can't prevent people coding date-based activations.

Regardless of what you, I, or anyone else says, consensus is going to happen naturally.  There's literally no point in trying to direct things in a direction you approve of by telling people what they can/can't/should/shouldn't code because it's not something you have any say over.  Just know that everyone is going to run what they think is best and that's how it's always going to be.  That's why your plea for "true" consensus falls on deaf ears.  We already have true consensus.  You just think it should be different, like "let's have a vote and everyone has to agree" etc.  It doesn't work like that.  People can ignore your vote if they want.  They can disconnect you if they want.  They can code stuff you don't like if they want. 

You can't force people to vote.  You can't force them to consider your idea.  You can't force anything.   



This only holds true if you believe users are "sheep".  Probably why you're the only one who thinks devs are "in control" when they clearly aren't. 

what doomad cannot reconcile or understand. is that 65% the community were not core 'happy'. but core opposers never used force or coersion.

yet it was the core 'happy' group that done the mandated activations, NYA tricks of deploy core roadmap and maybe get extra later, and the other stuff.

yes core had the tricks to take people off the network disagreeing with core even before cores actual feature they wanted voted in got the vote.
CODE and blockdata prove it.

so.. if doomads latest quote is anything to go by..

if a software client feels they need to include something that results in a hard fork. then let the honest nodes of TRUE consensus and byzantine generals solution cause the activation of the new feature if its acceptable, which THEN results in a fork for the minority. and not let allow a fork be the only reason the new feature gets the activation.
meaning no fork pre-activation. meaning no force or coercion

again to highlight the point that keeps getting tried to be brushed under the rug. no hard fork pre feature. just to fake a feature vote



this means if people truely, honestly like the feature, it gets activated without a pre-fork. where the new feature itself THEN causes a fork after activation whereby only a minority is affected by a feature fork
this means if people truely, honestly dislike the feature, it doesnt activated to cause the fork, thus nothing happens, no harm no foul

this ensures those proposing features actually think about features and actually propose things that would benefit the community rather than just their groups plan.
but hey we will just hear how doomad and thos who echo the same as him loves the idea that core can do as they please as consensus is meaningless and permissionless is everything and how core deserve to dictate the rules for other nodes to follow. and if people dont like it they can just f**k off

to spend a year+ defending a group pretending they are open and represent the community, and pretend they cant do nothing... but also say they dont need to listen/represent to the community and should do anything they please is utterly beyond just a flip flop. but admitting control, centralisation of decisions is now occuring. and no longer the consensus/byzantine generals solution is in place.

This is the tricky part.  What happens when someone feels the "best" software needs to include something that would result in a fork?  It's not something easily avoidable.  I think it's just something we have to be mature about.  We can't treat every fork proposal as a "coup" or "power grab", because that's not a healthy attitude.  But at the same time, if those proposing a fork feel strongly enough about their ideas, it's only fair for them to understand that they might need to move forward without support, as an altcoin, if the two sides can't reconcile their differences.  Longstanding deadlocks are not healthy for anyone in the community.

I think he will be making those conferences yearly ones so you can go on the next one. He's trying to get more people for the Understanding Bitcoin up and coming one, I would like to see more Core devs, specially people that aren't the usual suspects, other less known people. Also developers of other Bitcoin clients that aren't Core but still are also Bitcoin, those are often forgotten.

It has to be made clear to people that Core isn't forcing anyone to use their software. Anyone is free to start their own client and convince the rest of the network that their software is the best without forks involved. I would like to see this view discussed but Tone is too much of a Core fanboy for that, but still he is one of the best "celebs" on Bitcoin at the somewhat mainstream level.