bambou



Offline



Activity: 346

Merit: 250







Sr. MemberActivity: 346Merit: 250 Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 07:09:50 AM #1



1/ CIA "interview"

https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=6652.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113609.0



2/ After screwing over at the very "honorable" TBF, he has now joined the MIT's Media LAB

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/20132/gavin-andresen-core-developers-join-mits-digital-currency-initiative/

http://www.media.mit.edu/files/sponsors.pdf



3/ Forking BS over and over again. now just before the Halving. hOw friggin convenient .

https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/commit/5f46da29fd02fd2a8a787286fd6a56f680073770











Say goodbye to Bitcoin. Sheeples. facts:1/ CIA "interview"2/ After screwing over at the very "honorable" TBF, he has now joined the MIT's Media LAB3/ Forking BS over and over again. now just before the Halving.Say goodbye to Bitcoin. Sheeples. Non inultus premor

AWARD-WINNING

CASINO CRYPTO EXCLUSIVE

CLUBHOUSE 1500+

GAMES 2 MIN

CASH-OUTS 24/7

SUPPORT 100s OF

FREE SPINS PLAY NOW Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertised sites are notendorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.

AGD



Offline



Activity: 1921

Merit: 1088





Keeper of the Private Key







LegendaryActivity: 1921Merit: 1088Keeper of the Private Key Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 08:22:04 AM #3 I voted yes, because it would be more fun to watch the story unfold

+++ GPG Public key FFBD756C24B54962E6A772EA1C680D74DB714D40 +++ Bitcoin is not a bubble, it's the pin!+++ GPG Public key FFBD756C24B54962E6A772EA1C680D74DB714D40 +++ http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1C680D74DB714D40

hdbuck



Offline



Activity: 1274

Merit: 1002









LegendaryActivity: 1274Merit: 1002 Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 09:15:08 AM #7 Quote from: pawel7777 on May 04, 2015, 08:54:40 AM

1- CIA wouldn't publicly interview their own agents (or potential ones)



2- TBF screwed themselves + stopped paying the devs in April. GA is still Chief Scientist though afaik.



3- Feel free to contribute yourself, offer alternative solutions or just stay on the old fork.



1/ Thats not an argument. Fact is Satoshi vanishes when Gavin is "invited" @CIA. but lol nobody is just "invited" there.. XD



2/ Gavin is/was an accomplice. Kinda like acknowledging their misbehavior by omission.



3/ I wouldnt call the 20Mb Fork a "contribution". More like a "retribution".. all the way back into USG's frame freaks.







Centralize & Control TM 1/ Thats not an argument. Fact is Satoshi vanishes when Gavin is "invited" @CIA. but lol nobody is just "invited" there.. XD2/ Gavin is/was an accomplice. Kinda like acknowledging their misbehavior by omission.3/ I wouldnt call the 20Mb Fork a "contribution". More like a "retribution".. all the way back into USG's frame freaks.

Kaneki



Offline



Activity: 252

Merit: 250









Sr. MemberActivity: 252Merit: 250 Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 09:28:50 AM #9 if in view of its contribution in the world Bitcoin should he not agent, but we can not guess what is inside his head could have been in changing his mind and became Agent.

inBitweTrust



Offline



Activity: 658

Merit: 500









Hero MemberActivity: 658Merit: 500 Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 09:30:10 AM #10 Everyone who is against the blockchain limit being raised has plenty of time to submit their own commits and or finding alternative solutions and working on them like the lightning network.



Its not like we haven't discussed this for years , a plan put in place many months ago, and now you can see the actual commit that is delayed 1 year. If anything Gavin is being extremely careful and this is changing at a snails pace.



Open source projects do not work with complaints. Either submit your own commit, stay on the old chain, or work on an alternative proposal that solves the 3-7tps limitation to convince all the other devs who support the 20MB hard fork. Cloudmining 101: Identifying scams Secure your Bitcoins Bitcoin only Directory

bambou



Offline



Activity: 346

Merit: 250







Sr. MemberActivity: 346Merit: 250 Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 09:34:45 AM #12



Being attacked from the very inside by so called "Chief Scientist" to fit his masters agenda.



I sure hope it will slam them right back in their faces, into their feces!







ps: @inbitwetrust TBF "honorable"? lol no. that was me being ironic. As if USG sponsored MIT LAB would be any different, if not worst. This is it, Bitcoin's big anti-fragility test!Being attacked from the very inside by so called "Chief Scientist" to fit his masters agenda.I sure hope it will slam them right back in their faces, into their feces!ps: @inbitwetrust TBF "honorable"? lol no. that was me being ironic. As if USG sponsored MIT LAB would be any different, if not worst. Non inultus premor

Lauda



Offline



Activity: 2660

Merit: 2643





Exchange Bitcoin quickly-https://blockchain.com.do







LegendaryActivity: 2660Merit: 2643Exchange Bitcoin quickly-https://blockchain.com.do Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 10:05:14 AM

Last edit: May 04, 2015, 10:17:01 AM by LaudaM #17

Why do individuals that are anti-fork think they matter? If we look at contributions to the code I think that Gavin has contributed the most (correct me if I'm wrong).

Anyone who did not do something that is comparable to this (buying is irrelevant!) should not complain. You're free to leave at anytime.

If you didn't notice this is on Gavin's Github page.



Also, no Gavin is not an agent. He's the director of the NSA. Please don't get the 'hard fork is bad' nonsense started again. I've just read a comment:"Gavin who do you think you are?"; and I can't believe this.Why do individuals that are anti-fork think they matter? If we look at contributions to the code I think that Gavin has contributed the most (correct me if I'm wrong).Anyone who did not do something that is comparable to this (buying is irrelevant!) should not complain. You're free to leave at anytime.If you didn't notice this is on Gavin's Github page.Also, no Gavin is not an agent. He's the director of the NSA.

Skunk Fu



Offline



Activity: 42

Merit: 0







NewbieActivity: 42Merit: 0 Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 10:09:10 AM #18 Quote from: LaudaM on May 04, 2015, 10:05:14 AM

Why do individuals that are anti-fork think they matter? If we look at contributions to the code I think that Gavin has contributed the most (correct me if I'm wrong).

Anyone who did not do something that is comparable to this (buying is irrelevant!) should not complain. You're free to leave at anytime.



Also, no Gavin is not an agent. He's the director of the NSA.

Please don't get the 'hard fork is bad' nonsense started again. I've just read a comment:"Gavin who do you think you are?"; and I can't believe this.Why do individuals that are anti-fork think they matter? If we look at contributions to the code I think that Gavin has contributed the most (correct me if I'm wrong).Anyone who did not do something that is comparable to this (buying is irrelevant!) should not complain. You're free to leave at anytime.Also, no Gavin is not an agent.

HA!

I knew it. I just f*cking knew it HA!I knew it. I just f*cking knew it

AtheistAKASaneBrain



Offline



Activity: 770

Merit: 505







Hero MemberActivity: 770Merit: 505 Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 11:21:38 AM #22 Seems like a pretty far fetched theory, worth of infowars.com, still entertain food for thought. I think the theory of him being satoshi is far more feasible tho.

inBitweTrust



Offline



Activity: 658

Merit: 500









Hero MemberActivity: 658Merit: 500 Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 12:03:18 PM #29 https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34riua/hard_fork_allow_20mb_blocks_after_1_march_2016/cqxeoj4



Quote from: Gregory Maxwell



I think this is just some testing code-- he hasn't discussed this particular change with the other core developers; I for one would vigorously oppose it: for one, it's actually /broken/ because it doesn't change the protocol message size (makes for a nice example of how misleading unit tests often are; in this case they're vacuous as they don't catch that blocks over about 2MB wouldn't actually work). It's also not consistent with the last discussions we had with Gavin over his large block advocacy, where he'd agreed that his 20mb numbers were based on a calculation error. --- this without getting into the subtle concerns about long and short term incentives which are under-researched, or the practical issue of increasing node operating costs in a network with a node count that has fallen so much).



If y'all go around making a big deal about people's sketchpad work in their personal repos it creates an incentive to move all your work to private repositories where people can't get at them and read too much into them. I'd suggest you try to avoid doing that.

Reddit, I think you're jumping the gun based on watching a personal repository.I think this is just some testing code-- he hasn't discussed this particular change with the other core developers; I for one would vigorously oppose it: for one, it's actually /broken/ because it doesn't change the protocol message size (makes for a nice example of how misleading unit tests often are; in this case they're vacuous as they don't catch that blocks over about 2MB wouldn't actually work). It's also not consistent with the last discussions we had with Gavin over his large block advocacy, where he'd agreed that his 20mb numbers were based on a calculation error. --- this without getting into the subtle concerns about long and short term incentives which are under-researched, or the practical issue of increasing node operating costs in a network with a node count that has fallen so much).If y'all go around making a big deal about people's sketchpad work in their personal repos it creates an incentive to move all your work to private repositories where people can't get at them and read too much into them. I'd suggest you try to avoid doing that.

Quote from: gavinandresen

actually, it does change the protocol size....



.... But yes, it is intended as'it is time to discuss this now.' I will be writing a series of blog posts in the coming week or two responding to objections I've heard.





Healthy skepticism is fine... but sometimes these threads devolve into paranoia. Any critics of the block size limit increase should be criticizing specifics like Gregory Maxwell and offering other suggestions to the 3-7tps limitation dilemma. Healthy skepticism is fine... but sometimes these threads devolve into paranoia. Any critics of the block size limit increase should be criticizing specifics like Gregory Maxwell and offering other suggestions to the 3-7tps limitation dilemma. Cloudmining 101: Identifying scams Secure your Bitcoins Bitcoin only Directory

bambou



Offline



Activity: 346

Merit: 250







Sr. MemberActivity: 346Merit: 250 Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 12:09:59 PM

Last edit: May 04, 2015, 12:45:18 PM by bambou #30 Quote from: gentlemand on May 04, 2015, 11:57:08 AM Quote from: albert11 on May 04, 2015, 09:21:22 AM

when/if bitcoin becomes mainstream the majority of bitcoin users will use and rely on online wallets and exchanges, if these centralized companies collude together with big mining companies they will have the biggest blockchain and people won't even have the choice to change blockchain if they want to keep their money.



I think the only real way the consensus mechanism would work as it should is if the blockchain is forked in a way that anyone can mine and earn bitc, maybe by putting some sort of limit on processing power/node, decentralized mining is the only thing that will preserve integrity of the protocol IMO





I really wonder if there's going to be a way to get away from that outcome. Convenience and preserving their funds is more important to most people than decentralisation even when that's the core principle.



Circle/ Coinbase etc are already engaged on a slow creep towards being cornerstones of a future system. The miners are a much more random element but many are just out to make the most money.



By the time it become clear that decentralised mining is really necessary to keep the flame alive, the block reward might not be worth it any more.



It's quite possible the whole thing will closely follow the trajectory of the internet. What began as the wild west slowly became another facet of everyday life with a side order of extra freedom if you could be bothered.





I really wonder if there's going to be a way to get away from that outcome. Convenience and preserving their funds is more important to most people than decentralisation even when that's the core principle.Circle/ Coinbase etc are already engaged on a slow creep towards being cornerstones of a future system. The miners are a much more random element but many are just out to make the most money.By the time it become clear that decentralised mining is really necessary to keep the flame alive, the block reward might not be worth it any more.What began as the wild west slowly became another facet of everyday life with a side order of extra freedom if you could be bothered.

That bold stuff sums it up. Thing is the Internet is now just some NSA's extension for mass surveillance. Nothing like its inceptors, Cypher punks purists et al. thought of in the beginning. Thank you Google, Facebook & co.



Coinbase & co will sell you to USG. The same way Facebook did. Because Profit.



Coinbase and all US bitcoin startups will follow Gavin's plan as per extension with USG interests, AND FOR THEIR OWN INTEREST. Claiming thats what "market decides" or that you should've come with a "better solution" (to a NON-PROBLEM).

Hence Gavin is now aiming for a fork before we even get the chance to see what happens with full blocks.. and even before the Halving, which should send bitcoin beyond moonscape... Why such a hurry?!



Considering that even exclusively and effectively large transactions worldwide.



If you cant see this then you are a lost US shill. Whether you recognize it or not. Just like Gavin, whether he is aware of being a USG muppet or not.



MUURICAAA FUCK NO. That bold stuff sums it up. Thing is the Internet is now just some NSA's extension for mass surveillance. Nothing like its inceptors, Cypher punks purists et al. thought of in the beginning. Thank you Google, Facebook & co.Coinbase & co will sell you to USG. The same way Facebook did. Because Profit.Coinbase and all US bitcoin startups will follow Gavin's plan as per extension with USG interests, AND FOR THEIR OWN INTEREST. Claiming thats what "market decides" or that you should've come with a "better solution" (to a NON-PROBLEM).Hence Gavin is now aiming for a fork before we even get the chance to see what happens with full blocks.. and even before the Halving, which should send bitcoin beyond moonscape... Why such a hurry?!Considering that even JPMorgan & co recognised the potential for Bitcoin to undertaketransactions worldwide.If you cant see this then you are a lost US shill. Whether you recognize it or not. Just like Gavin, whether he is aware of being a USG muppet or not.MUURICAAA FUCK NO. Non inultus premor

cr1776



Online



Activity: 2730

Merit: 1105







LegendaryActivity: 2730Merit: 1105 Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 12:15:51 PM #31 Quote from: bambou on May 04, 2015, 07:09:50 AM



3/ Forking BS over and over again. now just before the Halving. hOw friggin convenient .

https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/commit/5f46da29fd02fd2a8a787286fd6a56f680073770







I am not sure how ~15-16 months away from the halving - only about 67% (15.5/48) of the way to a halving - is "just before".



A low limit on the block sizes was only considered a temporary measure all along. I am not sure how ~15-16 months away from the halving - only about 67% (15.5/48) of the way to a halving - is "just before".A low limit on the block sizes was only considered a temporary measure all along.

bambou



Offline



Activity: 346

Merit: 250







Sr. MemberActivity: 346Merit: 250 Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 12:41:53 PM #34 Quote from: LaudaM on May 04, 2015, 12:32:20 PM <snap>



There is nothing wrong with 20M blocks. If the other developers agree with Gavin this will get implemented. However, if they disagree then it won't.



this is funny. please point me to such debate..



at best you could find devs disagreeing and in no condition there has been a consensus about it. just no.



yet Mr Bell is moving forward with HIS (USG) plan. this is funny. please point me to such debate..at best you could find devs disagreeing and in no condition there has been a consensus about it. just no.yet Mr Bell is moving forward with HIS (USG) plan. Non inultus premor

hdbuck



Offline



Activity: 1274

Merit: 1002









LegendaryActivity: 1274Merit: 1002 Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 12:51:37 PM

Last edit: May 04, 2015, 06:27:44 PM by hdbuck #35 Quote from: pawel7777 on May 04, 2015, 10:19:34 AM Quote from: hdbuck on May 04, 2015, 09:15:08 AM Quote from: pawel7777 on May 04, 2015, 08:54:40 AM

1- CIA wouldn't publicly interview their own agents (or potential ones)



2- TBF screwed themselves + stopped paying the devs in April. GA is still Chief Scientist though afaik.



3- Feel free to contribute yourself, offer alternative solutions or just stay on the old fork.



1/ Thats not an argument. Fact is Satoshi vanishes when Gavin is "invited" @CIA. but lol nobody is just "invited" there.. XD



2/ Gavin is/was an accomplice. Kinda like acknowledging their misbehavior by omission.



3/ I wouldnt call the 20Mb Fork a "contribution". More like a "retribution".. all the way back into USG's frame freaks.







Centralize & Control TM

1/ Thats not an argument. Fact is Satoshi vanishes when Gavin is "invited" @CIA. but lol nobody is just "invited" there.. XD2/ Gavin is/was an accomplice. Kinda like acknowledging their misbehavior by omission.3/ I wouldnt call the 20Mb Fork a "contribution". More like a "retribution".. all the way back into USG's frame freaks.

1- That's not really an argument for or against. But using the common sense, if CIA was to recruit GA, they would far more likely approached him quietly, instead of letting him make public statements about the invitation. Seems to me Satoshi did freak out over wikileaks accepting bitcoins (see his 2nd latest post).



2- Sure, let's not blame the ones that misbehaved, lets blame GA for his 'omission'. Anyway, how's that an argument of him being an agent?



3- I was referring to 'your contribution'. Don't like the fork? Let's hear your ideas/solutions. Most of people seem to agree with the need of lifting the limits with some difference of opinions on details.



That being said, I think it's actually healthy to consider the possibility of GA or any other dev to be an agent, and properly examine any proposed changes and look for threats etc. But announcing that as a fact because of the reasons stated in the OP is just daft.

1- That's not really an argument for or against. But using the common sense, if CIA was to recruit GA, they would far more likely approached him quietly, instead of letting him make public statements about the invitation. Seems to me Satoshi did freak out over wikileaks accepting bitcoins (see his 2nd latest post).2- Sure, let's not blame the ones that misbehaved, lets blame GA for his 'omission'. Anyway, how's that an argument of him being an agent?3- I was referring to 'your contribution'. Don't like the fork? Let's hear your ideas/solutions. Most of people seem to agree with the need of lifting the limits with some difference of opinions on details.That being said, I think it's actually healthy to consider the possibility of GA or any other dev to be an agent, and properly examine any proposed changes and look for threats etc. But announcing that as a fact because of the reasons stated in the OP is just daft.

1/ gavin is CIA buddy because "invitation". Gavin is USG buddy, because MIT Media LAB employee.



2/ gavin "worked" along scammers and deceivers a la Mark Karpeles, Shrem, Murk, Pierce and so on.



3/ there is no solution to be found to a non problem.



Im not saying Gavin is an classic Agent, like with a contract and a nice pension fund. Just that his intentions regarding Bitcoin are closely alined with USG's agenda. By now they surely made sure of it. Dont be naive man.



That being said, im done discussing this, i'll leave it to Bitcoin antifragileness. 1/ gavin is CIA buddy because "invitation". Gavin is USG buddy, because MIT Media LAB employee.2/ gavin "worked" along scammers and deceivers a la Mark Karpeles, Shrem, Murk, Pierce and so on.3/ there is no solution to be found to a non problem.Im not saying Gavin is an classic Agent, like with a contract and a nice pension fund. Just that his intentions regarding Bitcoin are closely alined with USG's agenda. By now they surely made sure of it. Dont be naive man.That being said, im done discussing this, i'll leave it to Bitcoin antifragileness.

Cryptowatch.com



Offline



Activity: 196

Merit: 101







Full MemberActivity: 196Merit: 101 Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 02:07:43 PM #42



Quote from: bambou on May 04, 2015, 07:09:50 AM facts:

1/ CIA "interview"

https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=6652.0



"I want to get this out in the open because it is the kind of thing that will generate conspiracy theories", Gavin Andresen



Gavin is a person that obviously likes to go to conferences, to do talks and so on. Even though he's a coder, he also seems to be a people person. I think he actually got personally excited to go talk to the CIA.



It's not uncommon that high profile people in something like bitcoin will draw the interest of governments. He got an invitation to speak, accepted it, and no transcript exists, which is not uncommon for such arrangements.



Quote from: bambou on May 04, 2015, 07:09:50 AM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113609.0



Satoshi not responding anymore after Gavin mentioning he went to see the CIA. It might be a coincidence, it might not. I think the most logic assumption is that it is not a coincidence. Whereas Satoshi needed no publicity, Gavin was the opposite. Satoshi would probably never have gone to the CIA to speak, and that's probably why he do not fancy anyone else doing it either. It's not a long stretch to imagine he'd drop the ball there and then in regards to mailing with Gavin.



Quote from: bambou on May 04, 2015, 07:09:50 AM 2/ After screwing over at the very "honorable" TBF, he has now joined the MIT's Media LAB

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/20132/gavin-andresen-core-developers-join-mits-digital-currency-initiative/

http://www.media.mit.edu/files/sponsors.pdf



Being a part of the TBF let Gavin do what he enjoys most, to write code and get a salary. Now he has joined MIT's Media LAB and he will continue to do the same, and have access to other academics that he can communicate with, I assume it also gives him a paycheck. He gets to do what he likes the most, and he gets paid..



Quote from: bambou on May 04, 2015, 07:09:50 AM 3/ Forking BS over and over again. now just before the Halving. hOw friggin convenient .

https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/commit/5f46da29fd02fd2a8a787286fd6a56f680073770



Please read



Since there's no hard and factual evidence here, and there's been no proper research apart from posting a few links that does not prove anything, this thread is over the top FUD.













This smell troll, but let's apply some logic to it."I want to get this out in the open because it is the kind of thing that will generate conspiracy theories", Gavin AndresenGavin is a person that obviously likes to go to conferences, to do talks and so on. Even though he's a coder, he also seems to be a people person. I think he actually got personally excited to go talk to the CIA.It's not uncommon that high profile people in something like bitcoin will draw the interest of governments. He got an invitation to speak, accepted it, and no transcript exists, which is not uncommon for such arrangements.Satoshi not responding anymore after Gavin mentioning he went to see the CIA. It might be a coincidence, it might not. I think the most logic assumption is that it is not a coincidence. Whereas Satoshi needed no publicity, Gavin was the opposite. Satoshi would probably never have gone to the CIA to speak, and that's probably why he do not fancy anyone else doing it either. It's not a long stretch to imagine he'd drop the ball there and then in regards to mailing with Gavin.Being a part of the TBF let Gavin do what he enjoys most, to write code and get a salary. Now he has joined MIT's Media LAB and he will continue to do the same, and have access to other academics that he can communicate with, I assume it also gives him a paycheck. He gets to do what he likes the most, and he gets paid..Please read https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0 for a great post, to get insight in these matters. I do not think Gavin is an agent. He might be, but even if he was, all the code he writes will still be viewable, so if he did something openly hostile, it would most likely be spotted, and it would be a major outcry and he'd instantly lose all trust. Other devs would take up the work, and Govcoin or Gavcoin might get traction, but there would still be Bitcoin.Since there's no hard and factual evidence here, and there's been no proper research apart from posting a few links that does not prove anything, this thread is over the top FUD.

BCwinning



Offline



Activity: 728

Merit: 500







Hero MemberActivity: 728Merit: 500 Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 02:08:52 PM #43 The issue with let the network decide is most ppl don't read.

The "official" website only has to show his new client as the official client and they basically force

the network consensus. At the very least I'm sure they will push it as the way forward with no other

addendums or links to debate.

I for one will run a node 24/7/365 on the old software as my vote.

Hoping one of the alts will gain more traction that acts more like cash than bitcoin.

privacy, it does the body good.

Official Bitcoin Foundation Secretariat

The New World Order thanks you for your support of Bitcoin and encourages your continuing support so that they may track your expenditures easier. https://www.rixty.com? ref=1337507 sign up for rixtyprivacy, it does the body good.Official Bitcoin Foundation SecretariatThe New World Order thanks you for your support of Bitcoin and encourages your continuing support so that they may track your expenditures easier.

RodeoX



Offline



Activity: 3066

Merit: 1143





The revolution will be monetized!







LegendaryActivity: 3066Merit: 1143The revolution will be monetized! Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 02:15:53 PM #44 You have got to stop skipping school to watch movies.

‎Free bitcoin in ? - Stay tuned for this years Bitcoin hunt! The gospel according to Satoshi - https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf - Stay tuned for this years Bitcoin hunt!

ajareselde



Offline



Activity: 1722

Merit: 1000



Satoshi is rolling in his grave. #bitcoin







LegendaryActivity: 1722Merit: 1000Satoshi is rolling in his grave. #bitcoin Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 02:16:26 PM #45 Gaving is a core developer, and i doubt he even cares about the coming halving, or the bitcoin price.

It is his job to make bitcoin cope with future requirements, and i doubt we all even understand just how much he delivered.

TBF was/is a joke, but thats something else, im talking about Gavin alone now.

BCwinning



Offline



Activity: 728

Merit: 500







Hero MemberActivity: 728Merit: 500 Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 02:17:37 PM #46 Quote from: ajareselde on May 04, 2015, 02:16:26 PM Gaving is a core developer, and i doubt he even cares about the coming halving, or the bitcoin price.

It is his job to make bitcoin cope with future requirements, and i doubt we all even understand just how much he delivered.

TBF was/is a joke, but thats something else, im talking about Gavin alone now.

I vote to fire him I vote to fire him

privacy, it does the body good.

Official Bitcoin Foundation Secretariat

The New World Order thanks you for your support of Bitcoin and encourages your continuing support so that they may track your expenditures easier. https://www.rixty.com? ref=1337507 sign up for rixtyprivacy, it does the body good.Official Bitcoin Foundation SecretariatThe New World Order thanks you for your support of Bitcoin and encourages your continuing support so that they may track your expenditures easier.

ajareselde



Offline



Activity: 1722

Merit: 1000



Satoshi is rolling in his grave. #bitcoin







LegendaryActivity: 1722Merit: 1000Satoshi is rolling in his grave. #bitcoin Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 02:28:46 PM #47 Quote from: BCwinning on May 04, 2015, 02:17:37 PM Quote from: ajareselde on May 04, 2015, 02:16:26 PM Gaving is a core developer, and i doubt he even cares about the coming halving, or the bitcoin price.

It is his job to make bitcoin cope with future requirements, and i doubt we all even understand just how much he delivered.

TBF was/is a joke, but thats something else, im talking about Gavin alone now.

I vote to fire him

I vote to fire him

What would be the point, do you think someone better would step in his shoes ? ofc not, it would be the same like it is now.

Anyways, like i said many times, its the network that has the final say in the end, if majority refuses his proposal, Gavin has no power to overthrow that decision. What would be the point, do you think someone better would step in his shoes ? ofc not, it would be the same like it is now.Anyways, like i said many times, its the network that has the final say in the end, if majority refuses his proposal, Gavin has no power to overthrow that decision.

AGD



Offline



Activity: 1921

Merit: 1088





Keeper of the Private Key







LegendaryActivity: 1921Merit: 1088Keeper of the Private Key Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 02:35:21 PM #49 So Satoshi comes back after years for one message, which is - at the same time - not important enough for him to sign? So he didn't care about people knowing if it was really him or not? Why then write that message anyway? Without signing this message is senseless and at least Satoshi would know that.

+++ GPG Public key FFBD756C24B54962E6A772EA1C680D74DB714D40 +++ Bitcoin is not a bubble, it's the pin!+++ GPG Public key FFBD756C24B54962E6A772EA1C680D74DB714D40 +++ http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1C680D74DB714D40

kingcolex



Offline



Activity: 2310

Merit: 1249









LegendaryActivity: 2310Merit: 1249 Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 02:39:09 PM #51 Quote from: AGD on May 04, 2015, 02:35:21 PM So Satoshi comes back after years for one message, which is - at the same time - not important enough for him to sign? So he didn't care about people knowing if it was really him or not? Why then write that message anyway? Without signing this message is senseless and at least Satoshi would know that.

It wasn't meaningless or we wouldn't be discussing it now, sure it wasn't signed but all that does is keep us in the dark but the intentions were well meaning. We know the GMX "hacker" did not have any good intentions, so now we have to figure if Theymos or someone else who possibly knows Satoshi's identity just logged in and made the post (unable to sign). I just don't see why someone who had Satoshi's login and had access to all of his pm's would only post "I am not Dorian" It wasn't meaningless or we wouldn't be discussing it now, sure it wasn't signed but all that does is keep us in the dark but the intentions were well meaning. We know the GMX "hacker" did not have any good intentions, so now we have to figure if Theymos or someone else who possibly knows Satoshi's identity just logged in and made the post (unable to sign). I just don't see why someone who had Satoshi's login and had access to all of his pm's would only post "I am not Dorian"

AGD



Offline



Activity: 1921

Merit: 1088





Keeper of the Private Key







LegendaryActivity: 1921Merit: 1088Keeper of the Private Key Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 02:46:03 PM #52 I would like to know Theymos' opinion about this. Maybe he can shine a light on this phoney message.



+++ GPG Public key FFBD756C24B54962E6A772EA1C680D74DB714D40 +++ Bitcoin is not a bubble, it's the pin!+++ GPG Public key FFBD756C24B54962E6A772EA1C680D74DB714D40 +++ http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1C680D74DB714D40

BillyBobZorton



Offline



Activity: 1204

Merit: 1020







LegendaryActivity: 1204Merit: 1020 Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 02:46:17 PM #53 Quote from: ajareselde on May 04, 2015, 02:16:26 PM Gaving is a core developer, and i doubt he even cares about the coming halving, or the bitcoin price.

It is his job to make bitcoin cope with future requirements, and i doubt we all even understand just how much he delivered.

TBF was/is a joke, but thats something else, im talking about Gavin alone now.

How can Galgin "not care" about the coming halving? It is related to the blocksize problem limit which he has been addressing endlessly lately. Everything has an impact as everything is connected. Im sure the halving will bring lots of media attention, which will mean newer users, which will mean more stress, which will mean the blocksize problem being more relevant than ever. How can Galgin "not care" about the coming halving? It is related to the blocksize problem limit which he has been addressing endlessly lately. Everything has an impact as everything is connected. Im sure the halving will bring lots of media attention, which will mean newer users, which will mean more stress, which will mean the blocksize problem being more relevant than ever.

kingcolex



Offline



Activity: 2310

Merit: 1249









LegendaryActivity: 2310Merit: 1249 Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 03:10:46 PM #54 Quote from: BillyBobZorton on May 04, 2015, 02:46:17 PM Quote from: ajareselde on May 04, 2015, 02:16:26 PM Gaving is a core developer, and i doubt he even cares about the coming halving, or the bitcoin price.

It is his job to make bitcoin cope with future requirements, and i doubt we all even understand just how much he delivered.

TBF was/is a joke, but thats something else, im talking about Gavin alone now.

How can Galgin "not care" about the coming halving? It is related to the blocksize problem limit which he has been addressing endlessly lately. Everything has an impact as everything is connected. Im sure the halving will bring lots of media attention, which will mean newer users, which will mean more stress, which will mean the blocksize problem being more relevant than ever.

How can Galgin "not care" about the coming halving? It is related to the blocksize problem limit which he has been addressing endlessly lately. Everything has an impact as everything is connected. Im sure the halving will bring lots of media attention, which will mean newer users, which will mean more stress, which will mean the blocksize problem being more relevant than ever. The halving shouldn't be a big deal honestly, it will do one of two things 1.Increase price , 2. Adjust mining difficulty. Bitcoin isn't changing in anyway just block rewards and miners will be the only ones truly affected by it.

kingcolex



Offline



Activity: 2310

Merit: 1249









LegendaryActivity: 2310Merit: 1249 Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 04:21:33 PM #57 Quote from: snarlpill on May 04, 2015, 03:25:26 PM I think it's less likely that the CIA/US gov. is behind Gavin, Satoshi, and/or Bitcoin, and find it more likely that the US gov. is behind a few mixing sites and dark markets.

Definitely, they worked their way into the silkroad they can and will do it again with the dark markets but this should be a known risk for anyone willing to take the risk on those sites and I am for the government intervening on the dark markets as they can have some truly terrible things for sale. Definitely, they worked their way into the silkroad they can and will do it again with the dark markets but this should be a known risk for anyone willing to take the risk on those sites and I am for the government intervening on the dark markets as they can have some truly terrible things for sale.

futureofbitcoin



Offline



Activity: 322

Merit: 250







Sr. MemberActivity: 322Merit: 250 Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 04:22:52 PM #58 Quote from: inBitweTrust on May 04, 2015, 10:22:58 AM Quote from: louise123 on May 04, 2015, 10:00:30 AM

I asked: Can anyone give me the link for when Satoshi said: "I am moving on, it's in good hands with Gavin and the guys"



Thanks

That is not what I asked though.I asked: Can anyone give me the link for when Satoshi said: "I am moving on, it's in good hands with Gavin and the guys"Thanks

He expressed interest in moving on months before and made preparations in advance but never gave a farewell message and simply disappeared leaving everyone wondering. His only response years later was :

"I am not Dorian Nakamoto."

He expressed interest in moving on months before and made preparations in advance but never gave a farewell message and simply disappeared leaving everyone wondering. His only response years later was :"I am not Dorian Nakamoto."



I mean if they were the same person, and he wanted to remain anonymous, what else would he say? I don't get why to everyone that 'proves" that dorian satoshi nakamoto is not THE satoshi nakamoto.I mean if they were the same person, and he wanted to remain anonymous, what else would he say?

BitUsher



Offline



Activity: 994

Merit: 1027







LegendaryActivity: 994Merit: 1027 Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 04:24:32 PM #59 Gavin always struck me as someone intelligent and sincere. There will likely have to be some compromises made and Gregory does make some valid criticisms but we need to address the transaction limitations sooner than later.

Eastfist



Offline



Activity: 210

Merit: 100







Full MemberActivity: 210Merit: 100 Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 08:46:41 PM #63 The lot of you trying to prove points referencing stuff posted online or from media just shows you don't know the facts. You only accept what is presented to you as "facts". Gavin may not be an "agent", but I can confirm he is working with government in some capacity. Bitcoin IS a government project. Do you realize that anything that happens that may "disrupt" America must be run by the CIA/NSA first? It's all about control. So if Bitcoin succeeds, it's because CIA allowed it to. If it fails, it's because they wanted it to. In that sense, they tell Gavin to sabotage Bitcoin, then he collects his money, and throws a wrench in it. Then all his fanboys will believe it was with good intentions. By the time they lose their money, they'll blame anyone other than Gavin.

RodeoX



Offline



Activity: 3066

Merit: 1143





The revolution will be monetized!







LegendaryActivity: 3066Merit: 1143The revolution will be monetized! Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 08:57:03 PM #64



Stupid is the funniest kind of discussion!

‎Free bitcoin in ? - Stay tuned for this years Bitcoin hunt! The gospel according to Satoshi - https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf - Stay tuned for this years Bitcoin hunt!

Eastfist



Offline



Activity: 210

Merit: 100







Full MemberActivity: 210Merit: 100 Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 11:23:43 PM #68



Take a look at this picture of Peter Todd, look at his T-Shirt and tell me he's being ironical. You don't wear a T-Shirt with NSA logo unless you idolize them or work for them.



I remember the first time I met Peter Todd, Jeff Garzik introduced him to me, he just seemed to pop out from nowhere. My encounter with him was brief. But I noticed he didn't swallow the bait even then. So I don't really know his real motive being in the Bitcoin game. Take a look at this picture of Peter Todd, look at his T-Shirt and tell me he's being ironical. You don't wear a T-Shirt with NSA logo unless you idolize them or work for them.I remember the first time I met Peter Todd, Jeff Garzik introduced him to me, he just seemed to pop out from nowhere. My encounter with him was brief. But I noticed he didn't swallow the bait even then. So I don't really know his real motive being in the Bitcoin game.

BitUsher



Offline



Activity: 994

Merit: 1027







LegendaryActivity: 994Merit: 1027 Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 11:30:17 PM #69 Quote from: Eastfist on May 04, 2015, 11:23:43 PM Take a look at this picture of Peter Todd, look at his T-Shirt and tell me he's being ironical. You don't wear a T-Shirt with NSA logo unless you idolize them or work for them.



From what I understand he hangs out with and talks like an anarchist. That shirt reminds me how all the hippie and druggie teens growing up in certain places of the US I visited would wear "D.A.R.E" (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) shirts to mock the teachers , parents and authority figures. Probably what Peter is doing here. From what I understand he hangs out with and talks like an anarchist. That shirt reminds me how all the hippie and druggie teens growing up in certain places of the US I visited would wear "D.A.R.E" (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) shirts to mock the teachers , parents and authority figures. Probably what Peter is doing here.

BitUsher



Offline



Activity: 994

Merit: 1027







LegendaryActivity: 994Merit: 1027 Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 11:35:12 PM #73 Quote from: Eastfist on May 04, 2015, 11:31:10 PM Dude was a strange cat. But I only ever met him like 2 times.



The older we get the more I realize we are all strange and have unusual proclivities. We all tend to mask it for ourselves and friends and family members but in reality we are all weird to an outsider.



Bitcoin being a unique project likely attracts many "interesting " people and that is one reason I love it.

The older we get the more I realize we are all strange and have unusual proclivities. We all tend to mask it for ourselves and friends and family members but in reality we are all weird to an outsider.Bitcoin being a unique project likely attracts many "interesting " people and that is one reason I love it.

gogxmagog



Offline



Activity: 1442

Merit: 1009



Ad maiora!







LegendaryActivity: 1442Merit: 1009Ad maiora! Re: Gavin is an Agent May 04, 2015, 11:52:05 PM #74 I can't really see what use GA would be to the USG as an agent.

First; you would think, if he was, he would have to act in a covert manner. Not publicly announcing that he is going into talk with the CIA.

Second; CIA is used for operations outside of U.S. territory

Next; what is the purpose he serves? He helps the btc ecology, is moving a competing monetary system forward the USG's goal? The common anti-gov bias re; Bitcoin is Bitcoin must fail! If GA is an agent, he's doing it wrong



As Bitcoin exists today it isn't a threat to anyone. If, in say 5 years, we see mass adoption, and something goes terribly wrong with the basic protocol... Well maybe... But somehow I think you're giving these govt spooks more credit than they deserve

QuestionAuthority



Offline



Activity: 2156

Merit: 1391





You lead and I'll watch you walk away.







LegendaryActivity: 2156Merit: 1391You lead and I'll watch you walk away. Re: Gavin is an Agent May 05, 2015, 01:53:41 AM #75 I miss the old days when everyone on this forum would lick Gavin's ass like it was a lollypop. What's wrong with you people? Show some respect for the messiah of Bitcoin coding. If he wants to fork Bitcoin till it bleeds we'll support him because - Gavin.



As for USG controlling Bitcoin. The lead dev is not the way to do it. They could have infiltrated TBF. Pumped enough money into the org to keep it alive and increased Gavin's salary every year by $20k. That's the way to control Bitcoin. Gavin as a CIA agent is laughable. USG caring enough to control Bitcoin is also laughable. The only action the government has taken against Bitcoin was to apply FIAT laws to Bitcoin > fiat transactions, bust drug dealers, and bust FIAT money laundering. None of those things have anything to do with Bitcoin. If you were buying drugs, engaged in child prostitution, or allowing minors to gamble with chocolate chip cookies then laundering your cookies for fiat the governments reaction would be the same. Bitcoin is not the issue. The merit system isnt working. Read this thread to see why.



Peter Todd



Offline



Activity: 1106

Merit: 1049







LegendaryActivity: 1106Merit: 1049 Re: Gavin is an Agent May 05, 2015, 08:27:49 AM

Last edit: May 05, 2015, 08:39:46 AM by Peter Todd #77 Quote from: Eastfist on May 04, 2015, 11:23:43 PM



Take a look at this picture of Peter Todd, look at his T-Shirt and tell me he's being ironical. You don't wear a T-Shirt with NSA logo unless you idolize them or work for them.



I remember the first time I met Peter Todd, Jeff Garzik introduced him to me, he just seemed to pop out from nowhere. My encounter with him was brief. But I noticed he didn't swallow the bait even then. So I don't really know his real motive being in the Bitcoin game.

Take a look at this picture of Peter Todd, look at his T-Shirt and tell me he's being ironical. You don't wear a T-Shirt with NSA logo unless you idolize them or work for them.I remember the first time I met Peter Todd, Jeff Garzik introduced him to me, he just seemed to pop out from nowhere. My encounter with him was brief. But I noticed he didn't swallow the bait even then. So I don't really know his real motive being in the Bitcoin game.

lolololololol



I got that shirt from the Electronic Freedom Foundation's booth at https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/back-popular-demand-nsa-spying-t-shirts-members



Sadly the NSA isn't sufficiently self-aware to sell shirts saying "ALL YOUR DATA" with glowering, red-eyed eagle's... but they should be.



And for the record, I'm a Canadian - I work for lololololololI got that shirt from the Electronic Freedom Foundation's booth at 31c3 Sadly the NSA isn't sufficiently self-aware to sell shirts saying "ALL YOUR DATA" with glowering, red-eyed eagle's... but they should be.And for the record, I'm a Canadian - I work for CSIS , not the NSA. BTC: 1FCYd7j4CThTMzts78rh6iQJLBRGPW9fWv PGP: 7FAB114267E4FA04

JorgeStolfi



Offline



Activity: 910

Merit: 1002









Hero MemberActivity: 910Merit: 1002 Re: Gavin is an Agent June 28, 2015, 02:58:16 PM

Last edit: June 28, 2015, 03:27:26 PM by JorgeStolfi #80 Quote from: 687_2 on May 04, 2015, 07:19:58 AM Maybe. A fork will severely damage the price.



The hard fork to increase the max block size should have been a no-brainer and a non-event, a routine maintenance action predicted and proposed by Satoshi himself when he added the arbitrary 1 MB limit. Why has it become the most dreadful menace to the future of bitcoin?



My best guess is that the promises that the Blockcstream guys made to their investors, when they got their funding, depend on there being no block size increase, no matter how modest. That would explain their uncompromising and hysterical opposition to the increase -- and the changes that they are making to the protocol.



Specifically, I guess that they promised investors that bitcoin network would become congested by 2016, and then users would be forced to move to some "overlay network" that would carry most of the payment traffic, with only occasional settlements being made on the old bitcoin network.



Blockstream (they must have said) would then be the key player in that "overlay space", because they already were developing the technology that will make the overlay network possible (sidechains, at the time). Moreover, since several key developers were partners or employees of Blocksrteam, they had commit control of BitcoinCore, the "official" implementation of the protocol; so they would be able to make any change that they needed to the protocol (like new opcodes), while blocking any change that competitors may need, or that might make the overlay network economically unattractive -- such as a block size increase.



But (the investors must have asked) if the capacity of the bitcoin network itself is not increased, the number of transactions will forever be limited to 300'000 per day; so how will mining continue to be viable while the block reward gets halved? Well, Blockstream's forecast (and this is no guess) is that by 2016, as the network becomes congested, there will arise a "fee market", where bitcoin users would have to offer higher and higher fees in order to buy space on the next block. If the average transaction fee increased to 1.5 USD or more, the revenue from fees (450'000 USD/day) would compensate the halving of the block reward, and there would be no drop in the hashpower.



To make that "fee market" more "efficient", Blockstream was counting on a couple of changes to the queue-management part of the core software ("replace-by-fee" and "child-pays-for-parent") that would allow clients to increment the fees of transactions that were stuck in the queue, and thus jump over other transactions with smaller fees.



According to this plan, the bitcoin network would be worth using only for large-value transactions, including the "export" of bitcoins to sidechains and settlements between the sidechains. (Since then it became clear that sidechains will not work as intended, but Blockstream found a new vaporware to take their place in the plan, the Lightning Network.) Most of the individual users, and services like BitPay and Bitstamp, would be forced to move to the overlay network.



If that is the plan that they sold to their investors, their attitude would made perfect sense. Gavin's proposal to increase the block size not only would postpone the need for the overlay network by many years, but also would show that Blockstream did not have control of the protocol. The investors who bought those claims would be quite displeased, to put it mildly.



So, at first Blockstream tried to block Gavin's proposal with the claim that it would make nodes terribly expensive. Which is nonsense, since an increase in the *max size* would not cause any immediate change to the *average size*: the latter would just continue growing (hopefully) at the current rate, and increase (gradually) beyond 1 MB only in a few years time. But since the increase proposal has been reduced to 8 MB, they ran out of technical arguments. So they had to resort to spreading FUD about the terrible risk of a hard fork (while doing soft forks themselves) and personal attacks on Gavin and Mike.



I have no particular admiration for Gavin. He should have distanced himself from the Shrem Karpelès & Friends Foundation when it started to smell bad; instead, he stayed there as long as it was paying his salary, and even criticized Antonopoulos for leaving it. And I had not noticed Mike's existence until a month ago.



Yet I must recognize that they are only trying to keep bitcoin working for a few more years as it was intended to work, and as all the community has come to expect it to work. Blockstream, on the other hand, is honoring their name, in an ironic and unintended way: their plan is to block the bitcoin stream, so that all the bitcoiners are forced to buy their water...



Moreover, Gavin and Mike have the prudence, competence, technical knowledge, and common sense that are needed to manage a large software project like bitcoin, that manages hundreds of millions of dollars for hundreds of thousands of users.



Whereas the new core developers, while they may be expert cryptographers and clever hackers, clearly lack those qualities. They seem unable to understand Mike's explanation of how queues behave as the traffic approaches the channel's capacity. They are unable to see the "fee market" will not be a market but a chaotic melee. They cannot make any quantitative estimates of what the traffic and fees will be in their planned future. (Had they done so, they would see that an overlay network will not solve the scalability problem, either.)



One of them explained that all wallet apps out there would have to be modified, so that, instead of just signing a transaction offline, issuing it, and disconnecting, the client would have to first check the queues at the nodes to guess an appropriate minimum fee F, then sign several transactions with fees F, 2F, 4F, 8F, etc., issue the first one, then remain connected to the network, so that his wallet app can watch the queues, re-issuing the other versions as needed in order to remain in front of the the other clients (who are of course doing the same), until the transaction is confirmed; or until the app runs out of pre-signed transactions, and has to ask the client whether he wants to keep trying, in which case he would have to sign a few more. And tha dev called it "a trivial change", because it would require only "a few lines of code ...



And, worst of all, they want to make bitcoin unusable for its stated goal, in order to force users to move to another network that has not been designed yet, may never work, will not be like bitcoin at all, and will not solve the scalability problem either...



As you may know, I am very skeptical about the long-term success of bitcoin, and I have no love at all for the pyramid investment scheme that has been built on top of it. Yet, I was expecting to see years of slow price decline, perhaps even delayed by another price bubble or two. But now, after watching this war and realizing what the players are up to, my hopes for a quick, spectacularly comical collapse have been revived...



The hard fork to increase the max block size should have been a no-brainer and a non-event, a routine maintenance action predicted and proposed by Satoshi himself when he added the arbitrary 1 MB limit. Why has it become the most dreadful menace to the future of bitcoin?My best guess is that the promises that the Blockcstream guys made to their investors, when they got their funding, depend on there being no block size increase, no matter how modest. That would explain their uncompromising and hysterical opposition to the increase -- and the changes that theymaking to the protocol.Specifically, I guess that they promised investors that bitcoin network would become congested by 2016, and then users would be forced to move to some "overlay network" that would carry most of the payment traffic, with only occasional settlements being made on the old bitcoin network.Blockstream (they must have said) would then be the key player in that "overlay space", because they already were developing the technology that will make the overlay network possible (sidechains, at the time). Moreover, since several key developers were partners or employees of Blocksrteam, they had commit control of BitcoinCore, the "official" implementation of the protocol; so they would be able to make any change that they needed to the protocol (like new opcodes), while blocking any change that competitors may need, or that might make the overlay network economically unattractive -- such as a block size increase.But (the investors must have asked) if the capacity of the bitcoin network itself is not increased, the number of transactions will forever be limited to 300'000 per day; so how will mining continue to be viable while the block reward gets halved? Well, Blockstream's forecast (and this is no guess) is that by 2016, as the network becomes congested, there will arise a "fee market", where bitcoin users would have to offer higher and higher fees in order to buy space on the next block. If the average transaction fee increased to 1.5 USD or more, the revenue from fees (450'000 USD/day) would compensate the halving of the block reward, and there would be no drop in the hashpower.To make that "fee market" more "efficient", Blockstream was counting on a couple of changes to the queue-management part of the core software ("replace-by-fee" and "child-pays-for-parent") that would allow clients to increment the fees of transactions that were stuck in the queue, and thus jump over other transactions with smaller fees.According to this plan, the bitcoin network would be worth using only for large-value transactions, including the "export" of bitcoins to sidechains and settlements between the sidechains. (Since then it became clear that sidechains will not work as intended, but Blockstream found a new vaporware to take their place in the plan, the Lightning Network.) Most of the individual users, and services like BitPay and Bitstamp, would be forced to move to the overlay network.If that is the plan that they sold to their investors, their attitude would made perfect sense. Gavin's proposal to increase the block size not only would postpone the need for the overlay network by many years, but also would show that Blockstream did not have control of the protocol. The investors who bought those claims would be quite displeased, to put it mildly.So, at first Blockstream tried to block Gavin's proposal with the claim that it would make nodes terribly expensive. Which is nonsense, since an increase in the *max size* would not cause any immediate change to the *average size*: the latter would just continue growing (hopefully) at the current rate, and increase (gradually) beyond 1 MB only in a few years time. But since the increase proposal has been reduced to 8 MB, they ran out of technical arguments. So they had to resort to spreading FUD about the terrible risk of a hard fork (while doing soft forks themselves) and personal attacks on Gavin and Mike.I have no particular admiration for Gavin. He should have distanced himself from the Shrem Karpelès & Friends Foundation when it started to smell bad; instead, he stayed there as long as it was paying his salary, and even criticized Antonopoulos for leaving it. And I had not noticed Mike's existence until a month ago.Yet I must recognize that they are only trying to keep bitcoin working for a few more years as it was intended to work, and as all the community has come to expect it to work. Blockstream, on the other hand, is honoring their name, in an ironic and unintended way: their plan is to block the bitcoin stream, so that all the bitcoiners are forced to buy their water...Moreover, Gavin and Mike have the prudence, competence, technical knowledge, and common sense that are needed to manage a large software project like bitcoin, that manages hundreds of millions of dollars for hundreds of thousands of users.Whereas the new core developers, while they may be expert cryptographers and clever hackers, clearly lack those qualities. They seem unable to understand Mike's explanation of how queues behave as the traffic approaches the channel's capacity. They are unable to see the "fee market" will not be a market but a chaotic melee. They cannot make any quantitative estimates of what the traffic and fees will be in their planned future. (Had they done so, they would see that an overlay network will not solve the scalability problem, either.)One of them explained that all wallet apps out there would have to be modified, so that, instead of just signing a transaction offline, issuing it, and disconnecting, the client would have to first check the queues at the nodes to guess an appropriate minimum fee F, then sign several transactions with fees F, 2F, 4F, 8F, etc., issue the first one, then remain connected to the network, so that his wallet app can watch the queues, re-issuing the other versions as needed in order to remain in front of the the other clients (who are of course doing the same), until the transaction is confirmed; or until the app runs out of pre-signed transactions, and has to ask the client whether he wants to keep trying, in which case he would have to sign a few more. And tha dev called it "a trivial change", because it would require only "a few lines of code ...And, worst of all, they want to make bitcoin unusable for its stated goal, in order to force users to move to another network that has not been designed yet, may never work, will not be like bitcoin at all, and will not solve the scalability problem either...As you may know, I am very skeptical about the long-term success of bitcoin, and I have no love at all for the pyramid investment scheme that has been built on top of it. Yet, I was expecting to see years of slow price decline, perhaps even delayed by another price bubble or two. But now, after watching this war and realizing what the players are up to, my hopes for a quick, spectacularly comical collapse have been revived... Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.

acid_rain



Offline



Activity: 41

Merit: 0







NewbieActivity: 41Merit: 0 Re: Gavin is an Agent June 28, 2015, 05:14:41 PM #82 Quote from: JorgeStolfi on June 28, 2015, 02:58:16 PM Quote from: 687_2 on May 04, 2015, 07:19:58 AM Maybe. A fork will severely damage the price.



The hard fork to increase the max block size should have been a no-brainer and a non-event, a routine maintenance action predicted and proposed by Satoshi himself when he added the arbitrary 1 MB limit. Why has it become the most dreadful menace to the future of bitcoin?



My best guess is that the promises that the Blockcstream guys made to their investors, when they got their funding, depend on there being no block size increase, no matter how modest. That would explain their uncompromising and hysterical opposition to the increase -- and the changes that they are making to the protocol.



Specifically, I guess that they promised investors that bitcoin network would become congested by 2016, and then users would be forced to move to some "overlay network" that would carry most of the payment traffic, with only occasional settlements being made on the old bitcoin network.



Blockstream (they must have said) would then be the key player in that "overlay space", because they already were developing the technology that will make the overlay network possible (sidechains, at the time). Moreover, since several key developers were partners or employees of Blocksrteam, they had commit control of BitcoinCore, the "official" implementation of the protocol; so they would be able to make any change that they needed to the protocol (like new opcodes), while blocking any change that competitors may need, or that might make the overlay network economically unattractive -- such as a block size increase.



But (the investors must have asked) if the capacity of the bitcoin network itself is not increased, the number of transactions will forever be limited to 300'000 per day; so how will mining continue to be viable while the block reward gets halved? Well, Blockstream's forecast (and this is no guess) is that by 2016, as the network becomes congested, there will arise a "fee market", where bitcoin users would have to offer higher and higher fees in order to buy space on the next block. If the average transaction fee increased to 1.5 USD or more, the revenue from fees (450'000 USD/day) would compensate the halving of the block reward, and there would be no drop in the hashpower.



To make that "fee market" more "efficient", Blockstream was counting on a couple of changes to the queue-management part of the core software ("replace-by-fee" and "child-pays-for-parent") that would allow clients to increment the fees of transactions that were stuck in the queue, and thus jump over other transactions with smaller fees.



According to this plan, the bitcoin network would be worth using only for large-value transactions, including the "export" of bitcoins to sidechains and settlements between the sidechains. (Since then it became clear that sidechains will not work as intended, but Blockstream found a new vaporware to take their place in the plan, the Lightning Network.) Most of the individual users, and services like BitPay and Bitstamp, would be forced to move to the overlay network.



If that is the plan that they sold to their investors, their attitude would made perfect sense. Gavin's proposal to increase the block size not only would postpone the need for the overlay network by many years, but also would show that Blockstream did not have control of the protocol. The investors who bought those claims would be quite displeased, to put it mildly.



So, at first Blockstream tried to block Gavin's proposal with the claim that it would make nodes terribly expensive. Which is nonsense, since an increase in the *max size* would not cause any immediate change to the *average size*: the latter would just continue growing (hopefully) at the current rate, and increase (gradually) beyond 1 MB only in a few years time. But since the increase proposal has been reduced to 8 MB, they ran out of technical arguments. So they had to resort to spreading FUD about the terrible risk of a hard fork (while doing soft forks themselves) and personal attacks on Gavin and Mike.



I have no particular admiration for Gavin. He should have distanced himself from the Shrem Karpelès & Friends Foundation when it started to smell bad; instead, he stayed there as long as it was paying his salary, and even criticized Antonopoulos for leaving it. And I had not noticed Mike's existence until a month ago.



Yet I must recognize that they are only trying to keep bitcoin working for a few more years as it was intended to work, and as all the community has come to expect it to work. Blockstream, on the other hand, is honoring their name, in an ironic and unintended way: their plan is to block the bitcoin stream, so that all the bitcoiners are forced to buy their water...



Moreover, Gavin and Mike have the prudence, competence, technical knowledge, and common sense that are needed to manage a large software project like bitcoin, that manages hundreds of millions of dollars for hundreds of thousands of users.



Whereas the new core developers, while they may be expert cryptographers and clever hackers, clearly lack those qualities. They seem unable to understand Mike's explanation of how queues behave as the traffic approaches the channel's capacity. They are unable to see the "fee market" will not be a market but a chaotic melee. They cannot make any quantitative estimates of what the traffic and fees will be in their planned future. (Had they done so, they would see that an overlay network will not solve the scalability problem, either.)



One of them explained that all wallet apps out there would have to be modified, so that, instead of just signing a transaction offline, issuing it, and disconnecting, the client would have to first check the queues at the nodes to guess an appropriate minimum fee F, then sign several transactions with fees F, 2F, 4F, 8F, etc., issue the first one, then remain connected to the network, so that his wallet app can watch the queues, re-issuing the other versions as needed in order to remain in front of the the other clients (who are of course doing the same), until the transaction is confirmed; or until the app runs out of pre-signed transactions, and has to ask the client whether he wants to keep trying, in which case he would have to sign a few more. And tha dev called it "a trivial change", because it would require only "a few lines of code ...



And, worst of all, they want to make bitcoin unusable for its stated goal, in order to force users to move to another network that has not been designed yet, may never work, will not be like bitcoin at all, and will not solve the scalability problem either...



As you may know, I am very skeptical about the long-term success of bitcoin, and I have no love at all for the pyramid investment scheme that has been built on top of it. Yet, I was expecting to see years of slow price decline, perhaps even delayed by another price bubble or two. But now, after watching this war and realizing what the players are up to, my hopes for a quick, spectacularly comical collapse have been revived...





The hard fork to increase the max block size should have been a no-brainer and a non-event, a routine maintenance action predicted and proposed by Satoshi himself when he added the arbitrary 1 MB limit. Why has it become the most dreadful menace to the future of bitcoin?My best guess is that the promises that the Blockcstream guys made to their investors, when they got their funding, depend on there being no block size increase, no matter how modest. That would explain their uncompromising and hysterical opposition to the increase -- and the changes that theymaking to the protocol.Specifically, I guess that they promised investors that bitcoin network would become congested by 2016, and then users would be forced to move to some "overlay network" that would carry most of the payment traffic, with only occasional settlements being made on the old bitcoin network.Blockstream (they must have said) would then be the key player in that "overlay space", because they already were developing the technology that will make the overlay network possible (sidechains, at the time). Moreover, since several key developers were partners or employees of Blocksrteam, they had commit control of BitcoinCore, the "official" implementation of the protocol; so they would be able to make any change that they needed to the protocol (like new opcodes), while blocking any change that competitors may need, or that might make the overlay network economically unattractive -- such as a block size increase.But (the investors must have asked) if the capacity of the bitcoin network itself is not increased, the number of transactions will forever be limited to 300'000 per day; so how will mining continue to be viable while the block reward gets halved? Well, Blockstream's forecast (and this is no guess) is that by 2016, as the network becomes congested, there will arise a "fee market", where bitcoin users would have to offer higher and higher fees in order to buy space on the next block. If the average transaction fee increased to 1.5 USD or more, the revenue from fees (450'000 USD/day) would compensate the halving of the block reward, and there would be no drop in the hashpower.To make that "fee market" more "efficient", Blockstream was counting on a couple of changes to the queue-management part of the core software ("replace-by-fee" and "child-pays-for-parent") that would allow clients to increment the fees of transactions that were stuck in the queue, and thus jump over other transactions with smaller fees.According to this plan, the bitcoin network would be worth using only for large-value transactions, including the "export" of bitcoins to sidechains and settlements between the sidechains. (Since then it became clear that sidechains will not work as intended, but Blockstream found a new vaporware to take their place in the plan, the Lightning Network.) Most of the individual users, and services like BitPay and Bitstamp, would be forced to move to the overlay network.If that is the plan that they sold to their investors, their attitude would made perfect sense. Gavin's proposal to increase the block size not only would postpone the need for the overlay network by many years, but also would show that Blockstream did not have control of the protocol. The investors who bought those claims would be quite displeased, to put it mildly.So, at first Blockstream tried to block Gavin's proposal with the claim that it would make nodes terribly expensive. Which is nonsense, since an increase in the *max size* would not cause any immediate change to the *average size*: the latter would just continue growing (hopefully) at the current rate, and increase (gradually) beyond 1 MB only in a few years time. But since the increase proposal has been reduced to 8 MB, they ran out of technical arguments. So they had to resort to spreading FUD about the terrible risk of a hard fork (while doing soft forks themselves) and personal attacks on Gavin and Mike.I have no particular admiration for Gavin. He should have distanced himself from the Shrem Karpelès & Friends Foundation when it started to smell bad; instead, he stayed there as long as it was paying his salary, and even criticized Antonopoulos for leaving it. And I had not noticed Mike's existence until a month ago.Yet I must recognize that they are only trying to keep bitcoin working for a few more years as it was intended to work, and as all the community has come to expect it to work. Blockstream, on the other hand, is honoring their name, in an ironic and unintended way: their plan is to block the bitcoin stream, so that all the bitcoiners are forced to buy their water...Moreover, Gavin and Mike have the prudence, competence, technical knowledge, and common sense that are needed to manage a large software project like bitcoin, that manages hundreds of millions of dollars for hundreds of thousands of users.Whereas the new core developers, while they may be expert cryptographers and clever hackers, clearly lack those qualities. They seem unable to understand Mike's explanation of how queues behave as the traffic approaches the channel's capacity. They are unable to see the "fee market" will not be a market but a chaotic melee. They cannot make any quantitative estimates of what the traffic and fees will be in their planned future. (Had they done so, they would see that an overlay network will not solve the scalability problem, either.)One of them explained that all wallet apps out there would have to be modified, so that, instead of just signing a transaction offline, issuing it, and disconnecting, the client would have to first check the queues at the nodes to guess an appropriate minimum fee F, then sign several transactions with fees F, 2F, 4F, 8F, etc., issue the first one, then remain connected to the network, so that his wallet app can watch the queues, re-issuing the other versions as needed in order to remain in front of the the other clients (who are of course doing the same), until the transaction is confirmed; or until the app runs out of pre-signed transactions, and has to ask the client whether he wants to keep trying, in which case he would have to sign a few more. And tha dev called it "a trivial change", because it would require only "a few lines of code ...And, worst of all, they want to make bitcoin unusable for its stated goal, in order to force users to move to another network that has not been designed yet, may never work, will not be like bitcoin at all, and will not solve the scalability problem either...As you may know, I am very skeptical about the long-term success of bitcoin, and I have no love at all for the pyramid investment scheme that has been built on top of it. Yet, I was expecting to see years of slow price decline, perhaps even delayed by another price bubble or two. But now, after watching this war and realizing what the players are up to, my hopes for a quick, spectacularly comical collapse have been revived...

Sir very interesting read. You write in a clear manner. but the whole wall of text hurt my eyeball. You should consider including a TL;DR summary whenever doing a long essay.



and yes, if it collapses due to its poor design flaws and dodgy patchwork, then yes I would agree with you that it would be a quick comical demise of btc but nonetheless it would have given humanity a blueprint. Sir very interesting read. You write in a clear manner. but the whole wall of text hurt my eyeball. You should consider including a TL;DR summary whenever doing a long essay.and yes, if it collapses due to its poor design flaws and dodgy patchwork, then yes I would agree with you that it would be a quick comical demise of btc but nonetheless it would have given humanity a blueprint.

JorgeStolfi



Offline



Activity: 910

Merit: 1002









Hero MemberActivity: 910Merit: 1002 Re: Gavin is an Agent June 28, 2015, 05:41:24 PM #83 Quote from: acid_rain on June 28, 2015, 05:14:41 PM but nonetheless it would have given humanity a blueprint.



Bitcoin is still a very remarkable computer science experiment (that has become also a social and economical experiment, in ways that surely it was not intended to be). It was a significant advance towards solving the old problem that it set to solve. But it did not get there yet.



I am skeptical of its longterm success because it has still many flaws, that its fans, being unable to solve, prefer to call advantages. To fix those flaws and allow it to achieve its stated goal, we need a few more ingenious inventions; which we cannot guess when oor whether they will be made.



Even if it succeeds, it will be just a cheaper, faster, easier, and maybe safer payment system. It will not end crime, corruption, opression, hunger, wars, abuses of cops and courts, etc.. Clever technology alone cannot fix social, political, or economical problems. On the contrary, technology often makes the problems worse. Which we are seeing with bitcoin... Bitcoin is still a very remarkable computer science experiment (that has become also a social and economical experiment, in ways that surely it was not intended to be). It was a significant advance towards solving the old problem that it set to solve. But it did not get there yet.I am skeptical of its longterm success because it has still many flaws, that its fans, being unable to solve, prefer to call advantages. To fix those flaws and allow it to achieve its stated goal, we need a few more ingenious inventions; which we cannot guess when oor whether they will be made.Even if it succeeds, it will be just a cheaper, faster, easier, and maybe safer payment system. It will not end crime, corruption, opression, hunger, wars, abuses of cops and courts, etc.. Clever technology alone cannot fix social, political, or economical problems. On the contrary, technology often makes the problems worse. Which we are seeing with bitcoin... Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.

justusranvier



Offline



Activity: 1400

Merit: 1006









LegendaryActivity: 1400Merit: 1006 Re: Gavin is an Agent June 28, 2015, 05:48:24 PM #84 Quote from: JorgeStolfi on June 28, 2015, 05:41:24 PM I am skeptical of its longterm success because it has still many flaws, that its fans, being unable to solve, prefer to call advantages. To fix those flaws and allow it to achieve its stated goal, we need a few more ingenious inventions; which we cannot guess when oor whether they will be made. The fundamental divide is between those whose goal is to create a wall of separation between money and State, and those do oppose that goal. The fundamental divide is between those whose goal is to create a wall of separation between money and State, and those do oppose that goal.

acid_rain



Offline



Activity: 41

Merit: 0







NewbieActivity: 41Merit: 0 Re: Gavin is an Agent June 28, 2015, 05:55:08 PM #87 Well I do agree that when I first heard about its design, the whole idea of a public ledger (which is here to stay and be analysed forever) has flaws from a conceptual point of view IMO. Maybe take the good parts of BTC and redefine a new protocol would be more adequate in the case that BTC collapses on its own weight.

JorgeStolfi



Offline



Activity: 910

Merit: 1002









Hero MemberActivity: 910Merit: 1002 Re: Gavin is an Agent June 28, 2015, 06:18:26 PM #95 Quote from: Holliday on June 28, 2015, 05:52:56 PM Quote from: Bitcoin.pdf A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online

payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a

financial institution.

And which flaws are preventing it from achieving this stated goal?

And which flaws are preventing it from achieving this stated goal?

Some of them:



* Payments cannot be reversed, even when coins are sent to addresses that non one has the key, or as a result of crime. That makes it unacceptable for most comercial and individual uses.



* Users are anonymous, which makes it much more attractive to criminals (much more so than cash, for obvious reasons).



* The fixed supply created the expectation of fabulous gains that turned it into a speculative pyramid schema



* That "ponzification" in turn resulted in extremely volatile price, that makes a bad currency.



* The block reward and the market price were too high, leading to a hypertrophied and unsustainable mining industry.



* For that reason, the cost per transaction is way too high.



* Mining got inevitably centralized (last time I checked, the top 5 Chinese miners had 60% of the hashpower).



* There is no mechanism to reward the relay nodes, which carry increasing load.



* Its design cannot support 1 billion users, maybe not even 10 million, even indirectly.



And a few more. Before you say it, yes, I know that many bitcoiners see those as advantages rather than flaws. Some of them:* Payments cannot be reversed, even when coins are sent to addresses that non one has the key, or as a result of crime. That makes it unacceptable for most comercial and individual uses.* Users are anonymous, which makes it much more attractive to criminals (much more so than cash, for obvious reasons).* The fixed supply created the expectation of fabulous gains that turned it into a speculative pyramid schema* That "ponzification" in turn resulted in extremely volatile price, that makes a bad currency.* The block reward and the market price were too high, leading to a hypertrophied and unsustainable mining industry.* For that reason, the cost per transaction is way too high.* Mining got inevitably centralized (last time I checked, the top 5 Chinese miners had 60% of the hashpower).* There is no mechanism to reward the relay nodes, which carry increasing load.* Its design cannot support 1 billion users, maybe not even 10 million, even indirectly.And a few more. Before you say it, yes, I know that many bitcoiners see those as advantages rather than flaws. Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.

acid_rain



Offline



Activity: 41

Merit: 0







NewbieActivity: 41Merit: 0 Re: Gavin is an Agent June 28, 2015, 06:24:57 PM #96 Quote from: JorgeStolfi on June 28, 2015, 06:18:26 PM Quote from: Holliday on June 28, 2015, 05:52:56 PM Quote from: Bitcoin.pdf A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online

payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a

financial institution.

And which flaws are preventing it from achieving this stated goal?

And which flaws are preventing it from achieving this stated goal?

Some of them:



* Payments cannot be reversed, even when coins are sent to addresses that non one has the key, or as a result of crime. That makes it unacceptable for most comercial and individual uses.



* Users are anonymous, which makes it much more attractive to criminals (much more so than cash, for obvious reasons).



* The fixed supply created the expectation of fabulous gains that turned it into a speculative pyramid schema



* That "ponzification" in turn resulted in extremely volatile price, that makes a bad currency.



* The block reward and the market price were too high, leading to a hypertrophied and unsustainable mining industry.



* For that reason, the cost per transaction is way too high.



* Mining got inevitably centralized (last time I checked, the top 5 Chinese miners had 60% of the hashpower).



* There is no mechanism to reward the relay nodes, which carry increasing load.



* Its design cannot support 1 billion users, maybe not even 10 million, even indirectly.



And a few more. Before you say it, yes, I know that many bitcoiners see those as advantages rather than flaws.

Some of them:* Payments cannot be reversed, even when coins are sent to addresses that non one has the key, or as a result of crime. That makes it unacceptable for most comercial and individual uses.* Users are anonymous, which makes it much more attractive to criminals (much more so than cash, for obvious reasons).* The fixed supply created the expectation of fabulous gains that turned it into a speculative pyramid schema* That "ponzification" in turn resulted in extremely volatile price, that makes a bad currency.* The block reward and the market price were too high, leading to a hypertrophied and unsustainable mining industry.* For that reason, the cost per transaction is way too high.* Mining got inevitably centralized (last time I checked, the top 5 Chinese miners had 60% of the hashpower).* There is no mechanism to reward the relay nodes, which carry increasing load.* Its design cannot support 1 billion users, maybe not even 10 million, even indirectly.And a few more. Before you say it, yes, I know that many bitcoiners see those as advantages rather than flaws.

As you said most of those points are considered to be pros rather than cons for 99% of the community.



The last 2 points are where the real problem is. As you said most of those points are considered to be pros rather than cons for 99% of the community.The last 2 points are where the real problem is.

pereira4



Offline



Activity: 1610

Merit: 1176







LegendaryActivity: 1610Merit: 1176 Re: Gavin is an Agent June 28, 2015, 06:36:13 PM #98 If you were a Maxwell hater, you would say Maxwell is an agent. Same goes for Satoshi.. etc. Everyone that is not liked by someone, gets called an agent. But the thing is, we are all trying to make Bitcoin better in here, just with some different viewpoints, thats all.

blablaace



Offline



Activity: 350

Merit: 250







Sr. MemberActivity: 350Merit: 250 Re: Gavin is an Agent June 28, 2015, 07:06:38 PM #99 the forking nonsense is just FUD .. he's trying to drive the price down so he can buy it up on the cheap

tvbcof



Online



Activity: 3318

Merit: 1140







LegendaryActivity: 3318Merit: 1140 Re: Gavin is an Agent June 28, 2015, 08:45:59 PM #101 Quote from: Peter Todd on May 05, 2015, 08:27:49 AM

And for the record, I'm a Canadian - I work for

...And for the record, I'm a Canadian - I work for CSIS , not the NSA.

For some time now I've relied pretty heavily on the alternative media for information on how the world works, but it's a tricky situation because the alternate media is chalk full of whackos and moles. Lately I've put more focus on trying to separate the wheat from the chaff here out of necessity. It does seem that Canadians are well represented in the alternate media (and related) spheres, and in addition that they seem to be among the most convincing.



Like any interesting observation, it opens of a plethora of new hypotheses. One of them would be that for (possibly historic) legal reasons, it is more convenient for certain arms of our (supposed) government agencies to employ them. Another would be that the jurisdictional boundaries give foreign citizens a more confidence to act as they please though I personally don't sense any foreboding in doing what I feel is right for the most part. Yet. Associated with the last thought, Canadians are more culturally similar to us, may be bored with their own country, and look with worry to the goings-on of their Southern neighbor. I would be



I'll say that being a 'conspiracy theorist' is fairly demanding intellectually. It was a lot easier when I could watch McNeil-Lehrer (my don't miss show as a kid) and figure that one of the two sides was saying what I should be believing.



For some time now I've relied pretty heavily on the alternative media for information on how the world works, but it's a tricky situation because the alternate media is chalk full of whackos and moles. Lately I've put more focus on trying to separate the wheat from the chaff here out of necessity. It does seem that Canadians are well represented in the alternate media (and related) spheres, and in addition that they seem to be among the most convincing.Like any interesting observation, it opens of a plethora of new hypotheses. One of them would be that for (possibly historic) legal reasons, it is more convenient for certain arms of our (supposed) government agencies to employ them. Another would be that the jurisdictional boundaries give foreign citizens a more confidence to act as they please though I personally don't sense any foreboding in doing what I feel is right for the most part. Yet. Associated with the last thought, Canadians are more culturally similar to us, may be bored with their own country, and look with worry to the goings-on of their Southern neighbor. I would beI'll say that being a 'conspiracy theorist' is fairly demanding intellectually. It was a lot easier when I could watch McNeil-Lehrer (my don't miss show as a kid) and figure that one of the two sides was saying what I should be believing. sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.

hdbuck



Offline



Activity: 1274

Merit: 1002









LegendaryActivity: 1274Merit: 1002 Re: Gavin is an Agent June 28, 2015, 10:10:07 PM #102 Quote from: Xialla on June 28, 2015, 08:37:17 PM Quote from: seriouscoin on June 28, 2015, 08:11:00 PM There is no point for argument as this is like beating a dead horse. Some ppl are just dumb as a door knob. Accept it.



You want contributions, i can tell you few points but retards here wont accept it:



1) Opensource means no central of control. I can change some feature of bitcoin and let others decide to use it or not. That does not mean i have successfully forked Btc to be "seriouscoin" (now you know why i have this username, been telling idiots who think btc is just a bunch of code)



2) Network consensus means others can vote for features they want, yelling others who create/change a feature is dumb and censorship. You want open , then stop being a retard and think .



3) Bitcoin mining by design WILL BE CENTRALLIZED. That does not mean bitcoin is no longer decentralized. You must be an idiot to think otherwises, the same kind of idiots who thought LTC was ASIC-resistent....



thanks, simply all those points makes perfect sense to me, with logic and valid facts behind. actually, I agree with them. anyway, calling others "dumb as fck" is just lowering your reputation here, even you obviously know, what you're talking about..got it?

thanks, simply all those points makes perfect sense to me, with logic and valid facts behind. actually, I agree with them. anyway, calling others "dumb as fck" is just lowering yourhere, even you obviously know, what you're talking about..got it?

who cares about reputation on some random anonymous internet forum? gavin?



such cheap talk in here, people got their threads, assuming they would be of importance somehow.. such a joke.



decentralized consensus means you can try lobbying and brainwashing people, there will always be others that disagree and tell you how full of shit you are. who cares about reputation on some random anonymous internet forum? gavin?such cheap talk in here, people got their threads, assuming they would be of importance somehow.. such a joke.decentralized consensus means you can try lobbying and brainwashing people, there will always be others that disagree and tell you how full of shit you are.

BusyBeaverHP



Offline



Activity: 209

Merit: 100







Full MemberActivity: 209Merit: 100 Re: Gavin is an Agent June 28, 2015, 11:32:26 PM #103 Blockstream is the agent, why have one sock-puppet, when you instead can have nine to ruse the public into the illusion called "consensus"?

benjamindees



Offline



Activity: 1330

Merit: 1000







LegendaryActivity: 1330Merit: 1000 Re: Gavin is an Agent June 29, 2015, 04:16:35 AM #106 Quote from: JorgeStolfi on June 28, 2015, 06:18:26 PM * Payments cannot be reversed

* Users are anonymous

Advantages.



Quote * The fixed supply created the expectation of fabulous gains that turned it into a speculative pyramid schema

* That "ponzification" in turn resulted in extremely volatile price, that makes a bad currency.

* The block reward and the market price were too high, leading to a hypertrophied and unsustainable mining industry.

* For that reason, the cost per transaction is way too high.



Fair enough. Satoshi was not prescient. I think he made it clear that he had hoped for slow, steady growth. What he got instead was massive early attention and a bubble. Bitcoin is not unique in that regard, however. So I think we should try to lay responsibility for "ponzification" of real assets (nay, the entire economy) at the feet of those actually responsible.



Quote * Mining got inevitably centralized (last time I checked, the top 5 Chinese miners had 60% of the hashpower).

Hmm... I think this is a bit controversial. Mining centralization hasn't seemed to have had any ill effects, so far. But fair point.



Quote * There is no mechanism to reward the relay nodes, which carry increasing load.

Premature optimization is the root of all evil.



Quote * Its design cannot support 1 billion users, maybe not even 10 million, even indirectly.



That's actually just not true. There's good reason to believe it could support 1 billion users, indirectly at least. Advantages.Fair enough. Satoshi was not prescient. I think he made it clear that he had hoped for slow, steady growth. What he got instead was massive early attention and a bubble. Bitcoin is not unique in that regard, however. So I think we should try to lay responsibility for "ponzification" of real assets (nay, the entire economy) at the feet of those actually responsible.Hmm... I think this is a bit controversial. Mining centralization hasn't seemed to have had any ill effects, so far. But fair point.Premature optimization is the root of all evil.That's actually just not true. There's good reason to believe it could support 1 billion users, indirectly at least. Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics

JorgeStolfi



Offline



Activity: 910

Merit: 1002









Hero MemberActivity: 910Merit: 1002 Re: Gavin is an Agent June 29, 2015, 06:37:38 AM #107 Quote from: benjamindees on June 29, 2015, 04:16:35 AM Quote from: JorgeStolfi on June 28, 2015, 06:18:26 PM * Payments cannot be reversed

* Users are anonymous Advantages.

Advantages.

As I wrote, bitcoiners call them advantages, but for the other 99.9% they are fatal flaws. A system that does not allow mistakes and crimes to be corrected is a stupid defective system. Anonymous accounts are much more useful to criminals than to honest people. The two together prevents enforcement of property rights.



Quote Quote * Its design cannot support 1 billion users, maybe not even 10 million, even indirectly.



That's actually just not true. There's good reason to believe it could support 1 billion users, indirectly at least.

That's actually just not true. There's good reason to believe it could support 1 billion users, indirectly at least.

1 billion users doing on average 1 payment per day would be 1 billion tx/day.



Suppose that most of the traffic gets pushed off the blockchain, e.g. to Lightning Network; even so, there will be a need for blockchain transactions. Let's say that 25 transactions offchain for each transaction on the blockchain. Then the bitcoin network would have to handle 40 million transactions per day.



The current capacity of the network is 300'000 transactions per day. You don't want to operate near capacity even at peak hours, so 200'000 tx/day will probably be the limit with 1 MB blocks. It would have to grow by a factor of 200.



That does not seem bad, but the Ligntning Network is still only a fuzzy dream. No one knows whether it is technically and economically viable, whether people will want to use it, whether it will really achieve 25:1 offchain/onchain ratio.



Note also that, in the 5 years since the 1MB limit was set, the capacity of the network has increased 0%. How long will it take for it to increase 200x? As I wrote, bitcoiners call them advantages, but for the other 99.9% they are fatal flaws. A system that does not allow mistakes and crimes to be corrected is a stupid defective system. Anonymous accounts are much more useful to criminals than to honest people. The two together prevents enforcement of property rights.1 billion users doing on average 1 payment per day would be 1 billion tx/day.Suppose that most of the traffic gets pushed off the blockchain, e.g. to Lightning Network; even so, there will be a need for blockchain transactions. Let's say that 25 transactions offchain for each transaction on the blockchain. Then the bitcoin network would have to handle 40 million transactions per day.The current capacity of the network is 300'000 transactions per day. You don't want to operate near capacity even at peak hours, so 200'000 tx/day will probably be the limit with 1 MB blocks. It would have to grow by a factor of 200.That does not seem bad, but the Ligntning Network is still only a fuzzy dream. No one knows whether it is technically and economically viable, whether people will want to use it, whether it will really achieve 25:1 offchain/onchain ratio.Note also that, in the 5 years since the 1MB limit was set, the capacity of the network has increased 0%. How long will it take for it to increase 200x? Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.

Xialla



Offline



Activity: 1036

Merit: 1000





/dev/null







LegendaryActivity: 1036Merit: 1000/dev/null Re: Gavin is an Agent June 29, 2015, 08:32:16 AM #110 Quote from: benjamindees on June 29, 2015, 04:16:35 AM Quote from: JorgeStolfi on June 28, 2015, 06:18:26 PM * Payments cannot be reversed

Advantages.

Advantages.

uhh my experience:



I'm using bitcoin at least once every week for buying some product/service (for last ~3 years) and I really can't call "non-reverse payment" system as advantage. Quick example: I paid part of my BFL order with BTC and part with paypal.



With BTC, I never got my money back, with paypal I simply opened dispute and they pushed them to reverse everything. I also made lot of mistakes during usage of paypal last years (wrong amount, wrong mail address) and I never had any problems to fix them.



With BTC, in last years I sent them once incorrect address (wrong copy paste) and 2x made mistake with floating point..



If you think, that non-reverse payment system is advantageous for customers/end-users, please time to time turn off your laptop, go outside and ask common people, what they think. maybe you will be surprised.. uhh my experience:I'm using bitcoin at least once every week for buying some product/service (for last ~3 years) and I really can't call "non-reverse payment" system as advantage. Quick example: I paid part of my BFL order with BTC and part with paypal.With BTC, I never got my money back, with paypal I simply opened dispute and they pushed them to reverse everything. I also made lot of mistakes during usage of paypal last years (wrong amount, wrong mail address) and I never had any problems to fix them.With BTC, in last years I sent them once incorrect address (wrong copy paste) and 2x made mistake with floating point..If you think, that non-reverse payment system is advantageous for customers/end-users, ple