Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.


Active Member
Aug 31, 2015
regarding tx fees... and perhaps obvious, but a presentation from Bitfury implied that tx fees were absolutely meaningless and would be even at 100x the number of tx. The speaker said something to effect of "...Who cares about tx fees totaling 20-200 usd per month when you have an electric bill of 100k..."

...i suppose that suggests the system needs to 1000-10000x the number of tx to make the fees meaningful in the current environment.
I thought that guy was absolutely ridiculous in his claims. TX fees are about 0.75% of block reward now. Next summer it'll be 1.5% (everything but the block reward being equal). Multiply that by 100 and he says that 18.75 BTC per block are a drop on a hot stone? Excuse me, math much? Next summer that'll be more than the block subsidy.

Next thing the guy complains about the reward halving like it's surprisingly bad weather and starts to try to fear monger about it.

That dude is absolutely on an agenda and being dishonest. It's easy to see.

EDIT to clarify: I mean this guy;

EDIT2: interesting idea he talked about, though is that "mempool as a service". Probably need some thinking regarding centralization risks, though.
Last edited:

Peter R

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
Censored for criticizing the censors I guess.
Although I'm not sure why the videos were taken down in the first place, I've been assured by Pindar Wong (conference chair) that the Day 1 Morning Session will be reposted shortly (which I assume means this week).

Here are his exact words:

Dear Peter,

Thanks for your presentation and we had some teething video problems on morning day 1, though our livestream back-up site via akamai worked flawlessly (it was good to have a plan b).

We've captured the video on disk and will process them shortly.

Sorry for the inconvenience and slight delay.

  • Like
Reactions: lunar and AdrianX


Active Member
Aug 19, 2015
Vitalik Buterin trying to question the authenticity of the transcript posted by @Aquent yesterday where theymos talked about having power over centralized sites and banning people with the intention to hurt XT.
I shouldn't have really posted any of it, but I had just been banned from #bitcoin-workshop for asking whether "theymos the censor should be censored from [#bitcoin-workshop]" so that sort of tripped me.

Now it is out there, Theymos can deny it if he likes (then, at least personally, I can add "lier" to his character as well). Without such denial I do not see why the authenticity of the chat would be questioned. In any event, I think it is a bit more fair for the full context and the full conversation to be provided so that there is no suspicion of things being taken out of context and that so its authenticity can be better judged:

<Aquentin> can you, like, stop banning and stuff
<Aquentin> I can't feckin post in r/bitcoin! da fucks
<Aquentin> and why was I banned for 14 days anyway?
<theymos> You're /u/aquentin? You're not banned.
<Aquentin> I am
<Aquentin> oh, aright maybe 14 days passed
<Aquentin> expand allcollapse all
<Aquentin> [–]subreddit message via /r/Bitcoin/ sent 14 days ago
<Aquentin> you have been temporarily banned from posting to /r/Bitcoin. this ban will last for 14 days.
<Aquentin> you can contact the moderators regarding your ban by replying to this message. warning: using other accounts to circumvent a subreddit ban is considered a violation of reddit's site rules and can result in being banned from reddit entirely.
<Aquentin> no reason even given....
<Aquentin> feckin being banned from my own community!
<theymos> Probably you posted something really inflammatory or spammy during the chaos period when there was increased moderation.
<Aquentin> nah, you just purging, like a dictator
<theymos> If you were habitually posting statements like that, then that's probably why you were banned...
<theymos> If I wanted to "purge" everyone who disagreed with me, I could do it a lot more effectively than what I've been doing.
<Aquentin> how can you do it more effectively?
<theymos> For example, you would have been banned permanently rather than for 14 days, and anything related to XT, me, or moderation whatsoever would be removed (we've been allowing quite a bit of this stuff, though every now and then someone takes it over the line).
<Aquentin> do you hold bitcoins?
<theymos> Yes.
<Aquentin> I'm puzzled
<Aquentin> I just don't understand what makes you think YOU specifically knows what is best
<theymos> I don't know what is best. But I can identify things that I'm pretty sure are very wrong. XT is one such thing.
<theymos> In the max block size debate, I'm open to a number of proposals. Even Peter R's idea may be OK with some modifications.
<Aquentin> prioritising scaling is "wrong"?
<Aquentin> that's all xt does
<Aquentin> it puts the topic at the top of the agenda, what's wrong with that?
<theymos> XT is wrong because it splits the Bitcoin economy. This is damaging to Bitcoin, and I want Bitcoin to suceed for ideological reasons, so that's no good. In the long-term it may damage the value of my BTC, which is no good. I also oppose this sort of fork from the perspective of "Bitcoin's philosophy", see: <theymos> vqyj5
<theymos> <Aquentin> there is no fork
<Aquentin> there is a topic...
<theymos> Not currently, but it's programmed to happen, which is basically the same. It's just as if I released a client that wouldn't halve the subsidy from 25 BTC in the future.
<Aquentin> theymos you must be extremely naive if you believe that some censoring would stop people from doing whatever they wish
<Aquentin> or the opposite, that simply because there is some code everyone will instantly adopt it
<Aquentin> all you have done is irreparably damage r/bitcoin, a place that was pretty happy
<Aquentin> presumably you are smart enough to see that?
<Aquentin> or are you so deluded as to believe that your censoring actually has any influence (but bad) on the outcome?
<theymos> You must be naive if you think it'll have no effect. I've moderated forums since long before Bitcoin (some quite large), and I know how moderation affects people. Long-term, banning XT from /r/Bitcoin will hurt XT's chances to hijack Bitcoin. There's still a chance, but it's smaller. (This is improved by the simultaneous action on,, and
<theymos> The big controversy in the start caused some "Streisand Effect", which I expected, but that was only a temporary boost for XT, and that was probably inevitable at some point.
<Aquentin> you have no idea what you have done do you?
<Aquentin> xt is irrelevant to your actions
<Aquentin> and of course this thing needs to be debated fully etc... it's about placing scalability at the top of the agenda
<Aquentin> your actions however....
<theymos> The risk was that /r/Bitcoin users (and others) would consider XT to be equal to Bitcoin and not really care if Coinbase, etc. supported it.
<theymos> Also, considering XT to be an altcoin was really the only consistent policy.
<Aquentin> are you seriously that naive
<Aquentin> to think your censoring is somewhat good...
<theymos> They're the market. If a big enough chunk of them are vehemently against XT (or maybe just nervous about the whole thing), this reduces the chance that the businesses that depend up on this market will adopt XT, or at least not so blindly as they might've before.
<Aquentin> you seriously believe that a centralised entity is effective in this space?
<theymos> What centralized entity?
<Aquentin> you
<Aquentin> if you do, you are very wrong
<Aquentin> all you have shown to all is that you are the personification of amateur hour
<Aquentin> a lucky idiot who, though could have used his luck to better bitcoin, used it to tarnish it
<Aquentin> by doing the unthinkable, censorship in a bitcoin community... the very thing bitcoin stands against
<theymos> Centralization is sub-optimal. Decentralized forums would be better. But no one wants to use decentralized forums, even though they've existed for years (eg. FMS). Until that improves, centralization is the only option. And AFAIK I'm the best person for what I do, and replacing me with someone else in the name of decentralization would not really improve things.
<Aquentin> dude, you are the personiphication of amateur hour
<Aquentin> mark karpeles was the most hated man, but thankfully he is now in prison
<Aquentin> you have taken his title, congrats
<theymos> "Amateur hour" may be appropriate. I do this stuff as a hobby. I don't make much money at all off this, certainly not enough for it to be my job. But this is better than turning things over to a for-profit IMO.
<Aquentin> what for profit....
<Aquentin> just your name needs to be removed from r/bitcoin... that's all
<Aquentin> you can make a thread... ask the community who they want to replace you
<Aquentin> if you inclined
<Aquentin> only by resigning can this stain in bitcoin be removed
<theymos> As I said, I believe this to be sub-optimal. It's likely that the other mods wouldn't have been able to resist the community's demand to allow XT, for example, but this is incorrect.

continues (due to character limit) ...​
Last edited:


Active Member
Aug 19, 2015
<Aquentin> dude... bitcoin is decentralised... you have no power here
<Aquentin> and if you think you do.... and you do as you have shown... then that damages bitcoin fundamentally
<Aquentin> take satoshi's example, and leave
<theymos> Not in Bitcoin itself, but I do have power over certain centralized websites, which I've decided to use for the benefit of Bitcoin as a whole (as best I can).
<theymos> Probably I will leave someday, but not now.
<theymos> If these websites or my reputation end up being damaged/destroyed, then that's acceptable. At least I tried to do what was most correct. What wouldn't be acceptable to me would be to give into demands that I know to be incorrect.
<Aquentin> you "know"
<Aquentin> it is easy to "know" when one assumes things
<theymos> Know with very high confidence, at least. If I am wrong, then I am willing to be convinced of this.
<theymos> The creator of /r/Bitcoin who gave it to me recently said this of me: "Theymos doesn't kneel, he doesn't sacrifice and is willing to stand up for what HE believes to be true, rather than some external authority. I hold r/Bitcoin would be coddled into a cult of personality worshipping Gavin Andresen without I purposely picking Theymos for the role he has." :)
<Aquentin> here is a thought exercise, assume that all I have said above is true and try to see if there is anything wrong with it, rather than assuming it is wrong and trying to see if anything is right with it
<Aquentin> I assumed you simply registered the sub first
<theymos> One very obvious issue is that if XT was considered equal to Bitcoin, then this would open the door to other similar creations. It'd be easy to create a traditional pump-and-dump altcoin thing in essentially the same way as XT. These things are not Bitcoin and should not be allowed on /r/Bitcoin. So this is a contradiction in your view.
<Aquentin> except Gavin wouldn't propose such thing...
<theymos> Nothing I currently control was created by me originally. They were all entrusted to me by different people.
<Aquentin> or are you stupid enough to think gavin =cia and all that lol
<theymos> Making Gavin's creations special is not a good policy...
<Aquentin> you see, I use brains first... then shortcuts
<Aquentin> unlike you it seems
<Aquentin> the topic is scalability...
<Aquentin> xt etc are just pieces of some topic...
<Aquentin> you obviously recognise we have to address scalability... but then you pre-judge.... invoking power in an academic debate
<Aquentin> in the process doing the unthinkable in the bitcoin space... outright censorship
<Aquentin> because it seems you were terrefied that ppl would str8 out flog to it cus they all stupid right... they need theymos the master
<Aquentin> you're the one who is stupid theymos
<theymos> Even if you could twist things in that way and argue that XT could be allowed on /r/Bitcoin in consistency with past and expected-future precedent, it's still bad from a utilitarian perspective for XT to be pushed to users. If it succeeds, that'd damage Bitcoin immensely. (And it doesn't really matter whether or not /r/Bitcoin matters in the grand scheme of things, it's the principle of the matter that
<theymos> hostile hardforks should not be done, promoted, or used)
<Aquentin> do you think you smarter than all theymos?
<Aquentin> specifically, do you think you smarter than the free market?
<Aquentin> satoshi seemed to have thought otherwise... leave it to the free ppl
<Aquentin> but you must be smarter than him
<Aquentin> and in your genius you have managed to increase tensions, create a visible division in the community, create a hostile environment, and show to all just how important it is to resist centralisation in all forms
<Aquentin> thanks...
<theymos> I don't need to be smarter or more effective than the free market or any individual in order for me to recognize that they are very probably wrong and what they're doing is probably very harmful. It's quite possible for many companies and individuals to collectively be wrong and destroy themselves.
<Aquentin> is it?
<Aquentin> because if it is then bitcoin is a failure
<Aquentin> and if you believe bitcoin is a failure you should fuck off
<theymos> That's an important point. Bitcoin is *not* "anti-fragile" as many people say. Its decentralized/transparent/secure nature provides a lot of inherent strength, but in the end it relies on the people who use Bitcoin to behave at least somewhat correctly.
<Aquentin> yes
<Aquentin> 51% of them
<Aquentin> when one person can order, like yourself,... that ruins bitcoin
<Aquentin> bitcoin relies on 51% being honest, and if you assume 51% will not be honest, you are declaring bitcoin is a failure
<Aquentin> and if that is your assumption, then just bugger off
<Aquentin> go do something else and pass on the batoon
<theymos> No, that's the sort of incorrect view I'm talking about. The system does not inherently rely on that sort of majoritarianism. But if people assume/accept majority rule in Bitcoin, then this view can dominate and end up actually coming into force.
<Aquentin> yes, there are layers etc...
<Aquentin> but fundamentally... the way you solve the byzantine problem is through assuming 51% is honest
<Aquentin> if they aren't all crumbles
<Aquentin> like some malicious entity buying 51% of the hashpower etc
<Aquentin> or some malicious entity corrupting 51% of the community etc
<Aquentin> the fundamental assumption is that this would not happen...
<Aquentin> because costs etc
<theymos> That's only relevant for transaction ordering. Everywhere else, Bitcoin is about self-ownership. You don't need to do anything because of any authority, even a majority.
<Aquentin> that's where you contradict yourself
<Aquentin> and you must see it?
<Aquentin> I can be my own node regardless of what all do, but I will order all to do x lol
<theymos> What orders are you talking about?
<Aquentin> the ones you giving in r/bitcoin
<Aquentin> anyway, I've said plenty
<Aquentin> my problem is I can not know whether you are honest
<Aquentin> I can not trust you
<Aquentin> no one can nor do they have any reason to
<theymos> The way I operate /r/Bitcoin is consistent with self-ownership. /r/Bitcoin is a private, centralized website. I am free to operate it as I wish. I am under no ethical obligation to allow total free speech just because I believe in self-ownership. And you are free to either convince me otherwise or go elsewhere. This doesn't give me any inherent control over Bitcoin, except the ability I have to
<theymos> influence free individuals.
<Aquentin> therefore, if there is no corruption, you have no right to do what you did
<Aquentin> of course you have the power, but on a principled basis, you have no right whatever
<Aquentin> because regardless of whatever you may say, you could be corrupted, or coerced, and you are a centralised point
<theymos> This is in accordance with my principles. I don't take free speech to be an ethical axiom...
<Aquentin> dont care about your principles
<Aquentin> you're just one man in a sea of men
<Aquentin> you could be lying
<Aquentin> manipulating, deceiving, you could be dishonest
<theymos> Sure, everyone should keep that possibility in mind for everyone.
<Aquentin> if we could rely on just 1 man being honest then bitcoin would not rely on 51% being honest
<Aquentin> yes theymos... that's why you don't take unilateral actions
<Aquentin> that's why you don't abuse your power
<Aquentin> but then, you are obviously corrupted, or extremley stupid
  • Like
Reactions: Fatman3002


Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015


Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015

"who the fuck is Peter_R?"?

he's Dr. Peter R. Rizun, Vancouver, Canada,
Managing Editor of Ledger, the first peer-reviewed journal devoted to the inherently interdisciplinary subject of cryptocurrencies!
Last edited:


Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
It seems like the development and marketing on the Bitcoin/XT/Unlimited side is a bit low on resources compared to Bitcoin/1MB/BS. It seems mostly us part-time hobbyists, hodlers and so forth, all scattered and not yet really organized working on this.

Lets hope that Coinbase, Bitpay & Co. see what is at stake and fund some marketing/dev on the good side. @Peter R., are you doing this next to your day job, the ledgerjournal editing, or are you 100% of your time in Bitcoin? Congratulations to your launch, btw!
  • Like
Reactions: bitsko


Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
That's great new @Peter R :)
Wow @Peter R that's an amazing achievement, with the perfect mandate to address the crack in the community.

You bring tears to my eyes and Dr. to boot. Great work you never fail to impress.


Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
pretty big move today in rates. i still think they're bluffing: