The troll army on Reddit spent a solid 48 hours continually hammering the point about how bad Gavin's judgement was to be so easily fooled by a con artist, as if they never expected anyone to point out that the current controllers of the repo are only there at all because of Gavin's judgement in the first place.
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
@awemany
You're absolutely correct, Blockstream in their amazing collaborative genius rigorously proved that as some x increases without bound, the limit of some function proportional to x times some function inversely proportional to x equals 0. Real groundbreaking stuff that overturns all you thought you knew about high school pre-calc.
You're absolutely correct, Blockstream in their amazing collaborative genius rigorously proved that as some x increases without bound, the limit of some function proportional to x times some function inversely proportional to x equals 0. Real groundbreaking stuff that overturns all you thought you knew about high school pre-calc.
I tend to agree. @NewLiberty participated for years in this thread and was always level headed and insightful. The fact that they all are using crypto speak; NL, Ian, CW, Tulip scct indicates to me a collective strategy. Even Matonis, who isn't technically part of their group is doing it. They are trying to convey a message without actually taking direct responsibility for what they say in a sense. They're cryptographers for gauds sake. Even the message to CW conveyed by NL to CW via Weirdum was doing it. It looks to me like they are all founding members of the Tulip Trust which holds the Satoshi private keys,of which Kleiman was also a member. Now one of their members wants access prematurely which is causing a minor rift in the plan.
[doublepost=1462539013,1462538228][/doublepost]
The most telling quote there is the admission that there will be a competition for fees between centralized hubs. IOW, well capitalized hubs will have an incentive and advantage to dominate and very well possibly to fractionally reserve. Not to mention the regulation pressures against anonymity that go with that. Why hubs are different from miners has to do with the POW function that miners can't get away from vs simple software deployment of hubs.
Last edited:
From laanwj's blog:
Is it just me, or is that wording quite interesting?
And this:
They are becoming quite a lot more arrogant lately.
Aaand this:
An 'interesting' perspective, as there is no guarantee that any of the current Core devs won't go nuts.
Also, that argument is basically working on top of a contradiction: Either Gavin still ultimately controls the repo, then laanwj's ejection of Gavin is futile. Or he doesn't, then him inviting the wrong Satoshi could still be countered by ejecting the false Satoshi at that point in time (the latter would be a clearly false slippery slope argument).
I wonder what the name of that rhetorical trick as a whole is.
EDIT: Removed assumption that laanwj gets Borgstream money.
(Emphasis mine)
Is it just me, or is that wording quite interesting?
And this:
I guess he means Gavin? Gavin's ossified and toxic?!
They are becoming quite a lot more arrogant lately.
Aaand this:
In other words, something could happen and we have to act preemptively?
An 'interesting' perspective, as there is no guarantee that any of the current Core devs won't go nuts.
Also, that argument is basically working on top of a contradiction: Either Gavin still ultimately controls the repo, then laanwj's ejection of Gavin is futile. Or he doesn't, then him inviting the wrong Satoshi could still be countered by ejecting the false Satoshi at that point in time (the latter would be a clearly false slippery slope argument).
I wonder what the name of that rhetorical trick as a whole is.
EDIT: Removed assumption that laanwj gets Borgstream money.
Last edited:
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
He does not see any irony between calling Gavin 'confused' and the title of his own blog post.
Given laanwj's arrogance and the way that Greg tried to take Gavin's commits as his own, I think it would be great for someone with some artistic skills to make a nice, illustrated timeline of early Bitcoin commits (maybe until 2010 or 2011), showing how large Gavin's contributions were in the early project.
They all pretend that he's just some minor, older player all the time, and I think the lack of a clear commit timeline helps their lies to persist.
Anyone with half a brain can of course assemble the true history from a git checkout using any tools of one's liking, and get the crystal clear picture of a very actively contributing Gavin.
That is not the point, though: It appears more and more that we have to convince those without a brain.
They all pretend that he's just some minor, older player all the time, and I think the lack of a clear commit timeline helps their lies to persist.
Anyone with half a brain can of course assemble the true history from a git checkout using any tools of one's liking, and get the crystal clear picture of a very actively contributing Gavin.
That is not the point, though: It appears more and more that we have to convince those without a brain.
@awemany
I doubt lacky Wlad is being paid by BS without the community knowing about it. Although I find it incredibly perplexing that he has never been forced to show his face once at a conference or in public at this stage of the debate. Kinda like that btcdrak dude.
I doubt lacky Wlad is being paid by BS without the community knowing about it. Although I find it incredibly perplexing that he has never been forced to show his face once at a conference or in public at this stage of the debate. Kinda like that btcdrak dude.
Gavin's contributions are still large.
The charts you see showing Gavin's contributions to be small are cheating by merging the line count of libsecp256k1 with Bitcoin Core, which makes about as much sense as saying that the OpenSSL developers wrote most of Bitcoin.
@cypherdoc: You are right about that - although it seems quite likely, I shouldn't make that assumption. Editing my post.
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
My impression is that he's a milquetoast that vainly likes having the position, so he does everything he can to pander to Greg and not rock the boat with any of that inconvenient integrity or passion for the project.
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
@Justus Ranvier really nailed it on the Crypto Show, I really like that point about making better privacy characteristics as a side effect of better user experience.
Wow, that laanwj reddit submission. The trolling picked up quite a bit on /r/btc lately, or didn't it?
this is actually quite telling.
i'm not worried about private blockchains for banks, like R3, not only b/c they don't have their own fixed supply currency, but also b/c of this:
"Scale before fit is dangerous," said Adam Ludwin, chief executive of Chain, in an interview at the Consensus conference. "It creates overhype that leads to disappointment later."
http://www.americanbanker.com/news/bank-technology/are-bank-blockchain-partnerships-putting-the-cart-before-the-horse-1080873-1.html?utm_content=buffer40936&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
IOW, private blockchains will have even a harder time scaling than Bitcoin; IF they can scale at_all. in fact, by defn, they can't and won't scale b/c they are designed to facilitate trusted interactions btwn banks/players that have to trust each other. how many ppl do you trust in your life? not many i'd suppose. well, the same goes for banks. all you have to understand about how little banks trust each other is to go back and look at the depths of the 2008 crisis where banks were throwing each other under the bus in the repo market for overnight swaps. it was brutal as liquidity dried up in an instant for players like Lehman or anyone else whose credit default swap ratings/values were dropping. banks don't trust each other as far as they can throw each other. so what you'll see, if anything, is many small groups of proprietary, centralized private blockchain groups of maybe three banks or so divided up into tiers. if it gets that far.
i'm not worried about private blockchains for banks, like R3, not only b/c they don't have their own fixed supply currency, but also b/c of this:
"Scale before fit is dangerous," said Adam Ludwin, chief executive of Chain, in an interview at the Consensus conference. "It creates overhype that leads to disappointment later."
http://www.americanbanker.com/news/bank-technology/are-bank-blockchain-partnerships-putting-the-cart-before-the-horse-1080873-1.html?utm_content=buffer40936&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
IOW, private blockchains will have even a harder time scaling than Bitcoin; IF they can scale at_all. in fact, by defn, they can't and won't scale b/c they are designed to facilitate trusted interactions btwn banks/players that have to trust each other. how many ppl do you trust in your life? not many i'd suppose. well, the same goes for banks. all you have to understand about how little banks trust each other is to go back and look at the depths of the 2008 crisis where banks were throwing each other under the bus in the repo market for overnight swaps. it was brutal as liquidity dried up in an instant for players like Lehman or anyone else whose credit default swap ratings/values were dropping. banks don't trust each other as far as they can throw each other. so what you'll see, if anything, is many small groups of proprietary, centralized private blockchain groups of maybe three banks or so divided up into tiers. if it gets that far.
- Aug 28, 2015
- 517
- 1,679
There is clearly a completely different view of how bitcoin should develop between the two camps. And, indeed, between them and us.
They should just come out and be clear that they don't believe in on chain scaling. That if you run 'Core' you follow that belief or try another reference client. But what they have done is support censorship of all other clients and kick out any dissenting voices and implement a half hearted scaling approach which changes the economic model of bitcoin to allow companies they are involved with to profit on top of bitcoin.
https://laanwj.github.io/2016/05/06/hostility-scams-and-moving-forward.html
The invisible man speaks. Perhaps he is surrounded by 'atmospheric toxicity' because the userspace of bitcoin understands that YOU are allowing bitcoin to be hijacked from it's original premise as stated in the white paper. When the open source project moves in a different direction from its origins, a different direction to the wants and needs of its userspace then - surprise - people get angry!
Correct. Whilst they are not running a 'Core' node they are users of bitcoin - the currency. He needs to get his head around the fact that 'Core' as majority node runner on the network must represent the wishes of the userspace, because he clearly does not.
Last edited:
Yeah, thanks, I saw that.
I feel the intensity with which this happens seems to be new, though. It feels like someone is throwing quite some money at reddit trolls.
Somebody is spending a fair amount of money on paid trolls, yes.
The simplest explanation is that it's a well-funded Bitcoin startup (Blockstream) trying to hold on to its position.
A less-parsimonious explanation is that it's a Bitcoin competitor paying for it to make Blockstream/Core look bad and commit forced errors, and to divide the community. This could either be a well-funded altcoin or one of the bankster-funded initiatives.
An explanation which can be not ruled out is that it's a state-level attacker.
The simplest explanation is that it's a well-funded Bitcoin startup (Blockstream) trying to hold on to its position.
A less-parsimonious explanation is that it's a Bitcoin competitor paying for it to make Blockstream/Core look bad and commit forced errors, and to divide the community. This could either be a well-funded altcoin or one of the bankster-funded initiatives.
An explanation which can be not ruled out is that it's a state-level attacker.
- Aug 28, 2015
- 517
- 1,679
@Justus Ranvier: having written software to attempt to control the obvious disinfo / troll / sock campaign I can assure you it is certainly taking place. Whether paid or not it is no coincidence that numerous accounts with no provenance suddenly start barking the same tune on /r/bitcoin and now they are trying on /r/btc, too. Plus useful idiots can be very toxic.
Reddit is now almost unusable for me as the subreddits are political creations rather than useful points for information gathering.
A state-level attack could be many pronged and include social media manipulation. But simply spamming the network right now instead of traducing those responsible for heart of development would probably be cheaper. It is possible of course that the 'Core' project team feel genuinely that the same is taking place against them! They are so insular a group now that it will be difficult to differentiate vocal sound money advocates and economists railing against them from paid actors deliberately attacking. The paranoia must be incredible
Reddit is now almost unusable for me as the subreddits are political creations rather than useful points for information gathering.
A state-level attack could be many pronged and include social media manipulation. But simply spamming the network right now instead of traducing those responsible for heart of development would probably be cheaper. It is possible of course that the 'Core' project team feel genuinely that the same is taking place against them! They are so insular a group now that it will be difficult to differentiate vocal sound money advocates and economists railing against them from paid actors deliberately attacking. The paranoia must be incredible
Last edited: