Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.


Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2015
i would say to slush -- 1) thanks for your great work; 2) get over the sunk costs by watching this thing skyrocket with a stronger, less vulnerable, decentralized development model, and a renewed understanding of the market-driven governance system built in to the coin.

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
So simple and clear is this point by @theZerg that it really dissolves the whole notion that Core offers any kind of consenus "mechanism" itself:

"Interestingly, this dishonest strategy could be extremely lucrative in BTC terms since all the money in the segregated witness transactions could be taken by any miner. However, we TRUST that the miners and the ecosystem won't do these things. We choose to trust them because these actions would likely dramatically reduce the value of a bitcoin, causing the miners to lose money even though they may gain bitcoin.

But if we are already forced to trust the miners as a group to responsibly upgrade the network, what is the point of a voting scheme? It is simply to help them to organize the transition, and to announce non-binding intention. But they can very easily use alternate mechanisms -- like people talking to people -- to organize an activation date."

Core's mechanism is just smoke and mirrors. Debating it at all is misdirection from the start. There is no mechanism other than the market, people talking to people, negotiating, buying futures contracts, etc. There can never be any mechanism other than this. BU merely lays this reality bare for all to see.

Many would see this reality as messy and would like to instead believe it is otherwise: a controlled, neat, "peer-reviewed" process by trustworthy technocrats (oops, what happened to trustlessness?) or at least trustworthy central governance structures (oops, aren't these exactly what Bitcoin was built to avoid?). So unwilling are they to face this reality that they will do mental gymnastics to claim Core is decentralized because the devs are geographically distributed or because total consensus is required among 5 or 6 people (or 100 people, meaning this is code for no governance other than complete stasis - where is the whitepaper on this total stasis proposal?).

"Don't blame the messenger." BU simply stops fleecing people by sheltering them from the reality that was there all along, as @adamstgbit just mentioned.
Last edited:


Active Member
Jan 15, 2016
I've had the minions on ignore forever. So CTO and his inner circle too?
I was really suggesting to avoid accepting them as partners once Blockstream is neutralised, but clearly BS might not be neutralised if everyone were to disengage now.

Knowing their method helps avoid becoming a casualty: 10 Ways to Tell if You're Being Gaslighted - a bit of a ramble, but forewarned is forearmed!

Together with this, of course:
Profile of the Narcissistic Sociopath

(1) They are habitual liars. They seem incapable of either knowing or telling the truth about anything.

(2) They are egotistical to the point of narcissism. They really believe they are set apart from the rest of humanity by some special grace.

(3) They scapegoat; they are incapable of either having the insight or willingness to accept responsibility for anything they do. Whatever the problem, it is always someone else’s fault.

(4) They are remorselessly vindictive when thwarted or exposed.

(5) Genuine religious, moral, or other values play no part in their lives. They have no empathy for others and are capable of violence. Under older psychological terminology, they fall into the category of psychopath or sociopath, but unlike the typical psychopath, their behavior is masked by a superficial social facade.


Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
It looks as if they got a lot more hash-power,
I think that's the kind of result I'd expect with an incumbent and people upgrading either by default or because they broadly support Core and have a relaxed upgrade schedule. Not really anything to be concerned about. It is somewhat surprising how much it flatlined though. With Core being the default, you would expect a higher proportion (and you see that in the full nodes). It's the amount of opposition (which can only be deliberate) which bears comment.


Active Member
Feb 22, 2016
Agree with Gavins Bitcoin definition or not, the reaction from a lot of people confirms the theory, that core is an attack on Bitcoin. Not a different technical solution, just an attack on the foundation of Bitcoin.
Actually, I agree with the idea, that someday the 'real Bitcoin' could use a PoW different to SHA256, but they attack the idea of PoW as a consensus finding mechanism.
They talk about 'community consensus, which can't be measured' etc.
Gavin tried to make a clear definition, which can be criticized, but attacking the idea of making clear definitions itself is just a maneuver to manipulate.
The most retarded argument I read is, that 'words can't define Bitcoin', which in the end comes down to 'Greg and Adam define what Bitcoin is'. Remove language from a discussion, what do you have left?

There is one way for Bitcoin to operate: A PoW blockchain. This is pretty fast being replaced by 'sidechains, Lightning and the community feeling'.

Any miner must be suicidal, to allow these people to manifest their authority over Bitcoin. They want to replace mining with banking and insurances, and centralized authorities.

And sometimes I think, we would have been better off, if Satoshi left the scripting out of Bitcoin completely, to keep the devs-gotta-dev-devs away.


Active Member
Aug 31, 2015
Junking and parting out the SegWit OmniBus ;)

I think I am a bona - fide troll... the whole notion of sending these dudes back to the drawing board while forking pressure builds has me smiling.

Would the Segwit OmniBus changeset need more than 29 parallel softforks if it was entirely granular? :LOL:

Mr. Adam Back, when you read this, feel free to create an account, login and respond. And while you're at it, maybe tell us a little bit more about your game theory expert?

Justus Ranvier

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
What ever happened to IETF-like procedures, process control, collaboration, testing, academic papers, a technical community, etc., when at the end of the day it just comes down to Back citing some random asshole handwaving on the internet?
Processes exist to distract and frustrate the hoi polloi.

Obviously #bitcoin-wizards are above such things.


Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
@jonny1000 : you provided input to Aaron's article about how BU users will end up on different blockchains.

Do you know which game theory expert demonstrated that BU was supposedly broken 'in real time' to Adam Back?

A. Back alleges that this expert refuses to publish his findings because it [BU] was supposedly "trivially broken, and therefore not research he could publish".

Since this is concerning Bitcoin's future, do you think it would be responsible to disclose the details of this finding? As far as I remember you had always been in favor of pointing out any possible flaws in clients which go beyond Core's consensus...
Last edited:


Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
The most retarded argument I read is, that 'words can't define Bitcoin', which in the end comes down to 'Greg and Adam define what Bitcoin is'. Remove language from a discussion, what do you have left?
The ban is preventing reason from materializing on r/bitcoin - I saw that too, the words may not be relevant, but they are the medium we use to communicate ideas, it's the idea that are or are not relevant.

Disputing an idea because it uses words or less words you can't understand is not a sound argument to refuse to engage in the understanding of what bitcoin is or is not.
Last edited: