Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.


Active Member
Nov 8, 2015
I noticed Adam Back complaining again today about the 'Blockstream Core' characterisation. But I have yet to see him discuss frankly the extent of the links and influences, past and present, between Blockstream and Core: instead he simply denies them.
This is indicative of a major blind spot I see in Adam Back's public persona. Prior to even forming Blockstream, if you were founding the organization, wouldn't this be the most obvious thing ever that you would have to deal with in terms of public relations?

So you would think that he would've gone out of his way to nip conflict-of-interest suspicions in the bud?.... wrong. Instead he acts like he's entitled to your adoration and worship simply for being who he his, and faints like the silent movie damsel in distress when anyone dares to so much as lightly ask if there could be some conflict of interest or impropriety going on.

Did he seriously have Dick Cheney levels of delusion, that Bitcoin would greet them as liberators??


Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
just some thinking on the name too, Core is such a powerful name it sounds like it's the hart of Bitcoin when in fact its just an implementation.

Unlimited has a connotation of being the antagonist in this block size debate, I'd be concerned it may meet some resistance on that fact alone. (if we think of Bitcoin Unlimited as the working name does anyone feel this project may have a better branded name?)

name ideas anyone? here's my first take:
Bitcoin Secure
Bitcoin Vision
Bitcoin Central Core
Bitcoin Consensus
Bitcoin Evolution
Bitcoin System
decentralization being a measure of the number of nodes running a centrally controlled code base.
We could have called it Bitcoin Dynamic - (thanks someone on the internet.) BU is probably the best name.

the first BU fork can take the name "Bitcoin Dynamic" ;)

Some interesting - visiting the history books - Peter_R coined the name "Bitcoin Classic" before Bitcoin Classic was a thing. some
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Norway and bluemoon


Active Member
Sep 10, 2015
All of this look obvious in hindsight. When there is no leader it's impossible to have a common vision. Look at what happened to all religions.

If at least we could split, the market would sort out the winner. Betamax/VHS. HDVD/BluRay. Offchain scaling/on chain scaling/do nothing why even care.

But honestly I see no fork on the horizon. Just the same endless painful nonsense months after months.
I see is no issue. We won't split, and we will keep hating each other... until Ethereum makes Bitcoin irrelevant.

Satoshi only did one mistake, he wrote this fucking blocksize limit. Like Einstein with the cosmological constant, "worst mistake of my life".
[doublepost=1490437416,1490436433][/doublepost]Those who are really beyond stupidity are the small blockists Bitcoin maximalists, there are plenty of them. "You won't be able to use Bitcoin for anything BUT only Bitcoin has any merits".

They solve this cognitive dissonance thanks to the magical term "second layer".


Active Member
Sep 10, 2015
The market always works :)

What I mean is the market isn't limited to just Bitcoin itself. This is not a competition between small blocks versus big blocks. It's a competition between Bitcoin and Ethereum, and all other cryptos. And all other cryptos are competing against other legacy or innovative solutions.

And if big blocks cannot gain the upper hand, then I think Bitcoin will lose the competition. We cannot invoke the market to contend that Bitcoin will win whatever happens. I have faith in the market and that's why I start to envision that Bitcoin may not win the race.

I don't think the age of the ledger is important, I think the network effect is the most important. That's something that might be lost. If one year from now we haven't fork yet, then I think it will be over for Bitcoin.


Active Member
Mar 14, 2016
If miners actually do attack the old chain, I'd support a PoW resetting HF not only for the small block chain, but also the large block chain.
The old chain, with a small minority of the hash rate, would be very, very dangerous for its users because the majority of the hashrate could do a lot of (succesfull) double spend attacks on it, rewriting also a long history of blocks.

So, it would be wise to kill it asap, and migrate its users to a chain with a different PoW, thus protected from this kind of attack.
Even Nicolas Dorier (core supporter) agrees for the need of a "clean fork":

Bottom line: the minority chain must clean fork and become an altcoin with different rules and miners :sneaky:


Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
BU Voting system

Hey everyone,

I set up a VPS for live public alpha testing of the new Bitcoin voting system.

It can be reached here:

Code and further explanations can be found here:

Note: The member list is incomplete - members need to supply a Bitcoin address for voting.
The import of the member list was also semi-manual, so if you see a wrong nick-member assignment, please let me know.

Please click around. Members in that current list can submit proposals. Like in later, real, use, @solex is the only one able to publish proposals and/or propose new members right now, so if people want to test it, he probably needs to be quite active helping with the tests.

Note that this is all test mode. Please also be careful with the in-browser message signing and refrain from using this unless you are absolutely sure what you are doing.

EDIT: Also, if you want to try in-browser message signing and/or want to further help out testing this system and are a member, PM me a Bitcoin address that you're going to use just for testing and I can replace your regular one with just your test one for now.
Last edited: