Quote from: r0ach on January 17, 2016, 04:56:40 PM

Quote from: AlexGR on January 17, 2016, 11:36:22 AM

And if Satoshi's warning is true that in case of a successful fork he'll be forced to declare Bitcoin a failure (I would probably disassociate my name as well after a hostile takeover and admit defeat) then we have a real problem ahead of us.

This is completely false and a misinterpretation even of the fake Satoshi post. You're typing flat out propaganda.

You are stating assumptions as facts and assumption is the mother of all fuckups. You do not know whether it is fake or real and therefore ignore serious risks involved.

Quote

The longest chain wins

That's more about the technicalities of a normal fork-split situation rather than a social-engineered takeover attempt.

Quote

You can type a million words, but all posts by you people can be summarized as "I believe 4 people with access to a certain github should be dictators of Bitcoin".

You can summarize it as follows: I believe the future of bitcoin is in better hands with the core devs. They've done a good job over the years and the alternative is not attractive.

There is nothing that makes me believe that "classic" is better in any way than core.

Classic lacks manpower and proven ability to maintain and evolve bitcoin, plus their motives and strategies are suspect because they are not based on technically sound arguments. Additionally they are not presenting any scaling solution (unlike the core people), rather they are just tampering a constant with known restrictions and compromises which gets us nowhere in the long run. Plus they are ruthless in the way they are trying their power grab, even by destroying confidence and creating two separate currencies - which, as a precedent, is dangerous for any future point of disagreement. It's a power grab, camouflaged as a block size upgrade under a false pretext of urgency.

I don't like any of this shit and I don't trust them at all.