Quote from: IIOII on January 10, 2017, 02:06:56 PM

Quote from: franky1 on January 10, 2017, 01:33:20 PM

im pee'd off that the military(government/banks) have paid a private contractor(blockstream) to take over control of the worlds jet manufacturing(bitcoin devs)
its no longer independent manufacturers(diverse devs) independently making jets(code implementations) to defend us in a civil war(citizens vs government/banks) its now all controlled by the military(government/banks) that citizens are trying to fight against

It's almost painful to read this hogwash. The blockstream-takes-control-over-bitcoin legend was constructed by Roger Ver to push people towards his altcoin schemes.

The true enemy of a decentralized Bitcoin is the raving lunatic Roger Ver. He even admitted publicly that he doesn't care if Bitcoin becomes another Paypal. The simple reason: He hopes to profit from Bitcoin splitting up, because his altcoin investments might gain value in this case. That's why he is pushing for big blocks and a controversial hard fork.

what you say sounds like something you have been told by a blockstream lover.. nothing original and nothing researched.

bitcoin unlimited has been running on bitcoins mainnet - wake up
bitcoin unlimited has never proposed an intentional split it has wanted and continued to want to use consensus to have just 1 chain - wake up

it is blockstream devs that want blockstreams opposition to fork off. - wake up

Quote from: franky1 on January 02, 2017, 06:41:51 PM

Gmaxwell proposed anyone not core should ForK off

Quote from: gmaxwell on October 18, 2016, 08:21:30 AM

What you are describing is what I and others call a bilaterial hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.

I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

gmaxwell proposed auto rejecting blocks simply because those blocks dont vote for core

Quote from: gmaxwell on December 28, 2016, 05:40:35 AM

If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90% (e.g. lets just imagine some altcoin publicly raised money to block an important improvement to Bitcoin) then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.

kind of funny how gmaxwell wants to cause an intentional split just to activate a soft fork.. very counter intuitive

as also shown above, gmaxwell is so desperate and depraved he calls anything not core an altcoin... makes me laugh that he stoops that low to confuse his sheep

blockstreams tactic is to look at their own malicious acts and them point them malicious acts at someone else to hide what they(blockstream) are doing.

if you want to look at who is involved with the banks check out the hyperledger members and who is being invited to the 'satoshi roundtable' secret discussions.
https://www.hyperledger.org/about/members
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1745409.0

letting in a few non corporates into the discussion is just an empty gesture, done for an empty pretence of unbiased discussions. much like having unpaid interns(volunteer) spell checkers in core, pretend to be unbiased but ultimately them interns/volunteers are kissing blockstreams ass hoping to get a job with them one day if they can prove their loyalty and devotion.

bitcoin needs diversity and consensus.. its blockstream that want to be the main controller of code decision.. its why they called their group CORE. because they want to be at the CORE of bitcoin. they want to be the code 'engine' of bitcoin