Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell
-snip-
For example the current BU fiasco, my understanding is that, a year ago some miners wanted 8MB blocks, some wanted 4MB, there was the usual struggle and bargaining between users/miners/nodes/developers, eventually the miners made a compromise, the "Hong Kong Agreement" was made, in which miners agreed to support Segwit and a 2MB block size increase, Adam Back signed the agreement, only to have you call them "dipshits" and broke the agreement afterwards. Source.
This is factually wrong. It was F2Pool who broke the agreement, effectively making it void. There was no explicit mention of a 2 MB block size increase, rather a HF proposal with a HF proposal. Luke-jr ended up delivering such a proposal, even after the agreement was void. Your bullshit story about previously supporting Core, but now you're dissapointed/don't is bullshit. BTU people are really desperate with these stunts. For example the current BU fiasco, my understanding is that, a year ago some miners wanted 8MB blocks, some wanted 4MB, there was the usual struggle and bargaining between users/miners/nodes/developers, eventually the miners made a compromise, the "Hong Kong Agreement" was made, in which miners agreed to support Segwit and a 2MB block size increase, Adam Back signed the agreement, only to have you call them "dipshits" and broke the agreement afterwards. Source.
Satoshi saw this tx backlog coming when he was designing Bitcoin, the block size limit isn't even in the white paper, the 1MB limit was only a temporary measure to stop spam in the beginning.
What Satoshi saw or not is completely irrelevant today. He can't predict the future.Satoshi's white paper clearly states that consensus should be made base on CPU power, not the number of nodes or IP addresses, not the number of developers, not online poll ratings, not social media, not forum polls, just CPU power. Satoshi made this decision not because he trusted the miners, but because he expected everyone to be selfish and act on their own interests, and of all the pieces in the ecosystem, hash power is the most difficult to fake and come by.
Here we go again; this is before ASICs came to be, something that Satoshi failed to predict. Current miners do not control nor decide what Bitcoin is.The thing that really irritates me though, is that the block size limit wasn't even in the white paper, so why would Core hold the code hostage and refuse to increase the limit from 1MB? 1MB is such a small number, how can you even justify not increasing it?
Random passengers with the IQ of a baboon want to be the ones deciding how the plane's engine is going to be built. 
The limits are technological.I am not going to risk my hard earned money on a bunch of short sighted arrogant insecure emotional lying pricks and bitches stuck with messiah complexes who scream a lot and talk big but can't solve simple and practical problems right in front of their noses and screw things up for everyone then turn around play victims like some entitled pre-adolescent brat asking for a kick in the face.
-snip-
Here it is, you reveal your true colors; either you're: 1) Completely uneducated and ignorant; 2) Paid shill by Ver company (or other).-snip-
brilliant post Alex, thank you.
I almost feel like you are channeling the wisdom of Satoshi (except for maybe the last paragraph lol)
Hope others will chime in with their sentiments on these revelations, because we all want Bitcoin to succeed.
That article is full of lies and bullshit. It is shameful to say that it is brilliant. You are a disgrace to Bitcoin and everything it stands for.I almost feel like you are channeling the wisdom of Satoshi (except for maybe the last paragraph lol)
Hope others will chime in with their sentiments on these revelations, because we all want Bitcoin to succeed.