Quote from: zimmah on April 04, 2017, 02:03:32 AM

Quote from: anonymoustroll420 on April 04, 2017, 12:03:10 AM

I fully support Bitcoin Unlimited, clearly it is the superior scaling solution.

UASF is very dangerous, every fork that Satoshi did was user activated, see how they all turned out. When Gavin proposed miner activated forks in 2012, miners started stalling them, every single one was stalled for a period of time. Even the very first miner activated fork, p2sh, had to be user activated after miners stalled it. Clearly this shows how malicious UASF is.

Back then everyone agreed with satoshis vision so of course everyone would fork alognside satoshi.
Ignoring satoshis fork would be very stupid because you'd clearly be the minority.

Also, miners didn't block gavins proposal, the other core devs did.
Also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that satoshi handed the keys to gavin, and gavin choose to share his authority with 4 others instead of taking control on his own. And yet the same persons who got shared access accuse Gavin of trying to gain more control of bitcoin.
If Gavin was trying to get control, then why would he share the keys? He didn't have to do that.

Quote from: anonymoustroll420 on April 04, 2017, 12:03:10 AM

The 300GB bandwidth and 2GB RAM it currently requires to run a non-listening node is absolutely nothing at all and an initial sync that can take weeks is perfectly fine. Doubling the block size increases bandwidth by more than double. Clearly 600GB+ bandwidth is nothing for 2MB blocks.

Gross exaggeration and you know it.
Furthermore bitcoin was never designed to have regular users run nodes anyway.
Run a node if you can handle it and want to do so, but if you can't or don't want to, don't.

Quote from: anonymoustroll420 on April 04, 2017, 12:03:10 AM

SPV wallets send all their Bitcoin addresses to the node, trust the node to relay their transactions, trust the node to not lie about unconfirmed txs, and trust the miners not to do any of the hundred malicious things they could do to SPV wallets. Who cares about privacy, security or anti-censorship? those are for those silly anarchist types.

Even if this is true, then it's still not worse then LN.
However, I'm pretty sure SPV can be designed in a better way than what you are describing above.

Quote from: anonymoustroll420 on April 04, 2017, 12:03:10 AM

The Blocksize limit Satoshi added was very bad. Clearly he was bribed and extorted by the centralized banking cartel to insert this malicious code in to completely obliterate Bitcoin so that they can further their goal of taking over the world with liberal ideology and communism so that the USSR will reign once more. Gavin tried to warn the CIA about what happened, but it was too late, Satoshi shortly vanished after he met with the CIA.

Satoshi never intended the blocksize limit to stay for very long, in fact he hinted at removed it over 6 years ago.
When it was placed it was 1000 times larger then the average blocksize back then, and only placed to prevent spam/bloat attacks on the network because back then every user had to download the full blockchain just to run a wallet.
Right now most bitcoin users don't even download the blockchain, so the blocksize limit is already not serving the initial purpose anymore.
Satoshi was quite clear about his intentions:
To prevent the blocksize from becoming too large too fast so that users new to bitcoin would not be discouraged downloading a wallet because of a too large blockchain (which they had to download in order to run a wallet).
Right now the blocksize limit is discouraging new users from using bitcoin due to high fees and slow transaction times. In fact, it's not only discouraging new users, but it's discouraging old users as well.
So not only does the blocksize limit no longer serve the initial purpose, it has actually become harmful.
And it's not because satoshi was wrong for adding it, it's because the current core devs are wrong for not removing it like satoshi suggested.

Quote from: anonymoustroll420 on April 04, 2017, 12:03:10 AM

Roger Ver also an extremely trustworthy and upstanding citizen. I was a large customer of his, and he always delivered the explosives that I bought off him on eBay and counterfeit cisco hardware that he also sold to the US government on time and provided excellent customer support when he was an admin at blockchain.info wallet, and was nice enough to publicly post a blockchain users full name, address, phone number, wallet URL and wallet secret answer publicly on bitcointalk so that they won't forget them.

Roger Ver doesn't deserve all this blame, he isn't even a BU dev. He's just an early adopter and he's very open about what he thinks.
He's also one of the most honest persons in bitcoin, but even if you don't trust him, you don't need to trust him because he doesn't have any control over anyone in bitcoinland.
Unlike Adam back and his gang.

>Roger Ver doesn't deserve all this blame, he isn't even a BU dev. He's just an early adopter and he's very open about what he thinks.
He's also one of the most honest persons in bitcoin, but even if you don't trust him, you don't need to trust him because he doesn't have any control over anyone in bitcoinland.
Unlike Adam back and his gang.

you mean the guy who is bribing pools by paying more than the block reward, the guy who vouched for mtgox and isnt technical at all. Why should we trust him ?