Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 08, 2017, 10:01:05 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 07, 2017, 07:59:37 PM

First off, the fact that Jihan signed the HK Agreement doesn't mean anything of any value in relation to this current ASICBoost issue.

Not when someone with tunnel vision keep accusing Jihan of stop supporting SegWit once he realized he can't use ASICBoost on it.
The SegWit agreement was already derailed by Greg's 'dipshits' comment right after the agreement was signed, it was later furter derailed by Greg+gang changing the story to 'SegWit was the blocksize increase'.
The key here is Jihan was not the only miner who was pissed at Blockstream/Core and switched to BU. Pinning the entire mass exodus from Core on ASICBoost is just another distraction from the real issue: The 1M blocksize limit.

No, the key here is your explanation is irrelevant. You stated that Jihan signed the
HK Agreement and Maxwell then violated that agreement. The fact was that agreement
was not bound to Maxwell nor to any other Core dev other than to who signed that
document. All signatory developers were not granted any authority to make future
development decisions by the Core dev group.

My comment to your original comment centered around ASICBoost and nothing else.
You were insinuating that Jihan understood when signing the HK Agreement that SegWit
would break his ASICBoost, so he signed it in good faith and with knowledge. I merely
pointed out that was impossible in the timeline of events.
But you dont care what I am saying because you have a malicious agenda.

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 08, 2017, 10:01:05 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 07, 2017, 07:59:37 PM

Second, Maxwell never signed the HK agreement, so he could not have broken the agreement that he was not a party to. So, part of your "fact #1" is not actually factual.

Irrelevant word play, when you resort to nitpick on a micro level, you should know the HK Agreement wasn't even a legally binding contract, but an acknowledgement of consensus between miners and Blockstream/Core.
Adam Back represented Blockstream when he signed the HK Agreement (he used a bait and switch at the last minute, but f2pool corrected him afterwards), Greg was part of Blockstream and Core, so everyone in Blockstream is in the same party that signed the agreement.
Greg actively and vocally went against the HK agreement right after it was signed, Greg's bullshit continued to this day. Greg wasn't the only one from Blockstream/Core working against the agreement, but he was the most vocal, that's why he's now called "One Meg Greg", miners switched to BU once it was clear that Blockstream/Core wasn't going to keep their promises and offer 2MB non witness blocks as promised.
This Blockstream circus has been going on for over a year, you have to be intentionally dishonest or grossly uninformed to claim Greg didn't break the HK Agreement.

If you acknowledge that it was just a gentlemens agreement between individuals
(and not representatives of Core with decision authority, which is impossible and a
oxymoron in a voluntary open-source community), why are you arguing about it?

It seems to me that the miners were attempting to pull a fast one. They were trying
to get a handful of people to decide the future of the Bitcoin Network. During that
meeting, all invited parties told the miners they had no actual authority and the
miners got mad because they are ignorant as to how the Bitcoin development
community actually works. They thought they could dictate the future.

Blockstream has no authority over the Core development. Maxwell and other
employees of Blockstream are Core developers, but they are separate entities.
If you think Blockstream breached, sue them. If you think Maxwell, as an employee
of Blockstream was a bad boy, ask Back to fire him. Ultimately, it is worthless since
all parties who signed the agreement had no power nor authority to guarantee or
implement a 2MB hardfork. That is the community's decision. Not any of theres.

You might consider the reason why you think there is a Blockstream Circus is
because you dont really understand the full development system. If you or the
miners would have had your way, Bitcoin would have a dictator or CEO, it seems.

I love Bitcoin and the liberty it grants, you only love to control and strangle it.

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 08, 2017, 10:01:05 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 07, 2017, 07:59:37 PM

You stated that your "Fact #2" was that Ext Blocks also blocked covert ASICBoost and
Jihan supports that, so you imply Jihan's innocence, since he would never accept the
Ext Block proposal if it also hurt the purported covert ASICBoost advantage and patents.
This is not a correct record of the events.

Ext Blocks only recently patched it to prevent ASICBoost use

I knew you'd fall for it.
And now I know you really are a paid troll, only a paid troll would act stupid all the time then suddenly become smart enough to pick up on small details and try go for a kill. But you were lazy and didn't check commit history, so you didn't notice it was just a bait.
The funny thing is this time I'll use Greg's ASICBoost inhibiting proposal and BIP-141(SegWit) to prove you wrong, using one shill against another just for kicks.

Why begin accusing me of being a paid troll or shill? The fact is you are the noob
who copies and pastes from other forums and websites and literally checks off
talking points as you go. Half the time your points have nothing to do with our
original conversation. Normal people do not resort to calling people shills or trolls.
But you do that to hide the fact that you likely are one. Like I said in my original
post to Jonald, you are just here to perpetuate the obfuscations. But, if you are
not a paid shill or troll then you are prone to paranoid delusions.

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 08, 2017, 10:01:05 PM

But one thing is curious tho, chjj removed 2 lines from the Ext Block spec to make it look like Extension Block wasn't immune to ASICBoost, at the same time Greg was posing the ASICBoost inhibiting proposal.
Right after he removed that line, he created an issue to ask for help on dealing with ASICBoost, then quickly accepted a PR to 'fix' the ASICBoost issue.
Delete ASICBoost immunity > Ask for Help on ASICBoost > Accept PR to deal with ASICBoost, all within 2 days. The delete commit was also burried under a bunch of other edits, with a disguised description.
What a series of strange coincident. It's as if chjj wanted to make a big deal out of ASICBoost in the Ext Block issue/pull request while Greg was also making a big deal out of ASICBoost at the same time.

I disagree with your analysis and conclusion.
In fact, it seems to have a major flaw.

According to my simple research chjj changed Ext Blocks code 1 hour and
21 minutes before Jihan commented that he loved Ext blocks. So, if that is true,
that means Jihan likely got chjj to change the code and not Blockstream or
Maxwell.

So, you wrote a lot, and that is nice, but your time stamps do not match the
proper time line. If your conspiracy was to be correct then chjj should have
changed AFTER Jihans twitter posting, not BEFORE as he did.

This would also explain tany other issues and contradictions on the GitHub in
a reasonable way. In this case, chjj issued pull after Maxwells email to the
Core Devs could be seen as a cover my ass pull request. Either way, Jihan
twitter commented after the chjj change was made.

So as a non-technical person who hasn't gone deep into the details yet,
I think you are overall wrong due to timeline error.

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 08, 2017, 10:01:05 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 07, 2017, 07:59:37 PM

and since then, Jihan will no longer support that Ext Block proposal. Jihan only supported the Ext Block version that
allowed Covert ASICBoosting to remain intact.

I just established, using verifiable facts, that Jihan/Bitmain/AntPool supported Extension Block, which was and still is immune to ASICBoost.

I think I have shown simply that Jihan tweeted his love for Ext Block after chjj
change its code. Your facts were not complete and you jumped to conclusions.

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 08, 2017, 10:01:05 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 07, 2017, 07:59:37 PM

The issue of ASICBoost a few years ago, which I was around for, centered around the
community acknowledgment that Miners should not use it. In addition, Miners agreed
not to use it. The CURRENT ISSUE is that ASICBoost has been purportedly redesigned
to allow for covert ways to ASICBoost, which would be in violation of the community
and miner verbal agreements.

Again, still no proof that ASICBoost was ever used in production.

And the real current issue here is a bunch of trolls are suffering from verbal diarrhea, trying to distract people from the real issue: the blocksize increase.

I never argued there was proof currently available.
Everyone who is bothering to read this thread (which I assume is quite low
since most people would not waste their time and are likely telling themselves
that I am a moron for bothering to talk to you in a reasonable manner) can
see i never made the claim you are now attributing to me, once again.

The blocksize increase is not the true issue since Jihan doesnt even really care
about that either. He cares more about the potential loss of profits if ASICBoost
is restricted from the network. He basically said so in the Bitmain published
statement. He only cares about his patents while drapes himself in how he
doesn't want to harm the Bitcoin community, yet that is what he has been doing.

People who think that Jihan is a true believer of the blocksize increase is naïve
at best and a paid shill at worst. You have been used by a Chinese businessman
who thought he would use the blocksize issue as a pawn, including its adherents.
The very people Satoshi created the Bitcoin system to control, you are advocating
we should trust. The only thing you should trust is that they will try to find the
next block over their competitor.

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 08, 2017, 10:01:05 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 07, 2017, 07:59:37 PM

I never claimed ASICBoost was newly discovered and no one in the community is.

All the knee jerk responses, screaming and finger pointing, foaming at the mouth baseless accusations about ASICBoost suggest otherwise.

That may be because you cant tell the different between two separate distinctions.

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 08, 2017, 10:01:05 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 07, 2017, 07:59:37 PM

Of course, the burden in on the community to determine if there is any evidence.

You made the accusations, the burden of proof is on you, back up your own words instead of cry wolf nonstop then looking around like a moron waiting for someone else to clean up your mess.

Lol. Pretty hostile statement.

In the past, community members who have specialized knowledge and training
have come forth to do that work. Why do I, someone who has no training in
computers or math, need to lead this charge. Lol, Im not as arrogant as you to
think I could do it. Community members who are experts will handle that. I have
nothing to prove personally. As I have stated previously, the community will
investigate and analyze like every other time a controversy like this occurred.

See what I said there. That is called being rational. I know its hard for you.
But you need to learn to try more.

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 08, 2017, 10:01:05 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 07, 2017, 07:59:37 PM

Your "fact #4" relied on faulty data and an incomplete examination of all the
data we could be analyzed. When you dismiss the current accusations outright
and cite a Twitter guy that only went back 3 months, that is disingenuous and
misdirection. We still need time to look over everything. It is likely, based upon
past Bitcoin events, within the next two months or less, someone will publish a
full scientific report either confirming, denying, or concluding that it is
indeterminable. As a Bitcoin supporter you should be interested in those results,
regardless of who is right. You shouldn't be prejudging.

Ultimately, you declaration that there is no evidence is very premature.
You may be correct in the end, but your "Fact #4" is not an actual fact yet.

The blockchain (that immutable thing you call 'faulty data') has always been out there for everyone to see.
There are no long strings of empty blocks.
There are no pattern of funny version numbers.
There are no pattern of weird tx orders.

If there is some kind of secret way to use ASICBoost that can hide this well from everyone for this long, then ASICBoost automatically become yet another optimization. But then again, there aren't any abnormal hashrate:blockrate ratio.

You made accusations with absolutely nothing but bullshit prophecies, then you complain about people showing up with facts dating back months? Normal people just can't be that silly, trolling as a job is one thing, but this is just bad acting, very unprofessional.

You twisted my words. So you are either not reading properly or doing it
intentionally. You are stating there is no evidence. Have you already looked into
this subject? Maybe you should publish your report on your findings, since you
claim there are no patterns or anything of any interest. Im sure that would be
an interesting read, as much as your prior analysis ont chjj and the ext block
github was, Lol. You cited a "fact" that was based on only 3 months of data,
when the technology in question is over 2 years old.

You lack of imagination is remarkable.

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 08, 2017, 10:01:05 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 07, 2017, 07:59:37 PM

Your "fact" implies that AntPool is innocent since they only profited 14% fees.
Ultimately, that statement is irrelevant entirely. ASICBoost is about cutting the
time down on finding blocks to gain the blockreward, not to gather as many fees
as possible. In addition, it may be possible with this new proposed covert ASICBoost
design, it could account for AntPools high empty block count. This may or may not
be correct, we still don't know. The community is still looking into this.

So, I'll give you 0.5 points for your fifth "fact". (1.0 out of 5.0)
Due to it being partial correct, but wrong as a "fact" to disprove the current accusations.

Again, no long strings of empty blocks.
No abnormal hashrate/blockrate ratios.
It takes time to calculate the next block template, during which miners mine empty blocks, AntPool has the highest hash rate, naturally they'll have more empty blocks than others.
Empty blocks existed before ASIC was even in the picture.
Try look for some abnormal patterns from the blockchain, instead of keep pulling crystal balls out of your rear.

Lol. You were the one who was declaring facts, remember? You are the one who
is predicting the future by saying there is nothing to find. You are doing the Do not
look at the man behind the curtain! routine. Stop telling me to look and also saying
there is nothing to find. It is pretty contradictory.

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 08, 2017, 10:01:05 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 07, 2017, 07:59:37 PM

Your "fact #6", you stated that "Greg's math is wrong" which can not be a "fact"
and then you cited Bitman's public response to the current issue, which does not
cite any math or proofs as to why "Greg's math is wrong" or what is the math
determinations in general. I only stated that the community needs to begin
independent investigation. So this "fact #6" can't be a fact as well.

So, I'll give you 0.0 points for your sixth "fact". (1.0 out of 6.0)
Due to citing something that doesn't prove your asserted "Fact #6".

He did say why Greg was wrong.
Why are you even arguing for Greg. Greg doesn't even understand the difference between 1MB and 2MB.

No, their statement said that he was wrong, not why, and then they go on to state a
better way to deal with this issue other than what Maxwell proposed. They never
pointed out actual math as to why Maxwell was wrong.

I am not arguing for Maxwell. I am only arguing against your facts you posted prior.
Im pretty sure Maxwell and the community understands the difference between 1MB
and 2MB. Since, if they didnt, we would all be at 5MB by now, and on our way to
14MB within the year.

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 08, 2017, 10:01:05 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 07, 2017, 07:59:37 PM

Maybe the community should also investigate why your facts seem not to add up to what
the current evidence is and what it is currently pointing to. I would assume your high error
ratio has to do with being heavily biased in general and not having a problem with it, since you
are pushing an agenda that doesn't care about anything other than your own personal ego
and financial satisfaction. If you cared about Bitcoin and the community, you wouldn't post
those "facts" because they are self serving and a true distraction. "Nothing to see here guys".
"Don't try to look into any of the accusations, because there is no evidence. Case closed."

Or they should investigate why there are so many unprofessional trolls posting similar bullshit narratives non stop.
No logic, no facts, wrong every time, yet keep repeating them like their jobs depend on it.
Sometimes they don't even remember what they posted a page ago, like they're working on multiple sites at the same time, or more than one PR worker is using the account.

What? Are you talking about yourself here? I think you might be referring to yourself
here. My guess is anyone who is constantly attacking people about them being a
paid shill or paid troll or whatever, is likely the true shill or troll. Most people fight, but
when you resort to those types of things, it usually means that individual is the weaker
one and the deceiver, and normal regular people know this. I guess you never learned
that lesson in shill school.

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 08, 2017, 10:01:05 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 07, 2017, 07:59:37 PM

Talking about me acting like a cult prophet is laughable. Anyone can go back through my
post history and take a look if I have spoken like a prophet

1. You are laughable.
2. They can, I did, and you have.
3. Cult prophet wannabe proof:
AgentofCoin: In time, all will be revealed.
AgentofCoin: within the next two months or less, someone will publish a full scientific report
AgentofCoin: Jihan will no longer support that Ext Block proposal.

In time, you'll find a better job than acting like a robot online all the time.

Lol. That is pretty weak. (1) is not a prophesy, that is life in general (2) someone
publishing an analysis should be expected, it happens constantly within our community
(3) that is not a prophecy either, thats deduction. But I dare you to have Jihan tweet
that he will accept a scaling solution that enforces anti-ASICBoost like measures. If he
does it and the community sees that statement, I will admit that I was wrong and you
were correct. (Something I'm sure you are incapable of doing yourself).

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 08, 2017, 10:01:05 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 07, 2017, 07:59:37 PM

take a look if I have attacked people, purposefully misconstrued info,
shilled positions that are unreasonable, fallen in line with "party" positions, or whatever.

You do realize you just got out trolled because you asked for it by name on page 1, right? Here:

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 06, 2017, 09:24:25 PM

It would likely be best for you to stop quoting Alex.BTC since it is obvious that he is not interested in learning anything, but perpetuating the obfuscations. In time, all will be revealed.

Lol. Oh no You got me, I told people not to listen to you because you are
perpetuating the obfuscations, and you have interpreted that as an attack in
your simple mind. See that? Where I called your mind simple there. Thats an
attack. Now I have attacked you individually. You are a base shitty person and
there is no wonder why the bitcoin community is so crazy. There are people like
you making new accounts to copy and paste shit for a few satoshis.

BTW you stated above "You do realize you just got out trolled". So is that your
admission that you are indeed a troll then? But, lets continue

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 08, 2017, 10:01:05 PM

And you do realize I was just using you to explain to people Extension Block is immune to ASICBoost, right?

Think about it, here we have some paid trolls whose job is to keep their filthy mouth open all day like a $5 crack whore, it's their job to go online and claim every fact is wrong, but if after 3000 words you people still can't prove me wrong, that means what I posted must be right, if you trolls had anything solid to dispute these facts, you would have used them by now.

Lol. You used me? Oh man I feel dirty and violated now, kinda like that crack
whore you refer to. What are you like 17 years old? Nothing you have stated on
this whole forum has any truth to it, let alone this little thread. If you think you
have not been proven wrong by now, thats only due to your own ignorance and
delusion and not due to your "factual" knowledge.

I have now above, shown how your chff and Ext block analysis was wrong.
Are you going to ignore that one too next time you respond? I bet if I am correct
I will never hear about your correction of that error.

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 08, 2017, 10:01:05 PM

You were showing a dumb robitic pattern, so I gave you a chance to think you got me and see how you would react. Yup, you stopped being a complete retard for a minute and went straight for a kill (but missed), so 100% a paid troll.

Like I've kept telling you paid shills here, you need to put more effort to act like normal humans, show more professionalism, you can't slack off and go full retard all the time, normal people just aren't that stupid, not for that long and not with that kind of consistent pattern.

Beep Boop. Oh no. Alex.BTC has figured out Im a robot and he got me. Beep Boop.
I hope he gets paid double from his shill master because he is greatest shill in all
shilldom. The paragraph he wrote above here really outlines how Alex.BTCs mind
works, and why he is malicious to the bitcoin community. Anyone who continues to
listen to him is either misguided or just as bad. Remember kids, dont grow up to be
like Alex.BTC. You have to learn to deal with your hate in healthy ways. Don't throw
your life away and grow up to be a paid shill like Alex.BTC. Take a stand with
something you believe in and don't participate in the hate mongering. Beep boop.

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 08, 2017, 10:01:05 PM

Once your idiocracy reach a certain therhold, people begin to recognize an odd pattern, the pattern of you people being wrong on the same obvious things over and over like a broken robot, at that point it becomes too obvious that we're just dealing with someone with an online troll job.

Remember, being a troll is not about being a robot. A robotic troll is like a bad actor, when you do that your PR campaign will actually have the opposite effect. Listen to your instinct, once you've crossed that line of 50 IQ, pull back, act normal again for a while, otherwise it'd become too obvious.

Lol. This is my favorite part of the speech. The 50 IQ part. Lol. People cant speak
proper sentences, let alone hold a thought in their head at that level. But whatever..
You just like to say anything, even things that aren't "factual". Beep Boop.

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 08, 2017, 10:01:05 PM

Talk to your handler, have a meeting, ask for a better PR script.

I mean you just based a 1000 words troll post on a false assumption that ASICBoost works on Extension Block. That's just sloppy trolling. Research the subject, stop making amateur mistakes, your problem isn't the trolling, it's the lack of professionalism and bad acting.

Ask yourself, would you even hire yourself for a PR campaign?

Talk to my handler, eh? Looks like we got ourselves an intelligence agent here.
Alex.BTC has exposed himself to be an intelligence agent by using their lingo.
Beep Boop Maybe your "handler" will read this thread and fire your ass for
doing a lousy job. But unfortunately, I suspect you will get a raise since
your job is to create division and obfuscation, as opposed to providing
any "facts" to the community.

You want me to ask my 50 Point IQ robot brain if I would hire my 50 IQ robot
brain for a PR campaign? LOL!! If you are not a paid troll/shill I really have no
idea what they would be like, since if your not one, Id be afraid to meet a real
one. Pathetic my friend, real pathetic.

If I had to score your factual ratio again, you would get another low score, my
robot brain thinks.