Quote from: Artemis3 on January 14, 2019, 05:11:02 PM

Quote from: bitserve on December 30, 2018, 06:46:35 AM

@franky1 I don't understand why you insist in the constant bashing and ridiculous ad hominem attacks against gmaxwell.

When someone resorts to personal attacks, it means he or she is out of arguments, and resorts to this in desperation for having lost the debate.

oh look more poking the bear.. ill bite, yet again..
but before i begin. i did try avoiding the pokes of the bear for the hypocritical point of what is wrote above in regards to ad-hom. where i tried to avoid derailing into persona comments unrelated to bitcoin full node issues.
but seeing as more than one person wants a response. ill give it.

i make points about how core devs are doing things that are taking people off the network. bitcoin is not some AI that self codes. yes i mention devs by name such as wuille lukeJr and gmax
that is not ad-hom. that is highlighting who is involved

i have never made a comment about gmaxwell personal attributes that had nothing to do with the topic. EG i do not meander into attacks about his beard or the way he walks down a sidewalk.

instead i talk about bitcoin issues caused by devs. and yes its those devs that cause issues should be mentioned.
the funny part is how instead of understanding the content of the issues such as how their code has got negative impact. they want to meander the topic into appearing as if its a personal attack.
they keep writing code. but then pretend to be powerless janitors that cant code. they themselves play the ad-hom game by changing bitcoin but whenever anyone highlights the changes. suddenly the commenter must be some personal attacker.

the buzzwords "ad-hom" is an old and repeated strategy the core devs keep falling back on as their way to avoid answering why they are coding what they code.
the funny part though is if you done a word count on insulting/vulgar words. you will find those who are in core friendly group are the ones that do more 'attacks'. but i do not care about their vulgar meanders. i just continue to highlight the issues about bitcoin. and let them circle their out-dated tactics of avoiding listening to the community.

sorry but devs are not the victims here. greg got well paid to stifle bitcoin between 2015-2017 and has enough income to live happily because of it.
if you think greg is not involved in a "roadmap". well here is the advert naming it
https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases
and here is the roadmap itself. note the creator at the top
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html
what bitcoin has become is a network where:
if it doesnt follow cores roadmap, opposers are deemed not as a counter option. but as an attacker that needs to disappear.
devs prefer to have less people using the network
devs do not want bitcoin to be a unique success, as they are happy to program other networks and promote other networks and even promote their involvement of pushing counter options off the network

note. the false promotion
"been working on scalability for several years" (that was wrote in 2015 meaning they have ben scaling for years prior)
yet. satoshi in 2010 mentioned the 7tx/s number and so yea 2018-19 i questioned gmax about his "working on scaling BITCOINS SYSTEM" to show m one single day that out paces numbers known about since 2010, to show that scaling is actually occurring

oh and a further point about when Gmax shot himself in the foot with the example block of 12k+ Tx's before segwit. i knew about that in 2015. and do you know why i excluded it from the main conversation. because that block contains no signatures and as such, as a true full validating node. bypassing that block and auto passing it as good, without validating signatures. is a security risk.

do you think its good security for nodes to just pass blocks around without signatures and just treat the data as passable.. can you even try to consider the auditing/security risks. without diverting the topic to sound like it must be ok because you trust the devs that allow nodes to accept such a unvalidated set of tx