But why crippling the on-chain usage? No one has answered this question reasonably.

"Some"

You should know BSCore and Theymos deliberately slandered Gavin, Mike Hearn, Coinbase.......

http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/188/[url=http://It's called Satoshi's vision, the one that Roger, many early adopters, and I signed up.

That's why Gavin left, Mike Hearn quit, Coinbase walked away.

Personally, I have the feeling that I have the obligation to realize the prediction of Satoshi. But,

I understand many of you came into Bitcoin only for quick money or some magical ideas. I totally understand many of you, like Maxwell and Theymos, had your own idea and never believed any words Satoshi said.

I also understand many of you have no clue about Bitcoin, and what formed your opinion was coming from the censored sub.

But, if you ever spent time reading Satoshi's words, could you do me a favor and tell me why you saw Satoshi's vision as nothing but shit?

Thank you in advance.]

It's called Satoshi's vision, the one that Roger, many early adopters, and I signed up.

That's why Gavin left, Mike Hearn quit, Coinbase walked away.

Personally, I have the feeling that I have the obligation to realize the prediction of Satoshi. But,

I understand many of you came into Bitcoin only for quick money or some magical ideas. I totally understand many of you, like Maxwell and Theymos, had your own idea and never believed any words Satoshi said.

I also understand many of you have no clue about Bitcoin, and what formed your opinion was coming from the censored sub.

But, if you ever spent time reading Satoshi's words, could you do me a favor and tell me why you saw Satoshi's vision as nothing but shit?

Thank you in advance.

Update: I hope @Theymos can tell me his opinion. In my opinion, Satoshi was great enough that he wouldn't leave this forum --- such important resource --- to a person who would betray his vision later without any resonable explanation. Although I see Theymos as Bitcoin Judas, but at least please tell me why he changed his mind. Or he saw Satoshi's vision as shit from the beginning?

It's very clear in Satoshi's vision: 1st layer for the internet of money, 2nd layer for other complicated application such as smart contract.

It's wrong to look for information in those sites.

Never believe anything from Reddit/Bitcoin Github/Bitcoin Bitcointalk Bitcoin.org. Nearly all are controlled by Theymos, who was said by resources to have scammed 6000 BTC, worth $14.8 million dollars today.

They are censored deliberately to mislead you and they were hijacked years ago by people who hate Bitcoin. What you only can get is misinformation.

You are welcome to reddit.com/r/btc for some information. But please keep in mind that there are many altcoin-pumpers (especially ETH) around.

Core已经彻底烂了。
楼主要分清一点，现在的Core完全不等于以前的Core，故不要一棒子打死。
中本聪和Gavin时代的开发者组织是我们尊敬爱戴的。Vlamidir和Blockstream时代的Core是我们唾弃的。
中本聪把比特币带到世间，Gavin把比特币从小圈子带至主流，而现在的Core所做的一直是争权夺利，毫无底线。
有些人可能瞧不太起Gavin，这些人被Core的长期宣传给洗脑了。Gavin对比特币的贡献非常之大，影响非常深远。Gavin对比特币的热爱是无人可及的，这也是中本聪把一切资源留给Gavin的原因。

可惜Gavin把那些资源一个个地给了Vlamidir，给了Theymos. 现在看来很可惜，你可能拒绝Gavin很幼稚。但是，这才是比特币精神。

整个比特币社区为什么唾弃现在的Core？为什么Theymos不得不撕破脸皮搞言论审查来引导舆论？

第一个原因是现在Core所作所为与比特币精神完全相悖，而我们比特币用户或多或少都认同中本聪所塑造的比特币精神，我们心理上无法接受。LTC都上SW这么久了，所谓的LN为什么不敢上线？LN实质上就是另一种中心化的Coinbase，okcoin之类。你可以从你的coinbase钱包直接offchain转到别人的Coinbase钱包，你也可以转到别人的okcoin钱包，如果coinbase和okcoin有约在先。这样的话，你就没必要用主链了？Are you kidding me?而Blockstream公司预先申请了侧链相关的很多专利, 这一利益关联导致了BS公司过去两年花了几千万美元来造谣生事。

Blockstream每个月花百万美元，丝毫没有见得光的盈利模式，他说他出于好心做贡献，你信吗？

第二个原因是现在Core影响了比特币的成长，我们经济上无法接受。短期来说，币价是与链上交易量成正比的；中期来说，Core的肆无忌惮让众多比特币铁粉寒心，比如Coinbase，Mike Hearn 等等，而这些铁粉是比特币社区的根基。长期来说，良好的社区氛围与新人接纳度是极其重要的，而正如coinbase所说，现在的Core是打着去中心化旗号的一个独裁组织，其已严重阻碍了新的比特币协议牛人的成长与进入。

这里要强调下，Mike Hearn被Core诽谤了很久了。他是早期为比特币站台的最重要的人，他是Google当年的小领导，你们用的gmail之类他都不可或缺。

自从Gavin被逼走后，这两年只有牛人离开，从没有新的牛人成长起来，更没有外面牛人的进入。

现在的Core，伤了比特币的根基。SegWit2X的SW部分，很多人认为是比特币社区付给Core的赎金。

在很多人看来，在蚂蚁看来，在我看来，SegWit2X是比特币社区自救的最后尝试。如果以后还是BSCore说了算，对不起，这不是比特币。
、

Are you kidding me? XRP, ETH, and many other coins have suffered spam attack multiple times before.

Bitcoin is special, but not so special as you claimed.

I was always curious why the blatant censorship existed in a so-called Bitcoin forum.

Now it makes sense.


Frankly speaking, it's immoral to be a mod in a censored forum. I appreciate the courage of the mods to fight against the conscience.

Hey @achow101
So maybe the definition of "contentious" is contentious enough.

Sure, It was not contentious, Given the Bips 70-73 luv2drnkbr provided. I was wrong.

I have read that explanation before. So that's exactly my question. Now that "B1" is even shorter and distinguishable, why they chose "BC1“? Was there any technical reason? I read that BIP again and could not find any other explanation.

BTW, now that that BIP was proposed by Blockstream, it's extremely likely that it will gain "consensus", sooner or later. However, the blockstream-style logic always sounds weird to me.

That means you have been censored in this Blockstream forum. Me too.

Greg Maxwell is a notorious liar.

Author for Bips 70-73: Gavin, Mike Hearn, Stephan Pair.

Sad that we have lost Mike Hearn, likely permanently.

Thank you for your heartwarming comment.

I thought so, and I appreciated their opinion even when I believed it was wrong...Until one day I realized that they had played too dirty and too reckless.


Satoshi predicted that there would be only mining farms that mine BTC, Satoshi predicted there would be only specialists who run nodes and finally data centers. And Satoshi was okay with it, so did every Bitcoiner including Theymos back then. We followed Satoshi's vision and walked here. Why suddenly all these predictions are dismissed as "centralization"?


If there is any constitution, that shall be Satoshi's vision and Bitcoin Paper. Why dismissing the whole constitution without any consensus? Why forcing the community by censorship and propaganda? If they have shown any sincerity or been honest, I would not have begrudged them even if I disagreed with them. But what I saw were only self-contrary lies and indifference.

Anyway, I hope I am wrong. I hope one day Blockstream, current Core and Theymos prove us that we are all wrong and they are the ones who really want Bitcoin to succeed. But TBH, I don't believe it at all.

I think OP has realized that CORE are ACTUALLY your enemy now conveniently, given the fact that most Core members are against HF even months after SegWit.

I would like to report one massive trust abuser: Lauda

He abused the trust system to spam lies against me.

Evidence： https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=129761

If we look at the bright side, it's an honor for me, because he/they used same lies to attack Satoshi and Gavin.

Many people have been trolled by this guy so far. I don't think the trust mechanism was designed for such liars/trolls like Lauda.

PS: Lauda was reported to be a scammer with several alts by many users, such as "elianite", "defcon23", "mriulian", and so on. The only reason this liar Lauda has not banned because he voluntarily spammed lies that fit the iterative the webmaster "Theymos" liked. It is also extremely likely that his account is compromised since his writing style changed dramatically since he started to slander Bitcoiners like crazy.
I wouldn't trust anything coming from this liar.

有风险，但风险相对可控。只要每个人都升级到SW激活后的新版本就可以了。
但是这样一来，该软分叉的“向后兼容”的所谓好处就没有了。而相应的坏处却未减少。
即使搞SW，我们本该用硬分叉方式搞SW的。这就是开发中心化带来的弊端了---无法自我纠正。

However, this explanation is useful but not sufficient. So it was a contentious removal. But now that no one vocally wanted this feature in the past years, it looks like that we can safely remove it. Maybe we will add it after decades. Just keep it in mind.

I have searched a lot, and could not find any reasonable explanation.

As for me, "BC1" would be much more anti-intuition and less user-friendly than "B1" or "BTC1".

Is there any technical reason behind Core's decision that we must use "BC1" SW addresses?

Theymos, I know how many Bitcoiners have been banned by you in Reddit for opposing UASF, how many posts have been hidden by you for supporting SegWit2X, let alone UAHF. You have done the worst thing that the enemies of Bitcoin were expected to do.

I really doubt if you are still the "theymos" in 2010. I spent much time reading old posts, and you were ever polite and respectful to different opinions. How did you become so arrogant and reckless?

PS: It looks that this forum only allows posts to defame miners and people who disagree with current Core, with or without lies. And if you debunk such misinformation or propaganda, your post will be moved to trash sub-forum quickly. Only posts fitting admin's narrative will last. A textbook example of "censorship".

His post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1966169.0

Theymos defamed Bitmain by spreading the lies about "Asicboost". Many people had shown enough technical evidences to show it's a blatant lie and Bitmain clearly stated that they were okay to see it being disabled, yet Theymos continued to spread it.

Theymos defamed the UAHF by implying it's not Bitcoin, while being okay with the UASF, which has much less support than UAHF.

Theymos defamed the UAHF as "controlled by a single company". Yet he had nothing to support this defamation. UAHF is open-source, and unlike UASF there will be no dictator in UAHF.

I don't thank Theymos did not know how reckless the UASF was. It contradicts to everything Bitcoin stands for. UASF is, in short, "You have to follow Core's decision to split Bitcoin chain even if only Core & Theymos support it."

Theymos also laughed at the failure of XT/BU/Classic. Although I don't support BU, I have to admit that BU devs are good people. At least, they did not force users to split the chain when there was no enough support, unlike notorious UASF. XT/Classic were initiated by the most respected Bitcoin devs.  Without Core "flying to China too lobby miners against 8mb, later
Classic plan", XT/Classic would have succeeded. Theymos, why did not you defame Bitmain when they signed HK agreement with Blockstream to dismiss XT/Classic?

Satoshi explicitly told us that we should raise the blocklimit and he even wrote the code for us. Why even quotations from Satoshi are being censored by you these days? Just because it does not fit your narrative?

Theymos, I know how many Bitcoiners have been banned by you in Reddit for opposing UASF, how many posts have been hidden by you for supporting SegWit2X, let alone UAHF. You have done the worst thing that the enemies of Bitcoin were expected to do. I really doubt if you are still the "theymos" in 2010. I spent much time reading old posts, and you were ever polite and respectful to different opinions. How did you become so arrogant and reckless?


Mr. Theymos, censor to fork your UASF. I'll stick with Bitcoin, thank you very much. I kinda doubt that you'are actually going to stick by what you say here, but if you do, it only seems like good news.