Complaints from Bitcoin Users

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Emin Gün Sirer: Finally getting to the crux of the battle. LN/Segwit/fee-market are a synonym for "high fees." Nothing about this tech

"requires high fees." - Shock_The_Stream

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Complaints from users, Day 157 (18/01/2017):

nullc disputes that Satoshi Nakamoto left Gavin in control of Bitcoin, asks for citation, then disappears after such citation is clearly provided.

"greg maxwell is blatantly a toxic troll and an enemy of Satoshi's Bitcoin." - parban333

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Censored in r\Bitcoin: "35.8 Cents: Average Transaction Fee so far in 2017.

"The Average Transaction Fee in 2016 was 16.5 Cents" - BobsBurgers3Bitcoin

Posting facts is not allowed

"in /r/Bitcoin" - aquahol

On what basis would any reasonable sub censor this.

"Bitcoin's fundamental value proposition is censorship resistance." - Leithm

r\Bitcoin has not been reasonable for about 2 years now.

"I was PM'ing with one of the users in r\Bitcoin recently because my comments were being shadow-deleted." - BobsBurgers3Bitcoin

This clearly oversteps their claim that you can talk about anything

"other than attempts to fix the consensus protocol." - Annapurna317

So now people can't even post facts about fees in r\bitcoin?

"Blockstream, Core and r\bitcoin are trying to slowly kill Satoshi's Bitcoin - via censhorship and centralized control." - ydtm

why does /r/Bitcoin sensor such

"vital information?" - silverjustice

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Complaints from users, Day 158 (19/01/2017):

Coinbase Co-Founder Fred Ehrsam

"is Leaving the Company" - ethereumcpw

Difficult to be successful when Bitcoin has been co-opted by blockstream and turned into something else. Circle is basically gone too. It's unbelievable what has happened to the prospects of Bitcoin under core. All the excitement, all the business development, all the possibilities that were just exploding from Bitcoin just died.

"Now there is censorship, division, uncertainty. It's a night and day difference." - ethereumcpw

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Complaints from users, Day 159 (20/01/2017):

Charlie Shrem on Twitter: If we don't implement bigger blocks ASAP, Paypal will be cheaper than #bitcoin. I already pay a few dollars per tx.

"Stop hindering growth." - sandakersmann

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Olivier Janssens on Twitter: Do you like Bitcoin? Then you like an unlimited block size.

"The limit was put in place as a temp fix and was never hit before last year." - sandakersmann

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Ryan X. Charles on Twitter: Bigger blocks will allow more people access to every aspect of bitcoin,

"enhancing decentralization" - sandakersmann

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Complaints from users, Day 160 (21/01/2017):

Core's own reasoning doesn't add up: If segwit requires 95% of last 2016 blocks to activate, and their fear of using a hardfork instead of a softfork is "splitting the network", then how does a hardfork with a 95% trigger

"even come close to potentially splitting the network?" - specialenmity

Bingo, the network does a successful hard fork once and their hegemonic spell evaporates for good. There's $76 mil (and more)

"riding on preventing this." - TunaMeIt

The real reasons why Blockstream using lies and censorship and propaganda to force people into always doing a dangerous and messy soft fork, instead of a simple and safe hard fork:

"For other people who might want to review some of these earlier discussions, a few links are provided below:

Reminder: Previous posts showing that Blockstream's opposition to hard-forks is dangerous, obstructionist, selfish FUD. As many of us already know, the reason that Blockstream is against hard forks is simple: Hard forks are good for Bitcoin, but bad for the private company Blockstream.

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4t ... ckstreams/

"They [Core/Blockstream] fear a hard fork will remove them from their dominant position." ... "Hard forks are 'dangerous' because they put the market in charge, and the market might vote against '[the] experts' [at Core/Blockstream]" - /u/ForkiusMaximus

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/43 ... ll_remove/

The real reason why Core / Blockstream always favors soft-forks over hard-forks (even though hard-forks are actually safer because hard-forks are explicit) is because soft-forks allow the "incumbent" code to quietly remain incumbent forever (and in this case, the "incumbent" code is Core)

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/40 ... am_always/

As Core / Blockstream collapses and Classic gains momentum, the CEO of Blockstream, Austin Hill, gets caught spreading FUD about the safety of "hard forks", falsely claiming that: "A hard-fork forced-upgrade flag day ... disenfranchises everyone who doesn't upgrade ... causes them to lose funds"

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41 ... sic_gains/

SegWit-as-a-softfork is a hack. Flexible-Transactions-as-a-hard-fork is simpler, safer and more future-proof than SegWit-as-a-soft-fork - trivially solving malleability, while adding a "tag-based" binary data format (like JSON, XML or HTML) for easier, safer future upgrades with less technical debt

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5a ... is_a_hack/

The proper terminology for a "hard fork" should be a "FULL NODE REFERENDUM" - an open, transparent EXPLICIT process where everyone has the right to vote FOR or AGAINST an upgrade. The proper terminology for a "soft fork" should be a "SNEAKY TROJAN HORSE" - because IT TAKES AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE.

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5e ... should_be/

Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5e ... _world_in/

Normal users understand that SegWit-as-a-softfork is dangerous, because it deceives non-upgraded nodes into thinking transactions are valid when actually they're not - turning those nodes into "zombie nodes". Greg Maxwell and Blockstream are jeopardizing Bitcoin - in order to stay in power.

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4m ... ftfork_is/

"Negotiations have failed. BS/Core will never HF - except to fire the miners and create an altcoin. Malleability & quadratic verification time should be fixed - but not via SWSF political/economic trojan horse. CHANGES TO BITCOIN ECONOMICS MUST BE THRU FULL NODE REFERENDUM OF A HF." ~ u/TunaMelt

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5e ... _never_hf/

If Blockstream were truly "conservative" and wanted to "protect Bitcoin" then they would deploy SegWit AS A HARD FORK. Insisting on deploying SegWit as a soft fork (overly complicated so more dangerous for Bitcoin) exposes that they are LYING about being "conservative" and "protecting Bitcoin".

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/57 ... nd_wanted/

Wladimir van der Laan (Lead Maintainer, Bitcoin Core) says Bitcoin cannot hard-fork, because of the "2008 subprime bubble crisis" (??) He also says "changing the rules in a decentralized consensus system is a very difficult problem and I don’t think we’ll resolve it any time soon." But Eth just did!

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4t ... r_bitcoin/

"Co-opting a dev team or a repo is far easier than trying to end-run a market. ... Hard forks are the only way for the market to express its will, which is the only way for Bitcoin to remain both decentralized and viable. ... Hard forks are exactly what is needed in a controversy" ~ u/ForkiusMaximus

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5f ... sier_than/" - ydtm

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Complaints from users, Day 161 (23/01/2017):

Anybody else waiting a long time for confirms?

"I have a transaction that I transmitted about an hour ago." - jMyles

I have a transaction from 10 hours still hasn't been confirmed once.

"Wtf is wrong" - jMyles

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Complaints from users, Day 162 (24/01/2017):

70k unconfirmed transactions

"and increasing." - TommyEconomics

Tried to pay for a transaction with bitcoin for the first time yesterday and it failed b/c of delays in confirmation.

"I'm very high on the future of cryptocurrencies in general. Getting lower on the present of bitcoin." - twobeees

Tip: if your transaction is stuck in the queue,

"submit it to ViaBTC's transaction accelerator and you will be included in the next block they mine: https://www.viabtc.com/tools/txaccelerator/" - patrikr

Just trying to fund

"my Brave wallet." - flamingboard

Does this mean its lost?

"Or will it eventually find its way back to me?" - drbeavi5