Resorting to censorship to preserve Bitcoin's censorship resistance

[rogerver]

I appreciate Adrian-Xover at /r/BTC for pointing out the irony of this situation.

Small block supporters have resorted to censorship in an attempt to preserve Bitcoin's censorship resistance.

Can they not see the insanity of their position?
https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/747811041061462016

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I appreciate Adrian-Xover at /r/BTC for pointing out the irony of this situation.

Small block supporters have resorted to censorship in an attempt to preserve Bitcoin's censorship resistance.

Can they not see the insanity of their position?

There is no real small block supporter, it is a Blockstream supporter that is motivated to keep the blocksize capped due to financial motive. This motive is to take Bitcoin and transform it into a centralized solution of which is controlled, as you know.

When you ask a person who runs a business, "Would you like to increase the capacity to meet demand?", he or she will obviously say "Of course!".

The strangers don't like a free market, it scares them

[rizzlarolla]

I appreciate Adrian-Xover at /r/BTC for pointing out the irony of this situation.

Small block supporters have resorted to censorship in an attempt to preserve Bitcoin's censorship resistance.

Can they not see the insanity of their position?
https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/747811041061462016

Censorship never works in the free world.
And not in the Bitcoin world.

It only helps to identify cores anti open source attitude.
Also telling Chinese miners only to run Core code, in some dodgy broken contract.

Bitcoin users are pissed off with core,
And now Bitcoin miners are pissed off with core.

It all adds to the growing likelihood of a sudden blocksize increasing hard fork away from core.
Any more censored discussion with core only passes the time till core can cobble segwit together, barely tested, and soft forked onto mainchain.
You've heard the party line - high fees, delays, segwit, rbf, monero, blocks always full, blah.
It is all shit. Core never did understand the concept of Bitcoin.

Oh, now they want to re-write the white paper!
Long live satoshi Gmax.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I appreciate Adrian-Xover at /r/BTC for pointing out the irony of this situation.

Small block supporters have resorted to censorship in an attempt to preserve Bitcoin's censorship resistance.

Can they not see the insanity of their position?
https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/747811041061462016

Censorship never works in the free world.
And not in the Bitcoin world.

It only helps to identify cores anti open source attitude.
Also telling Chinese miners only to run Core code, in some dodgy broken contract.

Bitcoin users are pissed off with core,
And now Bitcoin miners are pissed off with core.

It all adds to the growing likelihood of a sudden blocksize increasing hard fork away from core.
Any more censored discussion with core only passes the time till core can cobble segwit together, barely tested, and soft forked onto mainchain.
You've heard the party line - high fees, delays, segwit, rbf, monero, blocks always full, blah.
It is all shit. Core never did understand the concept of Bitcoin.

Oh, now they want to re-write the white paper!
Long live satoshi Gmax.

From them ripping off kids, to humiliating developers and attacking networks - we move away and segregate Core.

[rizzlarolla]

we move away and segregate Core.

With good grace . If that is possible.