More lies from Alan Silbert (And cursing) regarding Bitcoin Unlimited

[rogerver]

Recently I've had some private DMs with Alan Silbert regarding Bitcoin.
In light of his other recent lies about Bitcoin Unlimited I thought it would be a good idea to share some of his other recent lies about myself and Bitcoin Unlimited as well.

https://twitter.com/alansilbert/status/ ... 9040565248

Below is our conversation regarding that lie:

[rogerver]

https://twitter.com/alansilbert/status/ ... 1735659520

[BitcoinXio]

Sad to see this stuff. So many people that I've had respect for over the years just to see them act dishonest and malicious. Now they are just trolls.

[patrick.miller]

Alan is 100% correct Roger. You cannot continue to advocate falsehoods and BS and then deflect when called out.

It's like when you talk about Bitcoin's "economic code". That is a lie. There is no such thing as this.

The community is tired of your games Roger.

[BitcoinXio]

Alan is 100% correct Roger. You cannot continue to advocate falsehoods and BS and then deflect when called out.

It's like when you talk about Bitcoin's "economic code". That is a lie. There is no such thing as this.

The community is tired of your games Roger.

Sorry but we need more people like Roger. He calls out the bad players because he can. Many people are too afraid to do it.

[jackboss]

Thanks for the details

[patrick.miller]

Alan is 100% correct Roger. You cannot continue to advocate falsehoods and BS and then deflect when called out.

It's like when you talk about Bitcoin's "economic code". That is a lie. There is no such thing as this.

The community is tired of your games Roger.

Sorry but we need more people like Roger. He calls out the bad players because he can. Many people are too afraid to do it.

And you are paid to shill for Roger. End of story.

Bitcoin would be much better off if Roger dumped his coins and sold the domain to a responsible community member.

[BitcoinXio]

Alan is 100% correct Roger. You cannot continue to advocate falsehoods and BS and then deflect when called out.

It's like when you talk about Bitcoin's "economic code". That is a lie. There is no such thing as this.

The community is tired of your games Roger.

Sorry but we need more people like Roger. He calls out the bad players because he can. Many people are too afraid to do it.

And you are paid to shill for Roger. End of story.

Bitcoin would be much better off if Roger dumped his coins and sold the domain to a responsible community member.

I'm not paid to shill don't be a retard. My track record speaks for itself. I've been pro-Bitcoin, scaling and growing Bitcoin for a very long time. As opposed to small blockers that refuse to let Bitcoin grow organically.

[Dynamix]

Well a lot of bullshit in crypto these days.

[patrick.miller]

*edit* over it

[rogerver]

Alan is 100% correct Roger. You cannot continue to advocate falsehoods and BS and then deflect when called out.

Alan said I've advocated for attacking the minority chain. I've done no such thing.
How am I wrong for being upset that Alan is claiming I've done something that I haven't done?

[rogerver]

Here is the latest lie from Alan:
https://twitter.com/btcguy_/status/848976353097592833

For the record, I've never hired a social media company to do any type of astro turfing ever. It seems Alan is incapable of conceiving that maybe there is a large percentage of the community that doesn't agree with Core's road map.

[patrick.miller]

Here is the latest lie from Alan:
https://twitter.com/btcguy_/status/848976353097592833

For the record, I've never hired a social media company to do any type of astro turfing ever. It seems Alan is incapable of conceiving that maybe there is a large percentage of the community that doesn't agree with Core's road map.

You said this: "51% from multiple pools and miners from around the world isn't an attack, it's the longest chain."

You are confusing the longest chain with the longest valid chain. If you truly believe that 51% is the longest valid chain, then you are advocating for a 51% attack on the network. There will be a network split due to BU miners producing larger blocks than the estimated 97% of nodes will accept which currently conform to Nakamoto consensus. This is why Alan said you are advocating for an attack on the minority chain (the valid one), with a majority chain which is invalid to the network consensus. Bitcoin was specifically designed to be resistant to a 51% attack, and to say that just because you have 51% of hashing power means you get to define the rules by producing a longer chain IS NOT how Bitcoin works nor is it how it is designed.

This was the whole reason why Segwit was rolled out as a soft-fork. This way there is no majority/minority chain. It's one chain, and both old nodes and new nodes can operate on it.

[OgNasty]

Regardless of your stance on the issue, it's hard to imagine a scenario where this writer would be taken seriously by a potential employer again.

[rogerver]

I now see that Alan has quietly deleted the offending tweet.
He didn't however apologize in any way that I'm aware of.

[lethos3]

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,