Complaints from Bitcoin Users

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Bitcoin won't survive with small blocks.

"It will loose all market share to alts." - waspoza

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Complaints from users, Day 15 (29/06/2016):

Kyc is not just something that can be used with bad intentions. Kyc it's nothing but bad intentions.

"A wolf in sheep's clothing. A trojan horse for tyranny. The Paypalization of Bitcoin." - RodAncap

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Wouldn't it be amazing

"if Core devs paid off by Blockstream would stick their head out of their asses and started coding and promoting a 2 mb hard fork now since blocks are full now instead of pushing for more stalling and vaporware?" - knight222

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I've been a developer for 15 years, a prolific open source contributor, and I'm a fellow of the Free Software Foundation in Europe.

"I would sooner drag myself across a mile of broken glass, using nothing but the power of my eyelid muscles, than work with Greg Maxwell in any way.

Same goes for Luke Dashjr." - ForkiusAurelius

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

IMO on-chain governance is a bad idea.

"You want "loose coupling" where the community can refuse to accept a fork if it got in-protocol acceptance by gaming the governance in some way (eg. bribes, hacks); every user should be required to manually opt-in to every hardfork as a final step." - Vitalik Buterin

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Bitcoin core error: Error -30974

"This error occurs very shortly after i start the wallet up now, so I am unable to get the transaction details at the moment, but when it first started I managed to check if the transaction was transmitted to the network or not. Which it wasnt." - C0ffeeface

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Complaints from users, Day 16, 17 & 18 (02/07/2016):

Blockstream is trying to CHANGE Satoshi's whitepaper.

"This is madness WTF?" - anti-blockstream

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

This is what happens when people want to rewrite history,

"and you can already see in their few comments how slippery the slope is, first it's to change the date, then it's to change the terms, then it's to replace the paper with a html version. And every one of them always tries to justify it with excuses. Every manoeuvre is carefully geared to hide/bury the original vision bit by bit, until the original is unrecognisable, and can disappear altogether. And all conducted under the guise of good intentions, yet nothing can be further from the truth.

This is what it looks like when cowards try to censor in broad daylight when overt blanket censorship is too controversial." - ferretinjapan

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

How very disgusting,

"the whole bunch." - awemany

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

If you have discussions with newcomers (and Corium manipulators) in a few months, they will cite "The whitepaper", which will be the "updated" version.

"People argued, that Greg made some of the first commits to Bitcoin in 2009, because they believed the (by Greg himself) manipulated commit history on Github.

They rewrite history. In a few months or years they will try to present Greg as the inventor of Bitcoin. (While Adam already does present himself as such, just without some details a peasant named Satoshi had to fix..) Disgusting." - satoshis_sockpuppet

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Why not leave the whitepaper alone and add other documentation?

"There's absolutely no reason to change the original document in this case, even if certain terminology has changed." - e4xit

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I'm publishing the original whitepaper in the second edition of my book, to make sure it will be a resource people can refer to and that it is integral to the book itself.

"I used to have a link to bitcoin.org, but I've long since lost trust in the admins of that site. So, I decided to republish it in full as an appendix.

I had previously made a PR asking that the paper be included in the /doc folder in the bitcoin core code repo, so it is not just on bitcoin.org (which has demonstrated admin bias and power plays repeatedly). The PR was rejected.

The version I am publishing in the book is re-formatted in markup instead of PDF and I've added the MIT license that it was originally published under. Not a single word is changed from Satoshi's original paper, only the format. You can see it here:

https://github.com/bitcoinbook/bitcoinb ... r.asciidoc

As for the Pull Request referenced by OP, this is typical behavior of bitcoin.org admins, not surprising. It's not the action of Blockstream, or Bitcoin Core; they have distanced themselves and run the competing site bitcoincore.org.

Modifying original academic papers is not cool. Write a new one and add a citation to the original. I hope these actions are widely condemned. " - andreasma

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

The original white paper IS Bitcoin.

"Anything else is SOMETHING ELSE, and not Satoshi's vision!" - WVBitcoinBoy

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Oh for fuck sake.

"They're trying to rewrite my history now." - singularity87

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Trying to rewrite bitcoin's history to promote their agenda and taking advantage of satoshi's absence to put words into his mouth and mess with his paper,

"these people are scum!" - anti-blockstream

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Yeah this is outrageous.

"Until now I wasn't into this "debate" of anti or pro blockstream (I don't like to take sides because the whole "game" is a "divide and conquer game"), but this "initiative" is fucking dangerous precedent! What is next?" - Bitcoin_forever

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Time to recognize that this is not madness.

"Blockstream/Core seems to follow a clear, well-thought plan." - mmouse-

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I wonder what it would look like if we used the blockchain to store evidence against Core & /r/btc.

"Things like proof that Greg isn't an original commiter, and the banning/censorship in /r/bitcoin." - Bitconscience

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

This is looking more and more like a communist system, with heavy human interventions, manipulations (HK agreement never meant to be respected) and threats like telling follow one implementation or they change the PoW..

"This is the new Bitcoin:

A centrally planned settlement network... Where participants are threatened to cooperate, Another dictatorship..

Will they assume their positions and state clearly for once that they think Satoshi including all he said and envisioned is irrelevant to Bitcoin? And how the fuck such a bitcoin is not a fucking altcoin then????" - Ant-n

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Wow, these guys are seriously backsliding.

"They are single-handedly doing MORE to cripple bitcoin than any other Government entity has so far." - justdriftinaround

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

This is 100% proof of this notion that they are indeed trying to rewrite history

"and steal Bitcoin for themselves." - reven_x

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Greg steals credit for other peoples Bitcoin code checkins,

"now the Core and Blockstream group is trying to steal the credit for writing the "correct" version of the white paper.

These people are worse, by far, than the Fiat banking system that Satoshi was intending to subvert." - 7bitsOk

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Wow, no words. Just when you thought BlockstreamCore couldn't get any worse.

"Here is a post of mine from 9 months ago regarding rewriting history. It's happening folks, right before our very eyes.

https://np.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comme ... on/cv30zef" - buddhamangler

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Let's rewrite the Bible too.

"Or how about the constitution of the United States. How about we re-paint on top of the Mona Lisa while we're at it." - pagex

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

The purpose of this is so that when new users seek out the white paper, they see Borgstream's version and agree with the state of Bitcoin.

"I personally think that Blockstream is anti Bitcoin and a select few at the top are tasked with sabotaging it. The foot soldiers and Borgstream supporters may not even be aware of this agenda." - TedTheFicus

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I have nothing to do with blockstream or any other bitcion organisation and own no bitcoin. I'm just interested in whats going on.

"I agre with the consensus here that increasing the blocksize is no-brainer and blockstream is a self-serving organisation, undermining the strength of the community to create a niche for their proprietary products." - snailred

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Blockstream is using the 1mb forced block size limit to try to artificially limit the transaction throughput of Bitcoin and changing it from a peer to peer cash system (described in the whitepaper in the first line) to a limited settlement system.

"Effectively taking transactions and fees off chain, away from miners into their own pockets using Lightning Network layer on top of Bitcoin. Capping the transactions also caps the bitcoin price (google metcalfs law or look at my post history). Blockstream is a great threat as they are funded by AXA. You can clearly see they are trying to mislead everyone and change history and they CANNOT be trusted." - cdn_int_citizen

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Gavin was in charge when Satoshi left, and things would've been fine if Gavin was more politically astute.

"He didn't understand how bad people get attracted to power and how important it is to constantly be vigilant." - E7ernal

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

How much do you "trust" Blockstream?

"The first sentence of the Bitcoin Whitepaper abstract says:

"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution"

The first sentence in the introduction:

"Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model."

The Lightning network (Blockstream) is a 2nd-layer scaling solution. It forces users to rely on 3rd party middlemen, exactly what Bitcoin was originally meant to replace.

Make no mistake friends, they are destroying Bitcoin's original vision." - Annapurna317

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Why do you think did AXA, PwC and banking institutions invest so much in Blockstream?

"At the end of the day, Blockstream is funded by established financial institutions to either destroy or at least derail Bitcoin, so what did you actually expect?" - coin-master