BITCOIN TO THE NUTS

WELP ALL THAT IS LEFT IS TO POST SOME HOTTIES
+ Show Spoiler +

0 votes

You sold at the right moment, check the prices right now

I like you but I wish you weren't susceptible to propaganda

On September 02 2017 14:08 spets1 wrote: By looking at these pictures you automatically agree that real Bitcoin will not have Segwit and Blockstream Core development team are bunch of corrupt fags who are trying to make Bitcoin into BankCoin

Looks like the market chose segwit :x

My old man asked me to help him buy bitcoin the other day. And what other coins I would advise buying.

i am considering personally crashing bitcoins value, because I know the moment I invest it'll tank.

Monero and Ethereum are the 2 best besides BTC IMO.

Monero especially I believe will grow because it is favored by the dark markets for its extreme anonymity

Glad i cashed at a big chunk of my bankroll when BTC was at 600 and have held since

On November 30 2017 02:09 PanoRaMa wrote: I like you but I wish you weren't susceptible to propaganda Show nested quote + On September 02 2017 14:08 spets1 wrote: By looking at these pictures you automatically agree that real Bitcoin will not have Segwit and Blockstream Core development team are bunch of corrupt fags who are trying to make Bitcoin into BankCoin Looks like the market chose segwit :x

Sorry Panorama, I think blockchain is too important of an invention to let it be driven by the bankers. That the movement sprang out of to get rid of.
I have joined bitcoin long time ago because of it's ability to get rid of middle men and now blockstream is trying to become the middleman again.

Market only chose segwit because they know no better. At the moment all this new money pouring in are just people trying to jump on the bandwagon without understanding the technology behind it. Give it time.

Watch this 5 min video to understand their plan




Oh and I also forgot to mention that parts of segwit are patented by blockstream

Very interesting stuff, thanks

On December 01 2017 03:51 spets1 wrote: I think blockchain is too important of an invention to let it be driven by the bankers.

Thanks for the response spets. I agree, but I don't know where you are getting the driven by bankers agenda. Every headline in the news about banks are of top bankers coming out aggressively against BTC. It seems this is a really important aspect of your anti-BTC thesis so I really want to know more about why you think this because I haven't read anything like this before from anyone who is anti-core.

Alternatively, would you rather have BTC controlled by miners, corporations, or Ver instead? (Or all of the above?) Because to me, this is what supporting BCH and 2x is.

I'm a software engineer, the blockchain is a massive computer science revolution. It's not a coincidence that those that are pro-core, UASF, Segwit, No2x are primarily developers and bitcoin users. Honestly, the general feeling I get from pro-BCH/2xers (on r/btc) are that they are largely technically illiterate. Just generalizing of course, not saying anything about you in particular.

Market only chose segwit because they know no better. At the moment all this new money pouring in are just people trying to jump on the bandwagon without understanding the technology behind it. Give it time.

Shouldn't you be aggressively shorting BTC while longing BCH if the market is truly this wildly mistaken? You can retire off of this disparity if this is true.

At the end of the day, there is a scaling problem in BTC. Forks are fine, but they need to be done with developer/user consensus in mind and not behind closed doors and a table full of corporate figureheads. Or spearheaded by shady miners who were upset that a user-activated softfork was going to ruin their plan for mining pool monopolization.

Ok I watched the video you posted. There are a lot of problems with the video (Including what appears to be a misunderstanding of how Lightning works, some hypocritical lines (like the part about "borrowing" the Bitcoin name, as if BCH isn't doing exactly that and intentionally fostering confusion), and claims of future $100 fees, really?), but it seems the central part of your thesis (correct me if I'm wrong) is the AXA Strategic Ventures investment into Blockstream.

I mean I guess the link on paper seems damning to people who are looking to indict Blockstream, but it still reads too much like a conspiracy theory to me. Consider the inverse:

Instacart raised money from Khosla Ventures (who led a $400m round). Khosla invested in Blockstream at its seed round. Does this mean Instacart will certainly take bitcoin payments? Surely Khosla Ventures stands to gain from this backdoor deal. Silicon Valley investments just don't work this way, especially if they lack a board seat. If Blockstream were a grand banking conspiracy from the get go why did they raise seed funding elsewhere before AXA? They could have been dead in the water prior to the A round.

You can create charts linking alleged relationships everywhere if you tried hard enough. Honestly I'm probably only 3 degrees of separation away from Jihan himself, it doesn't mean I have anything to do with him or support whatever agenda he pushes.

On December 02 2017 01:22 PanoRaMa wrote: I don't know where you are getting the driven by bankers agenda. Every headline in the news about banks are of top bankers coming out aggressively against BTC. It seems this is a really important aspect of your anti-BTC thesis so I really want to know more about why you think this because I haven't read anything like this before from anyone who is anti-core.

Yes tis is the most important point that I am trying to get a cross. Here are the links to bankers:

Blockstream Sponsors (including AXA):
https://www.blockstream.com/about/#investors
Blockstream is proud to be working with leading investors from Asia, Europe and North America, including alphabetically AME Cloud Ventures, AXA Strategic Ventures, Blockchain Capital, Digital Currency Group, Digital Garage, FuturePerfect Ventures, Horizons Ventures, Innovation Endeavors, Khosla Ventures, Mosaic Ventures, Real Ventures, Reid Hoffman, and Seven Seas Venture Partners.


DCG (Digital Currency Group) is the company invested into blockstream (http://dcg.co/portfolio/). The CEO of DCG is Barry Silbert, a former investment banker, and Mastercard is an investor in DCG.


http://dcg.co/who-we-are/

Three board members are listed, and one Board "Advisor." Three of the four Members/advisors are particularly interesting:

Glenn Hutchins: Former Advisor to President Clinton. Hutchins sits on the board of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he was reelected as a Class B director for a three-year term ending December 31, 2018.

Barry Silbert: CEO of DCG (Digital Currency Group, funded by Mastercard) who is also an Ex investment Banker at (Houlihan Lokey)

And then there's the "Board Advisor,"

Lawrence H. Summers:

"Chief Economist at the World Bank from 1991 to 1993. In 1993, Summers was appointed Undersecretary for International Affairs of the United States Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration. In 1995, he was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin. In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury. While working for the Clinton administration Summers played a leading role in the American response to the 1994 economic crisis in Mexico, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the Russian financial crisis. He was also influential in the American advised privatization of the economies of the post-Soviet states, and in the deregulation of the U.S financial system, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act."

Alternatively, would you rather have BTC controlled by miners, corporations, or Ver instead? (Or all of the above?) Because to me, this is what supporting BCH and 2x is.

To be honest at this stage yes. I would rather anyone control the bitcoin rather than the bankers. With bankers the outcome is 100% pro-banker. If it is controlled by miners, other bitcoin startups - these are the people who made bitcoin what it is today. They are still small corporations that are trying to promote blockchain as their business depends on it's success. Bankers already have a great fiat system that they love and they will try to augment blockchain such that it suits them.

I'm a software engineer, the blockchain is a massive computer science revolution. It's not a coincidence that those that are pro-core, UASF, Segwit, No2x are primarily developers and bitcoin users. Honestly, the general feeling I get from pro-BCH/2xers (on r/btc) are that they are largely technically illiterate. Just generalizing of course, not saying anything about you in particular.

Yes i am pro- technology as well. And yes I am not a developer. But you cannot look at bitcoin just from technological point. There are a lot of political repercussions as well. And that is what the developers are missing. They are just happy to work on cool stuff. Yes it might be great technology, yes segwit might introduce all these fancy scaling solutions, etc. Yes the developers want to work on the best techology. The problem is that if bankers control the development which they do with blockstream (they pay their salaries) they will ensure the development happens in the way they like it. So get rid of blockstream corporation and I am happy with developers going at it.

Other big problem i see with segwit is parts of it are patented. Even though blockstream has said they will only use these patents defensively. You cannot trust that promise EVER. I mean 99% of time CEO's make all sorts of promises and then new CEO completely 100% u-turn the promise. This is because the corporations are profit driven.

Shouldn't you be aggressively shorting BTC while longing BCH if the market is truly this wildly mistaken? You can retire off of this disparity if this is true.

The bitcoin is software so if we get rid of banker cancer then it can succeed. There may be people forking it and making new ones that are better. Like BCH, then I get airdropped these new coins. Therefore there is a high chance that in some form bitcoin will survive.


But you are right my main point is that bankers are trying to control bitcoin, through investments, and through paying salaries to the developers through blockstream. Blockstream is a for profit corporation. Therefore it MUST generate profit. Otherwise it dies. By being forced to generate profit it means that Blockstream's interest automatically does not align with the best for humanity outcome. It only wants profit and profit always corrupts the corporation. Look at google for example, 5 years ago it was praised as being the best company. The slogan used to be "don't be evil", now they have become large enough and profit driven enough, they are basically considered as the "bad guys". It happens to all profit driven corporations.

Thanks for the thorough response. I think we mostly disagree here:

To be honest at this stage yes. I would rather anyone control the bitcoin rather than the bankers. With bankers the outcome is 100% pro-banker. If it is controlled by miners, other bitcoin startups - these are the people who made bitcoin what it is today. They are still small corporations that are trying to promote blockchain as their business depends on it's success. Bankers already have a great fiat system that they love and they will try to augment blockchain such that it suits them.

In my view, I would rather we take the % chance (which I personally think is low) Blockstream really is backed by the banking agenda over giving up miner control. Miners clearly have their own ulterior motives and if they were in charge of the protocol, the underlying trust in Bitcoin's technology (no hacks or massive vulns discovered in 8 years) disappears. Even most recently, 2x had a massive but obvious bug. As of Dec 3 2017, Bitcoin core has not done anything to harm BTC imo. And if this were poker, I'd trust 8 years of open-sourced history over attempting a huge soul read.

Fair enough. We just have to disagree there. I reckon Proof Of Stake is the future either way - gets rid of the miner problem as everyone becomes a miner