GMX-Account von Satoshi Nakamoto gehackt – BitcoinBlog.de ...

I'd like to post all the arguments for removing "Theymos" from /r/Bitcoin, but they contain threats and dox. Have this civilized argument for his removal instead.

I'd like to post all the arguments for removing submitted by theirmoss to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

Theymos has been doxed on forum.bitcoin.com and Roger Ver doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

Paging memorydealers
He says doxing is ok in some circumstances, and has not bothered to remove the link.
I'm not a fan of the censorship that's been going on here either, but that's some fucked up shit Roger.
submitted by bitpoop to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Discussion • Dox of theymos (Michael Marquardt) | blockchain-db.com

submitted by btcforumbot to BtcForum [link] [comments]

Dox of theymos (Michael Marquardt) | blockchain-db.com /forum.bitcoin.com

Dox of theymos (Michael Marquardt) | blockchain-db.com /forum.bitcoin.com submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

ProHashing doxes theymos on /r/btc. Roger Ver shrugs. /r/Bitcoin_Exposed

ProHashing doxes theymos on /btc. Roger Ver shrugs. /Bitcoin_Exposed submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Theymos has been doxed on forum.bitcoin.com and Roger Ver doesn't seem to have a problem with it. /r/Bitcoin

Theymos has been doxed on forum.bitcoin.com and Roger Ver doesn't seem to have a problem with it. /Bitcoin submitted by coincrazyy to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Butt developer banned from The People's subreddit. Drama futures take a dive from oversupply.

Butt developer banned from The People's subreddit. Drama futures take a dive from oversupply. submitted by nullc to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

So Ver is allowed to openly dox Theymos?

Roger Ver creates a thread that doxes theymos:
http://imgur.com/hZLk7Be
Then he justifies why it's okay to dox theymos:
http://imgur.com/yVgTrlT
http://imgur.com/DTm0uTP
Shouldn't Ver and sub reddit get banned because of this? Any way to report this... I'm sick of his bullshit and hypocrisy
submitted by YRuafraid to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

so I did 5minutes of digging and OH MY GOD

this picture popped up yesterday where we see fake satoshi and former convict bitcoin judas having a good time with some "hee ladies" guy.
Well turns out he is Calvin Ayre. He made it on the homeland security top ten most wanted list and another agency.
He likes prostitutes, blows, and seems to be especially tight with bitcoin judas.
now he states that its time to fix all the damages the two top cryptos have caused.... damn this sounds menacing.
These are the people attacking bitcoin and pushing for the technical abomination of a fork bec&sh.
If you want to bet your money on their success, maybe think twice.
bonus: John McAfee, wanted for murder in Belize and our beloved Jihad Vu are on board as well.
edit: this seems to get some traction so here are even more goodies on:
(more to come)
---------------------------------general goodies for the folks who have missed them---------------------------------
real Satoshi on bitcoin.com being unrelated
a fulfilling prophecy from late July
submitted by cutepoops to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Greg Maxwell has been banned from this sub. I cannot tell you where to find more information, otherwise this post will be deleted.

submitted by Lejitz to btc [link] [comments]

"It's OK to oppose features just because the Core developed them"

submitted by MemoryDealers to btc [link] [comments]

theymos is worried how bitcoiners wank, wankers respond: piss off

theymos is worried how bitcoiners wank, wankers respond: piss off submitted by dyzo-blue to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

[L] SFYL pending. Captain of the industry TradeFortress reboots 'inputs.io' as 'wallet.la' after previously losing $1.2M worth of Bitcoin in a "hack".

[L] SFYL pending. Captain of the industry TradeFortress reboots 'inputs.io' as 'wallet.la' after previously losing $1.2M worth of Bitcoin in a submitted by _______SFYL_________ to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

The day /r/buttcoin almost died.

I'm making this post as per cojoco request.
https://www.reddit.com/Buttcoin/comments/3lnrmo/dont_post_personal_information_in_this_subreddit/cv8fs3e
About a year ago this sub had a mod run monthly nomination thread for the biggest captains of the industry. One user nominated pirateat40.
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2014/lr23090.htm
Pretty low profile guy huh.
This was the second such nomination thread. Shortly after Cojoco banned said user for supposedly doxing another member of reddit. Pretty odd since pirateat40 doesn't and has never posted on reddit as far as anyone knows. The user messaged the mods confused as to why he was banned. Cojoco decided it would be best to just start name calling admitting that he doesn't take his modding this sub seriously and basically acts like a child.
http://imgur.com/NfjLe9W
Does it appear to you that the user was being too sassy and out of control before Cojoco banned him.
His recent claims was that the user was banned for linking a reddit user (he isn't) with an offsite forum. The other mods agreed that Cojoco made a wildly stupid call and stuck up for the banned user. Cojoco didn't like that his authority was called in to question and began take away all the other mods powers. There was talk in the buttcoin IRC of all the mods quitting but they decided it was best not to give /bitcoin something to laugh about. One of the mods did quit at this time after hours and hours of bullshit.
Do you know how Cojoco got his top mod spot of this sub? He is a known subsquatter. He waits until a sub has gone quiet for awhile and then asks the admins to give him control of the sub. Did you know Cojoco also mods over 150 subs? Did you know he resigned from /undelete because he was restoring anti-jewish posts that had since been deleted and that he was doing it under the guise of "free speech" Killhamster and Borderpatrol are the rightful head mods of this sub but as I mentioned they had the entire sub stolen right from under their nose.
Cojoco is as shady and tyrannical as Theymos. The only difference is that Theymos actually gives a shit about his sub. /buttcoin is just another merit badge to sew onto his mod sash.
submitted by Delusionalbull to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

r/btc is also censored

People speak about censorship, and I have written about my views on why it is bad https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rtwkz/request_to_rbitcoin_mod_team_to_clarify_theidday7b2/, but it is interesting to note as I had posted this same post https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ukzfsegwit_is_a_softfork_to_miners_without_supporting/ on both sub-reddits https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ukz58/segwit_is_a_softfork_to_miners_without_supporting/ and to note that on btc it has been downvoted to page-4 whereas on bitcoin it is 2nd post on 1st page below an obviously popular price moon post.
Some have claimed that technically brigade downvoting and bot downvoting is not censorship but if you effectively hide content from view rather than allowing people to discuss it, how are people going to be informed or participate in discussion here. you dont have to downvote things. the answer to speech you dont like is more speech not censorship.
I am starting to wonder if people are just playing semantics and both forums are censored.
For example someone just doxxed theymos yet again (public figure blah blah, minimally you're harassing him), and yet there remain frequent contributors like u/smartfbrankings and u/whalepanda who are banned on this forum for "doxxing" and yet did not in fact dox anyone. u/bitcoinxio may like to explain the censorship of ability for those two users to comment.
edit: yes the censorship is different. no two wrongs dont make a right.
submitted by adam3us to btc [link] [comments]

[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] so I did 5minutes of digging and OH MY GOD

The following post by cutepoops is being replicated because some comments within the post(but not the post itself) have been silently removed.
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/7cgzbv
The original post's content was as follows:
this picture popped up yesterday where we see fake satoshi and former convict bitcoin judas having a good time with some "hee ladies" guy.
Well turns out he is Calvin Ayre. He made it on the homeland security top ten most wanted list and another agency.
He likes prostitutes, blows, and seems to be especially tight with bitcoin judas.
now he states that its time to fix all the damages the two top cryptos have caused.... damn this sounds menacing.
These are the people attacking bitcoin and pushing for the technical abomination of a fork bec&sh.
If you want to bet your money on their success, maybe think twice.
bonus: John McAfee, wanted for murder in the states and our beloved Jihad Vu are on board as well.
edit: this seems to get some traction so here are even more goodies on:
(more to come)
---------------------------------general goodies for the folks who have missed them---------------------------------
real Satoshi on bitcoin.com being unrelated
a fulfilling prophecy from late July
submitted by censorship_notifier to noncensored_bitcoin [link] [comments]

ProHashing doxes theymos on /r/btc. Roger Ver shrugs.

ProHashing ([redacted] pretending to be [redacted]) has a post on the front page of btc in which he doxes theymos. It's been up for 7 hours, with no action by the btc mods. Edit: 2 hours after this post, a mod removed the post. (You can still see it, of course, just by following the link in LovelyDay's comment below.) So please remember that there is a strict 9 hour policy for doxing on btc.
Remember this in the future when they pretend to be against doxing. Hmm. I wonder how long Bitcoin_Exposed will permit to "expose" this information about btc. Let's find out.
Edit: I edited the post due to the demand of LovelyDay, who owns this subreddit and can make the rules of it. Based on this experience, I think BGTOW is looking like the freeist bitcoin subreddit. Have a lovely day!
Edit2: a week after this post Ver reposted the doxing thread (which stayed up for 13 hours before another btc mod removed it again). Today, 11 days after this post, Ver was banned from reddit.
submitted by impolici to Bitcoin_Exposed [link] [comments]

The Bitcoin Classic Code of Conduct does seem a bit weird. Maybe it shouldn't use a laundry list of SJW "identities" - and should instead focus on issues specific to "competing repos on a consensus network" (eg, contrarians, trolls, sabotageurs, etc). Or maybe a generic "Be excellent & No doxing".

TL;DR:
The code of Conduct is refreshingly well-intentioned, but it's probably a bit too specific and "identity-oriented".
Personally, I think any "list of types of people" is counter-productive. If you're against labeling people, and you want to prevent people attacking other people based on labeling, then... maybe you should not be drawing up a "list of labels of types of people" in the first place?
It could be possible to elaborate a Code of Conduct with no labels. We could itemize what types of conduct are welcome (and not welcome) without going down the road of itemizing what types of people are welcome (and not welcome).
I clicked on the Bitcoin Classic Code of Conduct expecting something generic like: "Be excellent to each other. Please be respectful. Please stay on-topic. No doxing" etc.
Instead it turned out to be apparently some copy-and-paste from SJW (social justice warrior) identity-based politics, perhaps more appropriate for a discussion group centered around social and political issues than for a discussion group about software issues.
As we know, identity-based politics often tends to "itemize" every single possible "identity" (black, white, male, female, homo, hetero, trans, cis) and then somehow even attempt to "prioritize" them, perhaps in some well-intentioned (but ultimately probably doomed) attempt to compensate for the whole history of human oppression in the world - which usually distracts from the more prosaic, bread-and-butter issues at hand (which might be wages and standard of living in the case of groups oriented towards politics and economics, or which would be software in our case)... leading, as we know, to endless distractions and name-calling, the whole "check your white male privilege" thing, etc.
Ironically, probably well over 90% or 95% of the contributors to this or any other open-source C/C++ software project tend to be white and male anyways - that's just the type of demographic that tends to be attracted to these kinds of projects in the first place.
By the way, I have long held private thoughts that the community around here would be much stronger if it weren't almost exclusively male. But this is just a hope and a private thought of mine: I have privately hoped the community would someday evolve to include more women, because I think this would bring a different perspective, possibly with more focus on community and less focus on (what I hope I'm allowed to refer here to as...) "pissing" and "dick-swinging".
I certainly don't think that this or any other software-oriented group needs to take explicit steps in the direction of seriously trying to influence the demographic composition of its members - eg, by trying to encourage or discourage particular people from joining (which is where you inevitably end up if you make "identity" a real criterion at all).
We should instead simply be open and welcoming to all comers who want to make serious contributions in good faith, and then we get whomever we get - without specifically invoking some kind of shopping list saying that we need more or less of this or that "identity", or trying to say which identities are more or less "deserving" of protection than others. Because what we really just want is contributions from anyone who either knows about software and/or knows about the larger economic and political issues involved in Bitcoin.
By the way, to pick a specific recent example on Reddit, this would also include the idea that we should be welcoming of a guy like jstolfi - ie, we should not make the mistake made recently by a mod of /btc who banned him, presumably out of the misguided assumption that someone like him who's a naysayer and who has contributed on /buttcoin might somehow be harmful to Bitcoin. In this particular case, jstolfi happens to be merely a contrarian or doubter or naysayer, but he also makes very detailed and convincing technical (and objective) arguments regarding possible success and failure factors for Bitcoin - so he is not the type of guy who we should consider banning, as he clearly helps make Bitcoin more anti-fragile, by his excellent identification and analysis of potential threat vectors.
So if our "Code of Conduct" were to get into a "laundry list" of "types" of people (the way it currently includes a laundry list of black, white, male, female, homo, hetero, trans, cis...), then I think it could possibly be interesting for it to explicitly say that "doubters" or "contrarians" or "naysayers" (such as jstolfi) are also explicitly welcome to contribute here, since their viewpoints may prove to be helpful in the long run.
I think the current "Code of Conduct" is "lazy" in the sense that its "laundry list" doesn't include the relevant "types" of people whom we should be worrying about explicitly "protecting" within our community. To my knowledge (as a lurker for many years on the Reddit Bitcoin forums), I have never seen an incident where someone attacked someone based on them being black, white, male, female, homo, hetero, trans, cis. But, as noted above, we have already seen one actual incident where someone got needlessly banned from /btc for being a "doubter" or "contrarian" (sometimes called a "buttcoiner") - and I think that if we're going to include a "laundry list" of protected identities (not saying that we necessarily even should include any such laundry list at all - but if we do end up deciding to include one), then such a list should be tailored to our needs as Bitcoiners - and not just reel off a generic list of the standard SJW "identities" which have never even an issue in any Bitcoin forums. In other words, if we do want any list of "types" of people at all, we should instead think harder about what identities really do need some protecting on Bitcoin forums: ie, "doubters", "naysayers", "contrarians" and even "buttcoiners" - welcome or non-welcome?
By the way, if you look up the TED talk on "The Marshmallow Challenge" (which compares the success of various teams composed of various types of members performing a specific task or "challenge", ranging from engineers to kindergartners to MBAs), there's this really fascinating part where the team made of all MBAs (presumably all male?) utterly fails at the task, but then another team with all MBAs + an "admin assistant" (presumably female?) does much better - probably due to the vital role which a (female) admin assistant can play, smoothing over abrasive (male) egos, facilitating collaboration and communication - something which an all-male team might have a harder time doing.
...which is all a roundabout way of me saying: Yeah I wish there more more women in Bitcoin - but unfortunately there isn't yet, and I don't think a laundry list of "identities" would even be the right way to attract more diversity, although I do hope that someday, if we continue to simply be open and welcoming, Bitcoin might gain a broader demographic base, as it continues to grow in relevance and adoption. But for the moment, probably all we can do is "be excellent to one another" and hope that eventually a broader range of people someday take interest.
And I also hope that I'm "allowed" to use such specific and vivid and broad-brushed biases and imagery like I did just now when talking here (about the good things certain women might tend to contribute, and the bad things certain men tnd to might contribute) - since most people do consider these to be real phenomena and real factors which can and do contribute to the success and failure of projects in the real world, and people do talk about such things in their informal discussions of these kinds of projects.
(For example, one of my closest friends happens to be female, black, and lesbian - and she has worked most of her life at high-ranking positions on Wall Street - and she and I will often have far-ranging, rollicking discussions where she'll use terminology such as "dick swinging" and "pissing" as a way of criticizing the frequent tendency of some of her male colleagues to jockey for dominance and territory on fin-tech projects she's been involved in. I certainly wouldn't want a "code of conduct" which prevented her or anyone from talking like that. On the other hand, she probably only says those things with me - and doesn't say them when talking with her colleagues. And who knows what terminology her colleagues might use when talking privately to their friends about her. The point being: when they're all talking together - she and her colleagues - they probably have the common sense and the maturity to work out their own boundaries of discourse. Because in the end, anyone who oversteps those boundaries will probably hurt themselves more than anyone else.)
So, as most of us know from reading these threads over the years, almost nobody debating a software project ever uses an insult based on calling someone black, white, male, female, homo, hetero, trans, cis or whatever - it's simply a topic that doesn't tend to come up.
Yeah, I have heard of incidents of male "gamers" doing horrible things towards the minority of gamers who happen to be female, and I've heard of some incidents at software conferences where female attendees were made to feel uncomfortable by some obnoxious male attendees (who probably have a hard time getting laid) - but I haven't heard of these kinds of things happening in on-line discussion groups centered around open-source software projects. And the overall lack of women in IT and STEM is an issue which does need to be addressed. Although perhaps not in excruciating itemized detail by Bitcoin Classic's Code of Conduct via a laundry list of "types" of people based on shopworn SJW "identity" labels. If we do want to explicitly encourage diversity, it might be enough to simply say so: 88"We encourage diversity."88 (again, without the tedious SJW "laundry list" of protected identities - and still worse: the laundry list of "unprotected" ones - the white males who supposedly have "privilege" and supposedly therefore don't need to be protected. This kind of stuff is best left implicit, because making it implicit just opens up a can of worms).
On the other hand, when debates get heated, we do tend to use words such as "idiot", "troll" or even "that guy's being a real dick" etc. - which I think is perfectly ok, since these are not words actually tied to someone's intrinsic "identity" - they're just colorful and compact ways of saying: "your ideas aren't very intelligent" or "you're trying to undermine the project" or "that guy's being obnoxious" - accusations which are normal and typical in any software development process, and so terms like "idiot" and "troll" and "being a dick" are a natural part of the debate, a useful and appropriate shorthand when used judiciously - and we should not let any well-intentioned, hand-wringing SJWs tell us otherwise and try to impose censorship on us which would delete these colorful and generally harmless shorthands from our language.
I myself happen to be a bit... "older", shall we say, and I have always personally "identified" as a "liberal" all my life, so I've been observing, initially with amusement and later with increasing chagrin, the rise of this whole "SJW" thing in recent years in places such as American college campuses (mainly seeing it discussed on Reddit threads, where I first heard about it). I think it goes overboard, and it's sad to see politics devolve a kind of identity-based censorship. It kinda makes me want to say "Kids these days..." :=)
And by the way, since I brought up "age" in this way... I would like to reserve the right to call guys like Theymos or Luke-Jr "immature" - without being accused of "ageism" or or "reverse ageism" or whatever the going term might be. Seriously, I think their lack of experience on large software projects and their lack of understanding of economics and politics is directly related to the fact that they're young and inexperienced, and I hope that no "code of conduct" would get put into place on our project here which would prevent an old codger like me from "calling it like it is" when some young whippersnapper shows the callowness of youth.
And conversely, I would defend the right of the young whippersnappers to accuse me of being an "old codger" who just doesn't "get" the way things work now. It's all good.
And such demographic factors do come into play.
Remember the occasional threads where someone talks about "making Bitcoin safe enough for grandma to use". If were were to go totally SJW, then that kind of shorthand could probably be disallowed, by some well-meaning person trying to avoid any appearances of "ageism".
Meanwhile, I doubt that any actual grandmas would object - hell, they'd probably be happy that someone actually wanted to explicitly take them into account and make the user experience easier for them, since it is fairly common knowledge that the older generation does have a harder time with a lot of this newfangled technology, and we need to have the full range of language available to us to express this simple demographic fact. I'm sure that such terminology has been occasionally used by the developers of massively successful software projects such as Facebook or Twitter, etc. Demographics are real, and big projects need to take account of thest things, and the language used to describe demographics is unfortunately often needlessly targeted for censorship by SJWs - so again I think it's better to avoid any kind of "laundry list of types of people" in our official Code of Conduct, and just let this language crop up naturally on occasion as needed.
Anyways, see what happens when you start bringing "identity" up? It leads to a tendency for people to talk about it forever, wasting everybody's time, like I'm doing here.
Because the dirty little secret of human beings is that everyone loves to express opinions on mainly the big "hot button" issues. For better or worse, we're social primates who focus like lasers on whether someone is black, white, male, female, homo, hetero, trans, cis etc. - it's just more interesting to our basic instincts, rather than focusing on abstract wonky stuff like blocksize limits or replace-by-fee or whatever.
So I think that's one of the main dangers of explicitly bringing terms like black, white, male, female, homo, hetero, trans, cis into any software project: it's just going to lead to needless distraction, because everyone's going to want to get on the bandwagon and tell anecdotes from their life, like I've been indulging in here.
And Peter Todd is a dork! (Sorry about that outburst.)
Note that we should also not explicitly prohibit calling someone's motives into question - ie, it should be perfectly ok to say something like "You work for Blockstream, whose business plan relies on creating artificial scarcity for space on the blockchain, so I just know this is why you favor small blocks." These kinds of statements / conjectures are perfectly permissible in these sorts of debates, since these are the kinds of factors we are actually dealing with - and such statements are only focusing on the software / features / incentives / economics themselves, and not attacking someone based on their inalienable "identity".
So I think the "Code of Conduct" (if we even end up thinking we need to have one) could be short and sweet, and focused on the kinds of things that actually do tend to occur in debates about open-source software projects: ie, it could mention the usual generic admonitions like:
Please be excellent to each other.
Please try to stay on topic.
Please refrain from undue personal attacks and from stalking.
And of course no doxing.
And that would probably be enough.
Notice that the above does not include a laundry list of labels of types of people that are welcome (or not welcome).
On the other hand, it does include a laundry list of labels of types of conduct (behavior) that are welcome (or not welcome) - which is, strictly speaking, the only thing that any Code of Conduct should be about anyways.
Maybe some additional stuff could be added (eventually? as we learn more?) specific to the situation which Bitcoin Classic is trying to bring about here: ie, the whole overarching notion that "competing repos are a good thing for Bitcoin" (which as most of us know is the main reason why Bitcoin Classic got founded in the first place).
This is probably the most important meta-issue which we should try to ensure people understand and adhere to: the very founding principle of Bitcoin Classic itself, which represents a break-away from the tyranny of Blockstream / Core, towards the transparency and democracy of multiple competing repos on a consensus network.
In particular, let's look at a recent awful event, which occurred almost immediately after Bitcoin Classic was set up.
I am referring, of course, to the sleazy, underhanded attempt by Luke-Jr to violate our rules and scare miners away from Classic by:
This unfortunate episode was handled appropriately - ie democratically and transparently: Luke-Jr's poison pill "pull request" was closed (although it's still visible) - ie, we were indeed "transparent" and "democratic".
It was closed because:
  • it had broken our rules by skipping over the required initial discussion phases, and
  • it turned out to be immensely unpopular, since it would have destroyed all existing mining operations.
This illustrates that the real "Code of Conduct" issues we are more likely to face will probably involve stuff like this:
  • how to deal with the interaction between repos and
  • how to deal with obvious (and not-so-obvious) possible disruptors / trolls and saboteurs
Maybe, as things evolve and we gain more experience in these areas, our Code of Conduct can be more tailored towards figuring out ways to deal with these sorts of situations - how to deal with "competing repos" in an open-source project which requires network consensus - and where devs are apparently free to cross over from one repo to another (hopefully merely trying to "cross-pollinate" and not trying to "poison" the competing ones).
Right now, though, as we have seen, we already do have pretty decent rules in place for dealing with this sort of thing: we already explicitly require that discussion and debate should occur first on Reddit and Slack, then on consider.it (with its wonderful facilities for voting), and only finally, if a proposal has successfully passed through all those preceding gauntlets, can it actually be coded and submitted as a concreted "pull request" for consideration for possible inclusion in our codebase.
But overall, the whole "Code of Conduct" thing should as I say probably be minimal - short and sweet, with no "laundry list" of of explicitly protected (and unprotected) SJW identities - precisely to avoid people's natural tendency to veer off the topic of software development - like I've been doing here! =)
submitted by LazLO-LULZkash to Bitcoin_Classic [link] [comments]

[uncensored-r/btc] Bcash is run by criminals and the evil people

The following post by gjecjez is being replicated because the post has been openly removed.
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/ btc/comments/7m1v2g
The original post's content was as follows:
this picture popped up yesterday where we see fake satoshi and former convict bitcoin judas having a good time with some "hee ladies" guy.
Well turns out he is Calvin Ayre. He made it on the homeland security top ten most wanted list and another agency.
He likes prostitutes, blows, and seems to be especially tight with bitcoin judas.
now he states that its time to fix all the damages the two top cryptos have caused.... damn this sounds menacing.
These are the people attacking bitcoin and pushing for the technical abomination of a fork bec&sh.
If you want to bet your money on their success, maybe think twice.
bonus: John McAfee, wanted for murder in Belize and our beloved Jihad Vu are on board as well.
edit: this seems to get some traction so here are even more goodies on:
Roger Keith Ver, bitcoin judas: one, two, selling counterfeit CISCO hardware, doxing theymos Craig Steven Wright, fake satoshi: Jihan Vu, CEO of BitMain: agenda, classy, antminer backdoor, exploiting mining shortcut John McAfee: the time drunk him almost spilled the beans on the murder case but his watchful wife covered his mouth ex main developer Gavin Andersen: claiming fake satoshi is the real Satoshi, shilling bcash, real Satoshi disappearing after his CIA visit Mike Belshe, CEO of BitGo: the mysterious pump letter Rick Falkvinge, politician: call for CP legitimization, shilling bec&sh - also note the retweets from many of the previously mentioned crewmembers. 
bCash
submitted by censorship_notifier to noncensored_bitcoin [link] [comments]

The Lies of BitcoinXio

One of the moderators of /btc is spreading lies about my ban from /btc.
Here are the facts.
  1. After appealing for months for being added to the whitelist and ignored, Roger Ver had his team add me to the whitelist to allow me to post more than once every 10 minutes.
  2. This whitelist permission was removed after calling a user a "whiny bitch". I was also threatened with a ban if I attacked users like that again. Meanwhile, the same moderator, bitcoinxio (an employee of Roger Ver), has made numerous attacks and threats on people in much worse ways. Other /btc users, who he agrees with, continue to post much more inflammatory messages.
  3. After a witch hunt is lead against theymos, bitcoinxio posts that he will "allow it" since he deems Theymos a public figure, as he is the moderator of /bitcoin. The post asks who he is but does not actually dox him. Numerous other contributors dox theymos as part of the thread. bitcoinxio allows it all to stand. see https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5gyxkp/who_is_utheymos_in_real_life_such_a_big/
  4. I make a word-for-word copy of the post with the exception of changing theymos to bitcoinxio, and post it in /btc. At the end, I add something along the lines of "But this tooootally isn't doxing guys!" The post was clearly sarcastic and mocking of bitcoinxio's endorsement of the witch hunt. See: http://archive.is/c5g7p#selection-3427.0-3489.82
  5. The author who made the post in #3 is permanently banned from reddit. Most of the posts are eventually removed.
  6. I am banned from /btc. I am NOT banned from reddit, as my post was clearly a parody and NOT an attempt to dox.
  7. bitcoinxio continues to lie to this day, refuses to respond to my posts, and refuses to add me back to /btc.
submitted by smartfbrankings to BitcoinClassic [link] [comments]

Subreddit Stats: btc top posts from 2017-01-09 to 2017-02-07 22:40 PDT

Period: 29.80 days
Submissions Comments
Total 999 28052
Rate (per day) 33.52 904.13
Unique Redditors 409 2067
Combined Score 56126 117584

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

  1. 3835 points, 41 submissions: Egon_1
    1. "One miner loses $12k from BU bug, some Core devs scream. Users pay millions in excessive tx fees over the last year "meh, not a priority" (529 points, 262 comments)
    2. Charlie Shrem: "Oh cmon. @gavinandresen is the reason we are all here today. Stop attacking people, ...." (256 points, 61 comments)
    3. The core developers don't care about you. Let's fire them by hard fork to Bitcoin unlimited! (231 points, 83 comments)
    4. Bitcoin Core Hashrate Below 80% (211 points, 27 comments)
    5. "Bitcoin is an P2P electronic cash system, not digital gold. If Bitcoin's usefulness as cash is undermined, its value will be undermined too." (198 points, 196 comments)
    6. I like these ads (194 points, 25 comments)
    7. "ViaBTC Transaction Accelerator already help more than 5K delayed transactions got confirmed." (142 points, 27 comments)
    8. Bitcoin Unlimited: Over 800 PH/s (128 points, 21 comments)
    9. ViaBTC produces ZERO empty block in the last month. Best in SPV base mining pool. (117 points, 2 comments)
    10. New ATL (All Time Low) For Bitcoin Core Blocks (114 points, 59 comments)
  2. 2876 points, 24 submissions: ydtm
    1. The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE? (354 points, 116 comments)
    2. BU-SW parity! 231 vs 231 of the last 1000 blocks! Consensus will always win over censorship! MARKET-BASED blocksize will always win over CENTRALLY-PLANNED blocksize! People want blocksize to be determined by the MARKET - not by Greg Maxwell & his 1.7MB anyone-can-spend SegWit-as-a-soft-fork blocks. (271 points, 66 comments)
    3. The number of blocks being mined by Bitcoin Unlimited is now getting very close to surpassing the number of blocks being mined by SegWit! More and more people are supporting BU's MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE - because BU avoids needless transaction delays and ultimately increases Bitcoin adoption & price! (185 points, 80 comments)
    4. "Notice how anyone who has even remotely supported on-chain scaling has been censored, hounded, DDoS'd, attacked, slandered & removed from any area of Core influence. Community, business, Hearn, Gavin, Jeff, XT, Classic, Coinbase, Unlimited, ViaBTC, Ver, Jihan, Bitcoin.com, btc" ~ u/randy-lawnmole (176 points, 114 comments)
    5. "Why is Flexible Transactions more future-proof than SegWit?" by u/ThomasZander (175 points, 110 comments)
    6. "You have to understand that Core and their supporters eg Theymos WANT a hardfork to be as messy as possible. This entire time they've been doing their utmost to work AGAINST consensus, and it will continue until they are simply removed from the community like the cancer they are." ~ u/singularity87 (170 points, 28 comments)
    7. Blockstream/Core don't care about you. They're repeatedly crippling the network with their DEV-CONTROLLED blocksize. Congestion & delays are now ROUTINE & PREDICTABLE after increased difficulty / time between blocks. Only we can fix the network - using MARKET-CONTROLLED blocksize (Unlimited/Classic) (168 points, 60 comments)
    8. 3 excellent articles highlighting some of the major problems with SegWit: (1) "Core Segwit – Thinking of upgrading? You need to read this!" by WallStreetTechnologist (2) "SegWit is not great" by Deadalnix (3) "How Software Gets Bloated: From Telephony to Bitcoin" by Emin Gün Sirer (146 points, 59 comments)
    9. This trader's price & volume graph / model predicted that we should be over $10,000 USD/BTC by now. The model broke in late 2014 - when AXA-funded Blockstream was founded, and started spreading propaganda and crippleware, centrally imposing artificially tiny blocksize to suppress the volume & price. (143 points, 97 comments)
    10. Now that BU is overtaking SW, r\bitcoin is in meltdown. The 2nd top post over there (sorted by "worst first" ie "controversial") is full of the most ignorant, confused, brainwashed comments ever seen on r\bitcoin - starting with the erroneous title: "The problem with forking and creating two coins." (142 points, 57 comments)
  3. 2424 points, 31 submissions: realistbtc
    1. Remember this picture ? It was a very strong and cool message from around 2014 . Well, sadly it's not true anymore. But it was universally liked in the Bitcoin space , and probably brought here some of us . I remember even luke-jr reposting it somewhere (oh , the hypocrysis!! ). (249 points, 55 comments)
    2. Emin Gun Sirer on Twitter ' My take is the exact opposite: we are now finding out that Segwit isn't necessary and we can get the same benefits via simpler means. " (248 points, 46 comments)
    3. Gavin Andresen on Twitter : ' The purpose of a consensus system is to arrive at one outcome. Participating means accepting the result even if you initially disagree. ' (204 points, 56 comments)
    4. enough with the blockstream core propaganda : changing the blocksize IS the MORE CAUTIOUS and SAFER approach . if it was done sooner , we would have avoived entirely these unprecedented clycles of network clogging that have caused much frustrations in a lot of actors (173 points, 15 comments)
    5. Gavin Andresen on Twitter - 'This can't be controversial... can it? - a definition of Bitcoin' (136 points, 38 comments)
    6. adam back on twitter "contentious forks are bad idea for confidence & concept of digital scarcity. wait for the ETFs. profit. mean time deploy segwit & lightning" - no! a corrupt company like blockstream with a washed out ex cypherpunk like adam are what's bad for Bitcoin . (122 points, 115 comments)
    7. "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" - if you stray from that , you don't get to keep calling it Bitcoin. call it blockstreamcoin, adamcoin, gregcoin, theymoscoin or whatever and go fork off yourself . (112 points, 19 comments)
    8. soon 21 will have to change the scale , because 180 satoshi/KB won't be enough anymore - madness - feel free to send your complaints to greg maxwell CTO of blockstream (112 points, 31 comments)
    9. PSA : if you use a ledger wallet , you risk paying an absurdly high free - see here : 10$ for a 225 bytes 150$ tx - but remember , it's all fine for your elitist and gregonomic friends at blockstream (109 points, 111 comments)
    10. Luke 'the liar' Dashjr : ' My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community opposes any block size increase hardfork ever. ' -- yes , he wrote exactly that !! (96 points, 33 comments)
  4. 2129 points, 43 submissions: increaseblocks
    1. After failing to get 10K bitcoins for stolen NSA exploits, Shadow Brokers post farewell message, dump a cache of Windows hacking tools online (181 points, 23 comments)
    2. Coinbase and the IRS (146 points, 69 comments)
    3. Ryan X. Charles on Twitter - There is a leadership gap in bitcoin left by technical community members who didn't listen to miners, businesses or users. (117 points, 44 comments)
    4. Blockstream Core developer says you should "pay a $5 fee" to get your transaction to go through! (116 points, 32 comments)
    5. $2.50 transaction FEE paid on $37 transaction, still unconfirmed for 24 hours!! (109 points, 37 comments)
    6. Blockstream shareholder gives a little more insight into the company (107 points, 33 comments)
    7. Finished setting up my Unlimited full node. Took just over 24 hrs to sync with a 5 yr old laptop and standard U.S. connection + $50 1TB hard drive! (96 points, 46 comments)
    8. Matt Corallo/TheBlueMatt leaves Blockstream to go work for Chaincode Labs... is the Blockstream house of cards beginning to crumble? (86 points, 175 comments)
    9. 53,000 transactions in the backlog! (75 points, 79 comments)
    10. Doctor ₿ Goss on Twitter: Spending a year on #segwit instead of coordinating blocksize increase may not have been wise. Money that doesn't work is worthless (70 points, 11 comments)
  5. 1590 points, 9 submissions: parban333
    1. Dear Theymos, you divided the Bitcoin community. Not Roger, not Gavin, not Mike. It was you. And dear Blockstream and Core team, you helped, not calling out the abhorrent censorship, the unforgivable manipulation, unbecoming of supposed cypherpunks. Or of any decent, civil persons. (566 points, 87 comments)
    2. 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. (400 points, 207 comments)
    3. Remember: while the blockstream trolls take Peter R out of context, Peter Todd really think Bitcoin should have a 1%/security tax via inflation. (146 points, 92 comments)
    4. So, Alice is causing a problem. Alice is then trying to sell you a solution for that problem. Alice now tell that if you are not buying into her solution, you are the cause of the problem. Replace Alice with Greg & Adam.. (139 points, 28 comments)
    5. SegWit+limited on-chain scaling: brought to you by the people that couldn't believe Bitcoin was actually a sound concept. (92 points, 47 comments)
    6. Remember: the manipulative Adam Back, CEO of Blockstream, want to fool every newcomer that doesn't know better into thinking that he practically invented Bitcoin. (91 points, 22 comments)
    7. Not only segwit support is laughable at the moment for something targeting 95% adoption, but it's actually diminishing. Wallet devs and people that spent resources implementing that ridiculous contraption must feel a bit silly at the moment.... (83 points, 143 comments)
    8. It's ironic that blockstream's concerns about hard forks security are what's actually caused concerns about hard forks security. (46 points, 5 comments)
    9. The Intercept - "Hidden loopholes allow FBI agents to infiltrate political and religious groups" - Just something to consider, right? (27 points, 2 comments)
  6. 1471 points, 10 submissions: sandakersmann
    1. 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." (472 points, 254 comments)
    2. 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." (252 points, 189 comments)
    3. Ryan X. Charles on Twitter: "Bigger blocks will allow more people access to every aspect of bitcoin, enhancing decentralization" (213 points, 179 comments)
    4. Is Bitcoin Unlimited Headed for Activation? (149 points, 38 comments)
    5. Marius Kjærstad on Twitter: "High fees push real economy out of #Bitcoin and makes price driven by speculation. Result is a lower real economy floor to catch the knife." (132 points, 37 comments)
    6. No Primary Litecoin Pool Will Upgrade to Segwit, Says LTC1BTC's Founder (103 points, 60 comments)
    7. Charlie Shrem: "Bitcoin is been built to appreciate or die. That's how it is. It has to continue to grow. If it doesn't grow then it's just gonna go away." (76 points, 15 comments)
    8. G. Andrew Stone & Andrew Clifford: Bitcoin Unlimited (Episode 166) (36 points, 1 comment)
    9. Joseph VaughnPerling on Twitter: "#SegWit on $LTC's safe b/c low TX vol. AnyoneCanSpend TX UTXO unlikely to hit 51% attack cost. On $BTC it'd be insidiously fatal. @SegWit" (21 points, 8 comments)
    10. Bitcoin Plummets After China Launches "Market Manipulation" Investigations Of Bitcoin Exchanges (17 points, 0 comments)
  7. 1408 points, 7 submissions: BeijingBitcoins
    1. LOL - /bitcoin user claims that people aren't being actively silenced; is actively silenced. (307 points, 142 comments)
    2. Reality check: today's minor bug caused the bitcoin.com pool to miss out on a $12000 block reward, and was fixed within hours. Core's 1MB blocksize limit has cost the users of bitcoin >$100k per day for the past several months. (270 points, 173 comments)
    3. Satoshi: "The eventual solution will be to not care how big [block size] gets." (250 points, 75 comments)
    4. Top post on /bitcoin about high transaction fees. 709 comments. Every time you click "load more comments," there is nothing there. How many posts are being censored? The manipulation of free discussion by /bitcoin moderators needs to end yesterday. (229 points, 91 comments)
    5. Bitcoin Unlimited blocks at all time high! (143 of last 1000) (191 points, 56 comments)
    6. Censored in bitcoin: "Bitcoin Core hashrate reaches 79.7%" (91 points, 61 comments)
    7. Bitcoin Transaction Fees - All Time (70 points, 18 comments)
  8. 1235 points, 40 submissions: chinawat
    1. Julian Assange just used the bitcoin block number 447506 as a proof of life. (199 points, 42 comments)
    2. "$3000 donated anonymously to the @internetarchive in bitcoin just now. Made our day!" -- Brewster Kahle on Twitter (97 points, 3 comments)
    3. ‘Barclays took my £440,000 and put me through hell’ | Money (76 points, 22 comments)
    4. Venezuelan Police Arrest Eight Bitcoin Miners in Two Weeks, and the Country's Leading Bitcoin Exchange Suspends Operations (52 points, 2 comments)
    5. The Path To $10,000 Bitcoin (46 points, 11 comments)
    6. How Deutsche Bank Made a $462 Million Loss Disappear (44 points, 6 comments)
    7. "The plan (#mBTC units) has been discussed amongst local #Chinese exchanges, & we believe it will appease the regulators, w/ "lower" prices." -- Bobby Lee on Twitter (43 points, 36 comments)
    8. "Everyone knows that we need to reduce the max block size, but is a one-time drop to 300 kB really the best way?" -- theymos (40 points, 68 comments)
    9. Buy bitcoin from any 7-11 in the Philippines (36 points, 0 comments)
    10. The Race Is On for a Bitcoin ETF (31 points, 14 comments)
  9. 1010 points, 17 submissions: 1and1make5
    1. Last 1000 Blocks - Bitcoin Unlimited overtakes soft-fork-segwit signaling (165 points, 25 comments)
    2. Again: Bigger Blocks Mean More Decentralization - Roger Ver (101 points, 59 comments)
    3. cnLedger on Twitter - "@todu77 Contacted http://BTC.TOP . A different logic was used when dealing w/ (very occasional) empty blc. They'll update to BU only" (94 points, 6 comments)
    4. Controlling your own wealth as a basic human right - Brian Armstrong (93 points, 30 comments)
    5. Last 1000 Blocks - 20% of the Bitcoin mining network supports Bitcoin Unlimited (89 points, 4 comments)
    6. BTC.top current hashrate: ~100 Ph/s (71 points, 5 comments)
    7. Throwback Thursday: BTC.top mined their first BU block 1 month ago with ~31 Ph/s, today they have ~149 Ph/s (68 points, 6 comments)
    8. Epicenter Bitcoin 166 - G. Andrew Stone & Andrew Clifford: Bitcoin Unlimited (63 points, 50 comments)
    9. Coinbase Obtains the Bitlicense (53 points, 19 comments)
    10. Fun fact (doesn't mean anything): In the last 24 hours more blocks have signaled support for Bitcoin Unlimited than soft-fork-segwit (53 points, 5 comments)
  10. 984 points, 20 submissions: seweso
    1. Bitcoin unlimited is an expression of freedom. And freedom will always be misconstrued by paternalists/statists as something dangerous. (120 points, 64 comments)
    2. My hope for Bitcoin Unlimited is not to force a hardfork upon everyone, but to break through the censorship, to open minds. (106 points, 88 comments)
    3. Core threatening a POW change makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. (97 points, 58 comments)
    4. "We will run a SegWit release in production by the time [a 2MB hardfork] is released in a version of Bitcoin Core." (94 points, 84 comments)
    5. Blocked by Peter Todd for pointing out he started the propaganda war with his slippery slope video. (92 points, 41 comments)
    6. I can't wait to spend everyone's SegWit funds on a hard-forked >1Mb chain. ~ Seweso (72 points, 72 comments)
    7. BashCo putting his Bitcoin ignorance on display by stating "60,000 #Bitcoin transactions don't just magically appear out of thin air. #spam" (66 points, 12 comments)
    8. Bitcoin Core developers discussing and deciding on Bitcoin economics again (47 points, 13 comments)
    9. Reaction to: why-bitcoin-unlimiteds-emergent-consensus-gamble (46 points, 9 comments)
    10. "@seweso Show me an instance where core pushed out a change and cost miners a block reward." ~ I can do that ;) (37 points, 6 comments)
  11. 883 points, 16 submissions: Shock_The_Stream
    1. 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. (155 points, 78 comments)
    2. BTC.TOP !! - New Alltime High for BU blocks @199 ! BTC.TOP alone just mined 4 BU blocks within 47 minutes (115 points, 26 comments)
    3. The great halvening of Samson's Segwit Pool: Mission accomplished! 1 yr: 12.50%, 6 month: 11.10%, 1 month: 7.83%, 1week: 6.67%, 4 days: 6% (107 points, 56 comments)
    4. Surpise: SegWit SF becomes more and more centralized - around half of all Segwit signals come from Bitfury ... (107 points, 45 comments)
    5. BS of the week by Rusty Russell: "If segwit doesn't activate, something is badly broken in Bitcoin" (102 points, 97 comments)
    6. Slush pool: Incredible bad luck for the Bitcoin Unlimited voters (43 points, 26 comments)
    7. The Bitfury Attack (43 points, 38 comments)
    8. 799! Jiang Zhuo'er teared down this wall! (40 points, 13 comments)
    9. Did Slush just stop mining segwit with the 'don't care' voters? (39 points, 36 comments)
    10. Fortune favours the bold: BTC.TOP with 300% luck today (30 points, 2 comments)
  12. 754 points, 10 submissions: AQuentson
    1. Price Shoots Up as Miners Checkmate and Bitcoin Unlimited Surpasses Segwit. (113 points, 28 comments)
    2. One Transaction Will Cost $400 if Bitcoin Hits $10,000 According to Jameson Lopp (104 points, 39 comments)
    3. Bitcoin Core Developer: Satoshi's Design Doesn't Work (100 points, 78 comments)
    4. Wow! Had no idea the BitcoinMarkets subreddit is completely censored. (90 points, 29 comments)
    5. F2Pool Will Not Upgrade Its Bitcoin Pool to Segwit "Anytime Soon" (89 points, 21 comments)
    6. The Bitcoin Market Needs Big Blocks, Says Founder of BTC.TOP Mining Pool (82 points, 21 comments)
    7. Almost $1 Billion Worth of Bitcoins Stuck in Transaction Backlog (72 points, 8 comments)
    8. ViaBTC's Hashrate Increases to 12 Percent (58 points, 2 comments)
    9. “The protocol debate is not my priority." - Jihan Wu, Bitmain's Founder (24 points, 13 comments)
    10. Wow! Almost $1 Billion Worth of Bitcoin is Stuck, Can't Move - What Happens if no Block is Found in One Hour (as has happened before) Will Bitcoin Literally Break Down? (22 points, 14 comments)
  13. 744 points, 10 submissions: BobsBurgers3Bitcoin
    1. Bitcoin Unlimited 1.0.0 has been released (274 points, 130 comments)
    2. Censored in r\Bitcoin: "35.8 Cents: Average Transaction Fee so far in 2017. The Average Transaction Fee in 2016 was 16.5 Cents" (260 points, 123 comments)
    3. 35.8 Cents: Average Transaction Fee so far in 2017. The Average Transaction Fee in 2016 was 16.5 Cents (74 points, 18 comments)
    4. Former Fed Employee Fined $5,000 for Using Computer for Bitcoin (37 points, 5 comments)
    5. Bitcoin: Why It Now Belongs in Every Portfolio (26 points, 0 comments)
    6. Bitcoin is 'a great hedge against the system' and could be the new gold (18 points, 1 comment)
    7. Bitcoin Will Change Money Like the Internet Changed Video (15 points, 0 comments)
    8. Is Warren Buffett Wrong About Bitcoin? (14 points, 3 comments)
    9. Bitseed Review – A Plug & Play Full Bitcoin Node (13 points, 2 comments)
    10. Bitcoin is soaring (and Business Insider does not change the title of the almost identical article published 3 weeks ago by the same author) (13 points, 1 comment)
  14. 732 points, 10 submissions: specialenmity
    1. Fantasy land: Thinking that a hard fork will be disastrous to the price, yet thinking that a future average fee of > $1 and average wait times of > 1 day won't be disastrous to the price. (209 points, 70 comments)
    2. "Segwit is a permanent solution to refuse any blocksize increase in the future and move the txs and fees to the LN hubs. The chinese miners are not as stupid as the blockstream core devaluators want them to be." shock_the_stream (150 points, 83 comments)
    3. In response to the "unbiased" ELI5 of Core vs BU and this gem: "Core values trustlessness and decentralization above all. Bitcoin Unlimited values low fees for on-chain transactions above all else." (130 points, 45 comments)
    4. 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? (96 points, 130 comments)
    5. luke-jr defines "using bitcoin" as running a full node. Dictates that the cost of moving money ( a transaction) should exceed "using bitcoin". Hah (38 points, 17 comments)
    6. If it's not activating that is a strong evidence that the claims of it being dire were and continue to be without substance. nullc (36 points, 23 comments)
    7. I'm more concerned that bitcoin can't change than whether or not we scale in the near future by SF or HF (26 points, 9 comments)
    8. "The best available research right now suggested an upper bound of 4MB. This figure was considering only a subset of concerns, in particular it ignored economic impacts, long term sustainability, and impacts on synchronization time.." nullc (20 points, 4 comments)
    9. At any point in time mining pools could have increased the block reward through forking and yet they haven't. Why? Because it is obvious that the community wouldn't like that and correspondingly the price would plummet (14 points, 14 comments)
    10. The flawed mind of jstolfi (13 points, 17 comments)
  15. 708 points, 7 submissions: knight222
    1. BTC.TOP operator: “We have prepared $100 million USD to kill the small fork of CoreCoin, no matter what POW algorithm, sha256 or scrypt or X11 or any other GPU algorithm. Show me your money. We very much welcome a CoreCoin change to POS.” (241 points, 252 comments)
    2. For those who missed it, this is how the hardfork with Bitcoin Unlimited will happen. (173 points, 79 comments)
    3. Blocks mined with Bitcoin Unlimited reaching 18% (133 points, 28 comments)
    4. Bitcoin Unlimited is less than 1% away from outpacing Segwit for the last 1000 blocks mined (90 points, 44 comments)
    5. BU nodes peaked in the last days (28 points, 6 comments)
    6. Blockstream never tried to compromise but they will (too late). This is why: (22 points, 4 comments)
    7. BTC.TOP is having a good day (21 points, 6 comments)

Top Commenters

  1. Adrian-X (3622 points, 821 comments)
  2. H0dl (3157 points, 563 comments)
  3. Bitcoinopoly (2732 points, 345 comments)
  4. knight222 (2319 points, 361 comments)
  5. MeTheImaginaryWizard (2043 points, 429 comments)
  6. Ant-n (1818 points, 387 comments)
  7. todu (1756 points, 265 comments)
  8. seweso (1742 points, 328 comments)
  9. awemany (1690 points, 401 comments)
  10. Shock_The_Stream (1647 points, 217 comments)
  11. Helvetian616 (1578 points, 206 comments)
  12. Egon_1 (1478 points, 162 comments)
  13. realistbtc (1299 points, 95 comments)
  14. BitcoinIsTehFuture (1231 points, 139 comments)
  15. LovelyDay (1226 points, 196 comments)
  16. thcymos (1172 points, 117 comments)
  17. BeijingBitcoins (1098 points, 58 comments)
  18. Yheymos (1061 points, 69 comments)
  19. steb2k (1058 points, 238 comments)
  20. ydtm (987 points, 132 comments)
  21. dontcensormebro2 (975 points, 106 comments)
  22. chinawat (972 points, 223 comments)
  23. increaseblocks (934 points, 73 comments)
  24. segregatedwitness (921 points, 101 comments)
  25. Annapurna317 (874 points, 146 comments)
  26. DaSpawn (817 points, 162 comments)
  27. insette (808 points, 91 comments)
  28. TanksAblazment (803 points, 150 comments)
  29. blockstreamcoin (787 points, 133 comments)
  30. MeatsackMescalero (774 points, 95 comments)
  31. satoshis_sockpuppet (745 points, 126 comments)
  32. BitcoinXio (739 points, 50 comments)
  33. jstolfi (734 points, 183 comments)
  34. singularity87 (720 points, 90 comments)
  35. Richy_T (704 points, 163 comments)
  36. redlightsaber (690 points, 138 comments)
  37. Leithm (686 points, 74 comments)
  38. ErdoganTalk (668 points, 252 comments)
  39. BitcoinPrepper (665 points, 89 comments)
  40. reddaxx (664 points, 105 comments)
  41. r1q2 (660 points, 110 comments)
  42. papabitcoin (653 points, 79 comments)
  43. 2ndEntropy (632 points, 76 comments)
  44. FormerlyEarlyAdopter (608 points, 92 comments)
  45. Coolsource (595 points, 116 comments)
  46. Peter__R (589 points, 43 comments)
  47. timepad (570 points, 62 comments)
  48. Rawlsdeep (564 points, 109 comments)
  49. themgp (560 points, 46 comments)
  50. ForkiusMaximus (558 points, 89 comments)

Top Submissions

  1. Dear Theymos, you divided the Bitcoin community. Not Roger, not Gavin, not Mike. It was you. And dear Blockstream and Core team, you helped, not calling out the abhorrent censorship, the unforgivable manipulation, unbecoming of supposed cypherpunks. Or of any decent, civil persons. by parban333 (566 points, 87 comments)
  2. "One miner loses $12k from BU bug, some Core devs scream. Users pay millions in excessive tx fees over the last year "meh, not a priority" by Egon_1 (529 points, 262 comments)
  3. 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." by sandakersmann (472 points, 254 comments)
  4. 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. by parban333 (400 points, 207 comments)
  5. The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE? by ydtm (354 points, 116 comments)
  6. LOL - /bitcoin user claims that people aren't being actively silenced; is actively silenced. by BeijingBitcoins (307 points, 142 comments)
  7. Massive censorship on "/bitcoin" continues by BitcoinIsTehFuture (296 points, 123 comments)
  8. Charlie Shrem on Twitter: "You can talk about anything in BTC and it won't be auto deleted" by BitcoinXio (291 points, 69 comments)
  9. Bitcoin Unlimited blocks exceed Core for first time, 232 vs. 231 of last 1,000 by DNVirtual (282 points, 84 comments)
  10. As relevant as it's always been by iopq (276 points, 15 comments)

Top Comments

  1. 151 points: nicebtc's comment in "One miner loses $12k from BU bug, some Core devs scream. Users pay millions in excessive tx fees over the last year "meh, not a priority"
  2. 123 points: 1DrK44np3gMKuvcGeFVv's comment in "One miner loses $12k from BU bug, some Core devs scream. Users pay millions in excessive tx fees over the last year "meh, not a priority"
  3. 117 points: cryptovessel's comment in 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.
  4. 117 points: seweso's comment in Roger Ver banned for doxing after posting the same thread Prohashing was banned for.
  5. 113 points: BitcoinIsTehFuture's comment in Dear Theymos, you divided the Bitcoin community. Not Roger, not Gavin, not Mike. It was you. And dear Blockstream and Core team, you helped, not calling out the abhorrent censorship, the unforgivable manipulation, unbecoming of supposed cypherpunks. Or of any decent, civil persons.
  6. 106 points: MagmaHindenburg's comment in bitcoin.com loses 13.2BTC trying to fork the network: Untested and buggy BU creates an oversized block, Many BU node banned, the HF fails • /Bitcoin
  7. 98 points: lon102guy's comment in bitcoin.com loses 13.2BTC trying to fork the network: Untested and buggy BU creates an oversized block, Many BU node banned, the HF fails • /Bitcoin
  8. 97 points: bigboi2468's comment in contentious forks vs incremental progress
  9. 92 points: vbuterin's comment in [Mark Friedenbach] There is a reason we are generally up in arms about "abusive" data-on-blockchain proposals: it is because we see the potential of this tech!
  10. 89 points: Peter__R's comment in contentious forks vs incremental progress
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats (Donate)
submitted by subreddit_stats to subreddit_stats [link] [comments]

Censored personal information ("dox") of theymos Theymos has set up his forum to automatically censor and ban users who post this information. His forum allows the posting of personal information of others. Many people find this double standard objectible. In the interests of full disclosure... A Bitcoin veteran known as Theymos validated that the email account was compromised, as he has received a message stating that he should send the attacker "some coins before I hitman (sic) you" from Nakamoto. While access to the email account appeared legitimate, the means by which it was accessed and the claim that it was once owned by the creator of Bitcoin were unclear. Suggestions within ... Bitcoin is a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Bitcoins are issued and managed without any central authority whatsoever: there is no government, company, or bank in charge of Bitcoin. You might be interested in Bitcoin if you like cryptography, distributed peer-to-peer systems, or economics. A large percentage of Bitcoin enthusiasts are libertarians, though people of all ... Theymos doesn't own a media empire that controls opinions, he controls the word-of-mouth and man-on-the-street dialog. Most other (non-Bitcoin) issues are spoken about in person as well as online and in the media, but the nature of Bitcoin is that it happens more heavily online. Theymos controls the vast majority of that communication. I'm also not sure I've ever seen online communication ... Um 9 Uhr amerikanischer Zeit hat Theymos, der Moderator des größten Bitcoin-Forums bitcointalk, einen dramatischen Thread gestartet: Er habe eine EMail von [email protected] erhalten, deren Inhalt ihn überzeugt habe, dass Satoshis Account gehackt worden sei. Man solle keinen EMails von dieser Adresse trauen. Auf die Rückfrage, was in der Mail gestanden habe, sagte Theymos: Michael, send me ...

[index] [6854] [10841] [12245] [12209] [3469] [33826] [25620] [41042] [16099] [35671]

#