Submissions: This user has upvoted 306 and downvoted 110 submissions.
Comments: This user has upvoted 261 and downvoted 18 comments.
5 highest rated submissions:
The site has been experiencing very heavy traffic recently. You can help by donating bitcoin!, submitted: 6/12/2015 1:20:18 AM, 186 points (+186|-0)
One of the world's biggest banks just admitted bitcoin could destroy existing finance firms, submitted: 7/6/2015 1:39:15 PM, 37 points (+37|-0)
BitPay supports increasing the block size with BIP101, submitted: 8/24/2015 11:35:08 AM, 14 points (+15|-1)
Nasdaq partners with Chain to bring blockchain to private market, submitted: 6/25/2015 12:10:36 PM, 13 points (+13|-0)
Bitcoin.org Hard Fork Policy, submitted: 6/16/2015 12:39:38 PM, 12 points (+12|-0)
5 lowest rated submissions:
Winklevoss: Governments Will Adopt Digital Currency | Fox Business, submitted: 3/20/2015 3:11:41 PM, 1 points (+1|-0)
Analysing the Potential of Bitcoin Sidechains, submitted: 3/25/2015 8:15:25 PM, 1 points (+1|-0)
Could the Bitcoin Lightning Network Solve Blockchain Scalability?, submitted: 3/26/2015 6:34:51 PM, 1 points (+1|-0)
Meet the blockchain: The technology behind bitcoin could be even more important than the cryptocurrency itself. [NBCNews], submitted: 4/29/2015 3:24:42 PM, 1 points (+1|-0)
Goldman and IDG Put $50 Million to Work in a Bitcoin Company [Circle], submitted: 4/30/2015 10:35:46 AM, 1 points (+1|-0)
3 highest rated comments:
BashCo 0 points 14 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago
People have tried straight mirroring /r/bitcoin in the past. It was unsuccessful. Admittedly, the majority of my Voat submissions over the past year have been top stories I found on reddit, but I think a better approach for content submitters would be to set up RSS feeds and submit relevant news organically as opposed to just duping reddit.
I wouldn't encourage this, at least not in the short term. For starters, Voat can't handle the traffic yet. It's also still in alpha. There's no reporting system, mod queue or even mod mail. It's also debatable whether or not Voat can even scale well. (sound familiar?)
Voat is currently a bare bones alternative with potential, and /v/bitcoin should try to stand on its own two feet. We should aim to be a companion or sister site at some point in the future. Agitating people there should be avoided at all costs. We're all bitcoiners after all, so I'm seriously not interested in developing any kind of 'Us vs. Them' duality with reddit. We should keep in mind that the recent meltdowns caused by reddit admins haven't had much of an impact on /r/bitcoin at all. Additionally, Voat will experience a lot of growing pains going forward as well. Voat itself is probably not a cure to reddit's dysfunctional admin team.
BashCo 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
Here is a perfect example of surrendering to terrorism. After more than a decade of having our civil liberties absolutely trampled in the name of security, it's high time we reject any further erosion. We need to make it clear to our governments that we refuse to live in fear so that we may begin to...
BashCo 5 points 4 points 9 points (+9|-5) ago
"Censorship" is a very loaded term, and it's a lazy way to describe such a nuanced topic. I suggest you read what he says more closely and understand his reasoning. For those who haven't been following the block size debate closely, I'll try to summarize:
Virtually everyone agrees that the 1MB block size limit will need to be increased at some point. The big questions are 'when' and 'how'. As for 'when', one side thinks the block size should be increased as soon as possible before the network becomes overloaded, while the other side thinks that the urgency is being overstated. The 'how' revolves around how much the block size limit should be increased, whether there's a way to do it without a risky hard fork, and so on.
Since the debate has gone on for quite some time, people on both sides generally acknowledge there still isn't any consensus on the matter. Therefore, those who feel the issue is urgent have decided to try and forgo the consensus process by deploying code which is programmed to increase the block limit on the condition that 750 of the last 1000 blocks were mined using the alternate implementation BitcoinXT.
Theymos has determined that due to the fact that the consensus process has not been completed, implementations containing code to modify the consensus rules by which Bitcoin operates are not considered to be 'Bitcoin', but an alternate currency altogether, and are therefore off-topic. Read more about contentious hard forks and why they're bad on Bitcoin.org.
Given that Bitcoin operates on rules which have achieved near-absolute consensus, and that BitcoinXT contains code which could cause a hardfork without the required consensus, I agree with Theymos and others who state that BitcoinXT is an altcoin which poses a risk to the Bitcoin network. Treating BitcoinXT as off-topic until A.) a hardfork actually reaches consensus, or B.) the hardfork code is removed, is absolutely the right decision for maintaining a unified Bitcoin ecosystem. I understand that many of us want to increase the block size limit, but I don't believe most people advocating BitcoinXT understand the risk of catastrophic consensus failure where incompatible blockchains exist simultaneously. The whole point of operating the network on consensus rules is to avoid damaging the existing network and infrastructure. The necessity of reaching consensus on serious issues like hardforks is not debatable.
For topics specifically related to BitcoinXT, I kindly ask that you post them to the appropriate subverse, most likely /v/BitcoinXT in this case. The same goes for other altcoin topics.
(This thread will be removed if there are any signs of brigading the submitted thread.)
3 lowest rated comments:
BashCo 4 points -3 points 1 points (+1|-4) ago
For the record, I was never 'inactive' on Voat. Fred-Stiller was fully aware of this because we talked about Voat in private as recently as two weeks before Voat admins turned the verse over to him. As a matter of fact, we spoke frequently about Voat and politics while his subverse request was still pending, unbeknownst to me. The Voat admins received pressure for falling way behind on subverse requests and just went ahead and approved dozens of transfers without investigating activity at all. If they had, they would have seen that I was logging in every single day, voting regularly and had a regular PM history. They never sent any notification regarding a subverse request. Nothing like that happened. Instead, they were duped by Fred-Stiller's well-timed technicality which he used to steal this verse because he had a political disagreement with me which he were apparently incapable of verbalizing. Fred-Stiller could have just asked for the verse instead of turning into a snake and going behind my back. I would have gladly turned it over to him myself if it meant keeping our friendship intact, but that clearly didn't mean anything to him at all. I hope that commandeering a community that I helped foster since 50 subscribers brought him some level of satisfaction.
To Fred-Stiller's credit, he taught me a valuable lesson: If a total stranger befriends you out of nowhere, builds trust over nearly a year by helping to pinpoint all sorts of content and individuals that should removed from reddit, and even confides in you about their personal life across several hundred messages, then asks to help moderate... don't be surprised if that person you considered a good friend ends up stabbing you in the back and running away. Oh well, live and learn.
BashCo 4 points -3 points 1 points (+1|-4) ago
I would refute that, but you conveniently deleted all traces of various social media accounts when you ran away. It doesn't really matter anyways. What matters is that you had Voat admins remove me on the premise that I was inactive (I was not, and you know that), purely because you had a political disagreement with me which you failed to communicate. It wasn't for anything I did or didn't do on Voat.
I didn't say I owned /v/bitcoin, or even created it. When I requested the verse, it was empty, and the creator was literally inactive. I even PM'd him to ask if I could help moderate before I made the request. I said you took advantage of a technicality in Voat's woefully inadequate subverse request policy. You could have PM'd me, DM'd me, emailed me, tweeted me, Surespot'd me... whatever. But you didn't. Instead you chose to sneak through a subreddit request purely for political reasons, and got lucky. Had the roles been reversed, I would have never done that to you. Why? Because I honestly considered you a good friend and I really enjoyed all our chats. I would never stab a friend in the back like you did to me. "Don't hate the player, hate the game" and all that... like I said before, trusting you was a valuable lesson.
BashCo 1 points -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
Who said anything about Ayn Rand? Your idea that a man does not own the wealth he earned by the sweat of his own brow is totally absurd. It's no wonder more and more people are attempting to withdraw from such a perverted system.
One reason you think this way is because you believe money belongs...