bitco.in forum: "has all sorts of biased claims, troll references and tries to indoctrinate users"
- Thread starter bitcartel
- Start date
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
I know speculation is futile, but I can't help indulging.
It sounds like facts gathered on an executive level random walk in an enterprise with strong NIH factor at about 5pm on a Friday when those in the know have already left and everyone else is dying to get home.
- PM: Guys, I need some info on this Bitcoin Unlimited thing. What gives?
- Dev1: I heard Maxwell invented it, but didn't think it would work...
- Dev2: Isn't it like weak blocks or something?
- Dev3: It sounded kinda like flexcap from what I read.
- Dev1: Yeah, so technically it's on our roadmap already!
- Dev2: Plus it says here it's derived from core, so it's 99% our existing technology.
- PM: Thanks chaps, you've been a great help!
[doublepost=1451945486,1451944710][/doublepost]
And on the topic of this thread:
tries to indoctrinate users
It seems I have not been afforded my rightful indoctrination on this forum.
Where do I report for that?
Adam saying this forum is not suitable because it may end up censored in the future while his preferred venues are all heavily censored reveals deep cognitive dissonance. Nevertheless, he has a point that BU is promoted on the homepage. To be more welcoming to all it should probably link BU, Core, and XT. The "news" section at the bottom is also promoting big blocksize caps. I think it is important for this not to become just a "big blocker lair," even if it's unavoidable that people who understand the natural-order points that lead toward a big block position naturally congregate on censorship-free forums. Every effort to avoid Bubble Boy-ing ourselves is helpful. I wouldn't want this to become only a project forum like Adam called it, even if the initial core group of users happen to mostly be sympathetic to a project being discussed on it.
@Bloomie, thoughts? My personal preference would be for there not to be a homepage. Instead http://bitco.in takes you directly to bitco.in/forum. It's also one less click and/or a short URL. I like the price ticker, but on balance...
@Bloomie, thoughts? My personal preference would be for there not to be a homepage. Instead http://bitco.in takes you directly to bitco.in/forum. It's also one less click and/or a short URL. I like the price ticker, but on balance...
- Aug 19, 2015
- 511
- 803
The homepage serves as a launch pad for the forum and other yet-to-materialize Bitcoin projects (which people pitch to me regularly), so it's here to stay.
The headlines at the bottom are grabbed from /r/bitcoinxt, the only populated subreddit without a commercial agenda. I can see how Adam Back would see those as "trolling." If anyone wants to write an iframe widget to grab headlines from Coindesk instead, I would be happy to integrate it.
By the way, this is how the homepage looked prior to the forum's launch: https://bitco.in/en/. I started with a mirror of bitcoin.org but did not very far in changing it because we launched the forum in August and that quickly started occupying a lot of my time. If you want to help rewrite it, let me know.
The headlines at the bottom are grabbed from /r/bitcoinxt, the only populated subreddit without a commercial agenda. I can see how Adam Back would see those as "trolling." If anyone wants to write an iframe widget to grab headlines from Coindesk instead, I would be happy to integrate it.
By the way, this is how the homepage looked prior to the forum's launch: https://bitco.in/en/. I started with a mirror of bitcoin.org but did not very far in changing it because we launched the forum in August and that quickly started occupying a lot of my time. If you want to help rewrite it, let me know.
The subchains paper is completely implementation agnostic. It belongs to Bitcoin. As far as I know, it was the first scholarly paper on the topic of subchains/weak blocks. Everyone is free to use the results and formalizations as they see fit!
The Blockstream folk seem to be rather upset that I wrote that paper--and Bryan Bishop (kanzure) even accused me of "wasting developers' time" (I didn't ask anyone except for @Gavin Andresen and @awemany to review it). I've noticed that often attempts to formalize arguments with math or science are vigorously attacked by the "Core devs." They prefer to disseminate their research in 140-character soundbites on Twitter and conduct peer-review over IRC. I also know from various sources that some of them have actively worked to undermine our attempts to create Ledger.
Core is to cryptocurrency today, as the Catholic church was to science during the Renaissance.
Last edited:
Yup. BU has checkmated them all so they grasping at straws now. Still waiting for some real criticism somewhere.