**Originally was going to post this in the "Gold Collapsing Bitcoin Up" discussion but decided to post here and link it**
This may have been tried before, or be futile, but I was considering this idea and respectfully submit it here for consideration. This mainly comes out of the frustration of never getting real answers out of the Core team.
It appears to me that so many people here in this forum have extremely good points/questions that the Core team basically never answers in any accountable manner (I'm thinking Peter R, cypherdoc, solex, and many many more--see huge thread referred to above). Some are raised here, perhaps Twitter, perhaps Reddit. Core either just ignores, forces the discussion into one of their controlled, censored forums, or to a place where their gang can jump in and bury the discussion or spew untruths that are not fact checked.
In fact Core has never even responded to various highly public essays from Gavin and Mike Hearn that had logical and well-thought-out arguments over the past year.
What if there was to be a detailed and thorough list of say 25 (give or take) technical questions created here and posed to the core team and placed online somewhere like Medium as an open letter? These would be quite detailed and thorough questions on various different topics and written in a professional/academic manner. We could use categories such as Satoshi's vision, economic policy, technical issues in scaling, etc. all posed in the Socratic method based on all of their publicly available statements, direct quotes, and roadmaps.
A basic format could be agreed upon with them in posting the public questions. They would be given say a week or more to respond in writing whereupon their answers would be posted publicly. Then another period of time would be given for the questioners here to create responses/rebuttals which would then also be posted publicly.
Then again they would have a week to respond back and answers again posted publicly. Probably at that point after two question and response cycles the debate would be closed unless otherwise agreed on. Perhaps closing statements would be allowed.
It would essentially be like a moderated presidential debate format except it would happen in written form over a longer period of time so that proper research/rebuttals can be formulated and the facts checked. This would avoid the typical "gotcha" games of verbal argument and people spewing random factoids with no data to back it up.
If they did not agree to answer the questions posed, pressure could be put on them through social media and various places to "respond to the open questions". And in fact it would be very telling if they did not respond especially if the questions were professional and fact-based.
My thoughts are they avoid such things because they know logically they have no ground to stand on and it is only through avoidance, ganging up, subterfuge, appeal to authority, and censorship that they are able to maintain their "advantage".
The miners could be given a chance to see what happens in a real open forum where they don't get to have the tight PR/disinfo machine at work. And perhaps just seeing the questions would get people thinking about the various major holes in their scaling plan/overall philosophy/economic policy. I feel since they are claiming to be the one and only true Bitcoin, they are then in a position to have to answer these public requests for comment.
Downside is it may be some hard work and require attention from some of the "heavy hitters" here. But in the end, it may create a very interesting dialog or at minimum public record of where Core really stands and many of these topics they simply avoid.
Anyway--I humbly submit this idea here and of course feel free to disagree or speak your mind at will.
Respectfully,
Dlareg
This may have been tried before, or be futile, but I was considering this idea and respectfully submit it here for consideration. This mainly comes out of the frustration of never getting real answers out of the Core team.
It appears to me that so many people here in this forum have extremely good points/questions that the Core team basically never answers in any accountable manner (I'm thinking Peter R, cypherdoc, solex, and many many more--see huge thread referred to above). Some are raised here, perhaps Twitter, perhaps Reddit. Core either just ignores, forces the discussion into one of their controlled, censored forums, or to a place where their gang can jump in and bury the discussion or spew untruths that are not fact checked.
In fact Core has never even responded to various highly public essays from Gavin and Mike Hearn that had logical and well-thought-out arguments over the past year.
What if there was to be a detailed and thorough list of say 25 (give or take) technical questions created here and posed to the core team and placed online somewhere like Medium as an open letter? These would be quite detailed and thorough questions on various different topics and written in a professional/academic manner. We could use categories such as Satoshi's vision, economic policy, technical issues in scaling, etc. all posed in the Socratic method based on all of their publicly available statements, direct quotes, and roadmaps.
A basic format could be agreed upon with them in posting the public questions. They would be given say a week or more to respond in writing whereupon their answers would be posted publicly. Then another period of time would be given for the questioners here to create responses/rebuttals which would then also be posted publicly.
Then again they would have a week to respond back and answers again posted publicly. Probably at that point after two question and response cycles the debate would be closed unless otherwise agreed on. Perhaps closing statements would be allowed.
It would essentially be like a moderated presidential debate format except it would happen in written form over a longer period of time so that proper research/rebuttals can be formulated and the facts checked. This would avoid the typical "gotcha" games of verbal argument and people spewing random factoids with no data to back it up.
If they did not agree to answer the questions posed, pressure could be put on them through social media and various places to "respond to the open questions". And in fact it would be very telling if they did not respond especially if the questions were professional and fact-based.
My thoughts are they avoid such things because they know logically they have no ground to stand on and it is only through avoidance, ganging up, subterfuge, appeal to authority, and censorship that they are able to maintain their "advantage".
The miners could be given a chance to see what happens in a real open forum where they don't get to have the tight PR/disinfo machine at work. And perhaps just seeing the questions would get people thinking about the various major holes in their scaling plan/overall philosophy/economic policy. I feel since they are claiming to be the one and only true Bitcoin, they are then in a position to have to answer these public requests for comment.
Downside is it may be some hard work and require attention from some of the "heavy hitters" here. But in the end, it may create a very interesting dialog or at minimum public record of where Core really stands and many of these topics they simply avoid.
Anyway--I humbly submit this idea here and of course feel free to disagree or speak your mind at will.
Respectfully,
Dlareg
