Censorship at bitcoin-dev!

kernel dump

New Member
Oct 4, 2015
Gavin Andresen's post got censored "moderated" @ bitcoin-dev mailing list.

New censorship "moderation" rules were posted here => "http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-October/011591.html"

Blocked emails here => https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev-moderation/2015-October/date.html

Gavin's rejected/blocked/censored email here => https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev-moderation/2015-October/000006.html and here => https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev-moderation/attachments/20151027/3bd0a0af/attachment.mht

Rejoice bitcoin enthusiast, our new Blockstream masters and puppets have taken over bitcoin-dev!


Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
I don't even know where to start... what a sadness. Starting with the awkward interface to the moderation queue, ending with suffocating sensation that I felt going through the text of the censored emails.

speaking about moderation ux: in the main index all emails are indistinguishable from each other, same subject, no date and no author. you have to click once to read the headers of the email, and twice to read the email body. maybe it's not the case, but it seems to be set this way on purpose.


Staff member
Aug 22, 2015
It is unacceptable that any post of Gavin's be censored. He never says anything off-topic.

This is more than differences of opinion, this is turf war for control. Unfortunately, Gavin is too nice, and too trusting. He should have retained a tight control on the commit access to the Bitcoin reference client, and it now looks like there is a concerted move to marginalise him completely.

I am still optimistic that main-chain scaling will prevail, but only because real-world volumes are increasing faster than SC/LN vaporware can be rolled out to provide off-chain alternatives. Also because the miners will be screaming for more transactions once the halving has happened.

It will just be a dirty, bloody process, which could have been avoided.


Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
on irc Luke ask Rusty why Gavins' last email to btc-dev was blocked (bold is mine):

23:13 Luke-Jr why was this one rejected? https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev-moderation/attachments/20151027/3bd0a0af/attachmen...
23:30 Luke-Jr rusty: ^
01:54 rusty Luke-Jr: hmm... probably a knee-jerk reaction to "another post on moderation". I'm pretty sure if gavinandresen reposted the "Should it be a requirement that..." onwards on a new thread, it wouldn't have got a second look.
01:55 rusty Luke-Jr: and here's my reply to that same post gavinandresen replied to: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-discuss/2015-October/000000.html
06:41 drazisil Is there any good documentation (official or otherwise) that explains how to create a pool? Mainly understanding how to generate shares,
07:07 Luke-Jr drazisil: shares are just a lower difficulty than a block
07:09 drazisil Luke-Jr: Thanks. I found https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide#pool-mining which I think is what I was looking for :)
and this is the reply Rusty gave to Gavin answer on btc-duscuss new mailing list:

Rusty Russel said:
Mike Hearn <hearn at vinumeris.com> writes:
>> - Posts must concern the near-term development of the bitcoin core
>> code or bitcoin protocol.
> Are block size discussions considered acceptable, then?
Depends. To highlight which parts of the guidelines I expect to apply:

- Posts must contribute to bitcoin development.

- Generally encouraged: patches, notification of pull requests, BIP
proposals [...]

- Generally discouraged: [...] rehashing settled topics without new
data, moderation concerns.

I've Cc'd bitcoin-discuss rather than bitcoin-dev; that's the place to
raise moderation concerns.