Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
His behaviour is interesting because he will often pay lip-service to the notion that we should debate without ad hominem and without assuming malicious intent. He is hyper-vigilant about this at times: for example, when I debate an idea of Adam or Greg's, he will accuse me of insulting them and assuming bad faith. However, when I post my own ideas to the XT#REKT thread, he will quickly hurl ad hominens and accuse me of secretly trying to destroy bitcoin. When called out about this "double standard," his rationalization (for example) is that "Peter R is a charlatan of highest order and deserves no respect."
In other words, to allow himself to rationalize his actions, he adds a new "sub-point" to his personal code of conduct: "Debates should be free from ad hominem and assuming bad faith...unless that person is a charlatan in which case he deserves to be publicly insulted." The trouble with this is that he can then break all his own rules by labelling anyone who he disagrees with as a charlatan.
The worst part about it is that--unlike iCEBREAKER--brg444's insults aren't even humorous, poetic or artistic--he's like the nerdy kid trying to be cool who steals a can of spray paint and writes "fuck" on the dumpster outside of his school.
Last edited:
@Peter R
actually, gmax continuing to run from scrutiny:
https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-core-dev/2015-11-15/?msg=54166588&page=1
actually, gmax continuing to run from scrutiny:
https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-core-dev/2015-11-15/?msg=54166588&page=1
Last edited:
Interesting, it looks like he unsubscribed right after our debate on the mailing list:
Here is the start of the discussion:
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-November/011759.html
If you click "next message" after following the above link then you can read through the entire conversation, if anyone is interested.
Here is the start of the discussion:
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-November/011759.html
If you click "next message" after following the above link then you can read through the entire conversation, if anyone is interested.
in general, when ppl know they've done something wrong or are doing something wrong, they tend to hide or want to avoid scrutiny.
talks don't count b/c they are essentially one way conversations with no opportunity to get into details.
talks don't count b/c they are essentially one way conversations with no opportunity to get into details.
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
@cypherdoc
This is called "avoidance coping" and it's pretty universally agreed to be the worst possible strategy for dealing with anxiety, because in the experience of most people, the underlying causes of the anxiety continue to grow.
Looking back now, this is the next logical step after withdrawing from reddit. Not to make any claims of online amateur psychology, but if I were gmax I would be taking some time to reflect and introspect before this inevitably becomes a complete withdrawl from the project entirely.
This is called "avoidance coping" and it's pretty universally agreed to be the worst possible strategy for dealing with anxiety, because in the experience of most people, the underlying causes of the anxiety continue to grow.
Looking back now, this is the next logical step after withdrawing from reddit. Not to make any claims of online amateur psychology, but if I were gmax I would be taking some time to reflect and introspect before this inevitably becomes a complete withdrawl from the project entirely.
Melbustus
Active Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 237
- 884
Wow.... Greg is intentionally shutting himself out from the most important technical debate in bitcoin right now.
It's a shame that these guys, who are indeed very technically talented, are increasingly walling themselves off from the wider bitcoin community.
They will ultimately find themselves stewards of a low volume, low usage, low blocksize, low importance system while Bitcoin grows and matures without them.
It's a shame that these guys, who are indeed very technically talented, are increasingly walling themselves off from the wider bitcoin community.
They will ultimately find themselves stewards of a low volume, low usage, low blocksize, low importance system while Bitcoin grows and matures without them.
I scrolled up a bit in that IRC chat and here Gmax is using theory from my fee market paper (that he claimed was "fundamentally flawed" and insisted that I publicly retract):
It looks like he is estimating the marginal fee density at about 0.000451 BTC / kB (451 bits / kB), whereas the average empirical fee was 0.000318 BTC / kB (318 bits / kB). I am actually amazed at how close those numbers are.
I would love to join that discussion because it is right up my alley, but I'll leave it alone as obviously I've upset Gmax once again. We wouldn't want him to quite IRC too
It looks like he is estimating the marginal fee density at about 0.000451 BTC / kB (451 bits / kB), whereas the average empirical fee was 0.000318 BTC / kB (318 bits / kB). I am actually amazed at how close those numbers are.
I would love to join that discussion because it is right up my alley, but I'll leave it alone as obviously I've upset Gmax once again. We wouldn't want him to quite IRC too
Last edited:
no, that's exactly what you should do. we're fortunate to have ppl such as you with the mathematical and technical skills to go toe to toe with these guys. @awemany is another one plus all the devs helping Gavin and Mike. the light needs to continually be shined on the incorrect arguments. you are having an effect.I would love to join that discussion because it is right up my alley, but I'll leave it alone as obviously I've upset Gmax once again. We wouldn't want him to quite IRC too
and it's clearly not a case of whether or not he has time to respond. just look at his extensive posting history both on BCT and especially Reddit. more than any other core dev and more than probably alll of them combined. when the tide had clearly turned in his disfavor thru downvoting on Reddit, he decided to go into hiding. i dare say this is not an exaggeration. example: go into the BCT Trust Rating system and bring up the individual ratings histories for all 5 core devs incl gmax. can you guess which one of them gives out the most ratings of all? and most notably negative ratings, including mine? and not just be a small margin, it's a huge margin, as most of the core devs don't bother to get into that petty stuff at all b/c they know it's meaningless and mostly childish.
Last edited:
I personally don't think it's a good thing to chase Gmax or other specific Blockstream devs away from Bitcoin, even if that could be done. (EDIT: Not that anyone here is trying to do that, but just in case the thought arose.)
Consider:
If we are right in our position, many people are going to have to do some fundamental rethinking on Bitcoin governance and perhaps even some soul-searching on their position overall. This could mean bruised egos and all sorts of things. Some might even consider quitting entirely. If done wrong, this means losing exceptionally valuable talent, at least in Gmax's case, or worse he could begin to use his sway to really mess with things out of spite. Another bad outcome would be him merely isolating himself so that no further inroads are possible.
The optimal outcome is of course that the devs stay on but gain a true appreciation of Bitcoin's multi-disciplinary nature and the limitations of the scope of their knowledge (i.e., that it mostly doesn't extend to incentive design and economics), or at least stop assuming the opposite. I think I saw Gmax directly acknowledge the importance of this in response to @Peter R the other day.
To avoid the unwanted ego effects, in the case where someone looks to be reeling from having someone raise a point they didn't know how to counter and that called a lot of what they thought they knew into question, I think a careful application of "kiss-kick-kiss" is most effective. Amiable debate, ruthless banging on the key points they are clueless about, then heartfelt praise for the things they are great at.
This is how to change minds...because the hard part about changing your mind is the pain after you realize for a moment you may be wrong, which people immediately turn to cognitive dissonance to get away from. Ease that pain yourself instead, as you who wrought it are uniquely positioned to do, and then they can more easily see their error with a clear mind.
If Greg is really reeling now, the best thing to do is, if there is any opportunity to do so at all, point out an excellent observation he has made or whatever. Keep him in the game.
If Core/Blockstreamers are being arrogant in one-on-one debate, by all means bang away! But once they do feel the heat and start showing the signs of retreat, be nice to them. You can always know if an argument isn't getting through, because they will just ignore you, not retreat nor isolate themselves nor fire back with their best nuclear-authoritative tone. Since it's counterproductive to keep banging on them once they already have shown that they both (a) have never considered the point and (b) find it important to consider, which is how I take Gmax unsubscribing mailing list (assuming it's not coincidence), easing any ego damage becomes first priority IMO.
Then commence the next wave of banging!
I've seen before several times how a group like Core/Blockstream actually ends up changing their position. What happens is without really acknowledging it, the key figures just capitulate in an oblique way, then everyone else quietly falls in line, with the lower-ranking True Believers often slinking away completely, their raison d'etre lost. For example, we may start to hear things from Core/BS like, "Well we believe XT is on the wrong track, but may the best implementation win! <snicker snicker>" A kind of backhanded acknowledgement smoothed over by some humor, and their past "XT is an attack" and "XT is an altcoin" is never spoken of again. Same applies to BU of course. Then they will have acknowledged the basic validity of multiple competing implementations.
Consider:
If we are right in our position, many people are going to have to do some fundamental rethinking on Bitcoin governance and perhaps even some soul-searching on their position overall. This could mean bruised egos and all sorts of things. Some might even consider quitting entirely. If done wrong, this means losing exceptionally valuable talent, at least in Gmax's case, or worse he could begin to use his sway to really mess with things out of spite. Another bad outcome would be him merely isolating himself so that no further inroads are possible.
The optimal outcome is of course that the devs stay on but gain a true appreciation of Bitcoin's multi-disciplinary nature and the limitations of the scope of their knowledge (i.e., that it mostly doesn't extend to incentive design and economics), or at least stop assuming the opposite. I think I saw Gmax directly acknowledge the importance of this in response to @Peter R the other day.
To avoid the unwanted ego effects, in the case where someone looks to be reeling from having someone raise a point they didn't know how to counter and that called a lot of what they thought they knew into question, I think a careful application of "kiss-kick-kiss" is most effective. Amiable debate, ruthless banging on the key points they are clueless about, then heartfelt praise for the things they are great at.
This is how to change minds...because the hard part about changing your mind is the pain after you realize for a moment you may be wrong, which people immediately turn to cognitive dissonance to get away from. Ease that pain yourself instead, as you who wrought it are uniquely positioned to do, and then they can more easily see their error with a clear mind.
If Greg is really reeling now, the best thing to do is, if there is any opportunity to do so at all, point out an excellent observation he has made or whatever. Keep him in the game.
If Core/Blockstreamers are being arrogant in one-on-one debate, by all means bang away! But once they do feel the heat and start showing the signs of retreat, be nice to them. You can always know if an argument isn't getting through, because they will just ignore you, not retreat nor isolate themselves nor fire back with their best nuclear-authoritative tone. Since it's counterproductive to keep banging on them once they already have shown that they both (a) have never considered the point and (b) find it important to consider, which is how I take Gmax unsubscribing mailing list (assuming it's not coincidence), easing any ego damage becomes first priority IMO.
Then commence the next wave of banging!
I've seen before several times how a group like Core/Blockstream actually ends up changing their position. What happens is without really acknowledging it, the key figures just capitulate in an oblique way, then everyone else quietly falls in line, with the lower-ranking True Believers often slinking away completely, their raison d'etre lost. For example, we may start to hear things from Core/BS like, "Well we believe XT is on the wrong track, but may the best implementation win! <snicker snicker>" A kind of backhanded acknowledgement smoothed over by some humor, and their past "XT is an attack" and "XT is an altcoin" is never spoken of again. Same applies to BU of course. Then they will have acknowledged the basic validity of multiple competing implementations.
Last edited:
Melbustus
Active Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 237
- 884
@Zangelbert Bingledack - you're probably right...so long as there's a legit possibility that they're capable of widening the scope of their thought and changing their minds - often a hard thing for people who are super-smart in narrow contexts to do. But I agree there's a lot of strong talent in Blockstream, and that most of those guys have put in great work over the years, most of which was not compensated, and the entire bitcoin community should be thankful for it. Moving Bitcoin forward together is indeed the better solution if it's possible.
@Melbustus
Yeah and it's not just about moving forward together. Even under the more extreme assumption that Bitcoin really should throw off some the small block adherents and Blockstreamers because it has outgrown them, keeping their egos un-destroyed will help them go gracefully. It will help them not dig in their heels and help them not jealously guard their position against "intruders." Everything will go more smoothly, whether Bitcoin keeps them on or not.
I realize all this may be premature as we have not really started heavy banging on them just yet
Another way to avoid bruised egos is to make arguments to no one in particular, in random places, and just let those memes propagate. They will seep into the thinking of all sorts of people the devs are in contact with on mailing lists, twitter, private conversations, etc., and before you know it the entire axis of the debate will have shifted and only a few random forum posters will still try to defend the old position, being like broken records.
This may seem extraordinary or unbelievable, but when you have your arguments carefully honed and clearly communicated AND their basic truth is undeniable once understood, they can spread very quickly. This is another reason I'm so interested in visuals, even though I suck at making them.
Yeah and it's not just about moving forward together. Even under the more extreme assumption that Bitcoin really should throw off some the small block adherents and Blockstreamers because it has outgrown them, keeping their egos un-destroyed will help them go gracefully. It will help them not dig in their heels and help them not jealously guard their position against "intruders." Everything will go more smoothly, whether Bitcoin keeps them on or not.
I realize all this may be premature as we have not really started heavy banging on them just yet
Another way to avoid bruised egos is to make arguments to no one in particular, in random places, and just let those memes propagate. They will seep into the thinking of all sorts of people the devs are in contact with on mailing lists, twitter, private conversations, etc., and before you know it the entire axis of the debate will have shifted and only a few random forum posters will still try to defend the old position, being like broken records.
This may seem extraordinary or unbelievable, but when you have your arguments carefully honed and clearly communicated AND their basic truth is undeniable once understood, they can spread very quickly. This is another reason I'm so interested in visuals, even though I suck at making them.
Last edited:
Melbustus
Active Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 237
- 884
just to quickly point out two things:
p.s. @Peter R you did great in the last exchange you had with gmax/lukejr/jtimon on btc ml. don't restraint your self, feel free to join btc dev irc channel
- as already mentioned, gmax, the person in charge of assigning BIP numbers, just unsubscribed from dev ml. this was once the main venue for BIP requests, does this means that the process is becoming even more opaque that what already is?
- from the the-higher-tx-fees-the-better Bitcoin core 0.12 will introduce a mechanism to set a mempool max size limit as an anti DoS measure. déjà vu anyone?
p.s. @Peter R you did great in the last exchange you had with gmax/lukejr/jtimon on btc ml. don't restraint your self, feel free to join btc dev irc channel
note that i say light should be shown on his arguments:I personally don't think it's a good thing to chase Gmax or other specific Blockstream devs away from Bitcoin, even if that could be done.
Consider:
If we are right in our position, many people are going to have to do some fundamental rethinking on Bitcoin governance and perhaps even some soul-searching on their position overall. This could mean bruised egos and all sorts of things. Some might even consider quitting entirely. If done wrong, this means losing exceptionally valuable talent, at least in Gmax's case, or worse he could begin to use his sway to really mess with things out of spite. Another bad outcome would be him merely isolating himself so that no further inroads are possible.
The optimal outcome is of course that the devs stay on but gain a true appreciation of Bitcoin's multi-disciplinary nature and the limitations of the scope of their knowledge (i.e., that it mostly doesn't extend to incentive design and economics), or at least stop assuming the opposite. I think I saw Gmax directly acknowledge the importance of this in response to @Peter R the other day.
To avoid the unwanted ego effects, in the case where someone looks to be reeling from having someone raise a point they didn't know how to counter and that called a lot of what they thought they knew into question, I think a careful application of "kiss-kick-kiss" is most effective. Amiable debate, ruthless banging on the key points they are clueless about, then heartfelt praise for the things they are great at.
This is how to change minds...because the hard part about changing your mind is the pain after you realize for a moment you may be wrong, which people immediately turn to cognitive dissonance to get away from. Ease that pain yourself instead, as you who wrought it are uniquely positioned to do, and then they can more easily see their error with a clear mind.
If Greg is really reeling now, the best thing to do is, if there is any opportunity to do so at all, point out an excellent observation he has made or whatever. Keep him in the game.
If Core/Blockstreamers are being arrogant in one-on-one debate, by all means bang away! But once they do feel the heat and start showing the signs of retreat, be nice to them. You can always know if an argument isn't getting through, because they will just ignore you, not retreat nor isolate themselves nor fire back with their best nuclear-authoritative tone. Since it's counterproductive to keep banging on them once they already have shown that they both (a) have never considered the point and (b) find it important to consider, which is how I take Gmax unsubscribing mailing list (assuming it's not coincidence), easing any ego damage becomes first priority IMO.
Then commence the next wave of banging!
I've seen before several times how a group like Core/Blockstream actually ends up changing their position. What happens is without really acknowledging it, the key figures just capitulate in an oblique way, then everyone else quietly falls in line, with the lower-ranking True Believers often slinking away completely, their raison d'etre lost. For example, we may start to hear things from Core/BS like, "Well we believe XT is on the wrong track, but may the best implementation win! <snicker snicker>" A kind of backhanded acknowledgement smoothed over by some humor, and their past "XT is an attack" and "XT is an altcoin" is never spoken of again. Same applies to BU of course. Then they will have acknowledged the basic validity of multiple competing implementations.
@Peter R is doing nothing but that; debating the arguments. not engaging in ad hominem, straw men, or insults. he'll make inferences from time to time but it's nowhere close to constant trolling.
and then there's always the irrefutable fact that he has a financial COI. i don't know how you reconcile that except by what i've suggested before; recuse their positions as core devs or make BS a non-profit. since this has already been suggested to them by me over a year ago and was roundly rejected, that won't be happening anytime soon.
@Melbustus
I know which concepts I'd like to see put in visual or diagrammatic form: the ideas of market governance and how BU would work, @Peter R's paper (visualization of the logic with some kind of mechanical analogy would be the holy grail), investors being the ones in control (or how overall checks and balances work among miners/nodes, devs, and investors in a way that makes this clear), layers of investor control of Bitcoin, how fork arbitrage would work, why speculation is a good thing, the societal role of investors, and the Forkology 101 & 102 concepts showing different views on governance.
To my mind, these concepts are all prerequisites for understanding the viewpoint of BU, multiple competing implementations, and how Bitcoin governance works or should work. Or at least, if we can get a large number of people and/or a small number of influential people to understand these concepts and a few other concepts, I think the debate would take a profound turn.
[doublepost=1447625001][/doublepost]@cypherdoc
I agree with all that. People - especially nerds, perhaps - can have their pride seriously wounded when defeated roundly in an argument that involves their position, even without any ad hominem. One-on-one debate tends to get tinted with an air of ego clash in any case. Just something to watch out for. Gmax unsubbing from the channel seemed a little ominous.
I know which concepts I'd like to see put in visual or diagrammatic form: the ideas of market governance and how BU would work, @Peter R's paper (visualization of the logic with some kind of mechanical analogy would be the holy grail), investors being the ones in control (or how overall checks and balances work among miners/nodes, devs, and investors in a way that makes this clear), layers of investor control of Bitcoin, how fork arbitrage would work, why speculation is a good thing, the societal role of investors, and the Forkology 101 & 102 concepts showing different views on governance.
To my mind, these concepts are all prerequisites for understanding the viewpoint of BU, multiple competing implementations, and how Bitcoin governance works or should work. Or at least, if we can get a large number of people and/or a small number of influential people to understand these concepts and a few other concepts, I think the debate would take a profound turn.
[doublepost=1447625001][/doublepost]@cypherdoc
I agree with all that. People - especially nerds, perhaps - can have their pride seriously wounded when defeated roundly in an argument that involves their position, even without any ad hominem. One-on-one debate tends to get tinted with an air of ego clash in any case. Just something to watch out for. Gmax unsubbing from the channel seemed a little ominous.
Last edited:
@Zangelbert Bingledack
and i was honored to have /u/Amanojack reference my bucket theory last year:
let's not forget that it is gmax who is deciding to take these courses of action for himself. resigning from forums and dev lists has not been suggested by @Peter R.
the alternative would be to acknowledge an error in thinking and publicly reboot.
and i was honored to have /u/Amanojack reference my bucket theory last year:
let's not forget that it is gmax who is deciding to take these courses of action for himself. resigning from forums and dev lists has not been suggested by @Peter R.
the alternative would be to acknowledge an error in thinking and publicly reboot.
Oh brother. Are they realizing the blocksize may be a lost cause and trying to guarantee they have a different ace in the hole to incentivize sidechains/LN?
They'll be routed around in any case
[doublepost=1447625758][/doublepost]@cypherdoc
Ahh! I forget to include your bucket theory on my visualizations wish list. It's been something I've wanted a good visual of for a long time. Once understood, I think it would really make the rounds and persuade a lot of investors to buy. So whoever makes it might be well paid by the market
EDIT: This and all the things I mentioned for visualizations would make great /r/btc posts to boost the exclusive quality content there and continue leaking users out of the Thermos.
Last edited:
