<Aquentin> dude... bitcoin is decentralised... you have no power here
<Aquentin> and if you think you do.... and you do as you have shown... then that damages bitcoin fundamentally
<Aquentin> take satoshi's example, and leave
<theymos> Not in Bitcoin itself, but I do have power over certain centralized websites, which I've decided to use for the benefit of Bitcoin as a whole (as best I can).
<theymos> Probably I will leave someday, but not now.
<theymos> If these websites or my reputation end up being damaged/destroyed, then that's acceptable. At least I tried to do what was most correct. What wouldn't be acceptable to me would be to give into demands that I know to be incorrect.
<Aquentin> you "know"
<Aquentin> it is easy to "know" when one assumes things
<theymos> Know with very high confidence, at least. If I am wrong, then I am willing to be convinced of this.
<theymos> The creator of /r/Bitcoin who gave it to me recently said this of me: "Theymos doesn't kneel, he doesn't sacrifice and is willing to stand up for what HE believes to be true, rather than some external authority. I hold r/Bitcoin would be coddled into a cult of personality worshipping Gavin Andresen without I purposely picking Theymos for the role he has."
<Aquentin> here is a thought exercise, assume that all I have said above is true and try to see if there is anything wrong with it, rather than assuming it is wrong and trying to see if anything is right with it
<Aquentin> I assumed you simply registered the sub first
<theymos> One very obvious issue is that if XT was considered equal to Bitcoin, then this would open the door to other similar creations. It'd be easy to create a traditional pump-and-dump altcoin thing in essentially the same way as XT. These things are not Bitcoin and should not be allowed on /r/Bitcoin. So this is a contradiction in your view.
<Aquentin> except Gavin wouldn't propose such thing...
<theymos> Nothing I currently control was created by me originally. They were all entrusted to me by different people.
<Aquentin> or are you stupid enough to think gavin =cia and all that lol
<theymos> Making Gavin's creations special is not a good policy...
<Aquentin> you see, I use brains first... then shortcuts
<Aquentin> unlike you it seems
<Aquentin> the topic is scalability...
<Aquentin> xt etc are just pieces of some topic...
<Aquentin> you obviously recognise we have to address scalability... but then you pre-judge.... invoking power in an academic debate
<Aquentin> in the process doing the unthinkable in the bitcoin space... outright censorship
<Aquentin> because it seems you were terrefied that ppl would str8 out flog to it cus they all stupid right... they need theymos the master
<Aquentin> you're the one who is stupid theymos
<theymos> Even if you could twist things in that way and argue that XT could be allowed on /r/Bitcoin in consistency with past and expected-future precedent, it's still bad from a utilitarian perspective for XT to be pushed to users. If it succeeds, that'd damage Bitcoin immensely. (And it doesn't really matter whether or not /r/Bitcoin matters in the grand scheme of things, it's the principle of the matter that
<theymos> hostile hardforks should not be done, promoted, or used)
<Aquentin> do you think you smarter than all theymos?
<Aquentin> specifically, do you think you smarter than the free market?
<Aquentin> satoshi seemed to have thought otherwise... leave it to the free ppl
<Aquentin> but you must be smarter than him
<Aquentin> and in your genius you have managed to increase tensions, create a visible division in the community, create a hostile environment, and show to all just how important it is to resist centralisation in all forms
<Aquentin> thanks...
<theymos> I don't need to be smarter or more effective than the free market or any individual in order for me to recognize that they are very probably wrong and what they're doing is probably very harmful. It's quite possible for many companies and individuals to collectively be wrong and destroy themselves.
<Aquentin> is it?
<Aquentin> because if it is then bitcoin is a failure
<Aquentin> and if you believe bitcoin is a failure you should fuck off
<theymos> That's an important point. Bitcoin is *not* "anti-fragile" as many people say. Its decentralized/transparent/secure nature provides a lot of inherent strength, but in the end it relies on the people who use Bitcoin to behave at least somewhat correctly.
<Aquentin> yes
<Aquentin> 51% of them
<Aquentin> when one person can order, like yourself,... that ruins bitcoin
<Aquentin> bitcoin relies on 51% being honest, and if you assume 51% will not be honest, you are declaring bitcoin is a failure
<Aquentin> and if that is your assumption, then just bugger off
<Aquentin> go do something else and pass on the batoon
<theymos> No, that's the sort of incorrect view I'm talking about. The system does not inherently rely on that sort of majoritarianism. But if people assume/accept majority rule in Bitcoin, then this view can dominate and end up actually coming into force.
<Aquentin> yes, there are layers etc...
<Aquentin> but fundamentally... the way you solve the byzantine problem is through assuming 51% is honest
<Aquentin> if they aren't all crumbles
<Aquentin> like some malicious entity buying 51% of the hashpower etc
<Aquentin> or some malicious entity corrupting 51% of the community etc
<Aquentin> the fundamental assumption is that this would not happen...
<Aquentin> because costs etc
<theymos> That's only relevant for transaction ordering. Everywhere else, Bitcoin is about self-ownership. You don't need to do anything because of any authority, even a majority.
<Aquentin> that's where you contradict yourself
<Aquentin> and you must see it?
<Aquentin> I can be my own node regardless of what all do, but I will order all to do x lol
<theymos> What orders are you talking about?
<Aquentin> the ones you giving in r/bitcoin
<Aquentin> anyway, I've said plenty
<Aquentin> my problem is I can not know whether you are honest
<Aquentin> I can not trust you
<Aquentin> no one can nor do they have any reason to
<theymos> The way I operate /r/Bitcoin is consistent with self-ownership. /r/Bitcoin is a private, centralized website. I am free to operate it as I wish. I am under no ethical obligation to allow total free speech just because I believe in self-ownership. And you are free to either convince me otherwise or go elsewhere. This doesn't give me any inherent control over Bitcoin, except the ability I have to
<theymos> influence free individuals.
<Aquentin> therefore, if there is no corruption, you have no right to do what you did
<Aquentin> of course you have the power, but on a principled basis, you have no right whatever
<Aquentin> because regardless of whatever you may say, you could be corrupted, or coerced, and you are a centralised point
<theymos> This is in accordance with my principles. I don't take free speech to be an ethical axiom...
<Aquentin> dont care about your principles
<Aquentin> you're just one man in a sea of men
<Aquentin> you could be lying
<Aquentin> manipulating, deceiving, you could be dishonest
<theymos> Sure, everyone should keep that possibility in mind for everyone.
<Aquentin> if we could rely on just 1 man being honest then bitcoin would not rely on 51% being honest
<Aquentin> yes theymos... that's why you don't take unilateral actions
<Aquentin> that's why you don't abuse your power
<Aquentin> but then, you are obviously corrupted, or extremley stupid
