Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[awemany]

Regarding all that confusion about commit misattribution, did it ever turn out that Maxwell really did get patches merged prior to the switch to GitHub?

http://www.coindesk.com/gregory-maxwell-went-bitcoin-skeptic-core-developer/

He never committed anything before 2011 to Bitcoin. See also below...

@awemany commit authorship fixed on github bitcoin core repo.

Yes, but it turns out there's more misattribution by Greg. I just submitted this to reddit:


https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/45g3d5/rewriting_history_greg_maxwell_is_claiming_some/

 

[cypherdoc]

don't get me wrong. i do see 60% hashing power in China alone as a problem. i want Western mining operations to expand for competition and decentralization. but it looks to me like this is already happening as a natural course of events with Bitfury and 21co. it's not something that we need to obsess over.
[doublepost=1455302663][/doublepost]

He never committed anything before 2011 to Bitcoin. See also below...




Yes, but it turns out there's more misattribution by Greg. I just submitted this to reddit:


https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/45g3d5/rewriting_history_greg_maxwell_is_claiming_some/

where oh where is that facepalm pick of Captain Kirk. oh i found it. this nightmare just keeps getting worse and worse. why do we tolerate this?

 

[awemany]

The recent problem becomes more and more: How to reach Core supporters about this?
Anyone who want to repost this to /r/Bitcoin, feel free to do so...

But then we know what will probably happen.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

He never committed anything before 2011 to Bitcoin.

So it did turn out that Greg's first real commit was July 2011, three months after the move to GitHub?

This article is incorrect after all?

http://www.coindesk.com/gregory-maxwell-went-bitcoin-skeptic-core-developer/

After that, he started sending in patches to Sourceforge, the precursor to GitHub where bitcoin's codebase was originally stored.

 

[cypherdoc]

@Justus Ranvier

Coindesk does seek to get things right, from what i hear.

they need to be petitioned to correct the article, which they should.

also, Greg must've been interviewed and presumably took verbal credit for the timeframes quoted. he either told them 2009 or failed to correct the author's presumption of 2009. i don't know which is worse. that'd be even more bad news; for him and his credibility, or lack thereof.

 

[Norway]

@awemany I'll take a bullet!

EDIT: Do you have the original with all the links? Copy-paste doesn't keep the links.
EDIT2: And all the formatting.

 

[cypherdoc]

So it did turn out that Greg's first real commit was July 2011, three months after the move to GitHub?

This article is incorrect after all?

http://www.coindesk.com/gregory-maxwell-went-bitcoin-skeptic-core-developer/

you should insert that article and my concerns into @awemany Reddit post.

 

[awemany]

So it did turn out that Greg's first real commit was July 2011, three months after the move to GitHub?

This article is incorrect after all?

http://www.coindesk.com/gregory-maxwell-went-bitcoin-skeptic-core-developer/

Careful. He might have sent patches. It would be worthwhile to comb through Sourceforge, though.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

Careful. He might have sent patches. It would be worthwhile to comb through Sourceforge, though.

As far as Git's history, I did my own search through a cloned copy of the repo and the first mention of [Mm]axwell was the same one you identified from June 2011. It's a commit actually written by Matt Corallo. Still, even that mention is almost three months after the move to GitHub.

The first actual commit originating from Greg Maxwell that I can find is from 1 Feb 2012.

Unless he was submitting patches prior to the move that were rejected for some reason, I don't see any way to validate the claim from that Coindesk article.

 

[awemany]

@awemany I'll take a bullet!

EDIT: Do you have the original with all the links? Copy-paste doesn't keep the links.
EDIT2: And all the formatting.

http://pastebin.com/ZKra51JS
[doublepost=1455306988][/doublepost]

As far as Git's history, I did my own search through a cloned copy of the repo and the first mention of [Mm]axwell was the same one you identified from June 2011. It's a commit actually written by Matt Corallo. Still, even that mention is almost three months after the move to GitHub.

The first actual commit originating from Greg Maxwell that I can find is from 1 Feb 2012.

Unless he was submitting patches prior to the move that were rejected for some reason, I don't see any way to validate the claim from that Coindesk article.

I wouldn't be surprised anymore. It is good to be diligent, though. The old sourceforge mailing list first mentions Greg only in 2013.
The current bitcoin-dev list has archives back until 2011, is that everything?
I am currently downloading those archives.
Do you also wanna take a look?

 

[Justus Ranvier]

It's actually not clear how much development happened on Sourceforge between r251 and r252, since there's about 5 months of separation between those revisions.

 

[awemany]

First mention of him on new ML that I can find:

2011-June.txt.gz:2017:Oh ya, forgot this tidbit. Thanks gmaxwell!:

So that's the earliest I can find, on Sourceforge and on the Linuxfoundation page. I do not know whether anything in-between has been lost. Do you have any indication that this is the case?

 

[Justus Ranvier]

It does look like Gavin was maintaining a Git repository himself as early as 2010, long before the official move to GitHub.

 

[Norway]

@awemany
Posted! Now, let's see how many seconds it will stay there...

 

[awemany]

Yes - there are also a couple other git-svn clones on github. That still wouldn't make the coindesk article valid, though..

 

[Justus Ranvier]

I do not know whether anything in-between has been lost. Do you have any indication that this is the case?

I don't have any archives that old which I could use to help answer that.

 

[awemany]

@Norway Can't see it? Already deleted?
[doublepost=1455307632][/doublepost]Greg responded to the bug report. This is on the level of laughing stock.

IT WASN'T ME!!1!

And ... hi Greg, I know you're reading this.

 

[Norway]

@awemany I can see it, if I enter my own posts. But I can't see it in the public page. No info about it being deleted. Probably a sneaky form of shaddow ban, lol.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

Greg responded to the bug report. This is on the level of laughing stock.

IT WASN'T ME!!1!

As difficult as at may be, I still that's a hypothesis worth entertaining.

There are most certainly bad actors manipulating all sides, provoking people into forced errors which will be used against them.

Also, whenever the actual bad actors are identified, they'll try to pretend to be one of those pawns.

Just keep digging up facts that can be objectively verified.

 

[awemany]

@Justus Ranvier

No, I think this is finally laughing stock behavior:

First he says, yeah, I did that. And now he says, oh I can't explain, this isn't me?

Not also the slip he did: Caching


People with certain personality disorders will do exactly that when driven into a corner. Do as if their earlier statements are nothing or somehow do not apply.

I am not saying that he's such a case. But I do see strong parallels.

And for some reason, everyone else gives them some kind of 'benefit of the doubt', even though there are clear conflicting statements. That's how it works, and that's how you get away with shit.

This really is laughing stock level.