Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
i doubt that.
it was an audio Skype but the lack of communication skills and outright immaturity was so pronounced that i'd be shocked if it was gmax. this was back in Jan 11 about 6mo before gmax registered on BCT.
it's funny b/c @Justus Ranvier once asked me if i thought gmax was tvbcof. i doubted that one too. trolls are just trolls. and there are plenty of 'em.
Maybe the best response to these bans is to ban r/bitcoin in turn, i.e. not go there. I find it a bit difficult myself because it is sort of the bigger sub and the silent majority defaults to it, but, when they treat us like slaves at their mercy maybe we have no choice but to withhold our contribution.
I think the XT crowd is the more active users which created r/bitcoin's spirit. Without our contribution r/bitcoin fades in activity and is left with some poisonous trolls who do not resist to fall very low at first opportunity. If we take the discussion elsewhere, then perhaps others will follow, otherwise, by participating in a subreddit which flagrantly engages in censorship and banning while contorting made up nonsense arguments about vote brigading by the community itself we only empower them to continue treating us the users as dispensable slaves.
I'd prefer it if theymos permanently banned as otherwise the temptation is too great, but I think from now on I will try and avoid that place. I think most people have made up their minds by this point and I think the discussion has moved on from should we or not increase the blocksize to should we or not be ruled by authoritarians who censor and ban in reddit and irc, some of them core devs like Patrick.
I think the XT crowd is the more active users which created r/bitcoin's spirit. Without our contribution r/bitcoin fades in activity and is left with some poisonous trolls who do not resist to fall very low at first opportunity. If we take the discussion elsewhere, then perhaps others will follow, otherwise, by participating in a subreddit which flagrantly engages in censorship and banning while contorting made up nonsense arguments about vote brigading by the community itself we only empower them to continue treating us the users as dispensable slaves.
I'd prefer it if theymos permanently banned as otherwise the temptation is too great, but I think from now on I will try and avoid that place. I think most people have made up their minds by this point and I think the discussion has moved on from should we or not increase the blocksize to should we or not be ruled by authoritarians who censor and ban in reddit and irc, some of them core devs like Patrick.
it's incredibly sad to see the level of immaturity, paranoia, and self projection going on in this interchange, esp from Luke and Strateman (PC).(1:35:00 AM) Bloomie: Does anybody from r/bitcoin care to explain this: https://bitco.in/forum/threads/16/page-49#post-1825
(1:35:22 AM) brainbug [~ljk@46-126-122-93.dynamic.hispeed.ch] entered the room.
(1:35:57 AM) dcrash [~dcrash@136.101.171.108.client.static.strong41.as22781.net] entered the room.
(1:36:08 AM) justanotheruser: it looks like he got banned
(1:36:19 AM) justanotheruser: and his animated gif was removed
(1:37:07 AM) Bloomie: That's not an explanation.
(1:37:13 AM) kmels left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 240 seconds).
(1:37:14 AM) FredEE left the room (quit: Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…).
(1:37:51 AM) justanotheruser: that's what it says
(1:39:03 AM) Bloomie: I can read what it says. I'm asking why they are accusing this person of vote brigading.
(1:39:11 AM) Nothing-: To be fair you asked for explanation from /r/bitcoin, this is freenode irc
(1:39:12 AM) phantomcircuit: Bloomie, he was wait for it.... vote manipulating
(1:39:43 AM) IAmNotDorian left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 246 seconds).
(1:39:45 AM) Bloomie: phantomcircuit how so
(1:40:08 AM) Bloomie: Do you see vote manipulating anywhere in his post?
(1:40:22 AM) Gnomethrower [~B@CPE-120-146-232-56.static.wa.bigpond.net.au] entered the room.
(1:40:23 AM) Gnomethrower left the room (quit: Changing host).
(1:40:23 AM) Gnomethrower [~B@unaffiliated/gnomethrower] entered the room.
(1:40:49 AM) phantomcircuit: sigh
(1:40:52 AM) antiatom left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 252 seconds).
(1:41:02 AM) phantomcircuit: his dumb shit gif went to like +120 in about 1 minute
(1:41:08 AM) barmstrong [~barmstron@2604:5500:1b:181:60d3:47c:fc02:f8a7] entered the room.
(1:41:08 AM) phantomcircuit: he was vote manipulating
(1:41:11 AM) Luke-Jr: Bloomie: he *confesses* on that post you linked
(1:41:20 AM) Nothing-: this is beyond the theme of this channel anyway
(1:41:32 AM) MikeBones [~MikeBones@ip98-165-215-249.ph.ph.cox.net] entered the room.
(1:41:33 AM) phantomcircuit: also brand new user asking these questions?
(1:41:40 AM) Luke-Jr: "Apparently I was banned for vote brigading; I suppose if that is interpreted as sharing the link to my post them I'm guilty."
(1:41:44 AM) Luke-Jr: ^ confession
(1:41:49 AM) FredEE [~textual@75-104-69-124.mobility.exede.net] entered the room.
(1:42:07 AM) phantomcircuit: Luke-Jr, lol yeah he did literally confess
(1:42:39 AM) Gnomethrower: phantomcircuit: what's your name from?
(1:42:41 AM) antiatom [~antiatom@78-21-6-95.access.telenet.be] entered the room.
(1:42:42 AM) phantomcircuit: http://coinfire.io/2015/10/04/federal-investigations-of-cryptsy-underway/
(1:42:44 AM) Gnomethrower: it reminds me of Doctor Who
(1:42:47 AM) phantomcircuit: called it
(1:42:51 AM) justanotheruser: he actually says "I shared the link to the post to encourage participation"
(1:43:11 AM) phantomcircuit: justanotheruser, then you link to the material, not the reddit post
(1:43:18 AM) arunpyasi left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 264 seconds).
(1:43:36 AM) phantomcircuit: Gnomethrower, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_circuit
(1:43:47 AM) Gnomethrower: phantomcircuit: Already found that
(1:43:52 AM) justanotheruser: It seems he submitted the material then linked to the bitcoin thread in /r/bitcoinxt
(1:44:28 AM) phantomcircuit: justanotheruser, he was proxying the vote manipulation to other people by posting it there
(1:44:35 AM) phantomcircuit: im sure he knew exactly what he was doing also
(1:44:46 AM) justanotheruser: probably
(1:44:46 AM) Luke-Jr: justanotheruser: eh, that seems innocent enough
(1:44:47 AM) midnightmagic: :-/
(1:44:59 AM) Bloomie: Posting a link to a reddit discussion is not vote brigading, and you know it
(1:45:05 AM) phantomcircuit: he's easily one of the most dishonest people in the space today... which is saying something
(1:45:11 AM) Luke-Jr: justanotheruser: would you rather he post it to /r/BitcoinXT and link it from /r/Bitcoin ?
(1:45:17 AM) mode (+b *!*@*.nycmny.fios.verizon.net) by phantomcircuit
(1:45:19 AM) midnightmagic: Bloomie: You shouldn't ban tor from read-only browsing of your forum.
(1:45:21 AM) Luke-Jr: Bloomie: to comments, it is
(1:45:23 AM) phantomcircuit: god damn it verizon
(1:45:32 AM) mode (-b *!*@*.nycmny.fios.verizon.net) by phantomcircuit
(1:45:33 AM) Bloomie: and there's no way he could have gotten 121 upvotes from sharing a link in that thread
(1:45:40 AM) mode (+b *!*@pool-100-2-23-87.nycmny.fios.verizon.net) by phantomcircuit
(1:45:40 AM) justanotheruser: Luke-Jr: I don't know. It seems the right thing to do is to post it on each subreddit separately and let them speak about it separately
(1:45:52 AM) Luke-Jr: justanotheruser: that fractures the discussion
(1:46:00 AM) phantomcircuit: Bloomie, he posted it to /r/bitcoinxt knowing that there are people with bots who then voted it up
(1:46:01 AM) justanotheruser: good
(1:46:14 AM) phantomcircuit: and you're either a buttcoiner or something equally annoying
(1:46:17 AM) You have been kicked by phantomcircuit: (bye)
1. PC accuses Peter of manipulation
2. Luke claims Peter "confesses". is there any more ludicrous of an interpretation he could make?
3. they accuse @Bloomie as being a new user asking questions and then bans him? WTF, one can't even ask these clowns to defend their actions?
4. PC then invokes "bots". c'mon, using bots is illegal and something most of us around here would never consider using, esp as we represent the economic majority that actually have real assets to lose engaging in such malicious activity.
5. dishonesty? Peter is easily one of the most honest ppl around and certainly never trolls, like PC.
these ppl live in a highly insulated unreality show in their own minds. what IRC channel was that anyway? watching PC talk at Scaling went completely along with my image of him based on interactions in the past. and if anyone has met Luke, he's no better. all these projections they put onto us are tactics they use on a regular basis, i'm sure. they once accused me of using sockpuppets. lol. i don't have the time nor inclination to not only take all the abuse i have using my real name, let alone waste even more time being abused as a sockpuppet. i'm a successful professional in a totally different industry. i don't have time or need for such bullshit. if i was really about abusing ppl as opposed to abusing stupid ideas/ideologies, i would be using this platform to freely and continuously shit all over my past nemeses like gmax, iCE, tvbcof, brg, and MOA, etc. i don't bother b/c it never was about those idiots; it was about their misleading ideas. these guys probably have everything to lose if their pet projects don't make it.
@Peter R
hey Peter, will your Sigsafe work with Mycelium on an NFC enabled Android? if so, can you please post your link and where i could buy one?
lunar
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,001
- 4,290
humanitee
Member
- Sep 7, 2015
- 80
- 141
LOL(1:35:00 AM) Bloomie: Does anybody from r/bitcoin care to explain this: https://bitco.in/forum/threads/16/page-49#post-1825
(1:35:22 AM) brainbug [~ljk@46-126-122-93.dynamic.hispeed.ch] entered the room.
(1:35:57 AM) dcrash [~dcrash@136.101.171.108.client.static.strong41.as22781.net] entered the room.
(1:36:08 AM) justanotheruser: it looks like he got banned
(1:36:19 AM) justanotheruser: and his animated gif was removed
(1:37:07 AM) Bloomie: That's not an explanation.
(1:37:13 AM) kmels left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 240 seconds).
(1:37:14 AM) FredEE left the room (quit: Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…).
(1:37:51 AM) justanotheruser: that's what it says
(1:39:03 AM) Bloomie: I can read what it says. I'm asking why they are accusing this person of vote brigading.
(1:39:11 AM) Nothing-: To be fair you asked for explanation from /r/bitcoin, this is freenode irc
(1:39:12 AM) phantomcircuit: Bloomie, he was wait for it.... vote manipulating
(1:39:43 AM) IAmNotDorian left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 246 seconds).
(1:39:45 AM) Bloomie: phantomcircuit how so
(1:40:08 AM) Bloomie: Do you see vote manipulating anywhere in his post?
(1:40:22 AM) Gnomethrower [~B@CPE-120-146-232-56.static.wa.bigpond.net.au] entered the room.
(1:40:23 AM) Gnomethrower left the room (quit: Changing host).
(1:40:23 AM) Gnomethrower [~B@unaffiliated/gnomethrower] entered the room.
(1:40:49 AM) phantomcircuit: sigh
(1:40:52 AM) antiatom left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 252 seconds).
(1:41:02 AM) phantomcircuit: his dumb shit gif went to like +120 in about 1 minute
(1:41:08 AM) barmstrong [~barmstron@2604:5500:1b:181:60d3:47c:fc02:f8a7] entered the room.
(1:41:08 AM) phantomcircuit: he was vote manipulating
(1:41:11 AM) Luke-Jr: Bloomie: he *confesses* on that post you linked
(1:41:20 AM) Nothing-: this is beyond the theme of this channel anyway
(1:41:32 AM) MikeBones [~MikeBones@ip98-165-215-249.ph.ph.cox.net] entered the room.
(1:41:33 AM) phantomcircuit: also brand new user asking these questions?
(1:41:40 AM) Luke-Jr: "Apparently I was banned for vote brigading; I suppose if that is interpreted as sharing the link to my post them I'm guilty."
(1:41:44 AM) Luke-Jr: ^ confession
(1:41:49 AM) FredEE [~textual@75-104-69-124.mobility.exede.net] entered the room.
(1:42:07 AM) phantomcircuit: Luke-Jr, lol yeah he did literally confess
(1:42:39 AM) Gnomethrower: phantomcircuit: what's your name from?
(1:42:41 AM) antiatom [~antiatom@78-21-6-95.access.telenet.be] entered the room.
(1:42:42 AM) phantomcircuit: http://coinfire.io/2015/10/04/federal-investigations-of-cryptsy-underway/
(1:42:44 AM) Gnomethrower: it reminds me of Doctor Who
(1:42:47 AM) phantomcircuit: called it
(1:42:51 AM) justanotheruser: he actually says "I shared the link to the post to encourage participation"
(1:43:11 AM) phantomcircuit: justanotheruser, then you link to the material, not the reddit post
(1:43:18 AM) arunpyasi left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 264 seconds).
(1:43:36 AM) phantomcircuit: Gnomethrower, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_circuit
(1:43:47 AM) Gnomethrower: phantomcircuit: Already found that
(1:43:52 AM) justanotheruser: It seems he submitted the material then linked to the bitcoin thread in /r/bitcoinxt
(1:44:28 AM) phantomcircuit: justanotheruser, he was proxying the vote manipulation to other people by posting it there
(1:44:35 AM) phantomcircuit: im sure he knew exactly what he was doing also
(1:44:46 AM) justanotheruser: probably
(1:44:46 AM) Luke-Jr: justanotheruser: eh, that seems innocent enough
(1:44:47 AM) midnightmagic: :-/
(1:44:59 AM) Bloomie: Posting a link to a reddit discussion is not vote brigading, and you know it
(1:45:05 AM) phantomcircuit: he's easily one of the most dishonest people in the space today... which is saying something
(1:45:11 AM) Luke-Jr: justanotheruser: would you rather he post it to /r/BitcoinXT and link it from /r/Bitcoin ?
(1:45:17 AM) mode (+b *!*@*.nycmny.fios.verizon.net) by phantomcircuit
(1:45:19 AM) midnightmagic: Bloomie: You shouldn't ban tor from read-only browsing of your forum.
(1:45:21 AM) Luke-Jr: Bloomie: to comments, it is
(1:45:23 AM) phantomcircuit: god damn it verizon
(1:45:32 AM) mode (-b *!*@*.nycmny.fios.verizon.net) by phantomcircuit
(1:45:33 AM) Bloomie: and there's no way he could have gotten 121 upvotes from sharing a link in that thread
(1:45:40 AM) mode (+b *!*@pool-100-2-23-87.nycmny.fios.verizon.net) by phantomcircuit
(1:45:40 AM) justanotheruser: Luke-Jr: I don't know. It seems the right thing to do is to post it on each subreddit separately and let them speak about it separately
(1:45:52 AM) Luke-Jr: justanotheruser: that fractures the discussion
(1:46:00 AM) phantomcircuit: Bloomie, he posted it to /r/bitcoinxt knowing that there are people with bots who then voted it up
(1:46:01 AM) justanotheruser: good
(1:46:14 AM) phantomcircuit: and you're either a buttcoiner or something equally annoying
(1:46:17 AM) You have been kicked by phantomcircuit: (bye)
Holy children, Batman!
Good on you for trying Bloomie. Apparently using the Internet as it was intended is vote brigading now.
Thanks for the show of support, cypherdoc. Unfortunately, we only ever made alpha models of the sigsafe devices and never moved forward with production. It still might happen, but I've got a lot on my plate right now.
I had to have a little LOL, looks like someone just threw their baseball bat at you and missed.
My animated GIF was removed and I've been banned
Apparently I was banned for vote brigading; I suppose if that is interpreted as sharing the link to my post them I'm guilty.
My apologize for up-voting, I found the link on r/bitcoin, and though a picture says a thousand words. I wasn't referred from here. I notice that post really did shake up some trolls.
oops, I'm the troll, and now I'm band. haha.
Last edited:
Fatman3002
Active Member
- Sep 5, 2015
- 189
- 312
Reddit isn't very well suited for proper 90s nerds. The social norms there are too complex. One of the reasons I've stayed away from the place is because it seems to be too many people just waiting for someone to slip up so they can report it. That kind of stuff annoys the hell out of me.
"One of the reasons I've stayed away from the place is because it seems to be too many people just waiting for someone to slip up so they can report it. That kind of stuff annoys the hell out of me."
Noosterdam was just banned for 7 days even though he used the 'np' prefix (i.e., he didn't slip up):
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3nla6b/just_got_banned_for_7_days_for_linking_to_a/
Furthermore, a /r/bitcoin mod implied that vote brigading can still be ruled to have occurred even if links are shared using 'np' (he says it would be ambiguous):
It is perfectly clear that the moderators of /r/bitcoin will make up whatever definitions they want in order to censor under the guise of "moderation," "removing off-topic content," and "vote brigading."
Noosterdam was just banned for 7 days even though he used the 'np' prefix (i.e., he didn't slip up):
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3nla6b/just_got_banned_for_7_days_for_linking_to_a/
Furthermore, a /r/bitcoin mod implied that vote brigading can still be ruled to have occurred even if links are shared using 'np' (he says it would be ambiguous):
It is perfectly clear that the moderators of /r/bitcoin will make up whatever definitions they want in order to censor under the guise of "moderation," "removing off-topic content," and "vote brigading."
Last edited:
Maybe we should collect screenshots of ban notes for thinking wrong on /r/Bitcoin as badges of honor somewhere?
I didn't earn mine yet - I guess because I refrain from posting there voluntarily.
I am starting to love /u/1102whatever. He's really good at driving all the good people away from /r/Bitcoin. Exactly what is needed to push XT or at least a blocksize solution.
I didn't earn mine yet - I guess because I refrain from posting there voluntarily.
I am starting to love /u/1102whatever. He's really good at driving all the good people away from /r/Bitcoin. Exactly what is needed to push XT or at least a blocksize solution.
Vote brigading = Posting speech others agree with and inspires them to upvote, that the blockstream devs and thermos disagree with.
If people they disagree with are getting up voted it must be because of manipulation, because it is impossible for them to see they might be wrong or others are not one their train.
Edit: At this point I do think it is necessary to try and get a non-trivial number of users/nodes to use clients that reject unknown opcodes they can not verify (in effect preventing softforks and forcing hardforks to make changes). If just 20% of nodes reject these, it will impact orphan rates enough to discourage miners from including new LN transactions that do not have consensus.
It should be made clear that this is being done due to combat the rampant censoring and dishonesty being done by/for the core devs. This would make it clear to Greg, Luke, Peter, etc. that they do not control Bitcoin and cannot dictate what it is. The embargo on new opcodes should either continue indefinitely or until the artificial size limit is lifted.
Last edited:
"At this point I do think it is necessary to try and get a non-trivial number of users/nodes to use clients that reject unknown opcodes they can not verify (in effect preventing softforks and forcing hardforks to make changes)." -- @ rocks
That's a timely comment. The dev mailing list has been blowing up regarding this topic today. Here is what I wrote earlier. There seems to be a lot of opposition for the way Core Dev was pushing through changes using soft forks, as they just required indifference (rather than support) to become adopted.
Today it feels to me like Core is in the process of fragmenting under the pressure due to the block size limit debate. We might get our multiple implementations sooner rather than later!
That's a timely comment. The dev mailing list has been blowing up regarding this topic today. Here is what I wrote earlier. There seems to be a lot of opposition for the way Core Dev was pushing through changes using soft forks, as they just required indifference (rather than support) to become adopted.
Today it feels to me like Core is in the process of fragmenting under the pressure due to the block size limit debate. We might get our multiple implementations sooner rather than later!
That's exactly it in a nut shell. A small group of people get to make whatever changes they want through indifference and being the default, while any changes they do not want require massive agreement from everyone (which is next to impossible).
Hijacked is exactly where we are right now.
Different topic, what does the twin's Gemini Exchange offer that Coinbase does not? Is it a step towards the ETF? Or simply another exchange? Edit: Damn this automatic post grouping....
humanitee
Member
- Sep 7, 2015
- 80
- 141
There needs to be a balance. On one hand you have the inherent danger of an unsuccessful fork, on the other you have false consensus and potential incompatibilities between various clients.
TBH I'd rather be too safe then sorry. I think changes should get rolled in eventually though if we hope to maintain progress, if not things could get splintery when various implementations start competing with core.
TBH I'd rather be too safe then sorry. I think changes should get rolled in eventually though if we hope to maintain progress, if not things could get splintery when various implementations start competing with core.
I was thinking about the technical challenges of building multiple implementations of Bitcoin's consensus code. Although I think all are surmountable (e.g., btcd is a living example of a successful re-implementation of the protocol) there are some real challenges:
- the behaviour of the code might be slightly different across implementations (e.g., Core vs btcd) and this is difficult to quantify
- the behaviour of the code might be slightly different over different versions of the same implementation (e.g., the database bug in Core that caused the fork in 2013)
- the build process and the fact that the code is run on various hardware setups could lead to different behaviour in certain edge cases
Anyways, a commercial airplane--say a Boeing 777--will for example have three rate gyroscopes. The plane's controller would flag an error if any one sensor disagreed and as long as two agree there would not be a catastrophic failure due to a bad gyroscope. Could we do something similar with Bitcoin nodes? Could an implementation actually run the transactions and blocks through three unique implementations of the consensus code? This would seem like a highly-reliable way of tracking consensus.
- the behaviour of the code might be slightly different across implementations (e.g., Core vs btcd) and this is difficult to quantify
- the behaviour of the code might be slightly different over different versions of the same implementation (e.g., the database bug in Core that caused the fork in 2013)
- the build process and the fact that the code is run on various hardware setups could lead to different behaviour in certain edge cases
Anyways, a commercial airplane--say a Boeing 777--will for example have three rate gyroscopes. The plane's controller would flag an error if any one sensor disagreed and as long as two agree there would not be a catastrophic failure due to a bad gyroscope. Could we do something similar with Bitcoin nodes? Could an implementation actually run the transactions and blocks through three unique implementations of the consensus code? This would seem like a highly-reliable way of tracking consensus.
Last edited:
humanitee
Member
- Sep 7, 2015
- 80
- 141
@Peter R, of course it could.
But there are various stages of consensus:
1) Fuck you there isn't consensus
2) We agree on some core principles but we don't agree on certain other principles, but we agree on enough to hobble along.
3) We are all running literally every mathematical principle and formula in unison (loosely speaking).
The blockchain is a 3, but the features surrounding it can be a 2. If multiple implementations shared portions of market share then a single one failing would only cause a minor fork on part of the network instead of effecting the whole.
But there are various stages of consensus:
1) Fuck you there isn't consensus
2) We agree on some core principles but we don't agree on certain other principles, but we agree on enough to hobble along.
3) We are all running literally every mathematical principle and formula in unison (loosely speaking).
The blockchain is a 3, but the features surrounding it can be a 2. If multiple implementations shared portions of market share then a single one failing would only cause a minor fork on part of the network instead of effecting the whole.
Last edited: