Link from Bitcoin.org

[Bloomie]

We would really benefit from a link on this page:

https://bitcoin.org/en/community

Does anyone here have an active GitHub account? Gavin and Mike are both listed as contributors on the Bitcoin.org About Us page, btw.

 

[bitsko]

https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/1058

 

[Bloomie]

Thanks for the pull request! Could you correct the name to Bitcoin Forum instead of just the domain?

 

[bitsko]

Harding commented just now
"You're hosting a copy of our site; why should we link to you when we already provide all of that content?""

 

[bitsko]

https://github.com/funbucks/bitcoin.org/commit/221ec9b8b54c742ddbfde2c777d9890ab9ad47fa

reads: <p><a href="http://bitco.in/forum/">bitcoin forum</a></p>

 

[Bloomie]

Thanks @bitsko. Not sure what harding means. The entire contents of bitcoin.org is released under the MIT license, for anyone to republish with or without modifications. I'll sign up at GitHub to address his comment.

 

[Georg Engelmann]

I have added this forum to the bitcoin.it Wiki:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Forums

I also think people with criminal complaints against them shouldn't be moderators. Moderator status could be restored if cypherdoc is found not guilty.

 

[Bloomie]

@chmod755, thank you for your help, but please be careful with your choice of words. We are not aware of any criminal proceedings against cypherdoc. There is a civil claim related to the Hashfast bankruptcy, as I just learned over the weekend, but that's very different from "criminal."

 

[Georg Engelmann]

Really? I didn't read the document, but I assumed it's a criminal case since the word 'fraud' usually indicates that.

COMPLAINT FOR:

1. AVOIDANCE OF PREFERENTIAL TRANSFERS;

2. AVOIDANCE OF FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS;

3. AVOIDANCE OF FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS (CONSTRUCTIVE
FRAUD); AND

4. RECOVERY OF AVOIDED

 

[Bloomie]

You need to read the document then. Don't accuse people of crimes just because you don't understand what a legal term means.

 

[Georg Engelmann]

I didn't accuse anyone of crimes. All I said was: if there is a criminal complaint against someone he/she shouldn't be a moderator until the case is settled.

 

[bitsko]

I get the feeling that this will be a hard fought link, whether or not Harda's input on who gets to mod on this site is taken or not... Harda seemed to have a magic box full of reasons why the link would not be allowed. And just as theymos considers his censorship of the debate to be time-critical, it seems Harda has the same inclination with a 3 month delay.

 

[Peter R]

I didn't accuse anyone of crimes. All I said was: if there is a criminal complaint against someone he/she shouldn't be a moderator until the case is settled.

My understanding is that it is a civil complaint.

Lawsuits and other legal proceedings like this are very common and in no way imply guilt (IMO they often imply that the plaintiff [rather than the defendant] is guilty or hiding something or just being a dick). From my experience, they are usually done for either (1) some political / optics reason, or (2) to tie up a person temporarily to prevent them from making progress with some goal competitive with the plaintiff.

This happens in high-tech all the time and I hate it.

 

[cypherdoc]

@Peter R

New Liberty, an attorney, lays out how it works:

 

[Georg Engelmann]

It's time to abolish bitcoin.org and get a link on bitcoinxt.software

Here's the github repository: https://github.com/bitcoinxt/website

 

[Bloomie]

A link from bitcoinxt.software would actually be great. Thanks for the heads up.