Core Dev Luke Jr. To Chinese Miners: We Didn't Promise You Dick!

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

2 pages of chatter waffled down to this summary opinion

1. miners were peed off with the push and pull arguments on github/mailinglist and so wanted to come face to face with the main people who can actually do something.
2. they did no invite random coders who just edited a couple words of the user guide, or the local sushi chef. they invited the main people who can actually do something.
3. the main people who can actually do something turned up. luke JR sat right next to adam back and others and they showed their opinions were united.
4. they did not sign the document "independent coder" they signed it "core contributor" emphasizing that their actions were to involve core
5. the commit access and control of the core github is not spread out evenly with hundreds of github users. but just select few(reference point 1 and 2)

but the "core contributors" are trying to pretend the agreement would be more effective if the chinese miners just asked their local sushi chefs to turn up and sign a document because luke, adam and the rest are pretending they are only as useful to core as a sushi chef.(basically saying they cant do it)

however we all know their abilities, their access privileges and their roles. so its obvious they can do it.. but simply wont.

now everyone should be up to date.

what to expect next.
Luke Jr SHOULD atleast release some code on his own personal repo(that way he cant blame core vetoing it). just to say he as an independent mind did forfill his independent obligations to produce code.
but then we will see the usual blockstream fanboys say that lukeJr's code release is just another altcoin and how lukeJr should be thrown to the wolves, just like any other dev that ended up releasing code on separate repos due to blockstream vetoing the changes.

but remember this folks. if a implementation links to bitcoins genesis block, stores, validates and relays bitcoins 7 year blockdata. its not an altcoin. so dont be fooled by the blockstream fanboys trying to scare people away with fake "altcoin doomsday" moments

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 05:42:14 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 05:35:56 PM

[]
A gentleman's agreement is enforceable by character and credibility.

What does that mean? Explain the mechanics of this "enforcement."
Wikip has this to say about gentleman's agreements:
"A gentlemen's agreement or gentleman's agreement is an informal and legally non-binding agreement between two or more parties. [...] It is, therefore, distinct from a legal agreement or contract, which can be enforced if necessary."

When an individual signs a document with another individual(s),
that lays out terms and expectations as to how things will proceed,
but are not specific or defined enough so as to be a strict legally contract
within a specific jurisdiction and with no guarantee made as to final outcome,
that simple document is comparable to a handshake with a promise to perform.

That document is not based on legal remedy, but on whether someone's character
or credibility is worthy of entering into. Do you trust them to hold their word?
Then it is like a Gentleman's Agreement.

The enforcement mechanism of this type of agreement is that if one of the parties does
not follow up on what they have signed off on, then that person has lost credibility within
the community and anything they say should be taken as garbage. Also, they should not
be trusted with any other future agreements or such. The only remedy to this type of
agreement is a social one, and not legal.

A true gentleman will always keep his word, otherwise he is worth nothing.

Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 05:42:14 PM

Quote

But basically you are saying that everyone who signed the agreement, who does no coding to Bitcoin
Core, are either insane or stupid as well. A lot of different entities "OK'd" and signed that agreement.

Not at all. I was not party to the negotiations, and can only guess re. the motivation and intent of the resultant "agreement." Placating you bit-villagers was suggested. You had pitchforks & the moat's been run dry, so sounds perfectly reasonable Undecided

I don't know what that even means.
The miners asked for a meeting and forced that agreement. That was my understanding.

giggidy23

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 05:35:56 PM

[]
A gentleman's agreement is enforceable by character and credibility.

What does that mean? Explain the mechanics of this "enforcement."
Wikip has this to say about gentleman's agreements:
"A gentlemen's agreement or gentleman's agreement is an informal and legally non-binding agreement between two or more parties. [...] It is, therefore, distinct from a legal agreement or contract, which can be enforced if necessary."

Quote

But basically you are saying that everyone who signed the agreement, who does no coding to Bitcoin
Core, are either insane or stupid as well. A lot of different entities "OK'd" and signed that agreement.

Not at all. I was not party to the negotiations, and can only guess re. the motivation and intent of the resultant "agreement." Placating you bit-villagers was suggested. You had pitchforks & the moat's been run dry, so sounds perfectly reasonable Undecided

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 05:20:16 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 04:13:24 PM

Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 03:29:43 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 02:40:40 PM

[]

There is no actual misunderstanding.

The truth is, that those individual core contributors agreed to an
agreement where they will personally code a 2MB HF and lobby that code, to the Bitcoin community,
for it's consideration of adding it into Bitcoin Core, and in return, the miners and other signatories
agree to implement SegWit and etc.

Lol no. No individual has agreed to do anything.
Allow me to adhere to your rigidly literalist reading, and quote an excerpt of said legal document:

"Based on the above points, the timeline will likely follow the below dates.
   -SegWit is expected to be released in April 2016.
   - The code for the hard-fork will therefore be available by July 2016.
   -If there is strong community support, the hard-fork activation will likely happen around July 2017."

You were saying something about arguing contract law? I take it you've seen wording like this in actual IRL contracts?
There's literally nothing loosely resembling anything enforceable here, SegWit was not promised, it was "expected to be released in April 2016."
So ya, nothing promised.

"The code for the hard-fork will therefore be available by July 2016," so if no SegWit, no code. "Available" is also left wide-open to interpretation, what does that even mean? Ditto for strong community support. But even if we agree that there is, in fact, strong community support, "hard-fork activation will likely happen around July 2017."
of course, everything mentioned everything mentioned "will likely follow the below dates."

Go, Dog. Go! reads more like a contract to me.
And I refuse to believe that our Best and Brightest came up with that drivel because clueless about contracts.

All parties that signed the agreement are bound to the agreement terms.
I never said this document was a sound strong legal document, just that it is an agreement.
If you interpret such an agreement, you would use contract law, but for this to be enforced in
a court of law, it would be hard since this is a basic gentleman's agreement that if x happens
by estimated y, then I promise to do z.

A gentleman's agreement is, by definition, unenforceable. Thus your attempt to "argu[e] contract law" is as appropriate here as applying tort law is to poetry, which is to say stop.

Gentlemen (here I'm trying for the most liberal, widest possible meaning of the word) enter into ventures involving large sums of money (and by large, I mean humongous, ginormous suns - billions of nearly-anonymous borderless moneys that fit on a usb stick), the interested parties may forgo entering into an IRL, enforceable and legally-binding agreements for a multitude of reasons, but barring nefarious intent and deceit, we're left with only two: Insanity and Stupidity.
Core devs aren't stupid, most of them are reasonably sane.

Quote

Ultimately, it is not a great legal contract.

Depends on what you meant it to do.
And to whom.

A gentleman's agreement is enforceable by character and credibility.

If you are saying that the document signed is not an enforceable legal document, I agree mostly.
But I will still apply contract terminology and meaning behind the terms and phrases used.
Because an agreement may not be legally enforceable does not mean it can not be read as such.

Sometimes, Courts will remove sections of contracts that are unenforceable, but leave the rest intact
to make the remaining enforceable. So your example is not correct as agreements should not be
read a children's fairtales, but with contracting termonolgy. The question here is whether the document
was intended to be legally binding. I wasn't there, I don't know. The way that it is written is a promise to perform.

But basically you are saying that everyone who signed the agreement, who does no coding to Bitcoin
Core, are either insane or stupid as well. A lot of different entities "OK'd" and signed that agreement.

giggidy23

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 04:13:24 PM

Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 03:29:43 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 02:40:40 PM

[]

There is no actual misunderstanding.

The truth is, that those individual core contributors agreed to an
agreement where they will personally code a 2MB HF and lobby that code, to the Bitcoin community,
for it's consideration of adding it into Bitcoin Core, and in return, the miners and other signatories
agree to implement SegWit and etc.

Lol no. No individual has agreed to do anything.
Allow me to adhere to your rigidly literalist reading, and quote an excerpt of said legal document:

"Based on the above points, the timeline will likely follow the below dates.
   -SegWit is expected to be released in April 2016.
   - The code for the hard-fork will therefore be available by July 2016.
   -If there is strong community support, the hard-fork activation will likely happen around July 2017."

You were saying something about arguing contract law? I take it you've seen wording like this in actual IRL contracts?
There's literally nothing loosely resembling anything enforceable here, SegWit was not promised, it was "expected to be released in April 2016."
So ya, nothing promised.

"The code for the hard-fork will therefore be available by July 2016," so if no SegWit, no code. "Available" is also left wide-open to interpretation, what does that even mean? Ditto for strong community support. But even if we agree that there is, in fact, strong community support, "hard-fork activation will likely happen around July 2017."
of course, everything mentioned everything mentioned "will likely follow the below dates."

Go, Dog. Go! reads more like a contract to me.
And I refuse to believe that our Best and Brightest came up with that drivel because clueless about contracts.

All parties that signed the agreement are bound to the agreement terms.
I never said this document was a sound strong legal document, just that it is an agreement.
If you interpret such an agreement, you would use contract law, but for this to be enforced in
a court of law, it would be hard since this is a basic gentleman's agreement that if x happens
by estimated y, then I promise to do z.

A gentleman's agreement is, by definition, unenforceable. Thus your attempt to "argu[e] contract law" is as appropriate here as applying tort law is to poetry, which is to say stop.

Gentlemen (here I'm trying for the most liberal, widest possible meaning of the word) negotiating a venture involving large sums of money (and by large, I mean humongous, ginormous sums - billions of nearly-anonymous borderless moneys that fit onto a usb stick) may forgo entering into an IRL, enforceable and legally-binding agreements for a whole mess'o reasons, but barring nefarious intent and deceit, we're left with only two: Insanity and Stupidity.
Core devs aren't stupid, most of them are reasonably sane.

Quote

Ultimately, it is not a great legal contract.

Depends on what you meant it to do.
And to whom.

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 03:29:43 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 02:40:40 PM

[]

There is no actual misunderstanding.

The truth is, that those individual core contributors agreed to an
agreement where they will personally code a 2MB HF and lobby that code, to the Bitcoin community,
for it's consideration of adding it into Bitcoin Core, and in return, the miners and other signatories
agree to implement SegWit and etc.

Lol no. No individual has agreed to do anything.
Allow me to adhere to your rigidly literalist reading, and quote an excerpt of said legal document:

"Based on the above points, the timeline will likely follow the below dates.
   -SegWit is expected to be released in April 2016.
   - The code for the hard-fork will therefore be available by July 2016.
   -If there is strong community support, the hard-fork activation will likely happen around July 2017."

You were saying something about arguing contract law? I take it you've seen wording like this in actual IRL contracts?
There's literally nothing loosely resembling anything enforceable here, SegWit was not promised, it was "expected to be released in April 2016."
So ya, nothing promised.

"The code for the hard-fork will therefore be available by July 2016," so if no SegWit, no code. "Available" is also left wide-open to interpretation, what does that even mean? Ditto for strong community support. But even if we agree that there is, in fact, strong community support, "hard-fork activation will likely happen around July 2017."
of course, everything mentioned everything mentioned "will likely follow the below dates."

Go, Dog. Go! reads more like a contract to me.
And I refuse to believe that our Best and Brightest came up with that drivel because clueless about contracts.

All parties that signed the agreement are bound to the agreement terms.
I never said this document was a sound strong legal document, just that it is an agreement.
If you interpret such an agreement, you would use contract law, but for this to be enforced in
a court of law, it would be hard since this is a basic gentleman's agreement that if x happens
by estimated y, then I promise to do z.

There are many other terms and paragraphs missing from this document to be a sound legal contract.
For example, which jurisdiction's laws will be applied to this agreement? That is not defined.
What about disputes in termonology, is there a mechanism for arbitration? That is not defined.
What if SegWit is "late" by one or two months? Is that a violation? That is not defined.

Ultimately, it is not a great legal contract, but no one said that it was.
It is still binding and enforceable as to the signers and should be applied toward their character
as part of the Bitcoin community. That is all. All parties signed to the terms that exist.
If the terms are crap and full of crap, then no one should have signed the crap and everyone
should have walked away not reaching an agreement.

Edit: I would like to clarify, that when i speak of enforceability, I'm referring to the strict following
of the terms upon the individuals as agreed, and I am not referring to the legal enforceability of this
agreement/contract within a Court of Law. Enforceability within a Court of Law would be difficult for this matter
since the terms are very loose and non-committal. A Judge would most likely throw out such as case due to the
fact that no real damage or breach occurred and any alleged damage could not be quantified.

Quote from: pogress on June 28, 2016, 03:45:15 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 02:40:40 PM

There is no actual misunderstanding.

The truth is, that those individual core contributors agreed to an
agreement where they will personally code a 2MB HF and lobby that code, to the Bitcoin community,
for it's consideration of adding it into Bitcoin Core, and in return, the miners and other signatories
agree to implement SegWit and etc.

Who should come forward and declare that the agreement, that individuals came to on their own accord,
is worthless and non-enforceable to those parties? If parties to the agreement do not uphold their part,
then their word and signature is garbage and should not be trusted in the future.

I expected luke-jr and Blockstream members to lobby for the 2MB HF, thats what the HK agreement basically said - a compromise. But this did not happened - quite the opposite based on gmaxwell and luke-jr anti HF talk. What it means to me is luke-jr and Blockstream lost trust in my eyes and they damaged core reputation as well because they are part of core team. Im surprised miners still respect the agreement when Adam Back as CEO failed to deliver support from all Blockstream members, and luke-jr talk in these lines: "I will deliver some HF code, but its pointless". So Chinese F2pool, luke-jr and and Adam Back failed to deliver the promise and ruined their reputation with this - but time to move on and do not trust these three anymore.

Your statement is all over the place.
1. Yes, it is a compromise.
2. No lobbing for 2mb HF should have already occurred. That starts now.
3. Gmaxwell is not party to this agreement/compromise.
4. Miners respect the agreement since nothing has occurred that contradicts the terms.
5. Lukejr can think the 2mb code is pointless, he didn't agree to a guaranteed adoption.
6. Lukejr and Adam Back agreement terms have not taken effect yet.

pogress

member

Activity: 96

Merit: 10

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 02:40:40 PM

There is no actual misunderstanding.

The truth is, that those individual core contributors agreed to an
agreement where they will personally code a 2MB HF and lobby that code, to the Bitcoin community,
for it's consideration of adding it into Bitcoin Core, and in return, the miners and other signatories
agree to implement SegWit and etc.

Who should come forward and declare that the agreement, that individuals came to on their own accord,
is worthless and non-enforceable to those parties? If parties to the agreement do not uphold their part,
then their word and signature is garbage and should not be trusted in the future.

I expected luke-jr and Blockstream members to lobby for the 2MB HF, thats what the HK agreement basically said - a compromise. But this did not happened - quite the opposite based on gmaxwell and luke-jr anti HF talk. What it means to me is luke-jr and Blockstream lost trust in my eyes and they damaged core reputation as well because they are part of core team. Im surprised miners still respect the agreement when Adam Back as CEO failed to deliver support from all Blockstream members, and luke-jr talk in these lines: "I will deliver some HF code, but its pointless". So Chinese F2pool, luke-jr and and Adam Back failed to deliver the promise and ruined their reputation with this - but time to move on and do not trust these three anymore.

giggidy23

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 02:40:40 PM

[]

There is no actual misunderstanding.

The truth is, that those individual core contributors agreed to an
agreement where they will personally code a 2MB HF and lobby that code, to the Bitcoin community,
for it's consideration of adding it into Bitcoin Core, and in return, the miners and other signatories
agree to implement SegWit and etc.

Lol no. No individual has agreed to do anything.
Allow me to adhere to your rigidly literalist reading, and quote an excerpt of said legal document:

"Based on the above points, the timeline will likely follow the below dates.
   -SegWit is expected to be released in April 2016.
   - The code for the hard-fork will therefore be available by July 2016.
   -If there is strong community support, the hard-fork activation will likely happen around July 2017."

You were saying something about arguing contract law? I take it you've seen wording like this in actual IRL contracts?
There's literally nothing loosely resembling anything enforceable here, SegWit was not promised, it was "expected to be released in April 2016."
So ya, nothing promised.

"The code for the hard-fork will therefore be available by July 2016," so if no SegWit, no code. "Available" is also left wide-open to interpretation, what does that even mean? Ditto for strong community support. But even if we agree that there is, in fact, strong community support, "hard-fork activation will likely happen around July 2017."
of course, everything mentioned everything mentioned "will likely follow the below dates."

Go, Dog. Go! reads more like a contract to me.
And I refuse to believe that our Best and Brightest came up with that drivel because clueless about contracts.

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 02:22:45 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 01:55:43 PM

Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 01:44:10 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 01:33:21 PM

Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 01:16:20 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 12:52:23 PM

If you are adamant in your belief and opinion, all you have to do is two things:

1. Take the terms of the signed agreement.
2. Place those terms next to the lies that were committed.

Look at the topic of this thread.
Luke Jr. is not arguing against specific points of that "agreement," he isn't saying that all contractual obligations are being met, per signed "agreement."
He's saying that the signatories were not representatives of the core team, making said "agreement" null and void. That the entity known as core (henceforth EKAC) is not obligated to comply with the terms of that "agreement," because Why is this so difficult to get across?

If I pretended to be the King of Siam, and, in that capacity, signed a lengthy international treaty on the behalf of Thailand, what difference is it which terms of that treaty Thailand is/is not adhering to?

EKAC (sorry, temporally-bound virtual entity manifesting itself in cryptospace as Luke [dash] Jr., who is not EKAC) claim(s) that the whole thing is junk. Because the carbon-based sovereign individual(s) extant at the spacetime coordinates of signing (which is to say collapsing the probability field so as to make marks appear in one of the infinitely manifold realities), were not granted said authority by the nebulous entity known as core, which, by definition, is apunctual and exists outside spacetime, in constant flux.

I hope this is clear.

If you read the agreement signed, it says within the paragraphs that the Bitcoin contributors
signing are separate individuals not empowered to confirm finalization. It clearly states that the
Core community has the final say. A handful of Core Contributors is not the Core Community.

What documents or other material do you have that shows that LukeJr and others willfully participated
in such talks with claims that they control Bitcoin, yet reneging later to just claim as an individual?.

They made no claims of controlling Bitcoin, nor is such a claim being put forward by me now.

What they did willfully do is mislead the miners, the press, and the entire fucking bitcoin community into believing that a meaningful agreement has been reached, knowing full well that the worthless assemblage of bullshit was fucking worthless. As I have pointed out as you celebrated that momentous event, and got laughed at. Lol.

The agreement terms is the agreement. There is nothing more.
Seems the media mislead everyone, since they added and subtracted to the agreed terms within their articles.

If the miners were not happy with the terms at the time, they could have walked away and said, "no deal".
Instead, all signatories managed to agree to what they themselves could agree to.

Whether the agreement is a good one or not is not relevant.
The issue is whether people are breaching their agreed duties.
I believe (without full knowledge) that no breach could have occurred from the Core signatories since
the 2MB HF terms agreed to only activate when SegWit is released.

Again, I'm not discussing the terms of the agreement here, that's an entirely different can of worms.
You are claiming that the bitcoin press, r/bitcoin, this forum - in short, the entire bitcoin community - misinterpreted that agreement.
At the time, I pointed out that the agreement, just like all non-binding, no-violent and otherwise totally worthless & unenforceable agreements, is worthless.
Got laughed at. And I believe (not 100%% sure) Lauda added some grease to the fire with one of his de facto standards: "ignore him, he's just trying to stir up shit."

And not a single core developer bothered to correct that misunderstanding and right that grievous wrong. Not one of them chimed in with "Guys, he's totally right on the money, there's absolutely no substance here, just feelgood fluff to placate you bit-villagers.
He's totally right, and you're all wrong, lol."

There is no actual misunderstanding.

The truth is, that those individual core contributors agreed to an
agreement where they will personally code a 2MB HF and lobby that code, to the Bitcoin community,
for it's consideration of adding it into Bitcoin Core, and in return, the miners and other signatories
agree to implement SegWit and etc.

Who should come forward and declare that the agreement, that individuals came to on their own accord,
is worthless and non-enforceable to those parties? If parties to the agreement do not uphold their part,
then their word and signature is garbage and should not be trusted in the future.

giggidy23

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 01:55:43 PM

Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 01:44:10 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 01:33:21 PM

Quote from: giggidy23 on June 28, 2016, 01:16:20 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 28, 2016, 12:52:23 PM

If you are adamant in your belief and opinion, all you have to do is two things:

1. Take the terms of the signed agreement.
2. Place those terms next to the lies that were committed.

Look at the topic of this thread.
Luke Jr. is not arguing against specific points of that "agreement," he isn't saying that all contractual obligations are being met, per signed "agreement."
He's saying that the signatories were not representatives of the core team, making said "agreement" null and void. That the entity known as core (henceforth EKAC) is not obligated to comply with the terms of that "agreement," because Why is this so difficult to get across?

If I pretended to be the King of Siam, and, in that capacity, signed a lengthy international treaty on the behalf of Thailand, what difference is it which terms of that treaty Thailand is/is not adhering to?

EKAC (sorry, temporally-bound virtual entity manifesting itself in cryptospace as Luke [dash] Jr., who is not EKAC) claim(s) that the whole thing is junk. Because the carbon-based sovereign individual(s) extant at the spacetime coordinates of signing (which is to say collapsing the probability field so as to make marks appear in one of the infinitely manifold realities), were not granted said authority by the nebulous entity known as core, which, by definition, is apunctual and exists outside spacetime, in constant flux.

I hope this is clear.

If you read the agreement signed, it says within the paragraphs that the Bitcoin contributors
signing are separate individuals not empowered to confirm finalization. It clearly states that the
Core community has the final say. A handful of Core Contributors is not the Core Community.

What documents or other material do you have that shows that LukeJr and others willfully participated
in such talks with claims that they control Bitcoin, yet reneging later to just claim as an individual?.

They made no claims of controlling Bitcoin, nor is such a claim being put forward by me now.

What they did willfully do is mislead the miners, the press, and the entire fucking bitcoin community into believing that a meaningful agreement has been reached, knowing full well that the worthless assemblage of bullshit was fucking worthless. As I have pointed out as you celebrated that momentous event, and got laughed at. Lol.

The agreement terms is the agreement. There is nothing more.
Seems the media mislead everyone, since they added and subtracted to the agreed terms within their articles.

If the miners were not happy with the terms at the time, they could have walked away and said, "no deal".
Instead, all signatories managed to agree to what they themselves could agree to.

Whether the agreement is a good one or not is not relevant.
The issue is whether people are breaching their agreed duties.
I believe (without full knowledge) that no breach could have occurred from the Core signatories since
the 2MB HF terms agreed to only activate when SegWit is released.

Again, I'm not discussing the terms of the agreement here, that's an entirely different can of worms.
You are claiming that the bitcoin press, r/bitcoin, this forum - in short, the entire bitcoin community - misinterpreted that agreement.
At the time, I pointed out that the agreement, just like all non-binding, no-violent and otherwise totally worthless & unenforceable agreements, is worthless.
Got laughed at. And I believe (not 100%% sure) Lauda added some grease to the fire with one of his de facto standards: "ignore him, he's just trying to stir up shit."

And not a single core developer bothered to correct that misunderstanding and right that grievous wrong. Not one of them chimed in with "Guys, he's totally right on the money, there's absolutely no substance here, just feelgood fluff to placate you bit-villagers.
He's totally right, and you're all wrong, lol."

Topic: Core Dev Luke Jr. To Chinese Miners: We Didn't Promise You Dick! (Read 1984 times)