Topic: De-troll Bitcoin (Read 3064 times)

I wish I could send you negative Bitcoins.

This is a terrible idea. 

Why did you have to post that link? Now I'm going to have to spend a few hours disproving everything that idiot said.

He is such an idiot and deserves a massive slap across the face for being stupid.

Or you could learn your lesson about trusting blogs .  In an ideal world, people would know how to think for themselves, but I can see your point about technical and scientific misconceptions vs. politics.

Of course they do. I didn't say there was anything wrong or immoral about this. Maybe slightly unethical - creating false perception of public consensus - but then, anyone who lets some random comments shape his political views is an idiot anyway and what they think doesn't matter that much.
On the other hand, when it comes to technical and scientific stuff - like Bitcoin - there's absolutely nothing unethical about correcting common misconceptions. In fact, I wish someone knowledgeable commented on that random "Bitcoin is a scam" blog post that made me miss out on early adoption, when I googled Bitcoin in 2010.

I would bet the Israeli Intelligence sees what they do as the same.  They are only standing up to those hate-spewing Palestinians...

I'm still not sure whether I am clear on the difference between astroturfing and what you are proposing, but here is how I imagine it working out in the real world:

There would  be an invite-only IRC channel at somewhere like #bitcoin-cluebat that would have 5-10 very experienced members in it. They would be responsible for seeking out and destroying FUD spread on blogs, forums, and the like.
The necessary experience would be a comprehensive knowledge of Bitcoin and its ecosystems, a decent know-how of economics, some programming, and all of them must be well educated in the fine art of diplomacy.

An example situation would be on a blog, where someone has just posted an article that consists of mainly misconceptions. Once discovered, the link would be brought to the attention of the cluebatting team, who would discuss the best method of approach. Then, the first member would make a comment that is designed to educate, but also designed to draw the blogger into conversation. When the blogger responds, the team would evaluate the response and choose the most qualified member to respond to whatever is being discussed at the moment, and a different member would post on the same comment section with another constructive and diplomatically worded bit of information.

From the blogger's perspective, it wouldn't be one ravenous individual bashing him and his hard work, but rather several knowledgeable participants all applying their knowledge to correct his misconceptions. The same could be done on forums, where instead of one person always responding, there would be several that all know the correct answer posting alternately.

This would be a highly effective method of cluebatting even the most harsh detractors.

You're describing "astroturfing" which is not at all what I proposed. Sorry for the confusion.

What I'm referring to is that in a one-on-one debate in any forum, website, chatroom, there are usually 10+ detractors causing noise and spreading FUD to keep people from hearing the debate. The solution I believe is to bring in 10+ counter-detractors, kind of like being on someone in basketball. That person is responsible for engaging the troll until the troll is depleted of energy or lies to tell, while the real debate continues. I don't think there is anything unethical or immoral about it, and since we're not intending to influence but rather equalize, I don't think there's anything wrong with it in the slightest.

What MNW proposes here is actually a very common practice among various interest groups, political parties etc.

This tactic was perfected by Israeli intelligence, who would organize anti-Palestinian, pro-Israel comment mobs using their Megaphone software.

These days, I suspect that many comments under political and economic articles on major sites are paid for as part of PR or Public Shaping campaigns. Not to mention the articles themselves.

No.

I'm a little squirmy about the idea of organized bitcoin troll-tackling... but then I come across guys like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6s8kz8Y714
(CommonlyKnownAsDom)

That guy needs cluebatting.. but he seems pretty determined to misunderstand and hate on it.

You're a good sport 

Buttcoin is closed already, didn't you get the memo? It will fade into nothingness in about a week ...

Oops! Sorry. I meant to say buttcoins.org but I must be a bit sleepy.

I suppose she's doing fine. Last I heard she's working on a new website.

If you need any other photos of me for the buttcoins.com article let me know!

It's buttcoin.org  

How'd that photo shoot with that one asian chick work out?

I think it can't hurt much to get together and participate in some canvasing, present some good arguments and be there to help Bitcoiners who aren't sure how to argue the points with seasoned economists etc, but I am thinking my original post was a bit off. It comes across like nothing more than being butthurt and nonconstructive. Sorry guys. I think I need a break from the 'puter for a while.

Loving the buttcoins.com website as always.

Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
---Friedrich Nietzsche

Sound great Matthew N. Wright, another winning idea!

Upvotes to you good sirs, you win the internet. Epic winnery FTW. Troll fail is fail, luz boat full steam ahead to pwning lamerz.

FTFY, also I want some.

What the heck are you thinking?

LOL! I love that