What's happening in your head sounds very thrilling, and I can't wait for the whole book.
Topic: [DISCUSS]Luke-Jr is standing for election to the board of the Bitcoin Foundation (Read 4598 times)
September 06, 2013, 11:48:36 PM
What's happening in your head sounds very thrilling, and I can't wait for the whole book.
September 06, 2013, 09:46:49 PM
To accomplish this, the OP has taken to task the personal pursuit of opposing Luke-Jr when ever possible, which of course (albeit in a rather distasteful manner) is his free right to do so.
Sorry for the late reply.
What's happening in your head sounds very thrilling, and I can't wait for the whole book.
But as far as this OP is concerned, it's just me disliking censorship, even more when it hurts such "important" events.
August 29, 2013, 01:14:35 PM
Quote
I'm particularly against agendas of this sort which focus on promoting tax evasion, anarchy, or other anti-government activities.
I'm against pro-government activities particularly starting wars, drug prohibition, counterfeiting and other violent acts against otherwise peaceful people., Guess we are diametrically opposed.Hi Luke-Jr! Here is my 2 Satoshi's worth.
I have had a private conversation with Luke-Jr and found him to be intelligent, insightful, respectful and comprehensive in the scope of his understanding of what I was conveying in the conversation. Luke-Jr disagreed with me for the most part, even so he did not discourage me from my idea and I respect his point of view even though I only loosely agree with the primus of his objections. He also tried to make honest and helpful suggestions to help me accomplish my goals - To sum it up I reiterate the fact that he did not agree with my idea and even thinks my idea is impossible, yet he still was trying to be helpful. That is a hard quality to find in the general population.
Correct me if I am wrong Luke-Jr, but I think the OP has misconstrued the purpose of the deletion of his replies to Luke-Jr's thread. From personal experience I have had a few threads go down in flames because of negative commentary and it is easy to get stuck in an endless debate with someone who, either does not understand what you are writing about or has some argument that they just will not let go of. This can distract you from your project and is very frustrating in a project thread especially when you just want to focus on your project and worst of all it can even kill any support for your project. I haven't found Luke-Jr to be rude or unkind in any way with his words, so I suspect that he follows the 'if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all' philosophy excepting that Luke-Jr will present any rational, logical or moral objections that he may have with your ideology.
If this is the case, it seems as though Luke-Jr has a very balanced approach to his behavior when communicating with others. I believe Luke-Jr has a very high set of personal morals - and to the extent possible in any social order - has no desire to interfere with anyone elses sense of individuality, he just chooses not to assist or participate in things that he objects to. Perfectly excitable behavior in a free and open society (in fact, this type of behavior is necessary in any society to be truely free.) Ones right to free speech and free association must, by definition, include the right to freely not speak and freely not associate and it is amoral to insist to the point of harassment that another respond to ones own free speech, therefore insisting, to the point of harassment, that they also associate with ones ownself. Luke-Jr seems to understand this and tries his best to live by this strongly held principle.
In my very uninformed opinion, the OP has unfortunately, instead of accepting this, taken offense and now wishes to be validated. To accomplish this, the OP has taken to task the personal pursuit of opposing Luke-Jr when ever possible, which of course (albeit in a rather distasteful manner) is his free right to do so.
I personally believe that Luke-Jr is narrowly focusing his efforts on the core concept of the bitcion ideology rather than dictating his entire vision onto others with a global everyone has to comply to my standards approach. He is only trying to build a system that works and is fair, even to those he opposes. Evidence of a man that understands what respect for the rights of others really means. As long as these things remain true of Luke-Jr, I support him and hope he has great success.
Good job Luke-Jr!
August 25, 2013, 09:23:29 AM
How about secretly hashing alt chains and 'destroying them by selling for btc'.
Welcome to Capitalism, honey.
Quote
The guy is a fucking idiot and getting into stuff because nobody else will is retarded.
It's called "finding a niche". It's the preferred way to riches if you exclude pure luck or nepotism.Yep, I'm still detecting a subtle hint of irrational lynch-mobby sentiment.
Clearly you weren't there when it was happening.
August 24, 2013, 02:26:27 PM
I'm in favor of separation of church and state.
Since this is an speculative OT shithole of a thread... ... That phrase's always bothered me when used to describe why someone with religious faith shouldn't be allowed to hold office (... not that BF is a state...). It's not something limited to this thread, but something increasingly prevalent in my country.There are basically three schools of thought when it comes to how a government should regard religion in politics:
*In theocracy (if atheist, atheocracy), nobody of faith different from TPTB can hold office
*In pluralism (this is not an accepted definition everywhere), people of all faiths are welcome to hold office and take information of their faith to make political decisions
*In secularism, people of all faiths are tolerated, but expected to vote with constituents or in a utilitarian fashion. In secular decision-making, you will generally not have political issues argued based on what a religious authority has said.
Unless you have reason to believe Luke is in fact a theocrat, you're promoting atheocracy, which, from my agnostic perspective, is fundamentally the same as theocracy.
ETA: I mean -- if Luke's application were "Archbishop Roberts will be informing my decisions" - I could understand the unease. - But, he's given detailed responses, would probably give rationale for anything serious question you ask, and that rationale probably won't be "I would oppose such a measure because, as confirmed by Archbishop Roberts, it is heretical by Pope Urban V's Currency Centralization Bull of 1365."
I tried to put it in as gentle and non-inflammatory way as possible. I didn't want to revive a years-old debate -- figured those who remember it would know what I'm talking about. I have no problem with people having a particular faith, but I insist that this should not marginalize or antagonize people who have a different faith.
We know that Luke-Jr enshrined prayers in the blockchain by virtue of the hash power of the miners in his pool. That was an egregious violation of trust, and is highly relevant to the current discussion as we consider whether he should be given more opportunities to exert influence on the future direction of bitcoin.
Inaba put "Do a barrel roll" in the blockchain, violating the sacred trust of those mining on his pool. You know who sees it? People actively trying to look for it on its novelty/amusement value, same as people looking for what messages Luke put in there. I mean - what's your argument, even? Luke's misrepresenting miners as Catholics? Is there some type of faith pie chart in pool monitoring sites I'm missing, where Catholicism has become the dominant hashing religion? Are the media sources picking this up, saying Bitcoin is clearly a Catholic idea? I'd guess not, because it'd be stupid as shit, and deserving of as much ridicule as your post.
How about secretly hashing alt chains and 'destroying them by selling for btc'.
The guy is a fucking idiot and getting into stuff because nobody else will is retarded.
August 22, 2013, 01:51:51 AM
ETA: Put on the magic sunglasses my anger therapist gave me. Baseless intolerance is acceptable. It's all cool. Mr. Mellowpuss is a fine cat..... 
August 22, 2013, 01:49:53 AM
I'm in favor of separation of church and state.
Since this is an speculative OT shithole of a thread... ... That phrase's always bothered me when used to describe why someone with religious faith shouldn't be allowed to hold office (... not that BF is a state...). It's not something limited to this thread, but something increasingly prevalent in my country.There are basically three schools of thought when it comes to how a government should regard religion in politics:
*In theocracy (if atheist, atheocracy), nobody of faith different from TPTB can hold office
*In pluralism (this is not an accepted definition everywhere), people of all faiths are welcome to hold office and take information of their faith to make political decisions
*In secularism, people of all faiths are tolerated, but expected to vote with constituents or in a utilitarian fashion. In secular decision-making, you will generally not have political issues argued based on what a religious authority has said.
Unless you have reason to believe Luke is in fact a theocrat, you're promoting atheocracy, which, from my agnostic perspective, is fundamentally the same as theocracy.
ETA: I mean -- if Luke's application were "Archbishop Roberts will be informing my decisions" - I could understand the unease. - But, he's given detailed responses, would probably give rationale for anything serious question you ask, and that rationale probably won't be "I would oppose such a measure because, as confirmed by Archbishop Roberts, it is heretical by Pope Urban V's Currency Centralization Bull of 1365."
I tried to put it in as gentle and non-inflammatory way as possible. I didn't want to revive a years-old debate -- figured those who remember it would know what I'm talking about. I have no problem with people having a particular faith, but I insist that this should not marginalize or antagonize people who have a different faith.
We know that Luke-Jr enshrined prayers in the blockchain by virtue of the hash power of the miners in his pool. That was an egregious violation of trust, and is highly relevant to the current discussion as we consider whether he should be given more opportunities to exert influence on the future direction of bitcoin.
Inaba put "Do a barrel roll" in the blockchain, violating the sacred trust of those mining on his pool. You know who sees it? People actively trying to look for it on its novelty/amusement value, same as people looking for what messages Luke put in there. I mean - what's your argument, even? Luke's misrepresenting miners as Catholics? Is there some type of faith pie chart in pool monitoring sites I'm missing, where Catholicism has become the dominant hashing religion? Are the media sources picking this up, saying Bitcoin is clearly a Catholic idea? I'd guess not, because it'd be stupid as shit, and deserving of as much ridicule as your post.
Notwithstanding your rant, I guess we can mark you down as not caring about the issue then
August 22, 2013, 01:21:00 AM
I'm in favor of separation of church and state.
Since this is an speculative OT shithole of a thread... ... That phrase's always bothered me when used to describe why someone with religious faith shouldn't be allowed to hold office (... not that BF is a state...). It's not something limited to this thread, but something increasingly prevalent in my country.There are basically three schools of thought when it comes to how a government should regard religion in politics:
*In theocracy (if atheist, atheocracy), nobody of faith different from TPTB can hold office
*In pluralism (this is not an accepted definition everywhere), people of all faiths are welcome to hold office and take information of their faith to make political decisions
*In secularism, people of all faiths are tolerated, but expected to vote with constituents or in a utilitarian fashion. In secular decision-making, you will generally not have political issues argued based on what a religious authority has said.
Unless you have reason to believe Luke is in fact a theocrat, you're promoting atheocracy, which, from my agnostic perspective, is fundamentally the same as theocracy.
ETA: I mean -- if Luke's application were "Archbishop Roberts will be informing my decisions" - I could understand the unease. - But, he's given detailed responses, would probably give rationale for anything serious question you ask, and that rationale probably won't be "I would oppose such a measure because, as confirmed by Archbishop Roberts, it is heretical by Pope Urban V's Currency Centralization Bull of 1365."
I tried to put it in as gentle and non-inflammatory way as possible. I didn't want to revive a years-old debate -- figured those who remember it would know what I'm talking about. I have no problem with people having a particular faith, but I insist that this should not marginalize or antagonize people who have a different faith.
We know that Luke-Jr enshrined prayers in the blockchain by virtue of the hash power of the miners in his pool. That was an egregious violation of trust, and is highly relevant to the current discussion as we consider whether he should be given more opportunities to exert influence on the future direction of bitcoin.
Inaba put "Do a barrel roll" in the blockchain, violating the sacred trust of those mining on his pool. You know who sees it? People actively trying to look for it on its novelty/amusement value, same as people looking for what messages Luke put in there. I mean - what's your argument, even? Luke's misrepresenting miners as Catholics? Is there some type of faith pie chart in pool monitoring sites I'm missing, where Catholicism has become the dominant hashing religion? Are the media sources picking this up, saying Bitcoin is clearly a Catholic idea? I'd guess not, because it'd be stupid as shit, and deserving of as much ridicule as your post.
August 22, 2013, 12:00:00 AM
I'm in favor of separation of church and state.
Since this is an speculative OT shithole of a thread... ... That phrase's always bothered me when used to describe why someone with religious faith shouldn't be allowed to hold office (... not that BF is a state...). It's not something limited to this thread, but something increasingly prevalent in my country.There are basically three schools of thought when it comes to how a government should regard religion in politics:
*In theocracy (if atheist, atheocracy), nobody of faith different from TPTB can hold office
*In pluralism (this is not an accepted definition everywhere), people of all faiths are welcome to hold office and take information of their faith to make political decisions
*In secularism, people of all faiths are tolerated, but expected to vote with constituents or in a utilitarian fashion. In secular decision-making, you will generally not have political issues argued based on what a religious authority has said.
Unless you have reason to believe Luke is in fact a theocrat, you're promoting atheocracy, which, from my agnostic perspective, is fundamentally the same as theocracy.
ETA: I mean -- if Luke's application were "Archbishop Roberts will be informing my decisions" - I could understand the unease. - But, he's given detailed responses, would probably give rationale for anything serious question you ask, and that rationale probably won't be "I would oppose such a measure because, as confirmed by Archbishop Roberts, it is heretical by Pope Urban V's Currency Centralization Bull of 1365."
I tried to put it in as gentle and non-inflammatory way as possible. I didn't want to revive a years-old debate -- figured those who remember it would know what I'm talking about. I have no problem with people having a particular faith, but I insist that this should not marginalize or antagonize people who have a different faith.
We know that Luke-Jr enshrined prayers in the blockchain by virtue of the hash power of the miners in his pool. That was an egregious violation of trust, and is highly relevant to the current discussion as we consider whether he should be given more opportunities to exert influence on the future direction of bitcoin.
August 20, 2013, 07:13:13 PM
As for addresses, I'm not sure what might be more accurate... Safety deposit box numbers, "SDB" numbers?
How about "transaction key"?
August 20, 2013, 06:55:36 PM
As for addresses, I'm not sure what might be more accurate... Safety deposit box numbers, "SDB" numbers? As with actual postal or bank storage boxes we don't really have their precise coordinates, just a number telling us which one it is.
This reenforces the incorrect understanding. There is no grouping by address at all. 
August 20, 2013, 10:16:56 AM
Perhaps I haven't asked too deeply, but doesn't the Board advise the Foundation?
If so, I have no problem with Luke being a part of it.
Luke has said and promoted a lot of things that has raised eyebrows (tonal numbers, etc.) but has also contributed a vast quantity of technically qualified reasoning, work, and opinions. It just means his skills are highly concentrated and vertical. That doesn't bode well if he's been nominated as a public spokesperson, but as an advisor to a small organization, that is a very good quality to have.
If so, I have no problem with Luke being a part of it.
Luke has said and promoted a lot of things that has raised eyebrows (tonal numbers, etc.) but has also contributed a vast quantity of technically qualified reasoning, work, and opinions. It just means his skills are highly concentrated and vertical. That doesn't bode well if he's been nominated as a public spokesperson, but as an advisor to a small organization, that is a very good quality to have.
August 20, 2013, 10:09:55 AM
Addresses don't have balances. They are single-use destinations to send coins to, which point at a wallet. While it's technically possible to send to the same address more than once, doing so violates the design of Bitcoin and is problematic from at least a privacy and security standpoint - even if you don't care whether you're anonymous or not. It also provide zero performance/storage benefits: Bitcoin won't notice both transactions were sent to the same address (the system itself has no concept of addresses!). Hopefully the new payment protocol in 0.9 and HD wallets will help eliminate the usability benefits of address reuse.
I don't understand. If I print out a paper wallet, why can't I send to that address more than once?
I understand why you wouldn't want to use an address more than once, but what stops me from sending to an address more than once?
August 20, 2013, 06:05:57 AM
Since this is an speculative OT shithole of a thread... ... That phrase's always bothered me when used to describe why someone with religious faith shouldn't be allowed to hold office (... not that BF is a state...). It's not something limited to this thread, but something increasingly prevalent in my country.
There are basically three schools of thought when it comes to how a government should regard religion in politics:
*In theocracy (if atheist, atheocracy), nobody of faith different from TPTB can hold office
*In pluralism (this is not an accepted definition everywhere), people of all faiths are welcome to hold office and take information of their faith to make political decisions
*In secularism, people of all faiths are tolerated, but expected to vote with constituents or in a utilitarian fashion. In secular decision-making, you will generally not have political issues argued based on what a religious authority has said.
There are basically three schools of thought when it comes to how a government should regard religion in politics:
*In theocracy (if atheist, atheocracy), nobody of faith different from TPTB can hold office
*In pluralism (this is not an accepted definition everywhere), people of all faiths are welcome to hold office and take information of their faith to make political decisions
*In secularism, people of all faiths are tolerated, but expected to vote with constituents or in a utilitarian fashion. In secular decision-making, you will generally not have political issues argued based on what a religious authority has said.
I always thought it was a funny phrase since politics is basically a religion itself.
August 20, 2013, 04:23:52 AM
Addresses don't have balances. They are single-use destinations to send coins to, which point at a wallet. While it's technically possible to send to the same address more than once, doing so violates the design of Bitcoin and is problematic from at least a privacy and security standpoint - even if you don't care whether you're anonymous or not. It also provide zero performance/storage benefits: Bitcoin won't notice both transactions were sent to the same address (the system itself has no concept of addresses!). Hopefully the new payment protocol in 0.9 and HD wallets will help eliminate the usability benefits of address reuse.
I don't understand. If I print out a paper wallet, why can't I send to that address more than once?
August 20, 2013, 03:44:11 AM
I'm in favor of separation of church and state.
Since this is an speculative OT shithole of a thread... ... That phrase's always bothered me when used to describe why someone with religious faith shouldn't be allowed to hold office (... not that BF is a state...). It's not something limited to this thread, but something increasingly prevalent in my country.There are basically three schools of thought when it comes to how a government should regard religion in politics:
*In theocracy (if atheist, atheocracy), nobody of faith different from TPTB can hold office
*In pluralism (this is not an accepted definition everywhere), people of all faiths are welcome to hold office and take information of their faith to make political decisions
*In secularism, people of all faiths are tolerated, but expected to vote with constituents or in a utilitarian fashion. In secular decision-making, you will generally not have political issues argued based on what a religious authority has said.
Unless you have reason to believe Luke is in fact a theocrat, you're promoting atheocracy, which, from my agnostic perspective, is fundamentally the same as theocracy.
ETA: I mean -- if Luke's application were "Archbishop Roberts will be informing my decisions" - I could understand the unease. - But, he's given detailed responses, would probably give rationale for anything serious question you ask, and that rationale probably won't be "I would oppose such a measure because, as confirmed by Archbishop Roberts, it is heretical by Pope Urban V's Currency Centralization Bull of 1365."
August 19, 2013, 04:05:55 PM
Addresses don't have balances.
From a layman's point of view, that makes no sense. Regardless of how Bitcoin technically works (from the point of view of a developer), most users know of "addresses" and an amount of Bitcoins "located" at that address. That would be a "balance", a.k.a. an amount.
August 19, 2013, 04:03:22 PM
I'm in favor of separation of church and state.
August 19, 2013, 04:02:50 PM
I don't understand. If I print out a paper wallet, why can't I send to that address more than once?
Proper paper wallets have unlimited addresses.For example, Armory supports paper wallets.
One huge problem stands still, though.
Official client does not agree.
It likes reusing burnt addresses.
1) There is no official client.Official client does not agree.
It likes reusing burnt addresses.
2) Bitcoin-Qt never reuses addresses itself.
And this is a REAL ISSUE.
We cannot go live before this is fixed.
What's your position about that?
All of the Bitcoin-Qt dev team seem to be in agreement that the "Receive coins" tab could use a makeover to discourage address reuse better.We cannot go live before this is fixed.
What's your position about that?
August 19, 2013, 03:58:05 PM
Addresses don't have balances. They are single-use destinations to send coins to, which point at a wallet. While it's technically possible to send to the same address more than once, doing so violates the design of Bitcoin and is problematic from at least a privacy and security standpoint - even if you don't care whether you're anonymous or not. It also provide zero performance/storage benefits: Bitcoin won't notice both transactions were sent to the same address (the system itself has no concept of addresses!). Hopefully the new payment protocol in 0.9 and HD wallets will help eliminate the usability benefits of address reuse.
I don't understand.As suspicious as Luke might look, he's 100% right, here.
Check the recent troubles around the not-that-random transaction signing on android wallet for more insight.
One huge problem stands still, though.
Official client does not agree.
It likes reusing burnt addresses.
And this is a REAL ISSUE.
We cannot go live before this is fixed.
What's your position about that?
Jump to: