Topic: Greg Maxwell aka /u/nullc is banned from Reddit - page 2. (Read 3124 times)

If you look at the facts it's clear that being banned from reddit because of that is absolute nonsense. This is obviously plotted so now they can circle jerk on /r/btc acknowledging each others bullshit without no one smarter than them that actually gets shit done and codes calling them out. I hope the reddit admins look at this case and restate their decision for a global ban, if you look at the facts it just doesn't make sense. In any case /r/btc will fall by itself because so many bs artists in the same place will make it collapse eventually.

The post was alleging that I, specifically, utilized a cryotgraphic key to perform some act that the author thought was improper.  This is simply a lie. I responded on reddit answering that lie and my post was deleted, and ultimately my account suspended over that factual correction.   It would be helpful if franky1 would acknowledge that. And as far as the subject of this thread goes-- that is about all that matters.

In terms of the notice,  It was written by Gavin, not I.  And it no longer exists in Bitcoin Core since it was removed a year ago for version 0.12-- it was replaced with the far more informative messages I linked above, which is not tainted by the authoritarian and centralized thinking that anything other than the very latest version is automatically obsolete.

If you don't like the content of the old text-- don't take it up with me, I didn't write it and I contributed to removing it.

If you don't like that something was displayed, don't take it up with me-- I had nothing at all to do with it.

On the plus side of all this obnoxiousness, I do believe you've perpetually lost the ability to argue that any node is ever silently downgraded by a BIP9-using softfork.  So at least there is that-- how many hundreds of hours of 'argument' by franky1 does that moot?  I giggle at the enormity of that count.

And you're free to decide what to do-- accept it without a careful check, since it looks like a fruit and smells okay from where you stand-- or take action to verify it completely. It's your decision.   Sadly, with your hardfork mania you want to take away people's ability to decide by forcing changes onto them which they can't ignore even if they want to, and by driving up the resource costs of running a full node so that many were will exist, checking anything at all.

This is off topic for this thread. We have already been over this multiple times. Nothing that you say will change my mind and nothing that I say will change yours.

no need??
you do know FULL NODES want to be FULL NODES for a reason right!!
a soft fork is not about keping full nodes as full nodes. its about bypassing opposition to push a change without a full node vetoing out a change.

much like avoiding an election by killing the president and having the senate vote in someone without the countries consent.
in the UK we never voted in Theresa may. and she already is causing grief and we have nothing to do to stop her.

seriously i know you love work arounds to not fix problems but just jump passed problems (you have displayed this many times). but full nodes want to be full nodes for a reason.

so saying that a full node will be downgraded but shouldnt care, and shouldnt need to worry because its not a problem.. is like saying you should go back to grade school and not worry about the world around you because your opinion doesnt count

though you STORE the blocks.. old node not validating segwit wont be independantly testing and veryifying a tx within a block if the TX is segwit.
it just deems it as acceptable without even fully checking it.

its like having a wife. she goes to the supermarket and checks the fruit is ripe. you double check its ripe, but now she is saying to you 'just grab a fruit it will be ok, put it in the trolley nothing is wrong.

full nodes are like food connoisseurs/critics. and they want to be fully critical and checking everything for a reason. if they are not checking every part of the stuff they get. then they are not a full node..

in short they are now a trolley pusher not a fruit connoisseur
turning 5000 connoisseurs into 3000 trolley pushers. 2000 connoisseurs can cause problems for the meal(network) especially if those 2000 all have the same tastebuds (running one implementation from one source)

if they are not being critical about the data then they might aswell save the hard drive space and be relay nodes. because they cant independently trust what they have been handed.

find something your fussy about, whether its who cleans the house or who pays the bills. where you want to be in control. then hand it off to someone else.

There is no need to upgrade and no one is telling you to upgrade. The message that says you need to upgrade was included in Core for a very long time and has since been removed. The message is not showing because of segwit but rather because of previous soft forks. The CSV soft fork would have triggered this warning in all clients up to and including Bitcoin Core 0.12.0. The CLTV soft fork would have triggered the warning in everything up to and including 0.11.1. Because these have long since activated, anyone running any version of Bitcoin Core prior to 0.12.1 would have seen an alert displayed and generated by the node itself (i.e. no actual alert was sent) that said

Using the word "obsolete" is a bit of poor word choice. Since you really don't have to upgrade for soft forks, "obsolete" is not exactly a good word to use here. However I imagine Gavin used that wording to also account for hard forks which use the same block version signalling mechanism. This wording has since been changed to "Unknown network rules have been activated" with versionbits now being used for signalling.

The alert that was sent did not use the word obsolete. It says

Notice how there is no change in meaning here, in fact the alert essentially downgrades the warning. Instead of saying that upgrade is required, it is only recommended. The other stuff (outdated and network-inconsistent) is all inferred from obsolete. The only new information in this alert is that the alert system has been deprecated.

There is no need to upgrade for those against SegWit. That is why it is soft fork, i.e. "backward compatible". For 2mb Hard Fork, upgradation is mandatory, or else u'll be left behind.

but core have been selling the "backward compatible".. now they are selling the need to upgrade..
they should have sold the need to upgrade from day one.

Since you don't want to be pedantic, you could call the notice an "alert". But that "alert" is something that is generated by the node itself warning that it thinks that it is obsolete. It is not an actual alert sent over the network.

An actual alert is actually a network message. There was an alert that was sent out warning that the alert system was deprecated. That alert also contained the "version is obsolete" message because the alert would override the notice generated by the node. Since it is known that the only nodes that would receive that alert are also ones that are already displaying the "version is obsolete" message, this was safe to do.

flip flop

"its a notice"
lol!!!!

so now you are avoiding the word "obsolete" again, by distracting people by calling it a "notice".
oh and from your screenshot the guy never said you sent a "notice" he said that the "notice" wording mentions OBSOLETE

as for the rest of your post.
my mindset and others are proved right. you have made a change and tried to hide it by making new nodes not see alerts and by underplaying how old nodes will treat the change.
even now you want to downplay the ALERT by calling it "a notice". lol

how about be upfront from the start and just say old nodes wont be fully validating 100% so upgrade. instead of "old nodes are fine, its only a notice, your free to decide what to do".

after all <2000 are ready to validate sgwit. which is a BAD BAD thing for the other 3000+ to rely on other nodes. instead of the network independantly fully validating every bit of data it receives.

you should have done a NODE first. then bribe the miningpools with free party weekends.. not bribed pools first and downplay effect of the network nodes after

old nodes we both agree will be downgraded. the issue is that there is no node consensus to even give them the choice. nodes cannot veto out an option if they dont like it. you have simply skipped letting nodes choose. and went straight to bribing the pools
i think its been 4 little papering social events your employer has organised this year.

a couple of them were meant to be fully discussing possibilities of things like dymanic blocksize. but your employer said those couple events were just social, not intended to formally discuss scalability.

THERE IS NO ALERT THERE.

The poster claims that I abusively sent an alert to try to cause node to upgrade. But I did not, I took no action, and what he is seeing is not an alert.

The message the person was posting about is the message (older) full nodes display when they detect that most of the hashpower is enforcing rules they don't know about.  It isn't an alert, it's a notice generated by the software itself. And not one I created: I showed the commit message where it was created in my response.

The tremendous irony is that you and other fudsters have spent untold hours fearmongering with claims that full nodes would some how be silently 'downgraded' by segwit, and ignored all prior points that full nodes can detect the new rules and will tell their users about them so they can choose their response.  (Current Bitcoin Core uses text which is much less obnoxious than Gavin's, but warns all the same).

from what i can read.

one guy argues that althought NEW implementations will not see an alert.. OLD implementations can. so old implementations CAN be alerted.
as for the content of the alert. checking github. it does show "obsolete" as a standard message when a node see's a rule break.

by alerts it does not mean 'human broadcasted' alerts. but default internal node rule checking alerts (which are still active)

so old nodes will see this .. emphasis OLD nodes will see alerts.
emphasis only these versions have human broadcasted alerts disabled
Bitcoin Core 0.13.1, 0.13.0, 0.12.1

then i see Gmaxwell chime in to wash over the post first by distraction "its been disabled".. yea ONLY FOR NEW NODES!!! and only the human broadcasted alerts
then he uses an demonstration of an alert. could have been grabbed anywhere any time. to not argue the word "obsolete" but to argue that the demonstration had gavins name involved.

i think gmaxwell totally missed the point and was trying to poke at the name "gavin" and ignore the topic word "obsolete"..

how boring gmaxwell. arguing about gavin when the topic was about an alert that even github proves says "obsolete" to the old nodes

Never mind. Rules are there to break them. The result of all that little drama might be that you are now back here in best forum a bit more?

Why you just don't use this chance and make the 'need' of different forums obsolet by working on a reunion of the split community and find out about a best consensus in scaling that will include all proper possibilities like on- and off chain scaling in one go?

rbtc can't tell people that it's being done because then they'd have to admit that they too moderate things, which would break their narrative that the difference between rbtc and rbitcoin is that rbtc is 'uncensored'.

Apparently one that defines Gavin Andresen as not a public figure but defines me as one (since no action is taken about the basically daily stream of attack comments naming me on rbtc-- ... though I never asked for any action to be taken with respect to them other than letting me post rebuttals, but they've taken that away.)


But whatever, it's their site-- they can have dumb rules.

/r/btc has a long history of associating with scammers.

a. Cryptsy scammer Marshall Long was their mod.

b. /u/hellowbitcoinworld scammed /r/btc by crowdfunding in the name of running Classic nodes and then ran away.

c. One of the main proponent of Classic & /r/btc is /u/jtoomim, who has scammed Zcash user through his cloud mining scam.

So, it is no wonder, when /u/nullc is exposing HashFast cloud mining scammer Mark Lowe, they'll be extra active to bury that information.

What bullshit.
What's the rationale behind this hiding someone's posts without telling them that it's being done?
Simply linking a real life name with its forum nickname meets the definition of "doxing"?
What definition of "public figure" do they use?

To be clear, the bottom post originally had "Marc Lowe" in the place of that first "he"-- I yanked it shortly after making the post in an abundance of caution: I wasn't able to find any example where simply using a name not connected to any other identity or identifying information has ever been determined to be a violation of Reddit's policy, and I can find a great many posts where people name and shame others who've ripped them off-- but I had no desire to violate any rule and being more specific was pointless (everyone it matters to already knows) so I removed it, after someone suggested that it might be.   None of the response of Reddit which anyone has received has suggested this had anything to do with it.

The naming of this file implies that there were parts 1 - 26. I want to know what they are!!  

That post can be found in their public mod log as well: https://r.go1dfish.me/r/btc/about/log. For all the shouting about how great their public mod log is, no one at r/btc seemed to want to check the public mod log to see what the post actually was when it was deleted to see that it was not a dox but rather a commit message.

The speculation has to do with the removed post from here: https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5g3weu/blockstreams_creator_changes_bitcoin_network/dapgq88/. From the following comments, it seems that the comment that was removed was yours and that it contained someone's dox (presumably Mark Lowe's). It would be nice to know that the comment actually was, if you were the one to write it.

Edit: After take a look through their (shitty) public mod log, I found the posts in question. The banning is almost certainly to do with the initial post with Gavin's email as all of the subsequent posts do not even mention any personal information of anyone else.

Here is the post with Gavin's email:


And here is the other deleted one:

Here is the post that I was banned for-- no joke:  https://people.xiph.org/~greg/temp/rbtc_wtf_part_27.png

It looks like what happened is that BitcoinXio reported it to the site administrators before realizing how transparently dishonest his explanation was-- since my post contained nothing but totally public information, published by the subject of it, which is part of a open source project distributed everywhere was, and which would cause no one any harm.  

There has since been a lot of misinformation spread about this-- one point reported is the claim that I was lying about the git commit message in my post.  I pretty frequently edit my posts to add links and details; in this case I initially created the post saying that this message that the author was accusing me of creating was actually created by Gavin. Then shortly after I edited it to include the whole commit message because the commit message actually contained the notice. As far as I know, I'd added that well before BicoinXio deleted my message--  but because I couldn't actually see the deletion myself. In any case, it was obviously there by the time I took that screenshot.

Considering that rbtc is pretty much a non-stop set of attacks using my name and info along with that of many other contributors to Bitcoin-- I'm having a little trouble squaring the idea that Reddit policy in fact would actually prohibit that-- but be that as it may, the actual letter of Reddit's policy would apparently even prohibit a user from giving up their own personal information. 0_o

There has been some other speculation that it had something to do with Marc Lowe, since in the subsequent thread where BitcoinXio admitted that rbtc moderators had been secretly using the automoderator to hide comments-- a practice I've called out many times-- I mentioned that one of the things they'd used it for was to hide any case where I linked to the litigation against him when he had the nerve to accuse me of being unethical or Reddit.  Now, as far as any can tell, simply saying a name can't run afoul of Reddit's doxing policy (in particular, since I connected it to nothing else there); but after concern was expressed that I was potentially violating it there, I simply removed it in all cases. It had nothing to do with the site wide suspension.

Three days later, the site admins got around to the report, so a post with an email address in it and hit the big red switch.

In any case, I responded promptly to reddit's admins, explained the history and my desire to not violate any rules there (even if they're silly).   If they don't want to have me posting there, thats a loss for their users-- and ultimately them.  The problem will still remain that rbtc will continue to encourage and promote untrue attack posts like the one I was responding to above-- and without the ability to counter untruthful speech with more speech, I'm not sure of what will happen there. Cheers.

Maybe not all his alts. I just don't see him being cool enough to have a "natural looking breasts" thread.

I see him being more of a "doesn't touch himself in the shower kind of person". LOL