Topic: How Open Source Projects Survive Poisonous People - page 5. (Read 29579 times)
As another non-contributor, I've watched the forums here since the first slashdotting way, way, way back. Gavin's integrity, openness and the amount of effort he has poured into Bitcoin has been massive. Gavin's conduct has always been about seeing Bitcoin become more successful, and safer. I remember when encrypted wallets got rolled out, BIG end user change. It took forever and affected everyone, Gavin rolled out the change when he was satisfied it was safe. This is a man I can trust with my wallet, so I trust his judgment with changes to the Bitcoin protocol. I watched the video also. I support Gavin, for what it's worth.
I'll be blunt: I think Luke Dashjr fits the definition of a poisonous person, and I think Bitcoin would be better without him. At the very least, we wouldn't be creating two BIPs for every technical issue, one for Luke and one for the rest of us (see BIP 16/17, and now we have BIP 20/21, too).
Quote
You Need to Avoid Paralysis
-OCD people can derail forward progress
- perfectionists
- people obsessed with process
-OCD people can derail forward progress
- perfectionists
- people obsessed with process
What happened to the old Luke-jr? I commend him for his new found level headedness and willing discourse which was shown a few pages back.
If that is the pattern for the future, so much the better. Hopefully its not just a little temporary ass-kissing to keep his head above water
If that is the pattern for the future, so much the better. Hopefully its not just a little temporary ass-kissing to keep his head above water
Might as well express my opinion as well. I'm a nobody, not familiar with technicalities (Thanks, Amir, btw, nice intro for the lay person), nor a big miner, so not like I carry any vote or weight. But, I think there are a lot of people in the silent majority like me.
I have observed Gavin and others for many months. I have always thought of Gavin as reasonable, polite, devoted, sane ("security first") and competent - in short, a great choice for the leader of this project.
Regarding leadership of the project, I can't say nearly anything similar for some of the detractors - if I had to choose between him and one of them, I would undoubtedly choose him. (Not talking about particular technicalities here.) If one person has to go, it shouldn't be Gavin.
I realize it's been much harder and time-consuming for Gavin than it was for Satoshi. As Gavin said in a thread, Satoshi could just commit, and the world would unquestionably follow.
Also, as he said, these debates have lasted 'forever', and every time they are nearly done, someone comes and starts them all over again. And, that these debates are really about the choice of color of the lock in the bikeshed, not about the mechanics of the chain reaction in the nuclear power plant.
Just saying Gavin has my support. I trust that he will come better off from this, and also sincerely hope that with his leadership skills, he will also be able to avoid future conflicts.
I have observed Gavin and others for many months. I have always thought of Gavin as reasonable, polite, devoted, sane ("security first") and competent - in short, a great choice for the leader of this project.
Regarding leadership of the project, I can't say nearly anything similar for some of the detractors - if I had to choose between him and one of them, I would undoubtedly choose him. (Not talking about particular technicalities here.) If one person has to go, it shouldn't be Gavin.
I realize it's been much harder and time-consuming for Gavin than it was for Satoshi. As Gavin said in a thread, Satoshi could just commit, and the world would unquestionably follow.
Also, as he said, these debates have lasted 'forever', and every time they are nearly done, someone comes and starts them all over again. And, that these debates are really about the choice of color of the lock in the bikeshed, not about the mechanics of the chain reaction in the nuclear power plant.
Just saying Gavin has my support. I trust that he will come better off from this, and also sincerely hope that with his leadership skills, he will also be able to avoid future conflicts.
As another silent observer, I agree with everything you said. Gavin has my full support (however little weight that carries).
Who is responsible for the QT frontend?
bitcoin has never crashed so many times as it is doing so now.
bitcoin has never crashed so many times as it is doing so now.
I am contributing to different open source projects, but so far I've never seen any community slashing down on active members like it is done here.
Bitcoin is money. Money corrupts.
I'll be blunt: I think Luke Dashjr fits the definition of a poisonous person,
I don't disagree with the above statement, but I want to offer an alternate explanation.It is the project itself that is poisonous.
It wasn't cooked long enough before it was put in a can. While in the can the bacteria producing botulism toxin grew on it. Now whoever eats a bigger portion of it develops various symptoms of neurotoxicity. Luke-Jr is the first to show acute symptoms because he ate a helping large in relation to his body mass.
Next time please cook your
Edit: This food in this can could still be saved, but it will require a gamma-radiation sterilization and one-more cooking before it is safe to eat.
In other words: refactor the code base before changing the protocol.
“If you didn’t run code written by assholes, your machine wouldn’t boot”
- http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=196
- http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=196
This is a great! An old fashion BLOOD BATH !!!
Quote
At this point, for a project like bitcoin to succeed, having the right spokesperson
for the project is by far much more important than making the right (assuming
there's such a thing) technical decision.
And when it comes to that, given the amazing display of social graces he's provided
us with so far, bitcoin would simply be much better off without luke.
for the project is by far much more important than making the right (assuming
there's such a thing) technical decision.
And when it comes to that, given the amazing display of social graces he's provided
us with so far, bitcoin would simply be much better off without luke.
This just somehow proves more that you are against him based on personal issues... While you may think this is ok, not everyone agrees with you.
Just looking at this very topic, people don't even seem to read Luke's replies, which don't look very disgracefull or arrogant, but that doesn't seem to matter anymore... A sad day for opensource community...
Whoa! Folks, what is happening here?
I'm following the Bitcoin saga now for quite some time and with the personal wars that broke out recently it makes me sad to have wasted most of my limited spare-time seeing this ingenious idea going to fail due to common human nature.
Within only half a year there were enough occasions to get distracted from the Bitcoin movement (lost considerable stakes when BTC tanked from 25 to 1US$, seen allinvain loosing >0.5M US$, seen my credentials openly circulating after MtGox hack, followed mybitcoin, Bruce, and much more), but believing in the potential of Bitcoin to positively change the world with an immanent leverage more than Linux did, made me (and majority of us) keep hanging on.
Sadly, with what is currently going on hits the rock bottom. What some of you are committing here is a direct and aggressive form of public which-hunt against Luke-Jr. I don't know (and it does not matter) if Luke is some 'poisonous' guy or not, but all of us should keep at least some remaining portion of decency.
I am contributing to different open source projects, but so far I've never seen any community slashing down on active members like it is done here. Posting captures of presumably private IRC sessions? Mixing personal with professional issues? Posting private photos of members to ridicule them? Come on, that's not the representation Bitcoin deserves. How do you expect this exposed on the official forum will attract potentially new members?
I am not advocating for Luke in any manner, I just don't know him other that being a core developer. What I for sure know is that personal fight should be carried out personally.
2 cents from a nobody. I'm also 99%, btw.
I'm following the Bitcoin saga now for quite some time and with the personal wars that broke out recently it makes me sad to have wasted most of my limited spare-time seeing this ingenious idea going to fail due to common human nature.
Within only half a year there were enough occasions to get distracted from the Bitcoin movement (lost considerable stakes when BTC tanked from 25 to 1US$, seen allinvain loosing >0.5M US$, seen my credentials openly circulating after MtGox hack, followed mybitcoin, Bruce, and much more), but believing in the potential of Bitcoin to positively change the world with an immanent leverage more than Linux did, made me (and majority of us) keep hanging on.
Sadly, with what is currently going on hits the rock bottom. What some of you are committing here is a direct and aggressive form of public which-hunt against Luke-Jr. I don't know (and it does not matter) if Luke is some 'poisonous' guy or not, but all of us should keep at least some remaining portion of decency.
I am contributing to different open source projects, but so far I've never seen any community slashing down on active members like it is done here. Posting captures of presumably private IRC sessions? Mixing personal with professional issues? Posting private photos of members to ridicule them? Come on, that's not the representation Bitcoin deserves. How do you expect this exposed on the official forum will attract potentially new members?
I am not advocating for Luke in any manner, I just don't know him other that being a core developer. What I for sure know is that personal fight should be carried out personally.
2 cents from a nobody. I'm also 99%, btw.
I'm enjoying this video. I still don't which BIP I like though 
That serialized script in the script for BIP 16 makes me sad.
That serialized script in the script for BIP 16 makes me sad. 
One of the core Bitcoin values is "you don't need to trust an organization ... just trust the code (which is open for review).
Hmm... I think most people would have more chance of being able to set up a secure Linux box than to read C++.
Most ppl don't know how to secure their wallets.
Most ppl want to be able to buy a little bit of BTC without installing a dedicated trojan-free linux machine to hold their coins.
Most ppl want to be able to buy a little bit of BTC without installing a dedicated trojan-free linux machine to hold their coins.
It seems there are numerous projects involving mobile phones, deterministic wallets, two step authentication and the like that this does not seem at all to me to be such an incredibly serious problem that needs to be solved in the protocol right now.
That being said of course I support progress that will improve Bitcoin - I just hope level heads will prevail.
One of the core Bitcoin values is "you don't need to trust an organization ... just trust the code (which is open for review)".
Doing this at a protocol level is the only way I'm aware of of achieving true security. Otherwise, by definition, there will always be one address that owns the bitcoins in question ... this address has to be stored in the RAM of some device, sometime, in order to be used ... and can then be stolen*
* One exception is perhaps offline transactions ... which is not great on the usability scale.
Most ppl don't know how to secure their wallets.
Most ppl want to be able to buy a little bit of BTC without installing a dedicated trojan-free linux machine to hold their coins.
Most ppl want to be able to buy a little bit of BTC without installing a dedicated trojan-free linux machine to hold their coins.
It seems there are numerous projects involving mobile phones, deterministic wallets, two step authentication and the like that this does not seem at all to me to be such an incredibly serious problem that needs to be solved in the protocol right now.
That being said of course I support progress that will improve Bitcoin - I just hope level heads will prevail.
Most ppl did not care about preemtive multitasking. Most ppl don't care for scripted transactions. They want the simple things to work.
Most ppl don't know how to secure their wallets.
Most ppl want to be able to buy a little bit of BTC without installing a dedicated trojan-free linux machine to hold their coins.
This is what P2SH is about.
People think when it comes to software development and protocol improvement the best thing is this massive debate over every small change... I disagree. Bitcoin isn't really at the stage where it just needs a few minor tweaks here and there as it sails off to its magical 21 million coin sunset. If Microsoft had this same "development model" we'd be on Windows 3.11 instead of Windows 7 or 8.
The BIPs have nothing to do with software. They are changes in the standard. Bitcoin, despite it's version number is now production software which can't be treated like an academic toy. TX scripts are cool and all but most of all the system must keep running.
You may have noticed that OS/2 was lightyears ahead of Windows 3.11, technically, and even Windows 95 was just Windows 3.12 in fact. But where is OS/2 today? The secret to the success of MS was not technical superiority, it was network effects. Most ppl did not care about preemtive multitasking. Most ppl don't care for scripted transactions. They want the simple things to work.
Its dangerous to let Luke-Jr have anything to do with code for bitcoin. His recent behaviour of sending a DMCA notice to an alt coin dev shows what he really believes. Which is sending men with guns to your house if you do something he doesnt like.
This sort of action makes it too risky to allow him access to insert code in bitcoin that will allow him to take it down or worse threaten companies. Using your mining pool to bully alt chain devs then if hat doesnt work using the gun in the room is enough to disqualify him imo.
This sort of action makes it too risky to allow him access to insert code in bitcoin that will allow him to take it down or worse threaten companies. Using your mining pool to bully alt chain devs then if hat doesnt work using the gun in the room is enough to disqualify him imo.
Two comments:
1. CoinHunter, the SolidCoin lead, has demonstrated his lack of gratitude and respect towards Bitcoin and developers multiple times. Luke-Jr's DMCA was spot on. Anybody can fork Bitcoin, but they should abide by the terms of the license (which in this case simply meant including a text header).
2. Attacking alt chains isn't evil per say in my book. I support alt chains and think they're important, but likewise it's important that all chains, primary and alt, build up resistance against all kinds of attacks, be they bugs or 51% attacks (e.g. not enable merged mining so fast). Luke-Jr's attack, while not pretty, helped build this kind of immunity - the next alt-chain will learn from the mistakes of the one Luke attacked.
Regardless of these two positive comments about Luke, if I had to choose, I'd choose Gavin (sorry Luke, I haven't seen any direct evidence that "you're poisonous", but I trust Gavin and I assume he's referring to a lot of discussions that took place elsewhere ... I don't read all threads).
I have been following this façade the entire time; even-tho I am not a core developer; I think that I can come to some sort of opinion.
In my experience those who are so-called 'poisonous' critically 'complain about things, spread FUD, and DO NOT provide an viable alternative'
Now, in this case Luke has.
This represents only one part of the things that 'poisonous' people do.
If both implementations BIP 16 and 17 are implemented and of high quality; it is the technical merits that should shine through. What Luke has done is provide a viable alternative to his preserved problem. Nobody should complain about that; the community is free to reject his proposals just as they are free to reject Gavin's likewise.
The developer-summit where after a fixed amount of time the core developers (including Luke) vote on what direction they want to take Bitcoin sounds like the reasonable solution to me. Just we have three options to vote for now: None. BIP 16. or BIP 17.
Either way. I think that we should all take a chill pill; keep the debates technical, not emotional, and grow very thick hides.
EDIT: Spelling
In my experience those who are so-called 'poisonous' critically 'complain about things, spread FUD, and DO NOT provide an viable alternative'
Now, in this case Luke has.
- Complained that BIP 16 is 'ugly' (it is, imho). Saying that there should be a better solution.
- In the technical decisions there are a few cases of 'this will have more issues than this' but overall not really.
- Luke has provided a viable alternative providing solutions to the problems that he claimed BIP 16 has. (and is creditably calming that he is willing to maintain that solution).
This represents only one part of the things that 'poisonous' people do.
If both implementations BIP 16 and 17 are implemented and of high quality; it is the technical merits that should shine through. What Luke has done is provide a viable alternative to his preserved problem. Nobody should complain about that; the community is free to reject his proposals just as they are free to reject Gavin's likewise.
The developer-summit where after a fixed amount of time the core developers (including Luke) vote on what direction they want to take Bitcoin sounds like the reasonable solution to me. Just we have three options to vote for now: None. BIP 16. or BIP 17.
Either way. I think that we should all take a chill pill; keep the debates technical, not emotional, and grow very thick hides.
EDIT: Spelling
It really strikes me how much is all this about politics/ego and how little about technical decisions.
I'm quite busy lately and I'm not following the project enough to pass technical judgement. Didn't even register to the forum until recently, thinking I should really study a fair bit before finally doing so, as it's all available here.
This is the single most striking difference between what's advertised and the real bitcoin: it really depends on a few people VERY directly.
Some of the arguments here... seriously?!
I'd really appreciate if you guys left aside personality cults and moral judgement.
I'm quite busy lately and I'm not following the project enough to pass technical judgement. Didn't even register to the forum until recently, thinking I should really study a fair bit before finally doing so, as it's all available here.
This is the single most striking difference between what's advertised and the real bitcoin: it really depends on a few people VERY directly.
Some of the arguments here... seriously?!
I'd really appreciate if you guys left aside personality cults and moral judgement.
Jump to: