Topic: How Open Source Projects Survive Poisonous People - page 8. (Read 29524 times)

yeah, i know its sounds a bit over the top but this is an important issue.

i'm not sure you can disentangle the technical from the personal issues here despite what we'd like to think.  integrity does play a role.

How are personal issues relevant to choosing the right technical solution again? Maybe we should invite your normal babysitter, what he/she has to say in this, if that is a relevant metric_ 

no, it actually doesn't.  you should make a video concerning your arguments and let the community view it.

this is actually an important point.  Gavin is actually someone i'd let babysit my kid.

how socially normal he is.... WTF is this... how sick one must be to say things like this...

Luke's behavior on this matter is simply impecable... I can not find any cavity in his position on this matter...

As much I want to break free from position we are stuck in, but I can't dismiss what this guy says...

All of you, developers, are great people... I hope we will go through these days with lot of experience and it will make us stronger as community.

+1  this is exactly why i support Gavin.  he's been even open to talking to me on the telephone several times and has always been transparent and open.  i trust him.

Have Gavin and Luke-Jr considered having a meeting/telephone conversation or would that cause some sort of rift in the continuum? Without more agreement within the community, I favor: "Don't just do something, sit there!"

Sorry, but you're twisting this to an extreme. I'm "poisonous" because I don't agree with you, and don't want to see a damaging change adopted? BIP 20/21 dispute was created by Matt, not me.

The P2SH dispute would end easily if you would accept BIP 17, just as easily as it would end if I accept BIP 16. You are the only developer dead-set against BIP 17, and for mere fear of the unknown, not real tangible things that people can solve (though I thank you for solving the sigop-counting issue that was once a tangible reason). It doesn't have to be BIP 17 that gets adopted; if someone has a better solution, that's fine by me. However, BIP 16 is not that: it changes more (and should be given more "fear of unknown" than BIP 17). Also, what a poisonous person would have done is simply argue against BIP 16, without providing any suggestions for improving it; I have gone to the work to provide a viable alternative - I have not only pointed out the problems, but also solved them.

FWIW, BIP 17 has actually completed more of the QA tests (chosen by Gavin) than BIP 16 has, and as it is a much simpler change, can easily be reviewed by anyone competent in C++ (patches).

I've tried to sort it out peacefully, but it always seems to come down to Gavin not wanting to "waste" his time discussing it. At this point, since he has made it clear his concerns are over the unknown, there's probably not much I could do anyway, since the unknown is ... unknown. :/

I keep suggesting those of us in the Tampa area meet up sometime, but it hasn't quite happened yet. Does that count? :p

---

As far as Gavin goes... my position is:
I'm fine with Gavin keeping his leadership role. I don't think he should be turned into a dictator. I do thing spreading out his de facto authority is a good thing. I hope he doesn't leave the project over this. I don't think he's immune from biases. I don't think his decisions must be infallible. I respect his opinion as a competent developer.

Edit: To clarify, I'm not immune from biases, nor are my decisions infallible either. I am prepared to accept BIP 16's route should it get implemented (and have even prepared a step-forward should that happen), but that doesn't mean I want to give up on the better solution either.

+1

Everyone needs to read this again...

Gavin seems to be a very reasonable guy on paper and in person in videos.  Gavin is also very transparent.  Satoshi, himself, annointed Gavin to lead the bitcoin project.  Gavin's voice clearly deserves to be weighted more than others.  I believe in Gavin.

I'd like to see a video of Luke to see how really socially normal he is.  It is easy to hide behind a keyboard, write BIPs and code.  But to take responsibility and ownership of a project and to put your face and reputation on it is another story.

Just make it happen already, sick of hearing about this shit..

Deepbit sucks..  nothing new..

Lukedashjr is a man-boy...   nothing new..

This isn't a competition. This is a volunteer project of some of the smartest SOBs on the planet. We use science and the scientific method to sort out problems. While I agree that there are toxic memes that influence people, hopefully the bitcoin community can move on and the folks that make mistakes can learn from them. It's called redemption.

I think to Luke-Jr, Bitcoin is merely a vehicle by which to deliver the tonal number system...

So let's say there was a consensus, either by the community as a whole or just the developers that he should no longer take part in development. How would that be enforced?

+1 Gavin,

100% agree with your analysis on Luke-Jr.

He's plotting something! Everyone go down to your tactical nuclear bunkers and wait out the storm!
/thread

Perhaps ironically, the entire reason I launched Coiledcoin in the first place was because I saw that P2SH was turning into a fiasco and didn't expect it to launch any time soon in any form - and it would probably have failed to do so even without Luke's meddling. Gavin was doing the equivalent of a hairpin turn in a supertanker and his code kept turning out to have bugs that would cost miners money, and none of the reasons for the last-minute change or the rushed schedule were terribly convincing.

It's actually gotten worse since then. gmaxwell keeps accusing anyone who dares to tell end-users about any of the technical details of spreading FUD by drawing the users' attention to something that's none of their business and is trying to shut them up, whilst spreading his own fricking FUD about Luke Jr's proposal (no it doesn't reverse the bugfix that evaluates scriptSig and scriptPubKey seperately rather than appending them, nor can it cause the kind of security vunerabilities that split protects against). Gavin claimed that Deepbit was somehow attacking Bitcoin by not immediately adopting his buggy code, despite the fact that hardly any of the other pools had either, in an attempt to force Deepbit to do so and use their hash power to force all the other pools to follow suit. And so on and so forth. Luke's actually been polite by comparison and frankly that's scary.

I don't speak for anyone but myself, but I am of the opinion that you are the legitimate lead developer for the current state of the standard bitcoin client.  Even the most openly sourced, and collectively developed, projects have their benevolent dictator.  The GNU/Linux kernel development over the past 17 years being the most prominant example.  If you are honestly certain that you are correct in your assessments, make your decision known and run with them; however, if you are not certain let that be known as well and let us has it out for ourselves.  If you force a code split, so be it.  We all know that it will work itself out eventually.  There has already been a number of splits among this community thus far, and such code splits don't necessarly spell the end of an open source project who's time has come.  This community is no longer small and weak enough to be destroyed by such a division.  I won't even promise that I will personally upgrade without my own due diligence, but the details that really matter will filter out over time.

His memory is a PROM, not an EEPROM Flash it once, set in stone.

Lol. Over The Counter is what it stands for, but I can see how it is definitely more of an Of Topic Channel by what actually goes on.

Off topic split here
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/re-how-open-source-projects-survive-poisonous-people-62054

Unfortunately, I don't think it's possible to debate Luke-jr himself, which is the problem.

I first became exposed to his debating style on bitcoin-otc.  As we know, OTC stands for Off-Topic Channel and I don't take discussions there too seriously.  But he'd get into debates with people, and respond to well thought out points with "No."  Or "You're wrong." Without providing any evidence, without saying he's already discussed that, etc.  Other responses proved equally obtuse.  How do you debate with someone who simply cuts you off with "No."?  With someone who refuses to take your opinions and even evidence into account?

At first I thought he was just trolling, since these weren't the most important conversations in the world.  But since then I've seen a pattern across the board, not just -otc, where he thinks in absolutist terms, and refuses to even consider other opinions or evidence once he's made his mind up.  You'll see the same thing in serious discussions about serious matters.

And it really is unfortunate.  Luke has obviously contributed a bunch of stuff to the bitcoin code itself and the community.  But I can see why Gavin thinks the problems outweigh the benefits, and why it's difficult to believe that Luke would 'reform' or moderate his behavior.