Pages:
Author

Topic: In re Bitcoin Devs are idiots - page 3. (Read 25449 times)

hero member
Activity: 840
Merit: 1000
March 12, 2013, 04:08:57 PM
Documenting the protocol is a major effort and it would have to be code rather than text

No, it would not.

Learn to separate design and implementation already, it's software design junior fodder.

I want to point out to you that a successfull definition of entropy is the shortest possible computer code that produces a certain output.

So yes, it may very well be.

The onus is on you to show that all of bitcoins core code can easily be compiled into human language.
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
March 12, 2013, 04:07:29 PM
The position of MPEx is that the current dev team should release no further versions until a. Bitcoin is specified and b. The codebase is cleaned up.
Is MPEx going to do anything to help make this happen other than talk about it?
legendary
Activity: 938
Merit: 1001
bitcoin - the aerogel of money
March 12, 2013, 04:07:20 PM
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

You are too stupid to be here. Please leave.


Yeah, that's really persuasive.
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 522
March 12, 2013, 04:02:42 PM
Documenting the protocol is a major effort and it would have to be code rather than text

No, it would not.

Learn to separate design and implementation already, it's software design junior fodder.
hero member
Activity: 840
Merit: 1000
March 12, 2013, 04:00:52 PM
this is fixable though

It is only fixable if fixed.
Does MPEx prefer problem to be fixed, or remain unfixed?

The position of MPEx is that the current dev team should release no further versions until a. Bitcoin is specified and b. The codebase is cleaned up.

That, at least, is a reasonable wish.
full member
Activity: 209
Merit: 100
March 12, 2013, 04:00:07 PM
It IS fixable.  Let's see if this the latest episode provides enough motivation for devs and Bitcoin Foundation to start even talking about BPS 1.0, so far there's been clear lack of any will for a spec, instead all the usual ("we are all just victims of the original C++ hairball dropped on us by Satoshi", or "there is too many bugs we cannot ever fix b/c some ancient client might depend on them" are brought out and reheated over and over again)

I went through the self imposed pain of implementing the protocol from scratch and learned the hard way that the behavior of the Satoshi client is not captured by any written sources other than its code.

Documenting the protocol is a major effort and it would have to be code rather than text in quite a few details to be precise, but I think it is doable and should be done.

Yes, the foundation should fund the effort.


+1. See latest emails in bitcoin-dev mailing lists (another little refuge where "big guys" and "magicians" hangout)
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 522
March 12, 2013, 03:54:24 PM
this is fixable though

It is only fixable if fixed.
Does MPEx prefer problem to be fixed, or remain unfixed?

The position of MPEx is that the current dev team should release no further versions until a. Bitcoin is specified and b. The codebase is cleaned up.
hero member
Activity: 836
Merit: 1030
bits of proof
March 12, 2013, 03:53:25 PM
It IS fixable.  Let's see if this the latest episode provides enough motivation for devs and Bitcoin Foundation to start even talking about BPS 1.0, so far there's been clear lack of any will for a spec, instead all the usual ("we are all just victims of the original C++ hairball dropped on us by Satoshi", or "there is too many bugs we cannot ever fix b/c some ancient client might depend on them" are brought out and reheated over and over again)

I went through the self imposed pain of implementing the protocol from scratch and learned the hard way that the behavior of the Satoshi client is not captured by any written sources other than its code.

Documenting the protocol is a major effort and it would have to be code rather than text in quite a few details to be precise, but I think it is doable and should be done.

Yes, the foundation should fund the effort.
hero member
Activity: 840
Merit: 1000
March 12, 2013, 03:50:46 PM
Try and stay on topic. Trying to find "bigger idiots" doesn't help anything, which is why politicians do it all the time.

I'm sorry, but i couldn't find a more adept swaxription of the situation.
You call the devs idiots, but you are the one that trusts that software or peoples intelligence or motivation will never fail.
If you were NOT an idiot yourself you could have known that software development never is perfect, open source development even more so.
Assuming you're not REALY an idiot i can only think that you must have known the risks when you invested your energy to build something on the substrate of bitcoin.
And if you knew then you should STFU.
hero member
Activity: 752
Merit: 500
bitcoin hodler
March 12, 2013, 03:50:28 PM
There should be no need for a Kickstarter campaign at this point, one of the reasons for Bitcoin Foundation's existence is to "standardize bitcoin". I don't know how many coins they already collected from their Enterprise / Corporate members, but I hope that not all of them are spent on Gavin's salary and publicity tours.  Some should go towards funding the serious effort of extracting and publishing

BPS (Bitcoin Protocol Specification) version 1.0 and then targeting version 1.0 against the spec rather than declaring it to *be* the spec.

BPS 1.0 will be the Cambrian Explosion event of alternative implementations with the gene pool finally diversified across languages and dev teams.

P.S. Anecdotally, I personally know an extremely competent C++ programmer (who posts frequently in the forum) who is basically "already rich enough to retire" and who holds huge amount of bitcoins and who really really wanted to contribute to http://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin but had to give up after seeing all the magic of that magic kingdom with all the magical creatures who live there, i.e.

It would take about a week to do a proper local setup including testnet before you can even beging to be confident in any of your own lines NOT to feel ashamed submitting it as a pull request.  Sadly, he gave up.

Yet, the real point is this once we have BPS, only then we can "let 1000 flowers bloom" until then it's all a circle-jerk, sorry.


Cheers ...

I agree with you mate, this should be done, we need BPS and it should be possible to fund it through the foundation.

It's sad that people that want to help out are discouraged by other developers.
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
March 12, 2013, 03:45:31 PM
this is fixable though

It is only fixable if fixed.
Does MPEx prefer problem to be fixed, or remain unfixed?
hero member
Activity: 840
Merit: 1000
March 12, 2013, 03:45:17 PM
Let me take the opportunity to clarify some points of apparent confusion:

And did you ever pay these independant devs for fixing shit for you for free?

This question is malformed. If you are asking me whether they owe me, the answer is yes.
HAHA.
If they owe you then why cant you settle this on a personal matter?
Why the neeed for public support, why the call to arms?
Are they your wage slaves so you can demand that they do work for you or anyone else?

Yes, they are. This is what being a developer means in this context: that you are a servant. A slave, if you prefer that terminology. One who obeys. An inferior. A steward. Nobody, politically speaking. I'm running out of alternative ways to put this, but I would hope you get the idea.
Where do you get that idea from? Where is the contract that the bitcoin devs need to take this position in the way you describe so overly?
And what would enforce this status?
Have you ever discussed your issues with the development team in a calm and adult manner?

You are not entitled to place limitations on the manner of my discourse.
The correct question to ask here is, MP recently published an article about the problems in Bitcoin. Have the developers read it and noted this fact?

No, but i can take note of it and form an opinion.
You seem to communicate rather single sidedly, preferably by pamfletting. On an open platform like internet that actually deters from a direct discussion or participation.

Do you even have the capacity to understand what you ask of them? (your tone tells me you're oblivious
How much further does your understanding of the problem go besides: "It's fucked up! fixitfixitfixitfixit!!@@!@!!!!" ?)
And how would you consider devs being independend if you expect them to give in to your tantrums?

I would guess you probably haven't actually understood what's being discussed here at all. As a rule of thumb that may serve you well in the future: whenever things happen that don't make sense to you, it's likely because you've not understood what's actually happening. It's rarely because the people involved are wrong. This is because you are stupid.

As to the matter of "testing":

Quote
sipa   jgarzik: have we seen a block which affected 5000 transaction index entries?
jgarzik   sipa: I don't think so

Fuck you.

This is not testing. Stop releasing new clients, you don't have the license to do it, idiots.

I understand perfectly what is being discussed. And i know it hurts when someone holds up a mirror so i don't mind the swearing.
And as usual you neatly cycle around the difficult part.

How do you expect devs to be independent if you demand stuff from them?
Slaves are not independent, they are slaves.
cho
full member
Activity: 155
Merit: 100
Boar with me
March 12, 2013, 03:41:08 PM
Yes, they are. This is what being a developer means in this context: that you are a servant. A slave, if you prefer that terminology. One who obeys. An inferior. A steward. Nobody, politically speaking. I'm running out of alternative ways to put this, but I would hope you get the idea.

If someone is interested in becoming politically relevant, being part of the dev team is not only a waste of his time, it's a waste of everyone's time. That a number of the more socially inept kids are doing this (Amir Scarface Taaki, who has meanwhile thankfully been ejected, Weirdo Luke, Gregory Pointless Maxwell and on and on) doesn't make it workable. It just doesn't work.

If someone is interested in becoming rich, being part of the dev team is not only a waste of his time, but a waste of everyone's time. It's just not how it works. Being part of the dev team is being part of the slaves, the servants, the stewards, the however you'd call them. This abject social position does not entitle them to immunity for their fuck-ups in any case. You may dislike that, and that's fine, but your likes and dislikes have no power to change this world.

I'm amazed at your ability to spit on the very people that did the job and brought you a piece of software you are relying on daily.
In essence, your reasoning seems to be the following :
- Dev job does not make you rich
- Thus, devs are lower-class humans, slaves
- You are in the political class
- Thus, you are a higher-class human
- From this you deduce that devs are entitled to free work for you, and if that free work is not perfect, you are entitled to call them names.

Until this last post of yours I hadn't understood you have the brain level of a 5 year old child. No no no sorry, I know a lot of 5 year old children with higher moral grounds. More accurately, you are at the level of a 12 to 18 months baby, a period of life at which you still think other people should definitely satisify all your needs just because they are "the outside" of your persona.


hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 522
March 12, 2013, 03:40:07 PM
this is fixable though

It is only fixable if fixed.
full member
Activity: 209
Merit: 100
March 12, 2013, 03:39:11 PM
Another way to state the real problem: There is no Bitcoin Protocol Spec, most semantics buried in the hairball of the C++ reference implementation

Yes.  This will be the death of Bitcoin.  When a fully specified crypto currency comes along, it will leave Bitcoin behind.  "The implementation is the protocol specification" is wrong, and at Internet scale it is very wrong.

this is fixable though

It IS fixable.  Let's see if this the latest episode provides enough motivation for devs and Bitcoin Foundation to start even talking about BPS 1.0, so far there's been clear lack of any will for a spec, instead all the usual ("we are all just victims of the original C++ hairball dropped on us by Satoshi", or "there is too many bugs we cannot ever fix b/c some ancient client might depend on them" are brought out and reheated over and over again)
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
March 12, 2013, 03:38:01 PM
I guess that's your cue to leave. Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

+1
full member
Activity: 209
Merit: 100
March 12, 2013, 03:33:40 PM
There should be no need for a Kickstarter campaign at this point, one of the reasons for Bitcoin Foundation's existence is to "standardize bitcoin". I don't know how many coins they already collected from their Enterprise / Corporate members, but I hope that not all of them are spent on Gavin's salary and publicity tours.  Some should go towards funding the serious effort of extracting and publishing

BPS (Bitcoin Protocol Specification) version 1.0 and then targeting version 1.0 against the spec rather than declaring it to *be* the spec.

BPS 1.0 will be the Cambrian Explosion event of alternative implementations with the gene pool finally diversified across languages and dev teams.

P.S. Anecdotally, I personally know an extremely competent C++ programmer (who posts frequently in the forum) who is basically "already rich enough to retire" and who holds huge amount of bitcoins and who really really wanted to contribute to http://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin but had to give up after seeing all the magic of that magic kingdom with all the magical creatures who live there, i.e.

It would take about a week to do a proper local setup including testnet before you can even beging to be confident in any of your own lines NOT to feel ashamed submitting it as a pull request.  Sadly, he gave up.

Yet, the real point is this once we have BPS, only then we can "let 1000 flowers bloom" until then it's all a circle-jerk, sorry.


Cheers ...
hero member
Activity: 752
Merit: 500
bitcoin hodler
March 12, 2013, 03:30:51 PM
Another way to state the real problem: There is no Bitcoin Protocol Spec, most semantics buried in the hairball of the C++ reference implementation

Yes.  This will be the death of Bitcoin.  When a fully specified crypto currency comes along, it will leave Bitcoin behind.  "The implementation is the protocol specification" is wrong, and at Internet scale it is very wrong.

this is fixable though
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 522
March 12, 2013, 03:24:35 PM
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

You are too stupid to be here. Please leave.

This is like saying Garry Kasparov is a shitty chess player. Then saying "By the way, I don't know how to play chess."

See above.

But who is the bigger idiot?
The idiot making the flawed software or the idiot trusting the software?
LOL.

Try and stay on topic. Trying to find "bigger idiots" doesn't help anything, which is why politicians do it all the time.
hero member
Activity: 840
Merit: 1000
March 12, 2013, 03:21:00 PM
It is idiocy, and the people doing it were idiots.

But who is the bigger idiot?
The idiot making the flawed software or the idiot trusting the software?
LOL.
Pages:
Jump to: