Topic: Is one of the devs (Luke-Jr) an enemy of Bitcoin ? - page 2. (Read 5381 times)

+1

AFAIK libertarians believe that social rules are n3ecessary, but there should be a minimal government.


No, but you cannot be against libertarianism either, you have to accept that there are libertarians (and even anarchists & crypto-anarchists) using the currency and live with it.
Otherwise sooner or later you will start to fight what you don't like, which makes you an enemy of Bitcoin - that is what I am talking about.

Its exactly the same with cash - because of people who are against cash, governments of the world are actively fighting cash, and forcing every bigger money transaction to be bank-to-bank transaction.

Luke has a point.

As much as I'm a libertarian, it's also true that social rules make life a lot easier.

You don't have to be a libertarian to use Bitcoin.

Sure! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0pdmqdb5Uc

At 1:52, LukeJr hi-five's a fellow dev.

Enjoy!

Link to video please ?

From what I've seen of Josh Blue LukeJr on stage, I don't think he should be in procession of sharp objects.

I'm just waiting for you to accuse him because of the fork

I voted 'I don't know' just to see the stats. Amazing!

I don't think so, because he wears an orange shirt when he speaks at public functions. 

Fortunately the people shouting words like "anarchy/crypto-anarchy principles" usually don't make enough with their paper rounds to really make a difference..

I think you are seriously confusing ideals with an actual working implementation of a cryptocurrency.
The implementation can be perfectly viable in society even if it fails to live up to the expectations of an ideal.
Bitcoin is just an informational tool.
If you think that bitcoin is somehow magically anarcho anything then you are wrong.
Bitcoin cannot (now and in the forseeable future) operate without the centralized economies we have now.
Strip away all things that are produced by or paid for by the fiat economy and bitcoin is nothing.
No computers, no internet, no radio, no science, no modern world to think up anarchistical ideals in to bring down the society that created this free time for you to think.
You are eating your own tail, but you haven't noticed yet.

Bitcoin is firmly rooted in our modern (centralized) society.
It is fully defined in terms of centralized society and cannot exist without it.

If the people from solidcoin indeed stripped away the MIT licence from the sourcecode than a DMCA is the least this community should do to ensure the future of this type of cryptocurreny.
Luke did the only right thing in this case and this community should have ejected the people from solidcoin for biting the hand that fed them.

I thought it was a well known argument, almost as old as this forum. Not all Bitcoin users are libertarians, and neither all the people who contributed to the project. We also don't want it to be confined to libertarians. The statement of "If you are enemy of Libertarianism, the you are an enemy of Bitcoin as well" does not reflect well on Bitcoin's image. I know very decent people who like the idea of Bitcoin who can also be viewed as enemies of Libertarianism as much as Luke-Jr. Is there any benefit to antagonizing them?


I agree that all structures have a normative aspect. However I can't see what kind of system you have used to derive the norms from the structure itself. It's hard to defend the idea of a normative nature without committing a naturalistic fallacy.

From a naive point of view, Bitcoin doesn't "stand for" anything. It's a tool. You are relating it to libertarianism because of what the tool may be used for. But if you think there is a bidirectional connection, the burden is on you to prove that. By "simple logic", you have to show that Bitcoin as a whole is and can only be anarchic. It is quite hard to argue for an impossibility.

Maybe you are relating it to libertarianism because you imagine that it is created FOR something. So, if there is such an a priori norm, even the failure of the structure itself from upholding it could be irrelevant. But how did you get access to such information? And how is it binding?

Error: This sentence contains no actual argument.
I cannot work with that, please elaborate.


Nope. I am dead serious.
If you are an enemy of libertarian principles, then you HAVE to be an enemy of Bitcoin, whether you realize it or not. It is simple logic:

Bitcoin itself is much more hardcore than Libertarianism (closer to anarchy), so if one doesn't agree with libertarian principles, one also cannot agree with anarchy/crypto-anarchy principles, so it is logically impossible for that person to agree with what Bitcoin stands for. Unless the one doesn't undserstand logic.

NO!

I'm quite possibly a libertarian. At least I am so in the general sense of the word and not the American one. However, I think your assertion by itself is harmful to Bitcoin as a movement. Maybe you are the enemy of Bitcoin in this sense, no?

I'm joking of course, but I hope you are also joking...


Bitcoin depends on social phenomena. It doesn't depend on "mathematics" in the correct sense of the word. You trust that the majority of people involved in Bitcoin will want it to work. It's a very wise thing to do, but that wisdom comes from the society as an organism, not something independent of that. I'm not suggesting to label Bitcoin with some loaded term like "democratic", but it is what it is.

Although I think it doesn't make much sense (i.e. what the hell is "perfect"?), I can guess what you mean by human imperfections. Bitcoin doesn't route around that, but you could say that it uses some conventional methods to dampen it.


Let's not extend the phrase "poisonous people" out of the context of open source development. Most capable programmers have obsessive personalities. I imagine a lot of us can become poisonous in that sense in different situations, I know I have been a lot of times.


Wasn't that the only way of being a libertarian?

For better or worse, he has also outright attacked other alt-chains. http://bitcoinmedia.com/luke-dashjr-throws-book-at-solidcoin/

I also recall he destroyed another alt-chain coiled coin using his Eligius mining pool to 51% it and effectively undermine the trust of said chain. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/dead-coiledcoin-yet-another-cryptocurrency-but-with-opeval-56675

Whether these were smart decisions or not, Luke AFAIK has only acted in his best interests, (luckily they have also coincided with Bitcoins interests). BIP16/17 also demonstrated he is perfectly willing to undermine the leadership of Bitcoin's developer group to pursue his own agenda.

I don't personally hate the guy, he has added considerable expertise and support to Bitcoin over the years, but it is obvious he is a man that flies under his own flag. Just be aware of his past before you guys start picking sides.

Sweet Jesus...

I knew that there is something seriously wrong with this guy.

Déjà vu:  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/how-open-source-projects-survive-poisonous-people-62037

Anyone who sticks bible sayings in the block headers from their pool isn't exactly right in  the head.

Double-checking commits is good practice for every developer.  I know they'd be thrilled if someone was double-checking their work and pointing out flaws.

So, people who don't share your vision of Bitcoin are enemies of Bitcoin?

I think you need a better argument than that one, honestly.