Topic: Is one of the devs (Luke-Jr) an enemy of Bitcoin ? - page 3. (Read 5381 times)
No, though he's hard to be persuaded.
Quote
Is one of the devs (Luke-Jr) an enemy of Bitcoin ?
I'm 99% sure he is something between a tech-savvy kid and an autist. His social skills are too low, so his deeds look strange to the others. I doubt he is an enemy of Bitcoin, coz he used to attack altcurrencies. Not sure he did it to defend Bitcoin, maybe it was just an expression of his personality, but anyway...
If I were you I would just ignore him. Autists are the best programmers, so while he writes a code for Bitcoin we should be patient.
Quote
Is one of the devs (Luke-Jr) an enemy of Bitcoin ?
I'm 99% sure he is something between a tech-savvy kid and an autist. His social skills are too low, so his deeds look strange to the others. I doubt he is an enemy of Bitcoin, coz he used to attack altcurrencies. Not sure he did it to defend Bitcoin, maybe it was just an expression of his personality, but anyway...
If I were you I would just ignore him. Autists are the best programmers, so while he writes a code for Bitcoin we should be patient.
Personally I don't care about Luke as far as his beliefs go. As long as people check his work, and I have no doubt all dev's work is checked not just Luke's, I don't mind what he wants if he leaves me alone.
Maybe all the developers should operate under a pseudonym and submit things from behind TOR, so that they're all treated equally? This is why I don't like Libertarianism -- the lack of rules/etiquette/laws (depending on scale) creates a tendency towards name-calling/lynch-mobbing/civil war (depending on scale). If "freedom of opinion" is only permitted to the extent that the crowd (or the most pissed off crowd-pleaser) will allow, then f*k that. Gimme some laws that protect my unpopular Queer/Asian/Polyamorist/Neo-Feudal/whatever beliefs from the tyranny of the majority.
I actually think this could be beneficial since I imagine it would bring about more wariness and scrutiny which I think is exactly what we want with new code.
Should you double-check his commits in the source ?
We should double-check everyone's commits. Even Satoshi's.
Well, if the guy likes people telling him what to do and how to act, let him be. As long as he doesn't turn BTC into fiat, his work can only help Bitcoin.
Personally I don't care about Luke as far as his beliefs go. As long as people check his work, and I have no doubt all dev's work is checked not just Luke's, I don't mind what he wants if he leaves me alone.
Maybe all the developers should operate under a pseudonym and submit things from behind TOR, so that they're all treated equally?
Actually, this is what I2P developers already do. So it is possible for sure.
Personally I don't care about Luke as far as his beliefs go. As long as people check his work, and I have no doubt all dev's work is checked not just Luke's, I don't mind what he wants if he leaves me alone.
You point out using 'neutral' comments in the wiki with reference to SD but then use "(Luke-Jr) an enemy of Bitcoin".
Luke's opinion differs from others but is in alignment with others too.
Just because his view is different doesn't make him an 'enemy'. I disagree with him on this matter but the ultimate ends between he and I are similar. Taking two roads that lead to the same destination doesn't make someone an enemy. In fact, 'enemy' is a pretty strong word. On that should rarely be used.
My bigger concern is the consolidation of power. We even have a 'members only' club with seats on boards and everything. NYSE v. 2.0 "Settle accounts at the end of the week Thurman" Not that it is bad to have such but with consolidation of power comes corruption. I'd prefer the -devs stayed neutral to such things but meh... Spitting in the wind tends and all.
A community isn't composed of people that all think alike, it's composed of people that think differently but co-exist together peacefully to promote the community.
Luke's opinion differs from others but is in alignment with others too.
Just because his view is different doesn't make him an 'enemy'. I disagree with him on this matter but the ultimate ends between he and I are similar. Taking two roads that lead to the same destination doesn't make someone an enemy. In fact, 'enemy' is a pretty strong word. On that should rarely be used.
My bigger concern is the consolidation of power. We even have a 'members only' club with seats on boards and everything. NYSE v. 2.0 "Settle accounts at the end of the week Thurman" Not that it is bad to have such but with consolidation of power comes corruption. I'd prefer the -devs stayed neutral to such things but meh... Spitting in the wind tends and all.
A community isn't composed of people that all think alike, it's composed of people that think differently but co-exist together peacefully to promote the community.
this thread is ridiculous.
op should admit that other poeple having other viewpoint are not always enemys.
op should admit that other poeple having other viewpoint are not always enemys.
Luke may not realize this yet, but ideologically he is an enemy of Bitcoin.
What he believes in stands in direct opposition to the ideals which created Bitcoin.
Maybe he will realize this some time in the future and start fighting Bitcoin - you never know.
This make me think that op must have some troubles to figure out the diference between a democracy and a battlefield...
As hazek already pointed out, democracy is a battlefield of a sort.
Luke-Jr might not share the ideals of Bitcoin spirit but he is good at coding. Even if Luke-Jr is wrong socially, his code adheres to laws of math and computing, so he cannot break these laws easily without anyone noticing. Double check his commits and Bitcoin are safe for now.
The OP is right in most accounts. I don't agree with most of libertarian views, but I'm hardcore unregulated internet freedom and anti-censorship activist. So making Bitcoin into regulated currency is completely unacceptable.
The OP is right in most accounts. I don't agree with most of libertarian views, but I'm hardcore unregulated internet freedom and anti-censorship activist. So making Bitcoin into regulated currency is completely unacceptable.
this thread is ridiculous.
op should admit that other poeple having other viewpoint are not always enemys.
This make me think that op must have some troubles to figure out the diference between a democracy and a battlefield...
op should admit that other poeple having other viewpoint are not always enemys.
This make me think that op must have some troubles to figure out the diference between a democracy and a battlefield...
Democracy is a battlefield. It's the majority oppressing me, robbing me and ultimately threatening to kill me if I don't do what they say. Just because I constantly tactically retreat does not mean I'm not in a fight.
this thread is ridiculous.
op should admit that other poeple having other viewpoint are not always enemys.
This make me think that op must have some troubles to figure out the diference between a democracy and a battlefield...
op should admit that other poeple having other viewpoint are not always enemys.
This make me think that op must have some troubles to figure out the diference between a democracy and a battlefield...
I don't really consider him an enemy of Bitcoin, although he really seems self-centered about his own beliefs sometimes.
I got caught into an edit war on Bitcoin Wiki over the SatoshiDice article when I tried to make the SatoshiDice article more neutral by removing all straight "SatoshiDice is a DDoS attack" accusations, which weren't even backed by any references. Eventually he told me he would only allow my edits to stay if I specifically told in the article that SatoshiDice is a DDoS attack. Looking at his previous contributions in the wiki ( 1, 2, 3 ), it wasn't the first time his "facts" were met by criticism.
I got caught into an edit war on Bitcoin Wiki over the SatoshiDice article when I tried to make the SatoshiDice article more neutral by removing all straight "SatoshiDice is a DDoS attack" accusations, which weren't even backed by any references. Eventually he told me he would only allow my edits to stay if I specifically told in the article that SatoshiDice is a DDoS attack. Looking at his previous contributions in the wiki ( 1, 2, 3 ), it wasn't the first time his "facts" were met by criticism.
I'm not sure you see his point.
It is technically correct to call it a DDoS attack.
if that ever changes you're right. but then there wont be any difference between bitcoin and fiat anymore.
Nah, there will be plenty pro's for bitcoin in that situation. For one, you cannot print more bitcoins.
So i think Luke-Jr is right about bitcoins position in the real world.
The way i see it, even IF bitcoin fails to be better than fiat on most accounts it is still a pretty good currency for the internet.
If we limit only libertarians to Bitcoin then we will not get very far.
Following Ron Paul, he brought in many liberals and others who were against the Federal Reserve because they understood how bad the Fed actually is and what they are doing.
Some people may believe that Bitcoin will make government programs more efficient so that we can have more government. Who knows.
While libertarians can use Bitcoin as a tool to free ourselves from government control. It can also be used as a tool by many other ideological beliefs.
Kim Jung Un could adopt Bitcoin for North Korea tomorrow and revel in dictatorial power as NK's GDP skyrockets and he uses the power to oppress his people even more and build a buttload of nukes.
Following Ron Paul, he brought in many liberals and others who were against the Federal Reserve because they understood how bad the Fed actually is and what they are doing.
Some people may believe that Bitcoin will make government programs more efficient so that we can have more government. Who knows.
While libertarians can use Bitcoin as a tool to free ourselves from government control. It can also be used as a tool by many other ideological beliefs.
Kim Jung Un could adopt Bitcoin for North Korea tomorrow and revel in dictatorial power as NK's GDP skyrockets and he uses the power to oppress his people even more and build a buttload of nukes.
I don't really consider him an enemy of Bitcoin, although he really seems self-centered about his own beliefs sometimes.
I got caught into an edit war on Bitcoin Wiki over the SatoshiDice article when I tried to make the SatoshiDice article more neutral by removing all straight "SatoshiDice is a DDoS attack" accusations, which weren't even backed by any references. Eventually he told me he would only allow my edits to stay if I specifically told in the article that SatoshiDice is a DDoS attack. Looking at his previous contributions in the wiki ( 1, 2, 3 ), it wasn't the first time his "facts" were met by criticism.
I got caught into an edit war on Bitcoin Wiki over the SatoshiDice article when I tried to make the SatoshiDice article more neutral by removing all straight "SatoshiDice is a DDoS attack" accusations, which weren't even backed by any references. Eventually he told me he would only allow my edits to stay if I specifically told in the article that SatoshiDice is a DDoS attack. Looking at his previous contributions in the wiki ( 1, 2, 3 ), it wasn't the first time his "facts" were met by criticism.
With such a foolish behavior, he is doing harm to Bitcoin.
This is the reason i think he is an enemy of BTC.
Actually this so good I am gonna re-paste it into the top post.
I don't really consider him an enemy of Bitcoin, although he really seems self-centered about his own beliefs sometimes.
I got caught into an edit war on Bitcoin Wiki over the SatoshiDice article when I tried to make the SatoshiDice article more neutral by removing all straight "SatoshiDice is a DDoS attack" accusations, which weren't even backed by any references. Eventually he told me he would only allow my edits to stay if I specifically told in the article that SatoshiDice is a DDoS attack. Looking at his previous contributions in the wiki ( 1, 2, 3 ), it wasn't the first time his "facts" were met by criticism.
I got caught into an edit war on Bitcoin Wiki over the SatoshiDice article when I tried to make the SatoshiDice article more neutral by removing all straight "SatoshiDice is a DDoS attack" accusations, which weren't even backed by any references. Eventually he told me he would only allow my edits to stay if I specifically told in the article that SatoshiDice is a DDoS attack. Looking at his previous contributions in the wiki ( 1, 2, 3 ), it wasn't the first time his "facts" were met by criticism.
hint: people who have other opinions than you are not automatic your enemy.
Wrong. Not MY enemy. *Bitcoin's enemy*.
bitcoin is just a currency.
its only enemies are people with big pockets full of fiat.
its a p2p currency which means: everybody can do as he wants to (this includes sdice AND luke-jr not letting their transactions in his blocks).
so please.. just calm down a little.
See, these are the little mistakes that screw things up.
This should be 'power' instead of 'fiat'.
And so once bitcoin becomes big enough we will have exactly the same problems that all currencies have. And people will be screaming for regulations etc.
All this naive libertanian fluff is just an indicator that bitcoin is not making a serious dent.
Bitcoin certainly has some pro's but it also has flaws that will require new laws to make it work on any large scale.
one thing i really love about bitcoin is, that laws just wont work.
as long as the protocol stays the same (or only has minor modifications) i am able to start a mining operation and let my transactions get processed.
if that ever changes you're right. but then there wont be any difference between bitcoin and fiat anymore.
hint: people who have other opinions than you are not automatic your enemy.
Wrong. Not MY enemy. *Bitcoin's enemy*.
bitcoin is just a currency.
its only enemies are people with big pockets full of fiat.
its a p2p currency which means: everybody can do as he wants to (this includes sdice AND luke-jr not letting their transactions in his blocks).
so please.. just calm down a little.
See, these are the little mistakes that screw things up.
This should be 'power' instead of 'fiat'.
And so once bitcoin becomes big enough we will have exactly the same problems that all currencies have. And people will be screaming for regulations etc.
All this naive libertanian fluff is just an indicator that bitcoin is not making a serious dent.
Bitcoin certainly has some pro's but it also has flaws that will require new laws to make it work on any large scale.
Jump to: