Topic: jgarzik goes berzerk in #bitcoin-dev, wtf? - page 2. (Read 29034 times)

This is probably true but also probably irrelevant. If the US government says Bitcoin is involved in these things then it won't matter whether it actually is or not. They will act as if it is, and through repeated statements ensure people come to believe that it is. And if that doesn't take hold then they'll have a covert operation that makes it true.

The best defense would be to do whatever is possible to make it not matter. To me that means really push hard for localized, distributed exchange like localbitcoin.com and not centralized exchanges where most of the money is going now. Perhaps a Tor hidden service that does what that site does. Even still I can't see that working entirely. Bitcoins secret weapon is slow and continual conversion of mindshare.

I'd love to see an easy web interface to bitcoin-otc. That must be possible but I've not heard of anyone doing that. I don't mean another localbitcoins but an interface that handles the gpg mechanics, the signatures, authentication, and provides a nice trade history, and interface for trading that even total newbies could use without crypto-knowledge. It would be a web front end to the freenode channel for people who never use these things.

Well, there is greater respect for you now, after having said this.  Maybe that is why you lack a highlighted "ignore" word in your profile, unlike several trolls in this thread.  (protip:  use that 'ignore' button liberally on this forum; people are marked thusly for very good reasons)

In point of fact, in this thread or in the quoted IRC conversation, I never endorsed or condemned any US government policies.  Foreign policy always makes for a lively debate, though quite off-topic, and I am very well versed in the positive and negative impact from a great many foreign policy choices of governments around the world.

For the immediate reaction (temporary IRC ban), the explanation was simple:  it was off-topic, potentially inflammatory crap we specifically do not want in #bitcoin-dev.  People occasionally attempt to get on IRC and try to troll the devs into saying something publicly that fits their agenda.  After repeated warnings... boot.

The bigger picture is simple too:  You don't tug on Superman's cape.  With today's young and very experimental bitcoin software, if you wanted to try really hard, and pick the worst thing to do to Bitcoin, it would be to try and get bitcoin involved in Iran money laundering, North Korea money laundering, Taliban or jihadi terrorist funding.

That is just a simple, pragmatic statement that saying nothing about one's personal feelings about a particular government policy.

Doing those things is not just stupid, it's fucking stupid.  Doing any of those things is working towards bitcoin's failure.

Bitcoin doesn't give a damn about your revolution, or your anarcho-capitalism, or your political idealogy or your .

People do.

The role of the devs is to ensure that Bitcoin technology is still around by the time the majority of BTC have been mined.  The devs cannot control the purposes for which people use that technology, but the technology itself needs to survive long-term in order for the Bitcoin Project to be anything other than another failed libertarian experiment.  

The devs have already said in the past that they don't even want Bitcoin to go mainstream at this point - which makes sense if you're looking at this as a project which will take 40 years to mature, as they are.  While they can't stop people from trying to mainstream Bitcoin, changes to the client for that specific purpose are incredibly low on their list of priorities.

That the devs might believe that politicising Bitcoin by promoting its use to bypass sanctions would jeopardise the long-term future of Bitcoin itself doesn't mean everyone else has to believe the same.  Conversely, it's not reasonable to expect them to actively take action which they believe will put the project in jeopardy.  They can't stop others from doing it, but nobody - the devs included - has a moral obligation to do things which they believe will threaten the future of Bitcoin.

The devs aren't wish-granting genies.  Everyone is free to develop whatever features they want or to hire someone else to develop those features. By demanding that the devs be responsible for developing every single thing on people's wishlists, you're actually centralising Bitcoin.

How do those of you who believe that the devs should be leading the anarchistic charge feel about the fact that Satoshi himself has chosen not to do so?  Is he - too - "doing Bitcoin wrong" and being "treasonous" by dropping out of public view?

Alright, obviously many people feel strongly about this issue. Few pages pages back I explained why I do. After reading some of the responses, most prominently thoughtfan's, I have to admit that my reaction has got not much to do with Bitcoin development. I still feel that Jeff lost most of my respect because he sounded as if he was supportive of trade sanctions, that is all. I don't think this puts Bitcoin development in any imminent danger, though. To those who patiently engaged in honest discussion: thank you.
Over and out.

Maybe they concluded you just weren't going to take no for an answer.  Are you sure that it was a conversation?

Sounds to me like getting someone to go in the main dev channel and getting one of the main devs to agree to break the iran blockade would be a fairly easy way to perform an economic hitman operation on bitcoin.

besides no one is stopping you from developing an "iran bitcoin" client.

As long as they are acceptable ideas I’m sure that’s true. That’s the same way freedom in the USA works. Everyone is free to contribute as long as it’s the type of contribution that’s acceptable.

EDIT: They stopped the conversation with a ban.

His complaint is that the devs aren't listening to what he considers to be important.  And it wouldn't matter if they listened to no one, the source is open, anyone with the skils can do anything with it.

Try asking Linus Torvolus to include (insert your pet project) into Linux mainline and see how far that line of thinking gets you.  Fork the project, that is the root freedom of open source, not the idea that you get to tell the developers your next great idea.

Oh, right, I got it. Bitcoin is open as long as you don’t go to the main dev group and ask for any help or attempt to change it in public or anything like that. Thanks for clearing that up. O-o

The source is open.  If you have teh skillset, you can contribute or fork the project.  Many have.  Almost all have failed to create an independent ecosystem like bitcoin, but that is a social question not relevant to Bitcoin's source access.  Whether or not you feel that Bitcoin's development team is nice enough is entirely beside the point.

Bitcoins for Oil exchanges now! .... anything else is for the little leaguers.

Bitcoin doesn't seem very open source to me. In fact, it seems like a very closed little elitist system toy for the developers and heavy hitters of the Bitcoin business community.

But giving the US government an excuse to mess with developers of the bitcoin software is also anti-ethical to that same goal for everyone else that isn't Iranian.

Which is antithetical to the purpose of bitcoin technology in the first place. The idea that no government can control what people do with their money.

They're not smarter, they just have a monopoly on the use of force and violence to maintain compliance. A smart person doesn't have to resort to these measures.

Everyone is viewing this through their own filter.  You're seeing it as "Jeff doesn't want Iranians using Bitcoin".  Others are seeing it as "the devs don't want to be seen to be modifying the official client in a manner which could be regarded as specifically intended to help people bypass the embargo".

So the better message is "Core bitcoin developer doesn't want Iranians using his software!"? Good luck with that one.

No, it is just empty words. Baloney. What stuff do you smoke, thoughtfan?