Topic: jgarzik goes berzerk in #bitcoin-dev, wtf? - page 3. (Read 29037 times)

I would like to share an illustrative video of what people doing business as "government" are about:

http://vimeo.com/5726046

As my main man Marc here says, they are not dumb.  People who manage to make millions of human beings believe that their green pieces of paper are "money" and real money (gold, silver, Bitcoin) is "funny money", people who manage to make millions of human beings cheer for mass murder and even invade other people's homes and murder them, these people are much, much smarter than you think.

Jeff Garzik is preventing everyone from questioning the actions of these guys.

On this at least we are in agreement.  You don't understand my point!My point is that that despite a number of people here wanting it to be otherwise this was never about whether I nor jgarzik nor anybody else here agree or disagree with the embago.  It is not either about whether I nor jgarzik nor anybody else here agrees or disagrees with whether Bitcoin should be promoted right now as a means for the people of Iran to circumnavigate the embago.  It is not really even about whether the IRC channel on which the topic was brought up is the appropriate place to discuss it.

It is about, according to the Topic Subject, whether jgarzic's response was 'berzerk' or otherwise.  Of course all these other issues come up in the discussion but my primary point in all I have written in this thread is that mushing them all together is just not helpful.  Deducing jgarzik's position on the morality of the embago from the exchange that happened is as I have pointed out pushing into fantasy land.  Building on top of that to massive pronouncements about how wrong it is that such a terrible person 'represents' us as a member of the Bitcoin Foundation (I use 'the' because AFAIK there is no other to date), that he is anti-free speech and is in the pockets of 'the' government looks to me like it's bordering on truther-land and I have absolutely no interest in the pissing-into-the-wind kind of exchanges that are to be had with folks as deluded as they.

I don't know of groups.  I'm only seeing individual opinions and despite my ridiculing one of the healthy things about this forum is that people here have such diverse opinions.

I don't see a 'timing manager'.  I just see those who in my short time here appear to be the wisest heads around here saying 'not yet'.  And despite being very limited in my understanding of what the whole Bitcoin and associated stuff is about I happen to agree with them.  But nobody is saying 'you can not do it yet'.  They may be, out of their wisdom/overcautiousness/obayence to their gov't overlords be pleading with you not to yet but nobody's stopping those who think now is the time to promote Bitcoin in Iran.  It's just a protocol, some software, some bits and some people.  Do with it all what you will.

This on the basis of a temporary banning that the banner has already suggested might have been as much to do with personal circumstances/mood at the time than anything else?  Really??

A manipulation by whom?  Again are you really claiming here on the basis of the exchange on the channel and what's written on this thread that jgarzik and the Bitcoin Foundation are pupets of the USA government?  Sorry but my conspiracy theorist alarm bells are beginning to go off here.

Now I'm afraid you've totally lost me here.  Who is irritated and jumpy and needs to apologise to whom for what?

[off topic]
BTW in answer to your question I really don't know whether the embago is a good idea or not - and if that makes me 'sheeple' in your eyes so be it.  At the most basic level I can understand the theory behind embagos but I don't understand enough about their chances of success or whether success would be affecting change such as reducing the odds of bombings and war.  If there is a chance of success and it prevents war can the suffering currently endured by the Iranian people be 'justified' against lack of the worse suffering as a consequence of war?  I really don't have a clue and I don't believe without spending a lot of time researching it and talking to people who really have experience of this stuff from more than one perspective that I would be qualified enough to come to a conclusion in which I could be confident.  Does that make me a coward in some people's eyes?  I don't know but I prefer that to making half-baked conclusions on a partially understood picture then 'taking action' the real consequences of which I have absolutely no idea about.  And I venture to suggest, but without implying you may be one, that some of those protesting most loudly and 'taking action' in all such circumstances don't really understand the whole picture either but by proceeding regardless, end up making things worse for those they most want to defend.
[/off topic]

Despite so many words you've written above, I don't understand your point. Do you support the US embargo on Iran or you don't?

There is no 'governmentS' that apply embargoes. There is only one government. Other governments have to decide if they'll side with the bullying government or with the victim government. Don't forget the official US policy - 'If you are not with us, you are against us'. It is a risky business not to side with the bully as this government alone is spending 50% of the entire military budget of this Planet.


Nothing has changed in that respect so far.

It is true that there are groups with different agendas regarding bitcoin, but as someone has mentioned in this thread, timing is everything. So, the most important thing is who is the 'timing' manager? Who is trying to manage bitcoin target groups and extend of market penetration in the different regions? After this episode I'm more inclined to suggest that this effectively is the US government.

Once the bitcoin avalanche starts nothing can be managed. But before the start, one can decide where will be the starting point and when? The bitcoin community should not allow such a manipulation to take place. Laissez-faire and no country should be excluded by someone behind the scene!

I understand that sometime people get irritated and jumpy for variety of different reasons and pissed off by their girlfriend, wife, children, friends, colleagues, or just accidental meeting with a stranger. But after that they must be strong enough to overcome their ego and apologize to somebody they have unwillingly insulted.

Lets hope for the best but be prepared for the worst!

Jeff's words, which is what we objectively have to go by, didn't say such a thing.  Jeff's 'tone' might, as Gavin Anderson alluded, and to which Jeff referred, be due to any number of things to which neither you nor I are privy.  Are you seriously as certain as you seem to be that you are correct in your interpretation of what his 'tone' meant?

I don't have nor want fans but assuming by 'you' you mean the project then you are right in that by not actively promoting Bitcoin as a sanction-buster it is 'losing' potential users.  The project might, due to the outrage of current users at the way this was handled, even lose some of its current users.  The 'tone' of some of the objections going on here suggest some are about to walk away from the project but I doubt it will be many.

In the main, as far as I can see all that Bitcoin requires in order to strengthen is to continue to be as usable as it is because word-of-mouth brings more people on board.  Growth inevitably, it seems, follows.  If on the other hand the actions of some which are undermining an internationally supported embago paint a big fat target on the back of Bitcoin whilst it is as young and vulnerable as it is (in my opinion) and it gets virtually obliterated then it may be many years if ever before people world-over in future Iran-like situations have access to its use.  Introducing Bitcoin to Iranians, were it effective, would alleviate some of the suffering that's going on as a consequence of the embago.

But what's more exciting to me is if Bitcoin (or equivalent) in future was widely enough used worldwide one of the consequences would be that governments would have to accept embagos are no longer an option because they are impossible to enforce.  Right now all they had to do was to put pressure on the Society for Worldwide International Financial Transfers (SWIFT) to effectively prevent trade with Iran.  A mature Bitcoin has no such soft underbelly.  But right now from what I understand the 'scales' that have the potential in future to protect Bitcoin are a way too soft to provide any protection of note against a concerted attack.

In the meatime, taking actions like this makes it more difficult for those in power needing to make the decision whether to act against Bitcoin to leave it/us alone.  As someone has said before elsewhere 'the government' does not act in isolation.  Even Hitler based decisions (other than towards the very end) on on what certain actions would do to his popularity.  The wider Bitcoin's use in non-controversial day-to-day activities - or even in somewhat controversial activities (such as for illicit substances) the more unpopular any drastic measures to shut it down (or drive it underground and out of reach of the average potential user) will be.

I'm not asking you to agree - just to accept that an opinion other than yours might just have some validity.

Context... if you piss off someone, and then suddenly act all cool and start talking about some project, do you think that will be well received ?

Yes. The tone of Jeff's words showed full, unquestionable support for criminal and immoral acts of his government. There was no "unfortunately, we cannot discuss this here" - clearly, he supports what his government is doing as the right thing. Jeff, please correct me if I am wrong here.

No, you are not getting stronger by effectively supporting US sanctions on Iran! You are losing fans, thoughtfan! In record numbers! Fans not only from Iran and neighboring countries, but from the entire free world where people can still decide not to join illegal 'legal activities' like economic sanction on other nations. Apparently, in the US the FOX, CNN, and Hollywood style propaganda is very effective?

Reading it the way you want to see it apparently is.  By now I am not seeing you come up with anything that has not already been well responded to in this thread.  That you choose not to take these replies on board is up to you but could you at least desist with the insulting accusations?

If the coding issues involved in maximising the chances of this project succeeding are a substantial challenge, which I am getting the impression they are, then what the dickens is wrong with someone giving their full attention to that?  Are you saying anybody who wants to get involved at the core of the technical development also needs to be a legal/political expert and a legal/political warrior (and one of the same political persuasion as you at that)?

It seems to me a nonsense to expect this.

Well you and some others are opting to begin the ascent now.  Not all of us are.  'The Project' doesn't appear to me to need to right now.  Some of us may request you hold back from running full speed to the commence with the ascent before the project is strong enough to make it to the top but nobody is physically going to stop you.

That we are heading towards that mountain I will agree is unavoidable and even possibly desirable - but utilising every opportunity to get stronger on the journey to the foot of the mountain is I think the wiser option.  By all means run on ahead but don't be surprised if some consider your actions to be a little naive all things considered.

Reading this situation is quite simple...

"Oh please, please leave me alone. I don't want any politics involved. I just want to play with my coding ideas. No politics, please. Please!"

I'm sorry, mate. Four years and you still don't get it! We are just about to start climbing the Big Bitcoin Political Mountain in front of us. This is unavoidable, just expect more of it if bitcoin succeeds. You have to step on a sound ideological foundation to fight all political winds. Don't ask me which one. I don't know. I'm still searching. What I do know, however, is that you have to have quite a mess in your head to support US economic sanctions against Iran or any other country. With such a mess in your head bitcoin is just not for you. Certainly you should not put your name behind bitcoin because other people get scared from your political immaturity.

If jgarzik tries asap to personally organaize translation to Farsi, I shall personally ask him to accept my apology.

If what you're referring to is promoting Bitcoin in Iran or soliciting such promotion then that's just a matter of opinion.  My tendency is towards holding off on activities more likely to be construed as inviting an attack on Bitcoin until it is a lot more robust than it is - but that's just my opinion.

As for whether such a solicitation is appropriate in that particular forum is another question - and is one the moderator at the time decided wasn't.  Maybe 'inappropriate' is closer to the mark than 'bad'.

Again, we've got a number of issues that when mushed together keep the issue as a heated one going round in circles rather than allowing us to move forward.  If we tease it apart it gives us at least three questions:

Could the promotion of Bitcoin in Iran be justifiably considered as promoting illegal activity?

Is reasonable to expect that a moderator make an immediate, informed and 'correct' judgement on this matter when deciding whether to allow a discussion to develop/continue?

Is it reasonable to criticise the moderator of a developer channel in such harsh tones when in the moment he errs on the side of caution - especially given what's potentially at stake - and given that promoting a political issue had nothing to do with the technical development of Bitcoin in the first place?

That would be EPIC

He doesn't oppose such a translation.  Anyone who thinks he does has failed to properly read the situation.

Why is it a bad thing to do?

We don't know what preceded the conversation recorded in the pastebin but fom what's there it looks like jeramias went there specifically in order to solicit support for his promotion of Bitcoin in Iran.  There followed a discussion about whether or not that was a good idea then when jgarzik decided he wasn't comfortable with this topic being discussed in that particular channel he put a stop to it.  It was only then the translating Bitcoin-Qt to Farsi topic was raised.  Whether it was jeramias's intention or not I can completely understand why, in the context of the previous conversation, it could look like this was just an attempt to keep the conversation going by using the translation thing to get around the 'off topic' and 'promoting illegal activity' accusations.  My guess is had the translation thing come up in a neutral way in the first place there would not have been a ban.

Technically those saying that the throwing out was in response to the comment regarding the translation are likely correct but jgarzik has agreed with Gavin Anderson's take that there may have been an element of 'having a bad day, can't be bothered with this right now' in the decision.  So whilst the banning (since removed) might not have been the 'best' move I don't see a single, slightly mistaken/intolerant moderating decision as justification for the consequent outrage and calls of treason.

jgazrik did not 'oppose the translation'.  He just wasn't prepared to talk about it - nor to have that conversation go on on that particular channel at that particular moment in the context of how it had been brought up.  Regardless of whether or not we believe the decision was justified or not the two are not the same.

Some people seem to spend their time next to their saddled up high horse with one foot in the stirrup already just waiting to hear the snap of a twig before jumping up on it to start shooting at anyone with an opinion that doesn't 100% concur with their own.  Good for me to learn from though so thanks all

Not the translation to Farsi, but what jgarzik did (opposing such a translation) is casting a bad light on the project! Why can't you understand that?

I am surprised at the wide range of guesses as to the thought process that would go into this... you guys are reading into this way too far.  I am amazed that so many people point to the "Streisand effect" as though they think he is trying to silence all discussion of the topic and anywhere and everywhere and wants it to stay quiet... it's obvious to me this is in error, but maybe I am just smart like that or something. =)

Let me simplify it.  Imagine you're a developer.  Imagine you have the following GOAL: Avoid a situation where the developers are on the record participating in a discussion that could be interpreted to suggest they are in favor of something that is clearly politically unpopular, that is irrelevant to the development of the software itself, that could be used in the form of a "sound bite" to cast a bad light on the project as a whole.

Does having this goal mean you actually hold the politically unpopular position? NO
Does having this goal mean you hold the opposite of the politically unpopular position? NO
Does having this goal mean you don't stand for the values you say you stand for? NO
Does having this goal mean you don't have a backbone? NO
Does having this goal mean you are/aren't an asshole? NO
Does having this goal mean you love or hate or are a pawn of the government? NO
Does having this goal mean you are a sellout? NO
Does having this goal mean you love or hate the group(s) affected by the politically unpopular subject? NO
Does having this goal mean you truly want to make Bitcoin unavailable to the affected group(s)? NO
Does having this goal mean you are concerned if the affected group(s) manage to use Bitcoin without your support? NO
Does having this goal mean you want to silence all discussion about the topic anywhere and everywhere? NO
Does having this goal mean you care if others discuss the topic in your absence? NO
Does having this goal mean you are concerned if the topic goes viral and achieves the penetration you didn't want to discuss? NO
Does having this goal mean anything other than that you don't want the project to get bad press and/or targeted for attack in the form of a developer's own words? NO

Look guys, I have never met Jeff, I'm not sure I've ever corresponded with him more than briefly here and there in the forums, I am not picking favorites.  I don't think I have ever done business with Jeff either.  On the other hand, I believe I have done business with many of those who are against him or are criticizing him.  I have no personal motivation to favor his position over anybody else's.

I sustain his action because it was wise, and consistent with the common sense of someone who has the big picture in mind.  I wouldn't offer that support for any other reason.  Go ahead, let it streisand away... I don't think he or anyone else expressed any concern regarding this.

We find out that a second Foundation has existed secretly all along and that Satoshi is really a robot called R. Daneel Olivaw. 

It's like how jgarzik thinks they are resourceful enough to monitor IRC and the forums, but not resourceful enough to see what it really is. Good luck with the chess thing, but I can't help but notice that your invisible opponent is not playing the game at all... I also tend to act overzealous when I have to deal with the State or banks, that's a psychological thing, and has been known to not work, ever.

Anyways, all in all, I think almost everyone now agrees that Jeff (and team America) are doing what they have to do, and we need to appreciate their resolve. However I don't think this thread has been a trollfest about a minor misunderstanding, but rather a revelation of several things most of us hadn't quite grasped before, thanks to that minor misunderstanding. We'll see if anything will come out of this.

This thread, along with Jeff's actions, goes to show that even the developers and core people of bitcoin are assholes. And people thought I was an asshole? Damn, Jeff pretty much showed how big an asshole he is by what he did.

What's next, Satoshi will return and tell us all we have been scammed by his creation called bitcoin and hits his "hidden" kill switch? 

So JGarzik trolled a productive discussion in order to encourage more productive discussion? But then he denounces trolling as idiotic? So this thread that he dislikes was his intended purpose? I thought it was accidental. Which is it Garzik? We refuse to be your pawns!