Topic: jgarzik goes berzerk in #bitcoin-dev, wtf? - page 6. (Read 29037 times)

You don't understand what you are talking about.

The internet and WWW are indeed very very very very very different, the same way as roots of the tree are very very very differnet from leaves of the tree.
Technically speaking HTTP is only one of the top-level protocols of the Internet, and it is not even responsible for the most of the traffic !

Since you don't understand, let me show you. This is how The Internet is built:


Hint: Everything below the Application layer comes from ARPANET. HTTP/WWW is completely in the Application layer.

When you post a topic on this forums, it goes through multiple layers of technology which all evolved from ARPANET before it can reach the server.

EDIT:
I found an even better schematic:


Also, here is the wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite#Layers_in_the_Internet_protocol_suite

I'll use this as an excuse for a post script because it illustrates the futility of trying to too closely tie a technology to the ideas that may have given rise to it.  If anybody had the resources to keep the internet/ARPANET on the 'straight and narrow' to serve its initial purpose (and not its antithesis) it was the US government.

It just makes no sense to me to be criticising developers for displaying behaviour some of us deem to be not 'in the spirit' of Bitcoin.  However highly we may value our concepts of freedom, the technology itself is even freer in not being limited to them.

Once again, Bitcoin may have been created to fulfill a purpose but once out there 'it' has no purpose.  Where it ends up, including possibly nowhere, will be as a consequence of the aggregate of the way each of us (and others not yet involved) chooses to use it.

Edit:  I wrote this before seeing repentance's reply.  I guess this confirms we're on the same wavelength on this one!

I think this point is often overlooked.  Bitcoin is a protocol and once in the wild people can use it for whatever they want.  There is nothing at all stopping different groups using it for different purposes.  There is no "one true Bitcoin agenda".  Different groups want to use Bitcoin for different purposes and some of those purposes are at odds with others.  How Bitcoin is used by the majority will determine its main function, but that doesn't render its other uses unimportant.  Nor does it mean that the majority will use it for "its original purpose" - Satoshi's intention can be made irrelevant over time by how it is actually used.

One organisation or one group cannot be all things to all people.  Different organisations and groups need to emerge representing the different agendas people within the Bitcoin ecosystem have.  

In what way my statements are false? If the Internet and the WWW are 'very, very, very, very, very, very' different, which one do you use to write on this forum? When was the last time you used gopher which is part of the Internet but is not part of the WWW?

None. CERN website is true but still your statement is false and misleading since Internet was created by US Government & Military, not by CERN.

Also, it seems you have no idea how the internet actually works and this may be the reason of your invalid line of reasoning.

What statements are false on the CERN website?

Mod, this is not off topic! Some people here are trying to convince me that the US Federal Government has the right to bully people that use 'their' property, the Internet (aka WWW).  

Can some please explain to me how using Bitcoin to purchase a song by an Iranian musician from a site in Finland violates the US sanctions against Iran with citations to the actual documentation from the US Federal Government?

By the way we must keep in mind that Microsoft propriety software was used by the Iranian Government to enrich Uranium so the Open Source software argument is very thin in my books.

OK, I'm going to risk getting crushed by some of the high horses here, not in order to add anything that hasn't already been said, but to present things from a slightly different perspective that might be of help to someone.

First I want to talk more generally about exchanges such as this one has been.  Whilst I jest about high horses I also acknowledge some here have personal experiences that appear to have led to passionate and principled positions.  I'm not saying it oughtn't be so.  Yet there's a danger when one feels so strongly about something that we drag in related but not necessarily directly relevant points and mush them together to present a highly principled and inflexible viewpoint surely nobody in their right minds could disagree with.  Again I'm not criticising but there is a problem in this in that it can lead to outrage when despite it being so 'obvious' others still aren't seeing things our way.  It is only a short step from there to insults and we end up with increasingly entrenched positions and missing the opportunity available here for us all to understand one another a little better, to be learning from one another and venturing to re-evaluate our own positions in the light of the rich diversity of opinions being expressed.

I'm not going to go anywhere near addressing all, or even the primary issues raised in this thread but I would like to attempt to untangle two of the ideas.

First this idea of whether or not there should be a Bitcoin representative body.
We have:

• Glad there is one, pleased with who is on it, grateful they appear to be doing a good job;
• Maybe there should be one but not these folks if they are not behaving in a way consistent with my value system (or the value system I see Bitcoin as representing);
• Having one (and having elections) is not consistent with my value system (or the value system I see Bitcoin as representing) but if there is one they shouldn't be behaving in such and such a manner.
  

As far as I can see (and this was brought home to me by having it pointed out that its name is not 'The' Bitcoin Foundation but Bitcoin Foundation) whilst its main product may be called the 'official' client and has heritage/lineage, being Open Source there is nothing about the code nor its use that gives these folks a privileged position.  Reasonable options, depending on where one stands with reference to the above list include:

• deciding it's a hopeless position and stopping being involved with Bitcoin;
  
• deciding to use/develop alternative client software in order to weaken any claim to the bitcoin.org software having the title 'official';
• deciding to instigate/support the forming of another representative organisation, even if one doesn't believe in the idea of one but would rather support one with different values than the present one;
• etc. etc.

There is one position I don't consider to be reasonable:  'I don't like the fact that Bitcoin Foundation exists and that it claims to represent me (where was that claim?) therefore I want them to adopt the Bitcoin principles I deem to be true and to act accordingly.'

The other thing that is not coded into the software AFAIK are ideological/political principles.  It is transparent to all that the built-in rules virtually amount to a fully fledged monetary policy (and the headline in the first block gives us further clue as to what was behind it) but once the rules were coded in all we have is a set of rules defining the behaviour of Bitcoin.  It is then 'out there' and independent of any ideology or political standpoint.  We each can use it in the way we deem appropriate for our own ends and/or to further our own values.  Sure we can extrapolate from the rules (and from historic threads etc.) what we believe the intended ideology behind Bitcoin was but not even Satoshi has the right to say unless a user believes in certain principles and behaves in a prescribed manner (outside of the coded rules) they shouldn't be involved.

It's the difference between being attracted to Bitcoin because the rules concur with our world view and saying Bitcoin is the saviour of our world view and anyone using/developing it not in accordance with our world view is committing sacrilege.

Sorry that got a bit long!

Actually it is not my comment that is misleading, it is the other way around especially in this community since Bitcoin uses the Internet but not the World Wide Web to transfer funds.

OMG, what the hell you are talking about ?
I'm starting to think you're delirious or trolling.

Actually, i have perfect proof that what you said above is total crap. This topic. This very topic is the perfect example that proves that it is extremely difficult it is to manufacture consensus in the Open Source world !

Look at the "Alternative currencies" board https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=37.0. Forks of the official client spring up even if there is a relative consensus. Ask yourself what would happen if there was no consensus at all ? New forks would be created every hour.

There are already multiple alternative clients. Even i created a fork, because i didn't like ONE decision that the devs made. Do you seriously think that it is possible to easily manipulate "consensus" in this situation ? User always has a choice of his client. So why the hell would he choose client that is disadvantageous for him ?

I see it this way: either your logic is nonexistant or you are trolling.


I will try.

Keep it on topic please. Thank you in advance.

This is a complete Bullshit. This is so bullshit that the stench can reach me over thousands of miles of optical fibres & UTP cables.

Bittorrent, Netflix, FTP, SFTP, SSH, P2P, Bitcoin, TOR, Freenet, Gnunet, Email and many many many many many many many other protocols have nothing to do with WWW. And they do use IP protocols, which is a child of ARPANET.

And i would wager if they don't contain at least 51% (if not 70%) of the total network traffic.

This is not completely false, but missing the topic.

The IP network protocols that HTTP/WWW traffic operates on were created by US Government as ARPANET project.


So you are incorrect. The Internet WAS started by the military.
Of course then they had no idea what the project they started would become after many years. If they knew, government would scrap it and it would never see the light.

Technically speaking the World Wide Web is currently 99% of the Internet so, your statement is quite misleading especially for the uneducated public! As already mentioned, everything was started not by the US Federal Government, but by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

The Internet and the World Wide Web are two very different things. As someone who actually used the Internet before the World Wide Web existed I know, and yes the Internet was started by the US Federal Government.

Actually everything was started by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. However, the 'freaking' Internet BTW began in CERN Switzerland. There at CERN the browser, the web server and the html (the hypertext) were invented. I know that most of the brainwashed US citizens think that Al Gore invented Internet, but truth is quite different:


http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/about/Web-en.html
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/about/WebStory-en.html

TOR project (AND THE FREAKING INTERNET BTW) was actually started by US Government.
So there is nothing peculiar about that.

This is how it works:
1. Government creates and funds an idea in secrecy (usually for military or intelligence)
2. After the project is no longer secret, scientists of all sorts take over & develop the project
3. The project is deployed academically
4. The project is deployed comercially

This is completely normal way of doing things, there are multiple examples - including TOR, The Internet and GPS.

yankee, what is your contingency plan?

I would respectfully suggest that all involved in this debate including the author of the article, http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-29/dollar-less-iranians-discover-virtual-currency that led to the banning start by actually reading the United States sanctions against Iran http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/iran.txt While the United States sanctions are very broad there are certain exceptions.

The following quote form the article
Here is a quote from the US Treasury document:
It is fair to say that the claim made in the article regarding the importation of a digital download of a song from Iran to the United States is at best highly misleading and at worst out right wrong. Now let me get this straight on the basis of this erroneous claim made in this article someone was banned from #bitcoin-dev? There is way too much paranoia in this community regarding the US Federal Government.

Now take a look at the sponsors of the Tor project and how many are related to the US Federal Government https://www.torproject.org/about/sponsors.html.en
 

You have no idea what you are talking about.
And also, you have no idea about how programming (and especially open source programming) works.

The proper thing for somebody in your position would be to shut up and never talk again on this topic, but i seriously doubt you are smart enough to do it.

This topic is turning into a serious trollfest.