Whether he is guilty or not, no one should have to respond to that level of general vagueness in your accusations, and maybe if you provided some evidence... but that doesn't mean that you are on topic in this particular thread to suggest that either a guest or an organizer of a meeting lacks credibility in a variety of ways..
He responded anyway despite your ethical stipulations, and his response was to confirm what I said. These are nasty, subversive people without compare, responsible for multiple genocides, and your response is "off-topic"? Ok.
Actually, I had given you some benefit of the doubt and I thought that you may have been bringing up aspects of Bruce's role in the bitcoin foundation... but instead freemasonry? Wat dee fuq?
Regarding Bruce's choice to respond to you, it seems that I have a much bigger grievance than you, because so far he has not even responded or addressed my earlier posts, so possibly he enjoys distracting and quasi-irrelevant topics that you seem to be attempting to bring to the table and emphasize?
Ok, so according to you, the concept of Freemasonry is somehow ridiculous, and yet Bruce saw the need to defend himself multiple times, despite how the lack of merit. Interesting, no? Surely ridiculous accusations deserve no response?
I think that I may have already described some of my objections to your approach and your raising of the topic, and it seems to be that you are a piss poor explainer.
You come out all guns in a blaze, and you don't even explain what the fuck you are talking about, and then you subsequently, attempt to explain and to suggest the fact that Bruce responded to some of your lame and vague accusations as being some kind of meaningful admission that justifies your initial ridiculously vague and unsubstantiated assertions.
Surely, it could be possible that you have a good case, and there possibly could be some decent reason why Bruce's various affiliations may call into question his integrity and credibility; however, your approach comes off way more as an
ad hominem attack rather than any meaningful attempt to engage with various substantive issues that are presented in this thread.
O.k. It appears that you have some issues with the bitcoin foundation (and surely, there are a lot of people who have various issues with that organization) and even if a large number of those issues are legit, such as whether they spent money wisely, etc. etc., those still seem to be a bit off topic, when the discussion here seems to be asking for input for an upcoming meeting regarding governance and/or scaleability and/or a road map forward.
So, no discussions about the organisation itself should be permitted, only discussion about how the organisation is organised? right.
I think that there can be various discussions regarding motivations of people in the context of the main substance, and apparently, there are a variety of stakeholders invited to the upcoming meeting.
Sure, I will take with a grain of salt if one person is representing that the selection of persons attending the meeting is broadly representative, and if there are problems with the attendees, then there could be problems regarding the level of persuasiveness of any agreements and/or resolutions that they might reach.
What happens when the attendees take a view that is radically different from the Core dev team's developmental roadmap?
Any group can get together and make recommendations, and the extent to which they have credible participants and valid points would likely factor into how much persuasive ability or evidence that is mustered up for their various recommendations.. whether those are called recommendations, "proposed map forward" or some other outcomes of such a meeting(s).
Nothing. These people have no business making any design decisions on a project they do not run. Finished. Do you understand?
Yes, if they have little to no credibility or ability to present or persuade regarding their "recommendations", then I suppose those recommendations would get very little weight. I don't think that you are the one to unilaterally decide how much credibility or weight that their potential meeting should have before it even takes place. Do you think that you should be given some kind of determination to decide those kinds of issues or someone else or some other group? What is your suggestion exactly? If these folks are going to meet anyhow, whether you agree or not, do you have any suggestions for them, or do you prefer that they just don't meet or that they just don't attempt to communicate about it? Your position is quite unclear and appears to be even internally contradictory.
