Topic: What is the right and fair way to stop Mike Hearn? - page 9. (Read 14041 times)

And almost unbelievable reply from someone who should know better.

The much better question would have been: if I am a bitcoin user and don't agree with the direction of the cryptocurrency or functions one developer has implemented - what can I do? If I install a piece of software, I always have the option to deinstall it. But I can't just chose not to use bitcoin. I might depend on it. And only the smallest fraction of people have the ability to change bitcoin the way they would want it.

Peter and other developers frequently argue along the lines of: "if the above posters were serious they'd go do something other than just argue." Well, if you really think about, this is a very naive view of the world. Say somebody has a different idea for a protocol, can he just go ahead and implement it into bitcoin? Of course not. Say a person has one very specific request about one particular function which he wants to change. There might be ten others who think that change would be a bad idea.

But say I disagree with the use of passports as a concept. This can be argued on a non-technical basis. I reject the use of passports on principle, mostly because it puts people without passports at a disadvantage. A more clear violation of the anarchism isn't possible, because anarchists believe that states should exist in the first place. Some even give up their passports voluntarily, so that they are not are associated with them. Many poor people don't have passports. To me this is crucial, because bitcoin should be as evenly accessible as possible.

In political systems we have the concept of voting to reach a conclusion. No action required, because not everyone can take action (not every user can be a developer, that should be obvious). Traditional concepts of software don't apply. I can't choose a different fork, like I chose a linux distribution. There are network effects.

The idea that arguments and reason don't apply is very telling. there is no source code I can write to stop a certain proposal. there is no action to stop some feature. the sum of actions matters, and some actions one person might consider bad. to think of these as a strict composition (sum project = action1, ... ,n) is wrong.

The only I thing I can do use a different cryptocurrency or start a different cryptocurrency if I disagree with the overall direction. And this has not necessarily something to do with technical arguments or source code. There is a reason why these ideas are highly unpopular. People in the foundation who are only concerned with commercializing bitcoin refer to people on bitcointalk and reddit as the mob. Just shows what their idea of distributed decision making is. At some point somebody will try and restart a project where some principles are preserved if the current trend continues (bitcoin being more and more a project with ties to US corporations, speaking with US government, etc).

Sigh. Apparently I have to add you to my list of people who don't read, too? Quoting from my first post on this thread:


You don't have to remind me how Tor works, I am well aware. The directory authorities have no real way to know if nodes are related, if the operator doesn't make silly mistakes like giving them all related names.


The code for fee estimation is being implemented right now, so if you have something better now would be the time to build a convincing prototype.

I started writing a response to the trolling and self-congratulatory garbage that followed after this part of your post, then thought better of it. Actions speak louder than words, don't they?

This is really good.

The codebase was already centralized and the other two are completely subjective.

What has the foundation done that's so horrible?

This is just ugly. The end of this will be the release of huge amounts of personal data from innocent people.
Hackers will release some, crypto-anarchist or people believing in Satoshis values will buy as much as they can afford in TOR Dark Markets and release to stop this idea, goverment agents will release some to incriminate Bitcoin and make it look bad.

So Gavin and Mike are driven by greed and the holy Satoshi will not shine over all of us if we don't stop these devils? I find your contribution very disrespectful but don't expect much reason from some religious fundamentalist  

You really think Gavin or Mike have to flip burgers? Bitcoins are worth $1000 a piece, and they probably have a lot of them. But I guess their greed to get all the bitcoins is much more powerful.

This is still an experiment and I think yes Satoshi will let it die if that is where we take it.

That's a good point. Shouting incoherently is not useful and distracts from more relevant criticisms.

Agreed.

I agree with you totally that a system that's developers are under extremest scrutiny is very hard to be corrupted but it also is hard to work when every reasonable contribution that is not carefully worded in cooperation with your 10 guys PR department causes a shit storm. The OP here for example didn't discuss governments having passports in abundance being capable of still exercising MITM attacks to double-spend (seriously? Would they? If they would, would we stick with using passports?) and most likely he didn't understand the zero-knowledge-part of the suggestion, attacking based on lack of understanding, going right against Mike Hearn with a post that looks designed to provoke as much turmoil as possible. Asking "What is the right and fair way to stop Mike Hearn?" is assuming we agree that Mike has to be stopped, so answering his question (as the first people did) is giving the OP credibility in his implied criticism. He did not ask "What is the right and fair way to stop a core developer?" and neither did he ask "How can we prevent Miners having to use their passport?" which might be OP's real problem.

Also I guess we agree on this: In any software system with only a hand full of people capable to change the core protocol, corruption is cheap and therefore it is important to increase the number of people who can contribute and blow the whistle if the current core team is taking a less than optimal decision.

(I hope my English makes sense. I used some words I'm not really too familiar with such as scrutiny, abundance, turmoil. Any corrections welcome as pm )

Zero-knowledge proof ----> Think about a situation where to prove something it was required a meaningless piece of information which is quite difficult to be replicated. For example, let's just assume that a random person needs to know that another random person is holding something which cannot be easily forged. The random person is not interested in what exactly the another random person is holding, it just want to be sure the another random person is holding something unique. In order to know that, the random person would have to see the object the another random person is holding, but that would reveal what the another random person is holding. So how to solve this problem?

International passport data will be released until this stops.

Yours sincerly,

The Hackers Choice

http://www.thc.org

You obviously don't understand, what I meant was them being part of the protocol should be far removed from the business side. That is called unethical, just like insider trading, it isn't right.


Cause he is doing us a favor we have to sort out this mess. When Gavin took the position he was good, money changes people and people change with time. But I guess you don't think people change...


I doubt it considering the way you speak and your post.

So they shouldn't spend their time making more money because you've deemed that they already have enough? They should be locked into purely charitable endeavors for the rest of their lives? You have weird views on decentralization.

Say it all you like, but it is increasingly less and less true.  This both due to the increasing strain on resources causing segments of the userbase to drop out of the peer arrangement, and to the increasing userbase who add to the denominator (peer/user) and to nothing even modestly 'peer'.  To Multibit's credit it was not even claiming to be P2P when last I looked.

I will make this non work. German Federal Printing Office (Bundesdruckerei) got "insider jobbed", not really hacked.

Bla bla, long story short:
I have this dump, it contains real data sets (200.000) with passport numbers incl. these signing keys (only active on 20% of German passports).


I will instant release it, if this BS is pushed further.

A lot of my interest in Bitcoin has been siphoned off to concern about more basic and trunk level threats (Bitcoin, in my mind, being upward out on a branch somewhere.)

I'm interested in the hardware work that you described.  A few months ago I did a little bit of looking around into open hardware efforts but was generally a bit underwhelmed.  I saw nothing like the device that you are describing, and it is very close to what I was looking for.  The first power-on initialization in particular is an idea which I'd not thought of and is intriguing.  I'd be interested to know if you have links to similar projects and/or plans to continue the work you mentioned.

Not that it's on topic or anything but never expect an objective answer about Bitcoin from an economist, any more than you'd expect to hear objective criticism of IP from a RIAA employee. Bitcoin was invented to bring their entire world crashing down.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvebxYILfZQ#t=9m5s

No he doesn't visit these forums cause he now has a forum where he can oppress opinions about things like this and quiet down argues against his. I hope bitcoin continues without community input hopefully that will scare more people into seeing what these greedy people are. They made their millions and are now just doing what pleases them, started with Gavin taking a paycheck from a foundation which has the approval rating of extreme low. Then it was Yifu joining forces to bring this coin validation idea and allow governments to oppress bitcoin's freedom of exchange. Next we have Mike Hearn with his red listing idea. Do I have to go on? These people aren't for bitcoin success they are for it's centralized and downfall. They have their millions and power, and don't care about you.


We don't need anyone and that is the first false statement in this paragraph. Do you have an educated guess as to why Satoshi left? Many people and I also subscribe to this theory, that he left because everyone would be like Satoshi what do we do now? And what is the next step. Him leaving should have exploded the gate on many core dev teams, not just one that is now too powerful. This is what makes Satoshi cry at night and makes me personal sick.

Hardcore cryptolibertarians aren't the only bitcoin users cause I am hardcore bitcoin user yet not a cryptolibertarian, but their is a right way and wrong way. Now taking a decentralized or as I say p2p cause it isn't decentralized anymore system, and adding a huge part of a central authority is not the perfect solution it shouldn't be any solution. PGP should be the only solution. Grandma shouldn't be worried cause we should be worrying for grandma.

I love when newbies come here and act like they been in the community for years. I been here for years I been using it when bitcoin was worth a dollar. I will not let 2 people who are malicious ruin an amazing feat. Mike and Gavin obviously have sold out for money and power. Both on an Advisor board to bitcoin companies, which I find highly unethical in their positions, and I find the paycheck Gavin and other core devs get highly unethical.