you can't even link to the bitcoin whitepaper from r/bitcoin apparently

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2970

Terminated.

Quote from: franky1 on June 10, 2017, 07:08:53 PM

Quote from: Lauda on June 10, 2017, 01:16:12 AM

You can't force them to name it something else, and neither can you prevent someone from doing this.

writing something and then saying the original writer wrote it(facepalm)..

Who said anything about stating that the update was written by the original author?

Quote from: franky1 on June 10, 2017, 07:08:53 PM

bad on so many levels. thats like rewriting history to pretend the holocaust didnt happen

Yet, nobody attempted to do what you claimed in your straw-man argument.

Quote from: franky1 on June 10, 2017, 07:08:53 PM

plagiarism - bad
citation - good

Congratulations, you may have finished primary school education.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: Lauda on June 10, 2017, 01:16:12 AM

You can't force them to name it something else, and neither can you prevent someone from doing this.

writing something and then saying the original writer wrote it(facepalm).. bad on so many levels. thats like rewriting history to pretend the holocaust didnt happen

anyway you cant read more than a paragraph, so ill keep this short.. in your own time learn these words
plagiarism - bad
citation - good

have a nice day

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: Cøbra on June 10, 2017, 05:39:44 PM

The whitepaper is not a sacred text. It should be updated to make it a useful introduction to Bitcoin. Right now all it does is misinform people.

Whenever I see people link to the whitepaper in the context of the scaling debate, they're usually doing it with malicious intent since they know the whitepaper has multiple flaws, but they take advantage of stuff Satoshi didn't know back then to try to trick users into believing that their side of the debate is sticking to his true "vision".

No, it should not be updated. That's not for you to decide with your sleazy agenda. Nobody "updates" other people's whitepapers, you mook. Write your own damn paper.

You're not smarter than Satoshi and neither is Greg or any of you Core clowns.

Truth is getting out. You won't win.

freebutcaged

hero member

Activity: 588

Merit: 541

Are you telling me that there is no copy of the Bitcoin white paper for people to read? or you've forgot we live in a network of networks

Internet, people can search google to find it and it's not like reddit is the source of all the information mate, you just love to argue and

Fight with each other like cocks. even if you link to it successfully, does it provide a fix for high fees? no. does it provide a solution to

Scaling issue? no.

25hashcoin

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Quote from: Cøbra on June 10, 2017, 05:39:44 PM

The whitepaper is not a sacred text. It should be updated to make it a useful introduction to Bitcoin. Right now all it does is misinform people.

Whenever I see people link to the whitepaper in the context of the scaling debate, they're usually doing it with malicious intent since they know the whitepaper has multiple flaws, but they take advantage of stuff Satoshi didn't know back then to try to trick users into believing that their side of the debate is sticking to his true "vision".

I do believe you're full of shit.

Cøbra

full member

Activity: 123

Merit: 474

The whitepaper is not a sacred text. It should be updated to make it a useful introduction to Bitcoin. Right now all it does is misinform people.

Whenever I see people link to the whitepaper in the context of the scaling debate, they're usually doing it with malicious intent since they know the whitepaper has multiple flaws, but they take advantage of stuff Satoshi didn't know back then to try to trick users into believing that their side of the debate is sticking to his true "vision".

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2970

Terminated.

Quote from: franky1 on June 09, 2017, 06:05:53 PM

"they"... well cobra for one, obviously has been the big mouthpiece that wants to update it.. so they = atleast cobra....

Cobra owns the Bitcoin.org domain and as such is free to do with it whatever he pleases. Although, he did end up listening to the criticism regarding this idea. Also, let's not forget the propaganda and astroturfing twitter on Bitcoin.com.

Quote from: franky1 on June 09, 2017, 06:05:53 PM

so YOU and your desire to get YOUR named tagged for spell checking things in github have more chance of being part of "they"

Nope. You are having delusions again.

Quote from: franky1 on June 09, 2017, 06:05:53 PM

but if "they" want to write something. atleast dont try suggesting that it is the bitcoin whitepaper, but instead making it obvious that its different to the real bitcoin white paper by calling it something new... EG if the update is only upto corev0.12.. then call it corev12.. not "the bitcoin whitepaper"

You can't force them to name it something else, and neither can you prevent someone from doing this. In an optimal world, update versions would be written and both would be served online.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: pooya87 on June 10, 2017, 01:02:04 AM

i feel like your arguments change subject with each comment!

you say you can't link bitcoin whitepaper, i say you can't post a link to a website that they clearly think is against them on a moderated subreddit!

More like, I make a point, you make a lame excuse, and I explain why even your lame excuse doesn't hold water. Cheesy

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

i feel like your arguments change subject with each comment!

you say you can't link bitcoin whitepaper, i say you can't post a link to a website that they clearly think is against them on a moderated subreddit!

then you change subject to "they plan on changing the paper". i say it is not gonna happen, the proposal is 1 year old https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/1325 if you can find it in my post history a year ago i said i am against it if it is "changing the paper".
but if an updated version is added with the two things i said, i don't see any problem in that. and also it depends on what the change is.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: pooya87 on June 10, 2017, 12:26:45 AM

then advertise an alternative for original version.

(facepalm)
sounds like people what new versions to replace the original as if its the true clean 'original' version

how about
'then advertise a new and different version that is not an just "an alternative for original version"'

movie analogy
highlighted and noted as being a reboot... not a remaster of the original

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: pooya87 on June 10, 2017, 12:26:45 AM

no i am saying linking the paper on a website that has clearly had some agenda against everything that /r/bitcoin is believing in and getting that link removed is not called censorship.

let them change it first and if
- it wasn't clear it is the changed version not the original
- it didn't have a clear link to original paper

then advertise an alternative for original version.

No, that's EXACTLY what censorship is. Not letting people express themselves (including freely linking) because you disagree with their viewpoint.

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

no i am saying linking the paper on a website that has clearly had some agenda against everything that /r/bitcoin is believing in and getting that link removed is not called censorship.

let them change it first and if
- it wasn't clear it is the changed version not the original
- it didn't have a clear link to original paper

then advertise an alternative for original version.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: pooya87 on June 09, 2017, 10:36:16 PM

next time share the original link from bitcoin.org instead of the .com one and then see if that gets removed and then lets talk about censorship about bitcoin white paper!

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf is still not changed so you have no reason not to.

Wait...that doesn't make any sense.

You're saying linking to a site that has no plans to change the paper is WORSE than linking to a site with people who said they want to change it (but haven't yet).

Like you said, its the same paper.

You can't say bitcoin.org is authoritative by virtue of origin when its trying to change the paper. That's a self defeating argument.

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

next time share the original link from bitcoin.org instead of the .com one and then see if that gets removed and then lets talk about censorship about bitcoin white paper!

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf is still not changed so you have no reason not to.

aarturka

sr. member

Activity: 277

Merit: 250

Quote from: 25hashcoin on June 09, 2017, 06:43:11 PM

I recently quoted Satoshi on /r/bitcoin and was downvoted...that place is corrupt and anti bitcoin.

You were downvoted not because you quoted Satoshi but because you're BTU shill. though I doubt that was the case, provide a link when you post your nonsence. Never trust a word from Ver's puppet

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: Lauda on June 09, 2017, 05:29:08 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on June 09, 2017, 09:52:46 AM

Sure, but you have to ask youself: is one side is SO deathly afraid of the truth that you can't even be allowed read the whitepaper?

Absolute nonsense. There is no "truth".

Hilarious... "There is no truth Everything's just an opinion. Reality can never be known." This is a mind control technique called "relativism" that can be just used to justify anything.

Quote

The whitepaper is very much outdated and describes a Bitcoin from the past.

Nothing outdated about it. This is a Bitfury/DCG/Blockstream cartel talking point.

Quote

This is why someone wanted to publish an updated version

No, someone wanted to publish an 'updated' version to rewrite history.

Quote

If you read the whitepaper, you get the general idea but actually miss out on a lot of stuff. You may even get misled about some things (e.g. no mention of ASIC miners).

The whitepaper isn't the codebase, nor is it the complete writing of Satoshi Nakamoto (which did include mention of ASIC miners).

Of course there's stuff "missing", you pathetic troll.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: 25hashcoin on June 09, 2017, 06:43:11 PM

I recently quoted Satoshi on /r/bitcoin and was downvoted...that place is corrupt and anti bitcoin.

because its not /r/bitcoin... its /r/core-perate coin. managed by the BS cartel (BlockStream/Barry Silbert)

the github repo they love and idolise over does not even originate from a github repo satoshi ever used. the origins before the rebrand to core in 2013 was originally from a fork Gavin started in summer 2010.

satoshi's version was still only being sourced from sourceforge right up until and after winter 2010

25hashcoin

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

I recently quoted Satoshi on /r/bitcoin and was downvoted...that place is corrupt and anti bitcoin.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: Lauda on June 09, 2017, 06:03:49 PM

Quote from: franky1 on June 09, 2017, 06:02:27 PM

Quote from: Lauda on June 09, 2017, 05:57:31 PM

Quote from: franky1 on June 09, 2017, 05:55:20 PM

if someone wants to rewrite the bitcoin paper to 'update' it.. then dont call it the bitcoin paper.. call it the segwit whitepaper that way it doesnt confuse people from the differences of what bitcoin WAS and where the ethos and purpose has changed, because people can then compare them both. rather than thinking the updated version is the only true version

The rewrite has nothing to do with Segwit, nor was the update related to it. Looks like you are having your metal breakdowns again.

so by the time they update it.. it will be out of date.... might b worth you thinking about that

Who is *they*? You can update it yourself if you wanted to and publish an updated version. Nobody can prevent you from doing this.

"they"... well cobra for one, obviously has been the big mouthpiece that wants to update it.. so they = atleast cobra.... dont be ignorant, you know who 'they' are. even you seem to want to be ok with a re-write happening. so YOU and your desire to get YOUR named tagged for spell checking things in github have more chance of being part of "they"
... i dont want it changed. so i wont be part of "they".

but if "they" want to write something. atleast dont try suggesting that it is the bitcoin whitepaper, but instead making it obvious that its different to the real bitcoin white paper by calling it something new... EG if the update is only upto corev0.12.. then call it corev12.. not "the bitcoin whitepaper"
then in a few months time, if core gets segwit activated.. then... (those that love rewrites) can make another whitepaper and call it segwit

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2970

Terminated.

Quote from: franky1 on June 09, 2017, 06:02:27 PM

Quote from: Lauda on June 09, 2017, 05:57:31 PM

Quote from: franky1 on June 09, 2017, 05:55:20 PM

if someone wants to rewrite the bitcoin paper to 'update' it.. then dont call it the bitcoin paper.. call it the segwit whitepaper that way it doesnt confuse people from the differences of what bitcoin WAS and where the ethos and purpose has changed, because people can then compare them both. rather than thinking the updated version is the only true version

The rewrite has nothing to do with Segwit, nor was the update related to it. Looks like you are having your metal breakdowns again.

so by the time they update it.. it will be out of date.... might b worth you thinking about that

Who is *they*? You can update it yourself if you wanted to and publish an updated version. Nobody can prevent you from doing this.

Topic: you can't even link to the bitcoin whitepaper from r/bitcoin apparently (Read 1786 times)