I would say that the prevalence of fake news has taught us just how easy it is to spread misinformation, as well as just how much power that those that control the media have.  I would also point out that once a news organization has been exposed as being dishonest, then harm will be done to both the news organization and the agenda they are pushing (see CNN and democrats).

I would point out that people were calling u/nullc dishonest in this 4 year old thread that took place well before any block size debate was anything more than a discussion about theoretical problems in the future. To this day, many people on reddit are calling u/nullc dishonest, and just maybe when someone who is pushing for things like SegWit, and smaller blocks who is also viewed as dishonest, those that read his argument might naturally side against him, especially if they do not understand the discussion fully.

Also, no, I do not think it is a good idea to be pushing for a situation that has a high probability of many users loosing their coins/money. Nor would I be behind a situation that results in people having access to any measure of less information.

Yes, it is a users' individual responsibility to protect their own money, however that does not mean that you should advocate so that users should be put into a situation in which they will lose money just to get your own way.

Your questions are irrelevant diversions. 

Censorship can be broadly defined as the suppression or prohibition of personal speech or expression.
Everyone knows what this is.  The man on the street can understand this idea.
 
Now we need to have a deep scholarly constitutional discussion before we can talk about which subreddit is censored more?  ok whatever lol   

I'll humor you though.  I've read the consitution and the decleration of independance.  I've been a libertarian for decades.  I can't say that I can recall specific book titles about the constitution itself (I'm sure I did in school) but I would agree that "we hold these truths to be self evident."   Let me guess, you're going to argue redit is a private website so its not censorship in the first place?  That would be another red herring to what we're talking about.

I asked you if you are knowledgeable and/or experienced at all on the subjects you are speaking of, and you call this an irrelevant diversion? Sir, I still need to know whether or not you have any knowledge on the purpose of the constitution and what free speech actually entails in regard to our natural rights otherwise I cannot engage in a proper dialogue with you.  By definition these things are relevant because it is the content of the discussion. You have used the phrase "irrelevant diversion" completely backwards to its accepted definition.


No.  This is the ignorant person belief, the person that is not studied.  Free speech comes with the implication that there must be some restriction.  There cannot be a blanketed rule that allows for free speech, rather the rules that are imposed are to foster the freest speech possible.  Pointing at such rules and calling them censorship is an admission that you don't understand your own natural rights and their relationship to free speech and the American constitution.

No you've guessed wrong, again because of your ignorance on the subject. Nothing you have stated here gives anything you say credibility.  You haven't read anything, or at least you haven't given me any examples.  That you have read the constitution and the deceleration of independence does not at all speak to the possibility that you understand them.  And everything you have said so far suggests that you clearly do not.

You are nothing but an uneducated (strong) opinion.

Again.  I am asking you if you have any specific knowledge on the content we are discussing in regard to free speech and our natural rights and also economics.  I can't really engage with you until I know your level of understanding of these things. Until we can can get an idea of this, you are simply perpetuating unstoppable conflict/debate.

What do you know about, what have you read on these subjects or are you just a loudmouthed opinion?

We have this platform right here. I'm not even sure how so many topics take place on reddit. But at least a fair amount of interesting topics posted there end up being here too.


It's the best we have, and has been quite good so far.


Regarding users and their coins... If things can be solved while users keep their coins, it would be the best. If some lose out, we all lose a bit too, and nobody would like to be on the wrong side of a fork. Lessons can still be learned without having to sacrifice anything.

Do you or do you not have any knowledge relevant to the content being debated? To be clear, I am specifically asking what literature you are familiar with. Have you read anything, what do you know?

Do you expect me to debate and engage with someone that can't at least claim to know SOMETHING?

In the US, the government has no right to pass laws limiting speech (with very few exceptions, such as hate speech, and similar). If the government did pass/enforce a law that did restrict speech, this would be censorship, although such law would likely be overturned by the Supreme Court.

On r/bitcoin and bitcointalk, theymos, as the owner of these sites, have the right to institute rules that limits/restricts speech. This is still censorship, even though he has the right to do this. Most of the rules that are instituted on bitcointalk have positives that vastly outweigh the negatives, such as rules disallowing low content posts/threads (part of the reason this is good is because just because one has the freedom of speech, does not mean that others have to listen to you, and essentially no one wants to read low content posts, especially in masse), filtering where certain types of threads will be located (this makes it easy for someone looking for a particular type of discussion of interest to find said thread) and disallowing the sale of illegal/stolen goods (fairly self-explanatory). There are other rules, however that it is not as clear that the positives (vastly) outweigh the negatives, such as how certain proposals are classified -- I understand theymos' point of view in instituting these rules, however I do not agree with it.

Do you, or do you not, have anything intelligent to bring to the conversation?