Bitcoin Forum

This forum offers more freedom than any forum I've ever seen, but unfortunately, I often see people petition for less freedom.

https://canduh.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/but-why-meme-generator-but-why-84103d.jpg

The pedantry of the term "freedom" aside, some users choose to compromise their identity to align with the forum's interests, unaware that contributions to a greater unified entity require the restrictions of the individual which thereby impact the connections required to impart the very structure they develop.

I voted to ban sarcasm because clearly there are too many wannabe snarky assholes trying to upset my monopoly thereof. Shoo.

Edit: there's no freedom, haven't you watched the Matrix documentaries? SMH

I meant the one about expression, not about oil ;)

The current rule set is fine. No change is needed imo.

If SJWs take over, I quit.

If you don't want to see some one, just hit ignore.

You do?  Where are these people so that we can rid them of their wrongthink and show them what real freedom is and what will be required of them?

404 error.

You know, I'm actually kind of surprised that I haven't seen more of the SJW ideology being espoused on the forum, since it seems to have permeated even the tiniest cracks of the interwebz.  So I don't think bitcointalk is in imminent danger of crazy far-left liberal infiltration--and yeah, should I see any of that nonsense I'll hit the ignore button so hard and fast I'll need a new mouse afterward.

On a somewhat more serious note: what's prompting you to create this thread, OP?

Almost any rule or regulation takes away a part of the freedom of the individual. But, could we live in a society without rules?
Where do we draw the line between freedom of expression and anarchy?

Just don't let Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg takeover Bitcointalk forum, and will be just fine, but I think Mining section is the place with less freedom then rest of the forum.   :-*

Too late. Have you been to the bounty board? It's all just twitface links.

Please add "Ban users who submit proof of authentication and report posts" to your poll questions. ;)

While freedom is cool, bounties and other awfully managed campaigns need to brought in check. Don't ban the concept of avatar/signature campaign, ban the users who cause the shitshow these campaigns bring in. Forum needs a little, just a tad bit more of stricter rules, and I think there'd be a better balance to things than what there currently is.

---

This is: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5293230.msg55681694#msg55681694

I don't think it makes sense to compare btt to twitter.

One of them is a government apparatus, the other is a simple blog with a main discussion topic. (crypto/btc)

Twitter is so much bigger they can reach more clueless noobs there. They are not making twitter bigger by posting those links, they do it because twitter is already bigger.

I also find it interesting that there is almost no competition to those Big Tech social media.

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram.. they all act like one entity and nobody knows anything else.

Considering Instagram is owned by Facebook, that isn't hard to believe.

The other important thing to note about these social media platforms is that one primary marketplace for the consumer is under the umbrella of a social investment. If you aren't on these platforms that have received the first-mover bias of the initial growth then it makes sense to join the most populous platform (when a typical person does not really discern between large entities and consequences of use). Moreover, you are confronted with the exclusion of a "community/tribe" of your social circles which (presumably) take place on these platforms.

Where is the option to vote against allowing votes?

The far left expect everything for free. If you think you could and will convince everyone to turn communist (so you can do no work) why would you bother investing in stocks now? It's like how it's possible to make a company where employees own an equal stake while working at the company and the company passes its profits on - but not many do...

I'd hope we'd manage to stamp out far leftism and far rightism as strongly as possible from the forum along with any pro authoritarian peeps that come along who want their privacy sacrificing to big data farms.

---

Where's my vote to ban those who don't vote?

The rules of the forum are clear and very easy to keep to; in summary what one has to do is not plagiarize, spread malwares or spam the forum. Not so difficult, right?
I would definitely not prefer the forum to be less stringent as that would reduce the overall quality of the forum (do not lower the bar to accommodate the crowd), although I would vote for the welcome message to be implemented asap. The forum could be a bit of a jumble for new members when they open it for the first time, and a pointer showing how to navigate through, as well as the ethics of it would be a plus.

How this option sticks out from the rest cause it's not capitalized makes me want to vote for this, but pooya87 is a valuable member to the forum, so I'll pardon the rest who do it.

Obviously, I prefer full freedom in this forum, but there is nothing wrong to make any kind of petition.
Now, as part of my freedom, I want to make a petition to stop people from making a petition.

Maybe ban theymos?
Also, ban people who leave space before punctuation and Capitalise Every Word - they really offend me .
Seriously, I'm fine. I think level of democracy is optimal here.

Well, actually Facebook and Instagram is one entity. Even if serious competitor will appear, I think it's only matter of time until it will turn into another shit like these giants.

Omg 9 votes for ban the OP.
If you guys ban the Switzerland's AI all you guys are doomed.

Seriously, poor theymos (BTW he banned Satoshi, so he is the problem)

Does freedom/free will even exist in a world full of hedonists? Forum is a very small part of it, and if one can't get themselves used to the rules here, they must rebel against the governments, the communists, the hippies, and the cults.

It's time Theymos introduces a checkbox while creating an account on the forum to abide by the terms and conditions here so all the wannabe Marxists can fuck right off from the start.

OP actually deserved more than only my 2 Merits. Also I didn't vote and I think polls should be banned.

Sarcasm alert: my post might contain irony. Or not.

The ovine masses will always choose tyranny over freedom, if they are allowed to choose freely.  It in their innate character as natural born slaves.  This is why the freedom of all choices about government must be prohibited to the masses:  To protect freedom.

---

By the power vested in me by the god of Bitcoin (http://bitcult.faith/), I authoritatively ban the whole world from voting on my use of my money.

---

What is it with people preëmpting my posts as I gather evidence for The Pharmacist:


We must be inhabiting different fora.

28% of the total votes till now  goes in the favor of "I'm hurt, ban LoyceV"
I am sure all those people who voted on this option are not serious and voted just for the fun.  ;)

Freedom is good, the misuse of freedom leads back to bondage. I so much wish we continue every other things but ban sarcasm, that has being in my head for long, I definitely know that many rules will change after this bull session, let's every one sit up and be diligent in their works. I don't know if those who actually voted LoyceV be banned are joking, it's not funny if they actually mean it.

You are missing one key option:
Give the freedom of the authoritarians to impose restrictions on others, while not applying said regulations for themselves.

The above is reflective of what many leftists are trying to achieve, both here and in various other institutions, such as the education system and colleges.

The forum administration appears to be very libertarian. This is generally in line with my worldview. My experience on this forum has shaped my view that libertarianism is good, but the 'state' needs to wield a modest amount of power. If the 'state' is too weak, a quasi-state will form that will impose restrictions and regulations on citizens without any kind of real accountability. A good example of this would be the major tech social media companies. Social media companies today hold an outsized amount of influence on public discourse, in some cases, the owners want to remain neutral, but in all cases, the employees have their own non-business agenda, and are powerful enough such that they are not held accountable for their decisions. A modest amount of state regulations on social media companies would largely solve this issue.

I do have to wonder what exactly spurred this topic. I know it has to be something.


You're unironically arguing for more government. How do additional regulations promote "more freedom"? Sounds like your preconceptions of what "leftists are trying to achieve" are 100% in line with your own goals. If you want to tell private businesses what they can and cannot do outside of pre-existing law, you are the authoritarian here. Sorry if Parler isn't working out for you but you don't get to dictate what social media companies can do just because they don't cater to your (supposed) political ideals.

---

Here at the forum, what are the true end goals? (besides those for bounty hunters and everybody else who is here solely to make money). I'd like to think its about maintaining an environment that is conducive to productive conversation about bitcoin, cryptocurrency and the blockchain -- an environment that fosters innovation and ideally a sense of community.

To do this, a balance needs to be found between minimizing the suppression of ideas while making sure the forum is not overrun by spammers, scammers and trolls. If we had no mods this place would be a complete mess! At the same time, heavy handed moderation (which I can't say I've ever experienced much of) is no good either.

So here we are - pretty much same as its always been, plus bounty hunters, lol - working on finding a balance that keeps the forum both readable and free. So what's the problem exactly, LoyceV? Forgot what we were talking about here, if I ever really knew in the first place.

At least the second most popular poll response is the one that actually makes sense: banning bots.

You hit on one of my pet issues:  What you aptly term the quasi-state.  I myself have used that exact term, and similar terms (not on this forum).


Leftists (and to be fair: most people) never pause to consider the origin and meaning of the State in the first instance.

In the abstract, a state is an organized group of people who have the power to enforce their will over others.  It may have other characteristics; but objectively, that is its only essential characteristic.

The only characteristic that distinguishes “the State” from an armed criminal gang is some notion of “legitimacy”.  However, this is purely subjective:  It is an expression of the collective nomos of a society.  If the society is an inner-city neighbourhood, then in the eyes of the members of that society, what you and I call “gang leaders” may well have greater “legitimacy” than the official “government”.

A quasi-state that lacks the capacity for direct physical violence, but has de facto power to control people’s communications and even their economic activity, must be judged by its essential nature, and not by mere labels.  What is “public”?  —Is a “state” which is de facto owned by “private” corporate interests a “public” entity?  —What is “private”?  Is a quasi-state as you describe truly a “private” entity?  —What if the technocratic quasi-state is a “private” legal person created by the laws of a “public” entity which, in turn, is de facto owned by corporate interests?  What horrific ouroboros hath been wrought by unthinking modern apes who confuse their concepts?

---

The foregoing is perforce terse.  Information-dense—a quick notation, not an essay.  The subject matter is not suitable for discussion in the format of an Internet forum.

For my part, I reject all notions of “legitimacy” derived from the dead weight of numbers (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219640.0).  A democratic “state” is in my eyes absolutely no different in kind from the above example of an inner-city neighbourhood gang; it differs only in degree, insofar as it is the largest, most organized, most well-armed gang.  And the “private” corporate creatures which both are created by the “state” according to its “laws”,^* and are the real owners in interest of the “state”, are only other hydra-heads of the same gang.


I do not think that the owners want to remain neutral.  Furthermore, with control having been divorced from responsibility in the modern corporation, you are confusing the owners with the managers.

---

* I do not only refer to corporate law in itself:  The entities hereby in question are typically “public” companies whose ownership is controlled via highly regulated stock exchanges.

---

I was partly alluding to the plain fact that, with some odd twists, much of the DT warring runs along left/right political lines.  In particular, I have observed that certain parties are personally hated and distrusted for their opinions, by the types of persons who are oftentimes even overt in the generality of their biases (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg55263137#msg55263137).

(Partly, I was referring to the objections by sirazimuth and some others to my usage of “he” as a generic singular personal pronoun for a person of unknown sex.)

I'm disappointed with the vote option, we're in Bitcoin Forum, but there's no option to make bitcointalk.org uses public permissionless blockchain >:(
Every member should run bitcoin bitcointalk.org core and reserve 20 TB storage to store all spam post permanently.

Let's start uploading the entire forum to the BSV blockchain, if only to make BSV nodes require 20 TB of storage.

Few reasons:

• They might be an attention whore of some sort.
• There might be a valid reason behind those petitions that aren't clear enough for us or we just misjudged their motives.
• They have a mind of their own and that's what they think is the best route.
• It gives them great pleasure to see others suffer in some way.

- Based on the "issue behind the creation of this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5293230.msg55681694#msg55681694)", I didn't find FullNode's reason to be a valid one, and personally, I classify him/her as the third one on my list.

I'd love to, but that would be way too serious.

So you're saying you want less freedom. Or only less freedom for others?

That was the direct reason to create this topic, but it's been stewing for a while seeing topics asking to bring back Newbie jail, ban Newbies from creating topics or banning alt accounts.

Don't vote ;)

It sounds pretty authoritarian to want to stamp out pro authoritarian peeps.

It annoys me too, but it's part of the forum's mission to be as free as possible (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4538227.msg40849533#msg40849533).
Users who write ALL CAPS are worse though.

Go ahead, nobody is stopping you ;)

Lol, I don't think Bitcointalk is a democracy at all. I'm okay with that.

I'd say those 15 (44%) out of 34 voters (I'm not counting myself) get why I created this topic.
I'm just stirring the pot a bit ;)

I notice it in the news too: many people want more government and more regulations, even though we have a large government with large taxes and more laws than anyone can read already. They always want to force other people to do what they believe is right.

Don't count votes, count voters. It gives a higher percentage.

You think? O0

Isn't that the basis of all restrictions? People cherry pick which rules they follow, whether it's spamming a forum, traffic rules, or murder.

Apart from the popular opinion that I'm an AI, I'd love to have a posting bot (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=949024) again. I can think of many good uses for it.

Currently, 100 GB is enough. I'd love to see what happens to a truely decentralized forum, and I've seen interesting posts from theymos about it, something like: a system similar to the custrom Trust list could be used to decide who's posts you get to see and filter out the spam.

Freedom ends where that of others begins. 
Similarly, one person's rights end where another's begin
 ;)

Or just wait: (Voting closes: December 02, 2020, 08:24:12 PM)
I had to vote too to see the results.

Deleted posts isn't that much data. Editing I'm not sure, but I doubt it'll even double the amount. All Merit data (https://loyce.club/Merit/merit.all.txt) is just 20 MB.

So far for decentralization :(

Basically, don't be a cunt in any way. It's really not that difficult.

But we don't really have that, do we? We have an environment with productive discussions about Bitcoin and anything Bitcoin-related. Most other coins are referred to as either shitcoins and they are being called scams. Not to mention that if I wanted to find someone to talk to about Ethereum or Polkadot and learn something new, I don't know where I would do that on Bitcointalk. 

what is SWJ forum?

Yes, I agree that there are some saying that forum has kimited from when in fact they can post all they want if it does not violate the forum rules. There are just people that are insensitive in regards with other people and that because they too have different culture and way to respond base in the culture they are in. Here in our place if someone fall while sitting on the chair, we laugh a lot, if someone get hit by them while walking around we do not say sorry, we will get mad.

I think getting freedom in the forum depend on the user on how he perceive things around.

What I am saying is, bring a balance to the forum, there needs to be a basic guidelines regarding signature campaign in the forum. Keep the freedom as is, but ban the users that allow excessive spam to occur(aka managers).

I don't think it will ever be easy to figure out how to ban alt accounts, cause everything is IP based. PayPal still struggles to find out who's alt account belongs to who, and bans random accounts, so banning alt accounts is well, difficult to say the least.

As for newbie jail, it is kinda good that it isn't there anymore. Merit system handles out trash newbies anyways. Freedom is fine, some rules need to be brought-forth.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior#:~:text=Social%20justice%20warrior%20(SJW)%20is,%2C%20civil%20rights%2C%20and%20multiculturalism.

In Democracies, the government is accountable to the people. Private companies are accountable to the market, however, if they have a large enough market share, they also control the market. Take YouTube, for example, content creators have to follow YouTube's rules in order to be able to publish their videos and advertise using YouTube's platform (monetize their videos). If YouTube has a rule that you don't like, you have the option to publish your content on another platform, however other platforms do not have the same reach that YouTube has, and you will not earn nearly as much posting on a competing platform. Therefore, content creators will adjust their content to follow YouTube's rules. In effect, YouTube is not accountable for its rules or policies. Modest government regulations could shift some rulemaking onto the government, who would be accountable for bad rules/regulations.

Modern tech companies have their founders have ownership structures in which their founders own a special class of shares that give them control of their companies. They are also the heads of their respective companies or have substantial influence over the heads of their companies.

I would like to believe that Zuckerberg wants Facebook to be a neutral institution so as to maintain public trust in it as an institution. Facebook has a very liberal employee base, so this is oftentimes difficult.

Dorsey on the other hand appears to be using Twitter as a propaganda tool for the far left.

In the US, there are countless local Democrat officials who were telling their constituents not to travel within minutes of traveling themselves. They are imposing restrictions on their constituents, and not following the restrictions themselves, and exempting their own political interests from said restrictions.

Four votes for "Turn Bitcointalk into SJW forum", really? I'm hoping it's a vote to troll the poll. Go to social media where many wokes live if it's not hehe.

I've read in some comments that Loyce is an AI so the ban Loyce should also count for ban bots.

Freedom? I haven't seen any user complaining of not having freedom here, every forum is guided by a common rules to follow, so definitely, failure to abide with it gets you not having freedom.
Spammers and plagiarist mostly have issues of freedom, so no voting poll to ban spammers?

Nah, LoyceV is more like a 'super bot', an AI that controls many bots. Just look at how many sock puppet accounts he has!

I voted "I'm hurt, ban LoyceV", but I think I'd like to change my vote to "Ban sarcasm, I don't get it"

*edit*

OK, now I'd like to change my vote option ten... or was it eleven??  IDK

My request stands:


—Notwithstanding:

Dont worry there are some Users or just say it there is one User with his Alts that have no freedom !
Its CH if you dont know him , but anyway sry 4 the off topic .
I must say its fine as it is now and for sure as many others have written you cant make it right to everybody.

I'm not adding more options to a running poll, that would give inaccurate results.

The amount of time I have spent on this forum, I found that it is like itself a decentralized forum in which no one really controls or there is a dictator or something. I feel free to express my thoughts without having a fear that a ban or warning will come just because my opinions differ from someone else. Hopefully this will continue to be the same as I really like being here and it is like my second home and you all are like my family.

Epic #FAIL:  Start a topic titled, “Do you want more or less freedom?”—and then enforce the
standard, when you are evidently married to this:

https://i.imgur.com/AzB2Pye.jpg

---

Personal irony:  I almost married the lady who first introduced me to Courbet.  She was classy, a stunner in an evening dress.  We spent hours day and night discussing poetry, ballet,^* and classical music; and she was a living enclopaedia of art history.

She herself had posed nude for her own figure-drawing class at university, when she was an undergrad.  And she didn’t have a problem with Courbet (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5293897.0).

Yes, I have some regrets.  She would have been optimal for the production of heirs (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg55635557#msg55635557).

* This was largely about her:

Quote from: nullius on March 23, 2020, 02:29:04 PM

IRL, I have been criticized for my gauche ignorance of ballet and ballroom dancing.

---

Ordinarily, as a gentleman, I would not speak ill of a man’s wife in an Internet argument.  But if you want to hide behind her, and she is a classless harridan who disrespects fine art, then she is fair game.

https://i.imgur.com/ZH9OkQo.jpg

You're still missing the point, that's an existing rule. If you want to fight it, feel free to open a topic but I don't think the Bitcointalk Administration is going to allow you to posts hairy cunts on the forum without warning.

Lol, good luck with that :P

I already opened my topic (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5293897.0)—as a question, for I am aghast at the proposition that my posts violated forum rules.  And I am not the only one; I have received private comments supporting me on the issue, from people whom I would not expect or ask to stick their necks out over it as I am.

hilarious’ answer was the only official one thus far, and was equivocal.

If it is confirmed unequivocally (directly, or via high-level staff) that the forum’s administration prohibits the deleted posts, then I will retitle the topic from a question to a declaration.  And yes, I will argue the case!  Harder than you think.  This is important to me.  theymos is a libertarian (which I am not), so he will probably understand in his own way why I don’t just shrug it off.


Let’s make a deal:  You stand up for your own opinion, without suggesting that I must comply with your wife’s sensibilities per a “Not Safe For Wife” rule ::); and I will not mention her again in this context.  I did not like doing that.  It is terribly rude.  The politics of personal attacks on men’s wives (and otherwise family) is a despicable trend that started in the 1930s–50s.  Very modern.  I detest it.

Agreed?  :P

This poll is not going to get anything close to accurate results as it is. Bitcointalk polls are already not accurate because of the ease of sockpuppet voting, and the options are really not serious. I also personally often vote for poll options that are ludicrous specifically for the above reasons.

You can't have been round here long or haven't paid much attention in Meta. People cry about muh freedom of speech after they've had their ref link removed or their general shitposting.


In your fantasy, I bet. I almost married the girl who introduced me to Limp Bizkit, Jaegerbombs and anal sex. She was an unclassy stunner in some pink velour sweatpants with 'juicy' printed on the arse. We spent hours, day and night, discussing fine literature like 50 Shades of Grey, pole dancing and classic nu metal. She was the living encyclopaedia of the Kardashians and the fine works of Banksy. She even posed nude for PlayBoy's Amateur Sluts of the month section and came in 23rd place that year!  ::) Where's the barf emoji? You sound like one of those unsufferables who pretends to like things they think posh people do just to sound cultured, cos posh people just love classical music, fine wines and entry level 19th-century French painters.

https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/300x/24506651/ohhhh-the-lower-classes.jpg



Did she post the images to an unrelated internet message board?

Do polls ever?

(This one did! (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5293632.0)  I am trying to guess which option you—oh, how foolish of me!  Poll options updated.)

---

That is conduct unbecoming of a global moderator, especially one who appears to be acting in that rôle as to the subject at hand.

It also shows very poor judgment to make grand pronouncements about the personal lives of total strangers on the Internet, on the basis of nothing but an apparent grudge as of which I was unaware.  Jumping to conclusions, from personal dislike:  Do you exercise the same judgment in your usages of the trust and moderation systems?

(Incidentally, in an unfinished draft of my reply to cryptohunter and sirazimuth in the “nullius is a c—” thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5293050.0), I address the point that every intelligent person over the age of thirty knows that an Internet persona conveys only limited information...)


Your “bet” is only safe, because you know that I will not dox myself and spill personal details (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5284102.0) for the purpose of challenging you to a real bet, and then taking your money.

—On second thought, are you trying to bait me to expose myself for the grand prize of Winning An Internet Argument?  You are certainly trying to provoke me.

---

For the record (i.e., for any n00bs reading this), hilarious’ meme pic casts me in a false light:  I have never claimed to hail from the upper classes, or to be rich.  To the contrary, I am quite poor.  And whatever my complicated background may be, it is none of your business:  I rest on the merits of whatever knowledge and culture I may express.