Bitcoin Forum

Well, me and Luke-Jr had a little argument lately. Link to full discussion:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=150493.220

So I am curious - what is your opinion after looking at the discussion - is Luke-Jr an enemy of Bitcoin ?
Should you double-check his commits in the source ?

Short transcript of the most interesting parts:


However i advise you to check the whole discussion. Veeeeery interesting.



EDIT:
Also you may want to check this out before making an opinion:


Plus this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133974.20

Keep your bitching/personal problems with forum members to meta or Off-Topic please... :(

The amount of people who know what's best for Bitcoin's future is TOO DAMN HIGH in this forum already!

God, OP......

You're beyond stupid. Please stay the fck of this forum already.

I guess i'm also an enemy of bitcoin too.

This kind of childish crap will hurt the image of btc everyday.

This is not my personal problem. This is ours potential problem now.

So I just wanted to raise awarness of the problem.

To answer the Q in your thread title: No.

How long have you known Dashjr?

No. Does that make me an enemy of Bitcoin too?

I only know him on the forums, since 2010.

----
Just raising awarness and colleting opinions here.

Define perfection.


Good monarchy is better than bad anarchy, bad democracy, bad whatever. But who guarantees that a monarchy stays good? Where's the possibility and incentive for positive change to be initiated by the plebs?

If you want to have a discussion, learn to quote better first. I cannot work with that.

While I don't like the tone, this about sums up the original quoted conversation.

You are digging way too deep.  You sound like an intelligent guy and your time is more valuable doing other things.  Just because you are not Libitarian does not mean you don't like Bitcoin and cannot use it.  You said to read the whole thing, well sorry I have better things to do... 

I find that few people, even some devs understand the philosophical nature of money and how the Bitcoin network operates socially. The discussions are good. Don't make them personal.*


Except against libertarians.  ;)

I realize i went slighly overboard with this poll, but i guess even if 99% people say "No", it will at least raise awarness of the "social punishment vs mathematical algorithms" problem.

And i still will consider Luke-Jr an enemy of Bitcoin.

bitcoin is just a currency...please leave your political views at home.

i already read the original thread and was quit shocked that you even need to make another thread for this shit.

so please: just shut up...

hint: people who have other opinions than you are not automatic your enemy.

I thought Luke-Jr being a religious authoritarian statist zealot was old news?  :D And yeah, code should be double checked, no matter who adds it.

this

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133974.20

+1

They are if their different opinion is that they should beat you and even kill you whenever you refuse to do something they say.

Wrong. Not MY enemy. *Bitcoin's enemy*.

Luke-jr: Would you ever change any of the core principles of bitcoin:

1) The limited supply
2) The decentralised nature

A yes or no will do, there are no inbetweens to take on that.

I don't like people   with  mentality like that they destroy anything they touch...  

If it's because of what he said in the discussion you quoted then you have no clue as to the actual position bitcoin takes in society.
Bitcoin is a balancing force to the rigidness of the current monetary systems.
But without the deep roots of conventional economy bitcoin becomes worthless.
This is because globally stuff like food, energy and technology are the product of these conventional economies.

So in reality the best thing is to have both and i don't understand why Luke-Jr would be an enemy of bitcoin because he doesn't see bitcoin in the same extreme way that you seem to.
The notion of "If you're not with us you're against us." has a pretty sick history.

bitcoin is just a currency.
its only enemies are people with big pockets full of fiat.

its a p2p currency which means: everybody can do as he wants to (this includes sdice AND luke-jr not letting their transactions in his blocks).

so please.. just calm down a little.

See, these are the little mistakes that screw things up.

This should be 'power' instead of 'fiat'.
And so once bitcoin becomes big enough we will have exactly the same problems that all currencies have. And people will be screaming for regulations etc.

All this naive libertanian fluff is just an indicator that bitcoin is not making a serious dent.

Bitcoin certainly has some pro's but it also has flaws that will require new laws to make it work on any large scale.

one thing i really love about bitcoin is, that laws just wont work.
as long as the protocol stays the same (or only has minor modifications) i am able to start a mining operation and let my transactions get processed.

if that ever changes you're right. but then there wont be any difference between bitcoin and fiat anymore.

I don't really consider him an enemy of Bitcoin, although he really seems self-centered about his own beliefs sometimes.

I got caught into an edit war on Bitcoin Wiki over the SatoshiDice article when I tried to make the SatoshiDice article more neutral by removing all straight "SatoshiDice is a DDoS attack" accusations, which weren't even backed by any references. Eventually he told me he would only allow my edits to stay if I specifically told in the article that SatoshiDice is a DDoS attack. Looking at his previous contributions in the wiki ( 1 (https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=SatoshiDice&diff=35689&oldid=35681), 2 (https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATonal_Bitcoin&diff=31044&oldid=31031), 3 (https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Litecoin&diff=19470&oldid=19468) ), it wasn't the first time his "facts" were met by criticism.

With such a foolish behavior, he is doing harm to Bitcoin.
This is the reason i think he is an enemy of BTC.

Actually this so good I am gonna re-paste it into the top post.

If we limit only libertarians to Bitcoin then we will not get very far.

Following Ron Paul, he brought in many liberals and others who were against the Federal Reserve because they understood how bad the Fed actually is and what they are doing.

Some people may believe that Bitcoin will make government programs more efficient so that we can have more government. Who knows.

While libertarians can use Bitcoin as a tool to free ourselves from government control. It can also be used as a tool by many other ideological beliefs.

Kim Jung Un could adopt Bitcoin for North Korea tomorrow and revel in dictatorial power as NK's GDP skyrockets and he uses the power to oppress his people even more and build a buttload of nukes.

Nah, there will be plenty pro's for bitcoin in that situation. For one, you cannot print more bitcoins.
So i think Luke-Jr is right about bitcoins position in the real world.
The way i see it, even IF bitcoin fails to be better than fiat on most accounts it is still a pretty good currency for the internet.

I'm not sure you see his point.
It is technically correct to call it a DDoS attack.
 ;D

this thread is ridiculous.
op should admit that other poeple having other viewpoint are not always enemys.
This make me think that op must have some troubles to figure out the diference between a democracy and a battlefield...

Democracy is a battlefield. It's the majority oppressing me, robbing me and ultimately threatening to kill me if I don't do what they say. Just because I constantly tactically retreat does not mean I'm not in a fight.

Luke-Jr might not share the ideals of Bitcoin spirit but he is good at coding. Even if Luke-Jr is wrong socially, his code adheres to laws of math and computing, so he cannot break these laws easily without anyone noticing. Double check his commits and Bitcoin are safe for now.

The OP is right in most accounts. I don't agree with most of libertarian views, but I'm hardcore unregulated internet freedom and anti-censorship activist. So making Bitcoin into regulated currency is completely unacceptable.

Luke may not realize this yet, but ideologically he is an enemy of Bitcoin.
What he believes in stands in direct opposition to the ideals which created Bitcoin.

Maybe he will realize this some time in the future and start fighting Bitcoin - you never know.


As hazek already pointed out, democracy is a battlefield of a sort.

You point out using 'neutral' comments in the wiki with reference to SD but then use "(Luke-Jr) an enemy of Bitcoin".

Luke's opinion differs from others but is in alignment with others too.

Just because his view is different doesn't make him an 'enemy'. I disagree with him on this matter but the ultimate ends between he and I are similar. Taking two roads that lead to the same destination doesn't make someone an enemy. In fact, 'enemy' is a pretty strong word. On that should rarely be used.

My bigger concern is the consolidation of power. We even have a 'members only' club with seats on boards and everything. NYSE v. 2.0 "Settle accounts at the end of the week Thurman" Not that it is bad to have such but with consolidation of power comes corruption. I'd prefer the -devs stayed neutral to such things but meh... Spitting in the wind tends and all.

A community isn't composed of people that all think alike, it's composed of people that think differently but co-exist together peacefully to promote the community.

Personally I don't care about Luke as far as his beliefs go. As long as people check his work, and I have no doubt all dev's work is checked not just Luke's, I don't mind what he wants if he leaves me alone.

Actually, this is what I2P developers already do. So it is possible for sure.

Well, if the guy likes people telling him what to do and how to act, let him be.  As long as he doesn't turn BTC into fiat, his work can only help Bitcoin.

We should double-check everyone's commits. Even Satoshi's.

I actually think this could be beneficial since I imagine it would bring about more wariness and scrutiny which I think is exactly what we want with new code.

I'm 99% sure he is something between a tech-savvy kid and an autist. His social skills are too low, so his deeds look strange to the others. I doubt he is an enemy of Bitcoin, coz he used to attack altcurrencies. Not sure he did it to defend Bitcoin, maybe it was just an expression of his personality, but anyway...

If I were you I would just ignore him. Autists are the best programmers, so while he writes a code for Bitcoin we should be patient.

Dont mix up autists and aspergers. They are similar, but most often social awkwardness and extraordinary computer skills are aspergers.

No, though he's hard to be persuaded.

So, people who don't share your vision of Bitcoin are enemies of Bitcoin?

I think you need a better argument than that one, honestly.

Double-checking commits is good practice for every developer.  I know they'd be thrilled if someone was double-checking their work and pointing out flaws.

Anyone who sticks bible sayings in the block headers from their pool isn't exactly right in  the head.

Déjà vu:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62037.0

Sweet Jesus...

I knew that there is something seriously wrong with this guy.

For better or worse, he has also outright attacked other alt-chains. http://bitcoinmedia.com/luke-dashjr-throws-book-at-solidcoin/

I also recall he destroyed another alt-chain coiled coin using his Eligius mining pool to 51% it and effectively undermine the trust of said chain. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=56675.0

Whether these were smart decisions or not, Luke AFAIK has only acted in his best interests, (luckily they have also coincided with Bitcoins interests). BIP16/17 also demonstrated he is perfectly willing to undermine the leadership of Bitcoin's developer group to pursue his own agenda.

I don't personally hate the guy, he has added considerable expertise and support to Bitcoin over the years, but it is obvious he is a man that flies under his own flag. Just be aware of his past before you guys start picking sides.

NO!

I'm quite possibly a libertarian. At least I am so in the general sense of the word and not the American one. However, I think your assertion by itself is harmful to Bitcoin as a movement. Maybe you are the enemy of Bitcoin in this sense, no?

I'm joking of course, but I hope you are also joking...


Bitcoin depends on social phenomena. It doesn't depend on "mathematics" in the correct sense of the word. You trust that the majority of people involved in Bitcoin will want it to work. It's a very wise thing to do, but that wisdom comes from the society as an organism, not something independent of that. I'm not suggesting to label Bitcoin with some loaded term like "democratic", but it is what it is.

Although I think it doesn't make much sense (i.e. what the hell is "perfect"?), I can guess what you mean by human imperfections. Bitcoin doesn't route around that, but you could say that it uses some conventional methods to dampen it.


Let's not extend the phrase "poisonous people" out of the context of open source development. Most capable programmers have obsessive personalities. I imagine a lot of us can become poisonous in that sense in different situations, I know I have been a lot of times.


Wasn't that the only way of being a libertarian? ;)

Error: This sentence contains no actual argument.
I cannot work with that, please elaborate.


Nope. I am dead serious.
If you are an enemy of libertarian principles, then you HAVE to be an enemy of Bitcoin, whether you realize it or not. It is simple logic:

Bitcoin itself is much more hardcore than Libertarianism (closer to anarchy), so if one doesn't agree with libertarian principles, one also cannot agree with anarchy/crypto-anarchy principles, so it is logically impossible for that person to agree with what Bitcoin stands for. Unless the one doesn't undserstand logic.

I thought it was a well known argument, almost as old as this forum. Not all Bitcoin users are libertarians, and neither all the people who contributed to the project. We also don't want it to be confined to libertarians. The statement of "If you are enemy of Libertarianism, the you are an enemy of Bitcoin as well" does not reflect well on Bitcoin's image. I know very decent people who like the idea of Bitcoin who can also be viewed as enemies of Libertarianism as much as Luke-Jr. Is there any benefit to antagonizing them?


I agree that all structures have a normative aspect. However I can't see what kind of system you have used to derive the norms from the structure itself. It's hard to defend the idea of a normative nature without committing a naturalistic fallacy.

From a naive point of view, Bitcoin doesn't "stand for" anything. It's a tool. You are relating it to libertarianism because of what the tool may be used for. But if you think there is a bidirectional connection, the burden is on you to prove that. By "simple logic", you have to show that Bitcoin as a whole is and can only be anarchic. It is quite hard to argue for an impossibility.

Maybe you are relating it to libertarianism because you imagine that it is created FOR something. So, if there is such an a priori norm, even the failure of the structure itself from upholding it could be irrelevant. But how did you get access to such information? And how is it binding?

If the people from solidcoin indeed stripped away the MIT licence from the sourcecode than a DMCA is the least this community should do to ensure the future of this type of cryptocurreny.
Luke did the only right thing in this case and this community should have ejected the people from solidcoin for biting the hand that fed them.

I think you are seriously confusing ideals with an actual working implementation of a cryptocurrency.
The implementation can be perfectly viable in society even if it fails to live up to the expectations of an ideal.
Bitcoin is just an informational tool.
If you think that bitcoin is somehow magically anarcho anything then you are wrong.
Bitcoin cannot (now and in the forseeable future) operate without the centralized economies we have now.
Strip away all things that are produced by or paid for by the fiat economy and bitcoin is nothing.
No computers, no internet, no radio, no science, no modern world to think up anarchistical ideals in to bring down the society that created this free time for you to think.
You are eating your own tail, but you haven't noticed yet.

Bitcoin is firmly rooted in our modern (centralized) society.
It is fully defined in terms of centralized society and cannot exist without it.

Fortunately the people shouting words like "anarchy/crypto-anarchy principles" usually don't make enough with their paper rounds to really make a difference..

I voted 'I don't know' just to see the stats. Amazing!

I don't think so, because he wears an orange shirt when he speaks at public functions.  ;D

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2012/0412/pg2_e_blue2_sy_576.jpg

I'm just waiting for you to accuse him because of the fork ;D

From what I've seen of Josh Blue LukeJr on stage, I don't think he should be in procession of sharp objects.

Link to video please ?

Sure! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0pdmqdb5Uc

At 1:52, LukeJr hi-five's a fellow dev.

Enjoy!

Luke has a point.

As much as I'm a libertarian, it's also true that social rules make life a lot easier.

You don't have to be a libertarian to use Bitcoin.

AFAIK libertarians believe that social rules are n3ecessary, but there should be a minimal government.


No, but you cannot be against libertarianism either, you have to accept that there are libertarians (and even anarchists & crypto-anarchists) using the currency and live with it.
Otherwise sooner or later you will start to fight what you don't like, which makes you an enemy of Bitcoin - that is what I am talking about.

Its exactly the same with cash - because of people who are against cash, governments of the world are actively fighting cash, and forcing every bigger money transaction to be bank-to-bank transaction.

+1

Yes, bitcoin is fully agnostic about any human beliefs.

Wielding the pen sharply, are we?

The concept of a brainwallet is incompatible though with Marx's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

Reality is populated by humans, who created machines. Your delusion is true so long as you believe it.

And when someone shuts off the computer for you, you will return to reality.

Reality is ONLY VERY VERY SCARCELY populated by humans so humans are basically irrelevant in any discussion about reality...

Only pokin' a little fun at LukeJr's expense. I ain't got no horsey in this here race, but I do admire the work LJ does, albeit I don't understand it, let alone able to do it.

I made the mistake another time of calling out the looks of some other user's avatar, of which he changed shortly thereafter. I learnt later that he's not a bad looking fellow. As far as myself goes, I may look halfway decent, but when I smile one can see I'm missin' a few teeth. Probably the only feature about myself I would change, and will with extractions and dentures. At least my brain's still sharp as a box of crayons.

U mean half of ur brain? LOL

he already ironed that out!

I see, sorry for my little English  ;D

Is there an echo in here?

Over in the Politics forum, there's a constant argument between the libertarians and others. I can't stand libertarianism myself. Just my opinion, but libertarianism is a terrible idea, and there are sound arguments as why it is.

Oh, and besides, Bitcoin is impotent against taxes. How deluded do you have to be to think Bitcoin could ever allow one to evade taxes except when it's a hobby currency?

Think. If Bitcoin becomes useful, then taxes will be implemented differently. For example, taxes will be based on the height of your fence, or how many shingles are on your roof, or how big your waist is.

Don't be a moron.

FirstAscent, I want you to know that I've decided to fence off all of my property.  In honor of your posting here.

Then you will make a great slave.
But don't count me in.


They can take your car and your house, but they will still be unable to take your Bitcoins. You can sell the house and car for Bitcoins, and they cannot take anything from you anymore.

So taxing people having Bitcoins is not as easy as it might seem at first. This will probably lead to lowering taxes to an acceptable (for almost everybody) level.

I myself think that the TOTAL amount of taxation (including all hidden fees and taxes) should not exceed 10%. 10% is a fair amount of taxation which i could bear.

Are you going to live in your flashdrive full of bitcoins? No. You're then going to have to rent from someone who owns a house and pays taxes, and he'll pass the expense on to you. You're a bonehead.

Why do you think that? They would increase the taxes instead.

Actually, I'll tell you what happens when masses don't want to pay taxes... The people that pay taxes get rich, and the rest begin working for them. Sounds counter-intuitive, doesn't it?

First, they increase barriers of entry to do anything substantial. Sure, you can sell trinkets online or baby sit, but that will be the limit of your business reach. Business that conform dominate every market and pass the expenses to the customers. Customers rush to gray markets, but they also get overwhelmed by big businesses in time.

Moral of the story: You need to have a very good plan if you are going to challenge the State's power.

Now, back to the topic, you are still saying this:


This is speculation on your part. What if I don't think it will ever come to that because libertarians are impotent? I can perfectly support Bitcoin because of some features I like, and I might think that the potential use by libertarians will never be a problem in a scale greater than the benefit Bitcoin brings.

You could say that they might become damaging to your plans of using Bitcoin to libertarian ends, but that's what being an enemy of libertarianism means anyway.

 ::)
Can't disagree!

It's also a good idea to think twice about the true nature of the "State's power".
Who owns it, for example...

Read the transcript of bitcoin-dev on IRC from March 11. Luke Jr. is an effing genius and we should be thankful to have him working for bitcoin. And on a side note, classical liberalism (Locke) is not incompatible with a monarchy :) I don't know if classical liberalism and libertarianism is the same, though.

Seriously OP, what is your problem?
Someone contributes his/her free time to code on a project that you are a fanboy of -- how is this bad?

Facepalm

I don't have a problem. It's more like other developers also find him as weird...
Look what Gavin thinks about the guy: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62037.0

Yeah, ok. I apologize.