|
I am going to be frank:
Your artwork and designs depress me. They make me feel like I am staring at old flyers advertising 50% off diapers at Walmart, in a waiting area behind the restrooms.
Suddenly, a large obese woman with a Walmart vest walks by, with toilet paper on her shoe and a sagging scowl on her face. You can see her old, worn-out panties rising up over her shirt from the back.
That's how your designs make me feel. I can only hope my honest perspective motivates you to create better work.
To be specific, it's very bland. Default gradients, stock photos and clip art are only going to take you so far.
|
|
|
|
I'm very familiar with Buddhist philosophy. I accept everything as-is but I still prefer certain things. I am a nihilist of course, so there is nothing inherently right or wrong. In the end, whatever pleases me is what I do.
Doesn't that make you a Hedonist rather than a Nihilist? Nihilism is simply realizing that there is no objective reality outside the human experience. Beyond that, anything goes. A hedonist would say all men should aim for pleasure. I do not. So if a tree falls and nobody is around, it doesn't make a sound? If an individual percieves it as such. But nobody is around... so no perception occurred by a human. But if there is no noise, why does the deer jump and run off? Or are you counting the deer as an "individual" who is part of the "human experience"? I know you're going to say "but how do you know the deer jumped if nobody was around?". To this I would say, I don't know, but that doesn't negate the reality of the situation. Unknown != Unreal. Reality is merely a perception, even the entities that are obscured. There is no reality. There is only you. There is only your perceptions. Everything is a perception. Everything, in essence, is you. We are you. You are we. We are perceptions. Getting me? I get you, but trust me when I say you're just using rhetoric to avoid really facing the big questions. Trust me when I say there are no big questions. My points is that things are only relevant when you want them to be. Anything goes. It's hard for me to assign any relevance to your questions. So what if a tree falls down and that I am not there to perceive it? In the end, I can make the reality whatever I wish and it would be the same as if it actually happened. I say release all bonds you have to your supposed reality, social conventions and even yourself. Just live, let live. That's at least, how I perceive. Heh, in summary, it just doesn't matter to me. Why should it matter to me? It brings me no scarce joy. |
|
|
|
I'm very familiar with Buddhist philosophy. I accept everything as-is but I still prefer certain things. I am a nihilist of course, so there is nothing inherently right or wrong. In the end, whatever pleases me is what I do.
Doesn't that make you a Hedonist rather than a Nihilist? Nihilism is simply realizing that there is no objective reality outside the human experience. Beyond that, anything goes. A hedonist would say all men should aim for pleasure. I do not. So if a tree falls and nobody is around, it doesn't make a sound? If an individual percieves it as such. But nobody is around... so no perception occurred by a human. But if there is no noise, why does the deer jump and run off? Or are you counting the deer as an "individual" who is part of the "human experience"? I know you're going to say "but how do you know the deer jumped if nobody was around?". To this I would say, I don't know, but that doesn't negate the reality of the situation. Unknown != Unreal. Reality is merely a perception, even the entities that are obscured. There is no reality. There is only you. There is only your perceptions. Everything is a perception. Everything, in essence, is you. We are you. You are we. We are perceptions. You are your perception. Getting me? |
|
|
|
That's it, you're getting on my ignore list.
 |
|
|
|
|
What ruins constitutional republics is a passive populace. Liberty requires constant vigilance.
|
|
|
|
So you wish to completely and absolutely remove all innovation by having no dev team. What happens if a security flaw is found, who will fix it?
Seriously, you haven't thought through the shit you are spewing, and you need to do a lot more thinking before poking the new thread/post button, because what you are proposing is nothing more than absurd.
Please show me where I said there should be no dev teams. You wish to have "no authority over Bitcoin's protocol". If no one has this, then what is the point of having a dev team? And if you have a dev team, what is to stop them from making protocol changes? If a protocol change is needed, the majority of miners will accept it. No authority needed. Nobody knows best but Bitcoin's main supporters; not Gavin, not you but the users and the people that directly serve their transactions. That's the way it already is, what makes you think that it isn't that way? If Gavin submitted a patch to create deflation by changing the block reward to 0 within the next 3 blocks, how many miners do you think would "upgrade"? None, obviously. A more subtle patch could find its way forced in by bribery and through Gavin's singular influence. Deepbit could all ignite massive support by bandwagon. Changes need to take more consideration to be passed. Not a chance. All changes are extremely open and public, and it would be impossible to "slip something by". If you cared, you would follow the commit changes, because even if you can't code, it is still relatively easy to figure out what change has been made by reading the diffs. Not only that, but hundreds of users do follow the commits, and would raise all kinds of hell in the event of something odd happening. I want it to be thousands of users. I want the hell raised to be much stronger. That's all. I think the current checks and balances are still too passive. |
|
|
|
I'm very familiar with Buddhist philosophy. I accept everything as-is but I still prefer certain things. I am a nihilist of course, so there is nothing inherently right or wrong. In the end, whatever pleases me is what I do.
Doesn't that make you a Hedonist rather than a Nihilist? Nihilism is simply realizing that there is no objective reality outside the human experience. Beyond that, anything goes. A hedonist would say all men should aim for pleasure. I do not. So if a tree falls and nobody is around, it doesn't make a sound? If an individual percieves it as such. |
|
|
|
So you wish to completely and absolutely remove all innovation by having no dev team. What happens if a security flaw is found, who will fix it?
Seriously, you haven't thought through the shit you are spewing, and you need to do a lot more thinking before poking the new thread/post button, because what you are proposing is nothing more than absurd.
Please show me where I said there should be no dev teams. You wish to have "no authority over Bitcoin's protocol". If no one has this, then what is the point of having a dev team? And if you have a dev team, what is to stop them from making protocol changes? If a protocol change is needed, the majority of miners will accept it. No authority needed. Nobody knows best but Bitcoin's main supporters; not Gavin, not you but the users and the people that directly serve their transactions. That's the way it already is, what makes you think that it isn't that way? If Gavin submitted a patch to create deflation by changing the block reward to 0 within the next 3 blocks, how many miners do you think would "upgrade"? None, obviously. A more subtle patch could find its way forced in by bribery and through Gavin's singular influence. Deepbit could ignite massive support by bandwagon. Changes need to take more consideration to be passed. More individual entities need to exist. There needs to be gridlock for less-than-important changes. |
|
|
|
So you wish to completely and absolutely remove all innovation by having no dev team. What happens if a security flaw is found, who will fix it?
Seriously, you haven't thought through the shit you are spewing, and you need to do a lot more thinking before poking the new thread/post button, because what you are proposing is nothing more than absurd.
Please show me where I said there should be no dev teams. You wish to have "no authority over Bitcoin's protocol". If no one has this, then what is the point of having a dev team? And if you have a dev team, what is to stop them from making protocol changes? If a protocol change is needed, the majority of miners will accept it. No authority needed. Nobody knows best but Bitcoin's main supporters; not Gavin, not you but the users and the people that directly serve their transactions. The miners need security to continue doing business. They have the direct incentive to form dev teams if no one else will. |
|
|
|
So you wish to completely and absolutely remove all innovation by having no dev team. What happens if a security flaw is found, who will fix it?
Seriously, you haven't thought through the shit you are spewing, and you need to do a lot more thinking before poking the new thread/post button, because what you are proposing is nothing more than absurd.
Please show me where I said there should be no dev teams. I called for multiple competing dev teams. I just don't want a single central one. |
|
|
|
I'm very familiar with Buddhist philosophy. I accept everything as-is but I still prefer certain things. I am a nihilist of course, so there is nothing inherently right or wrong. In the end, whatever pleases me is what I do.
Doesn't that make you a Hedonist rather than a Nihilist? Nihilism is simply realizing that there is no objective reality outside the human experience. Beyond that, anything goes. A hedonist would say all men should aim for pleasure. I do not. |
|
|
|
A huge essay is not accessible to most people. A link to the wiki is sufficient.
There's a lot of area covering the middle ground here, it doesn't have to be one or the other. You can at least put a little bit more effort into it. And don't worry I don't think you overwhelmed anybody. The objective of this piece was to introduce somebody to Bitcoin. Further information will require another piece or chapter which I may do. |
|
|
|
Most people don't need to know such things when they are first introduced to a concept. They learn the inner-workings gradually.
Not everybody is as stupid as you seem to think they are. At the very least add more than a wiki link, link to mtgox, and your btc address. Give them easy access to learn more. A stickied introduction thread should have a good overview with links to discussion threads with deeper discussion about them, which as someone else said is all the current thread really needs (IMO). If people manage to find their way to a bitcoin discussion forum reading an introduction thread, they are probably curious and want information. In the meantime, anyone have some good links to fill out the faq in the existing one? It's all a matter of accessibility. A huge essay is not accessible to most people. A link to the wiki is sufficient. People who want deep details have the intuition to find what they need from the satoshi paper and so forth. I wouldn't want to give E's thread to an intelligent person. It's poorly written and far from the objective: Explain what Bitcoin basically is and not the cogs that make it. My goal is not to overwhelm the user but to make the experience effortless. People are not stupid nor are they slaves. They shouldn't have to serve the material they are reading. It should only serve them. |
|
|
|
The loyalty in this thread concerns me.
In essence, I'm scared of one person having influence over Bitcoin's protocol. I trust nobody and neither should you. Bitcoin is a powerful technology and if anything will kill it, corruption will.
Good luck with that, I want to see your version of the client, security holes and all. Can't improve it yourself? Then stfu. Why would anyone improve something if they don't know what to improve? I will continue to speak. All voices need to be heard regardless of skill. |
|
|
|
|
Might is a fine thing, and useful for many purposes; for one goes further with a handful of might than with a bagful of right. Am I right?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm very familiar with Buddhist philosophy. I accept everything as-is but I still prefer certain things. I am a nihilist of course, so there is nothing inherently right or wrong. In the end, whatever pleases me is what I do.
I'll read this narrative for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
No higher powers. No authority over Bitcoin's protocol. That is all I am truly calling for.
DeepBit, the current Bitcoin dev team, even the client itself are all targets waiting to be corrupted. Anything with major influence is a threat to Bitcoin's stability and long-term survival. One unthoughtful mistake, bribe or ulterior motive could plunge the Bitcoin protocol into an irrecoverable freefall and lead to total loss of trust in Bitcoin altogether.
We need to reduce Deepbit to less than 15% of the computing power so no change approved by its leader has a majority. We need to have countless competing dev teams with varying processes to keep the protocol in check.
We need to have no masters, no leaders and no cult of personalities. No man can stand higher than the Bitcoin protocol itself.
It needs to be made immortal. You can help. You can demand change and revolution. Contest the status quo every chance you get. Criticize, Criticize, Criticize. Question all men that want to change Bitcoin's protcol.
What does not remain standing is not fit to live. Let us all be vigilant and bring Bitcoin into the bright future it deserves and not stagnation and corruption by higher powers.
|
|
|
|
|
The loyalty in this thread concerns me.
In essence, I'm scared of one person having influence over Bitcoin's protocol. I trust nobody and neither should you. Bitcoin is a powerful technology and if anything will kill it, corruption will.
|
|
|
|
|
Quite frankly, I stole the quotes from some Anon on 4chan. I thought it was funny. Really, the OP is just me having my typical dark sense of humor.
Anyways, I have failed to make a clear point it seems.
|
|
|
|
Meh, I like E's post better because it actually talks about how it works, instead of just saying it works.
Most people don't need to know such things when they are first introduced to a concept. They learn the inner-workings gradually. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
