But is there a more recent quote?  The impression I get is that Gavin doesn't seem amenable to talking about the matter now.  As others have already said, it would be ideal if Gavin removed any ambiguity and came out firmly against Faketoshi.  For reasons that only he can know, he hasn't chosen to do that.  That's the part we're finding inexcusable.  Because all the time there's ambiguity, Faketoshi gains an audience, people listen to what he has to say and start to use his bullshit arguments as if they were truth.  I can see how you, of all people, might be oblivious to the danger there.  


//EDIT:

As franky1's subsequent posts are likely to be deleted, I'll add my response to this post to avoid cluttering the thread:


You pay lip-service to calling Faketoshi a scammer, but you continue to use his so-called arguments to attack Bitcoin.  You could call Trump a misogynist, but if you then extolled the virtues of "grabbing them by the pussy", I would still think you were influenced by him and were just as shitty a person as he is.  You have absolutely been scammed because you genuinely believe what Faketoshi says and try to convince others of the same.  Are you familiar with the phrase "useful idiot"?  Here's a quote from wikipedia to help you out:


That's you.

I still feel like people are reading way too much into this satoshi gag.  I don't know if it's just a symptom of modern times for everyone to be a conspiracy theorist wingnut, but it's kinda sad.  You literally can't say anything these days without someone misinterpreting it as a "fact".

It's.  A.  Joke.

For all the people saying they've predicted stuff in the past, on a long enough timeline, if you worked with a group of people for 30 years writing thousands of jokes about stuff that might happen in future, a small number of them probably would come true at some point.  It wouldn't mean every joke you've ever told is some sort of coded message that you know what the future holds.

Unless you mean it matters to you personally because it would benefit you, this is another common preconceived bias that isn't accurate. 

Contrary to popular belief, no, the US is not the centre of the known universe.  If you think one geographical region "matters" more than another, you probably need to check your privilege.

Bolded part wasn't there when I hit reply.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's some sort of Machiavellian-esque plot.  You've just gone about it in what, to me at least, appears to be a slightly sly way.

Coming back to the logic part, you've included a list of suggested exclusions from this little brigade of yours.  How does excluding people from the group that would compel them to be more objective result in you achieving your goal of them not leaving you undesirable tags?  I'm not quite following that part. 

If I proposed you stop hitting me in the face via the guise of a forum post proposing best practice for hitting people in the face objectively and providing a list of users I thought might be well-suited to judging when it's correct to hit people in the face, rather than simply just coming out and saying it?  Kinda, yeah.

1)  User doesn't like the tags they have been given by other users
2)  User proposes changes to the way tags are handed out
3)  User benefits if/when they are no longer tagged in a manner they don't approve of

Seems to follow logically to me.  Are you saying that doesn't sound self-serving?

So it's all about you?  Do you honestly believe they would be more receptive to the idea if another user had been the one to propose it?  The way I see it, unless it's coming directly from theymos, few users are likely to alter their usage of tagging based on something a forum user is advocating.  Particularly when it seems to be an act of self-interest that would directly benefit the user proposing it.  You said it yourself:


That's the angle here.  You want to influence their behaviour in how they act towards you.  I think people see it for what it is, which is why they're giving you a hard time about it.  Why would you expect an honest debate when you can't be honest about your goal?

To get us back on topic, there's an interview published yesterday with Adam Back discussing Schnorr/Taproot at the ~1:36:00 mark:

https://twitter.com/crypto_voices/status/1231187957832409088


The interviewer specifically asks about any concerns he might have, but Dr. Back didn't seem to raise any.  They briefly alluded to a potential dispute that might arise at some point later in time over where to draw the line over privacy (naturally falling in the "privacy = good" side of the argument), but nothing in regard to concerns over the BIPs themselves.

Mentioning something in passing does not derail a topic.  Attempting to focus all the discussion on that thing so that we aren't discussing the original topic anymore is derailing the topic.  Guess which one you're doing.

At the time of writing, Bitcoin's last code commit was made within the last 24 hours, so I don't see how anyone of sound reasoning could call it "outdated".  If Bitcoin went for several months without any updates being made, then sure, it would be falling behind in the race.  But updates are made all the time.  Most coins wish they were as actively developed as Bitcoin.

People need to stop talking about John McAfee, he's an unhinged fruit-loop.

Finally someone starts talking sense.  Thought I was alone there for a minute.  There seems to be a lot of "Drax-esque" failure to comprehend going on in this topic:

You do know the idea of a comedy show is to make jokes, right?   

I mean, I could explain the joke, but then it would cease to be funny.

So rise above it.  The alternative, if you don't amend the prior tags, is that people might assume you still feel those tags were justified despite not being objective.  Meaning that sometimes subjective tags are appropriate.  This would sadly undermine the argument you are trying to present.

From the way you describe "them", I suspect overhauling the tagging system will not change their attitude or behaviour towards you.  Is that what you're hoping to achieve?  They'd stop persecuting you if they had to tag objectively?  I think you're going to be left disappointed on that front however the tags might be used going forwards.  Same goes for CH/TOAA/etc.

Okay, so you're feeling a little persecuted here, but, objectively, whatever you think their motives might be in pointing it out, those older tags could be amended.  Then, you leave them with nothing legitimate to pick at.  People will be able to tell if they are inventing new and untrue things to accuse you of.  When in doubt, try to be beyond reproach, even if human nature sometimes makes that impossible.  Then you can hold your head up high, knowing you're in the right.

Is it wrong for them to point out the double-standard, though?  You're the one professing tags have to be objective.  If you really want to do this thing, maybe consider leading by example and update or remove any old tags you've left that don't conform to the standards you'd now prefer everyone else follow?  Just a thought.

Fair play to you, then.  I just don't see how depriving everyone access to crypto is particularly helpful to the innocent.  Ultimately, the ones who do bad things aren't going to care if their use of crypto is legal or not, so it's not going to deter them either way.  It's only the law-abiding who would suffer as a result.  Therefore, it may as well be open to everyone.

I'm certainly not shocked about an exchange being evasive about the region in which they are based.  That seems to be par for the course.  Try to keep your involvement with them to an absolute minimum if possible.

Nor am I at all surprised that certain parts of a regulatory framework in any given country can give conflicting statements to other parts of the regulatory framework in that same country.

Personally, I see it as more of a "them" problem than an "us" problem.  I suspect crypto will generally continue to operate in a legal grey area (and often moral grey area as well) in most countries for many years to come.  It doesn't particularly matter if the steps are slow, as long as we continue to make steps without sacrificing any of our fundamental values.  I'd be far more concerned if we were making rapid developments in government acceptance by undermining the foundations that make all this stuff work.  It's going to take time for governments to accept the way in which we do things.  That's only natural.

The overwhelming impression I'm left with is that you're allowing fear and prejudice to warp your perspective.  Bitcoin was designed with no borders in place, so your preference for certain nation states to attempt to restrict access because of your views of the regional politics and violence occurring there is, quite frankly, perverse.

I don't know if they're basing it on this rather rudimentary equation or not, but it seems to be an odd coincidence if not:

21 million BTC / Global population of ~7.5 billion = .0028 BTC

1 is two decimal places away from 100, so move the decimal place by two... ?

I wouldn't personally feel comfortable describing it as "statistically guaranteed" if that's how they're working it out, heh.

I probably could have been clearer in the OP, but bitrefill have already refuted the allegation.  Twice, in fact.