1) The following is completely false:

This assumes that: a) Everyone uses Linux. b) That people using Linux don't have an easy method for updating. This is false; most non-sophisticated (if not ALL such users) are going to be using something like Ubuntu or Mint which has PPA and updating is trivial.
Updating Windows and Mac is very trivial. If you know how to install Bitcoin Core, then you should know how to update it.

2) Updates can never be automatic for a decentralized system as such. Even adding something like a 'update available' notification system can open up more attack vectors and is (as always) prone to abuse.

I thought it was Sjors, but I didn't want to spread potentially false information as I wasn't completely sure. Well yes, Blockstream is implied for everyone who's been around for a while (hence why I didn't mention it). I guess it wouldn't be bad to keep a list like this somewhere; maybe the community could create some pressure in order to get other big companies to at least hire 1 person to work on the reference implementation. This also helps with *development decentralization* (me recalls the bcash nonsense 'Blockstream = most commits' or w/e).

"Bitcore™ © BitPay, Inc. Bitcore is released under the MIT license." Stabbing my eyeball with a fork would be more pleasant than using an implementation made by a malicious actor.

If this mr. Sinatrra12, who has no trading history of any kind (and thus can't be trusted to handle any money-related work), is willing to employ someone to falsely attack the competition then who knows what else he is willing to do.  

Whining when your lies get exposed will not help you. Nobody in their right mind is going to support your bullshit nowadays. It's kinda pathetic how butthurt you still are after all this time.

You are the one who brought up suspicious and 'hidden interest' FYI. Unrelated to my question.[1] I was just wondering why this particular dispute is interesting to you because there are literally thousands of complaints (albeit they may not be the same, but the general approach is consistent). I haven't seen you active in this section before (you seem to be active elsewhere); that's why the question and that's it.

What exactly are these masters and who are "his masters"?

---

[1] There is usual suspicion when low ranking accounts pop up after a long period of activity and jump on a side (usually the wrong one). You don't fit either criteria.

The truth meter for that post:

---

It still hurts that we killed your account farming and selling business, doesn't it?

Out of curiosity: Who exactly are you and why are you particularly interested in this particular reputation issue? Outlier names tend to catch my old eye, although I'm not up to date with all the newly active individuals here.

Correct, you got caught. Not everything posted publicly gets noticed. 

I don't really care whether you're willing to put up the effort to gather support from kool-aid drinking XMR bagholders. You're clearly responding emotionally to this as you got caught, and thus can't be trusted.

You blew your second chance when you falsely tagged The Pharmacist and me in a malicious attempt to tarnish our reputations.

All pictures, videos and/or livestreams claiming to be done from satellites or rockets are fake!!

His problem is not getting his way. OP PM'd both The Pharmacist and me asking us to remove their rating. Upon not answering said PM, OP proceeded to leave false negative ratings on both of us which is absurd. However, this doesn't come as a surprise as people who get caught doing shady things do not tend to respond rationally.

You can't even a draw distinction between fact and fiction, which alone makes you unpredictable. You are not trustworthy to me, nor anyone who is thinking clearly. Therefore, the system is working as intended.

Libertarian bullshit again, ain't it?

This has nothing to do with free speech. You can post the same way that you would regardless of the state of your trust rating. Any change in such would be a decent indicator of hidden motives.

Unpopular =/= objectively false (a.k.a., a lie).

It's utterly disgusting how greedy some of the leading companies in this space are, and just how fraudulently their leaders tend to represent themselves with statements of support/belief in Bitcoin or similar. AFAIK, blockchain.info has hired 1 employee (although I can't recall which whop) and there was a Xapo listing for a Bitcoin Core developer some time ago (I'm not sure what happened with that). Other than those two, I haven't seen other examples of companies doing this.

Given the absolutely shameful disaster of a post that he wrote on medium, he deserves nothing IMO.

Are you seriously trying to use retaliatory, non-trusted, negative feedback (which is in 99% of the cases objectively false) as an argument while replying to a user which is one of the top contenders for the highest number of such received ratings?

If they are objectively spreading false information over and over again, then it is very much right.
To be case-specific: You have to be a complete nutjob to believe the flat-Earth bullshit; they are similar to the anti-vaxxers gang (although the latter causes much more collateral damage). On the other hand, you have to be a nutjob to willingly transact with a flat-Earth believer if you don't have to.

Maybe you should avoid trying to apply "investment wisdom" on software engineering, especially security-related engineering. Just a thought.

This says everything. I sense a strong IT background.

I don't need to see it; you've already described it as a one-person (garbage) project.

When it comes to 0 reviewers vs. decent number of reviewers, that's objectively false.

That's obviously better for everyone.

No; stop using this thread as a means to promote an implementation that has 0 active reviewers (and probably 0 users; excl. the creator).