should luke-jr be on Default Trust?

[tspacepilot]

How can luke-jr censor bitcoin with the code? Is it related to the mining software he develops? If so i think its not fine to censor that way since the websites arent scam if im not wrong. So yes, he would try to censor bitcoin by doing so. Even though he cant, it would be a try with a small effect. And thats not ok. Its not up to him to decide what transactions should go through i think. He isnt the bitcoin police.

So i think the ratings he gave are wrong since in fact he tries to censor bitcoin.

Tell me when i misunderstood something.

You misunderstood the relationship of authorship vs censorship.  If I write code, I have every right to write it as I please.  In these days of close-source proprietary software and people installing .exes on their windows machines without looking at the programs they're running, it's a little crazy to be going after a guy who offers open-source code for you to review at your leasure.

Quickseller is trying to smear luke-jr by throwing around these references to "malware" but it's not malware if you read the code and decided to install it on your machine.

What it boils down to is the fact that luke-jr, and anyone else, has the right to run his bitcoin nodes as he pleases and if people don't want to run their bitcoin nodes under his rules they're completely invited to write/edit/modify their own code such that their machines do as they please.  People who don't want their machines to do what luke-jr's software instructs machines to do are masters of their own fate with respect to what they install.   If they install something they din't mean to, it's not an act of censorship.

[1714116062]

1714116062

[1714116062]

1714116062

[1714116062]

1714116062

[1714116062]

1714116062

[1714116062]

1714116062

[1714116062]

1714116062

[Quickseller]

This sort of conflict has happened before. IIRC it was decided in previous cases that if you receive negative ratings for no good reason, then it's OK (but perhaps sub-optimal/petty) to send retaliatory negative ratings until the first person removes their ratings.

It seems that cooldgamer has since removed his negative rating against luke-jr and replaced it with a neutral rating, yet luke-jr still has a negative rating against cooldgamer........would it still be appropriate to have him remain on your trust list since this "exemption" to not being able to use negative trust for personal reasons no longer applies?

[Quickseller]

My understanding of the situation around his "blacklist" was that he did not disclose the "blacklist"

This is false. It was always disclosed, and always optional.

I think we can agree to disagree on this, especially on the fact that it was properly disclosed. There was a delay from the time the code was released to the time that people started noticing the blacklist and once people started noticing, word quickly spread and the overall reception was extremely negative.

I think it is pretty well established that his blacklist was not something that the vast majority of bitcoin users wanted to be using,

The majority of Bitcoin users also did/do not use it.
It is not established that the majority of people using it did not want it, nor that the majority of Gentoo users do not want it.
It is also not established that the majority of people who actually understand it (as opposed to reading lies such as the first quote) do not want it.

Why was it removed then?

I think it should be more then clear that at least 5 of the 9 negative ratings that he has left are questionable at best, and some would argue that those 5 negative ratings were given in bad faith.

No, they are perfectly honest and accurate.

The conclusion that the people you left negative ratings for are scammers are clearly not accurate. I could leave a negative rating against someone with a comment saying that they have an account on bitcointalk.org, but that would not make it an accurate rating.

On the other hand, I was removed from BadBear's trust list after getting two alts of scammer's wrong

So your ratings were false. Big difference from the ratings I gave which are true.

No. I was never given any solid explanation as to which ratings are false, other then "two" were inaccurate regarding alts of scammers, and there is evidence supporting the conclusion that everyone I have given a negative rating against is supported by solid evidence they are a scammer and/or intend to scam in the future.

When you give a negative rating against someone, you are calling them a scammer. The people in question have not scammed, nor is there evidence they intend on trying to scam in the future, nor is there evidence they tried to scam in the past.

[Muhammed Zakir]

How can luke-jr censor bitcoin with the code? Is it related to the mining software he develops? If so i think its not fine to censor that way since the websites arent scam if im not wrong. So yes, he would try to censor bitcoin by doing so. Even though he cant, it would be a try with a small effect. And thats not ok. Its not up to him to decide what transactions should go through i think. He isnt the bitcoin police.

So i think the ratings he gave are wrong since in fact he tries to censor bitcoin.

Tell me when i misunderstood something.

You misunderstood the relationship of authorship vs censorship.  If I write code, I have every right to write it as I please.  In these days of close-source proprietary software and people installing .exes on their windows machines without looking at the programs they're running, it's a little crazy to be going after a guy who offers open-source code for you to review at your leasure.

Quickseller is trying to smear luke-jr by throwing around these references to "malware" but it's not malware if you read the code and decided to install it on your machine.

What it boils down to is the fact that luke-jr, and anyone else, has the right to run his bitcoin nodes as he pleases and if people don't want to run their bitcoin nodes under his rules they're completely invited to write/edit/modify their own code such that their machines do as they please.  People who don't want their machines to do what luke-jr's software instructs machines to do are masters of their own fate with respect to what they install.   If they install something they din't mean to, it's not an act of censorship.

Gentoo Linux Bitcoind was not Luke-Jr's software. You want everyone to be tech savvy to install Bitcoind to prevent that sorta thing? Please don't mix things.

[tspacepilot]

How can luke-jr censor bitcoin with the code? Is it related to the mining software he develops? If so i think its not fine to censor that way since the websites arent scam if im not wrong. So yes, he would try to censor bitcoin by doing so. Even though he cant, it would be a try with a small effect. And thats not ok. Its not up to him to decide what transactions should go through i think. He isnt the bitcoin police.

So i think the ratings he gave are wrong since in fact he tries to censor bitcoin.

Tell me when i misunderstood something.

You misunderstood the relationship of authorship vs censorship.  If I write code, I have every right to write it as I please.  In these days of close-source proprietary software and people installing .exes on their windows machines without looking at the programs they're running, it's a little crazy to be going after a guy who offers open-source code for you to review at your leasure.

Quickseller is trying to smear luke-jr by throwing around these references to "malware" but it's not malware if you read the code and decided to install it on your machine.

What it boils down to is the fact that luke-jr, and anyone else, has the right to run his bitcoin nodes as he pleases and if people don't want to run their bitcoin nodes under his rules they're completely invited to write/edit/modify their own code such that their machines do as they please.  People who don't want their machines to do what luke-jr's software instructs machines to do are masters of their own fate with respect to what they install.   If they install something they din't mean to, it's not an act of censorship.

Gentoo Linux Bitcoind was not Luke-Jr's software. You want everyone to be tech savvy to install Bitcoind to prevent that sorta thing? Please don't mix things.

It sounds like it exactly was his software.  What are you talking about?  You can't say that Luke-Jr was both distributing this code and not distributing this code.

In the gentoo distribution (unless things have changed significantly since I used it some 5 years ago) all software is compiled from source.  People who don't want to know anything about compilers and compiling software shouldn't be using gentoo to begin with.

If you want to run a command line daemon on a linux system you have to know something about a command line. If you want to run a distro that compiles all packages from source you ahve to know something about a compiler and source code.  To pretend that all "non-tech-saavy" people should be building linux from source without reading or knowing anything about source code is pretty outlandish.

My point still stands, luke-jr has the right to put features in the code he distributes.  If people want to use other distros or other code without those features they have every right to do so.  To install code with those features (and what's more to build it from source yourself) and then pretend that those features are some kind of "malware" is quite nuts.

[SebastianJu]

How can luke-jr censor bitcoin with the code? Is it related to the mining software he develops? If so i think its not fine to censor that way since the websites arent scam if im not wrong. So yes, he would try to censor bitcoin by doing so. Even though he cant, it would be a try with a small effect. And thats not ok. Its not up to him to decide what transactions should go through i think. He isnt the bitcoin police.

So i think the ratings he gave are wrong since in fact he tries to censor bitcoin.

Tell me when i misunderstood something.

You misunderstood the relationship of authorship vs censorship.  If I write code, I have every right to write it as I please.  In these days of close-source proprietary software and people installing .exes on their windows machines without looking at the programs they're running, it's a little crazy to be going after a guy who offers open-source code for you to review at your leasure.

Quickseller is trying to smear luke-jr by throwing around these references to "malware" but it's not malware if you read the code and decided to install it on your machine.

What it boils down to is the fact that luke-jr, and anyone else, has the right to run his bitcoin nodes as he pleases and if people don't want to run their bitcoin nodes under his rules they're completely invited to write/edit/modify their own code such that their machines do as they please.  People who don't want their machines to do what luke-jr's software instructs machines to do are masters of their own fate with respect to what they install.   If they install something they din't mean to, it's not an act of censorship.

I first thought its about his cgminer of bfgminer or how his version was named. So its a node software under linux? Its still a mining software right, otherwise i would not know how he can block the transactions.

Yes, everyone can code software he wants. But it sounds like its not a software he owns, he works on it only?

Of course anyone can edit the sourcecode... when he is able to do that.

Though that all doesnt change one thing. He implemented something that in fact is censoring the network. Or how would you name it when random projects (does he not like them or what?) are blocked from being implemented into a block. That prevents that these projects can use bitcoin. Luckily not really because others will implement the blocks but at the moment it looks to me like a clear censoring. And even though he can implement it, for sure, every other person is free to say that this is not ok. Bitcoin should be free and thats it. Not arbitrarely deciding who should be able to use bitcoin.

Or is there actually a good reason for not implementing their transactions? Do they spam the network or do they anything where a sane miner would say that this is bad for the network and will hurt him?

[tspacepilot]

How can luke-jr censor bitcoin with the code? Is it related to the mining software he develops? If so i think its not fine to censor that way since the websites arent scam if im not wrong. So yes, he would try to censor bitcoin by doing so. Even though he cant, it would be a try with a small effect. And thats not ok. Its not up to him to decide what transactions should go through i think. He isnt the bitcoin police.

So i think the ratings he gave are wrong since in fact he tries to censor bitcoin.

Tell me when i misunderstood something.

You misunderstood the relationship of authorship vs censorship.  If I write code, I have every right to write it as I please.  In these days of close-source proprietary software and people installing .exes on their windows machines without looking at the programs they're running, it's a little crazy to be going after a guy who offers open-source code for you to review at your leasure.

Quickseller is trying to smear luke-jr by throwing around these references to "malware" but it's not malware if you read the code and decided to install it on your machine.

What it boils down to is the fact that luke-jr, and anyone else, has the right to run his bitcoin nodes as he pleases and if people don't want to run their bitcoin nodes under his rules they're completely invited to write/edit/modify their own code such that their machines do as they please.  People who don't want their machines to do what luke-jr's software instructs machines to do are masters of their own fate with respect to what they install.   If they install something they din't mean to, it's not an act of censorship.

I first thought its about his cgminer of bfgminer or how his version was named. So its a node software under linux? Its still a mining software right, otherwise i would not know how he can block the transactions.

Yes, everyone can code software he wants. But it sounds like its not a software he owns, he works on it only?

Of course anyone can edit the sourcecode... when he is able to do that.

Though that all doesnt change one thing. He implemented something that in fact is censoring the network. Or how would you name it when random projects (does he not like them or what?) are blocked from being implemented into a block.

I would name it freedom.  The freedom to do as you with with your CPU/GPU, etc.  What would you name it? 

That prevents that these projects can use bitcoin.

As you go on to say, this is not really true. What it does is prevent thoes "projects" from being added to a block which a particular miner will build.

Luckily not really because others will implement the blocks but at the moment it looks to me like a clear censoring. And even though he can implement it, for sure, every other person is free to say that this is not ok.

People are free to say that it's not okay.  But they aren't free to stop other people from doing what they will with computers they own.

Bitcoin should be free and thats it. Not arbitrarely deciding who should be able to use bitcoin.

Bitcoin users (people) should be free to do as they wish with their computers

Or is there actually a good reason for not implementing their transactions? Do they spam the network or do they anything where a sane miner would say that this is bad for the network and will hurt him?

I'm really not ready to argue whether blacklisting transactions from satoshi-dice or whatever was a "good" or a "bad" thing.  Overall, bitcoin is a system in which many competing incentives work together for mutual good (hopefully).  I believe that the freedom of individuals and collectives to follow any one of those incentives as they see fit is crucial for this kind of system to work correctly.  I believe that Luke-Jr has every right to run the most modded version of bitcoin mining software he wants to.  And he has the right to distribute it.  And people who run his software have every right to inform themselves about what it does.  If they decide to skip that step, the consequences are on them.

[Muhammed Zakir]

How can luke-jr censor bitcoin with the code? Is it related to the mining software he develops? If so i think its not fine to censor that way since the websites arent scam if im not wrong. So yes, he would try to censor bitcoin by doing so. Even though he cant, it would be a try with a small effect. And thats not ok. Its not up to him to decide what transactions should go through i think. He isnt the bitcoin police.

So i think the ratings he gave are wrong since in fact he tries to censor bitcoin.

Tell me when i misunderstood something.

You misunderstood the relationship of authorship vs censorship.  If I write code, I have every right to write it as I please.  In these days of close-source proprietary software and people installing .exes on their windows machines without looking at the programs they're running, it's a little crazy to be going after a guy who offers open-source code for you to review at your leasure.

Quickseller is trying to smear luke-jr by throwing around these references to "malware" but it's not malware if you read the code and decided to install it on your machine.

What it boils down to is the fact that luke-jr, and anyone else, has the right to run his bitcoin nodes as he pleases and if people don't want to run their bitcoin nodes under his rules they're completely invited to write/edit/modify their own code such that their machines do as they please.  People who don't want their machines to do what luke-jr's software instructs machines to do are masters of their own fate with respect to what they install.   If they install something they din't mean to, it's not an act of censorship.

Gentoo Linux Bitcoind was not Luke-Jr's software. You want everyone to be tech savvy to install Bitcoind to prevent that sorta thing? Please don't mix things.

It sounds like it exactly was his software.

He was a developer of Bitcoind Gentoo package. I think he was maintainer too. Don't remember about that. Sorry!

What are you talking about?  You can't say that Luke-Jr was both distributing this code and not distributing this code.

Means...?

In the gentoo distribution (unless things have changed significantly since I used it some 5 years ago) all software is compiled from source.  People who don't want to know anything about compilers and compiling software shouldn't be using gentoo to begin with.

If you want to run a command line daemon on a linux system you have to know something about a command line. If you want to run a distro that compiles all packages from source you ahve to know something about a compiler and source code.  To pretend that all "non-tech-saavy" people should be building linux from source without reading or knowing anything about source code is pretty outlandish.

There are many people who knows command lines but don't know to read source codes. Not all people learn all languages and not many people learn the language used to write an open source program to use it.

My point still stands, luke-jr has the right to put features in the code he distributes.

#1. It was not just his software. It was official Bitcoind Gentoo package.
#2. He did not made that public and even made it default.
#3. Even other core developers told it was not good to make it as a default.
#4. According to your view, any developer who don't need approval for commits, can add these things without making this public and without asking other developers.

If people want to use other distros or other code without those features they have every right to do so.

1. Official release.
2. Unofficial release.

Which release will a user who does not know about these things or does not know how to read source go for?

To install code with those features (and what's more to build it from source yourself) and then pretend that those features are some kind of "malware" is quite nuts.

So... when we run commands to compile a source, whatever unwanted things in the program won't be malware. Hmm...?

I know you have a conflict of interest in this but please... don't. No offence.

I first thought its about his cgminer of bfgminer or how his version was named.

BFGMiner - Luke-Jr
CGMiner - ckolivas(-ck)

So its a node software under linux? Its still a mining software right, otherwise i would not know how he can block the transactions.

Its Bitcoind. Bitcoin Core/d/XT or any other full nodes verifies transactions. When he blacklist certain addresses, all transactions related to it will be rejected. BFGMiner does far less than this if he add such a thing. I think it only works if the user is solo mining.

Yes, everyone can code software he wants. But it sounds like its not a software he owns, he works on it only?

Right.

Of course anyone can edit the sourcecode... when he is able to do that.

Exactly.

Though that all doesnt change one thing. He implemented something that in fact is censoring the network. Or how would you name it when random projects (does he not like them or what?) are blocked from being implemented into a block. That prevents that these projects can use bitcoin. Luckily not really because others will implement the blocks but at the moment it looks to me like a clear censoring. And even though he can implement it, for sure, every other person is free to say that this is not ok. Bitcoin should be free and thats it. Not arbitrarely deciding who should be able to use bitcoin.

Or is there actually a good reason for not implementing their transactions? Do they spam the network or do they anything where a sane miner would say that this is bad for the network and will hurt him?

Majority of those blacklisted addresses were of gambling sites. He even blacklisted CouterParty. He said that they were spamming blockchain. As you know, just-above-dust payments are common in gambling and CounterParty.

He should at least make it public and make it optional.


Edit: Wait a minute... By looking at tspacepilot's post(see the excessive use of CPU/GPU/computer/mining), I guess he though Luke-Jr's patch was related to BFGMiner. If so, I hope he realizes, that patch was Bitcoind related. But still, I don't understand how he thinks it is related to BFGMiner when I mentioned in my previous post that it was Bitcoind.

-snip-

I first thought its about his cgminer of bfgminer or how his version was named. So its a node software under linux? Its still a mining software right, otherwise i would not know how he can block the transactions.

Yes, everyone can code software he wants. But it sounds like its not a software he owns, he works on it only?

Of course anyone can edit the sourcecode... when he is able to do that.

Though that all doesnt change one thing. He implemented something that in fact is censoring the network. Or how would you name it when random projects (does he not like them or what?) are blocked from being implemented into a block.

I would name it freedom.  The freedom to do as you with with your CPU/GPU, etc.  What would you name it? 

That prevents that these projects can use bitcoin.

As you go on to say, this is not really true. What it does is prevent thoes "projects" from being added to a block which a particular miner will build.

Luckily not really because others will implement the blocks but at the moment it looks to me like a clear censoring. And even though he can implement it, for sure, every other person is free to say that this is not ok.

People are free to say that it's not okay.  But they aren't free to stop other people from doing what they will with computers they own.

Bitcoin should be free and thats it. Not arbitrarely deciding who should be able to use bitcoin.

Bitcoin users (people) should be free to do as they wish with their computers

Or is there actually a good reason for not implementing their transactions? Do they spam the network or do they anything where a sane miner would say that this is bad for the network and will hurt him?

I'm really not ready to argue whether blacklisting transactions from satoshi-dice or whatever was a "good" or a "bad" thing.  Overall, bitcoin is a system in which many competing incentives work together for mutual good (hopefully).  I believe that the freedom of individuals and collectives to follow any one of those incentives as they see fit is crucial for this kind of system to work correctly.  I believe that Luke-Jr has every right to run the most modded version of bitcoin mining software he wants to.  And he has the right to distribute it.  And people who run his software have every right to inform themselves about what it does.  If they decide to skip that step, the consequences are on them.

[SebastianJu]

How can luke-jr censor bitcoin with the code? Is it related to the mining software he develops? If so i think its not fine to censor that way since the websites arent scam if im not wrong. So yes, he would try to censor bitcoin by doing so. Even though he cant, it would be a try with a small effect. And thats not ok. Its not up to him to decide what transactions should go through i think. He isnt the bitcoin police.

So i think the ratings he gave are wrong since in fact he tries to censor bitcoin.

Tell me when i misunderstood something.

You misunderstood the relationship of authorship vs censorship.  If I write code, I have every right to write it as I please.  In these days of close-source proprietary software and people installing .exes on their windows machines without looking at the programs they're running, it's a little crazy to be going after a guy who offers open-source code for you to review at your leasure.

Quickseller is trying to smear luke-jr by throwing around these references to "malware" but it's not malware if you read the code and decided to install it on your machine.

What it boils down to is the fact that luke-jr, and anyone else, has the right to run his bitcoin nodes as he pleases and if people don't want to run their bitcoin nodes under his rules they're completely invited to write/edit/modify their own code such that their machines do as they please.  People who don't want their machines to do what luke-jr's software instructs machines to do are masters of their own fate with respect to what they install.   If they install something they din't mean to, it's not an act of censorship.

I first thought its about his cgminer of bfgminer or how his version was named. So its a node software under linux? Its still a mining software right, otherwise i would not know how he can block the transactions.

Yes, everyone can code software he wants. But it sounds like its not a software he owns, he works on it only?

Of course anyone can edit the sourcecode... when he is able to do that.

Though that all doesnt change one thing. He implemented something that in fact is censoring the network. Or how would you name it when random projects (does he not like them or what?) are blocked from being implemented into a block.

I would name it freedom.  The freedom to do as you with with your CPU/GPU, etc.  What would you name it? 

Why is it that you are defending luke-jr so much and he doesnt even say a word. Are you actually an alt of him?

I agree on the freedom part though you miss that he is cutting down the freedom of others. You shouldnt be surprised that bitcoiners dont like that.

That prevents that these projects can use bitcoin.

As you go on to say, this is not really true. What it does is prevent thoes "projects" from being added to a block which a particular miner will build.

So? And how would you name that then if not preventing them from using bitcoin? Its obviously what luke-jr wanted and luckily he cant decide that because that software isnt used by every miner.

Luckily not really because others will implement the blocks but at the moment it looks to me like a clear censoring. And even though he can implement it, for sure, every other person is free to say that this is not ok.

People are free to say that it's not okay.  But they aren't free to stop other people from doing what they will with computers they own.

Sure, but its not only his computer. As far as i read he took an open source project he developed together with others and decided against all others that his view of the world has to be correct and the version needs to work like he wants. Its not like its his own project it seems.

Additionally, he made it default so a lot of users wont know about the code lines, and this will be implemented silently. You cant understand why there is an outcry because of that? When gavin would decide that tainting is great for bitcoin and he would force it into the client and let people download it without a notice about the new feature then you would still stay here and claim its gavins freedom to do so? Really? I doubt.

Bitcoin should be free and thats it. Not arbitrarely deciding who should be able to use bitcoin.

Bitcoin users (people) should be free to do as they wish with their computers

Or is there actually a good reason for not implementing their transactions? Do they spam the network or do they anything where a sane miner would say that this is bad for the network and will hurt him?

I'm really not ready to argue whether blacklisting transactions from satoshi-dice or whatever was a "good" or a "bad" thing.  Overall, bitcoin is a system in which many competing incentives work together for mutual good (hopefully).  I believe that the freedom of individuals and collectives to follow any one of those incentives as they see fit is crucial for this kind of system to work correctly.  I believe that Luke-Jr has every right to run the most modded version of bitcoin mining software he wants to.  And he has the right to distribute it.  And people who run his software have every right to inform themselves about what it does.  If they decide to skip that step, the consequences are on them.

Yes, he has every right to do what he wants... at home... with his own miners. Though he decided that an open source software that is widely used needs to follow his rules. Which means many will use it unknowingly. Its not that he changed his private software project or his own miner software at home. Its not "his" software.

[SebastianJu]

How can luke-jr censor bitcoin with the code? Is it related to the mining software he develops? If so i think its not fine to censor that way since the websites arent scam if im not wrong. So yes, he would try to censor bitcoin by doing so. Even though he cant, it would be a try with a small effect. And thats not ok. Its not up to him to decide what transactions should go through i think. He isnt the bitcoin police.

So i think the ratings he gave are wrong since in fact he tries to censor bitcoin.

Tell me when i misunderstood something.

You misunderstood the relationship of authorship vs censorship.  If I write code, I have every right to write it as I please.  In these days of close-source proprietary software and people installing .exes on their windows machines without looking at the programs they're running, it's a little crazy to be going after a guy who offers open-source code for you to review at your leasure.

Quickseller is trying to smear luke-jr by throwing around these references to "malware" but it's not malware if you read the code and decided to install it on your machine.

What it boils down to is the fact that luke-jr, and anyone else, has the right to run his bitcoin nodes as he pleases and if people don't want to run their bitcoin nodes under his rules they're completely invited to write/edit/modify their own code such that their machines do as they please.  People who don't want their machines to do what luke-jr's software instructs machines to do are masters of their own fate with respect to what they install.   If they install something they din't mean to, it's not an act of censorship.

Gentoo Linux Bitcoind was not Luke-Jr's software. You want everyone to be tech savvy to install Bitcoind to prevent that sorta thing? Please don't mix things.

It sounds like it exactly was his software.

He was a developer of Bitcoind Gentoo package. I think he was maintainer too. Don't remember about that. Sorry!

Is this only a small linux version or is it "the" version for linux based original wallets?

My point still stands, luke-jr has the right to put features in the code he distributes.

#1. It was not just his software. It was official Bitcoind Gentoo package.
#2. He did not made that public and even made it default.
#3. Even other core developers told it was not good to make it as a default.
#4. According to your view, any developer who don't need approval for commits, can add these things without making this public and without asking other developers.

See Hearn and Gavin adding tainting since they like it. Would be somewhat similar i think.

To install code with those features (and what's more to build it from source yourself) and then pretend that those features are some kind of "malware" is quite nuts.

So... when we run commands to compile a source, whatever unwanted things in the program won't be malware. Hmm...?

I know you have a conflict of interest in this but please... don't. No offence.

Whats that conflict?

I first thought its about his cgminer of bfgminer or how his version was named.

BFGMiner - Luke-Jr
CGMiner - ckolivas(-ck)

Right. I remember both fighting each other hard some time ago about who invented the software and who stole it from the other to further develop it.

So its a node software under linux? Its still a mining software right, otherwise i would not know how he can block the transactions.

Its Bitcoind. Bitcoin Core/d/XT or any other full nodes verifies transactions. When he blacklist certain addresses, all transactions related to it will be rejected. BFGMiner does far less than this if he add such a thing. I think it only works if the user is solo mining.

Its like bitcoin-qt, only for linux. But is it "the" biggest linux version used? That would be really huge and an even bigger attack. Surely it will only work for solomining since the transactions are only checked manually by the miner.

Yes, everyone can code software he wants. But it sounds like its not a software he owns, he works on it only?

Right.

Of course anyone can edit the sourcecode... when he is able to do that.

Exactly.

Though that all doesnt change one thing. He implemented something that in fact is censoring the network. Or how would you name it when random projects (does he not like them or what?) are blocked from being implemented into a block. That prevents that these projects can use bitcoin. Luckily not really because others will implement the blocks but at the moment it looks to me like a clear censoring. And even though he can implement it, for sure, every other person is free to say that this is not ok. Bitcoin should be free and thats it. Not arbitrarely deciding who should be able to use bitcoin.

Or is there actually a good reason for not implementing their transactions? Do they spam the network or do they anything where a sane miner would say that this is bad for the network and will hurt him?

Majority of those blacklisted addresses were of gambling sites. He even blacklisted CouterParty. He said that they were spamming blockchain. As you know, just-above-dust payments are common in gambling and CounterParty.

He should at least make it public and make it optional.

Right. But luke-jr has a history of doing things his way. I remember him featuring a tonal coin or so. He put it into bitcoin wiki even though he fighted away all other coins from the wiki before, even litecoin. But when he thought a coin needs to be in there it was a different thing. Im not sure why he acts so. At the end he is a good coder and certainly helped a lot of people. But he seems to be somewhat hard to deal sometimes.

Edit: Wait a minute... By looking at tspacepilot's post(see the excessive use of CPU/GPU/computer/mining), I guess he though Luke-Jr's patch was related to BFGMiner. If so, I hope he realizes, that patch was Bitcoind related. But still, I don't understand how he thinks it is related to BFGMiner when I mentioned in my previous post that it was Bitcoind.

bfgminer needs bitcoinqt or bitcoind to mine with it, maybe he overread it or misinterpreted.

BFGMiner surely would contain this code too then.

[iCEBREAKER]

Let's just replace the misleading, wildly inaccurate term "Trust" with the more accurate descriptor "Popularity."

I bet 1 BTC most "Trust" ratings are not based on actual transactions, but rather on whether or not the rater likes the person being rated.

Or, we could charge people to leave Trust Ratings in proportion to the alleged transaction(s) in question.  The current system of free (IE subsidized) ratings is creating too much worthless spam and crapflooding.

This is Bitcointalk, so I want to hear market-based, not centralized fiat-based, solutions here people!  

[Luke-Jr]

Let's just replace the misleading, wildly inaccurate term "Trust" with the more accurate descriptor "Popularity."

I bet 1 BTC most "Trust" ratings are not based on actual transactions, but rather on whether or not the rater likes the person being rated.

You're confusing "Trust" with "Transaction Success/Fraud".
You don't need to transact to trust or not trust someone.

[iCEBREAKER]

Let's just replace the misleading, wildly inaccurate term "Trust" with the more accurate descriptor "Popularity."

I bet 1 BTC most "Trust" ratings are not based on actual transactions, but rather on whether or not the rater likes the person being rated.

You're confusing "Trust" with "Transaction Success/Fraud".
You don't need to transact to trust or not trust someone.

You don't need trust someone to successfully transact with them (esp. with escrow).

But point taken.  Let's stop conflating the two, as it is leading to confusion and abuse in the form of Trust spam/crapfloods.

I propose the board raise funds (and buys adequate DDOS protection) by charging 0.1% of the transaction amount for the privilege of leaving "Transaction Success/Fraud" feedback.

We could make Popularity a separate rating, and keep it free for all the little shitlords who so desperately need to tell the world who they like and don't like.   

Code:

+1 Popularity Luke-Jr

[achow101]

Is this only a small linux version or is it "the" version for linux based original wallets?

It is NOT "the" version for linux, simply the one that you would install from the package manager for the distribution of linux called Gentoo Linux

Its like bitcoin-qt, only for linux. But is it "the" biggest linux version used? That would be really huge and an even bigger attack. Surely it will only work for solomining since the transactions are only checked manually by the miner.

Gentoo linux is not the biggest distro of linux used. The most commonly used one is Ubuntu or Debian.

[Luke-Jr]

Gentoo is a distro tailored to users who want to customise every niche feature of their system.
A commonly given example is optimising for your specific hardware - but that's actually not very common in practice.
More often used, is the ability to choose what functionality your software has; for example, you can build your system without the ability to share files with Windows computers, or disable all GUIs so you avoid all the overhead involved in that (such as for a server).
Gentoo users are used to and expect to investigate and customise each optional feature of everything on their system.
They are generally well-aware of how their system works, and how it all goes together.
When installing a new program, they see a list of optional features, and can easily access descriptions of what each flag does.
When upgrading, they see clearly what new options are available, and which have been removed.

My enhancements for Bitcoin Core have always shown as an optional feature keyworded "ljr".
In the most recent versions, Gentoo users are also given options for "xt" (Bitcoin XT), and independent policy settings such as RBF, CPFP, and my spamfilter.
None of this has ever been hidden, and after there was confusion the first time, I went to extra steps to ensure there was a clear document covering each and every enhancement included in the patchsets I maintain and even after confirming options, users are shown the descriptions of the options they have chosen to use.

[tspacepilot]

Thanks for clarifying, Luke-Jr.  I tried to emphasize that Gentoo doesn't even distribute binaries (or at least it used to not), that all software packages are makefiles and source code and that people who aren't interested in custom builds don't tend to run Gentoo.  The other point is that people who don't likem  what a package maintainers for an open-source distro are doing with that package are totally free to build the package as they like.  You can't say should "freedom" at someone as you tell them what they're not allowed to do with software they write.

[Muhammed Zakir]

-snip-

To install code with those features (and what's more to build it from source yourself) and then pretend that those features are some kind of "malware" is quite nuts.

So... when we run commands to compile a source, whatever unwanted things in the program won't be malware. Hmm...?

I know you have a conflict of interest in this but please... don't. No offence.

Whats that conflict?

QuickSeller.

-snip-
Quickseller is trying to smear luke-jr by throwing around these references to "malware" but it's not malware if you read the code and decided to install it on your machine.
 -snip-

-snip-
bfgminer needs bitcoinqt or bitcoind to mine with it, maybe he overread it or misinterpreted.

No, it does not. You only need Bitcoin Core/d/XT if you are solo mining.

BFGMiner surely would contain this code too then.

I don't think so.

-snip-
My enhancements for Bitcoin Core have always shown as an optional feature keyworded "ljr".
In the most recent versions, Gentoo users are also given options for "xt" (Bitcoin XT), and independent policy settings such as RBF, CPFP, and my spamfilter.
None of this has ever been hidden, and after there was confusion the first time, I went to extra steps to ensure there was a clear document covering each and every enhancement included in the patchsets I maintain and even after confirming options, users are shown the descriptions of the options they have chosen to use.

It might not have been a hidden feature but you did not publicly mentioned about it and ljr spamfilter for Gentoo package was definitely a default feature.

Deploying the 'ljr' USE flag to Gentoo as a default quietly was wrong,
 -snip-

Thanks for clarifying, Luke-Jr.  I tried to emphasize that Gentoo doesn't even distribute binaries (or at least it used to not), that all software packages are makefiles and source code and that people who aren't interested in custom builds don't tend to run Gentoo.

But... does that mean the user will know whatever codes are there in that file?

The other point is that people who don't likem  what a package maintainers for an open-source distro are doing with that package are totally free to build the package as they like.  You can't say should "freedom" at someone as you tell them what they're not allowed to do with software they write.

#1. It was not just his software. It was official Bitcoind Gentoo package.
#2. He did not made that public and even made it default.
#3. Even other core developers told it was not good to make it as a default.
#4. According to your view, any developer who don't need approval for commits, can add these things without making this public and without asking other developers.
#5. According to your view, , when we run commands to compile a source, whatever unwanted things(especially, which were not publicly mentioned) in the program won't be malware. Hmm...?

[tspacepilot]

-snip-
My enhancements for Bitcoin Core have always shown as an optional feature keyworded "ljr".
In the most recent versions, Gentoo users are also given options for "xt" (Bitcoin XT), and independent policy settings such as RBF, CPFP, and my spamfilter.
None of this has ever been hidden, and after there was confusion the first time, I went to extra steps to ensure there was a clear document covering each and every enhancement included in the patchsets I maintain and even after confirming options, users are shown the descriptions of the options they have chosen to use.

It might not have been a hidden feature but you did not publicly mentioned about it and ljr spamfilter for Gentoo package was definitely a default feature.

Deploying the 'ljr' USE flag to Gentoo as a default quietly was wrong,
 -snip-

Thanks for clarifying, Luke-Jr.  I tried to emphasize that Gentoo doesn't even distribute binaries (or at least it used to not), that all software packages are makefiles and source code and that people who aren't interested in custom builds don't tend to run Gentoo.

But... does that mean the user will know whatever codes are there in that file?

I think I'm done repeating this to you after this time, MZ.  If you're using gentoo, you're taking control of your system and compiling every single package from source.  When I last did this on an old laptop some 6 or 7 years ago, getting open-office compiled and running took approximately 2 days.  Using gentoo linux just isn't done by people who don't take the time to look at the package options for the software they're building.  If it is done without looking, then people are on the hook for what they installed.  Imagine it like this, I send you a contract and you sign it.  You can say later things like "o, I didn't read it"  or "o, the font was too small so I put it off reading it until I had better glasses".  But at the end of the day, you signed it, and you had the entire contract in front of you.

The other point is that people who don't likem  what a package maintainers for an open-source distro are doing with that package are totally free to build the package as they like.  You can't say should "freedom" at someone as you tell them what they're not allowed to do with software they write.

#1. It was not just his software. It was official Bitcoind Gentoo package.

For which he was the maintainer, which clearly make it his software.  If someone else had ported bitcoind to gentoo, then they would be in charge of their port.

#2. He did not made that public and even made it default.

All source code is downloaded and compiled with makefiles in the gentoo system, it's quite public.  Nothing is hidden

#3. Even other core developers told it was not good to make it as a default.

Reasonable people often disagree about things.  This is expected

#4. According to your view, any developer who don't need approval for commits, can add these things without making this public and without asking other developers.

According to my view, people are in charge of the repos they are in charge of.  Some repos may be maintained under a consensus model, but when there's an open and free license, anyone can make a fork and do what they want

#5. According to your view, , when we run commands to compile a source, whatever unwanted things(especially, which were not publicly mentioned) in the program won't be malware. Hmm...?

According to my view, if you are compiling "malware" to run on your own computer, you are in the world of big-kids who have to take the consequences for the software that they put onto their own machines.