What is wrong with theymos and the other mods?

[turvarya]

I am not often on reddit, I don't even have an account there, but yesterday I spend some hours looking into the drama that happened/is still happening there.
Do you want to know, what other people are thinking about that? I got a mail from the LTB network(I hardly ever get mails from them, so it seems to  be an important topic from them) to look at this thread:
https://letstalkbitcoin.com/forum/post/upcoming-bitcoin-hard-fork-r-bitcoin-censorship

So, I thought, maybe they have learned, but what do I see after I got here today: censorship again. Seems like the pro-XT-threads are moved to the altcoin-section and the anti-X-Threads are allowed to stay.
Seriously, nobody in his right mind, regardless of where he stands in this discussion, can think about these other than a big abuse of power.

So:
Theymos or any other mod: What is wrong with you? Who do you think you are? The new dictators of every Bitcoin discussion. Do you really think, that is what Satoshi wanted?

[1715460120]

1715460120

[1715460120]

1715460120

[1715460120]

1715460120

[lottery248]

I am not often on reddit, I don't even have an account there, but yesterday I spend some hours looking into the drama that happened/is still happening there.
Do you want to know, what other people are thinking about that? I got a mail from the LTB network(I hardly ever get mails from them, so it seems to  be an important topic from them) to look at this thread:
https://letstalkbitcoin.com/forum/post/upcoming-bitcoin-hard-fork-r-bitcoin-censorship

So, I thought, maybe they have learned, but what do I see after I got here today: censorship again. Seems like the pro-XT-threads are moved to the altcoin-section and the anti-X-Threads are allowed to stay.
Seriously, nobody in his right mind, regardless of where he stands in this discussion, can think about these other than a big abuse of power.

So:
Theymos or any other mod: What is wrong with you? Who do you think you are? The new dictators of every Bitcoin discussion. Do you really think, that is what Satoshi wanted?

i hate XT, but his random post deletion is absolutely unacceptable to most of the posters.
he should stop himself from banning those threads otherwise i would see a disaster of the reddit (r/bitcoin).

[S4VV4S]

Why moved to the alt-coin boards?
I thought Bitcoin XT worked with Bitcoins as an alternative client.
I haven't read or heard anywhere that it functions with any other coin.

Also, I agree that this should be open for discussion and not be censored, not because I support one side or the other but because that is how Bitcoin was built.
Censorship is against what Bitcoin supports IMO.

I do also think that we have way too many threads on the subject.
Perhaps someone should create just ONE thread with all the pros and cons of both clients and the discussion can take place there.
No need for all these threads, nor the drama.

[kelsey]

tis Theymos' board


you're perfectly free to start your own and run it like you see fit

[WhatTheGox]

I've been seeing tons of threads over at reddit, tbh there is an answer and that is to make your own social networks if you disgaree with current options.  Bitcoin could do with more forums etc to become more distributed.

[chek2fire]

I didnt see anything strange here. BitcoinXT is an altcoin and has nothing to do with bitcoin.

[AGD]

Why moved to the alt-coin boards?
I thought Bitcoin XT worked with Bitcoins as an alternative client.
I haven't read or heard anywhere that it functions with any other coin.

Also, I agree that this should be open for discussion and not be censored, not because I support one side or the other but because that is how Bitcoin was built.
Censorship is against what Bitcoin supports IMO.

I do also think that we have way too many threads on the subject.
Perhaps someone should create just ONE thread with all the pros and cons of both clients and the discussion can take place there.
No need for all these threads, nor the drama.

It is not just an alternative client, but is intended to be a fork in the future. This is nothing more and nothing less than an altcoin.
The altcoin section on Bitcointalk is more or less hidden for months now, because of the spamming, so why not doing the same on /r/Bitcoin?

Naming an altcoin BitcoinXT isn't enough to replace Bitcoin, even when a main Bitcoin developer says it does. I still wonder why Gavin is going through all that, knowing he is dividing the community.

[chek2fire]

I repsect Gavin too much before this. Now i only see a shady person that act for his secret own propose. this is very pathetic and i am very sad for him. He break his reputation in the real bitcoin community and not in the financial market community that it seeems that is the BitcoinXT target space.

[turvarya]

I repsect Gavin too much before this. Now i only see a shady person that act for his secret own propose. this is very pathetic and i am very sad for him. He break his reputation in the real bitcoin community and not in the financial market community that it seeems that is the BitcoinXT target space.

Could you please not hijack my thread with your bullshit?
If you agree with what the mods are doing: Fine, that is your opinion.
But I don't want this thread do get full of this nutjob conspiracy theories.
This thread is not about BitcoinXT itself, there are plenty of other threads about that.

[iCEBREAKER]

Theymos or any other mod: What is wrong with you? Who do you think you are?
The new dictators of every Bitcoin discussion. Do you really think, that is what Satoshi wanted?

OK Ms. First World Problem Lady, what you need to understand is...






































Source:

Do not violate our rules just because you disagree with them. This will get you banned from /r/Bitcoin, and evading this ban will get you (and maybe your IP) banned from Reddit entirely.

If 90% of /r/Bitcoin users find these policies to be intolerable, then I want these 90% of /r/Bitcoin users to leave. Both /r/Bitcoin and these people will be happier for it. I do not want these people to make threads breaking the rules, demanding change, asking for upvotes, making personal attacks against moderators, etc. Without some real argument, you're not going to convince anyone with any brains -- you're just wasting your time and ours. The temporary rules against blocksize and moderation discussion are in part designed to encourage people who should leave /r/Bitcoin to actually do so so that /r/Bitcoin can get back to the business of discussing Bitcoin news in peace.

The purpose of moderation is to make the community a good one, which sometimes includes causing people to leave.

[eyeknock]

tis Theymos' board


you're perfectly free to start your own and run it like you see fit

haha, exactly, and people should start to realize it, there is nothing that they cant do againts that, if you dont like it, just dont come here, as simply as that.

[Thekool1s]

I am not often on reddit, I don't even have an account there, but yesterday I spend some hours looking into the drama that happened/is still happening there.
Do you want to know, what other people are thinking about that? I got a mail from the LTB network(I hardly ever get mails from them, so it seems to  be an important topic from them) to look at this thread:
https://letstalkbitcoin.com/forum/post/upcoming-bitcoin-hard-fork-r-bitcoin-censorship

So, I thought, maybe they have learned, but what do I see after I got here today: censorship again. Seems like the pro-XT-threads are moved to the altcoin-section and the anti-X-Threads are allowed to stay.
Seriously, nobody in his right mind, regardless of where he stands in this discussion, can think about these other than a big abuse of power.

So:
Theymos or any other mod: What is wrong with you? Who do you think you are? The new dictators of every Bitcoin discussion. Do you really think, that is what Satoshi wanted?

And here i am i dont know what is this all about, Can someone explain me in simple words what this is all about? What is XT? Sorry i dont have much knowledge about technical stuff behind bitcoin. But this seems to be a big issue from what i can see.

[agath]

tis Theymos' board


you're perfectly free to start your own and run it like you see fit

haha, exactly, and people should start to realize it, there is nothing that they cant do againts that, if you dont like it, just dont come here, as simply as that.

Censorship is bad, and usually it comes to action when there is something to hide.

[Lauda]

1) There is nothing wrong with them.
2) This isn't censorship.
3) What is wrong with you? You created the thread in the wrong section (i.e. B. Discussion; in addition to there being a thread for this).

I just can't understand why people can't follow simple rules. r/Bitcoin is meant for Bitcoin only, and not for any other altcoin or programmed altcoin (i.e. XT). Theymos is such a good person that he has given other coins a section in his forum that is meant for Bitcoin (i.e. BITCOINtalk.org), yet people complain. Sigh.
I also don't understand how a reasonable person can accept/support XT.

[DooMAD]

I've seen quite a few people throwing this Theymos quote around, so let's actually take a closer look at it:

I'm impressed at the level of Bitcoin knowledge of bitcointalk.org users compared to /r/Bitcoin users. Most of the people in this thread and other similar threads are interpreting the issues correctly (or at least with some evidence of actual thought), unlike most Redditors.

I don't think it makes sense to call Bitcoin XT an alt-coin anymore than it does the current version of Bitcoin Core, which has hard-forked several times since it was introduced.  Furthermore, Bitcoin Core will only fork away from Bitcoin XT when XT has 75% of the hash power behind it.

Bitcoin's hardforks (though some people don't classify them as hardforks) were done with consensus among the the Bitcoin community/economy/experts. In the current state of the debate, any max block size increase won't have consensus, though I think that consensus on a compromise proposal might be achievable in 6-18 months.

Activating a hardfork based on what miners do is really bad. You could easily have a situation where 75% of miners support XT but none of the big Bitcoin exchanges or businesses do. Then miners would start mining coins that they couldn't spend anywhere useful, and SPV users would find that they can't transact with the businesses they want to deal with. The currency would be split, and in this case XT would be in a far weaker position than Bitcoin. The possibility of this sort of network/currency split is what makes XT not a "legitimate hardfork", but rather the programmed creation of an altcoin. A consensus hardfork can only go forward once it has been determined that it's nearly impossible for the Bitcoin economy to split in any significant way. Not every Bitcoin user on Earth has to agree, but enough that there won't be a noticeable split.

Bitcoin is not ruled by miners. In a hardfork, miners barely matter at all. (Softforks are different.) What's important is what the economy does.

To summarise, he's basically saying if the economy doesn't follow the miners, there's a problem.  Which is a negative spin.

But at the same time, the statement would be equally true if he had phrased it to say that if the economy does follow the miners, there isn't a problem.  Positive spin.  

A subtle change in emphasis makes all the difference.  The only thing he's really giving here is an opinion.  He thinks a fork would be bad and he's trying to make it sound as scary as possible.  He's more than welcome to his opinion, but it's not beyond repute.

If Bitcoin forks and people go with the flow, everything keeps working normally.  There is no drama.  First we'll see if the network reaches the consensus threshold and if that happens, we'll then see who tries to fight the current and gets swept away.  That's how it would work regardless of what the client is called or who coded it.  If it was bitcoin core that introduced the 8mb patch, the fork would occur once the network reaches the consensus threshold and if that happens, we'll then see who tries to fight the current and gets swept away.  Same story, different name.  At the end of the day, it makes no difference.  Another equally valid outcome is that the alternative client reaches consensus and the core devs concede and release a version of core supporting 8mb blocks and then there's no bickering over a silly name or the personalities involved.

It's only an altcoin if it forks without consensus.  If he wants to keep moving threads to altcoins because of his opinion, I honestly couldn't care less.  It's only going to polarise the discussion, encourage controversy and make people dig their heels in.  If anything, it's generating more support for the alternative client than there otherwise would be.

[Zz]

There is nothing wrong here. Altcoin discussions belong to that subforum/subreddit. I don't want to read any altcoin discussion in Bitcoin subreddit or Bitcoin forum.

[turvarya]

I've seen quite a few people throwing this Theymos quote around, so let's actually take a closer look at it:

I'm impressed at the level of Bitcoin knowledge of bitcointalk.org users compared to /r/Bitcoin users. Most of the people in this thread and other similar threads are interpreting the issues correctly (or at least with some evidence of actual thought), unlike most Redditors.

I don't think it makes sense to call Bitcoin XT an alt-coin anymore than it does the current version of Bitcoin Core, which has hard-forked several times since it was introduced.  Furthermore, Bitcoin Core will only fork away from Bitcoin XT when XT has 75% of the hash power behind it.

Bitcoin's hardforks (though some people don't classify them as hardforks) were done with consensus among the the Bitcoin community/economy/experts. In the current state of the debate, any max block size increase won't have consensus, though I think that consensus on a compromise proposal might be achievable in 6-18 months.

Activating a hardfork based on what miners do is really bad. You could easily have a situation where 75% of miners support XT but none of the big Bitcoin exchanges or businesses do. Then miners would start mining coins that they couldn't spend anywhere useful, and SPV users would find that they can't transact with the businesses they want to deal with. The currency would be split, and in this case XT would be in a far weaker position than Bitcoin. The possibility of this sort of network/currency split is what makes XT not a "legitimate hardfork", but rather the programmed creation of an altcoin. A consensus hardfork can only go forward once it has been determined that it's nearly impossible for the Bitcoin economy to split in any significant way. Not every Bitcoin user on Earth has to agree, but enough that there won't be a noticeable split.

Bitcoin is not ruled by miners. In a hardfork, miners barely matter at all. (Softforks are different.) What's important is what the economy does.

To summarise, he's basically saying if the economy doesn't follow the miners, there's a problem.  Which is a negative spin.

But at the same time, the statement would be equally true if he had phrased it to say that if the economy does follow the miners, there isn't a problem.  Positive spin.  

A subtle change in emphasis makes all the difference.  The only thing he's really giving here is an opinion.  He thinks a fork would be bad and he's trying to make it sound as scary as possible.  He's more than welcome to his opinion, but it's not beyond repute.

If Bitcoin forks and people go with the flow, everything keeps working normally.  There is no drama.  First we'll see if the network reaches the consensus threshold and if that happens, we'll then see who tries to fight the current and gets swept away.  That's how it would work regardless of what the client is called or who coded it.  If it was bitcoin core that introduced the 8mb patch, the fork would occur once the network reaches the consensus threshold and if that happens, we'll then see who tries to fight the current and gets swept away.  Same story, different name.  At the end of the day, it makes no difference.  Another equally valid outcome is that the alternative client reaches consensus and the core devs concede and release a version of core supporting 8mb blocks and then there's no bickering over a silly name or the personalities involved.

It's only an altcoin if it forks without consensus.  If he wants to keep moving threads to altcoins because of his opinion, I honestly couldn't care less.  It's only going to polarise the discussion, encourage controversy and make people dig their heels in.  If anything, it's generating more support for the alternative client than there otherwise would be.

And what really buggers me about that, is that he doesn't even express the opinion, that BitcoinXT is an altcoin. I looked into this other thread, I missed before I made this one and theymos doesn't even try to defend his censorship, he just doesn't talk about it at all.
It's sad to see, how this whole debate brought out the worst in so many people and they don't even realize it. I don't think, a lot of them have reflected about, if what they are doing is ethically right.
You just see all the stupid propaganda that you see in politics. So, far about Bitcoin will overthrow all that evil politics.

[iCEBREAKER]

It's sad to see, how this whole debate brought out the worst in so many people and they don't even realize it. I don't think, a lot of them have reflected about, if what they are doing is ethically right.
You just see all the stupid propaganda that you see in politics. So, far about Bitcoin will overthrow all that evil politics.

This debate started years ago.  If it "brought out the worst in so many people and they don't even realize it" that happened a long time ago, before you got here.  So how would you be able to tell the difference, having never known most of us before "this whole debate" mutated us into neckbearded C.H.U.D.?  The answer is, you can't and are simply making stuff up.

You're just upset because feeling very strongly in favor of XT is not enough to magically raise the block size limit.

So here you are, pouting again.  In the wrong sub, no less.  Telling the sysop how to run his board.  And you're getting away with it.

Here, you can even say stuff like "WTF MILLIONS FOR YET ANOTHER FUCKING FORUM AND PENNIES FOR DDOS PROTECTION, HOW MUCH ARE YOU EMBEZZLING THERMOS?!" and it's cool.  Thermos doesn't GAF.  Watch this:

Seriously, WHAT GOOD IS A FANCY NEW FORUM IF ITS FUCKING DOWN ALL THE TIME!!!1!

See?  It's fine.  Happens all the time!  Whatever.   

You can even mention altcoins on Bitcoin threads (we frequently mention Monero on Frap.doc's thread, just to piss him off, LOL).  All you have to do is follow the rules about keeping (altcoin) posts in the proper (altcoin) subs.  Once you stop pouting, it's pretty easy.

It's hard to find a more chill admin than thermos.  That's why he was Chosen by Satoshi to run the place.

If you think you can do a better job moderating, https://voat.co/v/bitcoinxt could really use your help!

[Lauda]

-snip-
It's only an altcoin if it forks without consensus.

75% is not real consensus. Introducing checkpoints to ignore the longest chain is not consensus either. I do wonder how you ignore the buggy "patches" within XT, since you seem to approve (approve =/= support) of it?

What is also interesting is that I've yet to see a reputable member switch to XT. More and more shills are joining the discussion in addition to a few legendary accounts waking up (coincidence? I think not).
Update:

And this is different from every other bitcointalk discussion... how?

I'm solely talking about shills that are defending XT, which makes me think this was carefully planed some time before it started. Your first post was made in this very thread.

[meono]

OP, does that answer your question?