jgarzik goes berzerk in #bitcoin-dev, wtf?

[ArticMine]

The Internet and the World Wide Web are two very different things. As someone who actually used the Internet before the World Wide Web existed I know, and yes the Internet was started by the US Federal Government.

Technically speaking the World Wide Web is currently 99% of the Internet so, your statement is quite misleading especially for the uneducated public! As already mentioned, everything was started not by the US Federal Government, but by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Actually it is not my comment that is misleading, it is the other way around especially in this community since Bitcoin uses the Internet but not the World Wide Web to transfer funds.

[1714323342]

1714323342

[1714323342]

1714323342

[thoughtfan]

OK, I'm going to risk getting crushed by some of the high horses here, not in order to add anything that hasn't already been said, but to present things from a slightly different perspective that might be of help to someone.

First I want to talk more generally about exchanges such as this one has been.  Whilst I jest about high horses I also acknowledge some here have personal experiences that appear to have led to passionate and principled positions.  I'm not saying it oughtn't be so.  Yet there's a danger when one feels so strongly about something that we drag in related but not necessarily directly relevant points and mush them together to present a highly principled and inflexible viewpoint surely nobody in their right minds could disagree with.  Again I'm not criticising but there is a problem in this in that it can lead to outrage when despite it being so 'obvious' others still aren't seeing things our way.  It is only a short step from there to insults and we end up with increasingly entrenched positions and missing the opportunity available here for us all to understand one another a little better, to be learning from one another and venturing to re-evaluate our own positions in the light of the rich diversity of opinions being expressed.

I'm not going to go anywhere near addressing all, or even the primary issues raised in this thread but I would like to attempt to untangle two of the ideas.

First this idea of whether or not there should be a Bitcoin representative body.
We have:

• Glad there is one, pleased with who is on it, grateful they appear to be doing a good job;
• Maybe there should be one but not these folks if they are not behaving in a way consistent with my value system (or the value system I see Bitcoin as representing);
• Having one (and having elections) is not consistent with my value system (or the value system I see Bitcoin as representing) but if there is one they shouldn't be behaving in such and such a manner.
  

As far as I can see (and this was brought home to me by having it pointed out that its name is not 'The' Bitcoin Foundation but Bitcoin Foundation) whilst its main product may be called the 'official' client and has heritage/lineage, being Open Source there is nothing about the code nor its use that gives these folks a privileged position.  Reasonable options, depending on where one stands with reference to the above list include:

• deciding it's a hopeless position and stopping being involved with Bitcoin;
  
• deciding to use/develop alternative client software in order to weaken any claim to the bitcoin.org software having the title 'official';
• deciding to instigate/support the forming of another representative organisation, even if one doesn't believe in the idea of one but would rather support one with different values than the present one;
• etc. etc.

There is one position I don't consider to be reasonable:  'I don't like the fact that Bitcoin Foundation exists and that it claims to represent me (where was that claim?) therefore I want them to adopt the Bitcoin principles I deem to be true and to act accordingly.'

The other thing that is not coded into the software AFAIK are ideological/political principles.  It is transparent to all that the built-in rules virtually amount to a fully fledged monetary policy (and the headline in the first block gives us further clue as to what was behind it) but once the rules were coded in all we have is a set of rules defining the behaviour of Bitcoin.  It is then 'out there' and independent of any ideology or political standpoint.  We each can use it in the way we deem appropriate for our own ends and/or to further our own values.  Sure we can extrapolate from the rules (and from historic threads etc.) what we believe the intended ideology behind Bitcoin was but not even Satoshi has the right to say unless a user believes in certain principles and behaves in a prescribed manner (outside of the coded rules) they shouldn't be involved.

It's the difference between being attracted to Bitcoin because the rules concur with our world view and saying Bitcoin is the saviour of our world view and anyone using/developing it not in accordance with our world view is committing sacrilege.

Sorry that got a bit long!

[ArticMine]

Can some please explain to me how using Bitcoin to purchase a song by an Iranian musician from a site in Finland violates the US sanctions against Iran with citations to the actual documentation from the US Federal Government?

By the way we must keep in mind that Microsoft propriety software was used by the Iranian Government to enrich Uranium so the Open Source software argument is very thin in my books.

[becoin]

This is not completely false...

What statements are false on the CERN website?

Mod, this is not off topic! Some people here are trying to convince me that the US Federal Government has the right to bully people that use 'their' property, the Internet (aka WWW).  

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

This is not completely false...

What statements are false on the CERN website?

None. CERN website is true but still your statement is false and misleading since Internet was created by US Government & Military, not by CERN.

Also, it seems you have no idea how the internet actually works and this may be the reason of your invalid line of reasoning.

[becoin]

None. CERN website is true but still your statement is false and misleading...

In what way my statements are false? If the Internet and the WWW are 'very, very, very, very, very, very' different, which one do you use to write on this forum? When was the last time you used gopher which is part of the Internet but is not part of the WWW?

[repentance]

The other thing that is not coded into the software AFAIK are ideological/political principles.  It is transparent to all that the built-in rules virtually amount to a fully fledged monetary policy (and the headline in the first block gives us further clue as to what was behind it) but once the rules were coded in all we have is a set of rules defining the behaviour of Bitcoin.  It is then 'out there' and independent of any ideology or political standpoint.  We each can use it in the way we deem appropriate for our own ends and/or to further our own values.  Sure we can extrapolate from the rules (and from historic threads etc.) what we believe the intended ideology behind Bitcoin was but not even Satoshi has the right to say unless a user believes in certain principles and behaves in a prescribed manner (outside of the coded rules) they shouldn't be involved.

I think this point is often overlooked.  Bitcoin is a protocol and once in the wild people can use it for whatever they want.  There is nothing at all stopping different groups using it for different purposes.  There is no "one true Bitcoin agenda".  Different groups want to use Bitcoin for different purposes and some of those purposes are at odds with others.  How Bitcoin is used by the majority will determine its main function, but that doesn't render its other uses unimportant.  Nor does it mean that the majority will use it for "its original purpose" - Satoshi's intention can be made irrelevant over time by how it is actually used.

One organisation or one group cannot be all things to all people.  Different organisations and groups need to emerge representing the different agendas people within the Bitcoin ecosystem have.  

[thoughtfan]

Of course then they had no idea what the project they started would become after many years. If they knew, government would scrap it and it would never see the light.

I'll use this as an excuse for a post script because it illustrates the futility of trying to too closely tie a technology to the ideas that may have given rise to it.  If anybody had the resources to keep the internet/ARPANET on the 'straight and narrow' to serve its initial purpose (and not its antithesis) it was the US government.

It just makes no sense to me to be criticising developers for displaying behaviour some of us deem to be not 'in the spirit' of Bitcoin.  However highly we may value our concepts of freedom, the technology itself is even freer in not being limited to them.

Once again, Bitcoin may have been created to fulfill a purpose but once out there 'it' has no purpose.  Where it ends up, including possibly nowhere, will be as a consequence of the aggregate of the way each of us (and others not yet involved) chooses to use it.

Edit:  I wrote this before seeing repentance's reply.  I guess this confirms we're on the same wavelength on this one!

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

None. CERN website is true but still your statement is false and misleading...

In what way my statements are false? If the Internet and the WWW are 'very, very, very, very, very, very' different, which one do you use to write on this forum? When was the last time you used gopher which is part of the Internet but is not part of the WWW?

You don't understand what you are talking about.

The internet and WWW are indeed very very very very very different, the same way as roots of the tree are very very very differnet from leaves of the tree.
Technically speaking HTTP is only one of the top-level protocols of the Internet, and it is not even responsible for the most of the traffic !

Since you don't understand, let me show you. This is how The Internet is built:


Hint: Everything below the Application layer comes from ARPANET. HTTP/WWW is completely in the Application layer.

When you post a topic on this forums, it goes through multiple layers of technology which all evolved from ARPANET before it can reach the server.

EDIT:
I found an even better schematic:


Also, here is the wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite#Layers_in_the_Internet_protocol_suite

[becoin]

You don't understand what you are talking about.

I know, I know. You don't know that the Gopher protocol presented an alternative to the World Wide Web in its early stages, but I'm the one that doesn't understand how the Internet is working, huh?

[repentance]

One interesting question I think this discussion raises is whether Bitcoin is mature enough yet to survive without the official client being updated.  If the core devs walked away from Bitcoin tomorrow, what would that mean for the future of Bitcoin?  Another question is whether Bitcoin has now become overly dependent on those who are "in it for the money" - let's face it, people aren't spending tens of thousands of dollars on ASICs to maintain the network - and what that means for the future of Bitcoin.

[Gabi]

I have a question: what would happen if a iran guy in iran make a new bitcoin client and we download and use it? US drone will bomb us? We are terrorists?

[Raoul Duke]

I have a question: what would happen if a iran guy in iran make a new bitcoin client and we download and use it? US drone will bomb us? We are terrorists?

I will never download software made by terrorists.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

You don't understand what you are talking about.

I know, I know. You don't know that the Gopher protocol presented an alternative to the World Wide Web

Where did you guess that from ? Surely not from my post.

FIY, i used gopher and telnet intensively in high school. SSH barely even existed yet (as did internet banking or firewalls) and everybody used unencrypted protocols for freaking e.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g. We also played Text-MMO's (called "MUDs") before even the "MMO" name was invented. So yeah, I know how the internet looked before the WWW era.

[Gabi]

I have a question: what would happen if a iran guy in iran make a new bitcoin client and we download and use it? US drone will bomb us? We are terrorists?

I will never download software made by terrorists.

Even if it's open source and better than what we have?

[repentance]

I have a question: what would happen if a iran guy in iran make a new bitcoin client and we download and use it? US drone will bomb us? We are terrorists?

The cynic in me is inclined to say that if the US government thought it had the potential to totally fuck the Iranian economy they'd probably fund it under the table.

[ArticMine]

I have a question: what would happen if a iran guy in iran make a new bitcoin client and we download and use it? US drone will bomb us? We are terrorists?

Why not simply read the US sanctions document from the US Treasury and find out?

This entire thread is predicated on the assumption that the activity mentioned is the article is actually illegal in the United States. If this turns out to be false then most the arguments being passionately debated here become moot.

Now back the original issue raised by the OP. I believe there is way more than enough reasonable doubt with respect to the illegality in the United States of what Jeremias promoted on #bitcoin-dev for Jeremias to be re-instated.

[smoothie]

Wow just reading that pastebin also made me lose much respect for Jeff.

Who is he to tell others what they can and can't do?

If they wanted to do something illegal then that is their choice.

Perhaps he had a right to ban that guy but trying to shove your morals down someone else's throat is wrong.

Bitcoin is free-market money. Who cares what the government(s) thinks.

Jeff is only mad because he is holding a ton of bitcoins and don't want bitcoin to get bad attention.

 

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

You're obviously unaware of serious disadvantages of Open Source model. Why not check some articles on how HTML 5.0 came into being?
You should be able to realise how easy is to manufacture consensus, which is about removing any chance for oppossition to fight back, ever.

OMG, what the hell you are talking about ?
I'm starting to think you're delirious or trolling.

Actually, i have perfect proof that what you said above is total crap. This topic. This very topic is the perfect example that proves that it is extremely difficult it is to manufacture consensus in the Open Source world !

Really? What you are obviously not aware of is that you, me and everyone else oppossing jgarzik lost the battle before it even started.

Incorrect again.

This is similiar situation to the topic of Bitcoin Foundation establishment. And guess what - somebody made a poll asking "do you support bitcoin foundation", and about 30-40% (if memory serves me right) responded that they do not trust the foundation (do some searching, the poll is still on the forum).

This is not a centralized project and nobody tells us what to think.

[Raoul Duke]

I have a question: what would happen if a iran guy in iran make a new bitcoin client and we download and use it? US drone will bomb us? We are terrorists?

I will never download software made by terrorists.

Even if it's open source and better than what we have?

eh, your sarcasm detectors are broken.
Isn't the whole thread about someone not wanting talks about a certain country because a certain government decided they're all terrorists, even folks like you and me?

Now for real: In my view the US gov. is the biggest terrorist of them all, therefore every american citizen or inhabitant is a terrorist and I despise you all and wish you all die in the flames of hell.

OK, maybe it wasn't that much "for real"...