jgarzik goes berzerk in #bitcoin-dev, wtf?

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

How about you put some time into getting changes you've made to Bitcoin client become implemented in official client? Let us know why it failed.

Oh, it is a very simple answer. There are multiple reasons, all of them perfectly understandable:
1. My fork (you should call it patch actually) is too simple to be considered for pull-request and to be included in official client
2. I'm not a C/C++ programmer, the code i would produce would be shitty.
3. I don't have time to learn C/C++ properly to make a PROPER fork, so i stick with this patch of mine.
4. None of the official devs, or even alternative client devs care about the feature I want. Actually, even many "normal" people don't care, so that isn't a surprise.

Once Bitcoin is overtaken and become used as one world currency, it won't matter if each and every one of us came up with unique client or coin.

People will always have the freedom to choose if they want to use the official client, or one of the other clients. And there are already multiple clients plus several more clients on-the-way. So you will ALWAYS have choice.

And, If you don't like the set of choises you have, you can write/fork your own. If you know how to do it.

You seems to be unaware of where the world is heading to. Enjoy "freedom" while it lasts.

No surprise there, I know exactly where the world is going - it is going into totalitarian state mode.
The difference between me and you is that i think that Bitcoin, together with Internet, Linux, TOR, Freenet, I2P, OpenVPN and many other OS technologies can stop that from happening.

[1714255229]

1714255229

[1714255229]

1714255229

[1714255229]

1714255229

[1714255229]

1714255229

[1714255229]

1714255229

[repentance]

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

I know it sounds that simple but like any laws it's all in the interpretation until they're successfully challenged.  

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/20/us-iran-usa-sanctions-idUSBRE82J18Z20120320

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57402034-281/how-u.s-sanctions-hurt-iranian-internet-activists/

Ridiculous things end up being affected by economic sanctions even if those things are in and of themselves exempt.  Hell, in the 1990s there were export controls imposed by the US on SSL encryption in browsers.

The sanctions are broad enough that almost anything can be included under them, even if it's technically "exempt".

[gmaxwell]

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

Who are you (and most of the other people in this thread) to tell other people how to run a chat channel which they use and contribute to and you do not?

[Come-from-Beyond]

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

Who are you (and most of the other people in this thread) to tell other people how to run a chat channel which they use and contribute to and you do not?

Are you serious? *facepalm*

[becoin]

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.

Well, what you are basically saying is that Americans using bitcoin are totally fucking the American economy? Errr I thought that using honest money like gold, silver and bicoin is useful for every economy, not harmful?! May be you should make a distinction between fucking an economy and fucking a government?

[ArticMine]

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

I know it sounds that simple but like any laws it's all in the interpretation until they're successfully challenged.  

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/20/us-iran-usa-sanctions-idUSBRE82J18Z20120320

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57402034-281/how-u.s-sanctions-hurt-iranian-internet-activists/

Ridiculous things end up being affected by economic sanctions even if those things are in and of themselves exempt.  Hell, in the 1990s there were export controls imposed by the US on SSL encryption in browsers.

The sanctions are broad enough that almost anything can be included under them, even if it's technically "exempt".

It is not the law itself or it's interpretation that is the issue here but rather the actions of players in the private sector certain banks and a certain Bitcoin developer come to mind here in response to the sanctions. The classic case (This actually happened with Somalia), where a bank would instead of blocking only those transactions affected by the sanctions blocks all transactions. This has the effect of making the sanctions far worse by impacting innocent persons who were not the target of the sanctions in the first place. What happened in this thread is just as bad.  

[Raoul Duke]

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

Who are you (and most of the other people in this thread) to tell other people how to run a chat channel which they use and contribute to and you do not?

So, are you saying that if you(or someone else) wants or tries to change bitcoin in a way I don't like or agree with I should just STFU because I never contributed a line of code?

[marcus_of_augustus]

Just now waiting for two things to complete this topic:

1) a Farsi section on bitcointalk forum to spring up

2) a p2p anonymous bitcoin-for-oil exchange

[ArticMine]

This has the effect of making the sanctions far worse by impacting innocent persons who were not the target of the sanctions in the first place.

Majority is the primary target of sanctions. With time, they become pissed, go mad and demand changes. Once millions are on the street,
things usualy go very nasty for rulers.

To find out who is the target of the sanctions the first step is to actually read the official documentation regarding the sanctions rather than make assumptions about the sanctions and then act on those assumptions to hurt innocent people. Then when innocent people get hurt blame the government, when in fact it is not the government that is really at fault here but rather actors in the private sector.

This why I posted the link to the US Government site further back in this thread.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

No surprise there, I know exactly where the world is going - it is going into totalitarian state mode.
The difference between me and you is that i think that Bitcoin, together with Internet, Linux, TOR, Freenet, I2P, OpenVPN and many other OS technologies can stop that from happening.

Fighting fire with fire is pointless. The point beyond which hand of the system can't reach is farther away than most can imagine.

...yet there are people even now, massively selling drugs (and were selling arms, but armory is closed ATM) for Bitcoin over the internet. Silkroad is the proof that what you are saying is false.

We already have the technologies to protect us from governments. Bitcoin is one of such technologies. We only need to reach for it and use it.

Also, you should watch Jay Rockefeller saying that "Internet should never have existed":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct9xzXUQLuY

They are NOT in complete control anymore, otherwise he wouldn't be so desparate to say it. And this shows they ARE afraid of us and of the Internet. We CAN win this.

[becoin]

To find out who is the target of the sanctions the first step is to actually read the official documentation regarding the sanctions rather than make assumptions about the sanctions and then act on those assumptions to hurt innocent people.

Actually, ArticMine, reading too much government documentation regarding sanctions on other nations is dangerous for your mental health. Take care!

[ArticMine]

No surprise there, I know exactly where the world is going - it is going into totalitarian state mode.
The difference between me and you is that i think that Bitcoin, together with Internet, Linux, TOR, Freenet, I2P, OpenVPN and many other OS technologies can stop that from happening.

Fighting fire with fire is pointless. The point beyond which hand of the system can't reach is farther away than most can imagine.

...yet there are people even now, massively selling drugs (and were selling arms, but armory is closed ATM) for Bitcoin over the internet. Silkroad is the proof that what you are saying is false.

We already have the technologies to protect us from governments. Bitcoin is one of such technologies. We only need to reach for it and use it.

Also, you should watch Jay Rockefeller saying that "Internet should never have existed":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct9xzXUQLuY

They are NOT in complete control anymore, otherwise he wouldn't be so desparate to say it. And this shows they ARE afraid of us and of the Internet. We CAN win this.

This assumes that the greatest threat to freedom actually comes from government. I would argue greatest threat to freedom in many cases actually come from big business in the private sector. 

There is a government official with an iPhone. Which of the two is the greater threat to freedom of speech the government official or the iPhone? I would make the case for the iPhone.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

No surprise there, I know exactly where the world is going - it is going into totalitarian state mode.
The difference between me and you is that i think that Bitcoin, together with Internet, Linux, TOR, Freenet, I2P, OpenVPN and many other OS technologies can stop that from happening.

Fighting fire with fire is pointless. The point beyond which hand of the system can't reach is farther away than most can imagine.

...yet there are people even now, massively selling drugs (and were selling arms, but armory is closed ATM) for Bitcoin over the internet. Silkroad is the proof that what you are saying is false.

We already have the technologies to protect us from governments. Bitcoin is one of such technologies. We only need to reach for it and use it.

Also, you should watch Jay Rockefeller saying that "Internet should never have existed":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct9xzXUQLuY

They are NOT in complete control anymore, otherwise he wouldn't be so desparate to say it. And this shows they ARE afraid of us and of the Internet. We CAN win this.

This assumes that the greatest threat to freedom actually comes from government. I would argue greatest threat to freedom in many cases actually come from big business in the private sector. 
There is a government official with an iPhone. Which of the two is the greater threat to freedom of speech the government official or the iPhone? I would make the case for the iPhone.

You are correct, however...I am also simultaneously correct.

That is because in fascist countries, or countries that are heading towards fascism such as USA, big corporations and governments are working very closely together.

[justusranvier]

This assumes that the greatest threat to freedom actually comes from government. I would argue greatest threat to freedom in many cases actually come from big business in the private sector. 

The distinction you are making is an illusion. Corporations are creations of government. They exist because the government invented the concept of limited liability to shield them from the negative consequences of their actions, thus allowing them to grow artificially large.

[repentance]

This has the effect of making the sanctions far worse by impacting innocent persons who were not the target of the sanctions in the first place. 

Majority is the primary target of sanctions. With time, they become pissed, go mad and demand changes. Once millions are on the street, things usualy go very nasty for rulers.

The hope is always that life will become uncomfortable enough for the population and businesses under economic sanctions that they'll revolt - with or without outside aid.  It doesn't always work out that way, of course.

[Daily Anarchist]

That makes it all the more rich when anonymous forum trolls hurl charges of "cowardice!" and "treason!" when these trolls are neither (a) using their real name, nor (b) contributing in any meaningful way, nor (c) a High Value Target.  Teenaged crypto-anarchists may love to mock the "sheeple" who follow the laws of their jurisdiction, but at the end of the day, they just move back into their parents' house if they run into trouble.  Not that easy for me.

I never called you a coward. I merely stated that governments love cowards that do not challenge their authority. That is pretty much an undisputed fact of life.

While my username may be Daily Anarchist, it wouldn't take a genius to find out that my name is Seth King and the publisher of DailyAnarchist.com, so I'm hardly anonymous. Also, on Daily Anarchist I routinely broadcast my civil disobedience for all the world to see. Making anarchists out to look like jobless teenagers is disrespectful to a large part of the bitcoin community.

[Herodes]

The hope is always that life will become uncomfortable enough for the population and businesses under economic sanctions that they'll revolt - with or without outside aid.  It doesn't always work out that way, of course.

Haven't there been quite some unrest in Iran, but if you express your unhappiness in the street, you might as well be imprisoned and vanish ? I've heard some really bad stories..

[Technomage]

This thread has been getting more off topic recently but I'm going to chip in with some final words. I'm a busy Bitcoin entrepreneur and I've used way too much time on this already but here are some conclusions based on the discussion.

I'm glad Jeff came here to explain himself and the explanation was decent, he has some respect back from me. I agree that it's important to be strategic and the issue is not black & white. That much I can agree with.

The ban itself I can't agree with, and I disagree with some people who think it was "no brainer" moderating decision. Personally I don't believe that any other op would've reacted the same way. Jeff clearly had a personal dislike of the subject. That is okay though, and it's the dev channel so the devs can essentially make the rules there.

I propose that the discussion over there is more strongly limited to development discussion so it's clear for everyone. Although in this particular case the ban was very questionable even if the rules were clear on that, because the discussion was moving from Iran in general to translating Bitcoin-Qt to Farsi, which is clearly a development issue.

All in all I think we're all in the same boat here and we want Bitcoin to succeed. We have different ideologies, different levels of risk we're willing to take for the sake of Bitcoin and different opinions on a lot of things.

What I can say is that this has been blown out of proportion on many levels. First of all the original issue is in my opinion not that much more serious compared to what Bitcoin is involved with already. Bitcoin is used in drug trade for at least 2 million dollars worth of bitcoins each month, probably more nowadays. Bitcoin in Iran, even though it is growing, is still a super niche.

For me the original frustration was more about the ban than anything else, the other stuff were differences in ideology which I don't see as that relevant. The issue about the ban was an issue about moderation and policies within the community. I don't have any experience of that btw, I'm a long time IRC user but I use different networks such as IRCNet. I have no experience of the official Bitcoin channels. I probably should come there though.

Finally, I would like to say that we need to prepare for the eventual heat. We don't want to invite the heat prematurely by our own actions, I completely agree with that. But we need to prepare for the heat. So I would listen to Jeff's advice and start running those full nodes more.

We also need more progress on decentralised exchanging, Bitcoin-otc and LocalBitcoins are very good starting points though. Thinking about what happens to Bitcoin if there is ever a crackdown on the dev team, is also something we should think about.

If I have offended anyone, including Jeff, I apologize about that. I don't want to burn bridges with anyone. I'm also doing this with my own name and I'm a Bitcoin entrepreneur full time, so I don't afford that.

[kgo]

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

Who are you (and most of the other people in this thread) to tell other people how to run a chat channel which they use and contribute to and you do not?

So, are you saying that if you(or someone else) wants or tries to change bitcoin in a way I don't like or agree with I should just STFU because I never contributed a line of code?

Context...

He's referring specifically to a single IRC room setup for developers to have technical discussions with other developers.  In that context, if you're not a developer, then yeah, STFU.  Yes I'm free to run my chatroom the way I want.  Plenty of other places, including plenty of other bitcoin-related IRC channels, to talk about such things.

The way people talk in this thread, if I'm having a dinner party and I kick someone out for telling extremely racist jokes, I'm abridging their freedom of speech.  If I'm at a movie theater, someone answers their phone and holds a loud conversation, and I tell them to STFU I'm destroying their freedom of speech.

[ArticMine]

This thread has been getting more off topic recently but I'm going to chip in with some final words. I'm a busy Bitcoin entrepreneur and I've used way too much time on this already but here are some conclusions based on the discussion.

I'm glad Jeff came here to explain himself and the explanation was decent, he has some respect back from me. I agree that it's important to be strategic and the issue is not black & white. That much I can agree with.

The ban itself I can't agree with, and I disagree with some people who think it was "no brainer" moderating decision. Personally I don't believe that any other op would've reacted the same way. Jeff clearly had a personal dislike of the subject. That is okay though, and it's the dev channel so the devs can essentially make the rules there.

I propose that the discussion over there is more strongly limited to development discussion so it's clear for everyone. Although in this particular case the ban was very questionable even if the rules were clear on that, because the discussion was moving from Iran in general to translating Bitcoin-Qt to Farsi, which is clearly a development issue.

All in all I think we're all in the same boat here and we want Bitcoin to succeed. We have different ideologies, different levels of risk we're willing to take for the sake of Bitcoin and different opinions on a lot of things.

What I can say is that this has been blown out of proportion on many levels. First of all the original issue is in my opinion not that much more serious compared to what Bitcoin is involved with already. Bitcoin is used in drug trade for at least 2 million dollars each month, probably more nowadays. Bitcoin in Iran, even though it is growing, is still a super niche.

For me the original frustration was more about the ban than anything else, the other stuff were differences in ideology which I don't see as that relevant. The issue about the ban was an issue about moderation and policies within the community. I don't have any experience of that btw, I'm a long time IRC user but I use different networks such as IRCNet. I have no experience of the official Bitcoin channels. I probably should come there though.

Finally, I would like to say that we need to prepare for the eventual heat. We don't want to invite the heat prematurely by our own actions, I completely agree with that. But we need to prepare for the heat. So I would listen to Jeff's advice and start running those full nodes more.

We also need more progress on decentralised exchanging, Bitcoin-otc and LocalBitcoins are very good starting points though. Thinking about what happens to Bitcoin if there is ever a crackdown on the dev team, is also something we should think about.

If I have offended anyone, including Jeff, I apologize about that. I don't want to burn bridges with anyone. I'm also doing this with my own name and I'm a Bitcoin entrepreneur full time, so I don't afford that.

Thank you. I do strongly believe however that this ban needs to be lifted.