jgarzik goes berzerk in #bitcoin-dev, wtf?

[becoin]

He doesn't oppose such a translation.  Anyone who thinks he does has failed to properly read the situation.

Reading this situation is quite simple...

"Oh please, please leave me alone. I don't want any politics involved. I just want to play with my coding ideas. No politics, please. Please!"

I'm sorry, mate. Four years and you still don't get it! We are just about to start climbing the Big Bitcoin Political Mountain in front of us. This is unavoidable, just expect more of it if bitcoin succeeds. You have to step on a sound ideological foundation to fight all political winds. Don't ask me which one. I don't know. I'm still searching. What I do know, however, is that you have to have quite a mess in your head to support US economic sanctions against Iran or any other country. With such a mess in your head bitcoin is just not for you. Certainly you should not put your name behind bitcoin because other people get scared from your political immaturity.

If jgarzik tries asap to personally organaize translation to Farsi, I shall personally ask him to accept my apology.

[1714277156]

1714277156

[1714277156]

1714277156

[1714277156]

1714277156

[1714277156]

1714277156

[thoughtfan]

Reading this situation is quite simple...

Reading it the way you want to see it apparently is.  By now I am not seeing you come up with anything that has not already been well responded to in this thread.  That you choose not to take these replies on board is up to you but could you at least desist with the insulting accusations?

'I just want to play with my coding ideas...' [a mocking interpretation of the thoughts behind jgarzik's decision]

If the coding issues involved in maximising the chances of this project succeeding are a substantial challenge, which I am getting the impression they are, then what the dickens is wrong with someone giving their full attention to that?  Are you saying anybody who wants to get involved at the core of the technical development also needs to be a legal/political expert and a legal/political warrior (and one of the same political persuasion as you at that)?

It seems to me a nonsense to expect this.

We are just about to start climbing the Big Bitcoin Political Mountain in front of us.

Well you and some others are opting to begin the ascent now.  Not all of us are.  'The Project' doesn't appear to me to need to right now.  Some of us may request you hold back from running full speed to the commence with the ascent before the project is strong enough to make it to the top but nobody is physically going to stop you.

That we are heading towards that mountain I will agree is unavoidable and even possibly desirable - but utilising every opportunity to get stronger on the journey to the foot of the mountain is I think the wiser option.  By all means run on ahead but don't be surprised if some consider your actions to be a little naive all things considered.

[becoin]

but utilising every opportunity to get stronger on the journey to the foot of the mountain is I think the wiser option. 

No, you are not getting stronger by effectively supporting US sanctions on Iran! You are losing fans, thoughtfan! In record numbers! Fans not only from Iran and neighboring countries, but from the entire free world where people can still decide not to join illegal 'legal activities' like economic sanction on other nations. Apparently, in the US the FOX, CNN, and Hollywood style propaganda is very effective?

[niko]

What I do know, however, is that you have to have quite a mess in your head to support US economic sanctions against Iran or any other country. With such a mess in your head bitcoin is just not for you. Certainly you should not put your name behind bitcoin because other people get scared from your political immaturity.

Yes. The tone of Jeff's words showed full, unquestionable support for criminal and immoral acts of his government. There was no "unfortunately, we cannot discuss this here" - clearly, he supports what his government is doing as the right thing. Jeff, please correct me if I am wrong here.

[Herodes]

that could be used in the form of a "sound bite" to cast a bad light on the project as a whole.

Not the translation to Farsi, but what jgarzik did (opposing such a translation) is casting a bad light on the project! Why can't you understand that?

Context... if you piss off someone, and then suddenly act all cool and start talking about some project, do you think that will be well received ?

[thoughtfan]

The tone of Jeff's words showed full, unquestionable support for criminal and immoral acts of his government.

Jeff's words, which is what we objectively have to go by, didn't say such a thing.  Jeff's 'tone' might, as Gavin Anderson alluded, and to which Jeff referred, be due to any number of things to which neither you nor I are privy.  Are you seriously as certain as you seem to be that you are correct in your interpretation of what his 'tone' meant?

No, you are not getting stronger by effectively supporting US sanctions on Iran!  You are losing fans, thoughtfan!

I don't have nor want fans but assuming by 'you' you mean the project then you are right in that by not actively promoting Bitcoin as a sanction-buster it is 'losing' potential users.  The project might, due to the outrage of current users at the way this was handled, even lose some of its current users.  The 'tone' of some of the objections going on here suggest some are about to walk away from the project but I doubt it will be many.

In the main, as far as I can see all that Bitcoin requires in order to strengthen is to continue to be as usable as it is because word-of-mouth brings more people on board.  Growth inevitably, it seems, follows.  If on the other hand the actions of some which are undermining an internationally supported embago paint a big fat target on the back of Bitcoin whilst it is as young and vulnerable as it is (in my opinion) and it gets virtually obliterated then it may be many years if ever before people world-over in future Iran-like situations have access to its use.  Introducing Bitcoin to Iranians, were it effective, would alleviate some of the suffering that's going on as a consequence of the embago.

But what's more exciting to me is if Bitcoin (or equivalent) in future was widely enough used worldwide one of the consequences would be that governments would have to accept embagos are no longer an option because they are impossible to enforce.  Right now all they had to do was to put pressure on the Society for Worldwide International Financial Transfers (SWIFT) to effectively prevent trade with Iran.  A mature Bitcoin has no such soft underbelly.  But right now from what I understand the 'scales' that have the potential in future to protect Bitcoin are a way too soft to provide any protection of note against a concerted attack.

In the meatime, taking actions like this makes it more difficult for those in power needing to make the decision whether to act against Bitcoin to leave it/us alone.  As someone has said before elsewhere 'the government' does not act in isolation.  Even Hitler based decisions (other than towards the very end) on on what certain actions would do to his popularity.  The wider Bitcoin's use in non-controversial day-to-day activities - or even in somewhat controversial activities (such as for illicit substances) the more unpopular any drastic measures to shut it down (or drive it underground and out of reach of the average potential user) will be.

I'm not asking you to agree - just to accept that an opinion other than yours might just have some validity.

[becoin]

I'm not asking you to agree - just to accept that an opinion other than yours might just have some validity.

Despite so many words you've written above, I don't understand your point. Do you support the US embargo on Iran or you don't?

There is no 'governmentS' that apply embargoes. There is only one government. Other governments have to decide if they'll side with the bullying government or with the victim government. Don't forget the official US policy - 'If you are not with us, you are against us'. It is a risky business not to side with the bully as this government alone is spending 50% of the entire military budget of this Planet.

Hillary Clinton said on September 13, 2001: "Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."
 
President George W. Bush, in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001 said, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

Nothing has changed in that respect so far.

It is true that there are groups with different agendas regarding bitcoin, but as someone has mentioned in this thread, timing is everything. So, the most important thing is who is the 'timing' manager? Who is trying to manage bitcoin target groups and extend of market penetration in the different regions? After this episode I'm more inclined to suggest that this effectively is the US government.

Once the bitcoin avalanche starts nothing can be managed. But before the start, one can decide where will be the starting point and when? The bitcoin community should not allow such a manipulation to take place. Laissez-faire and no country should be excluded by someone behind the scene!

I understand that sometime people get irritated and jumpy for variety of different reasons and pissed off by their girlfriend, wife, children, friends, colleagues, or just accidental meeting with a stranger. But after that they must be strong enough to overcome their ego and apologize to somebody they have unwillingly insulted.

Lets hope for the best but be prepared for the worst!

[thoughtfan]

I don't understand your point.

On this at least we are in agreement.  You don't understand my point!

Do you support the US embargo on Iran or you don't?

My point is that that despite a number of people here wanting it to be otherwise this was never about whether I nor jgarzik nor anybody else here agree or disagree with the embago.  It is not either about whether I nor jgarzik nor anybody else here agrees or disagrees with whether Bitcoin should be promoted right now as a means for the people of Iran to circumnavigate the embago.  It is not really even about whether the IRC channel on which the topic was brought up is the appropriate place to discuss it.

It is about, according to the Topic Subject, whether jgarzic's response was 'berzerk' or otherwise.  Of course all these other issues come up in the discussion but my primary point in all I have written in this thread is that mushing them all together is just not helpful.  Deducing jgarzik's position on the morality of the embago from the exchange that happened is as I have pointed out pushing into fantasy land.  Building on top of that to massive pronouncements about how wrong it is that such a terrible person 'represents' us as a member of the Bitcoin Foundation (I use 'the' because AFAIK there is no other to date), that he is anti-free speech and is in the pockets of 'the' government looks to me like it's bordering on truther-land and I have absolutely no interest in the pissing-into-the-wind kind of exchanges that are to be had with folks as deluded as they.

It is true that there are groups with different agendas regarding bitcoin,

I don't know of groups.  I'm only seeing individual opinions and despite my ridiculing one of the healthy things about this forum is that people here have such diverse opinions.

...but as someone has mentioned in this thread, timing is everything. So, the most important thing is who is the 'timing' manager?

I don't see a 'timing manager'.  I just see those who in my short time here appear to be the wisest heads around here saying 'not yet'.  And despite being very limited in my understanding of what the whole Bitcoin and associated stuff is about I happen to agree with them.  But nobody is saying 'you can not do it yet'.  They may be, out of their wisdom/overcautiousness/obayence to their gov't overlords be pleading with you not to yet but nobody's stopping those who think now is the time to promote Bitcoin in Iran.  It's just a protocol, some software, some bits and some people.  Do with it all what you will.

After this episode I'm more inclined to suggest that this effectively is the US government.

This on the basis of a temporary banning that the banner has already suggested might have been as much to do with personal circumstances/mood at the time than anything else?  Really??

The bitcoin community should not allow such a manipulation to take place. Laissez-faire and no country should be excluded by someone behind the scene!

A manipulation by whom?  Again are you really claiming here on the basis of the exchange on the channel and what's written on this thread that jgarzik and the Bitcoin Foundation are pupets of the USA government?  Sorry but my conspiracy theorist alarm bells are beginning to go off here.

I understand that sometime people get irritated and jumpy for variety of different reasons and pissed off by their girlfriend, wife, children, friends, colleagues, or just accidental meeting with a stranger. But after that they must be strong enough to overcome their ego and apologize to somebody they have unwillingly insulted.

Now I'm afraid you've totally lost me here.  Who is irritated and jumpy and needs to apologise to whom for what?

[off topic]
BTW in answer to your question I really don't know whether the embago is a good idea or not - and if that makes me 'sheeple' in your eyes so be it.  At the most basic level I can understand the theory behind embagos but I don't understand enough about their chances of success or whether success would be affecting change such as reducing the odds of bombings and war.  If there is a chance of success and it prevents war can the suffering currently endured by the Iranian people be 'justified' against lack of the worse suffering as a consequence of war?  I really don't have a clue and I don't believe without spending a lot of time researching it and talking to people who really have experience of this stuff from more than one perspective that I would be qualified enough to come to a conclusion in which I could be confident.  Does that make me a coward in some people's eyes?  I don't know but I prefer that to making half-baked conclusions on a partially understood picture then 'taking action' the real consequences of which I have absolutely no idea about.  And I venture to suggest, but without implying you may be one, that some of those protesting most loudly and 'taking action' in all such circumstances don't really understand the whole picture either but by proceeding regardless, end up making things worse for those they most want to defend.
[/off topic]

[Rudd-O]

I would like to share an illustrative video of what people doing business as "government" are about:

http://vimeo.com/5726046

As my main man Marc here says, they are not dumb.  People who manage to make millions of human beings believe that their green pieces of paper are "money" and real money (gold, silver, Bitcoin) is "funny money", people who manage to make millions of human beings cheer for mass murder and even invade other people's homes and murder them, these people are much, much smarter than you think.

Jeff Garzik is preventing everyone from questioning the actions of these guys.

[becoin]

Does that make me a coward in some people's eyes?

No, it is just empty words. Baloney. What stuff do you smoke, thoughtfan?

[LightRider]

So the better message is "Core bitcoin developer doesn't want Iranians using his software!"? Good luck with that one.

[repentance]

So the better message is "Core bitcoin developer doesn't want Iranians using his software!"? Good luck with that one.

Everyone is viewing this through their own filter.  You're seeing it as "Jeff doesn't want Iranians using Bitcoin".  Others are seeing it as "the devs don't want to be seen to be modifying the official client in a manner which could be regarded as specifically intended to help people bypass the embargo".

[LightRider]

I would like to share an illustrative video of what people doing business as "government" are about:

http://vimeo.com/5726046

As my main man Marc here says, they are not dumb.  People who manage to make millions of human beings believe that their green pieces of paper are "money" and real money (gold, silver, Bitcoin) is "funny money", people who manage to make millions of human beings cheer for mass murder and even invade other people's homes and murder them, these people are much, much smarter than you think.

Jeff Garzik is preventing everyone from questioning the actions of these guys.

They're not smarter, they just have a monopoly on the use of force and violence to maintain compliance. A smart person doesn't have to resort to these measures.

[LightRider]

So the better message is "Core bitcoin developer doesn't want Iranians using his software!"? Good luck with that one.

Everyone is viewing this through their own filter.  You're seeing it as "Jeff doesn't want Iranians using Bitcoin".  Others are seeing it as "the devs don't want to be seen to be modifying the official client in a manner which could be regarded as specifically intended to help people bypass the embargo".

Which is antithetical to the purpose of bitcoin technology in the first place. The idea that no government can control what people do with their money.

[MoonShadow]

So the better message is "Core bitcoin developer doesn't want Iranians using his software!"? Good luck with that one.

Everyone is viewing this through their own filter.  You're seeing it as "Jeff doesn't want Iranians using Bitcoin".  Others are seeing it as "the devs don't want to be seen to be modifying the official client in a manner which could be regarded as specifically intended to help people bypass the embargo".

Which is antithetical to the purpose of bitcoin technology in the first place. The idea that no government can control what people do with their money.

But giving the US government an excuse to mess with developers of the bitcoin software is also anti-ethical to that same goal for everyone else that isn't Iranian.

[QuestionAuthority]

So the better message is "Core bitcoin developer doesn't want Iranians using his software!"? Good luck with that one.

Everyone is viewing this through their own filter.  You're seeing it as "Jeff doesn't want Iranians using Bitcoin".  Others are seeing it as "the devs don't want to be seen to be modifying the official client in a manner which could be regarded as specifically intended to help people bypass the embargo".

Which is antithetical to the purpose of bitcoin technology in the first place. The idea that no government can control what people do with their money.

But giving the US government an excuse to mess with developers of the bitcoin software is also anti-ethical to that same goal for everyone else that isn't Iranian.

Bitcoin doesn't seem very open source to me. In fact, it seems like a very closed little elitist system toy for the developers and heavy hitters of the Bitcoin business community.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Bitcoins for Oil exchanges now! .... anything else is for the little leaguers.

[MoonShadow]

So the better message is "Core bitcoin developer doesn't want Iranians using his software!"? Good luck with that one.

Everyone is viewing this through their own filter.  You're seeing it as "Jeff doesn't want Iranians using Bitcoin".  Others are seeing it as "the devs don't want to be seen to be modifying the official client in a manner which could be regarded as specifically intended to help people bypass the embargo".

Which is antithetical to the purpose of bitcoin technology in the first place. The idea that no government can control what people do with their money.

But giving the US government an excuse to mess with developers of the bitcoin software is also anti-ethical to that same goal for everyone else that isn't Iranian.

Bitcoin doesn't seem very open source to me. In fact, it seems like a very closed little elitist system toy for the developers and heavy hitters of the Bitcoin business community.

The source is open.  If you have teh skillset, you can contribute or fork the project.  Many have.  Almost all have failed to create an independent ecosystem like bitcoin, but that is a social question not relevant to Bitcoin's source access.  Whether or not you feel that Bitcoin's development team is nice enough is entirely beside the point.

[QuestionAuthority]

So the better message is "Core bitcoin developer doesn't want Iranians using his software!"? Good luck with that one.

Everyone is viewing this through their own filter.  You're seeing it as "Jeff doesn't want Iranians using Bitcoin".  Others are seeing it as "the devs don't want to be seen to be modifying the official client in a manner which could be regarded as specifically intended to help people bypass the embargo".

Which is antithetical to the purpose of bitcoin technology in the first place. The idea that no government can control what people do with their money.

But giving the US government an excuse to mess with developers of the bitcoin software is also anti-ethical to that same goal for everyone else that isn't Iranian.

Bitcoin doesn't seem very open source to me. In fact, it seems like a very closed little elitist system toy for the developers and heavy hitters of the Bitcoin business community.

The source is open.  If you have teh skillset, you can contribute or fork the project.  Many have.  Almost all have failed to create an independent ecosystem like bitcoin, but that is a social question not relevant to Bitcoin's source access.  Whether or not you feel that Bitcoin's development team is nice enough is entirely beside the point.

Oh, right, I got it. Bitcoin is open as long as you don’t go to the main dev group and ask for any help or attempt to change it in public or anything like that. Thanks for clearing that up. O-o

[MoonShadow]

So the better message is "Core bitcoin developer doesn't want Iranians using his software!"? Good luck with that one.

Everyone is viewing this through their own filter.  You're seeing it as "Jeff doesn't want Iranians using Bitcoin".  Others are seeing it as "the devs don't want to be seen to be modifying the official client in a manner which could be regarded as specifically intended to help people bypass the embargo".

Which is antithetical to the purpose of bitcoin technology in the first place. The idea that no government can control what people do with their money.

But giving the US government an excuse to mess with developers of the bitcoin software is also anti-ethical to that same goal for everyone else that isn't Iranian.

Bitcoin doesn't seem very open source to me. In fact, it seems like a very closed little elitist system toy for the developers and heavy hitters of the Bitcoin business community.

The source is open.  If you have teh skillset, you can contribute or fork the project.  Many have.  Almost all have failed to create an independent ecosystem like bitcoin, but that is a social question not relevant to Bitcoin's source access.  Whether or not you feel that Bitcoin's development team is nice enough is entirely beside the point.

Oh, right, I got it. Bitcoin is open as long as you don’t go to the main dev group and ask for any help or attempt to change it in public or anything like that. Thanks for clearing that up. O-o

Try asking Linus Torvolus to include (insert your pet project) into Linux mainline and see how far that line of thinking gets you.  Fork the project, that is the root freedom of open source, not the idea that you get to tell the developers your next great idea.