jgarzik goes berzerk in #bitcoin-dev, wtf?

[Technomage]

So, we should discourage Iranians using bitcoin because the US government says so? Are you crazy?

I can't believe it either. My faith on Bitcoin being a true currency of the resistance has been reduced today, I must admit that.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

If a particular person in Iran wants freedom then they should pay the cost for it. Trying to shift the cost onto jgarzik or any other Bitcoin devs results in moral hazard because individuals want to freeride off others contributions. The Bitcoin devs are already paying tremendous costs in terms of specialization of labor in the fight for freedom.

Those who think the Bitcoin dev team should pay increased costs for the fight for freedom to extend the benefits to individual persons in Iran who may or may not want that freedom is not only destructive to the Bitcoin product but economically inefficient.

Nobody is shifting any costs onto anyone. The only thing being asked is for the cowards not to become a cost to those who fight for freedom.

[casascius]

I don't think kicking someone off an internet chat channel is actively reducing the possibility of Iran use of Bitcoin.

Based on his comments before the ban he is very much against talking about it at all. There are many other public venues of talking about it and I think this thread and the coverage it currently has in Reddit is actually much more public than a darn IRC channel. What he did gave it 100 times more publicity than it would've got if there was just a discussion in an IRC channel.

Not surprising: I would expect he is against talking about it.  The media would salivate over even a 10-second sound bite of a "core Bitcoin developer in the US" talking about subverting the policies of the US government.  He seems like a smart guy.  I don't blame him.

I also wanted to comment on the Silk Road comment that you removed and I'll just say that I think the policies regarding talk about Silk Road are ridiculous as well. Silk Road is an anonymous marketplace by definition. Talking about it, using it, does NOT imply illegal activities. Silk Road itself is NOT illegal. I have actually consulted this with a lawyer because we've run into users in our service that talk to us about Silk Road. As long as the user doesn't mention drugs or other illegal substances, we have no problem providing service to people who mention Silk Road.

You are not in the same position as him.  His name is on the front page of Bitcoin.org as a developer and yours is not.  His personal freedom is put at risk by being willing to discuss these topics on the record, yours is not.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

This discussion isn't about politics, but about fear. I am seeing a disturbing trend in Bitcoin development towards centralization with e-wallets (bitcoincard), tainting, coloring, proof-of-stake, etc. It is what it is. The threat from the state is real.

+1000

I've seen some discussions about colored coins, curiously enough promoted by the state sucker this topic is about.

AFAICT, all use cases for coin coloring that I saw being promoted could very well be implemented by Open Transactions (stocks, financial instruments etc), which has a level of anonymity even higher than Bitcoin in some cases. Why the urge to introduce a perfect tool for surveillance in Bitcoin if what they claim to want to solve can be better solved by another protocol, built precisely for it?

[Technomage]

Casascius, I don't think your arguments are sound this time. Why is it not enough for him to simply say in IRC that he does not think it's a good idea to promote Bitcoin in Iran because of the trade sanctions etc etc?

That is his position, and no one can say that he is doing otherwise. In fact I don't even think this is a problem of public record and personal risk, he seems afraid for Bitcoin. That is the only explanation that makes sense. He has no responsibility as a Bitcoin core developer to silence people who talk about topics that are not "correct". He can simply disagree and say that I, as a Bitcoin core dev, do not support this.

If that was the case there would be no problem either way. It would be the risk of jeremias to talk about promoting Bitcoin in Iran. He would have the responsibility. Why does it require a kick ban from the channel to be "compliant" with the US law? I think this is absolutely ridiculous. Some people are too caucious. There is nothing directly illegal in what was discussed either.

[chrisrico]

You are not in the same position as him.  His name is on the front page of Bitcoin.org as a developer and yours is not.  His personal freedom is put at risk by being willing to discuss these topics on the record, yours is not.

I sort of agree with you, but he didn't have to ban Jeremias in order to not discuss the topic himself.

[Technomage]

I sort of agree with you, but he didn't have to ban Jeremias in order to not discuss the topic himself.

+1000

With what he did, he basically enforced a policy on behalf of everyone who uses Bitcoin. I don't buy for one second that this has anything to do with personal risk because he will of course say it's a bad idea to support Iran and there will be no quote to use against him. The ban was unnecessary. Banning will only make it worse, as you all have now seen.

[sunnankar]

This issue was already hashed during the Wikileaks issue and Satoshi recommended keeping Bitcoin away from it so Bitcoin could grow and mature into a more powerful tool.

It is extraordinarily unwise to make bitcoin such a highly visible target, at such an early stage in this project.  There could be a lot of "collateral murder" in the bitcoin community while you make your principled stand.

Having read this thread, I've done a U-turn on my earlier view and agree. Lets protect and care for bitcoin until she leaves her nursery onto the economic killing fields.

Since Len Sassaman, who may well have been Satoshi, was likely covertly murdered therefore it would be in people's best interest to be a little more discrete and pragmatic.

I would never have reacted this way without the ban, that was out of line. I already knew Jeff thinks this way so I'm not massively surprised about how he reacted but I thought it was out of line.

Talking about it, using it, does NOT imply illegal activities. Silk Road itself is NOT illegal.

Why is it so difficult for people to follow the first rule of Fight Club?

[Steve]

Censoring people leads to 5 page long threads discussing the very topic you wanted people to be silent about.

[casascius]

Casascius, I don't think your arguments are sound this time. Why is it not enough for him to simply say in IRC that he does not think it's a good idea to promote Bitcoin in Iran because of the trade sanctions etc etc?

He did at 13:17:02 in the chat log.

That is his position, and no one can say that he is doing otherwise. In fact I don't even think this is a problem of public record and personal risk, he seems afraid for Bitcoin. That is the only explanation that makes sense. He has no responsibility as a Bitcoin core developer to silence people who talk about topics that are not "correct". He can simply disagree and say that I, as a Bitcoin core dev, do not support this.

I think he did say exactly that, if you read between the lines.

If that was the case there would be no problem either way. It would be the risk of jeremias to talk about promoting Bitcoin in Iran. He would have the responsibility. Why does it require a kick ban from the channel to be "compliant" with the US law? I think this is absolutely ridiculous. Some people are too caucious. There is nothing directly illegal in what was discussed either.

I don't think he was trying to "comply" with a law, but rather, to eliminate the inherent risk he perceived (and clearly pointed out before banning) in allowing the topic to be discussed in a publicly logged bitcoin developers channel.  "Some people are too cautious" discounts the fact that his risk is FAR greater than yours - this is like me in the US saying Scandinavians are too cautious about food allergies.

[Technomage]

I'm beginning to think that having central representation for Bitcoin that is supposed to be "responsible" for it, such as the "Dev Team", or the "Bitcoin Foundation", might pose a problem for the entire system. It might become the number one weakest link in the entire ecosystem. Even exchanges can be decentralized thanks to LocalBitcoins and future p2p online exchanges. What options do we have when governments attack the dev team? The fact that someone in the team is afraid is a genuine problem.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

Censoring people leads to 5 page long threads discussing the very topic you wanted people to be silent about.

hehehe, kudos to the Internetz...

[hazek]

Censoring people leads to 5 page long threads discussing the very topic you wanted people to be silent about.

It's called the Streisand effect.

He can simply disagree and say that I, as a Bitcoin core dev, do not support this.

Hard to disagree with this.

I agree with it too. There was no need to ban anyone, his personal and public disapproval should have been enough.

[mccorvic]

Censoring people leads to 5 page long threads discussing the very topic you wanted people to be silent about.

But not long discussions on #bitcoin-dev which I think is the point? This Iran thing is hardly the most controversial topic to ever come up surrounding bitcoins, so I'm not so sure why people are trying to draw big-ol' lines in the sand over this. The people of Iran deserve bitcoin and by flying under the radar, as BTC has mostly done thus far, they will find it and use it.

[Herodes]

people get kicked off and banned from irc channels all the time often for no serious reason at all. Get over it.

The world is a place with shades of grey, don't be so black and white.

[casascius]

Censoring people leads to 5 page long threads discussing the very topic you wanted people to be silent about.

If I had to guess, I don't think anyone wants the discussion to not happen, I just don't think it was wanted in #bitcoin-dev.  jgarzik is conspicuously absent from this thread and I will bet it's not because he doesn't know about it.

He probably doesn't want the topic discussed in his living room either, especially with a tape recorder or camera rolling.

[Technomage]

He did at 13:17:02 in the chat log.

I'm aware of this, my question was why was that not enough?

I think he did say exactly that, if you read between the lines.

I'm aware of this, my question was why was that not enough?

I don't think he was trying to "comply" with a law, but rather, to eliminate the inherent risk he perceived (and clearly pointed out before banning) in allowing the topic to be discussed in a publicly logged bitcoin developers channel.  "Some people are too cautious" discounts the fact that his risk is FAR greater than yours - this is like me in the US saying Scandinavians are too cautious about food allergies.

I actually don't like the fact that I'm not in that position. It makes me look weak in this discussion. Because I can guarantee that my reaction would not have been similar regardless of my position. I think it's over-caucious and if it's possible to get in trouble even if you disagree and stay out of the discussion, by simply allowing discussion to continue on the topic, I say fuck everything. Seriously. There is supposed to be such a thing as freedom of speech and there should be a limit on what kind of crap we take from the governments.

This is unbelievable.

[server]

Kick/ban = panic.

Normal reaction for brainwashed western citizens when they hear something about Iran.

They tend to forget that 80 million Iranians hate their crazy government too...

[Herodes]

jgarzik  is intelligent, he looks long term, and wants bitcoin to succeed. Some people don't see the big picture.

[Polvos]

It's sad that we are arguing about this. I'm wondering the censorship when someone talks about translating a piece of software in farsi. Casascius says "we must not put more heat in the USA devs/mods/users/whatever".

And I ask myself: how many mods/devs here, in the main bitcoin forum, are from the fearing USA? What is considered "heat" for them? Are we starting the worst kind of censorship (the selfcenshorship)?