jgarzik goes berzerk in #bitcoin-dev, wtf?

[Gabi]

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.

+1!

[Technomage]

Would you like to hear Jeff's take on it when his words are on the record, or what Jeff's take on it would be if the two of you were sitting at a bar in Finland?  I don't know Jeff personally, but my reading of the situation suggests they'd be drastically different.

I think the explanations would be very different. I know representing Bitcoin is sometimes walking a thin line but there are individual differences on this. Some people want to put themselves on the line a little more (I'm one of those people), and some want to be very caucious and take no risks. I understand that as well, but I still see the ban as unneeded. He can remove himself from the equation even without a ban. If he did it to protect Bitcoin and has a good explanation, I might partially buy it.

[sunnankar]

I think I'm taking it too seriously but my history as an IRC veteran sort of heats it up. I tend to get emotional if there is unjust moderation and now that two of the things that I love are involved in the same dispute (IRC & Bitcoin), it heats things up for me. I do get the opposite point of view very well but I think there is a difference between being caucious and smart, and being afraid and in panic. I really don't see a reason to panic.

It's quite clear that you're clouded by emotions.

Yes, definitely emotionally compromised. Compartmentalization is a wonderful tool. Tool X can be a tool to liberate people of jurisdiction Y while the dev team of Tool X is publicly on record as not helping people of jurisdiction Y.

[casascius]

I still see the ban as unneeded.

I understood this as a ban to forcibly end the discussion since it was continuing despite his request for it to stop, not a permanent ban that means "never come back".  Have I misunderstood?

[Technomage]

Yes, definitely emotionally compromised. Compartmentalization is a wonderful tool. Tool X can be a tool to liberate people of jurisdiction Y while the dev team of Tool X is publicly on record as not helping people of jurisdiction Y.

I'm guilty of excess emotion over this, but I must remind you that it was jgarzik who was originally "emotionally compromised", it was his fear and panic, or "agitation", that lead to an unnecessary ban. So I'm not the only one guilty of that.

[Gabi]

But why stopping the discussion?  

[Technomage]

I understood this as a ban to forcibly end the discussion since it was continuing despite his request for it to stop, not a permanent ban that means "never come back".  Have I misunderstood?

Of course it's not a permanent ban. It was a quick escape from a topic he didn't want to discuss. He was very agitated, at first he banned Finland entirely from the channel as a quick response.

What does other dev team members think about the fact that the topic of Iran is apparently entirely forbidden in the dev team IRC channel?

Let's make a complete list of everything that is forbidden. So everyone knows in advance to be quiet!

[Gabi]

This is even more scary than what i tought 

[memvola]

I don't support the oppression of Iran either.  In fact, neither do most US citizens.

I also don't support the war on drugs, but that doesn't mean I'm about to use or sell drugs where I can be readily identified.

I think what makes this topic so closer to the fine line is the singling out of a group of people who had no choice on the matter. This is a far more sensitive subject than drugs.

Also, this might spark a greater controversy because Bitcoin is apparently being constrained to being a western project. In this case I'm more sympathetic to your views. This would only be resolved as Bitcoin gains more development effort from the rest of the world. Maybe we've gotten used to expecting freedom generating technologies from the west to the point of being unfair.

[Technomage]

An Iranian joining the dev team, that would heat things up!

[Gabi]

What happened is like banning someone because he is saying the racial laws are wrong during the hitler dictatorship, because otherwise the regime would go after you...

[mccorvic]

What happened is like banning someone because he is saying the racial laws are wrong during the hitler dictatorship, because otherwise the regime would go after you...

That's a half-way-there analogy.  Let's say you were doing work that undermined the dictatorship and were secretly helping people out of Nazi Germany...and then everyone got mad at you that you didn't go out on the street and announce what you were doing.

Are you mad that the people who were housing Jews in their attic didn't go up to some SS dudes and said, "hey bro, we're hiding some Jews"?

Nice Godwinning btw.

[Gabi]

It's page 8, the probability was almost 1 anyway  and what we are doing is not a secret, everything is open

[mccorvic]

It's page 8, the probability was almost 1 anyway  and what we are doing is not a secret, everything is open

Heh, fair enough.

I think that is kind of the grey-scale debate here.  Does a dev himself talking about (and implied approval of) the illegal uses of BTC on a recorded chat matter?  I think it does.

We all know what the goals of BTC are and I think we should all appreciate the delicate situation that those who are really putting themselves out there are in.

[Gabi]

But it's "illegal" only for USA. And anyway are we sure it's "illegal"?

[mccorvic]

But it's "illegal" only for USA. And anyway are we sure it's "illegal"?

The embargo on Iran is actually pretty international in scope, and while I doubt there is any piece of documentation regarding the embargo that specifically names bitcoin there are many many restrictions of sending money/gold.

[punningclan]

Wouldn't surreptitiously "infecting" Iran with Bitcoin be considered an act of terrorism by the Iranian government and could help liberate the country and the whole region?  However the US or others might get a little peeved and go after anyone connected with the project after they start translating it to the languages of sanctioned countries?

[mccorvic]

Wouldn't surreptitiously "infecting" Iran with Bitcoin be considered an act of terrorism by the Iranian government and could help liberate the country and the whole region?  However the US might get a little peeved and go after anyone connected with the project after we start translating it to the languages of sanctioned countries?

You're probably right.  I never really understood why anyone would think embargoes do anything but hurt the people and make the sanctioned government stronger. Sadly, for any major politician to suggest its a bad idea would quickly find themselves voted out for being "weak" on whatever. 

As for languages, I don't think the gov't would really care about just straight up translation.  There are plenty of people outside Iran who speak Farsi.

[RodeoX]

Not saying anything about the wisdom of the sanctions, but know that doing business with anyone in Iran may land U.S. citizens in jail. None of the arguments that I see here would hold up as a defense. Your best bet would be a guilty plea in the hope that the court would go easy on you. 

[bitcoinsrule]

And here we go again. The ban was silly. Garzik coward behavior is ridiculous.

If there's any good in Bitcoin, it's its potential to allow people to circumvent governments. Allowing Iranians to bypass foreign sanctions is a perfect, "text-book" use case for Bitcoin. Even WordPress understands it, but one of the core developers apparently doesn't.

+ 1