jgarzik goes berzerk in #bitcoin-dev, wtf?

[ArticMine]

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.

To use the movie theatre analogy what has happened here is more like someone taking out their phone to silently check the time and you telling them to STFU.

[kgo]

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

3) jeremias was unbanned after several hours (by me, with no one prompting or requesting this).

[kgo]

To use the movie theatre analogy what has happened here is more like someone taking out their phone to silently check the time and you telling them to STFU.

And ignore several requests noting how distracting that bright white screen on said phone actually is.

Thank you for the entertainment.  This thread is completely full of mindboggling silliness.

1) RE "why?" Gavin nailed it on IRC:

Code:

<gavinandresen> I think jermias was banned because jgarzik was grumpy
(I'd guess too little sleep, he has a little one) and jeremias tried to
workaround jgarzik's request to take political discussion out of here.

Offtopic crap, followed by a transparent attempt to keep the offtopic discussion going.  After warnings and repeated kicks are ignored, you get banned.  Typical IRC B.S.

[cbeast]

Bitcoin is a little like the Manhattan Project if it were open sourced. The banksters think they have the ultimate financial weapons in derivatives, but they don't know the power of cryptonium. As long as we keep talking with big words and avoid the scary words used by pundits, we should stay off their radar.

[Herodes]

Thank you for the entertainment.  This thread Internet is completely full of mindboggling silliness.

Fixed it for you.

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.

[...snip...]

I'm not sure this will even sink in with you, but it's something I've seen with a lot of developers. They're so hung up in the small details, that they have problems seeing the whole picture. The world is a complex, irrational place, where people sometime behave very irrational, and often opposite of how the developer would want it to work.

I also see this happening a lot online, people getting hung up in miniscule and 'unimportant' things that's counter productive for everyone.

It's important to think about who is delivering a message. Was it sathosi, was it jgarzik, was it gavin or was it some random 17-year old from his mothers basement. Who should we listen to, and who should we trust?

There's always more to an action than the immediate action itself. Humans are complex, and they have a belief system, they have values, opinions, feelings, their likes and dislikes.

Now, for the future, if anyone upsets you, and it's important for you to clear up the issue. Just wait a day or two, till your blood has stopped boiling, go out for a walk, anything but hammering the keyboard. Then find their contact information, e-mail them or ask them if they want to have a conversation with you on skype. You will be surprised about how accommodating most people will be as long as you ask nicely.

Now, if we take you as an example, if someone has a discussion with you, and then they somehow come to the conclusion that you're a total ass hat, I'm pretty sure you'll disagree with that. And often, people will base their assumptions and conclusion about you on a very fragile set of facts. Someone may even say they lost all and absolute respect for you because something you said, although it would look quite differently in another light, and if it was put into some sort of context and a framework for understanding.

So, if you asked jgarzik privately about why he kicked and banned (?) you from the channel, and why he is against bitcoins being used In Iran, when it from your point of view is a great thing, then he might as well have taken his time to answer you to the best of his abilities.

While some people just look at the things immediately in front of their nose (this seems to be very popular with social media), some people actually have visions and long term plans, and they see things in a greater picture. Sometimes foregoing something in the present is not because of cowardice or lack of spine, but because the end goal makes it a wise move.

For instance, a big army moving into a foreign country may have spotted an outpost of the enemy, and if they wanted to, they could strike it and kill everyone, which would be along the goal of most of the soldiers of that group, ie. kill the enemy, bring it on! Instead, they silently go past that outpost in a stormy night, and hit the main capital of the country, and take control of it. If they'd chosen to take the outpost first, it's quite likely that the outpost would alert back to the capital, and the element of surprise totally vanished. This is a far fetched example, but you get the point.

As a last word, don't get to worked up about what someone says or does on the internet in a few sentences or in a short action (like kicking and banning someone on an irc channel). I'm sure most upstanding people are in for a reasonable discussion if you talk to them nicely. Don't jump to conclusions, and don't let your emotions cloud your judgement.

You may notice that the 'greater' participants of this forum seldom indulge themselves in pissing contests, but the stay polite, and stick to the facts. If one get dragged into endless pissing contensts online, it's just a waste of time, and the same is getting upset about every small thing that doesn't go your way. In normal life, there's a shitload of things that may be irritating, but it's how we deal with these things that determines our own well being.

Let me take myself as an example, if I had a shitty day, I may not even have answered you back if you said 'hello'. In 85% of the cases, I would probably have responded to you though, and in the remaining cases, your gut reaction might have been: "What a complete ass!" When in fact it's far from the fact if you knew me. Sometime I just have enough minding my own business. And I think a lot of people are like this. We have good days, and we have bad days.

[ArticMine]

To use the movie theatre analogy what has happened here is more like someone taking out their phone to silently check the time and you telling them to STFU.

And ignore several requests noting how distracting that bright white screen on said phone actually is.

Thank you for the entertainment.  This thread is completely full of mindboggling silliness.

1) RE "why?" Gavin nailed it on IRC:

Code:

<gavinandresen> I think jermias was banned because jgarzik was grumpy
(I'd guess too little sleep, he has a little one) and jeremias tried to
workaround jgarzik's request to take political discussion out of here.

Offtopic crap, followed by a transparent attempt to keep the offtopic discussion going.  After warnings and repeated kicks are ignored, you get banned.  Typical IRC B.S.

More like ignoring several requests about how much noise was been made with the phone even though there was complete silence. By the way I do not use an iPhone so the bright white screen is not an issue here. As with the original assumption that all trade with Iran is illegal in the United States, not all phones generate a flood of white light when checking the time.

[Technomage]

I'm not sure this will even sink in with you, but it's something I've seen with a lot of developers. They're so hung up in the small details, that they have problems seeing the whole picture. The world is a complex, irrational place, where people sometime behave very irrational, and often opposite of how the developer would want it to work.

[...snip...]

Good post and I do get it. I don't like getting stuck in pissing contests or flamewars either, that's why I basically stopped posting after going back and forth with a couple of people in the beginning.

I didn't really think too much when I created this thread, I simply did it because I felt my friend had been wronged. Regardless of that, it has been a great learning process. The point was to take it to the jury and while the jury has been anything but unanimous and not exactly on topic, it has been fairly interesting anyway.

Personally I need to spend less time on the forums and it's not just about this forum. In general. I know other Bitcoin enthusiasts that have this problem as well. They have actual projects and businesses to run but they procrastinate by spending time writing about Bitcoin all over the Internet. It's marketing, true, but often it's not that effective.

This post itself is off topic by the way, and I'll stop right here.

[Herodes]

I think you show great self insight. You don't get defensive. I think you have a bright future.

I'm not sure this will even sink in with you, but it's something I've seen with a lot of developers. They're so hung up in the small details, that they have problems seeing the whole picture. The world is a complex, irrational place, where people sometime behave very irrational, and often opposite of how the developer would want it to work.

[...snip...]

Good post and I do get it. I don't like getting stuck in pissing contests or flamewars either, that's why I basically stopped posting after going back and forth with a couple of people in the beginning.

I didn't really think too much when I created this thread, I simply did it because I felt my friend had been wronged. Regardless of that, it has been a great learning process. The point was to take it to the jury and while the jury has been anything but unanimous and not exactly on topic, it has been fairly interesting anyway.

Personally I need to spend less time on the forums and it's not just about this forum. In general. I know other Bitcoin enthusiasts that have this problem as well. They have actual projects and businesses to run but they procrastinate by spending time writing about Bitcoin all over the Internet. It's marketing, true, but often it's not that effective.

This post itself is off topic by the way, and I'll stop right here.

[clone4501]

I believe jgarzik was trying to avoid with his temporary ban was once eloquently quoted after Pearl Harbor:

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

Isoroku Yamamoto, Gensui (Imperial Japanese Navy)

[LightRider]

It may be too late for the long game, since Iranians apparently already know about Bitcoin, and by prolonging discussion in this thread you only increase the probability that even more Iranians will get to know Bitcoin because of viral Streissand Effect which you created with your censorship act.

Let's see.  What if one knew ahead of time that

• the forum is full of idiot trolls
• the chat logs are watched closely by said trolls

Like I said.  Chess.

So JGarzik trolled a productive discussion in order to encourage more productive discussion? But then he denounces trolling as idiotic? So this thread that he dislikes was his intended purpose? I thought it was accidental. Which is it Garzik? We refuse to be your pawns!

[smoothie]

This thread, along with Jeff's actions, goes to show that even the developers and core people of bitcoin are assholes. And people thought I was an asshole? Damn, Jeff pretty much showed how big an asshole he is by what he did.

What's next, Satoshi will return and tell us all we have been scammed by his creation called bitcoin and hits his "hidden" kill switch? 

[memvola]

As long as we keep talking with big words and avoid the scary words used by pundits, we should stay off their radar.

It's like how jgarzik thinks they are resourceful enough to monitor IRC and the forums, but not resourceful enough to see what it really is. Good luck with the chess thing, but I can't help but notice that your invisible opponent is not playing the game at all... I also tend to act overzealous when I have to deal with the State or banks, that's a psychological thing, and has been known to not work, ever.

Anyways, all in all, I think almost everyone now agrees that Jeff (and team America) are doing what they have to do, and we need to appreciate their resolve. However I don't think this thread has been a trollfest about a minor misunderstanding, but rather a revelation of several things most of us hadn't quite grasped before, thanks to that minor misunderstanding. We'll see if anything will come out of this.

[repentance]

What's next, Satoshi will return and tell us all we have been scammed by his creation called bitcoin and hits his "hidden" kill switch? 

We find out that a second Foundation has existed secretly all along and that Satoshi is really a robot called R. Daneel Olivaw. 

[casascius]

I am surprised at the wide range of guesses as to the thought process that would go into this... you guys are reading into this way too far.  I am amazed that so many people point to the "Streisand effect" as though they think he is trying to silence all discussion of the topic and anywhere and everywhere and wants it to stay quiet... it's obvious to me this is in error, but maybe I am just smart like that or something. =)

Let me simplify it.  Imagine you're a developer.  Imagine you have the following GOAL: Avoid a situation where the developers are on the record participating in a discussion that could be interpreted to suggest they are in favor of something that is clearly politically unpopular, that is irrelevant to the development of the software itself, that could be used in the form of a "sound bite" to cast a bad light on the project as a whole.

Does having this goal mean you actually hold the politically unpopular position? NO
Does having this goal mean you hold the opposite of the politically unpopular position? NO
Does having this goal mean you don't stand for the values you say you stand for? NO
Does having this goal mean you don't have a backbone? NO
Does having this goal mean you are/aren't an asshole? NO
Does having this goal mean you love or hate or are a pawn of the government? NO
Does having this goal mean you are a sellout? NO
Does having this goal mean you love or hate the group(s) affected by the politically unpopular subject? NO
Does having this goal mean you truly want to make Bitcoin unavailable to the affected group(s)? NO
Does having this goal mean you are concerned if the affected group(s) manage to use Bitcoin without your support? NO
Does having this goal mean you want to silence all discussion about the topic anywhere and everywhere? NO
Does having this goal mean you care if others discuss the topic in your absence? NO
Does having this goal mean you are concerned if the topic goes viral and achieves the penetration you didn't want to discuss? NO
Does having this goal mean anything other than that you don't want the project to get bad press and/or targeted for attack in the form of a developer's own words? NO

Look guys, I have never met Jeff, I'm not sure I've ever corresponded with him more than briefly here and there in the forums, I am not picking favorites.  I don't think I have ever done business with Jeff either.  On the other hand, I believe I have done business with many of those who are against him or are criticizing him.  I have no personal motivation to favor his position over anybody else's.

I sustain his action because it was wise, and consistent with the common sense of someone who has the big picture in mind.  I wouldn't offer that support for any other reason.  Go ahead, let it streisand away... I don't think he or anyone else expressed any concern regarding this.

[becoin]

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?

[thoughtfan]

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?

We don't know what preceded the conversation recorded in the pastebin but fom what's there it looks like jeramias went there specifically in order to solicit support for his promotion of Bitcoin in Iran.  There followed a discussion about whether or not that was a good idea then when jgarzik decided he wasn't comfortable with this topic being discussed in that particular channel he put a stop to it.  It was only then the translating Bitcoin-Qt to Farsi topic was raised.  Whether it was jeramias's intention or not I can completely understand why, in the context of the previous conversation, it could look like this was just an attempt to keep the conversation going by using the translation thing to get around the 'off topic' and 'promoting illegal activity' accusations.  My guess is had the translation thing come up in a neutral way in the first place there would not have been a ban.

Technically those saying that the throwing out was in response to the comment regarding the translation are likely correct but jgarzik has agreed with Gavin Anderson's take that there may have been an element of 'having a bad day, can't be bothered with this right now' in the decision.  So whilst the banning (since removed) might not have been the 'best' move I don't see a single, slightly mistaken/intolerant moderating decision as justification for the consequent outrage and calls of treason.

jgazrik did not 'oppose the translation'.  He just wasn't prepared to talk about it - nor to have that conversation go on on that particular channel at that particular moment in the context of how it had been brought up.  Regardless of whether or not we believe the decision was justified or not the two are not the same.

Some people seem to spend their time next to their saddled up high horse with one foot in the stirrup already just waiting to hear the snap of a twig before jumping up on it to start shooting at anyone with an opinion that doesn't 100% concur with their own.  Good for me to learn from though so thanks all

[becoin]

fom what's there it looks like jeramias went there specifically in order to solicit support for his promotion of Bitcoin in Iran.

Why is it a bad thing to do?

[casascius]

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?

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

[Gabi]

What's next, Satoshi will return and tell us all we have been scammed by his creation called bitcoin and hits his "hidden" kill switch? 

We find out that a second Foundation has existed secretly all along and that Satoshi is really a robot called R. Daneel Olivaw. 

That would be EPIC

[thoughtfan]

fom what's there it looks like jeramias went there specifically in order to solicit support for his promotion of Bitcoin in Iran.

Why is it a bad thing to do?

If what you're referring to is promoting Bitcoin in Iran or soliciting such promotion then that's just a matter of opinion.  My tendency is towards holding off on activities more likely to be construed as inviting an attack on Bitcoin until it is a lot more robust than it is - but that's just my opinion.

As for whether such a solicitation is appropriate in that particular forum is another question - and is one the moderator at the time decided wasn't.  Maybe 'inappropriate' is closer to the mark than 'bad'.

Again, we've got a number of issues that when mushed together keep the issue as a heated one going round in circles rather than allowing us to move forward.  If we tease it apart it gives us at least three questions:

Could the promotion of Bitcoin in Iran be justifiably considered as promoting illegal activity?

Is reasonable to expect that a moderator make an immediate, informed and 'correct' judgement on this matter when deciding whether to allow a discussion to develop/continue?

Is it reasonable to criticise the moderator of a developer channel in such harsh tones when in the moment he errs on the side of caution - especially given what's potentially at stake - and given that promoting a political issue had nothing to do with the technical development of Bitcoin in the first place?