My edit war with Luke-jr

[Greedi]

if i remember rightly luke-jr made his own alt coin a few months ago, i think it was BBQ coin or something. it didnt catch on which is why i think that he now hates alt coins like litecoin because they have succeeded where he failed.

if an altcoin had no benefits or competition, there would be no reason for him to get so emotional about it. i dont get emotional of the threat that monopoly money will become mainstream. because they have no value or demand beyond the game, so i dont care about it.

luke Jr's hatred of litecoin just proves one thing, it has value and is a competitor. He is afraid of its success

no, BBQ was a kids joke, Luke-Jr attacked it with his pool Eligius.

I'm not a supporter of Like-Jr, but no, it wasn't him that attacked and closed BBQ, And either was it just kids that created BBQ, BBQ have nothing to do with Luke.

[1713516475]

1713516475

[1713516475]

1713516475

[sd]

I asked him to discuss it, he just reverted my edit without any discussion.
The text is not reasonable, it is too strict in favor of bitcoin and against alts. None of the alts today qualify to this strict standard.
Luek-jr is trying to dictate one specific line of development of bitcoin forks.

Any suggestions of a neutral third party? Poll?

I really don't like wasting my time in wiki edit wars. My guess is even if a poll was published and rejected luke-jr's edit, he would not abide by the result of the poll.

There should be administrators, moderators, or whatever to act as neutral parties. A pool here in the alt currencies board would be far from neutral.

It's an unresolvable problem with publicly editable wiki's that people won't agree and it's made wikipedia a bureaucratic nightmare to edit.


But I think it's only right to ask people to think before creating another bitcoin clone that adds nothing new whatsoever. We certainly don't need any more cynical get rich quick schemes. We have had quite enough of those already.

[ripper234]

But I think it's only right to ask people to think before creating another bitcoin clone that adds nothing new whatsoever. We certainly don't need any more cynical get rich quick schemes. We have had quite enough of those already.

Bitcoin will already have hurdles to grow adoption. There is no reason to create more by introducing competing crypto-currencies.

...

There are a number of flaws with Bitcoin that cannot be corrected without a "hard fork". Any serious alt chain should at least attempt to address these concerns and issues.

I really dislike the tone of the quoted text. Obviously there are reasons to compete, otherwise people wouldn't have started alt coins. Submitting patches to Bitcoin isn't a realistic process to test changes (e.g. Proof of Stake), because the change process in the Bitcoin protocol is painfully slow / halted. Some features might never get included, and if the authors think they are positive, an alt chain is the best way to go - not just a testnet alt chain (which is welcome as a precursor step), but an actual live alt coin.

[Simran]

But I think it's only right to ask people to think before creating another bitcoin clone that adds nothing new whatsoever. We certainly don't need any more cynical get rich quick schemes. We have had quite enough of those already.

Bitcoin will already have hurdles to grow adoption. There is no reason to create more by introducing competing crypto-currencies.

...

There are a number of flaws with Bitcoin that cannot be corrected without a "hard fork". Any serious alt chain should at least attempt to address these concerns and issues.

I really dislike the tone of the quoted text. Obviously there are reasons to compete, otherwise people wouldn't have started alt coins. Submitting patches to Bitcoin isn't a realistic process to test changes (e.g. Proof of Stake), because the change process in the Bitcoin protocol is painfully slow / halted. Some features might never get included, and if the authors think they are positive, an alt chain is the best way to go - not just a testnet alt chain (which is welcome as a precursor step), but an actual live alt coin.

I completely agree with Luke-Jr being completely biased towards Bitcoin. He's implying that Bitcoin must be perfect before anyone attempts to make another chain, but if those problems can't be solved then so be it, let the other's create their new coin. This is just like gay marriage, and Luke-Jr is some extreme conservative. Like really, who gives a fuck whether the gays marry each other(creating other coins), not affecting you in any way... oh wait... you might be afraid that this new coin might be better than your previous shit coin that you couldn't fix. Gaise pls!

Bitcoin will already have hurdles to grow adoption. There is no reason to create more by introducing competing crypto-currencies.

Fix your shit first, then you have some authority to say something like this.. for now... no.

There are a number of flaws with Bitcoin that cannot be corrected without a "hard fork". Any serious alt chain should at least attempt to address these concerns and issues.

It's not our responsibility to fix these issues. If anything, since you're the one all Bitcoin crazy, you fix them muthafucka. Sheeit, mane, you're starting to sound a dictator.

I don't like his changes, and find them anti-competitive towards new alt currencies. I prefer to leave the choice up to the creators of the currencies & the market. I tried reverting his edit multiple times, but he is stubborn.

Thoughts?

The text Luke-jr added is entirely reasonable. The Wiki should present all reasonable sides to the story, yet you appear to be trying to bias it to your viewpoint alone.

If you tried to revert his change multiple times, and he added the same edits multiple times then you are both misbehaving. A neutral third party should resolve the situation.

We all know that Luke is being biased towards Bitcoin. What he puts degrades alternate coins, and tries to glamorize Bitcoin like as if it's the best currency in the world with no flaws. Why doesn't he try to fix those problems before he gets more people to use Bitcoin? Because he doesn't know how! A neutral party? No such thing, most of the people here are strict Bitcoin fanatics, or a decent reasonable person from the alternate chains.

[sd]

We all know that Luke is being biased towards Bitcoin. What he puts degrades alternate coins, and tries to glamorize Bitcoin like as if it's the best currency in the world with no flaws. Why doesn't he try to fix those problems before he gets more people to use Bitcoin? Because he doesn't know how! A neutral party? No such thing, most of the people here are strict Bitcoin fanatics, or a decent reasonable person from the alternate chains.

It looks more like Luke-jr is suggesting that BitCoin clones should try and achieve some useful purpose. He is not saying they should not be created. It's entirely false to state that his text 'degrades alternate coins' or that he 'tries to glamorize Bitcoin like as if it's the best currency in the world with no flaws'. He clearly states it has flaws when he says 'There are a number of flaws with Bitcoin that cannot be corrected without a "hard fork"'.

You are arguing against the man ( luke-jr ) not the text he added to the wiki page.


Gay marriage has nothing to do with this, I can't imagine why you mentioned it.

[Simran]

It looks more like Luke-jr is suggesting that BitCoin clones should try and achieve some useful purpose.

Alternate currencies serve the same purpose as Bitcoin does, and they have different concepts which make them unique.

He is not saying they should not be created.

You sure?

Bitcoin will already have hurdles to grow adoption. There is no reason to create more by introducing competing crypto-currencies.

It's entirely false to state that his text 'degrades alternate coins' or that he 'tries to glamorize Bitcoin like as if it's the best currency in the world with no flaws'.

No it isn't, in the Litecoin wiki page, he says that Litecoin serves no purpose and is a pyramid scheme. Why doesn't he said that about Bitcoin? Hmm? He's degrading other chains.

He clearly states it has flaws when he says 'There are a number of flaws with Bitcoin that cannot be corrected without a "hard fork"'.

Why doesn't he fix those flaws rather than talking shit about coins? He's a hypocrite!

You are arguing against the man ( luke-jr ) not the text he added to the wiki page.

Well, he is the one writing the text of course. His ideology is what he believes, so yes, the text on the page is him.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with this, I can't imagine why you mentioned it.

One of two reasons why you say this. You clearly didn't understand my comparison. What I was trying to say is that Luke-Jr shouldn't give a fuck about alt chains. Or two, you're a conservative

[ripper234]

Another edit war he's participating in, this time accusing SatoshiDice as being a DDOS attack.
Nothing wrong with making such accusations in the forum, but editing wiki entries with pure speculations and insisting on your version of the truth is wrong.

SatoshiDice is a DDoS attack against the Bitcoin network designed as a "blockchain-based betting game" so as to exploiting gamblers to cover the expenses of bypassing the built-in anti-DDoS features of Bitcoin (transaction fees).

[ElectricMucus]

Oh wow.

But shouldn't he take that on with Erik?
Wait! Apparently he does: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Erik_Voorhees (In his own way)



This has much potential, I haven't had this of a chuckle since the brief period Atlas was allowed to post again.

[Gavin Andresen]

So... maybe https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tonal_Bitcoin  needs some editing in the same spirit that he's editing other pages...
 

(darn, nanotube protected it...)
(ps to nanotube: that page should be deleted, in my humble opinion)

[K1773R]

or maybe just revoke Luke-Jr's permissions for the wiki...

[davout]

So... maybe https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tonal_Bitcoin  needs some editing in the same spirit that he's editing other pages...

Hahahah, oh yes please.

[sd]

So... maybe https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tonal_Bitcoin  needs some editing in the same spirit that he's editing other pages...
 

Tonal makes perfect sense to anyone who can count to 16 on their fingers. Maybe some of the denizens of alternate cryptocurrencies would find it a useful feature.

It should be easy enough to get the client to report in any arbitrary base, although it would be a completely pointless exercise.

[kano]

or maybe just revoke Luke-Jr's permissions for the wiki...

Sorry - doesn't work.
We banned him from the #cgminer IRC channel but he stalks it anyway under other names and hidden connections.

[kano]

Oh wow.

But shouldn't he take that on with Erik?
Wait! Apparently he does: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Erik_Voorhees (In his own way)



This has much potential, I haven't had this of a chuckle since the brief period Atlas was allowed to post again.

Actually, to be blunt, the guy is simply making a fool of Bitcoin.

He posts personal opinions all over the Bitcoin wiki - to the point where it isn't much use as a reliable, objective wiki.

A lot of what he has posted would be automatically revoked by the rules of the original wikipedia

Personal opinions are not the point of a public wiki about Bitcoin - and his personal opinions just make Bitcoin look foolish.

I'll give yet another example of it related to something I'm involved in (of course) cgminer:
https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=P2Pool&action=historysubmit&diff=31023&oldid=30982

Yes the guy is complete fail.
But I consider the wiki itself not worth making any effort on due to crap like this thread points out, so I've never bothered to try to get undone that crap change he did.

Edit: Or the previous change where he simply removed cgminer:
https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=P2Pool&action=historysubmit&diff=28709&oldid=28414

[K1773R]

Oh wow.

But shouldn't he take that on with Erik?
Wait! Apparently he does: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Erik_Voorhees (In his own way)



This has much potential, I haven't had this of a chuckle since the brief period Atlas was allowed to post again.

Actually, to be blunt, the guy is simply making a fool of Bitcoin.

He posts personal opinions all over the Bitcoin wiki - to the point where it isn't much use as a reliable, objective wiki.

A lot of what he has posted would be automatically revoked by the rules of the original wikipedia

Personal opinions are not the point of a public wiki about Bitcoin - and his personal opinions just make Bitcoin look foolish.

I'll give yet another example of it related to something I'm involved in (of course) cgminer:
https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=P2Pool&action=historysubmit&diff=31023&oldid=30982

Yes the guy is complete fail.
But I consider the wiki itself not worth making any effort on due to crap like this thread points out, so I've never bothered to try to get undone that crap change he did.

Edit: Or the previous change where he simply removed cgminer:
https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=P2Pool&action=historysubmit&diff=28709&oldid=28414

worst part is core devs do agree with such things...

[Deprived]

We all know that Luke is being biased towards Bitcoin. What he puts degrades alternate coins, and tries to glamorize Bitcoin like as if it's the best currency in the world with no flaws. Why doesn't he try to fix those problems before he gets more people to use Bitcoin? Because he doesn't know how! A neutral party? No such thing, most of the people here are strict Bitcoin fanatics, or a decent reasonable person from the alternate chains.

It looks more like Luke-jr is suggesting that BitCoin clones should try and achieve some useful purpose. He is not saying they should not be created. It's entirely false to state that his text 'degrades alternate coins' or that he 'tries to glamorize Bitcoin like as if it's the best currency in the world with no flaws'. He clearly states it has flaws when he says 'There are a number of flaws with Bitcoin that cannot be corrected without a "hard fork"'.

You are arguing against the man ( luke-jr ) not the text he added to the wiki page.


Gay marriage has nothing to do with this, I can't imagine why you mentioned it.

The problem isn't with the argument that alt-chains are a valid way to improve Bitcoin - yes they are.
The problem IS that he's arguing that's the ONLY valid reason for an alt-coin to exist.

[ElectricMucus]

I don't think that the "problem" lies with alt-chains here, but something else.

[Balthazar]

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/9183/historyxo.png

 

[ripper234]

Luke needs to be banned from the wiki.
Link for the latest vandalism by Luke.

[Balthazar]

I'm completely disappointed. It's sad that one immature guy can create so many problems.