Kill the Politics forum

[passerby]

Yes, I agree, the main bitcoin site will be better off without a political forum.

It's time for Bitcoin.org to adopt an official "no  direct political advocacy" policy

It's like with silk market thing - having threads discussing what it is etc. is probably ok. Having people sell invites is slightly less oky but tolerable. Having people push drugs right here, in the "The Coin's very own backyard" - not so much. We must maintain a certain... veneer at this point in time, guys. 

P.S.:
However, the project yours truly intends to start   (expect announce in several weeks) would most likelycertainly benefit from exactly such a strongly politicized forum and stuff, so expect us to make one, as soon as we finalize acquisition of seed capital and establish a web presence.

 

[Jessy Kang]

This is what Bitcoin was intended to be:

Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non- reversible services. With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need. A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable. These costs and payment uncertainties can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments over a communications channel without a trusted party.

What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party. Transactions that are computationally impractical to reverse would protect sellers from fraud, and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers. In this paper, we propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer distributed timestamp server to generate computational proof of the chronological order of transactions. The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes.

-Satoshi Nakamoto

From: http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Nothing there about politics, taxes or the government. It was simply a system for merchants and their customers to avoid high transaction fees, chargeback fraud and inconvenience. It is a system of commerce- not social change. There is no magic software code that it going to fix the World's problems. Instead of pursuing Bitcoin, as it was intended, it was highjacked by political ideologues who decided to use Bitcoin to their own ends.

[theymos]

Are we going to have a Satoshi-quote battle? 

The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts. Their massive overhead costs make micropayments impossible.

(My emphasis.)

Satoshi even explicitly approved of at least one political discussion on this forum:

grondilu deleted the whole "What will governments do against Bitcoin?" thread, which had diverged more into a philosophical debate about politics.

I removed the "Remove own topics" permission for regular users.  I didn't know they could do that.  It would be OK if it only deleted if it only has your own posts in it, like if you accidentally posted in the wrong place.

At the same time, I enabled "Move own topic". 

(This is from the staff forum.)

[caveden]

Yeah, hijacked by its own creator, who created the inflation cap!

Please lady, pay attention to what you're saying. Bitcoin has anti-inflation political/economical views since its beginning. Don't like it? Fork the project and create your "inflatacoin" or whatever, keeping the other characteristics. You may as well make it possible for the government to track transactions on your implementation, since you seem so reluctant against "subversive technologies" and the possibility of tax evasion.

And if the politics forum bothers you so much, just don't read the discussions. What's so hard in that?

[wumpus]

Agreed.

In my opinion, this should be changed to a developer forum. For people that are either developing on bitcoin clients, or making services/merchant sites that accept bitcoin.

No (direct) trading, no politics, no bullshit. Bitcoin is starting to get out of its infancy, and there are enough other places for that now.

[passerby]

Yeah, hijacked by its own creator, who created the inflation cap!

Please lady, pay attention to what you're saying. Bitcoin has anti-inflation political/economical views since its beginning. Don't like it? Fork the project and create your "inflatacoin" or whatever, keeping the other characteristics. You may as well make it possible for the government to track transactions on your implementation, since you seem so reluctant against "subversive technologies" and the possibility of tax evasion.

And if the politics forum bothers you so much, just don't read the discussions. What's so hard in that?

The question, dear gentlemen and ladies, isn't about what are the politics of bitcoin creators.

The question is which marketing and PR approach would ensure greatest rate of adoption, said adoption being crucial for long-term security of bitcoin both against government and speculators.

I believe that the best rate of adoption would be ensured by a politically neutral main hub.

COME ON GUYS (AND GIRLS) WOULD IT BE SO DAMNED HARD TO DISCUSS POLITICS @ SOME OTHER FORUM ?

[Anonymous]

http://bitcoinpolitics.reddit.com

[Jessy Kang]

Are we going to have a Satoshi-quote battle? 

Looks like we don't need to. None of the quotes suggest he intended it be used, or openly advocated as a political tool. It was discussed as a commercial tool with political implications. Even if you want to use it as a political tool- it will accomplish the same thing and is far more palatable to the masses if marketed as a purely commercial one. The Ops don't have a logical leg to stand on and they know it. It's just a face issue at this point.

How's that for a role change- the girl is talking about facts and logic and the guys are talking about wants and feelings LOL. "You have to love us BOTH, Bitcoin and Ideology 2GETHR4EVR! I've got the Bitcoin.org so I MAKE the RULES! If you don't love my ideology GO AWAY! *screech, door slam*"

Anyway, this will shortly fix itself. Just would have been better to stay ahead of the OODA loop and not be reactive to the media.

[passerby]

Anyway, this will shortly fix itself. Just would have been better to stay ahead of the OODA loop and not be reactive to the media.

Truth be told, media attention did the coins no small amount of good  

However, methinks that the main forum would best steer clear of controversies and maintain maximum possible neutrality to all participants.
Controversies are more than capable of emerging on their own, and it would nice to have a place that will serve as a hub of ideological and political...moderation, of sorts, to draw in, and reinforce the trust of, "simple", non-controversial adopters.

So yeah, Jessy's right.

Politics discussion is best to migrate to other pastures.

[wumpus]

How's that for a role change- the girl is talking about facts and logic and the guys are talking about wants and feelings LOL. "You have to love us BOTH, Bitcoin and Ideology 2GETHR4EVR! I've got the Bitcoin.org so I MAKE the RULES! If you don't love my ideology GO AWAY! *screech, door slam*"

Lol  It's indeed interesting. For all things money, it's the men that go into emo rage.

Reminds me of this http://www.marketwatch.com/story/women-are-better-investors-and-heres-why-2011-06-14

[FreeMoney]

What will your investors say when they find out the logo was made by... an individual. It's not official, it's just good.

[passerby]

What will your investors say when they find out the logo was made by... an individual. It's not official, it's just good.

Um, I dunno, is it illegal to use logos made by individuals and then released under nonrestrictive licenses in your jurisdiction ?

And BTW, I'm curious, what is the license on the Huge Bitcoin Coin logo? 

[TradersEdgeDice]

Are we going to have a Satoshi-quote battle? 

...
How's that for a role change- the girl is talking about facts and logic and the guys are talking about wants and feelings LOL. "You have to love us BOTH, Bitcoin and Ideology 2GETHR4EVR! I've got the Bitcoin.org so I MAKE the RULES! If you don't love my ideology GO AWAY! *screech, door slam*"
...

I would like to believe you are a girl but on the Internet…

The men are men.  The women are men.  And the children are FBI agents.

:-)

[Jessy Kang]

I would like to believe you are a girl but on the Internet…

True, but forum members have met me in person at the last Meetup in NYC. But none verified my gender, I could have been in drag LOL

[Chris Acheson]

There's currently a push to split these forums off from bitcoin.org and move them to their own domain:

http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2011/06/15/2#l1062161 (starting at 3:28)

As one of the anarchist lunatics, I really wish that my fellow crazies would take Jessy Kang's advice.  Bitcoin will benefit the anarchist project merely by continuing to exist and grow.  There's no need to jeopardize that by trying to shove our ideology down the throats of the normals.

[Jessy Kang]

From: http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2011/06/15/3

03:52 gjs278: "good reason to not use bitcoin.org because one guy has complete control over it"

03:46 jgarzik: "luke-jr: so you actively support illegal activity?"

03:47 theymos: "I support some types of illegal activity. Free trade, for example."

03:52 jgarzik: "genewitch: anybody who tries to delete signs of illegal activity has their mod powers yanked"
 
03:52 luke-jr: "jgarzik: srsly?"
 
03:52 jgarzik: "gjs278: unfortunately we cannot tell the press nor google that"
 
03:52 jgarzik: "luke-jr: yes"
 
03:52 luke-jr:  ""

03:54 jgarzik "theymos: will you make me moderator again, and permit me to delete posts encouraging illegal activity?"

03:54 theymos: "No. It is the policy of the forum to allow such discussions. Sirius owns the server, so he can change the policy if he's worried about legal action."

You have GOT to be shitting me. So that line you fed the media about SR was a load of horseshit- Bitcoin.org in fact actively condones and protects illegal activity because it's "Free Trade"! Okay good luck with that.

I can't jump ship fast enough, will get my Bitcoin links pulled first thing this morning.

[wumpus]

I think there are few options left beyond making a new forum and getting that linked from the bitcoin.org site.

The hard part will be copying all the useful stuff over...

[lemonginger]

I agree with john smith. Not just politics but also 17 different lotteries and ponzi schemes, trading, "is bitcoin going to burst, etc", signal to noise ratio is only going to get worse and it would be nice to have an "official" site that is purely about development. Feature requests on github are fine, but they don't go far enough in allowing discussion/debate IMHO.

[error]

I've been thinking. The only way to REALLY resolve this is to restrict the forum to development and technical support discussions, and kill anything that smacks of politics, speculation about exchange rates, and anything else not directly relevant to Bitcoin.

[passerby]

From: http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2011/06/15/3

03:52 gjs278: "good reason to not use bitcoin.org because one guy has complete control over it"

03:46 jgarzik: "luke-jr: so you actively support illegal activity?"

03:47 theymos: "I support some types of illegal activity. Free trade, for example."

03:52 jgarzik: "genewitch: anybody who tries to delete signs of illegal activity has their mod powers yanked"
 
03:52 luke-jr: "jgarzik: srsly?"
 
03:52 jgarzik: "gjs278: unfortunately we cannot tell the press nor google that"
 
03:52 jgarzik: "luke-jr: yes"
 
03:52 luke-jr:  ""

03:54 jgarzik "theymos: will you make me moderator again, and permit me to delete posts encouraging illegal activity?"

03:54 theymos: "No. It is the policy of the forum to allow such discussions. Sirius owns the server, so he can change the policy if he's worried about legal action."

You have GOT to be shitting me. So that line you fed the media about SR was a load of horseshit- Bitcoin.org in fact actively condones and protects illegal activity because it's "Free Trade"! Okay good luck with that.

I can't jump ship fast enough, will get my Bitcoin links pulled first thing this morning.

I suggest kindly that you do not overreact, since the offending material was eventually deemed deserving removal (LINK)