Have we reached peak tribalism?

[DooMAD]

Have we now reached a stage in the Bitcoin community where ideas are no longer judged on merit, but on who proposed them?  Every new idea is apparently now a hostile takeover attempt according to someone.  It could theoretically be the best idea in the world, but it will now be rejected out of hand by those who have already decided they don't trust the motives of the group or person proposing it.  People are so busy talking about other people that the topic is no longer about the technology.  It has become an ugly personality contest.  On par with reality television in terms of abject stupidity.

I ask honestly how anyone expects to move forward while everyone is jumping at shadows over their respective boogeyman of choice.  I also wonder how quickly this thread will devolve into accusations about who's plotting what, which group or person is trying to overthrow Bitcoin, who can't be trusted, the next benevolent dictator and so on.  We should all be familiar with the language by now, because it's the same every time. 

We can't do this thing because boogeyman 'A' is cancer if you listen to tribe 'B', but we can't do that thing either because of boogeyman 'B' is the devil according to tribe 'A'.  So I guess now we can never do anything again, right?  No idea can ever be good because so-and-so is bad.  Someone's always going to be crying about something sinister and manipulative creeping in the shadows and pulling the strings. 

How do we fix this?

[uneng]

It will always exist, people disagree all the time and each act at their own wishes and ideologies. It's the normal in one discussion.
And it's a good thing, as most people shouldn't be trusted and most people act only for their own interests don't thinking about anothers. Suspicion is necessary when dealing with strangers, principally if we are talking about something that can change people's lifes.

[franky1]

in 2009-2013 people used sourceforge and then github to openly submit proposals.

this has then been sidelined in 2013+ requiring submitting a proposal to a mailing list to have it vetted first.
then a new layer was added where it needed to be discussed in IRC or the forum before being worthy of catching peoples eye on the mailing list.

its no longer open communication but a one way street with regular checkpoints and guards

[QuestionAuthority]

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. As far as fixing the problem? How does one fix human nature? Calculating the biological component of Bitcoin was Satoshi's biggest failure.

[Xester]

There are different people with different ideas. That also applies to the bitcoin community. There are groups who are concerned and debating on what fork to use. There are people who are debating that bitcoin will end sooner and some it will live long. There are groups that says it will replace fiat currency other say it will not replace fiat. Everyone has its own opinion but there is one thing in common we are all linked by bitcoins.

[Huge Black Woman]

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. As far as fixing the problem? How does one fix human nature? Calculating the biological component of Bitcoin was Satoshi's biggest failure.

Ahm curious as ta what you meant by that second sentence there 'bout the biological component.

OP, ya dam rite 'bout the tribalism, but itsa like dat evverwhere, even in tha workplace an'even in tha smallest of tribes. Ain't goin' away anytime soon less'n we collectively crawl our tribal asses back inta tha sea, evilootionarilly speakin'.  An' even then we'll still jist be killin' each otha inna water.

[Factmine]

This is a great topic. I think it is indeed what is happening now. There is no point in proposing something new, innovative, or something that would really change the world because there would be people that would not trust anyone anymore unless it is someone with "dark green trust" on their trust rating.

[QuestionAuthority]

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. As far as fixing the problem? How does one fix human nature? Calculating the biological component of Bitcoin was Satoshi's biggest failure.

Ahm curious as ta what you meant by that second sentence there 'bout the biological component.

OP, ya dam rite 'bout the tribalism, but itsa like dat evverwhere, even in tha workplace an'even in tha smallest of tribes. Ain't goin' away anytime soon less'n we collectively crawl our tribal asses back inta tha sea, evilootionarilly speakin'.  An' even then we'll still jist be killin' each otha inna water.

The human element. People are unpredictable.

[jacaf01]

I understand why this topic pop-up and the effect it is having on the community, especially when it comes to Chinese market, people believed BTC should be discentralised but when you see some patterns it always beg questions.

[Kakmakr]

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. As far as fixing the problem? How does one fix human nature? Calculating the biological component of Bitcoin was Satoshi's biggest failure.

Ahm curious as ta what you meant by that second sentence there 'bout the biological component.

OP, ya dam rite 'bout the tribalism, but itsa like dat evverwhere, even in tha workplace an'even in tha smallest of tribes. Ain't goin' away anytime soon less'n we collectively crawl our tribal asses back inta tha sea, evilootionarilly speakin'.  An' even then we'll still jist be killin' each otha inna water.

The human element. People are unpredictable.

On the contrary, People are predictable. When Bitcoin started out, the creator was anonymous and then he/she/they abandoned the project, when Gavin was approached by the government. Gavin came to the forefront and received a little bit of power and this went to his head.

The project became to big for him, and he left the scene. He underestimated his support and wanted to come back, but he was not welcomed with open arms. He then started a competing fork, to take back the power. < hostile takeover > but this failed.

So, what is not predictable? Money / power / greed / jealousy / anger / fear are all human factors in this whole experiment. Can we blame these guys? I guess not. Do we accept them back with open arms? Yes, I think we should accept any contribution that would be deemed positive for Bitcoin development.

Will the people making that decision, allow for them to get a foot in the door? No, I doubt it.

Surprise, we are all human after all. ^smile^ B.t.w OP, good topic.

[Senor.Bla]

I guess this is just the way it is. Bitcoin is to big to fix this or do it the way it was before. Bitcoin has to many people with opinions that have not the slightest clue how it technically works. The only way i see to prevent such a thing is if you have a coin that is done and can not be changed, but only used.   

[Hydrogen]

Have we now reached a stage in the Bitcoin community where ideas are no longer judged on merit, but on who proposed them?  Every new idea is apparently now a hostile takeover attempt according to someone. 

When people pretend we need massive and revolutionary changes to help people tie their shoes easier.

(Or to fix trivial or unfixable issues with bitcoin)

Those are sometimes signs of attempts to change things for the worse.

[bitbunnny]

The problem is that there are so many people that think they are Bitcoin experts and only their opinion matters. Very often they are making confusion and panic among Bitcoin users spreading wrong informations and interpretations, so to my opinion we have now some sort of chaos which needs to be cleared up.

[Jet Cash]

I've read quite a bit about Bitcoin, and I happen to believe that SegWit will be beneficial. Of course, I may be wrong, but I gather there are many others who have the same opinion. For the first time ever, I have reported a forum member for abusive posting towards me, it seems he doesn't agree about SegWit. His attitude just makes me feel that I am right about SegWit, and it's opponents have to resort to verbal abuse, rather than reasoned logic.

[Juggy777]

Have we now reached a stage in the Bitcoin community where ideas are no longer judged on merit, but on who proposed them?  Every new idea is apparently now a hostile takeover attempt according to someone.  It could theoretically be the best idea in the world, but it will now be rejected out of hand by those who have already decided they don't trust the motives of the group or person proposing it.  People are so busy talking about other people that the topic is no longer about the technology.  It has become an ugly personality contest.  On par with reality television in terms of abject stupidity.

I ask honestly how anyone expects to move forward while everyone is jumping at shadows over their respective boogeyman of choice.  I also wonder how quickly this thread will devolve into accusations about who's plotting what, which group or person is trying to overthrow Bitcoin, who can't be trusted, the next benevolent dictator and so on.  We should all be familiar with the language by now, because it's the same every time. 

We can't do this thing because boogeyman 'A' is cancer if you listen to tribe 'B', but we can't do that thing either because of boogeyman 'B' is the devil according to tribe 'A'.  So I guess now we can never do anything again, right?  No idea can ever be good because so-and-so is bad.  Someone's always going to be crying about something sinister and manipulative creeping in the shadows and pulling the strings. 

How do we fix this?

Totally understand this and the Op is right every new idea is seen with suspicion, even before it can be decided it's good or bad it is rejected why cause it's a new idea, it won't be good. Our brains have been wired through the years to reject all the ideas that are new thinking it won't work. I hope after reading op post people will change and consider new ideas.

[Kprawn]

I want to agree with you, but when I look back at some of the sneaky stuff that were done, I have to say most of us have reasons not to trust

any new suggestions or implementations. If we just blindly accepted XP, we would have had code with malicious backdoors. {Thanks to Mike

Hearn} .... Now we have the Blockstream guys deliberately slowing down scaling to pave the way for SegWit and LN. WTF, is there nobody

with good intentions anymore? 

[target]

Have we now reached a stage in the Bitcoin community where ideas are no longer judged on merit, but on who proposed them?  Every new idea is apparently now a hostile takeover attempt according to someone.  It could theoretically be the best idea in the world, but it will now be rejected out of hand by those who have already decided they don't trust the motives of the group or person proposing it.  People are so busy talking about other people that the topic is no longer about the technology.  It has become an ugly personality contest.  On par with reality television in terms of abject stupidity.

I ask honestly how anyone expects to move forward while everyone is jumping at shadows over their respective boogeyman of choice.  I also wonder how quickly this thread will devolve into accusations about who's plotting what, which group or person is trying to overthrow Bitcoin, who can't be trusted, the next benevolent dictator and so on.  We should all be familiar with the language by now, because it's the same every time. 

We can't do this thing because boogeyman 'A' is cancer if you listen to tribe 'B', but we can't do that thing either because of boogeyman 'B' is the devil according to tribe 'A'.  So I guess now we can never do anything again, right?  No idea can ever be good because so-and-so is bad.  Someone's always going to be crying about something sinister and manipulative creeping in the shadows and pulling the strings. 

How do we fix this?

Totally understand this and the Op is right every new idea is seen with suspicion, even before it can be decided it's good or bad it is rejected why cause it's a new idea, it won't be good. Our brains have been wired through the years to reject all the ideas that are new thinking it won't work. I hope after reading op post people will change and consider new ideas.

We may not be able to fix it this time, we're all divided. Money is such powerful and we can't even trust who and what will happen later.
People are opposing new ideas because every one is already knowledgeable of what effect it could do and motives drives. Things were never the same again, i use to believe the idea of opensource is to give back to the community but its now being abused by cloning and compete. 

[DooMAD]

I've seen people throw the quote around: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people" when someone else starts using their chosen boogeymen as a punching bag in an attempt to make their point.  So I suppose one possible solution to the issue is to create a hostile environment for the tribalist mindset to operate in. 

Others have opted to take a more moderate stance and point out that "it's not about the people and what they might do, but about the code and what it does".  You don't need to trust people, just trust consensus to enforce the code that provides the greatest benefit to the network as a whole.  Vested minority interests can't prevail, because Bitcoin was specifically designed to prevent hostile takeovers. 

Would these two approaches be things we can try?  They should both keep the focus on ideas and not on the possible motives or agendas of certain individuals or groups.

[franky1]

I've seen people throw the quote around: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people" when someone else starts using their chosen boogeymen as a punching bag in an attempt to make their point.  So I suppose one possible solution to the issue is to create a hostile environment for the tribalist mindset to operate in.  

Others have opted to take a more moderate stance and point out that "it's not about the people and what they might do, but about the code and what it does".  You don't need to trust people, just trust consensus to enforce the code that provides the greatest benefit to the network as a whole.  Vested minority interests can't prevail, because Bitcoin was specifically designed to prevent hostile takeovers.  

Would these two approaches be things we can try?  They should both keep the focus on ideas and not on the possible motives or agendas of certain individuals or groups.

the only issue is that the code does not create itself. devs create the code. so understanding the code they create is a priority. but understanding the motives of why they code that code instead of another code also has consequences.

EG dont just sit on your hand accepting whatever code is put infront of you. find out why. and choose the code that doesnt end in everyone forced to use commercial hubs of permissioned contracts. or new features that bypass consensus. because thats just letting dominance occur by "trusting" code.

thinking code is better than man, is blindly trusting the person that wrote it.. code is only as good as the person that wrote it

[DooMAD]

I've seen people throw the quote around: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people" when someone else starts using their chosen boogeymen as a punching bag in an attempt to make their point.  So I suppose one possible solution to the issue is to create a hostile environment for the tribalist mindset to operate in.  

Others have opted to take a more moderate stance and point out that "it's not about the people and what they might do, but about the code and what it does".  You don't need to trust people, just trust consensus to enforce the code that provides the greatest benefit to the network as a whole.  Vested minority interests can't prevail, because Bitcoin was specifically designed to prevent hostile takeovers.  

Would these two approaches be things we can try?  They should both keep the focus on ideas and not on the possible motives or agendas of certain individuals or groups.

the only issue is that the code does not create itself. devs create the code. so understanding the code they create is a priority. but understanding the motives of why they code that code instead of another code also has consequences.

EG dont just sit on your hand accepting whatever code is put infront of you. find out why. and choose the code that doesnt end in everyone forced to use commercial hubs of permissioned contracts. or new features that bypass consensus. because thats just letting dominance occur by "trusting" code.

thinking code is better than man, is blindly trusting the person that wrote it.. code is only as good as the person that wrote it

I'm not saying we shouldn't check the code before we run it, I assumed that was a given, heh.  But clearly discussing the code and, more importantly, the effects of the code, would be a vast improvement over the current speculations and accusations about a person's supposed intent that seems to pervade most threads lately.  Talk about good and bad code, not good and bad people or companies.