nullc reddit account suspended 2/23/17 What's the story?

[Quickseller]

You want users to be less informed? Strange.

This sounds a lot like how fake news spreads...

If a minority of idiots have to lose their coins to end this drama, then yes, I'm all for that. If anything this recent obsession with "fake news" has taught us, it's that you can't use facts and logic to make these people stop believing this stuff. For every 1 person you convince, another 2 will be drawn into /r/btc through bitcoin.com or something, and subscribe to the same repeated lies that have been debunked.

I would say that the prevalence of fake news has taught us just how easy it is to spread misinformation, as well as just how much power that those that control the media have.  I would also point out that once a news organization has been exposed as being dishonest, then harm will be done to both the news organization and the agenda they are pushing (see CNN and democrats).

I would point out that people were calling u/nullc dishonest in this 4 year old thread that took place well before any block size debate was anything more than a discussion about theoretical problems in the future. To this day, many people on reddit are calling u/nullc dishonest, and just maybe when someone who is pushing for things like SegWit, and smaller blocks who is also viewed as dishonest, those that read his argument might naturally side against him, especially if they do not understand the discussion fully.

Also, no, I do not think it is a good idea to be pushing for a situation that has a high probability of many users loosing their coins/money. Nor would I be behind a situation that results in people having access to any measure of less information.

Yes, it is a users' individual responsibility to protect their own money, however that does not mean that you should advocate so that users should be put into a situation in which they will lose money just to get your own way.

[rizzlarolla]

For every 1 person you convince, another 2 will be drawn into /r/btc through bitcoin.com or something, and subscribe to the same repeated lies that have been debunked.

Having been on forum.bitcoin.com recently, i can pretty much assure you that no one is being drawn in from there. That place is empty.
Maybe they are coming from here. We all know (surely) most old members have left here, being replaced (or driven out) by "farmed" accounts and "hacked" accounts. Or it could just be organic awareness.

But it could be said the time for this is up.  I know I myself have been very critical of the journalists that write stories about hearn gavin and ver because they are perpetuating a false narrative that is not grounded in any (economic) science.

Unfortunately i have to agree with some of this.
I am for increasing the blocksize, (opposite to you i conclude?) but i have also found Roger Ver's ideas of what would be a sustainable hardfork to fall short of reality.
I don't follow on r/btc, but i have had to put a stop to some idiotic idea of hardforking with less than 50% hashpower on forum.bitcoin.com

Doesn't help "our" cause for larger blocks, imo. Very disappointing.

(you could read post histories to help decide who is/is not informed here)

[jonald_fyookball]

  Let me ask you, what have you read in regard to how the American constitution works? Do you know what our natural rights are and what their relationship is to the difference between censorship and free speech? Also what have you read in regard to economics?

I understand more than most...although to be fair, the average person is incredibly uninformed, so it's not saying much 

But why don't you stay on point.  Are you saying r/btc is also censored, or are you saying r/bitcoin is not?
Maybe I don't have the full story... go ahead, i'm listening.

I asked you questions, I want you to show that you actually have read the associated literature.  I want you to make an attempt to show that you know what you are talking about, and that your only ability isn't just creating an account and posting on a forum.

What is your ACTUAL knowledge and experience with these subjects?

Your questions are irrelevant diversions. 

Censorship can be broadly defined as the suppression or prohibition of personal speech or expression.
Everyone knows what this is.  The man on the street can understand this idea.
 
Now we need to have a deep scholarly constitutional discussion before we can talk about which subreddit is censored more?  ok whatever lol   

I'll humor you though.  I've read the consitution and the decleration of independance.  I've been a libertarian for decades.  I can't say that I can recall specific book titles about the constitution itself (I'm sure I did in school) but I would agree that "we hold these truths to be self evident."   Let me guess, you're going to argue redit is a private website so its not censorship in the first place?  That would be another red herring to what we're talking about.

[traincarswreck]

rizzlarolla here is the problem...I am pokertravis on reddit.  I am well known (for those that know of my accounts which are all linked to nash's idealogy of ideal money) for being a devout small blocker.  I think there is a great, fairly simple, and obvious argument for why we should not scale for utility as coffee type money.


Because after reading your post and judging your temperament, I suspect I could convince you to start contemplating the truth of what not changing the fundamental block size limit is important.

My suggestion here is that you probably haven't heard the proper counter argument to big blockers ver and r/btc.


Have you heard my argument?

[traincarswreck]

Your questions are irrelevant diversions. 

I asked you if you are knowledgeable and/or experienced at all on the subjects you are speaking of, and you call this an irrelevant diversion? Sir, I still need to know whether or not you have any knowledge on the purpose of the constitution and what free speech actually entails in regard to our natural rights otherwise I cannot engage in a proper dialogue with you.  By definition these things are relevant because it is the content of the discussion. You have used the phrase "irrelevant diversion" completely backwards to its accepted definition.

Censorship can be broadly defined as the suppression or prohibition of personal speech or expression.
Everyone knows what this is.  The man on the street can understand this idea.
 
Now we need to have a deep scholarly constitutional discussion before we can talk about which subreddit is censored more?  ok whatever lol   

No.  This is the ignorant person belief, the person that is not studied.  Free speech comes with the implication that there must be some restriction.  There cannot be a blanketed rule that allows for free speech, rather the rules that are imposed are to foster the freest speech possible.  Pointing at such rules and calling them censorship is an admission that you don't understand your own natural rights and their relationship to free speech and the American constitution.

I'll humor you though.  I've read the consitution and the decleration of independance.  I've been a libertarian for decades.  I can't say that I can recall specific book titles about the constitution itself (I'm sure I did in school) but I would agree that "we hold these truths to be self evident."   Let me guess, you're going to argue redit is a private website so its not censorship in the first place?  That would be another red herring to what we're talking about.

No you've guessed wrong, again because of your ignorance on the subject. Nothing you have stated here gives anything you say credibility.  You haven't read anything, or at least you haven't given me any examples.  That you have read the constitution and the deceleration of independence does not at all speak to the possibility that you understand them.  And everything you have said so far suggests that you clearly do not.

I've been a libertarian for decades.

You are nothing but an uneducated (strong) opinion.

[jonald_fyookball]

..

Exactly as I thought..pseudo-intellectual diversions, trying to attack me and my "qualifications to discuss this"
instead of the very basic question/issue (which you brought up) of which board is being censored.

That's fine with me.  Not going to waste my time arguing.   My point was already made.   

[traincarswreck]

..

Exactly as I thought..pseudo-intellectual diversions, trying to attack me and my "qualifications to discuss this"
instead of the very basic question/issue (which you brought up) of which board is being censored.

That's fine with me.  Not going to waste my time arguing.   My point was already made.    

Again.  I am asking you if you have any specific knowledge on the content we are discussing in regard to free speech and our natural rights and also economics.  I can't really engage with you until I know your level of understanding of these things. Until we can can get an idea of this, you are simply perpetuating unstoppable conflict/debate.

What do you know about, what have you read on these subjects or are you just a loudmouthed opinion?

[traincarswreck]

<crickets>

[unamis76]

Bitcoin users really need to move on another sort of forum in order to facilitate better discussions.

We have this platform right here. I'm not even sure how so many topics take place on reddit. But at least a fair amount of interesting topics posted there end up being here too.

Yes! The publicly owned bitcointalk will give us the freedom of speech we need. /s

 

It's the best we have, and has been quite good so far.


Regarding users and their coins... If things can be solved while users keep their coins, it would be the best. If some lose out, we all lose a bit too, and nobody would like to be on the wrong side of a fork. Lessons can still be learned without having to sacrifice anything.

[jonald_fyookball]

<crickets>

no... you're absolutely right.   Clearly, I do not have your superior intellect and education
and it would foolish to think I'm qualified to have this conversation.

https://youtu.be/tyBUMntP6DI

[traincarswreck]

<crickets>

no... you're absolutely right.   Clearly, I do not have your superior intellect and education
and it would foolish to think I'm qualified to have this conversation.

https://youtu.be/tyBUMntP6DI

Do you or do you not have any knowledge relevant to the content being debated? To be clear, I am specifically asking what literature you are familiar with. Have you read anything, what do you know?

Do you expect me to debate and engage with someone that can't at least claim to know SOMETHING?

[iCEBREAKER]

<crickets>

no... you're absolutely right.   Clearly, I do not have your superior intellect and education
and it would foolish to think I'm qualified to have this conversation.

All you have to do is acknowledge there is a clear, vast distinction between a government censoring its citizens/press and a private web site allowing moderation of its forums.

Is that so hard?  It it asking too much for you to respect the actual definitions of words and not twist them when you need to justify your endless whining and tantrums?   

Do you really need to steal victim status from people suffering under actual censorship just to artificially amplify your endless, futile attempts at vilifying Core/Theymos/Blockstream?

When you conflate real authoritarian censorship like North Korea's with completely justified forum moderation, we can only conclude you are indeed absolutely shameless and hysterical (regardless of intellect/education).

You lost your grip on reality years ago and show no sign of even realizing that's the case, much less a desire to find your way back into the real world.

The only reason you are trying to force some kind of issue about ZOMG SENSOR SHIPS!11!! is that you lost the technical debate over >1MB blocks.

Having failed to garner support for XT, Classic, and now Unlimite_, you fall back to a social engineering attack.  If you can't destroy Core, target Core's key supporters, right?

It's been a genuine pleasure watching you thrashing about in your self-created pit of frustrated, impotent rage (IE rbtc).  Please continue... 

[Quickseller]

<crickets>

no... you're absolutely right.   Clearly, I do not have your superior intellect and education
and it would foolish to think I'm qualified to have this conversation.

All you have to do is acknowledge there is a clear, vast distinction between a government censoring its citizens/press and a private web site allowing moderation of its forums.

In the US, the government has no right to pass laws limiting speech (with very few exceptions, such as hate speech, and similar). If the government did pass/enforce a law that did restrict speech, this would be censorship, although such law would likely be overturned by the Supreme Court.

On r/bitcoin and bitcointalk, theymos, as the owner of these sites, have the right to institute rules that limits/restricts speech. This is still censorship, even though he has the right to do this. Most of the rules that are instituted on bitcointalk have positives that vastly outweigh the negatives, such as rules disallowing low content posts/threads (part of the reason this is good is because just because one has the freedom of speech, does not mean that others have to listen to you, and essentially no one wants to read low content posts, especially in masse), filtering where certain types of threads will be located (this makes it easy for someone looking for a particular type of discussion of interest to find said thread) and disallowing the sale of illegal/stolen goods (fairly self-explanatory). There are other rules, however that it is not as clear that the positives (vastly) outweigh the negatives, such as how certain proposals are classified -- I understand theymos' point of view in instituting these rules, however I do not agree with it.

[traincarswreck]

<crickets>

no... you're absolutely right.   Clearly, I do not have your superior intellect and education
and it would foolish to think I'm qualified to have this conversation.

All you have to do is acknowledge there is a clear, vast distinction between a government censoring its citizens/press and a private web site allowing moderation of its forums.

In the US, the government has no right to pass laws limiting speech (with very few exceptions, such as hate speech, and similar). If the government did pass/enforce a law that did restrict speech, this would be censorship, although such law would likely be overturned by the Supreme Court.

On r/bitcoin and bitcointalk, theymos, as the owner of these sites, have the right to institute rules that limits/restricts speech. This is still censorship, even though he has the right to do this. Most of the rules that are instituted on bitcointalk have positives that vastly outweigh the negatives, such as rules disallowing low content posts/threads (part of the reason this is good is because just because one has the freedom of speech, does not mean that others have to listen to you, and essentially no one wants to read low content posts, especially in masse), filtering where certain types of threads will be located (this makes it easy for someone looking for a particular type of discussion of interest to find said thread) and disallowing the sale of illegal/stolen goods (fairly self-explanatory). There are other rules, however that it is not as clear that the positives (vastly) outweigh the negatives, such as how certain proposals are classified -- I understand theymos' point of view in instituting these rules, however I do not agree with it.

no you are confused an ignorant.  rules are necessary for free speech qed.

[traincarswreck]

<crickets>

no... you're absolutely right.   Clearly, I do not have your superior intellect and education
and it would foolish to think I'm qualified to have this conversation.

https://youtu.be/tyBUMntP6DI

Do you, or do you not, have anything intelligent to bring to the conversation?