you can't even link to the bitcoin whitepaper from r/bitcoin apparently

[pooya87]

no i am saying linking the paper on a website that has clearly had some agenda against everything that /r/bitcoin is believing in and getting that link removed is not called censorship.

let them change it first and if
- it wasn't clear it is the changed version not the original
- it didn't have a clear link to original paper

then advertise an alternative for original version.

[1714933177]

1714933177

[jonald_fyookball]

no i am saying linking the paper on a website that has clearly had some agenda against everything that /r/bitcoin is believing in and getting that link removed is not called censorship.

let them change it first and if
- it wasn't clear it is the changed version not the original
- it didn't have a clear link to original paper

then advertise an alternative for original version.

No, that's EXACTLY what censorship is.  Not letting people express themselves (including freely linking) because you disagree with their viewpoint.

[franky1]

then advertise an alternative for original version.

(facepalm)
sounds like people what new versions to replace the original as if its the true clean 'original' version

how about
'then advertise a new and different version that is not an just "an alternative for original version"'


movie analogy
highlighted and noted as being a reboot... not a remaster of the original

[pooya87]

i feel like your arguments change subject with each comment!
you say you can't link bitcoin whitepaper, i say you can't post a link to a website that they clearly think is against them on a moderated subreddit!

then you change subject to "they plan on changing the paper". i say it is not gonna happen, the proposal is 1 year old https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/1325 if you can find it in my post history a year ago i said i am against it if it is "changing the paper".
but if an updated version is added with the two things i said, i don't see any problem in that. and also it depends on what the change is.

[jonald_fyookball]

i feel like your arguments change subject with each comment!
you say you can't link bitcoin whitepaper, i say you can't post a link to a website that they clearly think is against them on a moderated subreddit!
 

More like, I make a point, you make a lame excuse, and I explain why even your lame excuse doesn't hold water. 

[Lauda]

"they"... well cobra for one, obviously has been the big mouthpiece that wants to update it.. so they = atleast cobra....

Cobra owns the Bitcoin.org domain and as such is free to do with it whatever he pleases. Although, he did end up listening to the criticism regarding this idea. Also, let's not forget the propaganda and astroturfing twitter on Bitcoin.com.

so YOU and your desire to get YOUR named tagged for spell checking things in github have more chance of being part of "they"

Nope. You are having delusions again.

but if "they" want to write something. atleast dont try suggesting that it is the bitcoin whitepaper, but instead making it obvious that its different to the real bitcoin white paper by calling it something new... EG if the update is only upto corev0.12.. then call it corev12.. not "the bitcoin whitepaper"

You can't force them to name it something else, and neither can you prevent someone from doing this. In an optimal world, update versions would be written and both would be served online.

[Cøbra]

The whitepaper is not a sacred text. It should be updated to make it a useful introduction to Bitcoin. Right now all it does is misinform people.

Whenever I see people link to the whitepaper in the context of the scaling debate, they're usually doing it with malicious intent since they know the whitepaper has multiple flaws, but they take advantage of stuff Satoshi didn't know back then to try to trick users into believing that their side of the debate is sticking to his true "vision".

[25hashcoin]

The whitepaper is not a sacred text. It should be updated to make it a useful introduction to Bitcoin. Right now all it does is misinform people.

Whenever I see people link to the whitepaper in the context of the scaling debate, they're usually doing it with malicious intent since they know the whitepaper has multiple flaws, but they take advantage of stuff Satoshi didn't know back then to try to trick users into believing that their side of the debate is sticking to his true "vision".

I do believe you're full of shit.

[freebutcaged]

Are you telling me that there is no copy of the Bitcoin white paper for people to read? or you've forgot we live in a network of networks

Internet, people can search google to find it and it's not like reddit is the source of all the information mate, you just love to argue and

Fight with each other like cocks. even if you link to it successfully, does it provide a fix for high fees? no. does it provide a solution to

Scaling issue? no.

[jonald_fyookball]

The whitepaper is not a sacred text. It should be updated to make it a useful introduction to Bitcoin. Right now all it does is misinform people.

Whenever I see people link to the whitepaper in the context of the scaling debate, they're usually doing it with malicious intent since they know the whitepaper has multiple flaws, but they take advantage of stuff Satoshi didn't know back then to try to trick users into believing that their side of the debate is sticking to his true "vision".

No, it should not be updated.  That's not for you to decide with your sleazy agenda.   Nobody "updates" other people's whitepapers, you mook.  Write your own damn paper.

You're not smarter than Satoshi and neither is Greg or any of you Core clowns.  

Truth is getting out.  You won't win.

[franky1]

You can't force them to name it something else, and neither can you prevent someone from doing this.

writing something and then saying the original writer wrote it(facepalm).. bad on so many levels. thats like rewriting history to pretend the holocaust didnt happen

anyway you cant read more than a paragraph, so ill keep this short.. in your own time learn these words
plagiarism - bad
citation - good

have a nice day

[Lauda]

You can't force them to name it something else, and neither can you prevent someone from doing this.

writing something and then saying the original writer wrote it(facepalm)..

Who said anything about stating that the update was written by the original author?

bad on so many levels. thats like rewriting history to pretend the holocaust didnt happen

Yet, nobody attempted to do what you claimed in your straw-man argument.

plagiarism - bad
citation - good

Congratulations, you may have finished primary school education.