I didn’t participate in this thread, even though being named, because I don’t completely agree with it and didn’t want to get lumped into some category..
Many things I do agree with here are their are cliques of power hunger and many hellbent on searching tirelessly in effort to find opportunities to wield said power, taking control of the forums idealistic direction greatly inflated by the insanity of merits “for good posts” being tied to voting power for ideological leadership..
A slight revamp of my trust list is in order eventually when I get some time, and some of us are going to have to step up in attempt to fill the great void left by our late friend TS’s absence..
With all the insanity going on in the world these days from the China virus lockdowns including blatant intrusions on personal liberty and governments and media showing their asses as to how absolutely corrupt they are, I am only more and more affirmed that authority, in and of itself, is evil.. Democracy or not..
The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks.
Let’s not forget the mission..
Bitcoin isn’t a get rich quick scheme, it’s a remove power and authority scheme..
Remove the chancel aswell as the banks..
I agree, for me the lists being mentioned or formed at the start was an error
It should have just been a thread to see who ( regardless of past actions) going forward would agree to use transparent objective standards as a basis for their red tags.
I mean anyone NOT supporting transparent objective standards would have a real problem fielding an argument that would stand up to scrutiny.
I mean theymos knows that merits aka collusion credits are likely negatively correlated to trust or certainly nothing to do with trust in financial terms. He also was told and probably knew sticking both control systems together like that both super wide open to corruption with such obvious rewards for abusing them was bat shit crazy.
Still, he did it and then started adding additional incentives to abuse.
I mean this guild or agreement would not even be necessary if he removed the dumb as fuck red tags and went with flags2 and 3.
Flag 1 needs to been tightened up or you'll still get that for liking lemons.
There is no credible or solid argument against any of the points TS et al made actually.
Hence why theymos and everyone else didnt bother to field any lol.
It boils down to DT wanting to retain the power to punish anyone for saying anything they dont like and ensuring they maintain the ability to ensure only they fit the chipmixer criteria and other unfair advantages.
The other blame must be put at the feet of darkstar and the other corrupt campaign managers that know these trust abusing free speech crushing scammer protecting scum are gaming the system but still sponsor their actions.
Hence why that coward and other shit bird campaign managers run a mile when you mention transparent objective standards
Corruption and collusion would be destroyed once you employ transparent objective standards.
