Who is in charge of removing this post?

[aliashraf]

But you know what?  Screw you, I'm going to ruin your topic and see how you like it for a change, because it's not like you're ever going to learn, even when shown how.  So here goes:

You are just ruining your personality.

I believe integrity is important.  And that's all forms of integrity.    

Oh, come on! Kidding, yes? What Integrity? 
I see no sign of integrity in abusing power and having zero tolerance for diversity.

I think history is written by the winners.

You are wrong:
It is the 21st century and it has been a while that history is being written by historians. cc: Donald, J Trump
Secondly, guys like you have not won shit, you are just foolishly hopeful, it is not gonna happen because you don't know what to do right now, just hanging around, mumbling "everything is ok", "bitcoin is great enough", "I (Maxwell) am genius enough" at the same time that you run such shameful smear campaigns and abuse of power to censor anybody who "is not with you"

[UserU]

Back on topic, it'd be nice if the notification reveals which mod removed it.

At least we could bring up the issue to discuss with him/ her rather than playing the guessing game or accusing the mods altogether.

Also, does the "Report to admin" function in PMs only notifies theymos?

[amishmanish]

I cannot find how i reached the link to "Trisectors". It was probably a reply from Doomad. In the context of all the hard problems different devs try to solve regarding bitcoin, It is important for even the smartest people to keep in mind that they don't do, or don't seem like doing things that matches this quote from that hilarious trisectors paper:

I could give many other examples, including a large number of variations on the "tell me a thing is impossible and i will immediately set to work on it" theme.

This is good warning and absolutely hilarious. I am not implying anything but its good to have the ability to reconsider and laugh at ourselves at times.

In reference to the OP, the quoted post probably got deleted because of the political nature of the post where it talks about LN and also tries to explain on what Greg is trying to say in his email etc, and your conclusions based on discussions you may have had with him. Its the Technical discussions board and obviously isn't the right place to discuss "opinions" about the scaling work being done on bitcoin, important as it already is. They have maintained this policy of "stick to the technical topic" quite religiously in the section. With the complications involved in any concept on bitcoin/ LN, there is no dearth of posts that lead to rampant confusion. On basis of this alone, it is imperative that someone committed to bitcoin is the mod on that board.

Next time this happens on a tech topic, you can always post stuff like that in general bitcoin discussion by making a reference maybe. Overall, it reflects badly to trivialize work being done by hundreds of devs without offering commensurate and comparative work yourself. That too on the technical board meant for "Development".

[aliashraf]

I could give many other examples, including a large number of variations on the "tell me a thing is impossible and i will immediately set to work on it" theme.

This is good warning and absolutely hilarious. I am not implying anything but its good to have the ability to reconsider and laugh at ourselves at times.

Sorry, but I don't share such a sense of humor with you while I agree that it is good for everyone to take some time discovering laughable points  of their own personality. It is especially a very good recommendation for junior programmers who are feeling pro just too much.

Anyway, announcing something as being a trisector problem is not a good scientific practice as long as it has not proved to be of the same category as trisector.
It would be just crazy to give such power to anybody to deliberately classify whatever he or she can't or doesn't like to approach as being trisector.

It not only reminds me of stupid trilemma assertion made by Buterin a couple of years ago^* but also is actually what Greg Maxwell and his paws do mean by using this tag, trisector.

They claim:
"It is absolutely impossible to have bitcoin both decentralized and scalable at the same time, so, whoever dares to speak of a scaling solution is compromising the security/decentralization of bitcoin and should take some time and laugh at himself for being such a confused/ignorant person."
No comments.

In reference to the OP, the quoted post probably got deleted because of the political nature of the post where it talks about LN and also tries to explain on what Greg is trying to say in his email etc, and your conclusions based on discussions you may have had with him. Its the Technical discussions board ...

Who says discussing LN is political? Given it is true, which is not, the whole thread should have been deleted or moved.

As of your idea about how important is coding versus discussing/advocating and the way you look at the technical subforum, with all due respect, I don't think so: Coding is not a big deal and technical discussion is not a weak alternative to stackexchange.


^* Let me tell a joke: while Buterin has retracted from it both in practice (Eth 2.0) and on twitter (by stressing on it as a hard problem and not an impossible-to-solve one), in bitcoin community some people have adopted this false claim as something obvious and a canonical argument of their discourse.