Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 08:25:56 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: How Open Source Projects Survive Poisonous People  (Read 24157 times)
racerguy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 271


View Profile
February 01, 2012, 07:48:23 AM
 #121

i'm behind Gavin 100% (I don't understand the bip16-17 thing but that's not the point), I would lose a lot of faith in the bitcoin project if Gavin were to not lead it. 
Luke-jr seems prepared to flare up minor disagreements to cause infighting with Gavin as the target to further whatever agenda it is he has, eventually he will succeed in his goal of ousting Gavin when bitcoin gets bigger and the parasites start probing for weakness.  We're going to have to deal with real divide and conquer attempts with bitcoins growth and luke-jr is the guy that will be prepared to shaft the community to further his own goals, even if he has to make a deal with the devil to do it.
1481012756
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481012756

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481012756
Reply with quote  #2

1481012756
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
February 01, 2012, 07:51:15 AM
 #122

As another non-contributor, I've watched the forums here since the first slashdotting way, way, way back. Gavin's integrity, openness and the amount of effort he has poured into Bitcoin has been massive. Gavin's conduct has always been about seeing Bitcoin become more successful, and safer. I remember when encrypted wallets got rolled out, BIG end user change. It took forever and affected everyone, Gavin rolled out the change when he was satisfied it was safe. This is a man I can trust with my wallet, so I trust his judgment with changes to the Bitcoin protocol. I watched the video also. I support Gavin, for what it's worth.

I <3 Gavin, but that's an odd choice of example. The encryption procedure didn't actually remove the unencrypted private keys when it was first released.

edit: <3 is a heart right? It's not in my normal vocabulary.

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
fennec
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 76



View Profile WWW
February 01, 2012, 09:21:44 AM
 #123

edit: <3 is a heart right? It's not in my normal vocabulary.

Yeah, it's a heart.

Preev – simple Bitcoin converter with live exchange rates
muyuu
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924



View Profile
February 01, 2012, 09:51:18 AM
 #124

It really strikes me how much is all this about politics/ego and how little about technical decisions.

I'm quite busy lately and I'm not following the project enough to pass technical judgement. Didn't even register to the forum until recently, thinking I should really study a fair bit before finally doing so, as it's all available here.

This is the single most striking difference between what's advertised and the real bitcoin: it really depends on a few people VERY directly.

Some of the arguments here... seriously?!

I'd really appreciate if you guys left aside personality cults and moral judgement.


You're the standard delusional dev. who thinks the world revolves around
making the right technical decision, and that nothing else matters.

After all, it's a well known fact: the best designed software always wins in
the end, as we can all immediately observe (I'm willing to bet than >50%
of the folks reading this thread use windows).

At this point, for a project like bitcoin to succeed, having the right spokesperson
for the project is by far much more important than making the right (assuming
there's such a thing) technical decision.

And when it comes to that, given the amazing display of social graces he's provided
us with so far, bitcoin would simply be much better off without luke.


Never said nothing else matters. If nothing else mattered, I wouldn't bet a dime on Bitcoin as its major asset right now is a non-technical one: traction/popularity.

There is a middle-ground between "right technical decisions are everything" vs "popularity contest/who would I rather let baby-sit my kids"

I don't see what's the reason not to discuss long and hard about fundamental changes in the protocol. This is not your average OS project were continuous development is necessary and features can be added and removed at will.

The whole fucking idea behind bitcoin is that the system itself doesn't need "special" people or institutions behind. This is obviously false at this point, but let's at least not exacerbate this problem. Excuse me if I don't give top priority about who's nicer and I'd rather look at the right technical decision.

GPG ID: 7294199D - OTC ID: muyuu (470F97EB7294199D)
forum tea fund BTC 1Epv7KHbNjYzqYVhTCgXWYhGSkv7BuKGEU DOGE DF1eTJ2vsxjHpmmbKu9jpqsrg5uyQLWksM CAP F1MzvmmHwP2UhFq82NQT7qDU9NQ8oQbtkQ
SimonL
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 97


View Profile
February 01, 2012, 09:58:11 AM
 #125

As another non-contributor, I've watched the forums here since the first slashdotting way, way, way back. Gavin's integrity, openness and the amount of effort he has poured into Bitcoin has been massive. Gavin's conduct has always been about seeing Bitcoin become more successful, and safer. I remember when encrypted wallets got rolled out, BIG end user change. It took forever and affected everyone, Gavin rolled out the change when he was satisfied it was safe. This is a man I can trust with my wallet, so I trust his judgment with changes to the Bitcoin protocol. I watched the video also. I support Gavin, for what it's worth.

I <3 Gavin, but that's an odd choice of example. The encryption procedure didn't actually remove the unencrypted private keys when it was first released.

edit: <3 is a heart right? It's not in my normal vocabulary.

I meant it in the sense that a mistake in implementation could have been costly, like literally. Huge amounts of Bitcoins could have been sucked away if things went pear-shaped. Users were hollering for this, but Gavin only released the change after a long cooling off period. My point is he's very careful, didn't bow to a quick fix, and acted in the best interest of the network.

runeks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924



View Profile WWW
February 01, 2012, 10:18:24 AM
 #126

As was said previously, if one person NEEDED TO GO and it came down to Gavin or Luke, my vote would be to keep Gavin.
I to am afraid that Gavin would quit the project if faced with constant battles etc from Luke and others should be as well.
I second this position.

I feel that keeping Gavin is worth more than keeping Luke.

I mean no offense to Luke, I don't know him as a person. But I feel more certain that Bitcoin is better off with Gavin, and without Luke, than the other way around.

I think it's unfortunate that it has to come to this, but in the end I think it's up to Gavin to decide. I support his decision.
Technomage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610


Affordable Physical Bitcoins - Denarium.com


View Profile WWW
February 01, 2012, 12:42:54 PM
 #127

What happened to the old Luke-jr? I commend him for his new found level headedness and willing discourse which was shown a few pages back.
If that is the pattern for the future, so much the better. Hopefully its not just a little temporary ass-kissing to keep his head above water Wink
You can keep hoping. Luke is a manipulative personality type who has very low communication skills and he has proven to be abusive of power and he also has strange personal goals regarding his entire involvement in Bitcoin. This manipulative behaviour is very clear if you've seen his behaviour in mediums other than this forum. He clearly sees this as a more "official" place and does his best to be as polite and level headed as possible. His posts here, especially in this thread, doesn't give you a complete picture.

Denarium - Leading Physical Bitcoin Manufacturer - Special Xmas deals now live!
Technomage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610


Affordable Physical Bitcoins - Denarium.com


View Profile WWW
February 01, 2012, 12:54:41 PM
 #128

My point of view to this situation comes from years of experience in an organization which is run 100% by voluntary work. It's an activist movement so it's not the same as open source development, but the conflicts that happen in open source development are exactly the same. It's a conflict of leadership and eventually one of two things happen, either the people involved in the conflict settle their issues and everything is "back to normal" or the situation heats up and then it can only be resolved by a split of some kind.

To me it looks very unlikely that Gavin and Luke are about to settle their issues anytime soon which means that option #2 is becoming more and more likely. Happily for all of us this is unlikely to cause a real split because Luke doesn't mean much to most of the community, while Gavin is highly valued. I agree that Luke is a great coder but project lead is project lead and that is and should continue to be Gavin. We are truly in a situation where the leadership role of Gavin needs to be made clear.

Luke needs to be stripped of all decision making roles, he is the kind of person who should stay in the background and contribute to the code if he wants to. Leadership should stay where it is, Gavin has done a great job with Bitcoin and there is no reason to believe that this time is any different. Don't get me wrong though, this doesn't mean that Gavin should be a dictator that decides everything regardless of what opinions other developers have. But the fact is that Luke has been, and still is, pretty much the only developer that is strongly against BIP16.

Bottom line is that the development of Bitcoin is a team effort. Gavin is a trusted team player, Luke is not. It's as simple as that. As far as the BIP's are concerned, I'm interested to see comments on BIP22 as well. But that is a separate issue, the main issue here and now is the future development of Bitcoin and we simply can't afford to have poisonous people in central developmental roles.

Denarium - Leading Physical Bitcoin Manufacturer - Special Xmas deals now live!
deego
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 317


1MCoX64q6ks2Fvx8wybGYonfvEoTPpMhhR


View Profile WWW
February 01, 2012, 01:10:20 PM
 #129

edit: to the people treating this as a popularity contest please STFU

There's a reason Gavin posted this one to the Bitcoin Discussion section, and not to the Technical discussion section.

That is because the primary issue here is one of leadership rather than a particular technical matter. I have been involved in open source for a while. I would rather lose one competent developer rather than have him poison the whole developer-community.

If you see his intention differently, you might want to take that up with Gavin rather than try to silence people.


1MCoX64q6ks2Fvx8wybGYonfvEoTPpMhhR
muyuu
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924



View Profile
February 01, 2012, 01:14:40 PM
 #130

As was said previously, if one person NEEDED TO GO and it came down to Gavin or Luke, my vote would be to keep Gavin.
I to am afraid that Gavin would quit the project if faced with constant battles etc from Luke and others should be as well.
I second this position.

I feel that keeping Gavin is worth more than keeping Luke.

I mean no offense to Luke, I don't know him as a person. But I feel more certain that Bitcoin is better off with Gavin, and without Luke, than the other way around.

I think it's unfortunate that it has to come to this, but in the end I think it's up to Gavin to decide. I support his decision.

I think there is absolutely no reason to bring this disjunctive. No one has threatened to leave so why even suggesting it?

At worst, they would release competing, mutually aggressive algorithms and the popularity war would wage mining-power wise. That would be bad enough but the loser would just end up going along with the winner. I doubt anyone would leave the project as they have massive time and effort invested.

GPG ID: 7294199D - OTC ID: muyuu (470F97EB7294199D)
forum tea fund BTC 1Epv7KHbNjYzqYVhTCgXWYhGSkv7BuKGEU DOGE DF1eTJ2vsxjHpmmbKu9jpqsrg5uyQLWksM CAP F1MzvmmHwP2UhFq82NQT7qDU9NQ8oQbtkQ
Gavin Andresen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652


Chief Scientist


View Profile WWW
February 01, 2012, 01:24:24 PM
 #131

I moved Casascius' proposal ("BIP 22") to the Dev&Tech forum, I will respond there.

How often do you get the chance to work on a potentially world-changing project?
Technomage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610


Affordable Physical Bitcoins - Denarium.com


View Profile WWW
February 01, 2012, 01:31:26 PM
 #132

I think there is absolutely no reason to bring this disjunctive. No one has threatened to leave so why even suggesting it?

At worst, they would release competing, mutually aggressive algorithms and the popularity war would wage mining-power wise. That would be bad enough but the loser would just end up going along with the winner. I doubt anyone would leave the project as they have massive time and effort invested.
I don't think you have experience over these matters if you feel it's not necessary to talk about leaving. It certainly is. The moment the debates reached the stage that this thread was necessary, the situation went to the next level. To me it's not just about anyone leaving, it's about forcing someone out if he doesn't want to leave. Open source project or not, I certainly hope the other devs can force a dev out if it is deemed that he is doing more bad than good for the project. I believe that Luke might not stop interfering voluntarily.

I'm not happy that the situation reached this stage but talking about it like "everything is fine" is not the way to go. This needs to be resolved asap in a way that a similar situation is not possible in the future, at least not with the same individuals. And as far as Luke and his followers starting their own blockchain, I'm rolling on the floor laughing at that notion. Not only will Eligius be the only significant pool to join that attempt, Eligius will lose a significant amount of its hash power if Luke decides to go on a "war path" over this.

Denarium - Leading Physical Bitcoin Manufacturer - Special Xmas deals now live!
muyuu
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924



View Profile
February 01, 2012, 01:38:11 PM
 #133

I think there is absolutely no reason to bring this disjunctive. No one has threatened to leave so why even suggesting it?

At worst, they would release competing, mutually aggressive algorithms and the popularity war would wage mining-power wise. That would be bad enough but the loser would just end up going along with the winner. I doubt anyone would leave the project as they have massive time and effort invested.
I don't think you have experience over these matters if you feel it's not necessary to talk about leaving. It certainly is. The moment the debates reached the stage that this thread was necessary, the situation went to the next level. To me it's not just about anyone leaving, it's about forcing someone out if he doesn't want to leave. Open source project or not, I certainly hope the other devs can force a dev out if it is deemed that he is doing more bad than good for the project. I believe that Luke might not stop interfering voluntarily.

I'm not happy that the situation reached this stage but talking about it like "everything is fine" is not the way to go. This needs to be resolved asap in a way that a similar situation is not possible in the future, at least not with the same individuals. And as far as Luke and his followers starting their own blockchain, I'm rolling on the floor laughing at that notion. Not only will Eligius be the only significant pool to join that attempt, Eligius will lose a significant amount of its hash power if Luke decides to go on a "war path" over this.

That would depend on how much better it would work. It only takes 3 pools to take over.

GPG ID: 7294199D - OTC ID: muyuu (470F97EB7294199D)
forum tea fund BTC 1Epv7KHbNjYzqYVhTCgXWYhGSkv7BuKGEU DOGE DF1eTJ2vsxjHpmmbKu9jpqsrg5uyQLWksM CAP F1MzvmmHwP2UhFq82NQT7qDU9NQ8oQbtkQ
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
February 01, 2012, 03:07:54 PM
 #134

I think there is absolutely no reason to bring this disjunctive. No one has threatened to leave so why even suggesting it?

At worst, they would release competing, mutually aggressive algorithms and the popularity war would wage mining-power wise. That would be bad enough but the loser would just end up going along with the winner. I doubt anyone would leave the project as they have massive time and effort invested.
I don't think you have experience over these matters if you feel it's not necessary to talk about leaving. It certainly is. The moment the debates reached the stage that this thread was necessary, the situation went to the next level. To me it's not just about anyone leaving, it's about forcing someone out if he doesn't want to leave. Open source project or not, I certainly hope the other devs can force a dev out if it is deemed that he is doing more bad than good for the project. I believe that Luke might not stop interfering voluntarily.

I'm not happy that the situation reached this stage but talking about it like "everything is fine" is not the way to go. This needs to be resolved asap in a way that a similar situation is not possible in the future, at least not with the same individuals. And as far as Luke and his followers starting their own blockchain, I'm rolling on the floor laughing at that notion. Not only will Eligius be the only significant pool to join that attempt, Eligius will lose a significant amount of its hash power if Luke decides to go on a "war path" over this.

1+  this is exactly right.  miners like myself will leave Eligius in an instant otherwise they will lose their entire investment in Bitcoin.
muyuu
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924



View Profile
February 01, 2012, 03:16:36 PM
 #135

I think there is absolutely no reason to bring this disjunctive. No one has threatened to leave so why even suggesting it?

At worst, they would release competing, mutually aggressive algorithms and the popularity war would wage mining-power wise. That would be bad enough but the loser would just end up going along with the winner. I doubt anyone would leave the project as they have massive time and effort invested.
I don't think you have experience over these matters if you feel it's not necessary to talk about leaving. It certainly is. The moment the debates reached the stage that this thread was necessary, the situation went to the next level. To me it's not just about anyone leaving, it's about forcing someone out if he doesn't want to leave. Open source project or not, I certainly hope the other devs can force a dev out if it is deemed that he is doing more bad than good for the project. I believe that Luke might not stop interfering voluntarily.

I'm not happy that the situation reached this stage but talking about it like "everything is fine" is not the way to go. This needs to be resolved asap in a way that a similar situation is not possible in the future, at least not with the same individuals. And as far as Luke and his followers starting their own blockchain, I'm rolling on the floor laughing at that notion. Not only will Eligius be the only significant pool to join that attempt, Eligius will lose a significant amount of its hash power if Luke decides to go on a "war path" over this.

1+  this is exactly right.  miners like myself will leave Eligius in an instant otherwise they will lose their entire investment in Bitcoin.

That's your solution right there then.

GPG ID: 7294199D - OTC ID: muyuu (470F97EB7294199D)
forum tea fund BTC 1Epv7KHbNjYzqYVhTCgXWYhGSkv7BuKGEU DOGE DF1eTJ2vsxjHpmmbKu9jpqsrg5uyQLWksM CAP F1MzvmmHwP2UhFq82NQT7qDU9NQ8oQbtkQ
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
February 01, 2012, 05:29:29 PM
 #136

I think there is absolutely no reason to bring this disjunctive. No one has threatened to leave so why even suggesting it?

At worst, they would release competing, mutually aggressive algorithms and the popularity war would wage mining-power wise. That would be bad enough but the loser would just end up going along with the winner. I doubt anyone would leave the project as they have massive time and effort invested.
I don't think you have experience over these matters if you feel it's not necessary to talk about leaving. It certainly is. The moment the debates reached the stage that this thread was necessary, the situation went to the next level. To me it's not just about anyone leaving, it's about forcing someone out if he doesn't want to leave. Open source project or not, I certainly hope the other devs can force a dev out if it is deemed that he is doing more bad than good for the project. I believe that Luke might not stop interfering voluntarily.

I'm not happy that the situation reached this stage but talking about it like "everything is fine" is not the way to go. This needs to be resolved asap in a way that a similar situation is not possible in the future, at least not with the same individuals. And as far as Luke and his followers starting their own blockchain, I'm rolling on the floor laughing at that notion. Not only will Eligius be the only significant pool to join that attempt, Eligius will lose a significant amount of its hash power if Luke decides to go on a "war path" over this.

That would depend on how much better it would work. It only takes 3 pools to take over.

Not quite correct.  The pools are comprised of voluntary membership, that can leave at any time.  If there is any kind of split, those pool operators cannot count upon maintaining their leveraged position longer than it takes for the news to spread across the community.  At most, a pool operator would have three days before the majority of his membership heard about the split, and then decided for themselves whether or not they agreed with their chosen pool's direction.  To be a pool operator is a position of temporary power.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
btc_artist
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


Bitcoin!


View Profile WWW
February 01, 2012, 05:48:15 PM
 #137

Not quite correct.  The pools are comprised of voluntary membership, that can leave at any time.  If there is any kind of split, those pool operators cannot count upon maintaining their leveraged position longer than it takes for the news to spread across the community.  At most, a pool operator would have three days before the majority of his membership heard about the split, and then decided for themselves whether or not they agreed with their chosen pool's direction.  To be a pool operator is a position of temporary power.
3 days?  I think not.  The vast majority are not on these forums every day and don't have their ear to the ground.  Pools might lose a max of 20% of their hashing power by the end of 3 days.

BTC: 1CDCLDBHbAzHyYUkk1wYHPYmrtDZNhk8zf
LTC: LMS7SqZJnqzxo76iDSEua33WCyYZdjaQoE
casascius
Mike Caldwell
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344


The Casascius 1oz 10BTC Silver Round (w/ Gold B)


View Profile WWW
February 01, 2012, 05:58:04 PM
 #138

3 days?  I think not.  The vast majority are not on these forums every day and don't have their ear to the ground.  Pools might lose a max of 20% of their hashing power by the end of 3 days.

I also bet a lot of miners are zombies on botnets, where changing the pool might be infeasible (e.g. hardcoded), inconvenient (requiring testing and deploying a new payload to work with a new pool), or risky for the botnet owner (in terms of being detected or losing control over his zombies).  To the extent this is true, this would slow it even more.

Companies claiming they got hacked and lost your coins sounds like fraud so perfect it could be called fashionable.  I never believe them.  If I ever experience the misfortune of a real intrusion, I declare I have been honest about the way I have managed the keys in Casascius Coins.  I maintain no ability to recover or reproduce the keys, not even under limitless duress or total intrusion.  Remember that trusting strangers with your coins without any recourse is, as a matter of principle, not a best practice.  Don't keep coins online. Use paper wallets instead.
stick_theman
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 372


View Profile
February 01, 2012, 06:05:32 PM
 #139

There is a reason Satoshi throws his weight behind Gavin, we might or might not know that reason.  I support Gavin.

Also, would be nice if we as a community can see how this plays out via webcam in a TV interview format.

Where is Bruce Wagner on this one?  This is great material for TV!
papa_snurf
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 47


View Profile
February 01, 2012, 06:42:13 PM
 #140

What LukeDashJr did to coiledcoin, without his users consent, or permission, is proof positive of why he needs to be severed.

I agree. I don't know the merits of each BIP, but if I was to judge based on personality alone, then Luke would have to go.

On the other side, I wish you would take more time before implementing new features.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!