What's wrong with Bitcoin?

[wumpus]

the unfortunate fact that the lead developer is not overly concerned about the appearance of accepting money from a government agency does not instill confidence.

So what are you saying with he's "not overly concerned about the appearance...". He should have kept silent about it? I think he gives a good example by being very transparent, but hey, it's all about appearance.

[1714113593]

1714113593

[1714113593]

1714113593

[gene]

the unfortunate fact that the lead developer is not overly concerned about the appearance of accepting money from a government agency does not instill confidence.

So what are you saying with he's "not overly concerned about the appearance...". He should have kept silent about it? I think he gives a good example by being very transparent, but hey, it's all about appearance.

Way to miss the point. He disclosed the fact that he is going to accept money. To many people, this gives the appearance of shadiness, which is still not good enough. Is this really so difficult to understand? This all goes back to the point of the echo chamber and "hero worship" which is endemic to these fora.

[wumpus]

Is this really so difficult to understand? This all goes back to the point of the echo chamber and "hero worship" which is endemic to these fora.

I simply give him the benefit of the doubt, that is far from "hero worship". When he gives me a reason to doubt him I will, but I see no reason for that personally yet. He could just as well have taken money from the CIA and not talked about it, and we'd never have known.

Yes, better for appearance, but not better for integrity.

[gene]

Is this really so difficult to understand? This all goes back to the point of the echo chamber and "hero worship" which is endemic to these fora.

I simply give him the benefit of the doubt, that is far from "hero worship". When he gives me a reason to doubt him I will, but I see no reason for that personally yet. He could just as well have taken money from the CIA and not talked about it, and we'd never have known.

Yes, better for appearance, but not better for integrity.

The "head developer" should recognize that he has accepted a role which requires him to be above reproach. This responsibility extends to us as well. It means that we should not let people get by with the "benefit of the doubt."

Just because he didn't do something worse doesn't mean he can't still do something better.

I don't want the discussion to center around this sub-point, but please understand that scrutiny is what is needed in all aspects of bitcoin. This is just one aspect to consider. Why not try harder?

[wumpus]

I don't want the discussion to center around this sub-point, but please understand that scrutiny is what is needed in all aspects of bitcoin.

I agree with you that scrutiny is important, it is a fledgling project and still far from perfect. But a lot of people come with criticisms without any ideas on how to improve things. If you start out hostile and railing at the community, that's what you get back.

For example.. what to do if you really distrust Gavin? Yes, it'd be possible to fork Bitcoin and reject all Gavin's commits from it. But what would one gain? Do you think he introduced backdoors? What power does being 'lead developer' of bitcoin really give you? I think he has a lot of work and relatively little gains. It certainly doesn't make him rich.

I'm sure Linus also took money from a wide range of different companies/organizations. Does that make people distrust Linux?

Also, this is the only project of its kind at this point that has any kind of traction. For better or worse, people flock to that. In a way, it'd be better if there were competitors.

[kiba]

I agree with you that scrutiny is important, it is a fledgling project and still far from perfect. But a lot of people come with criticisms without any ideas on how to improve things. If you start out hostile and railing at the community, that's what you get back.

Scrutiny is important but not-well-thought out scrutiny is bad since we don't get good scrutiny. That's partly the fault of the community since we didn't make an attempt to answer with a FAQ link or write down the answer in the FAQ.

[rezin777]

I don't think anyone can honestly refute his/her accurate characterization of a vocal group within the forum, which is the de facto official forum. This is a serious problem in that this is effectively bitcoin's "public face." And it is ugly. Talent and other important resources are likely being scared off. People like CS who actually take the time to provide lucid critiques of bitcoin ("s" left some time ago, taking his/her rather insightful posts with him/her) are unlikely to bother in this forum. It takes pretty strong will to put up with the constant abuse that even modest criticism provokes (see the typically incoherent "discussion" around the very real problem of mining pools and the Byzantine Generals' problem - lots of people just missing the point). Frankly, the moderators don't give me much confidence in setting the tone required to foster real discussion. This place has been an echo chamber for quite some time.

I will attempt to refute it. I will assume people like "s" and "cs" are talented or important resources. I will assume their arguments are lucid.

After assuming all that, I have to wonder, why would anyone that intelligent post in the general forums, versus the technical forums, and even if they encountered such hostility in the technical forums, why wouldn't they be able to ignore it? I mean, these are brilliant minds that can't deal with the concept that forums are public and anyone can post opinions in them? It just doesn't add up to me. Take Mike for example. He continues to post in the forums. His posts are well thought out and well written. And he doesn't seem to be affected by trolls, politics, etc.

So, you want a decentralized currency, but you fear that the users may be too ignorant and too uncouth to post publicly on the forums because they will drive off the intelligentsia? Can I call bull shit? If the idea has merit, the adopters won't care if troglodytes are adopting the idea as well.

So, when reading the posts of such intelligentsia, I have to wonder, why do they bother mentioning such silly bull shit, when their posts should reflect their brilliance in the context?

The only answer I can come up with is that they have an agenda. If their ideas have technical merit, why bother with anything other than technicalities?

If you post with an agenda, don't cry when posters with different agendas respond.

[elewton]

It would be nice if weusecoins or whoever had an ubuntu-style nice forum.

I like it here, but I understand that hostility and extremist views (even if consistent and morally admirable) may not be everyone's cup of tea.

[jrmithdobbs]

6. Probably less significantly, but still interestingly, the Bitcoin block chain has now been demonstrated by at least two good analysts to be able to store arbitrary data "steganographically." This means that the Bitcoin block chain can contain arbitrary contraband, so that merely by running the Bitcoin client, you may (at least theoretically) be propagating child pornography, Wikileaks, and other material in the style of Freenet and other distributed storage systems. This is more theoretical than practical at the moment, but it is disconcerting. How popular would VISA cards be if (say) 4% of them contained contraband information encoded in the holograms on the front of the cards?

I just want to point out that this isn't a recent "finding." It is by design.

See: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Genesis_block

[JohnDoe]

Aside from technical and legal questions around the "exchange," which is almost certainly being manipulated,

It is good practice to provide evidence when making such a serious claim to avoid looking like a complete idiot.

[wumpus]

After assuming all that, I have to wonder, why would anyone that intelligent post in the general forums, versus the technical forums

I was about to reply that too. We have at least to helpful forums:

• Development & Technical Discussion: Questions about the protocol, potential security weaknesses, improvements to the protocol
• Technical Support: General technical problems with bitcoin software

General discussion, Mining are more hostile. That is at least in part because people are tired of answering the same kind of questions and refuting the same type of arguments over and over again. Economics is like a mosh pit, that's a loaded topic everywhere not just in this community.

Keep your post technical and dry. Make sure you don't mention loaded words such as 'law', 'legal', 'terrorist', 'government' and so on. Most people here are intelligent and not 'troglodytes', but are attracted to a distributed currency because they have trust issues. Apart from that it is completely useless to discuss legal issues here, as they are different per country, and no law has (afaik) ever been changed after discussion on a forum.

Also if you make one post where you criticise bitcoin and its community from six different angles, you will attract the worst people as it turns into a chaos. I'd advise making a separate topic about each technical issue that you have encountered.

This topic shows a good example: https://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=9399.0

[eMansipater]

Just out of curiousity, has anyone else paused to consider why this person posted only once and then left?  I'd have to say that as a community we're not exactly welcoming to newcomers.  What exactly is it that is accomplished by yelling loudly enough at someone that they go away, even if we do think they were wrong?  It seems to me that engaging this person more delicately would have resulted in a fairly worthwhile conversation.  Just my .02 btc.

b. More obviously, the official forum is filled with disturbing and juvenile, extreme anarchism. Comments like "I reject all systems of human morality and law" are common. Uses of Bitcoin to encourage trading in illegal goods and services are routine; even "assassination markets" are encouraged. Bitcoin as a virtual currency probably does not threaten governments the way that some novices initially imagine upon hearing about the technology, but when the only people buying Bitcoins are (1) engaging in illegal activities, (2) anarchist teenagers who want to promote the technology for ideological reasons, and (3) speculators, sound investors like those in the Fatwallet crowd would be well advised to stay away. To a mainstream community of investors, however, the deranged rants that are commonplace among early Bitcoin adopters are perhaps reason alone to hesitate to adopt the technology.

Just pointing out that yet another person has noticed this.  Of course we're not all like this, and the description here is not even a fair characterisation of most bitcoin forum users.  But this is still how the forums tend to come off--worth thinking about.

[chickenado]

Just out of curiousity, has anyone else paused to consider why this person posted only once and then left?  I'd have to say that as a community we're not exactly welcoming to newcomers.

He strikes me as a bit of a hot-head.  He comes in here and right away insinuates that most of us are criminals.  What kind of reaction does he expect after that? That everyone just gives him a big friendly smile?

Anyhow, I thought that most answers were factual and addressed his arguments, ignoring the serious insinuation he made in the beginning of his post.  That is far nicer than most forums I have experienced.

[eMansipater]

Just out of curiousity, has anyone else paused to consider why this person posted only once and then left?  I'd have to say that as a community we're not exactly welcoming to newcomers.

He strikes me as a bit of a hot-head.  He comes in here and right away insinuates that most of us are criminals.  What kind of reaction does he expect after that? That everyone just gives him a big friendly smile?

Anyhow, I thought that most answers were factual and addressed his arguments, ignoring the serious insinuation he made in the beginning of his post.  That is far nicer than most forums I have experienced.

If you're careful not to take the post too personally, I think the main thing to note is that this person took the time to type out some detailed and reasonably well-expressed thoughts, as compared to people who just spew "OMG this is a Ponzi scam!!!".  I realise that in highly technical communities like ours soft skills aren't heavily emphasised to begin with, but I personally think there is a lot of low-lying fruit here consisting of people that could fairly easily converted to formidable allies with just a little TLC.

[shady financier]

eMansipater...

*swooon*

[benjamindees]

Just out of curiousity, has anyone else paused to consider why this person posted only once and then left?  I'd have to say that as a community we're not exactly welcoming to newcomers.  What exactly is it that is accomplished by yelling loudly enough at someone that they go away, even if we do think they were wrong?  It seems to me that engaging this person more delicately would have resulted in a fairly worthwhile conversation.  Just my .02 btc.

If you had bothered to read the thread you would see that this rant was originally posted elsewhere and was copied here by someone other than the original author.  The original author had no intention of even posting here, let alone putting any type of credentials behind it.

So, it was 100% intended to denigrate Bitcoin in the eyes of the public, and not to provide useful criticism.

I have to say that I'm somewhat surprised by the number of regular posters who seem blissfully unaware of the vast resources arrayed against even the idea of something like a "de-centralized digital currency".  Personally, I just mentally write-off every anonymous poster making accusations of child porn and terrorism as paid shills posting with an agenda.  So it's disconcerting to see that this type of information warfare can actually effect it's intended purpose of more widespread calls for censorship and division among even reasonable members.

[eMansipater]

Just out of curiousity, has anyone else paused to consider why this person posted only once and then left?  I'd have to say that as a community we're not exactly welcoming to newcomers.  What exactly is it that is accomplished by yelling loudly enough at someone that they go away, even if we do think they were wrong?  It seems to me that engaging this person more delicately would have resulted in a fairly worthwhile conversation.  Just my .02 btc.

If you had bothered to read the thread you would see that this rant was originally posted elsewhere and was copied here by someone other than the original author.  The original author had no intention of even posting here, let alone putting any type of credentials behind it.

So, it was 100% intended to denigrate Bitcoin in the eyes of the public, and not to provide useful criticism.

You're right, I didn't read the whole thread.  I'm sometimes guilty of skimming or just reading first and last pages since there is so much content on the forums these days--thank you for calling me on it.  But I still think the post could have been interacted with in a more useful way.  First, wonder about the psychology that drove both the original author to write the piece and then someone else to come here and post it.  Then, once the original source is identified, try to compose an effective reply or even just take the opportunity as a community to examine why these types of reactions are so common, and how we might be able to proactively address them.  There's nothing wrong with people having a lot of time on their hands, but if they apply themselves productively here BitCoin could really stand to benefit.

I have to say that I'm somewhat surprised by the number of regular posters who seem blissfully unaware of the vast resources arrayed against even the idea of something like a "de-centralized digital currency".  Personally, I just mentally write-off every anonymous poster making accusations of child porn and terrorism as paid shills posting with an agenda.  So it's disconcerting to see that this type of information warfare can actually effect it's intended purpose of more widespread calls for censorship and division among even reasonable members.

I think you're going a little too conspiracy theory here.  I seriously doubt that anyone with money to spend on destroying bitcoin would spend it producing internet forum posts.  It seems a lot more likely that these types of responses simply reflect either people's initial impressions or other people's viewpoints that they were exposed to.  The pretty clear lesson here is that BitCoin has a huge image problem, and it's well worth addressing it.  Even if some posters were "g-men", they're not faceless drones.  What better opportunity could you have to engage someone who is in a position to have a crucial impact on BitCoin's future?  It's time to put down the novels and political rhetoric, and start interacting with other human beings.  Such as me:  you're seriously interpreting anything I've done on these forums as a call for censorship and division?  Be real here.

...Frankly, the moderators don't give me much confidence in setting the tone required to foster real discussion. This place has been an echo chamber for quite some time....

Ouch, gene.  I hope I'm not meant to take this personally!

[benjamindees]

I have to say that I'm somewhat surprised by the number of regular posters who seem blissfully unaware of the vast resources arrayed against even the idea of something like a "de-centralized digital currency".  Personally, I just mentally write-off every anonymous poster making accusations of child porn and terrorism as paid shills posting with an agenda.  So it's disconcerting to see that this type of information warfare can actually effect it's intended purpose of more widespread calls for censorship and division among even reasonable members.

I think you're going a little too conspiracy theory here.  I seriously doubt that anyone with money to spend on destroying bitcoin would spend it producing internet forum posts.

Why not?  It's cheap, effective, and nominally legal.  US agencies have run disinfo campaigns for decades.

The Pentagon's War on the Internet
Military's 'sock puppet' software creates fake online identities to spread pro-American propaganda

I think once you have US Attorneys calling alternative currencies "domestic terrorism" and threatening to infiltrate and disrupt them, it's time to recognize that some conspiracies are, in fact, real.

[gene]

...Frankly, the moderators don't give me much confidence in setting the tone required to foster real discussion. This place has been an echo chamber for quite some time....

Ouch, gene.  I hope I'm not meant to take this personally!

I hope you interpret it as a challenge to uphold a better standard. Allow me to draw your attention to one particularly charming thread, which illustrates my point. I'll post some relevant excerpts:

I think once all of this is over banksters, politicians and soldiers should be lined up and shot at dawn

The individual then clarified himself:

There is every reason to kill them. They are all useless and unnecessarily consuming resources of this planet

Your response made it clear that advocating the murder of "banksters, politicians and soldiers" is acceptable here. I should note that at least one more "Global Moderator" was aware of these posts.

This is disgusting and shameful, and I'll not mince words. Your response was pathetic.

[shady financier]

eMansipator is a diplomatic non-confrontational communicator type person, it's just his/her apparent nature, and in my opinion is a good and useful thing. However I think we do need a harder line against such posts expressed through free speech. Murderous/bigotted/conspiraloon type attitudes need to be confronted (strongly) in the public arena. A bitcoin-awakening world should be assumed to be watching at all times.

At the end of the day it's what the forum community chooses to do about it. If people don't mind this kind of talk passing without strongly-opposed comment, well then that's all part of the bitcoin package. If bitcoin ultimately fails then perhaps it's for the best in the eyes of the wider world if bitcoins strongest proponants were happy to have talk of people being lined up and shot as useless wastes of resources pass with an indifferent/softline shrug. It could be said "well, perhaps we dodged a bullet after all, who needs some weird genocidal anarcho-swarm rocking the boat with their funny-money anyway, revolutionaries are always so shooty and judgemental, fuck em".

Just my 2 toshi.