Community Directory

Go back

User Activity

Forum Posts

  • Replies: 1,764
  • Topics: 216
  • Likes Received: 1,244
  • Re: Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship

    So... It sounds like something major is going down over at r/bitcoin, here are two emails i've recieved in the last half hour.

    Subject: Theymos just pretty much shut /r/bitcoin down

    He still hasn't removed me as a mod; though I expect that to happen at any moment.

    What Theymos is doing is absolutely out of control. It is within his right, as the creator of the sub-reddit, but his behavior is outrageous.

    He has banned tons of people, and plans to ban many more. He is vigorously removing all posts about either bitcoin-xt OR the blocksize debate.

    The only solution is for people to realize that they can just move to a different sub-reddit; which is what I hope is going to happen.

    On principle I refuse to resign, because I want him to actually have to ban me himself.

    What the hell is going on in bitcoin-land these days!??


    Hi Adam,

    I'm a big fan of the show and feel compelled to ask whether you guys are aware of what's happened over at the bitcoin subreddit over the last 3 days?

    Essentially the moderators have taken it upon themselves to delete all posts relating to the recently launched bitcoin XT with bigger blocks support (see despite huge support from the forum members. They have also been shadowbanning users for posting/commenting about XT or generally expressing upset at the situation.

    This is extremely worrying to me since there is no way for the majority of subscribers (currenlty 170k) to know what has happened or even be informed of the option to support the potential hard fork.

    Personally I am 'pro XT/BIP101' but regardless of preference in the block size debate, censorship of the main information source for the bitcoin ecosystem is terrible for openness and freedom and I find it deeply worrying at such a critical juncture

    I wonder whether you guys might discuss this topic on the podcast? I hope people are able to spread the word that their information sources must be diverse to get an informed opinion. There is an alternative subreddit /r/bitcoin_uncensored (and /r/bitcoinXT specifically for that client).

    Thanks for all your work; you do a great service for the bitcoin ecosystem (unlike some).

  • Re: So, is Factom just a defacto scam now?

    @brighton36 Thank-you for the preamble @rob. Give me a bit more time, and I'll submit more info. I'm packaging everything up right now. I've been doing Bitcoin long enough to see plenty of scandals, and Factom crossed my threshold of what's acceptable. I believe it's up to us to sound alarms in the community when a member is behaving badly. I believe Factom has crossed that line.

    My goal, as always, is to maintain my integrity. I hit a point where I no longer felt comfortable affirming the illusion that what's going on here is 'ok'. There's enough chuckle-heads in Bitcoin that are happy to promote nonsense, I'm not one of them. I've given Factom a good amount of exposure on my channel, and while that's not an endorsement, it's 'promotion' of a degree and I no longer feel that Factom's claims should be taken at face value.

    I look forward to seeing what you've got.

  • Re: So, is Factom just a defacto scam now?

    @brighton36 @adam - RE: even if you're right and they should have issued a correction, this is not a capital offense. I don't disgree that this isn't a capital offense. But they do deserve a public shaming at the least. Isn't that what we did when Paycoin lied about their Amazon deal? Why is this different? BTW - this would in fact be a criminal offense were this a security regulated by the SEC. (Which, for all I know, it is.)

    BTW - I assume a number of Factom investors are reading this. Do you have any duty to them, or just Paul Snow?

    I have a duty not to make a platform for witchhunts, we've gone down that path before (see jason king) and it does not help.

    Regarding paycoin, You're looking at a mishandled press release and saying that' all the evidence you need to throw a project under the bus even if that project is actively being developed and supposedly about to launch by a guy who I would say has been a net positive in the community.

    I've never done business with paul, I don't know much about factom and did not participate in the crowdfund and from all his contributions (texas bitcoin conference, bitcoins around the world and other efforts) it seems like he should get the benefit of the doubt until you actually provide some evidence that this was more than a fuckup

    Why is it important to "publicly shame" the project instead of waiting for launch and trying it out, if it doesn't work that'll be pretty darn obvious and then you can start second-guessing all the decisions made along the way or even the initial thought. Have you written or talked about this anywhere I can see?

    I'm all for holding people to account but I don't understand this rush to the gallows, Paul Snow is his real name, he's a real person, he lives in texas and is a known quantity.

    Can you please take the time to lay out your full case against Factom instead of expecting us to get behind a lynching because of a missing correction

  • Re: So, is Factom just a defacto scam now?

    @brighton36 @adam, RE: What should they do about it now? This whole thing started because Paul Snow admitted the cover up in a smallish channel. And, you know, because we have an obligation to the community I told him to publish a correction. He refused, and started to "fish out" in the transcript.

    I didn't think it had to be a big deal, but Paul probably believes there's a liability associated with this, which I'm guessing is why he won't issue an official retraction.

    So given that you think paul thinks there is a risk associated with printing a correction, what do you think he should do about it? You've got attention, what should it be used to further?

    There actually are quite a few more red flags on this project. Give it time, and this will start coming out - I'm working through the rest of this.

    You've made a really strong accusation here without backing it up IMO, if you've got something to say about the project then say it, don't twobitidiot us

  • Re: So, is Factom just a defacto scam now?

    @junseth Not angry @Adam, but I do object to your willingness to sidle up and console the leads of projects while at the same time being in a position to ask them questions. It is discrediting my friend. You don't have to like my style, but if you question my integrity, you can go straight to the Paul Snow integrity butthole bank, because it's very clear that you don't know what honesty looks like. I might not be nice, but I do not lie.

    You attack literally everybody, apologize for none of it and are right a fraction of the time but rude all the time. I warn lots of people that it's pointless arguing with you and consoled Paul because I saw he had about 600 lines of back and forth with you which I know from discussing such hits as "Why isn't LTB a bank storing user funds?" can be quite frustrating.

    I'm waiting for the evidence from Chris to make a judgement personally but it seems like even if you're right and they should have issued a correction, this is not a capital offense. Assume Factom is guilty of the worst things you're charging them of - What should their punishment be?

  • Re: So, is Factom just a defacto scam now?

    @brighton36 There are two crowd funds Nicola, the 15th was the last day of the first crowdfund, I would allege that it's a very convenient way to juice some extra funds into the fundraise. But that convenience aside, let's look at their fanfare going into the second fundraise:

    "Other successful projects on include StartCOIN holdings – a project run by Max Keiser – and Factom – a company bringing blockchain technology to businesses. This latter company is best known for their deal with the Honduran government to record land registry title deeds using Bitcoin and blockchain technology."

    What's more sensational Nicola, obviously misleading investors, or our calling attention to this very obvious misrepresentation?

    Let's assume for a second you're right and they did not make the correction at the request of the honduran government for whatever reason. What should they do about it now?

    Beyond the Honduran press release, is there anything else about the project itself (not the press release) that supports your claim that it's a scam? It seems like you're saying they handled a press release badly and should have printed a retraction but the level of aggro coming off of you suggests something more serious. Or maybe i'm just not seeing why this is such a big deal?

  • Re: Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship

    I emailed Gavin for comment about the issue at large and about the policy specifically, here's the response

    I think the policy is bad... But it doesn't matter much-- most people run lightweight wallets, it is just too painful to sync even 1MB blocks every time you want to send or receive coins.

    And lightweight wallets don't care about the max block size.

    -- Gavin Andresen

  • Re: Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship



    @jayek I'm in agreement that we need to scale to the larger block size, but does anyone else feel the fork is a bad idea and should be implemented in core. Not so much an issue with the tech, but the general public perception and confidence in Bitcoin in as a whole, regardless if it's Core/XT. I think the way this has played out is bad for Bitcoin.

    You have described the position it sounds like Gavin/Mike found themselves in, thinking larger block sizes are important and wanting to do it through core but being unable to because any developer with commit access has veto power. This is the core of the issue it seems and what led us to where we are now.

    My issue with XT is that it's not just making a technical decision, it's the abandonment of a process that could harm bitcoin at it's core, no pun intended. :)

    The consensus of the bitcoin engineers being dismissed to a much smaller, controversial team with these changes scares me.

    The reason I don't find that very scary is just as the current bitcoin core group has no monopoly of code, neither do Mike and Gavin. If BitcoinXT turns out to be a worse alternative than Classic or the approval mechanism doesnt work as well as the anyone-can-veto model, the pendulum will swing back in the opposite direction and we'll wind up with a council of 12 or something.

    The counter-argument to this is that it's bad for the bitcoin community and thus price when forks happen and that might be true but as we see here it's a method of last resort not easily accomplished and if the solution winds up being a bad one those pushing it will lose a ton of face.

    So could they make bad choices? Yes, absolutely. But they will be held accountable for them and unless they are good guardians of the trust bestowed on them, they'll be replaced.

  • Re: Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship

    @themusicgod1 We have a means of dealing with this situation already: the consensus of miners and full nodes. There is no need to be emailing people about this, If we're following closely enough to give a shit about whether 8mb or 1mb blocks are present, we already know this is something being discussed, and where to discuss it. This unthreaded joke of a forum is not the proper place.

    New forums will be out with the redesign next month, I couldn't agree more on the current state of affairs. We sent out the request for discussion because frankly this is inside baseball and we wanted to get a wide swath of perspectives before covering it in article or on the show.

    I'm glad you keep up with everything going on, not everybody does and you're the first person I've seen complaining about this opportunity to talk about a major upcoming issue.

© Copyright 2013–2016 The LTB Network. All rights reserved .