Bitcointalk Censoring old posts of me exchanging messages with Satoshi

[CLains]

BUMP this, upvoting gets us as close to top of /r/bitcoin we'll get atm

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3b0ycp/the_current_system_where_every_user_is_a_network/csi36pn

Also suggest ways I can polish my posts for maximum effect..

[Permie]

Currently the top post on Reddit, bytemaster's conversation with Satoshi almost 5 years ago...
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3b0ycp/the_current_system_where_every_user_is_a_network/

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3b0ycp/the_current_system_where_every_user_is_a_network/csi36pn

dno if this will work, shot in the dark honestly.

We had 7 points on this. Back to 2 now, and -3 to the guy defending it a few posts down.. such maximalists, even though bytemaster is right there in 2010 people still shut their ears. So sad.

I tried to help! In a "roundabout" kind of way

LALALALA just in testing, all in BM's head LALALALA

Good thing BitShares is going the route of providing products and services that the market wants rather than relying on the speculation of bitcoiners.
Let the price punish the ignorant and reward the diligent.

Lol at lukejr proclaiming 'all altcoins are useless'.
Regardless of bitshares it's just factually incorrect. Trading hype-cycles is "useful".

I get the arguments as why the most established/useful CURRENCY will push out competitors - Gresham's law etc.

Gresham's law is an economic principle that states: "When a government overvalues one type of money and undervalues another, the undervalued money will leave the country or disappear from circulation into hoards, while the overvalued money will flood into circulation."

But many fail to recognize that crypto will disrupt more than just currency. There's an entire financial system to be freed.
The phrase "jack of all trades but master of none" comes to mind. Bitcoin makes a great currency but something like BitShares is needed to perform other financial services.
I don't think its possible to be a perfect currency at the same time as a perfect trading-exchange.

Hence our "problem" of how to define BitShares:

The community has a schizophrenic view on BTS as a result of its history. A currency demands very little or no dilution. That's why we had many leave the community when dilution to fund development was introduced. On the other hand, developing a financial platform is a business endeavour that requires a lot of funding in return for profit. That's why CNX has had to establish externally to bitShares, to give the development team other avenues of funding the business. That separation has also upset some of the community. The basic problem is that BTS cannot be both a currency and a development business. In answer to my question on whether bitShares might consider market loans to help fund development (a business need), bytemaster in the Hangout suggested the big problem is aversion to dilution (the currency need). I understand that answer completely.

What I'm suggesting here is a way to potentially meet both needs within the bitShares system. What if we split BTS into separate decentralised currency and business vehicles? It's not fully thought out, and I'm not certain this would be a good idea yet or not - this is just conceptual and posted for feedback.

[CLains]

Currently the top post on Reddit, bytemaster's conversation with Satoshi almost 5 years ago...
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3b0ycp/the_current_system_where_every_user_is_a_network/

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3b0ycp/the_current_system_where_every_user_is_a_network/csi36pn

dno if this will work, shot in the dark honestly.

We had 7 points on this. Back to 2 now, and -3 to the guy defending it a few posts down.. such maximalists, even though bytemaster is right there in 2010 people still shut their ears. So sad.

[Thom]

If Bitcointalk finds it acceptable to modify the interactions between people who helped bring this technology into being, then it is as good as worthless and has shown unequivocally that it cannot be trusted.

When this happened it was a mod error on btt, they restored it. Someone posted after bytemaster a question to bytemaster about pts or bts years after the satoshi conversation, the mod trimmed those recent comments and mistook bytemasters last comment as being recent and trimmed it too. Another mod restored it and I think locked the thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=801613.0;wap2

If that is the case then so be it.  I apologise.  I'm a bit sensitive about manipulation and wandering standards.  However, i think a lot more care needs to be taken when handling conversations that may well be interesting a thousand years hence!  Thanks for letting me know.

I'm rather sensitive about those things too Ben, which is why I raised a question about censorship in meta. It's not censorship here, just overworked devs making adjustments without making it always obvious to us what they're doing. This community is a bit "jumpy" lately with all the changes going on. Lets slow down, take a breath and extend a little grace to Vikram, fav and anyone else working behind the scenes to manage this forum.

[mint chocolate chip]

If Bitcointalk finds it acceptable to modify the interactions between people who helped bring this technology into being, then it is as good as worthless and has shown unequivocally that it cannot be trusted.

When this happened it was a mod error on btt, they restored it. Someone posted after bytemaster a question to bytemaster about pts or bts years after the satoshi conversation, the mod trimmed those recent comments and mistook bytemasters last comment as being recent and trimmed it too. Another mod restored it and I think locked the thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=801613.0;wap2

If that is the case then so be it.  I apologise.  I'm a bit sensitive about manipulation and wandering standards.  However, i think a lot more care needs to be taken when handling conversations that may well be interesting a thousand years hence!  Thanks for letting me know.

Your welcome, I had a similar reaction when it first happened (forum handle currencydebt on btt)

[Ben Mason]

If Bitcointalk finds it acceptable to modify the interactions between people who helped bring this technology into being, then it is as good as worthless and has shown unequivocally that it cannot be trusted.

When this happened it was a mod error on btt, they restored it. Someone posted after bytemaster a question to bytemaster about pts or bts years after the satoshi conversation, the mod trimmed those recent comments and mistook bytemasters last comment as being recent and trimmed it too. Another mod restored it and I think locked the thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=801613.0;wap2

If that is the case then so be it.  I apologise.  I'm a bit sensitive about manipulation and wandering standards.  However, i think a lot more care needs to be taken when handling conversations that may well be interesting a thousand years hence!  Thanks for letting me know.

[mint chocolate chip]

If Bitcointalk finds it acceptable to modify the interactions between people who helped bring this technology into being, then it is as good as worthless and has shown unequivocally that it cannot be trusted.

When this happened it was a mod error on btt, they restored it. Someone posted after bytemaster a question to bytemaster about pts or bts years after the satoshi conversation, the mod trimmed those recent comments and mistook bytemasters last comment as being recent and trimmed it too. Another mod restored it and I think locked the thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=801613.0;wap2

[bitmeat]

If Bitcointalk finds it acceptable to modify the interactions between people who helped bring this technology into being, then it is as good as worthless and has shown unequivocally that it cannot be trusted.

Decentralized Forums, Where Art Thou?

Right on

http://qora.co.in/?blog ... closest there is right now.

*shrug* Needs to have a sexy version.

[Tuck Fheman]

If Bitcointalk finds it acceptable to modify the interactions between people who helped bring this technology into being, then it is as good as worthless and has shown unequivocally that it cannot be trusted.

Decentralized Forums, Where Art Thou?

Right on

http://qora.co.in/?blog ... closest there is right now.

[Ben Mason]

If Bitcointalk finds it acceptable to modify the interactions between people who helped bring this technology into being, then it is as good as worthless and has shown unequivocally that it cannot be trusted.

Decentralized Forums, Where Art Thou?

Right on

[bitmeat]

If Bitcointalk finds it acceptable to modify the interactions between people who helped bring this technology into being, then it is as good as worthless and has shown unequivocally that it cannot be trusted.

Decentralized Forums, Where Art Thou?

[Ben Mason]

If Bitcointalk finds it acceptable to modify the interactions between people who helped bring this technology into being, then it is as good as worthless and has shown unequivocally that it cannot be trusted.

[Ben Mason]

If people are trying to censor and hide stuff like this, can we turn it around and actually get it more exposure à la Streisand effect?

The fact that they are willing to use tactics like censorship and other underhanded political machinations, it leads me to believe that perhaps a lot of people have a lot of money/power at stake and Bytemaster could be interfering with that.

I don't know who has it out for Bytemaster or who Bytemaster may have pissed off. I'm someone who looks squarely at the technology and I admire what Bytemaster has been able to accomplish with Bitshares X. Some of the solutions are quite novel and even the people who might not like Bitshares or Bytemaster will probably copy these solutions.

The code should speak for itself. There shouldn't be any reason to start trying to erase history but the fact that Bitcointalk is willing and capable of doing that means the same could happen on this forum. History can be changed with a few keystrokes.

Is there any doubt what bitshares tech will accomplish? I have none, and what you suggest above seems inevitable, in which case bytemaster will come under serious attack if he hasn't already. I sure hope I³ has given this ample thought and have plans in place to deal with this when it happens.

Could this "censorship" be the start? It doesn't look like it to me based on what MeTHoDx has found, but that is far from an exhaustive investigation. If this is the start of some effort the erode bytemaster's rep or alter his historical role with satoshi it will take more evidence to convince me firmly either way, but it "looks" like it was just a stupid moderator.

I like the fact that he's speaking at the Inside Bitcoins conference. And that he's relating all of BitShares' development as a progression of the work that Bitcoin started. There is no point in antagonizing people when we can ask them to join us rather than fight. But at some point, you are right; the forces behind Bitcoin (and even those against it...large companies and governments) will fix BitShares firmly in their crosshairs. Hopefully, we're up and running to the point of steady growth and inevitability by then, since there is nothing else out there that's even close to BitShares in terms of technology, market presence, or acumen. Yet all of us must remain peacefully vigilant to defend against attacks and continue encouraging others to join/try it rather than fight it.

I don't think it's anything personal.  It's just business. It's not an argument that can even be won. The buggy whip industry did not want to see the emergence of horseless carriages.  Miners don't want to see the demise of mining.

It is personal Stan!  I find it bl00dy offensive to have important history censored.  Ignorance is no excuse whatsoever.  We should expect standards that are good for everyone (all crypto) to be stringently adhered to.  There will always be some short-sighted excuse for corruption and that is exactly what we are attempting to eliminate.

[CLains]

Currently the top post on Reddit, bytemaster's conversation with Satoshi almost 5 years ago...
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3b0ycp/the_current_system_where_every_user_is_a_network/

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3b0ycp/the_current_system_where_every_user_is_a_network/csi36pn

dno if this will work, shot in the dark honestly.

[mint chocolate chip]

Currently the top post on Reddit, bytemaster's conversation with Satoshi almost 5 years ago...
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3b0ycp/the_current_system_where_every_user_is_a_network/

[Stan]

I don't think it's anything personal.  It's just business. It's not an argument that can even be won. The buggy whip industry did not want to see the emergence of horseless carriages.  Miners don't want to see the demise of mining.

Whether it's personal or not is irrelevant. My point is it's a vulnerability, a potential weakness and point of attack. The whole I³ team should be well aware of the implications of the technology they're building, and who it will affect. Those are mighty powerful groups and I'd be shocked if those forces haven't been discussed or are considered too distant to worry about now. Perhaps so, but when then?

At some point the giants will awake and try to stop their discomfort. Is I³'s blindly gambling they can design a revolutionary tech, build it, test it, refine the design and get it marketed and adopted by enough people fast enough so it can't be stopped?

That depends on when the giants awake, and if BitShares has enough of the process completed to make squashing the irritation too costly or impractical.

Is it only me that thinks that this post deserves some picture of 'small giants'? by Stan or liondani of course!

We've been calling them unfortunate dragons and windmills. 

I just do not believe that you do not have pictures of 'unfortunate dragons and windmills' at you disposal though...

StanQuixote

Since you asked so nicely...

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9333.msg121660#msg121660

[tonyk]

I don't think it's anything personal.  It's just business. It's not an argument that can even be won. The buggy whip industry did not want to see the emergence of horseless carriages.  Miners don't want to see the demise of mining.

Whether it's personal or not is irrelevant. My point is it's a vulnerability, a potential weakness and point of attack. The whole I³ team should be well aware of the implications of the technology they're building, and who it will affect. Those are mighty powerful groups and I'd be shocked if those forces haven't been discussed or are considered too distant to worry about now. Perhaps so, but when then?

At some point the giants will awake and try to stop their discomfort. Is I³'s blindly gambling they can design a revolutionary tech, build it, test it, refine the design and get it marketed and adopted by enough people fast enough so it can't be stopped?

That depends on when the giants awake, and if BitShares has enough of the process completed to make squashing the irritation too costly or impractical.

Is it only me that thinks that this post deserves some picture of 'small giants'? by Stan or liondani of course!

We've been calling them unfortunate dragons and windmills. 

I just do not believe that you do not have pictures of 'unfortunate dragons and windmills' at you disposal though...

StanQuixote

[Stan]

I don't think it's anything personal.  It's just business. It's not an argument that can even be won. The buggy whip industry did not want to see the emergence of horseless carriages.  Miners don't want to see the demise of mining.

Whether it's personal or not is irrelevant. My point is it's a vulnerability, a potential weakness and point of attack. The whole I³ team should be well aware of the implications of the technology they're building, and who it will affect. Those are mighty powerful groups and I'd be shocked if those forces haven't been discussed or are considered too distant to worry about now. Perhaps so, but when then?

At some point the giants will awake and try to stop their discomfort. Is I³'s blindly gambling they can design a revolutionary tech, build it, test it, refine the design and get it marketed and adopted by enough people fast enough so it can't be stopped?

That depends on when the giants awake, and if BitShares has enough of the process completed to make squashing the irritation too costly or impractical.

Is it only me that thinks that this post deserves some picture of 'small giants'? by Stan or liondani of course!

We've been calling them unfortunate dragons and windmills. 

[tonyk]

I don't think it's anything personal.  It's just business. It's not an argument that can even be won. The buggy whip industry did not want to see the emergence of horseless carriages.  Miners don't want to see the demise of mining.

Whether it's personal or not is irrelevant. My point is it's a vulnerability, a potential weakness and point of attack. The whole I³ team should be well aware of the implications of the technology they're building, and who it will affect. Those are mighty powerful groups and I'd be shocked if those forces haven't been discussed or are considered too distant to worry about now. Perhaps so, but when then?

At some point the giants will awake and try to stop their discomfort. Is I³'s blindly gambling they can design a revolutionary tech, build it, test it, refine the design and get it marketed and adopted by enough people fast enough so it can't be stopped?

That depends on when the giants awake, and if BitShares has enough of the process completed to make squashing the irritation too costly or impractical.

Is it only me that thinks that this post deserves some picture of 'small giants'? by Stan or liondani of course!

[gamey]

I don't think it's anything personal.  It's just business. It's not an argument that can even be won. The buggy whip industry did not want to see the emergence of horseless carriages.  Miners don't want to see the demise of mining.

Whether it's personal or not is irrelevant. My point is it's a vulnerability, a potential weakness and point of attack. The whole I³ team should be well aware of the implications of the technology they're building, and who it will affect. Those are mighty powerful groups and I'd be shocked if those forces haven't been discussed or are considered too distant to worry about now. Perhaps so, but when then?

At some point the giants will awake and try to stop their discomfort. Is I³'s blindly gambling they can design a revolutionary tech, build it, test it, refine the design and get it marketed and adopted by enough people fast enough so it can't be stopped?

That depends on when the giants awake, and if BitShares has enough of the process completed to make squashing the irritation too costly or impractical.

The system is made to prevent any of this happening outside of actively censoring the internet or criminalizing use to such an extent people won't use it.

[lakerta06]

I don't think it's anything personal.  It's just business. It's not an argument that can even be won. The buggy whip industry did not want to see the emergence of horseless carriages.  Miners don't want to see the demise of mining.

Whether it's personal or not is irrelevant. My point is it's a vulnerability, a potential weakness and point of attack. The whole I³ team should be well aware of the implications of the technology they're building, and who it will affect. Those are mighty powerful groups and I'd be shocked if those forces haven't been discussed or are considered too distant to worry about now. Perhaps so, but when then?

At some point the giants will awake and try to stop their discomfort. Is I³'s blindly gambling they can design a revolutionary tech, build it, test it, refine the design and get it marketed and adopted by enough people fast enough so it can't be stopped?

That depends on when the giants awake, and if BitShares has enough of the process completed to make squashing the irritation too costly or impractical.

The way I see it is the cats already out of the bag. Pandoras box has been opened. Destroy I3 and someone else will pick up the torch. The vision will persist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSLeuTvRPdI&t=165

[Method-X]

I don't think it's anything personal.  It's just business. It's not an argument that can even be won. The buggy whip industry did not want to see the emergence of horseless carriages.  Miners don't want to see the demise of mining.

Whether it's personal or not is irrelevant. My point is it's a vulnerability, a potential weakness and point of attack. The whole I³ team should be well aware of the implications of the technology they're building, and who it will affect. Those are mighty powerful groups and I'd be shocked if those forces haven't been discussed or are considered too distant to worry about now. Perhaps so, but when then?

At some point the giants will awake and try to stop their discomfort. Is I³'s blindly gambling they can design a revolutionary tech, build it, test it, refine the design and get it marketed and adopted by enough people fast enough so it can't be stopped?

That depends on when the giants awake, and if BitShares has enough of the process completed to make squashing the irritation too costly or impractical.

The way I see it is the cats already out of the bag. Pandoras box has been opened. Destroy I3 and someone else will pick up the torch. The vision will persist.

[Thom]

I don't think it's anything personal.  It's just business. It's not an argument that can even be won. The buggy whip industry did not want to see the emergence of horseless carriages.  Miners don't want to see the demise of mining.

Whether it's personal or not is irrelevant. My point is it's a vulnerability, a potential weakness and point of attack. The whole I³ team should be well aware of the implications of the technology they're building, and who it will affect. Those are mighty powerful groups and I'd be shocked if those forces haven't been discussed or are considered too distant to worry about now. Perhaps so, but when then?

At some point the giants will awake and try to stop their discomfort. Is I³'s blindly gambling they can design a revolutionary tech, build it, test it, refine the design and get it marketed and adopted by enough people fast enough so it can't be stopped?

That depends on when the giants awake, and if BitShares has enough of the process completed to make squashing the irritation too costly or impractical.

[xeroc]

Seems we are now one step closer to victory step 4

[Stan]

If people are trying to censor and hide stuff like this, can we turn it around and actually get it more exposure à la Streisand effect?

The fact that they are willing to use tactics like censorship and other underhanded political machinations, it leads me to believe that perhaps a lot of people have a lot of money/power at stake and Bytemaster could be interfering with that.

I don't know who has it out for Bytemaster or who Bytemaster may have pissed off. I'm someone who looks squarely at the technology and I admire what Bytemaster has been able to accomplish with Bitshares X. Some of the solutions are quite novel and even the people who might not like Bitshares or Bytemaster will probably copy these solutions.

The code should speak for itself. There shouldn't be any reason to start trying to erase history but the fact that Bitcointalk is willing and capable of doing that means the same could happen on this forum. History can be changed with a few keystrokes.

Is there any doubt what bitshares tech will accomplish? I have none, and what you suggest above seems inevitable, in which case bytemaster will come under serious attack if he hasn't already. I sure hope I³ has given this ample thought and have plans in place to deal with this when it happens.

Could this "censorship" be the start? It doesn't look like it to me based on what MeTHoDx has found, but that is far from an exhaustive investigation. If this is the start of some effort the erode bytemaster's rep or alter his historical role with satoshi it will take more evidence to convince me firmly either way, but it "looks" like it was just a stupid moderator.

I like the fact that he's speaking at the Inside Bitcoins conference. And that he's relating all of BitShares' development as a progression of the work that Bitcoin started. There is no point in antagonizing people when we can ask them to join us rather than fight. But at some point, you are right; the forces behind Bitcoin (and even those against it...large companies and governments) will fix BitShares firmly in their crosshairs. Hopefully, we're up and running to the point of steady growth and inevitability by then, since there is nothing else out there that's even close to BitShares in terms of technology, market presence, or acumen. Yet all of us must remain peacefully vigilant to defend against attacks and continue encouraging others to join/try it rather than fight it.

I don't think it's anything personal.  It's just business. It's not an argument that can even be won. The buggy whip industry did not want to see the emergence of horseless carriages.  Miners don't want to see the demise of mining.

[donkeypong]

If people are trying to censor and hide stuff like this, can we turn it around and actually get it more exposure à la Streisand effect?

The fact that they are willing to use tactics like censorship and other underhanded political machinations, it leads me to believe that perhaps a lot of people have a lot of money/power at stake and Bytemaster could be interfering with that.

I don't know who has it out for Bytemaster or who Bytemaster may have pissed off. I'm someone who looks squarely at the technology and I admire what Bytemaster has been able to accomplish with Bitshares X. Some of the solutions are quite novel and even the people who might not like Bitshares or Bytemaster will probably copy these solutions.

The code should speak for itself. There shouldn't be any reason to start trying to erase history but the fact that Bitcointalk is willing and capable of doing that means the same could happen on this forum. History can be changed with a few keystrokes.

Is there any doubt what bitshares tech will accomplish? I have none, and what you suggest above seems inevitable, in which case bytemaster will come under serious attack if he hasn't already. I sure hope I³ has given this ample thought and have plans in place to deal with this when it happens.

Could this "censorship" be the start? It doesn't look like it to me based on what MeTHoDx has found, but that is far from an exhaustive investigation. If this is the start of some effort the erode bytemaster's rep or alter his historical role with satoshi it will take more evidence to convince me firmly either way, but it "looks" like it was just a stupid moderator.

I like the fact that he's speaking at the Inside Bitcoins conference. And that he's relating all of BitShares' development as a progression of the work that Bitcoin started. There is no point in antagonizing people when we can ask them to join us rather than fight. But at some point, you are right; the forces behind Bitcoin (and even those against it...large companies and governments) will fix BitShares firmly in their crosshairs. Hopefully, we're up and running to the point of steady growth and inevitability by then, since there is nothing else out there that's even close to BitShares in terms of technology, market presence, or acumen. Yet all of us must remain peacefully vigilant to defend against attacks and continue encouraging others to join/try it rather than fight it.

[Thom]

If people are trying to censor and hide stuff like this, can we turn it around and actually get it more exposure à la Streisand effect?

The fact that they are willing to use tactics like censorship and other underhanded political machinations, it leads me to believe that perhaps a lot of people have a lot of money/power at stake and Bytemaster could be interfering with that.

I don't know who has it out for Bytemaster or who Bytemaster may have pissed off. I'm someone who looks squarely at the technology and I admire what Bytemaster has been able to accomplish with Bitshares X. Some of the solutions are quite novel and even the people who might not like Bitshares or Bytemaster will probably copy these solutions.

The code should speak for itself. There shouldn't be any reason to start trying to erase history but the fact that Bitcointalk is willing and capable of doing that means the same could happen on this forum. History can be changed with a few keystrokes.

Is there any doubt what bitshares tech will accomplish? I have none, and what you suggest above seems inevitable, in which case bytemaster will come under serious attack if he hasn't already. I sure hope I³ has given this ample thought and have plans in place to deal with this when it happens.

Could this "censorship" be the start? It doesn't look like it to me based on what MeTHoDx has found, but that is far from an exhaustive investigation. If this is the start of some effort the erode bytemaster's rep or alter his historical role with satoshi it will take more evidence to convince me firmly either way, but it "looks" like it was just a stupid moderator.

[Empirical1.1]

Well I put the topic in the main Bitcoin discussion area but it was moved to Meta, I guess that's where it's supposed to go.

BadBear has restored the post, which is good 

Someone bumped the thread with a quote and reply to byteshares about bitshares (which is off topic, alt currencies). Easy to assume byteshares post was a part of that if the dates weren't checked. I restored that post. None of Satoshi's posts were deleted.

Great      https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.0

However, there is no one named 'byteshares' the poster is 'Bytemaster'? It sounds like in the response above you are justifying deleting it because 'byteshares' sounds like 'Bitshares' but the poster is Bytemaster and the words Bytemaster and BitShares are not as easily confused, but thanks I'm glad it's been restored.

Edit: Although I see Bytemaster does have BitShares in his title thing (Bytemaster is the main founder of BitShares) , so maybe that caused the confusion.

[Empirical1.1]

I'm not sure what to make of it myself.

I posted a topic about it on Bitcointalk though yesterday https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=801613.0 which has got some responses.

[luckybit]

If people are trying to censor and hide stuff like this, can we turn it around and actually get it more exposure à la Streisand effect?

The fact that they are willing to use tactics like censorship and other underhanded political machinations, it leads me to believe that perhaps a lot of people have a lot of money/power at stake and Bytemaster could be interfering with that.

I don't know who has it out for Bytemaster or who Bytemaster may have pissed off. I'm someone who looks squarely at the technology and I admire what Bytemaster has been able to accomplish with Bitshares X. Some of the solutions are quite novel and even the people who might not like Bitshares or Bytemaster will probably copy these solutions.

The code should speak for itself. There shouldn't be any reason to start trying to erase history but the fact that Bitcointalk is willing and capable of doing that means the same could happen on this forum. History can be changed with a few keystrokes.

[luckybit]

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.

I fully believe you and came to conclusion you did.   I read the snack machine post after posting by earlier comment.

I can't find the thread at the moment, but this post was made by me YEARS ago and was just deleted on September 14th 2014.   

Politics are more important than progress to some people. Remember what happened with Ripple?

Apparently Bitshares X isn't cool tech because powerful Bitcoiners don't like Bytemaster? I judge the tech on it's own merit but now we can understand the benefit Satoshi had by being anonymous. We also see the benefit to NXT that came from it's developer being anonymous.

[xeroc]

that's btw why I like the policy of no-delete-at-all (besides obvious spam)

It's kind of funny that BTT mods keep scamming threads open while deleting technical discussion posts?!

[bobmaloney]

This is just a stupid mod guys. He's trying to "clean up" the thread by deleting what he has deemed irrelevant posts. He should have locked it and left it at that.

Do not attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. -Hanlon's razor

Deleting the unrelated posts from 2014 = stupidity

Deleting the on-topic, conversational post from 2010 = malice

The heads up that at least one BTT mod is willing to go out of his way to erase historical posts between bytemaster and Satoshi = priceless

*I, for one, would love to read whatever threads may exist within the mod/admin subforums on BTT regarding Bitshares.

[Method-X]

But why would they do it now in 2014?

In a way he's deleting history. This could not be.. Something more is happening!! I'm mean you don't just go back to 2010 and start deleting posts .. Why ?

I completely agree it was stupid to delete Dans post from 2010 but I seriously think it's just a mod being an idiot. If you look at the cached version you'll see a few new posts from 2014 commenting on BTSX. They probably bumped the thread and it caught the attention of a mod and he decided to delete the new posts but accidentally deleted Dans as well.

[oco101]

But why would they do it now in 2014?

In a way he's deleting history. This could not be.. Something more is happening!! I'm mean you don't just go back to 2010 and start deleting posts .. Why ?

[feedthemcake]

This is just a stupid mod guys. He's trying to "clean up" the thread by deleting what he has deemed irrelevant posts. He should have locked it and left it at that.

Do not attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. -Hanlon's razor

But why would they do it now in 2014?

[Method-X]

This is just a stupid mod guys. He's trying to "clean up" the thread by deleting what he has deemed irrelevant posts. He should have locked it and left it at that.

Do not attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. -Hanlon's razor

[ripplexiaoshan]

Censorship is the sincerest form of flattery
   

I strongly support this interpretation

[thisisausername]

EDIT: Looks like this isn't censorship. It was just that one response; the "meat" of the conversation has been left unscathed. They're cleaning up the thread probably for historic reasons.

I think this is an important point to keep things in perspective here.

[Stan]

Censorship is the sincerest form of flattery
   

[jsidhu]

Mine are getting deleted too... Recent ones too but they are flagged as off topic so maybe an admin is going thru and flagging posts as off topic

Looks like bitshares community censorship?

Yes its a good thing means we are real competition i mentiined btsx in my post that got deleted too

[gamey]

https://bitcointa.lk/

This is some site I do not understand who created it.  They have a copy of posts that are deleted, like a full mirror of bitcointalk.org. I don't know how the bridge works or anything but it has been used to catch people who have tried to delete posts etc.  Perhaps the .lk domain is some form of a decentralization tactic.

[Stan]

No point in trying to revise it
History is gonna change anyway...

[bg002h]

I recall the thread. It's archived on http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org.

[bitmeat]

BTSF - Bitshares Forums anyone?

[fuzzy]

If this is true..it is exactly the kind of stuff that makes my smile when I think about how interesting the next mumble session is going to be.

Nothing could be better for bitshares imho..

[Stan]

Looks like cached google version has it:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2IaHmvkoxz4J:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php%3Ftopic%3D532.0+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=firefox-a

Much of what once was is lost,
for none now live who remember it.

But that was a distant time before Google!

[Method-X]

Somebody should put this up on Reddit and see if it kindles a response from the community. Then we should all chime in there.

Ok, I'll do it... thinking of an apeaing headline for the hivemind... hmmm

EDIT: Looks like this isn't censorship. It was just that one response; the "meat" of the conversation has been left unscathed. They're cleaning up the thread probably for historic reasons.

[donkeypong]

Somebody should put this up on Reddit and see if it kindles a response from the community. Then we should all chime in there. 

[feedthemcake]

Mine are getting deleted too... Recent ones too but they are flagged as off topic so maybe an admin is going thru and flagging posts as off topic

Looks like bitshares community censorship?

[nomoreheroes7]

Wow, that's....disturbing. This needs to be brought to light.

Maybe someone needs to make a thread in the meta section about this over there?

[Akado]

wth, is this happening to other people or is this a deliberate attack on bitshares?

[Mysto]

Yup 2 of mine just got deleted!

[speedy]

Maybe they just feel that any thread that Satoshi commented on has to be preserved for posterity, and that everyone else is not worthy to attach a post to it.

[jsidhu]

Mine are getting deleted too... Recent ones too but they are flagged as off topic so maybe an admin is going thru and flagging posts as off topic

[edilliam]

If people are trying to censor and hide stuff like this, can we turn it around and actually get it more exposure à la Streisand effect?

[emski]

Looks like cached google version has it:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2IaHmvkoxz4J:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php%3Ftopic%3D532.0+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=firefox-a

[bytemaster]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.0

If you google "I fully believe you and came to conclusion you did.   I read the snack machine post after posting by earlier comment."  If found the thread which no longer contains my reply to Satoshi.

[bitsapphire]

Do you happen to have the message saved somewhere by any chance?

This looks really bad...

Edit: Seriously, this is why we are going to do regular torrent distributions of bitsharestalk.org of all comments every month or so.

[emski]

Does anyone have a backup of bitcointalk?

[xeroc]

What the f....

[bytemaster]

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.

I fully believe you and came to conclusion you did.   I read the snack machine post after posting by earlier comment.

I can't find the thread at the moment, but this post was made by me YEARS ago and was just deleted on September 14th 2014.