Bitcointalk Censoring old posts of me exchanging messages with Satoshi

[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.