0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: CLains on June 25, 2015, 10:20:09 amQuote from: bitsharesblog.com on June 25, 2015, 09:32:53 amCurrently 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/csi36pndno 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.
Quote from: bitsharesblog.com on June 25, 2015, 09:32:53 amCurrently 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/csi36pndno if this will work, shot in the dark honestly.
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/
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."
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.
Quote from: bitsharesblog.com on June 25, 2015, 02:31:57 pmQuote from: Ben Mason on June 25, 2015, 11:22:35 amIf 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;wap2If 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.
Quote from: Ben Mason on June 25, 2015, 11:22:35 amIf 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 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.
Quote from: Ben Mason on June 25, 2015, 11:41:38 amQuote from: bitmeat on June 25, 2015, 11:30:33 amQuote from: Ben Mason on June 25, 2015, 11:22:35 amIf 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 onhttp://qora.co.in/?blog ... closest there is right now.
Quote from: bitmeat on June 25, 2015, 11:30:33 amQuote from: Ben Mason on June 25, 2015, 11:22:35 amIf 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
Quote from: Ben Mason on June 25, 2015, 11:22:35 amIf 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?
Quote from: donkeypong on September 29, 2014, 05:58:30 pmQuote from: Thom on September 29, 2014, 04:26:01 pmQuote from: luckybit on September 29, 2014, 06:41:22 amQuote from: edilliam on September 28, 2014, 10:41:35 pmIf 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.
Quote from: Thom on September 29, 2014, 04:26:01 pmQuote from: luckybit on September 29, 2014, 06:41:22 amQuote from: edilliam on September 28, 2014, 10:41:35 pmIf 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.
Quote from: luckybit on September 29, 2014, 06:41:22 amQuote from: edilliam on September 28, 2014, 10:41:35 pmIf 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.
Quote from: edilliam on September 28, 2014, 10:41:35 pmIf 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.
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?
Quote from: Stan on September 30, 2014, 12:02:28 amQuote from: dat peg doe on September 29, 2014, 10:34:00 pmQuote from: Thom on September 29, 2014, 07:35:41 pmQuote from: Stan on September 29, 2014, 06:30:47 pmI 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
Quote from: dat peg doe on September 29, 2014, 10:34:00 pmQuote from: Thom on September 29, 2014, 07:35:41 pmQuote from: Stan on September 29, 2014, 06:30:47 pmI 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.
Quote from: Thom on September 29, 2014, 07:35:41 pmQuote from: Stan on September 29, 2014, 06:30:47 pmI 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!
Quote from: Stan on September 29, 2014, 06:30:47 pmI 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.
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.
Quote from: Thom on September 29, 2014, 07:35:41 pmQuote from: Stan on September 29, 2014, 06:30:47 pmI 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.
Quote from: BadBear on September 29, 2014, 12:46:58 pmSomeone 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=532.0However, 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.
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.
Quote from: Bitcoin ForumA 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.QuoteI 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.
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.QuoteI fully believe you and came to conclusion you did. I read the snack machine post after posting by earlier comment.
I fully believe you and came to conclusion you did. I read the snack machine post after posting by earlier comment.
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
Quote from: feedthemcake on September 29, 2014, 03:20:13 amBut 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 ?
But why would they do it now in 2014?
Censorship is the sincerest form of flattery
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.
Quote from: jsidhu on September 28, 2014, 10:41:41 pmMine 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 topicLooks like bitshares community censorship?
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 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
Somebody should put this up on Reddit and see if it kindles a response from the community. Then we should all chime in there.
this summer