Quote from: Lauda on February 22, 2016, 08:47:00 PM

Quote from: TheBlueMan on February 22, 2016, 08:36:43 PM

So through social engineering, not technical skills. Also - why would you want to do something like this?

Interesting move, you've created an account just to make this post which mentions sock-pupets as an important point.

Quote from: RodeoX on February 22, 2016, 08:01:26 PM

It does sound familiar. Undecided

At least we all have one thing to counter this type of attack, our brains. When I hear someone talking about what he did or what she said instead of the issue I assume this is not about the truth. It is an attempt to persuade me based on my feelings about his/her actions. That does not work on me. I base my financial decisions on mathematics rather than emotion. I kinda think this is true of all serious people and that FUD only works on the weak and fearful.

What I'm only uncertain of currently is, who's exactly behind the campaign.

Quote from: Denker on February 22, 2016, 08:07:00 PM

Divide and conquer!It's always the same dirty game.
EDIT: this should definitely be a sticky thread

Divide et impera, indeed. This is definitely an article that should be read by everyone in the ecosystem.

Quote from: AgentofCoin on February 22, 2016, 08:26:06 PM

Anyone who has participated in such campaigns or has educated themselves
in the history and cases of PSYOps and BlackOps knows this is very likely.

I'm looking into spreading my knowledge in these areas (especially concerning open source projects). However, I've recognized behavioral patterns and changes of such in certain members, ergo realizing the campaign in progress a few months ago. Here's a good video: How Open Source Projects Survive Poisonous People.

There was no "divide" until the previously uncontroversial blocksize increase was yoinked in place of something else. All the drama since then is the stuff that is described in your linked article (on both sides) is what created a divide. The entire article is a cheap parody of the "CIA Handbook" in its various incarnations. It reads very naively to me "I'm a green beret.. I'd make sock puppets on reddit".

This article seems intent on furthering the idea of a division.

The article describes controlling everything on the ground. There is inference of some kind of central command, but then nothing describing how that central command would operate. A police force is only as strong a the government that leads it. Controlling the map is done by controlling the generals not the troops. Very little is said about central command.

The article is written assuming that authority is the correct model. It characterises attacks on authority as attacks on bitcoin.

Bitcoin *shouldn't* be controlled by anyone. Any attempt to create an authority structure around bitcoin is in fact an attack on bitcoin.