Instead of accepting my gracious offer (meaning to take scarce time away from other important work, because I cared enough) for a private or public verbal debate, he has stuck to his guns and run away which exhibits to me a lack of conviction and ethics:


I am very willing to bring clarity in voice where we can have a quick back and forth to establish clearly the basis of his opinion and see if it can stand up to a real-time interaction. But alas, he prefers to just slander people in his mind than to reach any sort of clear understanding of the matter. I am confident that in his mind he is so damn sure that the issue is black & white as he perceives it, but until we have a real debate in a setting where one side can’t hide behind the keyboard while throwing out slander, then it is possible for the accuser to be perfectly confident while being also possibly entirely delusional himself (of course the vice-versa is also entirely possible which is the point of having a verbal dialogue to bring some sanity to the apparent cognitive dissonance or stubborn wills or what ever the case may be).

In any case, it does not really matter. It is just yet another example of why trustless systems are so important. Humans by nature (all of us!) are fickle, subjective, selfish, occasionally deluded, and often (even unknowingly) highly unethical. Even we do not know it! For example, as we listen to Dan justify the money grab because he is saving Africans from poverty, it is possible he really believes in his own Koolaid:


If John wanted to stand on the high ground, he would pick up the phone as I offered.

I brought this public because he did. He decided to attack, I offered to settle in a private verbal conversation, he doubles-down (digs in his heels) on slander. So he reaps what he sows. I think all those who know me on a personal level, know I am reasonable person to those who are also reasonable. Who on this forum also writes self-deprecating disclaimers like this:


Maybe "Gleb Gamow". I loved his altcoin announcement. Lol.

What can I do with trolls[the self-anointed, omniscient ethics judges] who refuse to have any sort of reasonable interaction? Just refute, move on, ignore.


A few facts which John Titor can not deny (unless he wants to lie):

• Someone misquoted me with a verbatim quote that alleged I wrote verbatim “dpos was down”. I never wrote those exact words and it is trolling to insert words into a quote which someone did not write verbatim. John apparently claims I am lying about claiming I did not write those exact words. Thus John is lying. Notwithstanding that he says he read my discussion with @smooth and any interpretation he chooses to make from that discussion (which I may disagree with), but in no way can that cause those exact words to be what I wrote when I factually never wrote those exact words.
• The major websites that drive data to the decentralized ledger of Steem/Steemit were down. This affected 1000s of users. I was not lying when I claimed that the ledger was essentially down, because most of the users were presumably unable to send any transactions.
• I never wrote that the block producers or every specific aspect of the decentralized ledger was down. I wrote that Steemit DPOS as seen from busy.org (and steemit.com and steemd) was down. That is what I wrote, yet somehow John claims I am lying.
• I pointed out that this could possibly affect other altcoins which also employ DPoS and my thinking on that was further explained in the recent discussion where I explained for example that collectivized transaction fees apparently means there is no direct revenue model to fund these “sites” aspect of the (interaction with) ledger which are necessary for the users to be able to interact and send transactions to the ledger.
• Afair, I also went to steem.org and tried to find a block explorer or any documentation which would have given me any additional insight and was entirely unable to find anything in short order that would be applicable. The salient point being that the project is highly disorganized and lacks even technical documentation, reliable block explorers, etc..

I have no idea what the hell is wrong with him. I wanted to speak with him and get some clarifications. I tried.

I certainly do not understand how the above stance is delusional. I would like for him to explain that allegation to me. But based on his communications, I do not think he is interested in truth.

Srsly John, if you wanted to pick an issue to try to nail me to the cross with, you’d pick one with less ambiguity so you could have the unequivocal proof you need. Opinions are like assholes not like unequivocal facts.

In short, you made a mountain out of a molehill, beat a dead horse, and slandered a person who is working as hard as he can to try to counteract very serious problems in our ecosystem and in the coming global world order.

Oh but I am delusional so I just think I am doing that and it is all in my imagination. In fact, I ingested magic mushrooms and I am hallucinating about it all. Gotcha. You hold on to that thought. Put it in your pocket and do not lose it.

It is not an issue of myself being unwilling to accept being wrong. I accepted @smooth’s factual assertion that the block producing nodes were not down and his argument that this meant technically that the “blockchain” was not down from his perspective of what it means for a blockchain to be functional or not.

I will not accept someone falsely accusing me of lying and accusing me that I claimed something I did not claim. If I had 100% certainly that every aspect of the blockchain was down, I would have written that! Instead I wrote what my observations were that Steemit DPoS was down as observed from busy.org, so I qualified my assertion by mentioning what I had checked. Do you not think that myself being a programmer that if I had certain knowledge of the inner most core of the ledger system of Steem/Steemit being down that I would not have harped on that   Come on man. Use your brain.

And again, I do not feel any remorse at all for mentioning that it was down, because as I said, it was down effectively for 1000s of users.

In the software business, defensive positions about definitions are for losers who do not understand the bottom line. When the shit is down for 1000s of users, then you have a serious fucking problem.

---

1000s of users who afaik supply the vast majority of the data for the Steem blockchain were not transacting because the shit was down. I do not understand why that is so difficult for people to appreciate.

Again it was not only Steemit that was non-functional because of the inability to pull data from the blockchain. It was also busy.org and also steemd was non-functional (an error about something) at the same time. I would quesstimate that 90+% of the traffic to the block producing nodes was non-functional and not sending transactions.

Again it was apparently not the websites which were non-functional as the web pages were loading. Yet it was the data from the ledger which was not being served. Now you claim these servers/nodes which supply the data from the blockchain to these sites is not part of the blockchain. That is your definition. There is no conspicuous official documentation I have ever seen which makes all of these definitions you are claiming to be the official ones. Heck there is not even a proper whitepaper for the DPoS blockchain. It is not even clear if there is any funding and economic model for these nodes/servers which are suppose to provide the data from the blockchain to the front-end sites.

Yet somehow you still claim that the system was functional. Yeah functional for a few whales and nerds, but not for the users. Isn‘t that just a wee bit disingenuous or facetious to claim it was functional?

It's akin to arguing with your girlfriend that you only broke her arm in one place and not two. Only a clueless nerd would try to argue the distinction. Steve Jobs would fire the person who claimed it was functional when 1000s users were offline.

Other apropos analogies are “I puffed but I did not inhale“ and “just do not hold it that way”.

If it is my project, I would not be making fucking excuses about definitions and trying to discredit the person who reported the flaw based on arguing about definitions. I would say, “yeah we need to fix that”. And get to work on fixing it.

BCT debates are so efficient.