is contrary to the principles of satoshi and this movement.
Perhaps you should go and read all of his emails and posts. They are all technical. Programming. There is no indication in any of them of what his "principles" were regarding anything else other than creating decentralized e-cash via open source software. Nor is there any indication that he viewed this as a "movement" or even wanted it to be a "movement". So right here, it's clear you're talking about some other "principles and movement" that you've created in your own mind thus making everything else you've said invalid.
I will however support you in that the merit system sucks big balls. I come and go here often and it was "fun" knowing that one day by participating I would get up to "legendary" status. But when the new system came out I knew it would never happen cause I'm not one to play the game. I don't participate in the areas of the forum where my better posts would get noticed by those that are apt to hand out the merit. The system rewards those that play the game, actively seeking it out etc. For that reason alone it's a ridiculous system. But whatever, Theymos owns the site, he can do what he wants and if we don't like it we're free to go start our own.
Sort of funny. It used to be people constantly bitched about the trust system. Now they bitch about the merit system. There's always something to whine about.
Perhaps he wanted an exact replica of the central banking system? kind of strange he bothered making bitcoin.
We are going to assume (perhaps incorrectly so) that satoshi would prefer a trustless decentralized end to end arena where each member is ensured equal and fair treatment as far as possible.
It is true there is no knowing for sure satoshi's actual purpose so if that upsets satoshi he is free to come to this thread and state we are incorrect.
I mean why go for trustless and decentralized if you want centralized control?
You can make all the assumptions you want, but then all of this becomes nothing more then you trying to mold the forum to how you think it should be.
Satoshi was clearly only interested in bitcoin. He believed that other e-cash had failed purely because they were centralized and bitcoin would be the first to try and succeed by being decentralized. He was involved with the forum. He was involved with the open source software and all the contributors. If he had ideals of decentralization etc being extended to those areas, there would have been some indication of it. But there is none. I also have a problem with one of the last things he said "Its in good hands with Gavin and everyone" If he was concerned about more than just decentralization of e-cash, then why would he have basically had Gavin in charge as opposed to trying to setup something clearly decentralized. Sorry. But as far as I can see, his only concern was with regard to bitcoin itself and nothing more than that. I think people like you have projected your own desires onto Satoshi in order to turn him into some sort of ideological "savior" or something.
That's fine. That's your opinion. Since only he knows his REAL intentions and principles then we can't say for sure. If it seems reasonable to you that he seeks only decentralization of "ecash" but prefers easily, gamed and incentivized abused centralized control in other areas resulting in a two tier system that closely represents the central banking system on the main bitcoin forum and has no desire to see the trustless decentralized end to end arena we believe he WOULD LIKE to see then that is fine. Every time we say satoshi principles you can reference this part of this thread and people can make up their own minds.
If it helps you get back on topic, then you can simply read satoshis principles as transparent and clear rules and standards than ensure the equal and fair treatment of all members. If you think satoshi is against this then that is okay, we are not saying you are provably INCORRECT, we are simply saying that with believe you are wrong.
Perhaps you also believe the vast majority of members do no want transparent clear rules and standards that ensure they are all treated equally and fairly and rather they would prefer a tiny minority has all the control and advantage they allocate to themselves? that is fine too. Perhaps you believe this provably fair and equal treatment ideology is actually unfair and morally bankrupt? that is fine too.
If it upsets you less, just remove that from your mind, and think of that post as if it says.. a set of clear and transparent rules that ensure each members is treated fairly and equally.
If that is not what you want to see here then just say that and give your reasons.
Why would you claim we are not cryptohunter because " he was a good guy". ?
We are good guys. Cryptohunter is on vacation but has asked us to step in.
Cryptohunter would never have sold his account. We are pretty certain of this.
What about our posts says to you " we are not good guys"?
We are big fans of Cryptohunter, anyone reading his entire post history should be nothing other than HIGHLY impressed with such a fair, trustworthy and insightful member (not theymos because theymos has no clue about anything here except shitty meta board) . Suchmoon is a scammer supporter and sig spamming dreg now. She was humiliated time and time again by cryptohunter and crushed down time and time again by him. She is now only able to come to threads and try to derail with off topic garbage. She will never dare tackle any central points.
She fits many of the 1-7. Undeniably so.
We are only interested in sensible reasoned debate. People like foxpoop who come here spouting opinions as if they are credible rebuttals, then admit there is no reasoning behind their opinions at all and there need not be, will be crushed in public. These are wasting our time and the readers time.
Viper is at least making some reasonable effort to support his points. So if he can be civil with us he will be treated in the same way.
We reject his opinion we are not "good guys" though.