Quote from: Viper1 on September 28, 2019, 04:50:26 PM

Quote from: The-One-Above-All on September 28, 2019, 04:35:59 PM

Quote from: Viper1 on September 28, 2019, 04:01:10 PM

Quote from: The-One-Above-All on September 28, 2019, 03:24:43 PM

Quote from: Viper1 on September 28, 2019, 03:16:06 PM

Quote from: The-One-Above-All on September 13, 2019, 12:09:16 PM

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.

I'm sorry, but trying to goad me into your opinion that he had any concern outside of what is clear from his interactions here and via his emails, simply isn't going to work. You're attempt is weak at best but more along the lines of pathetic. How about I read into this that it's nothing more than your desire that the forum be run in your vision of some utopia. That's the reality. You sound like anonymint. hmmm.. Where is he I wonder and what ever happened to that bitcointalk killer forum he was going to create for exactly the same reasons you're spewing here. I guess like everything else he was nothing more than just talk. No bitcoin killer. Not forum killer. Talk talk talk and no action.

As far as being treated fairly and equal. Sure. Would be nice. But we're talking about human beings and at the end of the day, human beings only care about themselves. And they all have their own opinion as to what is fair and equal. What you would like, can never be achieved cause if you get 10 people in the room you're going to have 20 different opinions depending on their mood in the moment. Even more so at this point of time where everyone is outraged and feeling like they're being oppressed over the smallest things.

Bottom line. you don't own this forum. So it doesn't matter what you want. You want a utopia, go start your own forum and run it how you wish. I for one would love to see if what you say you want, can actually be achieved. I believe it can't be.

There see. You can do it. No need for reading into anything other than what we are posting here. Just ask.

No goading.

There is a HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE jump from what we have outlined in the initial post IS HAPPENING NOW and 100% fair and equal treatment of all members.

You don't believe then that it is worth moving from an extreme at one end of the scale toward a MORE fair and equal treatment of all members?

This a pathetic attempt to goad you into speculation on satoshis real principles you say? for some selfish reason?

There is no need to get angry and upset. Just give your opinions, we will debate them and we're off....

Just because perfection is NOT POSSIBLE in your estimation in terms ensuring fair and equal treatment of all members in terms of their "ecash" satoshi should not have bothered you say?
Of course many will say bitcoin is not fair, but could you say it is a vast improvement over the central banking system?

I don't think we should talk ill of other excellent members either in their absence. Sometimes development of such systems takes time. Is that better than rushing out experimental untested designs like for instance the merit system? perhaps it is. We believe the true value of anonymints posts can only fairly be appraised by those that have the capacity and the training in the specific areas he primarily posted about. That is like 0.001% of this board or less. We don't seek to claim we can say either way. However, when he would be debating and arguing on less technical matters it seemed that his central points were again rarely if ever debunked. Simply because his posting style inflamed some that does not at all mean he was not strongly net positive for this forum. People still mention him even now, that is interesting is it not.