Re: Excuses and minimization offend people on the right side of an argument
I'm not reading the portion of this post that doesn't apply to me. I have things to do.
So, your reply begins with a fit of narcissism. Protip: The world does not revolve around you. None of my post was about you, personallya screen name nutildah on an Internet forum. Your supposition that I care about that is lamentably mistaken. And if you consider Reputation squabbles to be impliedly more important things to do than stopping Faketoshi, then your priorities aredifferent than mine.
I have things to do, myself. One of my top priorities is to fight back against malicious attacks on Bitcoin: The Bitcoin that gives us freedom.
Two days ago, for the Anastasia thread, I began writing an essay on how that thread may be the beginning of the most important thing that I have yet done in my life! Greg Maxwell was right when he urged last month that the community can do better in protecting Bitcoin from malicious attacks by liars and scammers. He inspired me. Merited by nullius (20)
If I can do my part to lead by example, and to arm others with stronger arguments and more powerful strategies, then that will achieve a result far bigger than me, far more important than me as an individual. My glory thus will be only and exactly what I have done for a cause that has brought inestimable value to the lives of millions, and should in the future free billions.
It is certainly a cause more important than your petty little ego, nutildah.
And it is much bigger than Gavin Andresen, for all he may style himself as a big-shot. Bitcoin is the cause. For me to call out Gavin as he deserves is only the effect.
What? No you goof. I'm not "excusing" Gavin -- [...] How do you twist this into me making excuses for Gavin?
Now, you are equivocatingquite dishonestly, at that. The substantial effect of your post was to defend and excuse Gavin. It was minimization.
Whether you consciously intended this is objectively irrelevant to the Gavin question, because this is not about you. (It is relevant to your own reputation; but see above for my own opinion of your personal importance.)
I'm simply relaying his _actual words_, which are _less_ favorable for BSV than BSV shills would have us believe.
You did not simply do that. In the context of the discussion, the substantial effect of blandly parroting his equivocation with some moderate negativity about the narrative, without further comment, was to minimize and excuse what he did wrong. And my inference as to your intent to defend Gavin was in fact correct, as you later make unequivocal:
Truth be told, Gavin did far more for bitcoin than you and I ever have and ever will so if the man wants to have an opinion, let him have it.
Traitors are the worst of enemies; and treason is oft called the one crime that is truly unforgivable.
Men who have fought and bled on the battlefield for their countries have had their medals stripped and their monuments demolished, and been hanged (even drawn and quartered) as the worst of criminalsafter they turned traitor. Even if never caught and hanged, they have always been damned in history.
Reductio ad absurdum, would you argue that Benedict Arnold should be praised by Americans for all he had done for their country? He was a great generalGeorge Washingtons most-trusted man, who could have been as famous and beloved as Washington himself! Surely, he did as much for America as Gavin did for Bitcoin. As much.
Dont lecture me about what Gavin has done for Bitcoin, in reply to my condemnation of what he has done against Bitcoin. Your praise of Gavin, and the grounds of that praise, only make him worse.
Gavin has done massive actual harm: Bitcoin Foundation, XT, Faketoshi verification, Btrash shilling... You are defending him because he says theres an equal chance that Craig Wright is either a scammer or Satoshi!?
If I were in less of a mood I would be inclined to tell you to go fuck yourself.
How terribly rude of youand quite behind the times on the latest Bitcoiner slang. Here, let me help you: Let us learn from a boor who, in the big picture, has done a little bit less to damage Bitcoin than Gavin has overall.
Go fork yourself, nutildah.
Quote from: nullius (DRAFT)
2016, with obsolete language:
2018, after Faketoshi stuck a fork in his back, Jihan changes his tune and upgrades his F-bombs:
2018, after Faketoshi stuck a fork in his back, Jihan changes his tune and upgrades his F-bombs:
A note for Bitcoin maximalists, and nullius fans (who are a strict subset of Bitcoin maximalists): My post documenting the new Bitcoin F-word (a negative counterpart to Bitcoiner slang HODL) has been delayed by my ineptitude at drawing funny cartoons. Some custom Bitcoin-political cartoons are needed to break up my walls of text in several planned Bitcoin advocacy threads. If anyone with even stick-figure-cartoon level freehand drawing skills (or preferably better) would be so kind as to contact me, I would be much obliged. Thank you.
To be clear, I am documenting actual usage of fork as the dirtiest insult in the Bitcoiner vocabulary. I have even seen it pop up occasionally on Did TMAN say a bad word?. I did not invent an obvious pun which has been occasionally seen on /r/Bitcoin, etc. for years. I may have somewhat started to encourage its recent usefor the greater good of Bitcoin. ;-)
Or you mean I'm wrong that he shouldn't be able to have an opinion that Craig might be Satoshi (with the caveat that he also might just be some random scammer, and in either instance he should be ignored)?
This is not a matter of opinion. (Not in the colloquial sense of that word, anyway.) Craig Wrights claim of Satoshihood presents a question of fact. Gavin Andresens 2016 verification of Faketoshi presents a compound question of factcompound, insofar as it invokes many factual questions about Gavin and cui bono?
So no, he shouldnt be able to have an opinion that Craig Wright might be Satoshior rather, his such opinion should absolutely and irreparably ruin his reputation, in the same manner as if a Chief Scientist of the Geophysics Foundation were to opine that the Earth might be flat.
Moreover, in no case whatsoever should Faketoshi be ignored. That was my mistake, for yearsa grievous error in judgment, which I am now striving to correct.
I 100% believe that Gavin got duped, and even he admitted that was a possibility
So... You 100% believe that Satoshi endorsed the cryptographic competence of someone who does not know how to verify a forking digital signature!?
See also:
The Same Standard Applies to Me
Lets take the media-hyped 15-minutes-of-celebrity name of Gavin Andresen out of the picture. And lets make this personal, insofar as the foregoing argument hypothetically would apply to me, too, if I were to do as Gavin did.
Two years ago, I received the following endorsement of my technical competence:
If, tomorrow, I were to claim that Faketoshi verified a signature for me (!) on the same basis as his verification for Gavin, then that would leave only two realistic possibilities: Either (1) I am maliciously lying with the intent to support Faketoshi in a scam, or (2) Bitcoin Core developer and technical forum moderator Andrew Chow is himself so incompetent that he said the foregoing about someone who doesnt even know how properly to verify a digital signature.
What would Occam say about that? Would any sane person not accuse me of lying, and not question what motive I may have for abusing my technical reputation to support a scam?
Lets take the media-hyped 15-minutes-of-celebrity name of Gavin Andresen out of the picture. And lets make this personal, insofar as the foregoing argument hypothetically would apply to me, too, if I were to do as Gavin did.
Two years ago, I received the following endorsement of my technical competence:
Quote
| achow101 | 2018-02-13 | Very knowledgeable about Bitcoin and cryptography related things. Frequently gives in-depth, constructive, and well though out answers on various topics. |
If, tomorrow, I were to claim that Faketoshi verified a signature for me (!) on the same basis as his verification for Gavin, then that would leave only two realistic possibilities: Either (1) I am maliciously lying with the intent to support Faketoshi in a scam, or (2) Bitcoin Core developer and technical forum moderator Andrew Chow is himself so incompetent that he said the foregoing about someone who doesnt even know how properly to verify a digital signature.
What would Occam say about that? Would any sane person not accuse me of lying, and not question what motive I may have for abusing my technical reputation to support a scam?
and knowing what you already know about my post history here its ludicrous to entertain the idea for 1 second I am defending his 50% belief that Wright is Satoshi. I hope that's not what you were actually thinking.
It is indeed puzzling why you, of all people, would step up to minimize the single act by the self-styled Bitcoin Foundation Chief Scientist which instantly gave Faketoshi mass-credibility in the mass-media. As I have said repeatedly in various ways (including on Gavins trust page), Gavin created a monsterand not as an isolated act, but as part of his years-long pattern of the odious so-called Bitcoin Foundation, backstabbing Core with XT, later on shilling Btrash... How many times need I repeat myself? Are you paying attention?
Shitting on Gavin now isn't going to change anything for the better. Shitting on him for not yet completely taking back his words on Wright isn't going to change anything either.
That is shortsightedness and a shallow view of the situation. You do not understand what I am doing; for I think strategically, as you evidently do not. That is not my problem, and is certainly no reason for you to condescend to me.
ELI5 for you: The Faketoshi scam is a tower of lies that stands on a foundation of lies. Although thanks in large part to Gavin, it has grown far bigger than Gavins verification, I am dynamiting a key piece of the foundation. I also aim to provide a salutary object example of what happens to the reputations of people who betray their own principles. That would be beneficial to Bitcoin, which will fail if it is not protected by people with high principles.
I am a Core supporteras an effect, not a cause. If Core were to betray the principles that they have consistently, courageously upheld for a decade, then I would repudiate and condemn them. Same with Blockstream: I admire them because they do great work for an important cause, because they employ people with technical skill that far exceeds mine for that causenot because they are big-shots. Gavin shit all over the magnificent work of such people for years. I aim to dish it back to him; and if you dont like it, then I will duly file your opinions in taken under advisement. 🗑️
P.S., if you wish to deserve a less contemptuous response, please consider not making a fool of yourself by condescending to me when you are wrong. You presumed to dish it out against a better chef; bon appétit.