Quote from: brg444 on November 01, 2014, 11:38:21 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on October 31, 2014, 09:56:21 PM

we really haven't focused on the ethics of what gmax and the other core devs are doing.

i know the argument goes like this; they're the brightest minds in Bitcoin who have done so much for us we should be thankful, they have "positions" in BTC so they would NEVER do anything to harm Bitcoin, they deserve it, we should WANT them to be paid, SC's are neutral and are just trying to help Bitcoin, all you skeptics "just don't get it", etc.

well, the fact of the matter is we do get it. we've flushed out alot right here in this thread. and all of this technical babble has ignored the fact that what they are doing is unethical. abusing one's privileged position as a core dev and pushing for a very specific and unique change in the source code, while simultaneously creating a for-profit company that seeks to profit off said change is unethical. i asked gmax in the AMA whether he thought he should step down as core dev due to what is to any objective person a conflict of interest. he said he thought that was "unreasonable" followed closely by LukeJr who said the same. LukeJr then launched off on a rant about how we should "want them to get paid". nice spin Luke. i don't have a problem with you starting a private company but not while taking advantage of your position. at least in the real world of banksters, there are plenty of examples where ppl step down b/c of conflicts of interest for reasons even more remotely unrelated than this. these guys don't get it. Satoshi spent at least 2 yrs of his life developing Bitcoin without being paid, so there. AND he hasn't cashed in any of his BTC that we know of to profit from Bitcoin. now that's public service for you. one might argue that should be the standard for Bitcoin. maybe we need/deserve core devs who don't have gmax or Luke's attitudes? Bitcoin has the potential to become a global currency so an argument can be made that it should be maintained for the public good. i for one think there are plenty of devs who would love to step up and replace those guys.

alarm bells should be going off in all Bitcoin holders heads right now. this isn't right even if the SC concept were valid, which i don't think it is.

It is not an abuse of position when the proposition adds considerable value to the Bitcoin ecosystem.

The devs are suggesting a protocol change that benefits Bitcoin and the fact is we can expect the same out of Blockstream. Unlike what your twisted mind would like to think, their goal is not to create some kind of malicious sidechain that will take Bitcoin over and have them profit as early movers. They intend to build infrastructure on top of Bitcoin with the help of the sidechain features.

I only see value added so I fail to see how unethical the situation is.

the burden of proof is on you and the proponents of this change to show as close to a shadow of a doubt that what you propose is an improvement to the system and adds value. i could equally say it may destroy the system and i have given plenty of reasons why it think it could.

if you want to call me twisted then i could equally call you a naive 24 yo kid.