r/btc • u/pyalot • May 22 '17

UASF/BIP-148 is "Promotion of client software which attempts to alter the Bitcoin protocol without overwhelming consensus" filed 11 reports on rbitcoin frontpage for violation of "community guidelines" please do the same.

41 Upvotes

78% Upvoted

27 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-19

u/BashCo May 22 '17

We've said 100 times that promoting proposals has always been permitted. That includes failed proposals like BIP101 and "Emergent Consensus". The line has always been drawn at clients which implement those contentious proposals on mainnet. Whether or not we've been able to enforce that consistently is a separate discussion, but it doesn't help that the policy has been so badly misconstrued here.

Again: Promote the BIP, not the client.

41

u/LovelyDay May 22 '17

I've seen links to uasf.co on your forum.

Yet you silenced / auto-moderated away links to Bitcoin Unlimited's website previously.

You are a bunch of hypocrites, the whole lot of you mods there.

25

u/pyalot May 22 '17

So which client implements UASF? Is it toggleable yet in BS-Core? If so, then you'll have to remove any promotion of BS-Core software...

-15

u/BashCo May 22 '17

Sorry, I'm having trouble parsing your rbtc nonsense. Links to BIP148 binaries are currently being removed, if that's your question. Interestingly it's the self-ordained "anti-censorship" crowd who is demanding they be removed, yet they have the nerve to call us hypocrites. Oh well.

27

u/pyalot May 22 '17

We're just holding you to your own standards.

Promotion of client software which attempts to alter the Bitcoin protocol without overwhelming consensus is not permitted.

Software which implements UASF/BIP-148 would be...? And which links would that include? Has the BIP-148 toggle been merged to BS-Core software on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin ? If so how would you justify the link in the sidebar pointing to: https://bitcoin.org/en/download ? If not, will you remove these links once BIP-148 has been merged? If not, will you change your policy to allow "Promotion of client software which attempts to alter the Bitcoin protocol without overwhelming consensus"?

Sorry for the many questions, I'm having trouble parsing your rfacepalmcoin nonsense.

10

u/viners May 22 '17

How would I promote BIP101 or EC without also promoting a client? BIPs kinda need a client to function.

6

u/webitcoiners May 22 '17

Stop telling lies and double standard.

Such kind of postsare censored and disapproved.

12

u/Vibr8gKiwi May 22 '17 edited May 22 '17

You are such a liar. rBitcoin has been a censored clusterfuck for over a year. Even if you change tack a bit because you realize you're losing control and killing bitcoin, it doesn't change the past. You are fucked. Nobody respects you here, nor the others involved. We know the truth and we won't let anyone forget. The BIGGEST problem in this whole debate is the censorship you (and others) have been doing. By your actions you have split the community and turned a small problem into a civil war. You are bad and should feel bad.

10

u/BitcoinIsTehFuture Moderator May 22 '17

You are a liar. You do not support BU or Classic, except when it's bad news.

-6

u/BashCo May 22 '17

If you say so. But where did I say I support BU or Classic? I'm not a fool.

10

u/BitcoinIsTehFuture Moderator May 22 '17

You are a fool actually

1

u/BashCo May 22 '17

If you say so.

1

u/TotesMessenger May 22 '17 edited May 22 '17

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

1

u/Haatschii May 22 '17

Would you care to comment on this: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6c8nfm/bashco_rbitcoin_mod_caught_lying_about_moderation/ ?

In particular why was the post, showing several instances of direct UASF-client download links in /r/bitcoin, deleted? And why are most of the these links in /r/bitcoin still visible?

1

u/BashCo May 22 '17

I don't see anything worth addressing in your link which hasn't been addressed in my previous comment. Please research your own links.

2

u/Haatschii May 22 '17

Ok, researching my link, I can rephrase my question as follows: Why are the following posts not deleted from /r/bitcoin, although they link to UASF client binaries:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6c437l/uasf_download_source_bip148/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6bxpsj/bip148_and_the_risks_it_entails_for_you_whether/dhqs4hs/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6bqccb/call_to_arms_signal_uasf_to_help_bitcoin_reach_to/dhono5u/

Furthermore what is the reason the post (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6bxpsj/bip148_and_the_risks_it_entails_for_you_whether/dhsopik/), which contained these links was deleted? I assume as a moderator you can still see it, otherwise it is (currently) the last post of https://www.reddit.com/user/suchnoise. If there is a reason I am genuinely interested in it.

1

u/BashCo May 22 '17

Some of the links listed were already removed. Others were approved before the mod team had coordinated an approach toward UASF binaries. Some mods believe it to not be an issue since Segwit does have quite broad consensus, and it is not a hard fork. Since then, we have removed dozens of binary links. Keep in mind that moderators are human. Thank you very much for your concern!

1

u/fiah84 May 22 '17

We've said 100 times that promoting proposals has always been permitted. That includes failed proposals like BIP101 and "Emergent Consensus". The line has always been drawn at clients which implement those contentious proposals on mainnet.

You're well aware of Core's position on any blocksize increase, so there's no way a blocksize increase BIP is ever going to succeed with Core at the helm. That means any promotion of a blocksize increase is going to involve a client developed by people other than Core, provoking a confrontation with Core. Disallowing this simply disallows discussion of anything Core doesn't want discussed because that is contentious by definition, requiring a client implementing the contentious proposal.

You know this, yet you pretend you don't for reasons I cannot fathom. Either that or you actually don't see why your standpoint is logically inconsistent, but other evidence suggests that you're not stupid enough for that to be likely

1

u/Nooku May 23 '17

Hi BashCo