pull down to refresh
344 sats \ 3 replies \ @Murch 7h \ on: Chaincode Labs is doing politics with Bitcoin consensus changes (CTV) bitcoin
It is misleading to imply that this ban is chiefly related to review of OP_CTV.
There has been a history of ariard posting off-topic and otherwise disruptive comments in several Bitcoin projects’ repositories over the past years that have previously led to bans by several organizations. Most recently, ariard has been making off-topic on BIPs pull requests. Requests to stick to the proposals at hand and to limit himself to constructive contributions prompted further meandering comments about unrelated topics containing insults and legal threats by ariard. ariard’s on-going disruptive and unwanted contributions have prompted requests for moderation action by several contributors recently. The situation was starting to incur a toll on other contributors time. To curb the disruption he was banned from the repositories of the bitcoin organization (notably including the Bitcoin Core code base and the BIPs repository).
Obviously, constructive contributions would be welcome, and he is welcome to make security disclosures through the appropriate channels any time. A more detailed explanation by the moderator that took action can be found in the bitcoin-core/meta repository.
This is all a deliberate attempt of Chaincode Labs to privatize the common bitcoin development process, that started by forwarding intimidation letter by one of their attorneys in 2023. The “steamrolled” moderation guideline is just one more saddening episode in this direction.
May I ask you how you can express yourself objectively in this situation, as you’ve been taking money from Alex Morcos for years as a salary. It’s a real question, even if it’s not making you “comfortable”.
The community can only see that you have real or perceived bias in this episode.
Basically, the active contributors to Bitcoin Core are split in 2 groups, the 1st group who is taking money from Chaincode, e.g directly or indirectly as donations to their orgs and the 2nd group who is more independent or not directly in position economic subordination, and who care less about what Chaincode says.
One just has to look on the only ~13 folks who “ACKed” the moderation guidelines. It’s pretty clear what the affiliations of the folks are conveying.
For report of the security disclosures, I stopped sharing any sensitive information with Chaincode or their affiliates. When there is no trust, there is no trust. There are still far more contributors or developers in the community remaining with whom to collaborate on security disclosures.
There is a little bit of “bad faith” from Murch in saying on one of the
bitcoin-core-meta issue that I’m toxic, when even few months ago we where sharing our know-how for the greater good of the whole community on a podcast. One has a very selective memory…And who is supreme judge to say who is toxic or not in bitcoin a decentralized development process with all over the world. I have no idea.
This is true that the ban has an impact on the review and contributing to consensus changes, including things like CTV.
This does not say that I don’t respect Murch’s work as a BIP editor or on stackoverflow. But here I think he has a very fully characterized bias.
reply
There is a little bit of “bad faith” from Murch in saying on one of the bitcoin-core-meta issue that I’m toxic, when even few months ago we where sharing our know-how for the greater good of the whole community on a podcast. One has a very selective memory…
Don’t put words in my mouth. I said your behavior is toxic. I stand by that. For the past years the majority of your emails and GitHub comments I have seen were at least one of unnecessarily verbose, incomprehensible, off-topic, or unhelpful, and frequently contained a gratuitous helping of conspiracy theories and laughable legal babble. You have been banned from contributing to at least four projects and one forum for harassing or insulting people, or other disruptive behavior.
I have mostly stopped reading your emails and comments unless you are responding to me directly as their signal to noise ratio has been approaching zero. If I have to read one, I ask ChatGPT for a summary. You know better than most how little Alex and Suhas instruct Chaincode employees. If you want to find the party responsible for the perception other contributors have of you, check a friggin’ mirror.
reply
And I’ll reply your behavior and Chaincode’s behavior is toxic.
And we’re in a decentralized community and who is a legitimate “impartial party” to say who is really “toxic” if those words means really anything, I have no idea.
You have been banned from contributing to at least four projects and one forum for harassing or insulting people, or other disruptive behavior.
Pfff, your words are so cheap and I’ve seen few times Alex and Suhas doing a 180 U-turn. E.g when they remove their trust about a former of their long-time employee for some actions end of 2021. Someone they helped in the past set up a 501c.
You know better than most how little Alex and Suhas instruct Chaincode employees.
I’m not sure I understand, if you can clarify.
E.g when Adam Jonas threatened me by call in date of the 20th October 2022 with the following words “X has power” and that I should shut up. What he instructed by Alex and Suhas, or what is just a mistake of Adam.
Or do you deny publicly that call with Jonas in 2022 never happened ?
Mistake happens. I understand that with a lot of humanity.
I’ll end my post by saying I respect the real Murch, the one who has spent days and nights sharing his know-how on stackoverflow. However, I have doubt here that your opinion is not financially biased.
Do not trust, verify.
reply