pull down to refresh

190 sats \ 7 replies \ @k00b 18h
dang they kept "our users"
While we recognize that this view isn’t held universally by all users and developers, it is our sincere belief that it is in the best interest of Bitcoin and its users, and we hope our users agree.
I should've submitted a review.
reply
I understood that “our users” as “those who use our software,” not as “you belong to us.” I’m not fluent, so I might have missed the nuances.
reply
21 sats \ 5 replies \ @Norbert 13h
This is of course what it means to any reasonable reader, but some people will read this "like the devil reads the bible", and look for reasons for outrage.
reply
100 sats \ 4 replies \ @optimism 9h
Yes, but Hostile Attribution Bias is a tool in Bitcoin. It's reinforced with our beloved don't trust, verify. This is literally what anyone that values verification over trust has asked for and - I think - for good reasons.
It kinda sucks to be subjected to it because people often forget to respect the subject of their verification, and then can easily turn into ad-hominem slinging outrage; it has happened to me personally many times and cannot (and in my opinion should not) be prevented. I think that the trick is to minimize it on pointless things, which is why "our users" should have been changed, because it distracts from the discussion to be had.
I agree with @k00b that next time we should help out more intensively. Propose the fix ourselves and/or tag involved people that we know are here. The discussion may have gone unnoticed.
Let's see if there's outrage or that we're too skeptical ourselves
reply
I also agree.
Use your language clearly and precisely if you want to be taken seriously.
It very easily could have just said, "Core users", or, "those who run Core," which would leave no space for ambiguity.
reply
This really sounds better.
15 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 18h
we discussed the draft some here: #996271
reply