Replies: 4 comments 7 replies
|
@wizkid057 for comments about "pitchfork carrying mob" and "the dogpile" @laisial for responding to wizkid with personal attacks |
|
not sure about 'attacks' but no problem, my comment didn't contribute to the discussion. fyi the person shared about his block on X: https://x.com/wk057/status/1983545319682908552. |
|
Interesting. Didn't know this repo was a thing. To be clear, my comment (as made clear with a quote) was directly to clarify a maintainer's stated confusion, and I stand by it as an accurate and useful response to that stated confusion, along with the clarification on the reasoning for the DNS seed maintainer's lack of reply which seemed to be lost in the noise. All relevant information. The entire PR is nothing but personal attacks against the DNS seed maintainer, and unfounded speculation stemming from the same. A ban from the entire bitcoin repo seems quite heavy handed and unevenly applied. The maintainer took my advice and locked the thread... but not before making a new one where the same attacks appear to continue unchecked and even praised. A bit ridiculous, IMO. Regardless, my apologies. I'll endeavor to turn down my natural snark a few % in the future. There are technical deficiencies in the new discussion that need addressing. Considering this is a pretty minor infraction, I plead with the court for leniency and early release for this first offense. Thanks. |
|
All the bans on this thread are for 3 days. It's frustrating that github doesnt tell you that when they notify you:
|
That is indeed frustrating and was not part of the notification I received. I fear the technically deficit items needing addressing in gmaxwells wall of mostly-personal attack text (clear violation of moderation rule against not making things about the person, but I digress) will be pretty buried in two more days, but I guess we'll see. I restate my plea for leniency and early release to continue the technical discussions. Related: This ban has force-unsubscribed me from all threads in the bitcoin repo, which is quite irritating as there are many. It will take quite some effort on my end to remedy that since I've participated for over a decade. |
|
@frodrik-froggo for leaving a duplicate comment "ACK" with no details |
|
All of substance was said before. There is not much to contribute except the ACK :) |
|
ACKs are not votes though. |
|
yeah. It was somewhat redundant and didn't add to the discourse. XD |
|
@00w1 blocked for off topic comments |
|
bitcoin/bitcoin#33723 (comment) - my ACK was marked off-topic, and I don't agree with that decision. I was told that it got marked "because its a personal attack towards Luke". I commented on luke's trustworthiness, which is a criteria in the dns seed policy, so I don't agree with this being an attack or off-topic. It feels a bit like our moderation policy gets in the way with a change like this. It literally is about the person in this case. I understand that an attempt has been made to shift the discourse to the technical side (bitcoin/bitcoin#33734). But I don't think that is what the initial concerns with Luke's seed were about, and in the end Luke will most likely update his seeder to serve all versions and nothing will happen (meaning the initial concerns will remain unaddressed). He has shown to have bad operational security and is openly hostile towards the project and its contributors. Do we really want new instances of the main client implementation to possibly connect directly to his server? We can also look at this the other way around. If his seed wasn't in the list today and he opened a PR to add it, would that go through? I think that's an obvious no. |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Referring to bitcoin/bitcoin#33730 bitcoin/bitcoin#33723 and bitcoin/bitcoin#33734
Some users have been temporarily blocked for comments that violated our moderation policy, we can discuss here
All reactions