Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 20 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Removal of BTC.com wallet? #1660
Comments
|
They're associated with that monster Jihan Wu, so I don't mind if they get removed because of this, they're terrible people. I definitely feel like a line has been crossed here. |
wbnns
self-assigned this
Jul 3, 2017
wbnns
added
the
Under Review
label
Jul 3, 2017
bitkevin
commented
Jul 4, 2017
|
It's a shame that have Craig Wright on the stage. |
|
I would like to comment on the process and procedure here. I agree with @Mirobit that I do not believe that sponsoring a conference, regardless of the subject matter is against our wallet criteria. I fully believe that if we think that such actions (or lack there of) are valid criteria, we should work to express those criteria. |
|
BTC.com was not aware that Craig Wright would be on stage. John Matonis was scheduled to speak and surprised us, and everyone else when he gave the stage to Craig Wright. |
|
All I see here is a "guilt by association" witch hunt. Proposals to remove a wallet's listing should be based upon technical reasoning, not ad hominems. |
FrancisPouliot
commented
Jul 4, 2017
|
This has nothing to do with wallet recommendations. I suggest this thread be closed. This is no reason this should be under review. The sponsors were clearly not aware CW would be there, and even if they were or had even personally invited him on stage it wouldn't make a difference. Wallets are to be recommended on their technical merits, and should only be delisted if they can be demonstrated to harm or put users at risk. |
|
@jlopp @FrancisPouliot Judging a wallet only on its technical merits can be short-sighted. A malicious developer can push an update to the app store at any time to steal the users funds or harm the network or bitcoin's image. So I think the trustworthiness of the developer should also be a criteria. No one would recommend a wallet developed by Bernard Madoff even if it would be technically fine. Anyway I am closing the issue since I agree with @crwatkins and the r/btc crowd is rolling in. |
Mirobit
closed this
Jul 4, 2017
wbnns
removed
the
Under Review
label
Jul 4, 2017
jli225
commented
Jul 4, 2017
•
|
No wonder so many people see the the administrators of the bitcoin.org website as "notorious, unashamed, effrontery". Sad to see so many people have been brainwashed by the propaganda that "it's ASICBoost that make miners say NO to SegWit" and "hard fork is risky, soft fork is safe". Thanks to the censorship!
I doubt you really believe what you said, or it's just another propaganda of half-truth. If you really believe so, the first step you shall do is to remove "Bitcoin Core" from your site. Also, you lied, CSW did not attack users. Anyway, avoid claiming bitcoin.org as "official site". It's a personal website controlled by stupid yet arrogant and unashamed guy(s). |
|
Please use scientific/technical-measurements to list/de-list wallets. Otherwise this gets a big mess and we will have endless discussions. |
jli225
commented
Jul 4, 2017
•
|
@jonasschnelli I don't think the administrators of bitcoin.org have any intention to judge with scientific/technical-measurements. Look at their notorious history. Actually, you asked them for too much. As many people said, they are stupid yet arrogant. They are only fortunate for being accidentally in charge of this famous site. They did not "earn" this position gradually so it's not surprising that they are lack of some basic requirement for managing an important website. Actually, they see bitcoin.org as their private property, and practically bitcoin.org becomes a personal website nowaday. If you see bitcoin.org as the "official" site, it's your own fault. If you can't see through the censorship and if you are brainwashed by the propaganda there, you deserve it. |
|
Domains are owned by individuals or cooperations. Not sure if I like this, but it's how it is. Would it be better if the site is owned by the Bitcoin Foundation? Or via GitHub and changed get merged based on reddit votes... I smell a clear "No!" here. Bitcoin.org did a good job so far, not perfect but much better then any other so-called "official" bitcoin sites. |
jli225
commented
Jul 4, 2017
•
|
@jonasschnelli That's why Satoshi passed the torch to Gavin, that's why Gavin passed the torch to Vladimir And that's why Vladimir refused to pass the torch or return to Gavin. That's why such horrible censorship can last for years on an expected censorship-resistant internet of money. That's why Mike Hearn lost hope, that's why Coinbase lost hope. That's why it takes the Bitcoin community years to gather the courage to initiate a new reference version |
FrancisPouliot
commented
Jul 4, 2017
|
Stop trolling. This is an open-source educational project by volunteers. Regarding Coinbase, look at past discussion or open a relevant issue for review. AFAIK they specifically asked the community to remove them from educational material that considers them a "wallet" with this blog post: https://blog.coinbase.com/coinbase-is-not-a-wallet-b5b9293ca0e7 I understand you want to leave your opinions for the world to see, but this is nothing short of digital graffiti and I would ask you refrain from using this repo as your soapbox. |
molecular
commented
Jul 4, 2017
•
|
Shouldn't inclusion of wallet software in the list be based purely on the properties of the wallet? Why would you even look at properties of the producer of the wallet? The proposed action gives the impression of punishing the producer of the wallet for something that has nothing whatsoever to do with the wallet itself. |
|
@molecular Not looking at the properties of the producer would be reckless. Bitcoin.org is a place where newcomers look for information. Many of them simply rely on the fact that a wallet is listed on Bitcoin.org and don't do further research on the developer. So we need to make sure that the developer is at least somewhat trustworthy and doesn't have a history of scam/fraud. The current rules would not prevent Mark Kaperkles or Bernard Madoff from adding their wallets to Bitcoin.org if they are technically fine. This is not about BTC.com anymore. The are currently no such wallets listed or under consideration but we need to think long-term. We should not have this discussion when the first scammer tries to add his wallet. Better be prepared. |
|
As a newbie, bitcoin.org is a definitely a starting place when looking for information. Judging a wallet based on technical merits is a given. Judging the developer/author of the wallet should be left to the individual but information about the developer/author is important and should be presented in a non-biased manner. This is similar to company register holding information about directors. It's not about "punishing the producer of the wallet" but making information available so individuals can make their own decisions. |
FrancisPouliot
commented
Jul 4, 2017
|
There shouldn't be any liability for contributors of this project. Recommendations based on objective, verifiable, peer-reviewed analysys. I'm unfollowing this thread. |
Mirobit commentedJul 3, 2017
•
edited
BTC.com was one of the The Future of Bitcoin Conference 2017 sponsors. At the conference well known fraudster and patent troll Craig Wright attacked bitcoin users and core devs.
While I don't have a problem with supporting a conference that gives different opinions (e.g BU) a platform, I draw the line when they give a dangerous egomaniac a platform for his FUD and hate.
While this is not against the bitcoin.org wallet inclusion rules, it shows at best poor judgement and at worst the desire to harm bitcoin.
Maybe I am totally out of line here but I would like to hear from BTC.com (@bitkevin) if they knew that Craig was one of the speakers and if they support his views on Bitcoin.