0
0

PSA: Probable vote manipulation (self.Bitcoin)

MineForeman[M] が 投稿 - stickied post

It seems likely that there are a number of bots downvoting all /r/Bitcoin submissions. If you click on a submission you will notice the score box on the right hand side showing the amount of votes the submission received, the current score, and the percentage of upvotes. You will probably notice that the percentage of upvotes on just about all new posts is below 50%, giving them a negative score, and even posts that do manage to get into positive numbers have trouble getting above 60%.

It makes it so that most posts on /r/Bitcoin's front page are in the single digits (if not zero). This is not normal.

We will work with the Reddit administrators to see what can be done about this. In the meantime, please realise that your scores are not actually a reflection on your submissions.

We also recommend checking /r/Bitcoin/new from time to time. Many interesting submissions end up stuck there.

We apologise for the inconvenience.

全 144 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Cinshingtonredditor for 2 months 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thanks for you concern and keep up updating.

[–]futilerebel 16ポイント17ポイント  (0子コメント)

Was wondering what was going on with all the 0-point posts on the front page. Thanks for clarifying.

[–]gr8ful4 26ポイント27ポイント  (58子コメント)

I am interested in your observation as well. Keep us updated. However, I think this is the result of /u/theymos policy. Wanting 90% of users to leave if they don't agree with your vision isn't exactly what forms a vibrant community.

Edit: Corrected after /u/BashCo comment

[–]BashCo 10ポイント11ポイント  (28子コメント)

Willing to ban 90% of users if they don't agree with his vision isn't exactly what forms a vibrant community.

This appears to be a lie. Theymos never threatened to ban 90% of users (and the number of bans that occur are vastly overstated). He said "If 90% of /r/Bitcoin users find these policies to be intolerable, then I want these 90% of /r/Bitcoin users to leave." Sadly, there's quite a few people who still fail to understand the importance of strong consensus.

That was 7 months ago, so I can understand how the interpretation could become so twisted if you're consuming a lot of disinformation over time.

[–]burlow44 3ポイント4ポイント  (21子コメント)

That's not how "strong consensus" works (which by definition means the majority)

[–]BashCo 8ポイント9ポイント  (20子コメント)

Surely you understand that there are multiple thresholds for consensus. 51% is certainly not consensus. Bitcoin requires a substantially higher level of consensus in order to maintain functionality. We're all well-versed on the dangers of contentious hard forks by now.

[–]ftlio 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

I applaud your effort to reason, but that's not what these posts are about. It's just about sinking our time with canned responses and zero technical insight posts. Make sure to downvote what is clearly a part of the disinformation campaign.

[–]gr8ful4 0ポイント1ポイント  (10子コメント)

We're all well-versed on the dangers of contentious hard forks by now.

I read: We are afraid of the future. Sorry if my interpretation is wrong. The Bitcoin, I invested in, had (has?) real power to change the world.

[–]BashCo 9ポイント10ポイント  (9子コメント)

Afraid? Maybe. Cautious? Definitely!

We're dealing with the first decentralized network of its kind. It's maintained highly successful uptimes and avoided some potentially catastrophic failures. Now, Bitcoin is even bigger, and that's all the more reason to be more cautious. This community has been completely duped by emotional appeals claiming the sky is falling and we have to do something, and the last thing we should do is allow ourselves to be manipulated into supporting inferior and potentially dangerous proposals. We owe it to ourselves to do this right, because we might not get a second chance.

Let's recall that the original solution, BIP101, would have been completely suicidal. But did that stop the mob from storming the gates? No... they were too drunk on emotion to actually understand why it was suicidal, even after it was revised. Now they're so entrenched in their crusade that they don't care if they're wrong, as long as they get what they want. Even if it means fabricating pure lies, perpetuating disinformation, sabotaging and trolling their own community, and even hindering actual scaling developments. This is the ugly truth: Mob mentality has taken over to such an extent that these people are no longer willing to reason or think for themselves. They might think they're doing it for the greater good, but they're the most destructive force in bitcoin today.

[–]tomtomtom7 -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

Claiming X on a forum where claiming Y is not allowed is called propaganda and isn't very convincing for your case.

[–]BashCo 14ポイント15ポイント  (3子コメント)

I suspect you're making the false claim that you're not allowed to defend/promote a particular BIP. That has never been the case, and I'm confident that you're fully aware of that.

[–]PureThoughts69redditor for 1 month [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

What about promoting a different protocol? It will still be Bitcoin if it uses the same Blockchain, right? So are we allowed to promote different protocols? Right now it seems not so please clarify.

[–]BashCo [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

You're suggesting a different protocol that uses Bitcoin's blockchain. The only way to achieve this would be for the entire ecosystem to hard fork to this different protocol near-simultaneously. If successful, the different protocol would be the de facto Bitcoin protocol. This suggestion is not much different than what's been attempted since BitcoinXT, and there are inherent risks in doing so.

Let's say you write a BIP that completely changes the existing protocol to something entirely new. Let's assume your BIP manages all the complexities of such a task...

You are more than welcome to promote that BIP until you're blue in the face!

  • "Hey guys, check out BIP ###! It's amazing and will make the price explode!

  • "I think everyone should support BIP ###! It has zero technical flaws, risks, or economic drawbacks!"

  • "Bitcoin Core sucks! BIP ### will fix alllllll our problems forever!"

All of those examples would be acceptable forms of promotion. The policy comes into play when someone codes the BIP into a client and deploys it on main net. At that point it's a non-consensus client and promotion of that client is not permitted. You could still promote the BIP itself if you wish, but not the client. This is purely to maintain the long established Bitcoin Improvement Proposal process which is especially critical when it comes to hard forks. Hard forks are risky enough when everyone agrees that they're necessary, and outright dangerous when a substantial portion of the ecosystem opposes a hard fork.

[–]gr8ful4 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

I agree with most of what you describe here. However, I am not sure if BIP 101 would indeed have been suicidal, as miners effectively control the blocksize. And investors control the price hence the miners. But in any case it's good to have a hard fight over every argument on both sides.

This attitude is what I like to see in a project like Bitcoin, that (cl)aims to be a money/freedom (r)evolution.

‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,’ Beatrice Evelyn Hall

In the end no one knows what is right for Bitcoin or the world. And it is the first step (for collaboration) to acknwoledge that.

At lies & misinformation == this is how TPTB steer the masses. Why should it be different in Bitcoin? Why should it be different on both sides of the gaming table. Can't you see how all your criticism can be applied on this forum as well?

[–]BashCo 14ポイント15ポイント  (1子コメント)

BIP 101's proposed max block size increase to 20MB would absolutely have been suicidal. Not only were there flaws that caused an exponential increase signature validation times which had not been taken into account and could have easily killed the network, but also the amount of work lost to orphans would be insurmountable, and the network would become increasingly unreliable as transactions in orphaned blocks would need to be mined again by the longest chain if they hadn't been already. People will try to tell you, 'but miners will just use soft limits'... Miner A cannot enforce a soft limit on Miner B's block size. So Miner B could mine these monster blocks with the knowledge that Miner A was going to choke to death on them and fail to remain competitive, leading to centralization around Miner B.

In the end no one knows what is right for Bitcoin or the world. And it is the first step (for collaboration) to acknwoledge that.

The right thing for Bitcoin is to maintain decentralization and network health. Contentious hard forks are the opposite of that. I think the first step for collaboration is for agitators to chill the fuck out and start acting reasonable for a while.

The problem I see with the misinformation is that the instigators have been largely successful to the point that they're no longer necessary. This whole delusional movement has taken on a life of its own, and all 'TPTB' has to do is sit back and laugh at how easy it was to co-opt and dismantle a previously tight-knit community. I really thought more bitcoiners would be smart enough to avoid eating it up and doing their bidding for them. Played like a fiddle.

[–]Sovereign_Curtis [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

Bitcoin requires a substantially higher level of consensus in order to maintain functionality

Like, say, 90%?...

[–]BashCo [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

Even greater than 95% of hashrate would be ideal. I'm aware you're trying to conflate 90% of redditors with 90% of hashrate and 90% of the entire ecosystem, but there's really no comparison there.

[–]Sovereign_Curtis [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

Look, if you keep running off Bitcoin users it will be easier and easier to claim consensus among the rest. But if what you're left with is a shadow of Bitcoin's former self (the actual market behind bitcoin, you know, all those people using it as a store of value and payment method) well then don't go blaming the people you ran off.

[–]BashCo [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Just to be sure, are you claiming that no true bitcoiner would oppose forcing inferior changes to the Bitcoin protocol via mob mentality? Because you'd be wrong. I and countless others are using bitcoin as a store of value and payment method, and would like to continue doing so while keeping its most crucial trait, decentralization, intact, while also maintaining as strong a network effect as possible. There are various ways to safely, reliably and robustly scale bitcoin which do not involve contentious hard forks.

[–]Sovereign_Curtis [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

are you claiming that no true bitcoiner

No, I don't think I was. I don't think I was making a claim as to the "true" anything. Just that if you make your party smaller, you'll have a smaller party.

I and countless others are using bitcoin as a store of value and payment method, and would like to continue doing so while keeping its most crucial trait, decentralization, intact, while also maintaining as strong a network effect as possible.

I count myself among this group.

There are various ways to safely, reliably and robustly scale bitcoin which do not involve contentious hard forks.

I'm all ears.

[–]BashCo [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I'm all ears.

SegWit as soon as possible to increase transaction throughput (which was the supposed goal of this entire debate to begin with), and lay the foundation for greater improvements. 2MB max block limit when, and only when, it's both necessary and safe to do so. Reject and admonish agitators who try to sabotage the project or derail efforts to safely and robustly scale bitcoin. Refuse to disseminate disinformation about nuanced technical issues, either by ignorance or by malice.

[–]rikard3000 [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

sorry if i misunderstand now, but do you mean that if 90% of the users leave and the 10% that are left agree, that is "strong consensus"?

[–]BashCo [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Consensus isn't determined by reddit, though it does play a part. What definitely doesn't play a part is vote scores, since they are being blatantly manipulated.

[–]rikard3000 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

except those votes that are genuine. a lot of those too

[–]onthefrynge [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I read this statement as: "If there is strong consensus to abandon /r/bitcoin then the community should act on that." If that was to happen organically, it would be a sure sign that the values of the /r/bitcoin community do not represent strong consensus. But I would say people are not leaving (in significant numbers*) and there appears to be a massive effort to create the illusion that people are.

The funny thing about all this is that it's a war over truth. The exact thing that bitcoin attempts to quell.

* This is just my opinion based on being active around here for 2 years. My observation is that the community here has grown stronger, not weaker.

[–]gr8ful4 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You are right. See above.

[–]Guy_Tell 7ポイント8ポイント  (27子コメント)

I think this is the result of /u/theymos policy

This social attack is the result of attackers seeking disruption.

Blaming a certain kind of moderation policy that doesn't suit you, seems pretty deceptive to me.

[–]gr8ful4 9ポイント10ポイント  (21子コメント)

IMO everybody should ask oneself, why it became so easy to disrupt the whole community. We all know, that there are special interests of TPTB around Bitcoin.

BTW:I once learned, that what I see in others is my own face/attitude/anger. So if I'm deceptive you might be, too! + You are right it's not /u/Theymos fault. It's the fault of the community to tolerate his "moderation policy".

[–]BashCo 15ポイント16ポイント  (19子コメント)

Let's rewind.

  • Mike Hearn abandoned the consensus process and began promoting a contentious hard fork for several months leading up to the deployment of BitcoinXT with BIP101, supported by high-profile claims that the sky was falling.
  • Theymos enacted a new policy prohibiting the promotion of clients that could trigger a contentious hard fork. We should all know by now why a contentious hard fork is to be avoided at all costs.
  • In lieu of promoting non-consensus clients, we always strongly encouraged that people promote BIPs until they're blue in the face. This is in the best interest of bitcoin's network health.
  • All of this has been extremely misconstrued by a profoundly bitter subset of individuals who would rather sabotage this subreddit and apparently bitcoin itself.
  • Think for a moment if BitcoinXT had actually triggered a hard fork, effectively making Mike Hearn the sole dictator over the Bitcoin protocol. He was already working for R3CEV, the 40+ international banking cartel. What do you think that would have meant for the project?

[–]gr8ful4 7ポイント8ポイント  (17子コメント)

  • @Mike - yes after a year-long process. I never was a fan boy of Mike. More like the opposite. Still I couldn't agree more with him, that Bitcoin will in the long-run benefit of a diverse and decentralized client structure.

  • @Hard fork - do we really know? What experience with HFs do you have - especially contentious ones?

  • @BIPs - In a decentralized/diverse client ecosystem BIPs won't be the only standard for improvement. Do you know about BUIP?

  • @Sentiment - it always takes two to tango. What does it tell you, that heavy investors (the ones that hold the value of bitcoin) become auto-aggressive? For me it's a sign of a severe and chronic "dis-ease".

  • @King Mike - Game theory tells us, that King Mike would have never become a real thing. On the other side ask yourself what necessary ingredients are needed for change, because systems that are not able to change from with in will be changed through environmental forces or die sooner or later.

[–]BashCo 16ポイント17ポイント  (8子コメント)

Part of the point of avoiding a highly contentious hard fork is exactly the fact that we don't know. What we do know is that there's plenty of opportunity for the entire network to bifurcate, which would very likely cause people to lose money when transactions they thought were confirmed, were actually confirmed on a different chain.

It does take two to tango. Virtually all mod actions are reactionary. When we see improvements in civil and respectful discourse, we cut back on moderation dramatically. If people with malicious intent would stop being so disruptive, we could moderate a lot less.

There's no guarantee that "King Mike" would never have happened, but it's clear that that's exactly what he and his minions have been advocating for quite a long time under the false pretense of 'decentralizing development'.

[–]gr8ful4 -1ポイント0ポイント  (7子コメント)

@We don't know. - I guess to know we'll have to figure it out. I am heavily invested in Bitcoin, because I see it as a huge opportunity for mankind. I am one of these persons who would rather see his investment fail, than missing the next evolutionary step. If you don't try small time and fail and get up and fail and get up again, the chances to fail big time become much bigger.

I take huge risks being invested in Bitcoin. And I want to see Bitcoin taking the same big risks in order to progress.

Conclusion: Fear of loss (in every way - investment, reputation, fame, adoption) dominates the current stage of Bitcoin users life.

@Moderation - disruption becomes stronger, the more you fight against it. Be a guiding light - everything else will (anyway) be seen as censorship and manipulation. To withstand a phase of conflict, is what makes communities powerful.

Don't you agree, that decentralizing development is a goal we should aim for. Why is decentralization good, when it comes to nodes and mining, but not so if we talk about different development teams or a diverse crypto-currency ecosystem?

BTW: I think it was not Mike's but /u/adam3us et al. effort to see development teams popping up everywhere and alt-coins gaining market share and reputation.

Never was more bullish for the whole crypto-ecosystem.

[–]BashCo 12ポイント13ポイント  (6子コメント)

We know enough to avoid the risk. There are ways to scale safely, reliably and robustly... none of those ways include contentious hard forks. I respect the notion of "try, try again", but it leaves a lot to be desired on a live system. You think NASA or SpaceX does all their testing on the day of the mission flight? No, of course not. They spend years of research to make sure their proposals are well tested, safe, robust and reliable... and even then, there are still errors and failures. Imagine if they were just listening to anonymous reddit accounts about how to build their next rocket.

disruption becomes stronger, the more you fight against it.

There's some truth to this, except it sort of falls apart when we relax dramatically on moderation, only to get attacked through various avenues.

I'm all for decentralized development. Believe it or not, Core development is pretty decentralized, though could always use more developers. I even think competing implementation are great! What is NOT great is competing consensus protocols. There's one Bitcoin protocol, and it was designed to be highly resistant to contentious changes. I think these agitators should just start their own genesis block and let their blockchain compete on its own merits with Bitcoin. If it's truly superior, it will win and they'll all be early adopters.

[–]gr8ful4 4ポイント5ポイント  (5子コメント)

competing consensus protocols

See my post below. I think this is a little naive. History of mankind shows us, that "What can be done, will be done". If we really want to keep Bitcoin stable/safe, we should prepare for this (in my view) certain outcome/problem.

[–]BashCo 8ポイント9ポイント  (4子コメント)

Just because something 'can be done' doesn't mean we should enable or facilitate it, particularly when we know that it would be very damaging to the project at large.

I hope that by the time this is all over, the Bitcoin community will have grown much more aware of the various ways in which they've been manipulated, and why contentious hard forks must be avoided at all costs if Bitcoin is to maintain any hope of being successful.

[–]Anonobread-redditor for 2 months 9ポイント10ポイント  (7子コメント)

Bitcoin will in the long-run benefit of a diverse and decentralized client structure.

But Mike Hearn didn't adopt btcd to implement BIP101.

He didn't adopt NBitcoin.

Hearn could have claimed his efforts were to "decentralize" the software running nodes, if he had actually chosen software that resulted in any decentralization away from monoculture. He didn't do that.

Your post serves as a stark reminder for why Mike Hearn deserves much if not all blame for the /r/Bitcoin moderation policies. Sure, innocent posters got caught up in it, but it was all due to countering Mike Hearn's PR campaign inciting dispute and promulgating fallacies and misinformation: "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."

[–]gr8ful4 4ポイント5ポイント  (6子コメント)

We simply should not only prepare for a world of different clients running the same consensus protocol, but a scenario where we have competing consenus implementations - battling for governance. Reasoning behind this is simple...

Human progress tells only one story: "What can be done, will be done - sooner than later!"

Nobody will stop this. Mike was just the messenger of this much hated truth. And he was rightly (or not) sacrificed for it.

[–]ftlio 9ポイント10ポイント  (5子コメント)

AKA Bitcoin will always be under attack.

[–]highintensitycanada -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nothi ng was planned to be contentious but when discussion of merits and values was censored people sided with the oppressed dispite the problems. Without the censorship none of this might have ever happened. If we were allowed to discuss the ideas openly then the bad ideas should have lost the debate.

[–]Guy_Tell 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

If r/bitcoin wasn't moderated, it would be a cesspool like r/btc with angry dudes littering the forum with conspiracy rubbish & adhominems all day long.

[–]syboatmusic -5ポイント-4ポイント  (1子コメント)

and ddosing nodes seems pretty deceptive to me. goes both ways, if we behave like that, don't whine when it doesn't work out the way you wanted. me personally am against both sides doing stuff thats not appropriate.

[–]GratefulTony 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think you're confused about what we're talking about here. We're talking about forum spam and vote brigading. I don't know what the "sides" you refer to are.

[–]Aviathor 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Time for changing sort order...

[–]Gfchufj 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thanks for addressing this issue. Some key posts from yesterday that would normally make it to the top were quickly buried.

[–]Bitcoin_foreverredditor for 2 months 16ポイント17ポイント  (6子コメント)

We already know http://i.imgur.com/eVguiT3.png

[–]jimmydorry 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

Why did you share that? Now they know. >_> /s

[–]Bitcoin_foreverredditor for 2 months 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh yeah now they know that we know what they know to do...

[–]tophernator 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

Just FYI the Reddit admins seem pretty convinced that the message you are showing was never actually sent. I.e. It's a fake.

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4aohjk/a_mod_from_rsfp_is_sending_out_these_techniques/d12juqz

[–]Bitcoin_foreverredditor for 2 months -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Maybe the message/image was fake but important is what is saying there, that is not fake.
Even this assumption that is fake is part of what is saying in that message.
Saying that is fake/doesn't exist will not make null that message but at reverse.

[–]rikard3000 -4ポイント-3ポイント  (0子コメント)

what ?

[–]746f72redditor for 2 months 9ポイント10ポイント  (6子コメント)

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4b8rp1/the_rbitcoin_sub_has_been_looking_pretty_lifeless/

It seems people are noticing too.

-edit-

Been hunting for a link. Here it is. Keep this in mind.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/i-m-a-former-green-beret-here-s-how-i-would-bring-down-bitcoin-1456165726

[–]VP_Marketing_Bitcoin 25ポイント26ポイント  (4子コメント)

Just noticing? The post itself is almost a passive "hint" on how to participate or add to the appearance of "lifelessness" on r/bitcoin (like downvoting, etc.).

[–]muyuu 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Plus a bunch of concern trolling posts that appeared in /r/bitcoin about how it's supposedly "dead" XD these people...

[–]746f72redditor for 2 months 10ポイント11ポイント  (2子コメント)

You mean like the post there quite laterally saying "pro tip: upvote anything useless/meaningless. downvote anything else. repeat this three times a day."?

Incredible that people can still say this is not going on.

[–]ftlio 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

The strategy appears to be moving on to admitting it now. Showing the 'strength' of the 'community' I guess.

[–]Gfchufj -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

There was a post on this sub too. That there is not a case of "noticing". It's a case of causing the problem and then attacking from another direction. Also, nice 1 post account /u/746f72 ....almost sounds like a bot created account.

Edit: nice edit. Wont get you your desired credibility.

[–]rikard3000 7ポイント8ポイント  (6子コメント)

it's almost like people are angry at something about this sub.. hmm.. further investigation needed.

maybe the Reddit admins have some ideas here. I've heard some talk about censoring here, a wild thought, but maybe it could be related?

[–]ftlio 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

You can only say shit like this while wearing a Fedora.

[–]muyuu 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yep, let's all surrender to the 16 y-o script kiddies, that will definitely improve the quality of the sub!

[–]frankenmint 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

not sure if sarcasm or not

[–]bit_novosti 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, just stupid concern trolling that r/btc buttcoiners are so famous for.

[–]PureThoughts69redditor for 1 month -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

he has to tiptoe around the point to avoid being silenced

[–]FluxSeer 7ポイント8ポイント  (3子コメント)

Institutional panic is setting in, anyone who has been around here since 2012 has watched it happen. The fake sock puppet accounts, the blockstream conspiracy theorists, and vote manipulation all points to text book divide and conquer tactics.

[–]tophernator 9ポイント10ポイント  (2子コメント)

Is it not slightly ironic for you to be talking about sock puppets and the good old days of 2012 when your account is seven months old and was clearly created amidst all the block size drama?

[–]Gfchufj 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

Crazy how when you look at the attack and that other sub it lines up with what the green beret said to the T. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/i-m-a-former-green-beret-here-s-how-i-would-bring-down-bitcoin-1456165726

If I had a uBTC for everytime one of those people in /rbtc try to use "satoshi vision" for leverage I would be a whale by now.

[–]zcc0nonA 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

What if, and I know this may seem crazy, there is a huge group of people who genuinely think you are wrong because of the evidence they have seen and reasoned with?

[–]ftlio 15ポイント16ポイント  (0子コメント)

There's definitely a huge group of people who own bitcoins who think Bitcoin users are wrong to run the software they do. They want to tell those Bitcoin users what software to run. Hopefully incentives align such that Bitcoin users don't get politically steamrolled by this group of people today, so that eventually, the set of bitcoin owners and Bitcoin users becomes the same. Otherwise, I'll probably have to rely on other people to tell me about the state of my bitcoins, and that makes this project rather boring (and ultimately doomed to the same fate that all currencies are).

[–]bitbombs -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sure, but unicorns are more likely. I think most people can sleep with those odds on their sanity.

[–]holyshitnowayduderedditor for 2 months 1ポイント2ポイント  (22子コメント)

Hey mods, just to let you know those downvotes are not from "bots" :)

[–]VP_Marketing_Bitcoin 20ポイント21ポイント  (0子コメント)

30 downvotes (new news submission) after 2 seconds - which makes statistically no sense. Right man... "clearly not bots"... :)

[–]110101002 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

Are you a Reddit admin?

[–]ftlio 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, he's a PlaySchool H4x0r

[–]ftlio 15ポイント16ポイント  (1子コメント)

Man you people are confused. Whether it's bots or a concerted effort by real people to categorically downvote anything posted in r/Bitcoin, you don't have a moral victory on your hands. And I find your claim to be completely believable - that a bunch of astroturfed morons would do such a thing.

[–]pb1x 20ポイント21ポイント  (14子コメント)

That's why they said to me when I was targeted by the bots - oh it's just people downvoting you. Yeah - after 30 seconds no matter what thread I post in, any time of day?

All the stops are being pulled out to try and influence other people: thousands of fake nodes, hashpower voting, SPV trickery, misleading blog posts, there seem to be no limits

[–]ftlio 13ポイント14ポイント  (4子コメント)

The attack is never going away. Just have to out engineer it. At least for the time being we have Gavin acting as full on warrant canary.

[–]ancaplibertard -2ポイント-1ポイント  (3子コメント)

we have Gavin acting as full on warrant canary.

Would you explain what you mean by this, please?

[–]dooglus 14ポイント15ポイント  (1子コメント)

warrant canary

It is possible for the government to order you to do something and also order you not to tell anyone that they have done so. A warrant canary is when you regularly publish a statement saying that you are under no such order. If you stop publishing the statement then it is safe to assume that you are under such an order without you explicitly having to say so.

I don't see how this applies to Gavin. He is acting as if he has been compromised by some enemy of Bitcoin, but I don't see how the "warrant canary" concept applies.

[–]GratefulTony 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Did he ever have a warrant canary? I don't think he does now. hmm...

[–]Richy_T 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

He's a bird with a badge, man...

[–][削除されました]  (6子コメント)

[removed]

    [–]ftlio 13ポイント14ポイント  (5子コメント)

    People that pay themselves with bitcoins are hellbent on destroying Bitcoin. Sensometer 0/10

    [–]Hahaha__redditor for 4 hours -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Oh has that stopped? Because my script is still running :)

    [–]Guy_Tell 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    How would you know ?

    [–]No-btc-classicredditor for 15 days [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    Go back to 4chan

    [–]UKcoin 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

    This is the only tactic the Classic idiots have, they've nothing of merit to offer, all they have is petty, childish things to do. They know they'll never get 75% of the hash power and they know they have nothing technical or interesting to discuss, they literally have nothing better to do than mess around on reddit. The funny thing is, they seem to think it will help them to grow support for Classic, when all it does it show them up for what they really are.

    [–]2NRvS 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I first noticed it 3 days ago, they we're support Nick Szabo and Gregory Maxwell comments

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4apl97/gavins_head_first_mining_thoughts/d13axx5

    [–]DSNakamoto 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Some of us support Classic without engaging in dishonest tactics, just as some Core supporters engage in honest technical discussion rather than making generalizations like calling people, "idiots."

    [–]onthefrynge [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    As much as I support core, I don't agree with calling classic supporters idiots. I believe it is healthy to offer alternatives. Consensus is a living process.

    [–]Guy_Tell -1ポイント0ポイント  (8子コメント)

    Thanks for the info. Can you please keep us updated ?

    A suggestion to defend against these kind of attacks (also mobbing, and to improve the quality of content) would be to disable the downvote feature by default and perhaps enable it for users with enough history.

    [–]CosmicHemorroidredditor for 2 months 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

    "would be to disable the downvote feature"

    Oh wow! What would Classic fans do? That would completely make them impotent. I say yes, yes, yes!

    [–]Hahaha__redditor for 4 hours -5ポイント-4ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Of course you would, you are a sock puppet yourself. All of your posts are anti Classic.

    [–]CosmicHemorroidredditor for 2 months 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

    ok, just looked up meaning of sock puppet. I'm not a sock puppet.

    [–]No-btc-classicredditor for 15 days [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    That's because classic isnt going to be around for the long haul anyways.

    [–]CosmicHemorroidredditor for 2 months 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I am indeed anti Classic, but serious question, what exactly is a sock puppet?

    [–]belcher_ [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

    I don't think that's actually possible in reddit

    [–]CosmicHemorroidredditor for 2 months [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

    buttcoin has disabled downvotes by default.

    [–]belcher_ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    If you disable custom subreddit CSS, you can downvote as usual.

    [–]SundoshiNakatoto -2ポイント-1ポイント  (5子コメント)

    Those "bots" are real people completely dissatisfied with the moderation here.

    [–]ftlio 16ポイント17ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Are you saying you can speak to the motive and mobilization of many accounts?

    [–]sreaka 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Sure, just like you are assuming they are all bots.

    [–]ftlio 12ポイント13ポイント  (1子コメント)

    And pretending to collectively brigade a subreddit as not-bots is really going to convince us otherwise.

    [–]MillionDollarBitcoin -4ポイント-3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It's not a brigade if you've been here for years and manage to find every thread yourself.

    [–]Guy_Tell 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

    How would you know ?

    [–]CBergmann -2ポイント-1ポイント  (3子コメント)

    strange. I observed the same here when I made posts that are not completely compliant to r/bitcoins prefered narrative. Many downvotes.

    I just think this sub is no longer popular besides a group of vocal people with a uniformed mindset. Serious discussions about bitcoins most important challenge are prohibited, as are serious discussions about the most important companie in bitcoin development. I also heard stories that mods ban people that dare to ask core devs tough questions.

    Maybe this is the reason for the downvotes?

    [–]BashCo 10ポイント11ポイント  (2子コメント)

    There's no denying that an extreme level of vote manipulation has been underway. Dismissing it as 'popular sentiment' is nothing more than cognitive bias. Serious discussions about bitcoins most important challenges are not prohibited, and never have been. Nor is discussion about bitcoin companies. Nor do mods 'ban peopl that dare to ask core devs tough questions'. CBergmann, I think you know very well that everything you've said is entirely untrue. You're defending blatant vote manipulation and appear to be lying through your teeth.

    [–]eatmybitcorn 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    You could prove us wrong. Start a discussion by making a new post with this link https://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip017-datastream-compression.1001/

    It was removed 15 min after it was posted today. But maybe you have better luck.

    [–]Elznebelyk [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    One of your "down-voting bots" here. No, actually I just hate all your sub's bullshit Theymos approved filtered posts today.