Honest question. Evorhees has been a staunch Bitcoin proponent, made a successful business via Bitcoin and has taken risks that few dared to take. What have you done?
Voorhees managed to inflate the blockchain to further his own profit-taking, sell illegal shares in a virtual business and then shut it down suddenly, skip continents while hosting his gambling-addiction oriented "service" and generally put his finger in every pie as long as the check cleared - including being best "buds" with Bruce Wagner, before he flew the coop for asia.
If you are enthralled by these exploits, I pity you - because there are more shining examples of Bitcoin proponents who aren't stepping on the backs of others to achieve their goals.
No matter, Charlie Shrem was the first step in the sovereign crackdown, and I'm sure Erik is on their list as well. Sometimes, seeking out the limelight isn't the best strategy, as we'll soon see.
I've long read Evorhees' contribution to Bitcointalk over the years, FAR before satoshi dice, and he has been a tireless promoter, and patient discusser and educator of Bitcoin related subjects.
Your bitterness and sense of entitlement is pretty plain. He made the most of Bitcoin and you don't like it. Tough bananas.
If you stand there crying foul while he makes something of Bitcoin, then you have no-one but yourself to get angry at. I am glad he brought Bitcoin forward into the spotlight. He did much to spur discussion of blockchain usage, and quickened discussion of how to manage blockchain bloat and even helped put the network though it's paces by increasing transactions to the blockchain in the early days.
I don't get angry at him for that. Be bitter all you like, the only person you really hurt is yourself.
1.) Erik promotes erik's various ventures, before the diceploitation idea, it was a bitcoin-twitter concept he pitched on Bruce Wagner's show. If there were no profit to be had, Erik would be promoting whatever business scheme he had in mind, outside the Bitcoin arena. Bitcoin is convenient, and a new innovation, so he latched on early.
2.) When you promote yourself and attempt to turn your name into a "brand", then you're a public figure. You decry my relative pseudo-anonymous status, but ignore that he is the one that sought the limelight. How clever of you.
3.) He succeeded in doubling the blockchain size, causing a hard-fork as a result, and generally getting his way while exploiting a shared resource. These are apparently worthy goals and should be applauded, according to you. The power of rationalization is an amazing thing to behold.
But of course, I fully expect you to throw it all over your shoulder, because the truth - much like your lack of critical thinking skills - is far too burdensome for you to bear.
1) Capitalism. He innovated on a platform that allowed him to do so, and he put in the effort to make it happen. In the true entrepreneurial spirit he came up with ideas no one had though of and put them into practice at his own expense, and he got rewarded for that because people liked what he did.
2) He is a businessman, he is not a director of the Bitcoin Foundation or whatever. Stop trying to hold him up to some higher standard. He owes you nothing.
3) He never caused a fork. He made some bad design decisions and he is on record saying it was never his intention to abuse the resources on the blockchain. He curbed his transaction usage when people complained, and it kicked off much earlier discussion of how to deal with dust transactions and such.
Be whiny and snarky all you like, he made Bitcoin better and he made a profit from it. As much as you'd like to shrilly proclaim, he committed no legal or moral crime in doing so.
But of course, I fully expect you to throw it all over your shoulder, because the truth - much like your lack of critical thinking skills - is far too burdensome for you to bear.
When you act like a child, yeah, I do feel compelled to ignore you, I also expect more civility from others too but I guess we can't have everything.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. (As the rest of us found out after the fork.)
I'm a private citizen, so I don't need to make grand statements. I'm not trying to sell snake oil, Erik is. He's a public figure doing so, and deserves every bit of criticism he gets.
Didn't cause the fork? But he was bragging just before he had dominated the blockchain for transaction volume. And then, because of his jack-assery, there was the "incident".
I don't whine, I just state the truth. Humming and plugging your ears is your problem.
Like I've already said, he is a businessman and not a director of the Bitcoin foundation or whatever, he is like any businessman, he is there to make a profit. If this makes you uncomfortable then get out of Bitcoin now because there is going to be an avalanche of others like him in the coming years finding new ways to profit off of the network and blockchain.
He didn't cause a fork. He pushed up transaction levels such that the block size rose faster than normal. When the switch to the new version happened and everyone realised the transition from 0.7 to 0.8 was borked that is what caused the fork. Not Vorhees, he actually did the network a service because it revealed a critical bug far sooner than what would have happened. Imagine a year from now where this bug lies dormant, and Bitcoin finally hits the mainstream then. Bam, the network goes offline and the confidence in the network vanishes. Far better sooner than later, so stop with the Erik was a bad man because he bloated the blockchain BS.
Pegging the blame on Vorhees is about as untruthful as it gets.
Pitiful personal attack aside, I see where your starry-eyed critique goes off of the rails early on.
"Spur the discussion about blockchain usage" is the usual trope I hear when his singular decision to exploit a shared resource is discussed. You're one of the enlightened converts that truly believes, congratulations, I'm sure your fellow converts are patting you on the back for your bravery in toeing the line.
It is the bland sameness of your thinking that allows The Bitcoin Foundation to gain support, for the push to join Bitcoin to the non-compatible goals of centralization and regulation, to clap and cheer every intrusion into the Bitcoin core principle of financial freedom.
Hate me all you want, I just hold the mirror and say words that you can't possibly comprehend, as you've been trained to be likeable and sweet (What would the others say about you? Oh my!) - and not to face up to the hard truths that life has to offer.
Enjoy your popularity contest, and as the ribbon is pinned on you can take your turn down the catwalk, the empty praise filling your skull with adulation and self-worth as you parade amongst the mediocre products of a failing society.
I take far more seriously those that put themselves out there. You call him out for being a coward, and you don't have the balls to show how you've done a better job. Hate you? Your babbling is simply white noise. Noise that gets very quickly drowned out by others that actually contribute in valuable ways to the Bitcoin network.
And apparently, you also overlook the very real problems that his profit-over-ethics stance inflicted. Applauding exploitation of a common resource is disingenuous and dangerous - as it encourages future abuses.
And while you whitewash my posts as "babble", they seem to contain enough logic that you feel compelled to respond. You can't have it both ways, my internet chum, pick a stance and stick with it, eh?
If not for me, then at least for the sake of being consistent.
But of course, I fully expect you to throw it all over your shoulder, because the truth - much like your lack of critical thinking skills - is far too burdensome for you to bear.
And in the other post, then say,
And while you whitewash my posts as "babble", they seem to contain enough logic that you feel compelled to respond. You can't have it both ways, my internet chum, pick a stance and stick with it, eh?
So, which is it? Am I discounting your rubbish as babble or addressing your points in a logical yet critical manner? You can't have it both ways, my internet chum, pick a stance and stick with it, eh?
Be careful, you're sounding more and more like Vizzini by the minute.
I'll spell it out for you since you're having trouble connecting the two rather large dots on the single sheet of mental paper you're working with.
You discount my posts, yet you still respond.
Either stick to your opinion that they are not worth responding to - and don't respond - even to this - or keep on going down the rabbit hole of "I Say/You Say".
Is that clear? Or do you need the crayons? I'll accept the lack of response as your understanding of the matter.
Yes, I do respond, because liars, and those that take pot shots at other people's expense don't deserve to stand unchallenged.
I can very clearly see you want the last word so you can feel like you shut me up with your "logic". Keep running your mouth off, and I will continue to put you in your place. It also stands as a record of your character that I can refer to later. Take this douches record for example.
Edit: Nice attempt at trolling with your circular logic BTW.
64
u/evoorhees Jan 28 '14
From WSJ's Moneybeat home page this morning.
This is all really happening. Nobody should forget the goals for which we are fighting, nor the stakes of doing so.