I don't think anyone actually thinks knotzis are pro-censorship, but their Pearl clutching "think of the children" argument is not doing them any favors

I think they are.

You don't think they're genuinely against the cp like they say?

I think that’s just their sensationalist pleb slop argument. If you listen to what they say they want they are absolutely pro censorship.

Both claim their way won't break Bitcoin, so I'm convinced that Bitcoin won't break.

Go look at the things Luke has said about government and religion. That dude is absolutely 100% pro censorship. He has said that law is morality because it is law. He does not believe any law can be immoral or unjust. I'm baffled why anyone is trying to deduce intent from code when the dev behind all this has so clearly, publicly, and repeatedly stated his position.

Luke is a member of the most famous group of pedophiles on the planet pre Epstein.

Clearly I am ignorant and go back on my statement if what you said us true. I haven't followed it closely just what I see on nostr and hear in pods has lead me to not update my node.

I didn't say I support cores decisions either, though I do have enough information theory under my belt to understand that the filters are not anywhere close to foolproof. I see the value in adding difficulty even if it doesn't make something impossible. I also see that shitcoining is all hype waves. They are bored of taproot. Any change will create a new hype wave on Bitcoin. I'd rather the hype stay on the shitcoin chains where it belongs. This is all a total waste of everyones time. An entire cycle where even the bitcoiners are only talking about shitcoins.

He's making fun of someone's religion.

Dudes Catholic. The group that famously protected known pedophiles who they knew had harmed children for years. Stating facts, if you choose to take offense your problem is with reality not me.

You haven't thought hard enough about this to be criticizing. Luke is a devout Catholic who has repeatedly said the church is right by virtue of it being the church. That same church moved people who it knew molested children to protect them from prosecution. Moved them into new positions where they had the exact same opportunities to molest children again, which they did. I could sort of understand "I believe Catholic doctrine but they church itself has made mistakes" but that isn't what we have here. So this guy who throws down to support that organization in a black or white way wants to bully everyone into allowing censorship on bitcoin over hypothetical CP. If he gave a fuck about the children he wouldn't support his church the way he does. So what does he really want? Am I pushing a boundary here? Maybe. They called me a pedophile based on only not supporting their censorship scheme. I'm just countering with receipts that their leader openly supports an organization that was convicted of numerous crimes against children. They are throwing stones from a glass house.

They set that level of reprehensibility as the range were making our accusations in. They brought up the CP thing first and they accused people of supporting CP for not running their software. I didn't set the tone but if you kick me in the balls unannounced don't expect a smile in response. As long as they are allowed to claim that moral high ground unjustly they don't have to answer for their technicals. The technicals are they want to give themselves the power to roll back the blockchain to censor transactions. The facts are if the power exists it will be abused. Note that I made my unseemly accusation as a tool to drag the conversation back to the technical issues at hand not as a distraction.

Yeah. I've arrived at just don't update and hope for a better option. If a major bug arises or something that forces my hand I'm staying with core because censorship and the ability to roll back the chain is way worse than arbitrary data storage as I see it.

I was talking about knots censoring. The scarcity, fixed supply, no pre-mine, no foundation who can force changes on you. There are at least a dozen ways Bitcoin isn't ETH aside from data storage. The real issue with the data limits is they are easily bypassed and don't accomplish much. Now we're trying to teach information theory to lay people while half the room is screeching the word pedophile over and over. Hopeless.

Blaming a regular Catholic for what the clergy did is incredibly unfair. There are plenty of other demographic markers that could be used to predict CSA that would be above any rate for all Catholics compared to the gen pop. I assume you don't accuse every step parent you meet of being a paedophile?

>Blaming a regular Catholic for what the clergy did is incredibly unfair why is it unfair? you have a moral duty to divest from organizations that are found to do evil and to withdraw your participation. it would only be unfair under a system of apostasy laws, just like how luke dashjr wants it.

Catholics would likely claim it's their moral duty to forgive. I'm not saying Catholics should stay in the church and I'm not defending Luke's general retardation. The earlier post Rich was replying to reads like he was personally in a paedophile ring.

I was very clear in this thread that there is a difference between being a Catholic and saying that anything the church does is right because the church did it, which is Luke's position. The church as an organization protected pedophiles. That is defending the act of protecting pedophiles from prosecution. Read the whole thread where I explained fully all the nuance of why I said what I said before picking a fight.

The RCC has always been a power structure, Francis is as Popey as any other Pope. The smoke don’t lie.

Ooh, dude likes a no true Scotsman. Big whoop. You still don't get the fucking point and haven't read what I wrote. Obsessed with who is or isn't a pedophile instead of talking about the technicals of the proposed changes and their intended and unintended consequences. We could go round for days with quotes from Luke arguing whether he is or isn't a nut and never learn a thing about Bitcoin.

You're the one who brought up paedophilia

Maybe he could put in a Catholic Improvement Proposal or hard fork to Catholic-Knotts.

Am I? Someone has a short or selective memory.

Someone certainly does

It isn't me.

You got me. Obviously I was talking about every conversation even tangentially referencing paedophiles, ever

Goalpost moved again. Still not a single technical talking point. You are the proof that I was right.

You went into great detail making claims about Luke that don't stand up to scrutiny of... his bio. When confronted with this you claimed that I was obsessed (classic gaslighting). Then you claim that you didn't bring up paedophiles because of a thread Luke posted months ago. I don't follow Luke, I don't care about Luke or his posts from months ago. If he actually was a paedophile or covering up for them I would very much care as would many other people. Shit sticks, and there will definitely be people who viewed this thread earlier who will actually have believed you.

I'm a proud member of the KKK and the KKK can do no wrong at any time. No I'm not a racist or a racist sympathizer, don't be silly. That KKK isn't the true KKK they've just misused our name for evil. The 5 of us in the true KKK know the truth. See how stupid that shit sounds? If your little weirdo sect is a fraction of a % of the other guys you need to let it go and rebrand or admit you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Yet another post where you are obsessed with the man with 0 technical points. Should I count them? You claim to understand but clearly you are not coloring with a full box of crayons.

You keep talking about me while I talk about your words. Once again claiming that I am the one playing the man rather than the argument is gaslighting. His shit sounds stupid, because he's stupid (which I alluded to earlier). That doesn't make him a paedophile, a sympathiser or an apologist. You made claims, none of them stand up to scrutiny and now you argue from analogy because you don't have any real accusations left.

The man can't say he supports a group fully then no true Scotsman away over 99% of the people who claim the group so that the word has lost all meaning outside of his own head. I've stated my point flat out. I've made my position clear and explained why I said what I said as justified by the facts of the world around us and my position. I've switched to analogy because you did not get it. I cannot make you see. I'm done. Continue and I'll just mute you.

Do what you must. His ideology is very similar to Mel Gibson's. He didn't invent it to prove you wrong. He created it because he's a weirdo.

He's a delusional man with a world view far disconnected from the reality the rest of us live in. He's made Bitcoin all about himself and his savior complex. He and his followers are lobbing wild unjust accusations at anyone who won't toe the line with his delusional narrative. My allegation that he is a pedophile supporter is more grounded in reality than his side running around saying anyone who doesn't run knots is running core because they want to start a CSAM collection. They don't deserve that false moral high ground. All of this is a distraction from discussing the technical changes he's supporting. It's intentional and they don't deserve to have their changes go by unargued. Why distract? Because if he stood up and said "I want to be able to rollback and hard fork the bitcoin chain when transactions I object to get validated into blocks" he'd get laughed out of the room. From day 1 knots was created to attempt to censor transactions he didn't like. The only thing that changed is he is asking everyone else to change so he can censor harder and "improved" his marketing by upping the ante to CSAM instead or regular porn like he started with.

As I said, I don't follow Luke, but briefly searching for some related posts, his argument doesn't appear to be CSAM on the blockchain = all noderunners are paedophiles, but instead that this is a legal matter that will end in jail. IANAL, but I don't think this is correct (in the USA at least), though the framing is important. I do agree that his ultimate intentions are likely for greater censorship and I wouldn't personally hire him to run a hotdog stand, but I reiterate that it's not acceptable to level accusations like this against a guy with 11 children using his real name. Vigilante justice is real. Once again, if there actually were evidence this would be a different story

I never said he was an abuser. I said he supports an organization that has sheltered and defended abusers. That is your reading comprehension fail. Some of his followers are absolutely 100% making that allegation about core runners on here.

And he doesn't support them, that's the point Obviously discourse breaks down when everyone accuses everyone else of being/ supporting paedophiles (unless they actually are)

I have an extremely difficult time imagining that his children are enjoying being raised by GNU/Dad. those kids are 100% cooked

But again, the knots side escalated it to making all about CSAM. They have also done nothing to control narrative when their supporters took it to the next level of direct accusations. Classic politician. I'm not going to say it so I have deniability but I know if I point vaguely in the direction all my followers will say it for me.