{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/1325","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/1325/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/1325/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/1325/events","html_url":"https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/1325","id":163491953,"number":1325,"title":"Amendments to the Bitcoin paper","user":{"login":"Cobra-Bitcoin","id":12899428,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/12899428?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/Cobra-Bitcoin","html_url":"https://github.com/Cobra-Bitcoin","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Cobra-Bitcoin/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Cobra-Bitcoin/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Cobra-Bitcoin/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Cobra-Bitcoin/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Cobra-Bitcoin/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Cobra-Bitcoin/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Cobra-Bitcoin/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Cobra-Bitcoin/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Cobra-Bitcoin/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":90,"created_at":"2016-07-02T00:05:43Z","updated_at":"2016-07-04T05:44:20Z","closed_at":null,"body":"I've been noticing that the Bitcoin paper at https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf is getting a lot of traffic (mainly from people searching for \"bitcoin paper\", or probably seeing it cited by other papers). Almost all the people reading the paper are probably reading it for the first time, and using it as a learning resource. However since the paper is so outdated, I believe it doesn't do a good job anymore of giving people a firm understanding of Bitcoin (at least the modern version). There is no mention of things like pools, and the Privacy and SPV sections could probably be updated.\r\n\r\nThe paper links to bitcoin.org, but I feel like the Bitcoin described in the paper and the Bitcoin described on bitcoin.org are starting to diverge. At some point, I think the paper will start to do more harm than good, because it tricks people into believing they understand Bitcoin. I have seen people promote toxic and crazy ideas, and then cite parts of the paper in an effort to justify it. Academics are also regularly citing the paper and basing some of their reasoning and arguments on this outdated paper.\r\n\r\nNormally issues like this in other projects would be solved by regularly updating the learning resources, and documents, such as producing new editions or versions of the document to keep it in line with the current status of the project. I'd be interested to know the community's thoughts and opinions on this issue, since I know it's likely to be a divisive but some rational debate would be good, because it could become more of a problem in the future.\r\n\r\nThere are already a few different versions of the paper out there, so Satoshi has already set the precedent that the paper should be updated to reflect the current realities of the software. I believe the paper was always designed to be a high level overview of the current reference implementation, and that we should update it now that the paper is outdated and the reference implementation has changed significantly from 2009."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/comments/230209544","html_url":"https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/1325#issuecomment-230209544","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/1325","id":230209544,"user":{"login":"TheRealMage","id":10916728,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/10916728?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/TheRealMage","html_url":"https://github.com/TheRealMage","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/TheRealMage/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/TheRealMage/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/TheRealMage/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/TheRealMage/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/TheRealMage/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/TheRealMage/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/TheRealMage/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/TheRealMage/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/TheRealMage/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2016-07-04T05:44:20Z","updated_at":"2016-07-04T05:44:20Z","body":"@gmaxwell \r\n\r\n\r\n> My remarks are urging caution because the abusive, dishonest, and\r\nthreatening response will have a chilling effect against free and\r\nopen communication in the future. That's it.\r\n\r\nI agree with you, I was hoping that it was clear in my post as such! I'm sorry you took it as another way. Hatred and vitriol should **never** be utilized in a public discussion where ones intentions are to make improvements. Abusive content is also never ok, but my comment was essentially stating that \"as public figures\" its comes with the territory. \r\n\r\n> \"there are many public figures within this discussion\"; And who-- precisely-- are you referring to here? It's not me or my proposal people are arguing with. (And, I am hardly a public figure ... in spite of Mike Hearn's overwrought misrepresentations about Bitcoin in an effort to portray me as in charge of Bitcoin in order to cause legal problems for me)\r\n\r\nLiterally everyone involved in Blockstream, Bitcoin core (former and current to include BitcoinXT), moderators of forums and reddit, etc. This isnt inclusive to just you at all. Unfortunately you seem to take the brunt of accusations. And yes you are very much a public figure :).\r\n\r\n\r\n> This sounds an awful like like a coy way of saying that abusive conduct is okay. But it also misses the point of my argument: You can justify the abusiveness however you want, the but fact remains that if people find these venues too abusive they will simply stop using them. Each one of you has a choice, you can call out the abuse and make sure contributors (including whatever people you imagine to be \"public figures\") feel that they can comfortable public discussion about some speculative ideas, or you can pick up stones yourself, or turn away when others do and we can all lose access to these discussions. \r\n\r\nAs mentioned before, I am not justifying abuse at all nor do I condone it. I am merely attempting to explain why public perception is the way it is. Maybe you already know this, I personally do not know. But I am trying to express it in a level headed way in order to engage in dialog (such as the same dialog that we agree should always happen!). \r\n\r\n\r\n> AFAICT that was is all in the space of what was being proposed above. Since you're now saying similar stuff, be prepared to be on the receiving end of the abuse too, I guess. :-/\r\n\r\nI'm not worried :).\r\n\r\n> That;s because there wasn't a concrete proposal here, there was just an open discussion. Or rather, an attempt at one that has been utterly submarined.\r\n\r\nFair enough, and that I can understand!\r\n\r\n\r\n> Will you make a personal commitment to stand up against claims of censorship if this thread is closed?\r\n\r\n> Do you think it's appropriate that a couple people raiding another community and hurling abuse and untrue claims can shut down any open discussion and force it behind closed doors? For people like Cobra going dark would no doubt save a lot of time and energy but do you think that its in the public interest that things be done this way?\r\n\r\n\r\nI will always stand up for what I personally believe is honorable and justifiable within the best interests of the world. I had no issues calling out many influential persons when warranted in order to protect the sanctity of crypto currencies (Josh Garza, Brian Armstrong, and more recently Vitalik Buterin). \r\n\r\nWith that said, forcing people to go dark is uncalled for when discussing a realistic issue. There can be a take and give on both sides. But this also requires proper leadership that's able to gain the acceptance of all communities in order to flush out real dialog. In all honesty, what is presented to the community can be skewed from all sides (much like mainstream media), so as an academic its difficult to discern fact from fiction. It's upsetting that we have reached this point, and I hope one day we can put this all behind us. \r\n\r\nI will say in all honesty, that I have yet to identify one person as that \"leader\" that is able to unite the Bitcoin community (on a personal level of course, this is just my personal feelings). I understand you are hardened over many months of dealing with trolls, but I can tell you that I am a honest person and hold no ill will towards you. I want to engage in a civil level of discussion while also pointing out issues I perceive. \r\n\r\n**Back onto topic**\r\n\r\n@Cobra-Bitcoin \r\n\r\nMy recommendations is to either release a second paper with proper authors spelled out clearly or add notes to the original paper and list it on the landing page to the original. This also keeps the original in the same link as before."}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"TheRealMage"}}