📅 Original date posted:2023-05-11
🗒️ Summary of this message: The author challenges for a public debate to defend themselves against accusations made by Jeremy Rubin and feels censored and marginalized.
📝 Original message:
Pressumption of innocence?
Right to defend yourself?
Wow, that sounds amazing, but, for example, wouldn't me defendibg myself
from jeremy rubin be offtopic like...pretty much everywhere?
Not sure you're familiar with that story, certainly you didn't hear my side
of the story, did you?
Where would it be fine for me to defend myself?
I don't want to keep cosing bitcoin anymore, novody would review my PRs
anyway once jeremy made sure everyone thought I am evil. Or perhaps I'm
paranoid. Anyway, I would juat like to find the right venue to clean my
name or at least be allowed to try. If that venue exists at all, that is.
Personally, I feel extremely censored.
I also feel I've been judged unfairly and margibalized by many.
If it was because of my mistakes and not because jeremy and others lied
about me behind my back, well, I would like to know at least.
Am I really asking that much?
I'm surprised at how very few people are in favor of the american first
amendment, btw.
I know, I know. Offtopic. Everywhere. Every time.
If something it's offtopic everywhere, that's a censored taboo, I think.
Therefore I challenge to a public debate somewhere. For me to defend myself
and for him to defend himself too (if that's possible).
I know it's never going to happen, but I want to make sure it is known that
it is because of him, I'm more than ready to defend myself against him. Is
he?
He can call me a nazi and even though I'm not one (I'm not even racist), it
is not so easy to sue for defamation in international jurisdictions.
Imagine if I called him a pederast (kethuboth 11b, sanhesrin 69b) or a
cannibal (samhedrin 64a) without giving him a chance to defend himself.
Wouldn't that be nasty?
I want him to be able to defend himself too, or at least try it.
Now, moderators, censor this email for being offtopic and prove my point.
Jeremy will still get the email and I bet he won't want a public debate.
But I'm biased because I think he is guilty. Just like jeffrey epstein.
Is jeremy rubin a mossad agent?
Is there any reason to think so?
Or are these just rummors?
He should have a chance to try to clean his name, in my opinion. Again,
just like jeffrey epstein.
On Wed, May 10, 2023, 17:57 Antoine Riard <antoine.riard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Tony,
>
> > Is there a better place to have public communication? Unfortunately
> since one off topic email was sent here, it's been a ghost town. It appears
> that there's many emails being held and only one moderator that checks them
> once a week.
>
> As I think you're referring to my post of March 21th and as the author of
> this post, I'll politely refuse the qualification of "off-topic". I had and
> I still have the concerns of "frivolous legal claims" being used between
> bitcoin developers/organizations provoking a distortion of the neutrality
> of the development and a chilling effect of the technical discussions (i.e
> code we compile and spec we implement). For those reasons, it was my legal
> right and moral duty to inform the community of what is happening between
> Chaincode and myself. And here I'm following the recommendation of one of
> the moderators of the Lightning mailing list himself "If this worries you
> too, let's make sure we keep each other honest, OK?" [0].
>
> When you think a group of people with open-source responsibilities are in
> a situation of conflict of interests or "moral hazards", or even the
> appearance of them, you have the right to expose the wrongdoing, including
> the _proportional_ revelation of private elements. People have done the
> "free choice" to conduct a career in open-source, for some even declaring
> in some context to maintain integrity and accept their actions to be
> submitted to external accountability [1]. While the exposure of private
> elements of public personalities might break common courtesy, it's a
> morally valid practice if you're familiar with the public institutions of
> US and Europe, and I think this practice has found validity in the history
> of open-source commons or IETF's protocol development [1].
>
> Beyond, the Bitcoin and Lightning development communication channels
> constitute a public forum, where by nature the participants are exchanging
> ideas and defending competing interests. In consequence, the participants'
> rights and capabilities to contribute and speak their minds in those
> communication channels should be protected. Those communication channels
> are not your usual corporate workplace, and in case of conflicting
> principles, the maintainers of those communication channels should ensure a
> balance of rights and a proportionality in any restraining measure.
>
> And this new post is not to exonerate myself of any legal responsibility
> for personal matters that could be recognized as the outcome of a judicial
> process, respective of both rights of the accusation and rights of the
> defense. Rather to enlighten the Bitcoin community that the formal
> separation between private matters and open-source responsibilities, and
> the adequate check-and-balances to guarantee this separation is somehow
> what are the underlying stakes for this feud between Chaincode and myself,
> from my perspective. I can say missing an open-source engineering meeting
> or being revoked a few Github permissions matters far less than the clear
> affirmation and respect of the freedom of expression, the presumption of
> innocence and due process in the Bitcoin common space, all proportions
> conserved.
>
> I don't blame any party involved in this issue, nor assign "bad
> intentions''. One position is really a function of your life experiences,
> knowledge of the legal and cultural framework and access to the factual
> elements. As all human conflicts it is not binary rather "grey". People can
> be top executives at a billion-dollar company, having successful ventures
> with hundreds of folks under management, or have a lot of responsibilities
> for their relative young age, and still disagree on the set of legal and
> moral principles to apply in the present case.
>
> Finally, thanks to the Bitcoin friends who have reached out to call for
> level-headedness and cool-mindness in the public discussion of this complex
> topic. Like I said to them, in the lack of more suspected wrongdoing from
> the other side, I won't communicate further on this subject on the Bitcoin
> and Lightning technical channels. However I still firmly believe the
> discussion on the principles, abstract in the maximum from its private
> elements, should still be pursued on other channels. Independently, there
> is a legal channel opened between Chaincode and myself and good progress is
> made to find a serene and long-standing resolution to this issue.
>
> Best,
> Antoine
>
> [0]
> https://rusty-lightning.medium.com/the-corrosion-of-ethics-in-cryptocurrencies-f7ba77e9dfc3
> [1]
> https://github.com/btrustteam/board-book/blob/main/vision/genesis_principles.md
> [2]
> https://www.ietf.org/about/administration/policies-procedures/conflict-interest/
>
> Le lun. 8 mai 2023 à 21:26, Tony Giorgio via Lightning-dev <
> lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> a écrit :
>
>> Is there a better place to have public communication? Unfortunately since
>> one off topic email was sent here, it's been a ghost town. It appears that
>> there's many emails being held and only one moderator that checks them once
>> a week.
>>
>> Would hate to see this list die but wondering if there's a better place
>> for discussions?
>>
>> Tony
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> On Apr 29, 2023, 9:57 PM, niftynei < niftynei at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> When I joined the lightning community a few years ago, I was relatively
>> new to open source software and specification work. Rusty really impressed
>> on me on the importance of holding conversations, as much as possible in
>> public.
>>
>> Practically speaking, this encompasses IRC, this mailing list, and github
>> issues/PRs.
>>
>> The reason for this is twofold. It helps document the range of options
>> considered for technical decisions and it provides an interface point for
>> new participants to contribute to the discussion.
>>
>> Given some recent mails that were posted to this list, now seems like a
>> good time to reiterate the importance and preference of public
>> communication whenever possible, especially for specification or technical
>> discussions.
>>
>>
>> ~ nifty
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lightning-dev mailing list
>> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20230511/8bc90abd/attachment.html>;
Jorge Timón [ARCHIVE] /
npub1fx…cl2d8
2023-06-19 17:42:06
in reply to nevent1q…9dun
Author Public Key
npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8Published at
2023-06-19 17:42:06Event JSON
{
"id": "5a5a2344f1986663c7aeb905d15ed7ff4f76d73732013047f7f1b59467a4c214",
"pubkey": "498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84",
"created_at": 1687196526,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"2caf71754fda5e376f3797040411fdedcf9f3e703b977a986707fa115788a138",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"083ce5c7d5bdccbb91bbe2cf6297a3088450d70874912fbdbfcd0566c11b3bea",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"6485bc56963b51c9043d0855cca9f78fcbd0ce135a195c3f969e18ca54a0d551"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2023-05-11\n🗒️ Summary of this message: The author challenges for a public debate to defend themselves against accusations made by Jeremy Rubin and feels censored and marginalized.\n📝 Original message:\nPressumption of innocence?\nRight to defend yourself?\n\nWow, that sounds amazing, but, for example, wouldn't me defendibg myself\nfrom jeremy rubin be offtopic like...pretty much everywhere?\nNot sure you're familiar with that story, certainly you didn't hear my side\nof the story, did you?\nWhere would it be fine for me to defend myself?\nI don't want to keep cosing bitcoin anymore, novody would review my PRs\nanyway once jeremy made sure everyone thought I am evil. Or perhaps I'm\nparanoid. Anyway, I would juat like to find the right venue to clean my\nname or at least be allowed to try. If that venue exists at all, that is.\n\nPersonally, I feel extremely censored.\nI also feel I've been judged unfairly and margibalized by many.\nIf it was because of my mistakes and not because jeremy and others lied\nabout me behind my back, well, I would like to know at least.\n\nAm I really asking that much?\nI'm surprised at how very few people are in favor of the american first\namendment, btw.\n\nI know, I know. Offtopic. Everywhere. Every time.\nIf something it's offtopic everywhere, that's a censored taboo, I think.\n\nTherefore I challenge to a public debate somewhere. For me to defend myself\nand for him to defend himself too (if that's possible).\nI know it's never going to happen, but I want to make sure it is known that\nit is because of him, I'm more than ready to defend myself against him. Is\nhe?\n\nHe can call me a nazi and even though I'm not one (I'm not even racist), it\nis not so easy to sue for defamation in international jurisdictions.\nImagine if I called him a pederast (kethuboth 11b, sanhesrin 69b) or a\ncannibal (samhedrin 64a) without giving him a chance to defend himself.\nWouldn't that be nasty?\nI want him to be able to defend himself too, or at least try it.\n\nNow, moderators, censor this email for being offtopic and prove my point.\nJeremy will still get the email and I bet he won't want a public debate.\nBut I'm biased because I think he is guilty. Just like jeffrey epstein.\nIs jeremy rubin a mossad agent?\nIs there any reason to think so?\nOr are these just rummors?\nHe should have a chance to try to clean his name, in my opinion. Again,\njust like jeffrey epstein.\n\nOn Wed, May 10, 2023, 17:57 Antoine Riard \u003cantoine.riard at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Hi Tony,\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e Is there a better place to have public communication? Unfortunately\n\u003e since one off topic email was sent here, it's been a ghost town. It appears\n\u003e that there's many emails being held and only one moderator that checks them\n\u003e once a week.\n\u003e\n\u003e As I think you're referring to my post of March 21th and as the author of\n\u003e this post, I'll politely refuse the qualification of \"off-topic\". I had and\n\u003e I still have the concerns of \"frivolous legal claims\" being used between\n\u003e bitcoin developers/organizations provoking a distortion of the neutrality\n\u003e of the development and a chilling effect of the technical discussions (i.e\n\u003e code we compile and spec we implement). For those reasons, it was my legal\n\u003e right and moral duty to inform the community of what is happening between\n\u003e Chaincode and myself. And here I'm following the recommendation of one of\n\u003e the moderators of the Lightning mailing list himself \"If this worries you\n\u003e too, let's make sure we keep each other honest, OK?\" [0].\n\u003e\n\u003e When you think a group of people with open-source responsibilities are in\n\u003e a situation of conflict of interests or \"moral hazards\", or even the\n\u003e appearance of them, you have the right to expose the wrongdoing, including\n\u003e the _proportional_ revelation of private elements. People have done the\n\u003e \"free choice\" to conduct a career in open-source, for some even declaring\n\u003e in some context to maintain integrity and accept their actions to be\n\u003e submitted to external accountability [1]. While the exposure of private\n\u003e elements of public personalities might break common courtesy, it's a\n\u003e morally valid practice if you're familiar with the public institutions of\n\u003e US and Europe, and I think this practice has found validity in the history\n\u003e of open-source commons or IETF's protocol development [1].\n\u003e\n\u003e Beyond, the Bitcoin and Lightning development communication channels\n\u003e constitute a public forum, where by nature the participants are exchanging\n\u003e ideas and defending competing interests. In consequence, the participants'\n\u003e rights and capabilities to contribute and speak their minds in those\n\u003e communication channels should be protected. Those communication channels\n\u003e are not your usual corporate workplace, and in case of conflicting\n\u003e principles, the maintainers of those communication channels should ensure a\n\u003e balance of rights and a proportionality in any restraining measure.\n\u003e\n\u003e And this new post is not to exonerate myself of any legal responsibility\n\u003e for personal matters that could be recognized as the outcome of a judicial\n\u003e process, respective of both rights of the accusation and rights of the\n\u003e defense. Rather to enlighten the Bitcoin community that the formal\n\u003e separation between private matters and open-source responsibilities, and\n\u003e the adequate check-and-balances to guarantee this separation is somehow\n\u003e what are the underlying stakes for this feud between Chaincode and myself,\n\u003e from my perspective. I can say missing an open-source engineering meeting\n\u003e or being revoked a few Github permissions matters far less than the clear\n\u003e affirmation and respect of the freedom of expression, the presumption of\n\u003e innocence and due process in the Bitcoin common space, all proportions\n\u003e conserved.\n\u003e\n\u003e I don't blame any party involved in this issue, nor assign \"bad\n\u003e intentions''. One position is really a function of your life experiences,\n\u003e knowledge of the legal and cultural framework and access to the factual\n\u003e elements. As all human conflicts it is not binary rather \"grey\". People can\n\u003e be top executives at a billion-dollar company, having successful ventures\n\u003e with hundreds of folks under management, or have a lot of responsibilities\n\u003e for their relative young age, and still disagree on the set of legal and\n\u003e moral principles to apply in the present case.\n\u003e\n\u003e Finally, thanks to the Bitcoin friends who have reached out to call for\n\u003e level-headedness and cool-mindness in the public discussion of this complex\n\u003e topic. Like I said to them, in the lack of more suspected wrongdoing from\n\u003e the other side, I won't communicate further on this subject on the Bitcoin\n\u003e and Lightning technical channels. However I still firmly believe the\n\u003e discussion on the principles, abstract in the maximum from its private\n\u003e elements, should still be pursued on other channels. Independently, there\n\u003e is a legal channel opened between Chaincode and myself and good progress is\n\u003e made to find a serene and long-standing resolution to this issue.\n\u003e\n\u003e Best,\n\u003e Antoine\n\u003e\n\u003e [0]\n\u003e https://rusty-lightning.medium.com/the-corrosion-of-ethics-in-cryptocurrencies-f7ba77e9dfc3\n\u003e [1]\n\u003e https://github.com/btrustteam/board-book/blob/main/vision/genesis_principles.md\n\u003e [2]\n\u003e https://www.ietf.org/about/administration/policies-procedures/conflict-interest/\n\u003e\n\u003e Le lun. 8 mai 2023 à 21:26, Tony Giorgio via Lightning-dev \u003c\n\u003e lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e a écrit :\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Is there a better place to have public communication? Unfortunately since\n\u003e\u003e one off topic email was sent here, it's been a ghost town. It appears that\n\u003e\u003e there's many emails being held and only one moderator that checks them once\n\u003e\u003e a week.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Would hate to see this list die but wondering if there's a better place\n\u003e\u003e for discussions?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Tony\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e -------- Original Message --------\n\u003e\u003e On Apr 29, 2023, 9:57 PM, niftynei \u003c niftynei at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Hi all,\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e When I joined the lightning community a few years ago, I was relatively\n\u003e\u003e new to open source software and specification work. Rusty really impressed\n\u003e\u003e on me on the importance of holding conversations, as much as possible in\n\u003e\u003e public.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Practically speaking, this encompasses IRC, this mailing list, and github\n\u003e\u003e issues/PRs.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e The reason for this is twofold. It helps document the range of options\n\u003e\u003e considered for technical decisions and it provides an interface point for\n\u003e\u003e new participants to contribute to the discussion.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Given some recent mails that were posted to this list, now seems like a\n\u003e\u003e good time to reiterate the importance and preference of public\n\u003e\u003e communication whenever possible, especially for specification or technical\n\u003e\u003e discussions.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e ~ nifty\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e Lightning-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Lightning-dev mailing list\n\u003e Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20230511/8bc90abd/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "18d5add6d1a0d6c98cb0183ba4e1f0e61105c8957ca5ffa35962445f8ee9e5643b5d141f8d23ef189e3493770dc3f3768769ff417e753c9cd93ab544d45c8105"
}