I am very principled, even when it comes to personal relationships.
I intend to judge you. I must. You do it to me too.
When it comes arguing, I expect you to argue "like a man."
That means sincerely, honestly, with as much effort to seek the truth as possible.
Even if you think I am rude or disparaging your pet project, you have an obligation to separate style from substance and provide genuine counterarguments.
I am not interested in humoring your equivocations, self-deceit, and insecurities. It is already hard enough to focus on discovering the truth while fighting off my own!
I have a lot of confidence in the arguments I make because they are the result of such high standards, not because I am arrogant, not because I smart, but because I was there to see when all the other ideas failed by comparison, because I am stubborn, because I dont want to embarrass myself to myself.
I cannot care what you think about me if you are preoccupied with my style. If we are talking about me in the argument, it isnt really on topic, is it?
If you want to refute me, do it well. Don't be lazy. Don't lie or complain. If you feel insulted by my sincere and rationalized arguments, the way to "insult" me back is to prove me wrong.
I say all this because I want to make the world a better place ... for REAL ... Not some fake temporary version where people get to be superficially proud and scam people for a while.
If you dismiss function for form, you cannot make real discoveries, just temporary hype cycles that fade away.
Login to reply
Replies (11)
Core!
Yeah, it seems like the psyop Lowery did on the morons for rage bait and book sales. I've seen this episode.
More likely, you are both the morons and failed to argue like men.
Refute my claims, PUSSIES.
Did you find the truth about policy filters?


Argue about what? I'm not a bot on Twitter, I am a human and mostly agree with you. You haven't even made a stance that is controversial here.
Tag me as "seems human" on pubky or label me a pussie on Nostr. Idgaf
I've read your posts. We will meet one day and we'll find common ground.
Your attention seeking here seems desperate and below your interlect.
Like a moth to a flame, he can’t resist.
Someone has to respond. I have nothing to lose.
Yes, when i tried to stop mempoolfullrbf policy change and everyone gaslit me, including Luke. But Luke is an actual retard, so I will try to be understanding.
I am not sure why you have some personal issue with Luke because obviously he is not retard. I am not aware of that exact occasion and your exact actions but we are all humans and prone to make mistakes. Fact is that Luke proposed a fix for inscriptions spam. In my opinion you also had a bad take on 21 Quadrillion Bitcoin but I won't say you are retard because obviously you are not one and I for example quote everywhere your blog on 'who secures bitcoin' because its absolutely accurate.
If Luke isn't retarded, he is evil. Take your pick.
I fought for the users and stopping Core from changing policy a few years ago, and all these people attacked me, including Luke.
Now it is precedent and part of Core culture.
Stop trusting these assholes.
My take about Luke is that he is honest, he believes in God and he is brilliant Bitcoin developer but also he is not corrupted and compromised like now is obvious with the majority of Core devs. I don't trust the Core devs that exposed with OP_RETURN change and the ones who voted to not fix the inscriptions spam becuase the ordinals are spam. Or Peter Todd wanting to blow the 21 Million Bitcoin limit with inflation.