Thread

Who cares about the domain, it's better to know the character of a man, right @Melvin Carvalho?

Let's talk

So #bitaxe is a growing community and I see most people don't take it seriously. I think that's a big mistake. how can Bitaxers benefit from a cashu mint? Ecash for Bitaxe could open a lot of possibilities. More privacy? Faster Transaction? What am I missing here?

True. What else could they possibly do?

lol

Sorry, not the same

Melvin was the one discussing it though...

he suggested it, Calle said to not snipe it and he would get it. Melvin proceeded to snipe it (which in fairness he does have every right to do), but then to withhold it from the project 🤡🤣 didn't seem to admit to sniping it in the group chat (from what I've seen) 🤷‍♂️ didn't seem willing to allow the project to use it 🤷‍♂️ doesn't seem like something that progresses the FOSS ethos, or more broadly community in general. it seems like he sniped it intentionally. he has every right to do this, and I've the right to think it's extremely childish, selfish, and a shameful shitty thing to do. I'm always open to having my mind changed though.

The FOSS ethos is stupid. If I had the ability to destroy people's access to an idea by never having created it in the first place, then nobody has the right to complain when I destroy their access to it in another, more noticable way. Like claiming a domain or paywalling a piece of software. That's why I hope DRM wins in the end. The right to control an idea always belongs to the actor the idea depends on.

Is something funny? Speak up!

ya, it seems kinda ironic to be so vocally anti-FOSS, while using nostr and discussing cashu 🤷‍♂️ do you fam

Is this a parody account?

I don't think it's ironic at all! As far as I'm concerned, the benefit of Nostr is that it puts the control in the hands of the user what content they allow themselves to see. To me, the fact that Nostr is open source is 100% a means to an end; I would value Nostr just as much if it was closed source and paywalled! And of course I'm here in a conversation about an open source piece of software. I love talking with people I disagree with. It's a very important part of figuring out where your thought process went so wrong! Speaking of which, is my guess on the mark? My first rough hypothesis was that you guys think developers have an obligation to produce software for strangers. Another weird idea is that you guys hate knowing that you are missing out on a piece of software, and would rather someone pretend not to have any software ideas than that you have to see software that you aren't willing to pay for. Are either of those correct yet? Is there something I'm still missing?

I do like my jokes, but I'd like you to treat those as my actual thoughts in this case. Is there anything that makes what I said look inauthentic?

I think I understand what you're saying, but no, those are not my beliefs. I don't feel entitled to any software or that developers should make things free. I'm happy to pay for products that serve a valuable service to me. my issue really lies in the trust one needs to put into developers and/or companies ESPECIALLY if it is closed source. I've seen too many times where closed systems are manipulated to the detriment of the users. this manipulation could be done with malicious intent, or by accident. when source code is available and builds reproducible the users are capable of seeing WHAT the software is ACTUALLY doing. for example, if any nostr client was proprietary/closed source there is no way to verify that upon keygen in a client that the developer is not creating a copy of said key. now I'm not saying FOSS is a silver bullet for my issues with proprietary software but is a means to an end.

Fascinating! It sounds like open source software is just a means to an end to you too! The way to test that hypothesis would be to see what you would think of software that can be somehow proven to maintain some sort of internal condition (such as the integrity of a private key) without being decompilable. I suspect this wouldn't be very difficult actually if programs that are infeasable to decompile are ever developed. The only reason proprietary software is so sketchy I think is because they are relying so heavily on security through obscurity. Perfect DRM and this goes away. But I digress! Right now I see three issues with this new hypothesis. The first issue is your use of the term FOSS, instead of OSS. I have heard many people arguing strongly about how different those things are, even if the OSS allows people to reproduce the build. So which is it? Is it enough that the software be open source? Why add in that it be "free"? The second issue is what you choose to complain about in this particular case. Your barf emoji doesn't seem to be based on Melvin somehow impacting security or transparency, but rather your complaints appear to be based on how Melvin's actions relate to the software community and ethos that you cherish on their own. And finally, the fact that you chose a reasoning for your actions that is impossible to otherwise falsify is very sketchy! Of course you will claim you like security and transparency! At this point in time, security and transparency MEANS open source! If you really don't feel entitled, then it just seems like you hate the idea that stinginess could mean missing out on software. It sounds like you would rather someone never make a piece of software public if they are going to make people pay for it. It sounds like you would have much preferred that Melvin kept his domain ideas to himself, rather than allowing anyone from the cashew team to realize what they might be missing out on. But who knows! I would love to hear more from you. Your perspective is definitely different from mine. I wouldn't care at all if some Nostr developer tried to steal my account key for example! I really don't know what you are going to say next, and I'd love to hear more from you. Is there anything I'm still missing? Did I make any mistakes?

Didn't read this

Based

Is there any other entity that combines the concept of cashus and money transfer?

nah ok I'm a bit exxagerating. Still I dont like many of his take on a lot of things and my retardometer ringed a lot

He has also been active in the Cashu group for a good while. I'd apologise then help him do something good with it, or negotiate a price.

(no thanks)

X like behavior

It's obvious you havent followed the situation. Looking into it, its hard not to attribute bad faith to Carvalho.

Why? It's his domain. He's been involved in cashu since the beginning, has built cashu things. Whats the bar for "contributor"? as excluding him excludes 95% of the Cashu community. Trying to bully him out of his domain is lame.

GitHub

GitHub - nostrapps/cashu: cashu node library

cashu node library. Contribute to nostrapps/cashu development by creating an account on GitHub.

What would you have done? Put yourself in that situation. You are discussing domain names, and you go squat one up. Not any domain, but the one that the project actually wanted to take. Would you have kept it almost a year and told everyone afterwards? Would you have donated it to the project? Would you at least have explained your reasons why you acted the way you did? I know it's his domain, and there's no legal discussion here. I'm just struggling to see any good reasons why he did what he did.

Very good!