I don't agree with doing this in the first place. I suggested they take a better, less easily bypassed approach if they are going to do it because I was trying to be helpful since I have experience with it. The reason I have an issue with it is not it being unnecessarily weak.
Conversation
Okay logically I think I have to give up.
You think their ICO was illegal, they're a sketchy company, and that attestation is bad, but you wanted to help them build stronger attestation approach?
Being on someone's case for logical contradictions doesn't = concern troll!
1
1
Once again, I never said that attestation is bad. You keep misrepresenting what I wrote. I'm stated at least 4 times in response to you that I do not think attestation is bad. You're going far out of your way to misrepresent my statements. How is this anything but trolling?
2
When I write, esp on Twitter, I rely on the common sense and charity of readers: pchiusano.github.io/2014-10-11/def
The above is clearly about THEIR attestation being bad. Trying to distort my tweet into some wilful misrepresentation of your positions is very poor indeed.
1
It's a very willful misrepresentation of my positions after repeatedly clarifying that attestation is not bad but rather using it for DRM is bad. I'm not distorting tweets. It's what you have been repeatedly and clearly saying that is the problem. Now you're going to gaslight me?
1
Not a fan of this debating tactic: you attempt to find an uncharitable reading of what I was saying thanks to Twitter compression, inexact wording when essence was clear:
twitter.com/justsee/status
Bad company! Poor implementation! *But I tried to help them with a better one.*
Quote Tweet
Replying to @DanielMicay @BrendanEich and @bcrypt
Okay logically I think I have to give up.
You think their ICO was illegal, they're a sketchy company, and that attestation is bad, but you wanted to help them build stronger attestation approach?
Being on someone's case for logical contradictions doesn't = concern troll!
2
I'm responding to trolling and dishonesty. It's not a debate. There is nothing actually being debated here especially since it was made clear that if I posted more than 280 characters to convey my thoughts it would be treated as a hostility which is insane.
1
You keep misrepresenting what I'm said and done. You're doing it once again here, including totally misrepresenting my comment on their issue tracker. Look at my comment:
github.com/brave/browser-
Read it. Try to understand it. Stop misrepresenting what I said.
1
In entirely missing my point you wrongly perceive my actions.
If you believe they ran an illegal ICO and are a scammy company, why on earth would you be helping them implement a stronger anti-fraud model for their ads when you have a strong anti-ads position.
It makes no sense.
2
I find your comment on that Github ticket - and their response rather interesting so I don't doubt you have some valid points there and will do my best to understand it in more detail.
1
Their response is "fuck off", and I seriously doubt there is any actual policy requiring responding that way. The same person gave comparable responses elsewhere. If they kept it at needlessly annoying replies on issues I wouldn't have cared much.
But no, they decided to trash talk something that I care about and spread misleading claims. I stumbled across that issue when looking something up and it sparked a desire to research the side of Brave I'd just ignored as a silly plan that they'd likely end up abandoning.
2
I ended up with a much different perspective of the project due to the details of this. It doesn't make any sense to me for them to be the arbiters of how this works and arbitrary decide how much money they get + enforce the system via DRM which I fundamentally disagree with.
1
Show replies