I agree I must stop defending and do more coding instead. I still have my bad days, like today experiencing low energy (so I just ate a chocolate brownie because the good food I already ate since awakening only made me sleepy).

I’m pitching my idea for decentralized moderation (which is archived here and here if they nuke the posts again) and observing if anyone can refute it. So far no valid refutation other than the argument that the general population is apathetic and would rather be on centralized websites wherein they are sold out to the highest bidder as you say (and as we had discussed in the comments of one of my prior blogs).

Note they just banned (archived) the new account I signed up which means they have violated their own policies because even banned users are supposed to be able to post in Meta. Of course they will invent a new excuse to claim I was trying to circumvent the ban by posting in Meta on topics not related to my ban, but clearly I was posting on the topic related to my ban which is the insane lack of sane moderation at that insane asylum forum bitcointalk.org.

So clearly the entire bitcointalk.org is corrupt. I suspect @‍Foxpup is also involved in it. I am likely correct to presume there is some deep corruption going on at that site:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1182118.0

theymos: What centralized entity?
Aquentin: you
Aquentin: if you do, you are very wrong
Aquentin: all you have shown to all is that you are the personification of amateur hour
Aquentin: a lucky idiot who, though could have used his luck to better bitcoin, used it to tarnish it
Aquentin: by doing the unthinkable, censorship in a bitcoin community... the very thing bitcoin stands against
theymos: Centralization is sub-optimal. Decentralized forums would be better. But no one wants to use decentralized forums, even though they've existed for years (eg. FMS). Until that improves, centralization is the only option. And AFAIK I'm the best person for what I do, and replacing me with someone else in the name of decentralization would not really improve things.

Lol. He is the best. We have no choice but to use his centralized, corrupt, totalitarian shit. Let’s see about that…

Then the corrupt hypocrite proceeds to argue why he will not allow XT/Classic to hijack Satoshi’s one-and-only immutable real Bitcoin yet instead he ends up allowing Core to hijack it:

theymos: One very obvious issue is that if XT was considered equal to Bitcoin, then this would open the door to other similar creations. It'd be easy to create a traditional pump-and-dump altcoin thing in essentially the same way as XT. These things are not Bitcoin and should not be allowed on /r/Bitcoin. So this is a contradiction in your view.
[…]
theymos: Even if you could twist things in that way and argue that XT could be allowed on /r/Bitcoin in consistency with past and expected-future precedent, it's still bad from a utilitarian perspective for XT to be pushed to users. If it succeeds, that'd damage Bitcoin immensely. (And it doesn't really matter whether or not /r/Bitcoin matters in the grand scheme of things, it's the principle of the matter that

He then he either is just ignorant or feigns fear of “social consensus” from XT/Classic (which is precisely what Core portrays itself as) as a justification for him being the person who was selected to help the global elite foist Core on the n00bs so the powers-that-be can take all the real Bitcoin away from the “social consensus” n00bs as SegWit donations in the future:

theymos: That's an important point. Bitcoin is not "anti-fragile" as many people say. Its decentralized/transparent/secure nature provides a lot of inherent strength, but in the end it relies on the people who use Bitcoin to behave at least somewhat correctly.
Aquentin: yes
Aquentin: 51% of them
Aquentin: when one person can order, like yourself,... that ruins bitcoin
Aquentin: bitcoin relies on 51% being honest, and if you assume 51% will not be honest, you are declaring bitcoin is a failure
Aquentin: and if that is your assumption, then just bugger off
Aquentin: go do something else and pass on the batoon
theymos: No, that's the sort of incorrect view I'm talking about. The system does not inherently rely on that sort of majoritarianism. But if people assume/accept majority rule in Bitcoin, then this view can dominate and end up actually coming into force.

@‍theymos is going to be wearing the asshat in the end game (regardless of whether I or any others do anything about decentralized moderation forums). That’s the reason he will remain anonymous and the forum will continue to be an insane asylum of anonymous trolling without any sane moderation.

Btw, I visited the bitco.in forum and it lacks moderation also. There are prominent posts there about where to buy fake passports (which is a known scam). The bitcoin.com site is Roger Ver’s little turd. These shits are not competitors, they are so pitiful and also they’re fringe focused.

Besides, who wants to leave one centralized clusterfuck for an even smaller centralized clusterfuck echo chamber.

P.S. “I only believe in only one thing— the Internet Archive archive.org”. We must prove them wrong because that is not a decentralized ledger.

@‍theymos didn’t reinstate the other moderators of r/bitcoin which enabled him to retain totalitarian control.

Martin Armstrong wrote:

Rules of Bureaucracies

1. The first thing you do is assign blame. Do not fix the problem, but make sure that blame is assigned. Remember if you fix the problem, your job is at risk.
2. Assign your work to someone else
3. Vote/assign yourself salary raises and as many perks as you can get.

REPLY: Corporations also fail when the board replaces the creators, abandon imagination, and proceed to comply with all the rules so they are run by the lawyers and accountants.