On 09/06/2013 12:26 PM, Maxim Kammerer wrote:
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Jonathan Wilkes <[email protected]> wrote:
For example, if it turns out that Bitcoin has a backdoor in it, a
lot of people (some on this list) would take a big reputation hit.
That's most certainly not what would happen in that case. People will
just find excuses — see e.g. people defending Veracode after it failed
to detect basic incompetence in Cryptocat code.
You're shifting the argument so that it suits what you want to say.
The proper comparison with my imagined Bitcoin scenario in this
case would be to Cryptocat and its dev, not Veracode. The core
developer of Cryptocat as well as the software itself has most
certainly taken a reputation hit.
But I have no doubt that in my imagined scenario many companies
who promote and market Bitcoin wouldn't take much of a reputation
hit. Human affairs are a complex thing.
-Jonathan
The reason is that
those who are most equipped to affect someone's reputation are also
those most likely to have professional relationships with affected
people / companies. The thread continued from [1] clearly illustrates
that — there is no lack of people who can professionally criticize
Veracode's failure, yet they carefully avoid that. Reputation might
suffer, of course, but you would not be aware of that from laymen
discussions.
[1] https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/2013-July/009774.html
--
Liberationtech is a public list whose archives are searchable on Google.
Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe,
change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at
[email protected].
