Censorship on bitcoin-dev mailing list now?

[arnoudk]

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4 ... ow_on_the/

With the ongoing progress of Classic adoption the dialogue on the bitcoin-dev mailinglist isn't getting more healthy.
Today I got a taste of the censoring that people here have been mentioning first hand.
When Anthony Towns (according to Linkedin the organizer of linux-conf) wrote the below paragraph, I was reminded of a reddit post of mine;

With a non-consensus fork, I think you need to expect people involved to potentially act in ways that aren't very gentlemanly, and guard against it if you want the fork to be anything other than a huge mess.

So I sent a reply;

With a non-consensus fork

People keep saying that, which makes me think they forgot the number one innovation of Bitcoin. See my writeup some time ago;
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4 ... minervote/

The mailinglist moderator rejected my post, his comment was;

"All hard-forks are consensus forks. That's why they are called hard-forks. Please feel free to revise your text, we'll review whatever you send our way."

proof; https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/bitc ... chment.mht
Notice how the moderator isn't moderating on rudeness or being off-topic or anything you'd expect. Instead they moderated based on me proposing that their view may be wrong. I think thats the finest example of censorship there is.