Thats absolutely not true. The reason for Open Source is for people to read, check, and criticize the code by bringing good arguments for and against it.

If the community feels need be, code will be reverted and miners and clients can chose wether to accept or reject a new update.

In fact, you can read the changelog and see this happend more then once https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Changelog


The ban took place 63 seconds after that topic was first brought up.

Maybe his time is better spent working on Bitcoin dev, but now we talk about the time he spent censoring someone who was asking for a Bitcoin language translation. And probably your time is too better spent managing your bitinstant bussiness or developing Bitcoin than coming here, trying to excuse Garzik's behaviour, because matches the "full legit Bitcoin cosmovision" your Bitcoin foundation professes.

Shouldn't it be possible to compile the source on a similar system, then just check for byte differences between "official compiled versions" and your fresh compile in a hex editor?

That's just because it's late. I get more mellow the darker it gets.

Not necessarily.

Every action you take (like posting, commenting) in the Internet may lead to more people knowing about the issue. The issue spreads faster, and more people learn about it in a shorter amount of time, thus increasing probability that more people (including Iranians) will come across it.

Simple logic.

EDIT:
I believe today it's also called "going viral". And this is what we are doing - strengthening the virus.

Possibly, possibly not but the problem isn't so much Iranians knowing about Bitcoin as it is services/organisations actively assisting the bypassing of embargoes against Iran.  Discussing it here isn't quite the same thing as making a request on official channels to do something which facilitates Bitcoin being used to bypass sanctions, though.  

If someone were to ask Charlie how BitInstant could be used to bypass sanctions against Iran, it would be really silly for Charlie to even engage in the discussion.  Services and organisations can't really afford to say anything other than "we won't help people bypass the sanctions" without painting a huge target on their backs.  They can't be seen to be promoting or allowing the use of their service/organisation for bypassing the embargo.  

Everyone has the right to determine what risks they take themselves.  No-one has the right to tell others what risks they should find acceptable.

There is nothing stopping those who feel strongly enough about the issue from releasing a non-official versions of the client and taking the risks associated with facilitating Bitcoin's use in embargoed countries themselves.

I did not sense any fear in his words, on the contrary. I sensed complacency and even agreement with criminal acts of the US government.

It's also not going to succeed in the long term if development of the official client and big economic players are shut down for sanction-busting.

It seems to me that there's a section of the community which is looking for martyrs.  If you believe that Bitcoin needs martyrs, then be that martyr yourself instead of demanding others put their asses on the line. 

No-one is forced to use the official client.  No-one is prevented from developing other clients.  Nobody's stopping you from putting together a team of devs to build a sanction-busting client.  The problem is people behaving as though the devs and major Bitcoin businesses are genies whose purpose is to grant your wishes.  There are many different agendas within the Bitcoin eco-system and the only one responsible for ensuring your own is advanced is you.

That was a masterful troll. Kudos. Couldn't have done it better myself.

Trolling?

No, it means as long as we sit on our asses doing nothing but whining and demanding, we are reinforcing the current situation. Devs don't owe anything to us, nor the world in general.