[int_19h]

They're explicitly not debating in good faith:

"Also I don't care if I'm spreading FUD or if I'm wrong on some of this stuff. I spent an insane amount of time reading the docs and looking at implementation code, moreso than most other people. If I'm getting anything wrong, it's the fault of the Bluesky authors for not having an understandable protocol and for not bothering to document it correctly."

(https://urbanists.social/@sam/110340956133434975)

[pera]

Yeah the way he conflates "crypto" to refer both cryptography and cryptocurrency, and the rhetoric itself is quite odd: https://urbanists.social/@sam/110340265606422596

It's unfortunate because there are some valid points in his criticism.

[topaz0]

"crypto" was used to mean cryptography long before it was used to mean currency, and in some circles still primarily means cryptography.

[JohnFen]

> in some circles still primarily means cryptography.

It still does in my circle. The overloading of "crypto", though, has become such a source of confusion and misunderstanding that I have stopped using it and just use the full word, be it cryptography or cryptocurrency, instead.

[gjm11]

I don't think it's "not in good faith" to say "I made a real substantial effort to understand this, and am trying to describe it accurately; if at this point my descriptions don't match the reality, it's not my fault but that of the people who made it impossible to understand".

(Of course it's perfectly possible, for all I know, that SW is not debating in good faith. But what you quote doesn't look to me like an admission of bad faith.)

[int_19h]

I don't see what charitable take could possibly be made wrt "I don't care if I'm spreading FUD" even with all these caveats.

[gjm11]

Well, I thought I already described what seemed to me to be a charitable and reasonable take on it.

"I put as much effort in as can reasonably be expected; I tried to evaluate it fairly; but the documentation and supporting code is so bad that I may have made mistakes. If so, blame them for making it impossible to evaluate fairly, not me for falling over their tripwires."

If something is badly documented and badly implemented, then I think it's OK to say "I think this is badly designed" even if you found it incomprehensible enough that you aren't completely certain that some of what looks like bad design is actually bad explanation.

If some of the faults you think you see are in fact "only" bad documentation, then in some sense you're "spreading FUD". But after putting in a certain amount of effort, I think it's reasonable to say: I've tried to understand it, I've done my best, and they've made that unreasonably difficult; any mistakes in my account of what they did are their fault, not mine.

(I should reiterate that I haven't myself looked at the AT protocol or Bluesky's code or anything, and I don't know how much effort SW actually put in or how skilled SW actually is. It is consistent with what I know for SW to be just maliciously or incompetently spreading FUD, and I am not saying that that would be OK. Only that what SW is admitting to -- making a reasonable best effort, and possibly getting things wrong because the protocol is badly documented -- is not a bad thing even when described with the words "I don't care if I'm spreading FUD".)