I'm not going to comment on his overall opinions, but it does seem like his judgement is severely compromised. I wonder if that led to the negligent behavior which allowed the coins to be compromised and stolen - a discount server host with a history of being compromised seems like the absolute wrong place to store large sums of value.

Inclined to agree here. Luke is going on about Intel ME backdoors on Twitter, but in reality there will be a far less crazy explanation for how he got owned.

In reality a $55 per month colo provider with a history of security incidents is not a reasonable choice for a high security application.

You can easily protect your hardware from all but the most determined adversaries with extensive physical access. Epoxy in ports, case intrusion detection and locked down boot chain. Use TPM2-totp for verified boot.

Your colo provider can be thoroughly owned, your adversaries can have physical access to the server for extended periods of time and still not be able to do anything because you've denied them access to any ports that'd allow DMA.

Lots of cheap DIY options for fancy case intrusion detection going way beyond that offered by mfgs. USB camera and some tape?

> The funny thing is that they had to go back to the geocentric world view in order to get the satellites to orbit properly.

So people are trusting Bitcoin with someone who thinks GPS is a lie

Someone in the bitcoin parody group r/Buttcoin compiled this "gigathread" of all his hair-raising quotes

https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/4936kw/lukejr_is_...

"Gigathread" would become a "bongthread" in Tonal.

Wow he really seems a full-blown moron

Shocked Pickachu face

You are misrepresenting the slavery discussion. "Ethical aspects" means "analyzing the ethics of slavery". It "slavery is ethical". And the diacus5 was about (awkwardly defined) theoretical models of voluntary lifelong servitude (but still called "slavery"), in explicit contrast to existing historical models of slavery.

But yes, Luke Jr's comment was a non sequitur for two reasons. (Any Catholic analysis of Jesus is necessarily a bit of a non sequitur, since Jesus and his disciples weren't... Catholic. )

The geocentrism discussion is interestingly similar: in the same thread he makes two claims, one saying that geocentrism is equivalent to heliocentrism (which is mathematically true, and which is better depends on what specific system you are modelling), but then also says that the Sun orbits the Earth is true and scientific consensus, contradicting himself.

There is a very easy rewrite of what he wrote that makes it totally fine, and probably what he "meant": models are broadly equivalent, choose one based on convenience for the problem at hand, and spirtual truth is independent of science. But since he appears to have strict religious beliefs in the infallibility of Scripture, he can't go all the way to commit to saying that the Scripture is scientifically wrong, though he did hint at it.

He's either a very poor communicator (like many forum posters are in forum posts) or his thought process is quite inconsistent and self-contradictory without him noticing.