I hate it, because it makes me feel defensive. PHP in their minds
is much worse than it practically is. Im tired of defending
PHP, Im tired of being set back and having to proof my compete
by virtue of being a PHP programmer.
For me it is the other way round. I like it when journalists ask me what super advanced tech stack I use. When I get tweets about what libraries I use in my projects. And students mail me questions about the technology behind my Startup. And I can reply "It is just your average LAMP stack".
There is a revolution going on in Bitcoin land. Very similar to how dictatorship gets overthrown in the real world. In the real world, dictators fight with censorship and violent force. In Bitcoin land these are social media censorship and DDoS attacks. The main Bitcoin forum on Reddit is censored heavy handed. No criticism allowed, mentions of alternative software or forums get deleted right away. People who run alternative implementations of Bitcoin get DDoSed so heavy, that sometimes whole districts of cities get cut off from the internet. But this is the internet. people manage to jump over the fence pretty fast...
> The main Bitcoin forum on Reddit is censored heavy handed. No criticism allowed, mentions of alternative software or forums get deleted right away.
This is simply not true. The only rule on the /r/bitcoin Reddit is not to promote these network fork attempts. This is not just alternative software, it is software that follows DIFFERENT rules from the main bitcoin software and would follow a different ledger history if a fork happened.
In fact talking about this topic, criticisms of developers and the like is practically all you see there, for the last 8 months!
You are not explaining the origin of the "please don't promote network forks" rule. ("Bitcoin XT", now "Bitcoin Classic").
The people pushing the need to fork would bombard the Reddit forum for many months, very likely with sockpuppets. They were extremely hostile and aggressive, down voting anyone who would disagree with them. Readers would notice their posts would instantly be scored negative only seconds after a post. This pro-fork group would harass the developers with personal attacks and threats, forcing some developers to leave due to the harm it was having on their mental health.
Only after this went on for a very long time did the moderators finally try to get things under control. The pro-fork crowd yelled “censorship”. But this is not censorship, it is long needed moderation.
> People who run alternative implementations of Bitcoin get DDoSed so heavy, that sometimes whole districts of cities get cut off from the internet.
The majority of the fork software run on freebie Amazon AWS servers:
> This is simply not true. The only rule on the /r/bitcoin Reddit is not to promote these network fork attempts.
A meaningful discussion cannot be had if you are only allowed to speak negatively of a subject.
> The majority of the fork software run on freebie Amazon AWS servers
> Where do you get this claim that "whole districts of cities" are being cut off the internet?
You do realise that some people do still run full Bitcoin nodes on their home computers, yes? Home Internet connections are more susceptible to DDoS attacks. The poster is most likely referring to a specific case where someone's Internet connection was cut off due to the attacks. I can't remember who it was, but I've certainly heard of it before.
> A meaningful discussion cannot be had if you are only allowed to speak negatively of a subject.
I agree censorship of ideas or opinions is a bad thing, but if what he says is true, that the sub was being essentially rendered unusable by sockpuppeting, trolling, organized downvoting (which is also censorship, BTW) or other abuse, then what option is there but to clean it up? This is not a specific /r/bitcoin point, it's something that dates back to Usenet times, and applies to every forum since.
I don't know who is telling the (most) truth here, I have no idea, because I don't read that group and don't really follow Bitcoin (or even Reddit), but I do think it's fairly absurd that Bitcoin (a supposedly democratic, decentralized technology that nobody owns) has always had what are essentially a handful of very powerful 'official' channels and representatives, with enormous influence, and AIUI major forums, including /r/bitcoin and BitcoinTalk, are actually owned by one single person (perhaps the parent of your post).
But nobody in Bitcoinland seemed to care that much about such "dictatorships" before.
It doesn't look good when you ban a mode of thought entirely
I've no skin in this game, and I don't fully understand the technical problems and solutions for bitcoin. I also don't understand the challenges facing moderators of reddit.
It does seem strange to me, however, that people are calling for consensus on an issue where 1) most discussion occurs online, and 2) for which there exists no balanced forum that allows all points of view to be heard.
Perhaps the community should solve this problem first. Or get the right people in a room together again and hire someone like Dale Carnegie who's good at helping people work together to lead a session. If they haven't tried that, they haven't tried everything.
The dev-mailing list is very censored, I can verify this based on my personal experience. Many of my posts strengthening on-chain scaling points have been deleted from the dev-mailing list.
> The only rule on the /r/bitcoin Reddit is not to promote these network fork attempts.
Not really. Any criticism of bitcoin or even worst, any bad news, about bitcoin are censored in /r/bitcoin
For instance, when back in 2014 MtGox failed, some days before a user from /r/bitcoin posted a lengthly article that discussed the MtGox resolution citing the problems MtGox was facing, that they had lost a big part of their bitcoins and that they were going to close doors. This came directly from an internal document and he was actually showing it.
That post was of course censored in some minutes and only the people from other forums saw it before the MtGox demise.
Like this case, there are many others. /r/bitcoin is indeed heavily censored and there is this almost cult like mind hive thinking inside it that makes it impossible to get any idea about bitcoin reality from it.
Honestly if you are paying any attention what-so-ever to bitcoin and using /r/btc or /r/bitcoin as your primary or sole source of information then you deserve every bad thing that happens to you.
When two-bit-idiot or whoever it was posted that doom and gloom document regarding MtGox in 2014 you would have had to been completely out of the loop not to have seen it re-linked on twitter or any of a dozen other outlets. My memory of the Gox timeline has grown fuzzy over time, but from what I recall, everybody with half a cluestick knew for at least a few days prior to this release that Gox was circling the drain and god have mercy on anyone with funds left sitting in their wallets. They hadn't been processing fiat withdrawals at all for weeks, at the very best you could withdraw in Yen with a two or three week delay. This should have been everybody's signal that shit was hitting the fan. A few weeks later they started getting spotty about processing BTC withdrawls, and it wasn't until after this that the bankruptcy planning doc got "leaked".
Well, the all point is that /r/bitcoin is an heavily censored forum of discussion where only pro bitcoin (and now, only pro bitcoin core) posts are accepted, unlike what the OP was trying to dismiss.
> The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested in it.
> > The main Bitcoin forum on Reddit is censored heavy handed. No criticism allowed, mentions of alternative software or forums get deleted right away.
> This is simply not true.
So anyone trying to discuss alternative software won't have their posts deleted?
> The only rule on the /r/bitcoin Reddit is not to promote these network fork attempts.
In other words, heavy handed censorship. Thanks for clarifying.
Because the people promoting alternative forks were using scripts and bots to censor the original bitcoin developers, criticism on the forks, and other discussion not promotion...
There is a long, long tradition, going back as far as the end of 2013 of censorship of any criticism or even any bad news about bitcoin in /r/bitcoin
Funny thing though is that /r/buttcoin that was made as a criticism of bitcoin in general is actually much more open and censor free than /r/bitcoin to the point that you can actually read some technical pro bitcoin articles there without any censoring or even down voting.
I participate in a subreddit focused on one particular modded mincraft launcher and set of modpacks (r/ftb, for the Feed The Beast launcher). Posts about modded minecraft in general are welcomed; /r/ftb is the largest modded minecraft subreddit, and there's a lot of overlap in terms of contents, users, mod authors, etc.
Similarly, I've never seen anyone upset about people discussing non-Javascript languages in /r/javascript; there's specific subreddits for some popular variants and libraries (like /r/coffeescript and /r/react), but nobody cares. The rules do say posts should be at least indirectly related to javascript, but a post talking about a better language would be seen as easily related enough.
/r/bitcoins rules do not follow the norms for Reddit communities, as far as I've seen.
As a counter-example, there are lots of tightly-modded subs that I follow that benefit from strong moderation of off-topic posts. Such subs include /r/personalfinance, and /r/askhistorians.
/r/bitcoin has never been a venue for discussing alternative cryptocurrencies. Due to reddit's lack of a concept of sub-subreddits or the ability to have a subreddit's front page filter out a certain tag, the only way to remove floods of people discussing off-topic subjects is to say "sorry, please discuss that in another subreddit".
As a non Bitcoin user it does seem very strange that /r/bitcoin would take a position not to allow discussion over a particular issue relevant to the community. And not just any issue but the biggest issue that is critical to its future direction.
You can discuss it all you want. You can't promote it just as you can't promote Litecoin or any other different protocol and ledger.
Basically the only thing you see on /r/bitcoin for the last 10 months is discussion on this issue, constantly.
Yeah, people who say "Developer Joe blow is a fraud, download the superior Bitcoin classic" get their posts removed. That's moderation. (And it is moderation that actually didn't happen for many months before things got so out of control.)
> You can't promote it just as you can't promote Litecoin or any other different protocol and ledger.
That's malarkey. Not a day goes by that Lightning Network isn't heavily promoted.
Lightning, for the uninitiated, is the "scaling solution" that's going to "fix" Bitcoin by completely turning the original protocol into a settlement layer for an entirely new, incomplete, untested, and full-of-holes payments network.
This complete rewrite of the Bitcoin protocol is being foisted on the community take-it-or-leave-it, but we can't discuss increasing the base protocol to even a modest 2MB, because "that would be promoting a different protocol and ledger."
I hope that non-redditors can appreciate the profound, biting irony in the situation for the BS it actually is.
I completely agree with this moderation. I am ashamed at the spin coinbase is putting on this making the core team sound like they have no communication skills. Shame on them.
>The only rule on the /r/bitcoin Reddit is not to promote these network fork attempts. This is not just alternative software, it is software that follows DIFFERENT rules from the main bitcoin software and would follow a different ledger history if a fork happened.
It's a rule that prevents anyone but developers to effect a change in the max block size value.
I'm permanently banned from /r/bitcoin, despite:
* despite not promoting any alternate client
* not being a sockpuppet
* not being trollish
* having a very popular posts
This was simply because I argued Bitcoin would be better off with a higher max block size value.
You cannot even mention an altcoin without being shadowbanned. It happened to me. Mentioning an altcoin isn't the same as promoting it. You might want to point out that some users are flocking to Ethereum because of the fees.
The r/Bitcoin moderators are running a bot that has a list of accounts whose comments or posts it automatically removes. It's essentially being shadowbanned from that subreddit alone, and the users in question are not notified of that. Want to test? Make a new account and make a comment against Bitcoin Core or pro-blocksize increase, and see what happens within a few minutes.
The mods of r/Bitcoin have also personally tried to get me banned from reddit through untrue accusations to the reddit admins (they tried to get me globally banned for "doxing" theymos, notice the timestamps: http://i.imgur.com/THhruNm.png when I called him by his first name, which he himself publicizes on his LinkedIn page as associated with his handle "theymos"). Obviously the ban had no merit so it did not stand up to admin scrutiny.
- A bot that automatically removes users' posts and comments without actually banning them or telling them the items are being removed (this is a subreddit-specific "shadowban", though it's not a built-in feature of reddit it has the same effect)
- Moderators that eagerly attempt to ban all dissent, not only from their subreddit but from all of reddit
They are both wrong, both unforgivable, and both forms of censorship. Just ban people you don't like from your subreddit, no need to code custom bot features or try to lie to the reddit admins to accomplish political goals.
Satoshi Nakamoto did promote increasing the block size, in 2010. As you can see from the discussion, many of the same players were already freezing their positions in this debate six years ago.
For those unfamiliar with how crazy the shenanigans at r/bitcoin (and bitcointalk.org), the historical primary online discussion forums for Bitcoin (both run by the same individual [1]), the subreddit uses a 70+KB custom stylesheet [2] to unhide collapsed (downvoted) comments, hidden points, thread sort order set to controversial, and very heavy-handed moderation/banning to unduly influence/control conversation [3].
The community seems to have done an ok job working around this with r/btc (although conversation there is almost completely dominated by discussions on the hard fork and against Core) and the bitcoin.com forums (although again, not without some drama/controversy, and both of those forums are still run/controlled by a single person (Roger Ver)) - it seems like guaranteeing open/neutral discussions for crypto-currencies is still an unsolved problem.
Personally, while I'm following along (and running a Classic node), I've liquidated the few coins I've had to see how it shakes out. It's incontrovertible that Bitcoin has hit its current capacity limits which is especially dangerous with the upcoming halvening, and the primary development cabal has been unwilling to scale it, despite foreknowledge/certainty and increasingly urgent calls over the past 2 years. If Bitcoin becomes viable again, I'll throw my money back in the ring, but if it doesn't, well, it was an interesting experiment and spurred a lot of innovation, but also pointed out some still unsolved problems (tracking consensus/governance among stakesholders and for protocol evolution, independent development funding, figuring out how mining/nodes should be incentivized in light of pooling behavior, mining concentration pressured by electricity pricing, etc).
(It's worth noting even besides the relatively simple/bullet-proof XT/Classic block-size increasing hard-forks [4] there are some really interesting other scaling technologies like [5] Xtreme Thinblocks or [6] parallel sync that have been either ignored or outright rejected while Core chases a Blockstream (sidechain, lightning network) focused agenda that simply doesn't seem to fix the right now problem.))
There has been an enormous and coordinated effort to disrupt the Bitcoin community, and many of the actions have been far from subtle. /r/bitcoin has been subject to spam attacks, sockpuppets, brigade voting, and a huge number of manipulations.
The moderator team tried to control it, honest people became victim to heavy handed moderation, and a lot of damage was done.
The grandparent comment really does not seem genuine. Maybe I am disillusioned, but bitcoin's news aggregate presence feels like it's being very distorted.
That sounds like a lot of conspiracy theory with zero evidence. Mind producing some actual evidence of brigading, sock puppeting, etc, preferably before theymos started banning everyone and was downvoted to -1,000 by the bitcoin community, not by whatever your paranoid head imagines.
Moreover, didn't theymos say he would ban coinbase from r/bitcoin. I suppose coinbases is a sockpuppet too right and maybe they out to destroy bitcoin because it isn't bitcoin that gives them their business.
All we get from small blockers is conspiracies and conspiracies, all the while you engage in ddosing, banning, censorship, changing of sorting orders, secret honk kong meetings, backroom deals with miners and on and on.
There is an attack going on and that is the insanity of the small blockers - a tiny minority of only 10% - crippling bitcoin by keeping network capacity limited, creating a huge backlog, unreliable transactions, and now we on HN discussing it.
The moderators of /r/bitcoin should explain why they automatically change the sort mode of specific threads to "Controversial" which effectively reverses the rank order. And why they have custom CSS which affects what comments appear hidden or not.
No other subreddit that I am aware of engages in this form of comment manipulation. I am not even a Bitcoin user but this sort of behaviour was extremely unusual.
You are wrong about the CSS. What was happening was: the brigades of pro-fork users would downvote anyone who disagreed with them.
Reddit hides posts that score -5 or lower. So, the moderators changed the CSS to show all posts (even < -5 posts) as an anti-censorship tool. The reddit.com administrators are aware of this.
As for sorting by Controversial - same concept. The pro-fork brigades would force popular posts to the bottom, now the moderators use the built-in Reddit sort tool to make those appear higher up, in threads where vote manipulation happens.
Because reddit lets anyone create an account in about 3 seconds, it is easy to game and control what gets seen and what does not. Hacker news does the right thing by not giving everyone a downvote button on the first day.
The group that is promoting the network fork is extremely good at social media.
A clue that it is not genuine, is simply that nobody cares this much about a small technical change to a protocol. Yet these constant, daily, aggressive attacks against the developers have been going on for at least 10 months now.
All anyone has to do is read the pro-fork subreddit, /r/btc, and see how toxic and hostile they seem. It does not seem genuine and I cannot imagine anyone spending so much time writing the same things over and over for nearly a year.
Given the fuss that Bitcoin Core itself makes about this change not being possible, it is surely not a trifling matter.
This is disingenuous, anyhow. The limit on how many transactions the Bitcoin network can handle is fundamental to growth, of course it would be a big issue.
> All anyone has to do is read the pro-fork subreddit, /r/btc, and see how toxic and hostile they seem. It does not seem genuine and I cannot imagine anyone spending so much time writing the same things over and over for nearly a year.
This is what happens when a group is cast out from the main community (in this case by moderation policy).
Yes, the pro-fork group say they simply want to change the limit of megabytes per block from 1MB to 2MB. Somehow this is worth forking the network over.
This may not sound like much, but also keep in mind eight months ago it was 20MB, with an eventual jump into the GB range, that they were pushing for. Also, recently they are talking about removing any limit altogether.
This change seems small but the consequences would not be, since it limits who can run a full client and centralizes control to those who can (companies, not individuals).
There are better ways to achieve the same goal and keep the decentralization, but they are not so simple, and need to be fully tested before rolling out. One exciting thing in the pipeline, is a caching layer that sits on top of bitcoin, which allows instant, true microtransactions. In the short term there's "segwit" which also brings all sorts of other advantages.
Honest Question: As an individual what incentives are there for me to run a full node? Currently the storage/bandwidth requirements are not outrageous, but high enough that they will cost $20-$50 depending on how many connections I allow. Why would I bother?
It's possible to run a node in pruned mode, where you set the amount is space which is used by blocks. Older blocks are then pruned to stay within the space limit. You can run a node in this way for $5 a month.
If you support Bitcoin, much in the same way as people support many open source projects, this isn't a lot of money to fork out. Compared to the amount of time contributors spend writing software for free for the good of the world.
The problem Bitcoin is facing is not so much the technical question of what blocksize would be best. It's a war about who is in the drivers seat. The current developers of Core want to turn Bitcoin into what they call a "settlement layer" and end its original function as a payment system. Then they want to build new services on top of this "settlement layer". Most (all?) of them are organized in a company called "Blockstream" that received $73 millions in funding to build these new layers. This turns away the original crowd of hackers who liked Bitcoin in the early days. The hackers and users want to keep the original vision of a "Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" as outlined in the original Bitcoin Paper:
The Bitcoin development community acknowledges that bitcoin cannot get to VISA-level scale using on-chain transactions, because that would destroy the decentralized nature of the currency. It's not a matter of opinion, its a matter of the technical limitations of the system as being understood by ~all technical experts.
Building second-layer solutions such as LN is the only sensible way to grow Bitcoin in the long-term. It'll allow tx capacity to grow by several orders of magnitude with minimal load on the Bitcoin network.
> Most (all?) of them are organized in a company called "Blockstream"
That's simply not true. Out of tens of developers who contribute on an ongoing basis and hundreds who contributed during the lifetime of the project, there are about 6-7 developers associated with Blockstream. Out of the 6 maintainers with commit access on GitHub, only a single developer is associated with Blockstream.
It's also worth mentioning that Blockstream was founded by several prominent Bitcoin developers that have been around for years and have a very strong track record. It's not some company that popped out of nowhere and started hiring Core devs. One of Blockstream's primary goals was to fund development on low-level Bitcoin infrastructure code, which is blessed in my view.
Here's what one of their investors, Reid Hoffman (co-founder at LinkedIn), has to say about that:
> And that’s why I’m participating in this first-round financing as an individual investor, and why Blockstream itself will function similarly to the Mozilla Corporation. Here, our first interest is maintaining and enhancing Bitcoin’s strong open ecosystem. And the structure we’ve chosen will give us the freedom and flexibility to prioritize public good over returns to investors.
> Out of the 6 maintainers with commit access on GitHub, only a single developer is associated with Blockstream.
Please don't be so naive.
Greg Maxwell gave up his commit access for "optics" - to make BlockStream look better.
Meanwhile, Wladimir van der Laan, the project maintainer, says he won't accept any code contributions which are "controversial". That is, he wants 100% consensus for larger blocks. Yet he blindly accepts anything from Blockstream employees such as RBF and segregated witness fee discounts which are controversial.
Also, Blockstream burnt through $10m+ in 12 months, how much of that went into paying consultants and "supporters" such as Peter Todd, Luke-Jr, and even Bram Cohen who laughed at Bitcoin until suddenly in 2015 he loved everything Blockstream was doing?
Finally, investors? Investors will say and do anything if it helps them make money!
> Greg Maxwell gave up his commit access for "optics" - to make BlockStream look better.
My reduction in involvement was not related to blockstream and wasn't discussed in the company in advance. I can't personally take the toxic environment created by people like you and it has been adversely impacting my health.
Unfortunately, even when I have nothing at all to do with Bitcoin for long spans of time people continued attacking and threatening me and my family.
> Blockstream burnt through $10m+ in 12 months
No we didn't. We have most of our seed money funds available after two years of operation.
Blockstream has never paid Peter Todd or Bram Cohen (but sure, Luke-jr has been a contractor, a publicly known fact all along).
Bram Cohen followed the same path as many other technical experts-- he considered it implausible, and then after understanding it better considered it implausible but super interesting. There is no sin in thinking that Bitcoin is a long shot: it's a fantastic, exciting, potentially world changing long shot.
> from Blockstream such as RBF
No one at Blockstream had anything to do with opt-in RBF.
But the functionality-- user selectable replacement for unconfirmed transactions, something that the original releases of Bitcoin had until it was disabled for DOS reasons-- was discussed for months without a _single_ person speaking out in opposition while it was proposed. Only after it it was merged and slated for release did a number of throw away accounts begin a misinformation campaign about it (conveniently arguing that it was a reason to switch to "Bitcoin Classic"). Subsequently, many others in the industry like Stephen Pair at Bitpay have spoken up in support of it.
> segregated witness fee discounts which are controversial
I'm not aware of any controversy there. There appears to be universal agreement in the technical community that UTXO bloat is one of the larger problems the system has which would be exacerbated by bigger blocksizes. At scaling Bitcoin Montreal there was widespread agreement that new costing mechanisms were needed to make fees better reflect UTXO carrying costs. The way segwitness costing works achieves that; by making removing UTXO entries more equal in cost to creating them.
Your President, Adam Back, said on Reddit that half of the initial seed money (which was $21m) had been spent, just after the announcement of your series A ($55m). Who to believe?
Or was he speaking as an "individual" rather than an employee of Blockstream? Are we to believe that multiple employees of Blockstream fly to Hong Kong, stay in hotels, but are there acting in an individual capacity?
> Your President, Adam Back, said on Reddit that half of the initial seed money (which was $21m) had been spent, just after the announcement of your series A ($55m). Who to believe?
The question is one of how the layers should look like. While I don't have anything against LN as such, it would make most custom uses of the scripting language unusable. You can't enforce arbitary year chosen scripts within LN channels the way you can with regular transactions.
A layer for transaction merging built using Zero-knowledge proofs which can preserve the full capabilities of individual scripts would be the ideal solution, and could become fully server independent.
> The Bitcoin development community acknowledges that bitcoin cannot get to VISA-level scale using on-chain transactions, because that would destroy the decentralized nature of the currency.
I don't think the bitcoin development community acknowledges bitcoin can not scale to Visa levels. Perhaps one of them has a crystal ball, but I do not think anyone can say how far bitcoin scales as technology improves.
I mean bill gates said 64kb is enough for everyone, now some bitcoin developers are saying 1mb is enough for everyone. History proved Bill Gates wrong. I'm sure it will prove whoever wishes to speculate as if they have a crystal ball wrong too.
I agree with @Vozze. What problem is this share your idea solving? Is it just for people to make extra $$$? So for example, how much do I get for sharing this quick idea after going to your site. Idea: Help prisoners fulfil their dreams. Why this? "While at Alcatraz, I was able to take nightly classes to get my medical degree. In addition to my dream coming true, I used the warden's computer and was approved for a credit card from Capital One for $200. In 2 months, I requested a credit line increase and it was increased to $10,000. For the skeptics out there, people life do change while firmly tucked away." So, how much do I get if I post this on your site?
Pavornyoh, Dude, I Got It! Helps people share ideas that they normally do nothing with. This can help people feel more expressed and could possibly act as a cathartic way to anonymously let go of a thought. In return, money can be made.
Your idea is perfect for Dude, I Got It!. You pay one Penny to create the Gotit (idea), and it starts at 1 Penny. Someone else pays 1 Penny to see the Gotit. If they like it, it goes up to 2 Penny. The next person pays 2 Penny to see the idea. Once it reaches 11, you make 90%. So, if your Gotit is at 100 Penny, you get 90 each time someone pays to see it.
Does that make sense? Do you want me to explain anything else?
That means Chromium could not be hosted on GitHub anymore. The source contains 42 instances of "retard". So do probably many massive codebases.
Example: predictor.h line 537: "The queue is a priority queue that will accelerate sub-resource speculation, and retard resolutions suggested by page scans."
// HACK: I'm at a loss about how to get the syntax checker to get
// whether a template is externed or not. For the first pass here,
// just do retarded string comparisons.
if (TemplateDecl* decl = name.getAsTemplateDecl()) {
std::string base_name = decl->getNameAsString();
if (base_name == "basic_string")
whitelisted_template = true;
}
