Bitcoin Forum

Wired is quoting Bruce Wagner, and even having a large picture of him:

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/11/mf_bitcoin/all


http://twitter.com/#!/brucewagner
brucewagner Bruce Wagner
About to go LIVE in 15 with Ben Wallace of Wired Magazine on The Bitcoin Show on OnlyOneTV | global television network bit.ly/oRT4nb


This is very wrong. Clearly, if he or anyone else was a good ambassadeur for bitcoin in general, I'd be the first to give standing ovation, but
by now it's been proven without a shadow of doubt what kind of shady character this Bruce Wagner person is.

If you don't know, just search this forum for his name, and start reading.

WE DO NOT WANT CRIMINALS PROMOTING BITCOIN OR THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH SUCH INDIVIDUALS!!!

Simple as that.

Please send an e-mail to Benjamin Wallace of Wired (benwallace@me.com) to state your opinion in this matter.

We need to put pressure on both Bruce Wagner and every publication that mentions his name in regards to bitcoin.

I usually don't bad mouth people, but I've had enough of this clown.

There's no such thing as "WE"

http://buttcoin.org/has-bruce-wagner-pulled-off-the-financial-biggest-scam-on-the-bitcoin-community

Would you please elaborate on this ? Is there someone in the bitcoin community that actually
would like to have someone representing bitcoin, or have someone being associated with bitcoin
frequently in the media, who is a known fraudster on a large scale?

I understand you in the context that I can not speak for everyone in the community, neither can you,
but I'd think everyone that has an interest in bitcoin is interested in seeing it prosper, not only in
value against the USD, but also in terms of trade ?


Bruce Wagner is definately not the person to advocate bitcoin.

While driving to Ohio (or was it while driving back), I was thinkin' about Bitcoin which lead me to thinkin' 'bout BW. I was picturin', in my mind, those two guys from NPR in BW's office where he happened to have the computer on showin' 25K BTC in a MyBitcoin.com account. This is not disputed. http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=137795648&m=137803856 at 14:45, Jacob(?) sees on the screen the before mentioned amount settin' in MBC. But does he really see that? What if all he really saw was a page to look like MBC with a fake 25K BTC sittin' there. Almost anybody here could set up a page like that to impress whoever, like a girl, for example, or an investor, or someone from the media. See what I'm gettin' at here?

Here is what I came up with. BW never had 25K BTC in MBC. BW and MBC are one and the same. It was gettin' time to close MBC down and reap the rewards, but when and how. The two NPR guys, by happenstance, provided that opportunity. And while the NPR guys were enjoyin' lunch at Meze Grill, POOF! MBC gets hacked(?). What happens in later days is that BW gets all of his 25K BTC back, and everyone else (maybe not everyone) gets 51% (or was it 49%? I didn't bother to research this, but we all know this transpired--It's either 51/49 or 49/51 which is close enough).

Correct me if I'm wrong on the following, though it doesn't make too much of a difference. I don't believe BW ever mentioned having 25K BTC prior to that radio clip, did he? Of course, he would have no reason to, like I would have no reason statin' that I currently have $13,677.31 in my Chase checking account. But if I wanted to impress some young naive girl, all I would have to do is leave on the computer a screen shot of $130,677.31 in my Chase account. She ain't goin' to look at the URL to see the truth. The actual screen shot is so powerful, eyes won't move up to the top of the page. Of course I enter the picture immediately and, with one click of the mouse, I'm off the page, with the screen now showin' the Chase Bank home page. Of course, I now won't tell her that that money isn't mine. The subject would be something on the lines that I'm plannin' a vacation, want to come? Where to? Pattaya!

So let's recap what I believe happened that morning.

Bruce and Ed had a nice breakfast. Ed cooked. The phone rings. It's the two guys from NPR. Sure, come over.

Bruce: We need to get dress, love.
Ed: Why.
Bruce: Two guys are coming over from NPR.
Ed: Are they...
Bruce: No. Better! They want to take about Bitcoin.
Ed: What should we do before they get here?
Bruce: Remember our MBC dilemma?
Ed: Yes.
Bruce: All we need is a fictitious screen shot.
Ed: I'm on it, love.

That said, now punch wholes (wrong word choice?) in my theory.

Bruno

Obviously the journalist did not do even the most basic job before writing this. We should write to the editor. What's next, an article in Business Week about trading, where they interview a jailed expert from Enron without mentioning the scam and the fact that he is in jail?

The author actually wrote "Then Wagner became the target of a countercampaign that publicized a successful lawsuit against him for mortgage fraud, costing him much of his reputation within the community" in the article, but what catched my eye was the big photo of BW with the text "Bitcoin's chief proselytizer, Bruce Wagner, at one of the few New York City restaurants that accept the currency.
Photo: Michael Schmelling"


Phinnaeus Gage: Good thinking.

Altering a web-site is damn easy:

http://www.fslog.com/2007/01/21/javascript-trick-to-edit-the-page-displayed/

Just fetch the javascript part from that page there, put it in the adress bar, then press enter, now you can edit the web page to the content of your heart.

Just on a general note: If someone have been involved in an economic scam, even if this was 10 years ago, I'd NEVER trust them to handle anything related to money at all. People can change, and does so at times, but I won't take my chances.

They got this part right:

pros·e·lyt·ize/ˈpräsələˌtīz/
Verb:   
1. Convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.

Remember his steadfast opinion about Pattaya? The irony is that if he would have gave on this concern from the get-go, he could possible still be one of Bitcoin's main spokesperson. But Pattaya turned out to be his Waterloo. Oops!

He's just that bloke off the youtube with the 200 views per episode - I'm not that bothered personally. I'll leave judging people to someone more qualified. I've better things to do with my life.

There's enough evidence out there if you cared looking for it. Would a conviction by a court convince you he's a criminal ? I'm sure someone could link to the court documents as well, I've seen them being linked to earlier.

Also, the author (Benjamin Wallace) of the article insists that Bruce Wagner is Bitcoin's chief proselytizer, this would maybe have been the case a while ago, but not any longer, to my knowledge, he (BW)'s been smart enough to keep a low profile since all hell broke lose with the housing scams, mybitcoin, pattaya and everything.

All that's needed for evil to prevail is that no good men speak up.

As I said - I've better things to do with my life. Call the cops if you have concerns - I'm assuming there is a legal mechanism in your country. Use it. dial 911 (or whatever it is - use it to speak out if you are serious and a 'good' man)

Well, obviously you are a troll to some degree, but if you suddently had an attack of common sense, you could have a look at this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/63630294/Bruce-Wagner-Bold-Funding-Fraud-Judgement

And if you search, you could find a link to the same papers on a governmental web site.

I guess you'd be okay with having some convicted person as a front for your company, because 'you won't waste your precious time with such uninteresting things', not taking into consideration the damage this would do to your business or reputation.

And yes, I've called the cops on several occasions, I've also contacted news papers and federal offices in the cases where I felt this was necessary. In this case however, the case is closed as we're dealing with a criminal person that should not represent the bitcoin community in any way in the media.

I don't really have anything to add, as continuing this discussion would only lead to me repeating myself over and over again. If anyone thinks that BW is a good representative of the bitcoin community and that the media should continue to portray him as such, then please elaborate so I can learn what twisted logic is behind such an opinion.

...
snip
...
TLDR;  some hot(?) buttcoin fan-fiction.



The more you sling theoretical mud like this - the less likely the real mud will stick.
The real mud is the Bold Funding sliminess.

Save the cheese-o-drama scripts of paranoid MyBitcoin scenarios featuring your favourite villain for your pitch to the movie moguls.

The chief proselytizers of Bitcoin, now, are not speculators. They're those of us who have put our blood and sweat into startups that rely on Bitcoin day in and day out to sell stuff and transact business.

That's people like us, BTCOnTilt, Andrew bitcoiner, Rick from BTCSportsBook, memorydealers, belgian flavors, bitmunchies, and especially the people who've done more to create new ways to employ the currency, for less pay than anyone else...guys like Brad from paymyaddress.com who've really gone the extra mile to create products we'd want to buy, sell and ship...and guys like GoWest with thebitcointrader.com, the BBBB, betwithbitcoin, etc. who honestly see the virtues and have a limitless supply of fresh, great ideas.

I'm fucking sick of seeing scumbags represent our community and act as easy targets for the press. Bruce is a turd who should probably be in prison. Go to Bitcoinsforchristmas.com and look at the sponsors list; these are the people who are the future of Bitcoin. Bruce is the past. Ignore Wired, they're the ones who're still holding the evidence on Manning. They're crooked as a crowbar.

Let's talk about the positives of what we have here, before you go depressing the hell out of everyone like us who've put hundreds of hours into building the foundations on which this small economy currently stands.

He is smart enough to stay off these forums.  Unfortunately a lot of Bitcoin users think that everything begins and ends with these forums when Bitcoin.org doesn't even link directly this place.    He runs a Google group that is quite active with Bitcoin related things.   Obviously, telling by the Wired article, he stays active.




ssaCEO, I wouldn't suggest ignoring Wired or any other media for that matter.  You seem to feel strongly, I think maybe you should approach the person who wrote that article.   If this piece got the writer hits, I have no doubts they wouldn't mind doing a follow up, especially if it can spur some controversy.   

Excellent post. I'd give karma if there was a karma button! All good people need to set the media straight.

Why we should care, even though some staff here insists there's no 'we'. Of course there is. If there were no concerted efforts, nothing would ever happen be it development or anything else.

Send an e-mail to the author of the article, Benjamin Wallace of Wired (benwallace@me.com)  and let him know your opinon.

When the press is wrong, we need to educate it. Thank you for your post, I do think there's more people like you in this community, and not just trolls.

Here is the "bitcoin show" episode with the wired writer, Ben Wallace. He seems to be pretty cautious with his words talking to Bruce. I will admit I was a bit suprized to see Bruce's picture in the article when I opened my Wired that landed in my mail last week.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QIsu9nv6pA

Congratulation Mr. Wallace, you have now been squished by the bitcoin show's ratio squishier!

Ben Wallace was clearly familiar with Bruce's scandal when he interviewed me, so I'm not sure why he's still giving Bruce any attention.

To be fair, when I first discovered Bitcoin Bruce was all over this forum... it would be hard to do an article without him in it.

He does mention


in the article.

Bruce has always seemed very shifty to me... but to be fair just because someone says something in a post here (or any other forum) doesn't make it true.

I actually listened to this whole show (rare since I can't usually deal with Bruces style of interviewing(if you can call it that) or the squished video) and personally I would prefer that Ben Wallace host a show about bitcoin.

Perhaps, I may be able to provide an answer. I believe it was the best current opportunity to promote the Benjamin Wallace brand--himself, as a writer. He surely has a family to feed, therefore any exposure perpetuating the Benjamin Wallace brand is thereby warranted. It doesn't necessarily hurt the Wired brand, either, otherwise Wired would have had a voice in Benjamin's decision (or was it Wired's?) to appear on the show.

Full Disclosure: I, too, watched the entire show.

"Shady people representing Bitcoin" appears to me like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If some people are paying attention to what Wagner is saying, that's because he's doing service to the community that no one else is doing competitively. If there is a problem with this, it won't go away by demanding press to do their work the way you want them to do it. Obviously Wagner's program is useful, why not make a better one, more fit for an international audience even? Maybe even he could contribute to such a project. Of course, I'll do absolutely nothing to start it, but I'm not complaining either. ;)

Please accept my apologies for quoting myself, but I have a need to not only edit this post, but add some insight on the interview.

Full Disclosure 2: When I penned that I, too, watched the entire show, that was not exactly true--I was still viewing it. I have since watched the entire show, and now have a comment. Note to self: Quit doing things ass-backwards!

At 33:50, Ben mentions MyBitCoin. I get the sense that Bruce is a tad uncomfortable. At 34:15, Ben finishes up and Bruce's oh's and ah's and oh my's (paraphrased) seems contrived. I almost think that Ben bought up this issue on purpose to get a reaction on record. Remember, he's a reporter. Bruce may somehow realize this as a ploy because for the the duration of the interview, Bruce does all the talking--tripping over every other word while doing so. Ben does get in a word edgewise, though. After several minutes of Bruce interviewing himself, Ben realizes this fact and reverses the interview by asking Bruce a question, whereupon Bruce doesn't realize that the interview table has been turned and goes on to answering the question--all the way up to the end of the show. Bruce mentally thanks God Gaia for providing him the dialog to spew out to the closing of the interview, otherwise Ben may hit him with another MyBitcoin/Tom Williams statement/question.

I'm pretty sure Wired was aware of all this and showed Bruce deliberately because of the controversy that surrounds him.  

Makes their stories more juicy.

Just one thing that I find amusing/interesting... Why would such a bad guy(Bruce) want to be on a magazine photo and have such a public life? Something doesn't smell right... Or is Bruce that stupid? <-- This may be true

Also, the casino operator saying Bruce is such a criminal, well, casino operators are criminals also, just ask the US government...

PS: I can't stand Bruce, but some things just need to be said

Some people just love the attention, I think it's about that. For instance, some politicians do their job and then stay out of the spotlight when they're not working, while others says yes to sponsored vacations, goes to leisure talkshows, let magazines make 'home with politician X' reportages etc.

And some people even make a career out of being in the public spotlight without actually having accomplished anything useful at all. Often their 'career' starts with a realityshow, and then because they're controversial, og pretty looking, they go on to become 'pets' of the media. But once they stop being displayed in the media, they use their media value, and media will no longer use them.

I never understood why people actually need this kind of attention, but I think there's a term that cover it's perfectly: Media whore or PR-whore.

And a lot of the people that are like this, certainly are 'dumb', but I guess a small percentage also exploit media to their own advantage, and actually comes out with a lot of money in the other end.

The point is that smart, intelligent and educated people usually don't have the need for the drama, fuss and controversy that the media loves.

Latest video of BW and EG for those wondering what they've been up to since... (if you don't laugh at :55 onward for a few seconds, then see a doctor) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JogkyQJ8y74

Balls. First of all, we don't take players or bets in the US. We're the only Bitcoin casino to say that. We've never done anything illegal. Or anything unethical, I'd contend, and I'd challenge you to find a player of ours who had a problem with their experience at our site.

Casinos in general, like the ones in Vegas, are also perfectly legal under American law. And there's nothing wrong with that. Y'know why? Because the disclaim to their adult customers exactly what to expect when playing. They aren't making false representations and lying and telling people they'll be bailed out of a foreclosure. People who play at our site have disposable income, and they understand they're taking bets, risking money on propositions where they stand to lose it. In short, Our customers are adults.

Nowhere do we say our lawyers are going to help them. Nowhere do we promise to deliver loans. We give them a provably fair shot to win something for their money, and we stake our own money against it.

So I have no moral problem with what I do. What Bruce has done, at least based the judge's findings in 2006, is despicable. It's offensive and insulting that you'd try to equivocate and tar our business with that brush, when the difference is obvious to any right-thinking intelligent person.

You are 1 US player away from being a full blown criminal, and Bitcoin will not help you on screening those players out, so, stop being politically correct cause I'm not buying it.

All gamblers are adults and know what they are doing? That's the funniest shit I've read in the last 2 years.

Whatever ::)
Any reasonable person can see the gaping hole in your comparison. I don't need to discuss our security measures here again. We don't operate in your country. What we do is legal in the countries where we operate. We respect US laws and don't take American players.

You're mistaking the laws in your country for a guide to morality. America passing a law by fiat does not automatically make something wrong that's legal in the rest of the world. Morally speaking, we don't falsely represent, lie, cheat or steal from people. We treat others the way we expect to be treated. We block problem gamblers and don't let those people sign up again. We pay people what we owe them and we treat our customers ethically and with respect.

Surely you can see the difference.

There's no country in the world where Wagner could do what he did legally. Or where it wouldn't be morally repugnant.

Anyway, I've taken enough flame bait on this.

My country?? lol I'm not from the US. Nor did I say I agreed with their stupid laws...