|
I think anything anyone can do to help strengthen a group of dedicated Bitcoin users is a good thing.
There is nothing to gain by tearing people down (falsely at least!) or inventing reasons to hate stuff. It's far better if we support new initiatives and defend their right to exist.
|
|
|
|
honest and honourable are two different things
honest is mark karpeles saying:
"a thief stole 750k coins"
which infact is the truth.. the other truth is
"mark karpales was this thief"
we need honourable service providers not honest
I'm not sure what exactly happened at Gox....I'm not sure anyone is. But I think honest and honorable are necessary but not sufficient. I'd add able to the list. There are a lot of epode who are marginally competent at their jobs...I fear this to be the case in many areas of our nascent ecosystem precisely because of rapid growth. |
|
|
|
I think its time for action i had enough, enough is enough. The foundation must be destroyed.
IF we for example setup a new bitcoin superfund, MP can possibly head this fund which will result in the creation of a new foundation with core values such as :
- rapid and ongoing bitcoin software development
- Focus on marketing and promotion of bitcoin
- Lobbying Governments
- Providing educational services for the public & business
- Transparency (financial accounts must be audited)
Would the community support such an idea/ would MP like to head such an initiative? (atleast until we can vote in a learship board ?)
i think it's time for action and would love to come together as a community.
Destroyed? Seems a little harsh  That said, nobody has a patent on organizing people to pool resources around a common interest. Similarly, the Bitcoin Foundation has no monopoly. My belief is that the more groups pooling resources to help _all_ aspects of the community become stronger is a good thing. To state that the Foundation doesn't represent everyone or every interest is to state the obvious. The more we band together (be it here or elsewhere) the stronger we can make Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Nice try, sidestepping the actual issues (such as you know, accounting fraud, tortious misrepresentation and quite possibly false pretenses, quite definitely embezzlement and a myriad other civil and criminal violations) by failful personal attacks (nobody heard of you, I'm easily on any list of respectable voices on this forum, buzz off) and a laundry list of...nonsense. Conferences don't count, and there's literally nothing else on that list. Now go tell your puppet masters that a) you failed miserably and b) they'll need much much better damage control. Ideally, they'll need some lawyers. Preferably someone with an actual clue (which excludes Murck, he's the ninny that got them in their present muck). Oh, and since two can play that game, "Dr." Brian Goss (a freshly failed medical student in Chicago interviewing for residency training in radiology): here's your old page, from back when you were pushing the mywallet scam... For the noobs, mywallet was one of the first huge BTC thefts from a "hack"  Wow... Lol...you must be new. I wrote an iPhone app called mybitcoin...and I'm in my final year of residency |
|
|
|
I bet is has to do with blockchain.com...as does everybody else I see |
|
|
|
The Bitcoin Foundation was a large confidence scam perpetrated on the very naive, rather noobish yet very vain Bitcoin community cca 2012-2014 - and running for about as long as Pirate's ponzi. It was thought out, constructed and initially run by Peter Vessenes, and then passed along to various accomplices. (Don't imagine that if I don't name you, we don't have the file. We have the file. You will be serving time, in all likelihood.) It worked like so: 1. Collect donations from the clueless yet vain. Because Bitcoin is full of people who belabour under the delusion that if they speak a lot about Bitcoin, if they paint "Bitcoin" all over the four walls of their dwelling and so on then they're somehow "part of Bitcoin". Charging these idiots a hefty fee for an "official" stamp of approval* is a logical next step, and it collected a massive warchest (even more than the thousands of BTC this forum - also run on MtGox servers - has collected for "software upgrades"). The CEO and Treasurer at the time, one Peter Vessenes simply pocketed this money. No report was ever published, no report will ever be published. More advanced than the MtGox scam, the Foundation is a "non profit" and it has no creditors, so nobody has standing to take them to court. 2. Vouch for scams. It is very lucrative to sell protection; that's what most underworld kingpins do for a living. That's what the Bitcoin Foundation did for a living too, once the BTC price went up and the dubious character of the people running it became public knowledge (ie, once MP said so). With dwindling donation income and a never ending hunger for cash**, the Bitcoin Foundation was repurposed as a voucher for whoever could afford to pay. Like BFL. Like MtGox. The only reason Pirate wasn't vouched for by the Bitcoin Foundation is that I killed him before he had a chance. The only reason the Patrick Harnett scammer didn't end up on their board is because MP killed him before he had a chance. The only reason Silk Road's guy wasn't vouched for by the Bitcoin Foundation is that he couldn't be bothered (or afford) to pay them. The only reason TradeFortress wasn't similarly has to do with cash. And this list could go on. Think things through: it's not so hard to collect five thousand Bitcoin and then from that pay fifty to some clueless, famished nerd or other. It's not hard to pretend like you're professional while you're lying through your teeth and defrauding everyone in sight. It's not hard to pretend like you have "public support" when you're only talking to the clueless noobs that joined yesterday, who think Auroracoin actually "has a market cap" and so on. In a population of 19 yo Xavier Uni graduates, any lie can pass for truth if large enough and repeated often enough. What is hard is to stand for something, what is hard is to speak the uncomfortable truths***, what is hard is to keep promises and to refuse to make promises that can't be kept and to tell would-be "powers that be" to pack it and move because Bitcoin is taking over. But the Bitcoin Foundation isn't in the business of all that. The Bitcoin Foundation was in the business of taking money from they too stupid to keep it, and votes from they too clueless to have any money, and then sell the package to the highest bidder. Whoever it may be. Vessenes & co gotta be bought out after all, it's not like the shit they do has any intrinsic value whatsoever. Acquisition or bust, it's what they learned, it's what they do, it's what they'll teach you, if you'll let them. (And if you do let them you might as well use fiat, seriously now. It's easier, and insured.) So now they're decamping to the UK in the hopes they may avoid US side prosecution, (a move deeply reminiscent of Vleisides, incidentally). Derp. You're all going to jail, boys and girls. You're all going to jail for being thieves, and liars, and con men. And to quote from a much older article of MP's (funny how that guy always wrote today's article months ago, isn't it?): There’s just no way this little experiment in mishandling other people’s money can end up anywhere other than in a court, and there’s pretty good odds that it will be through penal rather than civil proceedings - the people involved are too many and too stupid for the state not to intervene.
Once that happens, I am positive and certain that the same people who are now running around calling their betters names will try to turn things into some sort of “mean state infringing on people’s rights”. They have a fine record at trying exactly that.
The problem is, the lot of them being packed up and hauled to jail would be no such infringement. It is at this point perfectly reasonable and quite unavoidable. Sure, they’ll try and sell this libertarian angle, that’s the curse of being pro-freedom : all the scumbags try to exploit you for their little profit turning “ideas”. It won’t wash. The girl that already beat you in the PR marketplace will beat you again, dear Sonny & co. She has the material right here.
--- * See this excellent quote from Chris Ballas: And here I have to go back over something. The harder part of the psychology is that the demo doesn't want to become full time traders, either at home all day or on Wall Street-- that part must remain a fantasy-- because then it would be a job and it wouldn't count; it has to be a side gig, then their success wasn't their "work self" but their "real" self; no one else can claim a sliver of that success-- not the liberals with their "'entrepreneurs' just pretend they don't benefit from public services!" or the wives with their "behind every good man...!" or the echoes of their father yelling, "you need to apply to Sperry Rand, now there's a company you can put in forty years with!" It all happened in their head, no one else can share the credit, it is 100% a consequence of their personal value. Bonus: if they fail, it can be quickly discounted as merely a hobby-- that wasn't, after all, their real self.
The mistake is in thinking this has anything to do with the money. It's said that most at home traders fail, but this is incorrect: they fail at making money, but they are successful at feeling like a trader. That is the goal; the money is secondary, which is why they fail at making it. The buy/hold/reinvest the dividends strategy of Buffet is totally opposite to what's desired, because the strategy does not involve market timing or status updates, it is on autopilot, and there's no "i" in autopilot. Well, there's one, but it doesn't stand out.
** This is the problem with scum posing as businessmen: the things they make aren't cash generators, they're cash black holes. This is fundamentally why we don't want scum to pass for businessmen: not because we don't like their ugly mugs, but because we don't want to be surrounded by "businesses" that only work if someone somewhere keeps printing money. We're not trying to re-build the US pseudo-economy here, quite the contrary. *** From You Are The 98%: There's a difference between what you need and what you want, and the media will always, relentlessly give you what you want. Do you know why you have such poor candidates every single election? Because you want them, you want someone you can easily judge for some sexual indiscretion or because they called latinos chicanos. "Well, that matters to us!" Then you got what you asked for.
The media will have data mined the culture and chosen for you two cans of Campbell's Chicken Soup, and then encouraged a public debate about which can is a better representation of the spirit of the country, the one on the left or the one on the right. "Well, that matters to us!" I know.
Undoing the ignore long enough to skim this post was just not a wise move on my part... |
|
|
|
|
Depends what the work entailed...
|
|
|
|
Mt.Gox also owns the Bitcoin trademark.
The only record I've seen is this in Europe. I've seen no evidence they've actually used the mark in commerce as a mark indicating products unique to Gox. Generally, a trademark must identify the products of the specific entity claiming ownership of it, and that entity must have control over the use of the mark. Gox has effectively abandoned the mark by never attempting enforcement, not that an enforcement attempt would have been likely to succeed. I suppose it's possible an intellectual property troll will somehow end up with possession of whatever rights they have in the term, but I wouldn't worry about it much unless it actually happens. The trademark registration does not register actual ownership of a mark, but merely puts the first filer (in most jurisdictions) basically "first in line" with their claim of ownership, such that an accused infringer does not have a defense of lack of notice. Of course, this being a registration in Europe, Gox would have to be able to demonstrate that it actually used this mark in commerce in at least one EU country. And of course laws vary by jurisdiction so the exact impact of their use in commerce, assuming it exists at all, might vary in unpredictable ways. Lots of people have tried to trademark Bitcoin. The US law is pretty clear on this: first use defines who gets to TM something...thus, there's no need for (or ability for anyone to obtain) a US trademark. For other countries, it's (AFAIK) basically first horse across the regulatory finish line gets the TM, regardless of who has been using it (doesn't matter who was first, what they were using it for, how long they were using it, etc). Mark used his own funds to defensively trademark it and then (i guess) purposely never enforce it so as to make it essentially free to use (he's a French citizen, i think, so he did this in France). I don't know if that means no one can TM it there or it re-opens the door for someone else to TM it...but he was praised for doing this for the community at the time. If someone came to you and asked you for a few $k USD to TM "bitcoin" in your country to pre-empt squatters, would you be willing? |
|
|
|
Believe it or not, a newbie's post on a forum is not likely to get noticed by the Bitcoin Foundation. While I'm a member of the foundation, I don't speak for the foundation (just like I'm a donator here but I don't speak for bitcointalk.org). Anyhow, The domain name issue you speak of is news to me and of doubtful significance. The Foundation didn't pave a way to MtGox; rather, MtGox paved the way to established a Foundation (with the help of a few others). You assert the Foundation accepted funds while MtGox was on the verge of bankruptcy, what do you mean? If you mean they've been on the verge of bankruptcy for a few years and they paid membership dues, then, uh...duh... If you mean something more relevant, explain yourself. I can only speak for myself, but, no Mark didn't pay me (or AFAIK any of my my 800 friends) anything. All this said, I do think those who lost funds will end up having some recourse; the amounts they recover will depend on what exactly happened and where the funds are. AFAIK, the truth about what exactly happened isn't known, not even to MtGox. But don't confuse the two organizations: MtGox and the Bitcoin Foundation had one thing in common: Mark was a board member on both. While he essentially ran MtGox, he was just one of 5-7 board members at the Foundation. Mark did not run the Bitcoin Foundation. In fact, of the minutes currently available (which is OOD, IMHO), Mark didn't go to Foundation board meetings and instead sent his second in command to the board meetings (who attended 70% of them). |
|
|
|
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/blog/?p=407Grant deadline is today. I'm sure it's at least slightly flexible. If you have a well thought out proposal, read the link above and submit a grant...you'll at the very least be early for consideration in the next round! From above link: "Submit your proposal by email to grants@bitcoinfoundation.org. Award decisions will be made within 4-6 weeks of submission deadline. If you have questions, please let us know. We look forward to hearing your ideas!"
|
|
|
|
|
There is a post somewhere on this forum (5 btc 0.001 milliBitcoin bounty were key terms in the thread) where a clever person suggested this format:
3฿234
This mean three leading zeros after the decimal place and then the numbers 234...it would look like this;
3฿234=0.000234 (ie, 0.234 m฿)
I think this deserves more thought now that a fair amount of time has passed.
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't call the core dev team centralized in any way.
It is extremely centralized, if Gavin gets hit by a bus what is the plan? Last time I asked this there was no plan. Do you want to send FUD, just capture theymos and Gavin then I can use the alert keys to send FUD. Stop feeding the trolls... |
|
|
|
You're too funny. No, the IMF is not thinking about getting a ฿ reserve. That old paper you reference is for some journal in Chicago...in no way written by anyone with the IMF. |
|
|
|
|
On the chance that Gox gives all funds back, does that change anything? IMHO, no. I'm particularly unhappy about how Mark decided to blame Bitcoin rather than himself...that's not what I want on my Bitcoin Foundation board. The next election won't be kind to him (if he chooses to hang on that long).
|
|
|
|
...the first confirmation takes only 30 seconds (so the possibility of violent maluse is minimal). The transaction is fully confirmed within 60 seconds only.
I don't think you understand block chain based cryptocurrencies...there is no magic behind # of confirmations. With small altcoins, they will be more vulnerable to double spend attacks due to the massively lower computing requirements needed to, say, replace the last 10 blocks of transactions... |
|
|
|
|
The Bitcoin Foundation was started, in part, to fund the position of chief scientist...to fund a core dev to work on it full time.
|
|
|
|
PLEASE VOTE IN THE POLL
The communities response to my other thread referencing the current foundation has been more than a surprise. It seems that the foundation has been self appointed, appears to be self serving and is doing so whilst accepting dubious donations.
I propose therefore, that the community dissolve ties with this ponzi scheme and set up a new Bitcoin Foundation.
The core principles should be:
1. Accounts are made public. Spending must be focused entirely on furthering the Bitcoin idea i.e ATM's Marketing etc and Donations must be logged for public viewing (Donors can choose to remain anonymous)
2. Anyone can run for election to be on the foundation and is not restricted to large stakeholders or those with business interests.
3. The foundation is re-elected annually capped at a maximum of 2 years.
Please post with your suggestions. The community decides who represents and how they are represented.
The current foundation has 3 board seats for non-industry members. 3 seats for industry. 1 seat for a tie breaker. Anyone can run for election for 6 of the seats, member or not...but only members vote. Terms are 2 years. |
|
|
|
The calculations are really dumb in the article. The author doesn't understand the concept of money velocity. $600 billion in business _per year_ could theoretically be done with a sea shell worth a 1˘. That sea shell would have to change hands ridiculously quickly...given that internet money can change hands quickly, to simply divide 1 years business by the number of tokens implies bitcoins change hands once a year...the bank of America paper is better thought out...although I disagree with their model inputs, just not the model (as in this case). http://cryptome.org/2013/12/boa-bitcoin.pdf |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
