Some of your information is out of date.
There is no continued affiliation with Mr Matthew Wright, Mr Zhou Tong, Mihai Valeriu Alisie.

Perhaps you should examine what being a director or a shareholder of a limited company means. Or more specifically what it could mean. For example, it appears you are not making a distinction between being a Director of a Limited company and being a biz partner. This does not in fact mean a continuing affiliation or not necessarily does mean it. If you look hard enough, you could find some entities that are directors or shareholders of hundreds, even thousands of Limited Companies. I am not sure what conclusions you will make about them based on this.

Reasonable comment indeed.

In my defense it really was only one episode and a few messed up projects with the same "team". Indeed with the benefit of hindsight I was hugely naive allowing myself to be drawn into that clusterfuck. Can only blame myself for that and I was punished hugely for that by lost income, cost of stolen assets, and cost of lost opportunity incurred by me in that episode. This only makes me much more careful now. I learned my lessons. No more babysitting engagements for me...

Roxholme Enterprises Ltd            - Software Developer   -   closed Oct 2001

Roxholme Enterprises Limited        - Other            -   closed May 2008

Vakes Ltd                           - Data Base activities -   closed Mar 2003

Coldbot Ltd                         - Computer related     -   Closed Apr 2008

Marchenko Ltd                       - Bitcoin mining       -   closed Oct 2010

Figato Ltd                          - Search engine        -   closed Oct 2010

Espector Limited                    - Software Consultancy -   Open

Coomby Ltd                          - No Description       -   Open (Proposal to Strike off)

Small Planet Works Ltd              - No Description       -   Open

Search Machine Ltd                  - No Description       -   Open

Open Software Distribution Ltd      - No Description       -   Open

Roxholme Trading Ltd                - No Description       -   Open
                                
Bittalk Media Ltd                   - Media                -   In process of dissolution

Silensec Labs Ltd                   - Information Security -   Open  

Safebit Ltd                         - Software (wallet)    -   Open      

there will be more information soon...

Vladimir know something about it? So it is not a scam?

Epicness incoming i guess 

Posted in another thread about the same issue:

http://coinlab.com/status

[oficial site] http://btcglobal.net/

[exchange site] http://stage.btc.uy/

300k per second trading engine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liN_ipXcMHw

countries affected:

Uruguay
Chile
Brasil
Argentina
Mexico
Paraguay

Bitcoin was created by an Asian. Not only that but a Japanese Asian

You really think someone is going to build a better coin?

 Hell, when Japan finally finishes their Gundams we will all be sorry.

It was disclosed at the time.  There was a lot of discussion about the pros and cons of them doing so and whether it was preferable to set-up a non-profit for such purposes.

At the time, people unassociated with Bitcoin were trying to register the trademark.

Just because something isn't stickied in red at the top of every forum doesn't mean it hasn't been disclosed.

https://mtgox.com/press_release_20111014.html


They told the community they were applying for European trademarks prior to acquiring them.

It's also inaccurate to say that they own "the Bitcoin name".  They own a defined Bitcoin trademark.  For a whole heap of reasons - starting with prior use - the term "Bitcoin" can probably never be protected.

The IP issues regarding the official client were addressed long ago.

this is where you are meandering in the wrong direction.
bitcoin does not need representation, such as a CEO, leader. bitcoin needs lecturers and teachers to spread the message.

i dont want management of bitcoin, i want tutors to explain bitcoin to the layman.

representatives as you say are people that say i am the head of the bitcoin community. i wield power.

spokes people as i say are people that know what they are talking about and can help others understand.

if i want someone to speak out in congress or in parliament. then i would search ouut someone in parliament that atleast understands peoples freedoms and knows of bitcoin and has a open mind and get them to be a spokesmen.. not elect them as the leader of bitcoin incorporated.

as for the offshoots of unaccountability... forgive me for saying this. but isnt that called DECENTRALISATION. we need an information source not a leadership. pure and simple. a place to come to that can truly help people to learn about bitcoin from people that truly know what bitcoin is about that can help businesses set up API access to clients programs remotely from their website hosts. that can teach people and media the true ethos of bitcoin.

not a guy that says "i am Mr Bitcoin"

instead having a listing of guys in silicon valley that are creating business and want to help other businesses, guys in new yorks wall street that truly understand finance and exchanges, guys in asia that understand manufacturing and the supplychain that can work using bitcoin. guys in every country that have their own speciality that truly understand bitcoin.
that way there's always someone in each market, in each country that any of the community can use to be a spokesperson if a media story requiring certain topics around bitcoin to be answered. or be utilised to help expand bitcoin economy into the mainstream

not 4 special elected golden children of bitcoin with business cards saying they are CEO's and represent the nation of bitcoin, as if they are presidents of bitcoin

I've always respected your opinions jgarzik.

There's already fees paid for sending bitcoins, what if there was added a certain amount as a dev-fee. A pretty tiny amount pr. transaction, but enough that during one year it would've collected enough btc to fund one or more devs working on Bitcoin, would that be possible ? If not, perhaps showing a line in the official client letting people know they can contribute to the continued success of Bitcoin, almost like Wikipedia does, could that be an option ?

Also, we all know that the founder of bitcoin was/is anonymous, Gavin lashed out towards the 'Anonymous cowards' in this thread, which admittedly made me quite angry,and for a moment I thought, why should I care about Bitcoin and spend my time on it, with a Head Dev that's this ungrateful towards people that actually care about Bitcoin, but Gavin is just a human like the rest of us, and he becomes angry at times, he's no saint. And Bitcoin is greater than him, so even if he left Bitcoin or he continues to 'loose it' on the forums, Bitcoins as an idea and technology is larger than anyone involved in particular. There will always be someone else to take over, so even if Gavin is the Head Dev, he's nothing but an ordinary man, that can be replaced at any time.

Seeing as Vess doesn't even post on these forums, which I see some of you refer to as the 'cesspit' of bitcoin, I can't do anything but conclude that Vess don't care much, and that you feel you're part of an elitist club where others have no say, and esp. not the 'Anonymous Cowards'. Too bad then that Satoshi is among these 'Anonymous Cowards'.

The idea of Bitcoin is that of personal freedom and changing the current system. And Bitcoin is far more important than any single person taking part in it. If at one point, the US Govt. decides that Bitcoin is a tool of domestic terrorism, for instance following a terrorist act where it's found that Bitcoin was used to buy parts for a bomb, don't be surprised if some overreaching officials determines that all Bitcoin-devs needs to be brought in for questioning and even be detained, if the Govt. then decides to press charges for whatever reason, there's not much any single person can do with it, even if the charges will be dropped in the end, if will be a complete nightmare to go through.

For example Sven Olaf Kamphuis was recently arrested: http://krebsonsecurity.com/2013/04/dutchman-arrested-in-spamhaus-ddos/

It's not sure he had any actual involvement in the DDOS-attacks described, but he put his name out there for anyone to see and was very vocal about the whole issue, and as thus become an easy target when somebody needed to be arrested.

Satoshi, being it one man or one group, created Bitcoin - and he's to this day anonymous. I believe he saw his idea as a larger thing than himself. If we look at Assange, he's a big narcissist and egomaniac, and there's been a lot of internal unrest in his organization due to the way he run things, and as we can see he's now virtually a prisoner in London, living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. We could imagine Satoshi suffering the same fate at one point if he came forward.

In my opinion, ideas are more important than the people executing them, esp. when it has a large social impact and has the possibility to change existing structures. The idea that you need to register with your full name in the Bitcoin Foundation and pay a membership fee even to read their forum, speaks mountains for it being an elitist club with no intention of transparency. A lot of people sponsor them indirectly through doing business with all the businesses that have board-members in the foundation. The premium memberships paid by some companies to the foundation would not've been possible without the fees paid by users for using the services of these companies.

The 'trust us - we will only work to the benefit of Bitcoin'-attitude doesn't cut it. As we know power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If the people involved care about transparency and being a part of the community, they should involve the community more.

I have no reason to think Gavin is not a good man, wanting the best for bitcoin, but as time has showed through history, many projects have started with good intentions, and then there's battle's of power, and we're left with structures that we see in the current system that we're trying to battle: Closed systems where only a few decides what will really happen.

If the foundation really cared about bitcoin, it would seek to desentralize bitcoin trade, for instance by supporting the development of an open source trading platform that could then be used by anyone wanting to start their own exchange.

Lastly: I'm sure a lot of you are doing a great job, and that some of the criticism may seem unjust, but dismissing criticism entirely, or just frowning about it, is not a good thing. It's also Gavins choice to do interviews and being a public figure in the Bitcoin world. If he's chose to be anonymous like Satoshi, and chose to hide his identity, it wouldn't have been a problem for me. As I said earlier, an idea, a concept and a philosophy is far more important than the people executing it. And as such I think being 'anonymous', 'pseudo-anonymous' or putting your name out there is a personal choice. And as such, I don't think the people not putting out their 'real names' are 'Anonymous Cowards'. They might be 'anonymous' or 'pseudo-anonymous', but that doesn't imply that they're automatically cowards. They may be exactly the opposite, but they simply may have no desire to have their name out there on the Internet for everyone to peak at. For some people personal recognition, getting attention etc. is important, for some others it's not important at all. They work silently for a greater cause without expecting fame in return.

But the Foundation and everyone else involved in Bitcoin, should expect and welcome all criticism towards what they do. It means people are involved and interested, and I never saw that as a bad thing. However, there may always be some unwarranted criticism that's far out there that's quite different from constructive criticism, but intelligent people are able to see through that, and is able to ignore/briefly respond to the unjust criticism and then dicuss with the people that gives constructive crisicism. The attitude: "We're always right, and the others are idiots" is not a healthy attitude.

For instance, one of the things I like about MtGox, is that if you have an important query, you can actually go on irc and talk with Mark directly. Admittedly he's not always on, but if he's on and available, he will most often attend to the issues at hand. That's a direct line to the CEO of a company! How many other companies deliver the same opportunity ? Now, I realize that it's not feasible for all companies to do, as some companies are simply too big. But it certainly builds trust within the community.

As someone else in this thread mentioned: "I just want to be treated with respect, and be shown that you care". And that about sums it up. No matter how angry or unjust one thinks something is, having a major role within the Bitcoin ecosystem means that a lot of people look up to you. I kind of looked up to Gavin before his outburst as well. But in reality, we're all just humans with different positions within the ecosystem, and while some of us has a 'higher' position than others, that doesn't mean those people are 'worth more' or have the right to dismiss the criticism and input of others. The users of Bitcoin, which very often is very passionate about Bitcoin, is what makes the whole thing possible, and as such those in 'lead'-positions should be grateful that the users actually care, and not call them 'Anonymous cowards'. What I personally fear is that Bitcoin is starting to be run by big corporate entities that stop caring for it's users. Too many companies have become so big that it's not important to them to actually treat their users with respect and dignity.

That's all - thanks for listening.

I'm concerned about what's going on, and that's why I made this thread in the first place. I'm fully aware that most 'real business' is done by men in suits in meatspace.

Vess was last active April 27, 2013, 04:19:56 AM, this thread was made the 16th of April, so if he wanted to chime in, he would've had the possibility to do so.

It's also a bit startling that you're talking about cynicism, as I've already stated numerous times that we must not be naive. You state that I don't fully understand what's going on, could you please enligheten me as to what's going on ? Perhaps you have some sources, or some information that would be beneficial to us ? As the transition is going to happen early in May, he and his associates are probably super busy as well, but you've always got 15 minutes to look at something if you really want to..

That is a quote from a NY Post article, it is not an official policy document.  Many quotes you read in news stories are taken out of context or wrong.  In this case it looks like an off-hand  comment.

In any case the topic is if he should resign.  His Reddit comments say he will not be both a Board member and Exec Director for long (most organizations like this have separation) but he isn't going to quit completely since he started the thing in the first place.

Gavin Andresen

over the last six months or so it has become obvious to me that the rest of the world isn't set up to interact with a radically decentralized system like Bitcoin, and I think forming a not-for-profit organization will be a positive step towards Bitcoin's long-term success.

I'm posting this to see if there is a consensus on what a Bitcoin Foundation should be.

All this conspiracy theory talk is off-topic. This thread is a discussion about Peter Vessenes' opinion that Bitcoin should be regulated.

Personally, I think that if the Bitcoin Foundation is going to promote the idea of regulating Bitcoin, then it is not an organization that I'm comfortable supporting.

"Letter From Peter Vessenes"

I'm hugely excited to announce to you that CoinLab will be teaming up with Mt. Gox and Silicon Valley Bank to provide Bitcoin purchase, sale and exchange services to customers in the U.S and Canada as of May 6th, 2013.

Huh. What evidence do you have that the Foundation has been hurting the evolution of Bitcoin?

Because it seems to me things have been going gangbusters since the Foundation was formed (with all the usual chaos and drama).

Or, to be less polite to all the haters: we've all been working our asses off (especially Peter), to make Bitcoin a success. What have you anonymous cowards been doing besides spouting off about things you know NOTHING about?

Is this even legal? You can register a corporation without requiring any info from all the founding members?

And I am surprised they made it "Inc". Why not non-profit, like Wikipedia? Especially if they ask for donations. I can understand somewhat the Ripple folks, but Bitcoin?

THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. has even gone so far as to list Satoshi as a founding member in their by-laws. Without his consent and thus implying that Satoshi is affiliated with THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. to further strengthen their takeover of Bitcoin.




I have to agree on this and also question the legality of such a statement.

She posts here under a different identity and is a well-known troll.