The man who defends himself in court has a fool for a lawyer.
The man who quotes "The man who defends himself in court has a fool for a lawyer" is likely on the Bar Association's payroll. |
|
|
|
I think it's time to found the "church of random", where our religious practive involves random automated prayer. We'll install random prayer nodes sending random prayers to random other believers prayer nodes in order to worship the gods of random.
I think it's time to found the "Meta-Church of Random Churches", where our religious practice involves prayers which permute and pervert the random number generators which create and perpetuate the infinitude of random churches, whose prayer nodes send random prayers to random other believers' prayer nodes in order to worship the gods of random. The collected energies and entropies of believers' prayer nodes' prayers can then be combined with the Meta-Church's RNGs and other entropy sources, thus: Ei = Ei + f(a, BPNP) + g(b, MCMRNG) + h(c, {SHA256(SHA256()) | scrypt()}(CABN)) where: Ei = the momentary entropy seed function a, b, c = "nine numbers of the cosmos" constants (cf. Rees, FRS) BPNP = summation of momentary believers' prayer nodes' prayers' entropies and energies MCMRNG = summation of momentary Meta-Church Meta-RNG outputs CABN = summation of momentary output of California State Bureaucracy Nonsense Generation Function Self-compiling code, as well as a related LISP dialect, will be published shortly on Github. |
|
|
|
Let's hope (unmentionable horror occurs) and a better mechanism than TBF for funding Bitcoin testing and development (including Gavin's salary) is devised.
I am more and more persuaded in fact that Gavin is part of the problem, and that paying him doesn't help. Gavin's seat ought to be occupied by the Linus of Bitcoin... a Brash Dickhead For Life, if you will. |
|
|
|
Mike,
Just two cents. If I remember it well you called for TBF to dissolve for plans to spend money on lobbyists and not on testing and development.
I partially agreed with you. I too think money you donated can be put to a better use than on lawyers.
To be specific, my opposition is based on paying for lobbyists, not lawyers per se. There are plenty of instances around Bitcoin and its promotion and flourishing which, like it or not, require legal work. It's kind of ironic that the people doing business as 'California’s Department of Financial Institutions'' may prove more successful in dissolving TBF than you  I never thought it would be a solo effort  |
|
|
|
Ask the parents of dead Iraqi children if they thought the war on terror fought in there country was legal and/or valid.
The FED and now California are declaring war. Most other states will fall in line.
Individual prosecution is next.
Let's try to be mature adults and keep some perspective. Recent FinCEN guidances, DHS/etc. seizures, IRS/GAO discussions have all been in line with existing US law. See my State of the Coin 2011 presentation and earlier forum discussions. It has always been known that US individuals and companies must... do the obvious and follow US law. For US bitcoin exchanges, for example, that likely means federal + 48 state licensing. Enforcement actions like Liberty Reserve or Mutum Sigilium seemed to be clearly outside existing, known regulations. You gotta expect law enforcement to... enforce the laws. This California letter is so zany because it does not fit existing law or facts In My Opinion As A Non-Lawyer. Each regulatory action needs careful consideration within the context of its country. "ZOMG GOVERNMENT DEAD IRAQI CHILDREN" is about as far from thoughtful consideration as one can get. Bollocks, Jeff. Bollocks. Like a great many statists, your words seem to indicate, once again, a conflation of what is legal with what is just, and I daresay a seeming lack of thoughtfulness toward justice concerns. Let me Godwin it right down for you: The Nazi regime fully complied with all laws in the operation of its extermination camps. "Law enforcement" can go eat flaming death, as far as I'm concerned. |
|
|
|
Watch this one closely, people. Unlike other recent FinCEN guidance and regulatory comments, and law enforcement actions, this action from California does not fit the facts nor existing US law.
This simply shows a misunderstanding of what bitcoin is.
tl;dr: California thinks Bitcoin Foundation "runs bitcoin."
Even more amusing are the ones that repeatedly come up from allegedly-well-informed fully-qualified commentators and pundits of the forms: "Some evil geniuses believe the Bitcoin might X, Y and Z." (There can be only one! The Bitcoin!) "Bitcoin verbed a noun." (as if Bitcoin is an entity capable of action) "Bitcoin must obtain a license." (as if Bitcoin is an entity capable of possessing standing as party to a legal proceeding) |
|
|
|
Just sent: Hello,
Threema is great but there is one major problem. People who cannot use the Google Play Store -- for example because they don't have access to the traditional banking system or because they cannot afford to have their purchase of the app linked to their real-world identity (e.g. journalists in war zones, whistleblowers, etc.) -- cannot use Threema.
It would be great if Threema were to adopt Bitcoin as a means of payment. If you wish, I could volunteer some insight into the technical side of how to do this.
Peace,
Mike Gogulski
(email)
(phone)
|
|
|
|
I've received all my bitcoins back. Thank you very much, Mr. Gogulski. I appreciate your kindness.  Excellent. You are quite welcome. |
|
|
|
Kudos to Mike for the explanation.
This is nothing more than ordinary duty to a customer, but I certainly do appreciate the praise. Norbi and I should be sorted now. I'll check back here for a confirmation of that. |
|
|
|
Hello. I use bitcoinlaundry.com before any transaction to make it more anonymous. One time I had send about 2 BTC to laundry and I hadn't received bitcoins to destination address. I've thought I made some mistake and that was the reason. I was trying to contact wiht Mike Gogulski, but he didn't answer.
However, tonight I've used bitcoinlaundry.com again. I've send 9.2983929 BTC, I've got 84 confirmations, but not money on destination address. The transactions ID's df01774c410a4e0a8d2585e965c0dac9d2b65f486bc7aa011dd067869c9ceb01. The destination address for clean bitcoins is 1GVdZDwU1VPsL1Z7tBgfnrhsCvhojcLbZR.
Is there any chance to recover my bitcoins?
Hello, Nothing is lost. What I see is that the the scheme you created was for BTC 9.29799191. Only 9.29799190 has been received, so the service is waiting for you to send the remaining BTC 0.00000001 before it deducts the commission and send you the result. In the interest of clearing that up, I just sent the full amount of BTC 9.29799190 back to you. The txid is 21170bc750c531469881505fd270f096c1a991014b512d1de13025a41b026309. I'm publishing the info here, since it would be easy enough to find the single 9.29799190 transaction on the blockchain anyway. My guess is that the reason for the problem was a very simple cut-and-paste mistake, where the person sending the payment just missed including the final digit. I checked my code, using the same data you input, and got the expected results. Now, about the previous BTC 2 you mentioned. I did see a message quite recently from someone saying that they had lost 2-something bitcoins in my laundry and wanted it paid back. In this case I may have made a mistake, and if that's so, I apologize. I took a quick look at outstanding schemes and did not spot anything which matched the info provided in the email. Now when I look, I see that there is an open scheme that has been only partially funded, for an amount between BTC 2 and BTC 3. My error in this case: Very often, I get emails (often from tormail addresses) claiming to have lost bitcoins in one of my laundries. Almost all of these are attempted to trick me into paying someone who never sent anything at all. So, I thought your message was one of those and just deleted it like I do with the others. That was a screwup, and I'm sorry for it. Anyway, the open scheme I mentioned expects to be funded with a value between BTC 2 and BTC 3. It looks like the person who sent Bitcoins to the scheme address might have "over-thought" things, because the amount that's been received is equal to the total scheme value minus the commission, down the the last decimal place. So, those coins are still there, but again waiting for the full scheme amount to be paid in. To clear that up for you, I'll need you to send me (privately) either the BTC address you sent the coins to, or the BTC address you entered as the destination for the scheme. Finally, it is possible that your BTC 2 scheme can't be recovered. From time to time I throw away the laundry's wallet file and begin with a new one, and it has happened before that partly-funded (and old) bitcoinlaundry.com schemes there just get forgotten. Hopefully not, in your case! Peace, Mike |
|
|
|
Sorry for highjacking the thread.
I encourage both hijacking and further schisms. Onward to decentralized victory! When I say "democratic" I misspeak. I should have said something like "operated by and for human beings, without specific weight or voice given to developers, merchants, traders, speculators, miners, etc." |
|
|
|
Mike,
are you saying that Vessenes used your service to launder bitcoins before he engaged in his regulatory escapades?
Peter Vessenes INVENTED bitlaundry.com. I created bitcoinlaundry.com unaware of its existence. Later, Peter offered the site and code for sale, and I bought it. Teaser quote from an upcoming magazine article where I'm interviewed: |
|
|
|
Good luck getting your $300 back...well, $300 presuming you joined before the ฿ fee grew way put of sync with the $ fee. I just used $ to immediately buy and spend ฿ right after an adjustment, so it cost me the intended low $ amount.
I paid 25 BTC right at the beginning for a life membership, so it was around that level. But honestly I don't care about the money a single bit. Sure, I could use it for better things, but whatever. I *do* care about others getting theirs back, but hey, if leaving $1m of BTC/USD value in Treasurer Peter Sellout Vessenes's pocket is the price of rapidly excising this malignant tumor from the body of the Bitcoin community, well, I can't speak for others, but it's a price *I'm* willing to pay. |
|
|
|
You know what I find surprising? You, Mike, of all people, couldn't see the bitcoin foundation would just turn into a lobbying institution and paid for a lifetime membership... I mean, really? Even I could see their true purpose, and I'm not as smart as you, not even close  Not being a foundation member I can't do much more than offer my support to your proposal, useless as that support may be. Call it a blessing, call it a curse, but I'm one of those people with the "I'm OK, you're OK" orientation imprinted at the lowest level. This means that I tend to trust people complete at first sight rather than to begin from suspicion. For me, trust is not earned, but destroyed by betrayal or damaged by ill action. Thanks for the compliment, too, although this isn't about being smart in the one-dimensional way intelligence is usually defined. I can be a complete dumbass in terms of social and emotional intelligence, to the point of making people cry IRL when trying to persuade them intellectually about something I believe in passionately. You don't have to be a member of the now-moribund foundation to make a contribution here, and to join and support a new effort (whether one emerges from my proposals here or not). I've just pushed the RESET button on the whole thing, at least in my own mind. So, new world. Where shall we go? |
|
|
|
My apologies for the length of this post, but I believe that it sums up what is broken with the Foundation, shows it is essentially unfixable, and includes at the end a call to action to form a new, democratically-constituted umbrella organization for the advancement and defense of cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin first and foremost among them. I also believe you will find it valuable reading, if you're not already closely familiar with the matters at hand. "Outgoing" Bitcoin Foundation Executive Director Peter Vessenes, aka "vess" here, @vessenes on Twitter, states in video from Bitcoin 2013 ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I6jfPXFAToM) at 5:23 that the Foundation will be hiring a lawyer to lobby regulators in Washington DC: https://twitter.com/mikegogulski/status/335820053926797312As I wrote: #BitcoinFoundation is DEAD TO ME. Lobbyists? Fuck you @Vessenes shyster sellout! Give my BTC 25 back! http://ow.ly/lai8e #Bitcoin2013 Then: And: I got into #Bitcoin to improve this miserable planet and ESCAPE the iron grip of privileged moneyed interests, not JOIN THEM! #Bitcoin2013 And: And @Vessenes sues @MtGox for $75m. Send the king's swordsmen! I need more money! #Bitcoin2013 #Bitcoin #betrayal #rat #statist #sellout Plenty more follows in my tweet stream, and includes a conversation with Smári McCarthy of the International (formerly Icelandic) Modern Media Institute ( http://www.immi.is/). I provided more of my reasoning (after a nice barbiturates-and-vodka cocktail and a bit of sleep) on Google+, in comments on Declan McCullagh's article ( http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57585151-38/winklevoss-twins-on-bitcoin-time-to-work-with-the-feds/) from today: TL;DR: Sending Bitcoin to DC is like sending My Little Pony to the veterinarian. +Jon Matonis Despite my rantings, for me it's not about purity either, but about the Foundation running off in a direction starkly counter to the motivations of a good many members, without any consultation at all. I believe I also heard +Peter Vessenes say, in that opening pitch, that there would be a Bitcoin Foundation members' meeting during the conference. I guess that means that I'll be getting an invitation with a teleconference number soon(?). +Jerry Brito and +Declan McCullagh Yes, the exchanges are a vulnerable point, almost a "systempunkt" in John Robb's terminology, the resiliency of the underlying protocol aside. At the same time, it's already widely recognized that the best solutions to that sort of risk in the Bitcoin ecosystem involve peer-to-peer fiat/BTC exchange on the lines of #bitcoin-otc, localbitcoins.com and/or some kind of price discovery and exchange mechanism, with market actor reputation tracking, working in distributed fashion either in the BTC blockchain itself or as part of some kind of complementary system based roughly on the same principles. It's into those kinds of solutions that I'd like to see funding from whatever replaces the now toxic Bitcoin foundation and where I'd like to see the massive amounts of human energy that will otherwise be sucked into the interdimensional tentacle-monster maelstrom of KYC/AML/FinCEN/FATF/make-it-play-in-Peoria compliance (vendor AND customer side) spent. As +Nick Weaver alludes to, Bitcoin really is fundamentally incompatible with the pharaonic pyramids of the legacy banking system, or, in my parting words from last night, sending Bitcoin to DC is like sending My Little Pony to the veterinarian. Even though we lot on this thread may share similar ideas about the ideal end state for Bitcoin, I think we all agree that the means to reach those ends are important as well. There is clear disagreement about what sorts of means are the most efficient in bringing us all to shiny happy crypto-ponycoin utopia, and that's fine. I'm asking folks to consider the entire picture very carefully, and especially not with America-centric blinders on. I could go on to complain (but won't do so here, hehe) that the Bitcoin core dev team -- and, by extension, the Foundation which pays +Gavin Andresen -- are, in my opinion, spending a disproportionate amount of time/energy on work which primarily benefits a small number of mining pool operators (taken collectively, another systempunkt!) and on work which tends more and more to support centralized and institutionalized structures such as BitPay and BitInstant -- with all due respect to those teams -- and to toward the deprioritization of work support independent merchants and the actual peer-to-peer future. Perhaps this is simply a disagreement regarding how to sequence priorities, but I can't help but think it points to the same sort of issues I mention above, which actually turn out to be key ones as indicated by others. +Jerry Brito "Allowed" is a hobgoblin. Bitcoin doesn't need permission from the existing state/corporate financial system. In fact, it presents an existential threat to both. Fine, though, send some "diplomats" out to spread confusion in the enemy's ranks. And to +Jeffrey Tucker, it is indeed sad that freedom itself is simply unthinkable, where in a proper society it would be the reflexive, unconsidered default posture and where that society would react swiftly and forcefully to deviations from its principles. Alas, even with several thousand years of thought and experience to guide us, we have not yet collectively made the freedom posture the default. ( https://plus.google.com/u/1/112961607570158342254/posts/YLe37k7vonQ) CLEARLY, Bitcoin no longer needs the Bitcoin Foundation as it's currently constituted, and it is probably too toxic to be salvaged in any form. The conflicts of interest among directors should make this perfectly clear. Plus, we now have Vessenes suing Karpeles over the MtGox/Coinlab deal while they are both on the same board. They both should have resigned immediately at the time the suit was filed and served. Even worse, and utterly inexcusably, Peter Vessenes hired Patrick Murck as the Foundation's general counsel. This of course is the very same Patrick Murck who serves as Coinlab's General Counsel, and who is therefore Coinlab's top litigator in the suit against MtGox. And, worse still, this is yet the same Patrick Murck who drew up the Coinlab/Bitcoinica/Bitcoin Consultancy deal which turned into such a massive clusterfuck that exactly none of the players involved emerged in any other manner than smeared with shit from head to toe. ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=196150.0;all) Note also that NONE of these highly controversial acts and omissions were placed before votes of the Foundation's membership, in radical contravention of the founding spirit of the organization if not the language of its founding charter. THUS, IMHO, and as a Foundation Life Member, I hereby move that the Foundation dissolve itself, immediately, and enter into a binding legal plan to reimburse all donors proportionately, once legitimate expenses and outstanding debt incurred to date is covered. Additionally, I move that the Foundation immediately terminate all relations with Peter Vessenes, Mark Karpeles (sorry, dude) and Patrick Murck, and that Jon Matonis be appointed interim Executive Director, to serve during the company's receivership and through it's final dissolution as a legal entity.And I am ready to support a new organization which actually serves the interests of Bitcoin (and other cryptocurrencies, as appropriate), with such egregious conflicts of interest excluded from decision-taking power and with a broad umbrella missing to accommodate ALL of the Bitcoin community, not just those who are only too delighted to cuddle up to regulators and politicians on the little-guy donor's coin. The new organization shall operate democratically from day zero. I move that Jon Matonis be named custodian of founding donations and that he shall serve, once and only once, as Chairman of the founding, general meeting of the entire membership, at which a full charter and a full set of by-laws shall be adopted and a new slate of directors and executives elected, such meeting to be held not less than 60 days from now and not less than 120 days from now, and to include the technical capacity for as many voices as possible to participate and be heard (that is founding-donors-only google hangout, IRC channel, toll-free teleconference linked to a skype teleconference, etc.). Who's with me? |
|
|
|
|
Crowd: Messiah! Messiah!
Brian: I'm NOT the Messiah, now go away!
Random guy: I'm the Messiah!
Crowd: Behold! The Messiah!
|
|
|
|
I think an interesting solution to these arguments would be to find someone with totally extreme political views who can be absolutely trusted to talk about Bitcoin in a neutral light, and make it clear that it's a project which is made up of many people with different beliefs and backgrounds. Someone who is a hard core anarcho-capitalist but isn't going to claim Bitcoin is inherently anarchist if they're given a soapbox, or imply the point of Bitcoin is being able to evade the law, etc. Then maybe everyone can be equally annoyed together. Perhaps Mike G would take it on I was about to say "Hey! What are you trying to volunteer me for!?!" but now I'm thinking more along the lines of "What sort of salary do you have in mind?" |
|
|
|
Dear Abby, I have been struggling for years to find a way to preserve the cover art of my favorite 50 albums. I thought I had found a solution in the Bitcoin block chain, but now this thread about "kiddy porn" has come up, and I wonder... will I not be able to store the cover to my #1 fave, the Scorpions 1976 Virgin Killer ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_killer) on the block chain? Thanks as always for your great advice! Strugging in Stuttgart |
|
|
|
Bitcoin kills kittens
That's a filthy lie! The Bitcoin Community Censoring Committee demands an immediate retraction! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
