Dear Bitcoin community,


Yesterday, I got involved in this discussion:

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=14693.new;topicseen#new

Since then I have effectivly been labeled a troll (having 'only' 22 posts) and prohited any chance to respond to reply to xf2_org's last mail. This is appearently how the Bitcoin community wants to deal with valid critique. Please have a look at my old posts to decide for yourself if I'm a troll.

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?action=profile;u=19316;sa=showPosts

I'm not going to risk this happening again by a forum that was set up by people who are possibly the same people that run this forum. If you think my critique is valid, I'm inviting you to join me on:

http://bitcoinforum.org/

I promise you that critique, valid or not, will never be censored there.

Dear Bitcoin community,


Yesterday, I got involved in this discussion:

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=14693.new;topicseen#new

Since then I have effectivly been labeled a troll (having 'only' 22 posts) and prohited any chance to respond to reply to xf2_org's last mail. This is appearently how the Bitcoin community wants to deal with valid critique.

I'm not going to risk this happening again by a forum that was set up by people who are possibly the same people that run this forum. If you think my critique is valid, I'm inviting you to join me on:

http://forum.newbitcoin.org/

I promise you that critique, valid or not, will never be censored.

I'm not sure what "inaccurate observation or assumption" in my paper you are referring to. I stated that the enforced limits (like indeed transaction fee) are not optimal ones. And that I think that they should definitly not be under control of a small group of developers.

The fact that after publication of my paper the fee has already been lowered seems to support my statement.

EDIT

Since yesterday I have effectivly been labeled a troll (having 'only' 22 posts) and prohited any chance to respond to reply to xf2_org's last mail. This is appearently how the Bitcoin community wants to deal with valid critique.

I'm not going to risk this happening again. If you think my critique is valid, I'm inviting you to join me on:

http://bitcoinforum.org/

I promise you that critique, valid or not, will never be censored.

Please name one, or, if you have the time, some. I'm very happy to learn and if I'm wrong I will happily admit so.

Anyone interested in some of these, please have a look at: http://www.newbitcoin.org/documents/newbitcoin.pdf

On the main page 'www.bitcoin.org' it says Bitcoin is a 'community-driven open source' project.

Could anyone let me know where I can join as a developer?

Could anyone let me know on which mailing list/forum board the actual design decisions are discussed and made?

Would it be an idea to put this information on the main page?

Yup, they will have that incentive, but they are a minority. A better system would be if newcomers also had that incentive.


Please tell me what "enormous risks" the finders of the first blocks took? Which cost them about half a million (current 'difficulty') times less computer power (and energy) than what newcomers have to compete for now?

Hallo, Hier ein (nicht so aktives) mitglied der Niederlandische Piratenpartei.

Ich bin sehr begeistert über das Idee eines cryptocurrency wie Bitcoin und die Möglichkeiten für ein besseren Gesellschaft. Aber ein kleine Warnung für Piraten: nach meiner Meinung ist Bitcoin noch nicht fertig. Bitte überzeuge Ihr selbst bevor etwas Politisches darauf zu bauen.

Entschuldige mein limitiertes Deutsch.

Wow, one of the most important features of bitcoin down the drain: "Own your money!" (http://www.weusecoins.com/)


I'm begging the two of you, please don't have babies...

Actually yes, I have thought about this. And it would be a fantastic application for Bitcoins. And that's one of the reasons I'm fighting here for a proper bitcoin.

Voting could go like this:

1) Someone puts up a vote.
2) Anyone willing to vote pays a number of bitcoins backing up his/her vote.
3) Winning the vote will be the side that put up the most backing bitcoins.
4) All bitcoins that were backing up the vote are redistributed among all voters, where each voter gets an equal share.

So yes, you can buy votes, just like in real life. But it'll probably cost you more and it's transparent. Please shoot!

Wow, Mike, are you still sure about this then?

Maybe nothing, but at the moment I'm only trying to find out where the developers stand. I would like to know if I were investing. Only if I were afraid the truth might damage my investments I'd attack someone posing this question.

Actually I would. I promise you that either I will work on such a document of a competing currency or help you with one that nails down the current Bitcoin specs. However, either it's going to be a spec that is unlikely to ever change, or I'd want some guarantees that it couldn't be randomly adapted by a small group of people, other then including me |-).

Actually I took that back almost 20 min. before you quoted me. You might have missed it, since your post is quite long. I'd appreciate it if you'd edit and apply a strikethough in your quote.

But I feel the need to explain the post I did that in.


I believe they should even have the right to actively mislead us, and not be sued for damages, but ofcourse I would never trust them again. That's how far the accountibility goes as fas as I'm concerned. I'm afraid that is my exceptional POV, society will think otherwise.

On the rest of your story: I think we're actually on the same side when it comes to 'power to the people' |-)

I'm only afraid that Bitcoin will do more damage to our common cause. But it is not my opinion that counts in this thread, I'm calling out for a stand of the core developers.

Please explain?

Would be nice if there was one downloadable document containing the complete Bitcoin specification. Would be nice if the specification were set up in a way that it wouldn't have to change anymore. Would be nice that if it had to change, all the community would have a vote in it. Whole lotta woulds, I know...

Thanks for not mining. I agree the situation is purely hypothetical. And I made a mistake saying the developers are accountable, they are not accountable. Unless they've actively mislead us into believing Bitcoins should be paid 30$ for, of which I have no information.

But I do hope some of the developers see that this might be getting a little out of hand. A (hypothetical) crash might reflect badly on any cryptocurrency and might reflect badly on them.

No one is making any promises, and in priciple I agree everyone is responsible for their own stupidity. But if I'd been one of the core developers and if I would have any doubts, I'd still feel moraly obliged to speak out very loud before cashing in bigtime.

With about 30$ being paid for one bitcoin, I think it's time the 'core developers' take a stand on how they value bitcoin. In an 'Omega Tau' podcast from March 19th, I hear Gavin Andresen say:

"At this point, I would advise people not to make heavy investments in Bitcoins." (31:10).

Is this still his point of view? What is the opinion of the other developers? Satoshi Nakamoto, Martti Malmi, Amir Taaki, Pieter Wuille, Nils Schneider and Jeff Garzik?

I think the amount of money involved is getting large enough to hold some people (at least moraly)  accountable of something goes wrong. And I think this also holds for not speaking up.

Hope you do and you will agree. Also hope you will decide it's time for a new, sound protocol, for me the decision is obvious. And I hope there's more developers thinking the same way, cause I'm quite sure I can't get nowhere alone.