All I can say is that this paranoia must not die. Liberty requires eternal vigilance.
The Bitcoin Foundation can become a titular bank if we allow it to.
What harm can a titular bank do? Raise your fees, seize your funds, tax at will. When you control the "official" releases of Bitcoin and maintain the message of what's acceptable, anything can be done. Atlas, you are missing the point. **Gavin & folks already do control the official releases**. So there is no difference. They do but the legitimacy of these releases have been dying through online wallets. This might reverse that and I fear it. |
|
|
|
All I can say is that this paranoia must not die. Liberty requires eternal vigilance.
The Bitcoin Foundation can become a titular bank if we allow it to.
What harm can a titular bank do? Raise your fees, seize your funds, tax at will. When you control the "official" releases of Bitcoin and maintain the message of what's acceptable, anything can be done. |
|
|
|
All I can say is that this paranoia must not die. Liberty requires eternal vigilance.  The Bitcoin Foundation can become a titular bank if we allow it to. |
|
|
|
Sorry, not gonna work anymore in the era of the internet, especially in the cryptogeek subculture, which sustains bitcoin.
You (they) need to think of something much, much better. Raise the bar...
I hope you're right. |
|
|
|
|
Jeff Garzik, a board member, has stated the "long-arm of government" should be able to reach Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
Unless Gavin accepts the "long-arm of government" through the "official" voice of The Bitcoin Foundation. Before you know it, you'll see government backdoors in the protocol and people would be swayed into accepting it with little question because "Standards".
If anything suspicious happens, I will be the first to abandon the "official" client then. For now, such scenario seems highly improbable. Let me make explain it in other words: One does not simply pass The Federal Reserve Act and conquer a whole nation through private central banking. It happened in America, the most decentralized nation of them all with a clear constitution and rules of engagement. It can happen here in the Bitcoin realm. There are people out there who are threatened by Bitcoin. They will try to manipulate culture and have people sway to their whim. This organization is perfect for that. American politics != Bitcoin version adoption. Perhaps you don't understand that difference between democracy in open-source development and democracy in representative government. They're very different things. All I know is every banking institution and technology in the world has been conquered through proxies, deceit and corruption. Every central bank in the world has been sold out to private individuals regardless of good intentions and rule of law.
It is close to impossible.The human factor is always the weakest factor. The source code factor - that's another story.If humans interpret the Bitcoin source code standardization of The Bitcoin Foundation as legitimate and as the sole authority, the Bitcoin source code can change with no question as long as this authority makes the changes. The process will turn into a cult of personality. Bitcoin will rest in the hands of a single organization. Obviously, you have no idea how programming works. Thus, you have no ducking idea what you are talking about. Talking to you is as useful & constructive, as talking to a duck. I'm actually starting to wonder if you are actually a madman or perhaps you get paid to do this. You simply fail to understand me. Source code review only works if people can easily denounce the changes without being called a troll and told to leave. If a cult around the Bitcoin Foundation forms under its implied authority and ties to Congress, it could make contesting changes obsolete. The illusion of choice should remain but the ability may not. Then You have no idea how internet works. On the internet, anybody can denounce everybody, if they have proof. And it is trivial to get proof on the Internet as the necessary wisdom is everywhere accessible within seconds. Also, programmers don't need lawyers, specialists & other expert witnesses to determine if somebody's proof is valid or not. If somebody marks 10 lines of code, and proves that these lines contains a trojan, it is trivial to asses if he is telling the truth. Also, you fail to see that just one evil move of the Gavin's foundation would condemn it forever, and nobody would trust it (or the people behind it) ever again.
Is that worth the risk ? Highly doubtable.Not if evil is redefined over time by The Bitcoin Foundation and people accept the message. You still fail to grasp how Open Source world works. If i don't like the code, I start a fork, I present the evidence that Gavin is cheating, soe people start using my fork. It is as simple as that. Actually, I already did that once, because i didn't like official client forcing fees in some situations. In case of such event, everybody in their right minds would use my fork, because everybody would know that Gavin's version has government's trojan. Of course, there would be major chaos at first, but after some period of time, we would be back to "normal". Not if your message and fork is suppressed through well-fund marketing sponsored by The Bitcoin Foundation. Messages, culture and other things can be controlled. That's the main fear here: Their clout becoming the dominating message and culture of Bitcoin. The Federalist Papers are an example of this: A well-marketed set of papers overthrew The Articles of Confederation that originally governed the United States. They successfully created a centralized, federal power structure by suppressing the message and changing it. |
|
|
|
It doesn't matter if a few miners can fork if none of the other releases have clout.
Bullshit. Do you think we Bitcoiners are mindless masses chasing fiat profits? Maybe not now but maybe in the future as this ecosystem grows and companies and other powers shape the culture. Every founding country trust its original people. So the nouveau bitcoin change things to suit them. I don't use their protocol, neither do those that made the original block chain grow as fast as it has. And we are back at square one, but perhaps with a bit more wisdom. I would prefer this protocol to be the major currency and not whatever monstrosity the government and this corporation controls. |
|
|
|
I'ts not difficult to list someone as a founding member even if they "disappeared"
It's not difficult, it's just a lie. As the name "Bitcoin Foundation" itself, since you're not the foundation of Bitcoin. Whats a lie? Satoshi is a member of the foundation because he is the creator of Bitcoin. Just because he "disappeared" doesn't mean he can't be member in absentee. In fact, the bylaws outline that if Satoshi returns how he will claim his seat. Satoshi cannot be a member at all until he provides his name and address, so how can he be a "founding member"? This dichotomy will always fester away at the core of the "Foundation" ... just so you know, that it is based on a lie. +1 |
|
|
|
Unless Gavin accepts the "long-arm of government" through the "official" voice of The Bitcoin Foundation. Before you know it, you'll see government backdoors in the protocol and people would be swayed into accepting it with little question because "Standards".
If anything suspicious happens, I will be the first to abandon the "official" client then. For now, such scenario seems highly improbable. Let me make explain it in other words:One does not simply pass The Federal Reserve Act and conquer a whole nation through private central banking. It happened in America, the most decentralized nation of them all with a clear constitution and rules of engagement. It can happen here in the Bitcoin realm. There are people out there who are threatened by Bitcoin. They will try to manipulate culture and have people sway to their whim. This organization is perfect for that. American politics != Bitcoin version adoption. Perhaps you don't understand that difference between democracy in open-source development and democracy in representative government. They're very different things. All I know is every banking institution and technology in the world has been conquered through proxies, deceit and corruption. Every central bank in the world has been sold out to private individuals regardless of good intentions and rule of law.
It is close to impossible.The human factor is always the weakest factor. The source code factor - that's another story.If humans interpret the Bitcoin source code standardization of The Bitcoin Foundation as legitimate and as the sole authority, the Bitcoin source code can change with no question as long as this authority makes the changes. The process will turn into a cult of personality. Bitcoin will rest in the hands of a single organization. Obviously, you have no idea how programming works. Thus, you have no ducking idea what you are talking about. Talking to you is as useful & constructive, as talking to a duck. I'm actually starting to wonder if you are actually a madman or perhaps you get paid to do this. You simply fail to understand me. Source code review only works if people can easily denounce the changes without being called a troll and told to leave. If a cult around the Bitcoin Foundation forms under its implied authority and ties to Congress, it could make contesting changes obsolete. The illusion of choice should remain but the ability may not. Then You have no idea how internet works. On the internet, anybody can denounce everybody, if they have proof. And it is trivial to get proof on the Internet as the necessary wisdom is everywhere accessible within seconds. Also, programmers don't need lawyers, specialists & other expert witnesses to determine if somebody's proof is valid or not. If somebody marks 10 lines of code, and proves that these lines contains a trojan, it is trivial to asses if he is telling the truth. Also, you fail to see that just one evil move of the Gavin's foundation would condemn it forever, and nobody would trust it (or the people behind it) ever again.
Is that worth the risk ? Highly doubtable.Not if evil is redefined over time by The Bitcoin Foundation and people accept the message. |
|
|
|
It doesn't matter if a few miners can fork if none of the other releases have clout.
Bullshit. Do you think we Bitcoiners are mindless masses chasing fiat profits? Maybe not now but maybe in the future as this ecosystem grows and companies and other powers shape the culture. Every founding country trust its original people. |
|
|
|
We will be fighting to keep the network as it is.
This is not an experiment. This is not a toy. This is real money, real value and a new frontier in liberty. We will not be losing it to a central authority.
Atlas i hear what your saying but your going over board... He's not going overboard. He is a one hell of a crazy nutjob. Everyone who went against The Federal Reserve Act was too. I'm amazed that you think this is similar in any way, shape, or form. It again leads me to believe you have no idea how Bitcoin works. I understand how people are convinced that transparency can hold things accountable but it won't if The Bitcoin Foundation seeks more power through Congress and cultural manipulation. IF it labels itself as the standards body, it may become hard to challenge. People may accept it and its software with little question. This is a reasonable fear.
WHOEVER CONTROLS THE MAJOR CODE RELEASES, CONTROLS BITCOIN. It doesn't matter if a few miners can fork if none of the other releases have clout. It doesn't matter if other releases are suppressed by legal means. |
|
|
|
There is probably a need for something like this. But it also creates a point of attack.
A party can easily bribe this organization and its respective Bitcoin standards to their benefit. |
|
|
|
We will be fighting to keep the network as it is.
This is not an experiment. This is not a toy. This is real money, real value and a new frontier in liberty. We will not be losing it to a central authority.
Atlas i hear what your saying but your going over board... He's not going overboard. He is a one hell of a crazy nutjob. Everyone who went against The Federal Reserve Act was too. |
|
|
|
Unless Gavin accepts the "long-arm of government" through the "official" voice of The Bitcoin Foundation. Before you know it, you'll see government backdoors in the protocol and people would be swayed into accepting it with little question because "Standards".
If anything suspicious happens, I will be the first to abandon the "official" client then. For now, such scenario seems highly improbable. Let me make explain it in other words:One does not simply pass The Federal Reserve Act and conquer a whole nation through private central banking. It happened in America, the most decentralized nation of them all with a clear constitution and rules of engagement. It can happen here in the Bitcoin realm. There are people out there who are threatened by Bitcoin. They will try to manipulate culture and have people sway to their whim. This organization is perfect for that. American politics != Bitcoin version adoption. Perhaps you don't understand that difference between democracy in open-source development and democracy in representative government. They're very different things. All I know is every banking institution and technology in the world has been conquered through proxies, deceit and corruption. Every central bank in the world has been sold out to private individuals regardless of good intentions and rule of law.
It is close to impossible.The human factor is always the weakest factor. The source code factor - that's another story.If humans interpret the Bitcoin source code standardization of The Bitcoin Foundation as legitimate and as the sole authority, the Bitcoin source code can change with no question as long as this authority makes the changes. The process will turn into a cult of personality. Bitcoin will rest in the hands of a single organization. Obviously, you have no idea how programming works. Thus, you have no ducking idea what you are talking about. Talking to you is as useful & constructive, as talking to a duck. I'm actually starting to wonder if you are actually a madman or perhaps you get paid to do this. You simply fail to understand me. Source code review only works if people can easily denounce the changes without being called a troll and told to leave. If a cult around the Bitcoin Foundation forms under its implied authority and ties to Congress, it could make contesting changes obsolete. The illusion of choice should remain but the ability may not. |
|
|
|
who ever doesn't like this new development with foundation can vote with their bitcoin,
just sell,
it is that easy
No, you sell. We will be fighting to keep the network as it is. This is not an experiment. This is not a toy. This is real money, real value and a new frontier in liberty. We will not be losing it to a central authority. You are a bloody madman. **Nobody** is centralizing Bitcoin any more through creating a foundation than it was centralized since today. Nothing changed. If we don't like the code, we can start our own foundation, and condemn the old foundation.I would prefer various competing foundations including ones that condemn all of them. We don't need universal standards. We just need natural community consensus. People value their money. All else will come from that naturally, without authority. |
|
|
|
Unless Gavin accepts the "long-arm of government" through the "official" voice of The Bitcoin Foundation. Before you know it, you'll see government backdoors in the protocol and people would be swayed into accepting it with little question because "Standards".
If anything suspicious happens, I will be the first to abandon the "official" client then. For now, such scenario seems highly improbable. Let me make explain it in other words:One does not simply pass The Federal Reserve Act and conquer a whole nation through private central banking. It happened in America, the most decentralized nation of them all with a clear constitution and rules of engagement. It can happen here in the Bitcoin realm. There are people out there who are threatened by Bitcoin. They will try to manipulate culture and have people sway to their whim. This organization is perfect for that. American politics != Bitcoin version adoption. Perhaps you don't understand that difference between democracy in open-source development and democracy in representative government. They're very different things. All I know is every banking institution and technology in the world has been conquered through proxies, deceit and corruption. Every central bank in the world has been sold out to private individuals regardless of good intentions and rule of law.
It is close to impossible.The human factor is always the weakest factor. The source code factor - that's another story.If humans interpret the Bitcoin source code standardization of The Bitcoin Foundation as legitimate and as the sole authority, the Bitcoin source code can change with no question as long as this authority makes the changes. The process will turn into a cult of personality. Bitcoin will rest in the hands of a single organization. |
|
|
|
who ever doesn't like this new development with foundation can vote with their bitcoin,
just sell,
it is that easy
No, you sell. We will be fighting to keep the network as it is. This is not an experiment. This is not a toy. This is real money, real value and a new frontier in liberty. We will not be losing it to a central authority. |
|
|
|
Unless Gavin accepts the "long-arm of government" through the "official" voice of The Bitcoin Foundation. Before you know it, you'll see government backdoors in the protocol and people would be swayed into accepting it with little question because "Standards".
If anything suspicious happens, I will be the first to abandon the "official" client then. For now, such scenario seems highly improbable. Let me make explain it in other words:One does not simply pass The Federal Reserve Act and conquer a whole nation through private central banking. It happened in America, the most decentralized nation of them all with a clear constitution and rules of engagement. It can happen here in the Bitcoin realm. There are people out there who are threatened by Bitcoin. They will try to manipulate culture and have people sway to their whim. This organization is perfect for that. American politics != Bitcoin version adoption. Perhaps you don't understand that difference between democracy in open-source development and democracy in representative government. They're very different things. All I know is every banking institution and technology in the world has been conquered through proxies, deceit and corruption. Every central bank in the world has been sold out to private individuals regardless of good intentions and rule of law. |
|
|
|
One of Bitcoin's biggest selling points is that it is NOT centralized. I've emphasized that fact when endorsing its use to others.
It's not about "Gavin's foundation". It's about any foundation. The people involved with pioneering this foundation are some of the ones I admire most in the Bitcoin community. That doesn't mean I think this is automatically a good idea. To the contrary this is the first thing I've really considered a real threat to Bitcoin succeeding. In fact, it's a part of the problem of power that these widely-admired people are the ones pioneering this move toward centralization.
EDIT: in my view, any sort of foundation Bitcoin needs for success (if it needs any) should necessarily limit its role and power as much as possible. For example, think what would happen if it did the reverse...
Bitcoin is just as decentralized today as it was yesterday, and it will be just as decentralized tomorrow too. This is a trade association, not an evil wizard. Where do you people think it is going to acquire all of this power to do evil? Implied legitimacy, clout and blind trust by the community. |
|
|
|
The name is important for a organization selfdeclared "the face" of my savings
Why are you putting something you can't afford to lose into an experiment? Gavin Andresen says the exact same shit. It's very annoying. It's like him saying "It's my experiment. I will do whatever I want with it. Fuck you guys." No, Bitcoin works fine as it is. Don't experiment with it and leave our money alone. You behave like an illogical fool. Bitcoin foundation has nothing **DIRECTLY** to do with the quality of Bitcoin source code. This move changes nothing in the code. If the code stays working as well as it worked before (or even better), then there is nothing wrong about having a foundation which will speed up the work and create pro-bitcoin lobby in the bloody congress, for example. Why should they be the only power lobbying congress for their selected companies? Why should they be the only ones paying developer salaries then? If they are the one with the funding and clout, then why wouldn't they be using that to shape Bitcoin for their interests and interests beyond? You really think they are selfless and perfect individuals? You really don't think Gavin and other devs could be bribed with salaries that come with stipulations? What stops the Rothschilds from donating millions to this foundation to shape Bitcoin to their whim under the legitimacy of Gavin? Gavin already surrendered to the CIA. You trust people too much. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
