I have to point out that this conduct is utterly disgraceful. We are not the linux foundation with Linus at the helm and megacorporations tied to the security and well-being of our product. The Bitcoin Foundation is small and heavily underfunded for the tasks it is seeking to accomplish. To have one board member sue another who happens to control the largest means of currency exchange for 75 million dollars without any forewarning or joint statement to the members of this foundation is beyond common sense.

How can Peter and Mark successfully execute their duties? This isn't AMD and Intel arguing over a patent. If Peter wins his lawsuit, then Mtgox will fold. If Mark wins, then how exactly will Peter explain to his investors that he spent their money on a failed legal venture? There is already a bank run at Mtgox with hundreds of people trying to pull out.I wouldn't be surprised to see fractional reserve rumors come soon -anonymously of course. The whole thing smells really dirty and it makes me sad.

Honestly, what I am most upset about is that you guys aren't asking for Peter and Mark to temporarily step down until this issue has been properly managed. Is there even a media plan at this point? Come on guys.

I like the Linux model better, with lots of developers at lots of different companies (and some independent) contributing.

That works well because corporations make money off of linux and thus have an incentive to contribute. Governments use linux and thus wish to keep it secure.We need to get bitcoin past some threshold that will make corporations comfortable investing dev resources to build products on top of bitcoin. For example, Facebook could become the largest online wallet provider in the world. It could effectively kill kickstarter and revolutionize the donation model for non-profits.

Some entity with credibility needs to court them into committing to a beta test. I disagree that we could replicate the linux model completely because we have no leader. Satoshi doesn't want to be Linus, which is his right, yet it means decisions end up getting made without any community consensus.

The Linux Foundation may have plenty of lawsuits between companies but we're not quite the Linux Foundation yet. Bitcoin is still very small. Also Linux has very little to lose from one of the companies in the Linux Foundation going under.

But for Bitcoin this kind of infighting at this stage is unacceptable and hurts people's trust. There's a lot more at stake here. $75 million is not pocket change even for MtGox. Are the people with deposits at MtGox at risk?

Member corporations sueing each other for money is a negative sum game, and it certainly looks like a conflict of interest to me with the goal of the Bitcoin Foundation.

Don't sell yourself short: your project is worth every satoshi of a 50BTC bounty per lecture.

How much are you willing to pay for producing these types of lectures?

Perhaps there's a miner who would like to cover these costs for you?
(Let's see how much in donations you'll get after this discussion.)

Only if you can figure out a way to break the hoarding mentality... Right now your focus seems to be on boosting demand for bitcoins, not on spending them as BTC.

I'm not in need of your service... But miners are — it's in their best interest to generate demand for BTC. Unfortunately, they still believe in bitcoin being GOLD 2.0, not BTC.

A fund for paying Gavin (and other core devs) would be great. But I'm sure this should not be part of any client.

How about paying those who promote the adoption of bitcoin through services like The Bitcoin Education Project? We are all in this together, but bitcoin miners have yet to realize that without spending there won't be a bitcoin economy. Hoarding will not get them anywhere in the long-term (the public will soon get tired of the Pump and Dump schemes)... In fact, it may even spell the death of bitcoin, especially if a competing crypto-currency will figure out a way to motivate its miners to spend like there's no tomorrow.

what are you talking about?

His project works along these lines:
- People stay away from things they don't understand
- People who don't understand cryto won't buy or sell stuff in crypto
- If people are educated to understand crypto they won't stay away
- More people will buy and sell stuff in crypto
- Everyone in the COmmunity wins... what's the problem with this?

How are you planning to pay for all this if you are not a miner? Even miners don't mine bitcoins for free.

Are you a bitcoin miner or just a buyer/user?