I suppose Satoshi perhaps foresaw this, and hence another reason for the outsized rewards for early adopters. At least if we get ideologically screwed once massive waves of people push us off the Bitcoin airplane, that same influx of people will likely supply us with a golden parachute with which to fund the development of the next cryptocurrency.
With this argument, you have actually destroyed your previous argument about BTC being broken by banks & governments. We are the early adopters, which gives us incredible power. Once banks take over the "normal" bitcoin, we can still have all the coins we hoarded using which we can rule the market. We will fork, and since we (early adopters) will (i hope) hold most of the coins, or at least significiant part, it won't matter that banks & governments created the mainstream version. Because we can move to the fork, simultaneously causing the mainstream version to die by (for example) manipulating market through selling all coins at very low price simultaneously. More coins = more power. If we have most of the coins, there are endless number of ways we can destroy the mainstream version, while forking and promoting the new, better version. |
|
|
|
|
@acoindr
Sorry, i do not have the will or time to discuss or try to convince you that LTC sucks, you are going to find it out yourself.
I wish you good luck, i hope you get very rich by using Litecoins, but i seriously I am not joining that wagon.
|
|
|
|
There is clearly significant concern about TBF. I'm surprised I haven't gotten more positive feedback on my counter defense to Bitcoin Foundation power, by using litecoins in the marketplace as well explained here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115303.0I think people just don't understand what I'm proposing. I do understand what you are proposing. However, Litecoins simply suck and that is why there is no positive feedback. Vulnerability to mining monopoly
Similarly to Bitcoin, Litecoin can be attacked by a rich entity (on the scale of big corporations and governments). Also similarly to Bitcoin, this attack becomes more difficult to orchestrate the higher the hash rate of the network. However, because Litecoin is designed to be inefficient on all common computer components (both CPUs and GPUs), a malicious entity needs only produce a single piece of specialized/custom hardware to overtake all the commodity mining systems combined.
Another problem with changed algorithm is that AFAIK Litecoin cannot be merge-mined together with Bitcoin, which sucks even more. |
|
|
|
I think the dev team is to paralyzed with fear to iterate at a normal pace for modern software because of how litigious the bitcoin community is. They fuck up somewhere and they all get sued into the poor The X11/MIT license of the official client does not give the user ANY KIND of warranty, so you cannot sue anybody. However if the devs fuck up, a lot of people are going to be VERY pissed off, including some mafia and CIA, who will both probably use Bitcoin to pay for smuggled drugs, arms & prostitutes (if they aren't doing that already). house so they take an extreme amount of time to test anything that needs to be addressed.
Extreme amount of time needs to be taken, because a bad coding decision could destroy wealth of many people and have devastating consequences. Changing software isn't always a serious thing. But modifying a CURRENCY is always serious... there is no room for mistake. I think we should be thankful that the changes are so slow. I do not want them any faster - neither should anybody. It's all our money that are at stake after all. |
|
|
|
Atlas hates the dev team because they're not getting enough done and they're not responsive enough to the community's priorities. That's why he opposes their effort to get more development resources and initiate a better process to assess the community's priorities.
+1kk Exactly right. @Atlas Stop creating pointless threads & attacking everyone. You are behaving like some crazy Atlas nutjob. PS. I hope that you didn't think that changing the avatar again would change people's perception of your person. ---- This forum should get a Slashdot-like meta-moderation system, so trolls like Atlas get sorted out. |
|
|
|
The option i would like to choose is not present in the poll, so the poll sucks.
There should be at least 3 more options, including "The idea is good, however it has some issues which require improving".
It's pretty much the same as option 2. Nope, i don't think so. Why not simply make multi-choice poll with few more options ? |
|
|
|
|
The option i would like to choose is not present in the poll, so the poll sucks.
There should be at least 3 more options, including "The idea is good, however it has some issues which require improving".
|
|
|
|
The EFF is run by bank owned govts, why would they approve of bitcoin? Come on guys get real. Bitcoin is the shit stirring currency of the world, get used to its negativity.
Actually i think they are afraid, rather than cooperating with authorities. They do not want to touch anything with undefined legal status |
|
|
|
Why is this a problem? Why should every user be influenced into installing software and operate a node as well?
Why & how exactly do you think that every user is **forced** to do anything ? PS. Also, why the hell do you keep changing your Avatar ? |
|
|
|
RE: one vote per bitcoin: there seems to be some notion that Foundation member will be voting on things like "should a change to the core protocol be rolled out to support XYZ."
Umm, no. [...]
Technical changes will happen as they have for the last couple of years-- get rough consensus in the developer community then convince miners and merchants and users to upgrade.
+1 Quoted for emphasis. There should not be any major revamp in how development decisions are made. +1kk For the record: I think it would be great to come up with an easier way for people to remain anonymous but still be Foundation members. I am glad we agree on this. Maybe there simply should be multiple ways of confirming one's identity ? Also, the methods requiring more "work" from foundation (such as meeting new member in public place & exchanging PGP keys) can be more expensive, to cover the lost time. |
|
|
|
they have killed Osama
 |
|
|
|
Name: I like the name. It can be changed if the membership decides on something better.
OK, this is actually a [minor] bug. Hosting company: could easily be changed; it likely will be.
Well, since this is kind of a [critical] bug, it better be. Soon. I highly doubt Cloudflare is a government honeypot for anything besides catching DDoS botnet operators.
Still, it will be much easier for the government & FEDs to get their hands on the servers, since the company already cooperates deeply with the authorities. Identities/voting: Please see "Sybil Attack" for why we're requiring names, mailing addresses and emails. If you've got a magical way of identifying anonymous people please send me the source code, I could use it for the Bitcoin Faucet.
Actually, i do have a not-so-magical way for confirming one's identity, however it will not work for the Faucet. Simply, if somebody wants to confirm his identity, he needs to meet one of existing, trusted foundation members in public place. And then use PGP/GPG to verify that it is the same person, which has registered on the foundation's website & on Bitcoin forums. This is a 100% sybil attack-proof procedure. Also, it provides high level of protection against government collecting all information about "Bitcoin dissidents" just by hacking/taking over the servers or even torturing/blackmailing people. Yeah, i know this will be problematic, but you can charge additional BTC for it. Severity of this bug is [critical]. Possibility of government action against Bitcoin cannot be ignored. US based: if Patrick (Foundation's lawyer) was Finnish we would probably be Finnish-based. That's the whole "perfect is the enemy of the good" thing (and I really don't want to have a month-long discussion about which legal jurisdiction is the least likely to declare Bitcoin Foundation illegal, which would be best for getting donors tax deductions, and whatever other arguments we could have).
The fear of US is well deserved... after all it US that has FED, it is US that jailed Kim Dotcom without charges, it is US that pushes for Assange's extradition even though he didn't break any laws in his country and it is US that has Guantanamo concentration camp, where they can hold & torture you indefinately without due process or even any charges. Severity: [critical]. |
|
|
|
+111111111111
Gavin
Keep moving forward. You are doing a fantastic job. Don't get sidetracked by a few critics. Most people here support you and even if not , they can create their own foundation or club.
Sidetracked ? You are not listening to the critics at all man. You simply don't get it. I think that the foundation is good and important thing, but why not fix some bugs while the thing is small. After the foundation grows big, it will be more difficult to make important changes. Here is the list of bugs to be (potentially) fixed: 1. The name "The Bitcoin Foundation" wrongly suggest that it is the central authority that controls Bitcoin. 2. The hosting company of the BitcoinFoundation.org is (with high probability) a Government-run honeypot.3. There is no safe way for people to have a vote in the Foundation without giving up their identities (which could prove fatal in case of Bitcoin users are declared terrorists, or government tries to confiscate Bitcoins from them). 4. Lack of clear privacy policy. No mention about security of member's personal data (are the servers encrypted or whatever). 6. The organization is not for profit which means it can't go bankrupt should it provide a crappy service as long as big businesses are prepared to open their purse they can operate indefinitely. (a scary thought) 7. The foundation servers are in US, making it trivial for FED & law enforcement to raid them & gather all TBF member data.( optional) - The CEO of MtGox (with all the problems with anonymity, taint listing, AML shit, KYC shit and arbitrary account freezing in this exchanger) is a founder. ( optional) - The lead dev who owns the git access and is a founding member and a member of the board of directors for the next two years is a conflict of interest. I also know that Gavin probably has me on his ignore list, because he never answers any of my posts directed at him, which is also not very nice. If Gavin does not want (or does not have time, he is lead dev after all) to answer our criticism, he should at least delegate somebody to "scan" the forums to check what people's opinions are, and then answer them collectively on a blog or something. |
|
|
|
There is zero hard, technical evidence of anything supporting the trolls positions.
You know what's disturbing to me? That the opposing side are labeled "trolls". No matter which side you're on, which views you have, is that really indicative of honest debate? This thread has 51 pages, over 13K views in about 72 hours... And everything from the opposing side were troll posts? What makes me wonder is why do the foundation founders think that everything is just "perfect" with their child ? Why can't things outside software world have bugs, just as software ? Aren't the "trolls" just people who see bugs and submit them to a bugzilla (which is what this topic actually is) ?OK, the foundation is a good idea, but it has some bugs which need fixing before pushing clearly unfinished alpha-grade product to everybody around the world... @Core team You are supposed to be programmers, so think like one. |
|
|
|
I agree fully with all your points so far, and would like to add my feelings.
Well, to be 100% clear, only 3 or 4 of the points are mine, the rest are somebody's elses. I highly doubt bitcoin users will be labeled terrorists.
...but you cannot guarantee that. So this counter-argument is useless. |
|
|
|
And a lead dev who owns the git access
Fact check: that is incorrect on multiple levels. No one person "owns" git access... if that is even a concept. Multiple developers share git write access -- but that is completely irrelevant, because anyone can fork the git repo the moment a disliked commit appears. Valid argument noted... Will change to (optional) |
|
|
|
Updated list of the foundation's bugs: 1. The name "The Bitcoin Foundation" wrongly suggest that it is the central authority that controls Bitcoin. 2. The hosting company of the BitcoinFoundation.org is (with high probability) a Government-run honeypot.3. There is no safe way for people to have a vote in the Foundation without giving up their identities (which could prove fatal in case of Bitcoin users are declared terrorists, or government tries to confiscate Bitcoins from them). 4. Lack of clear privacy policy. No mention about security of member's personal data (are the servers encrypted or whatever). 6. The organization is not for profit which means it can't go bankrupt should it provide a crappy service as long as big businesses are prepared to open their purse they can operate indefinitely. (a scary thought) 7. The foundation servers are in US, making it trivial for FED & law enforcement to raid them & gather all TBF member data.( optional) - The CEO of MtGox (with all the problems with anonymity, taint listing, AML shit, KYC shit and arbitrary account freezing in this exchanger) is a founder. ( optional) - The lead dev who owns the git access and is a founding member and a member of the board of directors for the next two years is a conflict of interest. |
|
|
|
I'm not concerned by items 5, 6 and "optional". I also don't know enough to agree or disagree about 2.
For point #2, check out my previous post & response: I will update the list... completely forgot that the servers are in US. |
|
|
|
|
@hazek
Fixed.
Updated list of the foundation's bugs:
1. The name "The Bitcoin Foundation" wrongly suggest that it is the central authority that controls Bitcoin.
2. The hosting company of the BitcoinFoundation.org is (with high probability) a Government-run honeypot.
3. There is no safe way for people to have a vote in the Foundation without giving up their identities (which could prove fatal in case of Bitcoin users are declared terrorists, or government tries to confiscate Bitcoins from them).
4. Lack of clear privacy policy. No mention about security of member's personal data (are the servers encrypted or whatever).
5. The lead dev who owns the git access and is a founding member and a member of the board of directors for the next two years is a conflict of interest.
6. The organization is not for profit which means it can't go bankrupt should it provide a crappy service as long as big businesses are prepared to open their purse they can operate indefinitely. (a scary thought)
(optional) - The CEO of MtGox (with all the problems with anonymity, taint listing, AML shit, KYC shit and arbitrary account freezing in this exchanger) is a founder.
----
Perhaps somebody should start a bugzilla or something...
|
|
|
|
5. The CEO of MtGox (with all the problems with anonymity, taint listing, AML shit, KYC shit and arbitrary account freezing in this exchanger) is a founder.
MtGox has to have AML and KYC policies if they are to continue to operate, and by that same token, cannot be anonymous for all users of the site. Changed to optional. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
