|
Well, you know there's alot of banking infrastructure that needs to be replaced.
|
|
|
|
My ignore list aquired a new member... excellent..it grows like a tumor  and soon... you will be alone in this forum This ^^ Hey wait a minute. I'm a troll worth listening to. |
|
|
|
ElectricMucus, why do you spend all your waking hours here?
Oh sorry. Ask him why he spends all his waking hours here FOR OVER TWO YEARS! |
|
|
|
*Snip*
you seem to understand her way better than most ppl around here. certainly me. perhaps you can then explain the meaning of her closing statement: "The clock is ticking and we do not have much time until Bitcoin is compromised" ? I doubt that's true. You have a good grasp on what's happening here. Far better than I do or really even care to. I, like many here, am out for my own self interest (increasing the value of Bitcoins by increasing the user-base). That always coincides with what's best for Bitcoin locally (USA). I think it's easy to see by watching press hits and following the different Bitcoin forums that the US is poised to take a possibly hard line stance on Bitcoin (virtual currencies or whatever the current jargon is). Not claiming to speak for anyone, I would assume that statement means she sees that the inevitable government involvement will be negative and that Bitcoin can be compromised by the actions of government. Something can be compromised in many different ways. Unwieldy government legislation and strict rules imposed can and will bleed through to US friendly nations where agreements are made to cooperate. Many other nations will follow suit if the US sets a course in behavior. Will this stop Bitcoin - definitely not. Will it keep me from using it - definitely not. Will it compromise my ability to use it - absolutely. I have said before that I don't like the idea of getting into bed with government but I can see the logic of opening a dialog that allows an even tempered response from the largest financially forceful government on the globe. Nothing wrong with that. I'm all for raw unadulterated greed. We may have more in common than you think. However when it comes to Elizabeth, I think that gaff comes more from her tendency to perseverate, ie, the inability to stop talking for more than 0.5 seconds. You know, those people whose mouths are running faster than they can think. Its either that or she really doesn't know wtf she's talking about. |
|
|
|
have you gone mad?
this has been discussed multiple times... show the deliberately introduced flaws in ecdsa or sha256 or shut the FUD up.
No. EM is just one desperate bull in bears clothing ever since I short squeezed the hell out of him @$3 back in 2011. Ask him why he spends all his waking hours here. |
|
|
|
|
This is truly an extraordinary story.
And underappreciated.
|
|
|
|
the main reason i'm partial to Platzer is that he is international. maybe that's too much of a simplification but i also think he's lived, breathed, and taken personal and financial risks in promoting Bitcoin. Exactly. He has a personal stake in the system: he risked his business standing up for his (allegedly extremist) views, and it paid of for him, he had the diplomatic abilities to negotiate Bitcoin payment for all of his overheads. He can't have been so confrontational and uncompromising to achieve that. from my own geopolitical assessment of risk to Bitcoin's future, Germany's ruling allowing Bitcoin to function as a legal private currency was a seminal event. to me that means whatever the US gov't does to try and obstruct Bitcoin, it won't matter given this development. that is huge to me. i always assumed Platzer had a hand in this and now from the debate i learn that my suspicions were true. he's been working directly with Schaeffer (?) of the Bundesbank to get this done. that's big and indicates an ability to work with regulators towards what in essence guarantees Bitcoin's future, imo. |
|
|
|
Thanks to LetsTalkBitcoin for hosting the debate on very short notice and I am pleased to have had the Bitcoin Foundation sponsor it.
Thanks also to the five candidates that made the time over Saturday to participate.
It is also a testament to this Bitcoin Foundation to attract such a group of quality candidates. The debate questions were friendly, more so than I'd hoped, very civil and open ended, but not particularly challenging (except when the interviewer was not understanding an answer and pressed for more). Board member is a leadership position so it would be nice to have had a few more hardball questions dealing with the necessary core competencies for the role such as how they would form and mobilize strategies to handle particular governmental oppositions that are occurring today around the world, and some which may yet come. Rather than (just) be a complainer, I'll offer examples: Not all regions see competitive business advantage as a sufficient incentive to permit transaction freedom. Some may not be convinced by the merits of Bitcoin even with a complete understanding of it and the technology. If some near-totalitarian state were to decree Bitcoin outlawed, and assign capital punishment to users transacting in its jurisdiction unless using a government sanctioned escrow for the private keys of all its citizens, (which law, were it to exist, might even be enforceable to some degree). Faced with such, how would you as a Bitcoin Foundation board member address this? Citizens there may not be able to send TBF member fees nor get any representation in TBF without foreign help, would you advocate such help through the Foundation and how? I'm insufficiently vain to imagine that any of the Board hopefuls will read this or answer it, but had to put it out there for the rest of us to contemplate because I am old enough to remember when "munitions grade" PGP was illegal to export from the USA. That's a really good way to look at it. I've read many negative comments about candidates reading from a prompter, not having a clue about Bitcoin, being a super Bitcoin user, superior knowledge about the subject or having the most passion about the subject. The truth is none of these matter for a group representative that will liaison between government and TBF. Experience with the target government matters the most. I don't believe anyone could immerse themselves in Bitcoin for a reasonable period of time and not end up understanding it. If I thought that were true then I would have to believe Bitcoin is doomed to failure because the common man will never understand it well enough to use it effectively. I would prefer that any liaison office not be held by a developer or super user. I have nothing against developers but feel their superior knowledge would keep them from understanding how to explain Bitcoin to the uninitiated. Superior knowledge does not equal the ability to teach. I took many classes in college where I learned more from the student teacher than from the class professor because I had an easier time understanding the way they were explaining the subject. The dairy coalition lobbyists don't have to be dairy farmers to lobby Washington. In fact, it's almost impossible for any good lobbyist to be a working member of the group they are employed by because they need an education and experience in government to know how to work the system, who to communicate with and how to best present ideas to a bureaucrat. I still only see one candidate that fits that bill. Manager of Communications at Bitcoin Magazine Past Scheduler at Congressman Peter J. Roskam Israel Relations at US House of Representatives Staff Assistant at US Congress Education Wheaton College you seem to understand her way better than most ppl around here. certainly me. perhaps you can then explain the meaning of her closing statement: "The clock is ticking and we do not have much time until Bitcoin is compromised" ? |
|
|
|
I think you're wrong.
I have to agree with the others here. Elizabeth sounds like a great person and she will get a load of stuff done, she's obviously very organised, passionate and motivated about trying to make Bitcoin work, but I just don't see her as contributing much to the board in terms of experience or opinions (no offence, Elizabeth!). I think she would be better served as a representative of the BCF in Washington, or a voice for Bitcoin in the press/media, or someone you know you can depend on to get things done or form order out of chaos. I think having someone with more experience of Bitcoin on the board is the way to go - Trace and Joerg would be better in this perspective. I personally am tending towards Trace, because I think right now the time is right to engage with governments and banking industry rather than try and convince them by edging slowly towards the cryptocurrency singularity - I have tremendous respect for Joerg but some of the seemingly confrontational things he's been saying in interviews really worry me. Just my 2bitcents Will yeah, Trace would not be a bad choice at all altho he sometimes overpromotes himself and claims too much credit for advancing Bitcoin theory. he himself admits having missed the first boat in Bitcoin back in 2011. but to give him credit, he definitely caught the second boat to sail. i also like the fact that he seems to be working tirelessly to establish contacts in the traditional banking system. he clearly is independent enough to be able to travel to many foreign countries to spread the word which i very much like. by talking and networking with many different ppl he gains a perspective on the marketplace that very few of us can claim. he's a clear thinker as well. Ben impressed me as a mature honest individual who would do well also. experience in Facebook is a big advantage and supposedly he is a good dev. the main reason i'm partial to Platzer is that he is international. maybe that's too much of a simplification but i also think he's lived, breathed, and taken personal and financial risks in promoting Bitcoin. there's a part of me that worries that the US declares Bitcoin illegal here in the States and with an all US representation on the BF that could paralyze that organization instantly, imo. and surprisingly enough, Luke did way better than i thought he would. he was calm and relatively articulate. he withstood the personal attacks quite well too surprisingly. i say surprisingly b/c he has a well known shall i say negative history with Gavin and others around here. sorry Luke but my intent here is to complement you for a job pretty well done given the circumstances. |
|
|
|
"Bjork" = "Joerg"
Hahahahhaha.
"Bjork" + "Joerg" = "Borg"?  |
|
|
|
just listening to the first queston (the mission statement) had me go, "whut?" after elizabeth.
She spews forth this litany of pithy one liners that sound good but make you say wtf? That last one was priceless though. So who wrote that one? Andreas or Adam? Just kidding guys! I'm sure she wrote that one all on her own. |
|
|
|
|
Yes, the goal should be to increase the user base and its safety and not increase the regulation-Platzer
|
|
|
|
|
way to go Andreas. the whole thing was well done.
great moderating.
|
|
|
|
"The clock is ticking and we do not have much time until Bitcoin is compromised" - Hamster Girl.
you beat me to it. WTF was that all about? |
|
|
|
i'm confused how anybody who listened to the debate at letstalkbitcoin.com can support Elizabeth Ploshay.
i know. a bunch of rehearsed lines that made no sense in many places. especially in response to direct questioning. |
|
|
|
gmax, why did you delete this portion of what you said in this part of our github exchange?
Hm? I don't have a specific recollection of it, whenever it was it was a long time ago since that string doesn't show up elsewhere in any google result. Are you sure it was even a quote from that pull (check your email, github doesn't send-to-sender so I can't see it). it's right here and it was you for sure: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162#issuecomment-17148851come on Greg. you're a smart guy with a good enough memory to pull out all those quotes of me in that same thread. furthermore, this isn't the first time i've referenced that quote of yours to your face. it's the second time; the first being in another thread here on the forum a month or so later. if you insist i'm sure i can dig it out with some effort. you deleted it for a reason. In any case, I've said the similar things many times, in fact there is a quote of mine (paraphrasing Satoshi) in the forums standard rotation on that subject matter. If it was deleted it may have been because I'd already said basically the same thing: Bitcoin is absolutely not a voting system. There is some computational-voting in Bitcoin where there was no other choice, but everywhere else the system operates by autonomously imposed rules— so that every participant consents to the operation of the system and can't be victimized by a majority who chooses to harm them. If you want a currency operated by votes— go use the official money of any democratic nation. And perhaps I removed it because I was just repeating myself non-productively (You may note that I made no further comments in that thread after that point). (Uh, This has veered way off-topic. Perhaps we should move to PM?) Edit:I didn't see theymos' response except in your quote, but I assume he removed it because it was offtopic. What you're quoting from him there is exactly my view, and I think both Satoshi and the design of the Bitcoin system is abundantly clear on this point. You could easily build a majority of miner's system, but it would not be a valuable one because the 'wolves could vote to have the sheep for supper', just like the resource-weighed-majority of today's democracies do not reliably rule with the consent of the governed. It would, however, be a lot simpler and easier to work on that Bitcoin is... Bitcoin is based not on trust, but on mathematical proof. Not perfectly, since we are not yet skilled enough to design systems so perfect that they can operate completely without intervention but to the extent that we can make a reality of that vision Bitcoin can be immune to the folly of man. (A point you can see, e.g. the winklevossen making in their PR and SEC filings, for example). ... Even if all the miners agree they can't just steal your Bitcoin and assign it to themselves. If a minority ruling over people is a tyranny, a majority ruling over other people is only a difference in magnitude. Freedom comes from autonomy, from not being ruled over by any master, not even the most popular one. Perfect autonomy is not possible, but we can certainly maximize it by adopting systems with clear rules at their outset which are not subject to and are designed to resist coercive change, like Bitcoin. (Of course, on matters of preference where people's freedom isn't at stake, majorities can be useful modes to pick between options... though diversity is often even better: To each his own.) Matonis subsequently was elected BF Chairman [...] and Ver retains a seat on the Board Huh? This is, I think it to be totally irrelevant— but since we're already in recursive offtopic land—, neither of these things are true as far as I know. my problem with that situation is that you were willing to hold a vote amongst yourselves in a non-representative situation over in github when the vast majority of non-devs had no idea a vote was in progress. when we found out about it and asked for a re-vote, we were dismissed. i understand that the devs need to make decisions based on their best judgment in situations reliant on coding. but when it came down to a simple situation like Ver and Matonis, the rest of the community has every right to have a say in who and who was not to be allowed into the press center. |
|
|
|
the majority should determine the direction of Bitcoin.
No. Individuals should decide what they do with their own stuff. bitcoin.org is owned by one person who decides to use it in certain ways. The developers own their own time and skills. You don't have any right to influence how these things are used. I'm certainly not going to allow any majority to force me into doing things that I know are wrong with the assets under my control. Just because a majority of people (or a loud minority of people...) believe something doesn't mean that it's true. (Of course, I'm always willing to read and carefully consider reasonable arguments.) well you know, that is exactly what happened. the majority of us, feeling ignored by the minority controlling the bitcoin.org press center, made a plea to Sirius (the owner of bitcoin.org) who upon finding out what happened to Matonis and Ver promptly disagreed with their exclusion and as far as i know forced a resolution. kudos to Sirius who listened to us and made a fair determination. thanx to Andreas for setting up an alternative Press Center which diffused the situation and allowed inclusion of Matonis and Ver to all (or most of) our satisfaction. |
|
|
|
cypherdoc: hmmm. i don't get this line of thought. if satoshi agreed with your general line of thinking, then why did he design the whole mining process to depend on a MAJORITY of miners, as in >50%, determining which is the correct blockchain in the case of a fork?"
The majority of miners determine the correct ordering of transactions to prevent double-spending because this is the only known way of achieving such consensus in a secure and decentralized way. Miners do not decide which chain is correct if the fork is due to some rule violation. Every individual must decide for himself in that case. Bitcoin isn't a democracy. i asked HIM why he deleted it. let's review the context in which the whole github brew haha occurred: 1. there is a thread here that clearly demonstrated the community's outrage at excluding Ver and Matonis from what was at the time the self appointed Bitcoin.org Press Center controlled by Savann and the developers including gmaxwell. 2. despite consensus sentiment here there was an unannounced "vote" over at github as to whether to include them or not. the "majority" apparently said no. not surprising b/c they (jgarzik, luke-jr, gmaxwell, Savann) were the one's who unilaterally decided to exclude them. 3. members of this forum were outraged b/c none of us ever heard about this supposed open vote and thus never had a chance to vote. valid complaints were that github is never frequented by non-developers. go look at it for yourself for those who doubt. it's not non-developer friendly and there is no reason for non-devs to go there. 4. upon hearing of the exclusion, a bunch of us went over to github and asked for a re-vote. informal re-voting poll by Andreas showed that Ver and Matonis would have been included into the Press Center. 5. our pleas were summarily dismissed. in retrospect, Andreas went off and developed a new website which has been tremendously successful and supported by the community. obviously, Matonis and Ver were included. Matonis subsequently was elected BF Chairman and rightfully so despite gmaxwell's portrayal of him as some sort of out of control radical. and Ver retains a seat on the Board. they were wrong. we were right. the majority should determine the direction of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
theymos deleting your own posts? i was just preparing a heavy handed response.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
