Everyone in this community has to understand that 'politically correct' is always going to be impossible with a currency like bitcoin. It can't be controlled. It can't be regulated. Accounts can't be frozen. Unlimited funds can be loaded to a napkin and stored anywhere in the world for safe keeping. This isn't something any government will be comfortable with.

We should focus on education and evangelism. If we reach a critical mass, then bitcoin becomes like the internet and governments will just have to learn to accept it. I'm not comfortable with a foundation saying we need to beg regulators to write laws to control us. Governments do not make you legitimate, consensus always has.

The questions you have asked are valid. I have asked valid questions. Many in this community has and will continue to do. We never get a response other than we are trolls or conspiracy theorists.

I'm thinking we really should consider a fork.

Thanks for this

Can you also register the domain with btc?

The Bitcoin Education Project is going to start working on a website to centralize our efforts. We'd like to support a host who accepts bitcoins. Any recommendations?

This is why I've started the conversation. There is a lot of history floating around these boards. I'm sorry they won't give me a child board to archive it, but I guess you have to work with what you have been given.

The Bitcoin Education Project is going to start working on a website to centralize our efforts. We'd like to support a host who accepts bitcoins. Any recommendations?

thanks

I'll get a press package to you on it. We should have a website/blog something done by the end of the week.

Any mention of the Bitcoin Education Project?

Thank you for this. Smoke PM me. I'd like to have a convo about the history of bitcoin. You've been here a long time so I figure you probably have a few things to say.

Which is why I'm making this very public. I really would like a child board for the history of bitcoin. We could collectively could run it and make a serious effort to ensure the history isn't lost.

Those are very solid questions. If we really want to be nice, then why don't we just create a fund to pay Gavin directly? Then this problem goes away entirely.

When Gavin is saying that about us, I suspect their feelings are really clear.

LOL

I've been writing a web scraper for bitcointalk to pull out all of satsohi's 500 or some posts, but I obviously can't get access to emails, which I suspect the real meat exists. I'll repost this thread every week to keep people aware of the effort and when our webpage is up, we'll have a section for Satoshi.

I'll I know is what I read on these forums and the conduct of foundation members. There seems to be a very direct effort to centralize and legitimize bitcoin around a singular group. I meant no offense in my comments. I say this exact pattern of behavior before when I worked for Ron Paul back in 2007-8 with the tea party. We watched as it became a proxy of the republican party and there was nothing we could do about it.


You're not to get one. He has no incentive to participate in their words "conspiracy theories" and "forum trolling". But thank you for bringing this to the community's attention Herodes. You're a good guy (I presume you're a guy, but if you'd like me to imagine you as an attractive girl, then I can do that too )

We can actually add more digits than just 0.00000001. The satoshi was just an arbitrary setting that can be modified without significant effort.


True that, but we are able to buy hardware with bitcoins. Fair point about the power. This is why I say economic reality.


(0.01 > 0.001) reduce by adding more zeroes


I'm saying that miners can choose who they fill the transaction queue with. Transactions that don't pay a fee will become less likely to get approved. Over time I believe an auction system will develop that creates a market price for processing a transaction.

Another reason to bring sugar bush:

We could reduce the limit if necessary to more digits. That isn't a hard software implementation. To be honest, the entire fee system needs to be redone into an action style system with weights from high priority nodes that either contribute resources via mining or take resources via large transaction count (think satoshi dice). Satoshi's hope was for transactions to eventually become the primary source of revenue for miners.

Another issue is that transactions should not be connected to a currency like the dollar. Bitcoin is an independent system and should be compared in its own sake. However, I agree this is a naive hope more than an economic reality.


Mining pools could collectively decide not to mine transactions below a certain threshold. Who could stop them?
http://blockchain.info/charts/network-deficit

Gives you an idea between BTC generated from the transaction fees minus the coinbase transaction times the market value of the coins. Over time this should enter a surplus.  

You might also want to consider talking to the meetup groups. They are the closest thing we have to local chapters.


First, every vote needs to be directly tied to exactly one person. I like the hash system I proposed, but we could implement something different. Second, we need to find a way to keep debates both focused and highly specific. This is very difficult on the internet in my experience. Perhaps there could be a reward system for reaching consensus or some form of gamification?