Needs proper date formatting to be in the News Section.

Thanks...

I'd expect a different opinion from someone who has witnessed the SSL library debacle. There is a big gap between "everyone can see it" versus actually auditing changes, as many open source teams have discovered much to their chagrin later on.

He's a horrible security risk, and frankly after looking at his track record "trusting" people that turn out to be complete crooks or worse, I'd say he can't judge character or intent very well.

I'd rather not have someone who can be hoodwinked in a blink of an eye submitting code to a project as important as Bitcoin. Well, he can try, but right now his credibility is shot all to hell. He might want to get a job at Microsoft, I hear they need help forcing Windows 10 on the world. That seems right up his alley.

Gavin is more of a liability than an asset.

His track record is rather crappy when you take a close look at it.

Gavin helped found the Bitcoin Foundation, whose primary purpose was to cozy up to government and businesses - oh, and he thought Mark Karpeles was a fine, upstanding member.

Gavin didn't blink an eye when MMMGlobal, the ponzi scammers, were added as a Bitcoin Foundation member.

Gavin publicly vouched for Peter Vessenes as Chairman of the Bitcoin Foundation, who incidentally is accused of embezzling $20,000 along with another charge of taking $5,000,000 from Mt. Gox.

Gavin included Charlie Shrem as a founding member of the Bitcoin Foundation, who was later found to be an enabling actor laundering darknet drug money.

Gavin associated himself with the Bitcoin Unlimited project, and promoted Peter R's work, who incidentally is accused of being a plagiarist.

Gavin promoted the MyBitcoin service as a safe place for new users to put their Bitcoins, which later disappeared, taking all their BTC with them.

Gavin aligned himself and promoted the various schemes of Mike Hearn, who as we all know later turned on Bitcoin and declared it a "Failed Experiment" publicly, after Hearn cozied up to the big banks for his new job.

So, after all of that bullshit, we're supposed to believe that Gavin is a great judge of character and intent?

I say he's a poor judge of people, and a rather shoddy judge of code architecture decisions -- now that he's a glaring security risk, I don't blame them for taking his commit access away. He's a complete whirlwind of a mess.

To be honest, every time I see a spike in LTC I think its primarily due to laundering activity, since its cost basis is so low compared to BTC.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least if it was used in conjunction with BTC for laundering in China, seeing how most of their exchanges spoof volume anyway - its just a bunch of people gaming each other, non-stop.

Here's the real deal - Gavin is a security risk.

If he can't use his own deductive powers (and a complete list of requirements for "proof" that he ignored) and get put-over by some con man, I'm sure I don't want him making decisions about Bitcoin that could affect everyone's security and usage. Removing his commit access was a prudent move, as Gavin is frankly proving to be rather gullible when it comes to stronger personalities (such as Hearn) offering their "improvements".

It isn't like we didn't know it, after his three-letter-agency visit, it became clear that the last thing Gavin had the ability to do was say "no" to someone in perceived authority.

I cast a vote of "no confidence" in Gavin, and it looks like I'm not alone...

This is big news.

It is only a jump, hop and skip from the CME considering listing Futures and Options on the index itself. Being the world's largest futures exchange, if they smell volume somewhere, they're going to want a piece of it.

Mark my words...

Gavin is a gullible milquetoast that shouldn't be contributing to the core code anymore.

I wish I was kidding, but his past track record of teaming up with questionable people (Like Mike Hearn) following decisions about Bitcoin that are antipodal to the intent of the network (mega-blocks irrespective of the security/abuse potential) makes me think he just doesn't have his head on right.

The final blow was his gullibility in believing a con-man that clearly didn't have the proper proof that he was the real Satoshi. Gavin even had a LIST OF REQUIREMENTS that he totally IGNORED when he blogged about Mr. Wright's claim. I'm sorry, but if Gavin can't even suss out some well-constructed con, how the hell is he going to differentiate between code that is good for Bitcoin or intended as a government back-dooring attempt to screw the network?

I cast a vote of "no confidence" in Gavin, as should others who value the future of Bitcoin in general.

Needs proper date formatting to be in the News Section.

Thanks...

Oh good, another buzzword-laden PR piece masquerading as "news".

I'm sure their tokenized-frequent-flier-whatever-discount-coupon-thingamajigs will be really popular with ... someone .. maybe old blue-hairs playing bingo?

I'd be using Ethereum too, as in, getting rid of it. With it hovering above 7, and down over 50% from its former peak, perhaps people are merely dumping while the ability to sell still exists. The article also overlooks the fact that ETH was always intended to be a decentralized computing platform, and the tokens themselves used for their "DAPPS". With people dumping them on this service, it just shows a vote of "no confidence" in the system at large.

Yet-another-token that doesn't do anything to convince me it has features worth bothering with.

The paper on "Federated Byzantine Agreement Systems" is a unholy mash-up of Proof-of-Stake features with some nods towards Proof-of-Work. In short, it is unproven and if it even scales, I'd be surprised. It trusts nodes in some circumstances but not others, allows voting mechanisms that frankly seem more convoluted than anything else I've ever seen. Don't take my word for it, read all of this crap without going to sleep -- https://www.stellar.org/papers/stellar-consensus-protocol.pdf

Oh, and there are BILLIONS of these things, so yeah, there we go. I thought pre-mined was bad enough, but here we are with Zimbabwe dollars right from the get-go.

My problem with all of these Bitcoin "competitors" is they try so hard to be something "new", that they really don't end up fulfilling any basic needs. They end up being geek curiosities that are looking for a problem to solve, instead of the other way around.

Rumors have been flying that the shapeshift hack might've been an operation to disclose information leading to laundering charges. This only thickens the plot, I think...

Here's a link that allows you to select volumes per currency via a dropdown menu, perhaps take a look - https://data.bitcoinity.org/markets/volume/30d/JPY?c=e&t=a (JPY selected for your convenience)

You do realize of course that by being a good little goat, you're just cozying up to the banking system that Bitcoin is trying to replace/supplant? Not really something to be proud of, like telling everyone you got used to eating dog poop. Hey, good for you.

Still won't change the fact that Bitstamp's order book is as thin as a pancake... under a steamroller...

Bitstamp doesn't even show up in the volume pie chart over here - https://bitcoincharts.com/charts/volumepie/ and for good reason.

After they emailed everyone about more restrictive KYC/AML requirements, most people said "Good bye" and went over to Bitfinex or one of the Chinese alternatives. And guess who has the lion share of volume besides the Chinese? That's right, Bitfinex.

So they can get "licensed" all they want, they'll just end up with a shitty order book that nobody trades on. This is what regulation does, forces business to other places where there's less friction to conduct transactions.

Nobody uses Bitstamp anymore, except maybe the Feds? Who knows...

At 7.75 and falling, he probably saw the writing on the wall and got out while the getting is good. Any remaining ETH he holds is pure speculative at this point, and I dare say a big mistake as the whole project is set up to decrease in value. Zero cap on production, units valued by computing per/unit, which as we know is a huge downward pressure on pricing. CPU cycles are getting cheaper every year, not more expensive.

But anyone with basic logic can suss this out, what amazes me is the absolute HOPIUM surrounding the project itself. Nobody has a pressing need for decentralized computing at this point, and there are plenty of free open source alternatives and commercial providers to choose from.

Its been dead in the water since its inception, and they're just gradually realizing this.

He's not doing anyone any favors by satisfying the "dump" part of the equation.

It doesn't breed confidence when the founder divests himself of his own project, no matter what the immediate needs were. But perhaps he is thinking ahead, and realizing that its better to get something at a non-zero price now, than later when it has flat-lined....

Needs proper date formatting to be in the News Section.

Thanks...

Its okay Gavin, nobody has seen anything useful about Ethereum except a few old-school banks who are probably confusing it with Bitcoin.