The role of the devs is to ensure that Bitcoin technology is still around by the time the majority of BTC have been mined.  The devs cannot control the purposes for which people use that technology, but the technology itself needs to survive long-term in order for the Bitcoin Project to be anything other than another failed libertarian experiment.  

The devs have already said in the past that they don't even want Bitcoin to go mainstream at this point - which makes sense if you're looking at this as a project which will take 40 years to mature, as they are.  While they can't stop people from trying to mainstream Bitcoin, changes to the client for that specific purpose are incredibly low on their list of priorities.

That the devs might believe that politicising Bitcoin by promoting its use to bypass sanctions would jeopardise the long-term future of Bitcoin itself doesn't mean everyone else has to believe the same.  Conversely, it's not reasonable to expect them to actively take action which they believe will put the project in jeopardy.  They can't stop others from doing it, but nobody - the devs included - has a moral obligation to do things which they believe will threaten the future of Bitcoin.

The devs aren't wish-granting genies.  Everyone is free to develop whatever features they want or to hire someone else to develop those features. By demanding that the devs be responsible for developing every single thing on people's wishlists, you're actually centralising Bitcoin.

How do those of you who believe that the devs should be leading the anarchistic charge feel about the fact that Satoshi himself has chosen not to do so?  Is he - too - "doing Bitcoin wrong" and being "treasonous" by dropping out of public view?

dank, people aren't concerned about the fact that you dropped acid and it gave you a new perspective which allowed you to be more positive about your life.  You won't find any shortage of people here or elsewhere who've had that experience.

What does concern people is that you seem a bit "stuck" in that experience to the extent that you believe things which are potentially harmful to you - for example, that you could survive long-term without food.  Nobody wants you to be the person who died because you didn't come down from your last acid trip.  Yeah, believing that you can organise a major music festival in a few weeks and finding out that you can't might make you question your new belief system and lose the certainty which underpins your new-found optimism, but it's not likely to have a catastrophic impact on you.  

What people are concerned about is that you don't seem to have integrated your "mystical" experiences in a manner which accommodates objective reality and denying objective reality can put you at risk of real world harm.  We've already seen one example of where you were going to take a course of action which was potentially catastrophic.  I'd rather not see you decide that you can fly or that next time you're tripping you're going to prove that you can breathe underwater.

Everyone is viewing this through their own filter.  You're seeing it as "Jeff doesn't want Iranians using Bitcoin".  Others are seeing it as "the devs don't want to be seen to be modifying the official client in a manner which could be regarded as specifically intended to help people bypass the embargo".

We find out that a second Foundation has existed secretly all along and that Satoshi is really a robot called R. Daneel Olivaw. 

He's 18.  The default assumption is that he has an iPhone (or at least a smart phone/tablet which is glued to him).

I suspect Kid Cudi would probably like to know where he's supposed to turn up, too.

Et tu.  Your "convicted murder" statements are also irrelevant to the subject of this thread.

If they contain anything of substance then he should release them and let the chips fall where they may.  Put up or shut up usagi - either release them or explain why you're not going to (in which case there was no point in mentioning that you had access to them at all).

The hope is always that life will become uncomfortable enough for the population and businesses under economic sanctions that they'll revolt - with or without outside aid.  It doesn't always work out that way, of course.

If he has access to the logs, then why isn't he releasing them?  What's he hoping to achieve by telling you he has access to them?

I know it sounds that simple but like any laws it's all in the interpretation until they're successfully challenged.  

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/20/us-iran-usa-sanctions-idUSBRE82J18Z20120320

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57402034-281/how-u.s-sanctions-hurt-iranian-internet-activists/

Ridiculous things end up being affected by economic sanctions even if those things are in and of themselves exempt.  Hell, in the 1990s there were export controls imposed by the US on SSL encryption in browsers.

The sanctions are broad enough that almost anything can be included under them, even if it's technically "exempt".

If dank was so confident that "the universe will provide", he'd start hitch-hiking to California now instead of relying on filthy money to get him there.

The cynic in me is inclined to say that if the US government thought it had the potential to totally fuck the Iranian economy they'd probably fund it under the table.

One interesting question I think this discussion raises is whether Bitcoin is mature enough yet to survive without the official client being updated.  If the core devs walked away from Bitcoin tomorrow, what would that mean for the future of Bitcoin?  Another question is whether Bitcoin has now become overly dependent on those who are "in it for the money" - let's face it, people aren't spending tens of thousands of dollars on ASICs to maintain the network - and what that means for the future of Bitcoin.

I think this point is often overlooked.  Bitcoin is a protocol and once in the wild people can use it for whatever they want.  There is nothing at all stopping different groups using it for different purposes.  There is no "one true Bitcoin agenda".  Different groups want to use Bitcoin for different purposes and some of those purposes are at odds with others.  How Bitcoin is used by the majority will determine its main function, but that doesn't render its other uses unimportant.  Nor does it mean that the majority will use it for "its original purpose" - Satoshi's intention can be made irrelevant over time by how it is actually used.

One organisation or one group cannot be all things to all people.  Different organisations and groups need to emerge representing the different agendas people within the Bitcoin ecosystem have.  

That ego of yours is talking again.  You aren't providing humanity with anything - the interconnectedness of all things is a belief system which pre-dates Christianity.  You're not a prophet (although you're starting to sound like Marshall Applewhite or Jim Jones).

You already have the freewill to live how you like dank.  But others have the freewill to not provide you with food, shelter, BTC, motorbikes, drugs etc. You talk the talk about material things not being important, but the very fact that you're selling possessions to invest in Bitcoin makes you just as materialistic as anyone else.  Actually, maybe you're even worse because you want others to provide for you while you squirrel away your little stash of BTC.

Since you maintain that the Oliver Richman song is defamatory, you should have no problem pointing us to the court ruling which found that to be the case - after all, you've had 9 years in which to pursue legal action against its composer.

Why don't you lead by example and tell us about all the ways in which you are standing up against atrocities committed by your government (because no matter where you live, your government is either committing atrocities or supporting nations which do).  Or are you just another armchair anarchist who would have watched safely from the sidelines while encouraging others to stand before the tanks in Tiananmen Square?

Based on past history, governments tend to get more aggressive with businesses/organisations which ignore sanctions. When you're imposing trade embargoes, it's to punish a whole government - which is a whole different level of power than enforcing money-laundering or terrorism financing laws against individuals or organisations.  It's largely possible to avoid money-laundering, terrorism financing and tax evasion issues - especially for the devs.  It's much, much harder to avoid sanction-busting issues because merely doing business at all with entities in the sanctioned nations opens you up to sanctions yourself.  Just making Bitcoin technology available in those nations - even free of charge - could be regarded as a violation of the embargo which can create a domino effect where other nations then effectively punish you for breaking the embargo.

It doesn't matter how ludicrous you might regard the sanctions as being (and I could write right pages about how ridiculous the sanctions against Cuba were in both scope and duration), violating them can create a situation where Bitcoin is still legal per se but key organisations are effectively unable to operate. The majority of Bitcoin businesses need to interact with the conventional financial system in some way and if they violate embargoes it can be made very difficult for them to interact with financial institutions.  Restraints can be put on the development of the official Bitcoin client.  If businesses and organisations relocate, the new nations - which will likely be small and not especially powerful - from which they operate then risk sanctions themselves if they allow those organisations/businesses to trade (not just economically, but also in terms of sharing technology and IP) with Iran.  There aren't a whole lot of countries that have no economic ties with the EU or the US, and those ties give them significant leverage when it comes to commanding co-operation in enforcing embargoes.

You might want to change your sig too.  It's very mis-leading as it still says you're paying interest.