There is a fundamental misunderstanding if you believe Decred is an attack on Bitcoin. The type of thinking where everything new is a threat is archaic and monolothic and needs to be shattered. If anything, this project attempts to show that a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship can exist between projects like Decred and Bitcoin. c0 has contributed to Bitcoin for years - just look at btcsuite, and that continues unhindered. There has been no claim that the proposed development ecosystem in Decred is perfect, but there are claims to it being progressive and it's based on a public track record of free and open-source software. Whilst this rebuttal by no means aims to belittle your view, it does try and take a stand and argue against the notion that we must all blindly fall in line behind Bitcoin without question - why? The reason Decred exists is because of many years of experiences in the Bitcoin development environment. All the developers working on Decred respect Bitcoin and either currently or in the past have contributed to it. Exploration based on this experience is by definition progress, and it's not progress to the disadvantage of either - it pulls both Decred and Bitcoin forward simultaneously. Having said that, it is urged you read a previous and detailed post on the figures you're citing. Keep in mind c0/devs did not get a single coin for free. Every coin given to them was purchased and/or worked for through development, and as such, they are the only ones carrying the risk for bringing and developing new technology. The community was not asked to carry any risk, which is why coins given to the community were given freely without any expectation or condition placed on them. It was the only reasonable balance between reality and the cost of creating new technology, whilst not pushing that onto users to carry. The project never asked for anyone's money, nor will it ever do that. Everyone here is here by their own free will and interest in building and hacking on technology together. I guess i best reply to this, then, so not to clog the thread disproportionally, I'll try to just watch a day or two. There is no fundermental misunderstanding. I do not believe dcred an attack on bitcoin as such, more an attack on decentralisation/equality due to massive % of "total" dcreds held by c0 in 1 year. I don't think everything new is a threat, but then there is nothing new in (a company) trying to take such vast (potential)future profit/power. I appreciate any contribution to Bitcoin made by c0, past and future, thankyou. I understand no claim of perfect has been made, but (imo) the stake held by c0 will prevent any real, long term, growth (perfect). c0 will hold all the real mass profit. I would not suggest anyone follow Bitcoin blindly, I always recommend research, as I would here. Funny how $82 can warp ones' oppinion though. I have read that post, and that was my initial interest. I got sidetracked (hence my uncorrected as yet slip). c0/devs now want paying retrospectively for work done. But also in the future, regardless if they ever work again (unlikely, agreed) due to their pre mine pos'ing. c0/dev are the only one taking the risk at the moment, but that will change. For dcred to grow in the future, c0 will dominate the space and will, in their entity of a company, need to be trusted by investors. A kind of single entity dominated, decentralised crypto. |
|
|
|
But really you will all be working on the cheap for c0, most likely. imo.
There has been no information about compensation for devs that will form part of the proposed ecosystem. So I don't know where you get that from. This begs the question though, and it's a serious one, what's the alternative for a new dev in the future? Work on Bitcoin and get paid nothing? Or work in a system where you get compensated for innovation and contributions that feed back into Bitcoin as well? I know that's biased, but it's a legitimate proposal that's being formed. As i said, imo. (as, as you said, there is no info on the subject!) I know not the employment of devs. Does this all now rest on dcred/c0? It was basically a good idea, of course. But c0 get to powerful/gready/centralised. (in the current plan) |
|
|
|
Exciting, yes. Flawed yes.
(most exciting coin in a long time.. in a long list of shitcoins?)
I have read the whole thread twice so far. No I don't understand it all yet, do you?
Were my figures correct?
So if you can't understand it yet how can you say it is flawed? I think I understand quite a lot. I remain open to correction. Are my figures correct, as I have declared them inaccurate? I will correct in due course, but feel free in the meantime. Did I mention "your" figures...? The way that this project developed invokes trust Not doubt... This project will "bring back and unite people who are serious about getting involved in a project that wants to focus on and empower development." Quote from: bamsterdam on Today at 03:42:03 PM I see all these forum veterans that are rely enthusiastic about the project haven't seen that for a while now.. That's part of the goal. Bring back and unite people who are serious about getting involved in a project that wants to focus on and empower development. The hope is that a strong and sustainable development ecosystem will have spillover effects into other areas. Quote from: bamsterdam on Today at 03:42:03 PM I was looking at the website to participate in the airdrop and I gave the url to my profile here on btc talk with my email adress, will this be sufficient? Yes, that will certainly be sufficient. Decred hopes to attract contributors, and if you're legitimately involved in cryptocurrencies and the issues around them, it's considered contributory. Sorry, no you did not mention figures. I did. I thought you might have wanted to quickly check, as you say in sig, It's all mathematics! This project will "bring back and unite people who are serious about getting involved in a project that wants to focus on and empower development." Yes, it will feel like it. But really you will all be working on the cheap for c0, most likely. imo. |
|
|
|
Exciting, yes. Flawed yes.
(most exciting coin in a long time.. in a long list of shitcoins?)
I have read the whole thread twice so far. No I don't understand it all yet, do you?
Were my figures correct?
So if you can't understand it yet how can you say it is flawed? I think I understand quite a lot. I remain open to correction. Are my figures correct, as I have declared them inaccurate? I will correct in due course, but feel free in the meantime. |
|
|
|
|
Exciting, yes. Flawed yes.
(most exciting coin in a long time.. in a long list of shitcoins?)
I have read the whole thread twice so far. No I don't understand it all yet, do you?
Were my figures correct?
|
|
|
|
I see all these forum veterans that are rely enthusiastic about the project haven't seen that for a while now..
That's part of the goal. Bring back and unite people who are serious about getting involved in a project that wants to focus on and empower development. The hope is that a strong and sustainable development ecosystem will have spillover effects into other areas. I was looking at the website to participate in the airdrop and I gave the url to my profile here on btc talk with my email adress, will this be sufficient?
Yes, that will certainly be sufficient. Decred hopes to attract contributors, and if you're legitimately involved in cryptocurrencies and the issues around them, it's considered contributory. Woah! Don't the senior members/other devs need to take stock here. The euphoria of another $82 airdrop, get in early get rich, work together, no risk scheme. Bitcoin is my goal, problems or neigh. Satoshi owns 5% of total (21m) bitcoin. That is bad enough. c0, a private company(?) want even more of their coin. 7.376% in yr 1 and increasing. That is worse. Are c0 worth more than Satoshi, (in their prosective coins) I think not. I thought those days were over. Satoshi was a one off. If the devs here, (who are clearly competent) and future devs here, and senior members, spent their time on Bitcoin instead of this idealogical, but flawed by massive reward for The new master c0 demi-centralised idea. Who knows. I should just pretend this will work, (like many others) take my airdrop, convert to bitcoin. No thanks. Do your good work for bitcoin instead please. Edit. problem with my figures here, (wrong) checking. |
|
|
|
Have you ever gone full Fodor yourself?
I mean like ever, maybe while pissed/stoned once?
No I haven't. (and it is advised not to, ever) But then neither have I ever been pissed/stoned. Does drink/drug abuse increase the likelihood of such a condition? |
|
|
|
Sounds like you really need to devote a few hours of diligent research on here. What you're writing is shouting that you're opening yourself up to potential problems that could be easily avoided with a bit more knowledge. This forum and plenty of other places in Bitcoinland are havens of scamminess and dishonesty. Keep your wits about you.
I second this advise. But take a few weeks/months of diligent research. Make that online payment with your credit card/paypal this time. You will likely loose any bitcoin somewhere in the process. Get a wallet, earn a few satoshi in a faucet to start. Or, are you trying to scam us? |
|
|
|
Topic: Bitcoin Foundation: Where on Earth Did all the Money Go?
BF "I do remain skeptical of the value of an audit."
On a personal level thats fine,
But as BF chair, or whatever, I would like to see your default position as - wanting an audit for transparency-
Even if you still add, (due to lack of finance) "provided someone can lead it and do the work involved and/ or support the costs of one."
BF "2) ridiculously wasteful and reckless spending"
This is not too far from saying misappropriation and fraud/theft.
(which I am not saying is the case)
But dont you NEED to know. I kind of do.
Would ex board members fund this audit possibly? (It would save a lot of speculation/mudslinging)
BF "I have not been presented any evidence of any theft, criminal act or similar wrongdoing but would be *happy to pay a bounty of at least 10%* for anyone with information and evidence of any such act leading to recovery of any funds which were misappropriated or stolen."
And your are unlikely to be presented with *evidence* without an audit?
How about instead of *happy to pay a bounty of at least 10%*, put it (?) into the audit fund to get it started?
I wont go on about Brock Pierce either, except to say there are other allegations against him also.
($200k and stock stolen. KNC miner debacle. other?)
Not sure what is on topic here now!
Edit. BF being Bruce fenton, not bitcoin foundation. didn't spot that!
Bruce, did you miss this. Or was it ignored? If you don't agree fine, just let me know. To summarise, I would strongly like an audit. As known TBF is broke, so.. Bruce fenton changes stance to "would like to see audit for clarity, but TBF can't afford it." Bruce fenton donates whatever he is happy too to an audit fund. (instead of a bounty fund) Bruce Fenton reaches out to ex board members to also donate to the fund. (and any present board members who are willing) The audit is done independently, at no cost to TBF. To say an audit will not help, i'm not sure that is correct. It will help clarify for all concerned. |
|
|
|
Just sad that even rizz can't get more of an audience, that's how dead this coin is. Yet its still heavily advertised.
Yeah screw you cointlegraph for your tasteless whoring.
No new daily alt post for cointelegraph by Frederic since the "safely sell @$11.00 per thousand bs" debacle. Don't know if he's waiting for the next trading update I promised him? (but never delivered) Or do cointelegraph now realise there is a problem with their paid shilling, disguised as reporting. neucoin advertising campaign seems to have also stopped. cointelegraph - coinmarketcap - newsBTC - All free from the bouncing rabbit! Have cointelegraph had to cancel the ad campaign to try to save cred? Only the price ticker remains on cointelegraph. Presently down to $3.53 per thousand bs. Nice reminder of the fall from "safely sell @$11.00 per thousand bs". Is that cointelegraph having a dig at Dan? Also, Even a James mod post was deleted 24 hour ago. James mod not seen since. Could be interesting on his return. |
|
|
|
What will differ?
Well, it's a new page, we could start a new chapter couldn't we? Actually, isn't this post the start of new page, or did somebody delete a post (recalling Page 420 of this thread that went on forever and a day)? It was a new page, then it wasn't a new page. Now you are top of the page. Should I delete a previous post to put me back at the top of the page? |
|
|
|
What will differ?
Well, it's a new page, we could start a new chapter couldn't we? |
|
|
|
Wow... 17 pages of rehashing up old topics and trolling! It does bring up some interesting ethical dilemmas like how does one determine Age of Consent. Fun Fact - The legal age of consent was 12 in The Vatican City up until 2013 where it changed to 14 for married women.....disgusting.
Cody Wilson is interested to bring transparency to the Bitcoin Foundation and move this issue forward . Bruce, I sent you an IM.
Does that mean all except you and Bruce are trolling and rehashing? Was that irony/sarcasm? I am trying to be productive here. Is that not coming across? I haven't spammed Bruces' message box. Edit, to save me spamming. vvv (Response to below) vvv Thank you BitUsher I understand. sorry, I was a bit snappy to you. |
|
|
|
|
Topic: Bitcoin Foundation: Where on Earth Did all the Money Go?
BF "I do remain skeptical of the value of an audit."
On a personal level thats fine,
But as BF chair, or whatever, I would like to see your default position as - wanting an audit for transparency-
Even if you still add, (due to lack of finance) "provided someone can lead it and do the work involved and/ or support the costs of one."
BF "2) ridiculously wasteful and reckless spending"
This is not too far from saying misappropriation and fraud/theft.
(which I am not saying is the case)
But dont you NEED to know. I kind of do.
Would ex board members fund this audit possibly? (It would save a lot of speculation/mudslinging)
BF "I have not been presented any evidence of any theft, criminal act or similar wrongdoing but would be *happy to pay a bounty of at least 10%* for anyone with information and evidence of any such act leading to recovery of any funds which were misappropriated or stolen."
And your are unlikely to be presented with *evidence* without an audit?
How about instead of *happy to pay a bounty of at least 10%*, put it (?) into the audit fund to get it started?
I wont go on about Brock Pierce either, except to say there are other allegations against him also.
($200k and stock stolen. KNC miner debacle. other?)
Not sure what is on topic here now!
Edit. BF being Bruce fenton, not bitcoin foundation. didn't spot that!
|
|
|
|
Isn't plagiarism one of ways of making this world better?
I've not read that before. I might use that again, lf that's ok? |
|
|
|
Is this where the thread takes a quantum leap of faith?
I think I've seen that question before, on page 475... Is that plagiarism? |
|
|
|
Bruce, I am not accusing anyone directly. I dont have the time, or the evidence.
But did it occur to you that no matter how "squeaky clean" someone is that they will still be attacked? They would be scrutinised. Goes with the territory I fear. I want to wish you luck Bruce, but if you sit with Brock, I cant. I'm only one person. You carry on. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
Bruce, I am not accusing anyone directly. I dont have the time, or the evidence.
My point. I am a bitcoiner. I'm sick of scam after scam.
You want to reserect the foundation.
It needs board members who are squeaky clean.
I do not trust some members, rightly or wrongly.
Just trying to show what you are up against.
I will seriously think of dumping out of Bitcoin if this continues to be acceptable.
No problem, Im only one Bitcoin user.
I'm sorry you did ask for direct accusations OP
"I dont have the time, or the evidence." I suspect like most Bitcoiners.
But I cannot support this. Like most silent users?
Edit. Bruce if you catch this. Paul claims "active bitcoin foundation committee member" Either he is or not? (or not)
|
|
|
|
|
I will not be talking to Brock Pierce. (Unless he comes here. He should come here)
My point being, The Bitcoin foundation is dead in the water with these scam (accused) ridden members. rightly or wrongly.
Cough, cough, cough. I need to stop smoking this shit.
Edit. Bruce, could you find out Paul Keanes' involvement with the foundation, if any?
If he is not what he says, it needs correcting.
|
|
|
|
Bruce could you clarify for me please. I have been following neucoin. (shit/scamcoin) Neucoin claim Brock Pierce as a strategic adviser. Is he? neucoin say of Brock "I am not aware of this specific allegation against Brock, [co-founder of IGE says he stole $200,000 of stock from the company] but so far we have never had any problems with him." http://forum.neucoin.org/t/team-foundation-concerns/567I have a problem with him. Bitcoin doesn't need this any more and cannot come clean with board members of this elk. BTW. Also Paul keane shills for neucoin "I am a very active Bitcoin Foundation Committee Member and Core Developer." Is he? http://forum.neucoin.org/users/pkeane4osu/activityAre these two people really Bitcoin foundation board members? If so, they have no cred with me. (ps thanks for the christmas change tip) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
