As many know, I'm all for having a healthy variety of actively developed clients.
Still, that doesn't change the fact that from day 1 and to this day, bitcoind has always been the reference implementation.
Developed by Satoshi Nakamoto. He's gone and there is no confirmation that the vision is the same. It lost its prestige when Satoshi left. It's legacy software. |
|
|
|
Mining software is made separately for specific hardware sets which be easily used with other Bitcoin implementations.
Could you give me an example of "other Bitcoin implementations" that can be used to mine? The mining component is always independent. Drivers are developed independently. As for sending Bitcoins and reaching the network, you can use whatever you want including BitcoinJS, Electrum, Armory, etc. |
|
|
|
I'll give you .3 BTC if you STFU and don't post on this forum for 24 hours.
I have you on ignore and your narcissistic bullshit is still a pain in the ass.
If it's narcissistic to want to free Bitcoin from the reigns of a single organization, then call me a narcissist. |
|
|
|
We have encrypted, verifiable and secure online wallets based on javascript, the main one being http://blockchain.info/wallet. Mining software is made separately for specific hardware sets which be easily used with other Bitcoin implementations. People are using desktop-based wallets less and less and are opting for online accounts through Mt. Gox, Coinbase and others. Bitcoin-Qt takes hours to setup while others get you started with ease. Out of all the choices and development out there for Bitcoin, does Bitcoin have an "official" release? Does anyone deserve that designation? Does anyone have sole development rights to Bitcoin? Can anyone truly be called the "Official Lead Developer" of Bitcoin? There are the latest releases of bitcoin-qt on http://bitcoin.orgOnline accounts that have a number which represents the amount of bitcoins you could withdraw aren't the same as bitcoin clients/wallets. Bitcoin-Qt is one client out of many. Sure they are. They run their own version of the software, their own nodes. |
|
|
|
I'm not going to address conspiracy theories, mostly because I'm not seeing most of them because of who I've got on my ignore list.
Very good trick if u have nothing to say in ur defense! I hope that the spokesperson of "TBF" won't use it too often... This is true. If one is truly seeking "input from the community" to help shape this then surely nobody should be on ignore if they are not being hostile? Gavin, you are a remarkable man. You don't even bother with "conspiracy theories". That's true efficiency. You know the true importance of "getting things done". Lead us all! No, most of us who actually own significant amounts of Bitcoins accept no leaders, no authorities or committees. We will dump and chastise every frivolous addition to the protocol on the spot. How many frivolous additions have your dumped and chatised? Can you site the specific ones? If you haven't chastised any additions, what will make you do it now that the Foundation exists? I've questioned the legitimate need for every one of these. Most of them are experimental and not fully examined proposals which could be a security risk. The changes that have been proposed are not only limited in function but nobody really asked for them or wants to implement them. Changing the blockheight might be an exception. |
|
|
|
I'm not going to address conspiracy theories, mostly because I'm not seeing most of them because of who I've got on my ignore list.
Very good trick if u have nothing to say in ur defense! I hope that the spokesperson of "TBF" won't use it too often... This is true. If one is truly seeking "input from the community" to help shape this then surely nobody should be on ignore if they are not being hostile? Gavin, you are a remarkable man. You don't even bother with "conspiracy theories". That's true efficiency. You know the true importance of "getting things done". Lead us all! No, most of us who actually own significant amounts of Bitcoins accept no leaders, no authorities or committees. We will dump and chastise every frivolous addition to the protocol on the spot. |
|
|
|
We have encrypted, verifiable and secure online wallets based on javascript, the main one being http://blockchain.info/wallet. Mining software is made separately for specific hardware sets which can be easily used with other Bitcoin implementations. People are using desktop-based wallets less and less and are opting for online accounts through Mt. Gox, Coinbase and others. Bitcoin-Qt takes hours to setup while others get you started with ease. Out of all the choices and development out there for Bitcoin, does Bitcoin have an "official" release? Does anyone deserve that designation? Does anyone have sole development rights to Bitcoin? Can anyone truly be called the "Official Lead Developer" of Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
Some of the people involved in this foundation are a part of a cabal known as the Jekyll Island Bitcoin Society. The secret plans of this organization are anyones' guess. Is it a mere coincidence that the formation of this foundation follows so closely on the heels of their convening meeting on Aug 22nd in NYC?
Steve, as you and Tony know the Bitcoin Society is just a name for the meetup we have in New York monthly. 60 people were at our las meetup including Gavin, reports, bankers, investors, ect. There are no 'Secret Plans', in fact the WHOLE meetup was broadcasted LIVE on FreeTalkLive.com http://www.meetup.com/Jekyll_Island_Bitcoin_Society/events/77229272/"Official Bitcoin Lead Developer" WTF |
|
|
|
Please don't troll me. We all know who of these three groups is the most likely to try and push for something malicious and who of these three groups is the most likely to agree with it being bought and paid for and who of these three groups is the most likely to get screwed in the end powerless to stop it.
Next time, cut bigger air holes in your tinfoil mask, or just use a tinfoil beanie like normal people. IF someone pushed for something malicious, and no one but Atlas and a couple of other forum tools even imagine that anyone would, it wouldn't do them a damn bit of good. The people that could fuck you tomorrow are the same people that could fuck you yesterday. Having an advocacy group doesn't change a damn thing. Oh, it's an advocacy group? Well then, maybe they should rename themselves to "Bitcoin advocacy group" and relinquish any ownership of any Bitcoin assets at all. Then I'll be all for it. Like I said, please don't troll me. What do you mean by bitcoin assets? the code? or coins themselves? The foundation has never claimed to own the code. Assets: -lead dev -dev team -git repository access Is there anything else that matters and one can own when it comes to Bitcoin? This man gets it. This foundation will be trying to lead the code. They think their democratic process eliminates any wrongdoing but that's just not the case. Somebody will try to run the whole show as with all vacuums of power. |
|
|
|
Gavin had just received the alert keys to the Bitcoin network. Right afterwards, he tells Satoshi that he is visiting the CIA. Satoshi leaves for good coincidentally.
This is quoted from the defunct Bruce Wagner Bitcoin podcast:
Bruce Wagner : When was the last time you chatted to satoshi <laugh>
Gavin Andresen: Um... I haven't had email from satoshi in a couple months actually. The last email I sent him I actually told him I was going to talk at the CIA. So it's possible , that.... that may have um had something to with his deciding
Based on this, do you think Gavin fully meets Satoshi's vision for Bitcoin?
why the rant? just do something productive and start your own client / alternacoin... There is nothing to be done. That's the point. Bitcoin is fine as it is but there are those out there who want change it and accelerate nature. I am against change without clear and comprehensive oversight. I don't want control. That is the very thing I am against. I just want Bitcoin to be a stable platform without anyone changing it on a whim. It could very well be that the stable Bitcoin I want is still here but I fear powers will attempt to do otherwise. And that they will do it through their veil and clout of legitimacy. |
|
|
|
|
I mainly feel bad for dogging out on Gavin Andresen. I actually like the man. I just don't like anybody running Bitcoin. I apologize, Gavin. I get really passionate at times.
Anyways, I ought to explain why I am such a douchebag: My perception is skewed to where I think the whole world is shit. I think everything is falling apart and everything is against me. Rationally and objectively, that is not the case. We live in a rudderless world with many powers at play. Yet after seeing and reading about war, corruption and other "evils" extensively, I can't help but to feel terror lurks around every corner and every facet in life. This turns me into a really butthurt and annoying faggot. Especially when I think everyone hates me. It's why I am always surprised by any genuine respect that comes my way. I literally expect everyone to hate me outright. And, well, that makes me a very depressed individual at times.
I'll try to be more rational. I'll try to be more collected in the future.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
I have but that's after closing all of my bank accounts and going exclusively Bitcoin. I haven't stepped foot in a bank since.
|
|
|
|
This is quoted from the defunct Bruce Wagner Bitcoin podcast:
Bruce Wagner : When was the last time you chatted to satoshi <laugh>
Gavin Andresen: Um... I haven't had email from satoshi in a couple months actually. The last email I sent him I actually told him I was going to talk at the CIA. So it's possible , that.... that may have um had something to with his deciding
Link to source/timestamp? I'd love to hear this part, but not enough to listen through Bruce Wagner's podcast. It should be around 17:53. First episode. |
|
|
|
Wait so once again it's the richest that have the most say? Wtf? Voting should be by the free market of users not the "foundation". Bullshit.
Votes about Foundation business should be voted by non-Foundation members?  If the foundation goes about defining the Bitcoin protocol and defining Bitcoin's legal status, yes. |
|
|
|
|
People are very angered by this reality. I am as well. If ignoring me makes you feel better, I encourage you to hit that button.
The fact is I want Satoshi back. He made this thing and I want him to represent it.
|
|
|
|
WTF are you talking about?! Nobody knows who Satoshi is. People don't just talk to him. There are no secret "alert keys" to the protocol, it's borderline open source so someone would see them. Drunk post? Btw I think your cat wants you...
P.S. clearly, as his avatar suggests, Gavin is the british guy from The Daily Show with John Stewart.
Satoshi made the majority of the code. Satoshi made 90% of Bitcoin. There are alert keys. Many people here will testify towards that. They are in the code. |
|
|
|
The OP is also a part of The Bitcoin Foundation. A heads up. He did accept $3,000 for reporting about Bitcoin to the CIA.
So what? Sounds like he got paid to speak about a subject on which he is knowledgable. What's the BFD? It reeks of corruption to me. Satoshi left when Gavin announced this. Satoshi never wanted the establishment involved. Gavin does it anyways. It all makes me very worried for Bitcoin's protocol development. |
|
|
|
Also, it seems Satoshi had something for online wallets. Something Gavin isn't really excited about. New users wouldn't really even need the Bitcoin software. They could download a miner, create an account on mtgox or mybitcoin, enter their deposit address into the miner and point it at anyone's pool server. When the miner says it found something, a while later a few coins show up in their account.
|
|
|
|
Basically, bring it on. Let's encourage Wikileaks to use Bitcoins and I'm willing to face any risk or fallout from that act.
No, don't "bring it on". The project needs to grow gradually so the software can be strengthened along the way. I make this appeal to WikiLeaks not to try to use Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a small beta community in its infancy. You would not stand to get more than pocket change, and the heat you would bring would likely destroy us at this stage. |
|
|
|
- For the source code, we use git. Just like the bitcoin block chain, git is a chain of hashes. Each and every change is protected by a hash. Anyone following git in a decentralized fashion may see and verify all changes. Any "back door" is quite public.
- For the binaries, we use gitian, so that outside parties may independently verify dev team binaries precisely match their locally-built binaries. Bitcoin binaries from the dev team are not published until multiple sig matches appear.
This. Wikipedia on git: Linus Torvalds had several design criteria:
3. Very strong safeguards against corruption, either accidental or malicious. Is having a developer with an undisclosed report to the CIA a good way to meet this goal?[/list] |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
