2012-12-20 pressfreedomfoundation.org - We’re Thinking about Bitcoin, But Haven’

[julz]

We’re Thinking about Bitcoin, But Haven’t Made a Decision Yet


Rainey Reitman
2012-12-20


https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2012/12/were-thinking-about-bitcoin-havent-made-decision-yet

...
But we need to investigate Bitcoin a bit more before making a decision, including discussing it with our board of directors and legal counsel.
...

I just want to take the opportunity to say 'pussies!'.
Hopefully they'll come round and get out from under the shadow of the EFF's lawyers.

[casascius]

I had a recent discussion with some EFF guys over Bitcoin.

They are way more candid if they are not being forced to speak on the record.

I highly doubt the EFF's lawyers are advising them to not accept Bitcoin.  I will just leave it at that.  Calling them pussies serves only to persuade them that the Bitcoin community isn't grown up enough for them to take seriously.

[bitcoinstarter]

I had a recent discussion with some EFF guys over Bitcoin.

They are way more candid if they are not being forced to speak on the record.

I highly doubt the EFF's lawyers are advising them to not accept Bitcoin.  I will just leave it at that.  Calling them pussies serves only to persuade them that the Bitcoin community isn't grown up enough for them to take seriously.

I agree with this calling them names isn't going to help. On my twitter feed I reached out to John Perry Barlow regarding creating a campaign  for Bitcoins on my site ( see signature ) he did say he was interested. Obviously, they have to check in with the powers that be to determine exactly what that will be.

[julz]

I had a recent discussion with some EFF guys over Bitcoin.

They are way more candid if they are not being forced to speak on the record.

I highly doubt the EFF's lawyers are advising them to not accept Bitcoin.  I will just leave it at that.  Calling them pussies serves only to persuade them that the Bitcoin community isn't grown up enough for them to take seriously.

I hear you - but I'm concerned they're going down the same path as the EFF by pussyfooting around.
It would have been better if the EFF had never mentioned Bitcoin rather than the aboutface they did.

They didn't take due care in crafting their statement about Bitcoin. 
As a result of failing to emphasize that the EFF had *specific* reasons relating to their *unique* advocacy role - their statement has been taken by many non-profits as a general warning. 

On the one hand it's nice of the pressfreedomfoundation to use their blog to address the people who have asked about Bitcoin - but if they are only going to end up deciding against it, citing nebulous reasons, again - it would be better if they just kept quiet.

[marcus_of_augustus]

I had a recent discussion with some EFF guys over Bitcoin.

They are way more candid if they are not being forced to speak on the record.

I highly doubt the EFF's lawyers are advising them to not accept Bitcoin.  I will just leave it at that.  Calling them pussies serves only to persuade them that the Bitcoin community isn't grown up enough for them to take seriously.

So if the EFF lawyers didn't advise them to not accept bitcoin ... who did?

It sounds like more lawyer weasel words FUD, trying to distance themselves from a big FU due to their previous yellow behaviour ... politics is rotten with this kind of double-speak, back tracking, half-truths, off-the-record, PR management, spin BS. ... are there any honest lawyers?

Yeah, and the bitcoin community isn't grown up. Would help if the legal community got past 10th grade schoolyard, he-said, she-said tactics and fessed up when they are wrong ....

Edit: it all hit the skids when Clinton was arguing with the grand jury what the definition of "is" is .... from that point, politics was thoroughly contaminated with legal dishonesty and has never looked back (not to say it wasn't bad previous to that).