Bitcoin Dev Sells 50% of his Bitcoin due to 51% threat.

[ABISprotocol]

Actually members are aware of this... I wish more people would comment on the open issue on github, though....

https://github.com/pmlaw/The-Bitcoin-Foundation-Legal-Repo/issues/10

I know, I was being facetious. The Bylaws were written to be as close to a real document as you can get without the original collection of scumbags relinquishing power. The founding members have a major time and money investment in Bitcoin and don't just want Bitcoin to be successful they want it to be successful FOR THEM. There are many reasons I never joined the foundation but the best reason for separating yourself from them is because they don't really represent the users of Bitcoin. You might complain that there are many different kinds of reasons to use Bitcoin and that they can't all be represented. That's true but the foundation can represent more than just one.

This very thread topic is the perfect example. You don't like to risk your investment on the flawed concept of PoW but aren't in favor of PoS or PoB. Great, PoS may concentrate power in the hands of the wealthy and keep coins from moving. Ok, then develop something else and implement it. Fix the problem. Foundation founders can't support that because any sweeping change to the system would risk their investment. I'm actually glad to see Ghash.Io is menacing and no one cares to change anything. It proves that Bitcoin will never change even when it faces destruction because of the power a select group of people have over it (centralization at its finest). Bitcoin will live in BetaLand forever until the updates to Bitcoin Core are numbered 0.9.9.9.9. Bitcoin will eventually fork into a shell of its former self unless someone takes action and that might not be a bad thing. All is not lost. We have plenty of competition now willing to take over.

please consider commenting on github, https://github.com/pmlaw/The-Bitcoin-Foundation-Legal-Repo/issues/10 i urge you to support the position of nwfella as a simple example of where this should go initially.  head away from centralization is better than status quo, that is for sure.

[QuestionAuthority]

Actually members are aware of this... I wish more people would comment on the open issue on github, though....

https://github.com/pmlaw/The-Bitcoin-Foundation-Legal-Repo/issues/10

I know, I was being facetious. The Bylaws were written to be as close to a real document as you can get without the original collection of scumbags relinquishing power. The founding members have a major time and money investment in Bitcoin and don't just want Bitcoin to be successful they want it to be successful FOR THEM. There are many reasons I never joined the foundation but the best reason for separating yourself from them is because they don't really represent the users of Bitcoin. You might complain that there are many different kinds of reasons to use Bitcoin and that they can't all be represented. That's true but the foundation can represent more than just one.

This very thread topic is the perfect example. You don't like to risk your investment on the flawed concept of PoW but aren't in favor of PoS or PoB. Great, PoS may concentrate power in the hands of the wealthy and keep coins from moving. Ok, then develop something else and implement it. Fix the problem. Foundation founders can't support that because any sweeping change to the system would risk their investment. I'm actually glad to see Ghash.Io is menacing and no one cares to change anything. It proves that Bitcoin will never change even when it faces destruction because of the power a select group of people have over it (centralization at its finest). Bitcoin will live in BetaLand forever until the updates to Bitcoin Core are numbered 0.9.9.9.9. Bitcoin will eventually fork into a shell of its former self unless someone takes action and that might not be a bad thing. All is not lost. We have plenty of competition now willing to take over.

please consider commenting on github, https://github.com/pmlaw/The-Bitcoin-Foundation-Legal-Repo/issues/10 i urge you to support the position of nwfella as a simple example of where this should go initially.  head away from centralization is better than status quo, that is for sure.

I'm confused. Why did Ron Gross decide to debate the issue on GitHub? Shouldn't that debate happen on the foundations forum where the effected membership can see it? I would go there and comment but I'm not really invested in the idea of having a foundation at all. At this early stage in Bitcoin history I don't really see the need. At some point Bitcoin might grow enough that some type of professional org is necessary but that's not today.

[jonald_fyookball]

There's a fair chance this has nothing to do with 51% and Peter Todd just felt like cashing out some coins and wanted a good sounding reason.

What the heck, why would he want a reason? Is there some sort of obligation for bitcoin core devs to keep their money in bitcoins? Do they have to publicly explain when they cash out? I don't think so, it's their money they are free to do how they like.

Just human nature.  People often feel the need to explain their actions.

[devphp]

There's a fair chance this has nothing to do with 51% and Peter Todd just felt like cashing out some coins and wanted a good sounding reason.

What the heck, why would he want a reason? Is there some sort of obligation for bitcoin core devs to keep their money in bitcoins? Do they have to publicly explain when they cash out? I don't think so, it's their money they are free to do how they like.

Just human nature.  People often feel the need to explain their actions.

Can't be just human nature. He knew he would be much criticized for this act and he still did it, though he could do it without anyone noticing. No, he truely started doubting Bitcoin, that's what it is. He had a plan set up in advance and he executed it, because he believes in the need for decentralization of Bitcoin more than many people who criticize him.

[Swordsoffreedom]

There's a fair chance this has nothing to do with 51% and Peter Todd just felt like cashing out some coins and wanted a good sounding reason.

What the heck, why would he want a reason? Is there some sort of obligation for bitcoin core devs to keep their money in bitcoins? Do they have to publicly explain when they cash out? I don't think so, it's their money they are free to do how they like.

Just human nature.  People often feel the need to explain their actions.

Can't be just human nature. He knew he would be much criticized for this act and he still did it, though he could do it without anyone noticing. No, he truely started doubting Bitcoin, that's what it is. He had a plan set up in advance and he executed it, because he believes in the need for decentralization of Bitcoin more than many people who criticize him.

That's true it takes a set of bravery and willpower to execute a strategy even when people say your foolish for doing so.
The problems with centralized mining due to the development of ASIC's and the slowly decreasing amount of full nodes are issues that Bitcoin will need to face in future and find solutions to.

That said explaining your actions and rationale even if people don't agree is still a good thing to know.

[Este Nuno]

There's a fair chance this has nothing to do with 51% and Peter Todd just felt like cashing out some coins and wanted a good sounding reason.

What the heck, why would he want a reason? Is there some sort of obligation for bitcoin core devs to keep their money in bitcoins? Do they have to publicly explain when they cash out? I don't think so, it's their money they are free to do how they like.

No of course there is no obligation but all things being equal I would prefer the bitcoin devs to have significant bitcoin holdings so that their incentives align with mine. This is just what would benefit me personally(and anyone else holding bitcoin as an investment). I'm not saying that we should force people to hold bitcoins.

[wachtwoord]

This is only a developer.