Adam Back's email to Mike and Gavin

[slaveforanunnak1]

https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg08276.html

[Meuh6879]

too long ... for a developper 

[BitCoinDream]

https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg08276.html

Mike & Gavin are desperate to get the full control of the source code by XT fork, so that they can implement address blacklisting to make the regulatory bodies happy. They will most likely be financially benefited to do that. In fact, it is a long term agenda of Hearn & company...

Ref: Freezing BitCoin addresses by regulating miners

[AgentofCoin]

https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg08276.html

Mike & Gavin are desperate to get the full control of the source code by XT fork, so that they can implement address blacklisting to make the regulatory bodies happy.

Blacklisting coins/addresses subverts Satoshi's original intention.

Do you have proof or statements made, that point toward that being their ultimate intention?

[BitCoinDream]

https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg08276.html

Mike & Gavin are desperate to get the full control of the source code by XT fork, so that they can implement address blacklisting to make the regulatory bodies happy.

Blacklisting coins/addresses subverts Satoshi's original intention.

Do you have proof or statements made, that point toward that being their ultimate intention?

I have already given the proof in my updated post. Moreover Hearn has absolutely no intention to keep bitcoin close to Satoshi's original intention. That is why he is openly claiming to ignore the longest chain.

Check this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0

Hearn simply wants bitcoin to compete with Mastercard/Visa where he will be at the helm. He has absolutely no belief in the concept of de-centralization and is behaving more of a dictator. Just let him get the control of the code through XT and see what comes along...

[slaveforanunnak1]

https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg08276.html

Mike & Gavin are desperate to get the full control of the source code by XT fork, so that they can implement address blacklisting to make the regulatory bodies happy.

Blacklisting coins/addresses subverts Satoshi's original intention.

Do you have proof or statements made, that point toward that being their ultimate intention?

I have already given the proof in my updated post. Moreover Hearn has absolutely no intention to keep bitcoin close to Satoshi's original intention. That is why he is openly claiming to ignore the longest chain.

Check this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0

Hearn simply wants bitcoin to compete with Mastercard/Visa where he will be at the helm. He has absolutely no belief in the concept of de-centralization and is behaving more of a dictator. Just let him get the control of the code through XT and see what comes along...

Gavin/Mike = NSA/CIA  pure and simple!

what, you thought the agents who are going to take over bitcoin look like this?



Nope.. they will look like your average "geek"

I don't trust those two for a millisecond
 

[Sitarow]

https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg08276.html

Mike & Gavin are desperate to get the full control of the source code by XT fork, so that they can implement address blacklisting to make the regulatory bodies happy. They will most likely be financially benefited to do that. In fact, it is a long term agenda of Hearn & company...

Ref: Freezing BitCoin addresses by regulating miners

Despite the over reach in the facts if blacklisting happens then xt will be in jeopardy of being just that a fork with unwanted side effects..

[tvbcof]

https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg08276.html

Mike & Gavin are desperate to get the full control of the source code by XT fork, so that they can implement address blacklisting to make the regulatory bodies happy.

Blacklisting coins/addresses subverts Satoshi's original intention.

Do you have proof or statements made, that point toward that being their ultimate intention?

Nobody really knows what 'Satoshi's original intentions' actually were.  People who claim to are either desperate or know he won't be back to challenge them.  Even if one can turn up something unambiguously attributable to him, it is far from certain that the guy (or guys) were completely forthright and complete in documenting their thought patterns.  Not everyone is, you know.

As for Mike's disposition, I know several things:

 - He created the post which you conveniently clipped reference to in the up-thread which showed no particular negativity to coin tainting.

 - He's mentioned that Bitcoin would work just fine if there were 4 or 6 (don't recall which) copies of the blockchain in the entire world.

 - He kicked off a private conversation about tainting as a member of the Bitcoin Foundation which was leaked.

 - He has never to my knowledge spoken in depth to the dangers of loss of fungibility to the Bitcoin economic system if tainting were to occur.

 - He has never to my knowledge explained how and who would be doing the tainting and how the background investigative efforts needed to do it with some modicum of fairness would be funded.  It's pretty easy for me to exclaim, for instance, that I've been robbed.  It's vastly more difficult to verify that there is any truth to this assertion.  I have to assume that in Mike's mind, tainting is a method of political control and the criminal aspects of it are simply a sales pitch.

 - Probably more I've forgotten about.

Gavin may actually be swayed by the argument that if we play ball with the authorities they will be nice to us and allow Bitcoin to have a niche.  Or he might actually believe that we can somehow build a 'critical mass' which will somehow intimidate the authorities even in the face of the half a decade of evidence that a solution which sucks as Joe Sixpack's exchange currency has some hope to gather a groundswell of support.  One way or another the guy is to stupid for words when it comes to strategic thinking and he's nothing but Mike's puppet at this time anyway so his value to the ecosystem is negative at this point even if it had not always been.  IMO.

[BitCoinDream]

https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg08276.html

Mike & Gavin are desperate to get the full control of the source code by XT fork, so that they can implement address blacklisting to make the regulatory bodies happy. They will most likely be financially benefited to do that. In fact, it is a long term agenda of Hearn & company...

Ref: Freezing BitCoin addresses by regulating miners

Despite the over reach in the facts if blacklisting happens then xt will be in jeopardy of being just that a fork with unwanted side effects..

They are not gonna do it tomorrow. They'll do it when there will be no more competing chain to XT. You will have only two options left. Either accept what they'll tell you or sell out and walk off. This is how dictators rise to the power. That is why they have chosen this petty issue of 20 MB fork where most will agree with them. The hidden agenda is clear to all who knows Hearn. Otherwise, tell me, when almost everyone agrees upon the 8MB upgrade, which will immediately buy 2-3 years, why Hearn is still arguing for 20MB fork. Because, he wants to fork. Control.

[Sitarow]

https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg08276.html

Mike & Gavin are desperate to get the full control of the source code by XT fork, so that they can implement address blacklisting to make the regulatory bodies happy. They will most likely be financially benefited to do that. In fact, it is a long term agenda of Hearn & company...

Ref: Freezing BitCoin addresses by regulating miners

Despite the over reach in the facts if blacklisting happens then xt will be in jeopardy of being just that a fork with unwanted side effects..

They are not gonna do it tomorrow. They'll do it when there will be no more competing chain to XT. You will have only two options left. Either accept what they'll tell you or sell out and walk off. This is how dictators rise to the power. That is why they have chosen this petty issue of 20 MB fork where most will agree with them. The hidden agenda is clear to all who knows Hearn. Otherwise, tell me, when almost everyone agrees upon the 8MB upgrade, which will immediately buy 2-3 years, why Hearn is still arguing for 20MB fork. Because, he wants to fork. Control.

Limited options?

You fail to understand the gravity of the technology and how it has effected this generation of technical wizardry.

Two options? Hardly.

In the western hemisphere alone we have "SpaceX and OneWeb are racing to build an internet in space" by 2020.

We have a non vocal majority of prodigy's that are participating in this community globally that will add to this technology in ways only hinted at.

[jonald_fyookball]

https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg08276.html

Mike & Gavin are desperate to get the full control of the source code by XT fork, so that they can implement address blacklisting to make the regulatory bodies happy. They will most likely be financially benefited to do that. In fact, it is a long term agenda of Hearn & company...

Ref: Freezing BitCoin addresses by regulating miners

Despite the over reach in the facts if blacklisting happens then xt will be in jeopardy of being just that a fork with unwanted side effects..

They are not gonna do it tomorrow. They'll do it when there will be no more competing chain to XT. You will have only two options left. Either accept what they'll tell you or sell out and walk off. This is how dictators rise to the power. That is why they have chosen this petty issue of 20 MB fork where most will agree with them. The hidden agenda is clear to all who knows Hearn. Otherwise, tell me, when almost everyone agrees upon the 8MB upgrade, which will immediately buy 2-3 years, why Hearn is still arguing for 20MB fork. Because, he wants to fork. Control.

Gavin said a few years ago that "core" is supposed to be a reference protocol and that people should be building many implementations.  if we don't want XT to take over, people need to build more implementations so these kinds of threats become irrelevant.

[achow101]

That very long email brought up a ton of points. I don't think that Hearn or Gavin have actually read that message and considered half the things mentioned or asked in that message. The fact that neither Hearn nor Gavin have directly answered those questions makes me seriously question whether it is a good idea to follow the XT fork or not. Originally I was, but now, after seeing what Hearn is trying to do and his arrogance, I probably won't switch.

[coinableS]

I believe Gavin and Hearn have the best intentions in mind. I don't think it's as sinister as many are making it seem. This is clearly a major issue that needs to be addressed, and the blocksize must be raised regardless of your politics. Now we need to find a consensus of how to do it the "right" way.

[AgentofCoin]

Anyone who is pro-blacklisting pretty much in my mind doesn't really care about bitcoin.
Blacklisting coins or "working" with governments to "freeze" certain addresses or coins, pretty much renders bitcoin useless.
I thought Satoshi created this "experiment" so that governing bodies can not regulate or control our money?
What happened to all that? What about being your own bank?

Blacklisting coins opens a pandora's box that I think is unimaginable and quite sad for bitcoin's future.

[jeannemadrigal2]

Anyone who is pro-blacklisting pretty much in my mind doesn't really care about bitcoin.
Blacklisting coins or "working" with governments to "freeze" certain addresses or coins, pretty much renders bitcoin useless.
I thought Satoshi created this "experiment" so that governing bodies can not regulate or control our money?
What happened to all that? What about being your own bank?

Blacklisting coins opens a pandora's box that I think is unimaginable and quite sad for bitcoin's future.

Yes maybe, but as you say the box is open.  If bitcoins are regulated and fail, then litecoins will take over.  If those fail then maybe monero, dash, or (cough) doge will take over.  It is a tidal wave and it cant be stopped no matter how many fingers you poke into the holes in the dam.

[tokeweed]

I believe Gavin and Hearn have the best intentions in mind. I don't think it's as sinister as many are making it seem. This is clearly a major issue that needs to be addressed, and the blocksize must be raised regardless of your politics. Now we need to find a consensus of how to do it the "right" way.

Nay...  Man is moved by only two things:  Self interest and fear.

[slaveforanunnak1]

[coinableS]

Anyone who is pro-blacklisting pretty much in my mind doesn't really care about bitcoin.
Blacklisting coins or "working" with governments to "freeze" certain addresses or coins, pretty much renders bitcoin useless.
I thought Satoshi created this "experiment" so that governing bodies can not regulate or control our money?
What happened to all that? What about being your own bank?

Blacklisting coins opens a pandora's box that I think is unimaginable and quite sad for bitcoin's future.

Yes maybe, but as you say the box is open.  If bitcoins are regulated and fail, then litecoins will take over.  If those fail then maybe monero, dash, or (cough) doge will take over.  It is a tidal wave and it cant be stopped no matter how many fingers you poke into the holes in the dam.

Good point, even if they make bitcoin into the regulated, blacklisted, paypal of crypto it would be suicide considering all the alternatives that people could use to circumvent the "law".

[slaveforanunnak1]

Anyone who is pro-blacklisting pretty much in my mind doesn't really care about bitcoin.
Blacklisting coins or "working" with governments to "freeze" certain addresses or coins, pretty much renders bitcoin useless.
I thought Satoshi created this "experiment" so that governing bodies can not regulate or control our money?
What happened to all that? What about being your own bank?

Blacklisting coins opens a pandora's box that I think is unimaginable and quite sad for bitcoin's future.

Yes maybe, but as you say the box is open.  If bitcoins are regulated and fail, then litecoins will take over.  If those fail then maybe monero, dash, or (cough) doge will take over.  It is a tidal wave and it cant be stopped no matter how many fingers you poke into the holes in the dam.

Good point, even if they make bitcoin into the regulated, blacklisted, paypal of crypto it would be suicide considering all the alternatives that people could use to circumvent the "law".

maybe the dreaded AOL era is near bitcoin and the next coin will become everything bitcoin wasn't. Unfuckwithable

[Klestin]

For a letter intended to be publicly disclosed, that was extremely poorly written and laxly proofed.  It's rambling, repetitive, hyperbolic and (IMO) unnecessarily incendiary.  None of these aspects help the author's case.