No, the Linux Kernel is not like Bitcoin nor its network. Sorry.

[Atlas]

Would you trust Linus Torvalds and his team with a say over your bank account?

Would you allow them to hand your money over to the government?

The Linux Kernel is a cold piece of software. It's a single product out of many. If people don't like it, they can leave it and choose another.

Bitcoin is different. It represents the work, labor and wealth of many people. If people don't like it, they can't easily leave it. If it's changed, the consequences can be enormous. It isn't a pet project at this point. It isn't a toy. It's over $125 million in wealth.

Torvalds may own Linux. Gavin Andresen does not own Bitcoin. Sorry. We own it. It is ours. This includes the Bitcoin protocol.

To leave the Bitcoin currrency and its network in the hands of a single developer, a single legal entity -- this is bound for corruption due to the power it can have over wealth.

Let's be very careful with how we use the term "Bitcoin Development". It does not rest in a single team. It rests in whoever values Bitcoin through whatever ends they choose.

Let's not entrust Bitcoin with one organization. Nobody deserves that honor. Nobody deserves that trust because all humans inevitably fail. We shouldn't take the fall for the actions of one organization. Instead, if one organization fails, others should be able to overthrow the damage it has done and take its place with little legal and protocol interference.

Say no to a planned Bitcoin.

[1714044498]

1714044498

[1714044498]

1714044498

[1714044498]

1714044498

[1714044498]

1714044498

[1714044498]

1714044498

[Rothgar]

Atlas,

we'll jump in there and compete.  Don't like it do some work and you can have the precious.

[ElectricMucus]

Again, I ask you this question: Can you write code?

It's quite simple really: Create something which can be used to make completely decentralized decisions about it's own codebase, make a new cryptocurrency out of it and you have taken the first steps toward your aim.
If you really see this as an issue do something about it, actively.

You won't be able to troll people out of this.

[Atlas]

Atlas,

we'll jump in there and compete.  Don't like it do some work and you can have the precious.

I am accomplishing my goal just by letting people know they have a choice.

[Atlas]

The beauty of Bitcoin as it stands, is that it needs little intervention to continue running. If somebody sees a problem and it matters to them, they will solve it. We don't need a central guardian. We need to do little. We just need people to set high standards for what they accept when people propose change in their money.

I am encouraging high standards just by speaking.

[P_Shep]

They are exactly alike.

Linus Torvalds is to linux, as Satoshi Nakamoto is to bitcoin.
The Linux kernel can be contributed to by anyone, as can bitcoin code and protocol.

You have no idea what you're talking about.
Go do your own thing. See how many people follow you.

[Atlas]

They are exactly alike.

Linus Torvalds is to linux, as Satoshi Nakamoto is to bitcoin.
The Linux kernel can be contributed to by anyone, as can bitcoin code and protocol.

You have no idea what you're talking about.
Go do your own thing. See how many people follow you.

So it's alright if Gavin imposes a tax within the network that will go to governments under the legitimacy of The Bitcoin Foundation? We shouldn't oppose this if it occurs?

We're dealing with money here. Not a product.

[Atlas]

I am fighting hegemony. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony

I am fighting a coalition of implied force and authority.

[P_Shep]

They are exactly alike.

Linus Torvalds is to linux, as Satoshi Nakamoto is to bitcoin.
The Linux kernel can be contributed to by anyone, as can bitcoin code and protocol.

You have no idea what you're talking about.
Go do your own thing. See how many people follow you.

So it's alright if Gavin imposes a tax within the network that will go to governments under the legitimacy of The Bitcoin Foundation? We shouldn't oppose this if it occurs?

We're dealing with money here. Not a product.

Would the members agree to that?

[nimda]

They are exactly alike.

Linus Torvalds is to linux, as Satoshi Nakamoto is to bitcoin.
The Linux kernel can be contributed to by anyone, as can bitcoin code and protocol.

You have no idea what you're talking about.
Go do your own thing. See how many people follow you.

So it's alright if Gavin imposes a tax within the network that will go to governments under the legitimacy of The Bitcoin Foundation? We shouldn't oppose this if it occurs?

We're dealing with money here. Not a product.

Gavin can't do that; doing so would require a hard fork.

[Atlas]

They are exactly alike.

Linus Torvalds is to linux, as Satoshi Nakamoto is to bitcoin.
The Linux kernel can be contributed to by anyone, as can bitcoin code and protocol.

You have no idea what you're talking about.
Go do your own thing. See how many people follow you.

So it's alright if Gavin imposes a tax within the network that will go to governments under the legitimacy of The Bitcoin Foundation? We shouldn't oppose this if it occurs?

We're dealing with money here. Not a product.

Would the members agree to that?

If the members are few and influenced, very possibly. The Bitcoin Foundation could then push out the protocol release and miners might be duped into accepting under its supposed legitimacy.

[ElectricMucus]

I am fighting hegemony.no windmills http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windmill

I am fighting a coalition of implied force and authority.

FTFY


Under anarchistic principles all authority must be justified. Gavin has justification for control over the bitcoin code to the extent it was given to him by bitcoins users and by Satoshi.

[Atlas]

They are exactly alike.

Linus Torvalds is to linux, as Satoshi Nakamoto is to bitcoin.
The Linux kernel can be contributed to by anyone, as can bitcoin code and protocol.

You have no idea what you're talking about.
Go do your own thing. See how many people follow you.

So it's alright if Gavin imposes a tax within the network that will go to governments under the legitimacy of The Bitcoin Foundation? We shouldn't oppose this if it occurs?

We're dealing with money here. Not a product.

Gavin can't do that; doing so would require a hard fork.

It wouldn't need a fork if the Bitcoin Foundation has an implied and cultural authority over Bitcoin and its releases are accepted as law. These people can be given control if their dominance is made gradually.

What does standardization means to you? It means a set, central standard.  Pretty much law.

[legolouman]

The Linux Kernel is a cold piece of software. It's a single product out of many. If people don't like it, they can leave it and choose another.

Bitcoin is different. It represents the work, labor and wealth of many people. If people don't like it, they can't easily leave it. If it's changed, the consequences can be enormous. It isn't a pet project at this point. It isn't a toy. It's over $125 million in wealth.

Torvalds may own Linux. Gavin Andresen does not own Bitcoin. Sorry. We own it. It is ours. This includes the Bitcoin protocol.

To leave the Bitcoin currrency and its network in the hands of a single developer, a single legal entity -- this is bound for corruption due to the power it can have over wealth.

Let's be very careful with how we use the term "Bitcoin Development". It does not rest in a single team. It rests in whoever values Bitcoin through whatever ends they choose.

Let's not entrust Bitcoin with one organization. Nobody deserves that honor. Nobody deserves that trust because all humans inevitably fail. We shouldn't take the fall for the actions of one organization. Instead, if one organization fails, others should be able to overthrow the damage it has done and take its place with little legal and protocol interference.

Say no to a planned Bitcoin.

Gavin seems pretty bro. I'd vote to make him president of our club that doesn't have to accept ANY of the work he does. The network doesn't have to accept any changes as a whole.

[Atlas]

The Linux Kernel is a cold piece of software. It's a single product out of many. If people don't like it, they can leave it and choose another.

Bitcoin is different. It represents the work, labor and wealth of many people. If people don't like it, they can't easily leave it. If it's changed, the consequences can be enormous. It isn't a pet project at this point. It isn't a toy. It's over $125 million in wealth.

Torvalds may own Linux. Gavin Andresen does not own Bitcoin. Sorry. We own it. It is ours. This includes the Bitcoin protocol.

To leave the Bitcoin currrency and its network in the hands of a single developer, a single legal entity -- this is bound for corruption due to the power it can have over wealth.

Let's be very careful with how we use the term "Bitcoin Development". It does not rest in a single team. It rests in whoever values Bitcoin through whatever ends they choose.

Let's not entrust Bitcoin with one organization. Nobody deserves that honor. Nobody deserves that trust because all humans inevitably fail. We shouldn't take the fall for the actions of one organization. Instead, if one organization fails, others should be able to overthrow the damage it has done and take its place with little legal and protocol interference.

Say no to a planned Bitcoin.

Gavin seems pretty bro. I'd vote to make him president of our club that doesn't have to accept ANY of the work he does. The network doesn't have to accept any changes as a whole.

It can through influence over government laws and cultural manipulation. If The Bitcoin Foundation is made unquestionable in regards to its standards, then it will have control.

[legolouman]

The Linux Kernel is a cold piece of software. It's a single product out of many. If people don't like it, they can leave it and choose another.

Bitcoin is different. It represents the work, labor and wealth of many people. If people don't like it, they can't easily leave it. If it's changed, the consequences can be enormous. It isn't a pet project at this point. It isn't a toy. It's over $125 million in wealth.

Torvalds may own Linux. Gavin Andresen does not own Bitcoin. Sorry. We own it. It is ours. This includes the Bitcoin protocol.

To leave the Bitcoin currrency and its network in the hands of a single developer, a single legal entity -- this is bound for corruption due to the power it can have over wealth.

Let's be very careful with how we use the term "Bitcoin Development". It does not rest in a single team. It rests in whoever values Bitcoin through whatever ends they choose.

Let's not entrust Bitcoin with one organization. Nobody deserves that honor. Nobody deserves that trust because all humans inevitably fail. We shouldn't take the fall for the actions of one organization. Instead, if one organization fails, others should be able to overthrow the damage it has done and take its place with little legal and protocol interference.

Say no to a planned Bitcoin.

Gavin seems pretty bro. I'd vote to make him president of our club that doesn't have to accept ANY of the work he does. The network doesn't have to accept any changes as a whole.

It can through influence over government laws and cultural manipulation. If The Bitcoin Foundation is made unquestionable in regards to its standards, then it will have control.

But as a Bitcoin user, if I don't like the updates in 7.0, then I don't have to use it.

[Atlas]

The Linux Kernel is a cold piece of software. It's a single product out of many. If people don't like it, they can leave it and choose another.

Bitcoin is different. It represents the work, labor and wealth of many people. If people don't like it, they can't easily leave it. If it's changed, the consequences can be enormous. It isn't a pet project at this point. It isn't a toy. It's over $125 million in wealth.

Torvalds may own Linux. Gavin Andresen does not own Bitcoin. Sorry. We own it. It is ours. This includes the Bitcoin protocol.

To leave the Bitcoin currrency and its network in the hands of a single developer, a single legal entity -- this is bound for corruption due to the power it can have over wealth.

Let's be very careful with how we use the term "Bitcoin Development". It does not rest in a single team. It rests in whoever values Bitcoin through whatever ends they choose.

Let's not entrust Bitcoin with one organization. Nobody deserves that honor. Nobody deserves that trust because all humans inevitably fail. We shouldn't take the fall for the actions of one organization. Instead, if one organization fails, others should be able to overthrow the damage it has done and take its place with little legal and protocol interference.

Say no to a planned Bitcoin.

Gavin seems pretty bro. I'd vote to make him president of our club that doesn't have to accept ANY of the work he does. The network doesn't have to accept any changes as a whole.

It can through influence over government laws and cultural manipulation. If The Bitcoin Foundation is made unquestionable in regards to its standards, then it will have control.

But as a Bitcoin user, if I don't like the updates in 7.0, then I don't have to use it.

It won't matter if 51% of the network accepts it and imposes its rule over your funds. A fork won't matter if the foundation makes that barely feasible.

[Zenitur]

Linux kernel is a nice thing that very stable in work and very functional. I would like to see developers level of the Linux kernel developers in some open source projects as well as in KDE4 and GNOME3 DE's.

[Atlas]

Linux kernel is a nice thing that very stable in work and very functional. I would like to see developers level of the Linux kernel developers in some open source projects as well as in KDE4 and GNOME3 DE's.

Would you like the Linux developers to have a sense of control over your money?

[alexanderanon]

The Linux Kernel is a cold piece of software. It's a single product out of many. If people don't like it, they can leave it and choose another.

Bitcoin is different. It represents the work, labor and wealth of many people. If people don't like it, they can't easily leave it. If it's changed, the consequences can be enormous. It isn't a pet project at this point. It isn't a toy. It's over $125 million in wealth.

Torvalds may own Linux. Gavin Andresen does not own Bitcoin. Sorry. We own it. It is ours. This includes the Bitcoin protocol.

To leave the Bitcoin currrency and its network in the hands of a single developer, a single legal entity -- this is bound for corruption due to the power it can have over wealth.

Let's be very careful with how we use the term "Bitcoin Development". It does not rest in a single team. It rests in whoever values Bitcoin through whatever ends they choose.

Let's not entrust Bitcoin with one organization. Nobody deserves that honor. Nobody deserves that trust because all humans inevitably fail. We shouldn't take the fall for the actions of one organization. Instead, if one organization fails, others should be able to overthrow the damage it has done and take its place with little legal and protocol interference.

Say no to a planned Bitcoin.

Gavin seems pretty bro. I'd vote to make him president of our club that doesn't have to accept ANY of the work he does. The network doesn't have to accept any changes as a whole.

It can through influence over government laws and cultural manipulation. If The Bitcoin Foundation is made unquestionable in regards to its standards, then it will have control.

I think you have very little intellectual respect for your fellow bitcoiners if you think a pretty looking website can impose brainwashed control over the sheeple masses who walk single file into a hard fork bitcoin apocalypse.