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

[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.

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.

It happened with The Federal Reserve Act when it came to Americans and their money. It can happen here.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[1714788754]

1714788754

[1714788754]

1714788754

[9c5207677]

No, there are many system critical systems relying on linux. Companies cannot simply change these systems without significant costs. If linux were to suddenly change fundamentally that would prohibit an upgrade for these companies then they would stay at their current linux version and plan for some alternative from there. No one can simply change the linux kernel in such a way. Even if Torvals tried they (IBM, redhat, etc.) would simply ditch him and continue linux on their own (provided they have consensus from many in the community on this).

Linux is successful because it is open, being open also means being open to input from others. Even forking linux does not hurt because good ideas will simply be integrated back to the mainline unless all the manpower switches over to work on the fork.

The same thing is happening to bitcoin no one can just change bitcoin in a fundamental way, build a release and publish it on bitcoin.org and sourceforge. This person would lose all the trust of the other developers. At the end of the day a few people will have to talk to each other, agree on the code and commit it. These people have a shared vision of bitcoin, they will disagree on some parts but agree on most parts.

Gaining trust is much harder than losing trust. So far the bitcoin developers including Gavin have my trust. Thus bitcoin isn't entrusted to one organization or one person. Also, right now it doesn't look like a fork will happen that would have the power to split the community. Such things have happened to a few open source projects mostly because of poor leadership, in fact bitcoin has the advantage that it's founder has already left - thus it isn't anyones pet project anymore, the person with the greatest personal attachment is gone.

I do not share your concerns, these people are constantly thinking about how to make bitcoin better. Your premise is wrong, bitcoin isn't in the hand of Gavin Andresen, no it is still in our hand, we simply allow him to continue his work. If he fucks up and we all agree that he fucked up, then that will be the end of his development on the mainline bitcoin client. We will simply switch over to the version where all the other devs have gone to.

You are afraid that the community will be dumb and simply follow all fundamental changes. I can't help you with that, but I can tell you many would leave the bitcoin main client if some kind of tax were to imposed and flow to some government (which government on this planet do you mean?). If your government outlaws nontaxpaying bitcoin protocol clients then take your anger out on your government not on the bitcoin developers. Or we can see the good side of the bitcoin foundation and think about how a government might consult with them to understand bitcoin better, maybe this kind of communication will be the thing that stops your government from coming up with stupid ideas like outlawing virtual currencies or whatever.

[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.

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.

It happened with The Federal Reserve Act when it came to Americans and their money. It can happen here.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

It takes a brain to turn on a computer, oh a some money to buy one.

[Atlas]

No, there are many system critical systems relying on linux. Companies cannot simply change these systems without significant costs. If linux were to suddenly change fundamentally that would prohibit an upgrade for these companies then they would stay at their current linux version and plan for some alternative from there. No one can simply change the linux kernel in such a way. Even if Torvals tried they (IBM, redhat, etc.) would simply ditch him and continue linux on their own (provided they have consensus from many in the community on this).

Linux is successful because it is open, being open also means being open to input from others. Even forking linux does not hurt because good ideas will simply be integrated back to the mainline unless all the manpower switches over to work on the fork.

The same thing is happening to bitcoin no one can just change bitcoin in a fundamental way, build a release and publish it on bitcoin.org and sourceforge. This person would lose all the trust of the other developers. At the end of the day a few people will have to talk to each other, agree on the code and commit it. These people have a shared vision of bitcoin, they will disagree on some parts but agree on most parts.

Gaining trust is much harder than losing trust. So far the bitcoin developers including Gavin have my trust. Thus bitcoin isn't entrusted to one organization or one person. Also, right now it doesn't look like a fork will happen that would have the power to split the community. Such things have happened to a few open source projects mostly because of poor leadership, in fact bitcoin has the advantage that it's founder has already left - thus it isn't anyones pet project anymore, the person with the greatest personal attachment is gone.

I do not share your concerns, these people are constantly thinking about how to make bitcoin better. Your premise is wrong, bitcoin isn't in the hand of Gavin Andresen, no it is still in our hand, we simply allow him to continue his work. If he fucks up and we all agree that he fucked up, then that will be the end of his development on the mainline bitcoin client. We will simply switch over to the version where all the other devs have gone to.

You are afraid that the community will be dumb and simply follow all fundamental changes. I can't help you with that, but I can tell you many would leave the bitcoin main client if some kind of tax were to imposed and flow to some government (which government on this planet do you mean?). If your government outlaws nontaxpaying bitcoin protocol clients then take your anger out on your government not on the bitcoin developers. Or we can see the good side of the bitcoin foundation and think about how a government might consult with them to understand bitcoin better, maybe this kind of communication will be the thing that stops your government from coming up with stupid ideas like outlawing virtual currencies or whatever.

I can only say I hope you are right. You make good points but as my principle: Money and assets shouldn't be based on trust of certain organizations but on a web of consensus among all people.

We're going to become a fiat currency if we depend too much on The Bitcoin Foundation.

[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.

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.

It happened with The Federal Reserve Act when it came to Americans and their money. It can happen here.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

It takes a brain to turn on a computer, oh a some money to buy one.

It's not a question of intelligence but human culture. Some people love to be dominated and told what to do. The Bitcoin Foundation could enable power-seekers to gain their power over Bitcoin in whatever vacuums are available: Cultural or otherwise.

[ElectricMucus]

Actually Linus exerts quite a bit of top down decisions onto the project. He's convinced of certain things and at times rejected patches because of his personal opinion.

[Atlas]

Actually Linus exerts quite a bit of top down decisions onto the project. He's convinced of certain things and at times rejected patches because of his personal opinion.

The fact that Obama has veto power does not give me confidence in him either. I did not get into Bitcoins to trust another person with my 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.

It happened with The Federal Reserve Act when it came to Americans and their money. It can happen here.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Well then thank you Atlas for warning us of the impending disaster of our gullibility to the machine-hearted dictators of the bitcoin world.

You know, Satoshi didn't go door to door passing out Atlas Shrugged and warning about the end of the world. He wrote some brilliant code, code which can very well defend itself from any threats through the virtue of voluntarism. Then he disappeared, because he knew good ideas have emergent properties that lend themselves to their own propagation and fulfillment. I think his tight-lipped industry and assurance are qualities many people on this forum could learn from.

[Atlas]

Let's not entrust Bitcoin with one organization.

You don't know much about how the Bitcoin network works, do you?

I do but I also know about human culture and implied authority.

People will be dominated even when given tools of liberty. Dominance has to be fought off from time-to-time.

[ElectricMucus]

Actually Linus exerts quite a bit of top down decisions onto the project. He's convinced of certain things and at times rejected patches because of his personal opinion.

The fact that Obama has veto power does not give me confidence in him either. I did not get into Bitcoins to trust another person with my money.

I can feel after that. The thing I am trying to make you understand the whole time is that Gavin already had this level of control. He has control over the Git tree which he is aiming to share with this foundation thing. So in a way things are for the better.
In order to solve this issue we would need a completely decentralized approach to collaborative software development which currently does not exist.

[Atlas]

Let's not entrust Bitcoin with one organization.

You don't know much about how the Bitcoin network works, do you?

I do but I also know about human culture and implied authority.

So. Let the authority come. You and I can choose to ignore it. That's the beauty of Bitcoin. Don't like new rules, don't adapt them.

That won't matter if everyone gets sucked into the cult of personality. There is no harm in being vigilant.

[ydenys]

Atlas, i’m glad you are back in. (even if it is not you)

[Atlas]

Actually Linus exerts quite a bit of top down decisions onto the project. He's convinced of certain things and at times rejected patches because of his personal opinion.

The fact that Obama has veto power does not give me confidence in him either. I did not get into Bitcoins to trust another person with my money.

I can feel after that. The thing I am trying to make you understand the whole time is that Gavin already had this level of control. He has control over the Git tree which he is aiming to share with this foundation thing. So in a way things are for the better.
In order to solve this issue we would need a completely decentralized approach to collaborative software development which currently does not exist.

All I can say is I agree with you. I just don't agree that we should sit back and let things continue as they are. We can try to paint a different future through cultural and social means.

[ElectricMucus]

Ah the established substitution of the word authority for hierarchy. The English language is so expressive... use it.  

Atlas: If you agree on it why make the big fuss about it?

[alexanderanon]

Let's not entrust Bitcoin with one organization.

You don't know much about how the Bitcoin network works, do you?

I do but I also know about human culture and implied authority.

So. Let the authority come. You and I can choose to ignore it. That's the beauty of Bitcoin. Don't like new rules, don't adapt them.

That won't matter if everyone gets sucked into the cult of personality. There is no harm in being vigilant.

There's a difference between vigilance and paranoia.

[FLHippy]

Often only the fear of something happening is enough to provoke the fallout from that something actually happening.

I personally feel that bitcoin is completely propped up by the sale of drugs, perpetuation of scams, and the laundering of those funds.

Granny always said "You can fuck up a perfectly good things or make a bad thing worse by getting the government involved" Looks like you just got yourself a government like it or lump it.

If I were an MtGox, You bet your sweet ass I would be trying to form myself a committee, surround myself with legitimacy, make every effort to hold onto the funds I have now before the shit comes crumbling down around me. If I were an early adopter sitting on enough coin to plug a sewer pipe you bet I would forming a foundation. If I were a miner with so many dollars invested in hardware that is about to become bricks you bet your sweet ass I would be forming a trust. And I wouldn't make it easy to join either. Fuck all you peons. MINE!

Thank goodness I don't have that shit to worry about. It would weigh damn heavy on me. I have enjoyed the free lunch though. Thanks for that I hope it lasts a little while longer.

[greyhawk]

Atlas: If you agree on it why make the big fuss about it?

He has one of his manic phases again. I expect an equally strong depressive episode cum suicide threat in a few hours.

[Syke]

Torvalds may own Linux. Gavin Andresen does not own Bitcoin. Sorry. We own it.

The only people who "own" Bitcoin are the people who own the copyright to the source code. I see people like Satoshi Nakamoto, Pieter Wuille, John W. Wilkinson, and others listed in the source files as truly owning it. I haven't looked at all the files, but I'm sure you're in there somewhere. Where is the notice for the parts you own?

[Atlas]

Torvalds may own Linux. Gavin Andresen does not own Bitcoin. Sorry. We own it.

The only people who "own" Bitcoin are the people who own the copyright to the source code. I see people like Satoshi Nakamoto, Pieter Wuille, John W. Wilkinson, and others listed in the source files as truly owning it. I haven't looked at all the files, but I'm sure you're in there somewhere. Where is the notice for the parts you own?

Satoshi Nakamoto wrote most of the core protocol. As far as we are concerned, he is now defunct, gone.

[Syke]

Satoshi Nakamoto wrote most of the core protocol. As far as we are concerned, he is now defunct, gone.

Gone or not, he still owns it. Not you.