Executive Director of Bitcoin Foundation is incompetent and dangerous to Bitcoin

[Serith]

The Foundation's core values include openness and transparency. I think the Bitcoin anonymous thing is overblown and a bit of a myth, by the way. Every bitcoin transaction links two addresses; often people can be determined from those addresses.
At any rate, we wish to make sure you can't stuff the ballot box during voting, and we wish civil productive discourse among our members, so we need real names and addresses.
If you just want to support us without joining, you can always send money to our vanity donation address: 1BTCorgHwCg6u2YSAWKgS17qUad6kHmtQW

The important part is in bold, it suggests that people using Bitcoin should not expect privacy at all.

• Incompetent: because Peter Vessenes doesn't know about mixing services https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Category:Mixing_Services , and have no idea about very real possibility to make Bitcoin transactions absolutely anonymous by default with a feature such as Automatic Coin Mixing Idea or P2P coin mixing
• Dangerous: because he thinks it is okay if everyone knows your financial information, in another words he thinks it's fine to carry 10,000 USD in cash walking around in troubled neighborhood at night while loudly advertising that fact.

Earlier today Jeff Garzik said that Bitcoin Foundation scope is limited to Satoshi's vision:

Staying within Satoshi's vision is a clear limit on power.

Peter Vessenes has no such limit, what he said contradicts satoshi's vision that it should be easy to make anonymous Bitcoin transaction

For that level of anonymity you need to connect through TOR, which will be possible with version 0.2, which is only a few weeks away.  I'll post TOR instructions at that time.

I am starting to see it's in Hazek's way. It is nice to have powerful organization to do things for you, but it becomes very annoying the moment its goals is different than what you think is right.

[proudhon]

Seems fine to me.

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

The Foundation's core values include openness and transparency. I think the Bitcoin anonymous thing is overblown and a bit of a myth, by the way. Every bitcoin transaction links two addresses; often people can be determined from those addresses.
At any rate, we wish to make sure you can't stuff the ballot box during voting, and we wish civil productive discourse among our members, so we need real names and addresses.
If you just want to support us without joining, you can always send money to our vanity donation address: 1BTCorgHwCg6u2YSAWKgS17qUad6kHmtQW

The important part is in bold, it suggests that people using Bitcoin should not expect privacy at all.

• Incompetent: because Peter Vessenes doesn't know about mixing services https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Category:Mixing_Services , and have no idea about very real possibility to make Bitcoin transactions absolutely anonymous by default with a feature such as Automatic Coin Mixing Idea or P2P coin mixing
• Dangerous: because he thinks it is okay if everyone knows your financial information, in another words he thinks it's fine to carry 10,000 USD in cash walking around in troubled neighborhood at night while loudly advertising that fact.

Earlier today Jeff Garzik said that Bitcoin Foundation scope is limited to Satoshi's vision:

Staying within Satoshi's vision is a clear limit on power.

Peter Vessenes has no such limit, what he said contradicts satoshi's vision that it should be easy to make anonymous Bitcoin transaction

For that level of anonymity you need to connect through TOR, which will be possible with version 0.2, which is only a few weeks away.  I'll post TOR instructions at that time.

I am starting to see it's in Hazek's way. It is nice to have powerful organization to do things for you, but it becomes very annoying the moment its goals is different than what you think is right.

No, Peter knows exactly what mixing service is.

Basically what you just did is assume he doesent know, because he did not mention it.

He never said " because he thinks it is okay if everyone knows your financial information", again you make things up and assume.

Stop it.

Your argument is therefore stupid and has no bearing.

This is the problem of Hazek, Atlas, and the others. You all assume things without asking first and then go cry and go nuts

Everyone needs to relax, have a conversation. The world is not ending tomorrow.

-Charlie

[Severian]

I think the Bitcoin anonymous thing is overblown and a bit of a myth, by the way.

Satoshi only used the word "anonymous" once his paper, and it was regarding the anonymity of the key, not the user. There's nothing in his abstract or in his conclusion that even hints that the anonymity of the user is a primary concern for the network. Your anonymity is up to you, not to the Bitcoin protocol. It's like using email and expecting SMTP itself to provide anonymity.

He did suggest that people generate a new key pair for each transaction as a way to increase privacy.

As for your inflammatory and immature title, I really don't know what to say.

[Serith]

The Foundation's core values include openness and transparency. I think the Bitcoin anonymous thing is overblown and a bit of a myth, by the way. Every bitcoin transaction links two addresses; often people can be determined from those addresses.
At any rate, we wish to make sure you can't stuff the ballot box during voting, and we wish civil productive discourse among our members, so we need real names and addresses.
If you just want to support us without joining, you can always send money to our vanity donation address: 1BTCorgHwCg6u2YSAWKgS17qUad6kHmtQW

The important part is in bold, it suggests that people using Bitcoin should not expect privacy at all.

• Incompetent: because Peter Vessenes doesn't know about mixing services https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Category:Mixing_Services , and have no idea about very real possibility to make Bitcoin transactions absolutely anonymous by default with a feature such as Automatic Coin Mixing Idea or P2P coin mixing
• Dangerous: because he thinks it is okay if everyone knows your financial information, in another words he thinks it's fine to carry 10,000 USD in cash walking around in troubled neighborhood at night while loudly advertising that fact.

Earlier today Jeff Garzik said that Bitcoin Foundation scope is limited to Satoshi's vision:

Staying within Satoshi's vision is a clear limit on power.

Peter Vessenes has no such limit, what he said contradicts satoshi's vision that it should be easy to make anonymous Bitcoin transaction

For that level of anonymity you need to connect through TOR, which will be possible with version 0.2, which is only a few weeks away.  I'll post TOR instructions at that time.

I am starting to see it's in Hazek's way. It is nice to have powerful organization to do things for you, but it becomes very annoying the moment its goals is different than what you think is right.

No, Peter knows exactly what mixing service is.

Basically what you just did is assume he doesent know, because he did not mention it.

He never said " because he thinks it is okay if everyone knows your financial information", again you make things up and assume.

Stop it.

Your argument is therefore stupid and has no bearing.

This is the problem of Hazek, Atlas, and the others. You all assume things without asking first and then go cry and go nuts

Everyone needs to relax, have a conversation. The world is not ending tomorrow.

-Charlie

I actually anticipated that kind of reply, this is exactly the same thing you are doing in another thread, replying to only part of the post you are comfortable with, what about the second part of the first bullet point, did he know about Automatic Coin Mixing Idea or P2P coin mixing proposals?

What about the contradiction to satoshi's vision?



To address your points:

No, Peter knows exactly what mixing service is.

Probably I should have word it differently: Peter Vessenes doesn't know about mixing services or suggests that it doesn't help to execute anonymous bitcoin transactions

He never said " because he thinks it is okay if everyone knows your financial information", again you make things up and assume.

If he would have said it then I would have quoted him directly, my wording was -"because he thinks it is okay if everyone knows your financial information". This is a reasonable assumption on my part because Peter Vessenes suggested that it's okay for Bitcoin users to have no privacy.

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

I actually anticipated that kind of reply, this is exactly the same thing you are doing in another thread, replying to only part of the post you are comfortable with,

My apologies, I wasn't doing that on purpose.

I just didn't think your second part warranted my response because I had no arguments with it.

However now I do.

Satoshi never said Bitcoins were anonymous

Satoshi said "Participants can be anonymous."
http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09959.html

Therefore, how can Peter be wrong about something that is true?

In order to be anonymous using Bitcoin, you need to use Tor...thats a very true statement.

-Charlie

[Serith]

I think the Bitcoin anonymous thing is overblown and a bit of a myth, by the way.

Satoshi only used the word "anonymous" once his paper, and it was regarding the anonymity of the key, not the user. There's nothing in his abstract or in his conclusion that even hints that the anonymity of the user is a primary concern for the network. Your anonymity is up to you, not to the Bitcoin protocol. It's like using email and expecting SMTP itself to provide anonymity.

He did suggest that people generate a new key pair for each transaction as a way to increase privacy.

As for your inflammatory and immature title, I really don't know what to say.

I think the Bitcoin anonymous thing is overblown and a bit of a myth, by the way.

This is not my quote, I didn't say it.

As for your inflammatory and immature title

I do believe that the person holding the titels Executive Director, Chairman of the Board and Treasurer has to be almost impeccable otherwise he is incompetent and dangerous. As for the rest of your post it is kind of off topic because it neither contradict nor supports the original post, maybe it is implying something but you need to be more clear on that.

[adamstgBit]

Executive Director of Bitcoin Foundation is incompetent and dangerous to Bitcoin

so.... what are you going to do about it?

[Severian]

I think the Bitcoin anonymous thing is overblown and a bit of a myth, by the way.
This is not my quote, I didn't say it.

I know. I quoted it to back up what he was saying based on Satoshi's paper.

maybe it is implying something

I implied nothing. I plainly stated that your title is inflammatory and immature.

Perhaps you need to re-read the white paper and show me exactly where Satoshi said that your anonymity was of concern to the network.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Your thread title is a bit overblown. Theres nothing stopping you making a version of bitcoin that aims for more anonymity.

[jgarzik]

The Foundation's core values include openness and transparency. I think the Bitcoin anonymous thing is overblown and a bit of a myth, by the way. Every bitcoin transaction links two addresses; often people can be determined from those addresses.
At any rate, we wish to make sure you can't stuff the ballot box during voting, and we wish civil productive discourse among our members, so we need real names and addresses.
If you just want to support us without joining, you can always send money to our vanity donation address: 1BTCorgHwCg6u2YSAWKgS17qUad6kHmtQW

The important part is in bold, it suggests that people using Bitcoin should not expect privacy at all.

Read https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Anonymity

What is dangerous is telling an activist in an authoritarian country "bitcoin is anonymous" without further detail.  They believe you, and then get arrested or worse.

Satoshi never claimed bitcoins were anonymous.  They are pseudonymous, and with a lot of work, can be mostly anonymous.

 

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

The Foundation's core values include openness and transparency. I think the Bitcoin anonymous thing is overblown and a bit of a myth, by the way. Every bitcoin transaction links two addresses; often people can be determined from those addresses.
At any rate, we wish to make sure you can't stuff the ballot box during voting, and we wish civil productive discourse among our members, so we need real names and addresses.
If you just want to support us without joining, you can always send money to our vanity donation address: 1BTCorgHwCg6u2YSAWKgS17qUad6kHmtQW

The important part is in bold, it suggests that people using Bitcoin should not expect privacy at all.

Read https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Anonymity

What is dangerous is telling an activist in an authoritarian country "bitcoin is anonymous" without further detail.  They believe you, and then get arrested or worse.

Satoshi never claimed bitcoins were anonymous.  They are pseudonymous, and with a lot of work, can be mostly anonymous.

 

I've already explain this, but he did not respond yet

I actually anticipated that kind of reply, this is exactly the same thing you are doing in another thread, replying to only part of the post you are comfortable with,

Satoshi never said Bitcoins were anonymous

Satoshi said "Participants can be anonymous."
http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09959.html

Therefore, how can Peter be wrong about something that is true?

In order to be anonymous using Bitcoin, you need to use Tor...thats a very true statement.

-Charlie

[bg002h]

If Bitcoin went up in price and adoption increased while privacy remained unimproved, would that be bad for Bitcoin? Seems like that's the agenda...

[Serith]

Executive Director of Bitcoin Foundation is incompetent and dangerous to Bitcoin

so.... what are you going to do about it?

What I can, e.g. will try to reduce the amount of money Bitcoin Foundation will collect.

I think the Bitcoin anonymous thing is overblown and a bit of a myth, by the way.
This is not my quote, I didn't say it.

I know. I quoted it to back up what he was saying based on Satoshi's paper.

maybe it is implying something

I implied nothing. I plainly stated that your title is inflammatory and immature.

Perhaps you need to re-read the white paper and show me exactly where Satoshi said that your anonymity was of concern to the network.

First, you should learn how to use bbcode, you made the same mistake in two posts in a row. Second, I did address your point that the title is inflammatory, my words "maybe it is implying something" referred to the rest of your post. 

The Foundation's core values include openness and transparency. I think the Bitcoin anonymous thing is overblown and a bit of a myth, by the way. Every bitcoin transaction links two addresses; often people can be determined from those addresses.
At any rate, we wish to make sure you can't stuff the ballot box during voting, and we wish civil productive discourse among our members, so we need real names and addresses.
If you just want to support us without joining, you can always send money to our vanity donation address: 1BTCorgHwCg6u2YSAWKgS17qUad6kHmtQW

The important part is in bold, it suggests that people using Bitcoin should not expect privacy at all.

Read https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Anonymity

What is dangerous is telling an activist in an authoritarian country "bitcoin is anonymous" without further detail.  They believe you, and then get arrested or worse.

Satoshi never claimed bitcoins were anonymous.  They are pseudonymous, and with a lot of work, can be mostly anonymous.

 

Peter Vessenes used the word "myth" regarding "Bitcoin anonymity". It means that he believes that Bitcoin transactions never was and never will be anonymous, which is not true because it could become anonymous see Automatic Coin Mixing Idea or P2P coin mixing[/li][/list]. Implementing this feature will make Bitcoin anonymous by itself.

[Serith]

I've already explain this, but he did not respond yet

I am actually a human being with only one head.

Satoshi never said Bitcoins were anonymous

Satoshi said "Participants can be anonymous."
http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09959.html

And satoshi's vision was to help Participants to be anonymous

For that level of anonymity you need to connect through TOR, which will be possible with version 0.2, which is only a few weeks away.  I'll post TOR instructions at that time.

But Peter Vessenes doesn't share that vision.

[Atlas]

Satoshi was actually hugely anti-establishment, anti-bank with libertarian tendencies but noooooo, Bitcoin is somehow non-political regardless of why Satoshi made it.

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

I've already explain this, but he did not respond yet

I am actually a human being with only one head.

Satoshi never said Bitcoins were anonymous

Satoshi said "Participants can be anonymous."
http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09959.html

And satoshi's vision was to help Participants to be anonymous

For that level of anonymity you need to connect through TOR, which will be possible with version 0.2, which is only a few weeks away.  I'll post TOR instructions at that time.

But Peter Vessenes doesn't share that vision.

Sorry I did not give you enough time to respond.

Honestly, you may be able to claim what Satoshi's vision was because he wrote it out for us, but you don't know what Peter's vision is. Furthermore if you did, Peters vision is not the same of the foundations.

[Serith]

Honestly, you may be able to claim what Satoshi's vision was because he wrote it out for us, but you don't know what Peter's vision is. Furthermore if you did, Peters vision is not the same of the foundations.

Very true, and unless he clarifies we can only make educated guess. And I would like to point that I do not imply that his opinion shared by the rest of the people involved in Bitcoin Foundation who I deeply respect.

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

Honestly, you may be able to claim what Satoshi's vision was because he wrote it out for us, but you don't know what Peter's vision is. Furthermore if you did, Peters vision is not the same of the foundations.

Very true, and unless he clarifies we can only make educated guess. And I would like to point that I do not imply that his opinion shared by the rest of the people involved in Bitcoin Foundation who I deeply respect.

Good point, he should clarify this ASAP!

Thanks for pointing that out, you did not have to, but you did and I respect you for that.

-Charlie

[BkkCoins]

Honestly, you may be able to claim what Satoshi's vision was because he wrote it out for us, but you don't know what Peter's vision is. Furthermore if you did, Peters vision is not the same of the foundations.

I sure hope it is otherwise he shouldn't be executive director. It would clearly be a self-declared conflict of interest.