Policing Bitcoin brought to you by Gavin Andresen

[DooMAD]

I'm not much for regulation myself but I also don't subscribe to the Gavin Conspiracy Theory. I think he is doing what he feels is right and everyone is allowed to make their own decisions.

Absolutely.  It might sound a bit cornball, but Bitcoin can be all things to all people.  We know that the protocol itself can't be universally regulated by a single authority, so that's a non-issue.  Services can easily be regulated, but it's still ultimately the users' choice as to whether they opt to use a regulated service or an unregulated one.  It's a bit like the choice between Netflix and Bittorent.  There's room in this diverse world for both to thrive and, as you say, everyone is allowed to make their own decisions.

[1714234099]

1714234099

[1714234099]

1714234099

[1714234099]

1714234099

[1714234099]

1714234099

[yayayo]

I'm not much for regulation myself but I also don't subscribe to the Gavin Conspiracy Theory. I think he is doing what he feels is right and everyone is allowed to make their own decisions.

What conspiracy theory?

Fact #1: Gavin was invited by the CIA and accepted invitation.

Fact #2: Gavin founded the now mostly defunct Bitcoin Foundation.

Fact #3: Gavin together with Mike Hearn tried to initiate a non-consensus hardfork with a previously rejected XT-client that implements blacklisting.

Fact #4: Gavin again proves as a perfect servant of the establishment by supporting the blockchain alliance.

Fact #5: Gavin constantly tries to exert political influence on Core development via frequent media appearances.

Regardless if he is evil or hopelessly naive. His actions are damaging Bitcoin and couldn't be further from Satoshi's vision as engraved in the Genesis block.

ya.ya.yo!

[MbitSport]

Bitcoin will be regulated whether we like it or not. It is difficult to regulate our addresses and bitcoin wallets, it will be easy to regulate our bitcoin spending: when we buy physical goods from website, when we exchange for other crypto or fiat. Governments can force us to declare bitcoin ownership on our tax returns. I believe it is better to interact with regulators, to educate them that bitcoin is not an "evil" technology.

Yeah that worked splendidly well with Lawsky heh 

And no, government will never force me to declare and report whatever amount of Bitcoin I possess. It is none of their business. 

If the government treat bitcoin as money or property, you have to declare it.

I think it would be too hard for them to force people to declare their amount bitcoin, i do belive they'll try, don't get me wrong, but no way they could keep track of everyone's wallets, yeah maybe some will, but even those will probably only declare ONE of many wallets lol no chance in hell they'll manage (hope im not eating my words in 20 years time)

[brg444]

I'm not much for regulation myself but I also don't subscribe to the Gavin Conspiracy Theory. I think he is doing what he feels is right and everyone is allowed to make their own decisions.

What conspiracy theory?

Fact #1: Gavin was invited by the CIA and accepted invitation.

Fact #2: Gavin founded the now mostly defunct Bitcoin Foundation.

Fact #3: Gavin together with Mike Hearn tried to initiate a non-consensus hardfork with a previously rejected XT-client that implements blacklisting.

Fact #4: Gavin again proves as a perfect servant of the establishment by supporting the blockchain alliance.

Fact #5: Gavin constantly tries to exert political influence on Core development via frequent media appearances.

Regardless if he is evil or hopelessly naive. His actions are damaging Bitcoin and couldn't be further from Satoshi's vision as engraved in the Genesis block.

ya.ya.yo!

Couldn't have said it better.

And people say it's the guys over at Blockstream we should be concerned about 

[BruceFenton]

These words from Gavin originally were in response to a note I wrote criticizing the Blockchain Alliance (with FBI, DHS, ICE etc.)

I completely believe that Gavin wishes what is best for Bitcoin and has no bad intent.   I don't think he should be criticized for this -- we should all work to increase understanding and share ideas about the best ways to do so.

Bruce

[Envrin]

Gavin and Mike can sit and spin.

XT is going nowhere anyway...  miners have already voted, and they're not willing to adopt it, so Mike and Gavin might as well just talk to a cement wall.

[RawDog]

I just don't get the concept of trying to regulate Bitcoin to be honest. Do they regulate TCP/IP?

The Fed certainly does regulate TCP/IP.  Well, not the protocol but activity done on it.  Same for Bitcoin, they don't want to regulate the protocol - the protocol is in the wild and the Fed doesn't want to change it at all.   However, when child pornographers use TCP/IP to transmit kiddie porn, the regulators slam down the hammer.  Don't think you will be able to use the bitcoin protocol for illegal purposes, they will slam down the hammer on you.  They are trying to regulate the protocol - just the assholes who use it to advance their crimes.

[yayayo]

I think it would be too hard for them to force people to declare their amount bitcoin, i do belive they'll try, don't get me wrong, but no way they could keep track of everyone's wallets, yeah maybe some will, but even those will probably only declare ONE of many wallets lol no chance in hell they'll manage (hope im not eating my words in 20 years time)

I think you did not think it through. It's very easy to exert factual control over the vast majority of Bitcoin users if you implement blacklisting and use data analysis to track relations between all wallets combined with IP-addresses and information from external sources (identities, businesses etc.).

Governmental control will be greatly facilitated if Bitcoin's privacy features remain weak and node centralization occurs. (Gavin is openly denying the importance of these points.)

ya.ya.yo!

[yayayo]

These words from Gavin originally were in response to a note I wrote criticizing the Blockchain Alliance (with FBI, DHS, ICE etc.)

I completely believe that Gavin wishes what is best for Bitcoin and has no bad intent.   I don't think he should be criticized for this -- we should all work to increase understanding and share ideas about the best ways to do so.

Bruce

Whether his intentions are bad or not is irrelevant: His actions are a hazard for Bitcoin and deserve criticism.

He has become a burden to Bitcoin. Sadly, many people are blinded by his media presence, perceiving him as the most important developer, while he has barely contributed since over a year and most important work was/is done by others.

The sooner Gavin leaves Bitcoin alone the better.

ya.ya.yo!