Should Peter Vessenes resign as the Executive Director for Bitcoin Foundation ?

[QuestionAuthority]

Without MtGox there would pretty much not be a Bitcoin.

Without Silk Road, there wouldn't have been an MtGox.

Maybe Mark is DPR and Satoshi! 

[1715118179]

1715118179

[1715118179]

1715118179

[1715118179]

1715118179

[1715118179]

1715118179

[Herodes]

Without MtGox there would pretty much not be a Bitcoin.

Without Silk Road, there wouldn't have been an MtGox.

Maybe Mark is DPR and Satoshi! 

Board meetings of the foundation will be interesting now.

[tvbcof]

Board meetings of the foundation will be interesting now.

You mean with Mark and Peter yuck-yuck'ing about engineering an earthquake which shook a lot of BTC out of the weak hands in yokel-land?

[tvbcof]

Voted 'hell no'.  The guy is making me money, and is my best bet to make a genuine fortune.  Three cheers for ~vess!

Now, how about an update on Coinlab/MtGox for Christsake!

Changed my mind (but to lazy to change my vote.)  The guy is costing me money.  Take a hike ~vess!

And as for the update, thanks for nothing!

[k99]

I was never strongly against the BCF anyway.  Just voiced some theoretical concerns and reservations about how it could influence the evolution of the Bitcoin solution.  I cannot help but feel slightly vindicated at this point.

Huh. What evidence do you have that the Foundation has been hurting the evolution of Bitcoin?

Because it seems to me things have been going gangbusters since the Foundation was formed (with all the usual chaos and drama).

Or, to be less polite to all the haters: we've all been working our asses off (especially Peter), to make Bitcoin a success. What have you anonymous cowards been doing besides spouting off about things you know NOTHING about?

- all been working our asses off (especially Peter)  - is that the kind of work bitcoin need?

so i guess that discussion can be closed now. no one with a brain would like to have vess anymore as director or even member of the bitcoin foundation. in fact the foundation itself should close down if it was so easy to get occupied by such persons. shame on you vess. and my confidence in the other board members has also shrunk significantly. you should have known this guy better!
just the 2 cents of an anonymous coward.

[clone4501]

I find it disturbing that the CEO of the Bitcoin Foundation files a lawsuit against another board member only two weeks before the Foundation’s much touted “Future of Payments” conference.  The lawsuit couldn’t have waited until after the conference, after Peter and Mark had an opportunity at the conference to meet for an hour or two in a last attempt to works things out?  Was Peter thinking about how this would affect the conference including the negative publicity for Bitcoin leading into the conference?

[Herodes]

I find it disturbing that the CEO of the Bitcoin Foundation files a lawsuit against another board member only two weeks before the Foundation’s much touted “Future of Payments” conference.  The lawsuit couldn’t have waited until after the conference, after Peter and Mark had an opportunity at the conference to meet for an hour or two in a last attempt to works things out?  Was Peter thinking about how this would affect the conference including the negative publicity for Bitcoin leading into the conference?

Good point, which any intelligent businessman and upstanding individual of this community would've taken into account before coming with this knee-jerk lawsuit. Now, the press at the Conference is going to ask a lot of questions about this lawsuit. As we know - the press loves controversy and drama, and now this - a cryptocurrency, a foundation were board members sue each other. It's going to be lots of articles about this.

But then again, somebody said, you're not a real company until you get sued..

[abbyd]

I find it disturbing that the CEO of the Bitcoin Foundation files a lawsuit against another board member only two weeks before the Foundation’s much touted “Future of Payments” conference.  The lawsuit couldn’t have waited until after the conference, after Peter and Mark had an opportunity at the conference to meet for an hour or two in a last attempt to works things out?  Was Peter thinking about how this would affect the conference including the negative publicity for Bitcoin leading into the conference?

Good point, which any intelligent businessman and upstanding individual of this community would've taken into account before coming with this knee-jerk lawsuit. Now, the press at the Conference is going to ask a lot of questions about this lawsuit. As we know - the press loves controversy and drama, and now this - a cryptocurrency, a foundation were board members sue each other. It's going to be lots of articles about this.

But then again, somebody said, you're not a real company until you get sued..

I feel sorry for Karpeles - he'll be walking into a lion's den at the conference. It looks to me like BC Foundation trying to do a hostile takeover on Mt Gox. Gavin is staying mute, Ver claims he knew nothing, the others are silent. Rubbish, they've been planning all of this for months!

[Herodes]

I feel sorry for Karpeles - he'll be walking into a lion's den at the conference. It looks to me like BC Foundation trying to do a hostile takeover on Mt Gox. Gavin is staying mute, Ver claims he knew nothing, the others are silent. Rubbish, they've been planning all of this for months!

Gavin is paid by the Foundation, so his hands are tied, unless he wants to risk losing his paycheck.

And here's his answer:
https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/5509626

Everybody count to ten and take a deep breath in.... hold... out....

Ok.

If you have ever been involved with an organization that has more than three members, you should know that there will always be conflicts between members. Always.

Since the Foundation has corporate members, and since corporations use the legal system to help resolve their disputes (much better than using guns, by the way) it isn't surprising that one member of the Foundation is suing another.

The fact that they both happen to be on the Foundation Board is, in my view, not terribly relevant.

I think his response is condescending, like we're all kids - and he's the only one with a brain around. Also he says essentially he doesn't care about the whole thing. Then a better stance would be to say absolutely nothing, when you have nothing to contribute. Also, the fact that they're suing each other (foundation members) is quite relevant now with the upcoming conference.

Perhaps Gavin should talk to the community about making a fund paying his wage ? An apolitical fund, where all contributions are anonymous, perhaps this could even be baked into the fee-structure in the official client ?

[charleshoskinson]

Did you see my post in the forum?

[cypherdoc]

I find it disturbing that the CEO of the Bitcoin Foundation files a lawsuit against another board member only two weeks before the Foundation’s much touted “Future of Payments” conference.  The lawsuit couldn’t have waited until after the conference, after Peter and Mark had an opportunity at the conference to meet for an hour or two in a last attempt to works things out?  Was Peter thinking about how this would affect the conference including the negative publicity for Bitcoin leading into the conference?

Good point, which any intelligent businessman and upstanding individual of this community would've taken into account before coming with this knee-jerk lawsuit. Now, the press at the Conference is going to ask a lot of questions about this lawsuit. As we know - the press loves controversy and drama, and now this - a cryptocurrency, a foundation were board members sue each other. It's going to be lots of articles about this.

But then again, somebody said, you're not a real company until you get sued..

I feel sorry for Karpeles - he'll be walking into a lion's den at the conference. It looks to me like BC Foundation trying to do a hostile takeover on Mt Gox. Gavin is staying mute, Ver claims he knew nothing, the others are silent. Rubbish, they've been planning all of this for months!

Personally I'd trust mark over Coinlab.   He's done way more for the community.

[wumpus]

Perhaps Gavin should talk to the community about making a fund paying his wage ? An apolitical fund, where all contributions are anonymous, perhaps this could even be baked into the fee-structure in the official client ?

A fund for paying Gavin (and other core devs) would be great. But I'm sure this should not be part of any client.

[tvbcof]

I feel sorry for Karpeles - he'll be walking into a lion's den at the conference. It looks to me like BC Foundation trying to do a hostile takeover on Mt Gox. Gavin is staying mute, Ver claims he knew nothing, the others are silent. Rubbish, they've been planning all of this for months!

An interesting hypothetical.

If I were Karpeles (in this situation assuming it model reality) I'd be sending a message from Japan along the lines of "Suck my big liquidity stick."  I'm guessing that other source of liquidity have developed at this point, but Marks taps into the distributed and un-savy pool which is still probably where the richest BTC ore is to be found.  Not only does Mt. Gox have this advantage, but also a certain amount of isolation from the direct influence of the US regulatory millstones.  I'd guess he probably has the upper hand were all-out war to break out.

For my part, I had been looking forward to working through Coinlab (if/when I needed to in order to dump some BTC.)  I now would prefer Mt. Gox though I'll be keenly interested as the gaps in our (us plebs) understanding of what's going down get filled in.

[charleshoskinson]

A fund for paying Gavin (and other core devs) would be great. But I'm sure this should not be part of any client.

My proposal has always been a charity pool which keeps the coins it generates and donates them to a dev foundation. We could resolve two problems in one. First the 51% hash issue by negotiating with pool operators to commit to a cap (say 45%) of total hash power with overflow donated to the pool. Second, the GPU obsolescence issue due to ASICs. People will have collectively millions of dollars worth of hardware that will go dark. Combined it is still worth a lot and would generate a lot of revenue for a charity pool.

[abbyd]

I feel sorry for Karpeles - he'll be walking into a lion's den at the conference. It looks to me like BC Foundation trying to do a hostile takeover on Mt Gox. Gavin is staying mute, Ver claims he knew nothing, the others are silent. Rubbish, they've been planning all of this for months!

Gavin is paid by the Foundation, so his hands are tied, unless he wants to risk losing his paycheck.
...

I think his response is condescending, like we're all kids - and he's the only one with a brain around. Also he says essentially he doesn't care about the whole thing. Then a better stance would be to say absolutely nothing, when you have nothing to contribute. Also, the fact that they're suing each other (foundation members) is quite relevant now with the upcoming conference.

Perhaps Gavin should talk to the community about making a fund paying his wage ? An apolitical fund, where all contributions are anonymous, perhaps this could even be baked into the fee-structure in the official client ?

I saw Gavin's response and termed it "mute", but "non-committal" would be a more accurate representation of it ("weak" could be applicable as well).
My guess is that he's just hoping to avoid another giant flame war, and maybe feels a little guilty for being associated with the lawsuit via the Foundation.



I don't think Gavin needs to worry about his paycheck - can't he just dump 5% of his BTC holdings? BTW baking a fee into the client is a horrible idea.


The value of Bitcoin is in:

 * Satoshi's C++ code
 * Mt Gox's trading infrastructure
 * Bitcoin network that people here run on their own dimes
 * Gavin & other developers' brains
 * NOT some venture capital douchebag's e-wallet

[Herodes]

I don't think Gavin needs to worry about his paycheck - can't he just dump 5% of his BTC holdings? BTW baking a fee into the client is a horrible idea.

There are already fees when sending bitcoins with the official client. If there was a miniscule increase of those, and it would be used to further the work with the Bitcoin infra-structure - would it be bad ?

[marcus_of_augustus]

I don't think Gavin needs to worry about his paycheck - can't he just dump 5% of his BTC holdings? BTW baking a fee into the client is a horrible idea.

There are already fees when sending bitcoins with the official client. If there was a miniscule increase of those, and it would be used to further the work with the Bitcoin infra-structure - would it be bad ?

Yes ... think it through.

[Herodes]

I don't think Gavin needs to worry about his paycheck - can't he just dump 5% of his BTC holdings? BTW baking a fee into the client is a horrible idea.

There are already fees when sending bitcoins with the official client. If there was a miniscule increase of those, and it would be used to further the work with the Bitcoin infra-structure - would it be bad ?

Yes ... think it through.

How would you suggest the devs are funded ?

[Etlase2]

How would you suggest the devs are funded ?

A crazy thought, but perhaps actual donations from people who own BTC.

[Herodes]

How would you suggest the devs are funded ?

A crazy thought, but perhaps actual donations from people who own BTC.

Yes, I've also suggested this before - kind of like the wikimedia fundraising campaign ?