Bitcoin Devs vs. US Government

[Wolf0]

NaN.

[Foxpup]

Are the people we depend on willing to let that happen?

Who are you talking about? We don't depend on Gavin Andreson, as he himself noted in the article you quoted. Satoshi Nakomoto already stopped doing what he was doing, and guess what happened to Bitcoin as a result? That's right, absolutely nothing. If the U.S. government thinks it can shut down an international, open-source project by telling U.S. citizens to stop working on it, they'll find out the hard way just how wrong they are.

[willhash4food]

Agree with Foxpop. How would you shutdown the Bitcoin network? It's not centralized. (Although, I suppose if Congress makes ransomware legal to the entertainment industry, it could make DDOSing legal to law enforcement.)
 
Whenever the US sees an opportunity to shutdown a Bitcoin affiliate (like Liberty Reserve) they will do it, if it means shifting some of the labor force back to using USD. The capitalist US's #1 priority is money. Taking money away from the United States has the highest punishment out of any other crime.

[solex]

I just saw something that worried me.

I think if the U.S. government decided that Bitcoin was a bad thing and told me, “Stop doing what you’re doing,” I’d stop doing what I’m doing, quite frankly.

It's the opposite. This shows a very level-headed and pragmatic viewpoint. Good qualities to see in Bitcoin Core Dev.

Now, if you want to get worried try asserting that there are no dev people elsewhere around the world to continue working on the project, even at a slower pace. However, there seems to be a number of other people who could continue, so worries are overblown.

[oakpacific]

Bitcoin is not worth supporting if we have to count on someone making wise decisions for it to survive, be it a developer, philanthropist, entrepreneur, etc.

[Lethn]

Bitcoin is open source, the U.S government couldn't do a thing, if they tried to shut the Bitcoin devs down then everyone would just hop onto the various alternate currencies they like the look of instead. If it had been closed source then it would be another story, but whoever Statoshi is they had the foresight to make it open source in case something like this happened. Oh and that's a totally pro-government newspaper, so I wouldn't be surprised they're trying to manipulate people to do as they're told, they're probably the same people coming onto the forum to tell us to pay our taxes.

[cycloid]

Bitcoin is open source, the U.S government couldn't do a thing, if they tried to shut the Bitcoin devs down then everyone would just hop onto the various alternate currencies they like the look of instead. If it had been closed source then it would be another story, but whoever Statoshi is they had the foresight to make it open source in case something like this happened. Oh and that's a totally pro-government newspaper, so I wouldn't be surprised they're trying to manipulate people to do as they're told, they're probably the same people coming onto the forum to tell us to pay our taxes.

Hey man taxes are awesome they are needed to pay the interest fees on the money printed by the FED and spent by the Government. 

[ktttn]

I think if the U.S. government decided that Bitcoin was a bad thing and told me, “Stop doing what you’re doing,” I’d stop doing what I’m doing, quite frankly.

+1
How surprised would one be about being told such a decision?
I'd comply.

[Bush]

pay your taxes and there is nothing Uncle Sam can do to you.

[cycloid]

pay your taxes and there is nothing Uncle Sam can do to you.

Unless you are Latino or brown wondering around town. 

[MysteryMiner]

The problem is not Gavin or someone else stopping working on Bitcoin software. The problem is what to do if devs are secretly forced by government to include some kind of timebomb in software and when majority upgrades then kaboom! and network is broken and the user trust with it.

[RichG]

The problem is not Gavin or someone else stopping working on Bitcoin software. The problem is what to do if devs are secretly forced by government to include some kind of timebomb in software and when majority upgrades then kaboom! and network is broken and the user trust with it.

That would be sad.

[nimda]

The problem is not Gavin or someone else stopping working on Bitcoin software. The problem is what to do if devs are secretly forced by government to include some kind of timebomb in software and when majority upgrades then kaboom! and network is broken and the user trust with it.

That would be sad.

Because nobody ever builds from source or even looks at the source. Ever. That just doesn't happen.

[RichG]

The problem is not Gavin or someone else stopping working on Bitcoin software. The problem is what to do if devs are secretly forced by government to include some kind of timebomb in software and when majority upgrades then kaboom! and network is broken and the user trust with it.

That would be sad.

Because nobody ever builds from source or even looks at the source. Ever. That just doesn't happen.

Nimda, I usually look at the source before I compile.

[MysteryMiner]

The problem is not Gavin or someone else stopping working on Bitcoin software. The problem is what to do if devs are secretly forced by government to include some kind of timebomb in software and when majority upgrades then kaboom! and network is broken and the user trust with it.

That would be sad.

Because nobody ever builds from source or even looks at the source. Ever. That just doesn't happen.

How many of have audited version 0.8.2 and not only for obvious misbehaving but probably intentionally masked backdoors or flaws in code. And what about compiled binaries? Not everyone compiles the client from source. They don't need every last person to run backdoored client, only majority must be compromised to compromise both network and everyone's trust in that network.

[oakpacific]

The problem is not Gavin or someone else stopping working on Bitcoin software. The problem is what to do if devs are secretly forced by government to include some kind of timebomb in software and when majority upgrades then kaboom! and network is broken and the user trust with it.

That would be sad.

Because nobody ever builds from source or even looks at the source. Ever. That just doesn't happen.

How many of have audited version 0.8.2 and not only for obvious misbehaving but probably intentionally masked backdoors or flaws in code. And what about compiled binaries? Not everyone compiles the client from source. They don't need every last person to run backdoored client, only majority must be compromised to compromise both network and everyone's trust in that network.

A vocal minority is enough to influence the majority. Also, some people would do this on a regular basis anyway,  not because they are paranoid, but that they are worried new code may break compatibility/have other issues, it's your money, after all! There is no general restriction on who can contribute to the code as well, and many dozens of random internet dudes have become developers, and actively follow the development process.

[Este Nuno]

I'd be more worried about non-governmental actors targeting Gavin than the inept US Gov.

[mprep]

I'd be more worried about non-governmental actors targeting Gavin than the inept US Gov.

Why?

[nimda]

The problem is not Gavin or someone else stopping working on Bitcoin software. The problem is what to do if devs are secretly forced by government to include some kind of timebomb in software and when majority upgrades then kaboom! and network is broken and the user trust with it.

That would be sad.

Because nobody ever builds from source or even looks at the source. Ever. That just doesn't happen.

Nimda, I usually look at the source before I compile.

I can't tell if that's double sarcasm or if you missed the sarcasm in my post

[firefop]

The problem is not Gavin or someone else stopping working on Bitcoin software. The problem is what to do if devs are secretly forced by government to include some kind of timebomb in software and when majority upgrades then kaboom! and network is broken and the user trust with it.

That would be sad.

Because nobody ever builds from source or even looks at the source. Ever. That just doesn't happen.

How many of have audited version 0.8.2 and not only for obvious misbehaving but probably intentionally masked backdoors or flaws in code. And what about compiled binaries? Not everyone compiles the client from source. They don't need every last person to run backdoored client, only majority must be compromised to compromise both network and everyone's trust in that network.

A vocal minority is enough to influence the majority. Also, some people would do this on a regular basis anyway,  not because they are paranoid, but that they are worried new code may break compatibility/have other issues, it's your money, after all! There is no general restriction on who can contribute to the code as well, and many dozens of random internet dudes have become developers, and actively follow the development process.

I do it because I'm paranoid. But also for fun. Somebody (if not me than someone else) would notice it and they'd go down in flames.