Elizabeth T. Ploshay for Bitcoin Foundation board

[QuestionAuthority]

*Snip*

you seem to understand her way better than most ppl around here.  certainly me.

perhaps you can then explain the meaning of her closing statement:  "The clock is ticking and we do not have much time until Bitcoin is compromised" ?

I doubt that's true. You have a good grasp on what's happening here. Far better than I do or really even care to. I, like many here, am out for my own self interest (increasing the value of Bitcoins by increasing the user-base). That always coincides with what's best for Bitcoin locally (USA). I think it's easy to see by watching press hits and following the different Bitcoin forums that the US is poised to take a possibly hard line stance on Bitcoin (virtual currencies or whatever the current jargon is). Not claiming to speak for anyone, I would assume that statement means she sees that the inevitable government involvement will be negative and that Bitcoin can be compromised by the actions of government. Something can be compromised in many different ways. Unwieldy government legislation and strict rules imposed can and will bleed through to US friendly nations where agreements are made to cooperate. Many other nations will follow suit if the US sets a course in behavior. Will this stop Bitcoin - definitely not. Will it keep me from using it - definitely not. Will it compromise my ability to use it - absolutely. I have said before that I don't like the idea of getting into bed with government but I can see the logic of opening a dialog that allows an even tempered response from the largest financially forceful government on the globe.

[cypherdoc]

*Snip*

you seem to understand her way better than most ppl around here.  certainly me.

perhaps you can then explain the meaning of her closing statement:  "The clock is ticking and we do not have much time until Bitcoin is compromised" ?

I doubt that's true. You have a good grasp on what's happening here. Far better than I do or really even care to. I, like many here, am out for my own self interest (increasing the value of Bitcoins by increasing the user-base). That always coincides with what's best for Bitcoin locally (USA). I think it's easy to see by watching press hits and following the different Bitcoin forums that the US is poised to take a possibly hard line stance on Bitcoin (virtual currencies or whatever the current jargon is). Not claiming to speak for anyone, I would assume that statement means she sees that the inevitable government involvement will be negative and that Bitcoin can be compromised by the actions of government. Something can be compromised in many different ways. Unwieldy government legislation and strict rules imposed can and will bleed through to US friendly nations where agreements are made to cooperate. Many other nations will follow suit if the US sets a course in behavior. Will this stop Bitcoin - definitely not. Will it keep me from using it - definitely not. Will it compromise my ability to use it - absolutely. I have said before that I don't like the idea of getting into bed with government but I can see the logic of opening a dialog that allows an even tempered response from the largest financially forceful government on the globe.

Nothing wrong with that. I'm all for raw unadulterated greed. We may have more in common than you think.

However when it comes to Elizabeth, I think that gaff comes more from her tendency to perseverate, ie, the inability to stop talking for more than 0.5 seconds. You know, those people whose mouths are running faster than they can think.

Its either that or she really doesn't know wtf she's talking about.

[zachcope]

the main reason i'm partial to Platzer is that he is international.  maybe that's too much of a simplification but i also think he's lived, breathed, and taken personal and financial risks in promoting Bitcoin.

Exactly. He has a personal stake in the system: he risked his business standing up for his (allegedly extremist) views, and it paid  of for him, he had the diplomatic abilities to negotiate Bitcoin payment for all of his overheads. He can't have been so confrontational and uncompromising to achieve that.

from my own geopolitical assessment of risk to Bitcoin's future, Germany's ruling allowing Bitcoin to function as a legal private currency was a seminal event.  to me that means whatever the US gov't does to try and obstruct Bitcoin, it won't matter given this development.  that is huge to me.

i always assumed Platzer had a hand in this and now from the debate i learn that my suspicions were true.  he's been working directly with Schaeffer (?) of the Bundesbank to get this done.  that's big and indicates an ability to work with regulators towards what in essence guarantees Bitcoin's future, imo.

Agreed and well said. The US will be one of the harder countries to gain gov approval in. Why not focus some effort on more open jurisdictions - the US will follow soon enough when they realise they are missing out.

[willphase]

the main reason i'm partial to Platzer is that he is international.  maybe that's too much of a simplification but i also think he's lived, breathed, and taken personal and financial risks in promoting Bitcoin.

Exactly. He has a personal stake in the system: he risked his business standing up for his (allegedly extremist) views, and it paid  of for him, he had the diplomatic abilities to negotiate Bitcoin payment for all of his overheads. He can't have been so confrontational and uncompromising to achieve that.

from my own geopolitical assessment of risk to Bitcoin's future, Germany's ruling allowing Bitcoin to function as a legal private currency was a seminal event.  to me that means whatever the US gov't does to try and obstruct Bitcoin, it won't matter given this development.  that is huge to me.

i always assumed Platzer had a hand in this and now from the debate i learn that my suspicions were true.  he's been working directly with Schaeffer (?) of the Bundesbank to get this done.  that's big and indicates an ability to work with regulators towards what in essence guarantees Bitcoin's future, imo.

Agreed and well said. The US will be one of the harder countries to gain gov approval in. Why not focus some effort on more open jurisdictions - the US will follow soon enough when they realise they are missing out.

This can be done with regional foundation chapters, or grass roots movements that Platzer is already spearheading.

Will

[QuestionAuthority]

*Snip*

you seem to understand her way better than most ppl around here.  certainly me.

perhaps you can then explain the meaning of her closing statement:  "The clock is ticking and we do not have much time until Bitcoin is compromised" ?

I doubt that's true. You have a good grasp on what's happening here. Far better than I do or really even care to. I, like many here, am out for my own self interest (increasing the value of Bitcoins by increasing the user-base). That always coincides with what's best for Bitcoin locally (USA). I think it's easy to see by watching press hits and following the different Bitcoin forums that the US is poised to take a possibly hard line stance on Bitcoin (virtual currencies or whatever the current jargon is). Not claiming to speak for anyone, I would assume that statement means she sees that the inevitable government involvement will be negative and that Bitcoin can be compromised by the actions of government. Something can be compromised in many different ways. Unwieldy government legislation and strict rules imposed can and will bleed through to US friendly nations where agreements are made to cooperate. Many other nations will follow suit if the US sets a course in behavior. Will this stop Bitcoin - definitely not. Will it keep me from using it - definitely not. Will it compromise my ability to use it - absolutely. I have said before that I don't like the idea of getting into bed with government but I can see the logic of opening a dialog that allows an even tempered response from the largest financially forceful government on the globe.

Nothing wrong with that. I'm all for raw unadulterated greed. We may have more in common than you think.

However when it comes to Elizabeth, I think that gaff comes more from her tendency to perseverate, ie, the inability to stop talking for more than 0.5 seconds. You know, those people whose mouths are running faster than they can think.

Its either that or she really doesn't know wtf she's talking about.

I really shouldn't say this but even with a Wheaton education she is still a woman.  

[bpd]

Not all regions see competitive business advantage as a sufficient incentive to permit transaction freedom.  Some may not be convinced by the merits of Bitcoin even with a complete understanding of it and the technology.  If some near-totalitarian state were to decree Bitcoin outlawed, and assign capital punishment to users transacting in its jurisdiction unless using a government sanctioned escrow for the private keys of all its citizens, (which law, were it to exist, might even be enforceable to some degree).

Faced with such, how would you as a Bitcoin Foundation board member address this?
Citizens there may not be able to send TBF member fees nor get any representation in TBF without foreign help, would you advocate such help through the Foundation and how?

I'm insufficiently vain to imagine that any of the Board hopefuls will read this or answer it, but had to put it out there for the rest of us to contemplate because I am old enough to remember when "munitions grade" PGP was illegal to export from the USA.

Ben Davenport here (I'm a candidate).

I think the capital punishment scenario is probably a little far out there, so I won't address it, but the outlawing of making Bitcoin transactions in a jurisdiction is certainly a realistic possibility. The appropriate response from TBF depends a lot on the specifics here (I doubt we'd be able to do much if we're talking about North Korea, for instance). At minimum, I would certainly do anything reasonable to prevent loss of representation of BF members from that jurisdiction, such as suspending membership dues, accepting alternate payment forms, etc.

Following that, I think there are a number of possible approaches, depending on the jurisdiction and the particular law. My bias would be towards finding or constructing a test case with ideal attributes that allows us the best chance of overturning such a law, likely in conjunction with a grass roots campaign to sway public opinion.

It's interesting that you bring up the PGP crypto wars, because I think some similar tactics could apply. Ultimately, PGP was exported by printing it in book form, protected by freedom of speech/press, and OCR'd back into machine-readable form in Europe. And similarly, there were T-shirts made which implemented RSA in a few lines of Perl, with the statement "This shirt is a munition." Because making a bitcoin transaction simply consists of making a public utterance, i.e. speech, I think similar tactics could be used. For instance: build a tool which translates a bitcoin transaction into English or other natural language, and posts it to a public internet forum, where another tool scans and translates back to binary form and relays to the bitcoin network.

[charleshoskinson]

Ben I totally remember those days and I've actually met Phil Zimmerman. He now runs a company out in DC with a former seal called Silent Circle. I think the government has learned its lesson about making code illegal

[cypherdoc]

Not all regions see competitive business advantage as a sufficient incentive to permit transaction freedom.  Some may not be convinced by the merits of Bitcoin even with a complete understanding of it and the technology.  If some near-totalitarian state were to decree Bitcoin outlawed, and assign capital punishment to users transacting in its jurisdiction unless using a government sanctioned escrow for the private keys of all its citizens, (which law, were it to exist, might even be enforceable to some degree).

Faced with such, how would you as a Bitcoin Foundation board member address this?
Citizens there may not be able to send TBF member fees nor get any representation in TBF without foreign help, would you advocate such help through the Foundation and how?

I'm insufficiently vain to imagine that any of the Board hopefuls will read this or answer it, but had to put it out there for the rest of us to contemplate because I am old enough to remember when "munitions grade" PGP was illegal to export from the USA.

Ben Davenport here (I'm a candidate).

I think the capital punishment scenario is probably a little far out there, so I won't address it, but the outlawing of making Bitcoin transactions in a jurisdiction is certainly a realistic possibility. The appropriate response from TBF depends a lot on the specifics here (I doubt we'd be able to do much if we're talking about North Korea, for instance). At minimum, I would certainly do anything reasonable to prevent loss of representation of BF members from that jurisdiction, such as suspending membership dues, accepting alternate payment forms, etc.

Following that, I think there are a number of possible approaches, depending on the jurisdiction and the particular law. My bias would be towards finding or constructing a test case with ideal attributes that allows us the best chance of overturning such a law, likely in conjunction with a grass roots campaign to sway public opinion.

It's interesting that you bring up the PGP crypto wars, because I think some similar tactics could apply. Ultimately, PGP was exported by printing it in book form, protected by freedom of speech/press, and OCR'd back into machine-readable form in Europe. And similarly, there were T-shirts made which implemented RSA in a few lines of Perl, with the statement "This shirt is a munition." Because making a bitcoin transaction simply consists of making a public utterance, i.e. speech, I think similar tactics could be used. For instance: build a tool which translates a bitcoin transaction into English or other natural language, and posts it to a public internet forum, where another tool scans and translates back to binary form and relays to the bitcoin network.

Ben,

thanx for taking a shot at a difficult question.  it say alot and there are good ideas in there.

good job the other nite too despite the voice handicap.  of the 3 ppl i'd consider for the position (Trace, Joerg, yourself) you would be my dark horse.  while the other 2 are more vocal and "flamboyant", you are "just" a good solid candidate from the good 'ol US of A.  coding background with a Facebook stamp; how much more boring does it get? 

the big plus i see for you though, seriously, is a thoughtful maturity and patience that could bring alot to the table.

best of luck.

[greyhawk]

I, like many here, am out for my own self interest.

In which case you may not want to vote for hamster girl. You know, the whole greed thing being a mortal sin and all and what with her being a religious fanatic. Doesn't mesh too well.

[NewLiberty]

Great answer, especially the example of the test case as a means to change law through the courts.

I think the capital punishment scenario is probably a little far out there, so I won't address it

Consider Singapore and Silk Road? "Disneyland with the Death Penalty"  Mandatory death penalty for quite a bit of what is routine on SR and Singapore is a region with much civilization.  

There are also many regions with much less civilization, and where execution is done extra-judicially by "police" and where laws are less defined.  These are places where Bitcoin and its freedoms can create disruptive change and are not going to be well represented by dues paying Foundation members, and where courts are less useful for generating good case law.  I'd agree those are a bigger challenge than the Foundation can address in the near or mid term.  
Still... leaders ought be visionary, and the time may come where you get called to do things that are difficult to imagine today.  There are foreign policy implications for each region that may ultimately be impacting Foundation activities as a governmental liaison.  

It is offered for contemplation more than for comment, but comment is certainly welcome.

[QuestionAuthority]

I, like many here, am out for my own self interest.

In which case you may not want to vote for hamster girl. You know, the whole greed thing being a mortal sin and all and what with her being a religious fanatic. Doesn't mesh too well.

Oh please, she's much better than just a christian. She's a christian zealot that is willing to fight even her own government for what she believes is right and has the education and background to know how to do it (see link below). Having her on our side is an injection of decency in a corruptible system. A young, energy filled, christian zealot is perfect for Bitcoin. No bureaucrat can accuse her of being an anti-government atheist radical when she promotes Bitcoin. She's moms apple pie rolled in the American flag pitching a baseball. Perfect!

Bedsides if I never voted for christians I'd never vote.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/18/young-christian-zionist-leaders-look-to-the-future-in-exclusive-blaze-interview/

[zachcope]

I, like many here, am out for my own self interest.

In which case you may not want to vote for hamster girl. You know, the whole greed thing being a mortal sin and all and what with her being a religious fanatic. Doesn't mesh too well.

Oh please, she's much better than just a christian. She's a christian zealot that is willing to fight even her own government for what she believes is right and has the education and background to know how to do it (see link below). Having her on our side is an injection of decency in a corruptible system. A young, energy filled, christian zealot is perfect for Bitcoin. No bureaucrat can accuse her of being an anti-government atheist radical when she promotes Bitcoin. She's moms apple pie rolled in the American flag pitching a baseball. Perfect!

Bedsides if I never voted for christians I'd never vote.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/18/young-christian-zionist-leaders-look-to-the-future-in-exclusive-blaze-interview/

Whole hamster club here:

[QuestionAuthority]

Isn't that wholesome photo great! That's exactly what we need on our side. Uncle Sugar will never know what's about to kill him. Like a frigin Trojan Horse. lol 

[RodeoX]

I would add that there are a lot of reasons to vote for Elizabeth. As an atheist, her religion is not an issue for me. I like her ability to effectively communicate and lead. She has put together a lot of information about her platform and impressed me with her hard work. Any foundation members should at least look at her experience and agenda before deciding.
Of course whatever you decide, please do vote!

[greyhawk]

I, like many here, am out for my own self interest.

In which case you may not want to vote for hamster girl. You know, the whole greed thing being a mortal sin and all and what with her being a religious fanatic. Doesn't mesh too well.

Oh please, she's much better than just a christian. She's a christian zealot that is willing to fight even her own government for what she believes is right and has the education and background to know how to do it (see link below). Having her on our side is an injection of decency in a corruptible system. A young, energy filled, christian zealot is perfect for Bitcoin. No bureaucrat can accuse her of being an anti-government atheist radical when she promotes Bitcoin. She's moms apple pie rolled in the American flag pitching a baseball. Perfect!

Bedsides if I never voted for christians I'd never vote.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/18/young-christian-zionist-leaders-look-to-the-future-in-exclusive-blaze-interview/

Christian.....  Zionist.... ? That's a new one even for me. How does that even work?

And I thought the 40 songs on Youtube about how Jesus is her best friend ever were ... special. Now I dare not look deeper into the abyss.

[charleshoskinson]

Greyhawk, I just watched the documentary on you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYX7ACuTBTY

Wow, Tom I don't know how you went through that.

[greyhawk]

Wow, Tom I don't know how you went through that.

It wasn't me that had to "go through" something.

[RodeoX]

Wow, Tom I don't know how you went through that.

It wasn't me that had to "go through" something.

Key word, "Something". 

[2112]

And I thought the 40 songs on Youtube about how Jesus is her best friend ever were ... special. Now I dare not look deeper into the abyss.

Thanks for taking it for the team, greyhawk.   

Evangelical christian music, especially US-ian, is quite devoid of emotions. To be able to listen to something interesting you should try christian music from the countries that are predominately Roman-Catholic or Orthodox.

Here, listen to some christian hardcore punk from Eastern Europe, it will restore the blood circulation in your brain:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeeNEQZOSOI

And by the way, linguistic experts tell me that the mechanical translation (e.g. Bing Translator) of the religious poetry (lyrics are in the "About" comment) is surprisingly good.

[theymos]

Elizabeth won. Congratulations to her, and thanks to everyone who voted! This isn't a particularly important position IMO, but the election sure was a lot of fun. I expected this to be a drama-filled popularity contest, but it was actually more like a real political race with some actual debate and campaigning. The second debate was especially interesting: it's great that we have so many intelligent and enthusiastic bitcoiners! Ben Davenport stuck out as a particularly good candidate -- I hope he runs for the next Foundation election or becomes involved in some other big Bitcoin organization. Elizabeth was the best person for this job at this time, though, and I'm happy that she won.