[DISCUSS]Luke-Jr is standing for election to the board of the Bitcoin Foundation

[Kouye]

Luke-Jr is standing for election to the board of the Bitcoin Foundation. If you like what he's contributed to Bitcoin so far and agree with his vision for Bitcoin "as a legal and widely utilized, decentralized replacement for fiat currencies", then: Join the Bitcoin Foundation: https://bitcoinfoundation.org/support and vote for Luke-Jr

Read Luke-Jr's full statement:

Vision

My vision for Bitcoin is pretty simple: a legal and widely utilized, decentralized replacement for fiat currencies. I've noticed some people are using Bitcoin as an exclusive vehicle for their own ideologies. I dislike that agenda. I'm particularly against agendas of this sort which focus on promoting tax evasion, anarchy, or other anti-government activities. These agendas increase the probability that governments will perceive Bitcoin as a threat and try to make it illegal or regulated more than necessary. While I don't wish to police individuals from political experimentation, it isn't something I believe Bitcoin itself should be wagered on. There are many different ideologies in the world, and I think Bitcoin can be of value to all of them for different reasons.

Since becoming one of the main developers in the mining arena, Bitcoin's decentralization has become more of a focal point to me. I regularly work toward making mining less centralized by trying to reconcile the needs of individual miners (regular/low-variance earnings) with the needs of Bitcoin (no entities who can single-handedly control a substantial amount of the network blocks). I also try to encourage more independent development teams working on their own Bitcoin node/wallet implementations, to try to remove the centralization on a single codebase/team that unfortunately exists right now.

I also think decisions shouldn't be centralized on the board of directors. If called upon to vote or decide on a non-trivial matter as a member of the board of directors for the Bitcoin Foundation, I intend to consult with the community before making a decision, including using polls for non-landslide cases (potentially anonymous, as long as we can ensure no sockpuppets).

Experience

Before Bitcoin, I have been involved in the development of many different peer-to-peer and free software projects. Bitcoin has allowed a new area of excitement and challenge for me to which I believe I bring a unique set of skills, knowledge and experience as a developer. My passion for Bitcoin's long term sustainability and continued interest in developing widely used software connect me with the community for what I believe will be the long and prosperous road ahead of us. I've been researching and exploring Bitcoin for what's coming up on 3 years, and have taken an immediate interest to it and its expansive uses.

Below is a snapshot of my experience and contributions to the Bitcoin community, both in teams and, in some cases when my peers were unable to lend a hand, on my own, as a means of broadening the wide usage and accessability of Bitcoin to the general public.

bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt: Over the years, I have contributed a number of improvements to the Satoshi-codebase wallets. These include extending BTC precision from 2 decimal places to 8 decimal places, various mining improvements, and a lot of other under-the-hood improvements and fixes. Additionally, I currently maintain the stable (aka backport) branches of the client, and every so often put together a bleeding edge version called "next-test".

Spesmilo: Before Wladimir released Bitcoin-Qt, I was an active lead developer on the Spesmilo wallet frontend for bitcoind.

Pay-to-script-hash: I participated in the development of the P2SH protocol extensions, and while BIP 16 was eventually adopted over the BIP 17 specification which I championed, I believe a lot was learned in the process.

Eligius mining pool: I founded the 4th ever mining pool in early 2011. We have remained on the leading edge of mining technology, being the first to implement the BIP 22 decentralized mining protocol standard (getblocktemplate aka GBT), one of the few pools to have developed our own mining server software, and one of few to design newer innovative mining reward systems. Eligius is popularly known for its generation payouts, lack of registration required, and low variance zero-fee reward system. The pool serves nearly 1,500 miners with nearly 20 Th/s combined, and finds about 5% of blocks on the Bitcoin network. It has also developed into a lively mining community expanding beyond just the pool.

Eloipool: When the needs of Eligius grew beyond what was capable with simple bitcoind getwork proxies, I wrote custom mining server software, the first to implement its own work generation instead of being a mere proxy to bitcoind. It has grown to be the most featureful open source software of its kind, and supports all major mining protocols (getwork, GBT, and stratum), and is actively used to find at least 11% of mined blocks.

getblocktemplate: Inspired by BitPenny and p2pool's attempts at decentralized mining pools, I set out to create a standard protocol that could be used for decentralizing all mining pools. Following the completion of the BIP 22 and BIP 23 specifications, I also implemented and maintain libraries implementing it for both C and Python. GBT is now widely adopted for decentralized mining, and I continue to develop it further to improve decentralization.

BFGMiner: With the advent of FPGA mining devices, I set out to implement software to make use of them. Based on the popular GPU miner of the time, cgminer, I refactored the internal mining code to support modular drivers, and added the first FPGA driver to make BFGMiner. As the industry has developed further, I have continued to work closely with most, if not all, of the FPGA/ASIC vendors, as well as end-user miners, to provide the best possible FPGA/ASIC mining software. BFGMiner has also grown to add numerous enhancements, and I have taken extra effort to find and fix many bugs and security issues.

Mining hardware: In addition to my experiences with mining software, I helped BTCFPGA completely rewrite their FPGA MCU's firmware, and assisted Butterfly Labs in doing a proper open source release of their ASIC MCU firmware. I have also been working on getting BFL's MCU firmware compiled and installed using just free software. I regularly provide advice to device manufacturers for improvement of current and new mining products.

Bitcoin Magazine: As an effort to improve Bitcoin education, I have been assisting Bitcoin Magazine as a volunteer editor for the past 8 months.

Bitcoin statistics: I maintain a #Bitcoin-Watch freenode IRC channel to monitor transactions in realtime, and have put together a number of realtime graphs to analyze the Bitcoin network.

Cryptocurrency research: I have studied the various aspects of how cryptocurrencies work, including the minor and major variations attempted in various altcoins, and have demonstrated and observed various strengths and weaknesses in them.

As original thread is self-moderated, it's useless. Use this one instead! 

[1714874176]

1714874176

[1714874176]

1714874176

[1714874176]

1714874176

[polrpaul]

I call for separation between Church and State. 

[Mike Christ]

Here's my deleted posts:

Oh boy, here we go with the post deleting.  This will surely help Luke's image.

I could've sworn Luke was the hardcore catholic fellow...

Needless to say, if I cared either way for Luke getting into this social club, I wouldn't be in favor of him   And even before that,

"I don't like these agendas.  I only like my own agenda," isn't a very convincing argument, unless the social club he's trying to get into shares his views, in which case, go for it.

[Spendulus]

Here's my deleted posts:

Oh boy, here we go with the post deleting.  This will surely help Luke's image.

I could've sworn Luke was the hardcore catholic fellow...

Needless to say, if I cared either way for Luke getting into this social club, I wouldn't be in favor of him   And even before that,

"I don't like these agendas.  I only like my own agenda," isn't a very convincing argument, unless the social club he's trying to get into shares his views, in which case, go for it.

But what is Luke-JR's stand on important issues?  Is he pro-choice in beer?

[Lethn]

I know I'm hardly an influential person because I don't like messing with this kind of thing much but I'll throw my opinion in anyway and say fuck the Bitcoin foundation, I guarantee you it's just a wannabe Federal Reserve where even the way they elect their leaders is done the same and the leader is essentially a scapegoat and punchbag for several years until eventually they get replaced and some other sucker takes up the position.

[hawkeye]

I'm particularly against agendas of this sort which focus on promoting tax evasion, anarchy, or other anti-government activities.

I'm against pro-government activities particularly starting wars, drug prohibition, counterfeiting and other violent acts against otherwise peaceful people.  Guess we are diametrically opposed.

[Luke-Jr]

I'm particularly against agendas of this sort which focus on promoting tax evasion, anarchy, or other anti-government activities.

I'm against pro-government activities particularly starting wars, drug prohibition, counterfeiting and other violent acts against otherwise peaceful people.  Guess we are diametrically opposed.

Surely you can oppose those things without trying to force it on everyone using Bitcoin?

[JusticeForYou]

Platform Questions:

Are you for or against BTC Social Security?

Do you support BTC Stamps for those without the means to feed themselves?

Are you for a strong defense?

Immigration stance on repatriation of coins?

And, of course, BIP16 or Bust?

[hawkeye]

I'm particularly against agendas of this sort which focus on promoting tax evasion, anarchy, or other anti-government activities.

I'm against pro-government activities particularly starting wars, drug prohibition, counterfeiting and other violent acts against otherwise peaceful people.  Guess we are diametrically opposed.

Surely you can oppose those things without trying to force it on everyone using Bitcoin?

If you like what he's contributed to Bitcoin so far and agree with his vision for Bitcoin "as a legal and widely utilized, decentralized replacement for fiat currencies",

Being for government, but against the things I describe is like being for the mafia but against all those things the mafia is generally associated with.

You can't change the nature of govt any more than you could go into the mafia and change it's nature.  Government is just a label.  It was established as the protection racket and that's the way it's always operated.   

Your point about bitcoin being seperate from this is only valid if you don't see it as a replacement for fiat currencies.  If you do, then there is inevitably the political side to think of.   

[Lethn]

I'm particularly against agendas of this sort which focus on promoting tax evasion, anarchy, or other anti-government activities.

I'm against pro-government activities particularly starting wars, drug prohibition, counterfeiting and other violent acts against otherwise peaceful people.  Guess we are diametrically opposed.

Surely you can oppose those things without trying to force it on everyone using Bitcoin?

No one's forcing you to use Bitcoin you halfwit, it's purely optional, however we're all being forced to use the current paper money system, if you don't pay into the system you'd go to jail and it's no good telling us to leave because the planet is too small and we haven't mastered space flight yet. What particularly pisses me off is the way the 'Bitcoin' foundation has tried to hijack this currency instead of just making their own one and establishing their own rules about the currency, that would be a better use of everyone's time.

People like you try to preach about not forcing things on others but when it comes to your own beliefs your more than happy to use the very same methods while completely ignoring the fact that you're doing it. Get rid of the 'with us or against us' attitude and maybe people might be feeling more diplomatic with your sort of ideology, this is also a brilliant example of why everyone hates America currently, even other Americans.

[blablahblah]

I'm loving how this thread has a slight lynch-mobbish feel to it.


+1 to Luke-JR for standing out from the Libertarian crowd that obviously wants to use its majority of numbers to shape Bitcoin in their radical image.

[Kluge]

Regulation leads to evasion. Over-regulation leads to anarchy.

After a point, the more laws on the books, the more Bitcoin is a lawless currency. We're not at that point, yet, but since we've started going down that road, we need to go full-retard, regulating once-legal business into black market activity. LJR is a non-favorable candidate, as I can definitely say he would not favor giving governments exclusive ability to host full nodes, without ever having asked him.

Personally, I would vote for Lawsky.

[Luke-Jr]

What particularly pisses me off is the way the 'Bitcoin' foundation has tried to hijack this currency instead of just making their own one and establishing their own rules about the currency, that would be a better use of everyone's time.

Then surely you agree with my points about how the Foundation should encourage and enable Bitcoin rather than try to control it?

Question about whether BCF should control bitcoin.org
I think the Foundation should focus on its mission; being a centralized point-of-control would not only be outside that mission, but IMO would be contrary to it. That is, it should offer assistance to help improve Bitcoin-related websites, but not try to take control of them. Bitcoin.org as it is today seems to be a very helpful resource, without the Foundation's needing to get involved in it.

Question about what the BCF should/shouldn't do in general
Should do:

• Promote legal uses of Bitcoin.
• Provide educational materials (of both technical and legal nature) to help merchants safely transact using Bitcoin.
• Help Bitcoin informational websites improve their content.
• Encourage developers to participate in Bitcoin code review, even if they are not themselves developing Bitcoin code.
• Encourage Bitcoin developers to use the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal standardisation process for protocols which need interoperability between software.
• Encourage users to help test Bitcoin software.
• Political lobbying to ensure Bitcoin remains a legal currency to trade with.

Shouldn't do:

• Promote illegal use of Bitcoin, or otherwise encourage governments to make Bitcoin illegal or overly regulated.
• Make Bitcoin sound better than it really is with false statements.
• Promote Bitcoin as merely a means to some ulterior motive/end (eg, anarchy or tonal).
• Take control over Bitcoin websites, services, or software.
• Fund development of non-free (closed source) software or proprietary protocols.
• Discourage users from adopting competing Bitcoin software.

One simple idea for expansion might be funding an effort to discover and document the intricate details of the Bitcoin blockchain protocol.

Question about whether the BCF should act to prevent tax evasion and such civil violations
I'm not sure the Foundation should take an active role in this. It could perhaps, however, publish clear legal guidelines for paying taxes in major countries and/or prepare and offer educational documents to law enforcement on how to trace bitcoins through the blockchain.

Request for elaboration on how BCF could publish clear legal guidelines when legalities are not clear
I didn't have anything specific in mind here, just was giving some examples. While the legal rules around Bitcoin are too uncertain, it would seem reasonable for the Foundation to give some attention to getting them clarified. Taxes are an important issue to solve for adoption - otherwise it's usually easier for companies to just ignore Bitcoin, despite its benefits. Solving it may take time/research/lobbying, but eventually Bitcoin needs to be able to provide businesses with some level of legal comfort.

Question about whether it will be helpful to grow BCF membership and funding, if people know it is issuing grants to develop forensic blockchain analysis docs/tools
These documents and/or tools will almost certainly be developed whether or not the Foundation has a part in it. Making them available to everyone only improves the situation:

• By involving Bitcoin experts, it avoids incorrect assumptions resulting in arrests on bad reasoning (for example, someone was recently the target of police investigation because blockchain.info claimed their IP address had broadcast a transaction).
• People concerned about their own privacy can audit their own public trails, and improve on their precautions.
• Bitcoin wallet developers can make better-informed decisions on how to improve privacy with the same information.
• Law enforcement and prosecutors gain positive experience working with the Bitcoin system, and are less likely to want to simply ban it outright.

If the decision to fund these kinds of projects is made, I certainly don't think it should be kept secret from members. In fact, it might be a good idea to make a list somewhere of all the different kinds of projects/goals the Foundation has assisted with.

Question about BCF's role in changing block size limits
When the block size limits begin to become a problem (I don't expect this to occur any time soon), it might make sense for the Foundation to sponsor research into what solutions may be available at the time, if a solution has not already been found by then (which seems unlikely, given all the early attention this problem is getting). The Foundation certainly should not try to assert some kind of authoritative declaration of which solution is to be adopted, but should leave that decision to the economic majority where it naturally lies. Should there be problems reaching a consensus, it might make sense to assist in ensuring the competition and eventual transition goes smoothly. Also, note that I haven't ruled out it being a problem sooner rather than later either. I am looking forward to reading Gavin's upcoming whitepaper on the topic, and would of course, as with anything else, consult with the community before any action as part of the board.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned betsofbitco.in and the BFL unit, when BFL has not shipped anything but merely let Luke-Jr ssh into it

[Luke-Jr]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned betsofbitco.in and the BFL unit, when BFL has not shipped anything but merely let Luke-Jr ssh into it

I accepted a hosted device I paid for in full 10 months earlier, which had been losing value rapidly for months since competing ASICs had delivered. Wouldn't anyone? It's unfortunate that a certain wager was badly worded such that a single delivery satisfied it, but IMO it's a bit unreasonable to blame me for that.

[Lethn]

Then surely you agree with my points about how the Foundation should encourage and enable Bitcoin rather than try to control it?

If you want to 'encourage and enable' Bitcoin, then do what everyone else does, make reliable software for it that works and facilitates trade as well as promote Bitcoin itself in a passive way that doesn't involve religious zeal about it. Creating something like the Bitcoin foundation and being a self-appointed leader while talking to government regulators will get you no where, especially with the Anarchists on this board.

Christ, reading through your write up makes me think of you more and more as a British politician which automatically puts me in 'sarcastic and angry Englishman' mode.

[johnyj]

I prefer "alternative" instead of "replacement"

[Luke-Jr]

If you want to 'encourage and enable' Bitcoin, then do what everyone else does, make reliable software for it that works and facilitates trade as well as promote Bitcoin itself in a passive way

Yes, that's what I tend to do.
I'm not the one who constantly brings up religion.

[kakobrekla]

Code:

( kakobrekla ) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=277035.msg2963173;topicseen#msg2963173
( ozbot ) [DISCUSS]Luke-Jr is standing for election to the board of the Bitcoin Foundation
( mircea_popescu ) seems oddly adequate. the bfl/mtgox foundation should have luke on the board.
( dexX7 ) is this good or bad for "us"?
( kakobrekla ) this is the guy who secretley mined altchains on his pool with the agenda to destroy altchains by selling them for btc
( kakobrekla ) uber retarded
( dexX7 ) lol k
( Luke-Jr ) dexX7: ignore the trolls and their lies
( kakobrekla ) hey, those were your words
( mircea_popescu ) hey luke, has the monarch delivered yet ?
( kakobrekla ) i couldnt have made it up
( kakobrekla ) im too dumb for that shit
( Luke-Jr ) mircea_popescu: no
( Luke-Jr ) kakobrekla: liar
( kakobrekla ) right.
( mircea_popescu ) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=56830.0
( ozbot ) Open Letter to Luke-JR About Alt-Coin Attacks

[TurdHurdur]

Is that the guy that used his pool to put religious crap in the block chain?

[Kouye]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned betsofbitco.in and the BFL unit, when BFL has not shipped anything but merely let Luke-Jr ssh into it

I accepted a hosted device I paid for in full 10 months earlier, which had been losing value rapidly for months since competing ASICs had delivered. Wouldn't anyone? It's unfortunate that a certain wager was badly worded such that a single delivery satisfied it, but IMO it's a bit unreasonable to blame me for that.

Cool.
https://forums.butterflylabs.com/blogs/luke-jr/118-my-first-asics.html
Just curious. Why did you omit the "hosted" word in this blog post title?
I wouldn't want the foundation president to randomly forget words in his statements.

Maybe it's a good time for honesty, confession and apologies.
I'm serious, here, cause I just think you were a bit overwhelmed, and this is very understandable.

[Luke-Jr]

https://forums.butterflylabs.com/blogs/luke-jr/118-my-first-asics.html
Just curious. Why did you omit the "hosted" word in this blog post title?

It was irrelevant? And obvious from the photos showing BFL's location too.
I wasn't thinking about bets when I made the post, let alone that some bets might or might not have hinged upon trivial things like this.

[JusticeForYou]

Luke, seriously you wish to become a politician?

I'd understand you buying your way to the top but political ambitions rarely end up as intended.

[Luke-Jr]

Luke, seriously you wish to become a politician?

Not really, but someone has to do it, and generally anyone who wants to isn't a good choice.

I'd understand you buying your way to the top but political ambitions rarely end up as intended.

Huh?

[J603]

Luke, seriously you wish to become a politician?

Not really, but someone has to do it, and generally anyone who wants to isn't a good choice.

What? Don't you want to? Last time I checked you weren't forced into the role.

Are you saying you're a bad choice.

[Luke-Jr]

Luke, seriously you wish to become a politician?

Not really, but someone has to do it, and generally anyone who wants to isn't a good choice.

What? Don't you want to? Last time I checked you weren't forced into the role.

If I don't, someone else will.
Now if someone like gmaxwell were willing, I'd decline my nomination and vote for him instead.

[J603]

+1 to Luke-JR for standing out from the Libertarian crowd that obviously wants to use its majority of numbers to shape Bitcoin in their radical image.

With Bitcoin no authority can obtain access to, freeze, or even have knowledge of my stored value, without my permission.

Actually, I can have knowledge of your balance and every transaction ever made with that address if you give me the public key.

[J603]

+1 to Luke-JR for standing out from the Libertarian crowd that obviously wants to use its majority of numbers to shape Bitcoin in their radical image.

With Bitcoin no authority can obtain access to, freeze, or even have knowledge of my stored value, without my permission.

Actually, I can have knowledge of your balance and every transaction ever made with that address if you give me the public key.

That would be me giving you permission by revealing my public key. Even then, I can have countless other addresses unlinked to the one I've revealed.

In order for bitcoins to be on the address you must make some sort of transaction... In which case someone knows your balance and transaction history. Maybe not me, but anyone you deal with will know.

[Luke-Jr]

Addresses don't have balances. They are single-use destinations to send coins to, which point at a wallet. While it's technically possible to send to the same address more than once, doing so violates the design of Bitcoin and is problematic from at least a privacy and security standpoint - even if you don't care whether you're anonymous or not. It also provide zero performance/storage benefits: Bitcoin won't notice both transactions were sent to the same address (the system itself has no concept of addresses!). Hopefully the new payment protocol in 0.9 and HD wallets will help eliminate the usability benefits of address reuse.

[J603]

Addresses don't have balances. They are single-use destinations to send coins to, which point at a wallet. While it's technically possible to send to the same address more than once, doing so violates the design of Bitcoin and is problematic from at least a privacy and security standpoint - even if you don't care whether you're anonymous or not. It also provide zero performance/storage benefits: Bitcoin won't notice both transactions were sent to the same address (the system itself has no concept of addresses!). Hopefully the new payment protocol in 0.9 and HD wallets will help eliminate the usability benefits of address reuse.

I don't understand. If I print out a paper wallet, why can't I send to that address more than once?

[Kouye]

Addresses don't have balances. They are single-use destinations to send coins to, which point at a wallet. While it's technically possible to send to the same address more than once, doing so violates the design of Bitcoin and is problematic from at least a privacy and security standpoint - even if you don't care whether you're anonymous or not. It also provide zero performance/storage benefits: Bitcoin won't notice both transactions were sent to the same address (the system itself has no concept of addresses!). Hopefully the new payment protocol in 0.9 and HD wallets will help eliminate the usability benefits of address reuse.

I don't understand.

I can vouch for that. Lurk moar, J.
As suspicious as Luke might look, he's 100% right, here.
Check the recent troubles around the not-that-random transaction signing on android wallet for more insight.

One huge problem stands still, though.
Official client does not agree.
It likes reusing burnt addresses.

And this is a REAL ISSUE.
We cannot go live before this is fixed.
What's your position about that?

[Luke-Jr]

I don't understand. If I print out a paper wallet, why can't I send to that address more than once?

Proper paper wallets have unlimited addresses.
For example, Armory supports paper wallets.

One huge problem stands still, though.
Official client does not agree.
It likes reusing burnt addresses.

1) There is no official client.
2) Bitcoin-Qt never reuses addresses itself.

And this is a REAL ISSUE.
We cannot go live before this is fixed.
What's your position about that?

All of the Bitcoin-Qt dev team seem to be in agreement that the "Receive coins" tab could use a makeover to discourage address reuse better.

[fently]

I'm in favor of separation of church and state.

[Luke-Jr]

Addresses don't have balances.

From a layman's point of view, that makes no sense.

Regardless of how Bitcoin technically works (from the point of view of a developer), most users know of "addresses" and an amount of Bitcoins "located" at that address. That would be a "balance", a.k.a. an amount.

This misunderstanding is where education is needed.

[Kluge]

I'm in favor of separation of church and state.

Since this is an speculative OT shithole of a thread... ... That phrase's always bothered me when used to describe why someone with religious faith shouldn't be allowed to hold office (... not that BF is a state...). It's not something limited to this thread, but something increasingly prevalent in my country.

There are basically three schools of thought when it comes to how a government should regard religion in politics:
*In theocracy (if atheist, atheocracy), nobody of faith different from TPTB can hold office
*In pluralism (this is not an accepted definition everywhere), people of all faiths are welcome to hold office and take information of their faith to make political decisions
*In secularism, people of all faiths are tolerated, but expected to vote with constituents or in a utilitarian fashion. In secular decision-making, you will generally not have political issues argued based on what a religious authority has said.

Unless you have reason to believe Luke is in fact a theocrat, you're promoting atheocracy, which, from my agnostic perspective, is fundamentally the same as theocracy.

ETA: I mean -- if Luke's application were "Archbishop Roberts will be informing my decisions" - I could understand the unease. - But, he's given detailed responses, would probably give rationale for anything serious question you ask, and that rationale probably won't be "I would oppose such a measure because, as confirmed by Archbishop Roberts, it is heretical by Pope Urban V's Currency Centralization Bull of 1365."

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Addresses don't have balances. They are single-use destinations to send coins to, which point at a wallet. While it's technically possible to send to the same address more than once, doing so violates the design of Bitcoin and is problematic from at least a privacy and security standpoint - even if you don't care whether you're anonymous or not. It also provide zero performance/storage benefits: Bitcoin won't notice both transactions were sent to the same address (the system itself has no concept of addresses!). Hopefully the new payment protocol in 0.9 and HD wallets will help eliminate the usability benefits of address reuse.

I don't understand. If I print out a paper wallet, why can't I send to that address more than once?

Privacy reasons.

[Mike Christ]

Since this is an speculative OT shithole of a thread... ... That phrase's always bothered me when used to describe why someone with religious faith shouldn't be allowed to hold office (... not that BF is a state...). It's not something limited to this thread, but something increasingly prevalent in my country.

There are basically three schools of thought when it comes to how a government should regard religion in politics:
*In theocracy (if atheist, atheocracy), nobody of faith different from TPTB can hold office
*In pluralism (this is not an accepted definition everywhere), people of all faiths are welcome to hold office and take information of their faith to make political decisions
*In secularism, people of all faiths are tolerated, but expected to vote with constituents or in a utilitarian fashion. In secular decision-making, you will generally not have political issues argued based on what a religious authority has said.

I always thought it was a funny phrase since politics is basically a religion itself.

[J603]

Addresses don't have balances. They are single-use destinations to send coins to, which point at a wallet. While it's technically possible to send to the same address more than once, doing so violates the design of Bitcoin and is problematic from at least a privacy and security standpoint - even if you don't care whether you're anonymous or not. It also provide zero performance/storage benefits: Bitcoin won't notice both transactions were sent to the same address (the system itself has no concept of addresses!). Hopefully the new payment protocol in 0.9 and HD wallets will help eliminate the usability benefits of address reuse.

I don't understand. If I print out a paper wallet, why can't I send to that address more than once?

Privacy reasons.

I understand why you wouldn't want to use an address more than once, but what stops me from sending to an address more than once?

[casascius]

Perhaps I haven't asked too deeply, but doesn't the Board advise the Foundation?

If so, I have no problem with Luke being a part of it.

Luke has said and promoted a lot of things that has raised eyebrows (tonal numbers, etc.) but has also contributed a vast quantity of technically qualified reasoning, work, and opinions.  It just means his skills are highly concentrated and vertical.  That doesn't bode well if he's been nominated as a public spokesperson, but as an advisor to a small organization, that is a very good quality to have.

[Luke-Jr]

As for addresses, I'm not sure what might be more accurate... Safety deposit box numbers, "SDB" numbers? As with actual postal or bank storage boxes we don't really have their precise coordinates, just a number telling us which one it is.

This reenforces the incorrect understanding. There is no grouping by address at all.

[Schleicher]

<offtopic>

As for addresses, I'm not sure what might be more accurate... Safety deposit box numbers, "SDB" numbers?

How about "transaction key"?
</offtopic>

[fently]

I'm in favor of separation of church and state.

Since this is an speculative OT shithole of a thread... ... That phrase's always bothered me when used to describe why someone with religious faith shouldn't be allowed to hold office (... not that BF is a state...). It's not something limited to this thread, but something increasingly prevalent in my country.

There are basically three schools of thought when it comes to how a government should regard religion in politics:
*In theocracy (if atheist, atheocracy), nobody of faith different from TPTB can hold office
*In pluralism (this is not an accepted definition everywhere), people of all faiths are welcome to hold office and take information of their faith to make political decisions
*In secularism, people of all faiths are tolerated, but expected to vote with constituents or in a utilitarian fashion. In secular decision-making, you will generally not have political issues argued based on what a religious authority has said.

Unless you have reason to believe Luke is in fact a theocrat, you're promoting atheocracy, which, from my agnostic perspective, is fundamentally the same as theocracy.

ETA: I mean -- if Luke's application were "Archbishop Roberts will be informing my decisions" - I could understand the unease. - But, he's given detailed responses, would probably give rationale for anything serious question you ask, and that rationale probably won't be "I would oppose such a measure because, as confirmed by Archbishop Roberts, it is heretical by Pope Urban V's Currency Centralization Bull of 1365."

I tried to put it in as gentle and non-inflammatory way as possible. I didn't want to revive a years-old debate -- figured those who remember it would know what I'm talking about. I have no problem with people having a particular faith, but I insist that this should not marginalize or antagonize people who have a different faith.

We know that Luke-Jr enshrined prayers in the blockchain by virtue of the hash power of the miners in his pool. That was an egregious violation of trust, and is highly relevant to the current discussion as we consider whether he should be given more opportunities to exert influence on the future direction of bitcoin.

[Kluge]

I'm in favor of separation of church and state.

Since this is an speculative OT shithole of a thread... ... That phrase's always bothered me when used to describe why someone with religious faith shouldn't be allowed to hold office (... not that BF is a state...). It's not something limited to this thread, but something increasingly prevalent in my country.

There are basically three schools of thought when it comes to how a government should regard religion in politics:
*In theocracy (if atheist, atheocracy), nobody of faith different from TPTB can hold office
*In pluralism (this is not an accepted definition everywhere), people of all faiths are welcome to hold office and take information of their faith to make political decisions
*In secularism, people of all faiths are tolerated, but expected to vote with constituents or in a utilitarian fashion. In secular decision-making, you will generally not have political issues argued based on what a religious authority has said.

Unless you have reason to believe Luke is in fact a theocrat, you're promoting atheocracy, which, from my agnostic perspective, is fundamentally the same as theocracy.

ETA: I mean -- if Luke's application were "Archbishop Roberts will be informing my decisions" - I could understand the unease. - But, he's given detailed responses, would probably give rationale for anything serious question you ask, and that rationale probably won't be "I would oppose such a measure because, as confirmed by Archbishop Roberts, it is heretical by Pope Urban V's Currency Centralization Bull of 1365."

I tried to put it in as gentle and non-inflammatory way as possible. I didn't want to revive a years-old debate -- figured those who remember it would know what I'm talking about. I have no problem with people having a particular faith, but I insist that this should not marginalize or antagonize people who have a different faith.

We know that Luke-Jr enshrined prayers in the blockchain by virtue of the hash power of the miners in his pool. That was an egregious violation of trust, and is highly relevant to the current discussion as we consider whether he should be given more opportunities to exert influence on the future direction of bitcoin.

You're supreme commander of fucken idiot if you think that's an "egregious violation of trust." You have to be trolling. It practically effects 0 people, except those looking to stir the shit-pot.

Inaba put "Do a barrel roll" in the blockchain, violating the sacred trust of those mining on his pool. You know who sees it? People actively trying to look for it on its novelty/amusement value, same as people looking for what messages Luke put in there. I mean - what's your argument, even? Luke's misrepresenting miners as Catholics? Is there some type of faith pie chart in pool monitoring sites I'm missing, where Catholicism has become the dominant hashing religion? Are the media sources picking this up, saying Bitcoin is clearly a Catholic idea? I'd guess not, because it'd be stupid as shit, and deserving of as much ridicule as your post.

[fently]

I'm in favor of separation of church and state.

Since this is an speculative OT shithole of a thread... ... That phrase's always bothered me when used to describe why someone with religious faith shouldn't be allowed to hold office (... not that BF is a state...). It's not something limited to this thread, but something increasingly prevalent in my country.

There are basically three schools of thought when it comes to how a government should regard religion in politics:
*In theocracy (if atheist, atheocracy), nobody of faith different from TPTB can hold office
*In pluralism (this is not an accepted definition everywhere), people of all faiths are welcome to hold office and take information of their faith to make political decisions
*In secularism, people of all faiths are tolerated, but expected to vote with constituents or in a utilitarian fashion. In secular decision-making, you will generally not have political issues argued based on what a religious authority has said.

Unless you have reason to believe Luke is in fact a theocrat, you're promoting atheocracy, which, from my agnostic perspective, is fundamentally the same as theocracy.

ETA: I mean -- if Luke's application were "Archbishop Roberts will be informing my decisions" - I could understand the unease. - But, he's given detailed responses, would probably give rationale for anything serious question you ask, and that rationale probably won't be "I would oppose such a measure because, as confirmed by Archbishop Roberts, it is heretical by Pope Urban V's Currency Centralization Bull of 1365."

I tried to put it in as gentle and non-inflammatory way as possible. I didn't want to revive a years-old debate -- figured those who remember it would know what I'm talking about. I have no problem with people having a particular faith, but I insist that this should not marginalize or antagonize people who have a different faith.

We know that Luke-Jr enshrined prayers in the blockchain by virtue of the hash power of the miners in his pool. That was an egregious violation of trust, and is highly relevant to the current discussion as we consider whether he should be given more opportunities to exert influence on the future direction of bitcoin.

You're supreme commander of fucken idiot if you think that's an "egregious violation of trust." You have to be trolling. It practically effects 0 people, except those looking to stir the shit-pot.

Inaba put "Do a barrel roll" in the blockchain, violating the sacred trust of those mining on his pool. You know who sees it? People actively trying to look for it on its novelty/amusement value, same as people looking for what messages Luke put in there. I mean - what's your argument, even? Luke's misrepresenting miners as Catholics? Is there some type of faith pie chart in pool monitoring sites I'm missing, where Catholicism has become the dominant hashing religion? Are the media sources picking this up, saying Bitcoin is clearly a Catholic idea? I'd guess not, because it'd be stupid as shit, and deserving of as much ridicule as your post.

Notwithstanding your rant, I guess we can mark you down as not caring about the issue then

[Kluge]

ETA: Put on the magic sunglasses my anger therapist gave me. Baseless intolerance is acceptable. It's all cool. Mr. Mellowpuss is a fine cat..... 

[kakobrekla]

I'm in favor of separation of church and state.

Since this is an speculative OT shithole of a thread... ... That phrase's always bothered me when used to describe why someone with religious faith shouldn't be allowed to hold office (... not that BF is a state...). It's not something limited to this thread, but something increasingly prevalent in my country.

There are basically three schools of thought when it comes to how a government should regard religion in politics:
*In theocracy (if atheist, atheocracy), nobody of faith different from TPTB can hold office
*In pluralism (this is not an accepted definition everywhere), people of all faiths are welcome to hold office and take information of their faith to make political decisions
*In secularism, people of all faiths are tolerated, but expected to vote with constituents or in a utilitarian fashion. In secular decision-making, you will generally not have political issues argued based on what a religious authority has said.

Unless you have reason to believe Luke is in fact a theocrat, you're promoting atheocracy, which, from my agnostic perspective, is fundamentally the same as theocracy.

ETA: I mean -- if Luke's application were "Archbishop Roberts will be informing my decisions" - I could understand the unease. - But, he's given detailed responses, would probably give rationale for anything serious question you ask, and that rationale probably won't be "I would oppose such a measure because, as confirmed by Archbishop Roberts, it is heretical by Pope Urban V's Currency Centralization Bull of 1365."

I tried to put it in as gentle and non-inflammatory way as possible. I didn't want to revive a years-old debate -- figured those who remember it would know what I'm talking about. I have no problem with people having a particular faith, but I insist that this should not marginalize or antagonize people who have a different faith.

We know that Luke-Jr enshrined prayers in the blockchain by virtue of the hash power of the miners in his pool. That was an egregious violation of trust, and is highly relevant to the current discussion as we consider whether he should be given more opportunities to exert influence on the future direction of bitcoin.

You're supreme commander of fucken idiot if you think that's an "egregious violation of trust." You have to be trolling. It practically effects 0 people, except those looking to stir the shit-pot.

Inaba put "Do a barrel roll" in the blockchain, violating the sacred trust of those mining on his pool. You know who sees it? People actively trying to look for it on its novelty/amusement value, same as people looking for what messages Luke put in there. I mean - what's your argument, even? Luke's misrepresenting miners as Catholics? Is there some type of faith pie chart in pool monitoring sites I'm missing, where Catholicism has become the dominant hashing religion? Are the media sources picking this up, saying Bitcoin is clearly a Catholic idea? I'd guess not, because it'd be stupid as shit, and deserving of as much ridicule as your post.

How about secretly hashing alt chains and 'destroying them by selling for btc'.

The guy is a fucking idiot and getting into stuff because nobody else will is retarded.

[kakobrekla]

How about secretly hashing alt chains and 'destroying them by selling for btc'.

Welcome to Capitalism, honey.

The guy is a fucking idiot and getting into stuff because nobody else will is retarded.

It's called "finding a niche". It's the preferred way to riches if you exclude pure luck or nepotism.

Yep, I'm still detecting a subtle hint of irrational lynch-mobby sentiment.

Clearly you weren't there when it was happening.

[JuenoMT]

I'm particularly against agendas of this sort which focus on promoting tax evasion, anarchy, or other anti-government activities.

I'm against pro-government activities particularly starting wars, drug prohibition, counterfeiting and other violent acts against otherwise peaceful people., Guess we are diametrically opposed.

Surely you can oppose those things without trying to force it on everyone using Bitcoin?

Hi Luke-Jr! Here is my 2 Satoshi's worth.

 I have had a private conversation with Luke-Jr and found him to be intelligent, insightful, respectful and comprehensive in the scope of his understanding of what I was conveying in the conversation. Luke-Jr disagreed with me for the most part, even so he did not discourage me from my idea and I respect his point of view even though I only loosely agree with the primus of his objections. He also tried to make honest and helpful suggestions to help me accomplish my goals - To sum it up I reiterate the fact that he did not agree with my idea and even thinks my idea is impossible, yet he still was trying to be helpful. That is a hard quality to find in the general population.

 Correct me if I am wrong Luke-Jr, but I think the OP has misconstrued the purpose of the deletion of his replies to Luke-Jr's thread. From personal experience I have had a few threads go down in flames because of negative commentary and it is easy to get stuck in an endless debate with someone who, either does not understand what you are writing about or has some argument that they just will not let go of. This can distract you from your project and is very frustrating in a project thread especially when you just want to focus on your project and worst of all it can even kill any support for your project. I haven't found Luke-Jr to be rude or unkind in any way with his words, so I suspect that he follows the 'if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all' philosophy excepting that Luke-Jr will present any rational, logical or moral objections that he may have with your ideology.

 If this is the case, it seems as though Luke-Jr has a very balanced approach to his behavior when communicating with others. I believe Luke-Jr has a very high set of personal morals - and to the extent possible in any social order - has no desire to interfere with anyone elses sense of individuality, he just chooses not to assist or participate in things that he objects to. Perfectly excitable behavior in a free and open society (in fact, this type of behavior is necessary in any society to be truely free.) Ones right to free speech and free association must, by definition, include the right to freely not speak and freely not associate and it is amoral to insist to the point of harassment that another respond to ones own free speech, therefore insisting, to the point of harassment, that they also associate with ones ownself. Luke-Jr seems to understand this and tries his best to live by this strongly held principle.

 In my very uninformed opinion, the OP has unfortunately, instead of accepting this, taken offense and now wishes to be validated. To accomplish this, the OP has taken to task the personal pursuit of opposing Luke-Jr when ever possible, which of course (albeit in a rather distasteful manner) is his free right to do so.

 I personally believe that Luke-Jr is narrowly focusing his efforts on the core concept of the bitcion ideology rather than dictating his entire vision onto others with a global everyone has to comply to my standards approach. He is only trying to build a system that works and is fair, even to those he opposes. Evidence of a man that understands what respect for the rights of others really means. As long as these things remain true of Luke-Jr, I support him and hope he has great success.

 Good job Luke-Jr!

[Kouye]

To accomplish this, the OP has taken to task the personal pursuit of opposing Luke-Jr when ever possible, which of course (albeit in a rather distasteful manner) is his free right to do so.

Sorry for the late reply.
What's happening in your head sounds very thrilling, and I can't wait for the whole book.
But as far as this OP is concerned, it's just me disliking censorship, even more when it hurts such "important" events.

[JuenoMT]

What's happening in your head sounds very thrilling, and I can't wait for the whole book.

Nice comeback, maybe your not so bad after all.