Vote for the removal of Mike Hearn as Chair of the Bitcoin Foundations Law & Pol

[DoomDumas]

bitcoin does not need identity checks supervised by the USA

while trading bitcoin for products priced in bitcoin, thats for us to supervise our own money
while trading bitcoin for altcoin , thats for us to supervise our own money
while trading altcoin for products priced in altcoin, thats for us to supervise our own money

only identity check when you want FIAT.

EG if you want to convert bitcoin into dollar to go to a bank account then and only then inside the exchange do you follow the fincen laws.
EG if you want to convert bitcoin into pounds to go to a bank account then and only then inside the exchange do you follow the FCA laws.
EG if you want to convert bitcoin into Yen to go to a bank account then and only then inside the exchange do you follow the FSA laws.
EG if you want to convert bitcoin into Euro to go to a German bank account then and only then inside the exchange do you follow the BaFin laws.
EG if you want to convert bitcoin into Euro to go to a French bank account then and only then inside the exchange do you follow the AMF laws.

you get the idea

THIS

+1

Bitcoin should'nt need ID as long as you dont touch fiat currencies.

Govt/Corp can made their rule over fiat as they want, as they do for centuries.. But dont touch Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is decentralized, no entity owns it.. It's the free money, the only real free currency, made by peoples, for peoples.  I agree when trading BTC/Fiat there can be as many rules, ID check or whatever "they" want.  But Bitcoin MUST keep it's freedom.. This is it, accept it or not, this is the core value of Bitcoin itself.

Anyway, Bitcoin enables so many opportunity, even if "they" want to get a grip on it, it will ever exist !  They regulate it ?  someday, peoples will strive to use it anonymously anyway !

[DoomDumas]

This was the problem in making the "Bitcoin Foundation" an American organization.

They had the opportunity to take on a new representative recently and were presented with people from around the world, but chose the American Girl who spoke heartily about keeping the Bitcoin Foundation American and all other groups around the world just "satellite offices" of the USA Bitcoin Foundation.  

Clearly this pissed off many, and for good reason.

Now we have a clear example of why the Bitcoin Foundation being an American organization is a bad thing.  

Why is the "hub" for decision-making on Bitcoin... in the belly of the Lion?

That has to be the worst idea ever.  Right in the middle of "regulation central" ...

USA is on the verge of a mega collapse.. dont worry, they will have a lot to cope with soon, BTC will be their last preocupation, because the real chaos is comming.. Let the rest of the world decide what's will be the future of BTC.  I bet on Chineese to be the first country to opt out of U$ and use BTC/Gold instead !  The future may incluse a lot of suffering, it also include a better world, after all the suffering caused by the imminent collapse.  I think american peoples are great, and good peoples, they are just misinfirmed, that's not their fault.  I'll do my best to help in those dark years that are comming.  After, we should see a lot more brightess and intelligent future !

[SebastianJu]

...what he's proposing is practically impossible to prevent anyway.

It is. If you create such a server it doesnt matter because no one would follow your servers notes of bad and good coins. But its completely different when bitcoin foundation is changing the official wallets in order to implement this thing.

[archangel689]

This "redlist" thing is just icing on the cake. His last shred of credibility was lost already back in october when he wrote this:

By the way - I'm amazed at how many people are surprised that a drug dealer with extreme anarcho-capitalist tendencies turned out to be not a swell guy! Imagine that!

This is a guy who wants to push his subjective perceptions of right and wrong on everyone else. Tar and feather I say.

[UncleBobs]

This "redlist" thing is just icing on the cake. His last shred of credibility was lost already back in october when he wrote this:

By the way - I'm amazed at how many people are surprised that a drug dealer with extreme anarcho-capitalist tendencies turned out to be not a swell guy! Imagine that!

It was a dead giveaway.  Same with people who sneer about "tinfoil hats", "libertards" and "conspiracy theorists".  Pod-people.  Avoid.

[beetcoin]

what would be cool is if BTC had an in-built function to provide its holders the ability to vote.. 1 btc vote per bitcoin. the only problem is that the people with big money would have more sway and then they'd use their voting powers for self gain. so nevermind, scratch that  

[archangel689]

He just called for a discussion...

Which should be enough to have his head roll. He should be made an example of for anyone else that might try to suggest adding some kind of centralized influence.

[archangel689]

Mike Hearn has lost some credibility therefore he should immediately step down just to avoid controversy.

I voted YES because I honestly believe that he is a coward and a traitor with Keynesian mindset.
He also works for the greatest spying machine ever made.

Bye bye Keynes:

http://www.antolin-davies.com/research/mercatus1212.pdf

[aninterestedparty]

he is representing the interest of US gov , not bitcoin community , expel him.if they dont , we should think about to find a replacement of btc foundation

Or we could just make our own foundation. Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the technology. We have the capability to build the world's second Bitcoin foundation. We will be that foundation. Better than it was before. Better, stronger, faster.

In hindsight that quote didn't work as well as I hoped

[NorbyTheGeek]

I love how reactionary and inflammatory this community can get.  Granted, the most vocal parties are the minority of us.

So, here's a guy who has reportedly done a lot of positive things for Bitcoin.  He sees the road ahead, that governments WILL try to regulate this currency, so he comes up with an idea that he think will work.

You can disagree with him, and you should be vocal about your disagreement if you do.  If enough people disagree (and a lot of people do) then this idea will not come to fruition.  But calling for his removal seems a bit overkill.  It's akin to the American tendency to lynch public figures for speaking their mind.  "We don't like what you said, and even though this country has freedom of speech, we want you fired from your job because we don't like what you said."

Who are you to dictate whether someone should keep their position just because you don't like an idea of his?

[niothor]

he is representing the interest of US gov , not bitcoin community , expel him.if they dont , we should think about to find a replacement of btc foundation

Or we could just make our own foundation. Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the technology. We have the capability to build the world's second Bitcoin foundation. We will be that foundation. Better than it was before. Better, stronger, faster.

In hindsight that quote didn't work as well as I hoped

We'll when do you start?
What are your plans to improve bitcoin adoption?
What's your knowledge in this field ?
....
Who are you? Cause
I'm not part of WE unless I know who YOU are!

[SebastianJu]

Who are you to dictate whether someone should keep their position just because you don't like an idea of his?

Regardless of how i think about this threads topic here... of course you can demand such things. If a politican claims the members or a certain race should have to leave the country because they are dirty and stink... of course you can demand he leaves his place in politics.
So when someone is speaking about things that will hurt bitcoin and means a hostile take-over because a centralized organisation can determine what coins are worth something then you can want that this person goes. That doesnt mean he has to go of course.

Anyway... this tainted coins idea is flawed from the start. Nearly every scam imaginable has some time in which the scammer can exchange the wrong coins to new clean coins. At the time the coins are marked stolen they are long owned by innocent people. And they are the second victims in the game. So you have the victims of the scammer directly, the victims of tainted coins and the scammer who is perfectly fine with his anonymous clean coins.

Tainted coins are simply useless.

[Snail2]

If someone goes directly against the principles of bitcoin and against the majority of the community should be removed from the organization what represents bitcoin.

[tvbcof]

If someone goes directly against the principles of bitcoin and against the majority of the community should be removed from the organization what represents bitcoin.

If there is a mindset that the bulk of the userbase are basically tools needed to achieve an objective (e.g., growing a business, a speculative position, or a network) then it is not particularly the case that a 'majority of the community' carries much weight.  In other words, users are for the most part just pawns on a chessboard or little plastic infantrymen of a desirable color.

Everything I can see of the Bitcoin Foundation points me to the conclusion that this philosophical position dominates their thinking.