[LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump)

[FreakNet]

Blacklisting is so stupid, soon enough the government will make you register your name and contact info with each btc address.

[1713966484]

1713966484

[1713966484]

1713966484

[tvbcof]

I am to the point where I would take a serious look at a codebase released from a group of people I trust to evolve the protocol in a healthy direction which rectifies some of the deficiencies.  gmaxwell, retep, and adam3us come to mind.

Ideally releases from the more desirable codebase would track and inter-operate with releases blessed by the Bitcoin Foundation.  Until they didn't.

You already have a codebase released from that group, the one at http://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin

If it is changed in a way that is seriously objectionable, as opposed to minor disagreements about engineering tradeoffs, believe me, you will see alternative releases from myself and many others pop up.

The way I envision this is that a separate repository holds the source code, but it exactly matches the 'Bitcoin Foundation' one (for lack of a better term.)  Releases would come off of it and be distributed via a different channel.  The implementation of the protocol would be the same of course.

There would be several goals:

 - People could express their interest in either Mike and Gavin's conception of Bitcoin by taking the 'official' release, or alternately, express their support for the philosophical principles of a different set of developers by taking from the alternate channel.  There would be no difference in function, but it would be a good way to gauge community sentiment.

 - A distribution channel would be primed, tested, and already in use if there came a point when the differences exceeded the 'minor disagreements about engineering.'

---

I am not aware of any other project which has a construct such as I've described, but Bitcoin is a bit unique in the open-source world in that

 - there are some real and deep philosophical differences about how monetary systems work (and don't work.)

 - there is a large amount of value riding on the solution and it's trajectory, not to mention some significant socio-political considerations.

 - consequences of a mis-step in terms of protocol direction would be very difficult to back out of and would leave a lot of residual baggage in the block chain.

[NewLiberty]

you are out of the topic . The truth is Laden bought weapons using USD not bitcoin ,so why not ban USD worldwide ? Because it's not money's fault .

+2 bitcents:
If he'd been using bitcoin, he'd have been found sooner.  Not to mention bitcoin transactions take technology, modern electronic communication and connectivity... all things he was forbidden to use and forbidding others around him to use.  From a practical perspective, this terrorist funding angle is vulnerable to accusations of being a false premise, or worse yet, a theoretical fear floated to grab authority.  It is fine to discuss it, but why be surprised when it invites severe criticism?  It borders on the trollish.

[jedunnigan]

I like Peter Todd's response the most:

When you are chair of a position you have to accept that you no longer are speaking for yourself, especially when you are specifically talking about an idea positively and in relation to setting official policy. In bureaucrat speak, that's promoting an idea, and given his other posts he's promoting it pretty heavily.

You know I mentioned this debacle today to someone I know who is a high-profile government bureaucrat. They read jdillon's initial post and their response was pretty blunt: the fact that this blew up as quickly and as big as it did by itself indicates that Mike doesn't know what he's doing.
....
An important part of not being disorganized on the inside is accepting common principles - there is rough consensus that fungibility and privacy is important and that blacklists and coin taint are bad ideas. Given that the first few times the idea has come up it's been thoroughly shot down a good committee chair would put their personal opinions aside, and work with that consensus to figure out how to best implement it into policy that was accepted by the community and achieved the goals of the community. Instead Mike is pushing a very minority opinion and is wasting his time and credibility.

Now if Mike did want to fix this situation he could do so very easily: Just say that while his personal opinions differ, as chair he accepts that the community is strongly opposed to any form of blacklist, redlist or whatever is the latest name applied to them, and in his official capacity will respect that and will honestly work towards policy that reflects those desires.

I think it's time for Mike to reconsider his role. Even if the redlisting thread was just a thought experiment/discussion, he should have known better. The Foundation (and Mike) have done quite a bit in the past to piss off the community, but I think these most recent events could pose a real problem for the Foundation moving forward.

In the past most threats against the Foundation have been idle (imo), but even now I get a very bad feeling in my stomach about this. I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing the BF forums get DDoS'd, defaced, among other things. Given the poor standing of other notable members  (see: Peter Vessenes), the future of the Foundation is very fragile. Yes they pay Gavin, but that's only because we accept their changes and update our software. If we stop doing that and fork QT, the need for them diminishes quickly. It would be in their benefit to remember that.

And while I do believe there is a certain level of overreaction here, there is no doubt Mike (and others) are in support of this idea--whether or not they are willing to openly admit it anymore is another question. Redlisting was always going to happen, question was who was going to push the idea and implement the software. Never did I ever think we would see something like this from the Foundation who has claimed to champion the fungibility of the protocol.

[justusranvier]

Yes they pay Gavin, but that's only because we accept their changes and update our software. If we stop doing that and fork QT, the need for them diminishes quickly.

Gavin doesn't need BF to get paid. He could open a ReDonate account tonight and get enough people to sign up to support whatever salary requirement he has.

[jedunnigan]

Yes they pay Gavin, but that's only because we accept their changes and update our software. If we stop doing that and fork QT, the need for them diminishes quickly.

Gavin doesn't need BF to get paid. He could open a ReDonate account tonight and get enough people to sign up to support whatever salary requirement he has.

I like you, let's be friends.

Question is whether or not Gavin would be willing to break away from the Foundation. Hint: the answer is [probably] no.

[NewLiberty]

Yes they pay Gavin, but that's only because we accept their changes and update our software. If we stop doing that and fork QT, the need for them diminishes quickly.

Gavin doesn't need BF to get paid. He could open a ReDonate account tonight and get enough people to sign up to support whatever salary requirement he has.

I like you, let's be friends.

Question is whether or not Gavin would be willing to break away from the Foundation. Hint: the answer is [probably] no.

Truly, they work for him.

[tvbcof]

Yes they pay Gavin, but that's only because we accept their changes and update our software. If we stop doing that and fork QT, the need for them diminishes quickly.

Gavin doesn't need BF to get paid. He could open a ReDonate account tonight and get enough people to sign up to support whatever salary requirement he has.

I would not donate to an effort led by Gavin.  I do not believe that he has the mindset to lead a unique and important effort such as Bitcoin.  That is not to say I don't think he's a good guy or lacks skill or whatever.  He's just not the right guy for the  job in this case.

The reason I say this is that the first thing out of his mouth at the SJ 2013 'state of bitcoin' presentation was the standard faire 'we must rapidly innovate or be left behind' sentiment that permeates the thinking in the valley.

I would not say that this is necessarily true or false in the case of Bitcoin, but it certainly needs to be carefully considered and not taken as a standard and obvious given as might be the case with lesser software systems.

My personal feeling is that Bitcoin had a huge potential just as it was/is, and by far the most critical focus should be to make it rock solid and defensible against all potential attacks even if we have yet to witness them.  This is very much the opposite of adding various bells and whistles.

Worse yet, my interpretation of the direction of the project is that the 'defense' is to build in and/or retain constructs necessary  to comply with the interests of more powerful entities.  I am certain that this acquiescent defense will be a mistake in direction and will end in failure.  The shame of it would be that Bitcoin probably has the basic architecture to survive in a very hostile environment.  Barely.  Giving up a position of strength is a bad move in my opinion.

[Severian]

Imagine Bin Laden is still around.

Anyone playing the bin Laden card as an argument for why Bitcoin should be debased and debilitated can be safely dismissed.

You're dismissed.

[justusranvier]

Yes they pay Gavin, but that's only because we accept their changes and update our software. If we stop doing that and fork QT, the need for them diminishes quickly.

Gavin doesn't need BF to get paid. He could open a ReDonate account tonight and get enough people to sign up to support whatever salary requirement he has.

I like you, let's be friends.

Question is whether or not Gavin would be willing to break away from the Foundation. Hint: the answer is [probably] no.

Maybe this is all part of Gavin's scheme.

He's said before that he is in favor of a heterogenous network composed of multiple implementations - perhaps Bitcoin Foundation's job is to piss us all off and get people to take a serious look at btcd and Bits of Proof.

I wonder what it would take to make Armory work with btcd instead of bitcoind...

[dancingnancy]

Paging Satoshi for cleanup on aisle 7....

[jedunnigan]

Yes they pay Gavin, but that's only because we accept their changes and update our software. If we stop doing that and fork QT, the need for them diminishes quickly.

Gavin doesn't need BF to get paid. He could open a ReDonate account tonight and get enough people to sign up to support whatever salary requirement he has.

I like you, let's be friends.

Question is whether or not Gavin would be willing to break away from the Foundation. Hint: the answer is [probably] no.

Maybe this is all part of Gavin's scheme.

He's said before that he is in favor of a heterogenous network composed of multiple implementations - perhaps Bitcoin Foundation's job is to piss us all off and get people to take a serious look at btcd and Bits of Proof.

I wonder what it would take to make Armory work with btcd instead of bitcoind...

Well, I am always reminded of this post by satoshi:

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.  The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

Although there are so many scenarios Satoshi could not have been expected to plan for. I've always been a fan of alternative implementations although they must be maintained and tested with utmost care and precision.

[corebob]

There is alternatives.

http://www.assets-otc.com/gocoin/

He's code looks sane, as go code usually does.

have you actually tried this?

apparently a web link is some sort of new form of argument proof in our modern times.

argumentum ad hrefium?

Yea I have tried it before and I tried it again. It works like a charm. Here is the output

Code:

Using NewEC wrapper for EC_Verify
Gocoin client version 0.8.3
You seem to be running Gocoin for the fist time on this PC
There is a database from Satoshi client on your disk...
Go you want to import this database into Gocoin? (y/n) : y
Go you want to verify scripts while importing (will be slow)? (y/n) : n
Be patient while importing Satoshi's database...              
6.7MB of data processed. We are at height 31111. Processing speed 0.673MB/sec, recent: 689.5KB/s 
15.3MB of data processed. We are at height 58725. Processing speed 0.763MB/sec, recent: 874.1KB/s 
31.5MB of data processed. We are at height 82361. Processing speed 1.049MB/sec, recent: 1659.2KB/s 
57.6MB of data processed. We are at height 100559. Processing speed 1.439MB/sec, recent: 2669.5KB/s 
105.4MB of data processed. We are at height 115455. Processing speed 2.107MB/sec, recent: 4894.7KB/s 
170.8MB of data processed. We are at height 125947. Processing speed 2.845MB/sec, recent: 6697.6KB/s 
259.1MB of data processed. We are at height 131383. Processing speed 3.699MB/sec, recent: 9010.7KB/s 
311.1MB of data processed. We are at height 133837. Processing speed 3.886MB/sec, recent: 5320.9KB/s 
408.2MB of data processed. We are at height 137995. Processing speed 4.533MB/sec, recent: 9942.4KB/s 
502.6MB of data processed. We are at height 142265. Processing speed 5.023MB/sec, recent: 9664.3KB/s 
551.8MB of data processed. We are at height 144515. Processing speed 4.991MB/sec, recent: 4800.0KB/s 
630.8MB of data processed. We are at height 148644. Processing speed 5.233MB/sec, recent: 8094.5KB/s 
724.4MB of data processed. We are at height 154035. Processing speed 5.546MB/sec, recent: 9529.1KB/s 
814.1MB of data processed. We are at height 159514. Processing speed 5.790MB/sec, recent: 9185.2KB/s 
853.7MB of data processed. We are at height 161649. Processing speed 5.668MB/sec, recent: 4053.3KB/s 
951.4MB of data processed. We are at height 166534. Processing speed 5.923MB/sec, recent: 9998.6KB/s 
1044.0MB of data processed. We are at height 171066. Processing speed 6.119MB/sec, recent: 9483.3KB/s 
1121.4MB of data processed. We are at height 174972. Processing speed 6.191MB/sec, recent: 7532.9KB/s 
1183.4MB of data processed. We are at height 177427. Processing speed 6.191MB/sec, recent: 6347.2KB/s 
1294.8MB of data processed. We are at height 180259. Processing speed 6.437MB/sec, recent: 11404.4KB/s 
1419.6MB of data processed. We are at height 181721. Processing speed 6.718MB/sec, recent: 12578.9KB/s 
1472.0MB of data processed. We are at height 182366. Processing speed 6.647MB/sec, recent: 5283.3KB/s 
1579.3MB of data processed. We are at height 183675. Processing speed 6.823MB/sec, recent: 10985.7KB/s 
1704.5MB of data processed. We are at height 184737. Processing speed 7.059MB/sec, recent: 12809.8KB/s 
1828.7MB of data processed. We are at height 186098. Processing speed 7.272MB/sec, recent: 12716.0KB/s 
1853.8MB of data processed. We are at height 186401. Processing speed 7.089MB/sec, recent: 2564.5KB/s 
1973.0MB of data processed. We are at height 188237. Processing speed 7.267MB/sec, recent: 12200.3KB/s 
2095.7MB of data processed. We are at height 189760. Processing speed 7.444MB/sec, recent: 12559.9KB/s 
2203.9MB of data processed. We are at height 191032. Processing speed 7.559MB/sec, recent: 11029.8KB/s 
2242.5MB of data processed. We are at height 191505. Processing speed 7.436MB/sec, recent: 3947.0KB/s 
2364.3MB of data processed. We are at height 192878. Processing speed 7.588MB/sec, recent: 12477.8KB/s 
2487.7MB of data processed. We are at height 194170. Processing speed 7.736MB/sec, recent: 12628.7KB/s 
2583.2MB of data processed. We are at height 195135. Processing speed 7.789MB/sec, recent: 9703.2KB/s 
2635.5MB of data processed. We are at height 195777. Processing speed 7.714MB/sec, recent: 5354.1KB/s 
2756.5MB of data processed. We are at height 197116. Processing speed 7.839MB/sec, recent: 12389.2KB/s 
2880.7MB of data processed. We are at height 198482. Processing speed 7.961MB/sec, recent: 12472.3KB/s 
2921.0MB of data processed. We are at height 198943. Processing speed 7.855MB/sec, recent: 4131.7KB/s 
3041.2MB of data processed. We are at height 200507. Processing speed 7.964MB/sec, recent: 12298.9KB/s 
3158.3MB of data processed. We are at height 201856. Processing speed 8.060MB/sec, recent: 11994.5KB/s 
3255.1MB of data processed. We are at height 202814. Processing speed 8.086MB/sec, recent: 9256.2KB/s 
3310.6MB of data processed. We are at height 203434. Processing speed 8.020MB/sec, recent: 5553.3KB/s 
3435.1MB of data processed. We are at height 204662. Processing speed 8.125MB/sec, recent: 12748.9KB/s 
3553.4MB of data processed. We are at height 206256. Processing speed 8.210MB/sec, recent: 12102.8KB/s 
3620.1MB of data processed. We are at height 207012. Processing speed 8.158MB/sec, recent: 6237.5KB/s 
3701.9MB of data processed. We are at height 207994. Processing speed 8.158MB/sec, recent: 8374.0KB/s 
3823.7MB of data processed. We are at height 209114. Processing speed 8.245MB/sec, recent: 12461.5KB/s 
3944.6MB of data processed. We are at height 210353. Processing speed 8.326MB/sec, recent: 12368.5KB/s 
3989.3MB of data processed. We are at height 210891. Processing speed 8.244MB/sec, recent: 4528.9KB/s 
4091.0MB of data processed. We are at height 211776. Processing speed 8.283MB/sec, recent: 10411.0KB/s 
4215.9MB of data processed. We are at height 212693. Processing speed 8.367MB/sec, recent: 12774.7KB/s 
4303.5MB of data processed. We are at height 213332. Processing speed 8.358MB/sec, recent: 8158.2KB/s 
4397.2MB of data processed. We are at height 214110. Processing speed 8.377MB/sec, recent: 9584.4KB/s 
4517.3MB of data processed. We are at height 215259. Processing speed 8.445MB/sec, recent: 12298.3KB/s 
4640.9MB of data processed. We are at height 216185. Processing speed 8.517MB/sec, recent: 12647.3KB/s 
4680.8MB of data processed. We are at height 216443. Processing speed 8.433MB/sec, recent: 4030.6KB/s 
4782.2MB of data processed. We are at height 217075. Processing speed 8.463MB/sec, recent: 10374.7KB/s 
4909.5MB of data processed. We are at height 217953. Processing speed 8.531MB/sec, recent: 12509.2KB/s 
4981.4MB of data processed. We are at height 218431. Processing speed 8.499MB/sec, recent: 6916.3KB/s 
5089.6MB of data processed. We are at height 219194. Processing speed 8.538MB/sec, recent: 11071.1KB/s 
5216.6MB of data processed. We are at height 220084. Processing speed 8.606MB/sec, recent: 12983.2KB/s 
5343.4MB of data processed. We are at height 220847. Processing speed 8.672MB/sec, recent: 12974.3KB/s 
5371.2MB of data processed. We are at height 221023. Processing speed 8.577MB/sec, recent: 2825.8KB/s 
5497.4MB of data processed. We are at height 221971. Processing speed 8.641MB/sec, recent: 12919.3KB/s 
5621.3MB of data processed. We are at height 222799. Processing speed 8.697MB/sec, recent: 12525.3KB/s 
5682.1MB of data processed. We are at height 223196. Processing speed 8.657MB/sec, recent: 6220.8KB/s 
5797.1MB of data processed. We are at height 223897. Processing speed 8.699MB/sec, recent: 11700.6KB/s 
5926.8MB of data processed. We are at height 224669. Processing speed 8.762MB/sec, recent: 13270.4KB/s 
6052.7MB of data processed. We are at height 225430. Processing speed 8.817MB/sec, recent: 12875.2KB/s 
6081.6MB of data processed. We are at height 225600. Processing speed 8.730MB/sec, recent: 2905.8KB/s 
6205.5MB of data processed. We are at height 226623. Processing speed 8.781MB/sec, recent: 12666.6KB/s 
6323.9MB of data processed. We are at height 227618. Processing speed 8.824MB/sec, recent: 12123.3KB/s 
6433.3MB of data processed. We are at height 228361. Processing speed 8.853MB/sec, recent: 11175.6KB/s 
6474.1MB of data processed. We are at height 228592. Processing speed 8.788MB/sec, recent: 4183.1KB/s 
6599.6MB of data processed. We are at height 229400. Processing speed 8.838MB/sec, recent: 12842.8KB/s 
6719.2MB of data processed. We are at height 230055. Processing speed 8.880MB/sec, recent: 12230.4KB/s 
6755.4MB of data processed. We are at height 230250. Processing speed 8.811MB/sec, recent: 3700.2KB/s 
6875.4MB of data processed. We are at height 230923. Processing speed 8.849MB/sec, recent: 12007.3KB/s 
6999.3MB of data processed. We are at height 231711. Processing speed 8.894MB/sec, recent: 12689.8KB/s 
7105.3MB of data processed. We are at height 232391. Processing speed 8.915MB/sec, recent: 10834.8KB/s 
7132.3MB of data processed. We are at height 232600. Processing speed 8.834MB/sec, recent: 2652.7KB/s 
7252.0MB of data processed. We are at height 233307. Processing speed 8.872MB/sec, recent: 12250.7KB/s 
7369.2MB of data processed. We are at height 234112. Processing speed 8.907MB/sec, recent: 11995.9KB/s 
7413.2MB of data processed. We are at height 234359. Processing speed 8.851MB/sec, recent: 4430.0KB/s 
7528.5MB of data processed. We are at height 235108. Processing speed 8.883MB/sec, recent: 11803.5KB/s 
7645.3MB of data processed. We are at height 235764. Processing speed 8.915MB/sec, recent: 11941.6KB/s 
7766.8MB of data processed. We are at height 236429. Processing speed 8.952MB/sec, recent: 12422.8KB/s 
7793.4MB of data processed. We are at height 236575. Processing speed 8.880MB/sec, recent: 2724.4KB/s 
7911.7MB of data processed. We are at height 237320. Processing speed 8.914MB/sec, recent: 12108.0KB/s 
8029.4MB of data processed. We are at height 238143. Processing speed 8.945MB/sec, recent: 12031.6KB/s 
8136.6MB of data processed. We are at height 238845. Processing speed 8.964MB/sec, recent: 10944.2KB/s 
8177.7MB of data processed. We are at height 239176. Processing speed 8.912MB/sec, recent: 4209.1KB/s 
8300.8MB of data processed. We are at height 240145. Processing speed 8.948MB/sec, recent: 12598.5KB/s 
8416.6MB of data processed. We are at height 241095. Processing speed 8.976MB/sec, recent: 11836.0KB/s 
8506.8MB of data processed. We are at height 241948. Processing speed 8.976MB/sec, recent: 9211.1KB/s 
8547.2MB of data processed. We are at height 242236. Processing speed 8.920MB/sec, recent: 3932.9KB/s 
8669.6MB of data processed. We are at height 243200. Processing speed 8.954MB/sec, recent: 12518.1KB/s 
8784.3MB of data processed. We are at height 244227. Processing speed 8.980MB/sec, recent: 11731.2KB/s 
8879.7MB of data processed. We are at height 245276. Processing speed 8.978MB/sec, recent: 9023.5KB/s 
8936.7MB of data processed. We are at height 245900. Processing speed 8.945MB/sec, recent: 5841.5KB/s 
9059.3MB of data processed. We are at height 247044. Processing speed 8.978MB/sec, recent: 12545.3KB/s 
9165.3MB of data processed. We are at height 248145. Processing speed 8.994MB/sec, recent: 10846.7KB/s 
9228.1MB of data processed. We are at height 248707. Processing speed 8.966MB/sec, recent: 6339.9KB/s 
9319.6MB of data processed. We are at height 249580. Processing speed 8.968MB/sec, recent: 9353.4KB/s 
9442.8MB of data processed. We are at height 250624. Processing speed 9.000MB/sec, recent: 12615.4KB/s 
9557.5MB of data processed. We are at height 251724. Processing speed 9.023MB/sec, recent: 11746.2KB/s 
9594.1MB of data processed. We are at height 251974. Processing speed 8.968MB/sec, recent: 3561.1KB/s 
9719.2MB of data processed. We are at height 252854. Processing speed 9.001MB/sec, recent: 12798.6KB/s 
9834.4MB of data processed. We are at height 253656. Processing speed 9.024MB/sec, recent: 11785.9KB/s 
9946.2MB of data processed. We are at height 254484. Processing speed 9.044MB/sec, recent: 11433.0KB/s 
9986.0MB of data processed. We are at height 254725. Processing speed 8.998MB/sec, recent: 4072.7KB/s 
10094.3MB of data processed. We are at height 255740. Processing speed 9.014MB/sec, recent: 11083.9KB/s 
10216.9MB of data processed. We are at height 256640. Processing speed 9.043MB/sec, recent: 12553.6KB/s 
10307.7MB of data processed. We are at height 257410. Processing speed 9.043MB/sec, recent: 9232.4KB/s 
10353.4MB of data processed. We are at height 257856. Processing speed 9.004MB/sec, recent: 4673.2KB/s 
10477.4MB of data processed. We are at height 258777. Processing speed 9.033MB/sec, recent: 12698.5KB/s 
10596.0MB of data processed. We are at height 259744. Processing speed 9.057MB/sec, recent: 12137.0KB/s 
10669.1MB of data processed. We are at height 260308. Processing speed 9.039MB/sec, recent: 7177.6KB/s 
10736.9MB of data processed. We are at height 260917. Processing speed 9.020MB/sec, recent: 6932.1KB/s 
10858.3MB of data processed. We are at height 261824. Processing speed 9.046MB/sec, recent: 12428.2KB/s 
10979.8MB of data processed. We are at height 262830. Processing speed 9.072MB/sec, recent: 12438.3KB/s 
11040.7MB of data processed. We are at height 263380. Processing speed 9.043MB/sec, recent: 5920.7KB/s 
11098.4MB of data processed. We are at height 263928. Processing speed 9.016MB/sec, recent: 5893.2KB/s 
11223.3MB of data processed. We are at height 264952. Processing speed 9.044MB/sec, recent: 12791.6KB/s 
11333.9MB of data processed. We are at height 265769. Processing speed 9.060MB/sec, recent: 11221.5KB/s 
11345.7MB of data processed. We are at height 265855. Processing speed 8.997MB/sec, recent: 1216.1KB/s 
11465.2MB of data processed. We are at height 266826. Processing speed 9.012MB/sec, recent: 10919.4KB/s 
11588.7MB of data processed. We are at height 267952. Processing speed 9.038MB/sec, recent: 12651.2KB/s 
11622.6MB of data processed. We are at height 268173. Processing speed 8.994MB/sec, recent: 3464.9KB/s 
11749.8MB of data processed. We are at height 268826. Processing speed 9.023MB/sec, recent: 13024.5KB/s 
END of DB file
11760.9MB of data processed. We are at height 268892. Processing speed 9.024MB/sec, recent: 10862.2KB/s 
Satoshi's database import finished in 1303 seconds
Now saving the new database...
Database saved. No more imports should be needed.
Opening blockchain... (Ctrl-C to interrupt)
Blockchain open in 121.371 seconds                            
open /home/user/.bitcoin/gocoin/btcnet/wallet/DEFAULT: no such file or directory
open /home/user/.bitcoin/gocoin/btcnet/wallet.txt: no such file or directory
Starting WebUI at 127.0.0.1:8833 ...
> 

And the web client

[El Dude]

and this is why you never put all your eggs in 1 blockchain , hurry and buy LTC before it skyrockets.

[wumpus]

In the past most threats against the Foundation have been idle (imo), but even now I get a very bad feeling in my stomach about this. I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing the BF forums get DDoS'd, defaced, among other things. Given the poor standing of other notable members  (see: Peter Vessenes), the future of the Foundation is very fragile. Yes they pay Gavin, but that's only because we accept their changes and update our software. If we stop doing that and fork QT, the need for them diminishes quickly. It would be in their benefit to remember that.
the Foundation who has claimed to champion the fungibility of the protocol.

You know you can simply create a github account and start contributing? (right here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin, behold the Fork button) Like many others in this community you make it sound like forking the code is some grandiose act of rebellion. But it's simply how open source works.

No need to BF member, or go through a secret core dev initiation ritual.

Seriously, we can use more active contributors for Bitcoind/-qt. Get involved! Stop complaining, start coding (or as Erik Hughes wrote in his manifesto in 1993: Cypherpunks write code). Forking the code is not a threat to anyone. Don't confuse it with forking the blockchain.

[justusranvier]

Well, I am always reminded of this post by satoshi:

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.  The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

Although there are so many scenarios Satoshi could not have been expected to plan for. I've always been a fan of alternative implementations although they must be maintained and tested with utmost care and precision.

I think this is an artifact of Satoshi being stronger in crypto than in software engineering.

http://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff

[ffssixtynine]

I don't see anything wrong with the blacklisting issues being discussed.  I think the suggestions are rather naïve but people are already worried that the development team is small and has significant say over what goes into the code.  The perception, whether true or not, is that issues are being hidden and this whole discussion board things adds fuel that perception.  When you want mass adoption perception matters more than facts.

In a sense I agree with you. Communication and trust is important. I posted earlier in this thread to explain why I wasn't a member. The Foundation know that the bitcoin crowd is a hard one to please as many have extreme views, however they don't help themselves by not being whiter than white with regard to some members. I think they have to bite the bullet in that respect.

There should be a separate business lead organisation IMHO. This would happen in other industries but in the bitcoin world it's all over connected still.

Re: forum - can't agree. This is pretty much the only place bitcoin people go, this and reddit. It is intentionally open to everything. Virtually all it's members will be on here. Bitcoin is (currently!) completely free, so scammers and businesses and everyone can use it. This forum has the same philosophy, and so do a very large number of bitcoiners.

Once we have a better place, then your argument will begin to hold more water.

[ffssixtynine]

you are out of the topic . The truth is Laden bought weapons using USD not bitcoin ,so why not ban USD worldwide ? Because it's not money's fault .

+2 bitcents:
If he'd been using bitcoin, he'd have been found sooner.  Not to mention bitcoin transactions take technology, modern electronic communication and connectivity... all things he was forbidden to use and forbidding others around him to use.  From a practical perspective, this terrorist funding angle is vulnerable to accusations of being a false premise, or worse yet, a theoretical fear floated to grab authority.  It is fine to discuss it, but why be surprised when it invites severe criticism?  It borders on the trollish.

The example was about the media, public and political reaction to it being done in public, not about bitcoin being usable by terrorists. It'd be very, very bad for bitcoin indeed and it is going to happen.

I apologise for not making that clear enough.

[corebob]

In the past most threats against the Foundation have been idle (imo), but even now I get a very bad feeling in my stomach about this. I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing the BF forums get DDoS'd, defaced, among other things. Given the poor standing of other notable members  (see: Peter Vessenes), the future of the Foundation is very fragile. Yes they pay Gavin, but that's only because we accept their changes and update our software. If we stop doing that and fork QT, the need for them diminishes quickly. It would be in their benefit to remember that.
the Foundation who has claimed to champion the fungibility of the protocol.

You know you can simply create a github account and start contributing? (right here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin, behold the Fork button) Like many others in this community you make it sound like forking the code is some grandiose act of rebellion. But it's simply how open source works.

No need to BF member, or go through a secret core dev initiation ritual.

Seriously, we can use more active contributors for Bitcoind/-qt. Get involved! Stop complaining, start coding (or as Erik Hughes wrote in his manifesto in 1993: Cypherpunks write code). Forking the code is not a threat to anyone. Don't confuse it with forking the blockchain.

Well said.

Developers should also be positive to alternative clients.
Gatekeeper mentality will only hurt open source projects

[ffssixtynine]

Imagine Bin Laden is still around.

Anyone playing the bin Laden card as an argument for why Bitcoin should be debased and debilitated can be safely dismissed.

You're dismissed.

Except I didn't. It's funny that people see a terrorist name, immediately assume I'm playing the card that govs play, and then don't read the actual argument.

Which is exactly the same behaviour that allowed the US et al to start all this shit off in the first place, just from the opposite viewpoint.

So once again, follow the argument through and it's about the focus on bitcoin if/when that happens, not that they could use bitcoin as a bank but that everyone could see it and no one could stop it. A little bit of rhetoric from media and politicians and you'll immediately have the villagers besieging bitcoin and everyone who accepts it.

This entire thread is a great example of people only reading headlines and conflating topics. Imagine this on a US wide scale.

Think for yourselves. Read for yourselves. Use your brains.

I don't agree but at least those discussing forks or new currencies are perfectly valid in doing so and I'm sure we'll see a more anonymous coin take hold for black market and anon activities. It won't be used by legal businesses, but you'll just exchange it for btc. So what can they do?

That's my view on why any significant move on bitcoin is ludicrous.