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

[cryptocoinsnews]

http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/2013/11/15/leaked-private-bitcoin-foundation-discussions-enforcing-central-control/

[qwk]

Note: I went to look at signing up for the foundation but it appeared that forum access was $1000. Is that true? Can regular members not access the forum? It's a little hard to tell.

I don't know the exact pricing right now, but regular members are definitely able to access the forum.

[allthingsluxury]

Thanks for sharing this information.

[btcdrak]

WILL YOU ALL STOP WITH THE FUD.

You are like a bunch of animals. Did you not receive even a highschool education? Take the time to read the facts and stop all this crap!

[justusranvier]

I like how in one breath, kjj both says that "these forums aren't elitist" and then goes on to brag that he's an "early lifetime member" and no one calls him out on it.

People still read his posts?

[ffssixtynine]

You can hardly go in front of a regulator and say that you refuse to even discuss it internally, let alone with them. Meanwhile a coin verification service tell regulators that can do it without changing the Bitcon protocol (which they can). All that'll happen is the regulators will mandate merchants use some horrific system and we missed the boat.

Who can change the protocol. Certainly not the US government. And frankly, not even the developers can do it without consent of the mining community. They will just refuse to upgrade... in fact, many of the miners are quite capable programmers who can carry on the work of maintain the code. We have real democracy in action here.

You can do an awful lot on top of the protocol I'm afraid.

The US is not everywhere but you can be sure other countries will follow. Have you seen what they're trying to do behind closed doors regarding IP? The EFF have several good posts on the lack of democratic and completely hidden process going on.

[btcdrak]

You can hardly go in front of a regulator and say that you refuse to even discuss it internally, let alone with them. Meanwhile a coin verification service tell regulators that can do it without changing the Bitcon protocol (which they can). All that'll happen is the regulators will mandate merchants use some horrific system and we missed the boat.

Who can change the protocol. Certainly not the US government. And frankly, not even the developers can do it without consent of the mining community. They will just refuse to upgrade... in fact, many of the miners are quite capable programmers who can carry on the work of maintain the code. We have real democracy in action here.

You can do an awful lot on top of the protocol I'm afraid.

The US is not everywhere but you can be sure other countries will follow. Have you seen what they're trying to do behind closed doors regarding IP? The EFF have several good posts on the lack of democratic and completely hidden process going on.

Then you clear dont understand the innovation of bitcoin (nor bittorrent for that matter).

[ffssixtynine]

Then you clear dont understand the innovation of bitcoin (nor bittorrent for that matter).

I very much do, and about bittorrent. However, there is a difference between what a smallish group of users will use and the masses. Whatever regulators do there will be ways around it using black market crytpocurrencies or new tech or straight forward criminality. However, mainstream users and legit businesses can have a lot forced on them with no protocol changes or fork.

We'll then end up in a ridiculous game of cat and mouse that no one can win. Drug wars -> Money wars. Who wants that?!

Remember I think the same as everyone else here, I'm just very aware of what may happen in the real world.

[Lauda]

This reminds me of Edward and the US Government.
How about we destroy the foundation before it destroys us?

[virtualmaster]

The following is a dump of full HTML files (identifying parts removed) of private Bitcoin Foundation discussions on Bitcoin blacklisting, transaction reversing, and create a new proof of work called "proof of sacrifice" for asset forfeiture.

It is VERY important that you understand what is going on behind closed doors of the Bitcoin Foundation. I am absolutely disgusted by the approach the foundation is taking to make Bitcoin no longer an open payments system, but rather a restricted, locked down platform with central control in the form of the current certificate authority structure, blacklisting of Bitcoins, reversing transactions and much more.

It always starts off small - like a UI that tells you coins are no longer fungible. It will lead into a locked down Bitcoin - that the rich wants.

PLEASE READ SATOSHI'S BITCOIN WHITE PAPER.

http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

This Is What Bitcoin Stands For. No trusted central authorities like Verisign. No transaction "meditating" or reversing. No blacklists of bitcoin - bitcoins must be fungible.

------- DUMP ------

http://uppit.com/qu6jyr37eata (fastest?)

http://depositfiles.com/files/z6shx9x8d

http://www.putlocker.com/file/55BC84500FAC90FE

-----------------------

Included:

A network of your peers - General - Bitcoin Foundation
A network of your peers - Page 2 - General - Bitcoin Foundation
Coin tracking - Law and Policy - Bitcoin Foundation
Coin tracking - Page 2 - Law and Policy - Bitcoin Foundation
Coin tracking - Page 3 - Law and Policy - Bitcoin Foundation
Coin tracking - Page 4 - Law and Policy - Bitcoin Foundation
Deep concern about the foundation's chairman of Law and Policy (Mike Hearn) pushing for coin taint - General - Bitcoin Foundation
Deep concern about the foundation's chairman of Law and Policy (Mike Hearn) pushing for coin taint - Page 2 - General - Bitcoin Foundation
Just in case you think Bitcoin has it hard with AML laws - General - Bitcoin Foundation
Position C.1 - Selectively mediated transactions are good for consumer protection - Law and Policy - Bitcoin Foundation

-----------------------

Also please read this.

Preface: Your upvotes contribute to his google search.

I believe it is worth exposing each person in this new CoInvalidation team. Yifu is a dishonest criminal of bitcoins, dollars, time, and his actions speak to a nefarious character. Google him, it's been covered.

Well, what about the other guys? The coin purse, cofounder, and government connections guy is Matthew Mellon.

First, let me preface this with saying Matt has really great family lawyers. They have attacked (and removed) a lot of articles exposing him and reporting on his past. If you report on this on your blog, he will send legal to come after you.
So, who is Matt?

Matthew Mellon is part of one of America’s most influential and wealthy families — with ties like Gulf Oil, Carnegie Mellon University and Alcoa. Matthew inherited a $25 million trust fund at only 21, and started blowing it on cocaine, guns, celebrity company, and whatever other ridiculous or dangerous things he could get his hands on. He almost overdosed, and instead of reforming, he divorced his wife went back to hit the slopes some more. He fired his next fiancee, and left her financially dry, only to jump to another woman shortly after.
Some stuff he's done that went public:

Matthew Mellon historically had a nasty breakup which exposed his crack, cocaine, and business embezzlement.

Matthew Mellon is friends enough with this ex-Paris Hilton boyfriend asshat, having borrowed him funds which also funded Brandon's drug use.

Matthew Mellon was likely involved in a hacking scandal which his lawyers cleaned up nicely. The problem with making a website also apologize is it leaves traces.

Matthew Mellon also threatened lawsuit to take another article down here. "the wealthy Matthew Mellon thought they needn't act as average people, so instead they've, through their attorneys, tried to scare us."

A report still up shows that Matthew Mellon allegedly hired wire-tapping on his ex-wife. Do you trust him with your validation? On further research, he was arrested and charged.

For you political folks, I will let you make your own decision on Matthew Mellon's contributions to Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney. He has donated both separately (majorly to Ryan) and combined. This includes the defunding of Medicare and Medicaid.

I'm sure I could keep digging wonderful things, but this post is getting too fucking long. Matthew Mellon, and associates [Alex Waters & Yufi Guo, if you read this: fuck. you.

Alex Waters, you're next. And Kashmir Hill - thanks for your previous exposure but you are a shill. Your spin shows your lack of spine and willingness to suck the institutionalized finance dick. Fuck you too.

-----------------------

BOYCOTT anything that places control of bitcoin to any authority (Verisign, US FinCEN, Bitcoin Foundation or Anything) - instead of being a very decentralized payment network and digital currency.

They are very serious issues what you have posted.
The great Satoshi, who created the Bitcoin and Namecoin should bless you for your efforts.
On depositfiles doesn't work the download.

[ffssixtynine]

They are very serious issues what you have posted.
The great Satoshi, who created the Bitcoin and Namecoin should bless you for your efforts.
On depositfiles doesn't work the download.

The OP has completely misrepresented this - please read the whole thread.

The Foundation and the black/red/greenlist issues are different things.

[testerx]

This is why we need alternative blockchains. Bitcoin is going mainstream.

Or an alternative, true, foundation?

Yes, I don't see  any reason why they should have the final say on anything.  We could form a new Bitcoin Guidance Council to keep Bitcoin in line with its original principles.

[qwk]

It is not helpful to keep this information quiet and shutting people out while asking them to use Bitcoin.

I fail to see how 2707 posts by Mike Hearn, some of them (months ago even) precisely about the issue at hand (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=157130) correlate to keeping information quiet and shutting people out.

That a tiny part of Mike's communication with some members of the community and also developers like Gavin takes place in a "quieter" forum than bitcointalk... well, seeing the torches and pitchforks these days I actually wonder why he even bothers leaving that oasis of peace and quiet.

[Lauda]

They dont have the final say. They dont even have a say. The bitcoin core devs do and the major mining pools.

FUD FUD FUD .... lord save us.

That's still not that good, they can influence them.

[davidtehbest]

I want to know what the operators of the largest pools have to say about the changes being made to bitcoin, they hold a lots of the power in endorsing these new features that the foundation seems to want to add to our bitcoin. Does anyone have any idea what the operators of the major pools have to say or think about all of this?

[ffssixtynine]

I want to know what the operators of the largest pools have to say about the changes being made to bitcoin, they hold a lots of the power in endorsing these new features that the foundation seems to want to add to our bitcoin. Does anyone have any idea what the operators of the major pools have to say or think about all of this?

For the nth time there are no changes of this type, the foundation hasn't said they wanted anything, and the foundation members who posted on those threads made their views very clear that it ain't gonna work. Will people please just read the actual thread.

As someone else posted, mike has discussed this in public but in this forum it ends up full of people who just troll or react or don't read properly - as this thread is perfect evidence of.

I've had it confirmed that any one here can go join the other one for $20 or so and take part in adult discussions with rather less pitchforks and trash posts.

Bitcoin is so important to all of us yet some of you can't be bothered to try to properly read about this topic, which I think says an awful lot about you rather than mike or anyone else. If you want to react to what mike actually said and the actual discussions (ie go and read them) then fair enough but barely anyone who is shouting and screaming is doing that.

[hayek]

This is why we need alternative blockchains. Bitcoin is going mainstream.

Or an alternative, true, foundation?

Yes, I don't see  any reason why they should have the final say on anything.  We could form a new Bitcoin Guidance Council to keep Bitcoin in line with its original principles.

Aaaaaaaaaand that's how we create a breeding ground for a new state of rulers.

No. You just defund them. Make them pay for their bullshit themselves. Educate people.

[BigJohn]

The OP has completely misrepresented this - please read the whole thread.

The Foundation and the black/red/greenlist issues are different things.

Here's the thing. I'm a just a casual user, not a developer, or a programmer or anything. But I do spend a lot of time reading and understanding Bitcoin for years now.

After reading all the stuff that you've quoted, I'm afraid I'm even more dismayed than before. I see what you were trying to do. You're trying to show that the foundation is merely discussing this issue and not actually trying to implement anything. That this backlash is an over-reaction. But what I'm seeing in the very stuff you've quoted is people suggesting that it could be a good idea. Now, you're saying that this is their job, to explore this issue. But that's unacceptable to me personally. I just expect more from them.

What I mean is, I have a casual view of Bitcoin. I like it for its real-world application. So when I come to forums to read up on the latest and greatest, I hope to see the latest and greatest. When in the last few days the idea of coin-listing came up (again!), I fully expected to come on here and read all sorts of ingenious solutions, in true open-source fashion. Instead I'm seeing secrecy and attempts to appease would-be regulators. This forum even has an Alternative Cryptocurrency subforum with stuff derived from the original Bitcoin code. This is only possible because of the open nature of Bitcoin. Yet the going-ons of the foundation itself is closed? It's not even read-only. This stuff had to be "leaked"? What is this?

CoinValidation is real. So it's not simply a matter of a theoretical debate. This shit's real. And as far as I can tell, nobody in those documents is suggesting any way to counter it. Even if the discussion would have been on the topic of how to counter something like CoinValidation, and the conclusion would have been that it's impossible, that would have been fine. At least the discussion was had. But instead there's some secret discussion on the possible merits of lists! That's not what I want to hear from the people running the show. In fact, this was stated in one of the parts you quoted:

If you want to discuss it further, knock yourself out. But there is every reason for community members to be worried when someone in a position of power - Mike Hearn is chair of the Foundation Legal and Policy committee - starts promoting a discredited and dangerous idea yet again.

And I know, you could say he's not promoting anything, but that's just BS really. Do you hear people say let's have a discussion on the roundness or flatness of the Earth? Why not discuss it? Because we've already decided that the Earth is round.

Bottom line:
CoinValidation and its kind are bad for Bitcoin. What I expected was an open discussion on how to counter them. What I got was a closed discussion on why it may have merit.

[btcdrak]

Bottom line:
CoinValidation and its kind are bad for Bitcoin. What I expected was an open discussion on how to counter them. What I got was a closed discussion on why it may have merit.

You are missing it all over again. CoinValidation is not the Bitcoin Foundation nor the devs.
CoinValidation can be done, by anyone. And you can bet the NSA is already compiling a list, and linking address to email addresses (since so much is emailed these daya like the idiots at Coinbase.com do). Emails are easily linked to real identities. It's all there already so STOP YOUR CONSPIRACY BS.

The Foundation is discussing things that regulators are going to ask. Informed debate requires good understanding of all opposing views.

This is not bitcoin level. The Bitcoin devs are not going to implement stuff that hurts bitcoin - end of.
The foundation has no say over the bitcoin development team. end of.
Any changes made by the bitcoin devs still need to be adopted by miners, none of whom are going to hurt bitcoin interests.

So please, stop all this FUD and nonesense.

[BigJohn]

No, I'm not missing that. I know that CoinValidation can be done by anyone, and I know the Foundation isn't doing anything, and that's exactly the problem.

I'm not saying there's a conspiracy for the Foundation to work with regulators. I'm saying they shouldn't be discussing things the regulators are going to ask. They should be discussing things we're going to ask. And what we're asking is, how can we stop things like CoinValidation from existing? And instead what I'm seeing is them discussing whether CoinValidation has any merits. I don't care if it has any merits. It shouldn't be part of the debate. Some have said this same thing in those documents.