|
Rupture
|
 |
November 15, 2013, 10:44:54 PM |
|
Maybe they shouldn't be centred anywhere. That way it's international like btc
|
|
|
|
|
ShadowOfHarbringer (OP)
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1006
Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952
|
|
November 15, 2013, 10:57:35 PM |
|
Maybe they shouldn't be centred anywhere. That way it's international like btc
Nobody is saying that there should be only one foundation. I'm talking about moving this one to Switzerland, because USA is a country fucked up beyond repair (as many many other to be fair). |
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
|
|
November 15, 2013, 10:58:52 PM |
|
Switzerland is not neutral. There is no answer to this poll for the notion that no nation state can be neutral with regard to bitcoin.
|
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
ShadowOfHarbringer (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1006
Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952
|
|
November 15, 2013, 11:02:23 PM |
|
Switzerland is not neutral.
Of course it is not 100% neutral. But Close Enough(tm). There is no answer to this poll for the notion that no nation state can be neutral with regard to bitcoin.
Sorry, can't change the poll now, the results would be invalid. |
|
|
|
|
|
UncleBobs
Member
Offline
Activity: 103
Merit: 10
It From Bit
|
|
November 15, 2013, 11:09:45 PM |
|
well if its true then foundation is gonna lose their credibility in this community.
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it . . ." Ringing any bells? |
|
|
|
tspacepilot
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1081
I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.
|
|
November 15, 2013, 11:12:39 PM |
|
Maybe the bitcoin foundation should be a distributed, peer-to-peer foundation. Not localized in any country.
|
|
|
|
|
leopard2
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1014
|
|
November 15, 2013, 11:19:02 PM |
|
Switzerland has allowed the US to buttfuck and buttrape its banking system  Iceland is probably a better choice because it is of extreme strategic importance for NATO forces due to its particular location. It is unlikely that the USA would use brute force against Iceland and stir hate against themselves... Or Russia - not neutral but more likely to support a technology that the US government combats. And strong enough to resist threats. A country that is strong enough to protect Snowden is strong enough to protect Bitcoin. |
Truth is the new hatespeech.
|
|
|
Boussac
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1221
Merit: 1025
e-ducat.fr
|
|
November 15, 2013, 11:35:20 PM |
|
In light of recent [1] events [2] (namely a member of Bitcoin Fundation suggesting that we should diffrentiate between "Good Bitcoins" and "Bad Bitcoins"), it becomes more and more obvious that the worst enemy of Bitcoin is the Bitcoin Foundation: There are probably strong political pressures from USA which not only has very aggressive AML policies, but clearly is going in the direction of Fascism and Socialism while becoming more and more anti-democratic. So what is the point of keeping Bitcoin Foundation in a country which is (or will be soon) an enemy of Bitcoin ? Perhaps a truly democratic country should be used, such as Switzerland. What do you think ? I don't know about democratic but Switzerland sure is a decentralized country (disclaimer: I am not from Switzerland) by virtue of the canton system. It is probably one of the most decentralized politcial system in the world. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
corebob
|
|
November 15, 2013, 11:49:46 PM |
|
Maybe the bitcoin foundation should be a distributed, peer-to-peer foundation. Not localized in any country.
This is not a bad idea. Their "votes" should probably be part of the block chain as well. |
|
|
|
|
Lauda
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2970
Terminated.
|
|
November 16, 2013, 12:11:01 AM |
|
Yes and yes. Move it away from the US.
|
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" 😼 Bitcoin Core ( onion) |
|
|
safeminer
Member
Offline
Activity: 110
Merit: 10
|
|
November 16, 2013, 12:17:18 AM |
|
no more bitcoin foundation please, dont destroy the bitcoin it's humanitys last hope
|
|
|
|
|
|
Luckybit
|
|
November 16, 2013, 12:24:04 AM |
|
In light of recent [1] events [2] (namely a member of Bitcoin Fundation suggesting that we should diffrentiate between "Good Bitcoins" and "Bad Bitcoins"), it becomes more and more obvious that the worst enemy of Bitcoin is the Bitcoin Foundation: There are probably strong political pressures from USA which not only has very aggressive AML policies, but clearly is going in the direction of Fascism and Socialism while becoming more and more anti-democratic. So what is the point of keeping Bitcoin Foundation in a country which is (or will be soon) an enemy of Bitcoin ? Perhaps a truly democratic country should be used, such as Switzerland. What do you think ? Why should there be a central foundation at all? Have chapters all over the world. Different countries have different political issues to solve. |
|
|
|
|
safeminer
Member
Offline
Activity: 110
Merit: 10
|
|
November 16, 2013, 12:40:52 AM |
|
Shouldn't we first need to worry about getting this blacklist thing off the agenda ?
|
|
|
|
|
Lauda
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2970
Terminated.
|
|
November 16, 2013, 12:52:35 AM |
|
Shouldn't we first need to worry about getting this blacklist thing off the agenda ?
Yeah, it's an huge issue. |
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" 😼 Bitcoin Core ( onion) |
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
|
|
November 16, 2013, 12:59:14 AM |
|
Shouldn't we first need to worry about getting this blacklist thing off the agenda ?
Yeah, it's an huge issue. Why? The Bitcoin Foundation is no more able to enact it's agenda than anyone else is. Their impotent. Their only function is to play the part of the, ultimately ineffective, NGO for the major governments of the world; because that is how the statist psycology works. The protocol doesn't provide a mechanism for blacklisting, and simply wishing for it doesn't make it so. But making the case for same, even if you know in your deepest of hearts that it's never going to happen, does so much to divert the ire of politicos who are conditioned to believe that someone is in charge of all this bitcoin stuff. Even if the foundation can lean on US developers to cave into their desires, the open source nature of bitcoin is certain to take that development consensus away from them, and someone else is going to be releasing the dominate clients going forward. The Dark Wallet project is already doing exactly this, and those guys cite the Bitcoin Foundation itself for the motivation. If the mainline client starts blacklisting, anyone who uses it is going to slowly remove themselves from the bitcoin economy. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
Lauda
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2970
Terminated.
|
|
November 16, 2013, 07:37:42 AM |
|
Why? The Bitcoin Foundation is no more able to enact it's agenda than anyone else is. Their impotent. Their only function is to play the part of the, ultimately ineffective, NGO for the major governments of the world; because that is how the statist psycology works. The protocol doesn't provide a mechanism for blacklisting, and simply wishing for it doesn't make it so. But making the case for same, even if you know in your deepest of hearts that it's never going to happen, does so much to divert the ire of politicos who are conditioned to believe that someone is in charge of all this bitcoin stuff. Even if the foundation can lean on US developers to cave into their desires, the open source nature of bitcoin is certain to take that development consensus away from them, and someone else is going to be releasing the dominate clients going forward. The Dark Wallet project is already doing exactly this, and those guys cite the Bitcoin Foundation itself for the motivation.
If the mainline client starts blacklisting, anyone who uses it is going to slowly remove themselves from the bitcoin economy.
The foundation is the issue. They are kind of acting like they're in control. |
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" 😼 Bitcoin Core ( onion) |
|
|
|
Ecurb123
|
|
November 16, 2013, 08:31:19 AM |
|
I agree, if there is such a foundation, it should not be in the US.
|
|
|
|
|
|
niothor
|
|
November 16, 2013, 10:52:37 AM |
|
Switzerland has allowed the US to buttfuck and buttrape its banking system Iceland is probably a better choice because it is of extreme strategic importance for NATO forces due to its particular location. It is unlikely that the USA would use brute force against Iceland and stir hate against themselves... Or Russia - not neutral but more likely to support a technology that the US government combats. And strong enough to resist threats. A country that is strong enough to protect Snowden is strong enough to protect Bitcoin. Russia? common... The country where journalist disappear because they write something against Putin? Where if you criticize him you have 100% more chances to die in a tragic accident ? If Snowden was russian you wouldn't have heard of him , just in a local paper about how somebody died of "overdose". |
|
|
|
|
Poll
