fonestar78 (OP)
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 5
Merit: 0
|
 |
November 15, 2013, 07:42:11 PM |
|
I've been a supporter of Bitcoin since I purchased my first back in summer 2011. I've just become incensed after listening to some of these YT videos showing members of "The Bitcoin Foundation" trying to represent me (I am anonymous and they do not speak for me!!) to the establishment. It looks like these people are trying to screw up Bitcoin by attempting to sell Bitcoin to the establishment on the establishment's terms. What do the people here think? I think it would be a good idea if they try and mark coins, blacklist coins, push "trusted addresses" etc that we voluntarily mix our coins with bad coins? It would basically let them know that as a community we will accept any coins as valid and we do not respect nor do we want their fake legitimacy. I think it's important that Bitcoin users have a plan to counteract any such move by these shills trying to push "organized decentralization" and crap!  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once a transaction has 6 confirmations, it is extremely unlikely that an attacker without at least 50% of the network's computation power would be able to reverse it.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
hayek
|
|
November 15, 2013, 08:27:47 PM |
|
"I am anonymous and they do not speak for me!!"
Oh great, another one of them
No offense but this is getting ridiculous. All these rally cries from people who just read the headlines. FFS people were getting ready to burn Mike Hearn at the stake just because he offered an outline that could be possible. He didn't even come out in support/against it.
Yes, the foundation is stupid.
Yes, they are just positioning themselves to get in bed with government
Big F'ing deal. I'd be willing to bet the majority of people outside the US (and probably a significant portion inside) have no clue who they are and would laugh off this idiocracy.
Not only that but we have a plethora of alt coins to choose from. Go ahead, spoil bitcoin. We can move to any other comparable coin in heartbeats. Yeah, it would suck but we have competition in the marketplace. That's all we need to guarantee for the future of crypto.
|
|
|
|
|
fonestar78 (OP)
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 5
Merit: 0
|
|
November 15, 2013, 08:52:17 PM |
|
"Oh great, another one of them"
Thank-you! I am proud to be identified as one of "them"! What is stopping these pin-heads from moving on to regulate (or attempt to regulate) your altcoin of choice?
Maybe you would prefer all of us to shut up and remain passive? For the record, I agree that their attempts will fail but I am going to be pissed off anyways just at the mere suggestion.
|
|
|
|
|
fonestar78 (OP)
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 5
Merit: 0
|
|
November 15, 2013, 09:17:18 PM |
|
"I am for some regulation but blacklist even makes me not want to use bitcoins if it gets implemented even if it is 3rd party. We are lucky that we have smart people that will make it so blacklist would never work anyway, so I have faith in that."
Um, why? When did Satoshi ever talk about regulation in his paper? Why do we need regulation? We don't need regulation, some regulation or any regulation. Ever! How do you possibly weld the idea of regulation and decentralization? You are either for regulation or you are for Bitcoin. Seriously I hope this is not the pervasive sentiment on bitcointalk.org!
I do not care who my Bitcoins came from, where they came from, what those people were doing with them. It's really none of my business or my concern.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Christ
aka snapsunny
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003
|
|
November 15, 2013, 09:34:04 PM |
|
FFS people were getting ready to burn Mike Hearn at the stake just because he offered an outline that could be possible. He didn't even come out in support/against it.
I'm pretty sure I recall Hearn introducing an idea of "flagging" coins in the case of criminal behavior several months ago, to which there was an equal amount of negativity. |
|
|
|
fonestar78 (OP)
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 5
Merit: 0
|
|
November 15, 2013, 09:38:51 PM |
|
"I am for regulation of mostly businesses and ponzi schemes. If you have ever studied how unregulated business can be, it is not pretty, basically the wild west of scams and as you can see this forum has plenty of scams. The great thing about bitcoin is you can follow those regulations or not, there is always two sides in bitcoins. That is why I love bitcoins you can do basically what you want. You want regulations great, follow the regulations, if you don't fire up tor and enjoy no regulations. So by trying to paint the forum into a square by saying if you like A you can't like B as well, isn't correct."
Okay, well businesses are already subject to their local laws. I was just meaning to say that we don't need devs or people falsely claiming to represent the Bitcoin community going around talking about regulation, compliance, black lists, etc, etc. Let the protocol succeed or fail on it's own merits and whatever happens happens.
|
|
|
|
|
fonestar78 (OP)
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 5
Merit: 0
|
|
November 15, 2013, 09:46:11 PM |
|
FFS people were getting ready to burn Mike Hearn at the stake just because he offered an outline that could be possible. He didn't even come out in support/against it.
I'm pretty sure I recall Hearn introducing an idea of "flagging" coins in the case of criminal behavior several months ago, to which there was an equal amount of negativity. Anybody talking about flagging, marking, tracing, black-listing, etc, etc (outside of counter-forensics perhaps) rightfully deserves to be named and shamed. It is totally against the very spirit of anonymity and what Bitcoin is about. Don't even go there. |
|
|
|
|
|
