The Bitcoin Foundation Must Remove Satoshi as Founder

[Aquent]

Satoshi Nakamoto was not a founder of the bitcoin foundation. It  is highly unethical for him to be listed as a founder. It is not an honorary title. Satoshi created a decentralised system. He would hate the foundation's centralisation.

Now that a highly controversial figure has been elected to the board I think it is imperative that the foundation stops claiming legitimacy by stating that Satoshi was in any way a founder or in any way approved of that rotten centalisation.

[DannyHamilton]

Satoshi Nakamoto was not a founder of the bitcoin foundation. It  is highly unethical for him to be listed as a founder. It is not an honorary title. Satoshi created a decentralised system. He would hate the foundation's centralisation.

Now that a highly controversial figure has been elected to the board I think it is imperative that the foundation stops claiming legitimacy by stating that Satoshi was in any way a founder or in any way approved of that rotten centalisation.

How can you speak for Satoshi?  Do you know him personally?  Has he told you that he doesn't want to be associated with the Foundation?  Can you prove that he didn't give the foundation permission to list him?

It is highly unethical for you to be deciding on behalf of Satoshi if he should be listed unless he has given you permission to do so.  Let him speak for himself if he is against it.

[bananas]

Satoshi Nakamoto was not a founder of the bitcoin foundation. It  is highly unethical for him to be listed as a founder. It is not an honorary title. Satoshi created a decentralised system. He would hate the foundation's centralisation.

Now that a highly controversial figure has been elected to the board I think it is imperative that the foundation stops claiming legitimacy by stating that Satoshi was in any way a founder or in any way approved of that rotten centalisation.

Man, Satoshi is part of that crime related foundation since day one 'cause he wants so, he can speak by himself . He is not dead.

Many think of Satoshi as a mystical angel and think like "oh my god, he can't be part of it", but he is not any angel and he is part of that group on his own will.

[DannyHamilton]

Satoshi Nakamoto was not a founder of the bitcoin foundation. It  is highly unethical for him to be listed as a founder. It is not an honorary title. Satoshi created a decentralised system. He would hate the foundation's centralisation.

Now that a highly controversial figure has been elected to the board I think it is imperative that the foundation stops claiming legitimacy by stating that Satoshi was in any way a founder or in any way approved of that rotten centalisation.

How can you speak for Satoshi?  Do you know him personally?  Has he told you that he doesn't want to be associated with the Foundation?  Can you prove that he didn't give the foundation permission to list him?

It is highly unethical for you to be deciding on behalf of Satoshi if he should be listed unless he has given you permission to do so.  Let him speak for himself if he is against it.

The point you make in bold is very good. Unless the Bitcoin Foundation provides proof that Satoshi wants to be listed as a founder then the Bitcoin Foundation is acting unethically. It should be no problem for the Bitcoin Foundation to provide the proof since they must know Satoshi personally to have listed him as a founder.

And if Satoshi asked them not to provide such proof?  There is no obligation to provide proof that someone wants to be listed as a founder.  Has the foundation provided proof that Gavin wants to be listed as a founder?  Are they ethically obligated to provide proof that Gavin wants to be listed as a founder?

Don't be so presumptuous as to speak on Satoshi's behalf.  If he doesn't want to be listed a a founder, he can speak for himself.  In the same way that we can assume that Gavin wants to be listed as a founder (since he hasn't spoken out against it), we can also assume that Satoshi wants to be listed as a founder (since he hasn't spoken out against it).

[bananas]

Satoshi Nakamoto was not a founder of the bitcoin foundation. It  is highly unethical for him to be listed as a founder. It is not an honorary title. Satoshi created a decentralised system. He would hate the foundation's centralisation.

Now that a highly controversial figure has been elected to the board I think it is imperative that the foundation stops claiming legitimacy by stating that Satoshi was in any way a founder or in any way approved of that rotten centalisation.

How can you speak for Satoshi?  Do you know him personally?  Has he told you that he doesn't want to be associated with the Foundation?  Can you prove that he didn't give the foundation permission to list him?

It is highly unethical for you to be deciding on behalf of Satoshi if he should be listed unless he has given you permission to do so.  Let him speak for himself if he is against it.

The point you make in bold is very good. Unless the Bitcoin Foundation provides proof that Satoshi wants to be listed as a founder then the Bitcoin Foundation is acting unethically. It should be no problem for the Bitcoin Foundation to provide the proof since they must know Satoshi personally to have listed him as a founder.

Satoshi spoke when he did not want to be confused with Dorian, why would not he speak about something a lot more serious as being part of a group full of dirty? He would.

[btbrae]

There is nothing you can do to control a private club, only call it out and avoid using or donating to it and it's members.

[jc01480]

This is one of those "Mind your own business" moments.

[5flags]

Satoshi spoke when he did not want to be confused with Dorian

No he didn't. If it isn't signed, it didn't happen.

[Aquent]

Satoshi Nakamoto was not a founder of the bitcoin foundation. It  is highly unethical for him to be listed as a founder. It is not an honorary title. Satoshi created a decentralised system. He would hate the foundation's centralisation.

Now that a highly controversial figure has been elected to the board I think it is imperative that the foundation stops claiming legitimacy by stating that Satoshi was in any way a founder or in any way approved of that rotten centalisation.

How can you speak for Satoshi?  Do you know him personally?  Has he told you that he doesn't want to be associated with the Foundation?  Can you prove that he didn't give the foundation permission to list him?

It is highly unethical for you to be deciding on behalf of Satoshi if he should be listed unless he has given you permission to do so.  Let him speak for himself if he is against it.

The point you make in bold is very good. Unless the Bitcoin Foundation provides proof that Satoshi wants to be listed as a founder then the Bitcoin Foundation is acting unethically. It should be no problem for the Bitcoin Foundation to provide the proof since they must know Satoshi personally to have listed him as a founder.

Satoshi spoke when he did not want to be confused with Dorian, why would not he speak about something a lot more serious as being part of a group full of dirty? He would.

Satoshi stopped speaking about 3 years ago and has said nothing save for "I am not Dorian". He said that because an innocent man's life might have been in danger therefore he probably judges that it is right for him to speak in regards to this very exceptional and unusual circumstance.

He isn't going to come out and speak for every tiny other thing. He has chosen to leave and be silent. That's his choice. To expect him to say he is not a founder is also to expect him to say a lot of other stuff which he seems to have chosen not to do so.

Therefore unless he has given permission to be listed as founder it is highly unethical and manipulative as well as an outright lie to claim that satoshi was a founder of the bitcoin foundation.

The onus is on the foundation to prove he was a founder. If they can't provide such evidence then his name should be removed so that outsiders can see it as just a group rather than THE group created by THE man himself.

[hilariousandco]

How do you know he's not another member of the Foundation? Just because bitcoin is decentralised doesn't mean everything else has to be.

[guybrushthreepwood]

Does it really matter whether he's on there or not? If he was removed people would then probably complain to get him reinstated.

[jc01480]

So they've essentially hijacked a name to take advantage or capitalize on an association that doesn't really exist?  I get it.  Are we alleging fraud here?

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

No he didn't. If it isn't signed, it didn't happen.

The post quoted above didn't happen.

[DannyHamilton]

Therefore unless he has given permission to be listed as founder it is highly unethical and manipulative as well as an outright lie to claim that satoshi was a founder of the bitcoin foundation.

Unless you are Satoshi, or unless he has given permission for you to speak on his behalf, the bitcoin foundation has as much right to speak on his behalf as you do.  Since you've already made it clear that you believe that you have the right to speak on his behalf, this would seem to imply that in your worldview, the bitcoin foundation ALSO has the right to speak on his behalf.  Unless of course you are a hypocrite that believes that there are special rules that only apply to you, and not them.

Let Satoshi speak for himself.  If he doesn't care enough to get involved in this disagreement, then why do you think it's important.  Satoshi clearly doesn't think that "an innocent man's life might be in danger" over this, and is therefore ok with what the bitcoin foundation has chosen to say about his membership.

The onus is on the foundation to prove he was a founder.

No, it isn't.  The onus is on you to prove that Satoshi doesn't want to be listed as a founder.  Otherwise, you have no right to speak on his behalf.

If they can't provide such evidence then his name should be removed

If they wanted to do that, they already would have.  How exactly do you intend to force them to do so?  By creating another discussion thread in the bitcointalk.org disccusion forum?  That didn't seem to work so well the few hundred times that other people tried it.  Why would your rant be any more successful?

so that outsiders can see it as just a group rather than THE group created by THE man himself.

"THE man himself"?  You do realize that Satoshi doesn't have any special super powers, right?  He's not God or anything like that.  He's just some guy (or group of people) that happen to have come up with a pretty decent way of handling distributed consensus and used it to determine what order transaction occur in.  That's about it.  He wasn't even a very great programmer, or great at cryptography.  He made several programming mistakes, and made some questionable cryptography choices.

The fact that a decent programmer with some better than average knowledge about cryptography belongs to some private club shouldn't matter to anyone except those foolish enough to believe that celebrity is persuasive.

[Joshuar]

Therefore unless he has given permission to be listed as founder it is highly unethical and manipulative as well as an outright lie to claim that satoshi was a founder of the bitcoin foundation.

Unless you are Satoshi, or unless he has given permission for you to speak on his behalf, the bitcoin foundation has as much right to speak on his behalf as you do.  Since you've already made it clear that you believe that you have the right to speak on his behalf, this would seem to imply that in your worldview, the bitcoin foundation ALSO has the right to speak on his behalf.  Unless of course you are a hypocrite that believes that there are special rules that only apply to you, and not them.

Let Satoshi speak for himself.  If he doesn't care enough to get involved in this disagreement, then why do you think it's important.  Satoshi clearly doesn't think that "an innocent man's life might be in danger" over this, and is therefore ok with what the bitcoin foundation has chosen to say about his membership.

The onus is on the foundation to prove he was a founder.

No, it isn't.  The onus is on you to prove that Satoshi doesn't want to be listed as a founder.  Otherwise, you have no right to speak on his behalf.

If they can't provide such evidence then his name should be removed

If they wanted to do that, they already would have.  How exactly do you intend to force them to do so?  By creating another discussion thread in the bitcointalk.org disccusion forum?  That didn't seem to work so well the few hundred times that other people tried it.  Why would your rant be any more successful?

so that outsiders can see it as just a group rather than THE group created by THE man himself.

"THE man himself"?  You do realize that Satoshi doesn't have any special super powers, right?  He's not God or anything like that.  He's just some guy (or group of people) that happen to have come up with a pretty decent way of handling distributed consensus and used it to determine what order transaction occur in.  That's about it.  He wasn't even a very great programmer, or great at cryptography.  He made several programming mistakes, and made some questionable cryptography choices.

The fact that a decent programmer with some better than average knowledge about cryptography belongs to some private club shouldn't matter to anyone except those foolish enough to believe that celebrity is persuasive.

Nothing in this world is 100% "decentralized", we need a central point one way or another. Bitcoin Foundation doesn't own bitcoin, it just represents it to the masses. Like it or not, most people in Bitcoin just buy it to invest/hold/sell, not because they truly believe in it. That's why We Need a foundation, to plan coordinated efforts to advertise Bitcoin and such.

[Aquent]

"Unless you are Satoshi, or unless he has given permission for you to speak on his behalf, the bitcoin foundation has as much right to speak on his behalf as you do."

The bitcoin foundation was created after Satoshi stopped speaking. Therefore the claim that satoshi was a founder is an outright lie. To lie is wrong so, that's it, his name should not be listed as a founder of a foundation which elects an alleged pedofile as a director.

[5flags]

Out of interest, has anyone ever asked the Foundation whether SN is listed with his/her/their permission?

[Joshuar]

Out of interest, has anyone ever asked the Foundation whether SN is listed with his/her/their permission?

If Satoshi wanted to be removed as a Founder, he would of said so. Just like he messaged, " I am not Dorian Nakamoto"

And, no one cares, Satoshi made Bitcoin, let him be a founder until he decides he doesn't want to anymore..

[5flags]

And on the question of being an "alleged pedophile" - if he has not been convicted, hasn't been charged and isn't even under investigation, then he is innocent, like everyone else until proven guilty.

Caveat: I don't know anything about the guy in question. Nor am I interested in reading anything about him.

[guybrushthreepwood]

Out of interest, has anyone ever asked the Foundation whether SN is listed with his/her/their permission?

If Satoshi wanted to be removed as a Founder, he would of said so. Just like he messaged, " I am not Dorian Nakamoto"

And, no one cares.

Except I don't think that was actually him but an impostor. I very much doubt they got his permission. Maybe they asked but he probably didnt reply.

[Gimpeline]

Listing him takes away cedebillity from the foundation.
people might look it up and think.... hmm ok they lied there. What else are they lying about

[DannyHamilton]

Nothing in this world is 100% "decentralized", we need a central point one way or another.

You are welcome to have as many "central points" as you like.

Bitcoin Foundation doesn't own bitcoin, it just represents it to the masses.

Only to those foolish enough to think that some private club is representative of something public.  Does the "Chicago Sailing Club" represent Chicago to the masses?  Foolish people will be fooled by private club giving themselves a fancy name.  I can't control the beliefs of others.

Like it or not, most people in Bitcoin just buy it to invest/hold/sell, not because they truly believe in it.

This is wild speculation.  Can you prove this?  It might be true, but it very well might not.  Regardless, the reason that people are using bitcoin has no bearing on the legitimacy or behaviors of the bitcoin foundation.

That's why We Need a foundation, to plan coordinated efforts to advertise Bitcoin and such.

This is not what the bitcoin foundation does, or why it exists.  You are taking your own hopes and projecting them on an entity that you don't understand just because it has a name that you like.  You might want to reconsider that.

Specifically, what coordinated efforts to advertise Bitcoin have you seen from the bitcoin foundation?

The bitcoin foundation exists to pay some developers some money so they can enact the features that their highest paying membership prefers.  It also exists to make sure that when news organizations or political organizations want answers to questions, the answers are the ones that the highest paying members prefer.

[DannyHamilton]

"Unless you are Satoshi, or unless he has given permission for you to speak on his behalf, the bitcoin foundation has as much right to speak on his behalf as you do."

The bitcoin foundation was created after Satoshi stopped speaking. Therefore the claim that satoshi was a founder is an outright lie. To lie is wrong so, that's it, his name should not be listed as a founder.

You can prove that Satoshi didn't send a message to Gavin giving permission?  You can prove that when Satoshi stopped communicating publicly, he also stopped communicating privately?  You can prove that none of the other members of the bitcoin foundation actually are Satoshi?

The claim that Satoshi was a founder might be a lie.  And if it is a lie, then it's wrong.

It also might be the truth.  Since you can't prove it either way, only Satoshi can speak for himself.  If he doesn't demand that his name be removed, then he is giving implicit permission.

[franky1]

too many opinions and hypotheticals about what 'satoshi' believes and disbeleives.

ill just leave you with this.

do you really think that jesus christ wants to be known as the founder of the greedy Vatican, the pedophile priests and the congregation that hates their fellow man, judging each other?

in either case bitcoin or religion, who cares, its not like both people are going to come back and smite anyone tied to such gross abuses of wealth and disgusting behavior

[Gimpeline]

"Unless you are Satoshi, or unless he has given permission for you to speak on his behalf, the bitcoin foundation has as much right to speak on his behalf as you do."

The bitcoin foundation was created after Satoshi stopped speaking. Therefore the claim that satoshi was a founder is an outright lie. To lie is wrong so, that's it, his name should not be listed as a founder.

You can prove that Satoshi didn't send a message to Gavin giving permission?  You can prove that when Satoshi stopped communicating publicly, he also stopped communicating privately?  You can prove that none of the other members of the bitcoin foundation actually are Satoshi?

The claim that Satoshi was a founder might be a lie.  And if it is a lie, then it's wrong.

It also might be the truth.  Since you can't prove it either way, only Satoshi can speak for himself.  If he doesn't demand that his name be removed, then he is giving implicit permission.

You cant disprove anything. If Satoshi sendt a message to Gavin, then gavin have to come up with the proof. Just as you cant disprove anything else. Inosent untill prove guilty

[DannyHamilton]

You cant disprove anything.

Exactly.  You can't prove that Satoshi gave permission.  You can't prove that he didn't give permission.  Therefore, stop speaking on his behalf and let him speak for himself if he wants to.

If Satoshi sendt a message to Gavin, then gavin have to come up with the proof.

No. He doesn't. Why should he waste his time jumping through every hoop that every random internet user in the world sets up for him.  If you want the name removed, you need to prove that it doesn't belong there.

Just as you cant disprove anything else. Inosent untill prove guilty

Exactly.  The bitcoin foundation is innocent until proven guilty.  If you can't prove that they are acting fraudulently by using the name, then they are presumed innocent.

[Gimpeline]

You cant disprove anything.

Exactly.  You can't prove that Satoshi gave permission.  You can't prove that he didn't give permission.  Therefore, stop speaking on his behalf and let him speak for himself if he wants to.

If Satoshi sendt a message to Gavin, then gavin have to come up with the proof.

No. He doesn't. Why should he waste his time jumping through every hoop that every random internet user in the world sets up for him.  If you want the name removed, you need to prove that it doesn't belong there.

Just as you cant disprove anything else. Inosent untill prove guilty

Exactly.  The bitcoin foundation is innocent until proven guilty.  If you can't prove that they are acting fraudulently by using the name, then they are presumed innocent.

Not how it works. If Gavin has the proof it's up to him to deliver. Not the other way around

[jonald_fyookball]

. Like it or not, most people in Bitcoin just buy it to invest/hold/sell, not because they truly believe in it.

Oooh thems fightin words.  Lol jk.

No but seriously, why would someone invest in something they won't believe in?
What do you "truly believe in"?

I believe bitcoin is an amazing idea that has been well implemented and has solid support and momentum.
I also am an investor because i am expecting others to see the value in it and adopt it at some point as a superior form of money.

[jonald_fyookball]

You cant disprove anything.

Exactly.  You can't prove that Satoshi gave permission.  You can't prove that he didn't give permission.  Therefore, stop speaking on his behalf and let him speak for himself if he wants to.

If Satoshi sendt a message to Gavin, then gavin have to come up with the proof.

No. He doesn't. Why should he waste his time jumping through every hoop that every random internet user in the world sets up for him.  If you want the name removed, you need to prove that it doesn't belong there.

Just as you cant disprove anything else. Inosent untill prove guilty

Exactly.  The bitcoin foundation is innocent until proven guilty.  If you can't prove that they are acting fraudulently by using the name, then they are presumed innocent.

Not how it works. If Gavin has the proof it's up to him to deliver. Not the other way around

In a debate or argument,  burden of proof lies on whoever makes an assertion.
However, one can also simply choose not to provide proof
and not participate in the debate to begin with.

[Gimpeline]

You cant disprove anything.

Exactly.  You can't prove that Satoshi gave permission.  You can't prove that he didn't give permission.  Therefore, stop speaking on his behalf and let him speak for himself if he wants to.

If Satoshi sendt a message to Gavin, then gavin have to come up with the proof.

No. He doesn't. Why should he waste his time jumping through every hoop that every random internet user in the world sets up for him.  If you want the name removed, you need to prove that it doesn't belong there.

Just as you cant disprove anything else. Inosent untill prove guilty

well he does
Its like this. I can say that monkeys fly out of my ass. I can prove it, but you cant see the evidence.
To disprove it you have to investigate my ass. I won't alow yopu to do that.
You have to prove it without the evidence. Do you see where the logic is missing?

Exactly.  The bitcoin foundation is innocent until proven guilty.  If you can't prove that they are acting fraudulently by using the name, then they are presumed innocent.

Not how it works. If Gavin has the proof it's up to him to deliver. Not the other way around

In a debate or argument,  burden of proof lies on whoever makes an assertion.
However, one can also simply choose not to provide proof
and not participate in the debate to begin with.

Its like this. I can say that monkeys fly out of my ass. I can prove it, but you cant see the evidence.
To disprove it you have to investigate my ass. I won't alow yopu to do that.
You have to prove it without the evidence. Do you see where the logic is missing?

[jonald_fyookball]

Its like this. I can say that monkeys fly out of my ass. I can prove it, but you cant see the evidence.
To disprove it you have to investigate my ass. I won't alow yopu to do that.
You have to prove it without the evidence. Do you see where the logic is missing?

Who said I have to prove it?
Who said you have to prove it?

No one has to prove anything (unless they want to win an argument).

[Yakamoto]

Satoshi Nakamoto was not a founder of the bitcoin foundation. It  is highly unethical for him to be listed as a founder. It is not an honorary title. Satoshi created a decentralised system. He would hate the foundation's centralisation.

Now that a highly controversial figure has been elected to the board I think it is imperative that the foundation stops claiming legitimacy by stating that Satoshi was in any way a founder or in any way approved of that rotten centalisation.

How can you speak for Satoshi?  Do you know him personally?  Has he told you that he doesn't want to be associated with the Foundation?  Can you prove that he didn't give the foundation permission to list him?

It is highly unethical for you to be deciding on behalf of Satoshi if he should be listed unless he has given you permission to do so.  Let him speak for himself if he is against it.

This is honestly what I was thinking as I read this.

[BittBurger]

Satoshi Nakamoto was not a founder of the bitcoin foundation. It  is highly unethical for him to be listed as a founder. It is not an honorary title. Satoshi created a decentralised system. He would hate the foundation's centralisation.

Now that a highly controversial figure has been elected to the board I think it is imperative that the foundation stops claiming legitimacy by stating that Satoshi was in any way a founder or in any way approved of that rotten centalisation.

How can you speak for Satoshi?  Do you know him personally?  Has he told you that he doesn't want to be associated with the Foundation?  Can you prove that he didn't give the foundation permission to list him?

It is highly unethical for you to be deciding on behalf of Satoshi if he should be listed unless he has given you permission to do so.  Let him speak for himself if he is against it.

This is a completely retarded response.  Given the fact that you know full-well Satoshi isn't going to "speak up" in the first place, your response is kind of useless.  Even if he did, the onus is not on Satoshi saying "No".  In a situation like this, the onus is on him saying "Yes".

Naming him as founder is really just a way for the Bitcoin Foundation to imply that they're *supported* by Satoshi himself.   That assertion shouldn't be made unless Satoshi explicitly states he not only founded, but also supports this organization.  Naming him as a founding member also implies that everything they do has the blessing of the creator of Bitcoin.  This is why the onus is on Satoshi saying "Yes".   Not Satoshi saying "No".   Given the fact that *everything he did* was intended to end all forms of centralized organizations, the OP's has every logical right to claim Satoshi never said "Yes" to this.

-B-

[DannyHamilton]

It's been fun, but this discussion is getting boring.

You're all talking in circles, and you can "demand action" all you want.  It won't make a difference.

Have fun agreeing with each other that they should do what you want them to do.

[Aquent]

It's been fun, but this discussion is getting boring.

You're all talking in circles, and you can "demand action" all you want.  It won't make a difference.

Have fun agreeing with each other that the should do what you want them to do.

DannyHamilton I wasn't sure if you were trolling or not, but the above post makes it apparent.

For all it's worth I can't find any reference to satoshi on the bitcoin foundation website or any wikipedia article referring to the foundation website. So I guess they have removed it as they have been requested.

[DeathAndTaxes]

IIRC the foundation when pressed before indicated they had no contact with Satoshi and they added him as an honorific.  As such I see it just as a name grab for legitimacy.   I am a member but I don't agree with the decision to use his name without permission or to imply an association exists where there is none.  It is unethical, dishonest, and shows a lack of respect for the creator of the Bitcoin protocol.

It is also an unacceptable burden, to demand that someone (who obviously wishes to be left alone and values his privacy) make a formal statement every time someone jackass decides to fraudulently uses his name without permission.  Generally speaking that kind of burden isn't accepted by society in similar situations.  You can't use a celebrity name and likeness as an endorsement and then when they sue you, claim as your defense that they didn't explicitly notify you stating they didn't want their name used.  There is no such obligation for someone to notify you that they don't want you to use their name.  The obligation is on the party using the name and implying an association where none exists to secure that permission before using it.

[BurtW]

What is a "Bitcoin Foundation" part of a trilogy of books or something like that?

[umair127]

Satoshi Nakamoto was not a founder of the bitcoin foundation. It  is highly unethical for him to be listed as a founder. It is not an honorary title. Satoshi created a decentralised system. He would hate the foundation's centralisation.

Now that a highly controversial figure has been elected to the board I think it is imperative that the foundation stops claiming legitimacy by stating that Satoshi was in any way a founder or in any way approved of that rotten centalisation.

If he was a founder then they would have known him, they are just trying to use his name to sound like they are the official foundation of bitcoin, which is a lie.  What they are doing is unethical.  Take off satoshi from the board, he may be welcomed there but dont claim you know him.  I agree with the Op

[MicroGuy]

Satoshi stopped speaking about 3 years ago and has said nothing save for "I am not Dorian". He said that because an innocent man's life might have been in danger therefore he probably judges that it is right for him to speak in regards to this very exceptional and unusual circumstance.

This is conjecture. I think it's also possible that it was actually Dorian posting to divert attention from himself.

[BCB]

I think the Bitcoin Foundation actually has bigger problems now.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/255a6o/bitcoin_foundation_adds_alleged_child_molester_to/

[DannyHamilton]

DannyHamilton I wasn't sure if you were trolling or not, but the above post makes it apparent.

Not trolling.  Just trying to make a point that a significant number of people don't seem to be able to grasp.

I think it's silly to put Satoshi's name as a "founder" of the bitcoin foundation.  Honorary or otherwise.

But it doesn't really matter how many bitcointalk.org members come to this thread and complain about it.  They're going to do what ever they want, and all of us wanting them to do something different won't change that.  If they take (or took?) his name off, it's because they decided that's what they want to do.

To a large extent this is all just a bunch of "tilting at windmills"

[Aquent]

DannyHamilton I wasn't sure if you were trolling or not, but the above post makes it apparent.

Not trolling.  Just trying to make a point that a significant number of people don't seem to be able to grasp.

I think it's silly to put Satoshi's name as a "founder" of the bitcoin foundation.  Honorary or otherwise.

You did a good job trolling this thread mate. Keep it up, see where it takes you.

[Bitcoin Magazine]

bullshit
he was the only guy i knew in the beginning

[bg002h]

Satoshi Nakamoto was not a founder of the bitcoin foundation. It  is highly unethical for him to be listed as a founder. It is not an honorary title. Satoshi created a decentralised system. He would hate the foundation's centralisation.

Now that a highly controversial figure has been elected to the board I think it is imperative that the foundation stops claiming legitimacy by stating that Satoshi was in any way a founder or in any way approved of that rotten centalisation.

To be clear: Satoshi is a member of the founders class and afforded the rights, privileges, and responsibilities thereof should he chose to participate.

[bg002h]

I think the Bitcoin Foundation actually has bigger problems now.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/255a6o/bitcoin_foundation_adds_alleged_child_molester_to/

WOW I didn't even know this... This makes me actually hate the bitcoin foundation on so many levels.

As chair of the election committee, I can assure you your hate should be directed at the voters. This was _their_ decision. But, you don't need to trust me. Every voter received the hash of their encrypted ballot and the list of all the ballot hashes is available to each voter.

[LostDutchman]

Satoshi Nakamoto was not a founder of the bitcoin foundation. It  is highly unethical for him to be listed as a founder. It is not an honorary title. Satoshi created a decentralised system. He would hate the foundation's centralisation.

Now that a highly controversial figure has been elected to the board I think it is imperative that the foundation stops claiming legitimacy by stating that Satoshi was in any way a founder or in any way approved of that rotten centalisation.

Oh, fiddlesticks.

Who cares, anyway?

[franky1]

churches with their clergy of pedophiles links themselves to the founder of faith(jesus)
UK BBC links their board members/staff of pedophiles with government.
TBF links their board members of pedophiles with the founder of cryptography

in short. don't trust organizations that try to be tied to a higher power as they all seem to have pedophiles amongst them

[Aquent]

I think the Bitcoin Foundation actually has bigger problems now.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/255a6o/bitcoin_foundation_adds_alleged_child_molester_to/

WOW I didn't even know this... This makes me actually hate the bitcoin foundation on so many levels.

As chair of the election committee, I can assure you your hate should be directed at the voters. This was _their_ decision. But, you don't need to trust me. Every voter received the hash of their encrypted ballot and the list of all the ballot hashes is available to each voter.

If the foundation is claiming to speak on our behalf then the vote should be open to all and there obviously should be some rules as to who can stand as a candidate and or when they must resign.

[E-C.Guru]

How can humans complain about the Bitcoin Foundation and say "Don't support them" while they in fact are sitting on a Bitcoin Foundation forum?(Or did I get that wrong? I just noticed the Foundation linked here) It is like eating at McDonalds, complaining about how bad McDonalds hamburgers are, while eating away thinking you're at burger king. If, I didn't get the first part wrong





/Guru

[DeathAndTaxes]

You got it wrong.

[E-C.Guru]

You got it wrong.

Then who runs bitcointalk?

[gweedo]

You got it wrong.

Then who runs bitcointalk?

Theymos a non-member of the foundation.

[BurtW]

I think the Bitcoin Foundation actually has bigger problems now.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/255a6o/bitcoin_foundation_adds_alleged_child_molester_to/

WOW I didn't even know this... This makes me actually hate the bitcoin foundation on so many levels.

You must have Bruno on ignore then.  I think he has outdone himself and probably has added over 100 posts to his 20,000 post count on this subject (Brock Pierce) alone.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=593492.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=602198.0

(and many, many other threads he has started on the subject)

[gary08]

When he is well known as the founder, there is no any reason to deny this,and no good for bitcoin.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Satoshi Nakamoto was not a founder of the bitcoin foundation. It  is highly unethical for him to be listed as a founder. It is not an honorary title. Satoshi created a decentralised system. He would hate the foundation's centralisation.

Now that a highly controversial figure has been elected to the board I think it is imperative that the foundation stops claiming legitimacy by stating that Satoshi was in any way a founder or in any way approved of that rotten centalisation.

How can you speak for Satoshi?  Do you know him personally?  Has he told you that he doesn't want to be associated with the Foundation?  Can you prove that he didn't give the foundation permission to list him?

It is highly unethical for you to be deciding on behalf of Satoshi if he should be listed unless he has given you permission to do so.  Let him speak for himself if he is against it.

It should be up to the Bitcoin Foundation to prove that he wants to be associated with the Foundation, and not vice versa. Burden of proof.

Where is Satoshi on the list of Bitcoin Foundation?

[BurtW]

When he is well known as the founder, there is no any reason to deny this,and no good for bitcoin.

"Creator/Inventor of Bitcoin" does not equal "Founding Member of the NAMBLA Bitcoin Foundation"

Not even close.

[monim1]

As far i know Satoshi Nakamoto is the founder of the bitcoin foundation. Where have you found that Satoshi Nakamoto was not a founder of the bitcoin foundation? What is the source of your information?

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

As far i know Satoshi Nakamoto is the founder of the bitcoin foundation. Where have you found that Satoshi Nakamoto was not a founder of the bitcoin foundation? What is the source of your information?

The Bitcoin Foundation was founded far after Satoshi disappeared.

[LostDutchman]

As far i know Satoshi Nakamoto is the founder of the bitcoin foundation. Where have you found that Satoshi Nakamoto was not a founder of the bitcoin foundation? What is the source of your information?

The Bitcoin Foundation was founded far after Satoshi disappeared.

I seriously doubt that Satoshi actually exists as a unique person but is rather made up of several people.

[IIOII]

As far i know Satoshi Nakamoto is the founder of the bitcoin foundation. Where have you found that Satoshi Nakamoto was not a founder of the bitcoin foundation? What is the source of your information?

The Bitcoin Foundation was founded far after Satoshi disappeared.

I seriously doubt that Satoshi actually exists as a unique person but is rather made up of several people.

I seriously doubt that any of these possible several people are part of TBF. TBF wants to bask in credibility and power by adding the most worshipped bitcoin character to their sleazy organization.

They have no justification for doing so, because Satoshi him/her/themself(ves) never proclaimed wanting to be a member in this bog hole. The fact they add Satoshi without justification shows that they are usurpers resorting to the methods of con artists to get credibility.

TBF should be disbanded immediately. It is a danger for a decentralized and free bitcoin.

[LostDutchman]

As far i know Satoshi Nakamoto is the founder of the bitcoin foundation. Where have you found that Satoshi Nakamoto was not a founder of the bitcoin foundation? What is the source of your information?

The Bitcoin Foundation was founded far after Satoshi disappeared.

I seriously doubt that Satoshi actually exists as a unique person but is rather made up of several people.

I seriously doubt that any of these possible several people are part of TBF. TBF wants to bask in credibility and power by adding the most worshipped bitcoin character to their sleazy organization.

They have no justification for doing so, because Satoshi him/her/themself(ves) never proclaimed wanting to be a member in this bog hole. The fact they add Satoshi without justification shows that they are usurpers resorting to the methods of con artists to get credibility.

TBF should be disbanded immediately. It is a danger for a decentralized and free bitcoin.

Good points!

I hadn't thought of those!

[E-C.Guru]

As far i know Satoshi Nakamoto is the founder of the bitcoin foundation. Where have you found that Satoshi Nakamoto was not a founder of the bitcoin foundation? What is the source of your information?

The Bitcoin Foundation was founded far after Satoshi disappeared.

I seriously doubt that Satoshi actually exists as a unique person but is rather made up of several people.

I seriously doubt that any of these possible several people are part of TBF. TBF wants to bask in credibility and power by adding the most worshipped bitcoin character to their sleazy organization.

They have no justification for doing so, because Satoshi him/her/themself(ves) never proclaimed wanting to be a member in this bog hole. The fact they add Satoshi without justification shows that they are usurpers resorting to the methods of con artists to get credibility.

TBF should be disbanded immediately. It is a danger for a decentralized and free bitcoin.

Yet, if SM is a Group of People it's likely they will say it's 1 person that's now left the Project, so they themselfs get less pressure. And also, if this SM Group wants to be anonymous as creators yet still be active in the Development it's likely they'd Call themself The Bitcoin Foundation.

How does Blockchain.info and the Developers relate to TBF btw?

/Guru

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

You got it wrong.

Then who runs bitcointalk?

Theymos a non-member of the foundation.

Don't forget the mods!   Sometimes they ....... lash out (when you least expect it.)

[freedombit]

Exactly.  The bitcoin foundation is innocent until proven guilty.  If you can't prove that they are acting fraudulently by using the name, then they are presumed innocent.

I believe that the Bitcoin Foundation will be found to have acted fraudulently. The investigation into the MTGox failure will continue throughout all of Marie Karpeles' business dealings. At some point they will find out what I found out. That Marie Karpeles transferred assets to the Bitcoin Foundation just days before filing bankruptcy.
I know for a fact that the domain name BitcoinFoundation.org, owned by Marie Karpeles ( Tibanne Ltd), was transferred to Gavin days before MTGox closed down and filed for bankruptcy protection. Did Marie Karpeles also transfer the missing 650K bitcoins as well? Time will tell time lord.

Xtib

I think the "Fraud" assertion depends upon your point of view. This is a political question. Were MK and friends protecting BTC or trying to steal? I am pretty sure they are not trying to walk away with half a billion in US dollars. This is a raindrop compared to the ocean at stake. Most of us using Bitcoin understand that money really doesn't carry value in itself - Bitcoin, Dollar, Euro, or otherwise. The "Fraud" may be another person or group of people trying to destroy Bitcoin. The "Fraud" might also be the founderfounder(s) of Bitcoin. It all depends upon the POV.

[BCB]

As far i know Satoshi Nakamoto is the founder of the bitcoin foundation. Where have you found that Satoshi Nakamoto was not a founder of the bitcoin foundation? What is the source of your information?

The Bitcoin Foundation was founded far after Satoshi disappeared.

Well Hello.  Where have you been?

[Billbags]

Found this on the bitcoin foundations threads

Satoshi: "I did not ask for nor give permission to be included in the Foundation's "Founding Members" roll.  Please remove me.

Foundation: "Satoshi, it was done to honour the fact that your singular contribution to our collective well being is the very reason for the Foundation's  existence. It was meant to acknowledge your work.

Satoshi: "No, it was meant by you to imbue your organization with legitimacy by association.  Please remove my name.

Foundation: "But...... we're carrying on your work! We're promoting Bitcoin."

Satoshi: "No, you're not.  The subtext of the Bitcoin protocol is that heirchial organizations like yours were the problem, addressed to some degree by my solution.  Others can now deploy similar approaches for different problems.  You are simply promoting yourselves and your own personal ambitions.  Please remove my name.

Foundation: "We're funding the maintenance and progression of your core protocol. Bitcoin needs us!"

Satoshi: "It does not need you.  Bitcoin is my child, not yours.  You do not understand.  It will live or die as an idea.  I cast my child into a violent and unforgiving world.  That was necessary.  I bet the life of my child against the killing powers of constructs like yours.  I am proud of my child so far.  I give your organization less than 18 months before its own irrelevance and infighting consumes itself.  That is the inflexible hallmark of your reality.  Please remove my name."

Foundation: "What? I don't understand."

Satoshi: "I know.  Please remove my name".

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

As far i know Satoshi Nakamoto is the founder of the bitcoin foundation. Where have you found that Satoshi Nakamoto was not a founder of the bitcoin foundation? What is the source of your information?

The Bitcoin Foundation was founded far after Satoshi disappeared.

Even still, Satoshi could easily contact the foundation to request that his name be disassociated with TBF.

When Newsweek ran the article on the man in CA Satoshi posted that he is not that man.

I am not one that usually thinks up conspiracy theories, and this is pure speculation, but it would be possible that Satoshi is working with TBF and/or other "leaders" in the bitcoin world and doing so in secret.

[AGD]

I must admit, that I also thought Satoshis comment ("I am not Dorian Nakamoto") was legit, because it was his original email address. But the fact, that he didn't sign it makes it look fake. If he really wanted to make sure everybody believing it was the original "Satoshi Nakamoto" who wrote this, he would have signed it. He would not simply forget it, facing the fact, that he found it important enough to break his years of silence, just to say that he is not another person. Like there there was no speculation about who he is before.

I think, the inventor of Bitcoin was murdered about the time he wrote his last words to the community and was then buried in a deep deep hole. Noone has his private keys and therefore his BTC stack will reside in his wallet forever as a proof.

[waaat?]

if you don't like the rotten centralised foundation join the distributed legitimate one here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=934517.0

[AGD]

Btw. if SN was still alive, he would be resigning his seat due to infiltration by criminals, pedophiles and other scum.

To all the believers of the "I am not Dorian Nakamoto" message: SNs Gmx email account has been hacked! Did you forget that? It was very easy for the hacker to post messages anywhere in the name of SN, but it was nearly impossible for the hacker to sign that message. Satoshi would know about the importance for a proof, if he wants the people to believe what he wrote, he would definitely sign that.

I am still pretty sure, he is dead.

[turvarya]

Btw. if SN was still alive, he would be resigning his seat due to infiltration by criminals, pedophiles and other scum.

To all the believers of the "I am not Dorian Nakamoto" message: SNs Gmx email account has been hacked! Did you forget that? It was very easy for the hacker to post messages anywhere in the name of SN, but it was nearly impossible for the hacker to sign that message. Satoshi would know about the importance for a proof, if he wants the people to believe what he wrote, he would definitely sign that.

I am still pretty sure, he is dead.

Satoshi wanted to disappear forever. Coming back, just to resign from his seat, would be a really unnecessary thing.