Gavin will visit the CIA

[ploum]

Bitcoin is open and everybody can learn everything about it (given enough time).

This is open-knowledge.

Sometimes, people don't have the time to do that by themselves. But they have some money. So they pay someone who knows to teach them. It takes less time for them than having to learn by themselves.

Galvin is being offered this kind of deal, which is, IMHO, really good (and sign of an healthy OSS project).

Now, refusing that kind of deal because you think that the customer has evil ideas is presumptuous *and* totally stupid.

- the knowledge is free so, anyway, they will learn. Money will go to someone else or they will just take the time.
- Who are you to judge someone without even meeting them? If, in that first meeting, Gavin receives propositions that are don't agree with his own morality, he can say "I don't want to have more business with you anymore".
- also stupid because it's always a good opportunity to understand what customers want and think about your knowledge.

But judging a customer without knowing what they want is really presumptuous, about the customer need *and* about Gavin's morality. He's free to do whatever he wants. If his actions arm the community, he will just be rejected by the community (don't think that Bitcoin is the first open-source project with such debates).

[grondilu]

Bitcoin is open and everybody can learn everything about it (given enough time).

This is open-knowledge.

Sometimes, people don't have the time to do that by themselves. But they have some money. So they pay someone who knows to teach them. It takes less time for them than having to learn by themselves.

Galvin is being offered this kind of deal, which is, IMHO, really good (and sign of an healthy OSS project).

Yeah, right.  But we're talking about CIA here.  It's not really a "normal" customer.

Gavin is free to accept any invitation and to speak to whoever he wants.  But I am also free to disapprove and to say that by doing so, Gavin loses a bit of my estim.

[ploum]

Yeah, right.  But we're talking about CIA here.  It's not really a "normal" customer.

Gavin is free to accept any invitation and to speak to whoever he wants.  But I am also free to disapprove and to say that by doing so, Gavin loses a bit of my estim.

For 3000$, I wouldn't mind too much about your esteem ;-)

On the other hand, I'm pleased by the CIA proposal. It means that they keep an eye open and want to get more information. They do their job. A lot of people assume that they feel threatened by bitcoin but we have no idea. It might even be beneficial for bitcoin in the long-term!

Dream-minute: "Hey, that's cool, it would allows us to regulate a bit the economy. Let's join the bitcoin economy!"

[Anonymous]

I dont think less of gavin in any way he is merely trying to spread some bitcoin love. Even ghandi met the enemy and negotiated.   

[grondilu]

I guess this is the optimistic point of view.   Ok, fine.

[Anonymous]

Former governor Jesse Ventura explains what happened when he met the cia....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIzfXOfpFcA

I hope gavin takes his alpaca socks for moral support .   

Jessy Ventura: "Why CIA wanted to talk to me? They did not see me coming..." this is it maybe. They did not see bitcoin coming.  

They didnt see 9-11 coming either....

[Anonymous]

I guess this is the optimistic point of view.   Ok, fine.

Its a front. Im clearly shitting myself along with every other bitcoiner.

[fetokun]

I dont think less of gavin in any way he is merely trying to spread some bitcoin love.

x2

[matonis]

two thoughts that haven't gotten too much attention on this thread.

1) Why do we think Gavin's talk will be available to the public?  It's the CIA, not TED.
2) If Bitcoin is decentralized, why do we look to Gavin as a leader? Shouldn't the whole project exist more like a headless mob?

This was the Wikileaks dilemma. Julian Assange claims to have spoken up publicly because the non-participants were about to speak up just to fill the void. Let's just hope there's no Swedish blondes involved.  Clearcoin appears to be operating within the law. But an unlicensed US-based bitcoin money exchanger would not be.

[bitcoinex]

Why would we want additional people in the CIA to understand bitcoin?

Finally someone who shares my view about this!

Because we have nothing to hide?
I sense much of the community members mentality have some irrational extremist hate against the government. Any slight injustice is taken to the extreme and paranoia rules their logic.

Why would anyone ever feel hatred towards governments?
They only murdered (NOT including wars)  more than 150 Million people in the last century alone.

Including:

61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State

Oh common! 61,911,000,000 murdered really in gulag

[Dusty]

[...]
From now on, I'll be even more suspicious about any source code Gavin will publish.

Excellent comment. I agree most with the source code statement because that is what happened to PGP under NAI in 2001. Published bitcoin code will require more rigorous review but that is always the case with open-source crypto code.

That's not enough: you should also remember to compile the code for yourself and not use precompiled binaries from Gavin because he could slip something different there ;-)

[JohnDoe]

I am sorry Gavin is accepting Tax payer's money in order to do something like that.

lolwut? They've already stolen way more than $ 3000 from Gavin. Better steal back everything he can.

If he accepts 3,000$ to give a presentation about bitcoin, what would he do for 300,000$ or 3,000,000$?  Would he accept a full time job as trying to find a way to destroy bitcoin?

You would have to be either an idiot or filthy rich to not accept that $ 3.000.000 job.

Why is it such a disappointment for some that Gavin gets invited to speak?
Why should he not go, Grondilu and others?

Mainly because there is no upside and it is unnecessary.

$ 3000 just for a talk is not an upside? Or are you saying that there is no upside to you and you are just jelly?

It will tend to harm his reputation in the BTC community significantly more than it will help

Yeah, but only to the Alex Jones bitcoiners.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Why would we want additional people in the CIA to understand bitcoin?

Finally someone who shares my view about this!

Yeah, that's another route to take. If they are sniffing around to entrap you in something, there is 101 laws surrounding currencies that they could just try on, as they do, youo should be wary.

I would consider taking along an observer, possibly a lawyer, or just someone to act as a witness to anything said or implied that might be threatening or a bit strange, just for the record. A second opinion never hurts in any event.

In any dealings with the govt., particularly the current crop of misfits, be very suspicious they have proven their virulence and facistic tendencies too many times ... and be prepared to be either stopped and body searched at every gate imaginable or be whisked through like a celebrity on the way.

[AtlasONo]

  you guys.....

[brocktice]

There is nothing the CIA can learn from Gavin that they can't already learn on their own. I agree with Vladimir -- keep your friends close and enemies closer. If we do have anything to fear from the CIA it will be better to know about it rather than be suddenly and unpleasantly surprised.

As for honorariums, well, it takes time, they are paying him for his time. It's not a big amount actually to cover travel expenses and time. If it were half that I probably wouldn't go myself, except maybe from curiosity.

I think this sudden suspicion of Gavin (who I still think may *be* Satoshi) and hair-pulling is a bit much.

[goatpig]

As for honorariums, well, it takes time, they are paying him for his time. It's not a big amount actually to cover travel expenses and time. If it were half that I probably wouldn't go myself, except maybe from curiosity.

That essentially covers the traveling fair from Australia to East coast USA, so yeah.

What makes me uncomfortable is that the CIA is keeping tabs on a 12 million USD community... I thought the USA was involved in enough conflicts in the world to have intelligence resources to spend on a drop of water in the ocean.

[kiba]

whether Gavin pockets the $3000 for personal use rather than accepting it on behalf of the community he represents is a bigger issue because of what it represents about the organization of this community.

And he isn't getting paid by anybody to develop bitcoin.

Again, his money, his choice. He is a human being, not a slave to "the community".

[Gavin Andresen]

Wow, I new this would generate discussion... but wow!

A couple of quick notes:

noagenda nailed it-- I was contacted specifically by In-Q-Tel, the CIA's "look for interesting/promising new private technologies and then invest in them" spin-off.  I get the impression they organize the conference.  This year the conference is about money.

They are serious about security; there will be no recording, and I will not be allowed to bring any electronic devices with me.  I am planning on posting my talk, and if I get my act together in time I'll try to post it before I give it so y'all can give me feedback.

I'll be signing an agreement that I, or my company, will not use my appearance for publicity purposes.  So please, no unofficial "from the bitcoin community" press releases about this.

If talking to them makes y'all trust me less... then good!  I'd like to see more careful code review, and, as others have pointed out, if bitcoin can be destroyed by one person, or requires the leadership of one person, then it has failed to be the strong, decentralized system that I think it is.

RE: me == satoshi:  here's some C++ code I wrote 15 years ago:
  http://oss.sgi.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/inventor/apps/demos/revo/RevClass.c%2B%2B?rev=1.1.1.1
I have a very different coding style from Mr. Nakamoto.  And I don't know nearly enough crypto to build something like bitcoin by myself.

And one final note:  the US government is a really, really, really big organization.  Like any big organization, different parts have different motives and goals.  I hope I'll get a little tiny glimpse into what one part of that big organization thinks about bitcoin.

[Ian Maxwell]

Again, his money, his choice. He is a human being, not a slave to "the community".

What I was about to say. Gavin is some guy who hacks on Bitcoin---sure, he's the "head of development", but that's a description, not an office. He's giving a talk as a recognized expert and being compensated for his time. Keeping the $3000 just acknowledges the reality that Bticoin is a protocol, not an organization.

Now, if he doesn't buy any bitcoins with the money, it might say something about his own faith in the project---not much,, but I could imagine someone taking it badly. But I'm totally cool with him spending all those bitcoins on hookers and alpaca socks.

[matonis]

If talking to them makes y'all trust me less... then good!  I'd like to see more careful code review, and, as others have pointed out, if bitcoin can be destroyed by one person, or requires the leadership of one person, then it has failed to be the strong, decentralized system that I think it is.

I don't trust you less.  We should all practice safe code as a matter of routine!

IMHO, the wider intelligence community may end up being "closet" bitcoin proponents. If you think about, it makes a lot of sense. Iran-Contra connection under the Reagan administration would have been far more difficult to discover under a bitcoin monetary system. Bitcoin doesn't replace PayPal, bitcoin replaces hawala.