This is the kind of hierarchy some want for the The Bitcoin Network.

[kokjo]

Atlas: did you forget to take your medication? you seem quite paranoid.

i also would have no problem with CIA, or anyone else funding bitcoin. in fact they can do it they want the code is opensource.
and you say that gavin might beginning to corrupt, i say that "might" be true, but i only want him replaced if he fucks up.

oh and btw. no one is forced to use the gavinnized version of bitcoin, just fork the code(it has been done before eg. the 0-fee fork).


you, atlas, are way too worried about a problem that does not exist.

[1714984950]

1714984950

[1714984950]

1714984950

[1714984950]

1714984950

[sturle]

This is getting interesting.  How would you go about to remove Gavin from his lead position in the old model?  You claim it was easy.  To me it seems easier now when I am a member of the foundation employing him.  I wonder how you would go about to revoke his Satioshi powers in the old model.

I don't think the community will stop watching.  A large part of the community has joined the foundation, and will watch it as well.

How? Fork git, discredit his.

You can do exactly the same under the new model.  Call your fork "Litecoin" or "Solidcoin" or whatver.

It's all about credibility, it always was. Back then a lead dev was solely responsible for his, now he has a corporation shielding it for him.

I don't think Bitcoin Foundation will corrupt Bitcoin more than Free Software Foundation corrupted free software.  The foundation is it's members, who are the community.

Yeah you joined? And your going to vote him out?

Yes, I joined.  No I wouldn't dream of voting Gavin out as long as he is the most qualified person for the job.

If J.P. Morgan, CIA and governments around the world would like to support Bitcoin's open development, I would welcome it.  They could do it under the old model as well, but under the old model we wouldn't necessarily know about it.  Perhaps this is your problem?  You just don't want to know about it?

And this fallacy is exactly the reason why I preferred him being independent and constantly watched by the community. Now the community will trust that this Bitcoin foundation is being honest and open

Do you consider yourself as part of the community?  If you do, this is obviously false.  If not, why do you waste your time trolling around here?

[interlagos]

As long as Bitcoin stays open source and voluntary, I don't see a problem of anybody funding its development even if it's a CIA or JPMorgan. What we should fight for is to have an open market for alternative currencies.

[Atlas]

As long as Bitcoin stays open source and voluntary, I don't see a problem of anybody funding its development even if it's a CIA or JPMorgan. What we should fight for is to have an open market for alternative currencies.

Cryptocurrency is best served as a natural monopoly. Bitcoin will likely be the only popular cryptocurrency. It's not a like it or leave it type of thing. We do no not need it controlled by the government or the largest bank.

[Envious]

As long as Bitcoin stays open source and voluntary, I don't see a problem of anybody funding its development even if it's a CIA or JPMorgan. What we should fight for is to have an open market for alternative currencies.

Cryptocurrency is best served as a natural monopoly. Bitcoin will likely be the only popular cryptocurrency. It's not a like it or leave it type of thing. We do no not need it controlled by the government or the largest bank.

I didn't know the worlds largest bank was involved in this, I tried searching but didn't find anything.

Do you have proof that Deutsche Bank AG is trying to control Bitcoin? If you don't this is just another paranoid lie from you.

[interlagos]

As long as Bitcoin stays open source and voluntary, I don't see a problem of anybody funding its development even if it's a CIA or JPMorgan. What we should fight for is to have an open market for alternative currencies.

Cryptocurrency is best served as a natural monopoly. Bitcoin will likely be the only popular cryptocurrency. It's not a like it or leave it type of thing. We do no not need it controlled by the government or the largest bank.

It doesn't have to be a monopoly.

If we look at gold, for example, one might argue that it was a natural monopoly on money, but I would argue that silver (even though less valuable) served as money as well.
And we already have "silver" to Bitcoin's "gold" - it's called Litecoin.

Once the "current" coin (Bitcoin at the moment) moves to a specialized mining hardware like ASICs the general purpose hardware becomes available for the next experiment (currently Litecoin). The same shift will likely happen again when Litecoin ASICs show up at some point in the future.

Litecoin brings faster blocks and as a result higher overall network throughput (due to 1Mb per block limit) before hard fork is required. It also will adopt important blockchain optimizatons earlier in its evolution and will likely have more equal coin distribution than Bitcoin due to increased community awareness when it was started. I'm sure there will be other successful coins as well.

Adoption wise, it would take one or two major payment processors like Bit-Pay to take any alt-coin on board to make all the difference.

[Atlas]

As long as Bitcoin stays open source and voluntary, I don't see a problem of anybody funding its development even if it's a CIA or JPMorgan. What we should fight for is to have an open market for alternative currencies.

Cryptocurrency is best served as a natural monopoly. Bitcoin will likely be the only popular cryptocurrency. It's not a like it or leave it type of thing. We do no not need it controlled by the government or the largest bank.

It doesn't have to be a monopoly.

If we look at gold, for example, one might argue that it was a natural monopoly on money, but I would argue that silver (even though less valuable) served as money as well.
And we already have "silver" to Bitcoin's "gold" - it's called Litecoin.

Once the "current" coin (Bitcoin at the moment) moves to a specialized mining hardware like ASICs the general purpose hardware becomes available for the next experiment (currently Litecoin). The same shift will likely happen again when Litecoin ASICs show up at some point in the future.

Litecoin brings faster blocks and as a result higher overall network throughput (due to 1Mb per block limit) before hard fork is required. It also will adopt important blockchain optimizatons earlier in its evolution and will likely have more equal coin distribution than Bitcoin due to increased community awareness when it was started. I'm sure there will be other successful coins as well.

Adoption wise, it would take one or two major payment processors like Bit-Pay to take any alt-coin on board to make all the difference.

I'm going to stick with Bitcoin and defend it until death for the interests of those who want a protocol that can't be easily changed. I am not going to Litecoins, Cosbycoins or Free Speech Zone Coins.

Thanks.

[LightRider]

As long as Bitcoin stays open source and voluntary, I don't see a problem of anybody funding its development even if it's a CIA or JPMorgan. What we should fight for is to have an open market for alternative currencies.

Cryptocurrency is best served as a natural monopoly. Bitcoin will likely be the only popular cryptocurrency. It's not a like it or leave it type of thing. We do no not need it controlled by the government or the largest bank.

It doesn't have to be a monopoly.

If we look at gold, for example, one might argue that it was a natural monopoly on money, but I would argue that silver (even though less valuable) served as money as well.
And we already have "silver" to Bitcoin's "gold" - it's called Litecoin.

Once the "current" coin (Bitcoin at the moment) moves to a specialized mining hardware like ASICs the general purpose hardware becomes available for the next experiment (currently Litecoin). The same shift will likely happen again when Litecoin ASICs show up at some point in the future.

Litecoin brings faster blocks and as a result higher overall network throughput (due to 1Mb per block limit) before hard fork is required. It also will adopt important blockchain optimizatons earlier in its evolution and will likely have more equal coin distribution than Bitcoin due to increased community awareness when it was started. I'm sure there will be other successful coins as well.

Adoption wise, it would take one or two major payment processors like Bit-Pay to take any alt-coin on board to make all the difference.

I'm going to stick with Bitcoin and defend it until death for the interests of those who want a protocol that can't be easily changed. I am not going to Litecoins, Cosbycoins or Free Speech Zone Coins.

Thanks.

Or we can do the sensible thing and abandon the ridiculous and paralyzing idea of money altogether and actually help other people to live better.

[ElectricMucus]

I am not going to Litecoins, Cosbycoins or Free Speech Zone Coins.

That's the wrong attitude. If bitcoin is to suceed it needs more experimental cryptocurrencies taking the risks in order to continue innovation.

[sturle]

As long as Bitcoin stays open source and voluntary, I don't see a problem of anybody funding its development even if it's a CIA or JPMorgan. What we should fight for is to have an open market for alternative currencies.

Cryptocurrency is best served as a natural monopoly. Bitcoin will likely be the only popular cryptocurrency. It's not a like it or leave it type of thing. We do no not need it controlled by the government or the largest bank.

Recently a lot of very interesting ideas have come up which, if implemented fully, would either require a new currency or a hardfork of Bitcoin.  There is no way to stop the old blockchain from continuing, so we willl end up with at least two currencies if those ideas are implemented.  Do you think the ideas should be forbidden and buried?

Currently I see no reason to choose anything else than Bitcoin, but I'm not sure I can resist when something much better comes up.  E.g. something where the blockchain isn't needed.  Control is an issue here as well, of course.

[Atlas]

I'll admit that I have been putting all of my income into Bitcoins for the past year or so.

So, yeah, I am biased. I am attached to Bitcoin.

[ElectricMucus]

I'll admit that I have been putting all of my income into Bitcoins for the past year or so.

So, yeah, I am biased. I am attached to Bitcoin.

All the more you should like altcoins, they are essential in testing new features which would be too risky to implement in bitcoin and where testnet isn't realistic enough.

[interlagos]

As long as Bitcoin stays open source and voluntary, I don't see a problem of anybody funding its development even if it's a CIA or JPMorgan. What we should fight for is to have an open market for alternative currencies.

Cryptocurrency is best served as a natural monopoly. Bitcoin will likely be the only popular cryptocurrency. It's not a like it or leave it type of thing. We do no not need it controlled by the government or the largest bank.

It doesn't have to be a monopoly.

If we look at gold, for example, one might argue that it was a natural monopoly on money, but I would argue that silver (even though less valuable) served as money as well.
And we already have "silver" to Bitcoin's "gold" - it's called Litecoin.
...

I'm going to stick with Bitcoin and defend it until death for the interests of those who want a protocol that can't be easily changed. I am not going to Litecoins, Cosbycoins or Free Speech Zone Coins.

Thanks.

I prefer to think of it this way:
Bitcoin is a multidimensional form of life and it intersects with our 3D reality in a variety of ways.
Intersections may appear to be separate objects in space and time but they really are just a part of a bigger more complex idea.

[interlagos]

I'll admit that I have been putting all of my income into Bitcoins for the past year or so.

So, yeah, I am biased. I am attached to Bitcoin.

You can spend tiny fraction of your bitcoins to build an equal representation in any successful alt-chain.

[Insu Dra]

I'll admit that I have been putting all of my income into Bitcoins for the past year or so.

So, yeah, I am biased. I am attached to Bitcoin.

So you have set your self up to get burned ? 

On other hand I do agree, we should try to get away from a situation where one group is slowly becoming the kingpin. I would love to see more options besides the default bitcoin daemon, not a alt currency but a alt deamon/library that implements the protocol as it is today. It would give the foundation some competition and the community a fall back in case a unwanted change does get pushed true in one or the other.

If you don't like the foundation then go find one of the people/groups that are working on that and support them ...

[Nancarrow]

I prefer to think of it this way:
Bitcoin is a multidimensional form of life and it intersects with our 3D reality in a variety of ways.
Intersections may appear to be separate objects in space and time but they really are just a part of a bigger more complex idea.

There was a time I thought stuff like that too.

I'm not sure what I was thinking it about, but damn, if those weren't the best cookies I've ever eaten. Never had such strong ones since. 

[vokain]

we just need to get gavin off the board. the others can stand as is but we cannot have the lead developer's hands wrapped up in politics.

[Sitarow]

we just need to get gavin off the board. the others can stand as is but we cannot have the lead developer's hands wrapped up in politics.

Politics and hidden agenda's a sinister pair.

Even if an individual or group can be 100% sincere, the possibility for corruption shadowing any organized representation would always be a factor. (however unlikely it may be) the possibility will always exist.