Topic: Bitcoin Dev Sells 50% of his Bitcoin due to 51% threat. (Read 6708 times)
This is only a developer.
There's a fair chance this has nothing to do with 51% and Peter Todd just felt like cashing out some coins and wanted a good sounding reason.
What the heck, why would he want a reason? Is there some sort of obligation for bitcoin core devs to keep their money in bitcoins? Do they have to publicly explain when they cash out? I don't think so, it's their money they are free to do how they like.
No of course there is no obligation but all things being equal I would prefer the bitcoin devs to have significant bitcoin holdings so that their incentives align with mine. This is just what would benefit me personally(and anyone else holding bitcoin as an investment). I'm not saying that we should force people to hold bitcoins.
legendary
Activity: 2758
Merit: 1115
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
There's a fair chance this has nothing to do with 51% and Peter Todd just felt like cashing out some coins and wanted a good sounding reason.
What the heck, why would he want a reason? Is there some sort of obligation for bitcoin core devs to keep their money in bitcoins? Do they have to publicly explain when they cash out? I don't think so, it's their money they are free to do how they like.
Just human nature. People often feel the need to explain their actions.
Can't be just human nature. He knew he would be much criticized for this act and he still did it, though he could do it without anyone noticing. No, he truely started doubting Bitcoin, that's what it is. He had a plan set up in advance and he executed it, because he believes in the need for decentralization of Bitcoin more than many people who criticize him.
That's true it takes a set of bravery and willpower to execute a strategy even when people say your foolish for doing so.
The problems with centralized mining due to the development of ASIC's and the slowly decreasing amount of full nodes are issues that Bitcoin will need to face in future and find solutions to.
That said explaining your actions and rationale even if people don't agree is still a good thing to know.
There's a fair chance this has nothing to do with 51% and Peter Todd just felt like cashing out some coins and wanted a good sounding reason.
What the heck, why would he want a reason? Is there some sort of obligation for bitcoin core devs to keep their money in bitcoins? Do they have to publicly explain when they cash out? I don't think so, it's their money they are free to do how they like.
Just human nature. People often feel the need to explain their actions.
Can't be just human nature. He knew he would be much criticized for this act and he still did it, though he could do it without anyone noticing. No, he truely started doubting Bitcoin, that's what it is. He had a plan set up in advance and he executed it, because he believes in the need for decentralization of Bitcoin more than many people who criticize him.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
There's a fair chance this has nothing to do with 51% and Peter Todd just felt like cashing out some coins and wanted a good sounding reason.
What the heck, why would he want a reason? Is there some sort of obligation for bitcoin core devs to keep their money in bitcoins? Do they have to publicly explain when they cash out? I don't think so, it's their money they are free to do how they like.
Just human nature. People often feel the need to explain their actions.
Actually members are aware of this... I wish more people would comment on the open issue on github, though....
https://github.com/pmlaw/The-Bitcoin-Foundation-Legal-Repo/issues/10
I know, I was being facetious. The Bylaws were written to be as close to a real document as you can get without the original collection of scumbags relinquishing power. The founding members have a major time and money investment in Bitcoin and don't just want Bitcoin to be successful they want it to be successful FOR THEM. There are many reasons I never joined the foundation but the best reason for separating yourself from them is because they don't really represent the users of Bitcoin. You might complain that there are many different kinds of reasons to use Bitcoin and that they can't all be represented. That's true but the foundation can represent more than just one.
This very thread topic is the perfect example. You don't like to risk your investment on the flawed concept of PoW but aren't in favor of PoS or PoB. Great, PoS may concentrate power in the hands of the wealthy and keep coins from moving. Ok, then develop something else and implement it. Fix the problem. Foundation founders can't support that because any sweeping change to the system would risk their investment. I'm actually glad to see Ghash.Io is menacing and no one cares to change anything. It proves that Bitcoin will never change even when it faces destruction because of the power a select group of people have over it (centralization at its finest). Bitcoin will live in BetaLand forever until the updates to Bitcoin Core are numbered 0.9.9.9.9. Bitcoin will eventually fork into a shell of its former self unless someone takes action and that might not be a bad thing. All is not lost. We have plenty of competition now willing to take over.
please consider commenting on github, https://github.com/pmlaw/The-Bitcoin-Foundation-Legal-Repo/issues/10 i urge you to support the position of nwfella as a simple example of where this should go initially. head away from centralization is better than status quo, that is for sure.
Actually members are aware of this... I wish more people would comment on the open issue on github, though....
https://github.com/pmlaw/The-Bitcoin-Foundation-Legal-Repo/issues/10
I know, I was being facetious. The Bylaws were written to be as close to a real document as you can get without the original collection of scumbags relinquishing power. The founding members have a major time and money investment in Bitcoin and don't just want Bitcoin to be successful they want it to be successful FOR THEM. There are many reasons I never joined the foundation but the best reason for separating yourself from them is because they don't really represent the users of Bitcoin. You might complain that there are many different kinds of reasons to use Bitcoin and that they can't all be represented. That's true but the foundation can represent more than just one.
This very thread topic is the perfect example. You don't like to risk your investment on the flawed concept of PoW but aren't in favor of PoS or PoB. Great, PoS may concentrate power in the hands of the wealthy and keep coins from moving. Ok, then develop something else and implement it. Fix the problem. Foundation founders can't support that because any sweeping change to the system would risk their investment. I'm actually glad to see Ghash.Io is menacing and no one cares to change anything. It proves that Bitcoin will never change even when it faces destruction because of the power a select group of people have over it (centralization at its finest). Bitcoin will live in BetaLand forever until the updates to Bitcoin Core are numbered 0.9.9.9.9. Bitcoin will eventually fork into a shell of its former self unless someone takes action and that might not be a bad thing. All is not lost. We have plenty of competition now willing to take over.
please consider commenting on github, https://github.com/pmlaw/The-Bitcoin-Foundation-Legal-Repo/issues/10 i urge you to support the position of nwfella as a simple example of where this should go initially. head away from centralization is better than status quo, that is for sure.
when will bitcoin price will raise? today it is dropping like anything.
When bad news stop bombing bitcoin. It is just insane, every few days there is another bad news.
Im realy wondering what exactly is being developed, aside from ponzi hype
It was all good news for a long time there, what are you talking about?
US marshal selling seized coins isn't even bad news at all.
Ghash being stupid is just bitcoiners doing to themselves. It's not a new problem.
True! Most of the Bitcoin news the last 2 months has been overwhelmingly positive, this is a great time to be optimistic.
Please comment on github at https://github.com/pmlaw/The-Bitcoin-Foundation-Legal-Repo/issues/10 - I am ABISprotocol so you know how i think, but consider supporting the positions of nwfella, sosojni, and ripper234 as expressed in the issue description and later comments
Will he be buying PeerCoins with those Bitcoins?
There's a fair chance this has nothing to do with 51% and Peter Todd just felt like cashing out some coins and wanted a good sounding reason.
What the heck, why would he want a reason? Is there some sort of obligation for bitcoin core devs to keep their money in bitcoins? Do they have to publicly explain when they cash out? I don't think so, it's their money they are free to do how they like.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
There's a fair chance this has nothing to do with 51% and Peter Todd just felt like cashing out some coins and wanted a good sounding reason.
The problem isnt that Ghash will seek to attack the network, of course they wont, this business makes them millions and millions. Ghash generates vast amounts of wealth securing the network.
The problem now is there are probably only a handful of people in the world (the owners/operators of Ghash), if not a single person, who hold the network hostage to their whimsy.
Even if these people are rational actors, it still presents a major security threat. How much do you think it would cost to finance a small security force to kidnap the owner/operators of Ghash and seize control?
It might not even cost 7 figures.
The problem now is there are probably only a handful of people in the world (the owners/operators of Ghash), if not a single person, who hold the network hostage to their whimsy.
Even if these people are rational actors, it still presents a major security threat. How much do you think it would cost to finance a small security force to kidnap the owner/operators of Ghash and seize control?
It might not even cost 7 figures.
And we cannot forget that this problem isnt GHASH/CEX alone, there are many miners out there that point Ph/s on their pool that could easily help reduce this.
so shouldn't we get the info out? who is the the main guy behind ghash.io? does he have a seedy past? where is PG to do the dirty work?
The problem isnt that Ghash will seek to attack the network, of course they wont, this business makes them millions and millions. Ghash generates vast amounts of wealth securing the network.
The problem now is there are probably only a handful of people in the world (the owners/operators of Ghash), if not a single person, who hold the network hostage to their whimsy.
Even if these people are rational actors, it still presents a major security threat. How much do you think it would cost to finance a small security force to kidnap the owner/operators of Ghash and seize control?
It might not even cost 7 figures.
The problem now is there are probably only a handful of people in the world (the owners/operators of Ghash), if not a single person, who hold the network hostage to their whimsy.
Even if these people are rational actors, it still presents a major security threat. How much do you think it would cost to finance a small security force to kidnap the owner/operators of Ghash and seize control?
It might not even cost 7 figures.
when will bitcoin price will raise? today it is dropping like anything.
When bad news stop bombing bitcoin. It is just insane, every few days there is another bad news.
Im realy wondering what exactly is being developed, aside from ponzi hype
It was all good news for a long time there, what are you talking about?
US marshal selling seized coins isn't even bad news at all.
Ghash being stupid is just bitcoiners doing to themselves. It's not a new problem.
True! Most of the Bitcoin news the last 2 months has been overwhelmingly positive, this is a great time to be optimistic.
Actually members are aware of this... I wish more people would comment on the open issue on github, though....
https://github.com/pmlaw/The-Bitcoin-Foundation-Legal-Repo/issues/10
I know, I was being facetious. The Bylaws were written to be as close to a real document as you can get without the original collection of scumbags relinquishing power. The founding members have a major time and money investment in Bitcoin and don't just want Bitcoin to be successful they want it to be successful FOR THEM. There are many reasons I never joined the foundation but the best reason for separating yourself from them is because they don't really represent the users of Bitcoin. You might complain that there are many different kinds of reasons to use Bitcoin and that they can't all be represented. That's true but the foundation can represent more than just one.
This very thread topic is the perfect example. You don't like to risk your investment on the flawed concept of PoW but aren't in favor of PoS or PoB. Great, PoS may concentrate power in the hands of the wealthy and keep coins from moving. Ok, then develop something else and implement it. Fix the problem. Foundation founders can't support that because any sweeping change to the system would risk their investment. I'm actually glad to see Ghash.Io is menacing and no one cares to change anything. It proves that Bitcoin will never change even when it faces destruction because of the power a select group of people have over it (centralization at its finest). Bitcoin will live in BetaLand forever until the updates to Bitcoin Core are numbered 0.9.9.9.9. Bitcoin will eventually fork into a shell of its former self unless someone takes action and that might not be a bad thing. All is not lost. We have plenty of competition now willing to take over.
that's what they are trying to do with the Bitcoin foundation.
Why people on this forum feel the need to constantly
bash the foundation is really beyond me.
They pay for Gavin and several other developers to work
full time on improving Bitcoin... and people want to take
that away. I'm not saying BCF is perfect but you sure
get a lot of armchair quarterbacking going on here.
They are not a real foundation. That's why they get bashed. Their bylaws are written to favor "founding directors". Do you want to share a giant joke with me? Keep this to yourself though. I don't want the whole world knowing it. Read the highlighted names of the initial "Industry Directors" below. That's some funny shit jack! LOLWhy people on this forum feel the need to constantly
bash the foundation is really beyond me.
They pay for Gavin and several other developers to work
full time on improving Bitcoin... and people want to take
that away. I'm not saying BCF is perfect but you sure
get a lot of armchair quarterbacking going on here.
Quote
(b) Industry Directors: Industry Members, voting as a class, shall elect three (3) directors or such fewer number as equals the total number of Industry Members. All directors elected by Industry Members shall be known as "Industry Directors." Each Industry Member shall be entitled to nominate a single candidate in any election of Industry Directors. Industry Directors may be elected: (i) at a meeting of the Industry Members; (ii) by written ballot delivered to the Industry Members; or (iii) in some other manner authorized by law or these Bylaws. The initial Industry Directors shall be Charles Shrem, CEO of BitInstant LLC and Mark Karpeles, CEO of MtGox.com.
So the "Founding Directors" will ALWAYS have some control in the Bitcoin Foundation? That hardly seems like a real foundation at all. Seems more like a private boys club to me. One of them is in jail, one of them should be in jail and one is MIA. That means FOR LIFE either Gavin Andresen, Peter Vessenes, Roger Ver or Patrick Murck will have a controlling seat on the Board of Directors. Fucking shameful! You want to know what's even more shameful? I bet you that fewer than 10% of their membership even knows that.
Quote
Section 3.1 Membership Classes: The Corporation will have three classes of membership:
(a) Founding Members;
(b) Industry Members; and
(c) Individual Members.
(a) Founding Directors: The Founding Member’s shall elect one (1) director or such fewer number as equals the total number of Founding Members. All directors elected by Founding Members shall hereafter be known as “Founding Directors”. Each Founding Director shall be deemed to have been duly elected upon receipt by the Chairman of the Board of a written ballot from the Founding Members. The initial Founding Director shall be Peter Vessenes, CEO of CoinLab, Inc.
(a) Founding Members. The Founding Members of the Corporation shall be:
i. Gavin Andresen, Bitcoin Developer residing or doing business in Amherst, MA, USA.
ii. Peter Vessenes, CEO of CoinLab and residing or doing business in Bainbridge Island, WA, USA.
iii. Charles Shrem, CEO of BitInstant residing or doing business in Brooklyn, NY, USA.
iv. Roger Ver, CEO of MemoryDealers residing or doing business in Santa Clara, CA, USA.
v. Patrick Murck, Principal at Engage Legal, PLLC residing or doing business in Washington, DC, USA.
vi. Mark Karpeles, CEO of MtGox.com and residing or doing business in Tokyo, Japan.
vii. Satoshi Nakamoto, at [email protected], author of the white paper “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” published on http://bitcoin.org and owner of the PGP Public Key with fingerprint: DE4E FCA3 E1AB 9E41 CE96 CECB 18C0 9E86 5EC9 48A1.
Actually members are aware of this... I wish more people would comment on the open issue on github, though....
https://github.com/pmlaw/The-Bitcoin-Foundation-Legal-Repo/issues/10
Seems very extreme to me. But that's just my view, it's his money and he's free to take whatever actions he wants.
Actually I find it quite disappointing that he announced he sold half his holdings of Bitcoin. If he really believed in the project he must have known this disclosure would be very damaging. It's very appropriate, as a core Dev, to air issues of concern that need urgent attention but to air he sold 50% of his holdings was poor form
Sounds like you answered your own question.
Poor form? This is a guy who dedicated a lot of time to developing the Bitcoin system, he can do whatever he wants and speak about whatever he wants. Are the Bitcoin mind police going to come and shut him up?
This post shows a lot of the real problem that the BTC community has. Many of our members are like robots and just repeat the same shite and fail to dig into the issues and try and find solutions...or the BTC core dev's look the other way.
Let's get real.
There are problems and sweeping it under the rug is not going to solve it.
I agree to the poster below that way too much centralization is taking place and turning Bitcoin into something that it was not meant to be.
Say hello to the bankers and the financial guys for me.
To be honest, I have looked into Ghash.Io and I dont like anything about them, its hard to even understand their pool, and how it actually works. When I went to sign up I must first become a member of their CEX.io exchange, I dont like that at all, and I have never been able to even get into the mining aspect of their pool. Its really confusing, for me, and just seems like a big run around to me. I dont liken Ghash.io so I dont see why they are so large. I think there is more to that story than we can read on the cover. There seems to be something very weird about that Ghash.io "Pool"
And in addition, if so many people are so worried about thier 51% hashrate why do people keep joining them? and if they didnt want to hit that 51% why wouldnt they just place a stop on new members or hashrate increases on current members? see why i said there are weird things going on there. a few simple steps could stop all the nervousness, and I dont think they are taking those steps other than to say they arent trying to hit the 51% when in reality I think they are doing their best to hit it.
And in addition, if so many people are so worried about thier 51% hashrate why do people keep joining them? and if they didnt want to hit that 51% why wouldnt they just place a stop on new members or hashrate increases on current members? see why i said there are weird things going on there. a few simple steps could stop all the nervousness, and I dont think they are taking those steps other than to say they arent trying to hit the 51% when in reality I think they are doing their best to hit it.
Jump to: