Topic: [DISCUSS]Luke-Jr is standing for election to the board of the Bitcoin Foundation - page 2. (Read 4598 times)

Addresses don't have balances. They are single-use destinations to send coins to, which point at a wallet. While it's technically possible to send to the same address more than once, doing so violates the design of Bitcoin and is problematic from at least a privacy and security standpoint - even if you don't care whether you're anonymous or not. It also provide zero performance/storage benefits: Bitcoin won't notice both transactions were sent to the same address (the system itself has no concept of addresses!). Hopefully the new payment protocol in 0.9 and HD wallets will help eliminate the usability benefits of address reuse.

That would be me giving you permission by revealing my public key. Even then, I can have countless other addresses unlinked to the one I've revealed.

With Bitcoin no authority can obtain access to, freeze, or even have knowledge of my stored value, without my permission.

What? Don't you want to? Last time I checked you weren't forced into the role.

Not really, but someone has to do it, and generally anyone who wants to isn't a good choice.

Luke, seriously you wish to become a politician?

I'd understand you buying your way to the top but political ambitions rarely end up as intended.

https://forums.butterflylabs.com/blogs/luke-jr/118-my-first-asics.html
Just curious. Why did you omit the "hosted" word in this blog post title?

I accepted a hosted device I paid for in full 10 months earlier, which had been losing value rapidly for months since competing ASICs had delivered. Wouldn't anyone? It's unfortunate that a certain wager was badly worded such that a single delivery satisfied it, but IMO it's a bit unreasonable to blame me for that.

If you want to 'encourage and enable' Bitcoin, then do what everyone else does, make reliable software for it that works and facilitates trade as well as promote Bitcoin itself in a passive way

Then surely you agree with my points about how the Foundation should encourage and enable Bitcoin rather than try to control it?

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned betsofbitco.in and the BFL unit, when BFL has not shipped anything but merely let Luke-Jr ssh into it

What particularly pisses me off is the way the 'Bitcoin' foundation has tried to hijack this currency instead of just making their own one and establishing their own rules about the currency, that would be a better use of everyone's time.

Question about whether BCF should control bitcoin.org
I think the Foundation should focus on its mission; being a centralized point-of-control would not only be outside that mission, but IMO would be contrary to it. That is, it should offer assistance to help improve Bitcoin-related websites, but not try to take control of them. Bitcoin.org as it is today seems to be a very helpful resource, without the Foundation's needing to get involved in it.

Question about what the BCF should/shouldn't do in general
Should do:

• Promote legal uses of Bitcoin.
• Provide educational materials (of both technical and legal nature) to help merchants safely transact using Bitcoin.
• Help Bitcoin informational websites improve their content.
• Encourage developers to participate in Bitcoin code review, even if they are not themselves developing Bitcoin code.
• Encourage Bitcoin developers to use the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal standardisation process for protocols which need interoperability between software.
• Encourage users to help test Bitcoin software.
• Political lobbying to ensure Bitcoin remains a legal currency to trade with.

Shouldn't do:

• Promote illegal use of Bitcoin, or otherwise encourage governments to make Bitcoin illegal or overly regulated.
• Make Bitcoin sound better than it really is with false statements.
• Promote Bitcoin as merely a means to some ulterior motive/end (eg, anarchy or tonal).
• Take control over Bitcoin websites, services, or software.
• Fund development of non-free (closed source) software or proprietary protocols.
• Discourage users from adopting competing Bitcoin software.

One simple idea for expansion might be funding an effort to discover and document the intricate details of the Bitcoin blockchain protocol.

Question about whether the BCF should act to prevent tax evasion and such civil violations
I'm not sure the Foundation should take an active role in this. It could perhaps, however, publish clear legal guidelines for paying taxes in major countries and/or prepare and offer educational documents to law enforcement on how to trace bitcoins through the blockchain.

Request for elaboration on how BCF could publish clear legal guidelines when legalities are not clear
I didn't have anything specific in mind here, just was giving some examples. While the legal rules around Bitcoin are too uncertain, it would seem reasonable for the Foundation to give some attention to getting them clarified. Taxes are an important issue to solve for adoption - otherwise it's usually easier for companies to just ignore Bitcoin, despite its benefits. Solving it may take time/research/lobbying, but eventually Bitcoin needs to be able to provide businesses with some level of legal comfort.

Question about whether it will be helpful to grow BCF membership and funding, if people know it is issuing grants to develop forensic blockchain analysis docs/tools
These documents and/or tools will almost certainly be developed whether or not the Foundation has a part in it. Making them available to everyone only improves the situation:

• By involving Bitcoin experts, it avoids incorrect assumptions resulting in arrests on bad reasoning (for example, someone was recently the target of police investigation because blockchain.info claimed their IP address had broadcast a transaction).
• People concerned about their own privacy can audit their own public trails, and improve on their precautions.
• Bitcoin wallet developers can make better-informed decisions on how to improve privacy with the same information.
• Law enforcement and prosecutors gain positive experience working with the Bitcoin system, and are less likely to want to simply ban it outright.

If the decision to fund these kinds of projects is made, I certainly don't think it should be kept secret from members. In fact, it might be a good idea to make a list somewhere of all the different kinds of projects/goals the Foundation has assisted with.

Question about BCF's role in changing block size limits
When the block size limits begin to become a problem (I don't expect this to occur any time soon), it might make sense for the Foundation to sponsor research into what solutions may be available at the time, if a solution has not already been found by then (which seems unlikely, given all the early attention this problem is getting). The Foundation certainly should not try to assert some kind of authoritative declaration of which solution is to be adopted, but should leave that decision to the economic majority where it naturally lies. Should there be problems reaching a consensus, it might make sense to assist in ensuring the competition and eventual transition goes smoothly. Also, note that I haven't ruled out it being a problem sooner rather than later either. I am looking forward to reading Gavin's upcoming whitepaper on the topic, and would of course, as with anything else, consult with the community before any action as part of the board.