What's happening in your head sounds very thrilling, and I can't wait for the whole book.
Topic: [DISCUSS]Luke-Jr is standing for election to the board of the Bitcoin Foundation (Read 4598 times)
September 06, 2013, 11:48:36 PM
What's happening in your head sounds very thrilling, and I can't wait for the whole book.
September 06, 2013, 09:46:49 PM
To accomplish this, the OP has taken to task the personal pursuit of opposing Luke-Jr when ever possible, which of course (albeit in a rather distasteful manner) is his free right to do so.
Sorry for the late reply.
What's happening in your head sounds very thrilling, and I can't wait for the whole book.
But as far as this OP is concerned, it's just me disliking censorship, even more when it hurts such "important" events.
August 29, 2013, 01:14:35 PM
Quote
I'm particularly against agendas of this sort which focus on promoting tax evasion, anarchy, or other anti-government activities.
I'm against pro-government activities particularly starting wars, drug prohibition, counterfeiting and other violent acts against otherwise peaceful people., Guess we are diametrically opposed.Hi Luke-Jr! Here is my 2 Satoshi's worth.
I have had a private conversation with Luke-Jr and found him to be intelligent, insightful, respectful and comprehensive in the scope of his understanding of what I was conveying in the conversation. Luke-Jr disagreed with me for the most part, even so he did not discourage me from my idea and I respect his point of view even though I only loosely agree with the primus of his objections. He also tried to make honest and helpful suggestions to help me accomplish my goals - To sum it up I reiterate the fact that he did not agree with my idea and even thinks my idea is impossible, yet he still was trying to be helpful. That is a hard quality to find in the general population.
Correct me if I am wrong Luke-Jr, but I think the OP has misconstrued the purpose of the deletion of his replies to Luke-Jr's thread. From personal experience I have had a few threads go down in flames because of negative commentary and it is easy to get stuck in an endless debate with someone who, either does not understand what you are writing about or has some argument that they just will not let go of. This can distract you from your project and is very frustrating in a project thread especially when you just want to focus on your project and worst of all it can even kill any support for your project. I haven't found Luke-Jr to be rude or unkind in any way with his words, so I suspect that he follows the 'if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all' philosophy excepting that Luke-Jr will present any rational, logical or moral objections that he may have with your ideology.
If this is the case, it seems as though Luke-Jr has a very balanced approach to his behavior when communicating with others. I believe Luke-Jr has a very high set of personal morals - and to the extent possible in any social order - has no desire to interfere with anyone elses sense of individuality, he just chooses not to assist or participate in things that he objects to. Perfectly excitable behavior in a free and open society (in fact, this type of behavior is necessary in any society to be truely free.) Ones right to free speech and free association must, by definition, include the right to freely not speak and freely not associate and it is amoral to insist to the point of harassment that another respond to ones own free speech, therefore insisting, to the point of harassment, that they also associate with ones ownself. Luke-Jr seems to understand this and tries his best to live by this strongly held principle.
In my very uninformed opinion, the OP has unfortunately, instead of accepting this, taken offense and now wishes to be validated. To accomplish this, the OP has taken to task the personal pursuit of opposing Luke-Jr when ever possible, which of course (albeit in a rather distasteful manner) is his free right to do so.
I personally believe that Luke-Jr is narrowly focusing his efforts on the core concept of the bitcion ideology rather than dictating his entire vision onto others with a global everyone has to comply to my standards approach. He is only trying to build a system that works and is fair, even to those he opposes. Evidence of a man that understands what respect for the rights of others really means. As long as these things remain true of Luke-Jr, I support him and hope he has great success.
Good job Luke-Jr!
August 25, 2013, 09:23:29 AM
How about secretly hashing alt chains and 'destroying them by selling for btc'.
Welcome to Capitalism, honey.
Quote
The guy is a fucking idiot and getting into stuff because nobody else will is retarded.
It's called "finding a niche". It's the preferred way to riches if you exclude pure luck or nepotism.Yep, I'm still detecting a subtle hint of irrational lynch-mobby sentiment.
Clearly you weren't there when it was happening.
August 24, 2013, 02:26:27 PM
I'm in favor of separation of church and state.
Since this is an speculative OT shithole of a thread... ... That phrase's always bothered me when used to describe why someone with religious faith shouldn't be allowed to hold office (... not that BF is a state...). It's not something limited to this thread, but something increasingly prevalent in my country.There are basically three schools of thought when it comes to how a government should regard religion in politics:
*In theocracy (if atheist, atheocracy), nobody of faith different from TPTB can hold office
*In pluralism (this is not an accepted definition everywhere), people of all faiths are welcome to hold office and take information of their faith to make political decisions
*In secularism, people of all faiths are tolerated, but expected to vote with constituents or in a utilitarian fashion. In secular decision-making, you will generally not have political issues argued based on what a religious authority has said.
Unless you have reason to believe Luke is in fact a theocrat, you're promoting atheocracy, which, from my agnostic perspective, is fundamentally the same as theocracy.
ETA: I mean -- if Luke's application were "Archbishop Roberts will be informing my decisions" - I could understand the unease. - But, he's given detailed responses, would probably give rationale for anything serious question you ask, and that rationale probably won't be "I would oppose such a measure because, as confirmed by Archbishop Roberts, it is heretical by Pope Urban V's Currency Centralization Bull of 1365."
I tried to put it in as gentle and non-inflammatory way as possible. I didn't want to revive a years-old debate -- figured those who remember it would know what I'm talking about. I have no problem with people having a particular faith, but I insist that this should not marginalize or antagonize people who have a different faith.
We know that Luke-Jr enshrined prayers in the blockchain by virtue of the hash power of the miners in his pool. That was an egregious violation of trust, and is highly relevant to the current discussion as we consider whether he should be given more opportunities to exert influence on the future direction of bitcoin.
Inaba put "Do a barrel roll" in the blockchain, violating the sacred trust of those mining on his pool. You know who sees it? People actively trying to look for it on its novelty/amusement value, same as people looking for what messages Luke put in there. I mean - what's your argument, even? Luke's misrepresenting miners as Catholics? Is there some type of faith pie chart in pool monitoring sites I'm missing, where Catholicism has become the dominant hashing religion? Are the media sources picking this up, saying Bitcoin is clearly a Catholic idea? I'd guess not, because it'd be stupid as shit, and deserving of as much ridicule as your post.
How about secretly hashing alt chains and 'destroying them by selling for btc'.
The guy is a fucking idiot and getting into stuff because nobody else will is retarded.
August 22, 2013, 01:51:51 AM
ETA: Put on the magic sunglasses my anger therapist gave me. Baseless intolerance is acceptable. It's all cool. Mr. Mellowpuss is a fine cat..... 
August 22, 2013, 01:49:53 AM
I'm in favor of separation of church and state.
Since this is an speculative OT shithole of a thread... ... That phrase's always bothered me when used to describe why someone with religious faith shouldn't be allowed to hold office (... not that BF is a state...). It's not something limited to this thread, but something increasingly prevalent in my country.There are basically three schools of thought when it comes to how a government should regard religion in politics:
*In theocracy (if atheist, atheocracy), nobody of faith different from TPTB can hold office
*In pluralism (this is not an accepted definition everywhere), people of all faiths are welcome to hold office and take information of their faith to make political decisions
*In secularism, people of all faiths are tolerated, but expected to vote with constituents or in a utilitarian fashion. In secular decision-making, you will generally not have political issues argued based on what a religious authority has said.
Unless you have reason to believe Luke is in fact a theocrat, you're promoting atheocracy, which, from my agnostic perspective, is fundamentally the same as theocracy.
ETA: I mean -- if Luke's application were "Archbishop Roberts will be informing my decisions" - I could understand the unease. - But, he's given detailed responses, would probably give rationale for anything serious question you ask, and that rationale probably won't be "I would oppose such a measure because, as confirmed by Archbishop Roberts, it is heretical by Pope Urban V's Currency Centralization Bull of 1365."
I tried to put it in as gentle and non-inflammatory way as possible. I didn't want to revive a years-old debate -- figured those who remember it would know what I'm talking about. I have no problem with people having a particular faith, but I insist that this should not marginalize or antagonize people who have a different faith.
We know that Luke-Jr enshrined prayers in the blockchain by virtue of the hash power of the miners in his pool. That was an egregious violation of trust, and is highly relevant to the current discussion as we consider whether he should be given more opportunities to exert influence on the future direction of bitcoin.
Inaba put "Do a barrel roll" in the blockchain, violating the sacred trust of those mining on his pool. You know who sees it? People actively trying to look for it on its novelty/amusement value, same as people looking for what messages Luke put in there. I mean - what's your argument, even? Luke's misrepresenting miners as Catholics? Is there some type of faith pie chart in pool monitoring sites I'm missing, where Catholicism has become the dominant hashing religion? Are the media sources picking this up, saying Bitcoin is clearly a Catholic idea? I'd guess not, because it'd be stupid as shit, and deserving of as much ridicule as your post.
Notwithstanding your rant, I guess we can mark you down as not caring about the issue then
August 22, 2013, 01:21:00 AM
I'm in favor of separation of church and state.
Since this is an speculative OT shithole of a thread... ... That phrase's always bothered me when used to describe why someone with religious faith shouldn't be allowed to hold office (... not that BF is a state...). It's not something limited to this thread, but something increasingly prevalent in my country.There are basically three schools of thought when it comes to how a government should regard religion in politics:
*In theocracy (if atheist, atheocracy), nobody of faith different from TPTB can hold office
*In pluralism (this is not an accepted definition everywhere), people of all faiths are welcome to hold office and take information of their faith to make political decisions
*In secularism, people of all faiths are tolerated, but expected to vote with constituents or in a utilitarian fashion. In secular decision-making, you will generally not have political issues argued based on what a religious authority has said.
Unless you have reason to believe Luke is in fact a theocrat, you're promoting atheocracy, which, from my agnostic perspective, is fundamentally the same as theocracy.
ETA: I mean -- if Luke's application were "Archbishop Roberts will be informing my decisions" - I could understand the unease. - But, he's given detailed responses, would probably give rationale for anything serious question you ask, and that rationale probably won't be "I would oppose such a measure because, as confirmed by Archbishop Roberts, it is heretical by Pope Urban V's Currency Centralization Bull of 1365."
I tried to put it in as gentle and non-inflammatory way as possible. I didn't want to revive a years-old debate -- figured those who remember it would know what I'm talking about. I have no problem with people having a particular faith, but I insist that this should not marginalize or antagonize people who have a different faith.
We know that Luke-Jr enshrined prayers in the blockchain by virtue of the hash power of the miners in his pool. That was an egregious violation of trust, and is highly relevant to the current discussion as we consider whether he should be given more opportunities to exert influence on the future direction of bitcoin.
Inaba put "Do a barrel roll" in the blockchain, violating the sacred trust of those mining on his pool. You know who sees it? People actively trying to look for it on its novelty/amusement value, same as people looking for what messages Luke put in there. I mean - what's your argument, even? Luke's misrepresenting miners as Catholics? Is there some type of faith pie chart in pool monitoring sites I'm missing, where Catholicism has become the dominant hashing religion? Are the media sources picking this up, saying Bitcoin is clearly a Catholic idea? I'd guess not, because it'd be stupid as shit, and deserving of as much ridicule as your post.
August 22, 2013, 12:00:00 AM
I'm in favor of separation of church and state.
Since this is an speculative OT shithole of a thread... ... That phrase's always bothered me when used to describe why someone with religious faith shouldn't be allowed to hold office (... not that BF is a state...). It's not something limited to this thread, but something increasingly prevalent in my country.There are basically three schools of thought when it comes to how a government should regard religion in politics:
*In theocracy (if atheist, atheocracy), nobody of faith different from TPTB can hold office
*In pluralism (this is not an accepted definition everywhere), people of all faiths are welcome to hold office and take information of their faith to make political decisions
*In secularism, people of all faiths are tolerated, but expected to vote with constituents or in a utilitarian fashion. In secular decision-making, you will generally not have political issues argued based on what a religious authority has said.
Unless you have reason to believe Luke is in fact a theocrat, you're promoting atheocracy, which, from my agnostic perspective, is fundamentally the same as theocracy.
ETA: I mean -- if Luke's application were "Archbishop Roberts will be informing my decisions" - I could understand the unease. - But, he's given detailed responses, would probably give rationale for anything serious question you ask, and that rationale probably won't be "I would oppose such a measure because, as confirmed by Archbishop Roberts, it is heretical by Pope Urban V's Currency Centralization Bull of 1365."
I tried to put it in as gentle and non-inflammatory way as possible. I didn't want to revive a years-old debate -- figured those who remember it would know what I'm talking about. I have no problem with people having a particular faith, but I insist that this should not marginalize or antagonize people who have a different faith.
We know that Luke-Jr enshrined prayers in the blockchain by virtue of the hash power of the miners in his pool. That was an egregious violation of trust, and is highly relevant to the current discussion as we consider whether he should be given more opportunities to exert influence on the future direction of bitcoin.
August 20, 2013, 07:13:13 PM
As for addresses, I'm not sure what might be more accurate... Safety deposit box numbers, "SDB" numbers?
How about "transaction key"?
August 20, 2013, 06:55:36 PM
As for addresses, I'm not sure what might be more accurate... Safety deposit box numbers, "SDB" numbers? As with actual postal or bank storage boxes we don't really have their precise coordinates, just a number telling us which one it is.
This reenforces the incorrect understanding. There is no grouping by address at all. 
August 20, 2013, 10:16:56 AM
Perhaps I haven't asked too deeply, but doesn't the Board advise the Foundation?
If so, I have no problem with Luke being a part of it.
Luke has said and promoted a lot of things that has raised eyebrows (tonal numbers, etc.) but has also contributed a vast quantity of technically qualified reasoning, work, and opinions. It just means his skills are highly concentrated and vertical. That doesn't bode well if he's been nominated as a public spokesperson, but as an advisor to a small organization, that is a very good quality to have.
If so, I have no problem with Luke being a part of it.
Luke has said and promoted a lot of things that has raised eyebrows (tonal numbers, etc.) but has also contributed a vast quantity of technically qualified reasoning, work, and opinions. It just means his skills are highly concentrated and vertical. That doesn't bode well if he's been nominated as a public spokesperson, but as an advisor to a small organization, that is a very good quality to have.
August 20, 2013, 10:09:55 AM
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.
I don't understand. If I print out a paper wallet, why can't I send to that address more than once?
I understand why you wouldn't want to use an address more than once, but what stops me from sending to an address more than once?
August 20, 2013, 06:05:57 AM
Since this is an speculative OT shithole of a thread... ... That phrase's always bothered me when used to describe why someone with religious faith shouldn't be allowed to hold office (... not that BF is a state...). It's not something limited to this thread, but something increasingly prevalent in my country.
There are basically three schools of thought when it comes to how a government should regard religion in politics:
*In theocracy (if atheist, atheocracy), nobody of faith different from TPTB can hold office
*In pluralism (this is not an accepted definition everywhere), people of all faiths are welcome to hold office and take information of their faith to make political decisions
*In secularism, people of all faiths are tolerated, but expected to vote with constituents or in a utilitarian fashion. In secular decision-making, you will generally not have political issues argued based on what a religious authority has said.
There are basically three schools of thought when it comes to how a government should regard religion in politics:
*In theocracy (if atheist, atheocracy), nobody of faith different from TPTB can hold office
*In pluralism (this is not an accepted definition everywhere), people of all faiths are welcome to hold office and take information of their faith to make political decisions
*In secularism, people of all faiths are tolerated, but expected to vote with constituents or in a utilitarian fashion. In secular decision-making, you will generally not have political issues argued based on what a religious authority has said.
I always thought it was a funny phrase since politics is basically a religion itself.
August 20, 2013, 04:23:52 AM
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.
I don't understand. If I print out a paper wallet, why can't I send to that address more than once?
August 20, 2013, 03:44:11 AM
I'm in favor of separation of church and state.
Since this is an speculative OT shithole of a thread... ... That phrase's always bothered me when used to describe why someone with religious faith shouldn't be allowed to hold office (... not that BF is a state...). It's not something limited to this thread, but something increasingly prevalent in my country.There are basically three schools of thought when it comes to how a government should regard religion in politics:
*In theocracy (if atheist, atheocracy), nobody of faith different from TPTB can hold office
*In pluralism (this is not an accepted definition everywhere), people of all faiths are welcome to hold office and take information of their faith to make political decisions
*In secularism, people of all faiths are tolerated, but expected to vote with constituents or in a utilitarian fashion. In secular decision-making, you will generally not have political issues argued based on what a religious authority has said.
Unless you have reason to believe Luke is in fact a theocrat, you're promoting atheocracy, which, from my agnostic perspective, is fundamentally the same as theocracy.
ETA: I mean -- if Luke's application were "Archbishop Roberts will be informing my decisions" - I could understand the unease. - But, he's given detailed responses, would probably give rationale for anything serious question you ask, and that rationale probably won't be "I would oppose such a measure because, as confirmed by Archbishop Roberts, it is heretical by Pope Urban V's Currency Centralization Bull of 1365."
August 19, 2013, 04:05:55 PM
Addresses don't have balances.
From a layman's point of view, that makes no sense. Regardless of how Bitcoin technically works (from the point of view of a developer), most users know of "addresses" and an amount of Bitcoins "located" at that address. That would be a "balance", a.k.a. an amount.
August 19, 2013, 04:03:22 PM
I'm in favor of separation of church and state.
August 19, 2013, 04:02:50 PM
I don't understand. If I print out a paper wallet, why can't I send to that address more than once?
Proper paper wallets have unlimited addresses.For example, Armory supports paper wallets.
One huge problem stands still, though.
Official client does not agree.
It likes reusing burnt addresses.
1) There is no official client.Official client does not agree.
It likes reusing burnt addresses.
2) Bitcoin-Qt never reuses addresses itself.
And this is a REAL ISSUE.
We cannot go live before this is fixed.
What's your position about that?
All of the Bitcoin-Qt dev team seem to be in agreement that the "Receive coins" tab could use a makeover to discourage address reuse better.We cannot go live before this is fixed.
What's your position about that?
August 19, 2013, 03:58:05 PM
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.
I don't understand.As suspicious as Luke might look, he's 100% right, here.
Check the recent troubles around the not-that-random transaction signing on android wallet for more insight.
One huge problem stands still, though.
Official client does not agree.
It likes reusing burnt addresses.
And this is a REAL ISSUE.
We cannot go live before this is fixed.
What's your position about that?
August 19, 2013, 03:43:34 PM
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.
I don't understand. If I print out a paper wallet, why can't I send to that address more than once?
August 19, 2013, 03:25:43 PM
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.
August 19, 2013, 03:02:25 PM
+1 to Luke-JR for standing out from the Libertarian crowd that obviously wants to use its majority of numbers to shape Bitcoin in their radical image.
With Bitcoin no authority can obtain access to, freeze, or even have knowledge of my stored value, without my permission.
Actually, I can have knowledge of your balance and every transaction ever made with that address if you give me the public key.
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.
In order for bitcoins to be on the address you must make some sort of transaction... In which case someone knows your balance and transaction history. Maybe not me, but anyone you deal with will know.
August 19, 2013, 02:52:19 PM
+1 to Luke-JR for standing out from the Libertarian crowd that obviously wants to use its majority of numbers to shape Bitcoin in their radical image.
With Bitcoin no authority can obtain access to, freeze, or even have knowledge of my stored value, without my permission.
Actually, I can have knowledge of your balance and every transaction ever made with that address if you give me the public key.
August 19, 2013, 12:54:15 PM
Luke, seriously you wish to become a politician?
Not really, but someone has to do it, and generally anyone who wants to isn't a good choice.Now if someone like gmaxwell were willing, I'd decline my nomination and vote for him instead.
August 19, 2013, 12:01:33 PM
Luke, seriously you wish to become a politician?
Not really, but someone has to do it, and generally anyone who wants to isn't a good choice.What? Don't you want to? Last time I checked you weren't forced into the role.
Are you saying you're a bad choice.
August 19, 2013, 11:54:55 AM
Luke, seriously you wish to become a politician?
Not really, but someone has to do it, and generally anyone who wants to isn't a good choice.I'd understand you buying your way to the top but political ambitions rarely end up as intended.
Huh? 
August 19, 2013, 11:47:14 AM
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.
I'd understand you buying your way to the top but political ambitions rarely end up as intended.
August 19, 2013, 10:49:30 AM
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?
It was irrelevant? And obvious from the photos showing BFL's location too.Just curious. Why did you omit the "hosted" word in this blog post title?
I wasn't thinking about bets when I made the post, let alone that some bets might or might not have hinged upon trivial things like this.
August 19, 2013, 09:17:59 AM
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
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.Cool.
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 wouldn't want the foundation president to randomly forget words in his statements.
Maybe it's a good time for honesty, confession and apologies.
I'm serious, here, cause I just think you were a bit overwhelmed, and this is very understandable.
August 19, 2013, 08:52:48 AM
Is that the guy that used his pool to put religious crap in the block chain?
August 19, 2013, 08:36:51 AM
Code:
( kakobrekla ) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=277035.msg2963173;topicseen#msg2963173
( ozbot ) [DISCUSS]Luke-Jr is standing for election to the board of the Bitcoin Foundation
( mircea_popescu ) seems oddly adequate. the bfl/mtgox foundation should have luke on the board.
( dexX7 ) is this good or bad for "us"?
( kakobrekla ) this is the guy who secretley mined altchains on his pool with the agenda to destroy altchains by selling them for btc
( kakobrekla ) uber retarded
( dexX7 ) lol k
( Luke-Jr ) dexX7: ignore the trolls and their lies
( kakobrekla ) hey, those were your words
( mircea_popescu ) hey luke, has the monarch delivered yet ?
( kakobrekla ) i couldnt have made it up
( kakobrekla ) im too dumb for that shit
( Luke-Jr ) mircea_popescu: no
( Luke-Jr ) kakobrekla: liar
( kakobrekla ) right.
( mircea_popescu ) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=56830.0
( ozbot ) Open Letter to Luke-JR About Alt-Coin Attacks
( ozbot ) [DISCUSS]Luke-Jr is standing for election to the board of the Bitcoin Foundation
( mircea_popescu ) seems oddly adequate. the bfl/mtgox foundation should have luke on the board.
( dexX7 ) is this good or bad for "us"?
( kakobrekla ) this is the guy who secretley mined altchains on his pool with the agenda to destroy altchains by selling them for btc
( kakobrekla ) uber retarded
( dexX7 ) lol k
( Luke-Jr ) dexX7: ignore the trolls and their lies
( kakobrekla ) hey, those were your words
( mircea_popescu ) hey luke, has the monarch delivered yet ?
( kakobrekla ) i couldnt have made it up
( kakobrekla ) im too dumb for that shit
( Luke-Jr ) mircea_popescu: no
( Luke-Jr ) kakobrekla: liar
( kakobrekla ) right.
( mircea_popescu ) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=56830.0
( ozbot ) Open Letter to Luke-JR About Alt-Coin Attacks
August 19, 2013, 08:20:23 AM
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
Yes, that's what I tend to do.I'm not the one who constantly brings up religion.
August 19, 2013, 07:58:39 AM
I prefer "alternative" instead of "replacement"
August 19, 2013, 07:35:38 AM
Quote
Then surely you agree with my points about how the Foundation should encourage and enable Bitcoin rather than try to control it?
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 that doesn't involve religious zeal about it. Creating something like the Bitcoin foundation and being a self-appointed leader while talking to government regulators will get you no where, especially with the Anarchists on this board.
Christ, reading through your write up makes me think of you more and more as a British politician which automatically puts me in 'sarcastic and angry Englishman' mode.
August 19, 2013, 06:55:45 AM
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
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. August 19, 2013, 06:29:27 AM
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
August 19, 2013, 05:08:37 AM
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.
Then surely you agree with my points about how the Foundation should encourage and enable Bitcoin rather than try to control it?Quote from: myself, Bitcoin Foundation forums
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:
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:
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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
August 19, 2013, 04:47:31 AM
Regulation leads to evasion. Over-regulation leads to anarchy.
After a point, the more laws on the books, the more Bitcoin is a lawless currency. We're not at that point, yet, but since we've started going down that road, we need to go full-retard, regulating once-legal business into black market activity. LJR is a non-favorable candidate, as I can definitely say he would not favor giving governments exclusive ability to host full nodes, without ever having asked him.
Personally, I would vote for Lawsky.
After a point, the more laws on the books, the more Bitcoin is a lawless currency. We're not at that point, yet, but since we've started going down that road, we need to go full-retard, regulating once-legal business into black market activity. LJR is a non-favorable candidate, as I can definitely say he would not favor giving governments exclusive ability to host full nodes, without ever having asked him.
Personally, I would vote for Lawsky.
August 19, 2013, 04:08:48 AM
I'm loving how this thread has a slight lynch-mobbish feel to it.
+1 to Luke-JR for standing out from the Libertarian crowd that obviously wants to use its majority of numbers to shape Bitcoin in their radical image.
+1 to Luke-JR for standing out from the Libertarian crowd that obviously wants to use its majority of numbers to shape Bitcoin in their radical image.
August 19, 2013, 01:57:35 AM
Quote
I'm particularly against agendas of this sort which focus on promoting tax evasion, anarchy, or other anti-government activities.
I'm against pro-government activities particularly starting wars, drug prohibition, counterfeiting and other violent acts against otherwise peaceful people. Guess we are diametrically opposed.No one's forcing you to use Bitcoin you halfwit, it's purely optional, however we're all being forced to use the current paper money system, if you don't pay into the system you'd go to jail and it's no good telling us to leave because the planet is too small and we haven't mastered space flight yet. 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.
People like you try to preach about not forcing things on others but when it comes to your own beliefs your more than happy to use the very same methods while completely ignoring the fact that you're doing it. Get rid of the 'with us or against us' attitude and maybe people might be feeling more diplomatic with your sort of ideology, this is also a brilliant example of why everyone hates America currently, even other Americans.
August 18, 2013, 11:54:57 PM
Quote
I'm particularly against agendas of this sort which focus on promoting tax evasion, anarchy, or other anti-government activities.
I'm against pro-government activities particularly starting wars, drug prohibition, counterfeiting and other violent acts against otherwise peaceful people. Guess we are diametrically opposed.Quote
If you like what he's contributed to Bitcoin so far and agree with his vision for Bitcoin "as a legal and widely utilized, decentralized replacement for fiat currencies",
Being for government, but against the things I describe is like being for the mafia but against all those things the mafia is generally associated with.
You can't change the nature of govt any more than you could go into the mafia and change it's nature. Government is just a label. It was established as the protection racket and that's the way it's always operated.
Your point about bitcoin being seperate from this is only valid if you don't see it as a replacement for fiat currencies. If you do, then there is inevitably the political side to think of.
August 18, 2013, 05:58:05 PM
Platform Questions:
Are you for or against BTC Social Security?
Do you support BTC Stamps for those without the means to feed themselves?
Are you for a strong defense?
Immigration stance on repatriation of coins?
And, of course, BIP16 or Bust?
Are you for or against BTC Social Security?
Do you support BTC Stamps for those without the means to feed themselves?
Are you for a strong defense?
Immigration stance on repatriation of coins?
And, of course, BIP16 or Bust?
August 18, 2013, 11:58:55 AM
Quote
I'm particularly against agendas of this sort which focus on promoting tax evasion, anarchy, or other anti-government activities.
I'm against pro-government activities particularly starting wars, drug prohibition, counterfeiting and other violent acts against otherwise peaceful people. Guess we are diametrically opposed. August 18, 2013, 11:04:39 AM
Quote
I'm particularly against agendas of this sort which focus on promoting tax evasion, anarchy, or other anti-government activities.
I'm against pro-government activities particularly starting wars, drug prohibition, counterfeiting and other violent acts against otherwise peaceful people. Guess we are diametrically opposed.
August 18, 2013, 10:45:19 AM
I know I'm hardly an influential person because I don't like messing with this kind of thing much but I'll throw my opinion in anyway and say fuck the Bitcoin foundation, I guarantee you it's just a wannabe Federal Reserve where even the way they elect their leaders is done the same and the leader is essentially a scapegoat and punchbag for several years until eventually they get replaced and some other sucker takes up the position.
August 18, 2013, 10:28:17 AM
Here's my deleted posts:
Needless to say, if I cared either way for Luke getting into this social club, I wouldn't be in favor of him
And even before that,
"I don't like these agendas. I only like my own agenda," isn't a very convincing argument, unless the social club he's trying to get into shares his views, in which case, go for it.
Quote
Oh boy, here we go with the post deleting. This will surely help Luke's image.
Quote
I could've sworn Luke was the hardcore catholic fellow...
Needless to say, if I cared either way for Luke getting into this social club, I wouldn't be in favor of him
And even before that,"I don't like these agendas. I only like my own agenda," isn't a very convincing argument, unless the social club he's trying to get into shares his views, in which case, go for it.
But what is Luke-JR's stand on important issues? Is he pro-choice in beer?
August 18, 2013, 09:58:44 AM
Here's my deleted posts:
Needless to say, if I cared either way for Luke getting into this social club, I wouldn't be in favor of him And even before that,
"I don't like these agendas. I only like my own agenda," isn't a very convincing argument, unless the social club he's trying to get into shares his views, in which case, go for it.
Quote
Oh boy, here we go with the post deleting. This will surely help Luke's image.
Quote
I could've sworn Luke was the hardcore catholic fellow...
Needless to say, if I cared either way for Luke getting into this social club, I wouldn't be in favor of him
And even before that,"I don't like these agendas. I only like my own agenda," isn't a very convincing argument, unless the social club he's trying to get into shares his views, in which case, go for it.
August 18, 2013, 09:51:42 AM
I call for separation between Church and State. 
August 18, 2013, 09:44:26 AM
Jump to: