Take a look at this picture of Peter Todd, look at his T-Shirt and tell me he's being ironical. You don't wear a T-Shirt with NSA logo unless you idolize them or work for them.
What a black and white world you must inhabit.
Ask Peter Todd who I am.
Topic: Gavin is an Agent - page 5. (Read 9713 times)
Take a look at this picture of Peter Todd, look at his T-Shirt and tell me he's being ironical. You don't wear a T-Shirt with NSA logo unless you idolize them or work for them.
What a black and white world you must inhabit.
Ask Peter Todd who I am.
Take a look at this picture of Peter Todd, look at his T-Shirt and tell me he's being ironical. You don't wear a T-Shirt with NSA logo unless you idolize them or work for them.
What a black and white world you must inhabit.
Take a look at this picture of Peter Todd, look at his T-Shirt and tell me he's being ironical. You don't wear a T-Shirt with NSA logo unless you idolize them or work for them.
From what I understand he hangs out with and talks like an anarchist. That shirt reminds me how all the hippie and druggie teens growing up in certain places of the US I visited would wear "D.A.R.E" shirts to mock the teachers , parents and authority figures. Probably what Peter is doing here.
Dude was a strange cat. But I only ever met him like 2 times.
Take a look at this picture of Peter Todd, look at his T-Shirt and tell me he's being ironical. You don't wear a T-Shirt with NSA logo unless you idolize them or work for them.
From what I understand he hangs out with and talks like an anarchist. That shirt reminds me how all the hippie and druggie teens growing up in certain places of the US I visited would wear "D.A.R.E" (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) shirts to mock the teachers , parents and authority figures. Probably what Peter is doing here.
Take a look at this picture of Peter Todd, look at his T-Shirt and tell me he's being ironical. You don't wear a T-Shirt with NSA logo unless you idolize them or work for them.
I remember the first time I met Peter Todd, Jeff Garzik introduced him to me, he just seemed to pop out from nowhere. My encounter with him was brief. But I noticed he didn't swallow the bait even then. So I don't really know his real motive being in the Bitcoin game.
Gavin does not care about Bitcoin. He's in it for the popularity and money. Trust me.
Great thing about bitcoin is you don't need to trust anyone. Look at the code yourself, and if you don't like it make your own changes to contribute or fork it.
Gavin does not care about Bitcoin. He's in it for the popularity and money. Trust me.
Stupid is the funniest kind of discussion!
When money is involved, fantasy and delusion is reality.
Stupid is the funniest kind of discussion!
The lot of you trying to prove points referencing stuff posted online or from media just shows you don't know the facts. You only accept what is presented to you as "facts". Gavin may not be an "agent", but I can confirm he is working with government in some capacity. Bitcoin IS a government project. Do you realize that anything that happens that may "disrupt" America must be run by the CIA/NSA first? It's all about control. So if Bitcoin succeeds, it's because CIA allowed it to. If it fails, it's because they wanted it to. In that sense, they tell Gavin to sabotage Bitcoin, then he collects his money, and throws a wrench in it. Then all his fanboys will believe it was with good intentions. By the time they lose their money, they'll blame anyone other than Gavin.
This smell troll, but let's apply some logic to it.
"I want to get this out in the open because it is the kind of thing that will generate conspiracy theories", Gavin Andresen
Gavin is a person that obviously likes to go to conferences, to do talks and so on. Even though he's a coder, he also seems to be a people person. I think he actually got personally excited to go talk to the CIA.
It's not uncommon that high profile people in something like bitcoin will draw the interest of governments. He got an invitation to speak, accepted it, and no transcript exists, which is not uncommon for such arrangements.
"I want to get this out in the open because it is the kind of thing that will generate conspiracy theories", Gavin Andresen
Gavin is a person that obviously likes to go to conferences, to do talks and so on. Even though he's a coder, he also seems to be a people person. I think he actually got personally excited to go talk to the CIA.
It's not uncommon that high profile people in something like bitcoin will draw the interest of governments. He got an invitation to speak, accepted it, and no transcript exists, which is not uncommon for such arrangements.
Pure conjectures. What if you are not in Gavin's head?
CIA/NSA got their own analysts. What like Gavin knowledge and coding is unique now? please.
Satoshi not responding anymore after Gavin mentioning he went to see the CIA. It might be a coincidence, it might not. I think the most logic assumption is that it is not a coincidence. Whereas Satoshi needed no publicity, Gavin was the opposite. Satoshi would probably never have gone to the CIA to speak, and that's probably why he do not fancy anyone else doing it either. It's not a long stretch to imagine he'd drop the ball there and then in regards to mailing with Gavin.
Thats more honest conjectures. Coincidence? lol no.
2/ After screwing over at the very "honorable" TBF, he has now joined the MIT's Media LAB
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/20132/gavin-andresen-core-developers-join-mits-digital-currency-initiative/
http://www.media.mit.edu/files/sponsors.pdf
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/20132/gavin-andresen-core-developers-join-mits-digital-currency-initiative/
http://www.media.mit.edu/files/sponsors.pdf
Being a part of the TBF let Gavin do what he enjoys most, to write code and get a salary. Now he has joined MIT's Media LAB and he will continue to do the same, and have access to other academics that he can communicate with, I assume it also gives him a paycheck. He gets to do what he likes the most, and he gets paid..
MIT MEDIA LAb = USG sponsored <=> Gavin = USG employee
Now who's interest is supposed to serve an employee again?
3/ Forking BS over and over again. now just before the Halving. hOw friggin convenient.
https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/commit/5f46da29fd02fd2a8a787286fd6a56f680073770
https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/commit/5f46da29fd02fd2a8a787286fd6a56f680073770
Please read https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/permanently-keeping-the-1mb-anti-spam-restriction-is-a-great-idea-946236 for a great post, to get insight in these matters. I do not think Gavin is an agent. He might be, but even if he was, all the code he writes will still be viewable, so if he did something openly hostile, it would most likely be spotted, and it would be a major outcry and he'd instantly lose all trust. Other devs would take up the work, and Govcoin or Gavcoin might get traction, but there would still be Bitcoin.
Since there's no hard and factual evidence here, and there's been no proper research apart from posting a few links that does not prove anything, this thread is over the top FUD.
Yes thank you i have red this, but then i'd be tempted to direct you to https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fork-off-919629 or https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-20mb-fork-941331. The last one being a little messy.
Facts are hard to find, especially on something this sensitive. US citizens are even denied the truth regarding 911.
Banks, power, money, bitcoin, world, drugs.. I accept that I may not hold the truth, however I also recognize that it is always more complex.
The USG or even the bank(st)ers wont fold that easily. Just ask yourself what would they do.
I don't get why to everyone that 'proves" that dorian satoshi nakamoto is not THE satoshi nakamoto.
I mean if they were the same person, and he wanted to remain anonymous, what else would he say?
I mean if they were the same person, and he wanted to remain anonymous, what else would he say?
Then he would just make a short statement that he doesn't know what the reporter is talking about and refuse further comments. While Dorian got confused and said something like "I'm no longer involved in that project" in the presence of witnesses which gave Newsweek a good reason to publish the article as a fact.
But let's not further derail this thread.
Gavin always struck me as someone intelligent and sincere. There will likely have to be some compromises made and Gregory does make some valid criticisms but we need to address the transaction limitations sooner than later.
That is not what I asked though.
I asked: Can anyone give me the link for when Satoshi said: "I am moving on, it's in good hands with Gavin and the guys"
Thanks
I asked: Can anyone give me the link for when Satoshi said: "I am moving on, it's in good hands with Gavin and the guys"
Thanks
He expressed interest in moving on months before and made preparations in advance but never gave a farewell message and simply disappeared leaving everyone wondering. His only response years later was :
"I am not Dorian Nakamoto."
I mean if they were the same person, and he wanted to remain anonymous, what else would he say?
Quote from: inBitweTrust
Everyone who is against the blockchain limit being raised has plenty of time to submit their own commits and or finding alternative solutions and working on them like the lightning network.
Its not like we haven't discussed this for years , a plan put in place many months ago, and now you can see the actual commit that is delayed 1 year. If anything Gavin is being extremely careful and this is changing at a snails pace.
Open source projects do not work with complaints. Either submit your own commit, stay on the old chain, or work on an alternative proposal that solves the 3-7tps limitation to convince all the other devs who support the 20MB hard fork.
Its not like we haven't discussed this for years , a plan put in place many months ago, and now you can see the actual commit that is delayed 1 year. If anything Gavin is being extremely careful and this is changing at a snails pace.
Open source projects do not work with complaints. Either submit your own commit, stay on the old chain, or work on an alternative proposal that solves the 3-7tps limitation to convince all the other devs who support the 20MB hard fork.
There's no consensus in the core dev team. So things are not as simple as you think they are. In fact Greg Maxwell, Peter Todd and Jeff Garzik make very valid arguments. Scalability can be tackled from different perspectives (lightning networks, sidechain, offchain, local difficulty depending on blocksize, increasing block size, ...). Each with there ups and downs.
Maybe if people argue and disagree, especially on the when and the how, there is a reason. Reason you should not overlook. We are talking here about a controversial hardfork, this is really serious.
I think it's less likely that the CIA/US gov. is behind Gavin, Satoshi, and/or Bitcoin, and find it more likely that the US gov. is behind a few mixing sites and dark markets.
Gaving is a core developer, and i doubt he even cares about the coming halving, or the bitcoin price.
It is his job to make bitcoin cope with future requirements, and i doubt we all even understand just how much he delivered.
TBF was/is a joke, but thats something else, im talking about Gavin alone now.
How can Galgin "not care" about the coming halving? It is related to the blocksize problem limit which he has been addressing endlessly lately. Everything has an impact as everything is connected. Im sure the halving will bring lots of media attention, which will mean newer users, which will mean more stress, which will mean the blocksize problem being more relevant than ever. It is his job to make bitcoin cope with future requirements, and i doubt we all even understand just how much he delivered.
TBF was/is a joke, but thats something else, im talking about Gavin alone now.
I would like to know Theymos' opinion about this. Maybe he can shine a light on this phoney message.
Gaving is a core developer, and i doubt he even cares about the coming halving, or the bitcoin price.
It is his job to make bitcoin cope with future requirements, and i doubt we all even understand just how much he delivered.
TBF was/is a joke, but thats something else, im talking about Gavin alone now.
I vote to fire himIt is his job to make bitcoin cope with future requirements, and i doubt we all even understand just how much he delivered.
TBF was/is a joke, but thats something else, im talking about Gavin alone now.
That isn't the way open source projects work. Anyone is free to contribute or not and those not contributing only "vote" by choosing to use the code or not. If you disagree with the consensus made between the developers and don't like the core maintainer you can work on a separate stack/repo or create your own.
Whining about it without contributing constructive criticism like other devs are doing is just pathetic and reflect you don't understand how open source works.
I am done with this thread and will avoid being drawn in any more of these silly conversations.
So Satoshi comes back after years for one message, which is - at the same time - not important enough for him to sign? So he didn't care about people knowing if it was really him or not? Why then write that message anyway? Without signing this message is senseless and at least Satoshi would know that.
Jump to: