Will Gavin tell the elites THE truth?
what is that truth of yours exactly ?
Let the observe see allocations.
Topic: Gavin will visit the Council on Foreign Relations - page 14. (Read 55011 times)
what is that truth of yours exactly ?
Let the observe see allocations.
I do not see how sabotaging bitcoin itself could possibly work, and anyone who believes otherwise is underestimating the intelligence of this class of people who they dislike/fear so much.
Gavin is one of these people.
I think you misunderstood what I meant, I was referring to the big suits at the Council for Foreign Relations. Gavin isn't one of those people, that's why he's the one being invited, and not the one doing the inviting.
Yes, yes he is one of those people... or wants to be one very badly,
IMO the result will be how it always is with the CFR and who they go after for subversion... if Bitcoin developers "play ball" then they will be enriched beyond their wildest dreams and have heaps of praise, influence and power bestowed upon them.
Also in return for selling us all out and selling your souls to the CFR and the worlds elite,they will "enable" easier BTC<->Fiat conversions and facilitate interaction with existing systems.
... all combined, making their Bitcoins worth much more scratch.
Have any of you ever really wondered why every bank that exists terminates accounts of Bitcoin businesses?
Also in return for selling us all out and selling your souls to the CFR and the worlds elite,they will "enable" easier BTC<->Fiat conversions and facilitate interaction with existing systems.
... all combined, making their Bitcoins worth much more scratch.
Have any of you ever really wondered why every bank that exists terminates accounts of Bitcoin businesses?
Will Gavin tell the elites THE truth?
what is that truth of yours exactly ?
Will Gavin tell the elites THE truth?
Bitcoin would be better off without the TBF or a listed hierarchy among the devs. Having a central point of communication makes the uninitiated believe Bitcoin is owned by TBF. One organization and one developer should not continually speak for all of the developers and users of Bitcoin. I hope you're telling these groups you're meeting with that when you implement a change the majority of users disagree with Bitcoin will fork and move away from your control. Your chain will become the MintChip of the US government.
I'm usually pretty careful not to call people names. Did I screw up?
You didn't mean to, but you did use a pretty nasty term: conspiracy theories. It's a subconscious reaction to cognitive dissonance. We've been programmed to label out-of-the-box thinking as "conspiracy theory," a label which out-of-the-box thinkers rightly dislike.
My opinion is that we will get to see a cryptocurrency-ubiquitous world monetary system, the concept is too powerful to ever be restrained. If you've spent enough time thinking all the consequences through, you should see that.
+1!
I think it is critical to recognize the dangerous psychology of groups such as the CFR and the individuals of whom they are comprised.
The Book 'Political Ponerology' explains it well. As sobering and nasty as this reality may be, we the masses have to figure out a way to protect ourselves / the planet from the present ultra elite, which is devoid of a capacity for compassion / caring and comes from a position of ultra-exceptionalism.
The Book 'Political Ponerology' explains it well. As sobering and nasty as this reality may be, we the masses have to figure out a way to protect ourselves / the planet from the present ultra elite, which is devoid of a capacity for compassion / caring and comes from a position of ultra-exceptionalism.
+1!
Edit: We have got a bit off topic. I personally do not mind Gavin going to the meeting. I find it interesting that they want to talk with him. However I do find it a bit odd that the Bitcoin Foundation is a police service. Pretty shocked honestly and wonder if that was their goal the whole time. Seems they want control control control in every way.
I find it infuriating and insulting that the Bitcoin Foundation is all down with fight the crime of 'child exploitation', but has not done jack shit to find 'TradeFortress' who paid them. Child exploitation is a heinous crime and I'd love to see all guilty parties castrated. Literally. All ten of them plus the dozens who are employed by the US as mercenaries. It, like 'terrorism', is simply not a large problem but are invariably used just to get a foot in the door. Scum like TF abound and they are definitely the low hanging fruit in terms of fighting problems in the economy.
As for presenting at the CFR I'm all for it, but it should be done from a reasonably well deserved position of strength. It should be easy and completely justifiable to say "Look, Bitcoin derives it's strength from being an open project that the community supports, and that support comes, in part, from transparency. We don't do private opaque meetings." Unfortunately the Bitcoin Foundation threw that out the window from pretty much day one.
There are a lot of good reasons to not grovel before 'the powers that be' and it has nothing to do with some sort of machismo. It has to do with principle and mechanics because operationally it will be easier to do the right thing by being polite and accommodating of reasonable requests, but also firm, separate, and operating with a defensive posture.
Agreed.
Has anybody thought that the Gavin that goes in to the CFR lair might not be the Gavin that comes out? 
Robo Gavin now able to operate on 2 Quantum Bits a second XD
It might be like a Manchurian Candidate situation lol.
Good news. 
Has anybody thought that the Gavin that goes in to the CFR lair might not be the Gavin that comes out?
Robo Gavin now able to operate on 2 Quantum Bits a second XD
As Andreas pointed out first one on the blacklist would be Wikileaks, and last would be HSBC (money laundering inc.). Wondering what the CFR has to say about that.
If they ask about problems with money laundering or drugs ask them what they're doing about the problem with banks laundering drug money. Simple.
Don’t answer with a question. Current and proposed legislation for banks is equally applicable to Bitcoin, in fact Bitcoin offers additional tools for law enforcement through the blockchain these tools are not available from the existing banking & finance industry.
I do not see how sabotaging bitcoin itself could possibly work, and anyone who believes otherwise is underestimating the intelligence of this class of people who they dislike/fear so much.
Gavin is one of these people.
I think you misunderstood what I meant, I was referring to the big suits at the Council for Foreign Relations. Gavin isn't one of those people, that's why he's the one being invited, and not the one doing the inviting.
I do not see how sabotaging bitcoin itself could possibly work, and anyone who believes otherwise is underestimating the intelligence of this class of people who they dislike/fear so much.
Gavin is one of these people.
On a different subject, I would have a bit more respect for Gavin if he just said "My presentation, the Q&A, and any conversations I have will be public record. Period. Else go piss up a rope."
Clearly this is not how Gavin rolls as evidenced by the structure and methods of the Bitcoin Foundation, and that is a major part of the reason that I do not support Gavin or the Bitcoin Foundation.
I suspect that the entire Bitcoin project is in danger of losing what support it has among the more radical of the 'open' group of thinkers.
A preferable scenario would be for Bitcoin Foundation and the reference client to loose support while the rest of the project continues on without it.Clearly this is not how Gavin rolls as evidenced by the structure and methods of the Bitcoin Foundation, and that is a major part of the reason that I do not support Gavin or the Bitcoin Foundation.
I suspect that the entire Bitcoin project is in danger of losing what support it has among the more radical of the 'open' group of thinkers.
A better way of putting it would be to retire the reference implementation as a prototype that has served its purpose, once a heterogeneous mix of two or three clean slate implantations are ready to replace it.
+this
There's at least one good reason to leave it the way it is for a time: keeping the block creating nodes (i.e. miners) on standard code (file under "critical piece of code which a lot of money is tied up in"). Long term stability is important to this system, and the passage of time will do alot to make sure that different miners on different implementations can happily contribute blocks to the same chain. The better that all developers comprehend the system, both for the reference client and any re-implementation, the less likely we are to deal with the mild cataclysm of system-wide block rollbacks. If that means monopolising block creating for a while, then it's possibly not such a bad thing. I'd prefer that it weren't like this, but we have highly capable people working from both sides of the gulf, I've no doubt that the situation is as good as can be reasonably expected (for now).
tl;dr: Software engineering and project planning is hard and sometimes also boring so nobody wants to do it. 
Why does the Bitcoin Foundation want to suck on regulation's dick so bad?
Our developers are turning into regulation puppets by mixing in with the politics.
Our developers are turning into regulation puppets by mixing in with the politics.
You forgot to add the 'baited with $1000 BTC' part. Then multiply that by the 10 BTC/day one would make with a 60 ghash asic and a 3 million difficulty.
Lest we forget, the great asic easymine of 2013.
The most effective way to sabotage Bitcoin is to allow critical portions of the codebase to bitrot and block or delay critical improvements such that an alternative that is more palatable to the establishment would appear artificially viable by comparison.
Did you know, for example, that parts of the script validating code relies on undefined compiler behaviour that effectively makes gcc-specific quirks part of the Bitcoin protocol?
Instead of this being treated as an important bug that should be fixed it's just used an an example of why there shouldn't be diversity in implementations. After a while bugs like that start looking less accidental and more weaponized.
Did you know, for example, that parts of the script validating code relies on undefined compiler behaviour that effectively makes gcc-specific quirks part of the Bitcoin protocol?
Instead of this being treated as an important bug that should be fixed it's just used an an example of why there shouldn't be diversity in implementations. After a while bugs like that start looking less accidental and more weaponized.
There's at least one good reason to leave it the way it is for a time: keeping the block creating nodes (i.e. miners) on standard code (file under "critical piece of code which a lot of money is tied up in"). Long term stability is important to this system, and the passage of time will do alot to make sure that different miners on different implementations can happily contribute blocks to the same chain. The better that all developers comprehend the system, both for the reference client and any re-implementation, the less likely we are to deal with the mild cataclysm of system-wide block rollbacks. If that means monopolising block creating for a while, then it's possibly not such a bad thing. I'd prefer that it weren't like this, but we have highly capable people working from both sides of the gulf, I've no doubt that the situation is as good as can be reasonably expected (for now).
And we know that creating a competing reference implementation is more than possible, the resources and are there to make it work, and any number of scenarios where core code is changed could provide the incentives. If the core-developers forced a revolt, then I'm pretty sure some significant minds would be concentrated to the task (including a possible off-shoot of the core team). I'm also pretty sure how aware all concerned are of this type of scenario in advance (especially capable coders with large amounts of coin who disagree with any design decisions. And you can expect that demographic to continue to grow, they're best placed to understand the value of BTC, after all).
It's also kind of funny that when you collect quotes from the core dev team you find that Bitcoin inhabits a state of superposition between two states: it's simultaneously "just an experiment" and also a "critical piece of code which a lot of money is tied up in" depending on whether you're asking for quality accountability or asking for innovation.
Well, they are (core-devs) doing an awkward high-wire act. They're all publicly known, they didn't consider the relevance of protecting their identities to the same extent that Satoshi did. So handling the entire project overall (PR inclusive) must be a daunting task. It's difficult not to contradict yourself when trying to address independently non-discrete problems from a shared domain.
Patel, haven't figured this out yet? Imagine you own, say 10'000 BTC. what will make the price go up? its the natural incentive structure. however we haven't really seen this kind of wealth creation before, so it will be interesting to see if there are other protocols that are possible.
Why does the Bitcoin Foundation want to suck on regulation's dick so bad?
Our developers are turning into regulation puppets by mixing in with the politics.
Our developers are turning into regulation puppets by mixing in with the politics.
Jump to: