In re. the latter part, you're asking the same community to lend a blind eye....
If wasn't "personally asking", it was just an if, but I understand your point.
Topic: Has The Bitcoin Foundation lost its fuckin' mind... - page 4. (Read 11954 times)
I always thought Bruce Wagner went away because everyone knew he was a thief, but I wasn't following it closely.
In re. the latter part, you're asking the same community to lend a blind eye....
If wasn't "personally asking", it was just an if, but I understand your point.
In re. the latter part, you're asking the same community to lend a blind eye....
If wasn't "personally asking", it was just an if, but I understand your point.
Have you ever paid to the foundation Bruno ? Otherwise I dont get a point to talk about them.
https://members.bitcoinfoundation.org/current
Search for Bruno Kucinskas.
Have you ever paid to the foundation Bruno ? Otherwise I dont get a point to talk about them.
I see historical parallels here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/02/libyan-leader-gaddafi-ele_n_163071.html
EDIT: as the above is easily misinterpreted I realize now; OPs title should say 'bitcoin industry' rather than 'foundation'. Since what he perceives as a problematic outcome is ultimately the responsibility of the electorate.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/02/libyan-leader-gaddafi-ele_n_163071.html
EDIT: as the above is easily misinterpreted I realize now; OPs title should say 'bitcoin industry' rather than 'foundation'. Since what he perceives as a problematic outcome is ultimately the responsibility of the electorate.
I really think that the BF should ask prospective board members to disclose any lawsuits they are defending. Unless it is for something like an unpaid speeding ticket then the candidate should be asked to withdraw until their legal matters are settled.
I think it would be pretty irresponsible to not do a thorough background check on each prospective member.
A thorough background check
I did some checking and there is little (if any) doubt that Brock Pierce:
1) Repeatedly starts (and helps to start) companies that lose many millions of investor funds.
2) Allegedly cheated a partner for a huge sum in a stock deal.
3a) Left the country when he knew some "wild parties" had gone way too far.
3b) Was sued for child rape by more than one (alleged) victim.
I think the above is reasonably accurate, the sources are (relatively) easy to find on google and in current threads here.
To be fair, in a recent video Brock Pierce seemed like a great spokesperson for Bitcoin.
If the world is ready to completely forgive "thieves and (alleged) pedos", then he's the perfect man to help lead BTC into the future.
In re. the latter part, you're asking the same community to lend a blind eye that kicked Bruce Wagner to the curb, justifiable or not, for only penning ONCE about a three-prong attack involving two adults and an underage boy. What you penned above the fold is much more serious.
I really think that the BF should ask prospective board members to disclose any lawsuits they are defending. Unless it is for something like an unpaid speeding ticket then the candidate should be asked to withdraw until their legal matters are settled.
I think it would be pretty irresponsible to not do a thorough background check on each prospective member.
A thorough background check
I did some checking and there is little (if any) doubt that Brock Pierce:
1) Repeatedly starts (and helps to start) companies that lose many millions of investor funds.
2) Allegedly cheated a partner for a huge sum in a stock deal.
3a) Left the country when he knew some "wild parties" had gone way too far.
3b) Was sued for child rape by more than one (alleged) victim.
I think the above is reasonably accurate, the sources are (relatively) easy to find on google and in current threads here.
To be fair, in a recent video Brock Pierce seemed like a great spokesperson for Bitcoin.
If the world is ready to completely forgive "thieves and (alleged) pedos", then he's the perfect man to help lead BTC into the future.
Bitcoin Foundation is not relevant
whats relevant is the wallets and mining software that runs the bitcoin nodes
those are the real votes on the bitcoin network
whats relevant is the wallets and mining software that runs the bitcoin nodes
those are the real votes on the bitcoin network
The Bitcoin Foundation is currently paying Gavin a salary, so they are relevant since he has control over changes to the code.
I really think that the BF should ask prospective board members to disclose any lawsuits they are defending. Unless it is for something like an unpaid speeding ticket then the candidate should be asked to withdraw until their legal matters are settled.
I think it would be pretty irresponsible to not do a thorough background check on each prospective member.
When yet another person asks, "Why is the price going down?" I'm pointing to this thread.
Bitcoin Foundation is not relevant
whats relevant is the wallets and mining software that runs the bitcoin nodes
those are the real votes on the bitcoin network
whats relevant is the wallets and mining software that runs the bitcoin nodes
those are the real votes on the bitcoin network
Mining software? Isn't the mining hardware (hashrate) way more important?
Bitcoin Foundation is not relevant
whats relevant is the wallets and mining software that runs the bitcoin nodes
those are the real votes on the bitcoin network
whats relevant is the wallets and mining software that runs the bitcoin nodes
those are the real votes on the bitcoin network
As chair of the election committee, I can assure you the "foundation" had nothing to do with the results. The results are soley a product of the desires of the 102 industry members that voted. But, you don't need to trust me. Everyone who voted has proof that their ballot wasn't modified...the voters could fully audit the election themselves...by design.
I don't know Brock Pierce, but of course I know _of_ him. You'd have to have had your head in the sand not to.
I don't know Brock Pierce, but of course I know _of_ him. You'd have to have had your head in the sand not to.
I'm not questioning the results. I'm questioning as to why he was on the ballot in the first place. As far the latter comment is concern, prior to me posting about Brock Pierce, there were less than a half dozen mentions of his name on this forum, chiefly in mundane posts.
What is the situation regarding Mr. Pierce?
first have some tabloid articles around the whole DEN case:
http://boingboing.net/2007/11/15/goldfarming-empire-l.html
a capture of the mentioned radar magazine article Nov 2007 covering the connection between Collins-Rector and Pierce's former company IGE:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080418073324/http://www.radaronline.com/from-the-magazine/2007/11/den_chads_world_marc_collins_rector_1-print.php
http://www.buzzfeed.com/hunterschwarz/mystery-man-at-center-of-alleged-hollywood-sex-ring-has-vani
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/bryan-singer-sex-abuse-case-699828
two wired articles on Pierce's career as a whole, DEN case is only briefly touched:
Part 1 "A Drive Through Laurel Canyon With Brock Pierce"
http://archive.wired.com/gaming/virtualworlds/magazine/16-12/ff_ige_pierce
Part 2 "The Decline and Fall of an Ultra Rich Online Gaming Empire"
http://archive.wired.com/gaming/virtualworlds/magazine/16-12/ff_ige?currentPage=all
Quote
Debonneville's court filings, meanwhile, revealed that the year before, Pierce had told him that Collins-Rector was blackmailing him, threatening to snarl IGE in litigation that would make it unattractive to investors.
as always take all of this with a grain of salt.
On a second thought i'm not sure what to make of this and if Pierce is still connected with Marc Collins-Rector today.
Regarding the fact that he began working for him at the age of 17 i have to say that i've seen a lot of people bumping into the wrong person during their early lifes.
One has to consider it often takes a long time to shake off the aftermath of these bad influences.
I'm still undecided if this is the case here.
Nevertheless Pierce seems like a dodgy character to me (as many other people involved in btc economy).
Why do we need a foundation?
We need a distributed organization in front of a distributed enterprise.
We need a distributed organization in front of a distributed enterprise.
It's funny I've always heard of this foundation but I assumed they Had something to do with bitcoin in terms of PR but I had no idea what they did. And I still don't know. I take it that the debs can do their own thing so I guess prior posters are right maybe we can just ignore them? Sounds like the members can just bribe voters to get elected.
As chair of the election committee, I can assure you the "foundation" had nothing to do with the results. The results are soley a product of the desires of the 102 industry members that voted. But, you don't need to trust me. Everyone who voted has proof that their ballot wasn't modified...the voters could fully audit the election themselves...by design.
I don't know Brock Pierce, but of course I know _of_ him. You'd have to have had your head in the sand not to.
I don't know Brock Pierce, but of course I know _of_ him. You'd have to have had your head in the sand not to.
What is the situation regarding Mr. Pierce?
I really think that the BF should ask prospective board members to disclose any lawsuits they are defending. Unless it is for something like an unpaid speeding ticket then the candidate should be asked to withdraw until their legal matters are settled.
Jump to: