Who would you call if your org was in crisis mode? http://www.pointblankpa.com/downloads/toolkit_1.pdf
Don't ask me how I found this thread via hunting info on Bitmine's Georgio, stumbling upon Weiss.
Topic: I dont' know how to feel about this.Jim Harper and Amy Weiss to join BF (Read 2079 times)
March 13, 2014, 05:46:50 PM
March 13, 2014, 07:23:39 AM
Just an aside, but sometimes you need to prove you are the *only* owner of the priv key, which is tricky.
I assume you mean from a Joe Avg user perspective? Fairly trivial, cryptographically. (Nontrivial to invent, but trivial for me to understand).
This would be great for auditing purposes.
I haven't spent any time on it and I'm not aware of any present effort, but yes, it could be done. It would have to be built atop the protocol, and would therefore be opt-in. No way around that (nor would it be good if there were).
Why is it bad that it's U.S. centric. Bitcoin started in the U.S., most of the really big criminals of Bitcoin are from the U.S., the lead dev is from the U.S. and the major businesses that use Bitcoin are too. It's natural that the only major organization supporting Bitcoin would focus on the Unraveling States of Americunt.
It's not inherently bad, just inherently risky. The probability of undesired outcomes is high, should Bitcoin become heavily centralized. It won't, and already things are happening that negates any threat that could emerge.
The risk is derived from the same mechanisms that can corrupt any centralized system which is otherwise intended to behave democratically. When it involves lobbyists, politicians, regulators, etc the result is a revolving-door phenomenon. Thus, the fear is the Bitcoin equivalent of what is termed "regulatory capture."
And then we all move to Litecoin or fork Bitcoin. That's the good news about cryptocurrency, the people determine what it is and what it isn't. We will play in their sandbox only as long as it suits us.
Yep. I think, taken in the context of my other posts, it would be clear that this is what I mean. Thus, it's not really "bad" that the Foundation becomes US-centric, at least not for long. There may be outcomes, and those may affect things, and the probability of those outcomes being less than optimal is high with a US-centric foundation, and if they managed to significantly skew the functionality of the majority of the network by influencing the reference client, perhaps even Bitcoin is damaged... but cryptocurrency lives on, regardless of the name. And, to reiterate, the existence of a viable alternative to bitcoind -- btcd -- already makes the odds of a significant non-optimal outcome for Bitcoin itself, far less.
March 13, 2014, 02:31:59 AM
Bitcoin foundation hasn't done one good thing for the community.
That's just bullshit gweedo. Think of all the hours of fun we've had making fun of them and calling out their faults. That has to be worth something.
March 12, 2014, 01:35:54 PM
Damn hard to trust someone who worked for RIAA.
Ex-RIAA vouching for P2P... oh, the irony...
March 12, 2014, 01:30:56 PM
We know what you mean, but here is some info for reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Crypto
And here is a link for your reference. I've used a small "a", even though the link is resolved to a capital:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Crypto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/asshole
Ignorant: not knowing
Intelligence: Knowledge
Stupid: knowing the difference between right and wrong but purposely choosing wrong anyway.
It on you from here. hahahahahaa
March 12, 2014, 09:16:19 AM
We know what you mean, but here is some info for reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Crypto
And here is a link for your reference. I've used a small "a", even though the link is resolved to a capital:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Crypto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/asshole
March 12, 2014, 08:44:22 AM
These people....
So NOT crypto
Not representative of the bitcoin community at all.
Basically BF are getting a team together to control bitcoin like a bank/corporation.
So NOT crypto
Self appointed heads of a headless organisation.
So NOT crypto
So NOT crypto
Not representative of the bitcoin community at all.
Basically BF are getting a team together to control bitcoin like a bank/corporation.
So NOT crypto
Self appointed heads of a headless organisation.
So NOT crypto
We know what you mean, but here is some info for reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Crypto
March 12, 2014, 07:18:34 AM
These people....
So NOT crypto
Not representative of the bitcoin community at all.
Basically BF are getting a team together to control bitcoin like a bank/corporation.
So NOT crypto
Self appointed heads of a headless organisation.
So NOT crypto
So NOT crypto
Not representative of the bitcoin community at all.
Basically BF are getting a team together to control bitcoin like a bank/corporation.
So NOT crypto
Self appointed heads of a headless organisation.
So NOT crypto
March 12, 2014, 06:14:05 AM
Damn hard to trust someone who worked for RIAA.
March 12, 2014, 05:51:34 AM
Just an aside, but sometimes you need to prove you are the *only* owner of the priv key, which is tricky.
I assume you mean from a Joe Avg user perspective? Fairly trivial, cryptographically. (Nontrivial to invent, but trivial for me to understand).
This would be great for auditing purposes.
March 12, 2014, 05:22:27 AM
There are two side to this coin.
There is no doubt that Harper and Weiss can be influential in gaining more public "respectability" for BTC and hence give us holders an enhanced ROI quicker.
My concern is they help steer the ship in the direction of the old money and influence that has guided the planet for the last 2000 years.
People saying its ok we can fork the blockchain and that the people decide are delusional - the vast majority of the global population are still asleep and the more that are encouraged to climb aboard the good ship Bitcoin the more difficult it becomes for us idealists to steer in the right direction.
What we can do is switch to a new coin/movement which is why I for one am paying close attention to cryptos such as Darkcoin and the such.
There is no doubt that Harper and Weiss can be influential in gaining more public "respectability" for BTC and hence give us holders an enhanced ROI quicker.
My concern is they help steer the ship in the direction of the old money and influence that has guided the planet for the last 2000 years.
People saying its ok we can fork the blockchain and that the people decide are delusional - the vast majority of the global population are still asleep and the more that are encouraged to climb aboard the good ship Bitcoin the more difficult it becomes for us idealists to steer in the right direction.
What we can do is switch to a new coin/movement which is why I for one am paying close attention to cryptos such as Darkcoin and the such.
March 12, 2014, 03:14:13 AM
Bitcoin foundation hasn't done one good thing for the community.
March 12, 2014, 03:11:05 AM
Meet Amy Weiss
- Vice President of Public Affairs for the United Nations Foundation
- Senior Vice President of Communications for the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)
- Communications Director for the Democratic National Committee
- "Weiss"
Ok, so she's a communist that supports the UN, RIAA, and she's part of an ethnocentric, racial supremacist cult, sounds great!
- Vice President of Public Affairs for the United Nations Foundation
- Senior Vice President of Communications for the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)
- Communications Director for the Democratic National Committee
- "Weiss"
Ok, so she's a communist that supports the UN, RIAA, and she's part of an ethnocentric, racial supremacist cult, sounds great!
March 11, 2014, 10:43:31 PM
Quote
"Harper said the Bitcoin Foundation is already a credible voice in Washington DC."
...GTFO.
Lol.
as long as they dont add ID verification into gavins QT program. the only ID bitcoin needs is the privkey to prove you own the specific public key in the bitcoin ledger.
Just an aside, but sometimes you need to prove you are the *only* owner of the priv key, which is tricky.I assume you mean from a Joe Avg user perspective? Fairly trivial, cryptographically. (Nontrivial to invent, but trivial for me to understand).
March 11, 2014, 09:37:05 PM
as long as they dont add ID verification into gavins QT program. the only ID bitcoin needs is the privkey to prove you own the specific public key in the bitcoin ledger.
Just an aside, but sometimes you need to prove you are the *only* owner of the priv key, which is tricky.all it proves is that you CONTROL things, it doesn't prove that you own them, that distinction is becoming ever so important.
as for the opening post,
I speculated that today's news of their arrival would result in a media-hype bump worth $50 (coinbase $625 start up to $675), sadly it seems the news only got about a $29 bump ($625 to $654). oh, and this was in addition to the news that a US judge ordered Gox funds frozen (well at lease some of them), that alone should have been worth $50. Seems like the media-hype button isn't working like it used to anymore.
.
March 11, 2014, 06:54:14 PM
Quote
"Harper said the Bitcoin Foundation is already a credible voice in Washington DC."
...GTFO.
March 11, 2014, 06:50:30 PM
as long as they dont add ID verification into gavins QT program. the only ID bitcoin needs is the privkey to prove you own the specific public key in the bitcoin ledger.
Just an aside, but sometimes you need to prove you are the *only* owner of the priv key, which is tricky. March 11, 2014, 06:24:54 PM
as long as they dont add ID verification into gavins QT program. the only ID bitcoin needs is the privkey to prove you own the specific public key in the bitcoin ledger.
now presuming nothing about this changes the bitcoin protocol. i see that although these two public faces have held employment in very expensive salaried jobs before and that the bitcoin foundation wil probably be paying them the same handsome large figures. i think that people with experience of politics can be useful (in the very narrowest of requirements) to ensure the otside media get their facts right and that other politicians learn what bitcoin really is about. basically removing the fud and speculation that is thrown around so much.
i still think employing americans to concentrate on american policy is the stupidest idea. we need people from international law and media instead.
now presuming nothing about this changes the bitcoin protocol. i see that although these two public faces have held employment in very expensive salaried jobs before and that the bitcoin foundation wil probably be paying them the same handsome large figures. i think that people with experience of politics can be useful (in the very narrowest of requirements) to ensure the otside media get their facts right and that other politicians learn what bitcoin really is about. basically removing the fud and speculation that is thrown around so much.
i still think employing americans to concentrate on american policy is the stupidest idea. we need people from international law and media instead.
True! So bad the BF is basically a USBF..
Why is it bad that it's U.S. centric. Bitcoin started in the U.S., most of the really big criminals of Bitcoin are from the U.S., the lead dev is from the U.S. and the major businesses that use Bitcoin are too. It's natural that the only major organization supporting Bitcoin would focus on the Unraveling States of Americunt.
It's not inherently bad, just inherently risky. The probability of undesired outcomes is high, should Bitcoin become heavily centralized. It won't, and already things are happening that negates any threat that could emerge.
The risk is derived from the same mechanisms that can corrupt any centralized system which is otherwise intended to behave democratically. When it involves lobbyists, politicians, regulators, etc the result is a revolving-door phenomenon. Thus, the fear is the Bitcoin equivalent of what is termed "regulatory capture."
And then we all move to Litecoin or fork Bitcoin. That's the good news about cryptocurrency, the people determine what it is and what it isn't. We will play in their sandbox only as long as it suits us.
March 11, 2014, 06:19:00 PM
as long as they dont add ID verification into gavins QT program. the only ID bitcoin needs is the privkey to prove you own the specific public key in the bitcoin ledger.
now presuming nothing about this changes the bitcoin protocol. i see that although these two public faces have held employment in very expensive salaried jobs before and that the bitcoin foundation wil probably be paying them the same handsome large figures. i think that people with experience of politics can be useful (in the very narrowest of requirements) to ensure the otside media get their facts right and that other politicians learn what bitcoin really is about. basically removing the fud and speculation that is thrown around so much.
i still think employing americans to concentrate on american policy is the stupidest idea. we need people from international law and media instead.
now presuming nothing about this changes the bitcoin protocol. i see that although these two public faces have held employment in very expensive salaried jobs before and that the bitcoin foundation wil probably be paying them the same handsome large figures. i think that people with experience of politics can be useful (in the very narrowest of requirements) to ensure the otside media get their facts right and that other politicians learn what bitcoin really is about. basically removing the fud and speculation that is thrown around so much.
i still think employing americans to concentrate on american policy is the stupidest idea. we need people from international law and media instead.
True! So bad the BF is basically a USBF..
Why is it bad that it's U.S. centric. Bitcoin started in the U.S., most of the really big criminals of Bitcoin are from the U.S., the lead dev is from the U.S. and the major businesses that use Bitcoin are too. It's natural that the only major organization supporting Bitcoin would focus on the Unraveling States of Americunt.
It's not inherently bad, just inherently risky. The probability of undesired outcomes is high, should Bitcoin become heavily centralized. It won't, and already things are happening that negates any threat that could emerge.
The risk is derived from the same mechanisms that can corrupt any centralized system which is otherwise intended to behave democratically. When it involves lobbyists, politicians, regulators, etc the result is a revolving-door phenomenon. Thus, the fear is the Bitcoin equivalent of what is termed "regulatory capture."
Jump to: