Is Gavin Andresen undercover for the CIA? - page 3.

RodeoX

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1147

The revolution will be monetized!

Quote from: gh0st_m0de on June 02, 2015, 03:45:52 PM

The only reason why I (slightly) humor conversations of this nature, CIA etc.....is because of the name Satoshi Nakamoto.

At least according to name translations, the name itself Satoshi Nakamoto loosely translates to CIA.

Satoshi translating to "wise, intelligent" (via most any baby naming website)
Nakamoto translating to "central" (again baby naming websites, even geneology.com)

Loosely CIA would fit those translations "theoretically".

I just always though Satoshi N. was a very interesting choice for handle or name.

I have no opinion really on Gavin. Just looking at the bigger picture here. I don't think anyone could really know obviously.
On the flip side, would it matter?

Theoretically, If Gavin were CIA dude - what would that mean or what would the effect on the bitcoin world be? What's the intention?

Im gonna go ahead and say, Gavin prob isnt CIA.
CIA would not want so many people using bitcoin - it dilutes the population with legit users making monitoring whoever even harder.
does that make sense?

I speak and read some Japanese and that translation is not correct.

聡中本 is a normal name in Japan. The first word "Satoshi" is something like "wisdom". A bit like "Sophia" in Greek. But the second name is made from two characters that imply "inside origin or inside beginning". The first Character is 中. This is a mouth with a line going inside. The second (moto) 本 depicts a tree with it's roots highlighted. Just as in English the roots imply origin of or the start of something.
It is a bit subject to interpretation as it is not an alphabetic language. But mostly it is a name like Dale Winston. Not the most common name, but not uncommon.

You can also see this in the name ( 東京日本). The first caracter shows a tree with the sun rising behind it. So you must be looking "East" the second is an imperial lantern that means "Capitol". So the first word is Tokyo or eastern capitol. The next word is Japan. There is the square "sun" again but this time followed by "Origin". So Japan means origin of the sun. Or land of the rising sun.

ACCTseller

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

no longer selling accounts

Quote from: AGD on June 02, 2015, 02:02:24 AM

Where would most of you guys be without your government that protects your ass? There are some nice countries in the world that show, how things go when the government is incapable. Life looks so easy, when everything is in balance and you have your fridge filled, but history has shown countless times, that things can change rapidly...

This is very true. It should also be noted that large governments (primarily the US government) plays a large role in keeping the world a (somewhat) safe place so even if there is no/little government where you live, a government is still going to be protecting you.

No Gavin is not a CIA agent. Even if he was Bitcoin is open source and several people have looked at it's source code for any backdoor/spyware/ect. and has found none

gh0st_m0de

newbie

Activity: 19

Merit: 0

The only reason why I (slightly) humor conversations of this nature, CIA etc.....is because of the name Satoshi Nakamoto.

At least according to name translations, the name itself Satoshi Nakamoto loosely translates to CIA.

Satoshi translating to "wise, intelligent" (via most any baby naming website)
Nakamoto translating to "central" (again baby naming websites, even geneology.com)

Loosely CIA would fit those translations "theoretically".

I just always though Satoshi N. was a very interesting choice for handle or name.

I have no opinion really on Gavin. Just looking at the bigger picture here. I don't think anyone could really know obviously.
On the flip side, would it matter?

Theoretically, If Gavin were CIA dude - what would that mean or what would the effect on the bitcoin world be? What's the intention?

Im gonna go ahead and say, Gavin prob isnt CIA.
CIA would not want so many people using bitcoin - it dilutes the population with legit users making monitoring whoever even harder.
does that make sense?

RodeoX

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1147

The revolution will be monetized!

As someone who grew up in a family of actual government operatives, I assure you this is comedy gold to them.

Gavin is a CIA agent. Buwahahahah Cheesy

I'm voting yes. A poll. OMG hahahah.

digicoin

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1000

I think everyone in this forum except me are CIA mole. Get out

TruthBear

member

Activity: 100

Merit: 10

I'm surprised that the Gavin shills haven't skewed the voting to 'No' yet Roll Eyes

Eastfist

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Here's the real reason: Manchurian Candidate. Gavin is NSA. There is distinction. CIA does the thinking, NSA carries out their plan. They're trying to stockpile funds to put their libertarian presidential candidate into office.

fat buddah

full member

Activity: 334

Merit: 102

Get Ready to Make money.

I wonder when these gavin-tards get it that Bitcoin is not broken and running fine. It is a rule of complex system to not change them when they are not broken. There is currently a consensus for 1MB blocks else the network would not be running.

The anti-20MB people have to prove nothing and also have to deliver nothing. All they have to do is tell the reasons for the veto and that's it. There is consensus for Bitcoin as is today else it would not be running. If you want to change it you need consensus. If you get a veto (which you did) then there is no consensus on a change and you need to accept that.

After getting a veto for your proposal you have two options:
1) producing a better proposal which will not get a veto
or
2) leave the group (bitcoin in this case)

that is how consensus principle works if you like it or not. There is even more sophisticated methods of approaching consensus but since you are all behaving like apes i'm not even trying.
It's not like consensus democracies would be something new or something. They are just not as commen and people generally have no idea about it.

AGD

legendary

Activity: 2070

Merit: 1164

Keeper of the Private Key

Quote from: Kprawn on June 02, 2015, 02:15:01 AM

There is a huge difference between consulting with the CIA and working for them. In those days MANY of these "hackers" were Anti-government or Anti-regime. They worked underground on projects to communicate privately {Anon-mailers and PGP encryption ... real 007 shit}

A project like Bitcoin would have flagged a lot of attention and the CIA would do anything to get there hands on the people behind this project.

I think, and this is my opinion... Gavin got flagged and he decided that it would be better to communicate with them directly. You do not want to be red flagged by these people... He went there to state his case and to clear the air.

If I was put in the same situation, I would most probably have done the same. {It will be bad for you to get a internal exam, every time you fly from one city to the next} Wink

Go there... explain things and go on with your life. Roll Eyes

I mostly agree with you, but there are some things to add:

- Most of these "hackers" from the early days are either dead, in prison or they are now working with the once hated government.

- I don't believe, that the communication between Gavin and the CIA is limited to this one known occasion like you said "Go there... explain things and go on with your life." I don't believe, that Gavin told us everything about later corrospondence and he has a right to do that in my opinion. Like Gavin said "it's the nature of the beast": everyone can make part of Bitcoin and as long as you get a majority your fork will win the race.

If I could vote for which of the big players will fork Bitcoin it would rather be Europe or USA than any other.

SuperClam

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1002

CLAM Developer

Quote from: Amph on June 02, 2015, 02:59:56 AM

Quote from: SuperClam on June 02, 2015, 02:23:18 AM

- Proof the problem.
- Proof various solutions.
- Choose a solution (or multiple solutions, leaving the choice to consensus).

the problem is that you can't do a consensus, if you think that tose joke poll can do it...., there must be an option in the client so every node can vote for future upgrade/fork, right now it is just a mess, you do not know who want to follow that specific path and who not

The poll is indeed a "joke".

I disagree that:

Quote from: Amph on June 02, 2015, 02:59:56 AM

the problem is that you can't do a consensus...

I did not mean "social consensus".
I meant "software consensus".

In the end, there WILL be consensus.
That consensus may leave two networks; but, it will be maintained.

Quote from: Amph on June 02, 2015, 02:59:56 AM

...there must be an option in the client so every node can vote for future upgrade/fork...

No need for a "feature".
The client is specifically designed to maintain consensus.
Users vote via running a client that maintains consensus with the network they agree with.

Alternatively, you could split the pubKey space and count chickens.

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3206

Merit: 1069

Quote from: SuperClam on June 02, 2015, 02:23:18 AM

- Proof the problem.
- Proof various solutions.
- Choose a solution (or multiple solutions, leaving the choice to consensus).

the problem is that you can't do a consensus, if you think that thwse joke poll can do it...., there must be an option in the client so every node can vote for future upgrade/fork, right now it is just a mess, you do not know who want to follow that specific path and who not

SuperClam

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1002

CLAM Developer

True; or not.
This conversation is not helpful (even if the results are interesting).

Given a healthy forum of debate, any ulterior motives should emerge.
Alternatively, logic bereft of ulterior motives should emerge.

A well-researched solution(or lack thereof), supported by more than political arguments, is the only logical way forward.

TL;DR

- Proof the problem.
- Proof various solutions.
- Choose a solution (or multiple solutions, leaving the choice to consensus).

Kprawn

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1073

There is a huge difference between consulting with the CIA and working for them. In those days MANY of these "hackers" were Anti-government or Anti-regime. They worked underground on projects to communicate privately {Anon-mailers and PGP encryption ... real 007 shit}

A project like Bitcoin would have flagged a lot of attention and the CIA would do anything to get there hands on the people behind this project.

I think, and this is my opinion... Gavin got flagged and he decided that it would be better to communicate with them directly. You do not want to be red flagged by these people... He went there to state his case and to clear the air.

If I was put in the same situation, I would most probably have done the same. {It will be bad for you to get a internal exam, every time you fly from one city to the next} Wink

Go there... explain things and go on with your life. Roll Eyes

AGD

legendary

Activity: 2070

Merit: 1164

Keeper of the Private Key

Where would most of you guys be without your government that protects your ass? There are some nice countries in the world that show, how things go when the government is incapable. Life looks so easy, when everything is in balance and you have your fridge filled, but history has shown countless times, that things can change rapidly...

TruthBear

member

Activity: 100

Merit: 10

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: TruthBear on June 02, 2015, 12:52:31 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: TruthBear on June 02, 2015, 12:38:35 AM

Quote from: AGD on June 02, 2015, 12:35:15 AM

Quote from: TruthBear on June 01, 2015, 11:13:44 PM

Quote from: AGD on June 01, 2015, 05:02:43 PM

I think it is possible. CIA had interest in Bitcoin pretty early for a reason and they could've seen the need to take control at an early stage, before someone else does it. It's not even about what they can do at that moment, but what might be possible in the future. I also think, they have pretty good arguments to convince people to keep things secret, so Gavin will not come back from the meeting and tell everyone "Hey, I am working with the CIA now and we are working on some cool exploits now", but he will continue working as usual until the CIA wants to change the parameters. Maybe they found an exploit, that will only work when the Blocksize is bigger? That could be the reason for Gavin's overreaction, when many people questioned his idea. Speculation, but makes sense to me....

edit: The CIA knew about Bitcoin about that time of the Wikileaks story in 2010. At that time they wanted to stop Wikileaks from recieving donations. They shut down their Visa and PayPal and as a reaction Wikileaks started to accept Bitcoin. Now what would the CIA do then to stop Wikileaks? Satoshi didn't like the hype, because of the bad image and he thought it was too early for Bitcoin to get media attention. When the CIA contacted Gavin, they were not only trying to understand the technical aspect of Bitcoin, but they wanted control over the whole damn thing.

+1

Overwhelmingly the users of the forum agree with this statement. We are fast approaching the death of bitcoin. It is being killed from within.

I don't understand, why the involvement of the CIA = death of Bitcoin
The source code is still open and everybody can get involved. Why not the CIA?

If you haven't noticed. 90% of bitcoiners hate the government (I'm in the other 10%). This destroys any confidence in the system. There are hundreds of alt coins but none are as big as bitcoin because they lack confidence.

do you know what open source means you piece of shit?

And speak for yourself regarding your stand againt government.

open source = success?

Cheesy

Logic right there... Who will support anything bitcoin when this stupid shit happens? Bitcoin is trying to solve something that doesn't need solving. Have fun with your worthless sea shells.

ah so now you show your true skin. You're not making this thread in good faith, what a piece of shit.

Please refrain from crude language. Your motives are clear after reading your post history. Thanks for the laugh before though, next time i want to be successful, I'll just open source it.

TruthBear

member

Activity: 100

Merit: 10

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: TruthBear on June 02, 2015, 12:38:35 AM

Quote from: AGD on June 02, 2015, 12:35:15 AM

Quote from: TruthBear on June 01, 2015, 11:13:44 PM

Quote from: AGD on June 01, 2015, 05:02:43 PM

I think it is possible. CIA had interest in Bitcoin pretty early for a reason and they could've seen the need to take control at an early stage, before someone else does it. It's not even about what they can do at that moment, but what might be possible in the future. I also think, they have pretty good arguments to convince people to keep things secret, so Gavin will not come back from the meeting and tell everyone "Hey, I am working with the CIA now and we are working on some cool exploits now", but he will continue working as usual until the CIA wants to change the parameters. Maybe they found an exploit, that will only work when the Blocksize is bigger? That could be the reason for Gavin's overreaction, when many people questioned his idea. Speculation, but makes sense to me....

edit: The CIA knew about Bitcoin about that time of the Wikileaks story in 2010. At that time they wanted to stop Wikileaks from recieving donations. They shut down their Visa and PayPal and as a reaction Wikileaks started to accept Bitcoin. Now what would the CIA do then to stop Wikileaks? Satoshi didn't like the hype, because of the bad image and he thought it was too early for Bitcoin to get media attention. When the CIA contacted Gavin, they were not only trying to understand the technical aspect of Bitcoin, but they wanted control over the whole damn thing.

+1

Overwhelmingly the users of the forum agree with this statement. We are fast approaching the death of bitcoin. It is being killed from within.

I don't understand, why the involvement of the CIA = death of Bitcoin
The source code is still open and everybody can get involved. Why not the CIA?

If you haven't noticed. 90% of bitcoiners hate the government (I'm in the other 10%). This destroys any confidence in the system. There are hundreds of alt coins but none are as big as bitcoin because they lack confidence.

do you know what open source means you piece of shit?

And speak for yourself regarding your stand againt government.

open source = success?

Cheesy

Logic right there... Who will support anything bitcoin when this stupid shit happens? Bitcoin is trying to solve something that doesn't need solving. Have fun with your worthless sea shells.

TruthBear

member

Activity: 100

Merit: 10

Quote from: AGD on June 02, 2015, 12:35:15 AM

Quote from: TruthBear on June 01, 2015, 11:13:44 PM

Quote from: AGD on June 01, 2015, 05:02:43 PM

I think it is possible. CIA had interest in Bitcoin pretty early for a reason and they could've seen the need to take control at an early stage, before someone else does it. It's not even about what they can do at that moment, but what might be possible in the future. I also think, they have pretty good arguments to convince people to keep things secret, so Gavin will not come back from the meeting and tell everyone "Hey, I am working with the CIA now and we are working on some cool exploits now", but he will continue working as usual until the CIA wants to change the parameters. Maybe they found an exploit, that will only work when the Blocksize is bigger? That could be the reason for Gavin's overreaction, when many people questioned his idea. Speculation, but makes sense to me....

edit: The CIA knew about Bitcoin about that time of the Wikileaks story in 2010. At that time they wanted to stop Wikileaks from recieving donations. They shut down their Visa and PayPal and as a reaction Wikileaks started to accept Bitcoin. Now what would the CIA do then to stop Wikileaks? Satoshi didn't like the hype, because of the bad image and he thought it was too early for Bitcoin to get media attention. When the CIA contacted Gavin, they were not only trying to understand the technical aspect of Bitcoin, but they wanted control over the whole damn thing.

+1

Overwhelmingly the users of the forum agree with this statement. We are fast approaching the death of bitcoin. It is being killed from within.

I don't understand, why the involvement of the CIA = death of Bitcoin
The source code is still open and everybody can get involved. Why not the CIA?

If you haven't noticed. 90% of bitcoiners hate the government (I'm in the other 10%). This destroys any confidence in the system. There are hundreds of alt coins but none are as big as bitcoin because they lack confidence.

AGD

legendary

Activity: 2070

Merit: 1164

Keeper of the Private Key

Quote from: TruthBear on June 01, 2015, 11:13:44 PM

Quote from: AGD on June 01, 2015, 05:02:43 PM

I think it is possible. CIA had interest in Bitcoin pretty early for a reason and they could've seen the need to take control at an early stage, before someone else does it. It's not even about what they can do at that moment, but what might be possible in the future. I also think, they have pretty good arguments to convince people to keep things secret, so Gavin will not come back from the meeting and tell everyone "Hey, I am working with the CIA now and we are working on some cool exploits now", but he will continue working as usual until the CIA wants to change the parameters. Maybe they found an exploit, that will only work when the Blocksize is bigger? That could be the reason for Gavin's overreaction, when many people questioned his idea. Speculation, but makes sense to me....

edit: The CIA knew about Bitcoin about that time of the Wikileaks story in 2010. At that time they wanted to stop Wikileaks from recieving donations. They shut down their Visa and PayPal and as a reaction Wikileaks started to accept Bitcoin. Now what would the CIA do then to stop Wikileaks? Satoshi didn't like the hype, because of the bad image and he thought it was too early for Bitcoin to get media attention. When the CIA contacted Gavin, they were not only trying to understand the technical aspect of Bitcoin, but they wanted control over the whole damn thing.

+1

Overwhelmingly the users of the forum agree with this statement. We are fast approaching the death of bitcoin. It is being killed from within.

I don't understand, why the involvement of the CIA = death of Bitcoin
The source code is still open and everybody can get involved. Why not the CIA?

tokeweed

legendary

Activity: 3976

Merit: 1421

Life, Love and Laughter...

Quote from: TruthBear on June 01, 2015, 02:28:36 AM

When Gavin went to see the CIA, do you think they turned him? Is this why Satoshi left? Maybe this has been USA's plan from the beginning, which is why they don't fear BTC. Gavin is on a secret mission to tear the community into two; thus the death of bitcoin from the core v XT debate.

Thoughts? I'm genuinely worried what this will do to bitcoin, I don't know if I should dump or not. If Gavin goes to XT, does that mean we're all bag holders of a worthless altcoin, or is XT considered an altcoin? What is real anymore?

You win USA. Bitcoin is a failure; that was a smart move from the CIA. Checkmate, Satoshi.

Cool. See you all in Litecoin.

kingcolex

sr. member

Activity: 254

Merit: 1258

Quote from: Pecunia non olet on June 01, 2015, 05:33:25 PM

Quote from: kingcolex on June 01, 2015, 05:31:05 PM

Quote from: Pecunia non olet on June 01, 2015, 05:29:14 PM

@kingcolex
How about you just stop posting on the thread, bro? You're annoying as fuck.

Just like bitcoin thankfully you don't have the ability to freeze my account. How about you logically put forward your opinion and tell me why and how you disagree with me so we can progress?

It's a barren thing to discuss with you.

I am sorry that's your opinion I am very open to information on this, any proof of paid shills or reasonable speculation with information to Gavin being an employee or contract for the CIA I am totally willing to believe but even with this I think we need to increase the blocksize, I have zero care who the person leading the charge it could be you and I would be all for it as I don't think we can keep the blockchain at the same size.

If you have other options please put them forward, I am not 100% aware of side chains but if they can work without being over spammable then maybe we go that route but I have so many questions about how it will work and I may just be a bit ignorant to the idea but I think blocksize increase seems far simplier.

Topic: Is Gavin Andresen undercover for the CIA? - page 3. (Read 7096 times)