Topic: Is the Bitcoin Foundation behind the disappearance of Satoshi Nakamoto? (Read 2755 times)

Satoshi is Kim jung un. /thread  (Seriously, does it matter....)

Psychology test
-loop-free-glue-less-p2personality test

would you move too ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrqXTHCGVEo
 

Isn't it obvious?
Satoshi moved on to the second foundation, and will keep us all on track

we already have dozen Hollywood movies about hackers ... I wondering "when" we going to be there A film scripts possibilities are huge ....

btw, you can send your script to:
http://epagogix.com/studios.html

and check the potential return  

ps-> a proper big studio production could be our next bubble ...

I see people don't give a f***
My thread about the bitcoin development that is in full control of the foundation already falled to the limbo.

There can't be a more serious issue then this one.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/how-to-get-btc-foundation-out-of-bitcoin-development-610613

The reason was on his personal website (taken down recently).

It would sound funny if his wife michel had a last name Bell... Michel Bell - rhymes. So he used his wife's last name.

 Yes, competition is the best solution to force things into much better alignment.



Bitcoin is Freedom.

The Bitcoin Foundation is an ineffectual consortium of self-interest, operating under the guise of benevolent advocacy. They need an enemy.

He did the work he needed to do and made it open source so that people could continue his efforts, it was actually an intelligent move, whenever you have a piece of life-changing technology first thing to do is open source it so everybody can have it and then get the fuck out of there so you don't become a target. That said, people are still trying to target him but it looks like he knows how to keep himself hidden, I don't think this had anything to do with the Bitcoin Foundation and he foresaw all this bullshit beforehand so he decided to quit while he was ahead. If he stuck around can you imagine what would happen? I think he definitely could end up being targeted by government agencies.

I saw it in the wiki and followed the reference. It does not say anything how and why Bell became Andresen ?

The more I dig, the more I keep thinkin' it's these guys:

IIRC Mark had registered the "bitcoin" trademark, not the "biitcoin.com" domain.  Is this right?

satoshi was one person, the conversations the username satoshi has shown on this forum years ago, and the dox of the email communication with gavin. shows that satoshi is a single entity.

though bitcoin was not created by satoshi alone. as everyone knows satoshi, gavin and a couple others all collaborated together to make the first few versions of the qt client(protocol) before satoshi disappeared


NO, satoshi was the invitro-fertilisation specialist that brought new life to parents that thought that they couldnt have a child. the parents are all of US!. the child We thought we could never have before 2009 is called bitcoin. and it is OUR duty as parents to look after OUR child.

Well first of all satoshi nakamoto is a group of developers, and i guess its better for them if they keep on hiding.

In re. 4.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Andresen


I wonder if he's related to Alexander Graham Bell.


With BitOwl listening to every word, Bell Labs' board members plot how to oust Morse Inc. from their club.

the pledge the foundation made a couple years ago was to help the economy.
1.many people thought that meant hiring or atleast train a law firm that would really get into bitcoin to hlp clarify legal matters, would help defend people in legal issues regarding bitcoin. and help create ideals that could be submitted to governments about best practices etc.

2.many people thought that the foundation would employ PR guys that would correct media when FUD news was spread, getting media to retract statements. or atleast be there to advice media of the truth before 'print'

3.many people thought that there would be many projects happening, many tasks to vote on, to spread the money pot from members fee's to achieve goals and expand bitcoins community, industry, media presence and education.

but here we are a few year later and apart from paying the bitcoin dev's, which we all agree is needed and quit rightly so.. what has TBF done beyond this, apart from give a dozen people a guaranteed income aswell as a nice mugshot to show on every conference leaflet, to go around and make speaches at conferences to the 99% conference population that already knew more then average joe anyway.

its like they never stretched themselves strong and hard enough, to push themselves beyond the minimum to actually have something that can be seen as a well earned, hard days work.

No I cant   ... well I received an email 2 days ago regards Amsterdam meeting .

....but I had to went down to deepweb looking for a fake student ID to get a discount though   (kidding) ...

Can you tell me what the benefits of your membership are?  Would it help me to try and become a member?

I do have a membership ... I think the foundation should focus mainly on educational mater ... It could be and (in my point of view) should include all industry sectors; but if you step forward to talk in name of our community it should be to talk about the knowhow, experience, best practices, etc and always keeping the educational line.

My 2 Dorian's:

 The current and past self titled, self absorbed 'Bitcoin Foundation' isn't worthy of Bitcoin.  I stand behind those words. Apparently so do many others.

  As far as I have been able to deduce only Gavin Andresen is extremely worthy to be in any leadership role concerning Bitcoin, thank goodness we all have Mr. Andresen leading the Development of Bitcoin and at the Bitcoin Foundation. Maybe others too are very worthy leading the Bitcoin Foundation that are currently in leadership positions but I cannot be anywhere near certain of that at this point in time. Add to that many past/present Bitcoin Foundation board members are obviously extremely unworthy of their past/present positions, and that's what finally forced my reply and voice here.

 This isn't political per say either; this is about anyone being worthy enough to be part of the Bitcoin Foundation's leadership, of the Flagship (Bitcoin), of this Decentralized Monetary Revolution.

 Make no mistake about it; this isn't about anyone's brand of politics or whatever else, but instead it's all about the concern of a group of self serving, self absorbed clowns leading the Bitcoin Foundation and acting mainly for their very own benefit more so than anything else. One fiasco after another has proved this to date. Either do an about face and behave or expect that soon most will be either replaced, or bypassed entirely, and much worse.

 Like the vast majority I am all in favor of a representative body for helping lead Bitcoin. But not what Bitcoin has had at the Bitcoin Foundation overall, to present date.

 The  Bitcoin Foundation is an overall embarrassment, and somewhat of a stain on Bitcoin itself, if that's even possible, which fortunately it's really not. Nothing can stop Bitcoin, that's apparent. But many things can slow it down and hinder it, including poor leadership. And at least until these self serving political maneuvers finally come to an end it will continue to be so in many eyes opinions.

 What I am certain about is that many past and present members of the Foundation should have never made it to a leadership position at the Bitcoin Foundation in the first place, nor even been considered, nor should have an owner of any Exchange been the one to found the Bitcoin Foundation in the first place. The very mixing of industry business leaders onto the Bitcoin Foundation is already conflicting enough, perhaps far too much. Then again it appears this is more a self serving quasi-business-political organization that doesn't concern itself much about leading Bitcoin, but instead the members own personal business agenda's far too very often.

 Most of those residing on what's very much been a self serving board at the Bitcoin Foundation to date don't appear to be worthy to represent Bitcoin in any leadership roles. Maybe some other current Bitcoin Foundation members do, that is still impossible for me to know at this time so far. But already it's been impossible for those like myself to stand beside the  'Bitcoin Foundation' to date, or even support the 'Bitcoin Foundation' up till now.

 I also believe that soon this all blows over as drastic changes are made to come about at the Bitcoin Foundation, or another Foundation altogether as Bitcoin's growth continues to increase.

 As for all the resignations at the 'Bitcoin Foundation'...outstanding! That's a good start. Stand up, be heard, make a stand, do what can be done to make things better, object when nothing else is possible, and if required stand aside and let it self destruct. And if nothing else at least sound out about what one believes and what one objects to publicly, and not merely behind closed doorways.

 Far too often leadership organizations devolve into self absorbed political bodies such as the past and present  Bitcoin Foundation. That needs to end.

 As for the current voting requirements for positions at the Bitcoin Foundation; that too must end. At most a very modest enrollment fee to become an annual member should be all that's required to cast one's vote, nothing more, nor anything less than the BTC equivalent of $10 to $20 annually should be all that it takes to allow one's voice/vote to be heard/cast. When this finally occurs I will join, until then I will continue to cringe concerning almost everything about the so called Bitcoin Foundation. But at the same time I will also continue an unwavering support of the Decentralized Monetary Revolution that Bitcoin is dominating, and that is extremely likely to rightfully continue dominating, with or without decent leadership at the 'Bitcoin Foundation'.

 But make no mistake: The Bitcoin Foundation doesn't represent those like myself. I also believe the Bitcoin Foundation doesn't have Dorian Satoshi's blessing either, not after reading the Bitcoin Whitepaper more than a couple of times.

 But as stated before Gavin Andresen does have my full faith and support as do many others including apparently Dorian Satoshi. Many others also truly help lead Bitcoin from all corners of the Bitcoin community, yet the Bitcoin Foundation doesn't seem to care for anything but a semi-dictatorial self along with of course grossly restricted voting audience for the said Bitcoin Foundation. I only suggest to drop any possible conflicting personal political monetary beliefs when it comes to doing what's best for Bitcoin and it's future and open up the voting of all Board Membership to all Bitcoin Foundation members and keep those annual fees for membership at a very modest amount. That may be difficult for some to take to task, but it's certainly required if Bitcoin is to become all it can be. Otherwise they can fully expect to be a lot more than merely challenged.

 There, I made my peace. I stand by these words.


Caveat emptor