Topic: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) - page 11. (Read 61198 times)

Maybe this is all part of Gavin's scheme.

He's said before that he is in favor of a heterogenous network composed of multiple implementations - perhaps Bitcoin Foundation's job is to piss us all off and get people to take a serious look at btcd and Bits of Proof.

I wonder what it would take to make Armory work with btcd instead of bitcoind...

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.  The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

I like you, let's be friends.

Question is whether or not Gavin would be willing to break away from the Foundation. Hint: the answer is [probably] no.

Imagine Bin Laden is still around.

Gavin doesn't need BF to get paid. He could open a ReDonate account tonight and get enough people to sign up to support whatever salary requirement he has.

I like you, let's be friends.

Question is whether or not Gavin would be willing to break away from the Foundation. Hint: the answer is [probably] no.

Gavin doesn't need BF to get paid. He could open a ReDonate account tonight and get enough people to sign up to support whatever salary requirement he has.

Yes they pay Gavin, but that's only because we accept their changes and update our software. If we stop doing that and fork QT, the need for them diminishes quickly.

When you are chair of a position you have to accept that you no longer are speaking for yourself, especially when you are specifically talking about an idea positively and in relation to setting official policy. In bureaucrat speak, that's promoting an idea, and given his other posts he's promoting it pretty heavily.

You know I mentioned this debacle today to someone I know who is a high-profile government bureaucrat. They read jdillon's initial post and their response was pretty blunt: the fact that this blew up as quickly and as big as it did by itself indicates that Mike doesn't know what he's doing.
....
An important part of not being disorganized on the inside is accepting common principles - there is rough consensus that fungibility and privacy is important and that blacklists and coin taint are bad ideas. Given that the first few times the idea has come up it's been thoroughly shot down a good committee chair would put their personal opinions aside, and work with that consensus to figure out how to best implement it into policy that was accepted by the community and achieved the goals of the community. Instead Mike is pushing a very minority opinion and is wasting his time and credibility.

Now if Mike did want to fix this situation he could do so very easily: Just say that while his personal opinions differ, as chair he accepts that the community is strongly opposed to any form of blacklist, redlist or whatever is the latest name applied to them, and in his official capacity will respect that and will honestly work towards policy that reflects those desires.

you are out of the topic . The truth is Laden bought weapons using USD not bitcoin ,so why not ban USD worldwide ? Because it's not money's fault .

You already have a codebase released from that group, the one at http://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin

If it is changed in a way that is seriously objectionable, as opposed to minor disagreements about engineering tradeoffs, believe me, you will see alternative releases from myself and many others pop up.

BF is absolutely useless private club. They answer regulator questions? Why to talk to govs, when they are dead in future with their monetary system?

Why they hide their conversations? Maybe they also should close the bitcoin code?

I will completely stop using official client when centralized shit will be added. I already don't like alert keys trojan. Who owns keys? Who will protect owner from external pressure of interested parties?

You will not stop the crime with centralization, but kill bitcoin while crime will grow. Crime is a standalone system out of Bitcoin.


Stop spread the FUD about terrorism. Bin Laden and Al-Kaida were created by CIA. Almost every "evil dictator" US fighted with was created by CIA. They created evil and now they scare us by it. How Bitcoin is responsible for that? Fuck the binladen, fuck the US.

US invaded into Afganistan and control biggest fields of poppy. They spread drugs around the world. How Bitcoin is responsible to this? Why Bitcoin should submit its features to US authorities who fuck the world in the ass?

You know what? Governments are the real crime. Stop speak to them. Fuck them off. They will eat themselves in the end.

Imagine Bin Laden is still around.

Reading this is disappointing for a number of other reasons...

Taint tracking is precisely why we need ZeroCoin or CoinJoin or whatever. Do it now.
[...]

-As for Mike Hearn, I contacted him directly about Inputs.io and the fact that it was promoted by the administrator of this site.  I suggested he make announcements somewhere else and no longer support Bitcointalk.org because it was defrauding new users with the ads.  he told me to "go away" and hire my own programmer to fork the code.

Can you elaborate on incentivizing unique address use? I hope you are referring to single use addresses, not re-using the same address permanently.