Topic: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) - page 13. (Read 61198 times)

No, no centralization please. Existing members of the BF should consider withdrawing their membership.

I don't understand that this has to do with anything?

You've misunderstood my point. I was showing how the media and the gov and the public will react.

How the gov actually behave themselves has nothing to do with it. All the media, but perhaps the US particular, have to take a lot of the blame for not raising merry hell about what's gone on. However, it's nothing to do with my point and I don't trust any gov to anything related to blacklisting. It'd be a disaster of epic proportions and cannot be allowed.

However... That does not mean something can be done to prevent the gov doing a major hatchet job such as a third party verification service mandated for all crypto currencies. I don't want anything done but that's wishful thinking. Too much is at stake.

did you read this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/libor-scandal/10394831/City-workers-face-investigation-over-Libor-fixing.html

who do you think is culpable?

How many times - read read read. Stop just reading a headline and throwing out a random statement based on fiction. No wonder Fox News has such a huge effect - people don't want to think for themselves, they just want to be outraged.

Virtually no one wants tainting. Based on the forum posts the op put up, the foundation members don't either.

well if the insiders(who are supposed to be representing the community) covertly agree to work in controls that are beneficial for capital interests, then they know its safe to start buying BTC, and they know this before the general public does and can profit from it.

CoinValidation was literally only just announced and is not even what's under discussion! You're conflating issues.

The foundation themselves are nothing to do with it. I hope I'm not being out of turn but I contacted Mike Hearn and he said he doesn't know about their plans. They need to be looked at and an approach formulated because you can bet govs will love CoinValidation - it could give them more than they ever dreamed. Imagine the US or your knowing every single thing you spend, when, maybe even where. It turns bitcoin into our worst nightmare.

However, if the bitcoin crowd refuse to budge, we'll see a gov supported crypto or a layer on top of bitcoin and it'll all get unnecessarily messy and no one will win. Man in the street doesn't know or care about is, and they don't trust bitcoin anyway. Don't trust govs or banks much either but money wise I guarantee they will trust the dollar or a Visa card many times more than this currency that looks like a ponzi to them and is used by criminals apparently (just putting across a common pov).

So you may not want anyone speaking to regulators or the gov, but you're not thinking it through and whether you agree or not, it isn't on to start making personal attacks and throwing around inaccurate information as we've seen (I'm not saying you are yourself!).

Obviously.

Some "groups" have concluded that Bitcoin will go mainstream and it has to be controlled before it can harm their business and powers.

Why does it seem we have so many British on this side of the discussion lately?  Also the IBM rep who was poking around was also London based.

I think maybe theyre concerned this might happen again:  http://www.no-debts.com/anti-federalist/files/ownmoney.txt

Can I just clarify that no no no I'm not in favour of any of it. I have said that several times

However, some form of regulation is going to happen. It doesn't matter what you say, what I say, what the foundation say, it is going to happen. Just like with KYC with exchanges. Refusing to discuss it internally, let alone externally, is folly in the extreme. You'll then have people like yifu having the regulator's ear instead. That would be an utter nightmare - there would be no balance.

They haven't raised Bitcoin's visibility in this respect - this is being discussing heavily at regulators world wide and multiple companies are working on how they can make money by getting in bed with the gov at our expense (some may even believe it's the right thing to do). I've known this was under discussion in the UK and US since July. It only takes a few contacts to know what's going on, plus enough has been said in public, and many other people here know this too. The only people with their knickers in a twist over a simple discussion are people here.

Let me make clear the difference between something being discussed to as to know how to deal with questioning, which is absolutely essential, and coming out and saying at we should do x.  It's important to recognise the difference. In order to counter arguments for black green grey etc listing, you need to have discussed it, including technical approaches. Not doing so means being caught with your pants down.

Regulators are not necessarily your enemy, but governments and law enforcement certainly can be. Regulators are the guys in the middle. It's all rather more complex than you seem to realise.

Btw This issue goes way beyond the US.

have you actually tried this?

apparently a web link is some sort of new form of argument proof in our modern times.

argumentum ad hrefium?

Keep your fairytails to yourself... the CIA works with the Saudis to run all those merc groups in the middle east.  Wake up.  Not to mention Mossad

does anyone think it's a coincidence that we have a huge run up in BTC price EXACTLY at the time this stuff is going on behind closed doors?

certainly suggests and implicates various parties in some dastardly doings.

watching

There is alternatives.

http://www.assets-otc.com/gocoin/

He's code looks sane, as go code usually does.

-

I was thinking that if this rubbish is implemented, the network will become a battlegound for hacking and attacks. And with the crap that gov is likely to contribute, those attacks will likely succeed.

The foundation needs to improve the strength of the protocol and its resilience, not bend it to anyone's will

at best you will duplicate the pattern and buy some time perhaps?  If the underlying technology is identical, then it's not immune to the same effects.  Some of the altcoins have departed considerably from the basic Bitcoin structure thus it takes more work to couple the various commercial systems to them, but it's not a major barrier.  All the alt-coins are structurally similar if not identical to Bitcoin.

Confidence Chains IS immune to these effects.  I re-factored some very low level elements.

you do realize that code base is a labyrinthine maze of C code, GOTOs, global variables, and other off-putting things?

there are only a few people who are effectively capable of modifying the bitcoin code in any serious way.  The only alternative client is BitcoinJ, written by Mike Hearn, who appears to be at the center of this whole controversy.

Given that not many people here seem to even know the basics of software engineering, that leaves precious few people who can have an impact and haven't been bought out.

'

you shouldn't be so inflammatory and call people stupid, especially when you don't know the meaning of the word banter:

1.
an exchange of light, playful, teasing remarks; good-natured raillery.
verb (used with object)
2.
to address with banter; chaff.
verb (used without object)

Ya and we know how successful the altcoins are. Go take a rest.

You people are so stupid I need to go find popcorn to watch this.
You are fighting your own shadow. Let me repeat this:

Bitcoin Foundation is not imposing anything
Bitcoin Devs are not doing anything along these lines
Bitcoin miners wont allow anyone to go against the best interests of network.

It's a closed book. please stop all this stupid banter.