Topic: [LEAKED] Private Bitcoin Foundation Discussions On Blacklisting, more (ZIP dump) - page 16. (Read 61123 times)

That's still not that good, they can influence them.

I fail to see how 2707 posts by Mike Hearn, some of them (months ago even) precisely about the issue at hand (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/decentralised-crime-fighting-using-private-set-intersection-protocols-157130) correlate to keeping information quiet and shutting people out.

That a tiny part of Mike's communication with some members of the community and also developers like Gavin takes place in a "quieter" forum than bitcointalk... well, seeing the torches and pitchforks these days I actually wonder why he even bothers leaving that oasis of peace and quiet.

Yes, I don't see  any reason why they should have the final say on anything.  We could form a new Bitcoin Guidance Council to keep Bitcoin in line with its original principles.

The OP has completely misrepresented this - please read the whole thread.

The Foundation and the black/red/greenlist issues are different things.

They are very serious issues what you have posted.
The great Satoshi, who created the Bitcoin and Namecoin should bless you for your efforts.
On depositfiles doesn't work the download.

This reminds me of Edward and the US Government.
How about we destroy the foundation before it destroys us?

I very much do, and about bittorrent. However, there is a difference between what a smallish group of users will use and the masses. Whatever regulators do there will be ways around it using black market crytpocurrencies or new tech or straight forward criminality. However, mainstream users and legit businesses can have a lot forced on them with no protocol changes or fork.

We'll then end up in a ridiculous game of cat and mouse that no one can win. Drug wars -> Money wars. Who wants that?!

Remember I think the same as everyone else here, I'm just very aware of what may happen in the real world.

Then you clear dont understand the innovation of bitcoin (nor bittorrent for that matter).

You can do an awful lot on top of the protocol I'm afraid.

The US is not everywhere but you can be sure other countries will follow. Have you seen what they're trying to do behind closed doors regarding IP? The EFF have several good posts on the lack of democratic and completely hidden process going on.

People still read his posts?

WILL YOU ALL STOP WITH THE FUD.

You are like a bunch of animals. Did you not receive even a highschool education? Take the time to read the facts and stop all this crap!

Thanks for sharing this information.

I don't know the exact pricing right now, but regular members are definitely able to access the forum.

http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/2013/11/15/leaked-private-bitcoin-foundation-discussions-enforcing-central-control/

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.

I am NOT joking. Bitcoin is useless without fungibility. Tracking taint programmatically or with regulatory intent is a clear attack on Bitcoin in perhaps the only way that it can presently be attempted since theres no way anyone can get mining superiority anymore. The Bitcoin Foundation should be renamed the Fiat Foundation if they aren't going to take this seriously. Besides, the miners aren't going to let anything get changed to track taint anyway, so why would the devs even talk about this.

I like how in one breath, kjj both says that "these forums aren't elitist" and then goes on to brag that he's an "early lifetime member" and no one calls him out on it.

Yah, those forums aren't elitist or anything... They purposely feel a need to hide their posts from the public? No publicly accessible posts whatsoever? I mean, for Christ's sake, people had to provide us with copies of html files so we could see the discussion that apparently we're "misinterpreting to be support for tracking taint". What is the intent of not having that discussion here if not to *avoid* having an actual discussion about it?

No one even took the fungibility issue seriously there till someone linked to Adam Back's comment, which was, not surprisingly, here on the forums:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3585877

Today on Reddit:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1qomqt/what_a_landmark_legal_case_from_mid1700s_scotland/

I don't see this quality of comment in any of the HTMLs provided... I think its pretty clear the discussion was had in the wrong location. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say it was INTENTIONALLY had there, but they have to realize talking about controversial stuff isn't going to be done any more eloquently amongst a group that actually desires to be elitist than the community as a whole.

Seriously guys, what is the purpose of the Bitcoin Foundation other than to boost your egos and "work with government"? Your messages to government officials should be singular in intent and broad in scope: The US will lose it's best and brightest to China, Canada, Germany, etc. if they intend to control Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is exploding in popularity among the young here in the US. I spoke to a dozen teenagers about future job opportunities in technology the other day expecting to have to explain Bitcoin. Every single one of them knew what it was and about half of them said they already do video game (some sort of game card) transactions nearly daily in it and make some money that way. These were just random kids I didn't even know, they probably have forum accounts. Bitcoin has taken off in ways I don't even understand yet, and I've been around now for a while.

Does the US government really want to take the gamble that Bitcoin supporters, adopters, users aren't going to leave the country and eventually take the smartest up-and-comers out of it? I'd almost imagine this would be an issue of national security to start getting serious about building a better Bitcoin infrastructure in finance and government to actually start accepting Bitcoins for taxes, fees, and payments. That seems to me to be the real conversation they should be having with you, how to accept it for "services rendered" to the taxpayer. They should want the US adopting it faster than elsewhere in the world. Are they seriously going to sit idle while the Chinese population obtains most of the coin? China is running roughshod all over the Western world with their superior populace interest and support. Bitcoin is a direct threat to the petrodollar and the government is sitting on their assess. If they don't adopt and start accepting it now, they lose.

It's too fricking late to even be having these stupid discussions about regulating or modifying or controlling. Now it's adopt or die. That should be your message to Western government officials...

You ruined a good post by saying that the chair discussing it is grounds for a violation. That's the whole problem here. It's absolutely required for him to discuss it in order to know all the argument for an against, and the likely ways it could be implemented technically and their implications.

That has nothing to do with being completely against it in principle.

You can hardly go in front of a regulator and say that you refuse to even discuss it internally, let alone with them. Meanwhile a coin verification service tell regulators that can do it without changing the Bitcon protocol (which they can). All that'll happen is the regulators will mandate merchants use some horrific system and we missed the boat.

Also, this:

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/about/


And yeah, they need to do a better job of communication and members need to be more careful about their behaviour (top and bottom). I'm sure they realise this now.

Note: I went to look at signing up for the foundation but it appeared that forum access was $1000. Is that true? Can regular members not access the forum? It's a little hard to tell. EDIT: I'm told all members can, so it's hardly private if that's the case. $20 if so.

First of all, thank you for not respecting my privacy by "leaking" "what is going on behind closed doors".
Those doors are wide open to anyone who's willing to come up with a negligible fee for access. That's why I personally fail to see the need for "leaking" private discussions of this particular closed user group. I want to make it absolutely clear that I don't approve of copy-and-pasting my intellectual property somewhere where it necessarily will be taken out of context (because the context is just not available outside of the Foundation's forums).

Also, I'd like to congratulate you on "finding" something that's been discussed publicly right here at bitcointalk.org more than half a year ago:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/decentralised-crime-fighting-using-private-set-intersection-protocols-157130
You didn't think it was appropriate to at least look for a minute at what you're "leaking" and wether or not it was already available here?

If you can see through the fudge, there is just 1 thing to conclude from this.  People are DESPERATE for clear principles from the bitcoin foundation.  It's pretty normal they are in a panic, because they don't really have any principles.  I will tell you 1 thing.  If tomorrow someone starts a new foundation, with clear principles 1) 21 million 2) Total privacy 3) Decentralisation ; then pretty much everyone will rally behind it.  The fact that the chair is even discussing this, is grounds for a complete violation.  The root cause is not Mike and not coin taint, it's: not having clear principles and standing behind them.  You touched on the holy trinity/essence of bitcoin.  Since the foundation is seen as a political organisation, which is supposed to protect the bitcoin essence, there is huge backlash.  

I corrected the post - thanks!

It's like arguing with someone who watches fox news. No interest in understanding the issues involved, at all. They just want to scream at the tv.