.... Evil plotting sure but conspiracy I think not.
The two are the same. That was the point of giving you the definition. duh
Topic: Peter Vessenes: Take a step back and F*** YOUR OWN FACE!!! - page 2. (Read 8303 times)
.... Evil plotting sure but conspiracy I think not.
The two are the same. That was the point of giving you the definition. duh
Peter absolutely should be saying things like he's saying. Think about it long and hard and you'll figure it out. Don't be so dense.
Erik, it's not just words (although words often do tell a lot... I don't view you, for instance, begging for more regulation... something tells me it would make you sick with yourself, which is a good indicator on your character)
But in Vesseness case, there's more to it. This lawsuit against MtGox... wtf? Plus this suspicious involvement with Bitcoinica, which is still owing thousands of bitcoins to many.
I'm sorry, but I still believe this Peter Vesseness is the type of guy that won't hesitate to use the state and its regulation to rule out competitors. He looks too suspicious to me. I don't trust him. I'd love to be proved wrong, but for now, that's how I see it.
Sure, good points. Let me clarify my position.
I was commenting purely on the statements Peter recently made, and his common "pro regulation" stance. I think someone in a position such as he has is perfectly justified in making those statements. BUT - that justification ends where action begins. To the extent he actually assists, fosters, and furthers state actors against Bitcoin or Bitcoin businesses, then I am very much opposed.
His lawsuit with Gox is certainly awkward and I don't know who's in the right or wrong so I'll just stay out of it. If I ever knew that he used his position at the Foundation to harm someone or some company that hadn't caused harm to someone else, then he would have no support or defense from me whatsoever.
I do not have enough inside information to know what position to take on Peter, at this point, so I remain neutral. But, narrowly speaking, on the topic of "what someone like that should be saying when the authorities come knocking," I think a policy of "keep my friends close and my enemies closer" is a wise policy, and the public "official" representatives (and we know there aren't any but the press doesn't, and that's fine) should not be taking overtly anarchistic positions - not because that position is incorrect morally, but because it is less likely to foster the environment in which Bitcoin has the best chance of thriving.
tl;dr - If his talk is statist, that's fine and maybe even productive. If his actions are statist, then he must absolutely go away and wouldn't be worthy of anyone's support whatsoever.
I'm sorry, but I still believe this Peter Vesseness is the type of guy that won't hesitate to use the state and its regulation to rule out competitors. He looks too suspicious to me. I don't trust him. I'd love to be proved wrong, but for now, that's how I see it.
That is my view also. It appears that Coinlab wants to own the US Bitcoin Space.
They way they are doing it by capturing the media channels through the Bitcoin Foundation. Capturing the development team also through the Foundation. And clearing the playing field of competitors by digging up dirt and setting the regulators on their scent (speculation)
Just look at the Gox/Dwolla shutdown, the Liberty Reserve shutdown, the OKPay issues, the Tangible Cryptography shutdown, etc.
And then look at his statements:
Quote
"The U.S. put out guidance recently through the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and we've been following up on that guidance and crushing bad actors," he said in an interview with CNBC Asia. "We're seeing a bit of a sweep right now," he said.
"There's nothing to indicate that good players who are working hard to stay regulated have anything to worry about."
"There's nothing to indicate that good players who are working hard to stay regulated have anything to worry about."
Coinlab has not produced any valuable service to the bitcoin community that I am aware of. It is easy for them to play 'safe'. In this light I also understand the action of Satoshi Dice not to serve US customers for the time being and Peter selling http://app.bitlaundry.com/ while this crackdown is going on.
I could be wrong, I could be paranoid. But this entire things smells fishy to me and Peter is smack in the middle of it.
Peter absolutely should be saying things like he's saying. Think about it long and hard and you'll figure it out. Don't be so dense.
Erik, it's not just words (although words often do tell a lot... I don't view you, for instance, begging for more regulation... something tells me it would make you sick with yourself, which is a good indicator on your character)
But in Vesseness case, there's more to it. This lawsuit against MtGox... wtf? Plus this suspicious involvement with Bitcoinica, which is still owing thousands of bitcoins to many.
I'm sorry, but I still believe this Peter Vesseness is the type of guy that won't hesitate to use the state and its regulation to rule out competitors. He looks too suspicious to me. I don't trust him. I'd love to be proved wrong, but for now, that's how I see it.
Erik. As Pope to an army of tards and thus the commander of crack legions of SPV clients, you are a king-maker in Bitcoin-land. I council you to distance yourself from ~vess. I mean just publicly or course...to preserve your power for when it really counts.
Yes he's just in it for himself
He's looking for high positions in government. Possibly some well connected regulation office as a director/advisor aimed towards treasury law enforcement.
He's looking for high positions in government. Possibly some well connected regulation office as a director/advisor aimed towards treasury law enforcement.
Peter absolutely should be saying things like he's saying. Think about it long and hard and you'll figure it out. Don't be so dense.
Erik, it's not just words (although words often do tell a lot... I don't view you, for instance, begging for more regulation... something tells me it would make you sick with yourself, which is a good indicator on your character)
But in Vesseness case, there's more to it. This lawsuit against MtGox... wtf? Plus this suspicious involvement with Bitcoinica, which is still owing thousands of bitcoins to many.
I'm sorry, but I still believe this Peter Vesseness is the type of guy that won't hesitate to use the state and its regulation to rule out competitors. He looks too suspicious to me. I don't trust him. I'd love to be proved wrong, but for now, that's how I see it.
Some people need to read between the lines.
Peter absolutely should be saying things like he's saying. Think about it long and hard and you'll figure it out. Don't be so dense.
If the public perception of bitcoin is that it's a bunch of rogues, it'll come under attack sooner than otherwise. If the public perception is that there are some rogues, but in general it's full of compliance-seekers, especially in the all-important Bitcoin Foundation, then the attack will be delayed or prevented.
The phrase walk softly and carry a big stick is important to keep in mind. The public face of Bitcoin should be gentle, accomodating, and non-extreme. It should be business-focused, and not political. The effect of Bitcoin, however, should be known by Bitcoiners anyway and doesn't need to be discussed in polite company
Peter absolutely should be saying things like he's saying. Think about it long and hard and you'll figure it out. Don't be so dense.
If the public perception of bitcoin is that it's a bunch of rogues, it'll come under attack sooner than otherwise. If the public perception is that there are some rogues, but in general it's full of compliance-seekers, especially in the all-important Bitcoin Foundation, then the attack will be delayed or prevented.
The phrase walk softly and carry a big stick is important to keep in mind. The public face of Bitcoin should be gentle, accomodating, and non-extreme. It should be business-focused, and not political. The effect of Bitcoin, however, should be known by Bitcoiners anyway and doesn't need to be discussed in polite company
Wrong, and I've heard this before. And it was wrong then just as it is now. "it'll come under attack sooner than otherwise" - Erik - it already IS under attack. Don't be so dense.
I have a better option for Peter - don't create his own little organization and claim to be the ruler, and then he doesn't have to say anything.
Most of what you say makes you sound like one of the good guys, Erik, but the company you keep has always indicated otherwise. Statements like this only confirm my suspicions.
You underestimate Bitcoin's censorship-resistant abilities.
So everything is a conspiracy? There is no such thing as perfect election but we DO have to have it.
Conspiracy:
Noun
1. A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
2. The action of plotting or conspiring.
To answer your question, yes, just about everything is in some way a conspiracy. Hundreds of people are convicted of it by the government EVERY DAY. People plot and conspire all the time. The question is does their plotting help you? or them?
I conspire against the USA and the douches that run it every day.
Oh so you mean all the conspiracy's that have become true? I don't get people who believe in conspiracy's you realize it takes ALOT of people to do it and keep it a secret? That means not one rat or mole can say on thing of "action of plotting or conspiring". In other words, there is NO CONSPIRACY with our elections. Evil plotting sure but conspiracy I think not.
> I've heard this bullshit rhetoric of "let's work with them" before bitcoin was even around.
Right. Long before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement
Here is an effective strategy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
I don't follow "leaders", especially self-appointed ones, and I don't support the Bitcoin Foundation.
Right. Long before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement
Here is an effective strategy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
I don't follow "leaders", especially self-appointed ones, and I don't support the Bitcoin Foundation.
If you live in the USA, then you run a very high risk of ending up in prison, if you do not obey the prescriptive dictates of self-appointed 'leaders'. If you get caught with a plastic bag filled with dried leaves, you can get sent to prison for decades.
Also, if you are going to flout statutes and regulations, I hope that you are accessing this open discussion board over TOR.
I think you overestimate the government. I break their rules all the time - pretty much every day.
So everything is a conspiracy? There is no such thing as perfect election but we DO have to have it.
Conspiracy:
Noun
1. A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
2. The action of plotting or conspiring.
To answer your question, yes, just about everything is in some way a conspiracy. Hundreds of people are convicted of it by the government EVERY DAY. People plot and conspire all the time. The question is does their plotting help you? or them?
I conspire against the USA and the douches that run it every day.
Sorry that is not how elections are won... Nice try. We would have mitt in office if this were the case.
This is a rather naive statement. Elections are just a show for the average dummie to think he makes a difference.
The elites decide who is going to be president - you and your meaningless "vote" have nothing to do with it.
So everything is a conspiracy? There is no such thing as perfect election but we DO have to have it.
> I've heard this bullshit rhetoric of "let's work with them" before bitcoin was even around.
Right. Long before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement
Here is an effective strategy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
I don't follow "leaders", especially self-appointed ones, and I don't support the Bitcoin Foundation.
Right. Long before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement
Here is an effective strategy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
I don't follow "leaders", especially self-appointed ones, and I don't support the Bitcoin Foundation.
How about we cut out the govt/banks from bitcoin ourself. We do not need to 'work with anyone.' Fuck them, this is bitcoin. Its value is derived entirely free of money.
Exactly. I've heard this bullshit rhetoric of "let's work with them" before bitcoin was even around. It was spewing from Wayne Allen Root when he was compromising the libertarian party for a "seat at the table".
It was bullshit then, and its bullshit now. By trying to work with them, you lose, and apparently that seems to be what Voorhees is pushing for despite all the anarcho-capitalist talk he does. Reminds me of people back in 2008 in my Ron Paul MeetUp that were trying to steer the group towards "working with" the republican party leadership. I didn't buy it and ended up discovering that the people trying to push the group in that direction were indeed moles who were trying to derail us - even though they talked the talk - lying about their beliefs is what a good mole does well.
But Erik, you already know all this. What's your claim to fame here? A gambling site? Bitinstant? If you really cared about bitcoin succeeding, you would have thought of other sites to come up with than something as self serving as an online craps game. And I think most level-headed people know that bitinstant is just an attempt at controlling BTC<->USD exchange.
How about we cut out the govt/banks from bitcoin ourself. We do not need to 'work with anyone.' Fuck them, this is bitcoin. Its value is derived entirely free of money.
OMG, someone who can say something which isn't loaded with hypocrisy and actually makes sense.
Welcome!
Peter Vessenes should resign. One month ago when Coinlab sued Mtgox, there was an uproar on Reddit with these two posts rising to the top:
Open Letter to the Bitcoin Foundation: In Light Of Recent Events, Peter Vessenes' Position As Executive Director Is Surely Now Untenable
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1dlsnl/open_letter_to_the_bitcoin_foundation_in_light_of/
Peter Vessenes just destroyed the credibility of the Bitcoin Foundation.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1dljfu/
It is outrageous to have him as the executive director:
1) He sued Mtgox, one of the other four board members, for 75m
2) He kicked Mtgox off of the bitcoin conference schedule after suing them
3) He set the admission cost of the bitcoin conference to be lower if paid with a credit card
4) He cofounded Coinlab with Tihan Seale. They are scum.
5) Coinlab has not built anything and doesn't do anything for the bitcoin community.
We need an action plan to rid our community of scum, although I agree with Voorhees that this particular comment is fine. If anyone who posted on the first page wants to edit in this post, the would be good.
Open Letter to the Bitcoin Foundation: In Light Of Recent Events, Peter Vessenes' Position As Executive Director Is Surely Now Untenable
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1dlsnl/open_letter_to_the_bitcoin_foundation_in_light_of/
Peter Vessenes just destroyed the credibility of the Bitcoin Foundation.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1dljfu/
It is outrageous to have him as the executive director:
1) He sued Mtgox, one of the other four board members, for 75m
2) He kicked Mtgox off of the bitcoin conference schedule after suing them
3) He set the admission cost of the bitcoin conference to be lower if paid with a credit card
4) He cofounded Coinlab with Tihan Seale. They are scum.
5) Coinlab has not built anything and doesn't do anything for the bitcoin community.
Coinlab were the investors behind Bitcoinica. Tihan Seale and Peter Vessenes founded Coinlab together. Tihan bought Bitcoinica and Coinlab was involved from the beginning. Patrick Murck filed the legal papers on behalf of Bitcoinica investors. We were given fake shares in a fake company.
We need an action plan to rid our community of scum, although I agree with Voorhees that this particular comment is fine. If anyone who posted on the first page wants to edit in this post, the would be good.
Some people need to read between the lines.
Peter absolutely should be saying things like he's saying. Think about it long and hard and you'll figure it out. Don't be so dense.
If the public perception of bitcoin is that it's a bunch of rogues, it'll come under attack sooner than otherwise. If the public perception is that there are some rogues, but in general it's full of compliance-seekers, especially in the all-important Bitcoin Foundation, then the attack will be delayed or prevented.
The phrase walk softly and carry a big stick is important to keep in mind. The public face of Bitcoin should be gentle, accomodating, and non-extreme. It should be business-focused, and not political. The effect of Bitcoin, however, should be known by Bitcoiners anyway and doesn't need to be discussed in polite company
Peter absolutely should be saying things like he's saying. Think about it long and hard and you'll figure it out. Don't be so dense.
If the public perception of bitcoin is that it's a bunch of rogues, it'll come under attack sooner than otherwise. If the public perception is that there are some rogues, but in general it's full of compliance-seekers, especially in the all-important Bitcoin Foundation, then the attack will be delayed or prevented.
The phrase walk softly and carry a big stick is important to keep in mind. The public face of Bitcoin should be gentle, accomodating, and non-extreme. It should be business-focused, and not political. The effect of Bitcoin, however, should be known by Bitcoiners anyway and doesn't need to be discussed in polite company
Wrong, and I've heard this before. And it was wrong then just as it is now. "it'll come under attack sooner than otherwise" - Erik - it already IS under attack. Don't be so dense.
I have a better option for Peter - don't create his own little organization and claim to be the ruler, and then he doesn't have to say anything.
Most of what you say makes you sound like one of the good guys, Erik, but the company you keep has always indicated otherwise. Statements like this only confirm my suspicions.
How about we cut out the govt/banks from bitcoin ourself. We do not need to 'work with anyone.' Fuck them, this is bitcoin. Its value is derived entirely free of money.
Some people need to read between the lines.
Peter absolutely should be saying things like he's saying. Think about it long and hard and you'll figure it out. Don't be so dense.
If the public perception of bitcoin is that it's a bunch of rogues, it'll come under attack sooner than otherwise. If the public perception is that there are some rogues, but in general it's full of compliance-seekers, especially in the all-important Bitcoin Foundation, then the attack will be delayed or prevented.
The phrase walk softly and carry a big stick is important to keep in mind. The public face of Bitcoin should be gentle, accomodating, and non-extreme. It should be business-focused, and not political. The effect of Bitcoin, however, should be known by Bitcoiners anyway and doesn't need to be discussed in polite company
Peter absolutely should be saying things like he's saying. Think about it long and hard and you'll figure it out. Don't be so dense.
If the public perception of bitcoin is that it's a bunch of rogues, it'll come under attack sooner than otherwise. If the public perception is that there are some rogues, but in general it's full of compliance-seekers, especially in the all-important Bitcoin Foundation, then the attack will be delayed or prevented.
The phrase walk softly and carry a big stick is important to keep in mind. The public face of Bitcoin should be gentle, accomodating, and non-extreme. It should be business-focused, and not political. The effect of Bitcoin, however, should be known by Bitcoiners anyway and doesn't need to be discussed in polite company
Wrong, and I've heard this before. And it was wrong then just as it is now. "it'll come under attack sooner than otherwise" - Erik - it already IS under attack. Don't be so dense.
I have a better option for Peter - don't create his own little organization and claim to be the ruler, and then he doesn't have to say anything.
Most of what you say makes you sound like one of the good guys, Erik, but the company you keep has always indicated otherwise. Statements like this only confirm my suspicions.
Some people need to read between the lines.
Peter absolutely should be saying things like he's saying. Think about it long and hard and you'll figure it out. Don't be so dense.
If the public perception of bitcoin is that it's a bunch of rogues, it'll come under attack sooner than otherwise. If the public perception is that there are some rogues, but in general it's full of compliance-seekers, especially in the all-important Bitcoin Foundation, then the attack will be delayed or prevented.
The phrase walk softly and carry a big stick is important to keep in mind. The public face of Bitcoin should be gentle, accomodating, and non-extreme. It should be business-focused, and not political. The effect of Bitcoin, however, should be known by Bitcoiners anyway and doesn't need to be discussed in polite company
Peter absolutely should be saying things like he's saying. Think about it long and hard and you'll figure it out. Don't be so dense.
If the public perception of bitcoin is that it's a bunch of rogues, it'll come under attack sooner than otherwise. If the public perception is that there are some rogues, but in general it's full of compliance-seekers, especially in the all-important Bitcoin Foundation, then the attack will be delayed or prevented.
The phrase walk softly and carry a big stick is important to keep in mind. The public face of Bitcoin should be gentle, accomodating, and non-extreme. It should be business-focused, and not political. The effect of Bitcoin, however, should be known by Bitcoiners anyway and doesn't need to be discussed in polite company
Nice taqiyya. Are you shi'a?
I didn't know evoorhees was Muslem. He looks like Wonder Bread to me.
I have no idea. I just like shitting on voorhees.
Some people need to read between the lines.
Peter absolutely should be saying things like he's saying. Think about it long and hard and you'll figure it out. Don't be so dense.
If the public perception of bitcoin is that it's a bunch of rogues, it'll come under attack sooner than otherwise. If the public perception is that there are some rogues, but in general it's full of compliance-seekers, especially in the all-important Bitcoin Foundation, then the attack will be delayed or prevented.
The phrase walk softly and carry a big stick is important to keep in mind. The public face of Bitcoin should be gentle, accomodating, and non-extreme. It should be business-focused, and not political. The effect of Bitcoin, however, should be known by Bitcoiners anyway and doesn't need to be discussed in polite company
Peter absolutely should be saying things like he's saying. Think about it long and hard and you'll figure it out. Don't be so dense.
If the public perception of bitcoin is that it's a bunch of rogues, it'll come under attack sooner than otherwise. If the public perception is that there are some rogues, but in general it's full of compliance-seekers, especially in the all-important Bitcoin Foundation, then the attack will be delayed or prevented.
The phrase walk softly and carry a big stick is important to keep in mind. The public face of Bitcoin should be gentle, accomodating, and non-extreme. It should be business-focused, and not political. The effect of Bitcoin, however, should be known by Bitcoiners anyway and doesn't need to be discussed in polite company
Nice taqiyya. Are you shi'a?
I didn't know evoorhees was Muslem. He looks like Wonder Bread to me.
Some people need to read between the lines.
Peter absolutely should be saying things like he's saying. Think about it long and hard and you'll figure it out. Don't be so dense.
If the public perception of bitcoin is that it's a bunch of rogues, it'll come under attack sooner than otherwise. If the public perception is that there are some rogues, but in general it's full of compliance-seekers, especially in the all-important Bitcoin Foundation, then the attack will be delayed or prevented.
The phrase walk softly and carry a big stick is important to keep in mind. The public face of Bitcoin should be gentle, accomodating, and non-extreme. It should be business-focused, and not political. The effect of Bitcoin, however, should be known by Bitcoiners anyway and doesn't need to be discussed in polite company
Peter absolutely should be saying things like he's saying. Think about it long and hard and you'll figure it out. Don't be so dense.
If the public perception of bitcoin is that it's a bunch of rogues, it'll come under attack sooner than otherwise. If the public perception is that there are some rogues, but in general it's full of compliance-seekers, especially in the all-important Bitcoin Foundation, then the attack will be delayed or prevented.
The phrase walk softly and carry a big stick is important to keep in mind. The public face of Bitcoin should be gentle, accomodating, and non-extreme. It should be business-focused, and not political. The effect of Bitcoin, however, should be known by Bitcoiners anyway and doesn't need to be discussed in polite company
Nice taqiyya. Are you shi'a?
Jump to: