1. Should copyright exist?
2. How better can we allocate money/resources in the Bitcoin space?
3. Why do you support a central foundation?
4. Is Bitcoin guaranteed to happen (like internet or printing press)?
5. What do you think of Cody Wilson?
1. No because I do not find any of the arguments I have read regarding the use of violence against someone merely for speech to be compelling and therefore it would violate the
Non-Aggression Axiom but I remain minded to superior arguments. Additionally, copyright was invented as a tool for the State to suppress the free flow of ideas, is still being used as a tool to suppress ideas like with the raid on Kim Dotcom and is all done under color of law that is built on a very weak intellectual foundation for moral justification.
Consequently, I am against the use of violence to impede or prevent the spread of the
Bitcoin protocol because it is speech.
2. I think developing the core protocol to be incredibly robust and tangential code and services around it which greatly increase the level of protection individuals can secure for the lowest cost possible.
3. I suppose the only thing more difficult than
herding cats is herding honey badgers. Bitcoin is an incredibly complex and technical subject. Jon Matonis and I have been a long-time thought leaders in the space and worked very hard to spread the knowledge about Bitcoin. Consequently, I know how difficult of a job that is to do. As Bitcoin grows and the needs of the economy and community mature I think it will be increasingly important to have some vehicle or mechanism to distribute asymmetrical information so we can build what our customers want. And the Foundation is merely one of many vehicles which can help keep those lines of communication open. After all, with
open source projects we can work in much more complex ways.
And I think it is important, and have incurred significant expenses
personally and allocated time towards, to interact with law enforcement, regulators and governmental agents to educate them objectively on the protocol and persuasively on the features, advantages and benefits of this innovative technology to individuals. However, we should be frugal in the use of the Foundation's funds and consequently if they want to be educated or receive consulting about Bitcoin then we should expect them to pay for it with a check or perhaps even some Bitcoins.
4. Bitcoin is happening but I agree with Mr. Maxwell that there are still some technical weaknesses that could be exploited and thus the reason I think the underlying protocol's robustness should continue to be developed. But human action finds a way and if not Bitcoin then it will likely be some other tool that serves this particular market need and I do not think cryptocurrency as an idea is going away without
absolute and
complete totalitarian tactics by all of the States, which is pretty far outside of the current political reality, and even then it may likely survive. Ideas can only be overcome by other ideas and Bitcoin is an extremely superior idea to the others out there that greatly lowers the costs in terms of time, money and privacy when it comes to transferring value over distance so the economics will present a tailwind for its adoption.
5. He is another
Cipherspace Innovator the likes of which Steve Jobs referred to and is pushing the limits of what we thought was possible with merely freedom of speech and ideas. Additionally, as the Second Amendment was written the word 'arms' referred to armaments or weapons of war. So under a strict construction view of the Founder's intent there should be little if any restrictions so that the People can be on equal footing as the State.
And these are very substantive questions and perhaps you can pose them to the other candidates to get their positions and how they apply to their platforms. Thanks for stirring up the debate.
