Topic: Should Peter Vessenes resign as the Executive Director for Bitcoin Foundation ? (Read 24387 times)
July 10, 2013, 03:17:12 PM
hmm strange news indeed
July 10, 2013, 01:41:22 PM
After savaging Bitcoinica, the BCF, and Coinlab this one-man wrecking crew moves on to his next adventure. The Winkle ETF perhaps?
edit: Here's a suggestion to do the most damage to Bitcoin as possible: A tainting authority!
July 10, 2013, 02:38:26 AM
May 15, 2013, 07:42:00 PM
Starting to get a little stinky ... especially if there is any link between DHS action against Mt. Gox and Vessenes/Draper/etc.
May 15, 2013, 10:43:17 AM
Peter should resign. Mt Gox wont be at bitcoin conference. Mt gox gave 10000 btc to bitcoin foundation. Peter is ceo of foundation. Foundation organized conference. There is a conflict of interest here.
May 15, 2013, 09:17:51 AM
I'm of the opinion that no business interests should be on the foundation's board,
That's pretty silly for a trade group, especially in a community that believes in the free market.
Um, NO. Wrong.
I don't "believe" in a free market - I KNOW that free markets are important - that's why there shouldn't be ANY type of "foundation" for bitcoin made up of people trying to promote their own business interests. Meaning, its great for Peter to be a businessman, but he becomes a scummy fuck commie when he tries to give himself a competitive edge by giving himself a mandate ala his own "foundation". He's trying to slide the monopoly power of government onto bitcoin, so that it can be regulated to his advantage.
That's utter bullshit, and you know it Garzik. Of course, I had you pegged as a statist from the moment you brought up regulation in an interview back in 2011.
How much does everyone want to bet that Draper, Vessenes, and everyone else associated with or promoting the "foundation", are all part of the same old Secret-Handshake-club? Y'know, the one with the square and compass ran by the same old kids who think they're entitled because of their families heritage?
May 15, 2013, 05:12:18 AM
http://pandodaily.com/2013/05/14/dept-of-homeland-security-freezes-accounts-between-dwolla-and-bitcoin-exchange-mt-gox/
Same Tim Draper aka Timothy C. Draper (?):
http://www.solidarity-us.org/site/node/1531
Not sure about the rest of you, but if it's the same person involved in both these cases (Tim Draper), I would be very surprised if he has any other goal at all than enrichment for his own company and person. I haven't dug deep into it, but from the looks of it, the attempt at making that legislation doesn't go well with wanting the best for 'the community at large', so personally if I knew that, i wouldn't take his money at all. As the saying goes, adults seldom change their ways..
Edit: Why did I put this here? Given the above has merit, it seems like Vessenes has done little research into his partners before accepting to take their money. It seems very strange to claim.
Vessenes writes:
http://coinlab.com/status (Click on the May 2nd update)
He mentions his kids here, yet he takes on cooperation with a man seeking to make education much harder to get for kids from poor families. Given these facts are correct, Vessenes is either malicious, incompetent or very naive, I don't know which it would be, perhaps a combination ?
Quote
The plaintiff, which is backed by Tim Draper, Geoff Entress, Peter Vessenes, and others, claims that Mt. Gox breached this agreement by dealing with North American customers directly and failing to share data as stipulated under this agreement.
Same Tim Draper aka Timothy C. Draper (?):
http://www.solidarity-us.org/site/node/1531
Quote
California's Proposition 38 was a particularly nasty piece of legislation sponsored by Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper. Draper, a loose cannon Republican with his eyes on the governorship, spent $23 million of his own money on the effort, which if successful would have gutted the public system, drawing funding away from neighborhood schools and expanding the trend toward a two-tier education system that favors rich families over poor.
Not sure about the rest of you, but if it's the same person involved in both these cases (Tim Draper), I would be very surprised if he has any other goal at all than enrichment for his own company and person. I haven't dug deep into it, but from the looks of it, the attempt at making that legislation doesn't go well with wanting the best for 'the community at large', so personally if I knew that, i wouldn't take his money at all. As the saying goes, adults seldom change their ways..
Edit: Why did I put this here? Given the above has merit, it seems like Vessenes has done little research into his partners before accepting to take their money. It seems very strange to claim.
Vessenes writes:
http://coinlab.com/status (Click on the May 2nd update)
Quote
Bitcoiners have, on average, lost more money due to technology difficulties, frozen / lost banking relationships and shady characters like pirateat40 than due to any part of Bitcoin's fundamental economics. I hate this fact, passionately. I have a vision in which high quality service and technology and ethics can be delivered to you, me, my kids, everyone who has a stake in Bitcoin.
He mentions his kids here, yet he takes on cooperation with a man seeking to make education much harder to get for kids from poor families. Given these facts are correct, Vessenes is either malicious, incompetent or very naive, I don't know which it would be, perhaps a combination ?
Indeed it is the same Timothy C. Draper.
From Forbes:
"In the first official venture capital raise for a direct investment in bitcoin, CoinLab secured $500,000 today from seed stage Silicon Valley firm Draper Associates and others, including Seattle angel investor Geoff Entress, former assistant treasurer at Microsoft Jack Jolley, and familiar bitcoin investor Roger Ver.
Draper Associates also known as Draper Fisher Jurvetson.
http://www.drapervc.com/team/ (see tab header "Draper Associates")
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Timothy_C._Draper
The microsoft connection is also interesting as (from wikipedia) "Draper invested in and contributed to the development of", among other things Hotmail.
May 15, 2013, 12:24:22 AM
http://pandodaily.com/2013/05/14/dept-of-homeland-security-freezes-accounts-between-dwolla-and-bitcoin-exchange-mt-gox/
Same Tim Draper aka Timothy C. Draper (?):
http://www.solidarity-us.org/site/node/1531
Not sure about the rest of you, but if it's the same person involved in both these cases (Tim Draper), I would be very surprised if he has any other goal at all than enrichment for his own company and person. I haven't dug deep into it, but from the looks of it, the attempt at making that legislation doesn't go well with wanting the best for 'the community at large', so personally if I knew that, i wouldn't take his money at all. As the saying goes, adults seldom change their ways..
Edit: Why did I put this here? Given the above has merit, it seems like Vessenes has done little research into his partners before accepting to take their money. It seems very strange to claim.
Vessenes writes:
http://coinlab.com/status (Click on the May 2nd update)
He mentions his kids here, yet he takes on cooperation with a man seeking to make education much harder to get for kids from poor families. Given these facts are correct, Vessenes is either malicious, incompetent or very naive, I don't know which it would be, perhaps a combination ?
Quote
The plaintiff, which is backed by Tim Draper, Geoff Entress, Peter Vessenes, and others, claims that Mt. Gox breached this agreement by dealing with North American customers directly and failing to share data as stipulated under this agreement.
Same Tim Draper aka Timothy C. Draper (?):
http://www.solidarity-us.org/site/node/1531
Quote
California's Proposition 38 was a particularly nasty piece of legislation sponsored by Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper. Draper, a loose cannon Republican with his eyes on the governorship, spent $23 million of his own money on the effort, which if successful would have gutted the public system, drawing funding away from neighborhood schools and expanding the trend toward a two-tier education system that favors rich families over poor.
Not sure about the rest of you, but if it's the same person involved in both these cases (Tim Draper), I would be very surprised if he has any other goal at all than enrichment for his own company and person. I haven't dug deep into it, but from the looks of it, the attempt at making that legislation doesn't go well with wanting the best for 'the community at large', so personally if I knew that, i wouldn't take his money at all. As the saying goes, adults seldom change their ways..
Edit: Why did I put this here? Given the above has merit, it seems like Vessenes has done little research into his partners before accepting to take their money. It seems very strange to claim.
Vessenes writes:
http://coinlab.com/status (Click on the May 2nd update)
Quote
Bitcoiners have, on average, lost more money due to technology difficulties, frozen / lost banking relationships and shady characters like pirateat40 than due to any part of Bitcoin's fundamental economics. I hate this fact, passionately. I have a vision in which high quality service and technology and ethics can be delivered to you, me, my kids, everyone who has a stake in Bitcoin.
He mentions his kids here, yet he takes on cooperation with a man seeking to make education much harder to get for kids from poor families. Given these facts are correct, Vessenes is either malicious, incompetent or very naive, I don't know which it would be, perhaps a combination ?
May 04, 2013, 12:38:41 AM
Not to mention all of the mining/arbitrage opportunities. As I said, surely these people must have millions worth of BTC. Not saying they should work for nothing, but sheesh, it doesn't take much brain power to find a way to get paid in this game...
Eh, if they were busy with trading, mining and arbitraging like a good obsessive-compulsive daytrader all day, there would be very little development... Bitcoin could really use some more devs that are paid full time to work on the code (and testing!).I don't buy it - Let's hope that surely any core dev has been mining continuously for the last 3 years? Any self-respecting geek has a rig running somewhere that really only requires paying the ISP/electric bills after the up-front work and expense? All I can say is that any core bitcoin dev who doesn't have money right now must've made some REALLY BAD financial decisions...
Quote
Quote
Are you geeks unable to think outside of the "must have cubicle and salary" mentality?
Not really. But that is one of the few ways to get more dev hours to be spent on Bitcoin. Specialization is important. If, for example, devs were to start their own companies, a lot of their time will be spent on organizational issues and not developing.This is the same kind of question as "why doesn't Gavin become the face and press contact of Bitcoin". Right, if he were to talk to press all day he couldn't do the thing that's currently most beneficial to Bitcoin anymore.
Not what I said at all. If I had the money I would pay Gavin to do WHATEVER HE WANTS ALL DAY as long as he occasionally helped me with my bitcoin exchange business... Just having the guy onboard gives credibility and security to any company. Remember when Linus worked for the Crusoe processor guys?
May 03, 2013, 10:19:50 PM
I'm of the opinion that no business interests should be on the foundation's board,
That's pretty silly for a trade group, especially in a community that believes in the free market.
May 03, 2013, 09:35:33 PM
I'm of the opinion that no business interests should be on the foundation's board
Exactly Peter has a massive conflict of interests at the very least.
May 03, 2013, 09:32:35 PM
May 03, 2013, 09:20:43 PM
Quote
Anyone care to inform me why the hell was this person elected as director in the first place?
Self appointed
So essentially he created this foundation and invited every power ranger to join?
May 03, 2013, 09:18:58 PM
Quote
Anyone care to inform me why the hell was this person elected as director in the first place?
Self appointed
May 03, 2013, 09:17:51 PM
Anyone care to inform me why the hell was this person elected as director in the first place?
May 03, 2013, 07:45:38 PM
I wonder how many people who voted No at the beginning of the thread have changed their minds.
My mind has changed to a definite yes, get rid of this guy. This is just too much baggage and conflict of interest.
Otherwise, the so-called Bitcoin Foundation is a joke and deserves a scammer tag.
My mind has changed to a definite yes, get rid of this guy. This is just too much baggage and conflict of interest.
Otherwise, the so-called Bitcoin Foundation is a joke and deserves a scammer tag.
FWIW, I was joking about changing my vote to yes (or wishing to if I were not lazy.) On the other hand, voting 'no' in the first place was a bit of a joke as well.
The Bitcoin Foundation itself has been something of a joke(-ish type thing) in my mind for a while and to say the honest truth I actually could barely give a shit about who's who in the organization. The thing is so opaque that it is not very possible to form a valid opinion anyway.
I do believe that someone's profits are likely in the top-most level of what is important to these guys, and that probably means high BTC values. It's just a matter of figuring out the strategy and timings of BCF's operations and figure out how that translates into actions which will maximizing my profit. On the BTC I choose to sell at least.
May 03, 2013, 07:35:31 PM
I suppose it could work. So long as we don't have to look at some picture of some creepy looking guy.
I was thinking about a more subtle way of asking for donations in the official client and on the official bitcoin.org page.
May 03, 2013, 07:20:09 PM
Yes, I've also suggested this before - kind of like the wikimedia fundraising campaign ?
Please Read This Personal Appeal From Bitcoin Founder Satoshi Nakamoto.
I suppose it could work. So long as we don't have to look at some picture of some creepy looking guy.
May 03, 2013, 07:16:43 PM
I wonder how many people who voted No at the beginning of the thread have changed their minds.
My mind has changed to a definite yes, get rid of this guy. This is just too much baggage and conflict of interest.
Otherwise, the so-called Bitcoin Foundation is a joke and deserves a scammer tag.
My mind has changed to a definite yes, get rid of this guy. This is just too much baggage and conflict of interest.
Otherwise, the so-called Bitcoin Foundation is a joke and deserves a scammer tag.
May 03, 2013, 06:53:50 PM
Not to mention all of the mining/arbitrage opportunities. As I said, surely these people must have millions worth of BTC. Not saying they should work for nothing, but sheesh, it doesn't take much brain power to find a way to get paid in this game...
Eh, if they were busy with trading, mining and arbitraging like a good obsessive-compulsive daytrader all day, there would be very little development... Bitcoin could really use some more devs that are paid full time to work on the code (and testing!).Quote
Are you geeks unable to think outside of the "must have cubicle and salary" mentality?
Not really. But that is one of the few ways to get more dev hours to be spent on Bitcoin. Specialization is important. If, for example, devs were to start their own companies, a lot of their time will be spent on organizational issues and not developing.This is the same kind of question as "why doesn't Gavin become the face and press contact of Bitcoin". Right, if he were to talk to press all day he couldn't do the thing that's currently most beneficial to Bitcoin anymore.
Jump to: