You got it wrong.
Then who runs bitcointalk?
Topic: The Bitcoin Foundation Must Remove Satoshi as Founder - page 2. (Read 6143 times)
You got it wrong.
How can humans complain about the Bitcoin Foundation and say "Don't support them" while they in fact are sitting on a Bitcoin Foundation forum?(Or did I get that wrong? I just noticed the Foundation linked here) It is like eating at McDonalds, complaining about how bad McDonalds hamburgers are, while eating away thinking you're at burger king. If, I didn't get the first part wrong 
/Guru
/Guru
I think the Bitcoin Foundation actually has bigger problems now.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/255a6o/bitcoin_foundation_adds_alleged_child_molester_to/
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/255a6o/bitcoin_foundation_adds_alleged_child_molester_to/
WOW I didn't even know this... This makes me actually hate the bitcoin foundation on so many levels.
As chair of the election committee, I can assure you your hate should be directed at the voters. This was _their_ decision. But, you don't need to trust me. Every voter received the hash of their encrypted ballot and the list of all the ballot hashes is available to each voter.
If the foundation is claiming to speak on our behalf then the vote should be open to all and there obviously should be some rules as to who can stand as a candidate and or when they must resign.
churches with their clergy of pedophiles links themselves to the founder of faith(jesus)
UK BBC links their board members/staff of pedophiles with government.
TBF links their board members of pedophiles with the founder of cryptography
in short. don't trust organizations that try to be tied to a higher power as they all seem to have pedophiles amongst them
UK BBC links their board members/staff of pedophiles with government.
TBF links their board members of pedophiles with the founder of cryptography
in short. don't trust organizations that try to be tied to a higher power as they all seem to have pedophiles amongst them
Satoshi Nakamoto was not a founder of the bitcoin foundation. It is highly unethical for him to be listed as a founder. It is not an honorary title. Satoshi created a decentralised system. He would hate the foundation's centralisation.
Now that a highly controversial figure has been elected to the board I think it is imperative that the foundation stops claiming legitimacy by stating that Satoshi was in any way a founder or in any way approved of that rotten centalisation.
Now that a highly controversial figure has been elected to the board I think it is imperative that the foundation stops claiming legitimacy by stating that Satoshi was in any way a founder or in any way approved of that rotten centalisation.
Oh, fiddlesticks.
Who cares, anyway?
I think the Bitcoin Foundation actually has bigger problems now.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/255a6o/bitcoin_foundation_adds_alleged_child_molester_to/
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/255a6o/bitcoin_foundation_adds_alleged_child_molester_to/
WOW I didn't even know this... This makes me actually hate the bitcoin foundation on so many levels.
As chair of the election committee, I can assure you your hate should be directed at the voters. This was _their_ decision. But, you don't need to trust me. Every voter received the hash of their encrypted ballot and the list of all the ballot hashes is available to each voter.
Satoshi Nakamoto was not a founder of the bitcoin foundation. It is highly unethical for him to be listed as a founder. It is not an honorary title. Satoshi created a decentralised system. He would hate the foundation's centralisation.
Now that a highly controversial figure has been elected to the board I think it is imperative that the foundation stops claiming legitimacy by stating that Satoshi was in any way a founder or in any way approved of that rotten centalisation.
Now that a highly controversial figure has been elected to the board I think it is imperative that the foundation stops claiming legitimacy by stating that Satoshi was in any way a founder or in any way approved of that rotten centalisation.
To be clear: Satoshi is a member of the founders class and afforded the rights, privileges, and responsibilities thereof should he chose to participate.
bullshit
he was the only guy i knew in the beginning
he was the only guy i knew in the beginning
DannyHamilton I wasn't sure if you were trolling or not, but the above post makes it apparent.
Not trolling. Just trying to make a point that a significant number of people don't seem to be able to grasp.
I think it's silly to put Satoshi's name as a "founder" of the bitcoin foundation. Honorary or otherwise.
You did a good job trolling this thread mate. Keep it up, see where it takes you.
DannyHamilton I wasn't sure if you were trolling or not, but the above post makes it apparent.
Not trolling. Just trying to make a point that a significant number of people don't seem to be able to grasp.
I think it's silly to put Satoshi's name as a "founder" of the bitcoin foundation. Honorary or otherwise.
But it doesn't really matter how many bitcointalk.org members come to this thread and complain about it. They're going to do what ever they want, and all of us wanting them to do something different won't change that. If they take (or took?) his name off, it's because they decided that's what they want to do.
To a large extent this is all just a bunch of "tilting at windmills"
I think the Bitcoin Foundation actually has bigger problems now.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/255a6o/bitcoin_foundation_adds_alleged_child_molester_to/
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/255a6o/bitcoin_foundation_adds_alleged_child_molester_to/
Satoshi stopped speaking about 3 years ago and has said nothing save for "I am not Dorian". He said that because an innocent man's life might have been in danger therefore he probably judges that it is right for him to speak in regards to this very exceptional and unusual circumstance.
This is conjecture. I think it's also possible that it was actually Dorian posting to divert attention from himself.
Satoshi Nakamoto was not a founder of the bitcoin foundation. It is highly unethical for him to be listed as a founder. It is not an honorary title. Satoshi created a decentralised system. He would hate the foundation's centralisation.
Now that a highly controversial figure has been elected to the board I think it is imperative that the foundation stops claiming legitimacy by stating that Satoshi was in any way a founder or in any way approved of that rotten centalisation.
Now that a highly controversial figure has been elected to the board I think it is imperative that the foundation stops claiming legitimacy by stating that Satoshi was in any way a founder or in any way approved of that rotten centalisation.
If he was a founder then they would have known him, they are just trying to use his name to sound like they are the official foundation of bitcoin, which is a lie. What they are doing is unethical. Take off satoshi from the board, he may be welcomed there but dont claim you know him. I agree with the Op
What is a "Bitcoin Foundation" part of a trilogy of books or something like that?
IIRC the foundation when pressed before indicated they had no contact with Satoshi and they added him as an honorific. As such I see it just as a name grab for legitimacy. I am a member but I don't agree with the decision to use his name without permission or to imply an association exists where there is none. It is unethical, dishonest, and shows a lack of respect for the creator of the Bitcoin protocol.
It is also an unacceptable burden, to demand that someone (who obviously wishes to be left alone and values his privacy) make a formal statement every time someone jackass decides to fraudulently uses his name without permission. Generally speaking that kind of burden isn't accepted by society in similar situations. You can't use a celebrity name and likeness as an endorsement and then when they sue you, claim as your defense that they didn't explicitly notify you stating they didn't want their name used. There is no such obligation for someone to notify you that they don't want you to use their name. The obligation is on the party using the name and implying an association where none exists to secure that permission before using it.
It is also an unacceptable burden, to demand that someone (who obviously wishes to be left alone and values his privacy) make a formal statement every time someone jackass decides to fraudulently uses his name without permission. Generally speaking that kind of burden isn't accepted by society in similar situations. You can't use a celebrity name and likeness as an endorsement and then when they sue you, claim as your defense that they didn't explicitly notify you stating they didn't want their name used. There is no such obligation for someone to notify you that they don't want you to use their name. The obligation is on the party using the name and implying an association where none exists to secure that permission before using it.
Satoshi Nakamoto was not a founder of the bitcoin foundation. It is highly unethical for him to be listed as a founder. It is not an honorary title. Satoshi created a decentralised system. He would hate the foundation's centralisation.
Now that a highly controversial figure has been elected to the board I think it is imperative that the foundation stops claiming legitimacy by stating that Satoshi was in any way a founder or in any way approved of that rotten centalisation.
Now that a highly controversial figure has been elected to the board I think it is imperative that the foundation stops claiming legitimacy by stating that Satoshi was in any way a founder or in any way approved of that rotten centalisation.
How can you speak for Satoshi? Do you know him personally? Has he told you that he doesn't want to be associated with the Foundation? Can you prove that he didn't give the foundation permission to list him?
It is highly unethical for you to be deciding on behalf of Satoshi if he should be listed unless he has given you permission to do so. Let him speak for himself if he is against it.
This is kinda the double sword, both you and OP are kinda talking for Satoshi. But I kinda agree, he should be honorary member not founder.
It's been fun, but this discussion is getting boring.
You're all talking in circles, and you can "demand action" all you want. It won't make a difference.
Have fun agreeing with each other that the should do what you want them to do.
You're all talking in circles, and you can "demand action" all you want. It won't make a difference.
Have fun agreeing with each other that the should do what you want them to do.
DannyHamilton I wasn't sure if you were trolling or not, but the above post makes it apparent.
For all it's worth I can't find any reference to satoshi on the bitcoin foundation website or any wikipedia article referring to the foundation website. So I guess they have removed it as they have been requested.
It's been fun, but this discussion is getting boring.
You're all talking in circles, and you can "demand action" all you want. It won't make a difference.
Have fun agreeing with each other that they should do what you want them to do.
You're all talking in circles, and you can "demand action" all you want. It won't make a difference.
Have fun agreeing with each other that they should do what you want them to do.
Satoshi Nakamoto was not a founder of the bitcoin foundation. It is highly unethical for him to be listed as a founder. It is not an honorary title. Satoshi created a decentralised system. He would hate the foundation's centralisation.
Now that a highly controversial figure has been elected to the board I think it is imperative that the foundation stops claiming legitimacy by stating that Satoshi was in any way a founder or in any way approved of that rotten centalisation.
Now that a highly controversial figure has been elected to the board I think it is imperative that the foundation stops claiming legitimacy by stating that Satoshi was in any way a founder or in any way approved of that rotten centalisation.
How can you speak for Satoshi? Do you know him personally? Has he told you that he doesn't want to be associated with the Foundation? Can you prove that he didn't give the foundation permission to list him?
It is highly unethical for you to be deciding on behalf of Satoshi if he should be listed unless he has given you permission to do so. Let him speak for himself if he is against it.
This is a completely retarded response. Given the fact that you know full-well Satoshi isn't going to "speak up" in the first place, your response is kind of useless. Even if he did, the onus is not on Satoshi saying "No". In a situation like this, the onus is on him saying "Yes".
Naming him as founder is really just a way for the Bitcoin Foundation to imply that they're *supported* by Satoshi himself. That assertion shouldn't be made unless Satoshi explicitly states he not only founded, but also supports this organization. Naming him as a founding member also implies that everything they do has the blessing of the creator of Bitcoin. This is why the onus is on Satoshi saying "Yes". Not Satoshi saying "No". Given the fact that *everything he did* was intended to end all forms of centralized organizations, the OP's has every logical right to claim Satoshi never said "Yes" to this.
-B-
Jump to: