Topic: The Bitcoin Foundation Must Remove Satoshi as Founder - page 4. (Read 6143 times)
So they've essentially hijacked a name to take advantage or capitalize on an association that doesn't really exist? I get it. Are we alleging fraud here?
Does it really matter whether he's on there or not? If he was removed people would then probably complain to get him reinstated.
global moderator
Activity: 3794
Merit: 2615
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
How do you know he's not another member of the Foundation? Just because bitcoin is decentralised doesn't mean everything else has to be.
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.
The point you make in bold is very good. Unless the Bitcoin Foundation provides proof that Satoshi wants to be listed as a founder then the Bitcoin Foundation is acting unethically. It should be no problem for the Bitcoin Foundation to provide the proof since they must know Satoshi personally to have listed him as a founder.
Satoshi spoke when he did not want to be confused with Dorian, why would not he speak about something a lot more serious as being part of a group full of dirty? He would.
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.
He isn't going to come out and speak for every tiny other thing. He has chosen to leave and be silent. That's his choice. To expect him to say he is not a founder is also to expect him to say a lot of other stuff which he seems to have chosen not to do so.
Therefore unless he has given permission to be listed as founder it is highly unethical and manipulative as well as an outright lie to claim that satoshi was a founder of the bitcoin foundation.
The onus is on the foundation to prove he was a founder. If they can't provide such evidence then his name should be removed so that outsiders can see it as just a group rather than THE group created by THE man himself.
Satoshi spoke when he did not want to be confused with Dorian
No he didn't. If it isn't signed, it didn't happen.
This is one of those "Mind your own business" moments.
There is nothing you can do to control a private club, only call it out and avoid using or donating to it and it's members.
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.
The point you make in bold is very good. Unless the Bitcoin Foundation provides proof that Satoshi wants to be listed as a founder then the Bitcoin Foundation is acting unethically. It should be no problem for the Bitcoin Foundation to provide the proof since they must know Satoshi personally to have listed him as a founder.
Satoshi spoke when he did not want to be confused with Dorian, why would not he speak about something a lot more serious as being part of a group full of dirty? He would.
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.
The point you make in bold is very good. Unless the Bitcoin Foundation provides proof that Satoshi wants to be listed as a founder then the Bitcoin Foundation is acting unethically. It should be no problem for the Bitcoin Foundation to provide the proof since they must know Satoshi personally to have listed him as a founder.
And if Satoshi asked them not to provide such proof? There is no obligation to provide proof that someone wants to be listed as a founder. Has the foundation provided proof that Gavin wants to be listed as a founder? Are they ethically obligated to provide proof that Gavin wants to be listed as a founder?
Don't be so presumptuous as to speak on Satoshi's behalf. If he doesn't want to be listed a a founder, he can speak for himself. In the same way that we can assume that Gavin wants to be listed as a founder (since he hasn't spoken out against it), we can also assume that Satoshi wants to be listed as a founder (since he hasn't spoken out against 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.
Man, Satoshi is part of that crime related foundation since day one 'cause he wants so, he can speak by himself . He is not dead.
Many think of Satoshi as a mystical angel and think like "oh my god, he can't be part of it", but he is not any angel and he is part of that group on his own will.
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.
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.
Jump to: