For discussion about Litecoin, the leading cryptocurrency derived from Bitcoin. Litecoin is developed with a focus on speed, efficiency, and wider initial coin distribution through the use of scrypt-based mining.
We are an activist hivemind based on the principles of **equality, freedom and democracy**. Fighting for the [free flow of information](https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE), we will operate as a free and open subreddit.
[July 2013] - Is Ripple a corporate scam? - Blog post about the new Ripple Scam on P2P Foundation 7 years ago, the same forum/site where Satoshi had also announced Bitcoin whitepaper almost 12 years ago
Almost a year ago, a Bitcoin Fundation member "channeling" Satoshi predicts its current downfall including the reasons and the timing: "I give your organization less than 18 months before its own irrelevance and infighting consumes itself."
NOTE: I already posted this to /Bitcoin once before but for some reason it was almost instantly deleted. No idea why... The link to the Bitcoin Foundation forum post: https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/960-evolution-of-the-bitcoin-foundation-to-software-protocol/#entry11203 Here's the text: Bitcoin Foundation Forum Posted 28 May 2014 - 10:46 PM Satoshi: "I did not ask for nor give permission to be included in the Foundation's "Founding Members" roll. Please remove me. Foundation: "Satoshi, it was done to honour the fact that your singular contribution to our collective well being is the very reason for the Foundation's existence. It was meant to acknowledge your work. Satoshi: "No, it was meant by you to imbue your organization with legitimacy by association. Please remove my name. Foundation: "But...... we're carrying on your work! We're promoting Bitcoin." Satoshi: "No, you're not. The subtext of the Bitcoin protocol is that heirchial organizations like yours were the problem, addressed to some degree by my solution. Others can now deploy similar approaches for different problems. You are simply promoting yourselves and your own personal ambitions. Please remove my name. Foundation: "We're funding the maintenance and progression of your core protocol. Bitcoin needs us!" Satoshi: "It does not need you. Bitcoin is my child, not yours. You do not understand. It will live or die as an idea. I cast my child into a violent and unforgiving world. That was necessary. I bet the life of my child against the killing powers of constructs like yours. I am proud of my child so far. I give your organization less than 18 months before its own irrelevance and infighting consumes itself. That is the inflexible hallmark of your reality. Please remove my name." Foundation: "What? I don't understand." Satoshi: "I know. Please remove my name".
Alleged pedophile Brock Pierce's BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL is part-owner of Bitcoin's biggest, private, fiat-funded private dev team (Blockstream) & biggest, private, fiat-funded private mining operation (BitFury). Both are pushing SegWit - with its "centrally planned blocksize" & "anyone-can-spend kludge"
Note: The following post was removed by the mods on btc. It is being re-posted here on bitcoin_uncensored. Summary
50% of SegWit hashpower is coming from a single private (non-pool) mining operation BitFury.
BitFury is also Bitcoin's largest private (non-pool) mining operation.
BitFury is fiat-funded - with $30 million from Credit China, and millions of dollars from alleged pedophile Brock Pierce's Blockchain Capital.
Miners should reject the fiat-funded, centrally-planned, dangerous and irresponsible SegWit soft fork hack - and instead use Bitcoin Unlimited, which supports market-based blocksizes via a clean, safe hard-fork upgrade.
Surpise: SegWit SF becomes more and more centralized - around half of all Segwit signals come from Bitfury ...
The Bitfury Attack Strategic full block lunacy: $30 Million injection for the restriction of the Bitcoin Blockchain by 'Credit China' via Bitfury Since 2 days Bitfury is mining 50% of all segwit blocks. The segwit centralization intensifies. Are AXA (via Blockstream) and Credit China (via BF) trying to prevent Satoshi's 'Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System' and preparing to become an offchain hub, or in other words: The Offchain Hub? Will it be possible for honest miners - Bitcoin miners - to win the battle against those fiat-rich offchain investors?
Who is "Credit China"? Why did they just give $30 million dollars to the biggest private miner BitFury? Why is BitFury AGAINST more-profitable market-based blocksizes via a clean upgrade (Unlimited) - and in FAVOR of a centrally-planned 1.7MB blocksize via a messy "anyone-can-spend" hack (SegWit)?
A fiat payment processor and a potential LN Hub. An electronic peer-to-peer cash system is the nightmare of those companies.
A fiat-rich private miner like BitFury might enjoy certain special liberties:
A fiat-rich private miner doesn't isn't as "hungry for" the higher price that Unlimited's market-based blocksize and cleaner code would probably bring - and can instead choose the lower price that SegWit's centrally-planned 1.7MB blocksize and messier code would probably bring.
A fiat-rich private miner like BitFury (ie, not a "pool") also doesn't need to worry about the preferences of individual miners pointing their hashpower at different pools.
The election of Pierce is not sitting well with the Foundation's members, due to accusations in Pierce's past of pedophilia, drug use and fraud. As a result, at least 10 members of the organization have resigned over the decision, according to a report from Reuters on Friday. At least some of those members have also taken to a Bitcoin Foundation forum to express why they are so unhappy with the direction that the Foundation is taking with this recent decision. "If the bitcoin foundation is to be taken seriously, they need to immediately remove Brock Pierce from the board and save face," one member wrote. "There are active lawsuits on corporate fraud and child porn. This is NOT the type of associations you want to have for Bitcoin, especially not with the MSM trying to pull every stunt in the book."
Some in Bitcoin group resign over new board member’s link to sex abuse Brock Pierce haunted by accusations dating to 1999. He says they're "not true." The Bitcoin Foundation, a trade group composed of hundreds of individuals and companies involved in the cryptocurrency’s promotion, has been hit with at least a dozen resignations in the wake of the election of a new controversial board member. Last Friday, American entrepreneur Brock Pierce was elected... Fifteen years ago, Pierce cofounded a Southern California startup called Digital Entertainment Network. Despite raising tens of millions in venture capital, that company eventually went under. Not long before the company was slated to have its initial public offering in 1999, Pierce and two other cofounders were named in two civil lawsuits alleging sexual abuse of underage boys. Pierce was never charged criminally. One of those cofounders, Marc Collins-Rector, is now a convicted sex offender, having pleaded guilty to related charges in two states. Pierce also did not respond to a 2013 civil lawsuit filed against him by UBS Bank for having run up an unpaid credit card bill of over $120,000. UBS won that lawsuit in November 2013 by default.
We must reject the centrally planned takeover of Bitcoin by private, fiat-funded companies like Blockstream and BitFury and shady characters like Brock Pierce - by rejecting their crippled SegWit code (which would force hard-coded centrally-planned blocksize of 1.7MB of everyone for years, and which involves a radical, irresponsible, irreversible hack making all transactions "anyone-can-spend").
25% of mining hashpower is already running better software: Bitcoin Unlimited, which supports market-based blocksizes now and in the future, and avoids the messy hacks and centralization of SegWit.
Why We Must Increase the Block Size and Why I Support Bitcoin Unlimited
"SegWit encumbers Bitcoin with irreversible technical debt. Miners should reject SWSF. SW is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its history. The scale of the code changes are far from trivial - nearly every part of the codebase is affected by SW" Jaqen Hash’ghar
The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?
Hi -- I'm Colin Gallagher, running on campaign of user choice, bitcoin development, privacy & anonymity for Bitcoin Foundation Board, taking your questions. AMA.
I'm here to take any and all questions you have for me as a Candidate for Individual Director for the Bitcoin Foundation! :-) Some of your questions might already be answered by some materials I've prepared or that are already available: My Consider It page (note you can see the other candidates here too) My recent press (interviewed at CCN - this answers a lot of questions people have about my points of view, history, and things I am working on) My participation in a multi-candidate debate released on Feb. 10, 2015 by Let's Talk Bitcoin My focus really is: *user choice *bitcoin development *privacy & anonymity As you'll see from some of my posts on the Bitcoin Foundation forum, I'm also interested in seeing a stronger advocacy role (for bitcoin and for the users) and a greater degree of decentralization (exploring how we can use the blockchain to move different types of Foundation functions away from a centralized control, such as, but not limited to, certain funding decisions which the Foundation may be accustomed to applying traditional voting methods to). Additionally, I don't agree that caving to demands of ever more demanding regulators who continue to demand we seek permits in order to express ourselves across the blockchain is an answer to the problems we face, but rather, I feel that standing strong unflinchingly and not cowering as we encourage users to engage in creative noncompliance is a reasonable objective. That means rejecting the demands of banking coalitions such as the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and clearly standing up to reject the demands of states that are censoring the users, such as New York (see my statement Regarding New York, and What Our Answer To It Must Be) and the Russian Federation (see my statement, To help with the process of worldwide communication and the evaluation of various open source and free options for communication between Russia and the US in anticipation of CoinFest - Russian Federation), for example. For me, it is vital that we continue to strive for a society in which it is free and open to transact for all to the best of our ability. We should constantly be taking notes of where there are opportunities for user choice to be advanced and for the bitcoin protocol to be developed and used around the world. I am open to any questions. brief notes: I will not be available to answer questions on Feb. 12 and 13th (I'm back!); I'll continue to answer your questions through the 19th.
Bitcoin Foundation Debate - Let's Talk Bitcoin is Hosting a Debate for Board Member Candidates, what Questions Should Be Asked?
We're Having a Debate! Hi Everybody, Glutton for punishment I am, I've decided (with the endorsement of the Bitcoin Foundation) to organize and produce a "Debate" for as many of the 14 candidates for the Individual Seat as would like to participate. I'll go over the details of the debate below, but the purpose of this thread is to collect questions from which to select seven. The questions should not be targeted towards any one candidate, if you like the question please press the "I like this" button on the side of the post as more popular questions are more likely to be selected. Seven questions will be selected from here (The Bitcoin Subreddit) and from the Bitcoin Foundation Forums An interview will be held with each participating candidate, they will be asked each of the seven questions. All the interviews will be edited together into four or five half hour long segments, so the question will be asked and then all the candidates answer one after the other. Single-candidate versions will be made available to the candidates for their own promotional or platform establishing purposes, and complete transcripts will be published at both Let's Talk Bitcoin and Bitcoin Magazine under a permissible open source license. Interviews will NOT be edited for verbal clutter, as this is a position that will likely lead to media exposure they will be treated as live. We are targeting a release date of August 31st, and are looking for sponsors at this time. If you're interested, please contact [email protected] So, questions for the candidates - What are the issues that determine who you'll vote for?
Revolutionizing Microdonations: Empowering Everyone to Give, Transforming Transactions
As announced in this Bitcoin Foundation forum release, Filipe Farinha and I have launched a project that we feel will ultimately transform and exponentially expand giving potential. We hope you'll join us in supporting this project with your selection of a perk or direct donation. Cheers!
Jim Harper candidates Himself for Bitcoin Foundation Board of Directors
The topic (From Bitcoin Foundation Forum): "Howdy, folks! I've decided to run for the Bitcoin Foundation's Board of Directors. There's much to discuss and much to be done. It's early, but a "pre-announcement" post up on a "Bitcoin Public Policy" tumblr I've started goes into my thinking on the upcoming election. I'll copy and paste that content below. I'm looking forward to the campaign, and hopefully to serving on the board and helping the foundation reach its potential! Jim Harper I’m a Candidate for the Bitcoin Foundation Board of Directors I’ve started this tumblr as a place to discuss my candidacy for a seat on the Board of Directors of the Bitcoin Foundation in the upcoming board elections, which I understand will soon be announced for early 2015. The tumblr is called “Bitcoin Public Policy” because that’s what I do. I’m the Bitcoin Foundation’s Global Policy Counsel, Jim Harper. The Bitcoin Foundation is the leading non-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of Bitcoin, decentralized digital currency, and blockchain technology. But it has yet to realize most of its great potential. I am enthused and gratified by the hard work so many people have put in and are putting into the Bitcoin Foundation, and by its significant (if too often unsung) successes. But I am also concerned by challenges it faces in vision and direction, organization, management, and fundraising. Perhaps my ten years working in a U.S. non-profit and my experience as a non-profit board director can assist the foundation in finding its feet and voice. I expect that I’ll address all of the issues mentioned above and more during the upcoming campaign and as a director. This may expose some sharp differences of opinion and explore concerns with the Bitcoin Foundation’s management and direction to date. But the purpose of this “pre-announcement” is to cover a small, but important issue in the administration of the upcoming election itself. In a recent post on the Bitcoin Foundation blog , our tireless and careful elections committee chairman, Brian Goss, discussed the potential formation of a nominations committee. I assume (but don’t know) that the proposal is at least in part a response to a past election in which derogatory information about a successful candidate came forward after the election. Those issues are water under the bridge, but they do illustrate the need for, as Brian says, “a healthy, dynamic, lively membership discussion about and with the candidates.” Fostering such discussion is exactly what a nominations committee should do. I would be concerned if such a committee were to take on a gatekeeper role, deciding which candidates should be considered by the membership. That would impinge too much on the vaunted decentralized structure of the foundation, and it could preclude consideration of meritorious candidates while side-tracking or limiting debate. There is at least one pre-declared candidate whose caustic views a well-meaning nominations committee might try to insulate from the election discussion. That would be a mistake. All perspectives should be aired in the campaign. I have seen at least one mention of the possibility that the nominations committee could conduct criminal background checks. If it does so, I think it is important to recognize a few important points. One is my belief that the foundation and the Bitcoin community should not endorse the laws of any one jurisdiction. While I’m certain that the Bitcoin community opposes behavior regarded worldwide as inherently wrong—fraud, theft, murder, exploitation of the vulnerable, and such—there are many crimes in countries around the world that are not matters of worldwide, timeless consensus. These include crime laws banning certain kinds of speech and political organizing. Criminal laws around drug or weapons possession also vary widely over place and time, and they lack timeless consensus. The nominations committee should not implicitly endorse such laws. Similarly, variations in the rule of law and administrative systems around the world can make the presence or absence of an arrest or conviction an unreliable measure of a person. There can be hardened criminal fraudsters with no record because the country they live in does not enforce laws or keep reliable books. There can be honest—even heroic—advocates of liberty, democracy, and tolerance who are branded as criminals by their governments. If it considers criminal background, the nominations committee should take care to interpret this information with care. I say all this not because I have any criminal record! Rather, one of the sensitivities I deal with in my role as Global Policy Counsel for the foundation is how Bitcoin and the Bitcoin community interact with national governments and their criminal laws. The issues are sensitive and require delicate handling. I’m hopeful and confident that the nominations committee will have such sensitivity. With that, let the trumpets blare! There will be an exciting race for the open seats on the Bitcoin Foundation board. Whatever happens in that election, the Bitcoin community will stay united around our shared goal of seeing widespread adoption of Bitcoin, digital currency, and blockchain technology. Whether the outcome you seek is global financial inclusion, enhanced liberty and dignity for all the world’s people, greater privacy protection for the law-abiding, a stable global money supply, or a vibrant and profitable business environment, the Bitcoin Foundation can help advance all those goals. I want the foundation to succeed, and will work to see it achieve its potential if I’m elected."
I am Tibanne the Cat. I was a member of the Bitcoin Foundation until they fraudulently kicked me out, suspended my account, and blocked my forum access. AMA.
I was a member of the Bitcoin Foundation. I paid a member fee. They found me after my name hit the front page of reddit here: http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/26l1es/mark_karpeles_resigned_from_tbf_board_and_removed/ ... further proof that I am the one who created the account is here: http://i.imgur.com/uRhUKko.png ... they never e-mailed me back after my multiple e-mails to them asking to point me in the section of their bylaws which shows: "policy of not allowing individuals to use (1) company names (2) only symbols / numbers (3) joke names." - I received no "Anonymous" status as their e-mail to me says. My account has been deleted, and my forum access has been shut down. Further forum proof: http://i.imgur.com/wMHEgsG.png - I am only doing this since a few people have requested this. And no, I have not been refunded. Ask meow anything.
(Source: Bitcoin Foundation Forum) However, the blockchain voting process did not run smoothly and the following issues arose: The first round of voting took place using the Helios voting system. However, no candidate achieved more than 50% of the vote, as required by the by-laws, therefore a second round was required. The Foundation then made the odd decision to switch the voting platform to ... Daher wird die Bitcoin-Community wahrscheinlich weiterhin hauptsächlich BTC als Namen und Währung der Einheit verwenden Code für einige Zeit. Eine formelle Anwendung der Financial Standards Working Group der Bitcoin Foundation steht kurz vor dem Abschluss. Diese Anwendung würde den ISO 4217-Standard zur Unterstützung von XBT anfordern. The Bitcoin Foundation Submitted An Opposition Letter On The “Crypto-assets” Amendment Presented By LREM MPs To The French Parliament Special Commission To Review The “PACTE” Bill Photo credit: Alex Guibord via Flickr Contact: Pierre Ciric (00) 1 212 260 6090 (NY Fixed), (00) 1 917 846 9744 ... Discussion for and among Bitcoin Foundation Affiliates. 51 topics; 150 replies; Board Elections. Board Election 2016, Board Election 2015, Board Election 2014, Board Elections 2013; 103 topics; 1,228 replies; Off-Topic . Discussion of non-Foundation, non-bitcoin related topics. 90 topics; 430 replies; Meta. Discussion about how these Forums should work. 40 topics; 445 replies; Recent Topics ... A bitcoin foundation is a form of centralization. I don't mind developers of some branch forming a foundation, but that should focus on that branch only. I really dislike any entity pretending to represent my interests yet I am not a member and I do not support them. This is the bitcoin foundation from my perspective; )
Is Bitcoin the Answer? Mike Maloney's Forum For A Monetary ...
Panelists field questions from the audience. This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue How Much Money Will You Make Bitcoin Mining BITCOIN PRICE , BITCOIN FUTURE in doubt http://youtu.be/eO-yrpQpIT8 What is NAMECOIN BITCOIN'S First Fork "The Capitalocene - Geological Age of Money" by Prof. Dr. Harald Lesch. In this exciting lecture Harald Lesch analyses and shows how capital determines our a... Since we released the first season of Hidden Secrets of Money, one of the most common questions we receive is 'What can we do?'. The problems that we face ar... Skip navigation Sign in. Search