Do you trust the Bitcoin Foundation?
aarongreenspan.com
aarongreenspan.com
"State money transmission laws" belong to a set of legal rules that I don't care about as long as nobody gets harmed (physically or w.r.t. his property).
Also, one person being arrested doesn't imply that he has done something bad (unfortunately). These days there are even people that did something bad and wander freely the earth.
Please base you story on immoral or unethical behavior and not on infringement of arbitrary laws. I have no problem with trusting your judgement but I do know that I don't trust your lawmaker.
While I must confess that I do not fully understand the motives at play, and everyone is innocent until proven guilty, I'm struggling to find a reason for a profitable company to file for bankruptcy which isn't fraudulent.
I just wanted to criticize that many of the arguments in the original article refer to activities like violating the "state money transmission laws" or "money laundering" and "suspicious transactions" (http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/index.html?id=5618295)
The problem for all of us could be that people often forget that "An idea is not responsible for the people that believe in it" (some "Don Marquis" said that)
i don't think that's how it works, unless you mean clean of negative publicity. i really doubt most lobbying are clean, but you don't hear about them, because they act like the kings concubines.
It isn't usually called borrowing when you don't give stuff back.
Just an aside. This may be an incriminating statement to make, especially without anonymity. I don't know what it is like in Europe, but I doubt an American lawyer would feel well knowing that a client has littered the internet with weapons a future prosecutor could find online with a simple Google search for your name.
I'm not sure what the benefit is for revealing this attitude, even if you do feel strongly in this regard.
But then again, taken out of context (the "no harm" part), an eager prosecutor could use it (successfully or not) so I suppose you are right.
Just as a side note: This is not how it should be, and ironically and most unfortunately, your statement reinforces my original point :(
I'm based in Europe but personally know over 5 people who he has defrauded and he has cost me a lot of money and several days of headaches.
From: https://bitcoinfoundation.org/blog/?p=418
> The Bitcoin core development team has worked to limit transaction malleability. There is broad agreement in the community that this needs to be eliminated. Finding the best and most responsible solution will take time. In the meantime, users of the reference implementation do not need to be concerned. Transactions are always tracked properly by the Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind software.
No, it refused to participate in one court case filed by the Don Quixote of money transmission.
I think what we will see in the Bitcoin Foundation is the same thing we see happening in Bitcoin as it grows; a shake out of the less ethical players. So far Shrem is out if things don't go well at MtGox their CEO is next and hopefully this Vessenes guy as well if it turns out he really is up to this nonsense.
I still have to be convinced about bitcoin about a peer reviewed research on the subject.
I'd trust it to make a transaction, but not to keep a wallet with many bitcoin on it.
I don't think users or investors have anything to do with the foundation, the foundation is just an entity that is there to communicate on some stuff about bitcoin.
The foundation is free to promote anything it wants, and people are free to criticize or to believe it to their own risk.
I'm personally wary of the foundation because some of the central members promote coin blocking and tracking, and I see this as opposite to Bitcoin's intended purpose.
Do I use local currency? Yes.
-- one enforcing use of its currency
Interesting. From my point of view Bitcoin - is an agreement on protocol. We trust the idea and protocol to be secure.
What if someone changes this protocol and you won't be happy with these changes (and you can't control these changes now) - does it mean you were enforced to use it?
Is that assumption true? Or do people just blindly update whenever there's an update?
Of course, some people can upgrade blindly. But if in the middle of transition it turns out that some people are worse off, everyone will rush back to avoid wasting resources on blocks that are not 100% accepted.
Bitcoin Foundation or some well-known economist or developer may be put out some reasons for some change and convince people to upgrade to new rules. But the ultimate decision is in hands of every individual user: miner, merchant or a regular consumer.
Criminal charges don't matter that much to me. An entity that's a potential danger for the global banking world would certainly get into legal trouble even they weren't doing anything wrong.
So no, not much trust.