I've just announce my candidacy as well - you can find the candidate thread here:
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1199-francis-pouliot-candidate-for-representative-of-the-individual-members/Full post (sorry for the wall of text)
Bringing the Foundation back to its root
My platform as representative of the Bitcoin Foundation's individual membersMy name is Francis Pouliot and I am a full-time Bitcoin advocate, educator, and community organizer. You may have heard of me as Director of Public Affairs at the Bitcoin Embassy, the first physical space in the world dedicated to the promotion and development of the cryptocurrency ecosystem.(...)
BitFrank,
Here's my reply to your post as you had originally posted it in Bitcoin Foundation forum, so that's where I replied to it:
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1199-francis-pouliot-candidate-for-representative-of-the-individual-members/#entry12724I had hoped that this would engender an intelligent and open discussion based on some of your replies in other threads, but I am observing that I am mistaken. As stated from back in the Bitcoin Foundation forum, I do not wish to "burn daylight," by which I mean I do not wish to waste time, with back and forth, when it is evident that you are likely to be inflexible, irrational, or unreasonable.
However, I do hope you'll read my latest wall of text:
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1203-i-vehemently-oppose-the-50-state-solution-and-you-should-too/Ciao
Frank and Colin -
I posted the following because frankly, this is an interesting aspect of bitcoin - it's use and availability as cash and it's perceived utility in "black markets". Discussing such a subject is not equal to advocating it, rather it is an effort towards understanding.
Let me place a US dollar on the table. It has no ethics, it knows no laws, it has no conscious. It is a dead thing made of dead trees. That is money. We understand it by studying it's history and it's use.
Let's not confuse the "nature of money" with the "use of money".
What may be slowly emerging now is attempts by governments to merge these two things, such that money itself operates according to schemes governments do or do not allow or approve of. This is very dangerous. This "attempt to merge" for example is the US government leaning on credit card companies in the US (yes, NOW) to not take process payments from Canadian pharmacies for medicine. Another example is the US government leaning on banks to close bank accounts of porn stars.
This is in my view highly dangerous to society and in no sense or fashion "good." In the world of Bitcoin yes, we do need to discuss the divergence or lack of between the "use of money" and the "nature of money" because some may think they can interject "moral, legal, regulatory" into the nature of bitcoin algorithmically.Hmm, and this makes one wonder if part of this whole regulatory setup is actually a facade while some part of the regulatory/corporation-state apparatus plays in to set itself up on the sidechain (or some variant of DAO or what comes next after that, say, some post-DAO darpa-invention) such that they plan for their own survival even as they fade?
I could explore this further and would like to, but can't at present elaborate between ethics, use vs. nature, the various moral questions we may invent versus what we concerned about at the core in terms of surplus and abundance of violence that we may create indirectly, and algorithmic alternatives to that which we may choose as options, because I have been dealing with doctors matters over the past few days and have to go into a medical center tomorrow for some followup, so I'm out for a day or so.
Cheers, I'll be back soon. A day, day and half tops.