Quote from: pawel7777 on May 04, 2015, 10:19:34 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on May 04, 2015, 09:15:08 AM

Quote from: pawel7777 on May 04, 2015, 08:54:40 AM

1- CIA wouldn't publicly interview their own agents (or potential ones)

2- TBF screwed themselves + stopped paying the devs in April. GA is still Chief Scientist though afaik.

3- Feel free to contribute yourself, offer alternative solutions or just stay on the old fork.

1/ Thats not an argument. Fact is Satoshi vanishes when Gavin is "invited" @CIA. but lol nobody is just "invited" there.. XD

2/ Gavin is/was an accomplice. Kinda like acknowledging their misbehavior by omission.

3/ I wouldnt call the 20Mb Fork a "contribution". More like a "retribution".. all the way back into USG's frame freaks.

Centralize & Control^TM

1- That's not really an argument for or against. But using the common sense, if CIA was to recruit GA, they would far more likely approached him quietly, instead of letting him make public statements about the invitation. Seems to me Satoshi did freak out over wikileaks accepting bitcoins (see his 2nd latest post).

2- Sure, let's not blame the ones that misbehaved, lets blame GA for his 'omission'. Anyway, how's that an argument of him being an agent?

3- I was referring to 'your contribution'. Don't like the fork? Let's hear your ideas/solutions. Most of people seem to agree with the need of lifting the limits with some difference of opinions on details.

That being said, I think it's actually healthy to consider the possibility of GA or any other dev to be an agent, and properly examine any proposed changes and look for threats etc. But announcing that as a fact because of the reasons stated in the OP is just daft.

1/ gavin is CIA buddy because "invitation". Gavin is USG buddy, because MIT Media LAB employee.

2/ gavin "worked" along scammers and deceivers a la Mark Karpeles, Shrem, Murk, Pierce and so on.

3/ there is no solution to be found to a non problem.

Im not saying Gavin is an classic Agent, like with a contract and a nice pension fund. Just that his intentions regarding Bitcoin are closely alined with USG's agenda. By now they surely made sure of it. Dont be naive man.

That being said, im done discussing this, i'll leave it to Bitcoin antifragileness.