Re: Is Gavin "The Financial Crisis Is Over" Andresen correct, compromised, or crazy?
...
Back to Blockstream and it's corporate structure, I would note that it might have some potential benefits. Under TPP (and surely the upcoming TAP) corporate structures have access to adjudication in international cases and Bitcoin is certainly international. Of course the judicial tribunals report under the U.N. security council so it is unlikely that a monetary solution which competes with whatever the bankster class favors will get much of a fair shake, but a corporate structure might provide some relief from certain kinds of action-packed nation-state abuse (of the type which Kim Dotcom got bothered by.)
I can tell you've put some serious thought into this. But I couldn't disagree more with the spirit of what I've bolded. It sounds like something that upside-down Ripple guy would have said. It's a horrible thing to say about Bitcoin.
Just horrible.
I'm genuinely interested in your 'just horrible' interpretation if you care to elaborate.
From probably back in my early time on this board I'd advocated for simply having as little interaction as possible with any official governing body. I think that was part of my argument against TBF...they had the potential to become a point of attack, and boy was that prescient (IMHO.)
I did not use the term 'ignore' since I've felt from day one that keeping a close eye on the attack modes possible from governments was critical. And, of course, a development focus on not allowing the system to fall into traps which they could set. I don't even mind cooperating with government bodies when it makes sense and does not pose a threat since governments do plenty of OK things, but always with a very wary eye toward attacks which I've felt are certain to come eventually (assuming Bitcoin didn't self-destruct on it's own.)
From day one (of mine) I've felt that Gavin wished to bend over backward to mollify TPTB and hope that they were nice to us as a result. This has always struck me as complete folly. This is the basis for my repeated assertions that Gavin is (at least) a foolish and nieve guy who to his core 'loves big brother.' At this point I think there is an argument to be made that he is likely worse than that, or has at least evolved to such a state.
No matter what I've always considered it simple common sense and good strategy to understand the enemy and at least set up to leverage his weaknesses if it comes to hot warfare that cannot be avoided. It's good engineering as well. If that means organizing under a particular structure which has some meaning in the real world, that is fine with me. I live in the real world and don't ask anyone else to do otherwise.
You don't mind cooperating with government bodies when it makes sense to do so, but you accuse Gavin of being prepared to bend over backwards for them? How exactly? By giving the CIA a pittance because they asked nicely? By working at MIT instead of a for-profit BitcoinTM company?