Re: Daniel S. Friedberg shady lawyer hired to spread FUD
I would like to nominate Friedberg's article (http://www.riddellwilliams.com/blog/articles/post/hard-fork-conspiracy-treacherous) for consideration as February's 
FUD o' the Month 
. (Predictably it was picked up by Forbes' FUDster Janson Blomberg -- see http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbloomberg/2016/02/13/is-the-looming-bitcoin-hard-fork-illegal/#24b4a50d4b13).
As justification for my nomination, I cite the following as Friedberg FUD:
This is FUD because the U.S. government does not consider bitcoin to be a currency and is not "likely" to in the future, in spite of a pending case in California involving a bankruptcy (see https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-commodity-currency-california-bankruptcy-judge-decide/). The U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission ruled on September 17, 2015 that bitcoins are a commodity (see http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr7231-15) and on March 25, 2014, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service ruled (see https://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/IRS-Virtual-Currency-Guidance) that bitcoin would be treated as property for tax purposes, stating in part:
Second Friedberg FUD nomination citation:
This is FUD because Bitcoin Classic requires that at least 75% of miners and nodes adopt it before the fork becomes operational by requiring remaining miners and nodes to convert. With a fork that strong, there is no way the current block-size implementation could ever catch up computationally, and so would never be secure enough to warrant further use. (For a good anti-FUD video on Classic, go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7jt5558bVY.)
In other words, no competing forks and bitcoins, and no more Friedberg FUD. Please submit your ballots by March 1.
FUD o' the Month . (Predictably it was picked up by Forbes' FUDster Janson Blomberg -- see http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbloomberg/2016/02/13/is-the-looming-bitcoin-hard-fork-illegal/#24b4a50d4b13). As justification for my nomination, I cite the following as Friedberg FUD:
Quote
If either the Bitcoin Classic or the BitcoinXT plan (or both) goes forward, the creators of the replacement software could face serious legal consequences and potentially criminal liability for their actions. . . . Bitcoin Classic and BitcoinXT (meaning in this case the new resulting currency itself rather than the software) would likely be considered by FinCEN to be a new convertible virtual currency. Miners who unilaterally adopt the new replacement software could face liability under either tortious or statutory claims.
This is FUD because the U.S. government does not consider bitcoin to be a currency and is not "likely" to in the future, in spite of a pending case in California involving a bankruptcy (see https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-commodity-currency-california-bankruptcy-judge-decide/). The U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission ruled on September 17, 2015 that bitcoins are a commodity (see http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr7231-15) and on March 25, 2014, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service ruled (see https://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/IRS-Virtual-Currency-Guidance) that bitcoin would be treated as property for tax purposes, stating in part:
Quote
In some environments, virtual currency operates like real currency -- i.e., the coin and paper money of the United States or of any other country that is designated as legal tender, circulates, and is customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the country of issuance -- but it does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction.
Second Friedberg FUD nomination citation:
Quote
To the extent that a recipient of bitcoin expects normal bitcoin but instead receives Bitcoin Classic or BitcoinXT virtual currency due to the actions of a miner, that recipient could argue that the actions of the miner resulted in a dispossession. To the extent that the market value of the two types of virtual currency differ, damages would be easy to prove.
This is FUD because Bitcoin Classic requires that at least 75% of miners and nodes adopt it before the fork becomes operational by requiring remaining miners and nodes to convert. With a fork that strong, there is no way the current block-size implementation could ever catch up computationally, and so would never be secure enough to warrant further use. (For a good anti-FUD video on Classic, go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7jt5558bVY.)
In other words, no competing forks and bitcoins, and no more Friedberg FUD. Please submit your ballots by March 1.