Quote from: ThickAsThieves on May 15, 1974, 01:29:54 AM

Your example implies Gox had the rug pulled from under them. Wasn't it Gox that was not following the rules?

Gox was following the rules, since at the time of their founding, Bitcoin was nothing more than collectibles, a hobby, or a fake money that was just a part of an experiment among geeks. Then suddenly Bitcoin started to be worth something, FinCEN changed the rules, and two month later, since Gox hasn't complied yet, seized their money.

I do believe we need a lobbyist. I do agree that Bitcoin is like the inevitable asteroid, but we can't strap rockets to it to bring it down faster any more than government can legislate where it must land and what kind of licensing it must have to make a landing. Bitcoin will get there on its own, and I believe it will be inevitable. In the meantime, we should make sure that it getting there is as easy on Bitcoin users and businesses as possible. This means both, educating the legislators on what Bitcoin is and how to best deal with it, and organizing bitcoin businesses and users into a powerful block that can defend itself, somewhat in Washington (though it may be hard against established lobbyists), and especially in the public eye. We must demonstrate the benefits of Bitcoin, and advertise all the good things about it, so that the established powers don't have a target to attack it with. This means proactively building support, both among legislators and among the general public, in a way so that by the time they come with claims that it's being used drugs and money laundering, everyone will already know it, know that that's no different from how other currencies are used, know that those bringing these accusations are themselves guilty of those crimes (looking at you HSBC), and know that Bitcoin is a better option. This will require a very cunning game of political chess.
Or we can sit back, talk about random meaningless shit, and just let the inevitable happen, including all the crashing and burning that will likely come as a result.

I am still listening to the interviews (was visiting in-laws this weekend, so didn't have time to catch up). I will obviously vote for myself in the first round, but I am not naive enough to believe that I am the best candidate for this job. That said, I am torn between Elizabeth and Joerg. I think Joerg is the best candidate I've heard so far. His views represent mine the closest. Strategically he is also the best to represent Bitcoin, both because he understands what kind of fight will be involved, and most importantly because he can build a sort of offshore beachhead, should things go bad here. Even if they don't, attacking this thing from two sides will make winning this fight easier, since we here in US can point to Germany, the European financial powerhouse, and say, "But they're going along with it," then turn around, point to US from Germany, and say the same thing. On the other hand, I think Joerg may do better on his own, if he was not tied down by the foundation. He strikes me as someone who will do whatever he feels is necessary, regardless of what the rest of the world tells him, so I believe he will do what is right for Bitcoin in Germany whether he wins or not. As for Elizabeth, based on her writing she doesn't seem like a very strategic person, but she does have a way with words. Not necessarily enough to convince any INTJ/ENTJ types, since most of her writings didn't really say much, but maybe that's what the foundation needs if they are to try to persuade Washington and the public: someone who can communicate with feelings about how great Bitcoin is, instead of bothering with logic and detailed point-by-point rebuttals, and who can sell it to the general public.
I'm still leaning towards voting for Joerg in the second vote.