Quote from: ffssixtynine on November 15, 2013, 07:04:33 PM

The OP has completely misrepresented this - please read the whole thread.

The Foundation and the black/red/greenlist issues are different things.

Here's the thing. I'm a just a casual user, not a developer, or a programmer or anything. But I do spend a lot of time reading and understanding Bitcoin for years now.

After reading all the stuff that you've quoted, I'm afraid I'm even more dismayed than before. I see what you were trying to do. You're trying to show that the foundation is merely discussing this issue and not actually trying to implement anything. That this backlash is an over-reaction. But what I'm seeing in the very stuff you've quoted is people suggesting that it could be a good idea. Now, you're saying that this is their job, to explore this issue. But that's unacceptable to me personally. I just expect more from them.

What I mean is, I have a casual view of Bitcoin. I like it for its real-world application. So when I come to forums to read up on the latest and greatest, I hope to see the latest and greatest. When in the last few days the idea of coin-listing came up (again!), I fully expected to come on here and read all sorts of ingenious solutions, in true open-source fashion. Instead I'm seeing secrecy and attempts to appease would-be regulators. This forum even has an Alternative Cryptocurrency subforum with stuff derived from the original Bitcoin code. This is only possible because of the open nature of Bitcoin. Yet the going-ons of the foundation itself is closed? It's not even read-only. This stuff had to be "leaked"? What is this?

CoinValidation is real. So it's not simply a matter of a theoretical debate. This shit's real. And as far as I can tell, nobody in those documents is suggesting any way to counter it. Even if the discussion would have been on the topic of how to counter something like CoinValidation, and the conclusion would have been that it's impossible, that would have been fine. At least the discussion was had. But instead there's some secret discussion on the possible merits of lists! That's not what I want to hear from the people running the show. In fact, this was stated in one of the parts you quoted:

Quote

If you want to discuss it further, knock yourself out. But there is every reason for community members to be worried when someone in a position of power - Mike Hearn is chair of the Foundation Legal and Policy committee - starts promoting a discredited and dangerous idea yet again.

And I know, you could say he's not promoting anything, but that's just BS really. Do you hear people say let's have a discussion on the roundness or flatness of the Earth? Why not discuss it? Because we've already decided that the Earth is round.

Bottom line:
CoinValidation and its kind are bad for Bitcoin. What I expected was an open discussion on how to counter them. What I got was a closed discussion on why it may have merit.