Der Mann hinter Bitcoin heise online

Interesting video with Gavin Andresen @13second mark, talks about how the CIA's venture capital firm In-Q-Tel was interested in Bitcoin and had it on their radar. Could they be investing in the space? I wonder who they are funding? hmmmm

Interesting video with Gavin Andresen @13second mark, talks about how the CIA's venture capital firm In-Q-Tel was interested in Bitcoin and had it on their radar. Could they be investing in the space? I wonder who they are funding? hmmmm submitted by cryptorebel to btc [link] [comments]

Satoshi dress up impersonator Gavin 'CIA' Andresen attempts to co-opt bitcoin for the 6th time.

Satoshi dress up impersonator Gavin 'CIA' Andresen attempts to co-opt bitcoin for the 6th time. submitted by libertarianstatism to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Interesting video with Gavin Andresen @13second mark, talks about how the CIA's venture capital firm In-Q-Tel was interested in Bitcoin and had it on their radar. Could they be investing in the space? I wonder who they are funding? hmmmm

submitted by unitedstatian to privacy [link] [comments]

Interesting video with Gavin Andresen @13second mark, talks about how the CIA's venture capital firm In-Q-Tel was interested in Bitcoin and had it on their radar. Could they be investing in the space? I wonder who they are funding? hmmmm

Interesting video with Gavin Andresen @13second mark, talks about how the CIA's venture capital firm In-Q-Tel was interested in Bitcoin and had it on their radar. Could they be investing in the space? I wonder who they are funding? hmmmm submitted by SimilarAdvantage to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Gavin Andresen on this week's Bitcoin Podcast Episode: Multiple Implementations/CIA History/and much more.

Gavin Andresen on this week's Bitcoin Podcast Episode: Multiple Implementations/CIA History/and much more. submitted by SMcKie to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] CIA and Gavin Andresen

The following post by CityBusDriverBitcoin is being replicated because some comments within the post(but not the post itself) have been silently removed.
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link: Bitcoin/comments/7c4lms
The original post's content was as follows:
Who is Satoshi ? Gavin know more than us
submitted by censorship_notifier to noncensored_bitcoin [link] [comments]

CIA and Gavin Andresen /r/Bitcoin

CIA and Gavin Andresen /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Inconvenient truth: Satoshi Nakamoto vanished after Gavin Bell aka Gavin Andresen immediately went to the CIA after being given the bitcoin alert key.

Inconvenient truth: Satoshi Nakamoto vanished after Gavin Bell aka Gavin Andresen immediately went to the CIA after being given the bitcoin alert key. submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Bitcoin's Gavin Andresen Will Visit The CIA

Bitcoin's Gavin Andresen Will Visit The CIA submitted by higherpower to technology [link] [comments]

Satoshi dumped Bitcoin right after Gavin announced he was going to the CIA.

Gavin had just received the alert keys to the Bitcoin network. Right afterwards, he tells Satoshi that he is visiting the CIA. Satoshi leaves for good coincidentally.
This is quoted from the defunct Bruce Wagner Bitcoin podcast:
Bruce Wagner : When was the last time you chatted to satoshi Gavin Andresen: Um... I haven't had email from satoshi in a couple months actually. The last email I sent him I actually told him I was going to talk at the CIA. So it's possible , that.... that may have um had something to with his deciding
Based on this, do you think Gavin fully meets Satoshi's vision for Bitcoin?
submitted by applimee to OKEx [link] [comments]

I recently recounted the history of the block size controversy for someone and thought I'd repost it here

Bitcoin development was initially led by an anonymous figure named Satoshi Nakamoto who created the project "Bitcoin: a Peer-to-peer Electronic Cash System"
The project mostly languished in obscurity until in late 2010 it was revealed that Bitcoin was being used to evade the ban on Wikileaks contributions. (A good summary of Bitcoin's early history can be found here.)
Satoshi was opposed to Bitcoin being used for something as controversial as funding Wikileaks, and in one of his last messages, wrote "It would have been nice to get this attention in any other context. WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet's nest, and the swarm is headed towards us." (link). Satoshi vanished shortly thereafter.
When Satoshi disappeared, he left the project effectively in the control of Gavin Andresen, one of the early contributors to the project. Gavin has been characterized as something of a naive academic. It wasn't long before Gavin had been approached by the CIA and agreed to visit and do a presentation. So we know that Bitcoin was on the CIA's radar by 2011.
Bitcoin-as-introduced had an Achilles heel. To prevent a specific kind of denial-of-service attack, Satoshi had added a "block size limit" to prevent flooding attacks. Satoshi's plan was to raise the limit as usage increased. Satoshi and the early Bitcoiners such as myself did not envision that the limit might itself be a vulnerability. A near-complete history of the block size limit controversy is here. I'll attempt to summarize my experience with some references.
Now it's almost 2020, and by now we've all become much more attuned to the scope of what three-letter-agencies have been doing to manipulate social media platforms. But in 2012 that was tinfoil-hat stuff across most of the internet.
In 2012, the Bitcoin subreddit was one of the key places people went for discussion about what was happening in Bitcoin. That, and the bitcointalk forum. The history of what happened has been well documented with sources in places like here and here.
The TLDR is
Throughout all of this, Blockstream steadfastly argued that it didn't control the Bitcoin Core software. Blockstream pointed to Chaincode Labs who funded several key bitcoin developers and the MIT Media Labs "Digital Currency Initiative" who funded Gavin, Cory, and Wladimir. Gavin and Wladimir in particular had the authority to merge changes into the Bitcoin Core software and as such effectively could decide what did and did not go into the software. As an ostensibly academic organization, Gavin and Wladimir etc could act with intellectual honesty and without coercion.
Except Gavin left the Digital Currency Initiative in 2017, saying that while he wasn't pressured to quit, he "didn't want to feel obligated to any person or organization."
Fast forward to 2019, and we learn the fascinating news that the MIT Media Labs were funded in part by none other than Jeffrey Epstein, who it turns out just so happened to be a staunch advocate of the Blockstream approach. So really, Bitcoin development was corralled: Blockstream was paying a bunch of devs, and Blockstream-Friendly MIT Media Labs were paying the others.
If you're still reading this, you probably wonder what it is about the Blockstream strategy that is so "bad." Aren't they just proposing a different way to solve Bitcoin's problems?
The original idea for Bitcoin was a "peer to peer cash system" - - the idea being that if Alice wants to buy something from Bob, she can just give him some tokens - - just like cash.
The new vision of bitcoin promoted by Blockstream and Core is "store of value". Under this model, you buy Bitcoins like you might speculate on gold - you buy some and you hold it. Later, if you want to purchase something, you sell your Bitcoins for some other payment method (or use an IOU against a deposit, just like a bank), and use that for purchases.
It should be apparent after a moment of thought that the original concept (Alice hands Bob some cash which Bob can then spend how he likes) is vastly more disruptive than the model in which Alice buys Bitcoin on a government-regulated exchange, holds them hoping they'll appreciate in value, and then sells them for Euros or dollars. In model one, the currency is essentially outside the domain of gatekeepers, and could completely disintermediate the entire existing financial system just like Napster for money. In model two, Bitcoin is no more disruptive than shares of a gold fund.
submitted by jessquit to btc [link] [comments]

Which type of curren(t) do you want to see(cy)? A analysis of the intention behind bitcoin(s). [Part I]

Bitcoin was released to the world in 2009 by someone (or a group) who authored a technical whitepaper, released the source code to the protocol and commented on a few p2p forums and mailing lists under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto for a few months prior and a few years afterwards before leaving the project. The project was left in the hands of Gavin Andresson who was another cryptographer that satoshi communicated regularly with on the forums and had been one of the first people involved in the project. Some time after satoshi left, one of his accounts was allegedly hacked and bitcointalk (the primary forum) itself was hacked so a meme kind of emerged that satoshi wouldn't be able to post again from his accounts or that posting from them would be dubious. In 2016 an Australian by the name of Craig S Wright was exposed by Wired and Gizmodo as potentially being the inventor of bitcoin. Craig then signed privately for Gavin Andreson, Jon Matonis but then when he was supposed to cryptographically sign to a journalist the method performed did not hold up to public scrutiny because he could have copy pasted a fragment from an earlier known signed message from satoshi and not generated it himself with the private keys. This cast a lot of doubt from many on the man's claims and he published an article saying he wasn't brave enough to sign.
Since then the term cryptocurrency has blown out massively to include anything with a distributed ledger technology, a token, a security, and has really just devolved into a cesspit of buzzwords and disinformation. Once satoshi disappeared in 2011 and left the repo in the hands of Gavin and the open source community, it left a power vacuum in the space for how to interpret the protocol, whitepaper and handle the development. Gavin Andresson brought some other developers on board from the forums and mailing lists, Shortly after Gavin gave some other developers commit access, bitcointalk was hacked and these new developers somehow deleted gavin from the github repo due to apparent concern that his account was compromised from the hack and afterwards once he validated his identity in certain accounts he was never given access again. Gavin stopped being involved with the project after that.
In the time following satoshi's departure a meme had evolved that satoshi had left because Gavin had met with the CIA to discuss bitcoin. This meme combined with the interpretation of what satoshi meant when he included the quote "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" in the genesis block, the subsequent rise and fall of silk road and darknet markets, and the general lore of the space, his cypherpunk mailing list associations had led the scene to paint/project upon him as some kind of government hating tax dodging l33t h4xor demigod.
Although in the title of the whitepaper it was described as p2p cash, bitcoin as most know it is now is marketed as a store of value. Although it was defined as the longest Proof of Work chain of digital signatures, bitcoin as most know it in actual fact has segregated witnesses (signatures) in the protocol. Although satoshi attests to how bitcoin is designed to scale to giant block sizes hosted and mined in data centers that never really hits a scaling ceiling, it is being sold as that even at 1MB size, the damage has already been done and the blocksize should be 300kB because every user needs to be able to run a full node for bitcoin to validate their own transactions with the lowest hardware and bandwidth requirements possible. A high vertice count with everyone running a (non-mining) full node is said to protect the network against malicious actions by the big bad government while graph theory states that it is the degree of inter connectivity of the vertcies (edge number) that confers security of the network against sybil attacks as it brings the number of hops down.
This decoupling from the original vision has led to development and scaling of bitcoin stalling for many years which led to the proliferation of many alt coins rising up to claim they possess superior attributes to bitcoin or can work in conjunction with bitcoin in a gold and silver type relationship, or serve a different use case to bitcoin. The debate between the groups that represented the opposing roadmaps reached a climax with bitcoin itself forking into two now separate blockchains with the minority chain being declared the imposter by social media claiming hashpower and the market had chosen despite their chain changing on the protocol level to implement segregated witnesses and reject the block size increase. These two now separate chains both forked again to birth bitcoin gold and diamond on the segwit chain and bitcoin cash and bitcoin sv on the non segwit chain. At the non segwit chain fork, bitcoin cash implemented checkpointing at the protocol level whereas bitcoin sv maintained the original nakamoto consensus and sought to scale greater than the 32MB blocksize limit BCH maintained with 64MB blocks.
Following these forking events both BTC (segwit) and BCH (checkpoints) also implemented Schnorr signatures which was marketed as economising the size of a typical bitcoin transaction though in actual fact it can be used to obfuscate signatures and allow for the mixing of coins to mask the chain of digital signatures and essentially "anonymously" launder money. The BSV chain (now Stewarded by Dr Craig Wright) was then declared the loser of that hash war by people heralding the power of the market and the miners to democratize money. The problem with such a claim though is just like current polical democracy, this apparent democratisation of money was just as susceptible to the influence of those who control the cryptocurrency media and just like in politics, there is a cabal like group that exerts a disproportionate influence over the narrative and appears to serve the interests of those in on the racket rather than those it is allegedly informing.
The main forums for discussion of cryptocurrency originally were, and /Bitcoin with all three of them for some time sharing the same moderator theymos. Coindesk and the bitcoinmagazine (started by ethereum devs) were some early sources, talking heads like andreas antonopolos (andreasma), peter todd (petertodd) and greg maxwell (nullc) being propped up as sources of knowledge on what is the best course of action for scaling and endorsing solutions like small blocks, second layer solutions and segwit as a necessarry bitcoin improvement protocol (BIP) while people like Roger Ver (memory dealers) and Dr Craig Wright (craig_s_wright) endorsing a block size increase. Because the core developers had chosen to scale with small blocks and lots of nodes on the network were signalling in support of Segwit any discussion of a big block alternative was considered discussion of an alt coin and deleted and eventually users banned from /bitcoin. Out of that incident /btc emerged as an apparently censorship free forum for the discussion of all scaling plans for bitcoin but was ultimately a partisan sub populated with dejected big blockers. After the BCH fork, discussion for bitcoin sv exists on a few subs /bsv (modded by BCHers), /bitcoinsv (moderated by the lead technician at nChain (Craig Wright's company) and /bitcoincashsv where many users have been banned from both /bitcoin and /btc.
Now this so far is just kind of a synposis of the history of bitcoin covering all three of the main contenders for the legitimate claimant of the name but the part 2 will look more at what kind of drastically different societies would be built upon the different versions of the protocol and what may seem like their subtle differences and which one is likely to succeed.
submitted by whipnil to C_S_T [link] [comments]

The Coward That Killed Satoshi Nakamoto

The Coward That Killed Satoshi Nakamoto submitted by joinfish to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Some thoughts about the possible Bitcoin Segwit, Bilderberg/AXA/BockStream/Core, In-Q-Tel, CIA connection.

I noticed a lot of people mentioning Bilderberg's connection to AXA and BlockStream, recently with Jeff Berwick's two videos going viral as seen here and here. It has been something I have been trying to warn people of for a while, and if you don't know what Bilderberg is you really need to watch this excellent documentary about it. The current chairman of the Bilderberg steering committee Henri de Castries was also CEO of AXA until he announced retirement in 2016. AXA is one of the main funders of BlockStream and Bitcoin Core development. As one of the biggest insurance companies in the world AXA also benefits from the legacy too-big-to-fail bailout system, and Bitcoin is a threat to their way of life. AXA are also funding technocratic totalitarian smart cities, where they team up with governments for full control. It is not surprising that they would want to get their fingers into Bitcoin.
Now lets dig a little deeper. About 6 or 7 years ago, right before Satoshi disappeared, Gavin Andresen was invited to speak at the CIA. He got an invitation directly from In-Q-Tel the CIA's venture capitalist funding arm. Gavin mentions how In-Q-Tel reached directly out to him in this video @ 13sec mark (I am not endorsing the rest of the content of this video). In-Q-Tel basically helps fund and invest in companies that help equip the CIA with the latest information technology and capabilities. You can look on In-Q-Tel's website and see that they publicly invest in many innovative tech companies. Some of these are public, there are no crypto companies listed, but they also at times make private investments as well. Makes you wonder because they were interested enough to phone up Gavin Andresen personally and invite him for a speech, so in my opinion its highly likely they are investing somewhere in this space, and for what ends? We don't know. We do know that certain companies have captured the Core developers, and blocked common sense progress on Bitcoin, and that should be alarming.
Further evidence that shows some type of coordination between these groups comes from Peter Thiel who has recently advocated against Bitcoin as a cash system, and instead is pushing it as a settlement system, the same narrative of BlockStream Core. It may also be interesting to know that Peter Thiel has also attended Bilderberg regularly and defends Bilderberg's secretive nature. Thiel also is partnering with In-Q-Tel and the CIA with his company Palantir, which spies on everybody. It is also interesting that at least one other VC funding firm Khosla Ventures invested in BlockStream, and also in the past has helped fund other companies that are working with In-Q-Tel. This was just from some quick research, only scratching the surface.
I find these connections somewhat alarming, considering all of the community attacks I have seen going on. Its possible that some groups are trying to strangle and control and co-opt Bitcoin. It would make sense that they might try to force everyone off of the old model by jacking up fees, so users are herded onto something new in a 2nd layer solution that is more easily controlled. I believe segwit allows them to create an open door for trying to encourage Bitcoiners to move into their system, and the high fees is what they hope pushes users through that door. This is probably why we see so many attempts to move away from Satoshi's vision and the whitepaper. Its why we see such a lack of common sense to simply raise the blocksize capacity. Its why we see such draconian censorship, dirty tricks, lies, and diabolical political tactics. Ultimately I don't want to draw any final conclusions, but I feel these facts should be brought to the table for people to decide for themselves.
submitted by cryptorebel to btc [link] [comments]

Is it possible to objectively discuss things without getting dragged to the "Dragons Den"?

The computer science debates about the best ways to scale Bitcoin are far too important for us to take “sides”.
“Beating” the other guy doesn’t serve any of us, and it doesn’t serve Bitcoin.
In these discussions we need to be as sure as possible that we are not just winning an argument, or making talking points but that we are factually correct.
One thing everyone should agree on is the need for truthful and factual statements when discussing these important issues.
Unfortunately, the Bitcoin community learned some very bad habits from the world of politics.
[Disclaimer: I do not work for Blockstream and I never have, just as I did not work for Roger Ver the other day when I defended him against a similar baseless attack about Mt.. Gox ]
For example, it is difficult to have any discussion in Bitcoin without someone bringing up the “Dragon’s Den”.
"Dragon’s Den" is brought up as an argument point often by everyone from major minors, to CEOs and analysts.
But what do we really know about “Dragon’s Den”?
What is the full body of evidence regarding the claims about Dragons Den?
Well, it’s pretty simple:
1) One lone LN developer claimed that there was a secret channel used for trolling
2) Someone posted a screenshot showing the existence of the slack channel and some people chatting in it
What is absent from this evidence:
So really, we have CEOs, miners and thousands of people who care passionately about Bitcoin using “Dragon’s Den” as a talking point when really – – – the entire thesis about dragons den comes down to “a guy said”.
One doesn’t even have to be critical of the developer who claimed its existence to have doubts about the story.
If you look carefully, Joseph Poon never even claimed to have first-hand knowledge about dragons den being used for trolling – he didn’t even mention that he ever visited the channel.
One guy saying something doesn’t make it true.
One doesn't even have to think that Joseph is a bad actor (and I don't) maybe he was misinformed, didn't think clearly before making his statement, had a misunderstanding or exaggerated.
There was a Reddit post asking him to clarify but it doesn't seem he did.
So what is Dragon’s Den really?
Honestly my best educated guess is that the slack channel simply existed as a place for like-minded individuals to discuss topics and opinions they share an interest in.
After it was revealed to the public, the channel was opened to a number of interested/concerned community members to review including me. This was the first time I knew about or entered the channel. What I saw was pretty similar to the regular Slack. Bias against BU? Of course? Bias in favor of the core roadmap? Sure? An organized trolling campaign? Doubtful.
My guess is that the channel was similar before it became public.
Now it is possible that, as part of an elaborate ruse, participants in the channel have gone and created a new double secret channel where the real trolling is being organized and are still participating in the existing “Dragon’s Den” channel as some sort of theater to throw people off their trail and fool someone like me into posting this.
Maybe, maybe, maybe
But I doubt it. Occams Razor is a good explanation – the most likely explanation is that it simply people who are like-minded gathering together
Just as the most likely explanation for a lot of behavior in Bitcoin is the simple one.
I don't think Gavin is in the CIA or Roger is secretly trying to harm Bitcoin or Blockstream is involved in some conspiracy to destroy Bitcoin with AXA and I don't think Bitmain purposely intended to shut down miners (but the risk was still real) and I don't think Greg Maxwell works for the CIA either.
People have human faults, they mess up, they are self interested etc. Occasionally they will be behind some elaborate ruse, but usually behavior comes down to just people being people.
What about the trolling?
Again absence any evidence I think the simplest explanation is that like-minded people hanging around in the channel are likely to react in similar manners to various news and tweets.
It’s most likely like “Hey did you see this ridiculous argument John Doe just tweeted?" and then a number of like-minded people make comments on that post. Could this be considered organized trolling? Maybe. Same way posting a tweet on one or the other Reddit sub will cause a dozen people to comment...this seems like organized trolling.
Having been attacked, criticized and trolled by many of the same people who are very active in that channel I know how it feels: even half a dozen people can easily make you feel overwhelmed by attackers. Between misconceptions, logical fallacies, name-calling, retweets, reposts and comments for multiple people you can feel like Boromir in the first Lord of the Rings movie with arrow after arrow shot at you.
But really – this is just part of the way the Internet works.
I once even found myself banned from the entire Slack in question. I annoyed people with my continual calls for compromise as well as occasionally defending people from exactly the type of unfair or inaccurate attack I’m talking about here.
Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed, I put my differences aside with the people at in the channel and since then have had a lot of productive and mutually respectful discussions about this important technology.
But core runs this!
This is the thing, they really don’t. I tried to get this point across in a recent blog post.
Down With Bitcoin Core (as a noun used to describe people)
I know it’s frustrating, and I used to feel the same way as many BU supporters in thinking that “core” was one monolithic, like-minded entity. ** It’s really not. It's just not factual to look at it this way**
*Only after a lot of time spending a lot of time meeting with and discussing issues with numerous core and non-core developers did I come to this opinion. *
I now think that it is only fair for us to judge individual people on the individual actions that they take. Not actions taken by a group.
Worse yet: Some core developers even use this word “core” as a noun to describe people when it suits them. This is equally wrong. Individual people and only individual people should be held accountable for the actions that they actually taken the words that they actually say.
If we do that, it’s harder to argue.
Groups are easy to hate. It’s very easy to discuss to prescribe opinions or characteristics on “Republicans” or “liberals” or "core" or "btc". If you are running for office, it’s a great idea to use these types of terms: they seek to divide and drive wedges.
The world of politics is not that simple: on major issues ranging from the drug war to war, foreign policy and taxes there are vast differences between people who carry the various political labels.
An open source project, particularly one as diverse as Bitcoin, has much more nuance than this even.
There is definitely no universal “core” opinion.
“Core developers” include a wide variety of people: Gavin Andresen, Satoshi Nakamoto, Greg Maxwell, Matt Corallo, Alex Marcos, Peter Todd, Vladimir and many others.
It just isn’t accurate or fair to put all people in the same category.
What happens if we do start holding individual people accountable for their actions?
Well, for one thing, it makes it a lot harder to argue against broad ideas such as “core believes X” or “core failed to X”.
If someone claims that the “Dragon’s Den” is some sort of effort by “core”, then the first question should be “Who specifically do you mean by “core””? As far as I can tell the only contributor to the core software project was active in that particular channel is the moderator.
In fact, it does not seem likely that even more than a couple other actual core developers ever even visited the channel – – let alone used it or engaged in any sort of organized trolling behavior from it. How many core devs total on the high end even visited? Five?
So instead of saying "Dragons Den is a core project to organize trolling" why don't we say "these five people organize trolling"? Well, because it's too damn hard. It's EASY to blame some nameless faceless group, but when you name specific people you usually have to back it up better, so those five people accused would (rightfully) respond "Huh? What evidence do you have of this?"
Bram Cohen was caught in this exact situation. Just by being in this now infamous chat channel it was assumed he was a participant in trolling. Why? Because a guy said that the channel exists for trolling
If someone has visions of Vladimir or Greg Maxwell sitting around this particular Slack channel planning troll campaigns – – the facts and evidence simply don’t show this to be reflective of reality.
So what should we do next?
This argument isn’t going to be solved by one post.
But what we can all do is work together to discuss things in his fair and accurate of a way as possible.
This means holding actual people responsible for actual actions they do. If you don't like the core roadmap, debate it with Nullc, if you don't agree with the people who signed it, take it up with them. If you don't think the peer review process is fair and objective, contribute technically to the discussion. If you don't like the "Dragons Den" then take it up with specific people. What this really ends up looking like is that instead of being able to say "Dragons Den is a massive troll army run by core" it ends up more like "BTCDrak and MrHodl and Alp are in a channel and I don't like what they tweeted". That second statement doesn't have the bite of the first....but it's true.
Working for better standards also means we should really avoid claims about either "side" unless they are backed by evidence and relevant to the discussion.
In fact, we shouldn’t even be having “sides” at all.
We are here to change the world. No one likes the bickering. Many don't participate...but almost all of us support it at some point. Whether it's up-voting a divisive post, sharing a meme attacking the other guys or using terms designed to place people in camps, we contribute even when we don't mean to.
What would happen if we all decided to no longer participate in division? What if we down voted every comment that attacks individuals or which is divisive and we upvoted everything positive?
What if we kept scientific debate more scientific?
Every piece of data and information in this discussion should be analyzed independently. Independent of the source ended up dependent of what our own motivations or narrative might be.
Anytime we engage in using terms designed to “beat” the other side red division, we don’t win paragraph we win and Bitcoin wins by us all working together to be as accurate and fair as possible.
submitted by bruce_fenton to btc [link] [comments]

The true current state of Bitcoin

Blockstream was not created to cripple and takeover Bitcoin, and then force users onto their own solutions which they could profit off of. Blockstream is not interested in profit.
Blockstream's sole reason of existence is to control/cripple Bitcoin for the government, or big banks, or both.
The U.S. government is extremely corrupt. Reddit accidentally identified Eglin Air Force Base as the most Reddit addicted "city". This blog post was later removed, and then eventually restored, probably so as not to raise suspicion. The U.S. government, specifically the CIA, has a long history of using propaganda methods to sway the opinion of the masses. Operation Mockingbird was a large scale CIA program that attempted to manipulate news media for propaganda purposes. It's likely the CIA still uses these techniques, as Anderson Cooper, primary anchor of CNN news, was revealed to have interned at the CIA in college.
Do not underestimate the corruption of the U.S. government. Operation Northwoods was a proposed false flag operation against the Cuban government that called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other U.S. government operatives to commit acts of terrorism against American civilians and military targets, blaming it on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba.
Right before Satoshi disappeared, Gavin Andresen was invited to speak at the CIA. He got an invitation directly from In-Q-Tel (the CIA's venture capitalist funding arm). Gavin admits that In-Q-Tel reached out to him directly in this video. (Please read this post by cryptorebel for more information)
I believe that Blockstream is somehow connected to the CIA, and is a "front" for their operation to control/limit Bitcoin. Mark my words, Blockstream is not simply a corporation that has a "different vision" for how to scale Bitcoin, and Blockstream is also not a "greedy" corporation that wishes to profit off Bitcoin. They exist SOLELY to cripple and control Bitcoin.
Let's also not forget Blockstream's real ties to the Bilderberg group.
UASF and NO2X were obvious astroturfing campaigns. Many were real shills, but there were also a huge amount of "useful idiots" that lacked the critical thinking skills to understand that what they were fighting for was bullshit.
The U.S. government is fighting a war on cash, and wishes to eventually remove the $100 bill from circulation. The government is not happy that people are able to use cash anonymously to pay each other. The government wants to be in control of all the finances of every single citizen, which is why we are slowly moving towards a cashless society.
THIS is why the government hates Bitcoin and is actively trying to turn it into a settlement layer instead of a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.
Bitcoin once had that power to change the world. Bitcoin Cash exists to do just that.
The reason Bitcoin Cash is attacked so much is because it is a MAJOR threat. You don't see people attacking Dogecoin so vehemently. Dogecoin is not a threat. Bitcoin Cash is a threat and has the power to change life as we know it.
submitted by BitAlien to btc [link] [comments]

It is time to remind people what bitcoin is about

"Yes, [we will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography,] but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years. Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own." - Satoshi Nakamoto
Bitcoin is not about the efficient technology, Satoshi was motivated by libertarian thinking otherwise there would not even be a reason to bitcoin to exist, at least not as it is. Bitcoin was made to be censorship resistant, out of the reach of governments.
When Satoshi Nakamoto was still around Gavin Andresen talked to CIA agents about bitcoin, Satoshi never replied to him again.
Recently Jeff Garzik officially partnered with surveillance agencies from the United States. The main Bitcoin companies are also into it.
Greg Maxwell is the only main developer proposing improvements in the original concerns of Satoshi, most notably
Greg Maxwell is the only one paying attention to surveillance related tickets on github and eventually opening some himself.
What if he leaves?
As for all entrepreneurs around here you just got a big business opportunity to get the market share of all companies involved in the "Bitcoin Alliance" that goes against everything Satoshi Nakamoto, and so Bitcoin, stands for.
submitted by SpiritOfBitcoin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

r/bitcoin recap - March 2017

Hi Bitcoiners!
I’m back with the third monthly Bitcoin news recap.
For those unfamiliar, each day I pick out the most popularelevant/interesting stories in bitcoin and save them. At the end of the month I release them in one batch, to give you a quick (but not necessarily the best) overview of what happened in bitcoin over the past month.
Now archived on
As promised, I launched a website as an archive, where I post the version with links to the original posts and discussions so this post doesn't get auto-moderated. Special thanks goes out to Bitttburger for thinking of the name Bitcoin Snippets.
I went back in time and made an overview for December 2016 too. I’ll probably make recaps of 1-2 previous months for each month I progress, so that I eventually end up with everything in a few years.
Starting from this month, I’m going to cut back on including memes, there’s too many and they overtake the interesting news.
A recap of March 2017 in bitcoin
Version with links on
Thanks to everyone who contributed to Bitcoin in a positive way this month!
submitted by SamWouters to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Why BitcoinXT Is the Worst Blunder in Bitcoin's History

Short Version: Bitcoin XT coup d'etat
Is it worth it to look back in the year 2036 at what happened?
  1. In 2015, 8GB blocks were locked in, by "the economic majority" of 2015 (who are now the nouveau rich), spurred on by the highly controversial work of two "popular" developers with possible ties to CIA
  2. In the year 2036, big banks, government, and ISPs are the only organizations capable of affording the high speed internet and hardware frameworks needed for running a full node
  3. Individuals composing the true economic majority of 2036 lose all ability to run full nodes
  4. Big banks, government, and ISPs elect to add redlisting and KYC to the Bitcoin network. The Winkdex is by then globally established, and you can no longer send over $1,000 in value on the Bitcoin network without scanning your passport.
There is precedent, e.g. Tesla, for world superpowers to tactically censor public access to technology to maintain the upper hand militarily. They could do exactly this to Bitcoin by sabotaging the rollout of high speed internet access so that only ISPs, big banks and governments could run full nodes come 2036 with 8GB blocks.
This shouldn't even be an OPTION. Why is it worth it?!
There is no evidence to suggest that Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen, but especially Mike, aren't working with the intelligence communities - this given Mike's historical "advocacy" of Tor hidden service censorship and redlisting. Recall the intelligence community have official budgets laid out in the tens of millions for corrupting open source software. BITCOIN IS A TARGET. How else did you think they would seek control over Bitcoin?
If we fork to XT, it is fully conceivable world demand for Bitcoin far outstrips the individual's ability to run full nodes. Free and open access to the Bitcoin blockchain could be forever lost.


submitted by RQsquared to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Why bitcoin will never have to worry about being quashed by big banks or sidelined by a competing crypto currency.

It's been a long running debate: Is bitcoin the defacto crypto currency? What's to stop someone else launching supermegabitcoin and stealing its crown? Why, if it's so great can't a bank come along and use it's marketing might to do the same thing?
In this post I'm going to attempt to answer these questions once and for all so that we can all leave here without a shred of doubt that bitcoin will almost certainly be the King of Cryptos for time immemorial.
I say almost certainly, because I am working on the assumptions that nothing disastrous happens to the protocol itself and that humans don't blow themselves up before it gets a chance to take off.
First, let's rewind. Back in 2011 Gavin Andresen was asked by the CIA to visit their headquarters and give a presentation on bitcoin. Present at the meeting alongside the CIA were: PayPal, Facebook Payments, M-Pesa, Heartland Payment Systems, and the Federal Reserve.
It is perhaps no coincidence that just prior to the meeting Wikileaks had just started accepting bitcoin which garnered much mainstream media attention. The decision to support Wikileaks came after a long-running discussion on bitcointalk that had involved Satoshi himself (who was vehemently against supporting Julian at such an early stage in the development of bitcoin). Satoshi was outvoted and seemingly his worst fears confirmed when shortly after the CIA got in touch. Satoshi left shortly after Gavin announced he would be attending the CIA meet.
So here's what we can ascertain from this: bitcoin is giving oxygen to an organisation that has had all other payment methods frozen by the government and has been labelled a threat to national security. In tandem with this, it is also being used to fuel the world's largest online drug marketplace (Silk Road)... At this stage you would have expected two things to happen:
  1. The CIA moves fast to make any bitcoin related transaction illegal, blocking at the banking level (as they did with online gambling).
  2. The FED, Paypal or any number of the other reps present at the meeting lift the bitcoin code and implement some proprietary version of the tech that can be controlled and regulated. They launch, trumpeting it as the world's most advanced, legal, government backed crypto currency and AmeriGovoCoinPal becomes the new reserve currency backed by all the major banks, who can offer the usual payment protection etc.
Except. That didn't happen. Nothing happened. Bitcoin was left to quietly permeate it's way through the collective consciousness of the Geek hive until it began to grow at an almost exponential rate. Just taking a look at the Github repository and watching the codebase contributors expand from back when it was just Mike Hearn and Satoshi himself to what it is today is truly mind blowing.
So, how (and why) was this allowed to happen when there were so many big players at the CIA meet (including the FED itself?).
The answer is the same as you would give to the question "Why is Linux the most powerful operating system in the world?"
Because bitcoin, like linux, is open source. There is a reason the International Space Station switched to Linux, just as there is a reason so many geeks wet their collective pants when they realised what bitcoin was capable of; Put quite simply, bitcoin cannot be stopped and will always prove to be the most powerful crypto in the world because of it's open nature.
The only thing that threatens this are external events such as the Foundation making too many concessions to heavy handed regulators. But even then, the bitcoin community always has the nuclear option: forking a new version of the protocol and moving away from any perceived compromises.
"Open solutions enable the ecosystem to discover the optimal value of the solution, whereas less open systems are at the mercy of their creator having guessed at the optimal solution in the first place." - Dick Costello (co-founder of FeedBurn)
But wait. We've not even got started yet. Let's rewind right back to April 2009 when the bitcoin protocol had just 2 developers: Satoshi and Google security engineer Mike Hearn. Bitcoin was but a mere twinkle in Gavin's eye back then.
But Mike was on it. In fact, he was so taken with Satoshi's vision that he chose to dedicate his Google 20% time to the project and what he quickly realised was that bitcoin wasn't just a lovely platform for cheap monetary exchange, but...a...whole...lot...more.
Here's what Satoshi had to say about the architecture of bitcoin that Mike quickly picked up on.
"The design supports a tremendous variety of possible transaction types that I designed years ago. Escrow transactions, bonded security contracts, third party arbitration, multi-party signature etc...If bitcoin catches on in a big way these are things we will want to explore in the future, but they all had to be designed at the beginning to make sure they would be possible later."
As Mike explains here, the bitcoin protocol is FULL of features that currently lie dormant. These features are so ground-breaking, so mind-bogglingly game changing it is, for once, not a cliche to say that bitcoin represents a huge paradigm shift that will permeate every level of society and business. Every business model that relies on middle-men; from banking to real estate, from car loans to health insurance and contract law is going to go out of business unless they rapidly adapt to the forthcoming changes. In exactly the same way MP3s and P2P have driven a nail in the coffins of record industry middle-men so too will bitcoin finish any model of business that can be more elegantly dealt with by the crowd and a rock-solid mathematical algorithm.
And it doesn't even stop there, that's just short-term stuff. The next decade is going to see sooo many innovations built around blockchain and micropayment technology that the current world we are living in is going to look like something from the flintstones.
"Oh Fred, do you remember when we used to have to WALK up to parking meters and actually pay physical coins for the privilege of parking our cars?"
"Yes" Laughs Fred, "And do your remember when they used to actually pay men dressed in silly faux policemen outfits to walk up and down all day in a job they hated, just so they could check we had paid at the meter?"
"Don't forget Fred, Barney had that terrible job of having to empty all those worthless coins out of the meters and that he died on his way home - completely needlessly because some punk thought those old nickels and dimes were worth something."
"To think, only 10 years later there would be automated flying ambulances that owned themselves and his life would have been saved. Poor Barney. Google Car: Home Please"
Back In 2013...
It is not histrionic to assert that we will - in a very short space of time - look back on the current system in the same way we shiver with disbelief that there was an era not that long ago when bank clerks used to tally all our life savings in hand written ledgers.
It is of course very difficult to think ahead and predict future changes, and yet maverick technologists like Ray Kurzweil have made a fine living out of doing just that. Of course there are those that have not faired quite as well (Krugman. We are disappoint).
So why bitcoin and nothing else?
Just as nothing could stop the rise of Linux due to it's legion of nerdtastic programmers who work on it day in day out for the pure love of what they do, there is nothing that can even come close to emulating that goodwill (no matter how much money is spent on drones hired by banks or other agencies).
The global legion of talented programmers, designers, enrepreneurs, business gurus, financial experts and lobbyists (yes, lobbyists) who have already made a collective decision to dedicate their time and energy to building bitcoin into what is and what it is yet to become is an unstoppable force.
So take the red pill and buckle your seatbelt Dorothy, because that is the power of love, and it cannot be bought, sold or compromised.
submitted by smeggletoot to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Gavin Andresen always surfaces when the price is breaking out, we need to call this guy out. Track record with sources.

1) Satoshi Nakamoto disappeared AFTER Gavin said he was visiting the CIA. Come on folks the 2 events are related. He got scared. What the heck is a guy doing visting the CIA from a hobby crypto forum?
2) Gavin Andresen took money from an organization(Bitcoin Foundation) engaged in all sorts of shady activity. Gavin said nothing as founding member after founding member was arrested. He left when there were no more funds. Why was he quiet about Peter Vessenes, Charlie Shrem and Mark Karpeles?
3) Andresen immediately goes to work for a US government sponsored agency after Bitcoin Foundation collapsed.
4) Gavin Andresen was responsible for the 2013 fork that nearly ended Bitcoin when he allowed amateur Mike Hearn to implement his ideas. Incidentally both Hearn and Andresen are pushing for a fork of bitcoin despite possible consequences.
5) Gavin Andresen has vocally opposed bitcoin as a store of value outside of the legacy fiat system.
6) Gavin Andresen has supported numerous hardforks including BitcoinXT, Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin Classic. The same scam with a different brand.
7) Gavin Andresen vouched for a CONARTIST as Satoshi Nakamoto despite all evidence to the contrary.
8) Andresen began promoting various altcoins after losing all credibility with actual bitcoin developers.
Gavin we are on too you CONMAN.
submitted by banished98ti to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

12-21 16:27 - 'Satoshi's Disappearance.......' (self.Bitcoin) by /u/iliiliiliIIliilIIliI removed from /r/Bitcoin within 3942-3947min


From Fall 2015

Many of you know me as cryptcracker, the bounty hunter that is uncovering the truth behind the Crypty "hack" and bringing the perpetrators to justice. However I have been doing this kind of work far before the cryptsy incident, I am making this dispatch today to reveal crucial information on the sudden news about Satoshi Nakamoto's identity and the plot Gavin Andresen has been involved in.
Satoshi was the greatest mind that I have seen in ages always calm and collected a real genius. Notice that I said was, that's because I'm sorry to say Satoshi Nakamoto was murdered by Gavin Andresen and his CIA associates. The CIA saw the transparency of the blockchain and they thought this would be a good way to track their "dirty subordinates". Let me explain, the CIA gives money, guns and drugs to terrorists so they can do things like stage a coup and overthrow governments this is well documented. The CIA saw the transparency of bitcoin and got the idea to start using bitcoin as one of the ways they fund these dirty subordinates.
Gavin was given the task of identifying Satoshi and flipping on him which he did. Once Satoshi was found and about to be captured I was informed 1 of 2 things happened, Satoshi committed suicide or the authorities were successful in capturing Satoshi and Satoshi was tortured and then killed. I am sorry for not being 100% certain on which one it is but it was one of the two I know this because my sources also relayed documents to me showing Satoshis dead body and classified CIA files.
Craig Wright was chosen as the CIA's front man to act like he was the real Satoshi Nakamoto. Gavin Andresen was to use his position in the community to pass this off. However these fools completely botched there plan because 1. they don't have the keys to the best of my knowledge and 2. they over estimated their manipulative tactics. The CIA got used to pulling these tactics on the general population but they didn't understand something this transparent wouldn't work against the bitcoin Community since it's much more tech savvy.
This was one of the saddest stories that I have known about for a while and I think it needs to get out there. I am currently hesitant in releasing the confidential CIA files because if Satoshi's identity is know his friends and family will be in danger along with my sources. I will attempt to secure them so they are not in danger once that is done I might be able to release the files.

Thank you for your time, another dispatch will be coming soon.

Satoshi's Disappearance.......
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: iliiliiliIIliilIIliI
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Gavin Andresen: How I Got Started in Bitcoins Gavin Andresen about Bitcoin Top 10 Bitcoin Facts That Will Shock You! CIA, Satoshi, Hacks & More!! Gavin Andresen on BitCoin and Virtual Currency 04/04/2011 Coinbase Speaker Series: Gavin Andresen of Bitcoin Foundation

Der Mann hinter Bitcoin Alle Welt rätselt über Satoshi Nakamoto, den Begründer von Bitcoin. Die wirklich wichtige Figur ist jedoch jemand ganz anders: Gavin Andresen, der die Entwicklung der ... Gavin Andresen is an American computer scientist and software developer best known for his early contributions to bitcoin. Andresen took up the role of lead developer of bitcoin core after Satoshi ... “Gavin will visit the CIA” In late April, 2011, less than half a year since he became lead maintainer of Bitcoin Core, Andresen announced that he was going to give a presentation about Bitcoin at an “emerging technologies conference for the US intelligence community” that was going to be held at CIA headquarters. In the announcement ... Gavin Andresen was an early contributor of code to Bitcoin with overall GitHub commits to Bitcoin Core around 484. In 2015, Andresen joined MIT’s Digital Currency Initiative. Additionally, he serves as the Chief Scientist of the failed Bitcoin Foundation, and is an advisor to Coinbase and Zcash. History with Bitcoin. Andresen and Satoshi Nakamoto communicated often through Bitcointalk in ... However, Gavin Andresen once gave a talk on Bitcoin at the CIA headquarters. Is There A CIA – Bitcoin Connection? It is not the first time people mention how Bitcoin may have been created by the CIA, despite a clear lack of evidence to back these claims. However, a recent article on Dollar Vigilante mentions how an intelligence agency may have been involved in the Bitcoin concept at some ...

[index] [19061] [46536] [46176] [28281] [11154] [43445] [36425] [42547] [45863] [33664]

Gavin Andresen: How I Got Started in Bitcoins

Gavin Andresen, Chief Scientist, Bitcoin Foundation, answers the peoples' questions about Bitcoin scalability, core development, Cody Wilson, Satoshi Nakamoto, blockchain technology, US Treasury ... Coinbase Tech Talk Gavin Andresen, Chief Scientist at the Bitcoin Foundation and member of the MIT Media Lab's Digital Currency Initiative Visit Coinbase: ht... These facts range from Satoshi’s original Bitcoin code to core Developer Gavin Andresen going to the CIA to unveil Bitcoin. Each Bitcoin fact get more shocking & unbelievable than the next. Are ... Gavin Andresen about Bitcoin (at Bitcoin conference in Amsterdam 2014) Bitcoin client developer Gavin Andresen talks about how he got started in bitcoin. Recorded at the 2011 Bitcoin Conference in New York City