> I actually don't take the regulatory/law track as being any sort of
> indication of the Foundation's internal agenda. There were a few types of
> people who attended the conference, and the entrepreneurial/investment
> types desperately need clarity and guidance on those areas before they can
> be expected to feel secure in making a major investment of time and money
> into developing services and products that rely on this new protocol.
>

I agree with the general point that we can't just ignore the regulators,
but the argument here isn't quite correct. There are many Bitcoiners who
want clarity and guidance on how to follow the law, but there are also some
who want guidance on how to evade it. The second category was literally
nonexistent in the speeches - the closest we got was Blueseed and
deliberately structuring services to _legally_ be unsubpoenable. So there
is a definite bias in the conference toward toeing the line.

Once again, I'm not denying that there are very many people that certainly
should toe the line; just making a statement of fact.

>
> It would be funny if it weren't so sad and predictable. It's always
> better to maintain unity (or at least the illusion of it) for as long as
> possible, because once we fracture the lines that divide will become much
> more tangible.
>

Won't happen. Disunity is simultaneously our strength and our greatest
weakness. I see the divide staying around the same level that it is now,
and eventually the pro-legal group will just be another part of the
mainstream and the anti-legal group will continue its quest just as it has
continued for the past 20 (10000?) years.

>
>
> Adam B. Levine
> Editor-in-Chief
> Let's Talk Bitcoin! <http://www.letstalkbitcoin.com>
> 1-855-WETALKBITCOIN Ex.700
> [image: Inline image 2]
> Talk to me on Gli.ph, my preferred communications platform
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Vitalik Buterin <vbuterin@???>wrote:
>
>> The direction of the organization was pretty much obvious from the fact
>> that 1/4 of the Bitcoin conference was the "Regulatory/Law" track. All the
>> major Bitcoin organizations in the US are pretty much set on following that
>> particular track - the only exception I know of being the Free State
>> Project.
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Cody R Wilson <codywilson@???>wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Adam, the articles are included there.
>>>
>>> I was looking for what type of 501(c) tax exemption they organized to
>>> claim. Turns out its 501(c)(6), which is interesting indeed... These kinds
>>> of business associations are often thought of as lobbying groups.
>>>
>>> For a while I had assumed the Foundation claimed 501(c)(3) tax exemption
>>> as a nonprofit software developer with a specific charitable purpose and
>>> charitable class. This alternative form of organization tells me more than
>>> I had expected about the direction of the organization.
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>