I agree too, that's why the foundation should in my mind drop the last
pillar of their mission statement (promote) and be a content agnostic
caretaker, custodian and developer of the protocol. But since they have
given themselves the mission, and set their targets on the US regulatory
structure you can appreciate the internal conflict with your suggestions.

I'm just lamenting the opportunity squandered.


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 2:43 PM, Cody R Wilson <codywilson@???>wrote:

> I accept the general description of this problem of "legitimacy," but not
> the vocabulary. Talk about the big picture, the earliness of some
> historical arc, suggestions that disagreements are really only semantic.
> This is ideology.
>
> Why complain about the california cease and desist if you begged for it?
>
> Half the world's economic activity will not be perceived within the tables
> of authority by the end of this decade. Dissensus. The tools and forces
> opposing the Foundation should be made visible.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>