<cross posted from private message>

... but let's look at the actual issues at hand - the
Skype model and the content of the article.

On that, I remain profoundly unimpressed by the content of the article
- - which is basically trying to say that Bitcoin can learn from Skype.
No, the Skype model is not one for Bitcoiners to emulate, arguably
it's not really relevant.

Some points from the article:

"These principles allowed us to operate Skype across the whole world,
with minimal legal costs and no effect on the main parts of the business"

This is what I mean by "disingenuous" and "ducking and diving". They
managed to avoid getting caught in the net just long enough like this
- - but when it came down to it, they just sold their IP to eBay and
then Microsoft. If they really had some brilliant plan to work in this
way, why are they not still working like that today?

"Most importantly, these lessons enabled Skype to become one of the
leading tools that people use to communicate and forged the way to
achieving our original dream. A dream that has become reality.
Today, the whole world can indeed talk for free. Bitcoin companies
have the potential to make the same waves in the financial sphere."

In this passage he actually claims that Skype *today* has become the
dream of people talking for free. People think this is great? Am I
accidentally in the NSA mailing list here?

That's just two snippets. I think I could find 3 or 4 more to support
the gist of my argument, but this is already long.

Skype is not a success story for those of us interested in freedom.
It's a story of selling out. And it all comes back to the idea of
decentralisation - Skype's was (and of course still is) proprietary,
so that its peer to peer nature was never a defence against regulation
or government power. Bitcoin was and remains 100% open source, and
that's a sine qua non.

Adam