Jump to content
Bitcoin Foundation
Michael Perklin

Candidate: Michael Perklin

Recommended Posts

Hello Bitcoin Foundation Members,

 

My name is Michael Perklin and I'd like to open this thread to answer any questions that you may have about me, my work in the bitcoin space, or how I will help the Bitcoin Foundation achieve its goals if/when I'm elected.

 

I'm a firm believer that one of the best ways to know where someone is going is to first understand where they're coming from. With that in mind, here's a bit about me.

 

I am a cybersecurity expert who has worked for over a decade in the information security space. In the past I've held positions as a cyber investigator, a digital-forensic investigator, a reverse engineer, an application tester, and a computer programmer. If you want to see more about my professional history (degrees/certifications/work experience), my LinkedIn profile is available here.

 

I am currently employed as a principal at Bitcoinsultants, a bitcoin security firm where I work with a team of amazing people to conduct security audits, source-code reviews, penetration tests, and implement cold storage solutions for anyone who needs to store large sums of bitcoins. I've been a guest host on Decentral Talk Live where I spoke about security. I'll be speaking at the Miami Bitcoin Conference on January 16th about our second-most interesting engagement (designing Ethereum's bitcoin cold storage vault). Feel free to stop me in the halls and say hi.

 

In addition to Miami, I've spoken about bitcoin security at a variety of bitcoin conferences around the world (Toronto, Las Vegas, Brazil) and cyber-security at hacker/security conferences too (DEFCON, LOCKDOWN, BSIDES). Google if you're curious.

 

I am also a director of the Bitcoin Alliance of Canada, a non-profit organization that promotes, educates, and protects bitcoin in Canada. You may have seen video of

about bitcoin in the same hearings that brought Andreas M. Antonopoulos to Canada.

 

Through my work with both Bitcoinsultants and the BAC, my partners and I recognized a need that all bitcoin companies around the world share: finding people who know/understand bitcoin. This need lead us to create the CryptoCurrency Certification Consortium, or C4.

 

C4 is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to standards and certifications in the cryptocurrency industry. We worked with many leaders in our industry to categorize the knowledge every bitcoin professional should have and wrote exam questions to test for that knowledge. The result was a heavily peer-reviewed exam that allows you to earn a professional certification: Certified Bitcoin Professional. We plan on releasing the Certified Bitcoin Expert exam by the end of this winter.

 

Now that you know a bit about me and what I've done, here's how I feel I can help the Bitcoin Foundation achieve its goals as a director on its board.

 

When BF's Executive Director Patrick Murck announced the BF was pivoting to concentrate on the code, its protocol, and standards/certification, it was music to my ears. My focus for the last year has been developing standards and certifications in the bitcoin industry, and to hear Patrick say these are his priorities too was what made me decide to run for one of the two individual seats.

 

As a director of the Bitcoin Foundation, I will do everything I can to help publish complete standards for professionals, bitcoin software, security, and more. These standards will ensure that every developer, piece of software, and business has a clear path to certification - a way to meet the personnel requirements, security requirements, and business requirements necessary to provide safe and secure services to all bitcoiners. In essence, I'll be doing exactly what I'm doing at C4, but with another hat on.

 

So that's who I am and where I want to go.

I'm happy to answer your questions!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Hayes    172

Hello Bitcoin Foundation Members,

 

My name is Michael Perklin and I'd like to open this thread to answer any questions that you may have about me, my work in the bitcoin space, or how I will help the Bitcoin Foundation achieve its goals if/when I'm elected.

 

I'm a firm believer that one of the best ways to know where someone is going is to first understand where they're coming from. With that in mind, here's a bit about me.

 

I am a cybersecurity expert who has worked for over a decade in the information security space. In the past I've held positions as a cyber investigator, a digital-forensic investigator, a reverse engineer, an application tester, and a computer programmer. If you want to see more about my professional history (degrees/certifications/work experience), my LinkedIn profile is available here.

 

I am currently employed as a principal at Bitcoinsultants, a bitcoin security firm where I work with a team of amazing people to conduct security audits, source-code reviews, penetration tests, and implement cold storage solutions for anyone who needs to store large sums of bitcoins. I've been a guest host on Decentral Talk Live where I spoke about security. I'll be speaking at the Miami Bitcoin Conference on January 16th about our second-most interesting engagement (designing Ethereum's bitcoin cold storage vault). Feel free to stop me in the halls and say hi.

 

In addition to Miami, I've spoken about bitcoin security at a variety of bitcoin conferences around the world (Toronto, Las Vegas, Brazil) and cyber-security at hacker/security conferences too (DEFCON, LOCKDOWN, BSIDES). Google if you're curious.

 

I am also a director of the Bitcoin Alliance of Canada, a non-profit organization that promotes, educates, and protects bitcoin in Canada. You may have seen video of

about bitcoin in the same hearings that brought Andreas M. Antonopoulos to Canada.

 

Through my work with both Bitcoinsultants and the BAC, my partners and I recognized a need that all bitcoin companies around the world share: finding people who know/understand bitcoin. This need lead us to create the CryptoCurrency Certification Consortium, or C4.

 

C4 is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to standards and certifications in the cryptocurrency industry. We worked with many leaders in our industry to categorize the knowledge every bitcoin professional should have and wrote exam questions to test for that knowledge. The result was a heavily peer-reviewed exam that allows you to earn a professional certification: Certified Bitcoin Professional. We plan on releasing the Certified Bitcoin Expert exam by the end of this winter.

 

Now that you know a bit about me and what I've done, here's how I feel I can help the Bitcoin Foundation achieve its goals as a director on its board.

 

When BF's Executive Director Patrick Murck announced the BF was pivoting to concentrate on the code, its protocol, and standards/certification, it was music to my ears. My focus for the last year has been developing standards and certifications in the bitcoin industry, and to hear Patrick say these are his priorities too was what made me decide to run for one of the two individual seats.

 

As a director of the Bitcoin Foundation, I will do everything I can to help publish complete standards for professionals, bitcoin software, security, and more. These standards will ensure that every developer, piece of software, and business has a clear path to certification - a way to meet the personnel requirements, security requirements, and business requirements necessary to provide safe and secure services to all bitcoiners. In essence, I'll be doing exactly what I'm doing at C4, but with another hat on.

 

So that's who I am and where I want to go.

I'm happy to answer your questions!

Aren't you actually an industry member running as an individual member?

 

The bylaws allow that, I am just asking for explicit clarification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the question, Mike. Sorry I couldn't get back to you sooner; the forum blocked me :)

 

I am a lifetime individual member of the BF, and not an industry member. As such, I'm running for one of the individual seats and not an industry seat.

 

--MP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Hayes    172

Thanks for the question, Mike. Sorry I couldn't get back to you sooner; the forum blocked me :)

 

I am a lifetime individual member of the BF, and not an industry member. As such, I'm running for one of the individual seats and not an industry seat.

 

--MP

Thanks.

 

So other than my bag of sixteen sixteen sided dice, what do I need to know about security?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

 

So other than my bag of sixteen sixteen sided dice, what do I need to know about security?

Hey Mike.

 

Thanks for the question; sorry it took a bit to respond.

 

The short answer is: a lot.

Security is like a chain - it's only as strong as the weakest link in the chain.

While the specific wallet software (or hardware) is an important choice, what's more important is how you use that technology.

 

You can use the most secure software available on an offline machine to set up a wallet, and undo all of that security by using it improperly. If you "back up" that private key by throwing it in a TXT file on your company's file server "in case an employee needs it" you will expose yourself to unnecessary risk which may lead to the theft of your funds.

 

Unfortunately there is no silver bullet with security. The entire Information System needs to be secure - an Information System is a combination of technology, trained personnel, and proper policies and procedures to follow.

 

When in doubt, your organization should consult an educated/trained/certified security professional if they don't have one on staff.

 

--MP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're voting for you here will you still hold this position at the Bitcoin Alliance of Canada or will someone else take your position so you can focus on BF-related things?

Georg, thanks for the question.

 

My seat on the board of the Bitcoin Alliance of Canada is up for re-election in 2 months; every seat serves a 2-year term before being up for re-election. I will be forced to vacate my seat at that time to whichever candidate is elected to that seat by members of the BAC.

 

With respect to serving on boards of non-profit organizations, there are no restrictions.

Various members of the BF's board serve on other boards as well, and the same can be said about members of BAC's board and many other boards. All that is necessary is that, in the event of a conflict, those members announce the conflict clearly in advance of any discussions or votes which may materialize that conflict. For example, if the Bitcoin Foundation were to discuss the donation of funds to the Bitcoin Alliance of Canada for one purpose or another, I would be required to disclose my representation of the BAC and recuse myself from those discussions and resolutions as any vote by me may be conflicted (am I voting "yes" in my capacity as BF or BAC?)

 

Since I've served on the boards of multiple non-profit organizations at the same time, I am very well-versed in not only the by-laws related to conflicts, but also the perception of conflicts above-and-beyond what bylaws stipulate. I will never participate in any resolutions that would represent a conflict of interest and I'd expect my fellow board members would help enforce these restrictions by purposefully excluding me where appropriate.

 

For what it's worth, I cannot think of any case where a board member of a developer-centric Bitcoin Foundation would be in conflict with a Canadian-outreach-centric BAC. If one were to ever present itself, you have my assurance that conflict of interest bylaws would be strictly enforced.

 

--Michael

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Hayes    172

Hey Mike.

 

Thanks for the question; sorry it took a bit to respond.

 

The short answer is: a lot.

Security is like a chain - it's only as strong as the weakest link in the chain.

While the specific wallet software (or hardware) is an important choice, what's more important is how you use that technology.

 

You can use the most secure software available on an offline machine to set up a wallet, and undo all of that security by using it improperly. If you "back up" that private key by throwing it in a TXT file on your company's file server "in case an employee needs it" you will expose yourself to unnecessary risk which may lead to the theft of your funds.

 

Unfortunately there is no silver bullet with security. The entire Information System needs to be secure - an Information System is a combination of technology, trained personnel, and proper policies and procedures to follow.

 

When in doubt, your organization should consult an educated/trained/certified security professional if they don't have one on staff.

 

--MP

Good answer.

 

So if you are true to these principles, 80% of the BF's industry members are not going to like things you say.

 

80% of invidual members should like them, if they understand them.

 

But the "industry members" pay most of the costs.

 

I see a conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you are true to these principles, 80% of the BF's industry members are not going to like things you say.

For what it's worth, I disagree.

 

Industry members who provide secure services are a valuable piece in the overall security of end-user and business funds.

While these industry members' products and services are an important piece of the whole, they can't cover everything. It's up to the consumers of these products - both end-users and business consumers - to implement the industry tools securely.

 

Some industry members' tools make it much easier to meet the bar of security by offering a wide range of features which simplify the deployment of a secure system, but it's still up to the users to fill in the gaps.

 

--Michael

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brad Wheeler    296

Hi Michael,

 

You've referenced the bylaws in this thread and your reddit AMA. Any comments on the process or proposals for changes you'd like to see there?

 

Thanks for your candidacy and your consideration of the above!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Hayes    172

For what it's worth, I disagree.

 

Industry members who provide secure services are a valuable piece in the overall security of end-user and business funds.

While these industry members' products and services are an important piece of the whole, they can't cover everything. It's up to the consumers of these products - both end-users and business consumers - to implement the industry tools securely.

 

Some industry members' tools make it much easier to meet the bar of security by offering a wide range of features which simplify the deployment of a secure system, but it's still up to the users to fill in the gaps.

 

--Michael

 

I'm not able to process that series of buzz words and abstractions into anything actionable, sorry.

 

It sounds rather like you would be saying that well, Karpeles may have been a bad boy, but a consumer has to watch out for himself?

 

Caviar Emptor Rules!

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Michael,

 

You've referenced the bylaws in this thread and your reddit AMA. Any comments on the process or proposals for changes you'd like to see there?

 

Thanks for your candidacy and your consideration of the above!

Brad,

 

I'm of the mindset "if it ain't broken, don't fix it"

There are three types of board seats on the BF board: individual, industry, and chapter affiliate (which used to be 'founder').

 

Having these seats populated by votes from that member class seems to make the most sense - industry members choose the industry seat, individual members choose the individual seat, and chapter affiliates choose the chapter affiliate seats.

 

The only problems I've seen in reference to these 3 classes of members is a misunderstanding by some members on these forums about which seats are which; one member has said I'm running for the wrong seat. (I am an individual member and am running for an individual seat).

 

Despite his confusion, I haven't seen any other issues raised with the current configuration of the board.

 

That said, if someone were to make a case that the board should be restructured, I would most definitely look into the arguments posed by that person. If there is a deficiency in the current setup, and a proposal is being made to resolve those deficiencies, then it would only be prudent to give it due thought.

 

In short: I'm fine with how it is, but am open to considering changes.

 

--MP

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not able to process that series of buzz words and abstractions into anything actionable, sorry.

 

It sounds rather like you would be saying that well, Karpeles may have been a bad boy, but a consumer has to watch out for himself?

 

Caviar Emptor Rules!

Mike,

Sorry you didn't understand. I spoke about this in my talk at the Miami bitcoin conference a few weeks ago.

I've queued up the video to 5:23 in the following link:

 

The short version is: having secure tech is not enough, you must ALSO have secure policies and procedures, and your staff must be trained in executing those procedures securely.

 

With respect to your interpretation of my words referencing Karpeles... that is not at all what I wrote, meant, or implied.

 

Hope the link above clarifies what I meant,

 

--MP

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Hayes    172

Mike,.....

With respect to your interpretation of my words referencing Karpeles... that is not at all what I wrote, meant, or implied.

 

Hope the link above clarifies what I meant,

 

--MP

Gee, let me try to say what I mean or intend to mean.

 

When the next Karpeles arises in the shade of the Bitcoin Foundation (director, major donor, you pick the scenario...)

 

 

So what would you do, when you were faced with such a looming reality?

 

And what would you do day to day, when you noticed that certain "Industry members' practices" were far, far less secure than others?

 

What do you do, if you were a director?

 

That's what this reduces to.

 

Whether you would take action that quite likely would cause the others to terminate your Board membership.

 

In the case of Karpeles, there wasn't a peep from the Board.

 

 

**********

Due to continual disappearances of posts, this thread is archived, so that vanished posts may later reappear.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would treat any provider of services the same way regardless of whether or not I served alongside them on a board.

If their practices were not up to standard, I'd point it out. I would not expect my seat on the board to be terminated for identifying it.

 

When MTGox was around, there was no standard when it came to security. Every company did things their own way which lead to some companies doing things properly and other companies leaving gaping holes. MTGox had holes, and they suffered from it.

 

There wasn't a peep from the board because there was no standard against which to hold MTGox.

 

The credit card industry has the PCI standard which dictates what minimum controls must exist if you plan on holding credit card numbers.

The food industry has HACCP

Health information has HIPAA.

What does our cryptocurrency industry have?

 

My focus, if elected, will be to publish clear standards for various facets of the bitcoin ecosystem, security being my first target.

Once there's a security standard, anyone - not just me or other BF board members - can point to a company and say "you're not meeting the bar."

 

These standards are needed not just for the industry members to follow, but to protect the assets of every individual member as well. It will be one way for our young industry to grow up to put us within reach of the next level.

 

--MP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Hayes    172

I would treat any provider of services the same way regardless of whether or not I served alongside them on a board.

If their practices were not up to standard, I'd point it out. I would not expect my seat on the board to be terminated for identifying it.

 

When MTGox was around, there was no standard when it came to security. Every company did things their own way which lead to some companies doing things properly and other companies leaving gaping holes. MTGox had holes, and they suffered from it.

 

There wasn't a peep from the board because there was no standard against which to hold MTGox.

 

The credit card industry has the PCI standard which dictates what minimum controls must exist if you plan on holding credit card numbers.

The food industry has HACCP

Health information has HIPAA.

What does our cryptocurrency industry have?

 

My focus, if elected, will be to publish clear standards for various facets of the bitcoin ecosystem, security being my first target.

Once there's a security standard, anyone - not just me or other BF board members - can point to a company and say "you're not meeting the bar."

 

These standards are needed not just for the industry members to follow, but to protect the assets of every individual member as well. It will be one way for our young industry to grow up to put us within reach of the next level.

 

--MP

If there wasn't a peep from the board because there was no published set of rules to follow in assigning labels like "good" or "bad" to actions, then we have a whole different systemic problem than what is solved by a set of rules. I think that's a ridiculous rationalization of the behavior of the board and the BF during the MtGox debacle.

 

What you've just proposed and advocated is a regulatory environment with government oversight by all appearances.

 

This is exactly equal to advocating trusted intermediaries in the execution phase of use of a trustless protocol. It clearly represents destruction of that protocol - it's change into something that you think is "better".

 

And even having granted that represents the position, it is a very US/developed-nation-centric viewpoint. That is to say, the BF advocates your "regulation", they pretty much are speaking to North Korea, Botswana, and Argentina as well as the USA. Then your regulations are implemented commonly, with corruption embedded, and uncommonly, in any sense similar to the idealistic sense in which you conceived them.

 

But that's just my opinion.

 

You may find enough people believe your talk to vote you in.

 

********** thread archived **********

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there wasn't a peep from the board because there was no published set of rules to follow in assigning labels like "good" or "bad" to actions, then we have a whole different systemic problem than what is solved by a set of rules. I think that's a ridiculous rationalization of the behavior of the board and the BF during the MtGox debacle.

 

What you've just proposed and advocated is a regulatory environment with government oversight by all appearances.

 

This is exactly equal to advocating trusted intermediaries in the execution phase of use of a trustless protocol. It clearly represents destruction of that protocol - it's change into something that you think is "better".

 

And even having granted that represents the position, it is a very US/developed-nation-centric viewpoint. That is to say, the BF advocates your "regulation", they pretty much are speaking to North Korea, Botswana, and Argentina as well as the USA. Then your regulations are implemented commonly, with corruption embedded, and uncommonly, in any sense similar to the idealistic sense in which you conceived them.

 

But that's just my opinion.

 

You may find enough people believe your talk to vote you in.

 

********** thread archived **********

Mike,

 

You have changed the meaning of my words with a false comparison and as a result, placed me on the opposite side of two topics: decentralization and regulation.

 

Let me be clear:

I believe decentralization is of paramount importance and vehemently oppose anything that attempts to centralize Bitcoin.

I believe Bitcoin is already regulated and do not want/advocate/support any country imposing additional regulations that curtail everyone's use of this free and open protocol.

 

You say that my advocation of standards is akin to a regulatory environment.

This is incorrect and is the cause of our miscommunication.

 

Standards are not regulations.

Standards are open sets of guidelines that anyone can choose to follow or ignore. Free markets will decide whether or not it's beneficial for a participant to follow or ignore it.

 

By way of example, take the BIP32 hierarchical deterministic wallet standard.

Pieter Wuille (and a collection of advisors who helped him) came up with a standard for deriving a set of bitcoin addresses and keys in a common way. They opened the standard up to the world to follow or ignore, and wallet developers indeed have chosen to either follow it or ignore it.

 

Wallets like mSIGNA from Ciphrex and Breadwallet have chosen to follow this standard and the way they determine their Bitcoin addresses and keys conforms to this standard.

Other wallets like Armory and Electrum did not follow this standard and they have each chosen to determine their Bitcoin addresses and keys in a different non-standard way. (Small point of clarification, Electrum 2.0 will support BIP32 and abandon their old non-standard way of determinism)

 

When the BIP32 standard was published, it didn't create a regulatory framework. It didn't force everyone to suddenly adopt it or impose sanctions on those who ignored it. Every participant in the market was free - and is still free - to choose to follow the standard or not.

 

Those who choose to follow the BIP32 standard have a clear set of rules to follow which help them achieve their goals (writing wallet software) in an easier way. They don't have to think about how to back up every new key because all of that work was done for them in the standard; they just need to follow it and the quality of their product will be elevated by default.

 

I am not advocating for regulations.

I am advocating for more standards that assist everyone in our ecosystem (industries and individuals) to build things securely. Standards will make it easier to achieve security because clear guidelines will exist for people to follow... and like every other standard that has come before it, everyone will have the freedom to ignore it and do things their own way too if they so choose.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Hayes    172

Mike,

 

You have changed the meaning of my words with a false comparison and as a result, placed me on the opposite side of two topics: decentralization and regulation.

 

Let me be clear:

I believe decentralization is of paramount importance and vehemently oppose anything that attempts to centralize Bitcoin.

I believe Bitcoin is already regulated and do not want/advocate/support any country imposing additional regulations that curtail everyone's use of this free and open protocol.

 

You say that my advocation of standards is akin to a regulatory environment.

This is incorrect and is the cause of our miscommunication.

 

Standards are not regulations.

Standards are open sets of guidelines that anyone can choose to follow or ignore. Free markets will decide whether or not it's beneficial for a participant to follow or ignore it.

 

By way of example, take the BIP32 hierarchical deterministic wallet standard.

Pieter Wuille (and a collection of advisors who helped him) came up with a standard for deriving a set of bitcoin addresses and keys in a common way. They opened the standard up to the world to follow or ignore, and wallet developers indeed have chosen to either follow it or ignore it.

 

Wallets like mSIGNA from Ciphrex and Breadwallet have chosen to follow this standard and the way they determine their Bitcoin addresses and keys conforms to this standard.

Other wallets like Armory and Electrum did not follow this standard and they have each chosen to determine their Bitcoin addresses and keys in a different non-standard way. (Small point of clarification, Electrum 2.0 will support BIP32 and abandon their old non-standard way of determinism)

 

When the BIP32 standard was published, it didn't create a regulatory framework. It didn't force everyone to suddenly adopt it or impose sanctions on those who ignored it. Every participant in the market was free - and is still free - to choose to follow the standard or not.

 

Those who choose to follow the BIP32 standard have a clear set of rules to follow which help them achieve their goals (writing wallet software) in an easier way. They don't have to think about how to back up every new key because all of that work was done for them in the standard; they just need to follow it and the quality of their product will be elevated by default.

 

I am not advocating for regulations.

I am advocating for more standards that assist everyone in our ecosystem (industries and individuals) to build things securely. Standards will make it easier to achieve security because clear guidelines will exist for people to follow... and like every other standard that has come before it, everyone will have the freedom to ignore it and do things their own way too if they so choose.

Thank you for the clarification.

 

I only followed the comparison you made of (example) HIPAA(US regulation, botched up messy privacy act) == "Good", we with Bitcoin have nothing comparable....

 

Granted, for every nuance therein lies a confusion.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brad Wheeler    296

My second question for all the candidates is on the topic of institutional memory and leadership orientation...

 

Would you be in favor of a Board of Directors Code of Conduct/ Code of Ethics statement (separate from the bylaws) that describes principles you believe Directors of the Bitcoin Foundation should be sworn to during their tenure?

 

Would you take an active role in the creation of such a document?

If yes, what principles should be promoted by the leadership?

If no, why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My second question for all the candidates is on the topic of institutional memory and leadership orientation...

 

Would you be in favor of a Board of Directors Code of Conduct/ Code of Ethics statement (separate from the bylaws) that describes principles you believe Directors of the Bitcoin Foundation should be sworn to during their tenure?

 

Would you take an active role in the creation of such a document?

If yes, what principles should be promoted by the leadership?

If no, why not?

Brad,

 

I would definitely be in favor of a code of conduct / code of ethics statement for all directors.

This would help hold directors to a higher standard and provide grounds for removal if it is learned that they participated in something that would harm the foundation's reputation in the future.

 

I would definitely participate in the creation of such a document and would openly solicit participation from our membership to assist in drafting the set of principles to ensure the document reflects the conduct and ethics demanded by our user base.

 

--MP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Michael

 

Quick question: Are you a libertarian?

Gerhard,

 

That label - libertarian - has evolved quite a lot from its dictionary definition, so I'm hesitant to say yes or no because unfortunately many people attribute a wide range of separate mutually-exclusive attributes to that label.

 

The dictionary definition is "a person who advocates civil liberty" and I can say without hesitation that I am definitely someone who advocates civil liberty. I believe in free will and Bitcoin is an amazing tool that fits that point of view.

 

However, I do not take this belief to an extreme, and do not advocate anarchism or any point of view that works to destroy rather than create. Free will does not grant a license to kill, riot, loot, or destroy and I believe that societal measures should exist to discourage such actions and punish them if they are taken. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and if someone uses their free will to choose such a destructive action, I agree with the consequential reaction of punishment for those destructive actions.

 

Hope that answered your question without complicating it too much :)

 

--MP

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately not. If you don't like to be put into a box I fear I have to insist on the complicated details - I hope you don't mind :P

 

So, to ask more precisely: What do you think the role of the government should be? Which tasks should it perform and which should be left to private entities?

How is supporting bitcoin in line with your political views? What benefits to society do you expect from a wide adoption of bitcoin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Hayes    172

....(I) do not advocate anarchism or any point of view that works to destroy rather than create.....

Minor detail, but anarchism as the phrase is commonly used in the bitcoin world, "crypto anarchist" phrase inclusive, does NOT pertain to destroy rather than create. It simply acknowledges the possible consequences of obsolescence of various social, political and financial structures as formed in the past and perpetuated into the presence.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CryptoCurrency Security Standard (CCSS) was released today after months of hard work by my partners and I.

 

More information can be found here: http://blog.cryptoconsortium.org/ccss/

 

Standards such as these help provide guidance to everyone in our industry - both service providers and consumers - on how to secure bitcoin as well as how to identify services that are securing them properly.

 

This is one example of standards I plan on dedicating my time to if elected to the BF board.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×