About me: I'm passionate about User Experience and Agile development. I got into bitcoin during the Apr 2013 price spike, because I was fed up with cash and wanted an alternative. The price rise was serendipitous as I had started to transfer funds [to mtGox!!] before the price really took off. I never really made any money, because I invested too much during the spike to 1000+. I am a developer (mainly in C#) and am also a Certified Scrum Master(c).
Why I'm running: I am floored that such a decentralised idea has become so utterly centralised in its thought leadership. I am dismayed, but not surprised, that there is such division in the community and wish to do my best to mend it. I know that cryptocurrencies will become the next internet/web (in terms of mass-adoptance).
My side on the block size limit: I do not really have one. I genuinely can see both sides of the argument. As a hodler I feel betrayed, because a block size limit was not what I signed up for (I didn't read the small print, just the FAQ). As a software engineer I can see an enormous risk in a purposeful hard fork (the only other real one in bitcoin's history being accidental). As an economist/investor I can see... absolutely nothing until it has been tested by the market.
Basically I believe that either bitcoin will survive this block limit debate or another cryptocurrency will replace it as the network effect leader.
What I would be focussed on as president: I would try to be neutral in all things. I think my reddit profile suggests, that I detest censorship of ideas, but I am not committed to any particular side (which is what I really like about BU). I believe that any organisation MUST be run by its members and that members MUST have the final say in any decision. I understand that any member has every right to be anonymous, but that the organisation must (small caps) protect itself against electoral fraud. This is a VERY difficult balance. My ideas on how to do this can be expressed by the constitution I put together for a failed non-profit bitcoin organisation in the UK. I would put together a membership committee (with public meetings) or open forum that vetted membership, to which any decision could be appealed to a majority vote of the existing membership.
Finally I understand that the President has virtually no powers whatsoever, no remuneration and very little station. It would also require a lot of time and effort. You would have to be mad to apply.
--
Lee Adams
1ruQ2wceuMt83aXQsERyWGxQawHqXERSd
Why I'm running: I am floored that such a decentralised idea has become so utterly centralised in its thought leadership. I am dismayed, but not surprised, that there is such division in the community and wish to do my best to mend it. I know that cryptocurrencies will become the next internet/web (in terms of mass-adoptance).
My side on the block size limit: I do not really have one. I genuinely can see both sides of the argument. As a hodler I feel betrayed, because a block size limit was not what I signed up for (I didn't read the small print, just the FAQ). As a software engineer I can see an enormous risk in a purposeful hard fork (the only other real one in bitcoin's history being accidental). As an economist/investor I can see... absolutely nothing until it has been tested by the market.
Basically I believe that either bitcoin will survive this block limit debate or another cryptocurrency will replace it as the network effect leader.
What I would be focussed on as president: I would try to be neutral in all things. I think my reddit profile suggests, that I detest censorship of ideas, but I am not committed to any particular side (which is what I really like about BU). I believe that any organisation MUST be run by its members and that members MUST have the final say in any decision. I understand that any member has every right to be anonymous, but that the organisation must (small caps) protect itself against electoral fraud. This is a VERY difficult balance. My ideas on how to do this can be expressed by the constitution I put together for a failed non-profit bitcoin organisation in the UK. I would put together a membership committee (with public meetings) or open forum that vetted membership, to which any decision could be appealed to a majority vote of the existing membership.
Finally I understand that the President has virtually no powers whatsoever, no remuneration and very little station. It would also require a lot of time and effort. You would have to be mad to apply.
--
Lee Adams
1ruQ2wceuMt83aXQsERyWGxQawHqXERSd
