What, if any, effect do you guys think that this will have on the continued development of bitcoin, as well as the legitimacy and regulation thereof?

Thanks.  Now when someone asks me why my tag line (to the left over there <--) states "I no longer support vanity addresses" I can just send them to these posts.  And for anyone wondering:  yes, those are some of my addresses and yes, I am just as much and every bit an avid supporter and platinum member of TBF as Bruno.

No effect. Gavin backed off a while back (possibly because he knew the the direction they were going). Bitcoin is written in a clumsy dinosaur language called C++. It's an old language from back in the 80's. Many coders are familiar with it and could take over. Although QT is a frigin nightmare that's hard to change without breaking something and it's better to have someone around that's very familiar with it someone new could ramp up within a few months.

TBF doesn't need to be around to make Bitcoin legitimate. It's legitimate because it's used. Legislation will move forward at the hands of bureaucrats. Millions and millions of dollars are necessary for PACs to sway legislation. I doubt TBF can just afford lunch for all of the people that need to be greased to alter the course of legislation enactment.

LOL - congrats on your Platinum membership.

Sorry Burt, didn't mean to drag you into this.

Fucking TradeFuckFace. Must be some kind of tracing image. God, I hate those so freaking much.

It would be impossible for TBF to forge a backdated transaction as big as the platinum membership fee. Their only way out is to say that the fee was paid by transfer of private key(s). If TBF cannot produce that, knc is obviously not a member and their vote is disqualified.

I don't know how the voting went. How many votes did BP win by?

I remember reading somewhere that, according to their bylaws, board members had to attend the meetings in person; but that requirement was promptly waived for Mark Karpelès.  Is that correct?  If so, they will probably just change the rules again, no?

Ditto. I neither, if he's a good guy, which I have no reason to think otherwise.

Thanks.  I read, among other things:

Who in sane mind would join an association that has something like 3.3(c)(iv) in its bylaws?