BIP-101 Syndicate Shares Fiat Ties, Opposition to Actual Bitcoin

Upon a Crunchbase investigation of the companies attached to the open letter (text) published on's blog supporting BIP-101, a correlation arose that indicates these companies have most likely been compromised for some time. All of these companies who have been known to employ heavy KYC terms, are heavily funded by fiat institutions that want to pervert Bitcoin.

Concern was raised of the BIP-101 syndicate when many of their VCs overlapped. Each venture has at least one VC in common based on CrunchBase data. Xapo itBit and Bitnet all have funding from Blockchain Capital, of which one of the managing partners is Brock Pierce. Qntra earlier reported Pierce, replaced Vessennes' as chairman of the now defunct Bitcoin Fundation back in April, under peculiar circumstances. Pierce may be a puppet for the Fundation puppeteers, but it's likely no coincidence that Jon Matonis stepped down as the Executive Director in October of 2014 and became heavily vocal of the consequences of a block size hard fork, while Pierce is elected Chairman.

Lightspeed Venture Partners who funded Ripple is also a major shareholder of Ripple is a centralized bastardization of Bitcoin, making it suspect that it was Blockchain's blog that published the open letter.

Circle, a competitor to Coinbase, has the most damning VC behind the reigns: Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sach's, a purely fiat institution, is a majority shareholder of Moneygram a cash based money transfer service with astronomical fees. If Goldman Sachs is at all turning of Circle's knobs their motivation for BIP-101 is to force users who are unable to run a full node due to the resource burdens, to use services such as Circle. It would also serve as an initial footing for fiat institutions' invasion into the protocol level of Bitcoin.

By endorsing BIP-101 this syndicate of puppets has shed light on the puppeteers attempting to pervert Bitcoin into a USG acceptable currency, where the state can ultimately control a neutered imitator of actual Bitcoin.

4 thoughts on “BIP-101 Syndicate Shares Fiat Ties, Opposition to Actual Bitcoin

  1. "their motivation for BIP-101, is to force users who are unable to run a full node due to the resource burdens, to use services such as Circle." uhm, what about light wallets like electrum? sorry, but that theory does not make sense. Unless the blocksize became to big even for them . . .

    Without incentives to host a node, yeah this could become a problem. Though miners and pools will also be hosting nodes and they'll have the incentives. Agreed, this is bad news, but not sure your theory checkes out, there'll be alternatives.

    • What light wallet offers the assurances running a full node does. I wouldn't even consider running electrum without a private electrum server which involves setting up a full node.

      • Electrum providers have stated they would be unable to continue running their servers if the block size increases since it requires more resources than a normal full node.

        This complaint is ignored a lot, even by the lead developer of Electrum.

        In theory most electrum servers would probably go off line once the block size is high enough for 15-40 TPS .

    • "Light wallets" are in no way different from circle for this discussion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>