Bitcoin Forum

As part of a newly published roadmap for the Bitcoin Foundation, executive director Bruce Fenton has suggested removing bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto as a founding member.

Though he called for the removal of all founding members from the organisation, Fenton singled out Nakamoto's inclusion as "not accurate", arguing that he or she was never involved in the group's creation.

SOURCE: http://www.coindesk.com/remove-satoshi-as-founding-member-says-bitcoin-foundation-director/

How about we remove TBF? How can they even think of such a thing. If there was no Satoshi there would have been no Bitcoin. No Bitcoin = no Bitcoin Foundation.
That's quite simple actually. He even wants to remove Gavin. Instead of focusing on important matters he decides to kick Satoshi and Gavin out, good job.

Maybe Bruce Fentom wants to be the founder of Bitcoin.  ::)

I appreciate this move from Bruce. It is better to keep the founder clean from all the scams.

I support his decision.
Hopefully he will do what he have promised.

This is equivalent of removing Jesus from Christianity.  Just because he didn't specifically found your church (foundation), doesn't mean he's not the SOURCE of your religion.

In Crypto We Trust

I support Bruce's decision whole heartedly.

Good to exclude and distance Satoshi from the disorganized, disgusting, bankrupt cesspool known as the Bitcoin Foundation.

Good on Gavin and Bitcoin Core Devs to leave that roach motel when they did.

http://trilema.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/bitcoin-foundation-scam-728x90.png

I support Bruce in this as a member of the foundation.

Sometimes it's appropriate. If your church is a shitpile of ignorance and hatred, you don't deserve to be associated with Jesus. The Westboro Baptist Church, for example, fully deserves to get raided by time-traveling Crusaders from the 13th century.

Bruce doesn't want Satoshi's good name sullied by the past shenanigans of the foundation, that's all.

Bruce is doing what he can to change this perception, and ceasing the exploitation of Satoshi's name is a great start.

Why not leave him on as an honorary member? Just like universities give honorary degrees to people who never attended but who's work in real life the university wants to acknowledge?

Let's not have the Bitcoin Foundation be as self-aggrandizing as most modern universities. They're not "acknowledging work", they're cleverly associating themselves with famous smart people for marketing purposes.

Which is exactly what the Foundation did by pretending it was in any way associated with Satoshi Nakamoto. Bruce is correcting that mistake, he is also the only reason I now wear the foundation badge as my avatar.

You didn't understand this? "Bitcoin Foundation" wants Satoshi to come and tell "Don't remove me!". Then, they will write "We found Satoshi Nakamoto!" and take the credit. Awesome, right?!

I have a hunch that it was done to get some fame/popularity. They ain't that stupid, are they?

The fact that NO ONE claims to have ever met him ,and only communicated through email/this forum seems to fishy.  Also the fact that none of his BTC has been moved seems to reinforce the fact that its not just some random guy, and more likely has some sort of intelligence background.  Makes me uneasy about btc.  I say remove "him".

He didn't have to go there at this point.  Fix the affairs of TBF first, then he gets to do what he wants even if its an unpopular decision.

This is the founder..

That name shall stay there till bitcoin is dead.

(S)He is the creator of bitcoin, not a founder of the foundation.

Not cool dude not cool at all...

https://i.imgur.com/GTq4i.gif

They are talking about the Bitcoin Foundation, not Bitcoin itself  ::) (satoshi never had anything to do with the bitcoin foundation they just listed him as a founding member to appear to have cred).

Well, it could avoid accidents like the one when his/her e-mail account was "stolen" and then happened the mess in SF and e-mails spread even to theymos.
Other than that, I can't see why remove Satoshi.

Can we remove Bitcoin from the Bitcoin Foundation name?  Ha!

unlike Satoshi, the Bitcoin Foundation doesn't exist. So, who cares!

I agree, they should just rename and rebrand everything!  Here's their newly renamed foundation:

http://www.buttcoinfoundation.org/

Truly a more logical name and symbolic one at it too....

http://3s1shj19s0di2dovmhkw15h1.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/buttcoin.png

QFT. It's the same reason "Federal Express" and "Federal Reserve" have the word federal in their names. Marketing. Nothing more.

That's actually kind of funny , i understand his means that he wants no one to have the founder tag of BTC so to make it purely decentralized but Satoshi really gave us something good , Something very good and we have been enjoying this from so long , He deserves to be called as the Founder and even if somehow it is removed from the books , He will always be considered a founder in people's heart and mind. In mine atleast

the bitcoin foundation is not bitcoin!

no matter how much they claim to represent its interests.

using satoshi's name to legitimize themselves is just pathetic.
nothing has been shown that satoshi, in any way, participated in starting the foundation.

I get what he's saying, satoshi has/had nothing to do with the bitcoin foundation. Remove him as a founder by all means but don't forget to add him as THE GENIUS CREATOR OF BITCOIN WHO CHANGED THE WORLD. No?

Why does bitcoin even need these assholes?

Most of you guys are totally missing a point.

TBF have been criticised in the past for listing Satoshi as founder member (without his consent). Satoshi had nothing to do with TBF, and it looked like they put his name there to add some credibility.

I fully support Fenton on this one.

Bruce Fenton also motioned to have all seating at TBF Central to be orange because such chairs were never meant to be bluish-gray. And, since the average height of people has grown over the last century, tables measuring thirty inches tall should be increased to thirty-one inches, a prime number.

Meanwhile, rumor has it that some Bitcoin-related stuff was being worked on at TBF, but the powers that be are looking into those allegations in hopes of uncovering who penned that Twitter leak.

I missed the PR where SN denounced TBF due to tarnishing his good name. Or, I guess it wasn't worth his efforts to come outta the closet to express removal.

Great news, this should happend asap. Non existent member is not good for foundation

Bruce Fenton is trying to make it seem like it was his idea. LOL. It's like he joined the party too late and now just saying what he thinks Satoshi wants to hear. Satoshi wanted to be removed from the Foundation as "the founding member", but that doesn't mean he didn't appreciate the gesture. It's always about association, or risk management. Satoshi didn't want people claiming he did stuff he didn't do. And, for the record, I thought they already removed Satoshi's name already. So what the heck is Bruce Fenton plotting? Maybe, it is like what one poster already said, he's going to try to claim Satoshi never existed and claim to be the founder. Shame.

I doubt Satoshi would want to be part of the Bitcoin foundation, so I agree with removing Satoshi from the tarnishing name of the Bitcoin foundation. Then, when then next foundation member goes to jail, the media will have a little bit less fuel for "CEO OF BITCOIN GOES TO JAIL" articles.

[/dislikes Bitcoin Foundation on principal]

Yeah, let's remove "Foundation" from the name too.

Really disappointing to read the replies on this thread.

Usually BitcoinTalk has thoughtful people who actually read the source material before jumping on a bandwagon and attacking.

Some facts:

- when I became ED a couple weeks ago I asked for and collected over 170 pieces of feedback from this board and many others -- one common request was that people wanted Satoshis name removed as a founder

- I suggest removing Satoshis name as founder of Bitcoin Foundation simply because it's not accurate - Satoshi didn't found the Bitcoin Foundation any more than he founded ZapChain, Bitpay or Coinbase - this isn't removing Satoshi as creator of Bitcoin ....just the foundation

- obviously this isn't a slight against Satoshi - my suggestion for those who watched the actual speech this info was taken from was that we offer Satoshi a board seat if she or she ever comes forward -- it's highly hypothetical and symbolic now as it's unlikely to ever happen

- Gavin has not left, he is still Chief Scientist

- the Bitcoin Foundation still exists and is very much alive - we are working on many things including adoption work, education initiatives and a speakers bureau that was just started today and already includes some very top names


If you are angry at this headline because you think it's a slam against Satoshi, don't be....it's absolutely not and that should be clear if you review the slides or watched the actual speech.

If you are angry at the Bitcoin Foundation because of its past wrongs, don't be....100% of the team is gone, the board is now 100% elected and it has new plans, a new start and new leadership.

Thanks

If you read the actual source slides mentioned and included in the article you'd see that I said exactly that on the very first slide in the presentation.

It's okay to hate...I can take it...just be accurate about what you are hating.

I was pretty clear in this:  this was based on feedback I recieved from many people.   A lot of people feel it's not accurate to list Satoshi as a founder because he/she didn't actually agree to do so.  Nothing more.

Personally I didn't feel that strongly about it but it's easy enough to make a request to change the bylaws and it seemed to fit well with a spirit of transparency and a new leaf.

My suggestion to remove all founding members is because, 1) per the bylaws the position means nothing now that the board is elected as the plan was originally written to phase them out by December 2014. 2) frankly, I don't like that an organization I'm associated with lists Mark Karpeles in a prominent spot on the bylaws on page one.   He has nothing to do with the organization now and sure as heck doesn't have anything to do with leadership...I'd rather his name be deleted and we move on.

Founding members who are still active: Roger Ver (who is joining the speakers bureau) Gavin (chief scientist) and Patrick Murck (advisor) can be a part of other areas of the website etc.

LOL. So much for transparency. Everyone on the Bitcoin Foundation knows my real identity but just so happen to "slip their minds". It's utterly disrespectful. You use my invention and made a lot of money with it, but now pretend like I was never part of it. No one wonders why I never wanted to associate myself with "your people". This is basic manners and courtesy, I don't care about the money, but dammit, you can't even acknowledge that Bitcoin was my invention. That's some very shady stuff. Don't make it like it was YOUR idea to remove me from the foundation. I requested it years ago. It's funny how the accounts I used to post on here were all hijacked.

It really boggles my mind why Bitcoiners are so damn rude.

Well since you're all about feedback why haven't you removed proposed removing Bitcoin from the name?
A lot of people have been requesting that here as far back as I remember. There are even people in the thread right now.

it doesn't, and it feel like a centralized thing with all the fuss about this foundation, now they want to remove the realf "director of bitcoin" because of transparancy...all bullshit i say, when they are the first not being transparent


it doesn't mean that they will do better though...

There are too many assets like Twitter and website and membership chapters to remove Bitcoin from the name.   If we did someone else would simply use it as well.

You mean that proposer is a kind of scammer?

This is completely wrong!
I don't understand why so many people are supporting this? ???
I don't even think bitcoin needs Bitcoin Foundation! Bitcoin was invented by satoshi without any foundation!
A very wrong move  :-\

What is wrong? Did you care to read the thread?

Satoshi has never aspired/applied/agreed to be 'founder member' of TBF. Why do you think he should be listed as such?

The solution is to have every meetup group create their own bitcoin foundation so that each is essentially just an advocacy group. There are plenty of Bitcoin meetup groups that meet weekly in larger cities, they are probably just as qualified. The biggest issue with having one entity trying to represent a diverse group of people, is that they can't represent everyone's opinions or wishes. Thats why every country around the world has their own localized representation. People in Japan can't accurately speak for people in Argentina, but a couple of people think they can represent Bitcoin which has no national borders. Its frankly rediculous.

I don't think the Bitcoin foundation was created for malicious purposes, I believe their intentions were quite the opposite, but its the effects that matter, and I think the negative effects will far outweigh the positive.

On topic, why should Satoshi be listed as a member of an organization that he did not join? The creator is not automatically a member of an enthusiast club.

When I checked more about it, I understood this thread is misleading. Satoshi's name is removing from founding member of Bitcoin Foundation not Bitcoin. Satoshi never involved in Bitcoin Foundation but might have in a different/real name. Considering this, Satoshi didn't found Bitcoin Foundation. Hence, this name can be removed.

This thread and/or title should be phrased correctly.

What is interesting to me is this tweet (https://twitter.com/brucefenton/status/588809686549458947) where Bruce Fenton referred Satoshi as "she".

Edit: Thank you, SaltySpitoon!

Perhaps because of he failed to pay his membership fees :). These TBF guys really have nothing else important to do? Do they sorted out every issues?

Yes, it's true we don't need a Bitcoin Foundation.

Those who bothered to actually view the presentation before commenting would see that the very second slide says "Do we need a Bitcoin Foundation?  No."

Central organizations can be a benefit to Bitcoin.

Those in the "we don't need" crowd -- are you saying that ALL centralized organizations should be destroyed?   Does this include Circle, Coinbase, Bitpay and this forum?  Or is it just non profits?

What are you talking about?

No, he didn't, therefore his name should be removed, that's the topic of this thread. Your response [to removing Satoshi's name]:



Please start reading threads before replying, otherwise you're just spamming and you'll be reported.

Bruce, you seem to be trying to move the Foundation toward a better place, so maybe Satoshi wouldn't mind having her name associated with it so much anymore ;)

Bitcoin business' don't claim to speak for what the Bitcoin community wants. (Nor do I for that matter) They are in it to pay their salaries, their employee's salaries, and hey if they help Bitcoin thats a bonus. Its not about the fact that the Bitcoin foundation is a centralized organization, people get way too bent out of shape about centralization because of the percieved decentralization movement that Bitcoin is a part of. Its the fact that you get a group of people who are so above the average user and claim that you are speaking for the best of a currency and the average user. Its not that I don't support some of the individuals in the Bitcoin foundation, but creating a single group to represent a vast distribution of people all with different goals, doesn't that seem a bit counterintuitive? People are free to create their own Bitcoin foundations, and obviously you can't be held accountable for something that others are free to or not to do, but all in all I personally believe that the Bitcoin foundation is a huge issue. You may not take yourself as "the official Bitcoin foundation" but anyone from the Media, Policy makers, and law enforcement will.

And again, to avoid going too far off topic, as this really isn't the right thread to discuss the pros vs the cons of the Bitcoin foundation, I reiterate my support for removing Satoshi's name from your club. I'm going to make my own Bitcoin foundation and name Muhammad Ali as a club member  ::)

I'm surprised people didn't make a bigger deal out of Satoshi's name being included in the first place, I think until a day when Satoshi returns and asks to be part of the Bitcoin foundation, why would their name be included?

If you weren't Global Moderator I would report you to one S

You are welcome to, I can go off topic from time to time as well, and someone will handle it. I did keep it on topic though

Joking aside I just do not get why this being brought up at all... Do you think Satoshi's name somehow tarnishes TBF reputation? Or fixes any problems TFB has to deal with now days?

Can you point to some examples of where current leadership claimed to speak for what the Bitcoin community wants?

It was a topic that had a Reddit feedback of over 400 a year ago and was a common topic when I reached out for feedback.

If I hadn't mentioned it then all the people who demanded removal of the name would be out with pitchforks as well.

Hey ... I actually think, they are doing Satoshi a favour by doing this. {He/She would have already come forward, if He/She wanted fame and fortune}

They used him in his absence, or should I have said... misused him/her.

Let's give him/her a honorary spot as the "creator of Bitcoin" and leave the rest of the people as the "creators of the foundation"

He/She would be happy with that.  ;)

I read the whole thread and the news!
If they had to remove satoshi why did they include him in the foundation before?

Well if at all, Id say the other way around. But by and by I mean, why associate someone with a group unless they say they want to be associated? Satoshi didn't ask to be part of the Bitcoin foundation (to my knowledge) so wouldn't it make sense to not have Satoshi listed as a member until they ask to join?


Can I go search through the Bitcoin foundation's mission statement and look for quotes that I interpret as proving my point only to have you counter with your interpretation? Yes and I'd be happy to do so, but will I find quotes that say, "TBF was created to speak for the Bitcoin community"? Probably not, but as I said, I'd be happy to look. Before I spend time doing so, isn't it's creation implication of the need for someone to speak on behalf of "Bitcoin"? The need to push for adoption, speak to politicians who don't understand the technology, inform people that Bitcoin isn't just for online drug markets, etc? While I say most of those things are fine and good, and there isn't any ill will intended in doing those things on TBF's behalf, have you stopped and thought of the greater issues caused by making official statements for "Bitcoin" which consists of the technology itself, and the userbase? While I'm moderately hostile to the premise of a Bitcoin foundation at its roots, please make sure you understand that I don't have a single qualm with any individuals in the Bitcoin foundation (to my knowledge) so no personal biass influences my thought process. I trust individuals to speak on behalf of Bitcoin, even if what they are saying is nonsense, because everyone knows that its an individual person's testament, not an official claim. The formation of an official body to personify Bitcoin not only provides a target, but also greater room for misunderstanding of Bitcoin's nature. If one of your members says something controversial, your personal opinions or points of view reflect poorly to the technology as a whole. Thats where my resistance to an official Bitcoin foundation comes from. I'm not against advocacy groups of people who wish to speak about Bitcoin, but there really needs to be more than one to water down the role of each group. Where was the official internet foundation? Who pushed for people to understand that the internet wasn't just a way to do shady things, or to let people know the benefits of the internet? While that isn't a 100% apt comparison, some similarities are there, so hopefully you understand my meaning.
I also personally disagree with a few policies, but that isn't as big of an issue.

You probably went too far with 'law enforcement', but yes, policy makers and (most of all) media could see TBF as 'the official voice of bitcoin'.

But I don't see much could be done about it. It's a common mentality, that there must always be some central authority, leader etc. If there was no TBF they would just pick any other (largest available) bitcoin organisation and we'll have the same story over again.

But maybe some visible, short disclaimer on the TBF website would do the trick. Some short explanation that TBF is association of Bitcoin enthusiasts but does not represent the entire community.

Just thinking out loud...

Again, sorry for dragging this off topic, I'm trying to not derail the original thread, if the parties involved would actually like to discuss all of this, we can create a new thread.


What I meant by law enforcement, is when issues come up world wide, and whoever it is doing the blaming blames Bitcoin, TBF has created a target on themselves. Can't punish a technology that is meant to be resilliant, punish those involved. If you want to put yourselves out there, thats on you and I don't have anything bad to say about that. Just saying my prediction is that those involved in public advocacy groups like the Bitcoin Foundation will be the ones that law enforcement can target when Bitcoin is made illegal. I'm not trying to be paranoid, but Bitcoin is a disruptive technology, its not far fetched in the slightest to think that there will be resistance as it gains traction, and that resistance could make its way into laws. There are tons of examples of this happening in the past. Hell fiat is almost illegal in the name of protecting against money laundering and funding terrorism. And to reiterate, my last few sentences are explaining what I meant by law enforcement involvement, I'm not accusing anyone of any of the examples I used.

Ahh, sorry, now I get... I was looking at it the wrong way. To me it felt like institutional religion is trying to remove God's name from the bible  :)