Bitcoin Forum

(Oh no, not another thread!  ;D )

Hey All,

Most of you know me from my work in BitInstant, and some of the other projects I've worked and helped out on.

My life is an open book and my door is always open. Literally people walk into our office every day, just to talk about Bitcoin. I live, eat, breathe and sleep Bitcoin. You all know that already.

There are many discussions going on about the Bitcoin Foundation, which are awesome. There are also personal and mean attacks, which are not awesome.

Unlike some of my colleagues who say "It's just a bunch of trolls hating on the foundation" I actually read thru all 37 pages (so far) of the threads and attempted to respond to most if not all questions in a civilized and calm manner. If anyone has been insulted or offended by me, I am really sorry.

This is what I'm feeling so far:

There are alot of questions surrounding the foundation including fear of control. Obviously, we are a group that loves Bitcoin for the sole reason that it is ours. No government or corporation can take it from us. It's our baby, not theirs. We make the rules based on what we feel is the right choice for Bitcoin.

Many people are worried that the foundation will attempt to assert control...which is farther from the truth. In fact, the foundation has no real power over Bitcoin!

Why do we need a foundation you ask?

When I was presented with the idea for a foundation, I said "Wow, wouldn't it be great to have an organization of members that collectively can fund new projects, pay for ads, do QA for the code, be a 'go-to' place for the press, with the same message and beliefs."

Would it not be better if this organization is not owned by anyone? Where members can vote for their board members based on industry and representation?

......this is why I came on board.

Anyways, feel free to email me, call me, PM, post here, ect.. I will spend hours responding to each and every person with respect.

Furthermore, there will be many good ideas from members, I will do everything I am legally able to do to make those changes happen during my two year seat.

If you don't like me, my views, or that of the foundation I urge you to contend my board seat and run against me!

--------------------
Charlie Shrem
+1.716.712.4846
charlie@bitcoinfoundation.org

F' the foundation join the country!

Bitrustica - The new virtual democratic country that governs bitcoin  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54662.0)

:D

OH HELL YEH!!!!

Charlie,

Thank you for accepting my suggestion about bylaws establishing how recommendations will be handled for any potential changes to Bitcoin privacy and censorship.

I'd encourage also discussion on the board about how they would respond to government pressure as I'm sure someday it will happen and being prepared legally will be beneficial. Perhaps an emergency plan needs to be in place in case one day your offices (or homes?) are served warrants and computers and other materials are confiscated.

Given the drama around the MegaUpload take down I don't see things like this as too far fetched nowadays, and the stakes here are clearly higher, if not today, then someday for sure. It seems like at least two board members strongly support and understand privacy and anonymity issues. I'm not sure the executive director does but hopefully that can be rectified.

I hope this foundation truly is able to help Bitcoin move forward and provide better information to the world about what Bitcoin really is, how it works and why they should use it.

I do have a question based on bits of info I've read here and there. It seems like there are 5 board members with two from industry class and two from individuals class and one from a founder's class.

I haven't seen an actual labeling of members but it seems like this is probably correct:

Gavin - Founder class
You, Charlie - Industry
Mark, MtGox - Industry
Jon Matonis - Individual
?? - Individual yet to be decided?

Is this last seat expected to be elected by members or chosen by other board members?

don't give so much for these morons. they are just jealous having no social competence finding other people and build a group.

atlas and the other freaks are either trolling in bitcointalk or masturbating, not more. no wife, no kids, no real life. just lonely idiots in caves. they have a lot of time.

the Bitcoin Foundation rocks !

thanks a lot ! great idea !

Exactly.

People that dislike something are always the ones screaming the loudest.

I believe the bitcoin foundation has a huge silent majority in its back.

Who decides if a board member candidate is "a member in good standing"?

What criteria would you use to determine if the foundation is doing something that it should not be doing?

Give examples of what you think the foundation would do that would cause you to resign and no longer promote it.

What happens when (not if, but when) the foundation's wallet gets hacked, either via internal or external malicious actors, and Gavin can't be paid to do the work for a period of time? What measures will the foundation and its members pursue in order to regain their wealth, and what privacy or fungibility will be sacrificed in order to reach that goal?

What special privileges will board members grant each other? Will Gavin get to trade with zero fees on MtGox or BitInstant, for example?

If you engage in political lobbying, what percentage of foundation funds will be made available to that endeavor, and to what parties or politicians do you expect these funds to go, and what would you be lobbying for?

Do you expect to be given approval rights for bitcoin advertisements, services, businesses or trademark use?

When will Gavin have to return to his home planet?

Charlie: I have no doubt that you're a good guy and you mean well.

My top 3 concerns/solutions:

• Lack of board representation for the privacy-focused sociopolitical viewpoint.  Currently, business interests far outweigh privacy interests on the Foundation's board.  Matonis is outnumbered.  The addition of a nonprofit political Bitcoin advocate like Falkvinge or Björnsdóttir would address this.
• Lack of board representation for international viewpoints.  Currently the whole thing seems very USA-centric.  Same solution as above.
• Danger in a financial dependency relationship between dev group and foundation.  A direct compensation arrangement leaves the dev group susceptible to future pressure and influence through the foundation.  It would be much better if the foundation created an independent salary/donation mechanism where the community was allowed to donate to the development budget first, and the foundation donated on top of that only in case of a shortfall.  Basically make the payment process as decentralized and autonomous as possible.

Anything you can do to address these would be appreciated.  Thank you for listening.

+1

No, he has only contributed to Bitcoind.

Satoshi Nakamoto was the sole founder of Bitcoin.

+1

Peter Vessenes, the one holding the founders seat, also has a bitcoin company. futhermore, all three cooperate board members are pretty much in the same business. and as long as no other big contributors show up, mark basically pays gavin's salary.
i don't agree with the haters spamming the original thread, this won't be the end of bitcoin or anything.
but right now, the foundation feels much like a benevolent oligarchy. it's almost impossible to exert any influence from outside the board, which will stay the same for the next 20 months and doesn't represent anyone but themselves. it might very well be that gavin is right and you guys will get a lot done that way and it will be good for bitcoin. but i see very little incentive for anyone else to participate in something they can't control in any way.
those who trust in gavin will continue to do so and can now support him in a more organized way. those who don't won't be convinced by this very undemocratic construct.

Just compare the bold faced excerpts and think for yourself.

It is an outright lie claiming that TBF has no real power over Bicoin. It has the factual power to shape the future of Bitcoin.
The so called "democratic" structure is nothing else than lip service to foster acceptance by the mass. Yes, you can vote ...in two years ...if you join us (and pay).

No foundation is needed to achieve the goals stated above. Everyone can start funding for individual projects.


The belief that some bureaucratic meta body is needed to increase acceptance and stability of Bitcoin by adapting it to the existing rules of corporations and governments is ill-founded. The opposite is true: Bitcoin's inherent advantages - which are essentially non-conformist ones (decentrality, non-regulation) -  have led to its initial success and will continue to do so. Corporations and governments can (and will) gradually adapt to Bitcoin, not the other way around.

I'm sorry, but I have to repeat myself here: The Bitcoin Foundation is elitist BS.

The Bitcoin Foundation is just a security risk for the future development of Bitcoin that achieves nothing positive which could not be achieved by other means.

I support the foundation and I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. I've joined the foundation and I plan on being involved with what it is doing. I'm in Europe (Finland) so I hope I can contribute on the European end.

Time will tell if the naysayers are right but for now I'd just say either support it or don't support it, I'm supporting it for a year to see how it goes. It's important to raise concerns though, so they can take them into account, but I feel it's ridiculous to say the foundation couldn't help Bitcoin.

Remember that Bitcoin's public image is still mostly DOWN THE DRAIN, if people know it at all. Many regular people think it's either a joke, monopoly money, a scam, only used for drugs, unsecure with constant hacks etc etc etc. This foundation IS NEEDED. Anyone who doesn't think so lives under a rock in some sort of personal cryptoanarchy-fantasyland.

Disagree. Bitcoin does not need an advertising corporation. Many new products/technologies face skepticism in their early days. Nonetheless, those products/technologies that prove advantageous will prevail in the end.

Look here I'm just a pleb but here are my thoughts for what they are worth. Not to say that the Foundation is good or bad for bitcoin but:

it was kind of sprung on the community in an "official" announcement. Everything was decided for us plebs on day one. Would it have been nicer if the announcement was made a few months earlier and then the community got to put forward candidates and we chose who to give the seats to. I think that a lot more peeps would be behind this thing that way.

One of the reasons that I found bitcoin so attractive was that it was a faceless entity. You can't fight what you don't see. Now we have half a dozen guys who will be prime targets for coercion or whatever from the powers that be. Not to say that the board seats aren't upright citizens of the bitcoin community or whatever but hey we's all human.

I understand that Gavin needs money to put food on the table and stuff, but hey open source is open source. I would much rather all the developers had day jobs and did bitcoin in their spare time for the love of bitcoin. Ok, development would be much slower pace, but I is ok with that. I'm sure that if we had a charity to help developers with financial expenses, I would be doing donations as I'm sure many peeps would.

Outside peeps are going to think of the Foundation as "Bitcoin Bank". Its perceptions isn't it? One of our strengths is that we are outside the banks. Anyways I'll stop talking now

Thank you for your confidence (and to the others as well). As one of the representatives of the Individual Membership Class, I take my board responsibilities very seriously. When Zimmermann resigned from Network Associates because they were trying to backdoor PGP, I took him in at Hushmail as Chief Cryptographer which is when OpenPGP was launched (2000-2002).

Regarding your 3rd concern above, how do you respond to the points that I make in this reply to theymos https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.msg1227798#msg1227798 ?

I recognize the potential financial dependency issue, but how does your proposal mitigate clandestine, non-transparent compensation from malicious actors and how does it address succession planning for lead developers?

Most people want to be peaceful in groups, but in most of them there are a few troublemakers. :)

Some call the majority, "sheeple". They want to feel secure.


That will be the main job of the foundation, to put forth the dream of Satoshi and to
make users feel secure.

Thanks for providing some sanity on these forums!

I'm absolutely in love with free speech and the ability for ideas to spread across the Internet.  For awhile now I've been thinking about some way to separate the "speakers" from the "ideas" in online discussions.  So many heated debates and arguments seem to be repetitive, involve numerous personal insults, and boil down to who can shout the loudest.  It seems like forums (or Facebook threads, comment streams, etc) tend to promote this type of argument.  I wonder if some sort of alternate online medium could be created, maybe with collective editing of a "core" argument, visual display of supporting arguments, and references to "trusted" facts.  It seems like there has to be a better way for people to learn from each other and generally work towards an understanding of the topics and factors at play...

I thought better of you. Why the need to resort to ad hominem attacks in order to manipulate others in falling under the same Stockholms sindrom spell as you have?

As for the rest of your post, all the negatives you listed I could go search your history of post for the last six months and find claims stating exactly the opposite outlook. Yes the foundation can do some good, but no, there are no facts that would support your assertion that it is needed and Bitcoin couldn't succeed without it.

Simple. A for profit organization such as what TBF would like to be, can hire Gavin and all the other devs as an independent contractors. Why is this important? Because then Gavin can't hide his actions behind anyone and carries the sole responsibility. His work would be looked at by everyone and it would keep him honest, even if he is paid by some malicious organization.

But what you have done now is provided a shield for his work. A shield he can hide behind. Should TBF ever get corrupted all it needs to do is issue as press release of a changed policy and Gavin simply writes the code. Anyone opposing the new code would now need to challenge the foundation instead of just Gavin which if the TBF is well founded is almost certainly going to result in a loss for the challenger.

You say that Gavin becoming the lead "just happened.) Although it has worked out well, no one can guarantee the longevity of Gavin in that role." but that isn't true. It didn't "just happen".. it happened because he did an awesome job, had he messed up he could have been simply replaced. How simple is it to replace him now?

Also you state there are no guarantees Gavin will keep doing good work but again you miss the self regulating aspect of a market. Gavin would have to keep doing good work and it's a guarantee he would have because if he ever stopped he would get replaced. Something you have now taken away from this community because the Bitcoin Foundation can defend him.


Up is down, left is right. That's all I hear. All check and balances that we needed, we had until 2 days ago.

Now what we have is you telling us there are checks an balances within this one organization, and all the other free market checks and balances that we had were effectively destroyed. It was no accident Bitcoin worked so well until now.

The Bitcoin foundation is sorely needed. Keep plowing away Charlie!

Jon I think anyone who has been following you over the past couple of years (as I do on Twitter & Forbes) is likely to agree that you are a principled individual, not only very knowledgeable about socioeconomic topics, but also well-aligned ideologically with the original spirit of Bitcoin.

You make valid points in your other post, and I agree that the Foundation could do a lot of good as a sanity check, sounding board, buffering mechanism, and supervisory entity versus the development team.  And undoubtedly, in the long term, an enlightened oligarchy is less risky than a hereditary Gavinistic monarchy.  My main fear in going from a known state where the developers control the priorities (currently) to an unknown state where possibly the Foundation dominates, is related to the first bullet point: essentially, I don't think that the announced board composition fairly represents my own perception wrt. Bitcoin's ideological and cultural makeup.  I think it needs one extra seat assigned to someone who loves Bitcoin purely for ideology, has lived outside the USA, and has a track record of defending freedom and privacy under political pressure.  Hence the two names I proposed.

Thus, the third bullet, trying to get the development schedule crowdfunded, was simply an attempt at a safety valve in case the Foundation gets dissolved or goes astray, a possibility that seems nonzero given my misgivings regarding the board composition.  I can follow your thesis that a Foundation structure should be more stable and less risky than unsupervised developer control, but that thesis has, as an assumption, a Foundation board which is trustworthy.  At this point, the devil I know (the current dev team) has a very good multiyear track record of self-governance and respect for Bitcoin's privacy features; whereas wrt. the Foundation, yourself and Gavin (a minority) are the only people that I would trust to shepherd Bitcoin not just as a public transactional medium, but also, just as importantly, as a private store of value and private means of payment.

So basically my position is that I'd accept (or at least be willing to try out) the governance premises in your post, and support the Foundation more unequivocally, if the board composition was adjusted to guarantee a stronger ideological commitment to monetary freedom and privacy.

The "Foundation" has been met with so much skepticism since the announcement of its conception. I believe the reason for this is simply that the community as a whole was not made aware of its existence until it had already become a full blown entity, complete with boards members and so on. I believe the community would've had a much more positive outlook on the whole thing if Gavin had come outright with the idea as a proposal. What we got instead was a vague announcement about an announcement(lol?), and many of the people in this community feel like Gavin and others went behind the backs of the majority. Those who would automatically assume that it aims the community towards centralization are going to believe so with good reason, albeit for the wrong reasons. The "Foundation" is a double edged sword, in that while you give the press and general media a face to attach the word "Bitcoin" to, you also paint a bullseye target on the whole "experiment". You have provided Luke Skywalker with the air duct needed to blow up the Deathstar.

Huh?

Look, you don't have to join. If you don't your money won't be used to fund new projects or pay dev's.

It's not a tax if its opt-in. This is a member driven organization.

Also, not sure if your English has been diminishing, but I really don't understand your post above. (Not being sarcastic, I really don't understand what you wrote)

-Charlie

I don't think you are anti anything, I was just asking a question- no need to get defensive.

Tell me where we claim to represent you? We are a member driven organization and represent its members.

Wow, you just made alot of assumptions and claims here which are blatantly wrong
It is not a 'private club', anyone can join for as little as 2.5 BTC
'BTC Rich' ? - Thats another fallacy. Individual members that pay 2.5 BTC and corporate members that pay 5000 BTC have the same voting rights and power. It works the same way the US Senate does, where small states and big states have the same voting rights.
'Pay the main developers to do what they want.' - The foundation has no right to tell the devs what to do, i've explained this many times.

The name 'Bitcoin Foundation' seems to me where your issues lie, and I can understand that.

However, in the future please make sure you use accurate claims and when making an opinion, make sure people understand that its your opinion and not a fact.

Thanks

Charlie

Fine, we can discuss that point.

However, my issue with you is that you made unfounded claims in your post above which is personally insulting. I've responded to them, but you did not.

Please be careful what you write. You are not a troll, and woldnt want anyone thinking you are.

Like I said in earlier posts, anyone is free to start their own Bitcoin Foundation, we are not claiming to be THE Bitcoin Foundation.

The only time we use 'The' is when addressing the current foundation.

If you have a problem with the name, join the board and change it.

-Charlie

Again, Bitcoin Foundation does not represent the whole Bitcoin community With that name, we do not pretend anything, you just make more and more assumptions, all day. Thats all you do. Please stop it.

I've said it 4 times, but you dont listen. Foundation represents its members. If you dont join, we dont represent you.

No, the foundation ensures it is one of many paying for development.  (if nobody else pays anyone else, then, yes, it is the only one paying)

Anyone can
- Join the dev team
- Hire your own dev team

and participate in the open source process.

Regarding taxes, I'm not sure how tax law works but this is a non-profit entity.

Jon sent me by here and asked for my comments.

I don't know if I fit your ideological requirements personally, but my first reaction is that I think you'll get what you want -- the individual member seats seem pretty well situated for trustworthy (from your perspective) representation right now, with Gavin and Jon. In other words from your own description, we have your two favorite people representing you at the Foundation. That said, I anticipate that members might want someone different in those seats at some point; it's why we settled on a term limit and elections.

I think if there's agreement that Corporations should also participate in this opt-in process of protecting, promoting and standardizing Bitcoin (and I understand that many here do not believe that should be the case) then they should also have some say in choosing who they wish to represent them.

Anyway, I drill down what you're saying to be that individuals as a membership class should have more influence than Corporations over the Foundation. I'm not sure I agree with that, partly because of the time and capital investment these businesses make as compared to most of the individual members, and partly because I can't think of strong arguments for it that couldn't be turned around to argue for more corporate influence instead, and partly because I think it's less important to tweak any initial representation than it is to just forge ahead and try and get something done with the members we've got, and let the community at large decide if they want to join, denigrate or hamper us.

Anyway, if our members come forward and say that the board structure is broken, I'm sure we'll want to discuss that. I don't think we've given it nearly enough time though, it's been two days! What I've learned so far is the initial board members are passionate, generally kind rational debaters who are willing to put in yeoman's effort talking about this. A good indication for the future, but not as great as getting our list of To-Do's done. :-)

I think you are taking this personally, which you should not. I did not insult you, merely asked you to stop making assumptions and ask questions you dont know the answers to.

the Bitcoin Foundation has 5 board seats equally represented by individuals and corporations. No one has any power over anyone else.

No reason to be shocked. Unlike some people here, I easily admit my mistakes and shortcomings.

You can make the same claim to every non-profit. I don't believe the Anti-Whalers should be getting my tax money, but they do anyway.

If your decision changed merely because you feel a little insulted by me, it's hard to believe you were neutral.

You have arguments and points, I will gladly debate them. Once you insult and threaten, I will step back.

Feel free to continue the debate, but Im going to take a nap, so will respond later.

-Charlie

I certainly feel better about the foundation based on these discussions. Most of the board is actually answering to these questions and answering well, that is a good start to something that is supposed to be a "community supported" foundation. A very good start.

Hmm. I thought it was a 501(c) and hence not tax deductible to donators or members. And as far as the corp itself it would only pay tax on earnings anyway - no corp pays tax on expenses such as wages. So this all makes little sense.

I'm much more behind the foundation than I was yesterday. I think the people involved have about as good motives as anyone probably could in this situation. Well, except Vennes who I don't really know anything about and who seems to feel that these forums aren't worthy of his visiting. But likewise not many here talk about his CoinLab / CoinBase thing, whichever one it is.

Thanks for your rational feedback, n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU (I can't really pronounce your name though).

Over time, the case that the Foundation has to make is that an independent, transparent body is preferable to the reasoned whims of volunteer coders when it comes to protecting the integrity of open source protocols.

Ah, thanks for the info on the tax status. I think we are leaning towards 501(c)6 but I dont know the difference.

Actually, Peter responded in this thread about 4 posts ago lol https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113842.msg1231422#msg1231422

Why do you keep repeating this lol

I clearly wrote 5 times now:



Where did I dodge issues? The tax question?

Heh, I clearly apologized for missing that question of yours, and I responded in the next post. I also said I dont know enough about it.


I'm not in any mode, I'm having a fantasic disucssion with Hazek and Atlas about real issues on another thread
All we are doing here is arguing about I have no idea. Something to do with you being insulted or something.
No one is attempting to 'win over the community'. Please stop making false accusations. Why do I have to keep asking you?

Why is everything a battle with you? Is it that hard to have a decent debate.

I'm trying very hard to talk to you here, but your just attacking me.

I'm sorry you feel insulted by me, not my intentions. I've complimented you and have always given you my full respect.

-Charlie

Now we are getting somewhere!

So your problem with the foundation is its name? Thats totally a real issue worth discussing!

I wish you did not waste time with all the extra crap and accusions, we could have spent all this time debating a real issue.

Oh, and like I've said- no one asked you to join, its opt-in.
If you don't like it, don't participate.

-Charlie

No, that is only one definition. That applies to a physical foundation my friend.


Hazek and I have been having this same discussion regarding the name, and I agreed with him.
See here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.msg1231482#msg1231482

Feel free to join there.

-Charlie

Ah, I apologize if you thought I was telling you to do anything.

I was merely suggestion that if, instead of debating, you wanted to go a step further, you could join and get the name changed.

Understandably, you don't want to join. Thats fine, no one is forcing you to. Just a suggestion.

-Charlie

Goat,

Obviously you know that to note be true. There are members, a board, and a voting process.

Please don't patronize me. I'm trying to debate you here in a civil fashion, but now your just starting to play games.

If you don't wanna debate me anymore, fine, but don't waste my time with games. Im having a real debate about the foundation in another thread

-Charlie

I am delighted by the birth of the Bitcoin Foundation, a creation I advocated several times on this forum last year (although I envisioned it more like w3c than linux.org).
However I am concerned with the presence of Mr Karpeles as a board member even though it would have been difficult to not accept his money. Here is why.


How could anyone think it is possible to "steal" a domain name by registering a trade mark ?
This is both defamatory and insulting.
Mt gox registered the trademark first internationally and in most registration classes. Our registration in some classes in France was to prevent troll registration and trolls in general to use the bitcoin name in France. It was also to go against the stronghold that mt gox is building on bitcoin.

Yes the bitcoin.fr is wasted by the current owner who is describing bitcoin on the home page as follows:

"On reproche à juste raison à cette monnaie d'être une aubaine pour les mafias : pas de trace, pas de contrôle. "

Translation:
"This currency has been criticized rightly to be a boon for the mafia : no trace, no control."
I am not talking about the bitcoin.fr wbesite design that would make any mt gox website design look good.

Yes this is problematic for the adoption of bitcoin in France because anyone googling bitcoin in France will get this page FIRST.

So I confirm: we (Paymium) would like to convince the current owner to sell it or otherwise hand over the control to the Foundation.

In my view Mr Karpeles does not belong in the Bitcoin Foundation because mt box dominant market share among exchanges is a threat to the decentralization of bitcoin.
Mr Karpeles may intend to take over the bitcoin.fr domain like a white knight to further his own interests: that's why he does not hesitate to denigrate his competitors with false accusations.
This is totally unacceptable for a board member of the Bitcoin Foundation.

Wow, you just got myself and a few others looking at that thread with some degree of curiosity. Thanks for pointing it out.

I have a question.

What are my benefits ( besides voting) for the 2.5 bitcoin I may give to the foundation?

Thanks for the kind words.

Ok cool, but if he raises good points, I have to respond (or someone does) because then he (and others) will claim we are dodging questions and make false accusations

But, I will try and do my best to be civil

-Charlie


Good question, and thanks for the yellow highlighting lol.

Participating in member forums and discussions, discount for the Bitcoin 2013 Conference, Member dinners and events.
Being apart of something thats actively promoting and protecting Bitcoin.

We will outline all the benefits and put it on the Join Us page, thanks for the suggestion.

+1

I've not seen evidence that bitcoin is taken seriously either. I personally feel that public opinion (as well as multi-government respect) is important for bitcoin. Short of having some manner of sovereign recognition, I don't see how bitcoin can achieve parity to any other type of financial instrument or currency. That will never happen so long as bitcoin continues to scare people.




There are legal consequences and regulation for gift cards and other forms of "stored value" as well as financial instruments such as something so simple as as a paper check. The comparison to "products/technologies" is only one aspect.

Before:  Gavin and other lead devs could have been funded by shady unknown, undisclosed -- or, more realistically, non-shady but unpredictable -- sources.

After:  Gavin and other devs may be funded by known, disclosed, predictable sources.

Before: Gavin or who ever is lead dev had to personally defend his and his team's actions while the whole community was carefully monitoring what he did AND he was easily removable from his lead position

After: Gavin or who ever is lead dev can hide behind a corporation, a self admitted self imposed spokesperson, policy setting, business vetting, intertwined with corporate interest body (http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.msg1230272#msg1230272) that can shield him from any negative repercussions providing him with the excuse he was just executing their policy AND him now being a board member for the next two years and a founding member making him nearly impossible to be removed from his position

Who is paying Gavin is irrelevant, just as it is irrelevant who is Satoshi. What is relevant is who carries the responsibility to not misbehave and what kind of consequences can they face if they do.


I'm really scared by all your trickery you're employing in your PR posts.

Thanks for answering quickly.

• I am already in a forum and discussion. :)
• It will depend on where the 2013 conference is as to if I can attend.
• Member dinners and events is a good perk, again, depending on where they are.
• I am already actively promoting and protecting Bitcoin.

You are welcome for the suggestion and the highlighting.

This thread is going like gangbusters and I did not want to get left out.

Thanks.

I think the foundation is very premature and the seats I think should be separated a bit more. I think people like Mike Hearn (bitcoinj), etotheipi (armory), jed, theymos, just to name a few should be on the board, to just give it more of a community feeling, right now I think it is very agenda orientated people that have the seats. While bitinstant is an amazing service, and it is killing it on the currency to bitcoin exchange. It is a profitable business, and so is mt gox, and having two people on a board where there companies are in direct line of this, never turns out to be a good thing. Also not having any competing services to hold seats, doesn't give a lot checks and balances. While the terms are only set for two years, in internet time that is a very long time and can be easy use to position certain companies in a very good ways.

+1

I honestly think the foundation would have gotten more support of board positions were open from the start and people could be nominated then voted on.

Not having any pools represented on the board is silly since they basically control a majority of hashing power.

The name would be better as abitcoinfoundation, which could also stand for american bitcoin foundation  :P

Mining and Privacy needs to have equal board seats imo with Falkvinge and Graet nominated.

I dont think I'll be joining the Mt Gox and Bitinstant happy fun times club untill the above is considered.

Linux has a very hierarchal community with a sense of authority.

Bitcoin? Hell no. We don't play by anybodies rules. Not even our own.

Anyways, the inspiration for this was The Linux Foundation with everyone giving Torvalds a handjob. Guess who wants to be Torvalds?

Genius. Those suspicious of the foundation would be incentivized to donate more to dev (and do it consistently) because every BTC they sent would subtract from the foundation's leverage over development. Either way the devs get paid.

As I understand from their posts, controlling the Bitcoin network is not among functions or goals of the organization discussed here. Moreover, I think that having anyone who actually controls something in the Bitcoin network among board members may be a bad idea in the face of possible pressure from govt.

I think the main point is to act as a public front and means of delegating resources to tasks that will promote the spread of Bitcoin...I'm not quite sure why so many people are so worried...

Bitcoin gets banned in Countries like Bolivia, Bangladesh, Colombia, Russia, China and many more the authorities are saying that

“It is illegal to use any kind of currency that is not issued and controlled by a government or an authorized entity.”

So my question is, why is the Bitcoin Foundation not accepted as a authorized entity?

Whats wrong with their status?

What could help, so they are getting the status of an authorized entity?

Well, the Foundation doesn't issue bitcoins nor control how they are issued, transacted, or destroyed.

So your argument is, that because there is no authority behind the bitcoin, it need to be threatet differently by law. You implicate kind of god status for bitcoin, with the argument of decentralisation power. With Jesus and Christians it worked in Rom but thats a big ball of BS, because people dont believe more in the 21st century in easy things. Even if you talk about smth hoping other dont understand what you are talking about, its not good at all for your business either.

There is always are power or authority behind something even its decentralized. There must be a representation behind the system of issuing and the transactions of bitcoins.

But i guess you dont understand me. I feel like talking to a maron, so please explain me some basics. A system without power of representation is a system with no power. Thats the rule for a decentraliced sociaty like a democrasy. The democrasy had to fight for his constitution against several parties with principles. And as we see, bitcoin is losing against olipols like banks etc. So I am asking, who is having the power of representation bitcoins and you say no one, because no one is controlling its issue and transactions.

I understand the present situation of the bitcoinfoundation focusing on education and providing information. But for a salary of $220k you could expect a REAL representation, who is an authorized entity too, focusing on the getting the bitcoin as a monetary good and saying that its not a currency.

But of course, we can just dump the bitcoin and wait for cryptocurrency 2.0 with cryptocurrency foundation 2.0

Maybe the coin center think thank can make a change in the game and gaining some influence the bitcoin foundation could not built up.

The bitcoin foundation is a bunch of overpaid marons as it seems. No leaders there.

I do hope the bitcoin foundation financies are happy with it work. In my opinon the bitcoin foundation should be suspended as they were not able to built up a world wide network of working local bitcoin foundation representation.

thats my point to the bitcoin foundation and think alot would agree with me.