Bitcoin Forum

Today I received this response from adainitiative.org, regarding my query as to whether they would accept Bitcoin donations:


Notice in the FAQ - they cite EFF's stance:


It's one thing for the EFF not to accept Bitcoin for it's own reasons specific to legal advocacy - but from the above, we see that their about-face and public statements continue to damage Bitcoin's reputation in the non-profit sphere.

From earlier this year: ( http://themonetaryfuture.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/effs-own-chilling-breeze.html )


also:
I'm not completely certain - but pretty sure the 'particular organization' referred to above is the EFF.

So... is it any wonder the bitcoin100.org project (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=52543) has struggled to find recipients for Bitcoin charity?


The EFF is an asset to the online community  - but their stance here from 2011 (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/06/eff-and-bitcoin) seems to be an ongoing impediment to Bitcoin adoption amongst non-profits.
Does anyone have any inside contacts at the EFF to see if they're ready to revisit their public position - and just as importantly, the obvious behind the scenes advice they have been giving to 'steer clear' of Bitcoin?

Fuck the EFF

Frontier my ass

Every time I read that it pisses me off anew.  Now I'm rethinking my target for Phinnius's donation if we ship ASICs.

The EFF should be embracing Bitcoin... it *IS* the frontier.  Duh.

Damn lawyers, giving legal advice about things they are likely not very well versed in. Lamesauce.
I suppose the natural human response of "fear the unknown" applies here. Shame they don't know how awesome it is.

FWIW I've pointed adainitiative.org to Bitpay's page where they offer to process donations free of charge for 501(c)(3) registered organisations:

https://bitpay.com/bitcoin-for-charities

I also mentioned paysius as a possible intermediary in my initial query - but I'm not aware of a specific page regarding their handling of charities.

I think the bitpay charities page is a good start, but it would be good if it was more descriptive as to the 'tax implications' (or lack thereof!) that these organisations seem to be scared of, and it would be nice also if it showed an example or two of charities which are already using it.

I've wondered if Shari Steele being married to Mr. Supersuit has any bearing on this? Maybe, maybe not.

I find it hard to believe that Brewster Kahle or John Perry Barlow would be opposed to Bitcoin. That EFF not only appears to oppose Bitcoin on principle but also tells others to stay away from it tells me who and what they're actually working for.

Donations would probably best be spent on things that will solidify the bitcoin network.

Respond and point out that Mark Warden, State Rep for New Hampshire, is accepting bitcoin donations for his campaign:

http://www.markwarden.com/page/contribute-campaign

He's had legal council, etc... One could possibly make the argument that if it's being accepted for state-level campaign contributions, that sets a decent precedent since, obviously, campaign donations are subject to quite a bit more scrutiny than your average non-profit donation.

http://bitcoinwatchdog.wikia.com/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation

Thanks - I did point that out to them, as well as Jeremy Hansen in Vermont.

Their latest response:

I've now pointed out to them the underrepresentation of women in the bitcoin community - along with how misogynistic it can be in here:
"How do we get the women on board?' https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=32386.0

Not the greatest advertisement for this community I'll admit; but if their mission really is to get females more involved in open source Technology - you'd think they'd be interested in addressing this imbalance.

I also pointed out that it was quite likely they'd be eligible for over $1000 USD in initial donations via bitcoin100  which would help offset any implementation costs (which I think would be small anyway).

Really - I think there is an unfortunate imbalance of the sexes here, and it's sad to see this organisation fail to understand that Bitcoin is an important technology.
At the risk of being sexist myself - I can't help but wonder if  the relative scarcity  of females involved in Bitcoin is due to the differences between the sexes as far as 'risk taking'. Certainly by allowing themselves to be swayed by EFF FUD - they appear to be approaching it in a timid fashion.
(I'm sure they'd say 'prudent'/'cautious' - but I'm calling it as I see it).

As you said yourself, this is a misogynistic community (hell, we even had one member just yesterday claiming that he knew a fraudster was a scam artist because the were "too literate" to be a woman).  There's a disincentive to identifying yourself as a woman in this community and I don't see that changing any time soon.  I think it's also important to realise that this forum is not Bitcoin.  It's just one place where Bitcoin users gather, and there are any number of reasons why people might avoid participating here, from the lack of moderation to the proliferation of scams to the sexism.

Personally, I wouldn't use this forum to promote Bitcoin itself or Bitcoin services to other women.  Between the "tits or GTFO" attitude that posters who reveal themselves as women often encounter here and the sheer number of scams which are promoted on this forum, I feel like I'd be doing both them and Bitcoin a disservice.

Ugh, this community never misses a chance to hate on women.  No wonder they want nothing to do with you spergs.

ohhh the SA Goons gonna love this.

It's not quite as bad as reddit...yet.

I agree this forum is awful in that regard.

The only way around this is for women to be involved in the technology itself. When more women have visibility as code contributors and Bitcoin entrepreneurs - the misogynistic voices here will be smacked down quicker and harder.


It would be pointless for me to try to hide this forum from a womens advocacy group such as Ada Initiative when discussing Bitcoin with them.
It's got to start somewhere - and I don't apologize for holding this forum up as an example of something that's a bit broken, and that they may have the potential to begin to address.

edit: my comment above regarding 'risk taking' gender differences only reflects my *current* understanding.
From what I see, studies bear this out: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268111001533
I have no opinion on whether this is genetic or social in basis though - it's just something I see as a plausible explanation for a gender imbalance in a technology such as Bitcoin which (largely due to bad press) has a reputation as being edgy/risky.

Once that imbalance exists though - it's accelerated by the obnoxious comments which go unchallenged. Perhaps my discussion of 'risk taking' gender effects isn't helpful either - but if so - I wish there were more women around here to correct any misconceptions I have in that regard!

Wanna know the reason, made it bold for the lulz.

You know, maybe if we didn't white knight women and treat them like some special kind of endangered creature, there wouldn't be a problem to perceive at all.

There's a problem when I'd be embarrassed to tell my girlfriend,mum and/or sister to join up to this forum to join in the discussion - and I would be.
The imbalance is a historical social effect that some are obviously too young and/or ignorant to appreciate.
It's a problem if women themselves see that what is stopping them join in is not so much technical hurdles - but social and community ones.
The existence of organisations such as the Ada Initiative demonstrates this.

Atlas - your ability to see problems where they don't exist and miss real problems is prizeworthy.

Nothing is stopping from women joining in. People having certain opinions about humanoids with vaginas isn't banning women from this forum.  

If they can't tolerate people having their own perspective, that's just too damn bad.

I'm not against a bit of 'harden the f**k up' as far as online speech goes, but I'm also not averse to initiatives to bring counter-voices in to verbally smack them down.
As we saw with the whole jessy/vegetta thing - that can work pretty nicely.

In the meantime - anyone should be able to smack down that crap whether or not they have penis and identify as male,female or something else; without retarded claims of 'white knighting'.   Well - claim it if you want - but it's dumb.

Nobody's *forcing* you to be a nice person Atlas, I'm just arguing for it in general as a measure which will
a) make this place a little more representative of society as a whole (nearly half the potential population avoiding it isn't a good start)
b) grow the Bitcoin userbase

Do you really have a problem with that?

The fucking irony.  You're the poster child for being unable to tolerate people having their own perspective - you label them "threats" to Bitcoin.

I do accept their perspective. I just won't accept their potential actions and influence.

You delete their posts.  We've all seen your wiki.  Anything you disagree with you simply silence.  You never even attempt discourse, you just delete.  You silence others to make your own views the only ones heard.  You're a fascist.

I just don't find male:female ratios relevant at all. People associate as they please. There are plenty of cultural and psychological reasons for why there aren't many women here and it goes beyond misogynism.

High levels of estrogen and cortisol can change a person.

Kinky.

Are you suggesting that an organisation that is not a defacto, official, recognised body of authority, but just a foundation that is supposed to give advise and steer in a certain direction is actually being listened to by people to the extend it has an effect on things? That people don't look further than the first thing they see and just take their truth for granted? And you're not happy with how this foundation operates? Because it hurts bitcoin? That's a really bad thing indeed. _{My god, imagine that happening to bitcoin!  :o}

But what is so great about this? The BEST way to change this (according to (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.msg1240542#msg1240542) a founding member of the foundation) is to become a member (https://supporters.eff.org/donate) and make your vote count. Good luck, and please let us know how it worked out for you! :D

/r/MensRights must be very proud of you.

I like /r/AndrogynousRights myself.

Responding to earlier in this thread about the EFF.

You could ask the EFF to let their lawyer elaborate on, in writing, the pitfals in Bitcoin, taxation and law he considers dangerous. That would be helpful to Bitcoin being able to give an "official" argumented response to this, not to prove EFF wrong in general about this, but to disprove the arguments. If we ask them to help us on this it would make no sense to rant the EFF for being against Bitcoin. The EFF is important to the world for a lot of other reasons.

The Bitcoin Foundation is valuable exactly for a situation like this, and I'm sure they will need a lawyer at some point too.

There are a lot of NGO's, no need to force someone to be an early adopter.

I don't think this is a huge deal. The EFF is just advising that bitcoin could be a legal liability-- not that bitcoins are worthless, not that they're a fraud, not any of the countless things that people have said to try to discredit bitcoin. Just that adopting it may cause legal troubles down the road. If you think they're misadvising their clients by doing that, you're insane.

It'd be great if the EFF started pushing bitcoin, sure. There's no doubt in my mind that bitcoin or some similar cryptocurrency will significantly change how we transfer money in the next few decades regardless of what the EFF thinks. They don't have any obligation to defend or support bitcoin and I don't see why we should be upset at them for giving reasonable legal advice.

This would be a good test case for the Bitcoin Foundation, no? Try and get the EFF to change their stand on Bitcoin.

You gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women.

meh, foundations ... who needs 'em?

the EFF (epic freedom fail) and TBF (the bitcoin fail) can get together and do nothing about everything and put the worlds to rights

How can accepting bitcoin be a problem with services like bit-pay around  ???

Lame  :(

Sorry can't resist: HTFU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgvM7av1o1Q

I don't see what the problem is with accepting bitcoin.

I have a registered company in the UK which is managed by a chartered accountant, and they simply treat bitcoins as shares of a company.

In the same way companies can get shares of another company in exchange for something like intellectual property.

Taxes only come in when you convert bitcoins into cash. In the same way you are charged taxes for shares being sold.

Bitcoin is interesting, but I really can't identify with this religious fanaticism that requires companies, organizations etc to either be "true believers" or "heretics".

We just want Bitcoin to survive as long as possible. Corporate hegemony can end things if we let it.

Isn't this what the Bitcoin Foundation is for?

Hopefully TBF and their lawyers will be able to answer any legal, tax, accounting questions that the EFF or any other big organizations may have about accepting bitcoins.

Usually I'm accepting if someone has no interest in Bitcoin.
The EFF case is galling because of the 'chilling effects' outlined in the article: http://themonetaryfuture.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/effs-own-chilling-breeze.html
It's hypocritical.

I guess I find the Ada Initiative's response a little annoying because
a) they've cited the EFFs FUD

b) The type of technology they say they want to encourage women to get involved in is

Bitcoin is open,decentralized,grassroots, perhaps somewhat 'activist' - and seems like a good fit.  Well they obviously don't see it. So be it. I tried.



 

Maybe the EFF doesn't consider BTC important enough to warrant their attention.  They have limited resources and have to choose their battles based on their own agenda.

This has nothing to do with fear of the unknown, and everything to do with fear of losing tax-exempt status.

Avoiding taxes is so valuable that organizations will do backflips to preserve the ability. This is an indictment of a corrupt Federal government more than anything.

The same goes for TBF. Search their bylaws for tax-exempt.

Fine - except that their public statement is a nebulous pile of FUD and their direct statements to other non-profits downright discouraging of adoption.
They should be more cognizant of their effect on the rest of the non-profit community.

If their statements are so untrue, then why are people following their advice  ???

+1

H. L. Mencken once famously said "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people".
I'm going to stretch here and say this applies to people in general.

Can we go as far as saying that people are quite likely to believe anything a foundation, which they consider to be "important", says?

You mean WHEN, right? RIGHT?

The EFF is on the forefront of defending digital rights. And they are damn good at it. They've done a lot for the internet before bitcoin even existed. If they decide not to accept donations in BTC then that's their business. I seem to remember reading that another one of the reasons why they had stopped BTC donations was because of the possibility of a conflit of interest should they be called upon to defend BTC.

I sent them a letter months ago stating that I will continue my donations to them when they start taking bitcoin. Their loss, in the past I have given them hundreds of dollars. If they are only going to fight for rights that are profitable to them, then who needs them?

If Bitcoin can't survive a little corporate hegemony, then what good is it?  I thought the whole point was to have something as durable as the Internet.

The EFF is legitimate in its concerns.  It doesn't exist to protect itself from annoying taxation and accounting issues.

They have priorities and a charter.  "Accepting bitcoin" satisfies neither.

Ask them if they would consider something like bitpay if you want to donate to their very noble cause.

Otherwise, we all owe the FSF a huge debt, and each of us should consider allocating a portion of our charitable donations to them.

The smartest move is to figure out why the EFF is not accepting BTC and work to resolve those issues.

Done. They can come and get their money anytime. But I only donate in BTC now, sorry.

Thank you julz.  The whole point of using a packaged service like BitPay is that we take all of the financial risk, volatility risk, security risk, and legal uncertainties away from the organization.  They can simply accept bitcoin with the gross amount, net amount, and commissions all recorded in dollars.

Lazy much?

http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/bitcoins-a-new-way-to-donate-to-the-fsf

Oh, that is the FSF not the EFF.  I do donate to the FSF.

As a card carrying supporter of the EFF, I was disappointed when they made that announcement.  However, it was an understandable decision.  Whether accepting rare seashells, gold bars, or bitcoins, they need to account for donations in their taxes, etc, and there are no guidelines or precedent for accounting for conversion.  They are highly visible, and need to maintain credibility in the court system.  Risking a lawsuit over their tax status was not worth it for them. 

They have enough to point their legal force at, in my arrogant opinion.

Any of you who have dissed the EFF in this thread can nibble lovingly on my assfruit.  You have no idea the debt you owe.

I get a strong sense not many people in this thread read the linked article about the EFF (http://themonetaryfuture.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/effs-own-chilling-breeze.html )



To be clear, because people in this thread seem to be seeing this as purely a criticism of the EFF's own decision not to use it - this is more about their effect on other organisations.

They are a legal advocacy group - so their situation is undoubtedly different to most non-profits who are simply receiving donations.
Their public statement should not be such a vague pompous load of "it's scary"... it would be better if they had a much shorter statement saying they weren't using it for reasons specific to 'legal advocacy'.


Please piss off with the moronic comments about not understanding the value of the EFF. They do good work - as strongly stated in the article above. That doesn't put them above critique and public review.

The EFF owes back, in return. They're not on my list of donees atm.

Then please kindly close down your thread.

I get that - but I don't think a Bitcoin-suspicious 501(c)(3) will immediately understand this from looking at that page.
Their fears of massive accounting changes, process changes / staff training,  tax and legal implications  need to be allayed.
Perhaps it's not Bitpay's job to clarify all that on this page - and maybe it does even require a lawyer to write up... but it'd be nice to be able to point them somewhere which states things very plainly.

Nice strawman, but it is not accurate.  Go read the EFFs statement.  They did not say anything close to Bitcoin=scary.

Other groups accepting donations came to their own conclusions, and at most, stated that they came to the same conclusion.  Show me one group that said, "We're not doing it because they told us not to."..

I hope the dumb lawyers at the EFF dig their heels and refuse bitcoins for a loong time ... typically stubborn pride won't allow them to relent quickly on a dumb, indefensible position.

The longer it drags on and the more widely accepted bitcoin becomes, the stupider they look ... the stupider the better, in my opinion. Maybe this way they can learn to not just piss their corduroy's in fearful subservience to the grand poobahs, and instead think for themselves next time something new comes along that is outside their limited expertise.

From the EFF's statement:

From the Humble Bundle founders:


I stand by my interpretation regarding "it's scary".

No - I don't literally think the EFF is '*telling* them not to' in terms of legal advice - I just think they're effectively warning them off - and I think they're doing so based on legal uncertainty.

That is rich coming from an organisation forged in the fires of legal uncertainty.  Do/did they warn people against using any encryption due to lack of legal clarity?

Let's check that:

from: https://www.torproject.org/eff/tor-legal-faq.html.en

So the EFF not only  uses Tor despite the 'legal uncertainties' - and that 'no court has ever considered any case involving the Tor technology'  but, they give detailed instructions on how Tor works and how to use it on their 'Surveillance Self-Defense' site:
https://ssd.eff.org/tech/tor


The EFF's SSD site gives a whole load of information about protecting yourself from *government* surveillance.  Here it seems - they're ready to push the envelope right up to the legal frontier - as their name suggests.  

Am I wrong in seeing a double standard here??


There is quite a contrast to their stance on Bitcoin.
I understand they may not have the resources or interest to take it on - in which case - silence would have been preferable to what they've said on the issue so far.

In re the EFF itself, this is the most important part of the article.


Yes, my comment related directly to the pages of stupidity discounting the "frontier spirit" of the EFF.  That's what this discussion has become.

There are a number of charitable organizations that accept bitcoins.  Not a lot, but hey, here's your chance to make a difference.

Put together a one-pager or a pamphlet on why charities should embrace bitcoins.  Make it easy to accept them and maintain their legal status and not add more work for their fundraising team.  Remember, charities are judged by the percentage of funds that go to their stated causes.  If you're promoting a policy change that will increase their administrative or legal costs, you're effectively telling them they're going to miss out on more donations through a much larger channel.

Their statement was based on advice from trained legal experts.  What about yours?

Why?  They don't want to accept bitcoin.  They owe you no explanation.  This is your glorious Free Market selecting against Bitcoin.  Sorry, but EFF doesn't want it, and that is their right.

BTC -> Bitcurex -> Visa Card -> Kiva/EFF/etc.

Problem solved.

I'm sure Nazi germany had legions of "trained legal experts" before it went full facist retard also .... sometimes it IS just about what is right.

This is true, but from a practical perspective, the US government itself recommends Tor, and according to one analysis (http://eta.securesslhost.net/~pgpboar/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=563) provides over 80% of the Tor project funding.  Tor Project itself claims "militaries use Tor" and I have heard similar claims.

There is plenty of precedent that EFF will not get in trouble for using and recommending Tor.

Once that CIA starts paying clandestine agents with bitcoin, the EFF will start accepting bitcoin donations again, one presumes :)

Wow, a Nazi Germany comparison.  I think maybe this situation is just a little bit different.

Aaaaaaand we're done.  EFF ≣ Nazi Germany.

http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs29/f/2008/112/f/f/Hitler_Caramel_Dansen_by_xAzumix.gif



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alc0gG0u48M

Yes, because the CIA are such leaders, beacons of light and upholders of everything that is right and wonderful in the world, we should only do it if they do it .... hey didn't they [....]?

You must be nibbling your own "assfruit" (what a disgusting reference btw) ... the implication was to the USA, since you didn't sniff that out right ....

USA=NAZI Germany

plain as nose on your face, sorry but it is true.

It crossed my mind for a moment that that's what you meant, but dismissed it under the belief that no one, even in the world of bitcoin,  could be as dumb as that.  I really need to learn not to make assumptions.

... and proving Godwin's Law on page four of a thread. Good job BitcoinTalk !

that's a low blow from EFF.

- http://twitter.com/stripe/status/253193235894247424

Which shows that argument 3 is bullshit:


 - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/06/eff-and-bitcoin

Their entire argument is bullshit. Good find on a product they seem to like endorsing.

Interesting.
This certainly seems like an endorsement of Stripe:  https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/payment-provider-stripe-levels-transparency

gosh.. someone should tell the EFF about Bitcoin  ::)


Well, it does imply to me that they should in theory be open to using an intermediary such as Bitpay or Paysius. Perhaps they weren't aware of such intermediaries when they did their about-face on Bitcoin.

Anyway.. I now suspect directly (or indirectly via ranting threads like this) needling the EFF on this isn't likely to be productive.

Perhaps a fundraiser in the legal subsection of the forum to get a lawyer to write up a basic overview of tax & legal implications for non-profits operating via Bitcoin intermediaries would be a better approach... then we could have something to point people to, which counters the EFF's statements.

Honestly, I do not see what the fuss is all about. If you ran a corporation or a 501(c)(3) non proft, the board of directors do whats best for the organization. If you had an organization and realized that a certain action could cause trouble would you take the risk of doing that action? The legal concerns they express are valid. I think I would rather see them fight battles rather than be a victim of a battle.
Even if they don't take on a case regarding bitcoin, doesnt mean that they wont submit an amicus curiae in support of bitcoin if/when a case does come down.
This is just one guy's opinion but I just see them avoiding a big mess..

If the organization isn't willing to back up something in direct line with its own principles, it's not an organization worth associating with.

EFF had a different tune at first re: bitcoin:

Bitcoin - a Step Toward Censorship-Resistant Digital Currency (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/01/bitcoin-step-toward-censorship-resistant), Jan. 2011.

When the issue of a "Censorship-Resistant Digital Currency" got too hot for them, they bailed.

Like the terminally hip, they're all style, little substance.

This forum scares me... The bitcoin community in general actually. I've seen just about enough sexism and abuse (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112396.msg1216545#msg1216545) to reinforce my general preference: Many places I participate in "the internet" I set up my accounts using androgynous names, no picture, and no gender selected.

---

Link titled as "sexism and abuse", thread has examples such as the post 22 with "schoolyard taunt" attacks such as "I declare this day as Maria-is-a-dude-and-he's-a-chicken-day." --- after all, there are no women on the interwebz , so let's all be insensitive jerks... Abusive ad hominem - insulting or belittling one's opponents in order to attack their claims or invalidate their arguments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)

I have enough trouble on this badly broken forum without making a bigger target of myself by (more) openly showing signs that I'm not a heteronormative white christian male. (( oops, I just queued the wrong minority soundbite ))

Off topic as I am, I think I'll save all this for a different thread. Anyone have a suggestion, please feel free to drop a private thinger in my inbox pointing out the best place(s) on here for such topic(s)

I understand what you are saying 100%. Correct me if I am wrong, as I read the press releases and this thread. But I don't think they are totally abandoning bitcoin/censorship-resistant digital currencies. They are protecting themselves so they can later either defend bitcoin. I am pretty much theorizing here. But if the EFF gets indicted on felony counts of whatever the fed decides to charge them with or is subjected to a civil suit brought by the fed; well it is harder to defend. As the saying goes a lawyer who represents themselves has a fool for a client. The EFF is good at what they do, but who would represent the EFF if things were to turn for the worse on them because of bitcoin?

I believe my thinking of this comes from when I was a voting member of an LLC and having to make business decisios that I thought were for the greater good of the company.

The EFF should welcome the attention from would-be regulators so a legal decision can be made and the rights of the "electronic frontier" can be defended. Isn't that what the EFF claims as its raison d'être to begin with?

No I agree, but it can be entertaining. EFF has some precious (holier-than-thou) supporters.

Anyway, lawyers can only get you so far ... when the State starts behaving above the law, they become useless baggage, jest more hungry mouths to be fed. Wetting yourself at first hint of State intimidation is less than helpful.

Wow.  A bunch of angry nerds [clarification edit: 'on BitcoinTalk'] pushing a false dichotomy.  If you don't completely support Bitcoin, you are Bitcoin's enemy.
Yeah, that is the attitude that will encourage the greater public to adopt Bitcoin..  Nice job boys!!

LOL don't worry.  The general public is not only not paying attention to BTC, they haven't even heard of it.

What legal concerns? There is nothing illegal about Bitcoins. Stating otherwise is pure FUD. Treat them as any other kind of non-fiat donation. I donate my underwear and even cash anonymously to the Salvation Army, and then take a tax deduction for it, as do millions of other people. Bitcoin donations are no different.

Well, in fairness, the EFF has a point that they need to avoid being their own test cases.

But... defending free use of technology by other people is kinda their whole reason for existing.

As ignorance, immaturity, and incentive increase, opinions polarize to "sucks" and "rocks". – Mark Twain

I suspect you're joking about the underwear, but that is non-deductible if used.

Not quite.

1. Claim to be the "Electronic Frontier Foundation"

2. Spread FUD about the frontier

3. ???

4. Profit!

Now this is interesting. Their reasoning for the endorsement is:

I sense an opportunity here: Bitcoin payment processors should agree to follow Stripe's lead, and bring this up with the EFF, without specifically mentioning that they process Bitcoin. I feel this should force the EFF to clarify their position on Bitcoin.

As an asside, "Chilling effects" never responded to my e-mail about what happens when the notices themselves are the subject of take-down notices.

Actually, I doubt the EFF cares about any currency conversions before they receive the donation.  They made it clear that they were not comfortable accepting a currency that they had to convert.  I'd place bets that they would accept dollars from a payment processor that did the conversion on the donor's behalf.

Sure. As long as it went through Paypal or a credit card. Perhaps the EFF didn't want to jeopardize its relationships with its current payment processors that might feel threatened by the "frontier".

I don't think EFF is against Bitcoin. I think that for whatever reasons, they are not particularly interested in it at the moment (surprising given their statements on the importance of transparency/privacy regarding payment processors!) and/or they don't have the resources to get involved with it yet.

Their backing away from it does seem spineless to me - but that aside - it's the detrimental effect of their public and private statements upon uptake which is concerning. Bitcoin needs uptake from legitimate businesses/non-profits etc to balance out the common perception that it is mainly for 'black markets'.

Perhaps because the EFF doesn't see Bitcoin itself as particularly important, they simply haven't taken due care not to cause 'Chilling Effects'. Sad.

The EFF is run by bank owned govts, why would they approve of bitcoin? Come on guys get real. Bitcoin is the shit stirring currency of the world, get used to its negativity.

That would be perfectly fine logic if it was a 501(c)(3) for saving cute endangered animals or something, but they are supposed to be on the FRONTIER, not acting like some scared org not wanting to meddle with something that has unknown legal implications. They are supposed to be pioneering this kind of stuff and advocating it.

I figure if President Clinton can take a $2/piece deduction on donated underwear, then I can too!

Like any organization, they have limited resources, and have to choose their battles.  I hate to sound like I'm making excuses for them, but that doesn't change reality at all.

I'll be sending them a donation soon, along with a letter asking them to reconsider their public statement.  I'd do it right now, but I need to figure out a polite way to say what I want to say.

Let's pit you against their lawyers, then, and see who knows more about this sort of thing.

According to their latest available annual report, https://www.eff.org/files/eff-2009-2010-annual-report.pdf, they have no government funding of any kind. And according to charity navigator, http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7576, this was true for 2011 too.

Are you sure about that? The e-gold people felt the same way until the US treasury arrested them and threatened them with money laundering. Here's a fine summary of the situation, http://stakeventures.com/articles/2008/07/22/the-man-finally-brought-e-gold-down

My guess is that this situation is exactly what the EFF is nervous about. They can continue to sue the NSA and US Government all day long on fundamental freedom rights. But taking on the banking regulation industry is an entirely different thing. Just because bitcoins use cryptography and mostly exist on the Internet, doesn't mean it's an "electronic frontier" anything. It's just a form of currency. Some places use sheep (as in the livestock) as currency.

Stripe, dwolla, and paypal all took on the banking regulation industry with wide-eyed plans to revolutionize how people do banking. And now look, each one of them has been coerced into accepting the common regulations and acting more like a bank. Look at MtGox and Intersango. They both have to honor banking regulations or they get shut down. "Know your customer" and anti-fraud regulations are an unforgiving bitch.

As soon as the treasury and their enforcement regimes wake up to bitcoins, or find evidence of heavy illegal activity with bitcoins, you can be sure the multi-pronged attack will make bitcoins sure seem illegal. None of this will matter until there is a court case precedent (at least in the US) stating bitcoins are legal or illegal as a currency.

The global banking world doesn't like competition. You can be sure when the eye of sauron gazes on bitcoin, it will separate the adults from the children quickly.

No it won't! TBF will protect us.

They all had to ramp down because their default unit of account is also a legal instrument bound by more regulations than a shark has teeth. Bitcoin doesn't suffer that shortcoming.

The fact is, the banking powers and their biggest vassal, the US government, will have little interest in calling attention to Bitcoin. If they communicate in any way, shape or form that Bitcoin is a threat, it will undermine their own game and strengthen Bitcoin's status as a currency and a commodity.

The EFF is just afraid of ticking off Paypal, Visa and Mastercard by taking bitcoin. IOW, they don't want to tick off the banks. They're not scared of the government. They've taken them to court frequently.

Bitcoin will continue to suffer the sneaky propaganda and disinfo tactics that are employed when something is to be marginalized. Expect a huge media splash about pedophiles or white slavery involving Bitcoin down the road, not a legal case.

Actually i think they are afraid, rather than cooperating with authorities.
They do not want to touch anything with undefined legal status

Thank you EFF.
At this point in the adoption curve we are all better off with a slower growth.  Right? 

They don't accept bitcoin donations, but will they try to defend someone that used Bitcoin and/or accepted bitcoin donations?
Someone should ask them this question.

That's good. If they won't use them, then will they help us use them?

Very this.  The EFF isn't here to push the envelope themselves.  They're here to advocate (and sometimes provide legal assistance for) rights and free speech in the context of the internet and high tech, on the behalf of others.

It's very unlikely that they'd take a public position on bitcoin without an actual legal case.  It's disappointing, but not surprising, that they wouldn't want to be that case.

Probably so, but they should just pack it up if they are afraid to be on the frontier.

They used to push envelopes:


I'm not buying the EFF's explanations. I think they made an economic decision in order to protect their current interests and relationships but don't wish to say so publicly.

I'm quite sure. e-gold dealt directly with fiat. Bitcoin has *nothing* to do with fiat. Someone like MtGox has to be concerned, but that's an entirely separate issue.

I think it's more part of the lifecycle of how edgy ideas, products and even people become subsumed into the mainstream. Though still perceived as edgy, their interests become more in line with the status quo than with the outliers they were once associated with.

The EFF has been in DC for a long time. I think it's getting to them.

e-gold worked with virtual goal and the trust that someone was holding your fractional gold bar. It dealt with fiat currencies in exchange for gold. My point is that the e-gold people relied on some technicalities thinking it would keep them out of trouble and jail. It seems others didn't agree with their hope in technicalities.

Don't underestimate the motivation and lack of understanding of financial regulators.

They have one guy in DC, the rest are in San Fran.

My intention here was not to stir up ill-feelings towards the EFF, despite my obvious consternation. They are invaluable on many fronts, and the Bitcoin community may quite likely rely on their assistance in future.

I'll even begrudgingly grant that their failure to put forth their own stance on Bitcoin in a way that didn't appear like a more general warning against it, is mostly a function of them not having the resources to take on this particular battle.

I suspect recent media reports that Wikileaks is considered an 'enemy of the State' are not accurate representations of the US gov position - but it does seem incongruous for them to advocate for others to directly support Wikileaks, whilst simultaneously giving a negative portrayal of the risks for supporting/using Bitcoin:  I haven't seen 'possible subject role' or 'untested legal concerns' type statements re Wikileaks.  In the scheme of things, I can see that support for government transparency and media freedom are likely to be considered by many to be more important and pressing than the monetary freedom we in the Bitcoin community generally espouse.

A good way forward I think would be for someone to present a case for the EFF to accept donations via a Bitcoin intermediary such as Bitpay or Paysius.
Someone from one of those intermediaries would probably be best placed to do that.

reddit is shitty for different reasons

Ok, The EFF has been in DC and San Fran for a long time. I think it's getting to them.

cause almost everyone is a leftist there