Bitcoin Forum

In light of the wordpress news is it time for EFF to drop their nonsensical no Bitcoin policy?  I wrote them an email this morning.  I have donated heavily in the past but I can't in good faith support them if they don't support Bitcoin.   Unlike another charity (foodbank, or red cross) the concept of free access to volentary currency system fits right into area of focus.   Bitcoin and the right for people to have free access to it, likely will be THE "electronic frontier" issue of the next decade.

If the EFF can't be the advocate well they likely need to go away so someone else can.

I could imagine, that an approach with Wordpress as example and pointing them towards Bitpay could be successful.

Their point was allays, that they don't accept Bitcoins, because of the danger to have a liabilities themself.

If they go over Bitpay, they could always argue, that they basically accept only USD.

Also, Wikipedia. I actually had a brief Twitter conversation with Jimmy Wales about why they wouldn't accept bitcoin donations. Basically, it came down to the fact that EFF had taken their rather nonsensical stand about it being "legally questionable". Wales offered a couple of other reasons, neither of which held any water as far as I was concerned. At bottom, I think his legal department scared him. Maybe now they'll see there's nothing illegal about it. It's just a payment method.

I think the EFF is a pretty sharp bunch, are watching from the sidelines intently, and will accept Bitcoin when they decide the moment is right.

Which could mean never.

The notion that one day defending digital liberty could mean defending Bitcoin users is reasonable. So are their qualifications to decide whether their soapbox would be best served by not appearing to have a self interest in sustaining Bitcoin income.

I have never talked to anyone at EFF who did not know about Bitcoin. We are definitely on their radar and they don't need us to prod them.

I have donated to Wikipedia multiple times in the past.

Decent amounts too. (A few hundred bucks each time)

I don't plan to donate anymore until they accept Bitcoin.

That is the worst part.  The EFF has some reputation so not only are they not accepting it but their unsubstantiated claims have a chilling effect on other entities.   Had it been anyone else or if they just said "we don't accept Bitcoin at this time" it would have been less harmful to adoption.  

The EFF accepting then dropping Bitcoin and making vague "scary" claims about legality is essentially a worst case scenario.  I mean even Bitcoin hostile entities like FinCEN and ECB haven't made any sort of claim that accepting Bitcoins breaks any law or would result in any liability.

To refresh everyone's memory the EFF article on Bitcoin
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/06/eff-and-bitcoin

(last updated June 11, 2011).  So almost a year an a half later I wonder if the EFF can make some updated statements.

I agree, and appreciate all that the EFF has done for our society in defense of freedom. In not accepting Bitcoin, they're just trying to protect themselves so that they can continue doing great things. I truly think they have their (and those of whom they protect) best interests at heart.

However, I believe their fears are unfounded. On top of that, their actions have scared away others from accepting Bitcoin. If they had never accepted Bitcoin in the first place, and just said "maybe in the future" there wouldn't have been any problem, but the way they went about it almost certainly scared some potential big players away.

I think the time is now to friendly remind them of the possibility and their role as supporter of digital freedom and prosperity and to watch their bias wane as reddit and others soon follow to adopt bitcoin.


Are you serious?

Protect themselves from what? Wordpress.com is a commercial company, their accounting is under more scrutiny, and apparently it saw no problem in accepting bitcoin. EFF is a non-profit and yet it's afraid to to accept bitcoin?

Their cutting off of bitcoin has left a bad taste in my mouth.  Who needs an institution that defends your rights only with permission from the authorities?

I would donate with bitcoins to wikipedia, to promote bitcoin and of course to help wikipedia. I will not donate in dollars or euros.

That's exactly what I think everytime that please donate, Wikipedia needs you filed is shown. I click on it everytime looking: "Do you accept bitcoin yet? No! So no donation for you"

+1

As I understood their argument they wanted to preserve the appearance of being unbaised if they'd ever need to defend Bitcoin legally which if they'd accept donations in bitcoins someone might try to slander them that they are just looking out for their own interest..

These organizations ignore bitcoin at their own peril. In my opinion EFF "wussed out". Isn't their mission something about protecting electronic freedom? Like a previous poster already said, I've lost a lot of respect for EFF. Yes, they do a lot of great things and I am thankful for that but rejecting bitcoin was a major fail.

+1

Wrong approach IMO. Wordpress has very different needs than the EFF.

It would be better to do this in team with the FSF which already is into BTC the track record of a successful relationship with it will convince the EFF heads way more than any commercial site dealing in BTC.

I disagree with the posters who say that the EFF is a major fail or is pussying out.

The EFF will probably be the first to step to the plate and volunteer their own resources to protect liberty in the face of a threat to Bitcoin.  They do all kinds of important work, including filing briefs with the Supreme Court and appellate courts to try and shape policy in a way that maximizes liberty and progress in computer technology.  They go to bat to protect people from copyright and patent trolls, they fight for the people's right to use cryptography, they fight abuse of things like DMCA by the record companies, they fight for our 5th amendment right to avoid being compelled to give up passwords...

I have gone to DefCon every year for the past several years and they are always present and sponsoring.  They are very open to dialogue and more than willing to share their opinions in a candid manner.  They ALL know about Bitcoin - not just "heard about it", but they know about it.

I feel pretty certain that the EFF has Bitcoin's best interests at heart.  They are watching.  Don't pester them, and certainly don't piss on all of the volunteer work they do that really makes a difference.

I won't donate to Wikipedia until they accept Bitcoin, but I will gladly donate fiat to the EFF.

The clowns at the EFF need to reevaluate who's side they're on. We got Wordpress now... What you guys are too big for us?

meh...

Thats not how opposition or a battle against legal authorities works.

Please don't forget: legal authorities aren't fighting Bitcoin at the moment.


The moment this changes, and authorities start actually to put pressure on (not just threatening), any large commercial entity will jump ship so fast that you can't even say "meh". Then will be the time for the EFF to come to help.

Exactly, the way I understand it the EFF has cancelled accepting bitcoin. Because they don't want to leave the impression they have a self interest in fighting for bitcoin, in the case they have to do so.

Then they should stop using the internet also.

Fair point.

Yup, got me there. Can't come up with a counter argument.

It's totally bogus. Frontier my ass. They are afraid to publish a 33 char string on their webpage.

Yeah, that really is a pretty ridiculous justification. I guess they shouldn't accept donations in fiat either. After all, Bitcoin and fiat are competitors. Accepting fiat but not Bitcoin doesn't seem very "neutral."

Game. Set.  Match. 

I understand EFF needs to draw a line and not promote a technology (and the shouldn't) however the argument that they can't use a technology without being compromised is (as indicated above) weak.   Other than the internet they have been involved in cases related to domain name disputes, digital content, and strong encryption.   Do they also strip themselves of those technologies.  Winning cases and lobbying on behalf of FREEDOM in those areas also directly benefits themselves.   In the payment arena, the EFF accepts PayPal which could be a source of future legislation or legal action.

Lastly it isn't like EFF is suing to get clarification on legal rights of Bitcoin.  They are simply accepting the status quo while saying they (and by extension nobody else) should use it because the legal area is gray.

So the legal aspects are gray, therefore nobody should use it.  If nobody uses it then there will never be a legal challenge.  Without a legal challege the legal aspects will remain gray.

I mean if it requires Congress explicitly declaring Bitcoin legal before the EFF will defend it then why do we need the EFF?

In defense of EFF:  I too was disappointed by them not accepting BTC early on.  But consider what kind of resources they are going to spend defending Bitcoin against the torrent of legal gray areas it falls.  They could've put in millions of dollars and defended Bitcoin, just to have it fizzle a month later because of network security issues, or some other doomsday scenario.  In that sense, they're probably more concerned about getting the most value out of their limited resources -- why spend millions of dollars to protect the rights of 12 nerds from some transient internet phenomenon when they can be protecting thousands of other people from other issues with the same resources.  Especially if there's no direct indication yet that freedom is threatened.

Now that Bitcoin is gaining momentum, it's no longer a handful of nerds -- it's a lot of people and quite a few businesses, too.  And if those people and businesses look like they will be threatened, I imagine the EFF will start to take it more seriously.  Perhaps we're starting to reach that point, now.  But I don't blame them for their stance last year.

They aren't defending "the internet", they are defending the small internet users against the large scale interest groups

I gave several of their staffers some Casascius Coins at DefCon, making explicit that these were personal gifts to the individuals and not donations to the EFF.

The legality of these technologies, including the internet, are now well established, unlike bitcoin. Also, it accepting bitcoin donations now could never promote bitcoins as much as it successfully defending bitcoin in some future legal action. If accepting bitcoin donations could compromise that... well, that'd be a pity. So... No, leave the EFF alone.

When EFF started accepting it, people were using the EFF's name to promote Bitcoin.  It's reasonable for them to take the position that they don't want to be seen as promoting it.

They can always change their mind, and they certainly will if they feel so inclined.

Certainly they will change their mind, but they'll never be on the frontier.

+1

This is important to keep in mind. What Bitcoin represents is a fight against the largest and wealthiest special interests in the world that control the monetary and legal systems. Governments derive their power from ideology. In the fight for freedom violence is not an option because the governments can inflict violence to such a great degree.

Nevertheless, we are seeing the market mobilizing and the chess pieces are being put in place. Even better it seems to be arising out of chaos as spontaneous order with coordination without cooperation.

Remember, ideas can only be overcome by other ideas. Power and force are impotent against ideas. Open source publishing, and WordPress is THE leader in this regards, is the spear-tip when it comes to the delivery mechanism of ideas. The spear-shaft is the monetary system.

The platform that has allowed the spread of ideas to such a large degree has now embraced Bitcoin.

This places any legal authorities in a very precarious position if they attempt to fight Bitcoin because WordPress has reframed the issue from allowing people to buy illegal drugs to empowering people's freedom of speech. Those with a soapbox who can spread ideas are going to increasingly become Bitcoin's defenders because it is the shaft that allows the spear-tip to be forced through inferior ideas. Thus WordPress's veiled threat:


To any regulators it means this: We will fight you with litigation and we have the financial resources to hire attorneys. We have the moral high ground because of our position regarding freedom of speech. We can lay claim to the power of that moral high ground because of our ability to transmit those ideas far and wide. Thus, if you attack us then it will be like attacking freedom of speech.

Just think: How many millions of bloggers will donate to WordPress if they ask for help defending a Bitcoin related lawsuit? What type of a PR nightmare would that create for the governments? You saw how the market and Internet mobilized against SOPA and PIPA. And who was one of the leaders in that? WordPress.

And if governments are stupid enough to attempt to litigate against WordPress, assuming there actually is any legal issue with accepting bitcoins, think of how swift, how powerful and how vicious the Internet's reaction would be to their attempt to stifle freedom of speech. And who will probably be on the vanguard as defense counsel? The EFF (so don't be too hard on them; I think their reasons for not accepting Bitcoin are specious).

So just keep pressing forward. This is a revolution of ideas and minds are being changed one at a time. And those with inferior ideas, like limited freedom of speech and closed source money, are losing position and will be checkmated soon.

Nice sunnaker, this summarised some of what I was thinking/wondering ... it seems like the next move might well be from the govts (against WP) and does WordPress really understand what they are taking on?? If they do, then it is v. ballsy of them (big ups)  but also belies that they understand the moral power that they may claim to, if need be. WP are declaring themselves to be more than a just another bitcoin user, but a willing, powerful ally (though I easily may be reading too much into this). Lord knows we can use more allies.

Re EFF ... when they finally declare that they will be accepting bitcoin donations it is going to get plastered far and wide as the ultimate bitcoin endorsement, you and I can make sure of that.  :) (we'll call it the EFF rally)

+1

As we all know they are already acknoledged about BTC, we disturb them.. Maybe they will be in a better position to defend BTC if not receiving it in donation, and if they change their mind sometime, they know how to accept BTC donation.. I'll go for "leave them alone, they are well aware of BTC" !

Another point, I've donate a lot to sites that I wish to support.. but, from almost a year, instead of donate, I write an email, asking if they are willing to accept BTC, and stating that I'll donate if they do so, and by accepting BTC donation, a lot of members from the BTC community will also donate !

A lot more business, fundation will be accepting BTC in the near future.. No need to focus on the EFF.

When someone doesn't want to do something, they say anything to get you off their back. People are like that. Don't expect people or organizations to always be honest and upfront about the 'real' reasons.

+1

This is obviously what's occurring. If their stated reasons accurately portrayed their real concerns, their stance would be solidly neutral, and would not include vague hinting that bitcoins should be avoided for the time being due to <fill in any legitimate-sounding excuse here>.

The only thing we could (and indeed should) request from EFF is to update their old statement from 2011 to precisely reflect their current position. When doing so, we should point out to them that their old statement was used and interpreted by other sites or entities as an advice not to accept bitcoins -- so a clarification on that interpretation would be desirable.


Beyond that, I don't think we should nag them and demand they accept BTC, nor should we bad mouth the EFF for not accepting BTC.

This is a great, inspiring post.

Yeah, sunnankar nailed it with that one. Outstanding post!

sunnankar, fantastic breakdown. That was beautifully succinct and insightful.

A suggestion to improve acceptance from EFF/wikipedia/whoever..

The bitcoin foundation should establish individual donation addresses, each associated with a large organisation people are interested in donating bitcoins to, eg:

Wikipedia 17qq5A3XKfrxpJRSC5LH6APjvTDb9hTms
EFF 3e4frt588gdwo844t93hg8943h9348hg984g8
etc..

Donations are made by bitcoin holders to these addresses with a date of return if the organisation persists in not accepting bitcoin.  If they do decide to accept bitcoin, the bitcoin foundation hands over the wallet.dat file, and the organisation gets to keep the bitcoins.

If they do not accept bitcoins by a certain date, all donations are returned to the original addresses from which they were donated.

Having $100k in donations sitting in a wallet file staring at you is much more likely to encourage acceptance than nagging and email bombs I think.. kind of like positive blackmail

I thought of this, but it's problematic and not likely to sit well with an organization.  From their perspective, they would see it as a 3rd party organization using their good name to solicit donations and then blackmailing them with money that is already rightfully theirs.  It's arguably some sort of fraud.  Suppose I started accepting donations for a religious organization that doesn't believe in contraception, converted it all to condoms, and then told the religious organization that a million condoms are waiting for them to liquidate on the open market and get back USD.  Yes, I realize there are holes in the analogy, but that's still the way they'd see it, and the way they'd make it sound when they started complaining to the press, law enforcement, etc.

This is a better way to go about it: I create a vanity address (1Wikipedia....etc) and then send MY donation there and noisily inform Wikipedia that this money is sitting there with their name on it reserved for the taking.  If that address happens to accumulate more anonymous donations I didn't ask for, well... that's not my problem now.

I wonder what would happen if one were to send to Wikipedia some physical Casascius coins as a donation, but do so anonymously and without providing a return address.

Would they destroy them?

Throw them away?

Put them in a safe, for future use in case they ever accept BTC?

Would some lowly intern get tasked with converting them to USD?

Or would it motivate them to finally put in place a Bitcoin-accepting mechanism?

I should think a place like McDonald's would have more to gain.

I don't think this is a bad idea at all but I ultimately believe that bitcion wil reign supreme at the end of the day so those slow adopters do so at their own loss. I'm not going to pester anyone into accepting it. If it never grew more than the level it is now I would be perfectly happy. It serves my needs fine - I can buy gold and I can buy national currencies with it. With those I can buy anything else.

My concern is that if the volume of bitcoin being used for illegitimate things is significant compared to legitimate uses, we are more likely to see aggressive government regulation which will slow the spread of the currency.  If the balance is tipped towards legitimate uses (like wordpress etc) before regulation occurs it will be much more difficult for government to justify regulation, and much easier for the community to argue against government intervention.

Here's an effort by Erik Voorhees where he decries Wikipedia's rejection of bitcoin.


[BLOG] - The Full Faith and Credit of Wikipedia
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127141.0

Wikipedia and the EFF are two peas in a pod on this -- likely the same donor pool.   Of course, pleasing their donors should not be the main factor of their mission though.

Sorry for necrothread, not sure if there is a more recent one of the topic.

Anyway, today this happened:

- https://twitter.com/marciahofmann/status/328618584836304896

@marciahofmann is a senior staff attorney @EFF.

Ha! ... so I wonder when EFF will wants to haz back those 3000 btc donations that they "couldn't possibly keep"?

I was thinking of auctioning on eBay an original sheet of 330 uncut "series 1" Casascius Coin private keys and then donating the proceeds to the EFF.  This transaction and corresponding donation would be done entirely in US dollars.

These key sheets will not be used in coins, they are simply the unused portion of the original 11,000 keys I generated (with corresponding series 1 hologram) with the spelling error, and the reason they won't be used is chiefly because of the spelling error, and secondarily because I used up thousands of the 2011 coin blanks with "series 2" stickers, leaving a surplus of these.  Somebody will want them, but it's not my place to "sell" it for my own gain.  The EFF could use the money though, I support their work.  I have eight uncut sheets.  Anyone want to give an indication of interest?

Exactly. EFF is doing good work in defending digital democratic rights but only for what they think it belongs to it. And doing free transactions with a decentralized currency it doesn't fit in their concept of human digital rights.
I think they would protest if somebody gets arrested when he doesn't reveal his wallet password to the police or to the border control because they defend the individual rights for encryption.
But they wouldn't move a single finger if all bitcoin miner, OTC and local trader gets arrested and jailed for 5 years simple because creating and trading virtual currencies doesn't fit to their concept of digital rights.

EFF's position is an unfortunate, but probably necessary one.

At some point there is going to be a huge fight over Bitcoin in court.  EFF will be there.

However, one standard court tactic is to attack and undermine witnesses / participants if you can.  Sometimes it is easier to attack or discredit the witness than their argument, especially if there is a perception of conflict of interest.

If EFF is funded by Bitcoin then when the inevitable court fight happens it will be used against them.  You could make persuasive arguments that EFF is only involved out of self interest and that their involvement is a conflict of interest itself because they're there to protect their funding source.  It's a load of crap, but that sort of thing adds up in court.

You can bet that there are avid Bitcoin users within EFF, but the EFF entity itself has good reasons not to.  It is unfortunate but understandable.

I visit DefCon every year and EFF is a prominent sponsor/supporter and very available.

I am just going to say this: EFF is not oblivious to bitcoin, and they DO understand.  Their silence is not indifference or conspiracy.  They - the individuals not the organization - may even own Casascius Coins and think they are pretty.  They do not need a "renewed push", they can be trusted to accept Bitcoins when they think the time is right and not when anybody else says they should.

EFF stopped accepting Bitcoins because of the legal uncertainties and questions about reporting requirements.

The FinCEN guidance only raised more questions instead of providing answers.  There is no sense beating up on non-profits trying navigate the rules that the government doesn't understand.

As of today, we can more or less donate bitcoins to the EFF: now that Humble Bundle has finally come to their senses and started accepting Bitcoin, we can buy a bundle for any desired amount of BTC and putting 100% on charity, assigning everything to EFF.

But it would make more sense if they just accepting Bitcoin directly.

Ha, nice!

It will be interesting to see how they react to that!