Bitcoin Forum

Update: Here's a video of Elizabeth talking about her platform. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4dOLLjiBNg)

I've decided to support Elizabeth T. Ploshay for the upcoming Bitcoin Foundation individual board seat election. In my opinion, legal support and lobbying should be one of the Foundation's main areas of focus, and Ploshay's experience in Washington as a congressional staffer should be very useful in this area. Even though she's worked in Washington, she seems mostly libertarian, and she supports a reactive approach to government; she doesn't want to bring up legal issues preemptively. She strongly supports decentralization, and she doesn't want the Foundation to have centralized control over the Bitcoin network or ecosystem. Ploshay is the most qualified candidate for this position, and she also has the best and most clearly-presented platform.

Some quotes from the Foundation forum:

Go Elizabeth! Shes great and I support her as well.

It's great that she's stepping up to the plate.  I've met Elizabeth in person, she lives and breathes Bitcoin on a daily basis, and her skillset and background would be an excellent addition to the foundation board.  Especially in reaching out to international and female audiences.

I totally agree on this. The problem is: will they be able to understand it?

I do not know any of the candidates, and have very little time to decide (and very little time to dedicate to the decision process).

Theymos' endorsement means a lot to me. I have asked a few questions on her thread:


The original thread is here (https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/250-individual-candidate-elizabeth-t-ploshay/page__st__40), only accessible to foundation members (now is a great time to join!).

Yes, this is most unfortunate. Joerg actually started a thread on the Foundation forums to open up at least some of the forums for (at least) anonymous read access, but it just didn't get much support:

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/372-why-are-we-behind-a-paywall/

Whoaaa there...where did this come from?  Lets not jump to conclusions based on stereotypes.

What the fuck is going on with her face? Is she a candidate for the humans or the hamsters?

Greyhawk, I'm glad you've continued the axiom of disliking everything and everyone I support. Btw, the earth is round.

I'm gonna need some independent proof of that.

:)

Just to be clear, am I the "insider" you're talking about?   Are there any other qualifications besides disagreeing with you?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=210130.msg3022330#msg3022330

how old is Elizabeth?

from these quotes shes too libertarian for my preference, i don't think the efforts of the foundation should be affected by any dogmatic ideology rather than specific issues. supporting limited government isnt really part of the job IMO since not all bitcoiners agree with that. but im not part of this, and i do support them to lobby on specific issues, good luck to the foundation
at least she isnt the owner of mtgox or coinlabs or coinbase or coinsomething like every other person there with power. foundation seems to me like an organization for bitcoin businesses to promote their financial interests. why do they even have industry seats? just let the owner of the damn business sign up himself and his members like everyone else..

Lol

It's actually a very good thing that she is (or at least sounds) libertarian. If bitcoin is to be part of the mainstream and without introducing red tape, business-crippling changes, the foundation should partner with some pro-freedom organizations... although I can easily see that expecting a laissez-faire attitude from most 1st world governments is tilting at windmills once bitcoin grows further.

Please do not support Elizabeth.  She doesn't have bitcoin's best interests in mind. 

Look at her plan list here: http://bitcoinmagazine.com/6805/bitcoin-foundation-individual-seat-candidate-transcription-elizabeth-ploshay/  (http://bitcoinmagazine.com/6805/bitcoin-foundation-individual-seat-candidate-transcription-elizabeth-ploshay/)

Number 2 is: "Work to bridge the gender gap."
This is complete BS.  Why doesn't she work to get the best people involved no matter what is between their legs?  I am tired of people trying to promote one gender ahead of another.  Just take people for their contributions without regard to social engineering to get one sex advanced up. 

Elizabeth will favor a female in some issue where the best choice is male.  This annoys me to no end.  Let Elizabeth go back to Washington and do her social engineering experiments there.

Bitcoin is for females and males alike - and we don't need to try to balance the gender gap - all people are welcome for the value of their contributions without regard for what happens to be in their pants. 

Bye Bye hamster girl.

lol, but maybe its just a bad photo....and hamsters are cute  ;-) !

http://www.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/unbenannt4f6z3ay57u.png (http://www.fotos-hochladen.net)

https://i.imgur.com/7BHPRq3.jpg


Seriously.

GOTO the bitcoinfoundation forums and read the respective candidates' threads.
Elizabeth is, in my very humble but honest opinion, the worst choice out there.

It is amazing how many experts we have on what Elizabeth thinks. Especially impressive is how much they know about a person they have never met, or even heard of a few weeks ago.  ::)
 

Joerg Platzer FTW.

yeah.  the negative thing for me was she simply read from a prepared statement.  nothing original for me.

Platzer otoh, is clearly a more experienced thinker and is participating in an active neighborhood Bitcoin experiment.  being German would help to internationally diversify the BF board which i think is a positive.

No wonder Adam B. Levine is so keen on her; both push the Israel agenda.

Fuckin' Jews stick together, don't they?

The secrecy makes me angry. Bitcoin politics should be transparent. Somebody should mirror everything publicly.

Also it should not be "The Bitcoin Foundation" but "A Bitcoin Foundation". Or maybe the "US Bitcoin Foundation" as that is what they really are.

Since it's based in the US and the FIRST EVAR Bitcoin business club, it is obv superior than our little groups over here.

Lovely nice peaceful people.

Found some!

http://artandexhibit.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/slide05.jpg

Burn the witch at the stake!  >:(





Hmmmm, steak.  :D

/me fans self with black cat familiar

...is it just me or is it getting warmer?

That's just the steak. It's what's for dinner. http://www.sylvia-schulze.net/resources/gig-bbq.gif

lol, yep. It's a regular diplomats brunch here.
Oh well, haters gona hate. non-haters gona build the future.
The ignorant attacks over hamsters, Jews, etc. are very encouraging. Attacks like this are the final bastions of those with no ideas and not enough knowledge to participate in a real process. These sorts of things can be ignored because they represent nothing but an inability to understand the complexity of being a board member.  

To keep with the steak references: If one can't handle the heat one shouldn't step on the grill. Dawg.

I can write something up later. But this website contains some of the reasons why I support her.   

http://elizabethtploshay.com/platform/

As mentioned before, I've explained my personal support of her multiple times.  It's because I know her and believe she will represent the interests of a neutral and independent Bitcoin protocol.  She has experience in Washington enough to know how things work and who really gets things done, but was not co-opted by the culture.   She is focused on expanding the Bitcoin Foundation as an organization of principles that leads by example rather than the US being a "primary" chapter with "subsidiary" chapters around the world.   She has the time to do it, she is incredibly passionate about the topic and works as hard as I do. 

If you've been on a board before you know that some people sit on a board, and some people serve.  Elizabeth has the time, drive and talent to serve.   

This is not to say other candidates aren't qualified, I just think given the position, requirements, and current board makeup I think the Foundation would benefit more from Elizabeth's membership than others.

Nothing quite like a little bigotry in the morning.   I love having a culturally jewish last name, when I start getting attacked for my name I know I've pissed people off and they've got nothing real.

Religiously, I'm agnostic.  Don't care if there's a God, it doesn't effect me.  Never went to church, not a part of my life.

And I'd ask you to post evidence of me "pushing the Israel agenda" but we both know you can't because it's not an issue I think the US should be involved in, and haven't ever posted one way or the other on the topic.

So now that we're past that little gem, what other ways do you want to demonstrate your bias and bigotry or was that all the ammo a creative guy like you could come up with?

Ploshay:  "As the Manager of Communications for Bitcoin Magazine, I first learned about Bitcoin back in January of this year. "

this is what concerns me most.  

she's obviously not only young physically but also young via her history in Bitcoin.  it took me 2 mo just to understand the basic principles of the protocol and probably another year to more better understand Bitcoin as well as work with it.  i'm still learning about Bitcoin.  but that doesn't mean she isn't faster than i am and doesn't understand Bitcoin as well as i do.  i just doubt it.

i'd never heard of Elizabeth prior to these elections and am surprised she's gotten so far.  she's definitely put together a nice website and i think that has helped her greatly.

guys like Platzer are who motivate me.  he's been around for a while and is actively spearheading an active community's use of Bitcoin.  he runs his own business using BTC and probably played a big role in getting Germany to accept Bitcoin for private use as a currency.  i also buy into the fact that the BF needs a more international representation.  it doesn't make a lot of sense to have all US participants in what is a global project as well as the fact that the US gov't has the most to gain from suppressing Bitcoin.  he also participates here on the Forum.  i think of the Forum as one large thinktank where most of the fundamental news and debates about Bitcoin are located.  if you're not actively debating or participating here you don't fully appreciate what's going on.  

if you can't debate with the ppl here how can you debate with the ppl on the Hill?

Allow me to articulate and explain why I support her.

I've met her, I've seen her work.  She is effective, intelligent, personable, a great communicator, has a passion and energy and understanding of what it takes to get things done (not just talk about doing them) and would be a great representative.  I would be happy to see her do this if it is something she wants to do.  The foundation would be enhanced greatly by her presence, and lucky to have her.

I could go on.

Dude, really bad..that's a guinea pig.

i should add that i'm not a member of the BF so i'm not voting.

nor do i have a vested interest or horse in this game.  never even met Platzer.

i'm just looking to help the best candidate from my perspective.

It is unfortunately political, and so the best are often not even in the running, they are too busy getting stuff done.
I have nothing bad to say about any of the candidates, but having met Elizabeth, and worked with her a bit, I would like to see her have more challenges worthy of her talents.

That's a good idea man. I would hope that some of the other candidates will remain involved. There are some good people with a lot to contribute. Even non candidates and bitcoiners outside of the foundation should have their ideas heard and have a role in steering the board.
 

it is a good idea but the one thing i fail to understand is the closed nature of their forum.

why would this be?

She was quite annoying to listen to on the letstalkbitcoin debates.
I actually thought she was a computer programmed to spout various pro bitcoin and pro libertarian phrases at random.
Her focus is far too Washington centric.
Personally I like the Europeans and any of the others who don't want to pay for bitcoin lobbyists.

There are some models of how to influence people re new ideas somewhere - go for easier areas first so if that's not USA - who cares. The spotify guy did an interview on there re how they started in one of the Scandinavian countries first then spread to larger ones once they had demonstrated the advantages to the music industry.

I have heard talk of at least a public section of the forums.
[guessing] Some of the discussions are kept away from the public not because the public is not welcome, but to plan without tipping our hand to decision makers in the government and hostile industries. As banks, payment processors, and trigger happy regulators better understand bitcoin they are likely going to fight harder. We don't want them to have access to all our plans. [/guessing]
The forum over there is also dwarfed by bitcointalk. Like most in the foundation I spend more time here.  

 

There are a lot of good reasons why the Foundation's forums are not open to the public.
Triggering the attention of adversaries is just one of them.

But the main reason might quite frankly be that there is bitcointalk. We don't need to, nor do we want to divert the attention of the community. Running a large public forum is just not a reasonable thing for the Foundation to do.

I personally would prefer to keep the Foundation's forums private.

And yes, I, too, spend a lot more time here than there. Probably 99 to 1.

This guy explained it just fine:

But other than being a jew, and openly pushing her gender biases, I can't see any information why she should be favored.

For the record, I don't hate women and I don't hate jews.  I hate those who would put a less qualified person ahead of another - based upon religion or sex.  Clearly she is not ready for the job until she can shake these very problematic ideals.

You support Ploshay. She lobbies on behalf of Israel. That is what she's built her career on. So that means you support an Israeli agenda too.

Your posts always resonate with me - you think clearly. I'm on the wrong side of 70, fwiw. Ageism sucks, and it's rampant here.

As for the candidate, she's the only candidate with a "T." - surely that is enough gravitas for any candidate for any office in these difficult times.    :)

Stay alert, folks.

First this person posts in the third person:

Then posts again in the first person:

The dishonest 'recommendation' of herself is certainly enough to consider her character unqualified for the board.

I would guess that "the government" and "hostile industries" can well afford the member fee if they care to watch the sausages being made.

Yeah... I'm definitely not Elizabeth, I'm this guy  (http://letstalkbitcoin.com/author/adam) and I was actually referenced by name in the post you apparently failed to understand.  See here's the funny thing about people who hate other people just because they think they belong to some group they don't like. It means the reality of the situation doesn't matter because the bigot is looking for a reason, facts be damned.

I'd tell you to check your facts but as mentioned, those don't matter to you.  Like I said, I love having a Jewish last name because I've got no faith to be insulted and it lets the bigots show everybody who they are.

To the east of the Iron Curtain the explanation was "passive, mediocre, but faithful". Lots of people here are going to learn how to recognize the westernized equivalent of an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparatchik .

To the west of the Iron Curtain I think the "honest politician" explanation from late 19-th century is still the best: "An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought," (although the gender doesn't agree here.)

I'm going to enjoy those threads which give out the smell of the freshly laundered private garments.

It's actually a quote from Casino LOL. http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-3LdatYb2Jht72/casino_1995_avoiding_each_other/

That's a good point. And now we know they could wave the fee and just break in.  :-[

Saying that I support elizabeth because I have a jewish last name, is that part of the quote or did you decide the quoted bigotry wasn't enough?

The funny part is that Elizabeth is not even a Jew. She is a woman though, perhaps our resident bigots could go after that?  ::)

She went to Wheaton College, a thoroughly conservative Christian institution. I'm not sure a committed Jewish person could take going there!

Yeah you missed that earlier in the thread.

What if we actually didn't need any pyramidal politically fucked-up foundation, and just BTC-crowd-funded any need to hire honest lawyers/developers/senators/head-hunters/etc. ?

Because false authority is seductive and many people have distorted values instilled in them from a sick culture that rewards aberrant behavior.

The wonderful part about Bitcoin is that you can do whatever you want, just because this is the first bitcoin foundation doesn't mean it will or should be the only one.  The people who make up the foundation think this is the way to go about it, and they've put their money where their mouths are.  I genuinely encourage you to set up a bounty-only Bitcoin foundation, I would happily be a member of that one too and help in any way I could.

And what individuals would manage said lawyers, for instance? Who would the lawyers report to, coordinate with, and receive priorities from? It certainly can't be "the crowd" or you've just handed your entire strategy to the opposition.

Nice collection of oxymorons ::)

The foundation has to be known by the effectiveness of it's action.
Others would have the same criteria, regardless of structure.  Maybe they are organized regionally, or by a particular focus.  Or by a particular currency/coin type.

Consider the circumstance of a case where there were some entity or group supporting a great new technology, call them GOOD PEOPLE, and there are others opposed to the existence of Bitcoin, lets call them the "Bad Angry Negative Killers" for our purposes here.  Wait that is too long, lets shorten it to BANK.
So BANK maybe wants to do all kinds of things to ruin Bitcoin, subvert or wreck the technology, insert bugs, make legal barriers where they want them, they could strive to control the dialog around the technology through the use of the 4th estate and generally bend it to their will.

What would BANK do to accomplish this?  They might put the top programmers on their payroll, they might create an authoritarian entity to stand in front of the technology and present it to the legal authorities, thus framing the case law created by their engagement.  Perhaps they would even be on both sides of important cases, funding prosecution and defense through diverse channels.  They might install representatives of the major communication channels into the organization to frame the debate.  It would create circles of secrecy so that only certain insiders could know what motivations are driving it.

Basically BANK would do all the same sort of things that the GOOD PEOPLE would do to support the technology, but the outcomes would be entirely different.

Some people are going to naturally distrust any structure that can be used as a leverage point, just because of the capability for that leverage to be used by BANK or by GOOD PEOPLE.  Others are going to look to enhance such structures and use leverage to build faster.

It is like any position of power.

If you want the power to decide who lives and who dies, you can get some of that action by being a doctor or being a soldier, and either way you can do much deciding.  Arguably more often by being a doctor.

No.

I don't see people being confused over what the Foundation does or whom they represent.
It's all clearly stated right there on the website bitcoinfoundation.org.
There's even a public list of members:
https://members.bitcoinfoundation.org/current (https://members.bitcoinfoundation.org/current)
Seriously, how much more transparency do you expect?

Is it really the fault of the Foundation that some people obviously don't even care to read what they publish?



What exactly about the Foundation is not open?
The only thing I can think of is the forum, that's members only, and why wouldn't it?
Do you expect public access to all the forums of each and every political/business/religious/whatever interest group in the world, and if so, why?

Screw the foundation.

People like the guy wrote the BitcoinTipBot on reddit are the ones that drive the success.

why hasn't Elizabeth bothered to enter this thread and answer questions?

many of the BF members have openly stated that they spend 99% of their forum time here on Bitcointalk.

so the fact that Elizabeth has not bothered to post here indicate that she will be out of touch with the vast majority of the community's opinion either willfully or out of ignorance?

If I were her, I wouldn't be posting in this thread either.  There are few if any people here who can actually vote in the process and those few are far outnumbered by people who either just hate the foundation because they think it's trying to claim domination of Bitcoin, or don't like Elizabeth because shes either "Supports the Jews" or is an unattractive woman.

I'd encourage you to email her (elizabeth@bitcoinmagazine.com) if you have questions.

And for the record, I spend less than 10% of my forum time on BitcoinTalk. 

I never said that. Don't put things in my mouth. I like hamsters. They are cute and fuzzy. Although not very talkactive. As is evidenced in this thread.

What episode was that?  The Foundation has been a black box to this point, which is why these elections are interesting.  I also am in the "What is being done with my money" camp, which again is why i've personally voted for Elizabeth, who I believe can help with transparency and communication.

Again I'm not seeing where the foundation pretends to represent all bitcoin users.  You're really stuck on something that doesn't exist.  If you're talking about how they're covered in the mainstream media that's a problem with the media misunderstanding - When I worked with Politico on a story we had to correct 3 times because they simply didn't understand the relationship between bitcoin and the bitcoin foundation, so to my eyes it's very much not intentional.  

Honestly this perception does more to hurt the foundation that help it as you can only buy a membership with Bitcoin and people who have no idea the difference between the foundation and Bitcoin probably don't own any to begin with.  

You really need to pick your evil empires - Lots of bad guys out there, you've picked a convenient enemy rather than a real one.

well, i guess we disagree esp. if you take the position that the only ones she needs to talk to are voting BF members.  fyi, i actually support the BF concept even tho i'm not a member.

this whole Bitcoin experiment could be arguably described as the virtualization of money.  this forum is one large thinktank where ideas about all sorts of matters relevant to Bitcoin are conveyed on a regular basis.

how else will she communicate with us?  if she's not willing to talk to us then how can she represent us?

lol just noticed this post.  Can you point to a single instance in the show where we've even talked about this?   I'll save you the time - No, you can't because it hasn't happened.     Can you show me the tough questions I avoided asking Jon Matonis when I interviewed him on being the new Executive Director?  No... You can't, because I asked a shitload of questions and  they were the ones that I as a member wanted to know the answer to.

I claim to be fair, not unbiased.  It is insane as a human commentator to claim you have no opinion about the world you live in, and I've always felt that hiding the bias is more dishonest than being up front about how you feel.  I think my work bears this definition out, and I would challenge you to find an example in the more than 50 hours of content out there for everyone for free.

And now I'm off to go finish todays show, but you probably don't need to bother listening as you already know everything we'll say.  I hope someday you learn to better differentiate between enemy and friend.

This whole idea is a lose/lose situation.  If the foundation claims to represent everybody, people like Milly throw a tantrum.

If you want to be represented by the foundation, you should join the foundation.  I have been very consistent in my belief that representing people who don't want to be represented is always a losing position, and as i've mentioned if another foundation were formed (such as one that was all about bounties for development as has been proposed) I would join that one too.

We don't live in a monotheistic world and yet so many people still demand that we act that way.

And yes, the forum is a thinktank if that tank were suspended underwater in a dark sharkfilled ocean.   

It's an election for seats on the board of an industry group with paid membership. Why would they open it up? If you can vote, you can read everything.

Like I said, you can't convince somebody who sees enemies everywhere they look.  I support Elizabeth because I know her and believe she can do the specific job she's running for, which I think is much smaller than you have decided it is.  I also think given her specialization in communication rather than investing or technicals she makes a better fit on the board given its current makeup than the other candidates.

So being a dues paying member and actually having educated myself on the candidates, that makes me a shill because you disagree with me. 

Also it would be great if you responded to the whole quote rather than just the part you have an easy time misrepresenting

And of course, just to pile on the irony I'm right now bouncing back and forth between arguing with you and organizing the next candidate debate, where the candidate I support has the most to lose and the least to gain since she's the frontrunner.  And it was my idea to do both this debate and the other debate.   So.... Am I shilling for Elizabeth? the Foundation?  Bitcoin?

Can you provide a list of things I'm not allowed to talk about without becoming a shill in your eyes?  

Sorry to read that. I don't mean to ignore your reasons, but I seem unable to understand them.


Point me to it, please. The news coverage, the government responses, I just don't see it.
The discussions, well, I see them over here at bitcointalk, and that's it. Where else?
I really beg you to give me directions, how are we supposed to have a vital discussion here as long as I'm unable to verify/falsify your claims?

Probably one of the main reasons for our misunderstanding here is, I don't use twitter, facebook, reddit, I don't listen to podcasts or watch youtube videos. Sorry, I might just be a little too old for that kind of entertainment. I want my sources in written text, longer than 140 characters, in full, plain old English or German sentences. I prefer my sources without "likes", "+1s", or any other kind of popularity contest hodgepodge.

By the way, that's one of the things the Bitcoin Foundation Forum offers.


I don't see where the Foundation's website claims otherwise, maybe the following statement comes closest:


Is there a transcript available somewhere? I don't intend to watch those videos (or are these audio? in that case, I don't intend to listen).
I could be mean and say "Hey, Let's Talk Bitcoin is not open", because I'd have to watch those videos, which for me would be even more of a hassle than for you to get a Bitcoin Foundation membership. But I won't, that'd be ridiculous.


I've never ever seen that answer.
In this thread, for example, there's been the wild guess from RodeoX, and that doesn't even come close to what you're implying:


I'm going to help you out with a little insight. I don't intend to break the privacy of the Foundation's members, so I'm just going to quote my very own posting over at the BF forum (The topic was "Why are we behind a paywall?"):



Well, then let's just agree to disagree, I'm not going to argue.
I am and have been a member of several interest groups in my life, and most of them have been "membership only" for major parts of their work.

For the moment, as long as I don't see any substantial reasons for your position, I'm going to keep mine.

As far as I can tell, there's not been too much of an impact on the Foundation so far.

Just going to quote another member of the Foundation on the topic (not going to disclose who it was without his consent):

So, basically, you're saying "go search yourself, I'm going to claim whatever I like and not back it up".

At the same time, I've been going through the hassle of copy'n'pasting quotes from the Foundation's forum, website, have taken a look at "Let's Talk Bitcoin" (coming to the conclusion that I don't want to watch those videos), flipping through a couple reddit pages (which I normally don't read), finding and re-posting former quotes from this discussion here at bitcointalk...

Thank you so much for this conversation.



I won't fall for it again. Read my former posting in this thread.

I think part of the media confusion over who/what the foundation represents stems from a lack of understanding of bitcoin in general. I don't remember who wrote it, but one article stated that the foundation represented the company that started bitcoin.
There is also the fact that it is new and the role it plays will evolve organically and likely change over time. Look, for example, at the NRA. They originally focused on firearm safety. They still do that, but overwhelmingly it has become a lobby organization.  

Most members of the Foundation are smart people. They understand very well what interests drive their board members.

I said I am organizing the debate because if I don't, there would be no debate.  Andreas will be moderating, and there will be a timekeeper who is also not me.

I see you accusing me of quite a bit but not having much to say beyond insults.

and I have zero control over what happens to the website or foundation, I am a dues paying yearly member and trying to get people like Elizabeth onto the board is the only way I can see to try and enact change.   I never claimed the other candidates aren't qualified, I just have a personal opinion based on the fact that I know and have worked with only one of them to the point where I think she's right for the job.

Is this more hyperbole and shilling?  I'm really trying to figure out if I'm allowed to say anything at all about my personal opinion.  It's what I do on the show constantly, share my personal opinion and views on things...  Seems like you liked it until I gave my opinion on this (You'll notice it's happened only on forums as I don't think it's appropriate to use the show as a platform for my political inclinations).

Another claim without evidence. Just how long do you think it will take until nobody cares to listen/read anymore?



That's my personal conclusion, right.
With my quote, I've also shown that it's an ongoing discussion. Obviously, for the moment, non-members of the Foundation won't be able to follow it.



It is a private club.



I can't enforce any kind of netiquette on you, so I'll just leave this standing:
personally, I find it rude to make claims in a discussion and not care about backing them when asked.
"Just go search yourself" is not the way I prefer to be treated.

can someone who supports the foundation explain why there is such thing as an industry seat? do they think corporations are literally people and should have votes? why cant the owner just pay for membership for their employees? this sole issue is enough to for me to say the foundation is crap

Industry memberships are much more expensive compared to individual memberships, and that's how the foundation decided to operate. 

As mentioned, this is the first Bitcoin Foundation not the last or only, if you think it should be done differently you are encouraged to propose your own advocacy structure and if people agree with it they'll join and support you.  The foundation is literally made up of people and companies who are putting their money where their mouth is, everyone who is involved has put value in to participate.  The foundation can only represent its members, not the whole community because it is a opt-in structure.   You do not have to join, and you don't have to let it represent you.

thats a nice way to avoid the question. you responded as if i said this:
"what gives the right to the foundation to do this, when they represent all of us?"-this is not what im asking/saying

im asking from THEIR perspective, assuming they have good intentions and are not a collection of corporate interests to monopolize the bitcoin market, what is the logic for this decision? why?

I answered it in the only way I as an individual dues paying member can, I joined the foundation in May and can't speak to its formation or any non-public strategy because I don't know.

If I had to guess, I'd say it's because businesses have different priorities and needs compared to individual members and it's important to represent both individuals and businesses with a neutral payment protocol intended for use by both types of participants.

I very much agree it is a conflict of interest to have Coinlab and MtGox playing large roles in the foundation (mostly CoinLab, mt.Gox appears to just put money but not input in from everything I've seen) when they are suing each other rather viciously.  Frankly I think the whole board should go through the election process, but I work with the options available to me.

I don't represent the foundation, but to me it seemed to make sense.  See if you follow my reasoning:
A company may want a membership so that it can have a representative.  If the designated representative who's job includes participation in the foundation leaves that company, the company would be able to designate a different person as the representative.
This feature should cost more.
Individuals who are employees of a company may also be members, and as individuals their membership would follow them rather than the company that employs them.

Not speaking on behalf of the Foundation, I might be able to shed some light on the thoughts behind the organizational structure. As far as I understand it, the Bitcoin Foundation simply follows a "best common practice" here, namely the inclusion of corporations, not necessarily in a democratic way, for practical reasons.

I won't go into details, since I'm typing on my ipad right now, which is a real PITA, but you might want to take a look at other examples, like the Linux Foundation, or the W3C:
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/board-members (http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/board-members)
http://www.w3.org/ (http://www.w3.org/)

If you wanted fair representation in the first place, you should have been filthy rich and been able to buy your own politicians with expensive lobbying efforts. The bitcoin foundation is for those who can pay to play, and the rest of us can continue to create real value, strengthen the actual community and help each other be ready for when the foundation turns on us and sells us down the river to their new corporate masters.

You're acting like it's one or the other.  I paid my .2btc to be a member for a year, but does that mean I'm not contributing to the community?  Of course not.   

The wrong assumption here is you have to pick one to the exclusion of all others, open source cryptocurrency at its core is about making choices for yourself as an individual based on your personal needs.

One can not faithfully serve two masters, at least not in the long run.

I'm a Foundation member as well as a bitcointalk Donator, yet I would not call myself a servant of any single one of these "masters".

It is immaterial what you consider yourself to be.

And where does the Linux Foundation or the W3C "say anything about representing constituent members" anywhere on the webpages you mentioned? Or anywhere else, for that matter?



That's what you say. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true. Where's your evidence?
By the way, the Foundation greatly reduced its fees, that just doesn't seem to make sense when they have a secret agenda of getting more donations.

Just spicing it up with a little ad hominem:
Which one of your masters will you serve in the long run, Zeitgeist or Venus?

I've gone through the trouble of flipping through a few pages of your post history here, let me request that you leave your political agenda out of this discussion, if you want talk about the Bitcoin Foundation.

Fortunately their goals and methods are not significantly orthogonal, so I am comfortable talking about both. In the long run, the Zeitgeist Movement may prove to be more significant in terms of social influence due to its broader perspective.

I find it odd that you ask me a direct question and then contradict yourself by telling me I should not talk about that question's subject.

The problem with trolls is their response to feeding...

Waste. Of. Time.

Irony overload much? This whole Bitcoin Foundation issue (and especially this thread) revolves around nothing but politics...

The whole idea is stupid, let people nominate policies for the foundation to pursue, then let members vote on the policies. As usual, political egotists presume that the serfs can't be trusted with any real power and need a layer of control preventing them from exercising any meaningful determinism.

Hence why I would never join this Bitcoin foundation. These candidates (and this structure) have only proven how difficult it is to trust their motives. Very discouraging. I will donate to Gavin Andressen + team individually, not this vortex of contradictions.

May I Interpret your statement as saying that the "goals and methods" of bitcointalk.org and the Bitcoin Foundation are "significantly orthogonal"?
May I also remind you that we're posting in a thread that was started by theymos, the administrator and (practically) owner of bitcointalk.org, who is obviously also a Bitcoin Foundation member, promoting the candidacy of Elizabeth T. Ploshay for the Board of the Foundation?



I was unaware of your inability to detect a sarcastic rhetorical question, sorry for the confusion.

Your quote is very difficult to understand. What exactly is it that the Linux Foundation and the W3C don't do?

If you mean "representing constituent members", I can tell you that that is precisely what they do.
If you mean "get people to believe they are Linux/the www", that is definitely not what they do, I agree.

But we already were beyond that, I was asking for evidence for your claim that the Bitcoin Foundation "want to get people to believe they are Bitcoin itself to get more donations".
That's a very tough accusation you're making, so you better back that up.


Finally, something we can agree on.


Exactly. I demand that you back your claims with quotes. Otherwise, I will continue to reject them as having no substance whatsoever. I'm not asking anything of you I wouldn't ask from anybody else, including myself.


Sorry for my wording, but maybe I misinterpreted your statement
to mean that there was a "secret agenda of getting more donations"?
Care to elaborate what you actually meant? If not, I will keep to my wording.


I already know that you don't understand the mission of the Foundation. Yet, so far, you have not shown that anybody else suffers from that misunderstanding. All I can tell you over and over again is to read the fine mission statement. I've even copied and quoted parts of said statement here to spare you the hassle of clicking a link. If something is unclear, ask for clarification. Don't go out on a limb and make false accusations.
Do you really want me to copy and quote the whole text?


I already mentioned that I don't use twitter, reddit, youtube, facebook, you-name-your-preferred-"web two oh"-thingamagick.
I also avoid using google's services wherever I can, thank you.

That's a common problem with democratic structures, imperative mandate against free mandate.
This Bitcoin Foundation decided to give their Board members a free mandate.
Any other bitcoin interest group may decide to use imperative mandates, no problem with that.



So you've made up your mind about it and come to a decision, that's to be respected.

Elizabeth T. Ploshay will win because she's the best professional candidate running. The rest are hobbyist laymen Bitcoin supporters without enough political savvy to advance the cause.

It's now the very first time I see you use the phrase "not just their constituent members".
Also at least do things "for the benefit of users" is hardly anywhere close to claim to represent all Bitcoin users.


Again, I'll remind you of the one statement I am still waiting an explanation for:
Maybe, just maybe, a little "sorry, I was wrong" might be in place.
You've accused a group of people who put a lot of energy, effort, time, money into something of fraudulent practices, which is definitely not what they deserve.

Here's a video that Elizabeth just posted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4dOLLjiBNg

she's young.  she's also reading from a prepared script.  and only involved in Bitcoin since April.  

not that these are necessarily bad things but experience matters.  so does a deep conceptual and philosophical understanding of what Bitcoin is, what problems it is meant to solve, and exactly how it is going about doing this.  these perspectives come with time and maturity.

guys like Platzer who have lived, breathed, and taken political and financial risks with Bitcoin for many years are going to serve the the goals of Bitcoin much better in the long run, imo.  again, i have never talked once with Platzer nor have any relationship with him whatsoever. likewise with Elizabeth.

She's pretty fluent, but I can spot a few times where she hesitates due to reaching the end of the line on the script she's reading from. Not so professional, not so convincing. Notice how she's looking slightly high and to her right; this is where her script is positioned.

yes.  also note that when you're reading a prepared script and you underestimate just how long the sentence is and you're gasping for enough air to make it to the end.

Yeah, I noticed that, though she sounds more natural as the video goes on. I wonder if she would sound better or worse with an extemporaneous speech -- there might be a lot more "uhm"s, etc. In any case, I'm not too bothered by it. She's good enough at speaking for this role.

The video repeats stuff that she's already written, but seeing her say it might appeal to some people. It's nice that she went to the trouble of making it.

What issues? The ones in this thread? She doesn't read this forum (I agree that this is non-optimal, but no one's perfect), and the posts here are mostly vague complaints. Make a list of unasked, polite, concise questions and I'll post it on the Foundation forum.

The video will be effective at convincing the people who need convincing.

That video is painful to watch, she's clueless about what it is she's actually speaking about when reading from the prompter. How can anyone want this ditz to represent them? Something else is going on here.

On Saturday, September 14th at 11am California time the Bitcoin Foundation Individual Seat Finalist Debate (http://www.letstalkbitcoin.com/debate2) was recorded live on the Let’s Talk Bitcoin voice server.

The five remaining candidates answered a series of questions about the future of the foundation offered by both the moderator and the other candidates, who were allowed to converse and question each other.

Sponsored By:
The Bitcoin Foundation (http://www.bitcoinfoundation.org)

Moderator:
Andreas M. Antonopoulos

Participating Candidates:
Elizabeth Ploshay
Trace Mayer
Ben Davenport
Joerg Platzer
Luke Dashjr

Official Timekeeper:
David Perry

Music Provided By:
Jared Rubens (@jaredarubens) (https://soundcloud.com/jaredarubens)

Producer:
Adam B. Levine

Tips for the Moderator
1andreas3batLhQa2FawWjeyjCqyBzypd

Tips for the Production
1QJ7xL3aYoVpVKLPnWzj1VByuyzsawBSjh

Now this is a drama filled thread.  ;D

i'm confused how anybody who listened to the debate at letstalkbitcoin.com can support Elizabeth Ploshay.

i know.  a bunch of rehearsed lines that made no sense in many places.  especially in response to direct questioning.

"The clock is ticking and we do not have much time until Bitcoin is compromised" - Hamster Girl.

you beat me to it.  WTF was that all about?

I think it's about time people from LTB come clean about their motivations and agenda with this hamster. Anyone with even a little Bitcoin knowledge knows this woman is fucking clueless and I don't think she is writing the cue cards she reads from either. After that debate, I'm convinced she is a stool pigeon for them and perhaps a few other people. Andreas M(r Arrogant) Antonopoulos and the Adam "The Jew" Levine have some 'splaining to do.

Agreed. She gets +1 for realising btc is the future.
-10 for not realising how a decentralised peer to currency DOES NOT NEED 'organised decentralisation'. I see her vision as similar to Hell's Angels chapters - ie if in your decentralised Chapter you make a decision the Board disagree with then ETP will fly over and kneecap you.

Bitcoin is not reliant on USA approval.
The foundation should focus on core development with the goal to maintain freedom if transaction. They can do some education but expat Somalians transferring remittances to Somalia or Argentinians trying to save money without hyperinflation don't need permission or cheer leading from ETP automaton.

Joerg is the most clear about what bitcoin is and can communicate that excellently.

+1

I wish I could vote.

 Who has the rights to vote , where can I find the candidates and more info on them?

Yes, the goal should be to increase the user base and its safety and not increase the regulation-Platzer

Everyone who was member of the foundation prior to some date (aug 23rd or so).
Become a member of the foundation for .19 btc and you get access to the forums!

-___^

just listening to the first queston (the mission statement) had me go, "whut?" after elizabeth.

She spews forth this litany of pithy one liners that sound good but make you say wtf?

That last one was priceless though. So who wrote that one? Andreas or Adam?

Just kidding guys! I'm sure she wrote  that one all on her own.   

In fact she wouldn't kneecap you, just patronise you to death or talk nonsense non stop until you cracked and jumped off a bridge.

My 2bitcents from the debate...

I'm afraid I wasn't too impressed with Elizabeth in that debate, she seems to be full of platitudes unfortunately.  However, she would bring a much needed action and organisation to the Board, she's obviously passionate about Bitcoin and helping push the foundation forward, I just don't think she has anything really new to bring to the board.

I still worry about Joerg's views on how to get bitcoin adopted.  He believes that a grassroots movement the world over (like the Berlin movement) will somehow work and we will reach the cryptocurrency singularity and at that point governments will just not be able to stop it.

"we need make those international and national bodies aware of the fact that anonymity in financial transactions is their new reality"

I'm sorry but I still think this is desperately unrealistic, if governments hear things like this, then they just shut bitcoin down c.f. FATCA.  I don't want someone on the BCF board saying that sort of thing around regulators!  If we get anywhere near that then governments will just come in and squash bitcoin, which they could do already by just passing a FATCA style of law about moving any state currency in/out of bitcoin.  What is needed is engagement with governments, and Ben, Trace, Elizabeth in their own ways have a more reasoned approach to this.  I think Joerg can continue his grassroots adoption as he has done in Berlin without being on the BCF board.  This grassroots adoption needs to occur, as well as the continued engagement with governments.

Ben I would worry about how much time he can devote to bitcoin, since he has a full time job at Facebook.  Trace and Joerg obviously already 'live bitcoin' and from what I can tell, Elizabeth will just do this as her full time work, while making a living working for bitcoin magazine.  I am impressed with Ben though, I just felt a bit uncertain about a few answers he gave

Overall, I'm now tempted to vote for Trace - I think he has the right balance with the regulator/government stuff, he's obviously passionate about Bitcoin, he understands the technology, but his underlying philosophy towards bitcoin being the eventual future and transactional freedom is something I can agree with.  I might still vote for Ben though, I'll monitor the thread(s) here and on the BCF forum before making a final decision.

Will

Watched video, listened to debate, thanks a lot for the links.

I agree with theymos, she's the one we need. But not as a board member.
A sexy, bitcoin-related, video buzz on youtube would probably be much more efficient.
That's my vote.

Go Liz!

Thanks to LetsTalkBitcoin for hosting the debate on very short notice and I am pleased to have had the Bitcoin Foundation sponsor it.
Thanks also to the five candidates that made the time over Saturday to participate.

It is also a testament to this Bitcoin Foundation to attract such a group of quality candidates.

The debate questions were friendly, more so than I'd hoped, very civil and open ended, but not particularly challenging (except when the interviewer was not understanding an answer and pressed for more).  Board member is a leadership position so it would be nice to have had a few more hardball questions dealing with the necessary core competencies for the role such as how they would form and mobilize strategies to handle particular governmental oppositions that are occurring today around the world, and some which may yet come.

Rather than (just) be a complainer, I'll offer examples:

Not all regions see competitive business advantage as a sufficient incentive to permit transaction freedom.  Some may not be convinced by the merits of Bitcoin even with a complete understanding of it and the technology.  If some near-totalitarian state were to decree Bitcoin outlawed, and assign capital punishment to users transacting in its jurisdiction unless using a government sanctioned escrow for the private keys of all its citizens, (which law, were it to exist, might even be enforceable to some degree).

Faced with such, how would you as a Bitcoin Foundation board member address this?
Citizens there may not be able to send TBF member fees nor get any representation in TBF without foreign help, would you advocate such help through the Foundation and how?

I'm insufficiently vain to imagine that any of the Board hopefuls will read this or answer it, but had to put it out there for the rest of us to contemplate because I am old enough to remember when "munitions grade" PGP was illegal to export from the USA.

That's a really good way to look at it. I've read many negative comments about candidates reading from a prompter, not having a clue about Bitcoin, being a super Bitcoin user, superior knowledge about the subject or having the most passion about the subject. The truth is none of these matter for a group representative that will liaison between government and TBF. Experience with the target government matters the most.

I don't believe anyone could immerse themselves in Bitcoin for a reasonable period of time and not end up understanding it. If I thought that were true then I would have to believe Bitcoin is doomed to failure because the common man will never understand it well enough to use it effectively. I would prefer that any liaison office not be held by a developer or super user. I have nothing against developers but feel their superior knowledge would keep them from understanding how to explain Bitcoin to the uninitiated. Superior knowledge does not equal the ability to teach. I took many classes in college where I learned more from the student teacher than from the class professor because I had an easier time understanding the way they were explaining the subject.

The dairy coalition lobbyists don't have to be dairy farmers to lobby Washington. In fact, it's almost impossible for any good lobbyist to be a working member of the group they are employed by because they need an education and experience in government to know how to work the system, who to communicate with and how to best present ideas to a bureaucrat. I still only see one candidate that fits that bill.


Manager of Communications at Bitcoin Magazine

Past
Scheduler at Congressman Peter J. Roskam
Israel Relations at US House of Representatives
Staff Assistant at US Congress

Education
Wheaton College

What do Board members do?

Board members are charged with working collectively to act as the "mind" of the community group they serve. In doing so, they must work together to:
Determine the group's mission and purpose;
Set a strategic vision and plan;
Ensure the group is financially and legally accountable;
Appoint and monitor the group's CEO (if it has one);
Ensure the group has adequate resources;
Work to enhance the group's public image; and
Assess the Board's effectiveness.

In practice, this may involve, among a plethora of other tasks:
Setting and approving budgets
Managing risk
Keeping on top of relevant laws and regulations
Approving major programs and projects undertaken by the group in achieving its mission
Attending and participating in meetings
Serving on Board committees
Undertaking or overseeing fundraising activities
Representing stakeholders' views during meetings
Speaking about the group at functions
Acting as the group's media spokesperson
Lobbying on behalf of the group
Organising and attending Board retreats and other evaluation activities

I think you're wrong.

I have to agree with the others here.  Elizabeth sounds like a great person and she will get a load of stuff done, she's obviously very organised, passionate and motivated about trying to make Bitcoin work, but I just don't see her as contributing much to the board in terms of experience or opinions (no offence, Elizabeth!).  I think she would be better served as a representative of the BCF in Washington, or a voice for Bitcoin in the press/media, or someone you know you can depend on to get things done or form order out of chaos.

I think having someone with more experience of Bitcoin on the board is the way to go - Trace and Joerg would be better in this perspective.  I personally am tending towards Trace, because I think right now the time is right to engage with governments and banking industry rather than try and convince them by edging slowly towards the cryptocurrency singularity - I have tremendous respect for Joerg but some of the seemingly confrontational things he's been saying in interviews really worry me.

Just my 2bitcents

Will

yeah, Trace would not be a bad choice at all altho he sometimes overpromotes himself and claims too much credit for advancing Bitcoin theory.  he himself admits having missed the first boat in Bitcoin back in 2011.  but to give him credit, he definitely caught the second boat to sail.  i also like the fact that he seems to be working tirelessly to establish contacts in the traditional banking system.  he clearly is independent enough to be able to travel to many foreign countries to spread the word which i very much like.  by talking and networking with many different ppl he gains a perspective on the marketplace that very few of us can claim.  he's a clear thinker as well.

Ben impressed me as a mature honest individual who would do well also.  experience in Facebook is a big advantage and supposedly he is a good dev.

the main reason i'm partial to Platzer is that he is international.  maybe that's too much of a simplification but i also think he's lived, breathed, and taken personal and financial risks in promoting Bitcoin.  there's a part of me that worries that the US declares Bitcoin illegal here in the States and with an all US representation on the BF that could paralyze that organization instantly, imo.

and surprisingly enough, Luke did way better than i thought he would.  he was calm and relatively articulate.  he withstood the personal attacks quite well too surprisingly.  i say surprisingly b/c he has a well known shall i say negative history with Gavin and others around here.  sorry Luke but my intent here is to complement you for a job pretty well done given the circumstances.

Exactly. He has a personal stake in the system: he risked his business standing up for his (allegedly extremist) views, and it paid off for him, he had the diplomatic abilities to negotiate Bitcoin payment for all of his overheads. He can't have been so confrontational and uncompromising to achieve that.

you seem to understand her way better than most ppl around here.  certainly me.

perhaps you can then explain the meaning of her closing statement:  "The clock is ticking and we do not have much time until Bitcoin is compromised" ?

from my own geopolitical assessment of risk to Bitcoin's future, Germany's ruling allowing Bitcoin to function as a legal private currency was a seminal event.  to me that means whatever the US gov't does to try and obstruct Bitcoin, it won't matter given this development.  that is huge to me.

i always assumed Platzer had a hand in this and now from the debate i learn that my suspicions were true.  he's been working directly with Schaeffer (?) of the Bundesbank to get this done.  that's big and indicates an ability to work with regulators towards what in essence guarantees Bitcoin's future, imo.

I doubt that's true. You have a good grasp on what's happening here. Far better than I do or really even care to. I, like many here, am out for my own self interest (increasing the value of Bitcoins by increasing the user-base). That always coincides with what's best for Bitcoin locally (USA). I think it's easy to see by watching press hits and following the different Bitcoin forums that the US is poised to take a possibly hard line stance on Bitcoin (virtual currencies or whatever the current jargon is). Not claiming to speak for anyone, I would assume that statement means she sees that the inevitable government involvement will be negative and that Bitcoin can be compromised by the actions of government. Something can be compromised in many different ways. Unwieldy government legislation and strict rules imposed can and will bleed through to US friendly nations where agreements are made to cooperate. Many other nations will follow suit if the US sets a course in behavior. Will this stop Bitcoin - definitely not. Will it keep me from using it - definitely not. Will it compromise my ability to use it - absolutely. I have said before that I don't like the idea of getting into bed with government but I can see the logic of opening a dialog that allows an even tempered response from the largest financially forceful government on the globe.

Nothing wrong with that. I'm all for raw unadulterated greed. We may have more in common than you think.

However when it comes to Elizabeth, I think that gaff comes more from her tendency to perseverate, ie, the inability to stop talking for more than 0.5 seconds. You know, those people whose mouths are running faster than they can think.

Its either that or she really doesn't know wtf she's talking about.

Agreed and well said. The US will be one of the harder countries to gain gov approval in. Why not focus some effort on more open jurisdictions - the US will follow soon enough when they realise they are missing out.

This can be done with regional foundation chapters, or grass roots movements that Platzer is already spearheading.

Will

I really shouldn't say this but even with a Wheaton education she is still a woman.  ;D

Ben Davenport here (I'm a candidate).

I think the capital punishment scenario is probably a little far out there, so I won't address it, but the outlawing of making Bitcoin transactions in a jurisdiction is certainly a realistic possibility. The appropriate response from TBF depends a lot on the specifics here (I doubt we'd be able to do much if we're talking about North Korea, for instance). At minimum, I would certainly do anything reasonable to prevent loss of representation of BF members from that jurisdiction, such as suspending membership dues, accepting alternate payment forms, etc.

Following that, I think there are a number of possible approaches, depending on the jurisdiction and the particular law. My bias would be towards finding or constructing a test case with ideal attributes that allows us the best chance of overturning such a law, likely in conjunction with a grass roots campaign to sway public opinion.

It's interesting that you bring up the PGP crypto wars, because I think some similar tactics could apply. Ultimately, PGP was exported by printing it in book form, protected by freedom of speech/press, and OCR'd back into machine-readable form in Europe. And similarly, there were T-shirts made which implemented RSA in a few lines of Perl, with the statement "This shirt is a munition." Because making a bitcoin transaction simply consists of making a public utterance, i.e. speech, I think similar tactics could be used. For instance: build a tool which translates a bitcoin transaction into English or other natural language, and posts it to a public internet forum, where another tool scans and translates back to binary form and relays to the bitcoin network.

Ben I totally remember those days and I've actually met Phil Zimmerman. He now runs a company out in DC with a former seal called Silent Circle. I think the government has learned its lesson about making code illegal :)

Ben,

thanx for taking a shot at a difficult question.  it say alot and there are good ideas in there.

good job the other nite too despite the voice handicap.  of the 3 ppl i'd consider for the position (Trace, Joerg, yourself) you would be my dark horse.  while the other 2 are more vocal and "flamboyant", you are "just" a good solid candidate from the good 'ol US of A.  coding background with a Facebook stamp; how much more boring does it get?  ;)

the big plus i see for you though, seriously, is a thoughtful maturity and patience that could bring alot to the table.

best of luck.

In which case you may not want to vote for hamster girl. You know, the whole greed thing being a mortal sin and all and what with her being a religious fanatic. Doesn't mesh too well.

Great answer, especially the example of the test case as a means to change law through the courts.


Consider Singapore and Silk Road? "Disneyland with the Death Penalty"  Mandatory death penalty for quite a bit of what is routine on SR and Singapore is a region with much civilization.  

There are also many regions with much less civilization, and where execution is done extra-judicially by "police" and where laws are less defined.  These are places where Bitcoin and its freedoms can create disruptive change and are not going to be well represented by dues paying Foundation members, and where courts are less useful for generating good case law.  I'd agree those are a bigger challenge than the Foundation can address in the near or mid term.  
Still... leaders ought be visionary, and the time may come where you get called to do things that are difficult to imagine today.  There are foreign policy implications for each region that may ultimately be impacting Foundation activities as a governmental liaison.  

It is offered for contemplation more than for comment, but comment is certainly welcome.

Oh please, she's much better than just a christian. She's a christian zealot that is willing to fight even her own government for what she believes is right and has the education and background to know how to do it (see link below). Having her on our side is an injection of decency in a corruptible system. A young, energy filled, christian zealot is perfect for Bitcoin. No bureaucrat can accuse her of being an anti-government atheist radical when she promotes Bitcoin. She's moms apple pie rolled in the American flag pitching a baseball. Perfect!

Bedsides if I never voted for christians I'd never vote.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/18/young-christian-zionist-leaders-look-to-the-future-in-exclusive-blaze-interview/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/18/young-christian-zionist-leaders-look-to-the-future-in-exclusive-blaze-interview/)

Whole hamster club here:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/young-christian-zionist-leaders-look-to-the-future-in-exclusive-blaze-interview/cufi-2/

Isn't that wholesome photo great! That's exactly what we need on our side. Uncle Sugar will never know what's about to kill him. Like a frigin Trojan Horse. lol 

I would add that there are a lot of reasons to vote for Elizabeth. As an atheist, her religion is not an issue for me. I like her ability to effectively communicate and lead. She has put together a lot of information about her platform and impressed me with her hard work. Any foundation members should at least look at her experience and agenda before deciding.
Of course whatever you decide, please do vote!

Christian.....  Zionist.... ? That's a new one even for me. How does that even work?

And I thought the 40 songs on Youtube about how Jesus is her best friend ever were ... special. Now I dare not look deeper into the abyss.

Greyhawk, I just watched the documentary on you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYX7ACuTBTY

Wow, Tom I don't know how you went through that.

It wasn't me that had to "go through" something.



http://img.tinychan.org/thumbs/1335497628527556.jpg

Key word, "Something".  :-\

Thanks for taking it for the team, greyhawk.   ;)

Evangelical christian music, especially US-ian, is quite devoid of emotions. To be able to listen to something interesting you should try christian music from the countries that are predominately Roman-Catholic or Orthodox.

Here, listen to some christian hardcore punk from Eastern Europe, it will restore the blood circulation in your brain:

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

And by the way, linguistic experts tell me that the mechanical translation (e.g. Bing Translator) of the religious poetry (lyrics are in the "About" comment) is surprisingly good.

Elizabeth won. Congratulations to her, and thanks to everyone who voted! This isn't a particularly important position IMO, but the election sure was a lot of fun. I expected this to be a drama-filled popularity contest, but it was actually more like a real political race with some actual debate and campaigning. The second debate was especially interesting: it's great that we have so many intelligent and enthusiastic bitcoiners! Ben Davenport stuck out as a particularly good candidate -- I hope he runs for the next Foundation election or becomes involved in some other big Bitcoin organization. Elizabeth was the best person for this job at this time, though, and I'm happy that she won.

Agreed. We've got some stellar people pushing Bitcoin forward :)

The best man won! Congrats!

weldone cheers for all winners  ;D

Congratulations to Elizabeth! She ran against some strong candidates. Bitcoin will be unstoppable with the stellar group of individuals running in this election. We should thank all of them for their hard work and time involved.