Bitcoin Forum

It is curious that only a handful of people have shown up on the Bitcoin Foundation website to resign from or defend the
foundation. Is it possible that most of the names listed on the Bitcoin Foundations member page are zombie members?

I deeply respect Patrick for publicly stating his concerns regarding the Bitcoin Foundation and essentially igniting a well needed debate. However, could most of the members have already left , quietly, in disgust and without fanfare long ago?

It could be that the Bitcoin Foundation has steered the elections to industry members only because most of the non-industry members are zombies. It would look pretty bad if only 24 individual members voted out of 1500.

I think the Bitcoin Foundation needs to have a public roll call and remove any zombie member names from their web page. Truth in advertising.

Xtib

Not sure what your ref. to zombies is, but I firmly believe that 95% of the names you see as members are real people using their real names.

99% of people are sheeple zombies, so yes, some of them are bound to end up in the foundation.

Thanks for the clarification, bud. Akin to keeping all your listed failed companies on your Linkedin page to make it look more impressive. Who the fuck in their right mind would have DEN as one of their badges of accomplishments?

The individual membership only costs $25 (~0.06 btc), not expensive for any early bitcoin adopter. I do not think members would mind paying the fee, as not until recently, TBF was seen as a prestigious private club.


Membership fee is too cheap, any interested party can buy 40 "sleeper agents" for $1000. I think not allowing individual members to vote this is actually quite fair.

I am not a TBF supporter, nor am I against it (well a bit... I wish they have done more to uphold the stability of the bitcoin industry/community)

Wait a sec! Is that why I didn't a receive newsletter/email prior to the election because regular members were not part of the voting process? I'm not being an ass here, nor wish for a refund or pissed, but one of the main reasons for me paying dues was to be able to be part of any voting process.

In the interests of balance, if most of the people on the foundation are running a business, it stands to reason that they probably haven't got as much spare time to evaluate this rather complicated situation as those of us who are regular posters here on the forum.  I only work part-time, so (assuming I were a foundation member) it wouldn't take long for me to look into all the details, consider all sides of the argument and come to an informed judgement.  But if I was in charge of running a business and had a million-and-one other things to worry about, it would take me considerably longer.  All this controversy is still fairly fresh, so give the other foundation members a bit of time to figure out what their stance is going to be.

Even though I'd like to see a resolution take place sooner rather then later.  I'm thinking it's best to let this sort it self out over the course of time it takes to do so.  I think the best thing to happen now is swift and precise actions once decisions are beginning to be made on what actions are best to take to clear up the mess.

I don't have anything to do with The Foundation.

What are you lot talkin' about?!

 :D

They could start by removing Satoshi from the list of founding members (https://bitcoinfoundation.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/bylaws-of-the-bitcoin-foundation/):

Either that or provide evidence stating he still wants to be included as a founding member of the Bitcoin Foundation.

Satoshi is the creator of bitcoin and one of the founders of the foundation, it is part of its history. Leave his name in due to respect.

If Satoshi is one of the founders of the foundation, then he can very easily prove this by signing a message with the appropriate PGP key.

Anything less is rumor and hearsay.