Bitcoin Forum

The Bitcoin foundation currently fully controls it.

I believe that it is an urgent matter to get them out,  people should discuss it seriously and put something in practice as soon as possible.

Not only the bitcoin foundation has proven since the early days to be an institution with no morals on its highest level of membership, i.e.:

    Charlie Shrem

    Mark Karpeles

    Brock Pierce

And now we have this fully connected to the BTC Foundation:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=610521.0

That's insane to leave the development in the hands of people of dubious morals(the Foundation) and connected with an obscure private club(The Buffalo thing).

Edit: The foundation is also fully aligned with governement interests. They are sitted in a huge amount of bitcoins, a big part stolen by the way, the original concept of bitcoin does not really matter to them, they just want to cash out billions and then leave.

the foundation does not control bitcoin. the devs dont control it either.
so i guess your question is how to get the core-devs to step out of the foundation?

maybe offer them a salary? dont know, but i dont think its very important.
i dont like the foundation, but dont overhype their possibilites ;)

I knew it was going to be the first thing to be posted. But that's not how it works.
They do control it. The descentralized consensus thing while almost a fact(few people has most of the hash rate), it does not prevent any wrong doing or taking the development in a direction that does not please the community(where it is already going)

Yes, salaries are probably needed.
But there are other matters.

The bitcoin foundation does not and cannot control btc. Bitcoin is decentralized : there are many different nodes participating to create the network. Every single node of them is a computer running some machine code. This code is open source, you can look at it, change it etc.

The bitcoin foundation mission is to standardize, protect and promote Bitcoin. In other words, they are kind of a marketing club  :)

I'm not sure how this would be done. The majority would need to vote to get them to stand by.

Fork the bitcoin code with a new development team. I will say this is very much needed and have two different paths for bitcoin full nodes. Gives better choice, but right now most people accept the bitcoin core dev team without understanding why two groups deving would benefit bitcoin so much!

It's interesting that they now seem to be linked with mass fraud, money laundering, and pedophilia, amongst other things. They're very good at something, but it's not promoting Bitcoin.

Yes. This is the right solution.

this would be nice.
but it would require the current devs to write some documentation ;)

Has anyone ever made a credible guesstimate as to how wealthy the Bitcoin Foundation is?
and/or do they issue a regular financial statement?

How to get BTC Foundation out of Bitcoin development?
Based on the huge, historical increase in BTC prices, I think "the battle" is going to be fought against an extremely wealthy opponent.
Anyone have an idea how wealthy they really are?

Learn coding an economics and propose some things. There are no rules about who can and cannot propose a change. If your ideas are good people will get behind them.

That's not how it works.
The final word is from the foundation man, they are in full control of it. They do whatever they want , and ignore whatever they do not want.

I might be interested in participating in that.  Let me know when you've got it organized.

UHMMMMMM I have a lot on my plate, and to add this to it, would be a disservice to building a great dev core that I would feel comfortable saying to people to use it.

In the future more people will be qualified to dev Bitcoin, but at this time the pool of qualified programmers probably isn't very big.
Who wants to fund private schools that teach advanced cryptography?
^^^Build a multi-generational plan for success.  :)

C++ should be taught in college for any programmer. I do know that it isn't required and I am glad I took it.

If there are funds to pay market salaries, there will not be any problem. The code is very clean and organized, the used cryptography is well known. Any experienced programmer can undestand and work on it. There are thousands of programmers looking for a job right now. If i had time to analyze the full code i could do it myself, there is nothing mystical in it.

With enough support it could be done. With paying members leaving the foundation in droves it is all ready happening on a small scale. 

Breaking away and creating a new group that is not from the Bitcoin Foundation is a good idea.
When  the foundation is becoming more a shame than something to be respected
Even a renaming would help it out at this stage or a purge

 The current and past self titled, self absorbed 'Bitcoin Foundation' isn't worthy of Bitcoin.  I stand behind these words. Apparently so do many others.

  As far as I have been able to deduce only Gavin Andresen is extremely worthy to be in any leadership role concerning Bitcoin, thank goodness we all have Mr. Andresen leading the Development of Bitcoin and at the Bitcoin Foundation. Maybe others too are very worthy leading the Bitcoin Foundation that are currently in leadership positions but I cannot be anywhere near certain of that at this point in time. Add to that many past/present Bitcoin Foundation board members are obviously extremely unworthy of their past/present positions, and that's what finally forced my reply and voice here.


 Like the vast majority I am all in favor of a representative body for helping lead Bitcoin. But not what Bitcoin has had at the Bitcoin Foundation overall, to present date.


 The  Bitcoin Foundation is an overall embarrassment, and somewhat of a stain on Bitcoin itself, if that's even possible, which fortunately it's really not. Nothing can stop Bitcoin, that's apparent. But many things can slow it down and hinder it, including poor leadership. And at least until these self serving political maneuvers finally come to an end it will continue to be so in many eyes opinions.


 I am certain many past and present members of the Foundation should have never made it to a leadership position at the Bitcoin Foundation in the first place, nor even been considered, nor should have an owner of any Exchange been the one to found the Bitcoin Foundation in the first place.

 The mixing of industry business leaders onto the Bitcoin Foundation is already conflicting enough, perhaps far too much. Then again it appears this is more a self serving quasi-business-political organization that doesn't concern itself much about leading Bitcoin, but instead the members own personal business agenda's far too very often.


 Most of those residing on what's very much been a self serving board at the Bitcoin Foundation to date don't appear to be worthy to represent Bitcoin in any leadership roles. Maybe some other current Bitcoin Foundation members do, that is still impossible for me to know at this time so far. But already it's been impossible for those like myself to stand beside the  'Bitcoin Foundation' to date, or even support the 'Bitcoin Foundation' up till now.


 I also believe that soon this all blows over as drastic changes are made to come about at the Bitcoin Foundation, or another Foundation altogether as Bitcoin's growth continues to increase.


 As for all the resignations at the 'Bitcoin Foundation'...outstanding! That's a good start. Stand up, be heard, make a stand, do what can be done to make things better, object when nothing else is possible, and if required stand aside and let it self destruct. And if nothing else at least sound out about what one believes and what one objects to publicly, and not merely behind closed doorways.


 As for the current voting requirements for positions at the Bitcoin Foundation; that too must end. At most a very modest enrollment fee to become an annual member should be all that's required to cast one's vote, nothing more, nor anything less than the BTC equivalent of $10 to $20 annually should be all that it takes to allow one's voice/vote to be heard/cast. When this finally occurs I will join, until then I will continue to cringe concerning almost everything about the so called Bitcoin Foundation. But at the same time I will also continue an unwavering support of the Decentralized Monetary Revolution that Bitcoin is dominating, and that is extremely likely to rightfully continue dominating, with or without decent leadership at the 'Bitcoin Foundation.


 Make no mistake: The Bitcoin Foundation doesn't represent those like myself. I also believe the Bitcoin Foundation doesn't have Dorian Satoshi's blessing either, not after reading the Bitcoin Whitepaper more than a couple of times.


 But as stated before Gavin Andresen does have my full faith and support as do many others including apparently Dorian Satoshi. Many others also truly help lead Bitcoin from all corners of the Bitcoin community, yet the Bitcoin Foundation doesn't seem to care for anything but a semi-dictatorial self along with of course grossly restricted voting audience for the said Bitcoin Foundation.

 I can only urge Bitcoin Foundation board members to drop any possible conflicting personal political monetary beliefs when it comes to doing what's best for Bitcoin and it's future, and open up the voting of all Board Membership to all Bitcoin Foundation members, and keep those annual fees for membership at a very modest amount. That may be difficult for some to take to task, but it's certainly required if Bitcoin is to become all it can be. Otherwise they can fully expect to be a lot more than merely challenged.


Caveat emptor

What could the Bitcoin Foundation do, to get a good leader?
Maybe offer financing audits?

some kind of a leader may be necessary. But NOT in a sense that it could change bitcoin; just to represent it.

Satoshi should have dropped in a mining tax of (x)% to pay developers with, avoid all these shady board members feeding at the corporate crony trough and directly pay devs

And, the marketing aspect just got stronger.

Look, it's no secret that Brock Pierce mined bitcoins as early as late 2009 prior to working behind the scenes to advance some start-ups, opting to not become a leading spokesperson for Bitcoin till Q2 of last year after he had most the marketing tentacles in place à la his hot tub alto-singing cronies.

Speaking of altos, this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeOvcT4486Q#t=37.

Why would a multi-millionaire seek $30K via an Indiegogo crowdfunding campaign for the sole purpose of having a CES party at the Michael Jackson mansion in Las Vegas when he easily could have done it himself, possibly turning a profit via ticket sales? http://www.adrants.com/2012/12/the-most-embarrassing-ces-party-list.php

Nice read, but... http://www.coindesk.com/gavin-andresen-steps-bitcoins-lead-developer/

Don't make me juxtapose two quotes from Gavin, one claiming he could retire on his Bitcoin stash, and another claiming he's bitcoin poor during the time frame discussing why he should be paid by TBF.

Gavin getting paid by the TBF was the biggest scam by him. Most of the high ranking of the core dev team is rich and if they say no they are lying.

Greed is something that is plagued in bitcoin.

If you don't think they're worthy to have higher control of bitcoin, then just ignore them. By making threads like this, it gives them even more publicity. And you know what they say... any publicity is good publicity.

Seriously, they're nothing more than just another bitcoin user.

Part of a prior post at:
Re: $100,000 Bounty for Software that Replaces the Bitcoin Foundation
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=613162.msg6794681#msg6794681

...

3) Bitcoin Core Developers Foundation & Community @ BitcoinCore.org & bitcoincore.org

 The Bitcoin Core Developers really should have their very own, completely Independently control over their Core Development Team and Community, including bitcoin.org and bitcoincore.org, and funded by all of the Bitcoin Community, and whatever other means we can devise up.

 I don't know exactly how the Bitcoin Core Developers communities is presently structured, but I firmly believe they should be rulers of their own work, with last/final say in everything concerning any and all Bitcoin-Qt Core work. And always be completely Independent, answer to no one, but simply always willing listeners to the Bitcoin Community, and it's needs and desires with Bitcoin-Qt Core.

 Set the Core Developers Free, IF not already so. Let them FOCUS on their expertise: Development. Let no one rule over them but their own leadership. And let the greater Bitcoin community win their minds to the greater bitcoin communities desires for Bitcoin-Qt Core Client's future Core Client innovations.

 But always make it the Developers that have the last call and final say so. No one else should be allowed to make final determinations on any Bitcoin-Qt Core Client software innovation decisions. Their the Software Experts, no one else. They should always have the last say. Fully autonomous/independent/of everything else related to Bitcoin-Qt Core Client Development and Inovations. Hopefully their that way already. I just don't know the answer, sadly. Shameful, I know.

*With Bitcoin-Qt Core Client downloads directly from both Bitcoincore.org and Bitcoin.org for redundancy and safety purposes.
* With easy to verify Digital Signatures (for the typical users) on all new Bitcoin-Qt Core Client downloads.
Plus SHA256 sigs too, yea yea, I know...bla bla...PGP. PLEASE do these things Bitcoin Core Developors. Thank You.




Bitcoin is Freedom.

NO
no one controls bitcoin
if ANY dev want to change something they have to convince the majority of pools and/or users.
^^ the current devs are just more trusted and have more knowledge of the inner workings as anybody else, so atm they are the ones which develops most new features. just search this forum and you see different clients (eg nofee, coincontrol started this way also) [luckily they all seem to follow the protocol so they dont need pool support]

Except how many of them besides Gavin Andresen have the alert key? Whether or not you people want to admit it there is a smaller collection of people controlling Bitcoin than are in control of any governments fiat in the world. Everyone likes to point to miners and say the people are in control. That's total bullshit. Miners are nothing but zombies. How many pool operators are there again? How many people make up the core dev team? How many key major donating members are there in TBF?

Name recognition is the most important aspect in the success of anything from being elected president to selling a can of soda. Bitcoin has it and we are not in control of Bitcoin.

 I was referring to the core dev team. Why should any other body have control over the core dev team? Especially a body such as the current Bitcoin Foundation. Yea, that's sure to keep a lot of the best core developers on that team smiling. NOT.

 Marketing, Business, and Political Organizations don't have any business giving orders nor directions to the scientists on the Bitcoin-Qt Core Client Dev Team. It doesn't make sense to allow such a tiny group to have such broad based powers and control over others. No sense at all now that Gavin is not leading the Core Dev Team.

 Instead defuse the powers and controls across a spectrum of groups. Much more aligned with Decentralization of powers and controls.

  Other dev teams can surely operate completely independently if they care too. And rightly so.

 So should the core dev team have the same autonomous, independence from influence and assignments from any other outside groups, unless of course they agree to do so.

 This nonsense needs real leadership to fix things as they evolve, or spiral apart. This needs addressing unless what I have reviewed is incorrect and that the Bitcoin Foundation DOESN'T already in fact have power and control over the Official Bitcoin Core Dev Team.

 This is Decentralized correct? We are on the same planet right? And if I am mistaken about the role of the Bitcoin Foundation over the Dev team then please by all means disregard, but I believe that is the power/control flowchart here, per say. No Mas. No way. Not acceptable. Decentralize powers and controls. End any possible ongoing internal bickering and conflicts possible that can be ended, if that is yet even an issue (wouldn't surprise me in the very least, including recent actions since April 2014...)



Bitcoin is the Future.

 Are non profit foundations required to file publicly reviewable Income and Spending statements at all?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"...non-profits must make their records available for public inspection during regular business hours at their principal office..."

===============================================================
"...non-profits must make their records available for public inspection during regular business hours at
 their principal office..."  - See far below for full quote or the link far below here:
===============================================================
 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Recently I read that they didn't/don't or would not disclose that data elsewhere when
previously asked by other members here. That is not legal behavior if their a Non Profit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



==================================================================
 So yes, we can force disclose of their financial records if any member of the public desires to review them.
==================================================================



 IF The Bitcoin Foundation IS a Non Profit (I am almost certain it is):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nonprofit Financial Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/incorporation-and-legal-structures/nonprofit-financial-statements.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

" Question:

Do 501(c)(3) non-profit corporations have to make their financial statements available to the public?
Answer:

Yes. Non-profit corporations must submit their financial statements, which include the salaries of directors, officers and key employees to the IRS on Form 990. Both the IRS and the non-profit corporation are required to disclose the information they provide on Form 990 to the public. This means that non-profits must make their records available for public inspection during regular business hours at their principal office.

In addition, a number of websites make these financial statements available including GuideStar and the Foundation Center. Finally, you can request a Form 990 from a specific non-profit corporation by writing to the IRS, including the name of the organization and the tax year you wish to review:"

Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Attn: Freedom of Information Reading Room
1111 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20224



Bitcoin is Freedom.

So what is keeping TBF, the only organized and prevalent entity of Bitcoin, from selling the "technology" to Mastercard or some other corporation?  (Besides the obvious instantaneous un-adoption that would follow.)

It's open source.  There are no secret technologies to sell.  If Mastercard wants the technology, they can have it for free.  All they have to do is download the source code from github.  Why would they pay some self-appointed "foundation" money for something that they can already get for free?

For the "legal rights" to an established crypto-currency eco-system.  What I'm getting at is this whole idea could be buried in legal challenges as a method of disruption.  These guys at TBF seem really weird to say the least.  Asserting some type of legal claim to owning it is something that crossed my mind.  

 Bitcoin is an entity unto it's own self. No one owns Bitcoin. It's Free, in the wild. It can merely be supported.

 No one can ever "sell" Bitcoin. No one owns Bitcoin itself.


======================================================================


Re: How to get BTC Foundation out of Bitcoin development?

 The Bitcoin Foundation is free do to whatever it desires, same as any other group or organization involved with Bitcoin. They only have powers and controls over those that allow them to. Except for very few key things, such as the Alert Key, and I don't know what else (salary of Core Dev Team) I can't think of anything else. besides ownership of some their own website.

 This forum and other website are owned by others I recall. But their not a part of Bitcoin or it's Network either, instead their individuals or other groups too. Donations, membership fees pay costs. But everything else are side affairs instead, not part of the core Bitcoin Network.

 All Bitcoin must have is it's nodes on computers connecting everyone together with the Bitcoin-Qt "Core" Client software on those computers thus making a network of Bitcoin networked computers, running as nodes, on the network, with at least some of them operating as "full nodes" (more than 8 connections, UPnP enabled to be a full node, and Port ? open, and a Development Team. Nothing is is absolutely required.

 That is why nothing and no one can stop Bitcoin. It's full nodes are truly spread out (Decentralized) on thousands of computers worldwide. Only taking down the entire Global Internet could stop it for a little while, but it would require a global internet take down to do so, not realistic. Even then it's possible to find alternative ways to re-connect the nodes if required (old fashion dial up modems for just one alternative method, but they would be rather slowww). Wireless will soon get even much better, evolving ever better and much more efficiently. Soon even free satellite internet will roll out in some parts of the world, or that's the plan, but it too wont be as fast as broadband.


 Various Groups/Organizations represent Bitcoin already. But The USA based Bitcoin Foundation is the most influential so far. https://bitcoinfoundation.org/


These just for starters:

http://bitcoinassociation.org/

http://thebitcoinsociety.org/

http://nakamotoinstitute.org/


 Many other groups and organization including other self titled Bitcoin Foundations and what, Abroad, all across the world, in many various countries also assist and support everything there is about Bitcoin and it's progress and support.


 Bitcoin is and has been Global and far reaching. With more than a bit of internal bickering and squabbles between various groups, organizations and all their members. As any far reaching and large community would have.


 Very much Bitcoin is alive so to speak, without title or ownership.

https://bitcointalk.org/ is where we almost all come to chat and discuss things.




Bitcoin is Freedom.






 

There are a couple Foundation members in the Co-op, but I personally don't trust the Foundation, at all. It costs money to join, and you must join to have a voice, ergo it is a plutocracy. They're trying to set up shop in Canada, and it feels like an invasion; we worked hard to make Canada what it is for crypto, and the Foundation provided no support, whatsoever (or even credit after the fact). They just wanna be boss

No dude, they are the boss. That collection of profiteers formed an organization that will allow them to control every aspect of Bitcoin from the lead dev and software development to the interaction with lawmakers. Their only goal is profit. While profit isn't necessarily a bad thing it likely conflicts with the goals of many users of Bitcoin. I don't think the non-profit Free State Project types really appreciate the boundless greed associated with TBF because TBF is willing to do anything to Bitcoin as long as it's good for the bottom line. Watching a group of assholes get rich is not really why I got into Bitcoin. If if I wanted to support a bunch of greedy bastards I would just keep using my Visa card. It's already accepted everywhere.

I suppose I don't disagree. We just found them to be uncooperative with the Co-op, probably because their vision is monopolistic--don't want publicity for their "competitor." We don't really plan to get into things like government lobbying, being a very bottom-up/grassroots organization, but the BAC already wants to do those kinds of things, here. The BAC also came to visit our convention and gave us a booth at theirs, unlike the Foundation.

If they want to cooperate with us, though, we can always use help. Non-profits like us are often low on resources. Being a larger and more established organization, the ball is in their court, I think. If they do intend to get rich off Bitcoin, it would be wise to assist those who promote their investment.

I am aware that the Co-op helped build Bitcoin in Canada so they should have more influence than the foundation does in the region, and do not deserve any credit for that. Anyways I agree that the foundations approach is not the best way to approach bitcoin in my opinion and a cooperative organization to work on building bitcoin is better than a single plutocratic group or organization too centralized.

We actually don't even have a "leader," exactly, which is pretty cool, and we discuss almost everything publicly. That does has some disadvantages, though... we are a very bottom-up grassroots movement, but the top-down approach has value in certain scenarios. It's just that the larger top-down organization needs to support the grassroots movements--at least with publicity. That's how it's supposed to work, but we've been left to fend for ourselves for quite some time. I will approve of anyone who makes my job easier.

Less than $5M, inclusive of the less than ฿10,000 being held unhedged.

It's tiny. And the foundation has very little, if anything, to do with development.

What I want to know is... why do people care about who is on the Bitcoin Foundation if Bitcoin is run by the people.  Why do they draw so much attention?  It really shouldn't matter if they appointed actual monkeys to the board if Bitcoin is truly decentralized. (no offense to the members, just trying to make a point)

It is not run by the people, it descantralized only in theory. Most of the hash rate belongs to a few miners/mining pools that do not care about anything as far as they get their bitcoin reward. And the protocol is fully controled by the foundation, they own the github account. They own the developers. Let's stop the myth, the descentralized myth is making most people not see how serious it is. The real world is different of Satoshi's white paper.

https://opensource.conformal.com/wiki/btcd

Dude, really, are you trying to get me killed? It's 1AM in the morning here. I started laughing so hard i just couldnt keep it inside. I woke up my wife and now she's pissed at me...and you don't wanna get her pissed  :o

I only see one aspect as decentralized, the rest is very centralized and tightly controlled. Still an interesting experiment to watch unfold though...

8 )

I would like to see the devs forming a "Bitcoin Dev Guild" and take their salaries from their own contribution address. They can create their won subscription program from the public, like the current TBF platinum/gold/silver membership. This way, they can work with multiple types of foundations/associations/businesses and also public users.

In a nutshell, the "Bitcoin Dev Guild" will detach from the foundation forming a self sustaining entity, with the foundation as one of many bitcoin partners.

Then, I suggest you don't read what I'm about to post while the honey is abed. Speaking of such, did you know that honey has no expiration date, with honey found in the Great Pyramid was still edible?

The reason people care so much is because people on the Bitcoin Foundation are often viewed as the faces of Bitcoin (whether we like it or not).

In my opinion, their background and public image should be almost as important as what they bring to the table skill wise...

Virtually every criticism expressed about the TBF to-date I closed my eyes to, but there was no way in hell I was going to remain silent on the Brock Pierce issue, hence starting and leading the campaign to not get him elected, now ousted. Now, that the TBF has drawn the line in the sand, all bets are off. If they are so short-sighted to not see what's wrong with having Brock Pierce on the board, then it's probably a given there's something more nefarious afoot.

I can't believe that not one woman on the board has raised a concern. Basically, they have just alienated women, Christians and other sects, and parents with children, not to mention the children themselves, from embracing Bitcoin. Fuck, if Michael Jackson were still alive, he would probably be the leader of Bitcoin somehow. What the fuck am I thinking?

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2908/14177348286_bcb4cd0556_b.jpg

Gulp!

 Please don't hijack this thread and the topic -
Re: How to get BTC Foundation out of Bitcoin development?


Thank You.

Okay, so basically Bitcoin is the Silicon Valley nerds' way of trying to take over the world; a new government with the Foundation at the head and centralized mining as the new Wall Street.  All just as I suspected...  which is fine by me as long as I make my cut along the way. 8)

Easy: promote and use alternatives to all the software they develop.

It's entirely possible for the community to fire all the developers of Bitcoin Core (paid by Bitcoin Foundation or not) just by not using it.

Don't worry - Bitcoin will won't go away even if Satoshi's client is no longer being used.

Creating a DAC as a replacement for TBF could be a solution. A DAC can have shareholders, an embedded voting system, a board of directors (elected by the shareholders via the embedded voting system), possibility of voting on decisions. As it's worldwide distributed it can create IRL subsidiaries practically everywhere, it can pay salaries directly or by using it's local subsidiaries, it can hire or fire devs, contractors, specialists, lobbists... so a DAC could be a really potent but still transparent entity for developing, promoting, controlling, regulating or unregulating BTC.

Inspired by this thread, we're setting up the No Bitcoin Foundation. the domain bitcoin.foundation is already secured!

Well was looking around the forum and you seem active so I wish you the best of luck in your efforts
What is your alternative though