Bitcoin Forum

Lot of hatred and blame on the foundation..

Some call its undermining the true purpose of bitcoin,

Some say it is opaque, translucent etc.

So point out 3 reasons or more as to why yourself or anybody should hate and stay away from  bitcoin foundation?

Personally I would like to see more transparency. They could avoid a lot of criticism by being more open with choosing leaders etc. I would also like to see them assume a more public role as advocates for bit coin. Lobbying efforts are long over due.

1. They accept anyone that is willing to pay for membership. It's all about greed and money. You can be a scammer and still join, as long as you pay.
2. What good have they done for bitcoin? Bitcoin can still function without them, so no need to centralize.
3. Core development can still happen outside of the foundation. Again, why is it needed?

Answers like this make me think that people don't actually know what the bitcoin foundation was set up for.  So yeah, here is my number one complaint;-

1. They have failed in forcing people to actually find out what the foundation was set up for.

Neil

1. They are trying to centralize a decentralized currency.
2. They are trying to centralize a decentralized currency.
3. They are trying to centralize a decentralized currency.

I hope they will fail.

In addition to 1. They also gave KNC miner that status but were unable to prove that transaction as Phin pointed out
2. Do not trust them to represent the head of Bitcoin as they are presently perceived but that we need more choices
3. Theymos said that they are not related to the core devs, so that part is misaligned I believe with haploid but in general devs don't use it except Gavin really.

He-He got to give it to miner

Because it's centralised
Because we didn't vote for them nor do they represent us
Because you seem to be able to buy your way into it if you have enough money.

I'm not sure wether they'll do more harm than good in the long run.

1. My understanding is the one of the Foundation's main goal is to give the developers a salary, I think there are more direct ways for this to happen, the new Lighthouse project seems interesting and has been mentioned a few times. All the other layers in the foundation are corrupted by the flow of 'free' cash at this point I think, while the lobbying campaign is interesting, why spend a chunk of your fixed income on it when we have an issue with funding development? Seems like it is just a publicity stunt to generate some goodwill quickly, and doesn't address the problem of developer funding.

2. Brock Pierce, Mark Karpeles, and every other scammer on the board, again the 'free' cash and buzzword-y new technology attracts the snake oil salesmen of all strange and deeply disturbing sorts, and now Brock Pierce is promoting a severely flawed copy cat coin directly against the interests of the foundation, most likely to capitalize on some of the venture capital floating around, it's sickening

3. If the foundation isnt completely corrupt now, it will be at some point in the future, which is to say if bitcoin is to last quite a while into the future, it cant be tethered so intimately with a centralized organization, because as the wealth of bitcoin grows, so does the wealth incentive for a bad actor to potentially either negatively or preferentially influence development for personal gain

They have done nothing to warn people about mtgox when they knew about it before the public. They accept any company as member as long as they pay, without reviewing their solvency.

it's sekrit club and I'm not invited  >:( >:( >:(

...

I would like to see a decentralised manner of funding a core developer. With voting etc. Wasn't Mike Hearn working on something?

Is this shocking news really true?

I'd like to know any valid arguments/source for this, how would they know that?

Exactly. We have not chosen those people to represent all of us.

1/ they want to run things/take over
2/ brock pierce
3/ centralised non-elected (against crypto ethos)

4/ brock pierce
5/ brock pierce
6/ brock pierce

I don't hate them, hating is too much energy to spend on something that's irrelevant.

I don't hate the foundation, but as far as transparency:

Shouldn't we know where every single satoshi goes that they spend?
Isn't Bitcoin supposed to be the model of transparency?
Why isn't there a public log of all their transactions?

It will make you more popular?  :D

bitcoin foundation pays some of the dev salaries
so that is what i dont like about the foundation
as they can influence bitcoin without a vote by the users of bitcoin

1) ha
2) ha
3) HA!

Now tell me one reason why anyone should like the Bitcoin Foundation?

1 ) usurpation of power - never elected to represent bitcoin
2 ) political agenda
3 ) pro "regulation" - killing fungibility
4 ) intransparent, closed circle
5 ) centralized attack surface for any negative influence on the protocol
6 ) undemocratic - just pay to add extra influence
7 ) immoral -  just pay to influence where bitcoin is heading, we don't care about your motives
8 ) shady characters at its core
9 ) wastes funds for administrative/marketing purposes
10 ) damages the reputation of bitcoin through 1) to 9)

Edit: Forgot the very first:

0 ) not needed at all to fund bitcoin development

Mike Hearn’s Lighthouse will make the bitcoin foundation obsolete


http://coinbrief.net/bitcoin-lighthouse/

http://www.coindesk.com/mike-hearn-wins-40000-bounty-bitcoin-core-crowdfunding/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CoinDesk+%28CoinDesk+-+The+Voice+of+Digital+Currency%29

1 - Brock Pierce
2 - Tibanne Thecat (Mark Karpeles cat, yes you read right a cat is on the foundation)
3 - They want to centralize, something that was designed to be decentralized

Hate is a bit more than I can muster. I suppose it's a bit upsetting that bitcoiners lend much credence to them. They should be (perhaps are) irrelevant.

Basically you only hate them for not letting people know their purpose? What kind of answer is that? For the record, I've read their mission statement. So in your opinion, have they succeeded in what they're sought to during the time that they've self-appointed themselves in "office"?

Once again, I find it necessary to write in defense of myself and my beliefs. But before I continue, allow me to explain that I do not find orations that are stinking, lusk, and hypocritical to be “funny”. Maybe I lack a sense of humor, but maybe the Bitcoin Foundation has been deluding people into believing that there is something intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of contemptible stereotypes. Don't let it delude you, too. The Bitcoin Foundation's spin doctors resist seeing that thanks to the Bitcoin Foundation's public-opinion molders, more people than ever now believe that “metanarratives” are the root of tyranny, lawlessness, overpopulation, racial hatred, world hunger, disease, and rank stupidity. They resist seeing such things because to see them, to examine them, to think about them and draw conclusions from them is to shed a little light on some of the ignorant prejudices that reside within the Bitcoin Foundation's pea-sized brain.

Slimy pop psychologists of one sort or another are like putty in the Bitcoin Foundation's hands. It effortlessly molds them into loyal agents provocateurs who don't think twice about crushing any semblance of opposition to the Bitcoin Foundation's lousy allegations. It's our responsibility to set the stage so that my next letter will begin from a new and much higher level of influence. That's the first step in defending with dedication and ferocity the very rights that it so desperately wants to abolish, and it's the only way to nourish children with good morals and self-esteem. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, but I shall be blamed by ignorant persons when I say that I am ashamed to admit that I live on the same planet as the Bitcoin Foundation. Cruel as that maxim may appear, there's something fishy about its obiter dicta. I, hardheaded cynic that I am, think the Bitcoin Foundation is up to something, something covinous and perhaps even intransigent.

Some of the facts I'm about to present may seem shocking. This they certainly are. However, I know some vulgar swaggerers who claim they once overheard the Bitcoin Foundation say, “We want to introduce a zeitgeist of commercialism to our society in a matter of days”. Sadly, lack of space prevents me from elaborating further. For the first time ever, a majority of arrogant sots have been questioning their role in helping the Bitcoin Foundation silence critical debate and squelch creative brainstorming. I believe that we should take advantage of this historic opportunity and give the Bitcoin Foundation the severe tongue-lashing it deserves. To summarize my views: It would be hard to find anyone who doesn't agree that it is my contention that the Bitcoin Foundation has deliberately and with malice aforethought sought to hasten society's quiescence to moral pluralism and epistemological uncertainty.

http://www.pakin.org/complaint?firstname=the+Bitcoin+Foundation&pgraphs=3&gender=c (http://www.pakin.org/complaint?firstname=the+Bitcoin+Foundation&pgraphs=3&gender=c)

F5 is your friend  ;D

Sorry, that was a bit tong in tongue in cheek.  It was meant to point out that it seems that most people don't actually know what the bitcoin foundation does because they never bother to find out.  They just hate because they are haters and cannot see what goes on on the private forums (for very good reasons).

I see plenty of people saying things like "they want to centralize bitcoin" and "they have a political agenda" and that is simply not true, if you read the blog posts you would know that.

However, I cannot say that every member is a saint or anything but we are not a pile of super-villains who are out to take over the world.  I would suggest people join up (it's not that expensive) and have their say if they are that worried about it.

I joined up (lifetime member) a long time ago because I thought it a good idea that we as a community could support a few core developers to work full time on bitcoin.

Neil

Relevant:


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=621770

Oh, so there is a private forum that we are not allowed to see, but only given access if we pay a fee. It's basically available to anyone as long as you pay membership. If it's not about the money, then why can't they post on public forums where it's free? This supports my first point: "1. They accept anyone that is willing to pay for membership." It's no longer about exclusivity, as there is no filtering of any sort for joining.

This also relates to their transparency. We do not know what goes on... unless of course we pay membership. And if I were to pay and join, I'd like to know where my money is going and what it's being used for. You can still support core development without supporting the whole foundation.

Yep, there used to be.  It has relaxed a lot since the inception and the public can see most of it now.  I believe it is everything expect membership lists and financial documents.

It used to be everything because the bitcoin foundation required real names when posting on the forums and not psudonames like we have here on bitcointalk.


Good, join up and you get voting rights and access to the reports!


Really?  when was the last time you sent something to Gaven for the work he does?  It sounds good in theory that the community will support the developers but in practice it did not work.

Neil

Ill give you just one reason.... They let people, or should I say scammers, like Updown.bt get a membership. He is a horrible campaign runner and website owner.

1) Irrelevant... Pretty much sums it up.  
2) Too much bias towards lobbying for corporate members
3) Brock Pierce - Indirectly
 
I'm not going to pretend whether I know he is guilty or innocent.  I really don't care.  However, he completely conflicts with my tenet of "If you have a target on your back, don't seek to become a representative-- because it will just wipe off on the group you're representing".

See sig for timeline..

they breed scammers

The Bitcoin Foundation needs to be disbanded.

1. I certainly didn't vote on having a Foundation and I don't think many/any of us did.
2. It violates the entire principal of decentralization.
3. A centralized entity such as the Bitcoin Foundation will only try to introduce centralized solutions to a decentralized technology
4. It can become a target for governments and corruption and manipulation.
5. I suspect The Bitcoin Foundation has motives counter to the purpose of Bitcoin itself.  It wouldn't surprise me if goverments are trying to plant people inside this Foundation to alter its course and attempt to gain a foothold on how Bitcoin develops.
6. Without the Foundation there is no central target, which is how it is supposed to be.

The real question is not if it needs to be disbanded or not, but how.

This is a very good point. How do we accomplish this?

Petition maybe?