Bitcoin Forum

> If the eye of Sauron is upon you GTFO of Mordor!

The foundation is based in and under the jurisdiction of the US of A. The USA is an absurdly overregulated economy with a regime that is trying to abolish privacy in all aspects of people's lives and thus the most hostile environment for Bitcoin on this planet. The fact that the majority of the current members of the foundation board run rather big businesses that are dependent on the goodwill of that regime does not really make things better.

It is a no-brainer to demand the foundation being internationalised and based in a more freedom-affine country that embraces innovation instead of trying to keep the status quo by all means. We should promote the creation of several independant foundations, associations, societies or organisations, be they defined geographically or focused on certain aspects of crypto-economics or certain goals of their members.

Any satoshi spent on 'lobbying for Bitcoin in Washington' is an irresponsible waste of money donated by members of the Bitcoin community in good faith. And it will take us exactly nowhere.

The absurdity of trying to regulate Bitcoin

> Imagine Gutenberg going to Rome to lobby for the printing press with the Pope!

There is an obvious divide going right through the Bitcoin community, more like a canyon than like a gap: for and against trying to get regulation and compliance of Bitcoin.

I am clearly taking a side on this issue: lobbying for Bitcoin and trying to implement it into the regulatory framework of the legacy financial system is an absurd, unreasonable and irresponsible waste of resources.

I would like to lift this discussion away from Bitcoin to the level of crypto-currency altogether. It is possible, even though now hardly imaginable, that Bitcoin could be co-opted on a political level and turned into something controllable. That is what the people on the regulatory side will ultimatively want and it means the implementation of transaction-reversibility, black- or whitelisting and KYC and AML on every level, even for human to human transactions. The regulators will not stop at getting the exchanges regulated (which is fine by the way as long as people can choose not to use them). Regulators and governments do not stop at half way or at 99% control, they want 100% control, always. 'A little regulated' is as much possible as 'a little pregnant'. Everybody who stands for 'compromising with the government' sounds like a dreamer to me as I have never seen a government 'compromise' with its subjects.

But even in the unlikely event of Bitcoin being turned into Paypal 2.0 that would not stop but merely delay the rise of crypto-currency as the next, more resilient one is waiting just around the corner. Even if the pope would have gained control over Gutenberg's first printing press and turned it into a machine that can only print bibles in latin the next free printing press would have been built the next day by someone else.

The printing press and crypto-currency both are the kind of invention that change things forever. The first took away the church's monopoly on the contents of books and the second took away the government's monopoly on the creation of money. This kind of thing cannot be turned back, the technology is out and will never be collectively forgotten again.

Therefore and beyond all unnecessary and highly ideological arguments: you cannot regulate the unregulatable so let's stop wasting energy on this absurd undertaking please.

We can merely try to inform and educate governments and people about the changes coming up in order to help smooth the transition from our world to the rising crypto-economy so that this transition will be as painless and with as few victims and as little collateral damage as possible.

Joerg points out the problem but what is his solution?

Might Germany be more hospitable?

I thought I had made that clear, sorry if not:
"... the foundation being internationalised and based in a more freedom-affine country that embraces innovation instead of trying to keep the status quo by all means. We should promote the creation of several independant foundations, associations, societies or organisations, be they defined geographically or focused on certain aspects of crypto-economics or certain goals of their members."

We should decentralise and diversify and be in the jurisdictions that do not intend to regulate Bitcoin to death.

Once governments understand that this emerging market will develop there where one does not try to stop it (can't be stopped anyhow) and that this brings innovation and economic growth then governments will start sending lobbyists to the Bitcoin community in order to make themselves more attractive to the businesses and people who develop it.

Joe

Oh, and Joerg goes on to say:

Regulators and governments do not stop at half way or at 99% control, they want 100% control, always. 'A little regulated' is as much possible as 'a little pregnant'.

I have never seen a government 'compromise' with its subjects.

But even in the unlikely event of Bitcoin being turned into Paypal 2.0 that would not stop but merely delay the rise of crypto-currency as the next, more resilient one is waiting just around the corner.

Therefore and beyond all unnecessary and highly ideological arguments: you cannot regulate the unregulatable so let's stop wasting energy on this absurd undertaking please.

Can you be more specific?  What countries?  Diversify?  How many organizations and where?  Lots of pie in the sky talk...seems like.

I am clearly taking a side on this issue: lobbying for Bitcoin and trying to implement it into the regulatory framework of the legacy financial system is an absurd, unreasonable and irresponsible waste of resources.

I don't say we should not interact with and talk to government.

But looking at the disruptive potential of crypto currency I strongly believe that the lobbying-concepts of the past will not take us anywhere when it comes to organising a smooth transition of our current system to one based on crypto technology.

There is no point trying to get crypto currency implemented into the old system and it's ideals and ideas, now's the time to develop entirely new systems and ideas that are only now possible with the advent of the blockchain.

Governments an financial institutions will play a much smaller role in that new system and this is what we need to educate them about. We need to develop new ideas for how an adminstration can get the funding for necessary projects after having lost the power to tax income or to confiscate bank accounts whenever they need some cash because simply these times are coming to an end. We need mechanisms that allow the funding of public goods and services based on volantury contributions by the people who understand that their society needs these goods and services and who can by funding these projects make their vote for what the government should do with every payment.

We are talking about hyperdemocratisation.

And we need to consult government in regards to what they can do to make the transition as painless and with as little victims and collataral damage for society as possible. That is their ultimate responsibility.

Imagine an asteroid heading towards earth on collision course. Seeing it comming, does it make more sense to turn around and ask the government if that asteroid has all the licences it needs to creat a compliant impact on the planet's surface or does it make more sense to try to estimate the location and magnitude of that impact and to evacuate as many people as possible and to get prepared for the consequences of the impact?

Crypto currency is a rather huge asteroid for the financial system and it does not care about being licensed or not in the long run and no license will reduce its impact.

I hope y'all voted for Joerg!

Why does it seems important who get titles in an invented group?

Just start "The international bitcoin foundation" (or another name) elsewhere. There is no monopoly on it in the USA.  Competition is good.

People are free to vote with their donations.

Just finished listening to the recording. Good stuff. In my view, Joerg (https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/344-individual-candidate-joerg-platzer/page__st__80#entry4573) and Trace (https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/295-individual-candidate-trace-mayer-jd/page__st__20#entry4570) gave the strongest impressions, just about tied, but Ben also did a good job (all the more so given the raspy throat, which can't have been pleasant, as Adam noted).

The debate formed clearly around a big divide (to a first approximation coincident with the Atlantic?) regarding the necessity to internationalize (https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/378-non-us-candidates/) the Foundation, and I suspect the votes next week may fall not dissimilarly—with Joerg and Trace on the one side, and largely Ms. Ploshay on the other.

As Joerg pointed out in the debate, what's at stake here is whether, going forward, this Foundation is to become the global umbrella organization for the Bitcoin universe, or merely remain a perceptibly U.S.-centered "Big Bitcoin" business club. If the Foundation's ~40% U.S.-based electorate should fail to look outward in this election, another organization will soon enough fill that void and the international relevancy of this Foundation will diminish accordingly and appropriately.

I know that a bunch of people over here in the Old World are just itching to make that happen, but I'd personally rather see this Foundation salvaged and repurposed towards better ends, as Jon Matonis is as ideal an appointment for an outwards-looking Executive Director as anyone could hope for. In any case, the electorate's decisions next week will be revelatory and significant.