Bitcoin Forum

This was the problem in making the "Bitcoin Foundation" an American organization.

They had the opportunity to take on a new leadership member recently. 
They were presented with candidates from around the world.  All of whom spoke strongly about making the foundation a worldwide organization. 
Instead, they chose the american girl who spoke heartily about keeping the Bitcoin Foundation an American central hub. 
All other countries would simply house "Satellite Offices" of the American organization.

Clearly this pissed off many, and for good reason.

Now we have a clear example of why the Bitcoin Foundation being an American organization is a bad thing.  

Why is the "hub" for decision-making on Bitcoin... in the belly of the Lion?

That has to be the worst idea ever.  Right in the middle of "regulation central" ...

It is just a decoy to keep them busy and amused before we make rewinding impossible. Hopefully.

because most of the members live in US i guess?



What i want to know is, why is The Bitcoin Foundation backing coin validation and red-listing !?

For the exact reason I created this thread.

They have to.  They're in the USA.   They are going to be pressured to comply.  They're going to be tortured over whether to stick to the Bitcoin philosophy, or risk it being "shut down".  

This is why the foundation should NOT be in the USA.  In the belly of the lion!

don't worry about it, it is all politics with the politicians, rhetoric.

they can't impose this anymore than you or I can... this is Direct Democracy. If it keeps the people who think they are in charge, feeling like they are in charge, then no sweat.

Everyone in the Bitcoin world has the power of choice. I simply cannot imagine them imposing us to use that system if the foundation of Bitcoin is on voluntary acceptance or not... you can always make your own branch, or ecosystem where all coins are accepted.

where should it be?

You know the best way to kill a Dragon?

From the inside.  ;D

Anyone can start a foundation, feel free to start your own. The more, the merrier.

The committee chairs, just as board directors, are free to have their own opinions on issues. It doesn't automatically imply that it is the policy of the Foundation. Just as forum members here disagree and debate, the members of the Foundation have similar disagreements and debates.

Also, it is not detrimental for the Bitcoin Foundation to have an office in the US and it does not have to be the only office worldwide. Remember, the Tor Project is a US-based nonprofit as well, because jurisdiction for a nonprofit is not very material.

In some completely neutral country or accepting one like germany for instance

Ask Greece how impressed they are with Germany's "neutrality."  Germany is by no means immune to the same pressures to respond to anything threatening their own hegemony in their own area of the world, just as the United States is.  Simply because they haven't done anything horrible yet with relation to BTC doesn't mean they never will.

While I agree that BCF (or its replacement if that is ever necessary) should be worldwide, the first regulatory pressure is likely to come from the direction of the United States.  You may try to ignore the U.S. government but it won't ignore you.  Having input into that process generally has better results than having the only people drafting regulations be ignorant people or actively enemies.

until know i only heard that Mike is pro red-listing. lets wait and see what the others say about that.

the community already voted.