How about this?  a couple minutes

Bitcoin Basic Concepts
•Bitcoin is a shared ledger system and the current state of the ledger is determined by a decentralized consensus.
•Bitcoin "mining" is the process of adding transactions to the ledger and is done by solving math problems that take substantial computational power.
•The "consensus" is achieved by users and "miners" deciding to run compatible versions of the software and enforcing the consensus rules.
•Users can run "nodes" using peer-2-peer connections that shares the ledger.
•Nodes enforce the rules by only broadcasting transactions and sections of the ledger that fit within the consensus rules.
•A user can verify the shared ledger took a huge amount of computational power to create as a way of trusting it is real.
•Miners get transaction fees and "block rewards" as an incentive to use their computer power.
•The "rewards" are a way to initially distribute the currency and are cut in half about every 4 years.
•Bitcoin addresses are secure because the numbers are so large that all the computers in the world cannot come close to cracking it.

Do you automatically trust people you don't know because they write code? 

What happens when the owners die and their heirs get control?

In any case the issue is resolved and the new description is on Google:

"Bitcoin is an innovative payment network and a new kind of money. Find all you need to know and get started with Bitcoin on bitcoin.org." 

If I understand things correctly there is nothing anyone can do via Bitshares to stop that from happening and you would be left with the legacy court system.

You have hit on what many Bitcoiners gloss over.  Decentralization is not for everything and it is only useful in certain specific use cases.  For instance, .bit domains using namecoin.  If people type in "Microsoft.bit" they don't want to end up on some anonymous site controlled by someone on Bitcointalk.org so the system will most likely never catch on in a big way.

yes, that was the old DMOZ description which is what the site used to be before is started being morphed:

Bitcoin-QT - The official bitcoin client

http://www.dmoz.org/search?q=bitcoin.org

Yes, anyone with any agenda can use Bitcoin.  what I am talking about are the people like Erik Vorhees, Roger Ver, Charlie Shrem, Stephanie Murphy, etc. who latched onto Bitcoin as way of promoting their agenda.  They often misrepresent Bitcoin when it fits their agenda because they are not rally promoting Bitcoin.  They think that their agenda is going to be "proven" if Bitcoin is successful. 

Take a look at that Bitcoin Bounty Hunter site.  The funniest part is posting "court documents" of the Bitcoinia lawsuit which consists of just a complaint.  It says Roger Ver, Jesse Powell, Jed McCaleb etc. are suing Amir Taaki, etc. for "breach of contract."  But if you read the complaint you can see NONE of the people suing have a copy of the contract but they claim if you get ahold of Amir he has a copy and that will prove their case.  So now he puts out a "bounty" because law enforcement is not doing their job.  How ridiculous can this get?  Who in their right mind would use financial services run by any of these people?

These are kind of stupid replies you get from the pseudo-libertarians.  You get some sound byte or meme and they act like they just trumped the whole discussion.  a "pseudo-libertarian" is someone who makes some kind of simplistic statement without much research or thought.  They only interact with other people like themselves so they sit around reinforcing each other with flawed and unrealistic ideas.  when they write about Bitcoin they start using political terms like "Libertarian," "state", and "leviathan."  No normal person describes Bitcoin that way unless they are using it to pursue some agenda. 

The people who unconditionally support Ross Ulbricht is an example.  If he really did what he is accused of then most people want him in jail.  I certainly don't want some nut job going around ordering murders.  If was a false prosecution then I want the prosecutors in jail.  What is really sad is that his Mother is upset and you have Roger Ver coming in and "donating" money for the legal defense fund.  Then he uses her in videos and blogs to try to promote his agenda.  You also have these "Bitcoins Not Bombs" people who used homeless people as billboards for their cause.  Nobody listens to them so they use homeless people.

Take another guy, Charlie Shrem.  he thinks all copyrights should be eliminated because it is a "Tool of the State."  Mr. anarchy lived with his parents and then got lucky with Bitcoin.  Maybe if he would try to earn a living as a musician for 10 years maybe he would understand what it is about.  But he doesn't take the time to understand the real world, he cries that nobody understands him except his Bitcoin friends.   

I certainly don't hate Libertarians.  I used to go to meetings at CATO institute when I lived in Washington, DC.  I also work with the NJ Libertarian's party on their Open Government Project.  So I like many normal Libertarians and people who fight for open government.  The guy who runs that project files lawsuits to gain access to government records.  He doesn't go around making a bunch of hyperbolic comments and meme's or attaching himself to a technology in order to promote himself.

They do not offer downloads of third party wallet programs at bitcoin.org like you claimed.  If what you say is true then the site is both managed and supported by a Bitcoin Foundation employee and they dictate the content.  "community of developers" is another one of those meaningless terms people like to say when they are trying to hide or misrepresent the actual process.  The site is run by a few insiders who attack people who complain.  I saw what they did to andreas Antonopoulos on there and he eventually left the Foundation. 

As for your statement:  "remember that gavin and the developers are smart enough to have his own mind and care more about bitcoin, than the bad acts of those fiat loving, tax dodgers of the foundation."  That is just another meaningless fanboy comment.  if they are so smart then they should be smart enough to distance themselves from people like Vessenes and they should not have supported things like Mt. Gox and Inputs.io.  The other point that you miss is that theymos is also involved in bitcoin.org.  He is known for running a site with scam after scam after scam right here.

Face facts, you treat Bitcoin like a religion and you can't see reality.   That fact is used to rip people off.  I remember when I started complaining about Mt. Gox.  In early 2013 I started saying that Mt. Gox did not know what they were doing and I used to complain to the Foundation.  My complaints were disregarded and the fanboys said how much Mt. Gox was doing for Bitcoin and I was  "troll."  In early 2013 I said that in 18 months that all the major players in the Foundation would be gone like Mt. Gox, Coinlab, and Bitinstant.  I was wrong in that I thought Theymos would be prosecuted by now.  if Gavin was so smart why didn't he work to remove the Bitcoin Foundation logos from Mt. Gox and Inputs.io?

You confuse being able to develop software with running a Foundation or a business.  Those are completely different things and just because someone writes some code does not mean they know anything else.  Look at Vitalik Buterin.  He can code but he also claims that 90% of the people in the world do no work and that in the future that number will rise to 99% so almost no one will have to work.  I guess he got that from watching that movie "Time Machine" but I am certainly am not going to listen that nonsense just because he can write code.

Bitcoin is experimental and in beta.  this is an experimental system on top of that.

Basically you create your own social network.  You can issue a "coin" or "shares" in your artist sort of like crowdfunding.  Since people own a "piece" of the artist they theoretically promote them in order to sell their "shares" at a higher value at some point.  you can offer coins for actions like commenting on a  story, purchasing products, etc. and you can redeem the coins too for whatever.

While system uses the decentralized blockchain, but the artist is not.  To offer a "coin" or "shares" for an IPO opens up so many legal questions I would not know where to start.  You could be seen as an administrator of a digital currency by FinCEN, offering a security by the SEC, a commodity by the Commodity Futures Trading commission, State laws, ... they mention Napster in the white paper but they failed to mention the total legal fees it generated.

If you want to hear the difference between a reasonable person and a "Bitcoin Wing Nut" listen to Preston Byrne and Stephanie on Let's Talk Bitcoin

http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-137-eye-of-the-beholder

He makes perfect sense and then look at all the comments of the story.  They claim he is a State lover, not  libertarian, and on and on.  All he did was describe reality (and I usually can't stand lawyers).  I could not find one valid objection to what he said or any explanation as to why he would be wrong for the position he is in. 

All the regulations have to do with interfacing Bitcoin with the legacy system that these people say they want eliminated so why should they care?  The proposed regs are for people that still want to use banks.  Not that I agree with the proposed regs but that is what they are. 
 

Replacing the USD is a bit much.  It will put pressure on current systems and it might collapse Western Union but collapsing national currencies is not going to happen anytime soon.  The Internet put pressure on politicians in ways that have never been done before but it still isn't stopping their shenanigans the way people thought it would.  I remember the protest where the web site owners turned the screens black and the people thought everyone would jump.  The reality was it took 20 or 30 minutes to explain the whole thing to a Washington Bureaucrat and they would just shrug their shoulders.

The real wacky stuff comes from the people who say it will end wars.  The theory being the whole world will switch to Bitcoin and it will somehow prevent governments from spending money on war (I guess they can't use the Dark Wallet?).  The first time I heard the whole thing was that Free State Radio who broadcast parts of the first big Foundation conference.  They played commercials claiming that all government employees were murderers.  That means janitors, social security workers, astronauts, etc. are all murders.  They also talk about 'government" as if is one thing all coordinated.  They played an excerpt from the Onion on the show and I could not tell the difference between the Onion stuff and the stuff they claimed to be serious.  One person who comes from this group often claims on podcasts that Bitcoin is increasing "exponentially" and that there is this "huge" Bitcoin economy.  The real reason is that almost nobody listens to their stuff so they have to latch onto a technology and claim that people who use it agree with them.

Bitcoin itself is a protocol and software program that is not political.  It may be used in a variety of different ways for a variety of purposes who have a political agenda but that is different then claimin that is what Bitcoin is.

People like Erik Vorhees who claim to know what Bitcoin is have latched onto the technology as a way of promoting his personal agenda and promoting himself.  He tries to misrepresent what Bitcoin is because he uses it as a bully pulpit because very few listen to his over-the-top nonsense.  His arguments consist of sound bytes and meme's.  Not that I totally disagree with the basic ideas of limited government but the way it is presented ranges from incredibly poor to ridiculous.  The same thing happened when the Internet was starting, all these people claimed the Internet was for freedom and it will end government corruption and give power to the people, yada yada yada.  Well guess what, it is now a tool for governments to spy on their citizens as well as a tool for freedom fighters.  The term most often used who go around claiming Bitcoin will replace the dollar, collapse governments, and end wars is "Pseudo-Libertarian" but I prefer "Bitcoin Wing Nut."

A couple Foundation employees played tag team to try to smooth things over in reddit.  Prior to this the education committee claimed their content was developed in a "decentralized" manner which they also agreed to change once I complained.  Plus there were those times when they claimed they represent all Bitcoin users and they said they would change their tune and state they only represent their users. 

In any case the latest claim here is that the info came from Google.  They updated the site description but it is not changed in Google yet so it is not yet resolved even though they closed the issue.

If you are talking about Alydian the court papers are all online where Barry Silbert's company, Bitvesment Partners, caught the transfer of the Bitcoins and it was the judge that scolded the legal team for making noises.  I tried to purchase the mining equipment and I said I wanted it delivered.  They went into court and said the potential bidders wanted the equipment left in place.

http://cointext.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/alydiancomplaint.pdf

The rest of the court docs are here:

http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/unc1p5dn/washington-western-bankruptcy-court/cli-holdings-inc/

A few entries pulled from the articled linked below:

Document 113-1, Page 24: "THE COURT: So that concerns me even more. Now what you’re saying is the debtor agreed to pay significant incentive compensation to employees of an insider without any court approval at all."

Document 113-1, Page 39: "But if you're asking me am I satisfied with the credibility of Mr. Vessenes? No, I am not."

Document 113-1, Page 41: "THE COURT: I mean, my preference would certainly be that CoinLab shouldn't be paid anything except by a motion and order of the Court, or somebody needs to be looking at the invoices. Because this is a lot of money being transferred to what is clearly an insider."

Document 113-1, Page 42: "THE COURT: I don’t know how legitimate these expenses really are because what I see is a debtor that has absolutely zero existence, zero — the debtor is nothing. The debtor has — doesn’t have — I can’t tell whether the debtor has the assets. Mr. Stehlik raised an issue about who owns the — you know, who owns the technology. I don’t know what it takes to prove what the debtor owns. The debtor has no employees. The debtor has no office. The debtor has nothing. And so I want to make sure that when we do this worldwide advertising we are not misrepresenting to the world what we have to sell, because the integrity of the bankruptcy process is at stake."

Document 113-1, Page 58: "THE COURT: I guess I don’t understand how the mining works such that when the November monthly report was filed on December 17th, it showed no revenue, and it wasn’t until the day after Mr. Vessenes’s deposition that it was amended to show $1.8 million."

Document 113-2, Page 21: "So, Your Honor, it’s very simple. This is a highly profitable enterprise. It doesn’t need this bankruptcy. It has no business filing a bankruptcy petition, and the sale motion that is a big piece of this puzzle should be denied."

Document 113-2, Page 26: "There were payments to insiders two days before, and as of the date — only a couple of hours before the bankruptcy petition was filed, the debtor transferred as of today’s value over $12 million worth of bitcoins. The debtor repeatedly lied about it in his schedules, on Schedule 3B at the 341 meeting of creditors, and only amended SOFA No. 3 the day after the Rule 2004 exam, during which time it was confronted with evidence that these payments were actually made immediately before the bankruptcy petition. We have multiple other misstatements in the schedules, including Schedule D, which states that the debtor had no bitcoins as of the date of the filing of the petition."

Document 113-2, Page 29: "THE COURT: Okay, Ms. Glynn Levin, I can tell you, because I sit up here, that Ms. Simonyan didn’t make any noises or anything like that when she heard you say things that she didn’t like, so you need to give her the same respect."

Document 113-2, Page 33: "First of all, as the Court can see, many of these emails are gibberish. There are characters that are completely unreadable. Some of the font sizes are so small that it’s impossible to even read the parts that are in actual English."

Document 113-2, Page 65: "Post-petition contracts. I suppose the debtor could argue this was in the ordinary course of business, but I’m going to say it’s not. A contract signed between the debtor and a related entity which is signed by the person that I am counting on to be in charge of the debtor in possession, Mr. Vessenes, when he signs with both hats on, I have to have all of my systems on high alert."


some articles

http://two-bit-idiot.tumblr.com/post/79487498877/peter-vessenes-and-the-curious-bankruptcy-case-of

http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/20140212/do-you-trust-the-bitcoin-foundation/

How about all the users who trusted the Bitcoin Foundation logos on all those sites where their funds were lost?  If the Foundation logo appeared on a web site it was highly likely the customers would lose their funds.  That is the "brand" of the current Foundation.  Maybe in the future the principles' of the Foundation won't want other wallets/services posted so they just say it is defective to prevent them from being listed?  Don't you think that is a distinct possibility?

The Chairman of the Foundation was aalso ccused of all sorts of things in the recent bankruptcy trial ranging from transferring $millions in Bitcoin hours before filing bankruptcy to his legal team disrupting the court proceedings by making noises in the court while the other party was presenting their case.  Now you want users to go to a web site supported by them so they don't get ripped off?  Some of the same people who run this site are involved with control of that site as well.  You can trust who you want but I don't trust any of those people.

The fact is they are not "official" and they don't represent anyone except themselves.

Nothing is uploaded to Bitcoin.org.  They provide links to various wallet services and there is no standard testing method or standard method of accepting/rejecting something.  It is decided by a small group and since I can't see how the decisions are made I don't always trust the decisions.

I guess it is still unclear how it got in there.  It looks like it has been that way for a couple years and nobody did anything to change it.  the description is not in DMOZ or Yahoo directory so it is still unclear.  Google is not my friend and neither is Theymos or the Foundation so I don't trust either site completely.   

Scammers?  You mean like the businesses that sported a Bitcoin Foundation logo like Mt. Gox and Inputs.io?  Newbies should not be mislead into thinking Foundation-controlled we sites (or Theymos-controlled wen sites) are official so they do not fall for the things that get posted there.

I had posted an issue on Github.  they claimed they made some kind of fix but it will take awhile for it to complete but they closed the issue already before it was fixed with Google.  It turns out this came up a couple years ago.  https://bitcointa.lk/threads/why-is-bitcoin-org-claiming-to-be-the-official-site-of-bitcoin.71845/

I thought the site was the main site for the Github project but now you say it is morphed into the main site for all of Bitcoin?  When did that change?  Are you saying this decentralized thing is too complicated and it is much easier to turn things over to an "official" web site that decides which services and wallets get listed? 

Most people won't know.  Not sure what you mean by "us" since Bitcoin is open source and decentralized anyone can use it.

The site decides which wallets and services get listed.  the site is directed at new users who don't know about Bitcoin.