Oh and let's be precise. The plan was never openly discussed, just Gavin's intentions or wishes. The plan was formulated and executed in private and this is a fact which you admit.
Yes, let's be precise. You go first. "The plan"... what, precisely, was done in private and unexpectedly? A large amount of details are simply obvious, falling out naturally from the creation of a legal entity: You have to choose a name. You have to file paperwork with a government in a physical jurisdiction. You will be dispensing funds, thus you will need to collect some funds from initial funders and board members. A members-based trade organization for open source projects is a common sight, with a familiar structure. Simply saying "foundation for bitcoin" tells you it will probably look and work like Linux Foundation, Apache Software Foundation, Tor Project, GNOME Foundation, etc., etc. So for anyone remotely paying attention... the plan and likely details are quite public. The only private detail I can see is simply the Board, funding and members present on Launch Day. Readers please note the continued trickery. Before it was "The plan was publicly discussed", when called on the trickery it changes to "The plan wasn't really publicly discussed but the intentions were so you should have guessed the plan." You know, I really wouldn't have such a hard time swallowing this Foundation if you could just address criticism honestly and say: Hey yes, you are right, we did forge the plan and executed it in private with a select few because we thought this is the only way we could do it. You are right, it wasn't open, that's why to address this and make it open we are going to do the following.. But no, you lie. Blatantly. Same with Charlie. When asked about the power the Foundation will have he says it's severely limited by it's bylaws, when asked to provide the section of the bylaws that does it it changes to an implied "Well we don't really have limits other than we cann't control how Bitcoin is run." This is not how honest business is being done and don't think for a second we are naive and can't smell the stench emanating from your and the board member's posts. |
|
|
|
This is disingenuous at best because what was discussed there is merely the idea of such an organization and not a single detail of the actual implementation. I don't understand why you need to employ such trickery and keep misleading people? The foundation was formed in private among a select minority - this is a fact. The plan was openly discussed. And then linked in the OP. It is self-evidently misleading on the part of critics to portray the forming of a foundation as a "secret plot." 11 months ago the forum saw "I would like to get something imperfect up and running quickly, with the expectation that it will evolve over time." And that's what you do: you find a group of people that can get something going, do-ers rather than talk-ers, and you pool initial funds and file legal paperwork. If problems are found, you change. Otherwise nothing gets done, outside of rampant bike shedding over names and other superficial details. "THE Bitcoin Foundation"? "A Bitcoin Foundation"? "A Bitcoin Group"? "Cream of Mushroom Engineer"? At some point, it is better to do and get feedback and fix mistakes in an iterative process. Oh and let's be precise. The plan was never openly discussed, just Gavin's intentions or wishes. The plan was formulated and executed in private and this is a fact which you admit. |
|
|
|
This is disingenuous at best because what was discussed there is merely the idea of such an organization and not a single detail of the actual implementation. I don't understand why you need to employ such trickery and keep misleading people? The foundation was formed in private among a select minority - this is a fact. The plan was openly discussed. And then linked in the OP. It is self-evidently misleading on the part of critics to portray the forming of a foundation as a "secret plot." 11 months ago the forum saw "I would like to get something imperfect up and running quickly, with the expectation that it will evolve over time." And that's what you do: you find a group of people that can get something going, do-ers rather than talk-ers, and you pool initial funds and file legal paperwork. If problems are found, you change. Otherwise nothing gets done, outside of rampant bike shedding over names and other superficial details. "THE Bitcoin Foundation"? "A Bitcoin Foundation"? "A Bitcoin Group"? "Cream of Mushroom Engineer"? At some point, it is better to do and get feedback and fix mistakes in an iterative process. Ok here's my feedback on what mistakes were made now please fix them: - Gavin or anyone else who is a dev should not be on the board of directors, he and all the other devs should be independently contracted by the Foundation - name should be changed to something that does not imply ownership or control of Bitcoin or any aspect thereof - First board members need to be voted on. I expect these corrections to happen ASAP. Thank you. |
|
|
|
If these guys who started "A Bitcoin Foundation" would have embraced the community a little better instead of twirling their moustaches while hatching their plot in secret, perhaps the rollout would have been welcomed almost unanimously with open arms. Instead, they caused a divide. Bad karma.
This secret plot was openly discussed in this thread. This is disingenuous at best because what was discussed there is merely the idea of such an organization and not a single detail of the actual implementation. I don't understand why you need to employ such trickery and keep misleading people? The foundation was formed in private among a select minority - this is a fact. |
|
|
|
So what you are telling me now is that you lied in your post and that in fact you can gain power and are not limited by your bylaws except you can't control how Bitcoin is being run?
Pay attention to his post, he was quoting what someone else said. Thank for for pointing that out. No I'm sorry. I'm not going to let you off the hook this easy. You made a claim that the Foundation cannot gain any power because it is limited by it's bylaws. I then made a reference to the bylaws that you said is not the section governing what the Foundation can or can't do upon which I asked if you'd be so kind to quote the section that is. You did not, instead you asked a question which implied that you in fact have no limits imposed by your bylaws except the limit of Bitcoin's design which doesn't allow you to control it how it's run. I then asked why you lied such limits were imposed by bylaws. My question is this: Can you please quote the section of your bylaws that limits what the Foundation can or can't do with regards to acquiring or increasing it's power? If not, why did you say such limits existed? Btw if I need to I'll compose a post with all the quotes matching the above. Charlie? |
|
|
|
My questions weren't answered, weird: How are you going to eliminate the conflict of interest Gavin as the lead Bitcoin developer and as a member of the board at the same time will have?
Would you agree a more transparent, less corruptible and more honest approach would have been to merely contract with Gavin and his team and not add him to your leadership?
How do you defend asserting your own person and the rest of the board as the face of Bitcoin? How can we expect good intentions from this organization with such a start?
|
|
|
|
I don't understand what "power" has to do with any of this. What am I missing?
You are missing everything. Power was suppose to be decentralized residing with individuals with a central authority. We now have a quasi central authority that it's true, it can't control how Bitcoin runs, but it can control all the other aspects of it: lead dev, dev team, logo, pr, legal, you name it. And I didn't consent to any of it. On a personal note, I can't tell you how exhausting today is for me. Even my family noticed I was feeling really down. |
|
|
|
Hey Erik, why the change of heart?: Gavin - seems like a reasonable idea.
Bitcoin would still have all the advantages of being decentralized (no central server, no office to raid and shut down. etc), but gets the added advantages of a core organization to guide it. Perhaps the core organization will get destroyed by the evil powers, but I'm not sure that'd be incredibly damaging to Bitcoin as a protocol. The community would just grow a new command center when the old was destroyed.
The main danger is if the community trusts such an organization too much. For example- if everyone assumed the client version put out by the organization was trustworthy, then there is serious danger. A group as you propose should probably exist, but the community should remain skeptical of it, and always constructively critical.
After a few mins of more thinking...
Perhaps the idea of an "official" group is not wise. Instead, the core dev team could create an organization, with special logo and name. This organization would be the de facto official group, but only so long as it held up its reputation. At all times, other groups can form and compete for "de facto officialness."
In essence then, this would just be a Non-profit, spontaneously organized by individuals. If multiple such organizations sprout up, then each community member can support whomever they wish.
Think of it like a market for competing representatives. No group official by law, but any group official by market sentiment. We would see one group come to dominate the sentiment, but Bitcoin would not be irrevocably tied to it.
No group should be granted an explicit monopoly... but an implicit market-derived monopoly would not bother me.
And today: "Warning - while you were reading 193 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post."
LOL
For the record, I LOVE that the Foundation exists now. I think this is a huge positive step for Bitcoin. Few negatives, plenty of positives. I also understand the concern many people feel - we should always be diligent and skeptical of anyone trying to be "the face" of Bitcoin. But in this case specifically, and to the extent this Foundation can act in certain manners for certain goals, I think it's a very legitimate development and I'll be joining as a paying member here soon.
I don't see a change of heart in my above statements. Anyone can make another Foundation or group to develop, make standards, raise money, represent itself, etc. I would prefer for this Bitcoin Foundation to not label themselves verbatim as "The Official Organization In Charge Of Bitcoin" etc., and I don't think they're doing that. The language used will be important, but the Foundation should earn it's "official" reputation through its actions and relationships with people, not through "claiming" it explicitly, if that makes sense. Again, a market-based, central organization is something I have no problem with. So long as others can organize their own organizations with their own agendas, all is well. I will say, however, if the Bitcoin Foundation ever seeks Government legislation which curtails the decentralized, market-based nature of Bitcoin, I will be vociferously opposed. I do not believe anyone on the board desires such legislation. Heh Erik.. As I've established no other foundation, if it were to be established, could possibly have the same influence and power as this one with the name Bitcoin Foundation (something you opposed to), with Gavin on the board of directors and with free will to join another foundation or not and with most powerful business' CEOs on the board of directors. If you are honest with yourself and you read you're posts from then you will admit that this is not what you wanted. It doesn't matter what their intentions are today. They have a foot in the door now. Their intentions can change and we all know how that worked out for let's say the once freest country on this planet. |
|
|
|
So what you are telling me now is that you lied in your post and that in fact you can gain power and are not limited by your bylaws except you can't control how Bitcoin is being run?
Pay attention to his post, he was quoting what someone else said. Thank for for pointing that out. No I'm sorry. I'm not going to let you off the hook this easy. You made a claim that the Foundation cannot gain any power because it is limited by it's bylaws. I then made a reference to the bylaws that you said is not the section governing what the Foundation can or can't do upon which I asked if you'd be so kind to quote the section that is. You did not, instead you asked a question which implied that you in fact have no limits imposed by your bylaws except the limit of Bitcoin's design which doesn't allow you to control it how it's run. I then asked why you lied such limits were imposed by bylaws. My question is this: Can you please quote the section of your bylaws that limits what the Foundation can or can't do with regards to acquiring or increasing it's power? If not, why did you say such limits existed? Btw if I need to I'll compose a post with all the quotes matching the above. |
|
|
|
I agree with the sentiment that at this point the bitcoin experiment cannot be inherently anti-government if it is to succeed in the end. Bitcoin is inherently anti-government since it takes away power from those who would live at the expense of others. Exactly and this board could easily one day neuter Bitcoin from being a free currency to a fiat, government-controlled one by making standards for the protocol that everyone would be forced to abide by through corporate and social influence. Corporate and social influence != force. That is the mistake you're making. There is absolutely no problem with "influence" and every problem with "force." The Foundation will have lots of influence (and I think the current board has earned it), but no force, and thus I welcome it. Influence is being expressed in either two ways: People either want to emulate you, or you force them to conform. I feel forced to conform but I'd be perfectly fine if I had the option to emulate you. |
|
|
|
Your bylaws reference is speaking of something totally different, corporate law, that states that the foundation can sell t-shirts but not illegal firearms..nothing to do with promoting Bitcoin
-Charlie
But you said you are limited by them. Could be so kind to point out the section of the bylaws that limits you to what the Foundation can do? You tell me, what can the foundation do thats not already obvious? We have no control over Bitcoin, Bitcoin runs itself. Wait a min, you said (in bold):
The problem I have with this Foundation is that it asserted itself over this experiment and the community. No one asked you to. No one gave you permission. You just did it. You created a corporation to wield power no one granted you.
THIS! HEAR HEAR! The problem with both you and shad0wbitz (which ive pointed out many times) is that you assume the foundation is assering itself, you assume we are wielding power which in fact we are not. Its not a complicated structure to understand and you can create your own foundation to help further Bitcoin. Foundation has no power or control, and no one owns the foundation its owned by you. Like I said, when elections come the whole board can be replaced and you can be on it -Charlie This contradicts your Executive Directors statement in regards to standards. You guys want to make standards for security and the Bitcoin protocol. You are asserting yourself in many ways, especially with your proposed certifications and the cost it takes for businesses to join. Your foundation will eventually gain power if the industries within form trusts to control the message and force competitors out of its veil of legitimacy. Matt, That has nothing to do with power Again, all you do is assume without facts. "Your foundation will eventually gain power" It's not my foundation, its YOUR foundation, Ive stated this many times. We cant gain power, in fact we cannot do anything outside the bylaws. The certifications are for anyone to join and use. If you dont like it, don't join it or start your own foundation. If you have problems, join the board, and enjoy Have a great day -Charlie So what you are telling me now is that you lied in your post and that in fact you can gain power and are not limited by your bylaws except you can't control how Bitcoin is being run? |
|
|
|
"Warning - while you were reading 193 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post."
LOL
For the record, I LOVE that the Foundation exists now. I think this is a huge positive step for Bitcoin. Few negatives, plenty of positives. I also understand the concern many people feel - we should always be diligent and skeptical of anyone trying to be "the face" of Bitcoin. But in this case specifically, and to the extent this Foundation can act in certain manners for certain goals, I think it's a very legitimate development and I'll be joining as a paying member here soon.
I must wonder if you'd be saying the same if Charlie wasn't a board member. Not that I think you're trying to be manipulative, it's just hard to believe you are looking at this objectively and aren't highly biased. Please, don't be absurd.  If Charlie was doing something I disagreed with, he would know, and I'd have no problem discussing it on the forum. It happens that Charlie and I tend to agree on almost everything, especially after some discussion... though he's still slightly too statist for my taste, though this is changing fairly quickly, because Charlie is a smart guy  I've long been in favor of a more formal, more structured Foundation type organization to foster Bitcoin growth. I worry that people do not understand the difference between voluntary, market-based order and coercive order. They think the Foundation is the latter, when it's not. A decentralized system can (and indeed, ought to) have certain "nodes" of organization and structure. It is the same dynamic which occurs with the bitcoin exchanges. The system is decentralized, yes, but it needs points of centralization (again, this is market-based centralization) to carry out specific functions such as bringing many buyers and sellers together to trade in the case of exchanges. Those who think exchanges shouldn't exist, and Bitcoin should only be traded among P2P systems, are not thinking clearly, and don't understand how markets operate. And just as one exchange may hold "influence" on the market, it cannot control it. The same is true with the Foundation. Do not fear private, voluntary organization among intelligent, productive people. Avoiding, or condemning, such organization is antithetical to Bitcoin progress. All the best Bitcoin successes will be brought about not by perfectly decentralized, independent action of individuals, but by the voluntary cooperation and structure each individual builds with others. The Foundation is just another example of this, and I'm excited to see the progress this structure will bring. It was an honest question, especially since I read you reservations that I quoted and you didn't reply to. I just don't understand how you can objectively justify classifying this foundation as decentralized and merely a node when the board of directors are lead dev + two biggest businesses in Bitcoin. Yes I agree with you, but your words do not match the reality. The reality is this is a corporation that asserted itself as the face of Bitcoin. Otherwise it wouldn't have: - included lead dev on it's board of directors - thereby given itself access to the git repository - chosen the name Bitcoin foundation - been devised in private among a small group - ect (all the other tale tale sings of a centralized power grab) You just can't objectively call this decentralized. But again I actually agree with you. With your words anyway. I would have loved if this were a voluntary private association. I would have loved if someone started a for profit business that merely contracted with Gavin and was dependent on income from product it offered the community. I would have loved if arrangements were fixed with personal contract and not hidden behind a corporation and it's open ended bylaws. I would have loved that. But this isn't it. It's another animal of the state, designed to wield power over a community who never gave it's consent. |
|
|
|
Your bylaws reference is speaking of something totally different, corporate law, that states that the foundation can sell t-shirts but not illegal firearms..nothing to do with promoting Bitcoin
-Charlie
But you said you are limited by them. Could be so kind to point out the section of the bylaws that limits you to what the Foundation can do? |
|
|
|
We cant gain power, in fact we cannot do anything outside the bylaws.
What exactly is excluded by your bylaws then anyway, especially since they are written so open ended: ARTICLE II - PURPOSES
Section 2.1 Purposes: The Corporation is an association of persons having a common business interest, the purpose of which is to promote that common business interest and to engage in any lawful activity permitted under section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code, or the corresponding section of any future federal tax code. More specifically, the purposes of the Corporation include, but are not limited to, promotion, protection, and standardization of distributed-digital currency and transactions systems including the Bitcoin system as well as similar and related technologies. The way I read this you can do whatever you want as long as you follow the current or future US laws which basically can be anything. How is that a limitation in any way shape or form? Will I get a reply to this Charlie? |
|
|
|
|
People keep replying to me as if I'm 5 years old or mentally retarded. Please stop it.
|
|
|
|
Its not a complicated structure to understand and you can create your own foundation to help further Bitcoin.
Will Gavin leave your Foudation and join mine? Hell, I'll leave this foundation and join yours if I like it  I hate to keep having to point this out but its NOT MY foundation. Your statement should say "Will Gavin leave the current Foudation and a newer one that I helped put together?" I other words it's up to him. I think it's not wrong to assume it would only ever happen if it benefited either you or him, not Bitcoin per se. So much for "I can start a new foundation.." |
|
|
|
Its not a complicated structure to understand and you can create your own foundation to help further Bitcoin.
Will Gavin leave your Foudation and join mine? Would Gavin even be required to leave TBF to join a different Foundation? Well let's see, you have a foundation that is called the Bitcoin Foudation with the lead dev and his team and then you have something else foundation without the lead dev and his team. Which one do you think can accomplish more and which one do you think wont even be taken seriously if there ever should be a conflict? |
|
|
|
We cant gain power, in fact we cannot do anything outside the bylaws.
What exactly is excluded by your bylaws then anyway, especially since they are written so open ended: ARTICLE II - PURPOSES
Section 2.1 Purposes: The Corporation is an association of persons having a common business interest, the purpose of which is to promote that common business interest and to engage in any lawful activity permitted under section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code, or the corresponding section of any future federal tax code. More specifically, the purposes of the Corporation include, but are not limited to, promotion, protection, and standardization of distributed-digital currency and transactions systems including the Bitcoin system as well as similar and related technologies. The way I read this you can do whatever you want as long as you follow the current or future US laws which basically can be anything. How is that a limitation in any way shape or form? |
|
|
|
Its not a complicated structure to understand and you can create your own foundation to help further Bitcoin.
Will Gavin leave your Foudation and join mine? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
