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.
|
|
|
|
Please don't insult my intelligence. You know damn well what I meant with private. Everything about this foundation was kept private until a day ago, only the connected had the chance to have an input and you know damn well why that is.
You are simply engaged in fact-free trolling. There was a thread on the forum discussing the idea of a Bitcoin Foundation: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49841Please point to one post in that thread where exact plans were formulated. 1 single post. (And I didn't even read any of it.) |
|
|
|
The most crucial thing I always said about Bitcoin when I was trying to spread awareness about it (and I have done a hell of a lot of that in just the right circles) was that no one is in control, that there is no need to trust any person because the code sets the rules and the rules can't change because the code can't change. Well now I'm not so sure that is true anymore and I don't think I can be faithful to my self and my principles and keep advertising Bitcoin in the same manner. I hope though it still is true because I have a lot riding on this experiment but history teaches me that my hope pointless. Special interest now have a foot in the door and they will not ever pull it out ever again. That much I'm certain. What this means we'll find out I guess.
If you think BF changes anything about how bitcoin-the-protocol or bitcoin-the-software will work, then you simply never understood how bitcoin worked in the first place. Satoshi designed the system so that you would not have to trust the developer (him, a total unknown, pseudonymous individual). The dev team, by introducing git and gitian use, has made that compact even stronger. Given that you left out the part of my post calling you out on insulting my intelligence I'll take it that you agree that it was exactly what you were trying to do. An apology would be appreciated. As for how the code can change I understand how it works perfectly. There already was a change implemented to the original protocol with BIP16 and you know this more than anyone (again trying to insult my intelligence?). I realize that the rules were made stricter and are backwards compatible but don't pretend for a second a stricter and backwards compatible rules can't be malicious. I understand perfectly well that it's the community being individually diligent checking what the dev team does and the miners being individually diligent checking what the dev team does THE ONLY real barrier between what we have now and something out of our nightmares. I also understand that even if 99% of the network switches to something malicious I still have the choice to use the previous honest version which is true that it wouldn't kill it but it would set it back maybe so far it couldn't ever recover. 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. I wouldn't have a shred of a problem if you were a for profit business dependent on voluntary transactions which merely contracted with Gavin and his team. But you aren't and he is a board member inherently always with a conflict of interest. And saying I can start my own Foundation is disingenuous at best since you know I can't be the one that pays Gavin or his team and have the same power as you do. |
|
|
|
If this Foundation is really such a wonderful idea why then did you keep it's formation (founders, bylaws, mission statement, allocation of salaries, ect) private?
You have a confused concept of "private": Founders: https://www.bitcoinfoundation.org/about/boardBylaws: https://github.com/pmlaw/The-Bitcoin-Foundation-Legal-RepoMission statement: https://www.bitcoinfoundation.org/about/Allocation of salaries: nothing is being paid yet, AFAICT from reading this thread Why didn't you open a public thread on this forum and let everyone have an input how such an organization, if one was wanted or warranted in the first place, should be structured.
If you want to have a say in a self-organized group, become a member. Or create your own foundation. That's the beauty of the free market. Please don't insult my intelligence. You know damn well what I meant with private. Everything about this foundation was kept private until a day ago, only the connected had the chance to have an input and you know damn well why that is. And no sorry, I don't need to pay you or anyone else to get a tiny chance of changing some rules you thought off and I didn't I agree to follow. The most crucial thing I always said about Bitcoin when I was trying to spread awareness about it (and I have done a hell of a lot of that in just the right circles) was that no one is in control, that there is no need to trust any person because the code sets the rules and the rules can't change because the code can't change. Well now I'm not so sure that is true anymore and I don't think I can be faithful to my self and my principles and keep advertising Bitcoin in the same manner. I hope though it still is true because I have a lot riding on this experiment but history teaches me that my hope pointless. Special interest now have a foot in the door and they will not ever pull it out ever again. That much I'm certain. What this means we'll find out I guess. |
|
|
|
Please don't troll me. We all know who of these three groups is the most likely to try and push for something malicious and who of these three groups is the most likely to agree with it being bought and paid for and who of these three groups is the most likely to get screwed in the end powerless to stop it.
Next time, cut bigger air holes in your tinfoil mask, or just use a tinfoil beanie like normal people. IF someone pushed for something malicious, and no one but Atlas and a couple of other forum tools even imagine that anyone would, it wouldn't do them a damn bit of good. The people that could fuck you tomorrow are the same people that could fuck you yesterday. Having an advocacy group doesn't change a damn thing. Oh, it's an advocacy group? Well then, maybe they should rename themselves to "Bitcoin advocacy group" and relinquish any ownership of any Bitcoin assets at all. Then I'll be all for it. Like I said, please don't troll me. What do you mean by bitcoin assets? the code? or coins themselves? The foundation has never claimed to own the code. Assets: -lead dev -dev team -git repository access Is there anything else that matters and one can own when it comes to Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
Please don't troll me. We all know who of these three groups is the most likely to try and push for something malicious and who of these three groups is the most likely to agree with it being bought and paid for and who of these three groups is the most likely to get screwed in the end powerless to stop it.
Next time, cut bigger air holes in your tinfoil mask, or just use a tinfoil beanie like normal people. IF someone pushed for something malicious, and no one but Atlas and a couple of other forum tools even imagine that anyone would, it wouldn't do them a damn bit of good. The people that could fuck you tomorrow are the same people that could fuck you yesterday. Having an advocacy group doesn't change a damn thing. Oh, it's an advocacy group? Well then, maybe they should rename themselves to "Bitcoin advocacy group" and relinquish any ownership of any Bitcoin assets at all. Then I'll be all for it. Like I said, please don't troll me. |
|
|
|
is there any difference between the industry membership levels?
The board has two "industry member" representatives, and two " individual member" representatives. The seats are elected by members from the class that they represent. Yeah that's a real cake right there: corporate + founding members always have the majority, very "representative".  So do the corporate + individual members. Or the individual + founding members. This is very simple math. Are you surprised that 2+1>5/2 and 2+2>5/2 ? Please don't troll me. We all know who of these three groups is the most likely to try and push for something malicious and who of these three groups is the most likely to agree with it being bought and paid for and who of these three groups is the most likely to get screwed in the end powerless to stop it. |
|
|
|
is there any difference between the industry membership levels?
The board has two "industry member" representatives, and two " individual member" representatives. The seats are elected by members from the class that they represent. Yeah that's a real cake right there: corporate + founding members always have the majority, very "representative". |
|
|
|
"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. BTW is it just me or is the foundation website being DDOSed? |
|
|
|
(I am not sure if other countries work like that too)
Neither does yours. |
|
|
|
it's forcing the content creator to publish on the torrent as early as possible? is that fair provided that we support the copyright?
Who is this "we" you are talking about? |
|
|
|
This thread should be moved to "Service announcements" since it's simply announcing the formation of a US corporation that's looking for members.
I agree with this. |
|
|
|
It's good that the Foundation will be funding development and representing Bitcoin legally, but it's important that the ownership of Bitcoin-related assets doesn't become too centralized. In particular, the Foundation should not:
- Control bitcoin.org
- Control any DNS seeds, etc.
- Own copyright on the Bitcoin source code
- Own any patents
- Own the Bitcoin trademark (unless someone has to own it)
I've answered this on reddit and similar sentiments in the comment section of my recent article, but I also want to post here. [No comment from me on copyrights and patents, because I don't believe in them and I don't support their infrastructure.] theymos, thank you. I considered those issues as well prior to accepting the offer to join the board (and the specific direction is still being debated in multiple venues such as this forum). The success and organization of the Tor Project had a lot to do with my decision. As a libertarian and non-Statist on the Foundation board, I think that other libertarians and non-Statists would mostly agree that a transparent organization is preferable to a 'single anointed individual' that can select the next 'single anointed individual' in a non-transparent fashion (the community never voiced their opinion on Gavin taking over lead role for Satoshi — it just happened). Although it has worked out well, no one can guarantee the longevity of Gavin in that role. Open source software is actually more vulnerable to discreet State pressures and random bribery when only one, or a few, steer core protocol development without any community input on succession planning. A centralized individual is more corruptible than a group and the foundation is actually a step towards de-centralization in that regard. Additionally, I would think that bitcoin users in general would welcome a check-and-balance on the core development group that may or may not have been involved in receiving clandestine compensation on the side. Of course, nothing prevents that from occurring now or in the future but I believe that an accountable, nonprofit foundation would decrease its likelihood. Come on Jon, I thought better of you. You got it all backwards. Open source is incorruptible as long as people remain vigilant. It's impossible to sneak something malicious into the code even if some developer is getting paid on the side - if people pay attention. What you have done now is actually weaken this vigilance because a lot of the user base is going to rely on you - the board members - to be vigilant for them. We had checks and balances - the open source code anyone could read, and everyone was forced to read if they wanted to make sure. Now we have a political centralized service provider (the structure of which ensures that corporate + founders always have the majority) that only part of the community supports and that wants to be the face of something they have no control over, they have no ownership over and are going to give a false sense of security to some users diminishing the vigilance that will be necessary to protect the core of Bitcoin. If this Foundation is really such a wonderful idea why then did you keep it's formation (founders, bylaws, mission statement, allocation of salaries, ect) private? Why didn't you open a public thread on this forum and let everyone have an input how such an organization, if one was wanted or warranted in the first place, should be structured. I'm sorry but I don't like what you did with this Foundation one bit because I don't trust that you'll do what is best for my own personal interest because I do not pay you and I didn't give you my explicit consent arranged with a contract to do so. All I can do now is hope you remain powerless and hope that I am left alone to experience Bitcoin as I wish. And judging by history of mankind I get the sense this hope is all in vain. |
|
|
|
As long as the code remains open source, as long as miners remain independent and as long as users pay attention and stay vigilant before downloading any new version of the Satoshi client, Bitcoin Foundation can only benefit Bitcoin.
Wow, that is quite some conditions, some of which I feel are guaranteed not to be met. (Especially the ones relying on users). I'm sorry to break it to you but there is no system that will fight and protect your personal sovereignty for you. You have to do it yourself. |
|
|
|
The problem comes when a small group of people take it upon themselves to be the "face of Bitcoin" and start speaking for the rest of the community. Do they speak out against Silk Road? Do they condemn political extortion attempts? Do they comment on the thefts and fraud? Do their answers reflect on everyone's opinion? These are the real issues.
Why would that be a problem? This small group of people has decided to offer a service, we are not forced to pay. We can pay, or we can pay their competitor or we can keep our money therefor we, each of us, have the power. I think, although I dislike how the foundation is governed (corporate + founders = always majority), I still think it's ok for them to offer this service. As long as the code remains open source, as long as miners remain independent and as long as users pay attention and stay vigilant before downloading any new version of the Satoshi client, Bitcoin Foundation can only benefit Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
It's good that the Foundation will be funding development and representing Bitcoin legally, but it's important that the ownership of Bitcoin-related assets doesn't become too centralized. In particular, the Foundation should not:
- Control bitcoin.org
- Control any DNS seeds, etc.
- Own copyright on the Bitcoin source code
- Own any patents
- Own the Bitcoin trademark (unless someone has to own it)
I would like to echo this. The Bitcoin Foundation is a service which like any other layer on top of the core Bitcoin code must be and is optional. It can be a face for Bitcoin if their clients want it to be but it must not and can not control Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I think drawing any analogies from our current political system to Bitcoin is a fallacy and allow me to show you how: | Bitcoin | representative democracy |
Not true, a democracy is a system where the majority sets the rules everyone is forced to obey. No one is forced to obey Bitcoin's rules, you can simply change them and use your own on your own fork. Not true, a miner is a validator, just like any other user who runs a Bitcoin client. If miners were really voters than those who'd vote differently would be forced to follow the majority's rules and yet I just explained anyone is able to create a fork with their own rules they wish to validate. | pool operator | representative |
Not true, representatives' obligation is to represent their constituency, pool operators have no such obligation to anyone, they merely offer a service anyone is free to purchase or not. | hashing power | number of votes |
Not true, because as I explained mining isn't voting therefor hashing power isn't the number of votes. | software developers | policy writers |
Not true, policy is a rule enforced on all, software developers are merely writing software code anyone can chose to use therefor they do not write policy and cannot be policy writers. | Bitcoin foundation | large body of policy writers, receiving donations from industries and listening to the opinion of industries |
Not true, since there are no policy writers, there can be no large body of policy writers. However it is an organization - a layer on top of the code that is the core Bitcoin protocol - and offers a service this community is free take advantage off or not. One more time, no one is forced to do anything in Bitcoin which is basically why you can't draw a single valid analogy with a system that at it's core does exactly that. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the summation. You ->  I really wish there was a quick summary of every article everywhere in general, just giving the most relevant facts because I rather save some time then read a bunch of adjectives and the reporters opinion. |
|
|
|
|
I a bit wary of this extremely low volume of the last couple of weeks. I don't know what it means or why there it's so, any theories?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
