Lobby group...
Geeks don't know how to lobby. How can we ever defeat hollywood and Western Union? |
|
|
|
Maybe I was quick to judge without knowing the facts. Exactly what decisions will "A Bitcoin Foundation" be making, what type of public statements will they making, and what effect will they have on the Bitcoin economy and its ecosystem of users? We know that protocol decisions will follow the existing workflow (which works quite well, kudos to those involved). So what exactly will "A Bitcoin Foundation" be doing?
At the very least, pay Gavin and the developers to work on the project. Okay, no one in the forum is going misunderstand "A Bitcoin Foundation" as being the inventors / maintainers of Bitcoin. I'm talking about average every day people who don't know anything about Bitcoin but might read an article in a magazine about "A Bitcoin Foundation" or see a video from one of the board members and jump to a wrong conclusion.
I hope one of the work the foundation will be doing is remedying errors like that. |
|
|
|
The Bitcoin Network is pretty safe now, but what would happen if some government decided to shutdown the exchanges. If banks were cut off from exchanges or the major exchanges were all simultaneously DDOS'd how would anyone know the exchange rate of Bitcoin?
That's what localbitcoins.com but it's also centralized and don't have critical mass. |
|
|
|
\
Unfortunately, whatever is determined to pay Gavin, the current remaining four will want the same compensation, if not more depending on the average salary standards of their respected trade. Then you have a couple other seats available, with those filling them expecting the same. And finally there's the pseudonym seat. Surely he's deserves the same wage. So let's do the math. Eight seats times a respectable salary of $50,000 USD/year equals $400,000 USD/year.
Somebody check my work.
~Bruno~
Why do you assume that they're getting compensated for filling up those seats? |
|
|
|
Only a tiny fraction of folks, the ones who are intelligent and thoughtful, are going to think "an institution financed by a donation or legacy to aid research..." The rest are going to think "So they invented/operate Bitcoin."
So the foundation are going to talk to people ad nauseum: "No, we didn't invent bitcoin. We just help support and promote bitcoin." That works for me. |
|
|
|
|
How about the Bitcoin Support Group? Or the Bitcoin Helper Group?
|
|
|
|
I'd appreciate that.
But here is I think a GOOD TEST:
There is a lot of power in names - official titles of recognition. I understand the goals/purpose of the Bitcoin Foundation, but I don't believe this suffers depending on how the foundation is named. I do believe, however, inherent (political) power is given over by the name "Bitcoin foundation". So here is my test. Would one of the high level people answer this simply?
Would you be willing to change the name to something like the "We Use Coins Group"?
How about the Global Bitcoiner Association? |
|
|
|
Yes, the future is hard to predict, but some people have trouble predicting the past too.
It's called assuming that bitcoin economy respond to every minute positive and negative news. |
|
|
|
|
Maybe it should be renamed the Global Bitcoiner Association.
|
|
|
|
It is the world’s first, and so far only, decentralised online currency. Wrong, just the world oldest and most successful. |
|
|
|
Members that would occupy mining seats will protect interest of biggest mining pools, e.g. they will fight promotion of p2pool.
Individuals miners have more power than the pool operators. They can switch to whatever pools they want and the pool operators can't stop them. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin as we know it, and as it was devised by Satoshi will ALWAYS be against the interests of the modern, blood sucking state, period. They will never be allies unless Bitcoin becomes Paypal and tax accountability is in place. This is just a fact. Why do you think Satoshi was so particular about his anonymity? Because he thought he could "mainstream" Bitcoin?
The state is not a monolithic entity. The FBI don't gives a hoot about bitcoin destroying dollars, just as long as they're getting paid(does it matters what?) and you're not committing frauds. The CIA loves an anonymous way of funding their spy operations. Taxation works the same way. They could tax people without violating their financial privacy, but they don't wanna. The government could see bitcoin as a threat or an opportunity or just not care about it. It depends on how they see it. It's like a doctor seeing a new cure for cancer that will end his job. He can see it as a threat to his livelihood or he could embrace as saving his life. |
|
|
|
And is such formalization necessary? The potential for misunderstandings is big there.
If this was named "Gavin's Bitcoin Development Group" I'd probably be perfectly fine with it. "Bitcoin Foundation" is a lie in its own name, and will certainly provoke misunderstandings.
Very well. I understand your concern for big misunderstanding. However, I think they are overblown.
HTML5 doesn't have enemies. And HTML5 is not really significant to me, so I just don't care. About Bitcoin I do care though.
Sure it does, but they are weak or insignificant or they have become part of the HTML5 army. Think of android, for example, they have lot of powerful enemies. IF the bitcoin foundation can convert enemies to allies, it will done quite well for itself. Even if the bitcoin foundation is only used to fund Gavin, it would be worth it. |
|
|
|
Don't pirate software?  |
|
|
|
NO THANK YOU!. We have enough of the Bitinstant/MtGox vaporware and nonsense. I am going to pass on this one.
How about NOBODY that PROFIT from Bitcoin should be on the board? How about not having the SAME attorney for BitInstant and Roger Ver on the board of an "independent" fundation.
Everyone who own a single bitcoin profit when the price rise. So no bitcoiners should be on the bitcoin board. Only paypal and mastercard and everyone who hate bitcoin should be on board.(They don't profit from bitcoin, remember?) |
|
|
|
Do you want to bet that one year from now, if this organization is still up, many newbies coming by will believe "Bitcoin was created by the Bitcoin Foundation" or that the "Bitcoin Foundation decides the roadmap for the Bitcoin project and are responsible for it" etc? Or even that journalists will say such things?
Not to mention the risk of small manipulations. If they really don't even accept anonymous memberships, that already shows they miss some basic principles.
The bitcoin project is de-facto the official standard bearer for the development of the bitcoin network. The Bitcoin Foundation is just formalizing it. I would prefer if Bitcoin stayed just like E-mail: no "E-mail Foundation", no "E-mail phone number" etc, and everybody understands that very well. Nobody asks for an "authority over E-mail".
HTML5 is determined by a standard group. There's no evil people going around making HTML5 into a tool for government spying. |
|
|
|
...we require a real name and address for Individual members W. T. F.  Real identity in Bitcoin world? I hope u'll remove this nonsense soon. Guys, u r supposed to solve problems without help of outer world. If u need an instrument - make it! And how do you suppose we figure out if the half of the membership is actually ghost stuffed by a nefarious anonymous CIA operation? Foundation: Guys, 70% of the members in the bitcoin foundation want to deanonymize the network! Us: Bullshit! People at the meetup say they're voting for anonymity! Foundation: But they're real! They all paid a membership! CIA: MUAHHAHAH! We are destroying bitcoin for our government master. Wait, this mean we have no anonymous way to fund our spying operation. What will we do? Remember, anonymity cuts both way. They allows power for good, and for evil! Sometime, anonymity allows bad people to unmask an individual's financial privacy and get away with it. |
|
|
|
The rest of the humanity is free to join the network. They only need to read in the forums to start getting the information to start the trip. And one of the first things they will read, and I hope they would be searching for, will be the anonymity they can achieve working right with their bitcoins. This foundation crashes with anonymity.
Anonymity is important to you and me, but not necessary the whole of humanity. Also, the forum have trolls and idiots. Who wants to read about idiots arguing for ponzi scheme? The bitcointalk forum is an embarrassment. I think bitcoin doesn't need someone to talk from itself. Code, users, actions and time talks from itself. One error of a bitcoin user and some coins are lost. One error of the bitcoin fat ass target foundation and we can loose everything.
Give me an example how a fat ass target foundation will cause us to lose everything? |
|
|
|
Thankfully so.
"Bitcoin has no authority", remember?
(again, I'm not saying this is definitely a threat, but I don't like the approach)
And the foundation don't have the ability to compels the miners. |
|
|
|
I'd like to add that this poll is only about the INDUSTRY memberships. The individual membership fees are 25 BTC lifetime and 2.5 btc annual, so they are quite affordable.
I'd like to crosspost something that got little response in the foundation thread The industry pricing suggests that it is intended for "bitcoin industry", rather than "industry that happens to accept payment in bitcoin". Considering the structure of the organization, the distinction seems like a reasonable one to make.
where do pools fit in this? If mining is not a basic "industry" of Bitcoin - what is? pools support the bulk of miners and thus do most of the verification of the transactions on the Bitcoin network - for all the Bitcoin users 0fee pools will have 0 chance of attaining silver membership - even most pools with fees run on margins that do not allow one off payments of 500BTC I would like to be able to sign my registered business up as a corporate member, but simply cannot afford to. Graeme Tee Ozcoin pooled Mining Pty Ltd ACN: 152 509 272 Miners don't need representation in the foundation, other than support Gavin and make the bitcoin economy stronger. Miners can reject or accept any blocks they want. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
