To promote transparency and enforce fair voting procedures, we require a real name and address for Individual members. We will eventually include address and name verification procedures. Please note that member dues paid to records that do not include a real name and mailable address will not be refunded. Thank you! Why address? Prevention of double voting can be accomplished using name ID only. There is no need for the foundation to have my home address. Passports and many national ID cards do not have address on them, so you would need to obtain utility bills for proof of address creating an unnecessary paperwork burden. I would be happy to verify my name using passport but I will not be supplying my home address. I hope the Foundation could reconsider removing the address requirement from individual membership. If we are ever going to be accepted by the mainstream establishment, we need to conform with the regulations governing it. It is time Bitcoin grew up and started playing by the rules. In the meantime, we will be making sure the long-arm of government can reach our Bitcoin donations and donations everywhere. For tax and legal purposes. We need to cooperate with authorities if we are going anywhere. Bitcoin will have to be a complementary currency to what is already legitimately out there. The Bitcoin Foundation: Bringing Social Responsibility and Governance to Bitcoin Sponsored by The Federal Reserve Bank |
|
|
|
i.e. J.P. Morgan, CIA and Governmental funding for this organization would be an issue.
And all of them secretly funding the developers under the old model would not? The old model would entail organizations going to each developer at the GitHub and having them work for them -- not easily done. Under the Bitcoin Foundation, there is more clout and changes can be pushed more easily just through Gavin. If J.P. Morgan, CIA and governments around the world would like to support Bitcoin's open development, I would welcome it. They could do it under the old model as well, but under the old model we wouldn't necessarily know about it. Perhaps this is your problem? You just don't want to know about it? No. Not even close. If you can't see the conflict of interest that comes from large social and financial powers funding Bitcoin, I don't think we can have a productive discussion. They couldn't do it effectively under the old model because nothing would get done. There would be no foundation or authority for flawed releases coming from individual developers. Look up Hegemony. Look how social movements and countries get taken over. We don't live in a nice, trustworthy world. |
|
|
|
i.e. J.P. Morgan, CIA and Governmental funding for this organization would be an issue.
And all of them secretly funding the developers under the old model would not? The old model would entail organizations going to each developer at the GitHub and having them work for them -- not easily done. Under the Bitcoin Foundation, there is more clout and changes can be pushed more easily just through Gavin. |
|
|
|
|
i.e. J.P. Morgan, CIA and Governmental funding for this organization would be an issue.
|
|
|
|
You are pulling your conspiracy theories a few miles to far now, don't you think? Why was the old model better, where a handful of unpaid, and to some degree unknown, developers had full control? Better than a member organization? I rather there be a handful of independent developers than a hegemony of industry funding solely dictating the course of development at the helm of one developer, indeed. |
|
|
|
|
What would happen to the world economy if the Chinese and most of developing Asia started demanding first-world, western lifestyles with minimum wages, forced 40 hour weeks and higher costs of living?
What do you honestly think would happen?
|
|
|
|
|
You know, you guys are beating a dead horse. You've made your point.
|
|
|
|
I don't like it, it's not linear. There's hardly any difference in the value of 1 satoshi and 100 000 satoshies as of now, but there is a huge difference in value between 10^6 satoshies and 10^9 satoshies. All those zeroes will just confuse people.
History says otherwise.    |
|
|
|
Here's a fun one for ya. The CIA invites Gavin to speak, then within 4 months the Silk Road appears. I'm the original person to suggest that Bitcoin would be great for CIA agents to get money to agents, but they'd need to "clean" their coin just as those who avoid the FBI, ATF, and DEA ire would need to. Intelligence agencies aren't exactly buddy-buddy, even after the Department of Homeland Security. Also, governments aren't necessarily the problem, it's always ultimately been the banking industry. Though I would argue that while the Drug War exists, a lot of good people are getting hurt for stupid reasons. Yeah, the CIA is so independent it's pretty much running a show of its own. Although they do control many state governments behind the scenes. Ask Jesse Ventura about his CIA interrogations as Governor. |
|
|
|
When authority is placed over money it becomes corrupt. Do you approve of the actions of Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke and what they did for the US Dollar? Do you think any person should have a say over your money as a supreme ruler?
You obviously lack basic undrstanding of how Bitcoin works. The rules aren't permanent. QED. There is no way to change the established rules of the blockchain without making a hard fork. Absolutely no way. You may, with the cooperation of the miners, introduce extra rules. The new rules must be allowed by the existing rules. What if I told you Satoshi changed the network rules without notification, once upon time? Nobody was the wiser. No fork required. He could of done whatever he wanted. The fact is power will act as it wishes without accountability. |
|
|
|
When authority is placed over money it becomes corrupt. Do you approve of the actions of Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke and what they did for the US Dollar? Do you think any person should have a say over your money as a supreme ruler?
You obviously lack basic undrstanding of how Bitcoin works. The rules of bitcoin and the blockchain are set forever. You can do minor restrictions, but that requires the support by a majority of all the miners out there voting by their hashrate. The only supreme ruler of bitcoin is the blockchain, and the miners can support extra restrictions to the original set of rules if they want to. The rules aren't permanent. The "official" dev team can make a release that changes the networks rules and most releases can be forced upon people if enough influence and clout is given. |
|
|
|
|
I suggest you incubate for a different time in BTC land. Maybe 2015.
|
|
|
|
you know, why don't you just shut the hell up. how many threads do you have to start with this BS? i think you got your point across.
hazek, as the new moderator for this Discussion thread, why are you allowing Atlas to troll like this?
Hazek agrees with me and since trolling is only defined as "I don't agree with you," I am in the clear. well, its appears so. if hazek can't distinguish btwn trolling posts and legitimate posts then maybe he needs to step down as moderator. i count 5 right here on the front page. From Wikipedia: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[3]extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[4] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[5] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted." I don't intend in provoking anybody. In fact, I would love it if people just ignored me if they didn't like what I had to say. |
|
|
|
you know, why don't you just shut the hell up. how many threads do you have to start with this BS? i think you got your point across.
hazek, as the new moderator for this Discussion thread, why are you allowing Atlas to troll like this?
Hazek agrees with me and since trolling is only defined as "I don't agree with you," I am in the clear. |
|
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yVpbFMhOAwE#t=130sThe Bitcoin Foundation is trying to be like The Linux Foundation, who made this video. Gavin is trying to treat the protocol as a whole like Linux. He wants to be Torvalds. That works well for Linux but not for something that is money. Official Senior Developers and a Supreme Leader is not what Bitcoin needs if its going to supersede fiat currencies that easily ruin when force and authority is applied.
When authority is placed over money it becomes corrupt. Do you approve of the actions of Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke and what they did for the US Dollar? Do you think any person should have a say over your money as a supreme ruler? Just watch until the end. That's what Gavin Andresen wants to be over Bitcoin, your Bitcoins. Remember, there can only be one Bitcoin that people will accept widely. Do you want one that is yours? ...or one that is controlled by a select few? The whole point of this currency is to escape the establishment. Let's not become a part of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Linux has a very hierarchal community with a sense of authority.
Bitcoin? Hell no. We don't play by anybodies rules. Not even our own.
Anyways, the inspiration for this was The Linux Foundation with everyone giving Torvalds a handjob. Guess who wants to be Torvalds?
|
|
|
|
Also not having any competing services to hold seats, doesn't give a lot checks and balances. While the terms are only set for two years, in internet time that is a very long time and can be easy use to position certain companies in a very good ways.
+1 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
