|
I will be watching this foundation and I hope many of you are right but your executive director and some board members are, indeed, making calls for power.
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
All I really want is this foundation to be an advisory board with just mere opinions that people can easily leave.
If this organization has no teeth through regulation or control of the protocol, I'll be fine with it. From what I am hearing though, power is desired.
|
|
|
|
I don't exactly understand the dissent. I'm still neutral here but it seems to me like the dev team totally deserves to ask for funding in this way. It worked for Linux, right? Look at Linux now, it's universal and amazing. And still true to the principles of open source technology.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what the Foundation is trying to accomplish, and maybe I don't understand what the Linux Foundation did.
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. I suppose it is anti-fiat money by nature, but I think governments can and will evolve. There is no denying that bitcoin is a better alternative to an endless supply of special paper.
Linux isn't money. |
|
|
|
Guys, the International Astronomical Union wants to have total control/monopoly over astronomical units. Are they going to kill me for calling Pluto a planet? This doesn't bode well for free speech. Atlas, get on it.
This is different. This is money. Money is power. |
|
|
|
People keep replying to me as if I'm 5 years old or mentally retarded. Please stop it.
You must be leaving an impression. Yes, they have the impression they are the parents and everyone else is a child that shouldn't be so rebellious. We should all conform to their standards and "democracy". |
|
|
|
I know a few retailers/merchants who were considering using Bitcoin. They've backed out since the "foundation" was announced. Sad.
Anecdotal. I know others, who are big, who like to see some form of structure and are more enthusiastic about getting involved with Bitcoin now that the Foundation was announced. And to say that the Bitcoin Foundation wants to be an "authorian hegemony" is absurd. People need to stop confusing voluntary order and voluntary structure with coercive, mandated structure. Don't let your legitimate fear of the latter cloud your ability to see the virtue in the former. Hegemony can be voluntary but it is still a social force with a sphere of influence. This can become a central cult of personality. Some of us do not want a central sphere of influence around Bitcoin regardless if its opt-in or opt-out. Social power can change everything. We do not want Bitcoin becoming a neutered project at the hands of big business. Feel free to say its your right to try to be a leader. It's my right to try to stop this leadership as well. Too bad you can't do anything about it. But I am. Eventually this organization and its endeavors will be under a microscope. At the first sign of bad faith and an evolution towards a milder, regulated Bitcoin, there will be action towards my case. And until then? I will continue to raise awareness of the dangers of hegemonious power; private, governmental and combined. |
|
|
|
I know a few retailers/merchants who were considering using Bitcoin. They've backed out since the "foundation" was announced. Sad.
Anecdotal. I know others, who are big, who like to see some form of structure and are more enthusiastic about getting involved with Bitcoin now that the Foundation was announced. And to say that the Bitcoin Foundation wants to be an "authorian hegemony" is absurd. People need to stop confusing voluntary order and voluntary structure with coercive, mandated structure. Don't let your legitimate fear of the latter cloud your ability to see the virtue in the former. Hegemony can be voluntary but it is still a social force with a sphere of influence. This can become a central cult of personality. Some of us do not want a central sphere of influence around Bitcoin regardless if its opt-in or opt-out. Social power can change everything. We do not want Bitcoin becoming a neutered project at the hands of big business. Feel free to say its your right to try to be a leader. It's my right to try to stop this leadership as well. Too bad you can't do anything about it. But I am. Eventually this organization and its endeavors will be under a microscope. At the first sign of bad faith and an evolution towards a milder, regulated Bitcoin, there will be action towards my case. |
|
|
|
I know a few retailers/merchants who were considering using Bitcoin. They've backed out since the "foundation" was announced. Sad.
Anecdotal. I know others, who are big, who like to see some form of structure and are more enthusiastic about getting involved with Bitcoin now that the Foundation was announced. And to say that the Bitcoin Foundation wants to be an "authorian hegemony" is absurd. People need to stop confusing voluntary order and voluntary structure with coercive, mandated structure. Don't let your legitimate fear of the latter cloud your ability to see the virtue in the former. Hegemony can be voluntary but it is still a social force with a sphere of influence. This can become a central cult of personality. Some of us do not want a central sphere of influence around Bitcoin regardless if its opt-in or opt-out. Social power can change everything. We do not want Bitcoin becoming a neutered project at the hands of big business. Feel free to say its your right to try to be a leader. It's my right to try to stop this leadership as well. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
You are trying to limit what people can and can't do with their bitcoins and their right to form a collective. You are the kind of person who is trying to shackle peoples' freedoms in the name of keeping bitcoin "pure" and holding up the bitcoin community as if it were the state.
This community IS the Bitcoin state. Am I trying to limit freedoms? How about a group of few declaring they are "THE" Bitcoin foundation without any input from the actual Bitcoin community? Perhaps paying a visit to the CIA to suck some establishment dick will earn me the noble tittle of "Freedom Defender" They have their rights to declare themselves as whatever they wish! There is no cyber bitcoin police to tell them to stop. All you can do is complain, whine, and not consider their declaration as valid. How can you be a fucking "Freedom Defender" when you support the mob rule and fucking consider the Bitcoin Community as THE STATE! You think that being a member of the community means you're special? This community isn't the state! It's not Judicial, Legislative, nor Executive! It's a fucking group of people who use, contribute, and support bitcoin. Some want to link Bitcoin with government interests. Some want it to be more easily leashed. We are against the potential authoritarians that can lead this organization and evolve Bitcoin into a form more akin to regular, regulated money. Some of us will be against this all the way. |
|
|
|
They want to set the Bitcoin standard for all businesses. They want big business to depend on them, which includes their certification process. They want to be a full-fledged Bitcoin hegemony. This is the very definition of power. I can tell you hate our goals, so I won't spend a long time trying to convince you. But, I will say that businesses often need a long, secure timeframe to make investment decisions, and they need to have some sense that what they work on or invest in will be roughly similar at the end of their investment to the beginning.
For instance, imagine ebay deciding to take bitcoins. The person-hours to get that done inside ebay are staggering to imagine, from wallet scalability issue to accounting treatments, refunds, ... It would be a major endeavor.
It would be great for bitcoin if ebay took bitcoins. Seriously great, but they can't right now until they feel there is some generally stable path going forward.
- Executive Director of The Bitcoin Foundation Some want government involvement. From another member of the Foundation: If you want Bitcoins' market cap to rise above a couple hundred million, there are necessarily going to be "Establishment" players that work with Bitcoin. You can't have a trillion dollar economy that never interacts with any government anytime in the next 100 years: if you believe that you could, you're living in a libertarian fantasy world in your head. Their true colors are coming out. This is a STANDARD-SETTING, HIERARCHAL, CORPORATIST organization and they will go to BIG BUSINESS, BIG BANKING and BIG GOVERNMENT before making sure Bitcoin remains a liberty and privacy oriented currency. They will bend over backwards if it means more power and dollars in their pocket. This is just a power grab to accelerate Bitcoin in their favor. And don't doubt me when I say that when outside powers that hate Bitcoin see this tool, they will take it to bring Bitcoin in their favor as well. A government partnership is only a few ticks away. To get the conversation started, here are some functions I think a Bitcoin Foundation could perform:
Interact with the legal system, where a centralized entity is needed: for example, to hold the Bitcoin trademark, own/control the bitcoin.org domain name, etc.
Act as a central library for accurate information about Bitcoin, so journalists and policymakers have an 'official' place to learn about Bitcoin.
Collect donations to fund infrastructure necessary for Bitcoin's growth (organize regular developers' conferences or get-togethers maybe? pay for development of cross-implementation testing tools? pay core developers' salaries? create a certification/testing program for Bitcoin implementations? create a central clearinghouse for information about legal issues surrounding Bitcoin across the world?) 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.
|
|
|
|
You are trying to limit what people can and can't do with their bitcoins and their right to form a collective. You are the kind of person who is trying to shackle peoples' freedoms in the name of keeping bitcoin "pure" and holding up the bitcoin community as if it were the state.
He can't actually limit anyone's right to form a collective or a development cabal. He's just whining that nobody in the foundation is doing what he wants. And whine we shall until our message is understood and heard. Say no to hegemony. Say no to a one-sided, corporatist Bitcoin economy. |
|
|
|
Imagine: The executive director announces that The Bitcoin Foundation will be making a public-private partnership with the government, to help aid in justice for money laundering, drug trafficking and other financial crime. Please download this new implementation to help us catch criminals and retrieve stolen funds.
MtGox is ALREADY blocking accounts of people that received what they considered "Tainted coins", with no legal authority to do so. So go figure... you are such a conspiracy theorist  Can you picture Chase freezing cash bills that they think might be involved on some crack cocaine deal? It's not a conspiracy, it's history. Power corrupts and this organization wants power to standardize and be the main income source for bitcoin development. The sad thing is if full power and legitimacy is reached in this organization, people like me will be rejected for being anti-government, terroristic loons if they start turning Bitcoin into a fiat currency. |
|
|
|
Did Mark donate his "bitcoin" trademark?
And people wonder why we are butthurt. |
|
|
|
Not if evil is redefined over time by The Bitcoin Foundation and people accept the message.
It already started, we now are the conspiracy theorists, the failed business man that pretend to be the little guy, the guy that "must have some beef" and is trolling, etc.. etc.. Gavin, Shrem, Vorhees, Mark, they are the owners of Bitcoin, and how you dare disagree with them? Imagine: The executive director announces that The Bitcoin Foundation will be making a public-private partnership with the government, to help aid in justice for money laundering, drug trafficking and other financial crime. Please download this new implementation to help us catch criminals and retrieve stolen funds. |
|
|
|
Finally, I can confirm that Satoshi is a Founding Member. That is all.
Seems that this little statement by vess hasn't deserved the attention it should have! Does it mean what I think it means, ie, contact with Satoshi has been made recently? No. Judging by his previous statements, he would hate this facade more than anything that has been proposed. Satoshi probably thinks Bitcoin is on the wrong path right now, starting with Gavin going to the CIA. |
|
|
|
Mining software is made separately for specific hardware sets which be easily used with other Bitcoin implementations.
Could you give me an example of "other Bitcoin implementations" that can be used to mine? The mining component is always independent. Drivers are developed independently. As for sending Bitcoins and reaching the network, you can use whatever you want including BitcoinJS, Electrum, Armory, etc. You didn't answer my question. I'll rephrase to make it easier for you. Tell me how to mine Bitcoins without using the reference client. Also, Armory requires Bitcoin-Qt to function. You simply direct the mining software to whatever implementation you want. It varies. I haven't mined in a long time so I can't be too specific. |
|
|
|
Hey Erik, why the change of heart?:
Because he rather be the power than fight it. |
|
|
|
We have encrypted, verifiable and secure online wallets based on javascript, the main one being http://blockchain.info/wallet. Mining software is made separately for specific hardware sets which be easily used with other Bitcoin implementations. People are using desktop-based wallets less and less and are opting for online accounts through Mt. Gox, Coinbase and others. Bitcoin-Qt takes hours to setup while others get you started with ease. Out of all the choices and development out there for Bitcoin, does Bitcoin have an "official" release? Does anyone deserve that designation? Does anyone have sole development rights to Bitcoin? Can anyone truly be called the "Official Lead Developer" of Bitcoin? There are the latest releases of bitcoin-qt on http://bitcoin.orgOnline accounts that have a number which represents the amount of bitcoins you could withdraw aren't the same as bitcoin clients/wallets. Bitcoin-Qt is one client out of many. Sure they are. They run their own version of the software, their own nodes. If Bitcoin-Qt being on http://bitcoin.org doesn't make it official, I don't see why some people have a problem with THE Bitcoin Foundation. While the account may have their own software, I am saying that holding a MtGox balance is not the same as having your own bitcoin wallet. MtGox controls what goes in and out when it comes to bitcoin. The account is just acting as a proxy. The current bitcoin.org didn't develop most of Bitcoin. They got it second-hand. They can't be official. They aren't the founders. I understand but their are still the javascript wallets which are very much independent, just browser-based. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
