The American internet has had no central government since its inception. Nobody is regulating the bandwidth providers. People are free to lay their own data cables, centers and routers as they please.
Errr, telecommunications are very much regulated, as is the WWW, domain names, http, tcp, ip, ftp... Those are all iterations of various protocols, additions to the internet. The core infrastructure is not regulated. Which are regulated by committes, foundations, groups etc. or they wouldn't work together, would they? Dipshit. They work together regardless because people desire certain things. Some of these protocols remain untouched and need no oversight because they are fine as they are. They are products that you can either use or defer from. Bitcoin isn't something people can easily leave if they have their savings in it. We are dealing with wealth here. |
|
|
|
They are exactly alike.
Linus Torvalds is to linux, as Satoshi Nakamoto is to bitcoin.
The Linux kernel can be contributed to by anyone, as can bitcoin code and protocol.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Go do your own thing. See how many people follow you.
So it's alright if Gavin imposes a tax within the network that will go to governments under the legitimacy of The Bitcoin Foundation? We shouldn't oppose this if it occurs? We're dealing with money here. Not a product. |
|
|
|
The American internet has had no central government since its inception. Nobody is regulating the bandwidth providers. People are free to lay their own data cables, centers and routers as they please.
Errr, telecommunications are very much regulated, as is the WWW, domain names, http, tcp, ip, ftp... Those are all iterations of various protocols, additions to the internet. The core infrastructure is not regulated. |
|
|
|
Isn't liberty great? Gavin can make a Bitcoin Foundation, and people can join, or not, as serves their interests.
Well put. If you don't like, don't join. It is very simple. Everyone is free to form their own foundation. I really don't understand the hate. THE Bitcoin Foundation. The name alone sounds very authoritarian. It seems to me they want sole control over the network. They came with the name first, that's it. Or do you object "bitcointalk" as well? Aren't we allowed to talk about bitcoins anywhere but on this forum? I object to people calling themselves "official" representatives for my money, my Bitcoins and the network they run on. |
|
|
|
Isn't liberty great? Gavin can make a Bitcoin Foundation, and people can join, or not, as serves their interests.
Well put. If you don't like, don't join. It is very simple. Everyone is free to form their own foundation. I really don't understand the hate. THE Bitcoin Foundation. The name alone sounds very authoritarian. It seems to me they want sole control over the network. |
|
|
|
|
The beauty of Bitcoin as it stands, is that it needs little intervention to continue running. If somebody sees a problem and it matters to them, they will solve it. We don't need a central guardian. We need to do little. We just need people to set high standards for what they accept when people propose change in their money.
I am encouraging high standards just by speaking.
|
|
|
|
Atlas,
we'll jump in there and compete. Don't like it do some work and you can have the precious.
I am accomplishing my goal just by letting people know they have a choice. |
|
|
|
|
It works as-is. We need no additions or power structures.
|
|
|
|
|
Would you trust Linus Torvalds and his team with a say over your bank account?
Would you allow them to hand your money over to the government?
The Linux Kernel is a cold piece of software. It's a single product out of many. If people don't like it, they can leave it and choose another.
Bitcoin is different. It represents the work, labor and wealth of many people. If people don't like it, they can't easily leave it. If it's changed, the consequences can be enormous. It isn't a pet project at this point. It isn't a toy. It's over $125 million in wealth.
Torvalds may own Linux. Gavin Andresen does not own Bitcoin. Sorry. We own it. It is ours. This includes the Bitcoin protocol.
To leave the Bitcoin currrency and its network in the hands of a single developer, a single legal entity -- this is bound for corruption due to the power it can have over wealth.
Let's be very careful with how we use the term "Bitcoin Development". It does not rest in a single team. It rests in whoever values Bitcoin through whatever ends they choose.
Let's not entrust Bitcoin with one organization. Nobody deserves that honor. Nobody deserves that trust because all humans inevitably fail. We shouldn't take the fall for the actions of one organization. Instead, if one organization fails, others should be able to overthrow the damage it has done and take its place with little legal and protocol interference.
Say no to a planned Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
Where do I sign up to become President of this 'foundation' ?
Probably become an established member of it and get the others to vote for you. I don't know what I find more annoying, that certain things could have been avoided if the bitcoin foundation already existed (for example the outcome of the bitcoinca dilemma) or the reaction of the naysayers. All I see are rants and sarcastic statements. Gavin already has control over the code, the other board members control over their respected companies, now they form a coalition and enable you to take part of that control and you are complaining? I rather overthrow this control than go through the effort to gain its approval. Once I have the means, I will be tearing this shit apart through whatever is necessary. I rather reign in hell than serve in heaven. |
|
|
|
Will there be an independent oversight entity put in a position to monitor and evaluate the Bitcoin Foundation from time to time ?
Nope. Well, Satoshi can jump in and say "Fuck you guys. Shut this shit down." I doubt that will happen. I doubt he approves of it as well. |
|
|
|
How many fucking threads do we need about this?
Until they get the message and change the name of their organization to reflect its nature: Another development team out of many. |
|
|
|
|
The American internet has had no central government since its inception. Nobody is regulating the bandwidth providers. People are free to lay their own data cables, centers and routers as they please.
Are we in Somalia right now? Bitcoin can be just as good in the same environment.
We don't need a Internet Administration to make things happen and stable.
|
|
|
|
A great article by a fellow Bitcoiner: These are three problems that I see:
1. The "to be or not to be"-issue:
Is it better to have such an entity to promote and advocate bitcoin in public and before lawmakers and journalists? Or should we better stay an anonymous mass without a "face" to stay strong and make the public image not dependant of success or faliure of a single entity (you could call it the "Julian Assange Effect". If I say "we" I mean the community but also respect the decisions and judgement of the members of the board of Bitcoin Foundation over their foundation.
2. The "influence"-issue:
If we want such an entity, how can we keep transparency and public participation opportunities as clear and accessible as possible? Who's got the say?
Do we want a divergence of voting power in contrast to the total userbase in favour of a certain interest group like business owners (2 votes representing businesses that make up less than 5% (data guessed) of the total userbase, while only giving also 2 votes to "representatives" of the remaining 95% of the userbase) ?
3. The "perception"-issue
Some posts in this thread seem to view the Bitcoin Foundation already as a "bitcoin government", combining major powers over the source code and financial power in form of two big (if not biggest in terms of turn around) companies in the bitcoin economy. These worries are justified in my oppinion till it is clear how the foundation works, what powers it really has and what perception of it remains in the community and public oppinion.
I would nevertheless refrain from overestimating any such influence unless it is excerted over decisions concerning the source code that sway from the objective best for the entire current and potential future userbase.
I would therefore like to suggest for the core developers to think over their active role in the board, to prevent any influence over their judgements concerning their work on the source code and reference client and instead consider an advisary role to the board.
I also endorse the fund to pay Gavin's (and all core dev's) salary from voluntary donations made by Foundation members. This way all donors and donations are transparent.
|
|
|
|
Yea, looks like Gavin is trying to get some funding. I do understand that he needs few resources that he cannot afford right now and not present in the community.
Coinbase was able to raise $600,000 for his web client. I don't see why Gavin couldn't raise development funding through a more modest organization that isn't named THE Bitcoin Foundation. Gavin Labs, Bitcoin Advancements, etc. would of been more humble. ...but, no, it has to be THE Bitcoin Foundation. The authority on all of Bitcoin. Come to us if you want to shape Bitcoin as you see fit. Fuck everyone else. |
|
|
|
|
Voting towards any of their goals for the Bitcoin network lends them authority. Let's not give them authority. Let's just vote through our choice of clients and mining hardware.
Unity? Compromise? Fuck no. This is Bitcoin. It's your way or the highway. If you don't like it, you should continue on your own path. If you don't like it, you should be able to fork the chain and start your own game. There are some who want to make forking obsolete.
Anyways, don't play into their hands, people. We can have a multitude of development teams competing or we can have a huge clout of a corporation called The Bitcoin Foundation ordering people on how Bitcoin should be. Eventually they could be lobbying Congress, legally mandating how Bitcoin should be if the government starts pushing for standardization that meets their ends.
No, the long arm of government shouldn't be able to reach Bitcoin, Jeff Garzik (Bitcoin Foundation Member). Fuck that.
This isn't Linux people. This is money. Money is very powerful and it shouldn't be going in the hands of a single Bitcoin Foundation.
That's all.
Say no to planned economies, planned lives and a planned Bitcoin. Choose FREEDOM.
|
|
|
|
|
This is just legal approval to give developers salaries and raise funding for those salaries.
"Yay, we are recognized by the government to do business with certain tax privileges, yay! Bitcoin needs government approval to succeed!"
That's all I see here. Congrats.
Now, if you are trying to be the central democratic process for the Bitcoin network protocol, go fuck yourselves. Seriously, die. We don't need your authority or approval.
Bitcoin doesn't need a government. It doesn't need corporate sponsorship. It just needs people that value them. Central authority ruins Bitcoin's value.
|
|
|
|
There is nothing wrong here. |
|
|
|
Found the accounts owner.  How can you meet the needs of the many if you're broke and barely producing? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
