+1

Just logged in and got caught up reading... *sigh* I've got a lot of posting to do today.

Hey everyone, I'm logging off for the day.

My suggestion: The Foundation should put everything on PAUSE. If it truly needs to exist/go forward, doing so a little later shouldn't make much difference. But the alternative could be damaging. In the meantime, start some more OPEN discussion about solutions to currently perceived Bitcoin progress problems.

True. That's another problem with centralization. Even if there is little to no corruption or abuse of power. It gives enemies a place to attack - precisely another way Bitcoin draws strength from decentralization. This is all stuff Bitcoin's value is based upon. Again, this isn't trivial stuff.

So my question would be is this currently sufficient to meet development compensation needs?

I don't think it is. But I don't think a foundation is the only way to address that. There are projects on Kickstarter.com that raise hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars (http://www.kickstarter.com/discover/most-funded) that don't have anywhere near the scope and impact of something like Bitcoin.

As I posted, crowdsourcing developer compensation shouldn't be a problem. If it has been before now, maybe it's only because the need wasn't made known.

I think the developers and people behind this have their hearts in the right place, and care about Bitcoin. I really do.

I just think they're going about solutions the wrong way. If you truly believe in Bitcoin then you believe in its own inherent abilities to foster/ensure its success. Its strength is that it's decentralized, and relies on the community to provide what it needs in a free market way.

Some practical organization can help. I'll be the first to agree. But you have to understand Bitcoin is political, like it or not. So steps in the direction of centralization have to be taken VERY carefully and thoughtfully.

I hope the leading developers realize it's precisely because the people involved in this foundation at a high level already have some political community clout that this foundation can be a problem.

Any foundation suggesting it speaks for Bitcoin is a problem, because Bitcoin is supposed to be decentralized. The fact this is made up of the top representation of Bitcoin already is even worse.

I don't think I'm overstating it when I say this is playing with fire.

If a foundation must exist then it needs to be very clear how it will severely and intentionally limit its political power/influence over centralization.

This already happens. See this CNN article on hackers demanding bitcoins for Romney's tax returns which quotes Jeff Garzik. How did they know to consult Jeff Garzik? Because the community already recognizes certain people as best to speak for bitcoin on certain issues. That happened naturally, and is good. However, formalizing it expands that power and is probably bad given Bitcoin's decentralized nature.  

As another poster noted it shouldn't have "the" in the name. That suggests it speaks for Bitcoin. Hello??? Bitcoin is decentralized?

The name, upon people hearing it, should NOT suggest they speak for Bitcoin. That's all.

This wouldn't reduce their effectiveness in solving the listed problems. But it would reduce public perception of their power, which is power.

Thanks for your response and the opportunity for me to clarify.

First, about the 4 things for Bitcoin moving forward. While we all want Bitcoin to move forward, I was under the impression there wasn't an expectation of time frame. In other words, if Bitcoin progress takes longer without a foundation is that really a problem?

As to whether a foundation helps solve (perceived) problems being a good thing, no, it's not if it does more damage by undermining Bitcoin's claim of decentralization.

A foundation may be an efficient way to solve those problems, but not the best way, if that makes sense.

As for "an official sounding name" that's exactly my point. The ONLY thing I have against this foundation project is the incidental power that comes with it, whether intended or not. Everything else sounds great. But power and politics are weird, sort of like money itself. Money gains value based on growing numbers of people accepting it as such. This too happens with entities gaining power. If it's NOT the goal of this foundation to amass power then deflecting the political power that comes with an official sounding name should be no problem.

Look at the way you even added a disclaimer when speaking about your ties to the Foundation, which I think was smart, by the way. Don't you see? You already recognized the PR/political significance surrounding this thing.

Make no mistake: Bitcoin's value does NOT come from having Gavin et al work on it. That's not a dig. I highly respect and admire the leading developers. Bitcoin's value comes from what people perceive of it. And part of that perception is that it is trusted to be decentralized. That's not a minor issue.

@Atlas - please consider some post restraint, and that you may be diluting your argument credibility/effectiveness.

@vess: as the leader of this would you share your thoughts on my comment here?

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"?


I too think this is logical and makes sense. What I question is the need to publicly formalize it which is where the (political) power/leverage comes from.

This may be a major problem

Maybe using larger font like other posters does help things get noticed...

So here is the problem: perhaps one of Bitcoin's biggest strengths is it's decentralized

Granted the listed problems said to be the reason for creating a foundation are an issue. They include:

1. (from the "Why" page) As the Bitcoin economy has evolved, we have all noticed barriers to its widespread adoption—botnets that attempt to undermine the network, hackers that threaten wallets, and an undeserved reputation stirred by ignorance and inaccurate reporting.
2. under/non-paid developers working on a global level payment system
3. legal representation of Bitcoin issues
4. giving a "legitimate" face to Bitcoin

The problem is I'm not immediately convinced a "foundation" is the right/best course to attempt solving these problem. And further, that they can't be solved another way.

Although it sounds good on the surface I'm wary of it. Once you give over power it's hard or impossible to revoke it; and that power can be expanded/leveraged. I'm not against any of the people so far involved with this project. It's not that at all. They may be the most angel-honest, incorruptible people on earth. The problem is I (and nobody else) can know for sure what the truth is, and that this behavior will remain so.

This is the problem I have with this. And also that it seems to be a bit rammed down upon the community presently.

I propose discussion/answers to two things, or I'll have to seriously reconsider my view of Bitcoin:

First: is a foundation the only way to solve the above 4 problems? I only see #3 as being the best candidate. Crowd-funding has in practice proven very, very successful for a number of Internet related projects. Proper developer compensation shouldn't be a problem for a project such as Bitcoin. And doesn't it make sense for such compensation to have the chance to be applied to any developer?

Second: if a foundation IS deemed critical by the Bitcoin community then I believe it necessarily MUST explicitly limit its role and powers upfront as much as possible, with no ability to change this. Think, for example, if it aimed to do the opposite, that is, expand its role and powers as much as possible.



I think such limits might only be a start.

No, -1.

That's the problem. In the current system they are not "recognized officially" which inherently gives an endorsement which translates to power.

First, it's not necessary to use large font and take up page space to make a statement. Second, is your statement opinion or likely fact, and why?

It wouldn't only be that.

I've recommended and endorsed Bitcoin literally over several days in different Internet forums/communities, hopefully strengthening my position(s) with intellectual reasoning and tact. I would have to undo that, just as proactively, if I thought Bitcoin was headed in the wrong direction.

No, I disagree it's a great move. I question it very seriously.

One of Bitcoin's biggest selling points is that it is NOT centralized. I've emphasized that fact when endorsing its use to others.

It's not about "Gavin's foundation". It's about any foundation. The people involved with pioneering this foundation are some of the ones I admire most in the Bitcoin community. That doesn't mean I think this is automatically a good idea. To the contrary this is the first thing I've really considered a real threat to Bitcoin succeeding. In fact, it's a part of the problem of amassing power that these widely-admired people are the ones pioneering this move toward centralization.

EDIT: in my view, any sort of foundation Bitcoin needs for success (if it needs any) should necessarily limit its role and power as much as possible. For example, think what would happen if it did the reverse...

The dangers to Bitcoin from any move/power gravitating toward centralization are obvious to me.

Question: is The Foundation critical to Bitcoin's success?

From the "Why" page:

As the Bitcoin economy has evolved, we have all noticed barriers to its widespread adoption—botnets that attempt to undermine the network, hackers that threaten wallets, and an undeserved reputation stirred by ignorance and inaccurate reporting.

Certainly these are annoying problems, but is a foundation the (only) way to solve them?

Bitcoin is a wild animal. One only has to look at its history to confirm that. It has skyrocketed in value, had a bubble, but overall continued to progress with perceived viability and value.

I don't believe those days are over. I still believe it's a wild animal. A successful 51% attack, for example, could crash Bitcoin confidence and prices. As you point out, there is no way to know how the zombie apocalypse will affect Bitcoin. However, these IMO are analyses for the short term, say within the next 5 or 10 years. In the longer term, overall, I believe the future is bright for Bitcoin because the fundamentals of it are solid. It solves the global problem of fiat banking in a way nothing else has or can. There is tremendous value in that. It's only a matter of time before the world comes to realize this. When enough of the population does then Bitcoin's value overall will be beyond question IMO (and beyond anything stopping it). That's why it can be viewed as long term wealth protection, or something to be willed away (or even a profit vehicle).

Now, on the other hand. I don't consider Bitcoin the end all be all when it comes to finances. I believe a person should be diversified. I think people should use precious metals as a base for store of wealth, and hold other currencies, including BTC, as suits their needs. Someone not technically very literate, for example, might keep a very limited portion of their wealth in BTC. That protects them from big losses from their own making, but also of Bitcoin itself.

The site owner, Michael Nystrom, must have put it there (or a moderator?). AFAIK that's the only way to make it to the front page without a lot of upvotes.

Way to go!

Watching the interview now...