It's good advertising for some sites, as much as the entire GPT industry can be considered good as far as roi for advertisements.
That cointube site for one, I have watched some of those videos and rather enjoyed them, one group I am following now. This is a great way for them to get their stuff out for very little money up front. If one wishes to monetize their video now through youtube, I am not sure how well they will receive the get paid to thing, and might give you grief or try to cancel your account by putting it up there. They can be very snotty about that stuff.
I just wonder though, sooner or later the worlds governments are going to 'step in' and try to put a stop to it, just like they did with e gold and some of the other sites. We all know what lame excuses they used to do so,but we also know the truth, they were mad because 'they' did not control it. How long before they 'seize' the coin generating servers? Will they try to call it an 'investment' and now try to tax you on it? How long before they use the lame excuse that terrorists are using it to launder money and send it to 'cells' here and there?
Centralized = control. If I control your money, I control YOU. A decentralized system, the government can not control the people anymore, yes, they will move to ruin this.
Aaron
Hopefully the Bitcoin Foundation will be a force of good. One that protects privacy and decentralization. |
|
|
|
It is moot to speculate on a good naming since the decision is already made, but here are some more name ideas in case someone wants to set up another bitcoin organisation and to get them out of my head i have to write them down. sorted by seriousness: Bitcoin benefactors Bitbenefactory Bitcoin union
Bitcoin confraternity Coinfraternity Bitcoin syndicate Bitcoin union
Bitcoin workshop Bitcoin collective Bitcoin consortium (maybe same semantic problems as foundation) Bitcoin association (same..) Bitcoin pool (well, not a mining pool) Bitcoin endowment Bitcoin amalgamation/conglutination (ok... its getting ridiculous) what is aparently bothering a very vocal minority is the word "The" in the name. Simply "Bitcoin Foundation" would sound much more humble and innocent. That said, i think its really great to see some seriousness in the Bitcoin world, which is really needed. Also having a solid model for funding the development is needed and will enable long-term prosperity for the whole industry. I could criticize some minor details about the genesis of this organisation but i leave that to others who apparently like to spend a lot of time in this thread  You said bitcoin union twice. |
|
|
|
Ah, first, THANK YOU for actually asking a good question!
Few facts:
Hushmail = centralized company - has user data
Bitcoin = Decentralized that no one owns/runs/controls.
How can the foundation help crack down on Bitcoin holders not users (thats a bad word to use) when the foundation does not own these users nor regulates them nor owns Bitcoin nor has any information on them?
Would the government go to the Linux Foundation and say "Hey, this hacker was using linux, help us find him"
Would the government go to the Tor Foundation and say "Hey, this hacker was using Tor, help us find him"
In both cases, they cannot!
Answer your question?
-Charlie
Let me phrase it this way... Few facts: Hushmail = centralized company - has user data Bitcoin = Decentralized that no one owns/runs/controls. Foundation = centralized U.S. company - develops Bitcoin software that handles user data Are you familiar with what happened at 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco? Let me give a brief overview. President Bush instructed phone companies to allow an illegal warrant-less wiretap be installed at this location and others recording ALL Internet traffic unfiltered, which a whistle blower found out about. The administration then had Congress retroactively grant the phone companies immunity from prosecution for siding with them in breaking the law. https://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spyingAs a U.S. corporation that openly develops the software to conduct bitcoin transactions, how would the foundation deal with similar government pressure to "save us from the terrorists, pornographers, government anarchists, etc"? You are afraid of TBF implementing code in the software to leak user data? Is that what you're trying to say? |
|
|
|
I don't understand what "power" has to do with any of this. What am I missing?
You are missing everything. Power was suppose to be decentralized residing with individuals with a central authority. We now have a quasi central authority that it's true, it can't control how Bitcoin runs, but it can control all the other aspects of it: lead dev, dev team, logo, pr, legal, you name it. And I didn't consent to any of it. On a personal note, I can't tell you how exhausting today is for me. Even my family noticed I was feeling really down. You don't have to consent to a collective forming. People are allowed to voluntarily pool their resources. You people must really feel high and mighty if you think that your consent is required, considered, or even should be asked for. |
|
|
|
This isn't the "lesser evil" - it's this or nothing - currently.
False. Is this or leaving the code, the client and my fucking coins the way they are now. Whether or not TBF exists, the code, the client, and therefore how your coins move about in the network if you chose to send them somewhere will change. Of course you are free to use an alternate client. |
|
|
|
Altas did you sleep yet?
I don't think he sleeps. |
|
|
|
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". Democracy? Where? |
|
|
|
People keep replying to me as if I'm 5 years old or mentally retarded. Please stop it.
You must be leaving an impression. |
|
|
|
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 wouldn't expect anything less of you. -sigh- |
|
|
|
Its not a complicated structure to understand and you can create your own foundation to help further Bitcoin.
Will Gavin leave your Foudation and join mine? Hell, I'll leave this foundation and join yours if I like it  I hate to keep having to point this out but its NOT MY foundation. Your statement should say "Will Gavin leave the current Foudation and a newer one that I helped put together?" I other words it's up to him. I think it's not wrong to assume it would only ever happen if it benefited either you or him, not Bitcoin per se. So much for "I can start a new foundation.." You could go start up a different foundation whose purpose to support bitcoin and the developers of alternate clients. |
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
Its not a complicated structure to understand and you can create your own foundation to help further Bitcoin.
Will Gavin leave your Foudation and join mine? Would Gavin even be required to leave TBF to join a different Foundation? |
|
|
|
Those of you against 'The Foundation', consider this:
You're on Atlas' side.
Just think about that for a moment.
Hitler was a vegetarian. Try to not be so blatantly manipulative. |
|
|
|
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.
I was using a figure of speech of course, something your limited brain fails to grasp. IF Bitcoin had a state, this is it: it's constituents. According to your statement, supporting the rule of the few and powerful against the "mob rule" is freedom fighting? You do understand basic structures of power and ruling right? I was saying that the "mob rule" should not be used to undermine a voluntary collective. I was not supporting, or saying you should support the rule of a few. I was just saying the mob should not be used to control and regulate the few. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. I thought I was on your faggy, ball-less ignore list? He can still see me quoting you. |
|
|
|
- FACT: The decision of forming "The Bitcoin Fundation" was made by a few powerful players without no input from the community.
Oh no! Powerful people not asking permission to do what they want!
Oh No! DO what you want, but don't call it THE Bitcoin Foundation...
Why the hell not? Does someone have a trademark on the word THE?
- FACT: The board of the foundation was elected under close door, without any input from the community.
Oh no! The board of the foundation is actually THE BOARD OF THE FOUNDATION.
I am sorry ... WHAT??
The board of the foundation is not the board of the bitcoin community.
- FACT: Two members of the foundation own and/or operate the largest for profit corporations in the Bitcoin Industry: MTGOX AND BITINSTANT.
Oh no! What an obvious conflict of interest! MtGox and BitInstant totally want bitcoin to fail.
MtGox and BitInstant want MtGox and BitInstant to succeed. Perhaps you should read about for-profit corporations.
MtGox and Bitinstant's success is tied to the success of bitcoin. Perhaps you should look at the mutual interest of all parties involved.
- FACT: The foundation's attorney is the same attorney than Bitinstant. A CLEAR conflict of interests.
In all seriousness I believe this was addressed earlier.Where?
Earlier in this thread, I will edit to link it.
- FACT: The bylaws and other articles of the foundation weren't made public until yesterday, and only because of the public outcry of the community.
Oh no! They did so many evil things before the bylaws were released!
- FACT: There was no democratic, open, free process that decided if there was a need for a foundation, or who should lead and seat said on the board of directors.
Oh no! The bitcoin community isn't a democracy![/b]
You seem to be pleased about that?
Yes, I have never submitted a vote when it comes to community affairs, and I don't believe that I (or anyone) am entitled to one.
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. |
|
|
|
I would like to see Gavin reject hazek's bitcoin.  It's easy. Even he doesn't need to change the protocol code. Gavin only has to include some hazeks purchased coins through the MtGox exchanger to some tainted coin list and "improving the newcomers experience" by tweaking the satoshi client in order to reject the tainted ones (returning autometically them to the sending address and warning the user) I meant him ACTUALLY doing it. |
|
|
|
I'm not going to address conspiracy theories, mostly because I'm not seeing most of them because of who I've got on my ignore list.
- FACT: The decision of forming "The Bitcoin Fundation" was made by a few powerful players without no input from the community.
Oh no! Powerful people not asking permission to do what they want!
- FACT: The board of the foundation was elected under close door, without any input from the community.
Oh no! The board of the foundation is actually THE BOARD OF THE FOUNDATION.
- FACT: Two members of the foundation own and/or operate the largest for profit corporations in the Bitcoin Industry: MTGOX AND BITINSTANT.
Oh no! What an obvious conflict of interest! MtGox and BitInstant totally want bitcoin to fail.
- FACT: The foundation's attorney is the same attorney than Bitinstant. A CLEAR conflict of interests.
In all seriousness I believe this was addressed earlier.
- FACT: The bylaws and other articles of the foundation weren't made public until yesterday, and only because of the public outcry of the community.
Oh no! They did so many evil things before the bylaws were released!
- FACT: There was no democratic, open, free process that decided if there was a need for a foundation, or who should lead and seat said on the board of directors.
Oh no! The bitcoin community isn't a democracy!Guys I think The Bitcoin Foundation is up to some shady stuff! Totally! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
