You don't trust me thats fine. Obviously, you dont understand the structure and how the foundation works if you think you need to trust me at all.

Yup, I've been reading and responded at least 2-3 times on every page, so that means 150+ responses just in that thread.

I would not say its an uproar, its more like Atlas and a few haters. You will agree once you see the amount of members and donations.

Some people like Hazek actually bring up good points with certain issues in the foundation we need to work out and fix.

The haters are trollers say "ahhh foundation centralization ahh" when the smart people actually have good points and want to make it better.

So basically, your creating an announcement to ease the nervousness of the trollers...

Remember that Bitcoin's public image is still mostly DOWN THE DRAIN, if people know it at all. Many regular people think it's either a joke, monopoly money, a scam, only used for drugs, unsecure with constant hacks etc etc etc. This foundation IS NEEDED. Anyone who doesn't think so lives under a rock in some sort of personal cryptoanarchy-fantasyland.

There are alot of questions surrounding the foundation including fear of control. Obviously, we are a group that loves Bitcoin for the sole reason that it is ours. No government or corporation can take it from us. It's our baby, not theirs. We make the rules based on what we feel is the right choice for Bitcoin.

Many people are worried that the foundation will attempt to assert control...which is farther from the truth. In fact, the foundation has no real power over Bitcoin!

Why do we need a foundation you ask?

When I was presented with the idea for a foundation, I said "Wow, wouldn't it be great to have an organization of members that collectively can fund new projects, pay for ads, do QA for the code, be a 'go-to' place for the press, with the same message and beliefs."

Would it not be better if this organization is not owned by anyone? Where members can vote for their board members based on industry and representation?

......this is why I came on board.

This is true. If one is truly seeking "input from the community" to help shape this then surely nobody should be on ignore if they are not being hostile?

The amount of asslickers as well.

This kind of language is also damaging. You want to benefit Bitcoin? Be constructive, not destructive!

Matonis,

Didn't you object against the ban on anonymous memberships? If not, why?

The same.

The Foundation runs itself. No one owns it. It's a registered non-profit based in DC and holds elections.

In 2 years from now, the board could be completely new. You could be on it.

Most of bitcoiners don't audit changes in the most popular client. Even if someone finds a backdoor and announces here, most of bitcoiners won't pay attention, they'll be listening to "The Bitcoin Foundation". That's why involvement of Gavin into "TBF" is very dangerous.

...or we can just declare independence from this one and make sure its purported authority is not recognized. Then we can let others work as they see fit.

I don't want a foundation. I don't want power. I just want people to leave my money alone. I don't want mob rule putting a backdoor in Bitcoin.

That was my point. It was not helpful at all.

I have no interest in this (it looked like a scam from page 1 of this thread, to me), however - this seems completely wrong headed.

meni represented the asset to investors. Investors have lost out. Meni should be doing the honorable thing here and putting himself in 2nd creditor position AFTER the bondholders. This would undoubtedly help Meni's reputational damage control effort

Just my 2 satoshis.

We're approaching this in multiple ways. The best outcome by far is if Alberto voluntarily repays, litigation would be a lengthy process with an uncertain outcome.

Thanks to the both of you for your continuing effort! The work you are doing is vitally important since having your ID and such verified, must be made to mean something. Thanks again!

The good news is that Friday's coupon of 0.036 BTC per bond was paid, including the late fees.

The bad news is that Alberto says he doesn't currently have available bitcoins, and that he will need to move some funds around and liquidate some assets before he can perform a complete buyback. This has been taking much longer than expected.

Also, Alberto says he will not be able to sustain the original contract terms of 3% weekly interest until a 120% buyback. I reminded him of the commitment he has made, but he insists that he can only repay the face value of 1 BTC per bond with no further interest. Any dividend payment made after the last one will count towards this total. The contract will be updated to reflect this. He has reneged on his original obligation and this shouldn't be taken lightly; however, I believe that if he does indeed manage to repay the face value the matter will not have been a complete disaster.

Progress towards resolving this matter has been slow, and I have made it clear to Alberto that some real progress is expected by next week, which includes more funds repaid and some clarification of the matter of withdrawals from the Bitdaytrade platform. If he fails to deliver I will have no choice but to release more information and escalate the debt collection.

Because this event is disruptive, trading of the asset has been frozen until investors can absorb the news and some stability can be obtained. If it seems justified, trade will be resumed later to allow people to freely trade according to their belief in Alberto's ability to repay.

Alberto's total debt is 5000 BTC in outstanding BDT bonds, 4000 BTC in a private loan from me and Bitdaytrade deposits in an amount which to me is currently unknown.

Also, as much as I'd like to spend much time on this issue, I am already WAY behind my schedule of preparations for the trip to London, during which I will not have internet access; any further action from me will have to wait until I get back on Wednesday.