Okay, we see you know how to use the font tag... Care to elaborate?

What are you going to do, call everyone on the phone form the "early adopters" section of your phone book?

(moderator note: this is a discussion of Bitcoin itself not the Foundation specifically)

The announcement of the Bitcoin Foundation has shaken this community; its thread received 50 plus pages and over 13K views in about 72 hours.

The Bitcoin community recognizes there is no official leadership. That's a major strength because a leader could abuse power, or be incompetent, but also become a target for enemies, or a magnet for corruption.

While TBF can't lead by force (e.g. proprietary rights to software) it could gain leadership attributes by popular agreement and influence, which means it could inherit other leadership attributes, both good and bad.

Since Bitcoin may come to play a powerful role in society this presents cause for concern, which given the track record for mixing humans, money, power and corruption, wouldn't seem to bode well.

People on both sides of the issue highlighted valid pros and cons, but one thing that is true is you can't stop such foundations from forming. The fact Bitcoin doesn't grant anyone power means opportunity exists for anyone to pursue power for good or ill. It was partly in recognition of this that I came upon the solution to this dilemma. Bitcoin relies on the free market for self-regulation and that's where the answer lies.

You won't believe how well this works out, and also the implications. I'll give a TL;DR version, then extended view.

TL;DR

The biggest complaint/possible danger opposition to TBF express is it could become corrupted and control a very powerful market, if and when Bitcoin becomes powerful, which we all expect could happen. But that's just it. Their power would pertain to Bitcoin. Even their name pertains to it, which is one of the complaints. How much power would they have, however, if there were other cryptocurrencies just as prominent in the market? The power would be diminished, of course. There would be just as many people with different coins than whatever people believed about Bitcoin specifically. Same cryptocurrency, but entirely different coins, and system.

In response to critics supporters of TBF have said start your own foundation to compete; to which we, the opposition, reply we can't compete with the top talent already concentrated at TBF. But that answer is partly right. It's not to start another foundation; it's to compete. But we don't do it, we let another cryptocurrency do it. The free market will do the rest. If people think Bitcoin is becoming tainted with power/corruption they can vote with their feet and opt to use alternative currencies. The exchange rate of such alternative currencies should rise/fall as an indicator of approval/disapproval of what was happening with Bitcoin. Make sense?

So the solution is simply to promote at least one other cryptocurrency in the market (ideally there might be 2 for better distribution), and do it before Bitcoin gets a stronger foothold. The timing of TBF announcement is fantastic, because it leaves room in Bitcoin's life for competition to check it. And the foundation should absolutely use the name the Bitcoin Foundation, because if they don't someone else could. They can even become as corrupt as they wish, as the market will reflect that with exchange rates, heightening awareness of the corruption. The free market system checks itself remarkably well!

--------

Extended View

Almost as if the free market anticipated this issue alt-coins have already started.

After Bitcoin the one with the most traction is Litecoin. Checking this forum's alt-coin section, or rates at exchanges like btc-e.com or vircurex.com confirms that. For that reason I'm now advocating establishing Litecoin in the market alongside Bitcoin, which was created to be the "silver to Bitcoin's gold". It should be trivial for merchants, exchanges, and eWallets to add it because everything is just bits and bytes!

And the benefits to doing this are just getting started:

One of the fears voiced about TBF is it could make targeting Bitcoin users easier by the government. Gavin Andresen, being both a board member and lead Bitcoin developer, and having made Bitcoin presentation at the CIA, is fodder for conspiracy theorists whether or not any concern is warranted.

Having Litecoin in the market counters that. Litecoin, being silver, can just sit back and watch daring big brother Bitcoin go out into the world, then learn and benefit from the mistakes. Since everything is open-source any advancements for Bitcoin automatically apply to Litecoin. The same is true of legal victories for Bitcoin since they are both cryptocurrencies.

So what has happened is this "foundation" development hasn't hurt Bitcoin at all, rather it has strengthened cryptocurrencies overall.

The base has also been expanded in two key ways:

-Growth of market
-Growth of opportunity

There is already a fledgling Litecoin community forming, including its own forum and LTC businesses like Litecoin Dice which mirror Bitcoin successes. That's growth of market.

With higher LTC market prominence comes increased opportunities including speculation/arbitrage of exchange rates between currencies, which brings up an interesting idea...

An Unexpected Development

As I pondered the implications of all this I realized this also solves the 51% attack.

Most everyone is aware of the dreaded 51% attack vulnerability cryptocurrencies share. Until network hash rates are believed beyond challenge such attack possibility lingers. Unfortunately, sufficiently high hash rates only begin once the currency is successful enough to be a threat.

However, I believe this no longer an issue. The problem posed by a 51% attack is not one of network damage, it's one of confidence damage. If people remain fearful of an attack they understandably become hesitant to use the currency. But the issue of confidence comes into play another way. Nothing backs cryptocurrencies, famously. They gain or lose value and acceptance based on how they are perceived. As I've illustrated it's easy for alternative cryptocurrencies to challenge each other, and no one knows what the market will come up with next. Since it's just as easy for merchants and everyone else to accept one form or another of these all electronic currencies and switch between them, any one could rise or fall at any time.

What I think this means is cryptocurrencies should be used transactionally, rather than as primary stores of value. I see a cryptocurrency version of xe.com showing all alt-coins values relative to gold (or USD to start). Exchange rates would be updated and available to merchants in real time. They could quote product prices in one, two, three or more currencies. They might prompt users with CC (as in currency choice, meaning they accept gold, fiat, crypto etc.) or CCC (crypto-currency choice) pricing signs.

Average consumers would store the majority of their wealth in which ever form of money they deemed most stable (likely gold) and keep about 2% or so of their wealth in other (crypto) currencies. Traditionally, actual physical exchange and storage of money has made it impractical and costly to trade in and out of currencies frequently, but the Internet and cryptocurrencies reduce or remove such barriers.

If over 95% of your wealth is usually in gold, for example, are you ever really concerned about a 51% attack, or the possibility of new and better cryptocurrencies? Not really. You only hold a given cryptocurrency for short periods of time, probably based on exchanged rates, and perhaps even managed by a professional.

Again, we find cryptocurrencies are strengthened overall.

Conclusion

So while the community had fractured over TBF I believe we're all on the same side again

I think everyone (TBF opponents in particular) should begin adopting, promoting and using Litecoin to diversify cryptocurrencies in the market. People should have cryptocurrency portfolios, I think with BTC and LTC starting things off. Exchanges, eWallets, and merchants should add support for multiple cryptocurrencies so people can switch between them easily. Vircurex.com and Btc-e.com currently reflect this well.

The exchange rate for Litecoins I estimate should be around $3, which is about 4 times less than Bitcoin's current rate, because there will be about 4 times as many Litecoins than Bitcoins in total. I personally will be working hard to help the community move in this direction. It also means broader wealth distribution as there are already about the same number of LTC as BTC in existence.

You may have been reading, but perhaps not hearing? It's not "haters". What is there to hate upon? Everyone that would be reading this forum would likely want Bitcoin's success, so why oppose something supposedly working in that direction? It's because of actual concern, not trolling. Even you yourself said you agree with hazek about cause for concern, so I'm not really sure how we're not connecting:

The problem is the uproar caused with the launch of a "Bitcoin Foundation" - a move toward centralization of something supposed to be decentralized. (See 50 plus pages here)

And Gavin isn't making fun he's having fun

mkay. Just trying to ease people's mind over the pandemonium this has caused, mkay?

I think you're right. If you ever "lose it" with programming, you might consider PR.

I need to write this up, but this should take care of the problem. Stay tuned. Coming likely tomorrow.

You know what your arguing premise reminds me of? Chastising the lone critics (I'm sure there must have been some) of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.

From Jim Grant:

"If one reads the Federal Reserve Act, you will be struck by how little the 21st Century model resembles the projected central bank - as in fact the founders advocated for a De-Centralized system."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/what-does-fed-do

You know what's disturbing to me? That the opposing side are labeled "trolls".

No matter which side you're on, which views you have, is that really indicative of honest debate?

This thread has 51 pages, over 13K views in about 72 hours... And everything from the opposing side were troll posts?

Okay, this seems like a blatant political attempt to vilify hazek who has had a dissenting voice on TBF.

Under the circumstances wouldn't this be more suited to a PM? What are the charges, again? That he changed the links from .org to .com?

Let's look at this from the perspective of hazek intentionally being malicious... Seems like a pretty weak action to me. On the other hand, an honest attempt to fix what is thought to be a broken link sounds more likely, at least to me. I don't know the details surrounding this, but I've seen repeated messages about TBF site being unavailable, and one post asking about some private party owning the .com version which suggests to me such a version exists. Sounds like an honest mistake.

Second charge? That he PM'd you to clarify proper handling of placement for this thread? Again, that sounds like a pretty weak charge. I myself had the exact same question upon visiting and seeing about 7 foundation related threads moved to Service Discussion while this thread remained on the main forum. I wondered about consistency, but felt given the significance of this the inconsistency might be justified; just my own view.

Last charge? That he's "spouting off" about Gavin this or that? Please. Your behavior is really starting to worry me. Maybe you're just stressed with all that's going on. I hope that's the case rather than intentional negative political/PR tactics, because that would suggest the need to behave in a disingenuous manner over something which is supposed to be a good idea on its own merits.



Apples to oranges comparison.

Let me spell it out since you and Jeff Garzik apparently haven't any inkling about how crowdfunding Bitcoin Kickstarter style might work.

Do you know how I'd go about it? The first step would be identifying the need/problem. What exactly is it? Reading through these posts I'd say there is strain in different forms on the leading developers of Bitcoin software, including compensation. Okay. So that's a problem. What's the scope? Well, given technical threats and just the inherent needs of such a complex and large-scale project I'd say enormous, i.e., it could threaten/halt Bitcoin progress completely. Okay, so we've identified that we need to get adequate development compensation or it may halt Bitcoin progress completely.

Don't you think that sounds just a bit more urgent than a "Bitcoin Testing Project" that received 72 BTC, or a subtle donation plate style wallet address in a dev signature? You make a thread in the main forum along the lines of "Listen up everyone, Bitcoin may come to a grinding halt if we don't find a solution to X". In this case X is raising adequate developer compensation.

As a libertarian I've followed the campaign of Ron Paul, who raised millions of dollars, not from any wealthy special interests, but pretty much entirely from grassroots supporters. In fact he set a campaign fundraising single day record of about $6 million through use of a grassroots invention called the "money bomb". Why do I bring this up? Because Dr. Paul didn't have wealthy donors. His average contribution was about $25. It's just that so many people believed in the cause so much that raising these lofty figures suddenly became possible, so much so it started garnering media attention for someone way outside the mainstream.

So you set a goal. You say we need 1 million dollars raised in the next month or the current leading developers will have to retire temporarily. But if we raise it we can pay X number of developers for X amount of time which should get Bitcoin to point X, at which time we can reassess things.

Dr. Paul didn't do much with his impressive grassroots funding in his '07/08 run, but in his latest 2012 run he raised far more; his momentum had garnered far more supporters...

Make sense? Fundraising via a foundation is crowdfunding too, is it not?


I can see why you of all people would be glad to see something in the way of this foundation. I knew you were in a quasi-leadership type role for Bitcoin, but I had no appreciation for just how much you were doing before now. Let me take a quick moment to say thank you, and to the other developers as well. My impression was that people put into Bitcoin whatever they could, in the form they wished, when they wished to do so. I imagined voluntary contributions were sure to be uneven in places, but that nobody should be putting in anything that would result in any strain. Why should they? But it appears you were, at least.

So I can certainly sympathize with you in pushing for this foundation. Unfortunately, that doesn't automatically make it a good idea in my book. As I posted earlier I plan on posting another thread with my own version of solutions to perceived Bitcoin problems.

The start of a new day...

First, slightly off-topic, I must say regardless of all current issues, hazek, you've got my respect, bro.


You misunderstand me. Here is your "Aunt Tillie" example:


Again, I'm not talking about Bitcoin itself, the protocol, how its design is cleverly built to be self-protecting. That obviously works well. I'm talking about the vulnerability of countless numbers of "Aunt Tillies" trusting by default that they go to a centralized official site to get "Bitcoin". A malicious site can compromise and abuse users different ways. I'm sure you know this. Downloading "bitcoin-paranoia.exe" isn't necesssary. Simply calling a user's un-patched Java/Adobe/IE script is all that's needed to deliver malicious code/spyware, you name it.

Yes, the security measures of Bitcoin and secure software distribution tools like gitian certainly help cut down on options for mischief, but they don't and can't eliminate it. I think you know one of the most effective hacks simply involves social engineering - don't brute force a password, just ask for it.

Without an "official" foundation users are left to their own devices to acquire safe Bitcoin code to use. This doesn't mean they always will, but it does mean an enemy to Bitcoin, like the State, can't target them from a single "official" point.


I don't follow you here. If 5 million people use a site like blockchain.info versus 5 million who recognize an "official" bitcoin foundation how is that the same? If blockchain.info makes an announcement to double the 21M coin limit you're saying that will have the same effect as "The Bitcoin Foundation" saying it?


First, what do you mean by "creating obstacle to the improvement and distribution of the decentralized client"? Second, a majority of people will use easy-to-use websites regardless. They will look for the path of least resistance for transactions no matter what. The inherent structure of Bitcoin operation is disadvantaged in this way versus the options available to Web and mobile browser based sites.


I would also. However, we likely disagree on ways to accomplish this.


Even if that's a true statement it doesn't mean there must be a centrally recognized official foundation to achieve it.


Now, this may be the substantive post you've made as far as I'm concerned. I think you've highlighted real concerns you (and others) can have about impediments to Bitcoin's success. I believe you think you have what is likely the only viable answer which comes in the form of an officially recognized and powerful foundation. I don't think we differ very much here in terms of starting point, but our reactions are quite different.

You chose one course, which happens to include swift tangible action. I actually must applaud that as respectable, even while I may disagree with the course taken overall. The answer I don't think is easy. It comes from the unavoidable weaknesses of something as complex yet potentially powerful (due to decentralization) as Bitcoin. I actually had already planned a more ideological post/thread with my views on this, which is forthcoming.

That's an interesting point. What if it's the foundation that wants a new coin limit, or other significant change? Don't you think TBF would have uneven leverage to influence such a change?

Think about Microsoft IE, for example. What if IE users were Bitcoiners. How easy would it be for Microsoft to say "hey everyone, this is what we all need to upgrade to, as it will be better. We are the representation of the community, so what we say the community wants is self-fulfilling. Please upgrade at your earliest convenience."

In other words, TBF users vote as a bloc.

Exactly. You're right that gitian is a helpful tool, actually. But it still doesn't account for naive non-tech savvy users - the majority of users. These are the people that would be more reliant on (and trusting of) an "official" foundation.

Okay, I think I see where our disconnect is happening. I don't know if it's intentional or you really are that innocently trusting/limited in imagination.

We're not talking about ONLY using systems as they are SUPPOSED to be used. We're talking about malicious intent, like the illegal wiretaps I talked about earlier. How many users download Bitcoin from Git? They don't. They go to a site like Bitcoin.org. In a "Bitcoin Foundation" world they would likely go there since it's the "official representation" of Bitcoin.

Now once a user is downloading a file from your site, how hard is it to give select users select files?

We are talking about issues of TRUST. THAT is our concern. An official Bitcoin Foundation necessarily gains inherent TRUST automatically, whether that foundation remains trustworthy or not. Make sense?

Now, see? This is what hazek means by indirect answers. Did I ask anything about the bitcoin design?

You of all people know that if you can get a user to run an executable file on their computer you now own everything on the computer, and once that computer connects to the Internet, then you own that computer from anywhere in the world including executing more instructions.

How are we not connecting? You guys keep pointing to things like protocols and bylaws. That's NOT where our concern lies. Those things mean basically NOTHING in the day to day world. On the other hand, in a world full of not-too-bright and usually non-tech savvy users, a powerful organization like The Bitcoin Foundation has a lot of power and influence if users buy into it.

You're talking about strengthening Bitcoin, and I'm trying to show how this can weaken it. Don't you get it? Bitcoin is not ONLY about lines of code and protocols. It's about perception, what people believe about it, and what influences that perception.

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-spying

As 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"?

Interesting answer. Let me put it another way.

What is the representative foundation going to do when the U.S. Department of Justice or similar authority targets it to help crack down on users suspected of illegal behavior, like openly buying drugs on Silk Road. Please keep in mind that hushmail.com, which is based in Canada, was pressured into helping authorities install Java code that aided them in busting mail account holders of an amateurish Silk Road like online drug ring.

I pretty much agree with this except for what I highlighted in bold. I don't think a bigger market will result if this isn't concluded properly. Bitcoin's value is based on a perception, one which includes non-centralized power. What this event has done is drastically threaten that perception, and perception is the only thing the Bitcoin value/exchange rate is based on. If this isn't resolved in what is perceived to be an acceptable way I fear the foundation of the exchange rate will essentially disappear.

Thank you for the concession here. That's helpful and small progress.

Alternative names were suggested starting here. I'll recap:

The We Use Coins Group
The Global Bitcoiner Association
The Bitcoin Freedom Foundation
The Bitcoin Helper Group
The Friends of Karples Foundation
The Bitcoin Super Friends Club

I kind of like The Bitcoin Freedom Foundation, as did another poster in that thread besides the creator.

I'm also interested in a response to this:


Or, put another way, how adding and official target for enemies of Bitcoin might be dealt with.