Hmm I think you might have made a mistake in your bylaws then

Yeah, as it stands now when Bitcoin Foundation is still new and still needs to establish itself. But once it does that and it has some significant funding available to fund PR propaganda you and I both know the ignorant masses will never dissent. I mean just look outside to politics for an example.

And any fork will get crushed with smears and propaganda and marginalized into irrelevance. Again look outside to an example in politics.

Being labeled a troll isn't as disturbing as an out right attack on ones persona:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.msg1231368#msg1231368

and here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.msg1231715#msg1231715

And the second attack happened even after my post replying to the first one here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.msg1231439#msg1231439

See people? What he is admitting here is that my suggestion works, admitting he was disingenuous at best earlier, it's just that he doesn't like it because he knows it is possible to be done in manner that makes it easier for him and he is prepared to do anything if it means it's going to be easier for him.

He isn't happy that the community could choose what to fund in a one time type of burst of funding, no he wants a guaranteed continues funding no matter what it is he wants to do because that's what he prefers. No he doesn't want others to compete with him for the bounties, he wants him to be the one who gets that guaranteed continues funding because that's what he prefers.

I'm done responding to him, because a man will never understand what him getting his paycheck prevents him from understanding. And boy does Jeff want his untaxed continuously guaranteed paycheck.

Stop with the lies and manipulation. Clearly it does work: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=697.0

Maybe it didn't work for you because you didn't put enough effort into it and just suck at it and didn't bother to ask around if anyone would be willing to help you. You failing proves absolutely nothing because just because it isn't easy it doesn't mean it doesn't work.

This is disingenuous at best. Of course one can claim they tried to learn how to ride a bike but hey failed, even if they made only one short attempt. But have they really tried?

Just because it didn't work with almost no effort doesn't mean it doesn't work. As an example this community raised 13000 BTC as a bounty for the first short promotional video for Bitcoin which was then spent on a video that now has over 1.2 million view on youtube and funded the weusecoins.com website. If this much was raised for a promotional video, imagine how much can be raised for development? (disclamer, I don't remember the exchange rate at the time 13000BTC was raised, I think it was somewhere around $1)

You are wrong. Devs and development needs funding that is a need that need to be met and is what I spoke of when I said I don't deny the need. There is no need for a self imposed centralized authority on anything, not even best practices or certificates or a public face.

Off topic:

I wonder if this is how it must have been when people in America at the very beginning were arguing whether or not they need a central bank. I wonder if the same sort of attacks through the use of sophistry, trickery, fallacies and ad hominems were used against those opposed when they were warning of the dangers such an institution poses down the road.

Ah yes, let's compare an operating system to a money system, I'm sure controlling either must be on the same level of desirability by the power hungry. 

Same thing can be achieved without a conflict of interest with an independent contract. Lead dev and dev team can specify what the funds will be spent on developing in there. This allows that if ever devs can't get funding for what they think is best, and if the community shares their opinion, they can always find someone else who will hire them as independent contractors. Now they are locked with this organization and the only way something else will get funded is if it's developed by someone else other than lead dev and his team and funded by someone else other than the current donators to Bitcoin Foundation.


Wrong. Donations can be made by anyone and they can be of any size. This means that if you have a deep purse you carry more weight and can buy more power which no one will notice. On the other hand a for profit business sells a service, the same service at the same price for everyone. There if they don't have many clients (which translates to broad support) they go out of business and a deep purse can't change that by buying their service over and over again because it would be obvious what is happening.

Well then, no one really owns their bitcoins, they just have access to them..  

Yes the git repo can be forked and that never was an issue. The issue is that the lead dev can potentially make changes having Bitcoin Foundation defend them and attack and discredit any forks down the road which could turn into a scenario where the ignorant masses start using a client that is inherently bad for them while the fork that would attempt to correct that can get marginalized, attacked and pushed into irrelevance. That's why it's a conflict of interest because the lead dev and his team can use a powerful organization to defend their fork vs other forks, not because other forks aren't possible.

Actually a member on the board of directors of Bitcoin Foundation has identified the same dangers that a self admitted self imposed spokesperson, policy setting, business vetting, intertwined with corporate interest body poses as I have. Are you saying he doesn't have his facts straight either?

Yeah you missed my post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.msg1235956#msg1235956

I don't deny the need. I just don't think the first solution we now have is the best or even a good one and what scares me the most is the inevitable inability of this community to ever replace it with a different one for the before stated reasons.

Al it takes is to use reason and look at the facts. So far there's been little of that and a lot of trickery, falacies and ad hominems.

Lets be precise shall we?

Yes the Bitcoin economy has voluntary points of centralization, and that's perfectly fine because all these centralized points will get removed the second they misbehave and can't make a profit anymore.

But Bitcoin itself, as a protocol, until 3 days ago had no points of centralization, especially not such that aren't dependent on profits to exist. Please provide a reasonable way how this self admitted self imposed spokesperson, policy setting, business vetting, intertwined with corporate interest body can be rid of in the future should it misbehave? It can't. If corporate interest throw enough money at it, it can stay around forever, no competition can touch it.

And that's a crucial difference between voluntary for profit centralization around Bitcoin and a self asserted centralization of Bitcoin itself.

Exactly.

Definitely the second, it should go through proxy by default if one is set.

Because it implies authority on the matter which wasn't granted to them, they merely asserted it and it's a danger down the road for being corrupted and misused. I mean seriously people, do you really not see the world around you? Please, open your eyes and learn from history or are you that desperate to repeat the same mistakes over and over?


Every single one of us upset about a Bitcoin Foundation is upset not because the good it's promising us it'll do and what it has done so far but because of the dangers of what bad it could do down the road without us having the options to easily get rid of it. And we keep going in circles again and again because we are telling you that you should be wary of the future danger while you are telling us there is no danger right now and we're simply talking past each other.

We know there is no danger right know. But you don't seem be able to comprehend the future danger. Please, open your eyes, learn from history and comprehend the very serious future danger.

Lead dev and his dev team getting paid by the foundation to code is not a problem. The problem is the circumstances. If a lead dev and his team are merely independent contractors then there's nothing wrong with that, if however he is a founding member and on the board of directors for at least the next two years and getting paid to code then that's a conflict of interest and that is a problem.

Remove the conflict of interest and I wont have a problem if they, being run by whoever, pay him billions.