If they seriously want my trust the name, among other things, would need to change entirely, The Andersen Foundation for Bitcoin development was one of the ideas I really liked!

Yes you dummies, don't look at what our legal papers say, just look at the sign on the door, it's all there.. See? We don't pretend to assert anything, we're just a foundation, you can have your own!   

Is there an example where there are multiple foundations for the same thing?

It's bitcoinfoundation.org.

WHOIS information for bitcoinfoundation.org:***

[Querying whois.publicinterestregistry.net]
[whois.publicinterestregistry.net]
Access to .ORG WHOIS information is provided to assist persons in
determining the contents of a domain name registration record in the
Public Interest Registry registry database. The data in this record is provided by
Public Interest Registry for informational purposes only, and Public Interest Registry does not
guarantee its accuracy.  This service is intended only for query-based
access. You agree that you will use this data only for lawful purposes
and that, under no circumstances will you use this data to: (a) allow,
enable, or otherwise support the transmission by e-mail, telephone, or

facsimile of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations
to entities other than the data recipient's own existing customers; or
(b) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that send
queries or data to the systems of Registry Operator, a Registrar, or
Afilias except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or
modify existing registrations. All rights reserved. Public Interest Registry reserves
the right to modify these terms at any time. By submitting this query,
you agree to abide by this policy.

Domain ID:D160855409-LROR
Domain Name:BITCOINFOUNDATION.ORG
Created On:06-Dec-2010 21:40:58 UTC
Last Updated On:30-Sep-2012 01:34:49 UTC
Expiration Date:06-Dec-2021 21:40:58 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:1API GmbH (R1724-LROR)
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:RENEWPERIOD
Registrant ID:MKB8595108-HPQS
Registrant Name:Mark Karpeles
Registrant Organization:Bitcoin Foundation Inc.
Registrant Street1:3809 STEEPLECHASE DRIVE
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Carmel
Registrant State/Province:Indiana
Registrant Postal Code:46032
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.3024445240
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:mark@bitcoinfoundation.org
Admin ID:MKB8595108-HPQS
Admin Name:Mark Karpeles
Admin Organization:Bitcoin Foundation Inc.
Admin Street1:3809 STEEPLECHASE DRIVE
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Carmel
Admin State/Province:Indiana
Admin Postal Code:46032
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.3024445240
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:mark@bitcoinfoundation.org
Tech ID:MKB8595108-HPQS
Tech Name:Mark Karpeles
Tech Organization:Bitcoin Foundation Inc.
Tech Street1:3809 STEEPLECHASE DRIVE
Tech Street2:
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Carmel
Tech State/Province:Indiana
Tech Postal Code:46032
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.3024445240
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:mark@bitcoinfoundation.org
Name Server:ISLA.NS.CLOUDFLARE.COM
Name Server:LEE.NS.CLOUDFLARE.COM
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
DNSSEC:Unsigned

And a lead dev who owns the git access and is a founding member and a member of the board of directors for the next two years is a conflict of interest.

And the organization is not for profit which means it can't go bankrupt should it provide a crappy service as long as big businesses are prepared to open their purse they can operate indefinitely. (a scary thought)

OP, have you stepped outside and opened your eyes recently?

That's why.

Because mine would be a laughing stock compared to a Bitcoin Foundation with the lead dev on it's board of directors together with the two biggest Bitcoin businesses. And I don't like to be a laughing stock, that's why.

Banks too "passed certain audits by" FDIC and rating agencies which didn't stop them from causing the mortgage crisis with their dishonest practices. A certificate without someone answering for it is a moral hazard (you do understand this term, right?) and is worse for the consumer in the long run than if there is no vetting by an organization.

In other words it's a non solution at best but more likely a huge problem down the road. Why anyone would want that, besides having the power to influence which business gets more short term "legitimacy" I have no idea.

If you are serious about solving the problem of bad business practices, private insurance is the only known free market approach that guarantees the right results.


p.s.: one more thing, according to your theory FDIC and rating agencies should now be discredited because their "seals of approval" were given to bad businesses and yet that isn't the case? Why is that?

Ok, let me be stupid for a second since it seems anyone straying from what the status quo says anymore is just dismissed with an ad hominem and not reason or logic or fact.

What exactly are the repercussions for a Bitcoin Foundation if they certify the wrong business, do they cover any loses? Do they go out of business? Are they obligated to do anything that would make it very painful for them to get it wrong? If there are no such repercussions then this is a moral hazard exactly the same as the FDIC's bottomless purse (printing press) insuring banks - it transfers the vigilance from the consumer to an organization where the organization wont have any problems if they get it wrong.


But I agree! It is a problem that a service provider could attempt to solve through an actual free market approach. Don't know what that is? Let me help: insurance. Instead of a Bitcoin Foundation we simply need a for profit Bitcoin Insurance, a business that will for a fee sell insurance. If the business is too risky and can't get their seal, then this is a sign to stay away. If they get the seal of a purchased insurance then this is a sign someone is willing to risk their own money as a sign of confidence and legitimacy. But again coming up with such a business, getting the needed investors and coming up with a model that isn't going to screw you isn't as easy as just asserting yourself as being a watchdog that faces no risk by getting it wrong. Unfortunately easy != good.

I don't understand why people are so fixated on the governments model of providing a service? Why do you want speak for people who didn't give you their consent to speak for them?


Why can't you just start a for profit service on a voluntary basis. If Bitcoin needs a face, have clients pay for it. If Bitcoin needs vetting businesses, have clients pay for it. If the dev team needs funding, have clients pay for it. And there's no need for a board of directors, or elections, or bylaws or anything like that. You can simply run a business that provides a desirable service for a certain price.


Maybe I get it. Maybe it's harder to get people to pay for something than simply asserting yourself to speak in their name whether they want it or not. Well guess what, harder doesn't make it bad or impossible and easier certainly doesn't make it safe and desirable.

Photos associated with each member checked by facial recognition software for multiple entry is the best and most anonymous way of solving the double voting problem. This way all a member has to give up is his photo, no name, no address, no nothing, and they can't sing up twice.

How? Fork git, discredit his.

It's all about credibility, it always was. Back then a lead dev was solely responsible for his, now he has a corporation shielding it for him.

Yeah you joined? And your going to vote him out? Is that why the political system works oh so well? Because elections are a good way to get rid of bad people? Please, I'm not 5 years old. You can't remove Gavin now. First of all he is on the board of directors for the next two years, to vote him off you will need to wait at least that long but secondly he is a founding member, and you can't get rid of one of those.


And this fallacy is exactly the reason why I preferred him being independent and constantly watched by the community. Now the community will trust that this Bitcoin foundation is being honest and open about who pays which bill where NOTHING prevents someone still paying a lead dev secretly to do whatever (not that I think this is relevant in the first place). So you see, this false sense of security under the pretense that it was actually needed is actually a moral hazard, the first of it's kind in the Bitcoin ecosystem and a huge danger down the road.

This is why:

More restrictive rules can be malicious also. And Bitcoin Foundation being a self admitted self imposed spokesperson, policy setting, business vetting, intertwined with corporate interest body with enough money spent on PR will always get it their way with enough miners. Maybe not today but definitely in the future.

The danger exists now that's my point.

It's the first time I'm reading this topic just now, I do sleep sometimes you know..

As for the OP, I don't know but after watching that linux promo for the first time I think he raised a very valid point and future concern over the dangers any lead dev shielded by a self admitted self imposed spokesperson, policy setting, business vetting, intertwined with corporate interest body can cause.

But because I'm biased here, I will forward this thread to another mod and ask him to evaluate it whether it needs to be moved or deleted.


Oh and the OP refers to: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114290.0

I know you meant this purely humorously but on a serious note I could never join an organization which it's core properties betray my core principles I try to live by. It's the same reason why I don't vote when small gangs of thugs commonly referred to as governments hold their charade elections.

But I'll join the second those properties are removed because I do see a lot of possible good that it can do.

Yeah me too.

It's not.

You know what would help to raise you more money MatthewLM? A nice little PR post where you could explain a little bit more about who you are, what are your goals and a donation goal. I'm sure people would be really generous if you could properly reach their awareness. Have you thought about any of this? Would you like some help with that?

Before: Gavin or who ever is lead dev had to personally defend his and his team's actions while the whole community was carefully monitoring what he did AND he was easily removable from his lead position

After: Gavin or who ever is lead dev can hide behind a corporation, a self admitted self imposed spokesperson, policy setting, business vetting, intertwined with corporate interest body that can shield him from any negative repercussions providing him with the excuse he was just executing their policy AND him now being a board member for the next two years and a founding member making him nearly impossible to be removed from his position

Who is paying Gavin is irrelevant, just as it is irrelevant who is Satoshi. What is relevant is who carries the responsibility to not misbehave and what kind of consequences can they face if they do.


I'm really scared by all your trickery you're employing in your PR posts.