Seam's to take forever for confirmation's now. 32 confirmation's for a Tx done 3 hour's ago. Took a long time just to get 1(about 20 min or so) is this normal for this version?
The timing of each confirmation is dependent on the network, not your client version. Sometimes blocks are confirmed more slowly, sometimes blocks are confirmed more rapidly. It is only the targetted average that is 10 minutes per confirmation. This is a target that the network is always striving for, but -- due to probability -- never attains. |
|
|
|
Good luck with that. Gavin, the owner of Bitcoin, already declared his foundation (who's purpose between other is to pay his salary by the way) the "official" Bitcoin foundation.
Where did Gavin use the word "official" that you just quoted? Be precise, please. |
|
|
|
Then let's start another foundation to address the issues the BF is weak on. This is how polycentric/anarchic/emergent order works.
Anarchists... unite! |
|
|
|
Oh and let's be precise. The plan was never openly discussed, just Gavin's intentions or wishes. The plan was formulated and executed in private and this is a fact which you admit.
Yes, let's be precise. You go first. "The plan"... what, precisely, was done in private and unexpectedly? A large amount of details are simply obvious, falling out naturally from the creation of a legal entity: You have to choose a name. You have to file paperwork with a government in a physical jurisdiction. You will be dispensing funds, thus you will need to collect some funds from initial funders and board members. A members-based trade organization for open source projects is a common sight, with a familiar structure. Simply saying "foundation for bitcoin" tells you it will probably look and work like Linux Foundation, Apache Software Foundation, Tor Project, GNOME Foundation, etc., etc. So for anyone remotely paying attention... the plan and likely details are quite public. The only private detail I can see is simply the Board, funding and members present on Launch Day. |
|
|
|
- Gavin or anyone else who is a dev should not be on the board of directors, he and all the other devs should be independently contracted by the Foundation
This is reasonable -- I had suggested this to Gavin myself, e.g. Bitcoin Foundation pays Gavin Super Stud Dev, Inc. My suggestion was related to tax treatment, though other separation advantages may be apparent. However, this is intimately tied to Gavin's personal compensation setup, and touches in the realm of personal privacy. So this belongs in the "reasonable, but medium term suggestion" category. - name should be changed to something that does not imply ownership or control of Bitcoin or any aspect thereof
As a members org, I think it should be up to the members what it is called. But quite seriously... let's hear some better names. A suggestion of "change this" is vague. Be specific about what the name should change to, and you have a basis for discussion. - First board members need to be voted on.
As an opt-in, private organization, members will self-select their behavior here. |
|
|
|
It is entirely possible that the Bitcoin Foundation and core dev team will disagree on some issues, as they are separate entities, of separate minds.
The Bitcoin Foundation is not going tell the dev team what to do.
Jeff: true today for sure. But what if someday in the future, some folks in the dev team become dependent on foundation salaries or stipends to put food on the table? How resistant would they be to pressure? Wouldn't it be better to put in place a donation/funding mechanism for the dev group that was more distributed, crowdsourced, anonymous, and not directly tied to any organization? That is the rub: when you find a better mechanism, yes, it will get used. At present, distributed, crowd-sourced, anonymous donations not tied to any organization do not tend to yield anywhere near the amount necessary to pay a full time developer on a consistent basis, much less a team. |
|
|
|
This is disingenuous at best because what was discussed there is merely the idea of such an organization and not a single detail of the actual implementation. I don't understand why you need to employ such trickery and keep misleading people? The foundation was formed in private among a select minority - this is a fact. The plan was openly discussed. And then linked in the OP. It is self-evidently misleading on the part of critics to portray the forming of a foundation as a "secret plot." 11 months ago the forum saw "I would like to get something imperfect up and running quickly, with the expectation that it will evolve over time." And that's what you do: you find a group of people that can get something going, do-ers rather than talk-ers, and you pool initial funds and file legal paperwork. If problems are found, you change. Otherwise nothing gets done, outside of rampant bike shedding over names and other superficial details. "THE Bitcoin Foundation"? "A Bitcoin Foundation"? "A Bitcoin Group"? "Cream of Mushroom Engineer"? At some point, it is better to do and get feedback and fix mistakes in an iterative process. |
|
|
|
A start for limiting power would be as simple as stating the intention to do so. I haven't seen that in any form from any high level member. Why not a good faith answer about the name, for example, which I've described as problematic in the way it infers power, yet isn't essential to solve the problems the entity is supposed to solve.
No high level member has said they're open to using a less powerful sounding name. They haven't even answered my simple question:
Should the Bitcoin Foundation intentionally and explicitly seek to LIMIT its power in every way possible which does not diminish its ability to accomplish its goals?
It is a meaningless question, whose only possible answer is vague, not quantifiable, and entirely within the realm of politicians not engineers. But even as such, this answered the question. Staying within Satoshi's vision is a clear limit on power. Staying true to the protocol is a clear limit on power. As to the name... come up with a better one that (a) doesn't sound lame and (b) doesn't sound ominous to other forum denizens. |
|
|
|
The following statement really bothers me, and is ridiculous in the context of a product whose originator clearly valued anonymity highly, for good reason: The Foundation's core values include openness and transparency. I think the Bitcoin anonymous thing is overblown and a bit of a myth, by the way. Every bitcoin transaction links two addresses; often people can be determined from those addresses.
It is factually incorrect to call bitcoins anonymous. See https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/AnonymityEveryone from the EFF to the US Department of State recommend Tor for activists to secure their communications. What if that same activist, hiding from an authoritarian government, hears "bitcoin is anonymous" with no further detail? They will get caught, by protocol fingerprinting, network analysis and other techniques. You have to employ several techniques over and over "using bitcoin" to achieve reasonable anonymity. |
|
|
|
If these guys who started "A Bitcoin Foundation" would have embraced the community a little better instead of twirling their moustaches while hatching their plot in secret, perhaps the rollout would have been welcomed almost unanimously with open arms. Instead, they caused a divide. Bad karma.
This secret plot was openly discussed in this thread. |
|
|
|
"And as an update, several recent client versions have "broken compatibility" by changing the protocol--in particular, the handling of fees given the increased value of bitcoins. The changes were eagerly adopted by the community in general, and the changeover happened exactly as I described, though by successive versions rather than a block number in particular. Because the client with the dormant protocol was accepted near-universally, the change was rolled out live in the next version shortly after. And everything worked like clockwork--you can now send transactions with much smaller fees. – eMansipater Jul 12 '11 at 21:41"
That "broken compatibility" statement is factually incorrect. Old clients may continue to communicate with the network just fine, and old bitcoins may continue to be spent. The fee changes referenced were not protocol changes. |
|
|
|
not much... the core team is given funding to continue to improve and promote bitcoin, and they now have a board of directors to report too.
While agreeing with a lot of your points, this must be emphasized: The core team does not "report to" anybody. It is entirely possible that the Bitcoin Foundation and core dev team will disagree on some issues, as they are separate entities, of separate minds. The Bitcoin Foundation is not going tell the dev team what to do. |
|
|
|
Any tips on what to do next? I'm still a bit fuzzy about the details. Can we blacklist those funds somehow?
Figure out how it happened, gather details, file a police and FBI cybercrimes report. Make sure the method of theft is not still open. |
|
|
|
Also, and I'm not sure how to put this perfectly... but remember that statements made by the board members might be targeted to the outside world and not to the Bitcoin community. Read between the lines there and ponder on that strategically for a bit  +1 |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is inherently anti-government since it takes away power from those who would live at the expense of others.
Well, let us not close off the option of governments adopting a currency like bitcoin. Think long game, as I pointed out in the mini-manifesto posted earlier in this thread. |
|
|
|
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.
Well and succinctly spoken, +1 |
|
|
|
You can go back pretty far in the git history. Even the old pre-git subversion changes were imported. |
|
|
|
Having a Bitcoin Foundation puts us one step closer to it being plausible that Visa might actually consider Bitcoin a currency worth adding to their platform. It's a long shot and may not happen any time soon, but given that history spans a very, very long time, and a lot can happen in such a time, so spans the future.
Absolutely. That's a bit of what I just pointed out in " My rambling bitcoin mini-manifesto." |
|
|
|
Bitcoin needs protection from the Powers That Be until it is successfully established. Right now, bitcoin is weak, and needs as much protection as possible until it is thoroughly engrained, established within our world. This is the same reason why Satoshi did not want wikileaks donations. Think long game, people. Bitcoin is a new, game-changing concept for the world. It potentially means monetary freedom for millions (billions?). We have had a decentralized world currency before -- gold -- but bitcoin has many features even gold does not provide. You cannot memorize gold ( brain wallet) and transport it with complete privacy. Bitcoin is more stable than some real-world African fiat currencies. Mobile phone technology is rapidly spreading across Africa, to even places where electricity and Internet do not reach. Monetary freedom provided by bitcoin could transform lives in Africa today. Bitcoin enables border-free remittances for near-zero cost, enabling rich Asian and Western countries to send their poorer relatives bitcoins -- less money for the Western Union middlemen, and more for your relatives. Most of all, bitcoin is a truly unique, young gem of an experiment: a currency (commodity?) supply that will slowly increase to 21M, then remain. A decentralized currency, whose supply is validated by the global userbase and not adjusted at a whim by an elite few central bankers. That experiment deserves time to take root and grow. A heterogeneous mix of nation-state and decentralized currencies will provide a healthy check-and-balance ecosystem for world currencies. With greater knowledge born of field experience and competition, each currency may learn from the other. If the Bitcoin Foundation can buy bitcoin some time to get established, while staying true to the original Satoshi vision (decentralized, global, 21M), it seems worth it. There is no objective evidence that any of the founding members have or want to deviate from Satoshi's vision. A decentralized, join-if-you-like foundation works well, and is an established model proven successful in other open source projects like Tor or Linux. If you have multiple parties who might have conflicts of interest, organizing a neutral entity is a logical step. However kind, it is ethically questionable for Intel or AMD to directly pay Linus Torvalds' salary. The Linux Foundation exists as a neutral entity, neutral ground where otherwise competitive interests meet for the good of the ecosystem. It does not erase conflicts of interest, but does serve as an open, transparent body of action. If any of us ever deviates from Satoshi's core vision... fire us. Please. Satoshi gave you the power. Refuse to upgrade or choose a new client. Vote with your feet, your computer and your wallet. |
|
|
|
Please don't insult my intelligence. You know damn well what I meant with private. Everything about this foundation was kept private until a day ago, only the connected had the chance to have an input and you know damn well why that is.
You are simply engaged in fact-free trolling. There was a thread on the forum discussing the idea of a Bitcoin Foundation: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49841 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
