Solution to The Bitcoin Foundation (the announcement)

[deeplink]

I think the whole foundation discussion is starting us (the community) on a slippery slope. The idea that it eventually turns into a corrupt regulatory entity isn't an enjoyable conversation.

That being said, I think the 'refuse to update' crowd has it right - if Gavin & other developers go off the deep end and make changes that are bad for the network - I simply won't use it. That may mean getting off the train entirely if the version I'm using loses popularity and becomes worthless. I know Gavin does what he does for love of the ideals bitcoin embodies. That's the same reason I (and some other portion of the community) are involved in it. I see bitcoin as having the potential to incite political change in the world at large.

I for one refuse to make decisions based on fear. Yes, I can see how the foundation could lead to badness... but it hasn't happened yet - and I'm not abandoning bitcoin just because it could eventually lead to that. To even suggest a pre-emptive more to an altcoin... shows everyone that you aren't a supporter of bitcoin... but merely a speculator trying to make a quick/easy gain. Nothing wrong with that, use the network however you like - but please don't run around pretending the sky is falling when it isn't.

What is your point saying that the foundation discussion starts us on a slippery slope and isn't enjoyable? Maybe, but does that mean we shouldn't talk about it? Discussing every possible outcome makes the community stronger and aware. Of course we should discuss it.

Back on topic, I think most replies miss the point the OP is trying to make.

It has nothing to do with fear nor with being a Bitcoin or Litecoin supporter nor with being a nay-sayer or foundation hater.

It does not matter how likely or unlikely you think it is that Bitcoin can be comprimised. I think we can agree that it is possible and that scenarios exist where "refuse to update your client" is not an option. You would either have to join your enemy or you loose.

If I understand it correctly the main point he makes (OP correct me if I'm wrong) is that competition between working and tested crypto-currencies is a good thing and to an extend may prevent development going bad, because users now have an option to abandon coins that are comprimised. Nothing more, nothing less.

Think of it as the decentralisation of decentralised crypto-currencies.

We can argue if Litecoin is an alternativ at this moment or if it ever could be, but I don't think we can argue that it is impossible for Bitcoin to be compromised. Unlikely yes, impossible no.

[acoindr]

That being said, I think the 'refuse to update' crowd has it right - if Gavin & other developers go off the deep end and make changes that are bad for the network - I simply won't use it.

As I replied earlier, what if the changes made are not to the protocol? I'll repost what I said...

Let me give what I think may be a good example. We're talking literally about money are we not? How many people on earth use money? Almost all of them. That's near 7 billion people.

Now, say TBF becomes powerful, widely popular, and corrupted. Millions, even billions of people download the software client from TBF because that's what's popular (see Windows). What if the Bitcoin client followed the protocol with no changes, but also gave a convenient screen listing businesses that accepted the currency... You click 'restaurants' and a list appears, 'dentists', a list appears, 'wedding photographers', anything. This is just a separate tab on the client so it has nothing to do with BTC operation, but it does have to do with power/influence over what million or billions of people think are the recommended businesses to go to all around the world. You don't think that's too much power for one organization to have?

I for one refuse to make decisions based on fear. Yes, I can see how the foundation could lead to badness... but it hasn't happened yet - and I'm not abandoning bitcoin just because it could eventually lead to that.

I guess in 1913 you would have said, sure the Federal Reserve Act could lead to badness... but it hasn't happened yet and I'm not abandoning it just because it could eventually lead to that.

To even suggest a pre-emptive more to an altcoin... shows everyone that you aren't a supporter of bitcoin...  

Acutally, you're the one that isn't a true Bitcoin supporter, because you're showing you don't understand it. If you believe in Bitcoin then you believe it is a voluntary currency supported by the free market. This means you believe it should gain value on its own merit, not because of what someone else says, dictates, or enforces. It also means you welcome competition for it, because if the free market picks the competition then that is the way things should be. Otherwise trying to protect a certain position is not what Bitcoin is about, that's what fiat is about.

but merely a speculator trying to make a quick/easy gain.

If you hold bitcoins and don't spend them you are a speculator too. You are speculating your bitcoins will have the same or higher value in the future.

but please don't run around pretending the sky is falling when it isn't.

The following poll shows I'm not alone in my concern:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115388.0

[acoindr]

I think this has been blown out of proportion. The nay-sayers and armchair developers ...

Not that it's relevant to the points I'm making, but I'm not an "armchair developer". I know how to code.

have a million opinions and want to just sit around and complain.

I suggest you re-read my OP. It's not just sitting around and complaining. In fact, the thread title has the word "solution" in it.

If someone thinks there is a better way, you're free to do it.

Yes, that's right. That's exactly what I'm doing.

This isn't a slippery slope- BST, GLBSE, Bitcoinica,PIRATE, and the list goes on- these are slippery slopes. Poorly secured or run services, or outright frauds that destroy our credibility. This is the slippery slope to a cesspool of inaction and ponzi schemes.

I don't know what these businesses have to do with the Bitcoin Foundation. Nobody, that I know of, is suggesting it is a Ponzi scheme, fraudulent, or poorly run service, at least not at the moment.

[acoindr]

Back on topic, I think most replies miss the point the OP is trying to make.

It has nothing to do with fear nor with being a Bitcoin or Litecoin supporter nor with being a nay-sayer or foundation hater.

It does not matter how likely or unlikely you think it is that Bitcoin can be comprimised. I think we can agree that it is possible and that scenarios exist where "refuse to update your client" is not an option. You would either have to join your enemy or you loose.

If I understand it correctly the main point he makes (OP correct me if I'm wrong) is that competition between working and tested crypto-currencies is a good thing and to an extend may prevent development going bad, because users now have an option to abandon coins that are comprimised. Nothing more, nothing less.

Think of it as the decentralisation of decentralised crypto-currencies.

Yes, deeplink, you have it exactly. Thank you for speaking up

Let me clarify a few points.

I do not hate the foundation, and certainly don't hate Bitcoin. In fact, I think the foundation can do a lot of good. Further, I even admitted that the people forming the foundation did nothing wrong technically.

What I am suggesting is there is inherent danger in concentration of power. That's just a fact of life. Like it or not. Sometimes it's abused and sometimes not, but to not have any concern I think is naive.

The best way to fight against concentration of power, short of directly attacking it, is to offer alternatives. That's all I'm trying to do.

In other news I see the LTC/USD exchange rate is skyrocketing on btc-e.com lately

Apparently it hit .10 briefly, which I think is an all time high. Does anyone know a source of historical LTC prices?

[firefop]

Bitcoin is by definition the protocol. If some change isn't a change in the protocol then it doesn't really matter. There is no example anyone could of a non-protocol change that would affect the network to to any degree over any real amount of time. Specifically, your original example doesn't matter. If that sort of thing matters, if it's something that works... we'll see other clients adopt it. If not, then we won't. How would having a vendor list pushed by the client... how does that detract from use of btc?

As for the fed being formed: The foundation isn't being granted any power. They're simply filling a need that the see in the community also there is no power enforcing anything they do.

As for who's a supporter of bitcoin: Right, I'm not a supporter of bitcoin... because I want to keep using it. Sure that makes sense, you're supporting it by switching to another currency that adds almost nothing to the base concept. As an aside, LTC offers a single advantage to BTC in its faster block creation times... which means it could be potentially less annoying to use for a consumer/vendor transaction... while at the same time bringing a flawed concept of inflating the overhead associated with block creation (scrypt) to stave off technological advances (because they're somehow 'unfair'). Which is counter intuitive to growing and securing the LTC network.

As for speculation: I hold about BTC20 - just to be sentimental. They are the last 20 from my original buy. Maybe that makes me a speculator, but I don't really think so.

As for the poll: What exactly does it prove? Only that aren't alone in not understanding the ideals behind bitcoin and how it's all supposed to work. So are we talking about truth or public opinion? If we're trying to find the truth you'll need better evidence than 'others agree with me'.

I for one am interested in the truth. And your "Solution to The Bitcoin Foundation (the announcement)" isn't actually a solution. You're simply advising us to stop using btc and use another coin instead. That's avoidance of an (potential) issue rather than a solution.

That being said, I think the 'refuse to update' crowd has it right - if Gavin & other developers go off the deep end and make changes that are bad for the network - I simply won't use it.

As I replied earlier, what if the changes made are not to the protocol? I'll repost what I said...

Let me give what I think may be a good example. We're talking literally about money are we not? How many people on earth use money? Almost all of them. That's near 7 billion people.

Now, say TBF becomes powerful, widely popular, and corrupted. Millions, even billions of people download the software client from TBF because that's what's popular (see Windows). What if the Bitcoin client followed the protocol with no changes, but also gave a convenient screen listing businesses that accepted the currency... You click 'restaurants' and a list appears, 'dentists', a list appears, 'wedding photographers', anything. This is just a separate tab on the client so it has nothing to do with BTC operation, but it does have to do with power/influence over what million or billions of people think are the recommended businesses to go to all around the world. You don't think that's too much power for one organization to have?

I for one refuse to make decisions based on fear. Yes, I can see how the foundation could lead to badness... but it hasn't happened yet - and I'm not abandoning bitcoin just because it could eventually lead to that.

I guess in 1913 you would have said, sure the Federal Reserve Act could lead to badness... but it hasn't happened yet and I'm not abandoning it just because it could eventually lead to that.

To even suggest a pre-emptive more to an altcoin... shows everyone that you aren't a supporter of bitcoin...  

Acutally, you're the one that isn't a true Bitcoin supporter, because you're showing you don't understand it. If you believe in Bitcoin then you believe it is a voluntary currency supported by the free market. This means you believe it should gain value on its own merit, not because of what someone else says, dictates, or enforces. It also means you welcome competition for it, because if the free market picks the competition then that is the way things should be. Otherwise trying to protect a certain position is not what Bitcoin is about, that's what fiat is about.

but merely a speculator trying to make a quick/easy gain.

If you hold bitcoins and don't spend them you are a speculator too. You are speculating your bitcoins will have the same or higher value in the future.

but please don't run around pretending the sky is falling when it isn't.

The following poll shows I'm not alone in my concern:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115388.0

[acoindr]

Bitcoin is by definition the protocol. If some change isn't a change in the protocol then it doesn't really matter.

I disagree. Power comes in different forms. Consider the President of the United States. The president has no legal authority to control the stock market, yet just the words he says or even how he says them can affect markets. That power didn't come explicitly with the presidential office, but as a side effect.

As for who's a supporter of bitcoin: Right, I'm not a supporter of bitcoin... because I want to keep using it. Sure that makes sense, you're supporting it by switching to another currency that adds almost nothing to the base concept.

Aha, now I see why you are so resistant. Like DeathAndTaxes, you think I'm trying to replace bitcoins. I'm not. I want bitcoins to succeed just as much as I always did, and I hope the Bitcoin Foundation can help achieve that. I intend to help the foundation however I can in that regard.

At the same time I do, however, believe bitcoins should have competition in the marketplace. I'm going to write up a post on competing currencies when I get a chance because I think the community really needs to understand that concept, and why it's better overall. It doesn't weaken bitcoins/cryptocurrencies, it strengthens them.

To summarize, imagine you went to the store and saw prices not just in dollars, but also something called dwellers. The people controlling dwellers were completely different than the Fed. If the Fed did something you didn't like like lowering interest rates causing inflation you could exchange more of your dollars for dwellers, and use those to buy things instead of dollars. If the people running dwellers mismanaged them you could choose to hold and use more dollars. Both currencies would exist and have value in the marketplace, but because no single currency had a monopoly it would ultimately benefit the market participants by giving them choice. Choice is usually always better. Consider politics. Is it better to have only one or two candidates or would you think the more the better?

As an aside, LTC offers a single advantage to BTC in its faster block creation times... which means it could be potentially less annoying to use for a consumer/vendor transaction... while at the same time bringing a flawed concept of inflating the overhead associated with block creation (scrypt) to stave off technological advances (because they're somehow 'unfair'). Which is counter intuitive to growing and securing the LTC network.

As for securing the LTC network please see my comment here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115388.msg1250825#msg1250825

[deeplink]

...

Firefop, your arguments are very fuzzy and have nothing to do with what OP is saying.

I have tried explaining as clear as possible what I felt OP meant and he acknowledged it. But you keep going on about irrelevant stuff.

I realize many people are like you. You assume there is no danger, because you cannot see it (yet). You have difficulty understanding and making clear and logical arguments, you fail to see the big picture and/or have a dangerously naive world-view.

You sir, are why I feel there is need for strong altcoins.

[firefop]

Aha, now I see why you are so resistant. Like DeathAndTaxes, you think I'm trying to replace bitcoins. I'm not. I want bitcoins to succeed just as much as I always did, and I hope the Bitcoin Foundation can help achieve that. I intend to help the foundation however I can in that regard.

Yes, well. Because you said it. Either this post is BS or the OP is.

Either way I'm out, since attempting to reason with you seems about as useful as chasing a hyper-active gerbil.

[acoindr]

Aha, now I see why you are so resistant. Like DeathAndTaxes, you think I'm trying to replace bitcoins. I'm not. I want bitcoins to succeed just as much as I always did, and I hope the Bitcoin Foundation can help achieve that. I intend to help the foundation however I can in that regard.

Yes, well. Because you said it. Either this post is BS or the OP is.

Either way I'm out, since attempting to reason with you seems about as useful as chasing a hyper-active gerbil.

I never said I was trying to replace bitcoins, in any post. And you can't cite where I did. I guess that's why you're "out". Either you have a problem with reading comprehension, or with admitting you're wrong. Perhaps that's why you think reasoning is of no use.