Joking aside I just do not get why this being brought up at all... Do you think Satoshi's name somehow tarnishes TBF reputation? Or fixes any problems TFB has to deal with now days?
Well if at all, Id say the other way around. But by and by I mean, why associate someone with a group unless they say they want to be associated? Satoshi didn't ask to be part of the Bitcoin foundation (to my knowledge) so wouldn't it make sense to not have Satoshi listed as a member until they ask to join?
Can you point to some examples of where current leadership claimed to speak for what the Bitcoin community wants?
Can I go search through the Bitcoin foundation's mission statement and look for quotes that I interpret as proving my point only to have you counter with your interpretation? Yes and I'd be happy to do so, but will I find quotes that say, "TBF was created to speak for the Bitcoin community"? Probably not, but as I said, I'd be happy to look. Before I spend time doing so, isn't it's creation implication of the need for someone to speak on behalf of "Bitcoin"? The need to push for adoption, speak to politicians who don't understand the technology, inform people that Bitcoin isn't just for online drug markets, etc? While I say most of those things are fine and good, and there isn't any ill will intended in doing those things on TBF's behalf, have you stopped and thought of the greater issues caused by making official statements for "Bitcoin" which consists of the technology itself, and the userbase? While I'm moderately hostile to the premise of a Bitcoin foundation at its roots, please make sure you understand that I don't have a single qualm with any individuals in the Bitcoin foundation (to my knowledge) so no personal biass influences my thought process. I trust individuals to speak on behalf of Bitcoin, even if what they are saying is nonsense, because everyone knows that its an individual person's testament, not an official claim. The formation of an official body to personify Bitcoin not only provides a target, but also greater room for misunderstanding of Bitcoin's nature. If one of your members says something controversial, your personal opinions or points of view reflect poorly to the technology as a whole. Thats where my resistance to an official Bitcoin foundation comes from. I'm not against advocacy groups of people who wish to speak about Bitcoin, but there really needs to be more than one to water down the role of each group. Where was the official internet foundation? Who pushed for people to understand that the internet wasn't just a way to do shady things, or to let people know the benefits of the internet? While that isn't a 100% apt comparison, some similarities are there, so hopefully you understand my meaning.
I also personally disagree with a few policies, but that isn't as big of an issue.
Ahh, sorry, now I get... I was looking at it the wrong way. To me it felt like institutional religion is trying to remove God's name from the bible
