[ANN] Bitcoin Foundation

[P_Shep]

They work together regardless because people desire certain things. Some of these protocols remain untouched and need no oversight because they are fine as they are.

Sorry? Software suddenly started communicating over vast distances through desire and haven't be touched since?

It's magic people, magic!

Or...
http://www.rfc-editor.org/

[Polvos]

The bitcoin foundation. They call themselves THE foundation, but they are not the founders of bitcoin. With the naming and the new public relations function they have selfassigned, they will be catching a lot of newbie attention. Now imagine they focus all the newbies only in the premium companies services...

[alexanderanon]

I am optimistic with slight reservation.

I think the main concern, and the only valid one I can think of, is the issue of aboveground vs underground bitcoin. Bitcoin grows by either the quiet growth within the community, and/or by the expansion of that very community out and into the public sphere. Clearly with this decision, the top players in this community have placed their bets with growth by publicity. They must recognize however, that with the benefits of greater publicity and assertiveness comes the perils of aggressive action by those actors who see bitcoin as a threat. I think such a foundation was inevitable, but some might say that it should have waited until more "quiet" development had occurred.

As for the other concerns expressed in this thread:

1. The Foundation is asserting itself as the official voice of bitcoin, when a collection of "unofficial" voices is safer when dealing with a legally ambiguous entity.
1a. Essentially the same as above. There is a strategic give and take between streamlining bitcoin's interaction with a society that is potentially benign and fielding inquiries from a system that is potentially hostile. Evidently the Foundation thinks it is worth the risk.

2. Democracy is ineffective in ascertaining the official voice of the community.
2a. The Foundation will need to answer questions as to the workings of their alleged democratic system. If the community grows dissatisfied with how the Foundation is portraying bitcoin, and the Foundation takes the classic democratic turn towards oligarchy, then alternative "official" voices and associations will certainly spring forth and return us to a more decentralized balance.

3. Regulators will compromise the Foundation and ruin bitcoin!
3a. If they wished to do so pre-Foundation, they would go after Gavin directly. Now, supported by a Foundation with money and lawyers, Gavin and the other developers are much better protected from such dangers, and able to generate an appropriate response (or a fork) if need be. Besides, the nature of the satoshi protocol contains numerous safeguards built-in against such kinds of "attacks" (namely that bitcoin versions are voluntary downloads). At the same time, government interference is arguably more likely now that bitcoin is growing out in the open.

[kjj]

The bitcoin foundation. They call themselves THE foundation, but they are not the founders of bitcoin. With the naming and the new public relations function they have selfassigned, they will be catching a lot of newbie attention. Now imagine they focus all the newbies only in the premium companies services...

The Federal Reserve is neither Federal, nor a Reserve.  I even have my doubts about the The.  By comparison, The Bitcoin Foundation is a fountain of great honesty.

Don't get so hung up on the name, it is just an organization to promote and grow bitcoin.

[Atlas]

I am optimistic with slight reservation.

I think the main concern, and the only valid one I can think of, is the issue of aboveground vs underground bitcoin. Bitcoin grows by either the quiet growth within the community, and/or by the expansion of that very community out and into the public sphere. Clearly with this decision, the top players in this community have placed their bets with growth by publicity. They must recognize however, that with the benefits of greater publicity and assertiveness comes the perils of aggressive action by those actors who see bitcoin as a threat. I think such a foundation was inevitable, but some might say that it should have waited until more "quiet" development had occurred.

As for the other concerns expressed in this thread:

1. The Foundation is asserting itself as the official voice of bitcoin, when a collection of "unofficial" voices is safer when dealing with a legally ambiguous entity.
1a. Essentially the same as above. There is a strategic give and take between streamlining bitcoin's interaction with a society that is potentially benign and fielding inquiries from a system that is potentially hostile. Evidently the Foundation thinks it is worth the risk.

2. Democracy is ineffective in ascertaining the official voice of the community.
2a. The Foundation will need to answer questions as to the workings of their alleged democratic system. If the community grows dissatisfied with how the Foundation is portraying bitcoin, and the Foundation takes the classic democratic turn towards oligarchy, then alternative "official" voices and associations will certainly spring forth and return us to a more decentralized balance.

3. Regulators will compromise the Foundation and ruin bitcoin!
3a. If they wished to do so pre-Foundation, they would go after Gavin directly. Now, supported by a Foundation with money and lawyers, Gavin and the other developers are much better protected from such dangers, and able to generate an appropriate response (or a fork) if need be. Besides, the nature of the satoshi protocol contains numerous safeguards built-in against such kinds of "attacks" (namely that bitcoin versions are voluntary downloads). At the same time, government interference is arguably more likely now that bitcoin is growing out in the open.

Unless Gavin accepts the "long-arm of government" through the "official" voice of The Bitcoin Foundation. Before you know it, you'll see government backdoors in the protocol and people would be swayed into accepting it with little question because "Standards".

[ydenys]

Okay, first – sorry, did not bother to read previous 11 pages. Second – fees are way too high and site’s design is far from professional or even good-looking (what is the point of back-dating it to July then? Show how little work was done since then?). Also i had never heard of Linux foundation despite using Linux, if it is the same business model, I fail to see how it would bring any promised ‘stability’ to Bitcoin. For me it is no more than developers’ way to raise cash for otherwise undocumented ‘champagne expenses’ – no profit for the community as such and certainly not worth of silly ‘announcement of an announcement’ publicity stunt. Do not care if you had ‘meant good’, sorry, failed for me here.

[Polvos]

Don't get so hung up on the name, it is just an organization to promote and grow bitcoin.

The name is important for a organization selfdeclared "the face" of my savings

[alexanderanon]

I am optimistic with slight reservation.

I think the main concern, and the only valid one I can think of, is the issue of aboveground vs underground bitcoin. Bitcoin grows by either the quiet growth within the community, and/or by the expansion of that very community out and into the public sphere. Clearly with this decision, the top players in this community have placed their bets with growth by publicity. They must recognize however, that with the benefits of greater publicity and assertiveness comes the perils of aggressive action by those actors who see bitcoin as a threat. I think such a foundation was inevitable, but some might say that it should have waited until more "quiet" development had occurred.

As for the other concerns expressed in this thread:

1. The Foundation is asserting itself as the official voice of bitcoin, when a collection of "unofficial" voices is safer when dealing with a legally ambiguous entity.
1a. Essentially the same as above. There is a strategic give and take between streamlining bitcoin's interaction with a society that is potentially benign and fielding inquiries from a system that is potentially hostile. Evidently the Foundation thinks it is worth the risk.

2. Democracy is ineffective in ascertaining the official voice of the community.
2a. The Foundation will need to answer questions as to the workings of their alleged democratic system. If the community grows dissatisfied with how the Foundation is portraying bitcoin, and the Foundation takes the classic democratic turn towards oligarchy, then alternative "official" voices and associations will certainly spring forth and return us to a more decentralized balance.

3. Regulators will compromise the Foundation and ruin bitcoin!
3a. If they wished to do so pre-Foundation, they would go after Gavin directly. Now, supported by a Foundation with money and lawyers, Gavin and the other developers are much better protected from such dangers, and able to generate an appropriate response (or a fork) if need be. Besides, the nature of the satoshi protocol contains numerous safeguards built-in against such kinds of "attacks" (namely that bitcoin versions are voluntary downloads). At the same time, government interference is arguably more likely now that bitcoin is growing out in the open.

Unless Gavin accepts the "long-arm of government" through the "official" voice of The Bitcoin Foundation. Before you know it, you'll see government backdoors in the protocol and people would be swayed into accepting it with little question because "Standards".

Do you have any evidence of this happening? Would you advocate for the immediately dissolution of what may very well be a positive voice for bitcoin for fear of some hazards so far only imagined? All the while you could start your own bitcoin advocacy group and hard fork complement as a check and balance to the impending "disaster" that is Bitcoin Foundation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henny_Penny

[acoindr]

The dangers to Bitcoin from any move/power gravitating toward centralization are obvious to me.

Question: is The Foundation critical to Bitcoin's success?

From the "Why" page:

As the Bitcoin economy has evolved, we have all noticed barriers to its widespread adoption—botnets that attempt to undermine the network, hackers that threaten wallets, and an undeserved reputation stirred by ignorance and inaccurate reporting.

Certainly these are annoying problems, but is a foundation the (only) way to solve them?

[Atlas]

Jeff Garzik, a board member: "We are working with the government[which?] to make sure indeed the long arm of the government can reach Bitcoin... the only way Bitcoins are gonna be successful is working with regulation and with the government."

[Severian]

The name is important for a organization selfdeclared "the face" of my savings

Why are you putting something you can't afford to lose into an experiment?

[Polvos]

Imagine some hackers ddos attack the bitcoin foundation server the same way they attacked bitpay. Would some newbie put some savings in a decentralized system where the selfdeclared "official face" is down a week because a ddos attack?. What if the premium companies offer some premium services to newbies through the foundation login page and the web is down for a week because the attack?.

[Polvos]

The name is important for a organization selfdeclared "the face" of my savings

Why are you putting something you can't afford to lose into an experiment?

heh, do you think this is the first tip a newbie is going to see when he connects to the login page of the foundation while Mtgox pays the premium service?

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Stop grumbling people.

This is a great move. If they can keep the foundation working at least as effeciently as Linux foundation, only good can come from it.
Linux is also a decentralized project of a sort (as all Open Source projects kinda are), so creating similiar structures should work. At least in theory.

If you don't like this foundation, you can start your own. If people will be unsatisfied with Gavin's Bitcoin foundation, they will switch to your one. It is as simple as that.

[Atlas]

The name is important for a organization selfdeclared "the face" of my savings

Why are you putting something you can't afford to lose into an experiment?

Gavin Andresen says the exact same shit. It's very annoying. It's like him saying "It's my experiment. I will do whatever I want with it. Fuck you guys."

No, Bitcoin works fine as it is. Don't experiment with it and leave our money alone.

[Severian]

heh, do you think this is the first tip a newbie is going to see when he connects to the login page of the foundation while Mtgox pays the premium service?

Bitcoin's lead developer says it frequently enough that only the deaf and blind might miss it.

[Atlas]

heh, do you think this is the first tip a newbie is going to see when he connects to the login page of the foundation while Mtgox pays the premium service?

Bitcoin's lead developer says it frequently enough that only the deaf and blind might miss it.

I don't care what he says. I don't recognize him as having any authority. Maybe Satoshi but Gavin is just the goon that went to the CIA. When that happened Satoshi left.

Bitcoin works. Under his reign, it may not.

[acoindr]

Stop grumbling people.

This is a great move. If they can keep the foundation working at least as effeciently as Linux foundation, only good can come from it.
Linux is also a decentralized project of a sort (as all Open Source projects kinda are), so creating similiar structures should work. At least in theory.

If you don't like this foundation, you can start your own. If people will be unsatisfied with Gavin's Bitcoin foundation, they will switch to your one. It is as simple as that.

No, I disagree it's a great move. I question it very seriously.

One of Bitcoin's biggest selling points is that it is NOT centralized. I've emphasized that fact when endorsing its use to others.

It's not about "Gavin's foundation". It's about any foundation. The people involved with pioneering this foundation are some of the ones I admire most in the Bitcoin community. That doesn't mean I think this is automatically a good idea. To the contrary this is the first thing I've really considered a real threat to Bitcoin succeeding. In fact, it's a part of the problem of amassing power that these widely-admired people are the ones pioneering this move toward centralization.

EDIT: in my view, any sort of foundation Bitcoin needs for success (if it needs any) should necessarily limit its role and power as much as possible. For example, think what would happen if it did the reverse...

[Polvos]

heh, do you think this is the first tip a newbie is going to see when he connects to the login page of the foundation while Mtgox pays the premium service?

Bitcoin's lead developer says it frequently enough that only the deaf and blind might miss it.

The Wizard of the 7% weekly returns said it quite a lot too. Are we going to get caught with "The Wizard of the bitcoin software development" too?

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Unless Gavin accepts the "long-arm of government" through the "official" voice of The Bitcoin Foundation. Before you know it, you'll see government backdoors in the protocol and people would be swayed into accepting it with little question because "Standards".

If anything suspicious happens, I will be the first to abandon the "official" client then.
For now, such scenario seems highly improbable.

Let me make explain it in other words: