[ANN] Bitcoin Foundation

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

But this is not the "university world".
Haven't you noticed yet how paranoid, libertarian and anarchist Bitcoin society is ?
Read this thread, find out. We are extremely paranoid. Trying to manipulate the source now would be a personal suicide for the person who tried it.

I suspect that many people who post in this thread actually may have tinfoil hats.

Throwing accusations around like "tinfoil hats" does nothing to advance the debate ... neither does pasting extended quote blocks.
We are just trying to keep it real for the dumbed-down masses that are about to stampede into bitcoin.

I didn't say I know who exactly would have the hat, so don't get so nervous...

Anyway, it is inevitable that somebody, someday will try to put a trojan in the code. It is not a matter of "if", but a matter of "when". So let's just stay vigilant, and stop pointlessly complaining about the foundation...

[acoindr]

This may be a major problem

Maybe using larger font like other posters does help things get noticed...

So here is the problem: perhaps one of Bitcoin's biggest strengths is it's decentralized

Granted the listed problems said to be the reason for creating a foundation are an issue. They include:

1. (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.
2. under/non-paid developers working on a global level payment system
3. legal representation of Bitcoin issues
4. giving a "legitimate" face to Bitcoin

The problem is I'm not immediately convinced a "foundation" is the right/best course to attempt solving these problem. And further, that they can't be solved another way.

Although it sounds good on the surface I'm wary of it. Once you give over power it's hard or impossible to revoke it; and that power can be expanded/leveraged. I'm not against any of the people so far involved with this project. It's not that at all. They may be the most angel-honest, incorruptible people on earth. The problem is I (and nobody else) can know for sure what the truth is, and that this behavior will remain so.

This is the problem I have with this. And also that it seems to be a bit rammed down upon the community presently.

I propose discussion/answers to two things, or I'll have to seriously reconsider my view of Bitcoin:

First: is a foundation the only way to solve the above 4 problems? I only see #3 as being the best candidate. Crowd-funding has in practice proven very, very successful for a number of Internet related projects. Proper developer compensation shouldn't be a problem for a project such as Bitcoin. And doesn't it make sense for such compensation to have the chance to be applied to any developer?

Second: if a foundation IS deemed critical by the Bitcoin community then I believe it necessarily MUST explicitly limit its role and powers upfront as much as possible, with no ability to change this. Think, for example, if it aimed to do the opposite, that is, expand its role and powers as much as possible.

It's good that the Foundation will be funding development and representing Bitcoin legally, but it's important that the ownership of Bitcoin-related assets doesn't become too centralized. In particular, the Foundation should not:
- Control bitcoin.org
- Control any DNS seeds, etc.
- Own copyright on the Bitcoin source code
- Own any patents
- Own the Bitcoin trademark (unless someone has to own it)

I would like to echo this. The Bitcoin Foundation is a service which like any other layer on top of the core Bitcoin code must be and is optional. It can be a face for Bitcoin if their clients want it to be but it must not and can not control Bitcoin.

I think such limits might only be a start.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

OK, i had enough for today.

Good night everybody.

[Atlas]

This may be a major problem

Maybe using larger font like other posters does help things get noticed...

So here is the problem: perhaps one of Bitcoin's biggest strengths is it's decentralized

Granted the listed problems said to be the reason for creating a foundation are an issue. They include:

1. (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.
2. under/non-paid developers working on a global level payment system
3. legal representation of Bitcoin issues
4. giving a "legitimate" face to Bitcoin

The problem is I'm not immediately convinced a "foundation" is the right/best course to attempt solving these problem. And further, that they can't be solved another way.

Although it sounds good on the surface I'm wary of it. Once you give over power it's hard or impossible to revoke it. I'm not against any of the people so far involved with this project. It's not that at all. They may be the most angel-honest, incorruptible people on earth. The problem is I (and nobody else) can know for sure what the truth is, and that it will always be so.

This is the problem I have with this. And also that it seems to be a bit rammed down the community presently.

I propose discussion/answers to two things, or I'll have to seriously reconsider my view of Bitcoin:

First: is a foundation the only way to solve the above 4 problems? I only see #3 as being the best candidate. Crowd-funding has factually proven very, very successful for a number of Internet related projects. Proper developer compensation shouldn't be a problem for a project such as Bitcoin. And doesn't it make sense for such compensation to have the chance to be applied to any developer?

Second: if a foundation IS deemed critical by the Bitcoin community then I believe it necessarily MUST explicitly limit its role and powers upfront as much as possible, with no ability to change this. Think, for example, if it aimed to do the opposite, that is, expand its role and powers as much as possible.

It's good that the Foundation will be funding development and representing Bitcoin legally, but it's important that the ownership of Bitcoin-related assets doesn't become too centralized. In particular, the Foundation should not:
- Control bitcoin.org
- Control any DNS seeds, etc.
- Own copyright on the Bitcoin source code
- Own any patents
- Own the Bitcoin trademark (unless someone has to own it)

I would like to echo this. The Bitcoin Foundation is a service which like any other layer on top of the core Bitcoin code must be and is optional. It can be a face for Bitcoin if their clients want it to be but it must not and can not control Bitcoin.

I think such limits might only be a start.

The only purpose of a Bitcoin Foundation is to be the power structure is proposes to be: The Face of Bitcoin, the legal lobbying body for Bitcoin and the single organization that sets the standards for Bitcoin as a whole. I see no evidence why a market of different organizations who want to help Bitcoin can't do the same thing. The Bitcoin Foundation just wants to consume the entire vacuum of power for itself.

It has been agreed by many of us free-marketeers that problems can be solved as they come up. When a organization comes up with its own problems and proposes its own solutions for everyone to abide by is when we have a problem.

It comes to no question that this will be a source of power over Bitcoin.

[Atlas]

OK, i had enough for today.

Good night everybody.

It's been a pleasure. Great debate.

[vess]

I have a few questions about the Foundation that I haven't seen answered anywhere else.

1. How will potential conflicts of interest be identified and addressed? Especially with regards to the relationship between the foundation and businesses associated with the board members.

2. Is there an explicit list of activities which donations might be used for, or perhaps even a list of activities which donations will never be used for?

Hey AbelsFire, these are good questions, ones I'd like to discuss. I think that the fundamental concept we are working with is that individuals (who have invested some money and time) and corporations (who have often invested MAJOR money and time) and the core development team should work together, share the load and financial burden better while aiming at protecting and promoting and standardizing Bitcoin. The bylaws, to be published soon on Github, talk a little bit about how we're aiming to do this. I have anticipated that member classes who are unhappy with their representation would advocate for different representation.

[Atlas]

I have a few questions about the Foundation that I haven't seen answered anywhere else.

1. How will potential conflicts of interest be identified and addressed? Especially with regards to the relationship between the foundation and businesses associated with the board members.

2. Is there an explicit list of activities which donations might be used for, or perhaps even a list of activities which donations will never be used for?

Hey AbelsFire, these are good questions, ones I'd like to discuss. I think that the fundamental concept we are working with is that individuals (who have invested some money and time) and corporations (who have often invested MAJOR money and time) and the core development team should work together, share the load and financial burden better while aiming at protecting and promoting and standardizing Bitcoin. The bylaws, to be published soon on Github, talk a little bit about how we're aiming to do this. I have anticipated that member classes who are unhappy with their representation would advocate for different representation.

I advocate for no representation needed at all. I advocate that your organization has zero teeth and that's its goals and standards remain suggestions and opinions out of many.

[Serith]

Was there a particular reason to keep it all in secret rather than slowly introduce the project to people while gauging reaction to the idea of Bitcoin Foundation?

It might have been a slight mistake to introduce The Bitcoin Foundation in one chunk of complex information. It will take some time for people to grasp it, and uncertainty gives trolls the opportunity to strike.

[Atlas]

Was there a particular reason to keep it all in secret rather than slowly introduce the project to people while gauging reaction to the idea of Bitcoin Foundation?

It might have been a slight mistake to introduce The Bitcoin Foundation in one chunk of complex information. It will take some time for people to grasp it, and uncertainty gives trolls the opportunity to strike.

The fact they think they have the right to keep secret about an institution that will have an authority of Bitcoin is a big red flag. It's like Jekyll Island all over again.

They honestly think they are running the show here. They think they are illuminated, the chosen, the ones who know how things should be and that we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about OUR money.

[acoindr]

@vess: as the leader of this would you share your thoughts on my comment here?

I'd appreciate that.

But here is I think a GOOD TEST:

There is a lot of power in names - official titles of recognition. I understand the goals/purpose of the Bitcoin Foundation, but I don't believe this suffers depending on how the foundation is named. I do believe, however, inherent (political) power is given over by the name "Bitcoin Foundation". So here is my test. Would one of the high level people answer this simply?

Would you be willing to change the name to something like the "We Use Coins Group"?

... I think that the fundamental concept we are working with is that individuals (who have invested some money and time) and corporations (who have often invested MAJOR money and time) and the core development team should work together, share the load and financial burden better while aiming at protecting and promoting and standardizing Bitcoin.

I too think this is logical and makes sense. What I question is the need to publicly formalize it which is where the (political) power/leverage comes from.

[justusranvier]

I have a few questions about the Foundation that I haven't seen answered anywhere else.

1. How will potential conflicts of interest be identified and addressed? Especially with regards to the relationship between the foundation and businesses associated with the board members.

2. Is there an explicit list of activities which donations might be used for, or perhaps even a list of activities which donations will never be used for?

Hey AbelsFire, these are good questions, ones I'd like to discuss. I think that the fundamental concept we are working with is that individuals (who have invested some money and time) and corporations (who have often invested MAJOR money and time) and the core development team should work together, share the load and financial burden better while aiming at protecting and promoting and standardizing Bitcoin. The bylaws, to be published soon on Github, talk a little bit about how we're aiming to do this. I have anticipated that member classes who are unhappy with their representation would advocate for different representation.

I was hoping for some more specific answers but I'll withhold judgement until the bylaws are published.

At this point I can't say whether or not I'd be willing to contribute money to the foundation. If one of the functions is to hire one or more full time developers that certainly something I'd contribute for but the rest is pretty murky. I don't know if I support "share the load and financial burden better while aiming at protecting and promoting and standardizing Bitcoin" because I don't know what that actually means.

[Atlas]

OUR money.

What have you done to protect the value of "OUR" money? What code have you submitted? What value have you added? Are these posts the extent of your worth?

Adding code is like adding laws. We don't need to add more code to the protocol. More code can add vulnerabilities.

[Atlas]

OUR money.

What have you done to protect the value of "OUR" money? What code have you submitted? What value have you added? Are these posts the extent of your worth?

Adding code is like adding laws. We don't need to add more code to the protocol. More code can add vulnerabilities.

Bullshit. I don't need to run the new code. Answer my question, please?

It doesn't matter if nobody recognizes your money on your terms. Anyways, value is subjective. I am just trying to protect Bitcoins from a single controlling body

[Atlas]

OUR money.

What have you done to protect the value of "OUR" money? What code have you submitted? What value have you added? Are these posts the extent of your worth?

Adding code is like adding laws. We don't need to add more code to the protocol. More code can add vulnerabilities.

Bullshit. I don't need to run the new code. Answer my question, please?

It doesn't matter if nobody recognizes your money on your terms. Anyways, value is subjective. I am just trying to protect Bitcoins from a single controlling body

Bingo. Who is going to recognize the money on the terms of any foundation? Value is subjective indeed. You aren't protecting anything. You are spewing nonsense from a keyboard.

Many people accept the terms of governments and monopolies all the time. People who have been indoctrinated into a new Bitcoin culture that accepts a central body will change the Bitcoin protocol. I am protecting against rapid and possibly damaging change that is questioned by no one accept those who are within the doctrine of a single organization.

Democracies do not work. They fail constantly. I care not if this organization has a supposedly democratic board. It can be corrupted and controlled.

[alexanderanon]

Can we just give Atlas a solitary subforum so he can spout off his "eternal vigilance" mantras elsewhere?

This "eternal vigilance" has never accomplished anything. You may think that the reason the Federal Reserve bill was passed, and every other continued transgression of the state succeeded was because of a lack of people like you, with your "eternal vigilance". It wasn't. These events are determined by the systems in which they occur, and only change due to paradigm shifts. The United States of America was doomed from the founders to become what it is today, regardless of so-called vigilance. Bitcoin is one of those paradigm shifts. Blathering Alex Jones types do nothing but draw attention to themselves, and in your case, post 50+ times in a single day.

[misterbigg]

This is beyond lame. Now I know why there was a distractingly loud burst of absolute silence earlier today, it was the collective yawn from masses of Bitcoin users over this announcement. Next time, don't try to build up excitement by foreshadowing "something big" only to let people down.

I was expecting:

- A new piece of technology / software
or
- A revolutionary business model based on Bitcoin
or
- Mass regional adoption of Bitcoin by retailers
or
- Acceptance of Bitcoin by an established political center

What I got INSTEAD was a sausage party that decided to put up a website and ask for donations.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the effort that goes on behind the scenes by the developers (thanks Gavin) but for all of the hype I expected something bigger.

[FreeMoney]

then there is nothing wrong about having a foundation which will speed up the work and create pro-bitcoin lobby in the bloody congress, for example.

WTF? are you thinking all the userbase live in the USA? Stop acting like all the users or the developers must obbey one unique country.

That's why bitcoin is decentralized!!!

Relax, I'm pretty sure "bloody congress" refers to parliment.

[boonies4u]

Can we just give Atlas a solitary subforum so he can spout off his "eternal vigilance" mantras elsewhere?

This "eternal vigilance" has never accomplished anything. You may think that the reason the Federal Reserve bill was passed, and every other continued transgression of the state succeeded was because of a lack of people like you, with your "eternal vigilance". It wasn't. These events are determined by the systems in which they occur, and only change due to paradigm shifts. The United States of America was doomed from the founders to become what it is today, regardless of so-called vigilance. Bitcoin is one of those paradigm shifts. Blathering Alex Jones types do nothing but draw attention to themselves, and in your case, post 50+ times in a single day.

+1

This is beyond lame. Now I know why there was a distractingly loud burst of absolute silence earlier today, it was the collective yawn from masses of Bitcoin users over this announcement. Next time, don't try to build up excitement by foreshadowing "something big" only to let people down.

I was expecting:

- A new piece of technology / software
or
- A revolutionary business model based on Bitcoin
or
- Mass regional adoption of Bitcoin by retailers
or
- Acceptance of Bitcoin by an established political center

What I got INSTEAD was a sausage party that decided to put up a website and ask for donations.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the effort that goes on behind the scenes by the developers (thanks Gavin) but for all of the hype I expected something bigger.

We're still getting the bitinstant debit card. *shrugs*

[ChrisKoss]

@vess: as the leader of this would you share your thoughts on my comment here?

I'd appreciate that.

But here is I think a GOOD TEST:

There is a lot of power in names - official titles of recognition. I understand the goals/purpose of the Bitcoin Foundation, but I don't believe this suffers depending on how the foundation is named. I do believe, however, inherent (political) power is given over by the name "Bitcoin foundation". So here is my test. Would one of the high level people answer this simply?

Would you be willing to change the name to something like the "We Use Coins Group"?

*These are my views and do not necessarily reflect the views of CoinLab, or my boss, Peter. I don't work for the Foundation, but have volunteered myself to help however I can.

From the post you linked, you ask if the Bitcoin Foundation is the right/best way to do 4 things that (it seems) you and I both agree would be good for Bitcoin moving forward.

If it helps accomplish those four goals, isn't that a good thing?  We could spend years discussing the "best" way to move forward, but I'm of the philosophy that its best to start moving things forward and then improve over time. (Gavin has been working to make this to happen for ~11 months now.)

Why does it have to be "the best"?  Isn't good-for-bitcoin enough? Couldn't Bitcoin use all the help it can get?

Personally, I think for the Foundation to be an effective legitimate face to Bitcoin, it needs an official sounding name.  "We Use Coins Group" sounds like a club in a garage: regulators, businesspeople, journalists, etc. wouldn't take a group with a name like that seriously.  "Bitcoin Foundation" is the simplest, most clear name they could have chosen IMO.  

[mc_lovin]

17 pages in one day?  Geez.

Looks good, I have no idea what it's for, but it looks good!