[ANN] Bitcoin Foundation

[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"?

*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.  

Thanks for your response and the opportunity for me to clarify.

First, about the 4 things for Bitcoin moving forward. While we all want Bitcoin to move forward, I was under the impression there wasn't an expectation of time frame. In other words, if Bitcoin progress takes longer without a foundation is that really a problem?

As to whether a foundation helps solve (perceived) problems being a good thing, no, it's not if it does more damage by undermining Bitcoin's claim of decentralization.

A foundation may be an efficient way to solve those problems, but not the best way, if that makes sense.

As for "an official sounding name" that's exactly my point. The ONLY thing I have against this foundation project is the incidental power that comes with it, whether intended or not. Everything else sounds great. But power and politics are weird, sort of like money itself. Money gains value based on growing numbers of people accepting it as such. This too happens with entities gaining power. If it's NOT the goal of this foundation to amass power then deflecting the political power that comes with an official sounding name should be no problem.

Look at the way you even added a disclaimer when speaking about your ties to the Foundation, which I think was smart, by the way. Don't you see? You already recognized the PR/political significance surrounding this thing.

Make no mistake: Bitcoin's value does NOT come from having Gavin et al work on it. That's not a dig. I highly respect and admire the leading developers. Bitcoin's value comes from what people perceive of it. And part of that perception is that it is trusted to be decentralized. That's not a minor issue.

@Atlas - please consider some post restraint, and that you may be diluting your argument credibility/effectiveness.

[Serith]

It must be hard to please you

This is true but given the facts, it would have been more appropriate to say "We are making a minor announcement in September."

This is why I think that it is in fact a major announcement:

Bitcoin Foundation is a group of people that has a website and ask for money, what makes it different is the list of very capable people interested in promotion and development of Bitcoin, who will get the money and will have the opportunity to make a very good and consequential things for Bitcoin.

[kiba]

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"?

How about the Global Bitcoiner Association?

[Serith]

It is kind of funny how someone can start a foundation that relies entirely on voluntary contributions and donations and we will go over its proposal with a fine-toothed comb but someone could start offering a bank that offers 90% interest per day and they would be overwhelmed with people begging to hand over their life savings with no questions asked.

I think it's because the introduction of the project was handled slightly wrong. Would it be better if it was a couple months process of several small announcements?

For example:

• Announce that the idea is very much alive and in development
• Publish vision and goals
• Introduce first two members of the board
• Finalize bylaws
• Get some feedback from community about who they want to see as members of the board
• Introduce the rest of the board members

[acoindr]

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"?

How about the Global Bitcoiner Association?

The name, upon people hearing it, should NOT suggest they speak for Bitcoin. That's all.

This wouldn't reduce their effectiveness in solving the listed problems. But it would reduce public perception of their power, which is power.

[slush]

The name, upon people hearing it, should NOT suggest they speak for Bitcoin. That's all.
This wouldn't reduce their effectiveness in solving the listed problems. But it would reduce public perception of their power, which is power.

Interesting idea. Although I support the idea of some association interfacing between Bitcoin and the rest of world, I don't like the name, exactly for ^^ reason.

[helloworld]

How about the Global Bitcoiner Association?

The name, upon people hearing it, should NOT suggest they speak for Bitcoin. That's all.

This wouldn't reduce their effectiveness in solving the listed problems. But it would reduce public perception of their power, which is power.

How about the Bitcoin Freedom Foundation? Then we could all be BFFs.

[acoindr]

How about the Bitcoin Freedom Foundation? Then we could all be BFFs.

As another poster noted it shouldn't have "the" in the name. That suggests it speaks for Bitcoin. Hello??? Bitcoin is decentralized?

[samadamsbeer]

I think people are jumping to a lot of conclusions here and we should perhaps give some time. Paranoia, on the other hand, is not necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps a better suggestion than starting a competing foundation is to start a watchdog group, focused on suspicious foundations.

[kiba]

How about the Bitcoin Support Group? Or the Bitcoin Helper Group?

[acoindr]

Interesting idea. Although I support the idea of some association interfacing between Bitcoin and the rest of world, I don't like the name, exactly for ^^ reason.

This already happens. See this CNN article on hackers demanding bitcoins for Romney's tax returns which quotes Jeff Garzik. How did they know to consult Jeff Garzik? Because the community already recognizes certain people as best to speak for bitcoin on certain issues. That happened naturally, and is good. However, formalizing it expands that power and is probably bad given Bitcoin's decentralized nature.  

[helloworld]

How about the Bitcoin Freedom Foundation? Then we could all be BFFs.

As another poster noted it shouldn't have "the" in the name. That suggests it speaks for Bitcoin. Hello??? Bitcoin is decentralized?

THE is fine as long as it's not THE Bitcoin Foundation.

For example:

The Friends of Karples Foundation.

[cbeast]

Since we're thinking of name, howabout the Bitcoin Super Friends Club!
Heh, I like the given name. I'm not sure I get the concept, but we'll see how it plays.

[boonies4u]

How about the Bitcoin Freedom Foundation? Then we could all be BFFs.

As another poster noted it shouldn't have "the" in the name. That suggests it speaks for Bitcoin. Hello??? Bitcoin is decentralized?

THE is fine as long as it's not THE Bitcoin Foundation.

For example:

The Friends of Karples Foundation.

Bitcoin Freedom Foundation does have a nice ring to it...

[acoindr]

I hope the leading developers realize it's precisely because the people involved in this foundation at a high level already have some political community clout that this foundation can be a problem.

Any foundation suggesting it speaks for Bitcoin is a problem, because Bitcoin is supposed to be decentralized. The fact this is made up of the top representation of Bitcoin already is even worse.

I don't think I'm overstating it when I say this is playing with fire.

If a foundation must exist then it needs to be very clear how it will severely and intentionally limit its political power/influence over centralization.

[misterbigg]

Any foundation suggesting it speaks for Bitcoin is a problem, as Bitcoin is supposed to be decentralized. That this is made up of the top representation of Bitcoin already is even worse.

I don't think I'm overstating it when I say this is playing with fire.

I agree completely. Probably a lot of the negative reactions in this thread are coming from the perceived arrogance and lack of humility that these handful of people pretend to speak for everyone with a pretentious title "The Bitcoin Foundation."

This just goes to show you that public relations / marketing should not be handled by nerds.

[kwoody]

Who the fuck is Peter Vessenes and what gives him the right to represent this community/economy?

[Portnoy]

Where do I sign up to become President of this 'foundation' ?

Probably become an established member of it and get the others to vote for you.


I don't know what I find more annoying, that certain things could have been avoided if the bitcoin foundation already existed (for example the outcome of the bitcoinca dilemma) or the reaction of the naysayers.
All I see are rants and sarcastic statements.


Gavin already has control over the code, the other board members control over their respected companies, now they form a coalition and enable you to take part of that control and you are complaining?

I rather overthrow this control than go through the effort to gain its approval. Once I have the means, I will be tearing this shit apart through whatever is necessary.

I bet that evil cadre of core developers trembles and quakes every time you threaten them like this.   

I rather reign in hell than serve in heaven.

Quoting Satan now?  lol  Did you really read Milton or did you get that from reruns of the original Star Trek series?   

I am just wondering if you identify with a fallen angel or with a eugenically superior breed of man.     

[acoindr]

Any foundation suggesting it speaks for Bitcoin is a problem, as Bitcoin is supposed to be decentralized. That this is made up of the top representation of Bitcoin already is even worse.

I don't think I'm overstating it when I say this is playing with fire.

I agree completely. Probably a lot of the negative reactions in this thread are coming from the perceived arrogance and lack of humility that these handful of people pretend to speak for everyone with a pretentious title "The Bitcoin Foundation."

This just goes to show you that public relations / marketing should not be handled by nerds.

I think the developers and people behind this have their hearts in the right place, and care about Bitcoin. I really do.

I just think they're going about solutions the wrong way. If you truly believe in Bitcoin then you believe in its own inherent abilities to foster/ensure its success. Its strength is that it's decentralized, and relies on the community to provide what it needs in a free market way.

Some practical organization can help. I'll be the first to agree. But you have to understand Bitcoin is political, like it or not. So steps in the direction of centralization have to be taken VERY carefully and thoughtfully.

[misterbigg]

Upon further reflection since Bitcoin requires software to implement the protocol and because we need the protocol and related software to be improved over time it seems necessary to have a core group of highly competent benevolent developers who will work with the community to create these improvements.

History shows that "design by committee" produces disastrous results for software, whereas having one or two "superstar developers" with strong vision and commitment usually works better.

We probably need something resembling this foundation, but the way that it was introduced and presented to the community left a bad taste in people's mouths.