[ANN] Bitcoin Foundation

[jgarzik]

Nothing in bitcoin happens without the consent of the majority of users, and that is by design.

I assume by majority of users you mean majority of devs with commit access?

No, I mean just what I said:  a majority of users.

Frankly the conspiracy theorists should be far more worried about pool op power.

We devs have to beg and plead just to get support for any network-wide feature...

PS.  Use p2pool!

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

Q: The Foundation is a corporation, and corporations (especially US corporations) are evil.

OK. So don't join-- go form your own non-corporate non-evil organization, or just ignore the Foundation and do whatever you think is right.

So what is the Bitcoin Foundation? Where is it incorporated? Is it a non-profit? Who owns it? Where are its bylaws?

The Foundation runs itself. No one owns it. It's a registered non-profit based in DC and holds elections.

In 2 years from now, the board could be completely new. You could be on it.

\
Unfortunately, whatever is determined to pay Gavin, the current remaining four will want the same compensation, if not more depending on the average salary standards of their respected trade. Then you have a couple other seats available, with those filling them expecting the same. And finally there's the pseudonym seat. Surely he's deserves the same wage. So let's do the math. Eight seats times a respectable salary of $50,000 USD/year equals $400,000 USD/year.

Somebody check my work.

~Bruno~

Why do you assume that they're getting compensated for filling up those seats?

I agree with this Bruno. I know you to not assume things, this one included. The key of the foundation is to pay for the core dev team.

Right now, all the core devs are not paid and doing this on their free or extra time. Hell, one of the core devs works for Google!

Bitcoin code needs QA very quickly, and getting some badass talent working on Bitcoin

What makes you think the Bitcoin Foundation is the "official spokesman" of Bitcoin?

Me personally, I don't think that the Bitcoin Foundation is the official mouthpiece of Bitcoin but it seems almost a certainty that anyone who does not know anything about Bitcoin and stumbles across "The Bitcoin Foundation" is going to make the assumption that they invented the protocol and have complete control over it.

How dare you make that assumption. In fact, the opposite is true.

Everyone knows Satoshi invented Bitcoin.

-Charlie

[ChrisKoss]

Okay, no one in the forum is going misunderstand "A Bitcoin Foundation" as being the inventors / maintainers of Bitcoin. I'm talking about average every day people who don't know anything about Bitcoin but might read an article in a magazine about "A Bitcoin Foundation" or see a video from one of the board members and jump to a wrong conclusion.

I don't think you understood what I was getting at.

People outside the Bitcoin world misunderstand almost everything about Bitcoin.  They assume its centralized, fiat, a ponzi, etc. They worry that 2^256 isn't enough addresses and we might run out. They think its a waste of electricity. The uninformed coming to the wrong conclusion about various aspects of Bitcoin is unavoidable.

I'd rather the Foundation worry about making Bitcoin succeed than making sure that the lowest common denominator can understand what they're doing.

[jgarzik]

On a positive note, I think that if "A Bitcoin Foundation" is successful at funding the infrastructure completely using voluntary donations it will serve as a fantastic model to show how "the commons" can be maintained without the coercive power of the State. In this respect, I wish it success. I could be persuaded to donate if there was some recognition of the rough-shod way this was dropped onto the community.

Unfortunately that is damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't.

If this was announced without any supporting organizational structure, website or plans, it would get flamed to hell and back.

I think it is better to have something in place, and then accept criticism and be flexible and change as the community wants.

The organizational version of "show your code", if you will.

[smoothie]

Wait so once again it's the richest that have the most say? Wtf? Voting should be by the free market of users not the "foundation". Bullshit.

[ChrisKoss]

Wait so once again it's the richest that have the most say? Wtf? Voting should be by the free market of users not the "foundation". Bullshit.

Votes about Foundation business should be voted by non-Foundation members?   

[Atlas]

Wait so once again it's the richest that have the most say? Wtf? Voting should be by the free market of users not the "foundation". Bullshit.

Votes about Foundation business should be voted by non-Foundation members?  

If the foundation goes about defining the Bitcoin protocol and defining Bitcoin's legal status, yes.

[Come-from-Beyond]

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

Heh. I was thinking the same after I saw his post.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

It's not difficult, it's just a lie. As the name "Bitcoin Foundation" itself, since you're not the foundation of Bitcoin.

Whats a lie?

It's a lie to say Satoshi is a founder of this organization, since he was not there to found it.
It's a worse lie, IMHO, to call this organization "Bitcoin Foundation", since it is not the foundation of Bitcoin. Such name will inevitably mislead people into believing you have an "authority" over Bitcoin, which you don't. And I can't avoid thinking this was intentional.

Satoshi is a member of the foundation because he is the creator of Bitcoin.

How can he be a member of something without explicitly agreeing with it?

In fact, the bylaws outline that if Satoshi returns how he will claim his seat.

He will be able to claim his seat if he wants to.

Again, you people are missing some basic principles. You can't proclaim some individual is part of your organization without this individual's authorization. I know in practice this is irrelevant, but this is the second principle you missed right from the start (after blocking anonymous memberships).
I would expect evoorhees to understand such details, btw. Aren't you two hand and glove? Isn't he involved in this organization?

[ChrisKoss]

Wait so once again it's the richest that have the most say? Wtf? Voting should be by the free market of users not the "foundation". Bullshit.

Votes about Foundation business should be voted by non-Foundation members?  

If the foundation goes about defining the Bitcoin protocol and defining Bitcoin's legal status, yes.

The developers define the protocol and miners approve it, only governments can define legal status.

I don't think what you're asking for is possible. If you know how to implement a secure, online, decentralized voting system that isn't vulnerable to Sybil attacks, please do share.   But, putting up a poll that can be voted on by anonymous members (as many times as they want!) is a laughably poor solution.  How do you propose the Foundation collect votes from non-members?  

[BitcoinBug]

Gavin isn't Bitcoin.  The Foundation isn't Bitcoin.  No single entity is Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the sum of all the parts.  If you're worried about there being too much power in one place, don't weaken what's working well, add new power somewhere else.

I'm quite shocked that so many people are against Gavin being compensated now, after he's put so much time into this project for free.  

+1

[The_Duke]

Everyone knows Satoshi invented Bitcoin.

I just asked the first person I saw if she knew Satoshi. She said it was some new toy she saw in a commercial on disney channel. She had never heard of bitcoin though.

So no, I don't think everyone knows Satoshi invented bitcoin. Almost no one knows bitcoin. And of the ones who know bitcoin, maybe about half (the ones who do more with it that just buy some and sit on em praying the price goes up) know who satoshi is.

And it will be the same with this foundation. The vast majority of people won't ever look beyond the first things they see. They see "Bitcoin Foundation" and will assume that bitcoin was created and is "owned" by this foundation.
The fact that a small group of people are pulling so much of the bitcoin "ownership" onto themselves is very sad.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

Maybe, but I'm not really qualified. I'm only a 21-year-old college student.

Your presence in it might be a "check and balance", as you say in English.
AFAICT, you're not a statist. Perhaps the only one in the core dev team not to be?
You've shown to be very neutral and fair in the administration of this forum. I don't know if you'd remain like that in this organization, but it's easier to expect you to do so than the others which are in there already. Sort of like Ron Paul in US Congress. Actually, perhaps it was not just by mistake that you were not invited.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

They see "Bitcoin Foundation" and will assume that bitcoin was created and is "owned" by this foundation.

Exactly. This will mislead people. And it seems it was intentional.

The fact that a small group of people are pulling so much of the bitcoin "ownership" onto themselves is very sad.

+1

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

Only a tiny fraction of folks, the ones who are intelligent and thoughtful, are going to think "an institution financed by a donation or legacy to aid research..." The rest are going to think "So they invented/operate Bitcoin."

So the foundation are going to talk to people ad nauseum: "No, we didn't invent bitcoin. We just help support and promote bitcoin."

He, if they didn't want to mislead people into believing they have some sort of authority over Bitcoin, they would not have chosen such name for a start. It would be named something like "Bitcoin Development Group", or "Bitcoin Supporters Club", or even "Andresen Foudation", if you will.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

Like 6 idiots on the forums think that, maybe 10, no one else.  Do you also think that The Pediatric Cancer Foundation invented/operate giving kids cancer?

Do you want to bet that one year from now, if this organization is still up, many newbies coming by will believe "Bitcoin was created by the Bitcoin Foundation" or that the "Bitcoin Foundation decides the roadmap for the Bitcoin project and are responsible for it" etc? Or even that journalists will say such things?

[Grouver (BtcBalance)]

..

You could also just edit your post you kow.  

1) Regarding data safety what i mentioned earlier.
How can the Bitcoin foundation guarantee that my identity will be kept a secret if the database gets compromised in some way.
Is this data encrypted?

2) When will Gavin start to answer some questions and add them to the FAQ in the OP?

[greyhawk]

I think most of the negative reaction comes from one or two high volume posters, probably imported from the SomethingAwful forums

Not very likely. SA is not so much about making fun of Bitcoin itself, but more about making fun of the mass agglomeration of easily scammed idiots and talentfree superstars-in-their-own-mind surrounding Bitcoin. That said, personally I find this foundation is a major step forward for Bitcoin and as far as I can gather most of my fellow goons see it the same way.


The negative feedback mostly seems to be coming from the ultra-randian fraction and the crypto-anarchists.

[Uglux]

I hope Gavin is going to do something like that with the banks in the future : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYWzMvlj2RQ 

[Polvos]

I'm a real Bitcoin believer. That's why I think people would gradually incorporate to the bitcoin network. So all the potential userbase still don't know too much about Bitcoin.

In fact I consider all of us, the today users, early adopters that, in a very next future, will become <50% of the bitcoin userbase. So control the newcomers and in a next future you will control the majority of the network.

It's for this because I'm opposing "THE bitcoin foundation". If I want a decentralized network validating the transactions I make, I want the same decentralized spirit in the information the newcomers are going to taste in their bitcoin approaching. Remember that, someday, they'll become the >50%.