[ANN] Bitcoin Foundation

[Polvos]

ew months are sufficient to severely damage Bitcoin with your elitist BS.

but certainly less damaging than ongoing ponzi and drug related activities.

Is this what you expect from the foundation? Thinking by you about what is good and what is wrong?

[1714588095]

1714588095

[1714588095]

1714588095

[Technomage]

I still think the foundation is a good thing, however it needs to be transparent and it needs to be limited in terms of how much ownership it can have on Bitcoin & central services/domains etc.

It's important to remember that Gavin already has full control of the code. It's open source, yes, but it's not going to be any less open source after the foundation. Now there will be at least some structure to how Bitcoin is developed and I think that is an improvement.

[adamas]

but certainly less damaging than ongoing ponzi and drug related activities.

you mean SilkRoad? Aik, SR didnt harm the bitcoin market.

[apetersson]

I still think the foundation is a good thing, however it needs to be transparent and it needs to be limited in terms of how much ownership it can have on Bitcoin & central services/domains etc.

i agree. it would be good to have a clearly defined scope for the purpose of the foundation, and have a pre-determined schedule of reports to the members, individuals and corporate alike.

paying gavin for his work is a good first step, though it should be transparent. if this model is successful other developers should be able to apply for grants for specialized topics. i am thinking for things like lightweight verifying nodes, alternative implementations..

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

...
As a libertarian and non-Statist on the Foundation board, I think that other libertarians and non-Statists would mostly agree that a transparent organization is preferable
....

Matonis,

Didn't you object against the ban on anonymous memberships? If not, why?

[IIOII]

...
As a libertarian and non-Statist on the Foundation board, I think that other libertarians and non-Statists would mostly agree that a transparent organization is preferable
....

Matonis,

Didn't you object against the ban on anonymous memberships? If not, why?

Very simple: Due to this simple restriction they have a preselection of people that do not mind the establishment of a factual central authority. People who care about privacy will not join - and these are generally the most libertarian and non-conformist ones.

[IIOII]

Only two years in the Bitcoin universe... few months are sufficient to severely damage Bitcoin with your elitist BS.

This kind of language is also damaging. You want to benefit Bitcoin? Be constructive, not destructive!

I feel free being destructive on things that destroy what is good.

The Bitcoin Foundation is a threat to Bitcoin. It will lead to its factual control by a central authority. That's against all which Bitcoin stands for.

But most people here seem not be willing to admit that danger.

[BkkCoins]

One of the reasons I won't be joining is that I don't want to put my name on their list. But this is a part of any membership based organization. It's pretty hard to see how they could reliably have anonymous members without it being open to abuse. On the other hand (I haven't checked but) I doubt they actually take photo ID from members and it's likely you could supply any random name, address and email. Which brings us full circle. If you want member identity info then you need to check everything or else you may as well just have anonymous members. Certainly when dealing with Bitcoin that couldn't be more true.

[Jan]

What if Paypal gets all is employees to sign up to the bitcoin foundation then votes out everyone but paypal sockpuppets from the board ? Or Visa ?

Dont think Paypal or Visa would do this ?

Jon Matonis  worked for  Visa so they already have one foot in the door - no offence meant Jon  

Its the same way companies like goldman sachs end up with so many ex employees working in government then surprise- they get a bailout. If corporations see that they can buy their way in to influence things they will.

If paypal gets all is employees to sign up to the bitcoin foundation they will endorse Bitcoin and pay Gavins salary. Win, win win 
And... we will just create a new one.

[The_Duke]

Is there a published list of all board members and the businesses they are associated with? In the interest of transperancy it might be good for everyone to see what interests the people who claim to be the voice of bitcoin serve besides their interest in bitcoin.

[Come-from-Beyond]

One of the reasons I won't be joining is that I don't want to put my name on their list. But this is a part of any membership based organization. It's pretty hard to see how they could reliably have anonymous members without it being open to abuse. On the other hand (I haven't checked but) I doubt they actually take photo ID from members and it's likely you could supply any random name, address and email. Which brings us full circle. If you want member identity info then you need to check everything or else you may as well just have anonymous members. Certainly when dealing with Bitcoin that couldn't be more true.

For amount equal to 3 USD (price of 1 bottle of vodka) I can get a scan of passport of a real person. 25 BTC is enough to get 100 real identities. How real identity helps to protect "TBF" against sock puppets? They need real identities for something else. This is a RED FLAG for sane bitcoiners.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Is there a published list of all board members and the businesses they are associated with? In the interest of transperancy it might be good for everyone to see what interests the people who claim to be the voice of bitcoin serve besides their interest in bitcoin.

You might be surprised....

[The_Duke]

Is there a published list of all board members and the businesses they are associated with? In the interest of transperancy it might be good for everyone to see what interests the people who claim to be the voice of bitcoin serve besides their interest in bitcoin.

You might be surprised....

If the TBF refuses to publish such a list, maybe we can create it ourselves with available info and some digging?

[deeplink]

After reading most of the thread, I am still worried about this Foundation.

Particularly the fact that the main developer is part of the same construction in which politics and influential industry individuals will play a huge role. Conflicts of interest are inevitable to happen.

I do want to support Gavin and other active developers, but not through this organization.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Is there a published list of all board members and the businesses they are associated with? In the interest of transperancy it might be good for everyone to see what interests the people who claim to be the voice of bitcoin serve besides their interest in bitcoin.

You might be surprised....

If the TBF refuses to publish such a list, maybe we can create it ourselves with available info and some digging?

A watchdog organisation woud be a good thing. Bittyleaks 

[marcus_of_augustus]

I just made a terrible discovery.

The English Foundation.

This is a foundation dedicated to US English. I can't tell but I don't think they even invented English, they seem to be co-opting it for their purposes after the fact and I fear it will get worse. One main tactic seems to be teaching English to new people, eventually those people are going to outnumber us and (with help from The Foundation) have more influence than us early English adopters.

This is -our- language we are talking about here. I don't think it would be wise to leave it in the hands of this one organization.

The Gold Foundation

http://www.goldfoundation.com.au/

The Bitcoin Foundation could be an outreach people with for asperger's too ... lol?

[greyhawk]

Best vanity TLD I've ever seen.

[marcus_of_augustus]

(The Bitcoin Foundation) .... a registered non-profit based in DC ... .

Why DC?

[Herodes]

Very simple: Due to this simple restriction they have a preselection of people that do not mind the establishment of a factual central authority. People who care about privacy will not join - and these are generally the most libertarian and non-conformist ones.

I think there should be anonynous memberships. To avoid gaming of voting, perhaps anon members should have no voting rights?

[Technomage]

I think there should be anonynous memberships. To avoid gaming of voting, perhaps anon members should have no voting rights?

This makes no sense. There is already "anonymous membership" and that is the donate page. Simply donate bitcoins, no name is asked. Being a member is about having voting rights, donating anonymously is about supporting it anonymously, with no voting rights. The current system works fine in my opinion, no changes are needed.