[ANN] Bitcoin Foundation

[Atlas]

I'm not going to address conspiracy theories, mostly because I'm not seeing most of them because of who I've got on my ignore list.

Very good trick if u have nothing to say in ur defense! I hope that the spokesperson of "TBF" won't use it too often...

This is true. If one is truly seeking "input from the community" to help shape this then surely nobody should be on ignore if they are not being hostile?

Gavin, you are a remarkable man. You don't even bother with "conspiracy theories". That's true efficiency.

You know the true importance of "getting things done".

Lead us all!

No, most of us who actually own significant amounts of Bitcoins accept no leaders, no authorities or committees. We will dump and chastise every frivolous addition to the protocol on the spot.

[1715579857]

1715579857

[1715579857]

1715579857

[boonies4u]

I'm not going to address conspiracy theories, mostly because I'm not seeing most of them because of who I've got on my ignore list.

Very good trick if u have nothing to say in ur defense! I hope that the spokesperson of "TBF" won't use it too often...

This is true. If one is truly seeking "input from the community" to help shape this then surely nobody should be on ignore if they are not being hostile?

Gavin, you are a remarkable man. You don't even bother with "conspiracy theories". That's true efficiency.

You know the true importance of "getting things done".

Lead us all!

No, most of us who actually own significant amounts of Bitcoins accept no leaders, no authorities or committees. We will dump and chastise every frivolous addition to the protocol on the spot.

How many frivolous additions have your dumped and chatised? Can you site the specific ones? If you haven't chastised any additions, what will make you do it now that the Foundation exists?

[acoindr]

If you think BF changes anything about how bitcoin-the-protocol or bitcoin-the-software will work, then you simply never understood how bitcoin worked in the first place.

Satoshi designed the system so that you would not have to trust the developer (him, a total unknown, pseudonymous individual).

The dev team, by introducing git and gitian use, has made that compact even stronger.

Jeff,

Come on now. This seems disingenuous.

I expect you know the dissenting voices against TBF are not simply worried about the Bitcoin protocol or software in a literal short-term sense.

People who believe and/or act collectively is powerful. People who are over or who can influence people who believe or act collectively is powerful.

It's a fact that an overwhelming majority of people know exactly nothing about Bitcoin at this point. If they come to understand there is an entity called "The Bitcoin Foundation" and further that this entity is comprised of several people who are widely regarded as notable in the Bitcoin community, you don't think there is inherent power in that? Power which could be abused, extended, and morphed but never entirely revoked because of mind share?

[Steve]

Some of the people involved in this foundation are a part of a cabal known as the Jekyll Island Bitcoin Society.  The secret plans of this organization are anyones' guess.  Is it a mere coincidence that the formation of this foundation follows so closely on the heels of their convening meeting on Aug 22nd in NYC?

Steve, as you and Tony know the Bitcoin Society is just a name for the meetup we have in New York monthly.

60 people were at our las meetup including Gavin, reports, bankers, investors, ect.

There are no 'Secret Plans', in fact the WHOLE meetup was broadcasted LIVE on FreeTalkLive.com

http://www.meetup.com/Jekyll_Island_Bitcoin_Society/events/77229272/

 

[Atlas]

I'm not going to address conspiracy theories, mostly because I'm not seeing most of them because of who I've got on my ignore list.

Very good trick if u have nothing to say in ur defense! I hope that the spokesperson of "TBF" won't use it too often...

This is true. If one is truly seeking "input from the community" to help shape this then surely nobody should be on ignore if they are not being hostile?

Gavin, you are a remarkable man. You don't even bother with "conspiracy theories". That's true efficiency.

You know the true importance of "getting things done".

Lead us all!

No, most of us who actually own significant amounts of Bitcoins accept no leaders, no authorities or committees. We will dump and chastise every frivolous addition to the protocol on the spot.

How many frivolous additions have your dumped and chatised? Can you site the specific ones? If you haven't chastised any additions, what will make you do it now that the Foundation exists?

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_Improvement_Proposals

I've questioned the legitimate need for every one of these. Most of them are experimental and not fully examined proposals which could be a security risk. The changes that have been proposed are not only limited in function but nobody really asked for them or wants to implement them.

Changing the blockheight might be an exception.

[Come-from-Beyond]

If anyone missed this poll - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113509.0 - could u plz vote here?

[fornit]

bylaws 4.3c contains a critical typo:

(c) Members holding five percent (15%) or more of the Corporation's voting power by a written demand signed, dated, and delivered to the Secretary.

five percent attack! 

[hazek]

The most crucial thing I always said about Bitcoin when I was trying to spread awareness about it (and I have done a hell of a lot of that in just the right circles) was that no one is in control, that there is no need to trust any person because the code sets the rules and the rules can't change because the code can't change. Well now I'm not so sure that is true anymore and I don't think I can be faithful to my self and my principles and keep advertising Bitcoin in the same manner. I hope though it still is true because I have a lot riding on this experiment but history teaches me that my hope pointless. Special interest now have a foot in the door and they will not ever pull it out ever again. That much I'm certain. What this means we'll find out I guess.

If you think BF changes anything about how bitcoin-the-protocol or bitcoin-the-software will work, then you simply never understood how bitcoin worked in the first place.

Satoshi designed the system so that you would not have to trust the developer (him, a total unknown, pseudonymous individual).

The dev team, by introducing git and gitian use, has made that compact even stronger.

Given that you left out the part of my post calling you out on insulting my intelligence I'll take it that you agree that it was exactly what you were trying to do. An apology would be appreciated.

As for how the code can change I understand how it works perfectly. There already was a change implemented to the original protocol with BIP16 and you know this more than anyone (again trying to insult my intelligence?). I realize that the rules were made stricter and are backwards compatible but don't pretend for a second a stricter and backwards compatible rules can't be malicious. I understand perfectly well that it's the community being individually diligent checking what the dev team does and the miners being individually diligent checking what the dev team does THE ONLY real barrier between what we have now and something out of our nightmares.

I also understand that even if 99% of the network switches to something malicious I still have the choice to use the previous honest version which is true that it wouldn't kill it but it would set it back maybe so far it couldn't ever recover.


The problem I have with this Foundation is that it asserted itself over this experiment and the community. No one asked you to. No one gave you permission. You just did it. You created a corporation to wield power no one granted you.

I wouldn't have a shred of a problem if you were a for profit business dependent on voluntary transactions which merely contracted with Gavin and his team. But you aren't and he is a board member inherently always with a conflict of interest. And saying I can start my own Foundation is disingenuous at best since you know I can't be the one that pays Gavin or his team and have the same power as you do.

[hazek]

Please don't insult my intelligence. You know damn well what I meant with private. Everything about this foundation was kept private until a day ago, only the connected had the chance to have an input and you know damn well why that is.

You are simply engaged in fact-free trolling.

There was a thread on the forum discussing the idea of a Bitcoin Foundation:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49841

Please point to one post in that thread where exact plans were formulated. 1 single post. (And I didn't even read any of it.)

[Polvos]

Thanks for all the positive, constructive feedback (those of you who gave positive, constructive feedback). I'm not going to address conspiracy theories, mostly because I'm not seeing most of them because of who I've got on my ignore list.

[...]

Because I'm pragmatic.  I like to actually get things accomplished instead of endlessly talking about doing things. Everybody on the initial Board are people who get things done.

My biggest fear is not that the Foundation will become some massively powerful entity controlling Bitcoin;

Drop the ring Gavin. Let it get melted in the Mount Doom.

[S3052]

I like the foundation idea overall.

Just one question: What are the benefits and rights for an individual member? I can not afford a business membership but consider a individual membership. But before doing that I need to know what the benefits are.

thanks for anwering

[kiba]

\\
The problem I have with this Foundation is that it asserted itself over this experiment and the community. No one asked you to. No one gave you permission. You just did it. You created a corporation to wield power no one granted you.

So what? Anybody is free to create a corporation or a charity that support bitcoin. They don't need damn permission from you.

I wouldn't have a shred of a problem if you were a for profit business dependent on voluntary transactions which merely contracted with Gavin and his team. But you aren't and he is a board member inherently always with a conflict of interest. And saying I can start my own Foundation is disingenuous at best since you know I can't be the one that pays Gavin or his team and have the same power as you do.

So having influences and fame is power. I guess being a rich bitcoiner is having power too. I guess we should equalize everyone's power.

[acoindr]

Thanks for all the positive, constructive feedback (those of you who gave positive, constructive feedback). I'm not going to address conspiracy theories, mostly because I'm not seeing most of them because of who I've got on my ignore list.

[...]

Because I'm pragmatic.  I like to actually get things accomplished instead of endlessly talking about doing things. Everybody on the initial Board are people who get things done.

My biggest fear is not that the Foundation will become some massively powerful entity controlling Bitcoin;

Drop the ring Gavin. Let it get melted in the Mount Doom.

LMAO If only this were a laughing matter. The behavior I'm seeing is frankly worrying.

[hazek]

Hey Erik, why the change of heart?:

Gavin - seems like a reasonable idea.

Bitcoin would still have all the advantages of being decentralized (no central server, no office to raid and shut down. etc), but gets the added advantages of a core organization to guide it. Perhaps the core organization will get destroyed by the evil powers, but I'm not sure that'd be incredibly damaging to Bitcoin as a protocol. The community would just grow a new command center when the old was destroyed.

The main danger is if the community trusts such an organization too much.  For example- if everyone assumed the client version put out by the organization was trustworthy, then there is serious danger. A group as you propose should probably exist, but the community should remain skeptical of it, and always constructively critical.

After a few mins of more thinking...

Perhaps the idea of an "official" group is not wise.  Instead, the core dev team could create an organization, with special logo and name. This organization would be the de facto official group, but only so long as it held up its reputation. At all times, other groups can form and compete for "de facto officialness."

In essence then, this would just be a Non-profit, spontaneously organized by individuals. If multiple such organizations sprout up, then each community member can support whomever they wish.

Think of it like a market for competing representatives. No group official by law, but any group official by market sentiment. We would see one group come to dominate the sentiment, but Bitcoin would not be irrevocably tied to it.

No group should be granted an explicit monopoly... but an implicit market-derived monopoly would not bother me.

And today:

"Warning - while you were reading 193 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post."

LOL

For the record, I LOVE that the Foundation exists now. I think this is a huge positive step for Bitcoin. Few negatives, plenty of positives. I also understand the concern many people feel - we should always be diligent and skeptical of anyone trying to be "the face" of Bitcoin. But in this case specifically, and to the extent this Foundation can act in certain manners for certain goals, I think it's a very legitimate development and I'll be joining as a paying member here soon.

[shad0wbitz]

I'm not going to address conspiracy theories, mostly because I'm not seeing most of them because of who I've got on my ignore list.

Apparently according to Gavin, pointing out facts now makes you a conspiracy theorist. That is, if you are lucky enough not to be on the ignore list of the Lord of Bitcoin.

Well here are some irrefutable facts about this Foundation:

- FACT: The decision of forming "The Bitcoin Fundation" was made by a few powerful players with no input from the community.
- FACT: The board of the foundation was elected under close doors, without any input from the community.
- FACT: Two members of the foundation own and/or operate the largest for profit corporations in the Bitcoin Industry: MTGOX AND BITINSTANT.
- FACT: The foundation's attorney is the same attorney than Bitinstant. A CLEAR conflict of interests.
- FACT: The bylaws and other articles of the foundation weren't made public until yesterday, and only because of the public outcry of the community.
- FACT: There was no democratic, open, free process that decided if there was a need for a foundation, or who should lead and seat said on the board of directors.

This is a BAD IDEA and should be boycotted. Satoshi never intended to "mainstream" Bitcoin. At least not this way. By Gavin's own admission, he stopped all communications with the community and disappeared the day Gavin told him he was visiting the CIA.

It is time for the Bitcoin community to decide if they want this wonderful project to be packaged and sold to the establishment or not.

Shad0w

[boonies4u]

\\
The problem I have with this Foundation is that it asserted itself over this experiment and the community. No one asked you to. No one gave you permission. You just did it. You created a corporation to wield power no one granted you.

So what? Anybody is free to create a corporation or a charity that support bitcoin. They don't need damn permission from you.

I wouldn't have a shred of a problem if you were a for profit business dependent on voluntary transactions which merely contracted with Gavin and his team. But you aren't and he is a board member inherently always with a conflict of interest. And saying I can start my own Foundation is disingenuous at best since you know I can't be the one that pays Gavin or his team and have the same power as you do.

So having influences and fame is power. I guess being a rich bitcoiner is having power too. I guess we should equalize everyone's power.

I would like to see Gavin reject hazek's bitcoin. 

[Atlas]

Hey Erik, why the change of heart?:

Because he rather be the power than fight it.

[flatfly]

Finally, I can confirm that Satoshi is a Founding Member. That is all.

Seems that this little statement by vess hasn't deserved the attention it should have! Does it mean what I think it means, ie, contact with Satoshi has been made recently?

[shad0wbitz]

The problem I have with this Foundation is that it asserted itself over this experiment and the community. No one asked you to. No one gave you permission. You just did it. You created a corporation to wield power no one granted you.

THIS! HEAR HEAR!

[Atlas]

Finally, I can confirm that Satoshi is a Founding Member. That is all.

Seems that this little statement by vess hasn't deserved the attention it should have! Does it mean what I think it means, ie, contact with Satoshi has been made recently?

No. Judging by his previous statements, he would hate this facade more than anything that has been proposed.

Satoshi probably thinks Bitcoin is on the wrong path right now, starting with Gavin going to the CIA.