[ANN] Bitcoin Foundation

[boonies4u]

Altas did you sleep yet?

I don't think he sleeps.

[Polvos]

I'm absolutely stunned. From other "Bitcoin Foundation" related thread:

Having a Bitcoin Foundation puts us one step closer to it being plausible that Visa might actually consider Bitcoin a currency worth adding to their platform.

I'm really starting to think about a true conspiracy. Now all of a sudden, some of the big fishes I was carefully reading from day one here, jump into this Foundation or openly defend it.

And who cares about VISA now? Why do we need that? If I want Visa managing my money I will search for credit cards in some bank. Let me be clear about this madness: we don't beg to some major banking or payment system to paternalisticly accept us. In a near future we will have the power not because having some public hands to shake, but having a large userbase.

[repentance]

Its not a complicated structure to understand and you can create your own foundation to help further Bitcoin.

Will Gavin leave your Foudation and join mine?

Would it be necessary for Gavin to leave one in order to participate in the other?  It's not unusual for causes to have multiple organisations set up to promote them and for each organisation to have a different focus.  It's also not unusual for those organisations to have some degree of common membership, at least when the number of organisations is still small.

[jgarzik]

Bitcoin is inherently anti-government since it takes away power from those who would live at the expense of others.

Well, let us not close off the option of governments adopting a currency like bitcoin.

Think long game, as I pointed out in the mini-manifesto posted earlier in this thread.

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

I'm absolutely stunned. From other "Bitcoin Foundation" related thread:

Having a Bitcoin Foundation puts us one step closer to it being plausible that Visa might actually consider Bitcoin a currency worth adding to their platform.

I'm really start to think about a true conspiracy. Now all of a sudden, some of the big fishes I was carefully reading from day one here, jump into this Foundation or openly defend it.

Huh?

This is what we do on forums, we talk.

-Charlie

Its not a complicated structure to understand and you can create your own foundation to help further Bitcoin.

Will Gavin leave your Foudation and join mine?

Would it be necessary for Gavin to leave one in order to participate in the other?  It's not unusual for causes to have multiple organisations set up to promote them and for each organisation to have a different focus.  It's also not unusual for those organisations to have some degree of common membership, at least when the number of organisations is still small.

I'm pretty sure Gavin can be a member of 2 similar entities or foundations.

[Atlas]

Bitcoin is inherently anti-government since it takes away power from those who would live at the expense of others.

Well, let us not close off the option of governments adopting a currency like bitcoin.

Think long game, as I pointed out in the mini-manifesto posted earlier in this thread.

"We are working with the government to make sure indeed the long arm of the government can reach Bitcoin." --Jeff Garzik,

[eb3full]

making standards for the protocol that everyone would be forced to abide by through corporate and social influence.

Corporate and social influence enforces how Bitcoin operates? I don't get it, if that was true wouldn't Bitcoin be screwed anyway?

Bitcoin cannot just magically change into a fiat currency because of some sinister plot. They have a hard enough time adding new things to the protocol. The only changes that could ever be accomplished will require enormous support.

By the way, hierarchy and trust systems will emerge out of Bitcoin. If you think otherwise, you're being selective about how you're applying game theory.

[hazek]

"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.

I must wonder if you'd be saying the same if Charlie wasn't a board member. Not that I think you're trying to be manipulative, it's just hard to believe you are looking at this objectively and aren't highly biased.

Please, don't be absurd.    If Charlie was doing something I disagreed with, he would know, and I'd have no problem discussing it on the forum. It happens that Charlie and I tend to agree on almost everything, especially after some discussion... though he's still slightly too statist for my taste, though this is changing fairly quickly, because Charlie is a smart guy

I've long been in favor of a more formal, more structured Foundation type organization to foster Bitcoin growth. I worry that people do not understand the difference between voluntary, market-based order and coercive order. They think the Foundation is the latter, when it's not.

A decentralized system can (and indeed, ought to) have certain "nodes" of organization and structure. It is the same dynamic which occurs with the bitcoin exchanges. The system is decentralized, yes, but it needs points of centralization (again, this is market-based centralization) to carry out specific functions such as bringing many buyers and sellers together to trade in the case of exchanges. Those who think exchanges shouldn't exist, and Bitcoin should only be traded among P2P systems, are not thinking clearly, and don't understand how markets operate. And just as one exchange may hold "influence" on the market, it cannot control it. The same is true with the Foundation.

Do not fear private, voluntary organization among intelligent, productive people. Avoiding, or condemning, such organization is antithetical to Bitcoin progress. All the best Bitcoin successes will be brought about not by perfectly decentralized, independent action of individuals, but by the voluntary cooperation and structure each individual builds with others. The Foundation is just another example of this, and I'm excited to see the progress this structure will bring.

It was an honest question, especially since I read you reservations that I quoted and you didn't reply to.

I just don't understand how you can objectively justify classifying this foundation as decentralized and merely a node when the board of directors are lead dev + two biggest businesses in Bitcoin. Yes I agree with you, but your words do not match the reality.

The reality is this is a corporation that asserted itself as the face of Bitcoin. Otherwise it wouldn't have:
- included lead dev on it's board of directors
- thereby given itself access to the git repository
- chosen the name Bitcoin foundation
- been devised in private among a small group
- ect (all the other tale tale sings of a centralized power grab)

You just can't objectively call this decentralized.


But again I actually agree with you. With your words anyway. I would have loved if this were a voluntary private association. I would have loved if someone started a for profit business that merely contracted with Gavin and was dependent on income from product it offered the community. I would have loved if arrangements were fixed with personal contract and not hidden behind a corporation and it's open ended bylaws.

I would have loved that. But this isn't it. It's another animal of the state, designed to wield power over a community who never gave it's consent.

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

Bitcoin is inherently anti-government since it takes away power from those who would live at the expense of others.

Well, let us not close off the option of governments adopting a currency like bitcoin.

Think long game, as I pointed out in the mini-manifesto posted earlier in this thread.

"We are working with the government to make sure indeed the long arm of the government can reach Bitcoin." --Jeff Garzik,

Matt,

By the way, although I love Jeff, he does not speak for the foundation, so don't quote him on behalf of the foundation

Charlie

[evoorhees]

I agree with the sentiment that at this point the bitcoin experiment cannot be inherently anti-government if it is to succeed in the end.

Bitcoin is inherently anti-government since it takes away power from those who would live at the expense of others.

Exactly and this board could easily one day neuter Bitcoin from being a free currency to a fiat, government-controlled one by making standards for the protocol that everyone would be forced to abide by through corporate and social influence.

Corporate and social influence != force. That is the mistake you're making.  There is absolutely no problem with "influence" and every problem with "force." The Foundation will have lots of influence (and I think the current board has earned it), but no force, and thus I welcome it.

[finkleshnorts]

If bitcoin wants to succeed, it cannot be anti-government at this point.

Governments are a force to be reckoned with, and if you don't understand that, or see how it relates to bitcoin, then I have nothing else to say.

For bitcoin to succeed, it can't be some seedy currency for the underbelly of the internet or a tax haven for criminals. For serious companies to seriously consider bitcoin, bitcoin cannot be a legal liability, and it is construed as one right now. This is why the Foundation is a step forward in my opinion.

[hazek]

Your bylaws reference is speaking of something totally different, corporate law, that states that the foundation can sell t-shirts but not illegal firearms..nothing to do with promoting Bitcoin

-Charlie

But you said you are limited by them. Could be so kind to point out the section of the bylaws that limits you to what the Foundation can do?

You tell me, what can the foundation do thats not already obvious? We have no control over Bitcoin, Bitcoin runs itself.

Wait a min, you said (in bold):

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!

The problem with both you and shad0wbitz (which ive pointed out many times) is that you assume the foundation is assering itself, you assume we are wielding power which in fact we are not.

Its not a complicated structure to understand and you can create your own foundation to help further Bitcoin.

Foundation has no power or control, and no one owns the foundation its owned by you. Like I said, when elections come the whole board can be replaced and you can be on it

-Charlie

This contradicts your Executive Directors statement in regards to standards. You guys want to make standards for security and the Bitcoin protocol. You are asserting yourself in many ways, especially with your proposed certifications and the cost it takes for businesses to join.

Your foundation will eventually gain power if the industries within form trusts to control the message and force competitors out of its veil of legitimacy.

Matt,

That has nothing to do with power

Again, all you do is assume without facts.

"Your foundation will eventually gain power"

It's not my foundation, its YOUR foundation, Ive stated this many times.
We cant gain power, in fact we cannot do anything outside the bylaws.

The certifications are for anyone to join and use. If you dont like it, don't join it or start your own foundation.

If you have problems, join the board, and enjoy

Have a great day

-Charlie

So what you are telling me now is that you lied in your post and that in fact you can gain power and are not limited by your bylaws except you can't control how Bitcoin is being run?

[allthingsluxury]

Wow this is a hot topic. Definitely good points being made on both sides.

[eb3full]

So what you are telling me now is that you lied in your post and that in fact you can gain power and are not limited by your bylaws except you can't control how Bitcoin is being run?

Pay attention to his post, he was quoting what someone else said.

[Atlas]

I just hope the pro-hierarchy Bitcoiners understand we will get upset if they start trying to set the Bitcoin price, making government partnerships and lobbying for regulations that only benefit certain parts of the Bitcoin industry over others.

[hazek]

I agree with the sentiment that at this point the bitcoin experiment cannot be inherently anti-government if it is to succeed in the end.

Bitcoin is inherently anti-government since it takes away power from those who would live at the expense of others.

Exactly and this board could easily one day neuter Bitcoin from being a free currency to a fiat, government-controlled one by making standards for the protocol that everyone would be forced to abide by through corporate and social influence.

Corporate and social influence != force. That is the mistake you're making.  There is absolutely no problem with "influence" and every problem with "force." The Foundation will have lots of influence (and I think the current board has earned it), but no force, and thus I welcome it.

Influence is being expressed in either two ways:

People either want to emulate you, or you force them to conform. I feel forced to conform but I'd be perfectly fine if I had the option to emulate you.

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

So what you are telling me now is that you lied in your post and that in fact you can gain power and are not limited by your bylaws except you can't control how Bitcoin is being run?

Pay attention to his post, he was quoting what someone else said.

Thank for for pointing that out.

I just hope the pro-hierarchy Bitcoiners understand we will get upset if they start trying to set the Bitcoin price, making government partnerships and lobbying for regulations that only benefit certain parts of the Bitcoin industry over others.

Matt, how the hell can we set the Bitcoin price?

Jeez you make stupid comments to scare off people when you and I both know thats not possible.

Stop trolling Matt

[evoorhees]

If bitcoin wants to succeed, it cannot be anti-government at this point.

Governments are a force to be reckoned with, and if you don't understand that, or see how it relates to bitcoin, then I have nothing else to say.

For bitcoin to succeed, it can't be some seedy currency for the underbelly of the internet or a tax haven for criminals. For serious companies to seriously consider bitcoin, bitcoin cannot be a legal liability, and it is construed as one right now. This is why the Foundation is a step forward in my opinion.

+1

Bitcoin, as a technology, should not be connected to the stigma of "anti-government" for very good, strategic reasons. We know what it is, and what it will do, and we should leave it at that.

[Comodore]

Hi,

What is the difference between https://www.bitcoinfoundation.com/ and .org version?

The first seem to be in stranger´s hands

[finkleshnorts]

I just hope the pro-hierarchy Bitcoiners

It's not pro-hierarchy. It's realism. We live in a hierarchical world where hierarchies matter, regardless your opinion of them.

if they start trying to set the Bitcoin price

That's utterly impossible.