[ANN] Bitcoin Foundation

[Atlas]

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_fixing

On 12 September 1919 at 11:00am the five principal gold bullion traders and refiners of the day performed the first gold fixing. The original members were N M Rothschild & Sons, Mocatta & Goldsmid, Pixley & Abell, Samuel Montagu & Co. and Sharps Wilkins. The gold price was determined to be four pounds 18 shillings and ninepence (GBP 4.18s.9d = 4.9375) per fine ounce (troy ounce). The New York gold price was US$19.39.[1] The first few fixings were conducted by telephone until the members started meeting at the Rothschild offices in New Court, St Swithin's Lane.

[Atlas]

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.

It's done to gold. It can be done to Bitcoin through an organization just like this one combined with regulatory powers.

[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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_fixing

On 12 September 1919 at 11:00am the five principal gold bullion traders and refiners of the day performed the first gold fixing. The original members were N M Rothschild & Sons, Mocatta & Goldsmid, Pixley & Abell, Samuel Montagu & Co. and Sharps Wilkins. The gold price was determined to be four pounds 18 shillings and ninepence (GBP 4.18s.9d = 4.9375) per fine ounce (troy ounce). The New York gold price was US$19.39.[1] The first few fixings were conducted by telephone until the members started meeting at the Rothschild offices in New Court, St Swithin's Lane.

Stupid response yields a stupid answer.

Bitcoin is traded on a free market, Gold is not.

Gold price has never been on a free market, even when they claims it was, and you know that.

Bitcoin price can never be set by 1 entity, because the price is what Bitcoiners say it is.

Stop making shit up Matt

-Charlie

[Atlas]

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_fixing

On 12 September 1919 at 11:00am the five principal gold bullion traders and refiners of the day performed the first gold fixing. The original members were N M Rothschild & Sons, Mocatta & Goldsmid, Pixley & Abell, Samuel Montagu & Co. and Sharps Wilkins. The gold price was determined to be four pounds 18 shillings and ninepence (GBP 4.18s.9d = 4.9375) per fine ounce (troy ounce). The New York gold price was US$19.39.[1] The first few fixings were conducted by telephone until the members started meeting at the Rothschild offices in New Court, St Swithin's Lane.

Stupid response yields a stupid answer.

Bitcoin is traded on a free market, Gold is not.

Gold price has never been on a free market, even when they claims it was, and you know that.

Bitcoin price can never be set by 1 entity, because the price is what Bitcoiners say it is.

Stop making shit up Matt

-Charlie

It will stop being a free market once all of Bitcoin exchanges get together and make a trust to set the price. Doesn't The Bitcoin Foundation unite exchanges?

[Polvos]

Some masks are getting off nowadays.

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.

So we need some Foundation to talk to the media and explain what bitcoin is in favor and what against?

BITCOIN itself is just a tool. People who uses it is the responsible of their behaviour. Stop manipulating.

[Gabi]

Bitcoin should not be anti-government. It should just ignore them. We are here for a free market, not to make governments happy

[evoorhees]

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.

I don't see a change of heart in my above statements. Anyone can make another Foundation or group to develop, make standards, raise money, represent itself, etc.  I would prefer for this Bitcoin Foundation to not label themselves verbatim as "The Official Organization In Charge Of Bitcoin" etc., and I don't think they're doing that. The language used will be important, but the Foundation should earn it's "official" reputation through its actions and relationships with people, not through "claiming" it explicitly, if that makes sense.

Again, a market-based, central organization is something I have no problem with. So long as others can organize their own organizations with their own agendas, all is well. I will say, however, if the Bitcoin Foundation ever seeks Government legislation which curtails the decentralized, market-based nature of Bitcoin, I will be vociferously opposed. I do not believe anyone on the board desires such legislation.

[Atlas]

Hegemony is powerful:

The current five participants in the fixing, who must be members of the London Bullion Market Association, are:
Scotia-Mocatta — successor to Mocatta & Goldsmid and part of Bank of Nova Scotia
Barclays Capital — Replaced N M Rothschild & Sons when they abdicated
Deutsche Bank — Owner of Sharps Pixley, itself the merger of Sharps Wilkins with Pixley & Abell
HSBC — Owner of Samuel Montagu & Co.
Société Générale
Every day at 10.30 and 15.00 local time, five representatives of investment banks meet in a small room at Rothschild's London headquarters on St Swithin's Lane. In the centre is the chairperson, who is by tradition appointed by the Rothschild bank, although the bank itself has largely withdrawn from the trading.

[hazek]

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.

No I'm sorry. I'm not going to let you off the hook this easy.

You made a claim that the Foundation cannot gain any power because it is limited by it's bylaws. I then made a reference to the bylaws that you said is not the section governing what the Foundation can or can't do upon which I asked if you'd be so kind to quote the section that is. You did not, instead you asked a question which implied that you in fact have no limits imposed by your bylaws except the limit of Bitcoin's design which doesn't allow you to control it how it's run. I then asked why you lied such limits were imposed by bylaws.

My question is this:

Can you please quote the section of your bylaws that limits what the Foundation can or can't do with regards to acquiring or increasing it's power?

If not, why did you say such limits existed?

Btw if I need to I'll compose a post with all the quotes matching the above.

[finkleshnorts]

Hey Erik, why the change of heart?

Politicians are regularly smeared for "flip-flopping." Personally, I respect a man who has the integrity to change his mind and  accept the consequences.

That said, It looks like Erik was simply being cautious with his words. Another respectable trait.

[The_Duke]

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.

No I'm sorry. I'm not going to let you off the hook this easy.

You made a claim that the Foundation cannot gain any power because it is limited by it's bylaws. I then made a reference to the bylaws that you said is not the section governing what the Foundation can or can't do upon which I asked if you'd be so kind to quote the section that is. You did not, instead you asked a question which implied that you in fact have no limits imposed by your bylaws except the limit of Bitcoin's design which doesn't allow you to control it how it's run. I then asked why you lied such limits were imposed by bylaws.

My question is this:

Can you please quote the section of your bylaws that limits what the Foundation can or can't do with regards to acquiring or increasing it's power?

If not, why did you say such limits existed?

Btw if I need to I'll compose a post with all the quotes matching the above.

+1. Excellent questions.

[Comodore]

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.

No I'm sorry. I'm not going to let you off the hook this easy.

You made a claim that the Foundation cannot gain any power because it is limited by it's bylaws. I then made a reference to the bylaws that you said is not the section governing what the Foundation can or can't do upon which I asked if you'd be so kind to quote the section that is. You did not, instead you asked a question which implied that you in fact have no limits imposed by your bylaws except the limit of Bitcoin's design which doesn't allow you to control it how it's run. I then asked why you lied such limits were imposed by bylaws.

My question is this:

Can you please quote the section of your bylaws that limits what the Foundation can or can't do with regards to acquiring or increasing it's power?

If not, why did you say such limits existed?

Btw if I need to I'll compose a post with all the quotes matching the above.

+1. Excellent questions.

+1000000000
Viable question indeed

[acoindr]

All I really want is this foundation to be an advisory board with just mere opinions that people can easily leave.

If this organization has no teeth through regulation or control of the protocol, I'll be fine with it. From what I am hearing though, power is desired.

Matt,

This is exactly what the organization is.

This is not what your 'hearing', this is what your 'claiming' on the forums on your own

-Charlie  

Not true. This is NOT an advisory board. It's a legal and formal structured corporation, currently adopting a name which suggests it speaks for Bitcoin in its entirety.

Do you disagree?

[ElectricMucus]

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.

That's the point. It's not hierarchical.
Nobody is talking about doing those things, and Gavin and the others have justification for their Autority. These are the limits of the technology we are currently using.

If it were possible to use the proof of work mechanism to vote on sourcecode changes that would not be the case. But since that isn't supported by the current version of bitcoin/maybe never will be the bitcoin foundation is the next best thing. This isn't the "lesser evil" - it's this or nothing - currently.

[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.

I don't see a change of heart in my above statements. Anyone can make another Foundation or group to develop, make standards, raise money, represent itself, etc.  I would prefer for this Bitcoin Foundation to not label themselves verbatim as "The Official Organization In Charge Of Bitcoin" etc., and I don't think they're doing that. The language used will be important, but the Foundation should earn it's "official" reputation through its actions and relationships with people, not through "claiming" it explicitly, if that makes sense.

Again, a market-based, central organization is something I have no problem with. So long as others can organize their own organizations with their own agendas, all is well. I will say, however, if the Bitcoin Foundation ever seeks Government legislation which curtails the decentralized, market-based nature of Bitcoin, I will be vociferously opposed. I do not believe anyone on the board desires such legislation.

Heh Erik.. As I've established no other foundation, if it were to be established, could possibly have the same influence and power as this one with the name Bitcoin Foundation (something you opposed to), with Gavin on the board of directors and with free will to join another foundation or not and with most powerful business' CEOs on the board of directors. If you are honest with yourself and you read you're posts from then you will admit that this is not what you wanted.

It doesn't matter what their intentions are today. They have a foot in the door now. Their intentions can change and we all know how that worked out for let's say the once freest country on this planet.

[finkleshnorts]

I don't understand what "power" has to do with any of this. What am I missing?

[Polvos]

This isn't the "lesser evil" - it's this or nothing - currently.

False. Is this or leaving the code, the client and my fucking coins the way they are now.

[hazek]

I don't understand what "power" has to do with any of this. What am I missing?

You are missing everything.

Power was suppose to be decentralized residing with individuals with a central authority. We now have a quasi central authority that it's true, it can't control how Bitcoin runs, but it can control all the other aspects of it: lead dev, dev team, logo, pr, legal, you name it.

And I didn't consent to any of it.


On a personal note, I can't tell you how exhausting today is for me. Even my family noticed I was feeling really down.

[Atlas]

Whoever controls the most widely-accept Bitcoin implementation, controls Bitcoin.

As of now, this foundation will be the primary sponsor of the "official" release with corporate backers who will want their say.

[eb3full]

Whoever controls the most widely-accept Bitcoin implementation, controls Bitcoin.

And this is different now because?

You might want to grasp the point of "widely-accepted" and realize just what that states about potential changes. If people like you aren't happy with the direction of Bitcoin you are free to fork it and go on your way.