[ANN] Bitcoin Foundation

[ElectricMucus]

Since when is there a mtgox tainted coins list?  

It's a hidden list. I read about it in this thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=73385.msg815195#msg815195

Well, if they are doing this internal that's their predicament. I still consider that a bad move, and trade my BTC elsewere from now on.
Thanks for the info.

Yes, they are doing it now internally, but from yesterday their donations pay the Gavin Andressen payroll. Maybe even Mtgox is one of the premium members of the Foundation. I don't know.

But as Atlas says, control the widespread bitcoin implementation, and you will control all the network.

So Gavin has controlled the widespread bitcoin implementation  for a while now, independently of any foundation... you get the point I am making?

[n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU]

The following statement really bothers me, and is ridiculous in the context of a product whose originator clearly valued anonymity highly, for good reason:

The Foundation's core values include openness and transparency. I think the Bitcoin anonymous thing is overblown and a bit of a myth, by the way. Every bitcoin transaction links two addresses; often people can be determined from those addresses.

Ask Argentinians (currency controls) or people in Spain (cash transactions over 2500 euros banned) whether privacy and anonymity are overblown features of Bitcoin.

There are many people who are into Bitcoin not for profit motives or ease of transactions, but for agorism, privacy, and black market products.  My fear is that the foundation will, whenever choosing to endorse, fund, approve any products or services, favor business-centric goals versus privacy-centric goals.  The board composition bears this out.  Only Jon Matonis and possibly Gavin have a history of at least giving lip service to privacy issues versus marketplace growth.

As such, I think the foundation as presented would go down much better if either it was renamed "Bitcoin Chamber of Commerce" or "Bitcoin Business Bureau" or "Bitcoin Business Foundation".  If it wants to truly represent the original Bitcoin intent and be worthy of the name "Bitcoin Foundation", I'd recommend the following changes ASAP:

• It needs at least one more person on the board who is a fulltime freedom ideologist and privacy advocate, instead of Bitcoin businessman.  In other words, people who are likely to stand their ground and fight for Bitcoin's privacy features versus maximizing market cap and getting government seal of approval.  I'd like to see more Rick Falkvinges and/or Birgitta Björnsdóttirs and/or Jacob Appelbaums.
  
• It needs to institute a payment method for developers that's decentralized and not linked directly to the Foundation.  I want the Foundation to simply be one donator among many to the development group, within a payment process handled in an open, crowdfunded, pseudoymous way.  That way, if the Foundation dissolves or fails to be a good steward of the Bitcoin vision, Gavin and others can leave without having to fear having their income cut off.
  

[Polvos]

So Gavin has controlled the widespread bitcoin implementation  for a while now, independently of any foundation... you get the point I am making?

Until yesterday, all the newcomers found bitcointalk almost as the first response in the bitcoin search. Here they will find a lot of information and quite different economic perspectives. From today they will start their bitcoin approach in his honeypot. Do you get my point?

[mrdavis]

From today they will start their bitcoin approach in his honeypot.

That just sounds dirty.

[ElectricMucus]

So Gavin has controlled the widespread bitcoin implementation  for a while now, independently of any foundation... you get the point I am making?

Until yesterday, all the newcomers found bitcointalk almost as the first response in the bitcoin search. Here they will find a lot of information and quite different economic perspectives. From today they will start their bitcoin approach in his honeypot. Do you get my point?

Yes. But that is still to be determinded.
At the moment bitcoin.org doesn't even link to the bitcoin foundation and for any bitcoin related topic this forum is on the top of the list. I don't think the latter will change any time in the near future.

So what you are basically saying is that decicions which where discussed in this forum will be made inside the foundation, without neccecay consent of the forum members.
That's true.
However most of these decicions were actually discussed and made in the mailing list and in private by Gavin and the others.

[Raoul Duke]

All I can say is: where is the promised stability that would come with the annoucement? lol

[acoindr]

So Gavin has controlled the widespread bitcoin implementation  for a while now, independently of any foundation... you get the point I am making?

Until yesterday, all the newcomers found bitcointalk almost as the first response in the bitcoin search. Here they will find a lot of information and quite different economic perspectives. From today they will start their bitcoin approach in his honeypot. Do you get my point?

Yes. But that is still to be determinded.
At the moment bitcoin.org doesn't even link to the bitcoin foundation and for any bitcoin related topic this forum is on the top of the list. I don't think the latter will change any time in the near future.

So what you are basically saying is that decicions which where discussed in this forum will be made inside the foundation, without neccecay consent of the forum members.
That's true.
However most of these decicions were actually discussed and made in the mailing list and in private by Gavin and the others.

What you are failing to see is how this is different.

The way Gavin has controlled the widespread bitcoin implementation has been in an UNOFFICIALLY recognized way. That's why it was okay. Any power that came with what he did was minor, and could be challenged if need be fairly easily.

Just one example: how much Google link juice do you think Gavin got from administering the mailing list. I'm willing to bet zero. Now, how much Google link juice would a formal entity marketed as representing Bitcoin get for the same activities such as administering a mailing list. See the difference?

That's just one example. Another is people's perception of who has what sort of power. If a new bitcoin person was told a developer did things in a sort of patchwork way to get things done, that's one thing. If that same person is told a staff member of an official organization handles x items for Bitcoin, that's quite another. One infers power and authority, while the other doesn't do so much if at all.

As for what is linked from where, like this forum for example, all that can change. That's where the problem is. The way things appear now (like foundation benevolence) can change.

[Atlas]

All I can say is: where is the promised stability that would come with the annoucement? lol

They were hoping for an Obama-esque festival of bipartisanship and compromise, for the greater good of the Bitcoin monarchy.

[kiba]

What you are failing to see is how this is different.

The way Gavin has controlled the widespread bitcoin implementation has been in an UNOFFICIALLY recognized way. That's why it was okay. Any power that came with what he did was minor, and could be challenged if need be fairly easily.

Just one example: how much Google link juice do you think Gavin got from administering the mailing list. I'm willing to bet zero. Now, how much Google link juice would a formal entity marketed as representing Bitcoin get for the same activities such as administering a mailing list. See the difference?

That's just one example. Another is people's perception of who has what sort of power. If a new bitcoin person was told a developer did things in a sort of patchwork way to get things done, that's one thing. If that same person is told a staff member of an official organization handles x items for Bitcoin, that's quite another. One infers power and authority, while the other doesn't do so much if at all.

As for what is linked from where, like this forum, all that can change. That's where the problem is. The way things appear now can change.

Unfortunately, I fail to see why it is dangerous. To me, the foundation have zero power at all beyond the consent and support of the community. As far as I am concerned, the developers will continue their dance with the independent horde of miners.

[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.

Charlie?

[acoindr]

Unfortunately, I fail to see why it is dangerous. To me, the foundation have zero power at all beyond the consent and support of the community. As far as I am concerned, the developers will continue their dance with the independent horde of miners.

You fail to see any danger? Okay...

Consider this. How much money/BTC did people lose to Pirateat40 in the Bitcoin Savings and Trust scam?

I'd put the figure near half a million dollars. Probably from several hundred people of various levels of activity on this forum and in the community.

Was that a brilliantly executed scam?

I don't think anyone would say it was. I think people generally agree (including lead Bitcoin developers) that people were pretty stupid on their own.

Now, that's small scale damage. There are over 300 million people in the U.S. alone and there are billions of people globally. Bitcoin is global. How many of these people would you wager are much different from the people that got taken in the scam?

Now, imagine The Bitcoin Foundation becomes widely viewed as the legitimate de facto face of Bitcoin. Millions of people recognize it as such, because of how many other do. This is similar to how many people use Google, not because they understand the nuances of why/how it produces better results, but because it's perceived as the top by everyone else. Why do you think Google's founders immediately made a goal to "do no evil"? It's because they knew the enormous power and influence they would get, whether deserved or not, far into the future, whether they continued to be deserving or not. Do you know how much "evil" Google could get away without losing any real share of users? Just think creatively for a moment. I'm talking censorship, favorites for rankings, blacklisting etc. Remember, if you're not in Google, you pretty much don't exist.

[Atlas]

I give it a year or two before the Foundation starts "helping" regulators to draft laws relating to Bitcoin. I sure hope I'm wrong.

[dree12]

Unfortunately, I fail to see why it is dangerous. To me, the foundation have zero power at all beyond the consent and support of the community. As far as I am concerned, the developers will continue their dance with the independent horde of miners.

You fail to see any danger? Okay...

Just think creatively for a moment.

Think creatively, as in create foundations. Don't think destructively, as in destroy foundations.

[kiba]

I don't think anyone would say it was. I think people generally agree (including lead Bitcoin developers) that people were pretty stupid on their own.

Now, that's small scale damage. There are over 300 million people in the U.S. alone and there are billions of people globally. Bitcoin is global. How many of these people would you wager are much different from the people that got taken in the scam?

Now, imagine The Bitcoin Foundation becomes widely viewed as the legitimate de facto face of Bitcoin. Millions of people recognize it as such, because of how many other do. This is similar to how many people use Google, not because they understand the nuances of why/how it produces better results, but because it's perceived as the top by everyone else. Why do you think Google's founders immediately made a goal to "do no evil"? It's because they knew the enormous power and influence they would get, whether deserved or not, far into the future, whether they continued to be deserving or not. Do you know how much "evil" Google could get away without losing any real share of users? Just think creatively for a moment. I'm talking censorship, favorites for rankings etc.

This is just fear mongering. Those people who are on the board are not anonymous. We know where they live, what companies they run, etc. You think there wouldn't be an international manhunt if they tries to run away with the money?

All of this calls for transparency and financial privacy, not letting any foundation represent anybody.

[acoindr]

Unfortunately, I fail to see why it is dangerous. To me, the foundation have zero power at all beyond the consent and support of the community. As far as I am concerned, the developers will continue their dance with the independent horde of miners.

You fail to see any danger? Okay...

Just think creatively for a moment.

Think creatively, as in create foundations. Don't think destructively, as in destroy foundations.

Good point. And I have. I think a foundation can have legitimate usefulness. Please see my post here. In a nutshell, I think if a foundation is to exist, then the way to do it properly is to have clear limits on its power. Wouldn't most people agree? Or would the opposite be preferred, that it seek to amass as much role and power as possible?

[acoindr]

This is just fear mongering. Those people who are on the board are not anonymous. We know where they live, what companies they run, etc. You think there wouldn't be an international manhunt if they tries to run away with the money?

All of this calls for transparency and financial privacy, not letting any foundation represent anybody.

You've missed the point. It isn't about stealing bitcoins outright. It's about the power and influence to steal or benefit, if desired, in a much less obvious way. You don't think we know the identities of every lawmaker in the U.S. Congress? You think corruptions, favoritism, bribery and outright illegal activity doesn't happen in the American government?

[ChrisKoss]

Good point. And I have. I think a foundation can have legitimate usefulness. Please see my post here. In a nutshell, I think if a foundation is to exist, then the way to do it properly is to have clear limits on its power. Wouldn't most people agree? Or would the opposite be preferred, that it seek to amass as much role and power as possible?

OK.  I'll bite.

How do you propose the Foundation should limit its power?  What is the language you would use to codify these limits into the bylaws?

"Limitless power" is obviously not the intention of the Foundation (and I'm sure all of the board members would agree). It isn't clear to me, though, what specific, practical changes you are advocating for.

[Atlas]

Good point. And I have. I think a foundation can have legitimate usefulness. Please see my post here. In a nutshell, I think if a foundation is to exist, then the way to do it properly is to have clear limits on its power. Wouldn't most people agree? Or would the opposite be preferred, that it seek to amass as much role and power as possible?

OK.  I'll bite.

How do you propose the Foundation should limit its power?  What is the language you would use to codify these limits into the bylaws?

"Limitless power" is obviously not the intention of the Foundation (and I'm sure all of the board members would agree). It isn't clear to me, though, what specific, practical changes you are advocating for.

A constitution that says what The Foundation is explicitly allowed to do while forbidding anything not listed. A list of forbidden powers could be listed as well.

[acoindr]

Good point. And I have. I think a foundation can have legitimate usefulness. Please see my post here. In a nutshell, I think if a foundation is to exist, then the way to do it properly is to have clear limits on its power. Wouldn't most people agree? Or would the opposite be preferred, that it seek to amass as much role and power as possible?

OK.  I'll bite.

How do you propose the Foundation should limit its power?  What is the language you would use to codify these limits into the bylaws?

Thank you. That's a start. You're not one of the "high level involved members" but at least you, from your posts, agree with that side for now.

A start for limiting power would be as simple as stating the intention to do so. I haven't seen that in any form from any high level member. Why not a good faith answer about the name, for example, which I've described as problematic in the way it infers power, yet isn't essential to solve the problems the entity is supposed to solve.

No high level member has said they're open to using a less powerful sounding name. They haven't even answered my simple question:

Should the Bitcoin Foundation intentionally and explicitly seek to LIMIT its power in every way possible which does not diminish its ability to accomplish its goals?

What are they afraid of? Forget the bylaws. Just TALK for heavens sake.

"Limitless power" is obviously not the intention of the Foundation (and I'm sure all of the board members would agree). It isn't clear to me, though, what specific, practical changes you are advocating for.

Then why haven't I seen any acknowledgement on that to the contrary? I'd breathe much easier if someone at a high level just said they believe the entity should seek to LIMIT its power in all sensible ways.

[kiba]

Then why haven't I seen any acknowledgement on that to the contrary? I'd breathe much easier if someone at a high level just said they believe the entity should seek to LIMIT its power in all sensible ways.

I don't know. Maybe, they're just busy?