[ANN] Bitcoin Foundation

[ChrisKoss]

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! 

I just submitted the first pull request on the bylaws! 

https://github.com/cwkoss/The-Bitcoin-Foundation-Legal-Repo/commit/49616de82e2c0e9b07bd4f4a5eab3de09b96b05a

[jgarzik]

If these guys who started "A Bitcoin Foundation" would have embraced the community a little better instead of twirling their moustaches while hatching their plot in secret, perhaps the rollout would have been welcomed almost unanimously with open arms. Instead, they caused a divide. Bad karma.

This secret plot was openly discussed in this thread.

[jgarzik]

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.

It is factually incorrect to call bitcoins anonymous.  See https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Anonymity

Everyone from the EFF to the US Department of State recommend Tor for activists to secure their communications.

What if that same activist, hiding from an authoritarian government, hears "bitcoin is anonymous" with no further detail?  They will get caught, by protocol fingerprinting, network analysis and other techniques.

You have to employ several techniques over and over "using bitcoin" to achieve reasonable anonymity.

[hazek]

If these guys who started "A Bitcoin Foundation" would have embraced the community a little better instead of twirling their moustaches while hatching their plot in secret, perhaps the rollout would have been welcomed almost unanimously with open arms. Instead, they caused a divide. Bad karma.

This secret plot was openly discussed in this thread.

This is disingenuous at best because what was discussed there is merely the idea of such an organization and not a single detail of the actual implementation.

I don't understand why you need to employ such trickery and keep misleading people? The foundation was formed in private among a select minority - this is a fact.

[Atlas]

If these guys who started "A Bitcoin Foundation" would have embraced the community a little better instead of twirling their moustaches while hatching their plot in secret, perhaps the rollout would have been welcomed almost unanimously with open arms. Instead, they caused a divide. Bad karma.

This secret plot was openly discussed in this thread.

Create a central clearinghouse for information about legal issues surrounding Bitcoin across the world?

Act as a central library for accurate information about Bitcoin, so journalists and policymakers have an 'official' place to learn about Bitcoin.

Fuck this so hard. This is about controlling the message and it will create a hegemony if we let it.

[ChrisKoss]

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 just got the thing launched, I don't think they're going to want to change the name on Day 2.  With enough popular support from the members, I think it could be done in the next six months though.

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?

My issue with this statement is that the "in every way possible which does not diminish its ability to accomplish its goals?" part renders any limit utterly effective. 

If the Foundation decided to limit it's power, as stated above, wouldn't they be able to just arbitrarily change what their goals are in order to get around it? "Well, that's our goal now, so we don't have any limits on what we can do towards it."

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

Bylaws are important.  Having something in the bylaws actually restricts what the Foundation can legally do.  The limits on power you're advocating for must necessarily be codified into the bylaws to be an effective limit.  This is why I was asking for specific proposed changes to 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.

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.

Most of the Board members don't spend as much time on the forums as many of the people here.  They skim when a thread is about them, and may miss many questions or comments.  If you'd like a direct response from Peter, I'd suggest posting in his AMA on reddit:
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/10mezg/iam_peter_vessenes_executive_director_of_the/

[jgarzik]

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?

It is a meaningless question, whose only possible answer is vague, not quantifiable, and entirely within the realm of politicians not engineers.

But even as such, this answered the question.  Staying within Satoshi's vision is a clear limit on power.  Staying true to the protocol is a clear limit on power.

As to the name...  come up with a better one that (a) doesn't sound lame and (b) doesn't sound ominous to other forum denizens.

[acoindr]

My issue with this statement is that the "in every way possible which does not diminish its ability to accomplish its goals?" part renders any limit utterly effective.  

If the Foundation decided to limit it's power, as stated above, wouldn't they be able to just arbitrarily change what their goals are in order to get around it? "Well, that's our goal now, so we don't have any limits on what we can do towards it."

I'm trying to get clearly defined goals and limits on power up front to protect from the warnings all the dissenters have been giving.

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

Bylaws are important.  Having something in the bylaws actually restricts what the Foundation can legally do.  The limits on power you're advocating for must necessarily be codified into the bylaws to be an effective limit.  This is why I was asking for specific proposed changes to the bylaws.

You don't go from nothing to bylaws. There is discussion first. I'm looking for discussion.

[Atlas]

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?

It is a meaningless question, whose only possible answer is vague, not quantifiable, and entirely within the realm of politicians not engineers.

But even as such, this answered the question.  Staying within Satoshi's vision is a clear limit on power.  Staying true to the protocol is a clear limit on power.

As to the name...  come up with a better one that (a) doesn't sound lame and (b) doesn't sound ominous to other forum denizens.

Not if Satoshi's vision gets redefined much like how statists say the Founding Father's intended for the second amendment to apply to hunting.

You guys are just regular people and when you get the chance to have power, you will likely take it unless clear limits are set.

[Atlas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil

This is what's needed^^

[shad0wbitz]

This is disingenuous at best because what was discussed there is merely the idea of such an organization and not a single detail of the actual implementation.

I don't understand why you need to employ such trickery and keep misleading people? The foundation was formed in private among a select minority - this is a fact.

THIS. We went from "Hey guys, what do you think about having a bitcoin foundation?" to "Here is the foundation. We, the powers that be in the Bitcoin world, already elected the board, wrote the bylaws, and had the website done with ZERO input from the community"

Give me a break... and I don't want to hear that ridiculous "Anybody who owns 1 bitcoin can be elected to the board". Why not call for elections from the get go?

This is just ridiculous, and it will most certainly kill Bitcoin as we know it.

[shad0wbitz]

Create a central clearinghouse for information about legal issues surrounding Bitcoin across the world?

Act as a central library for accurate information about Bitcoin, so journalists and policymakers have an 'official' place to learn about Bitcoin.

Fuck this so hard. This is about controlling the message and it will create a hegemony if we let it.

+1000000000

Thanks for pointing what the egomaniac Gavin had to say about this foundation. So much for "Dude, if you don't like it, create your own foundation, this is not **official**"

[acoindr]

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?

It is a meaningless question, whose only possible answer is vague, not quantifiable, and entirely within the realm of politicians not engineers.

Funny, that sounds suspiciously like a political answer.

I'm not asking you what is the meaning of life here. It's a simple yes or no answer. I'm trying to assess your (and high level foundation members) ideological thinking for reasons which should be obvious.

But even as such, this answered the question.  Staying within Satoshi's vision is a clear limit on power.  Staying true to the protocol is a clear limit on power.

No. That is what is vague in terms of TBF power. Staying true to the protocol doesn't limit power. The protocol defines how computers are to interact technically. That doesn't mean anything in the real world. Let me spell it out with an example: the Foundation will NOT meet with Washington lobbyists. That's an example of a clear accountable limit on power. What does the Bitcoin protocol have to do with that?

As to the name...  come up with a better one that (a) doesn't sound lame and (b) doesn't sound ominous to other forum denizens.

Thank you. At least that's a start. I notice you didn't say you'd adopt a different name. You just gave a set of instructions. You could in the future say that any submitted names didn't meet one or both of those criteria, and you stuck with what you had for that reason.

Do you see what it looks like you're trying to do versus what I'm trying to do?

It appears that you're leaving political wiggle room for TBF to amass power and justify it with clever words or speeches so it's not challenged. I'm trying to make it so that "you" (which represent the TBF PTB at this point) are answerable for any actions that can lead to more/unnecessary power. If our goals really are the same then we shouldn't have any conflict.

[jgarzik]

This secret plot was openly discussed in this thread.

This is disingenuous at best because what was discussed there is merely the idea of such an organization and not a single detail of the actual implementation.

I don't understand why you need to employ such trickery and keep misleading people? The foundation was formed in private among a select minority - this is a fact.

The plan was openly discussed.  And then linked in the OP.

It is self-evidently misleading on the part of critics to portray the forming of a foundation as a "secret plot."  11 months ago the forum saw "I would like to get something imperfect up and running quickly, with the expectation that it will evolve over time."

And that's what you do:  you find a group of people that can get something going, do-ers rather than talk-ers, and you pool initial funds and file legal paperwork.  If problems are found, you change.

Otherwise nothing gets done, outside of rampant bike shedding over names and other superficial details.  "THE Bitcoin Foundation"?  "A Bitcoin Foundation"?  "A Bitcoin Group"?  "Cream of Mushroom Engineer"?

At some point, it is better to do and get feedback and fix mistakes in an iterative process.

[ChrisKoss]

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

Bylaws are important.  Having something in the bylaws actually restricts what the Foundation can legally do.  The limits on power you're advocating for must necessarily be codified into the bylaws to be an effective limit.  This is why I was asking for specific proposed changes to the bylaws.

You don't go from nothing to bylaws. There is discussion first. I'm looking for discussion.

It seems like the biggest issue is fear that the Foundation will get editorial control over the core devs, as a result of them paying the developers' salaries.

"The Foundation cannot suggest changes to the protocol to the core dev team." Seems overbearing.  The foundation plans on creating some sort of communication platform for members to use to discuss the future of Bitcoin.  Because some core dev team members are also foundation members, this could be construed as disallowing any open discussion of protocol development between foundation members, which seems counterproductive.

"No foundation board member may suggest changes to the protocol to the core dev team that they would benefit financially from." I think this clause would be unnecessary, because there is already a Conflict of Interest provision.

"The Foundation cannot demand changes to the protocol to the core dev team." or "No discussion of specific desired changes to the protocol can be made during negotiation of developer compensation." Sounds reasonable to me.  What do you think?

[hazek]

This secret plot was openly discussed in this thread.

This is disingenuous at best because what was discussed there is merely the idea of such an organization and not a single detail of the actual implementation.

I don't understand why you need to employ such trickery and keep misleading people? The foundation was formed in private among a select minority - this is a fact.

The plan was openly discussed.  And then linked in the OP.

It is self-evidently misleading on the part of critics to portray the forming of a foundation as a "secret plot."  11 months ago the forum saw "I would like to get something imperfect up and running quickly, with the expectation that it will evolve over time."

And that's what you do:  you find a group of people that can get something going, do-ers rather than talk-ers, and you pool initial funds and file legal paperwork.  If problems are found, you change.

Otherwise nothing gets done, outside of rampant bike shedding over names and other superficial details.  "THE Bitcoin Foundation"?  "A Bitcoin Foundation"?  "A Bitcoin Group"?  "Cream of Mushroom Engineer"?

At some point, it is better to do and get feedback and fix mistakes in an iterative process.

Ok here's my feedback on what mistakes were made now please fix them:

- Gavin or anyone else who is a dev should not be on the board of directors, he and all the other devs should be independently contracted by the Foundation
- name should be changed to something that does not imply ownership or control of Bitcoin or any aspect thereof
- First board members need to be voted on.

I expect these corrections to happen ASAP. Thank you.

[shad0wbitz]

Ok here's my feedback on what mistakes were made now please fix them:

- Gavin or anyone else who is a dev should not be on the board of directors, he and all the other devs should be independently contracted by the Foundation
- name should be changed to something that does not imply ownership or control of Bitcoin or any aspect thereof
- First board members need to be voted on.

I'll expect these correction to happen ASAP. Thank you.

I would add people that have such disproportionate control of the market (Charlie/Mark) shouldn't be on the board either.

Gavin is just a mediocre developer, with a huge ego that pretty much kicked off Satoshi from the project:

http://forums.microcash.org/index.php/topic/529-did-gavin-andresen-push-satoshi-out-of-bitcoin/

[niko]

This is disingenuous at best because what was discussed there is merely the idea of such an organization and not a single detail of the actual implementation.

I don't understand why you need to employ such trickery and keep misleading people? The foundation was formed in private among a select minority - this is a fact.

THIS. We went from "Hey guys, what do you think about having a bitcoin foundation?" to "Here is the foundation. We, the powers that be in the Bitcoin world, already elected the board, wrote the bylaws, and had the website done with ZERO input from the community"

Give me a break... and I don't want to hear that ridiculous "Anybody who owns 1 bitcoin can be elected to the board". Why not call for elections from the get go?

This is just ridiculous, and it will most certainly kill Bitcoin as we know it.

Satoshi wrote his paper with zero input from the community, and yet you have no problem using his protocol.

If these guys who started "A Bitcoin Foundation" would have embraced the community a little better instead of twirling their moustaches while hatching their plot in secret, perhaps the rollout would have been welcomed almost unanimously with open arms. Instead, they caused a divide. Bad karma.

This secret plot was openly discussed in this thread.

This is disingenuous at best because what was discussed there is merely the idea of such an organization and not a single detail of the actual implementation.

I don't understand why you need to employ such trickery and keep misleading people? The foundation was formed in private among a select minority - this is a fact.

Anybody is welcome to join.

---
Overall, there is lots of confusion between the Bitcoin protocol and "Bitcoin". The protocol is decentralized, p2p. Bitcoin itself, in its many meanings, is not and cannot be "decentralized" - this is meaningless.

[hazek]

This secret plot was openly discussed in this thread.

This is disingenuous at best because what was discussed there is merely the idea of such an organization and not a single detail of the actual implementation.

I don't understand why you need to employ such trickery and keep misleading people? The foundation was formed in private among a select minority - this is a fact.

The plan was openly discussed.  And then linked in the OP.

It is self-evidently misleading on the part of critics to portray the forming of a foundation as a "secret plot."  11 months ago the forum saw "I would like to get something imperfect up and running quickly, with the expectation that it will evolve over time."

And that's what you do:  you find a group of people that can get something going, do-ers rather than talk-ers, and you pool initial funds and file legal paperwork.  If problems are found, you change.

Otherwise nothing gets done, outside of rampant bike shedding over names and other superficial details.  "THE Bitcoin Foundation"?  "A Bitcoin Foundation"?  "A Bitcoin Group"?  "Cream of Mushroom Engineer"?

At some point, it is better to do and get feedback and fix mistakes in an iterative process.

Oh and let's be precise. The plan was never openly discussed, just Gavin's intentions or wishes. The plan was formulated and executed in private and this is a fact which you admit.

[ChrisKoss]

Gavin is just a mediocre developer, with a huge ego that pretty much kicked off Satoshi from the project:

http://forums.microcash.org/index.php/topic/529-did-gavin-andresen-push-satoshi-out-of-bitcoin

LOL.  Gavin is probably the most humble person in the Bitcoin community.