[ANN] Bitcoin Foundation

[shad0wbitz]

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

This analogy is wrong at so many levels. When Satoshi wrote his paper and initial code, there was NO community.

[1714811696]

1714811696

[1714811696]

1714811696

[Atlas]

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.  

Gavin: Thanks for that key. Hey, I know you have problems with the establishment and you created this thing but I went ahead and RSVP'd with the CIA.

Satoshi: ... <leaves>

Gavin: Okay, I am now head developer. I own Bitcoin now.

[shad0wbitz]

Gavin: Thanks for that key. Hey, I know you have problems with the establishment and you created this thing but I went ahead and RSVP'd with the CIA.

Satoshi: ... <leaves>

Gavin: Okay, I am now head developer. I own Bitcoin now.

Yep, super humble. You just have to read through his pedantic, authoritarian messages on this board to understand how much of an egotistical asshole he is (including, by his own post a few pages back adding to the "ignore" list anybody that dissents with his "democratic, open to everyone" foundation).

[jgarzik]

- 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

This is reasonable -- I had suggested this to Gavin myself, e.g. Bitcoin Foundation pays Gavin Super Stud Dev, Inc. My suggestion was related to tax treatment, though other separation advantages may be apparent.

However, this is intimately tied to Gavin's personal compensation setup, and touches in the realm of personal privacy.

So this belongs in the "reasonable, but medium term suggestion" category.

- name should be changed to something that does not imply ownership or control of Bitcoin or any aspect thereof

As a members org, I think it should be up to the members what it is called.

But quite seriously...  let's hear some better names.  A suggestion of "change this" is vague.  Be specific about what the name should change to, and you have a basis for discussion.

- First board members need to be voted on.

As an opt-in, private organization, members will self-select their behavior here.

[Atlas]

Let's hear that again. Where will the oh-so humble Gavin be paid at, again? Under what corporate name?

Gavin Super Stud Dev, Inc.

[BkkCoins]

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

Given that we went thru more than a month of guessing what the BIG announcement was going to be and that no one suggested the foundation (or maybe a few did, I didn't read every post, but it wasn't well known) I'd say it pretty clear the intent was to keep it secret until all the work had been done and it could be announced before being shot down.

Having thought about this for longer now I'd say my main fear with this foundation is how they're going to credibly explain to the US govt that they cannot build AML and KYC rules into the code when they are actually paying the devs salaries?

After that, lets say they are forced to add such code, you may say everyone is free to not use it. Given that the general public doesn't put much emphasis on privacy and security of data, as evidenced by their massive uptake of Facebook, and given that it's likely the Bitcoin network will more and more be populated by general public users it would hold they are probably going to form a majority that doesn't much care if their personal info is logged and relaying to the govt. They will end up being the majority that accepts using such a "dirty" client. This is just the way these things go and this foundation gives government the entry point.

As someone who took up using and contributing to Bitcoin projects due to it's anti-censorship and privacy features I'd like more than just hand waving by the foundation that they have plans to deal with protecting the privacy aspects.

[jgarzik]

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.

Yes, let's be precise.  You go first.

"The plan"...  what, precisely, was done in private and unexpectedly?  A large amount of details are simply obvious, falling out naturally from the creation of a legal entity:  You have to choose a name.  You have to file paperwork with a government in a physical jurisdiction.  You will be dispensing funds, thus you will need to collect some funds from initial funders and board members.

A members-based trade organization for open source projects is a common sight, with a familiar structure.  Simply saying "foundation for bitcoin" tells you it will probably look and work like Linux Foundation, Apache Software Foundation, Tor Project, GNOME Foundation, etc., etc.

So for anyone remotely paying attention... the plan and likely details are quite public.

The only private detail I can see is simply the Board, funding and members present on Launch Day.

[Atlas]

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

Having thought about this for longer now I'd say my main fear with this foundation is how they're going to credibly explain to the US govt that they cannot build AML and KYC rules into the code when they are actually paying the devs salaries?

This was on the tip of my tongue! Thank you so much!

[acoindr]

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.

Yes, let's be precise.  You go first.

"The plan"...  what, precisely, was done in private and unexpectedly?

That a foundation was actively moving forward? (including selection of board members and setting up a corporation, discussed between a select few?)

[jgarzik]

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.

Yes, let's be precise.  You go first.

"The plan"...  what, precisely, was done in private and unexpectedly?

That a foundation was actively moving forward? (including selection of board members and setting up a corporation, discussed between a select few?)

In October, it was written "Assuming there is rough consensus that a Bitcoin Foundation is a good idea, I would like to get something imperfect up and running quickly, with the expectation that it will evolve over time."

[hazek]

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.

Yes, let's be precise.  You go first.

"The plan"...  what, precisely, was done in private and unexpectedly?  A large amount of details are simply obvious, falling out naturally from the creation of a legal entity:  You have to choose a name.  You have to file paperwork with a government in a physical jurisdiction.  You will be dispensing funds, thus you will need to collect some funds from initial funders and board members.

A members-based trade organization for open source projects is a common sight, with a familiar structure.  Simply saying "foundation for bitcoin" tells you it will probably look and work like Linux Foundation, Apache Software Foundation, Tor Project, GNOME Foundation, etc., etc.

So for anyone remotely paying attention... the plan and likely details are quite public.

The only private detail I can see is simply the Board, funding and members present on Launch Day.

Readers please note the continued trickery. Before it was "The plan was publicly discussed", when called on the trickery it changes to "The plan wasn't really publicly discussed but the intentions were so you should have guessed the plan."


You know, I really wouldn't have such a hard time swallowing this Foundation if you could just address criticism honestly and say: Hey yes, you are right, we did forge the plan and executed it in private with a select few because we thought this is the only way we could do it. You are right, it wasn't open, that's why to address this and make it open we are going to do the following..

But no, you lie. Blatantly.

Same with Charlie. When asked about the power the Foundation will have he says it's severely limited by it's bylaws, when asked to provide the section of the bylaws that does it it changes to an implied "Well we don't really have limits other than we cann't control how Bitcoin is run."



This is not how honest business is being done and don't think for a second we are naive and can't smell the stench emanating from your and the board member's posts.

[ChrisKoss]

Readers please note the continued trickery. Before it was "The plan was publicly discussed", when called on the trickery it changes to "The plan wasn't really publicly discussed but the intentions were so you should have guessed the plan."


You know, I really wouldn't have such a hard time swallowing this Foundation if you could just address criticism honestly and say: Hey yes, you are right, we did forge the plan and executed it in private with a select few because we thought this is the only way we could do it. You are right, it wasn't open, that's why to address this and make it open we are going to do the following..

But no, you lie. Blatantly.

Same with Charlie. When asked about the power the Foundation will have he says it's severely limited by it's bylaws, when asked to provide the section of the bylaws that does it it changes to an implied "Well we don't really have limits other than we cann't control how Bitcoin is run."



This is not how honest business is being done and don't think for a second we are naive and can't smell the stench emanating from your and the board member's posts.

The people you are "quoting" are not representatives of the foundation, but supporters from the community.

I believe most of the non-affiliated supporters were refuting claims that it was "a secret plot" with malicious intentions, not that the incorporation and website design was done privately within a group of 6-7 people.

What's done is done.  There is now a Bitcoin Foundation, and it is asking the community what direction it should head in.  Do you have any constructive criticism for how they should move forward or what you'd like them to do? 

Are you proposing the Foundation should be dismantled because they didn't voluntarily disclose that the "idea" phase had ended and they had moved into the "initial implementation" phase?  This seems kind of petty to me.

[hazek]

Readers please note the continued trickery. Before it was "The plan was publicly discussed", when called on the trickery it changes to "The plan wasn't really publicly discussed but the intentions were so you should have guessed the plan."


You know, I really wouldn't have such a hard time swallowing this Foundation if you could just address criticism honestly and say: Hey yes, you are right, we did forge the plan and executed it in private with a select few because we thought this is the only way we could do it. You are right, it wasn't open, that's why to address this and make it open we are going to do the following..

But no, you lie. Blatantly.

Same with Charlie. When asked about the power the Foundation will have he says it's severely limited by it's bylaws, when asked to provide the section of the bylaws that does it it changes to an implied "Well we don't really have limits other than we cann't control how Bitcoin is run."



This is not how honest business is being done and don't think for a second we are naive and can't smell the stench emanating from your and the board member's posts.

The people you are "quoting" are not representatives of the foundation, but supporters from the community.

I believe most of the non-affiliated supporters were refuting claims that it was "a secret plot" with malicious intentions, not that the incorporation and website design was done privately within a group of 6-7 people.

What's done is done.  There is now a Bitcoin Foundation, and it is asking the community what direction it should head in.  Do you have any constructive criticism for how they should move forward or what you'd like them to do?  

Are you proposing the Foundation should be dismantled because they didn't voluntarily disclose that the "idea" phase had ended and they had moved into the "initial implementation" phase?  This seems kind of petty to me.

For starters I'd like a honest open conversation without trickery. If we call you on a mistake, admit it if facts show it's true. Charlie is a board member and yet also used trickery in his replies as noted.

Besides I already gave constructive criticism above here:

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.

[acoindr]

In October, it was written "Assuming there is rough consensus that a Bitcoin Foundation is a good idea, I would like to get something imperfect up and running quickly, with the expectation that it will evolve over time."

Yes, I read that when written. You know how I interpreted it? As setting the tone for dialogue in that thread.

I don't know how we got from "I would like to get" to "I will take action". But maybe that's my fault for not understanding, or maybe it's just semantics. Regardless, it's not helpful to form such in entity in the way it was done given its nature and the context. I hope you can see that.

[acoindr]

What's done is done.  There is now a Bitcoin Foundation, and it is asking the community what direction it should head in.  Do you have any constructive criticism for how they should move forward or what you'd like them to do?  

No, there is now a group of individuals that took the initiative to form a legal corporation and announce to the community that they ARE the Bitcoin Foundation.

Do you see the frustration dissenters have? Why can't we have more straightforward discussion, as opposed to PR type wording? It's the rammed push that people are concerned about as feeling like a power grab, and likely indicative of what's to come.

If this is a great idea can't it be discussed openly on its merits?

[BkkCoins]

In October, it was written "Assuming there is rough consensus that a Bitcoin Foundation is a good idea, I would like to get something imperfect up and running quickly, with the expectation that it will evolve over time."

This explicitly demonstrates the problem. This makes it clear that (1) Gavin doesn't understand consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consenus) as it requires consent from all parties. Unless by "rough" he meant, well, among a few of his buddies and highly vested business friends. and (2) that "he" would like to get it going. He didn't say "we should", or "the community ought to" but just simply "I, Gavin, me" would like to get it going.

Saying that he posted about this almost a year ago and then left it at that for background working to take place is hardly being open, inclusive or consensual. He probably knew that if it had been put out there in the Bitcoin community it would have been torn apart and inspected for it's weaknesses. He didn't want to bend to the will of anyone but a few vested interests.

I think what has been done now has introduced a massive vulnerability into Bitcoin. One that opens up what a lot of users believed was a founding principle.

I'd say that this issue appears to be forming a battleline between two camps in Bitcoin. Those who are happy to see Bitcoin bent to the will of government, because it probably means a bigger market and more money in fees, and those who still value the privacy and anti-censorship aspects of Bitcoin, those who thought there was no central authority, and never would be.

[acoindr]

As a members org, I think it should be up to the members what it is called.

But quite seriously...  let's hear some better names.  A suggestion of "change this" is vague.  Be specific about what the name should change to, and you have a basis for discussion.

Thank you for the concession here. That's helpful and small progress.

Alternative names were suggested starting here. I'll recap:

The We Use Coins Group
The Global Bitcoiner Association
The Bitcoin Freedom Foundation
The Bitcoin Helper Group
The Friends of Karples Foundation
The Bitcoin Super Friends Club

I kind of like The Bitcoin Freedom Foundation, as did another poster in that thread besides the creator.

I'm also interested in a response to this:

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

Having thought about this for longer now I'd say my main fear with this foundation is how they're going to credibly explain to the US govt that they cannot build AML and KYC rules into the code when they are actually paying the devs salaries?

This was on the tip of my tongue! Thank you so much!

Or, put another way, how adding and official target for enemies of Bitcoin might be dealt with.

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

Same with Charlie. When asked about the power the Foundation will have he says it's severely limited by it's bylaws, when asked to provide the section of the bylaws that does it it changes to an implied "Well we don't really have limits other than we cann't control how Bitcoin is run."

For starters I'd like a honest open conversation without trickery. If we call you on a mistake, admit it if facts show it's true. Charlie is a board member and yet also used trickery in his replies as noted.

Matt,

I clearly said the foundation is limited on what it can do as a corporate entity in its bylaws.

Then, you asked me what the foundation is doing to limit the power over Bitcoin.

I simply responded that the foundation has no power, because Satoshi build Bitcoin to not be able to be controlled by any outside entity.

I then asked for some things that you would like to see control over, which you did not respond to.

Please, I urge you to speak out in a civil way and show your concerns, not bash other people and make things up.

Regarding being truthful, it goes both ways.

Have a great night Matt,

-Charlie

By the way, proof:

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  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?

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

[acoindr]

I think what has been done now has introduced a massive vulnerability into Bitcoin. One that opens up what a lot of users believed was a founding principle.

I'd say that this issue appears to be forming a battleline between two camps in Bitcoin. Those who are happy to see Bitcoin bent to the will of government, because it probably means a bigger market and more money in fees, and those who still value the privacy and anti-censorship aspects of Bitcoin, those who thought there was no central authority, and never would be.

I pretty much agree with this except for what I highlighted in bold. I don't think a bigger market will result if this isn't concluded properly. Bitcoin's value is based on a perception, one which includes non-centralized power. What this event has done is drastically threaten that perception, and perception is the only thing the Bitcoin value/exchange rate is based on. If this isn't resolved in what is perceived to be an acceptable way I fear the foundation of the exchange rate will essentially disappear.

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

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

Having thought about this for longer now I'd say my main fear with this foundation is how they're going to credibly explain to the US govt that they cannot build AML and KYC rules into the code when they are actually paying the devs salaries?

This was on the tip of my tongue! Thank you so much!

This is no problem at all.

Bitcoin does not need AML/KYC policies, however the companies that operate within moving fiat to Bitcoin and back do.

It's a very simple concept of closed loop and open loop. One which I've explained to regulators many times

-Charlie