[ANN] Bitcoin Foundation

[Atlas]

I think goal number one here for this foundation is Gavin's job security. That's where most of your money will be going.

[modrobert]

The foundation site seems to be down now?

Tried locally and on downforeveryoneorjustme.com

Same here.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

According to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113509.0:

Do you support the launch of the Bitcoin Foundation?
Yes - 55.1% (49/89)
No - 25.8% (23/89)
Not decided yet - 19.1% (17/89)

This is a useless poll.

It can be easily manipulated by starting multiple accounts...
A proper poll mechanism should be written, which only allows individuals with proper reputation (minimum 2 months on the forum, minimum ~100 posts) to vote.

The only other option is to vote by posting posts, and later only the votes or reputable people will be counted.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

I think goal number one here for this foundation is Gavin's job security. That's where most of your money will be going.

Well, he is the lead developer.

What other did you expect ?

[The_Duke]

Anyone already wondered how many bitcoins Gavin has acquired by being an early adopter, how much that would amount to by now in USD, how much your average coder makes in a year and how many years Gavin could live off of that money? Anyone already wondered what would be better for the bitcoin economy: Gavins coins actually being spent by him, or Gavin (and crew) collecting MORE coins by forming a foundation asking for your money?

No one wondered about this?

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

@Erik Voor Hees and Jon Matonis, if you're still following this gigantic thread, I'd appreciate if you could answer me these questions:

• What's your opinion on the ban of anonymous memberships of this organization?
• Don't you see that the name "Bitcoin Foundation", besides being a lie in itself (this organization is not the foundation of Bitcoin), will inevitably mislead people - including journalists - into believing this organization has some sort authority over Bitcoin? Don't you believe the name was intentionally chosen to produce such effect? Doesn't that bother you a tiny bit?

Sorry if you've addressed those questions already, but I couldn't read the entire thread line by line. Just be kind to point me to the post answering them if that's the case.

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.

I do understand the difference very well. I don't claim they're a coercive order.

What I don't like in this organization is mainly the fact that they've chosen a name that is a lie in itself and will inevitably provoke misunderstandings.
There's also the fact that they lack some basic principles, which wouldn't bother me if they weren't being so presumptuous as to call themselves "Bitcoin Foundation". Not allowing anonymous memberships is a big mistake. That alone is a reason for me never joining it. There are also some other displays of lack of principles, which may not be relevant from a practical point of view, but are not a good start anyway. For example, declaring Satoshi as a founder without his express consent shows they don't fully understand voluntary associations.  

I'm addressing you two (Erik and Matonis) precisely because I'd expect you to understand the importance of these principles better - especially the anonymous participation thing. I'd also expect you not to want to mislead people into believing this organization has some sort of power over Bitcoin.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

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.

"Bitcoin Advocacy Group", "Bitcoin Supporters Group", "Bitcoin Development Group", "Bitcoin Club" are some that just came out of my mind, and I don't see these names misleading people, nor do they sound presumptuous to me. I'm sure more creative people, with some time of thinking, could definitely come out with something better.

[Atlas]

I think goal number one here for this foundation is Gavin's job security. That's where most of your money will be going.

Well, he is the lead developer.

What other did you expect ?

Who made him the lead developer? Satoshi sure as hell didn't and somebody else totally redid the interface.

Additionally, Satoshi coded <95% of the whole thing. I say we pay per contribution and not a salary. This isn't intended to be a job. He isn't the god of Bitcoin.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

I think goal number one here for this foundation is Gavin's job security. That's where most of your money will be going.

Well, he is the lead developer.

What other did you expect ?

Who made him the lead developer? Satoshi sure as hell didn't and somebody else totally redid the interface.

Additionally, Satoshi coded <95% of the whole thing.

Actually, you should first check the github statistics of who did the most of commits and merges, and only second, speak.

Another thing is that, if i remember correctly, Satoshi himself blessed Gavin as the project leader. Somebody correct me if I am wrong.

[Atlas]

I think goal number one here for this foundation is Gavin's job security. That's where most of your money will be going.

Well, he is the lead developer.

What other did you expect ?

Who made him the lead developer? Satoshi sure as hell didn't and somebody else totally redid the interface.

Additionally, Satoshi coded <95% of the whole thing.

Actually, you should first check the github statistics of who did the most of commits and merges, and only second, speak.

Satoshi didn't use Github. Again, he made most of the core code on his own.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

I think goal number one here for this foundation is Gavin's job security. That's where most of your money will be going.

Well, he is the lead developer.

What other did you expect ?

Who made him the lead developer? Satoshi sure as hell didn't and somebody else totally redid the interface.

Additionally, Satoshi coded <95% of the whole thing.

Actually, you should first check the github statistics of who did the most of commits and merges, and only second, speak.

Satoshi didn't use Github. Again, he made most of the core code on his own.

Stop fooling with me. You know very well what I am talking about.

Of course, I meant who did the most of coding AFTER Satoshi left the project.

EDIT: Another thing is that, if i remember correctly, Satoshi himself blessed Gavin as the project leader. Somebody correct me if I am wrong.

[Atlas]

I think goal number one here for this foundation is Gavin's job security. That's where most of your money will be going.

Well, he is the lead developer.

What other did you expect ?

Who made him the lead developer? Satoshi sure as hell didn't and somebody else totally redid the interface.

Additionally, Satoshi coded <95% of the whole thing.

Another thing is that, if i remember correctly, Satoshi himself blessed Gavin as the project leader. Somebody correct me if I am wrong.

No, Satoshi left suddenly after Gavin mentioned going to the CIA after being gifted the alert key. Gavin decided everything else on his own.

[Atlas]

https://github.com/laanwj

This guy has done most of the Bitcoin contributions after Satoshi. He made the Bitcoin-Qt interface. He should be the leader.

[eb3full]

Declaring Satoshi as the founder is just a political maneuver, like declaring Reagan the founder of some conservative action committee in absentia, should Reagan rise from the dead and assume his position. The foundation's board should consist of individuals with an immediate and reliable intention of serving the best interests of Bitcoin. Assuming Satoshi is infallible or some permanent God of Bitcoin is strange and revisionist. How many years will it take until the foundation removes Satoshi's position because he awkwardly never returns to reclaim it?

If Satoshi did return, we should (and probably would) want him to serve on the board electively. But placing him in that position, especially without his consent, is not neutral or fair.

That's my only concern about the foundation.

[Atlas]

Declaring Satoshi as the founder is just a political maneuver, like declaring Reagan the founder of some conservative action committee in absentia, should Reagan rise from the dead and assume his position. The foundation's board should consist of individuals with an immediate and reliable intention of serving the best interests of Bitcoin. Assuming Satoshi is infallible or some permanent God of Bitcoin is strange and revisionist. How many years will it take until the foundation removes Satoshi's position because he awkwardly never returns to reclaim it?

If Satoshi did return, we should (and probably would) want him to serve on the board electively. But placing him in that position, especially without his consent, is not neutral or fair.

That's my only concern about the foundation.

Bitcoin only exists because of Satoshi's will and hardwork. Without Satoshi, there would be no Bitcoin.

[Pieter Wuille]

No, Satoshi left suddenly after Gavin mentioned going to the CIA after being gifted the alert key. Gavin decided everything else on his own.

This is not true, see http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3546/who-made-gavin-project-leader.

This was long before Gavin announced he'd give a talk at the CIA. After that, Satoshi gradually faded from public view, only to keep contact via e-mail with a few people for a few months. Some time later, approximately around the time of the CIA announcement, he vanished entirely.

Sorry, but Satoshi did appoint Gavin as his successor. I'm not sure that is even relevant, though.

[eb3full]

Bitcoin only exists because of Satoshi's will and hardwork. Without Satoshi, there would be no Bitcoin.

I respect the work that he did (indeed, the best respect is to continue his work) but we don't even know who he was. What if he was multiple people, or a corporation, or a secret state project? Do you hold allegiance to Bitcoin or Satoshi? It's my understanding that Bitcoin belongs to everybody. It is, however, fallacious to weigh him against others in the way some have proposed. No matter who the person is, the "free market of ideas" should not play to anyone's hands, noble intentions or not.

[Atlas]

No, Satoshi left suddenly after Gavin mentioned going to the CIA after being gifted the alert key. Gavin decided everything else on his own.

This is not true, see http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3546/who-made-gavin-project-leader.

This was long before Gavin announced he'd give a talk at the CIA. After that, Satoshi gradually faded from public view, only to keep contact via e-mail with a few people for a few months. Some time later, approximately around the time of the CIA announcement, he vanished entirely.

Sorry, but Satoshi did appoint Gavin as his successor. I'm not sure that is even relevant, though.

Well, I sincerely doubt an absolute leadership role, Linus Torvalds-style was intended. Not even Satoshi made himself appear that way.

[Atlas]

Bitcoin only exists because of Satoshi's will and hardwork. Without Satoshi, there would be no Bitcoin.

I respect the work that he did (indeed, the best respect is to continue his work) but we don't even know who he was. What if he was multiple people, or a corporation, or a secret state project? Do you hold allegiance to Bitcoin or Satoshi? It's my understanding that Bitcoin belongs to everybody. It is, however, fallacious to weigh him against others in the way some have proposed. No matter who the person is, the "free market of ideas" should not play to anyone's hands, noble intentions or not.

I am glad we can agree. My only point is that nobody should be considered the head or face of Bitcoin. We're separating out to many implementations and services now. When somebody tries to represent every Bitcoin service as "The Official Head Developer" -- that's a problem.

Pledging allegiance to Bitcoin should not require allegiance to bitcoin.org. Satoshi is the idea of Bitcoin. That's what I admire and respect; not whatever dev is leftover and proclaims himself monarch.

[eb3full]

Pledging allegiance to Bitcoin should not require allegiance to bitcoin.org.

I agree, and thankfully that's still true even after this foundation was created. But I'll stick with the foundation for now.