[ANN] Bitcoin Foundation

[Steve]

We know there is no danger right know. But you don't seem be able to comprehend the future danger. Please, open your eyes, learn from history and comprehend the very serious future danger.

People should not dismiss this point of view out of hand, especially those involved in TBF.  How is it that you defeat or neutralize a decentralized organization?  You centralize it.  This is exactly how the Sioux Indians in North America were ultimately defeated.  They formed an "entirely voluntary" centralized organization.  Their people began to defer more and more of the decision making to this central organization.  This organization naively tried to work with the government on the belief that they could reach tolerable agreements.  Later in life, Chief Red Cloud said: "They made us many promises, more than I can remember. But they kept but one--They promised to take our land...and they took it."

I don't doubt the good intentions of the people involved in TBF, but as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. 

[1715004365]

1715004365

[1715004365]

1715004365

[1715004365]

1715004365

[1715004365]

1715004365

[hazek]

We know there is no danger right know. But you don't seem be able to comprehend the future danger. Please, open your eyes, learn from history and comprehend the very serious future danger.

People should not dismiss this point of view out of hand, especially those involved in TBF.  How is it that you defeat or neutralize a decentralized organization?  You centralize it.  This is exactly how the Sioux Indians in North America were ultimately defeated.  They formed an "entirely voluntary" centralized organization.  Their people began to defer more and more of the decision making to this central organization.  This organization naively tried to work with the government on the belief that they could reach tolerable agreements.  Later in life, Chief Red Cloud said: "They made us many promises, more than I can remember. But they kept but one--They promised to take our land...and they took it."

I don't doubt the good intentions of the people involved in TBF, but as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  

Exactly.

[boonies4u]

It's quite difficult to wage a war against good intentions. Best of luck to you if you think you're fighting the good fight.

[hazek]

It's quite difficult to wage a war against good intentions. Best of luck to you if you think you're fighting the good fight.

Al it takes is to use reason and look at the facts. So far there's been little of that and a lot of trickery, falacies and ad hominems.

[Portnoy]

I can't think of a name more innocuous, clear and to the point, more professional, and politically neutral than "The Bitcoin Foundation".
I have not seen a better choice proposed here... except maybe one that would drop "the".  

Most people are familiar with foundations of this sort and even if a small minority may take it the wrong way it is easily corrected
with a few words displayed on their site and in their literature. Part of the reason for its creation is to inform the ignorant after all.  

The paranoid hyperbole here gets more ridiculous as it is repeated over and over again by the same people.  They have stated they
recognize your concerns and will move forward with that in mind. What more do you want to assuage your fear?  

In the same way the foundation shouldn't try to impose its will on Bitcoin, and it is unlikely to ever have that power, neither should
this foundation have to bend to the will of a few overly vocal zealots.  

[kjj]

It's quite difficult to wage a war against good intentions. Best of luck to you if you think you're fighting the good fight.

Al it takes is to use reason and look at the facts. So far there's been little of that and a lot of trickery, falacies and ad hominems.

Hahahaha.  I agree.  But probably not the way you think.

[beckspace]

The rants about Bitcoin Foundation makes me remember the first scene of Mel Brooks's History of the World, Part I.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_v_ubcYsTI

[becoin]

Establishing Bitcoin Foundation is the right step if you wish bitcoin project to succeed. You have to start from somewhere despite all possible mistakes. There are some valid points in this discussion that must be taken care of and corrected.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Updated list of the foundation's issues:

1. The name "The Bitcoin Foundation" wrongly suggest that it is the central authority that controls Bitcoin.
2. The hosting company of the BitcoinFoundation.org is (with high probability) a Government-run honeypot.
3. There is no safe way for people to have a vote in the Foundation without giving up their identities (which could prove fatal in case of Bitcoin users are declared terrorists, or government tries to confiscate Bitcoins from them).
4. Lack of clear privacy policy. No mention about security of member's personal data (are the servers encrypted or whatever).

(optional) - The CEO of MtGox (with all the problems with anonymity, taint listing, AML shit, KYC shit and arbitrary account freezing in this exchanger) is a founder.

Anything else ?

Since it is the nature of threads like these that critics will be louder than supporters I just wanna chime in to say that I support this organization and believe that it'll be a good thing for Bitcoin. Thanks for the work you put into this guys.

I'm not saying i don't support the foundation. Yes i do.

However, for it to work properly, some bugs need to be fixed, just like with software.

[boonies4u]

5. The CEO of MtGox (with all the problems with anonymity, taint listing, AML shit, KYC shit and arbitrary account freezing in this exchanger) is a founder.

MtGox has to have AML and KYC policies if they are to continue to operate, and by that same token, cannot be anonymous for all users of the site.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

5. The CEO of MtGox (with all the problems with anonymity, taint listing, AML shit, KYC shit and arbitrary account freezing in this exchanger) is a founder.

MtGox has to have AML and KYC policies if they are to continue to operate, and by that same token, cannot be anonymous for all users of the site.

Changed to optional.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

I can't think of a name more innocuous, clear and to the point, more professional, and politically neutral than "The Bitcoin Foundation".
I have not seen a better choice proposed here... except maybe one that would drop "the".  

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.msg1232039#msg1232039
Somebody also suggested "Andresen Foundation for Bitcoin Development".

Most people are familiar with foundations of this sort and even if a small minority may take it the wrong way it is easily corrected

It won't be that small minority. Many people will be misled into believing they have some sort of authority over Bitcoin.
Plus, the name is a lie in itself. It's not nice to lie, you know.

They have stated they recognize your concerns and will move forward with that in mind.

Recognizing my concerns would imply, at least, changing the name and accepting anonymous members. I don't see that happening.

In the same way the foundation shouldn't try to impose its will on Bitcoin, and it is unlikely to ever have that power, neither should
this foundation have to bend to the will of a few overly vocal zealots.  

I know they don't have, and will not bend to the criticism here. But what's the problem in trying to show everybody else that, besides being a lie in its own name, this organization lacks basic principles that should be dear to bitcoiners?

[hazek]

Anything else ?

Yeah you missed my post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.msg1235956#msg1235956

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

@hazek

Fixed.

Updated list of the foundation's bugs:

1. The name "The Bitcoin Foundation" wrongly suggest that it is the central authority that controls Bitcoin.
2. The hosting company of the BitcoinFoundation.org is (with high probability) a Government-run honeypot.
3. There is no safe way for people to have a vote in the Foundation without giving up their identities (which could prove fatal in case of Bitcoin users are declared terrorists, or government tries to confiscate Bitcoins from them).
4. Lack of clear privacy policy. No mention about security of member's personal data (are the servers encrypted or whatever).
5. The lead dev who owns the git access and is a founding member and a member of the board of directors for the next two years is a conflict of interest.
6. The organization is not for profit which means it can't go bankrupt should it provide a crappy service as long as big businesses are prepared to open their purse they can operate indefinitely. (a scary thought)

(optional) - The CEO of MtGox (with all the problems with anonymity, taint listing, AML shit, KYC shit and arbitrary account freezing in this exchanger) is a founder.

----
Perhaps somebody should start a bugzilla or something...

[Portnoy]

I can't think of a name more innocuous, clear and to the point, more professional, and politically neutral than "The Bitcoin Foundation".
I have not seen a better choice proposed here... except maybe one that would drop "the".  

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.msg1232039#msg1232039
Somebody also suggested "Andresen Foundation for Bitcoin Development".

Most people are familiar with foundations of this sort and even if a small minority may take it the wrong way it is easily corrected

It won't be that small minority. Many people will be misled into believing they have some sort of authority over Bitcoin.
Plus, the name is a lie in itself. It's not nice to lie, you know.

And these opinions seem to be based on the fact that you don't seem to understand all definitions of the word
"foundation".  Once again... In addition to what you think it means it also means these things below ( and given
the context in which the bitcoin foundation uses its name it should be clear to most people which definition is
being used ):

- an endowment or legacy for the perpetual support of an institution such as a school or hospital    
- an institution supported by an endowment, often one that provides funds for charities, research, etc
- the charter incorporating or establishing a society or institution and the statutes or rules governing its affairs

Most people are familiar with foundations of this sort and even if a small minority may take it the wrong way it is easily corrected...

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

And a lead dev who owns the git access and is a founding member and a member of the board of directors for the next two years is a conflict of interest.

If one of the goals - a good goal, IMHO - is to finance the development of Bitcoin software, it looks natural to me that developers have an influence over the organization. If developers have no influence at all, I'd say it's worse. I find it good that developers have a say in where the money goes, which are the priorities etc.

And the organization is not for profit which means it can't go bankrupt should it provide a crappy service as long as big businesses are prepared to open their purse they can operate indefinitely. (a scary thought)

That's not accurate. First of all, do not confuse "profit" in its generic economical sense with "profit" in its financial sense, of "monetary profit" or "dividends". Every organization "seeks profit", in the sense that every organization aims to create something of value for its participants. Profit, in that sense, means to add value, to improve one's level of satisfaction.
And every organization that doesn't use force to keep itself may go "bankrupt". If its donors judge they are not adding value to them, they'll stop donating. That will force the organization to shrink, as happens with a company that doesn't manage to sell its products. If it doesn't shrink accordingly, or if the donation goes down all the way to zero, the organization will break.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

And these opinions seem to be based on the fact that you don't seem to understand all definitions of the word
"foundation".  
....

Do you want to bet that people will be misled?

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

Updated list of the foundation's bugs:

1. The name "The Bitcoin Foundation" wrongly suggest that it is the central authority that controls Bitcoin.
2. The hosting company of the BitcoinFoundation.org is (with high probability) a Government-run honeypot.
3. There is no safe way for people to have a vote in the Foundation without giving up their identities (which could prove fatal in case of Bitcoin users are declared terrorists, or government tries to confiscate Bitcoins from them).
4. Lack of clear privacy policy. No mention about security of member's personal data (are the servers encrypted or whatever).
5. The lead dev who owns the git access and is a founding member and a member of the board of directors for the next two years is a conflict of interest.
6. The organization is not for profit which means it can't go bankrupt should it provide a crappy service as long as big businesses are prepared to open their purse they can operate indefinitely. (a scary thought)

(optional) - The CEO of MtGox (with all the problems with anonymity, taint listing, AML shit, KYC shit and arbitrary account freezing in this exchanger) is a founder.

I'm not concerned by items 5, 6 and "optional". I also don't know enough to agree or disagree about 2. Items 1 and 3 are the ones which actually bother me.

[The_Duke]

And a lead dev who owns the git access and is a founding member and a member of the board of directors for the next two years is a conflict of interest.

If one of the goals - a good goal, IMHO - is to finance the development of Bitcoin software,

I would agree with that if it was not limited to ONE developer, or a small group of developers working on ONE client or project.

[ArticMine]

We know there is no danger right know. But you don't seem be able to comprehend the future danger. Please, open your eyes, learn from history and comprehend the very serious future danger.

People should not dismiss this point of view out of hand, especially those involved in TBF.  How is it that you defeat or neutralize a decentralized organization?  You centralize it.  This is exactly how the Sioux Indians in North America were ultimately defeated.  They formed an "entirely voluntary" centralized organization.  Their people began to defer more and more of the decision making to this central organization.  This organization naively tried to work with the government on the belief that they could reach tolerable agreements.  Later in life, Chief Red Cloud said: "They made us many promises, more than I can remember. But they kept but one--They promised to take our land...and they took it."

I don't doubt the good intentions of the people involved in TBF, but as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  

This is a valid point; however if I was looking for a centralized point of attack to take down Bitcoin, I would not use the Bitcoin Foundation at all, I would use Microsoft. The latter by virtue of its control over Windows effectively controls a vast proportion of the Bitcoin nodes and a significant proportion of the mining hashpower. Microsoft also has very close relationships with the state; having provided access to the source code for Windows to many state security agencies. In short let us focus on the real threats here.

So:

1) I fully support the Bitcoin Foundation. The benefits this will bring to Bitcoin far outweigh any negatives of the small centralization it also brings.
2) I use GNU/Linux as my primary OS and for my Bitcoin wallets and mining exclusively. The reasons for my choice of GNU/Linux over Microsoft Windows for Bitcoin use have been very eloquently expressed by the many posters in this thread expressing concerns regarding centralization and state control.

To many who have expressed concerns regarding the Bitcoin Foundation, yes you have made many valid points, but please take a good hard look at the operating systems you use on your computers and other devices, because there is where the real threat lies.