[ANN] Bitcoin Foundation

[boonies4u]

I agree fully with all your points so far, and would like to add my feelings.

Well, to be 100% clear, only 3 or 4 of the points are mine, the rest are somebody's elses.

I highly doubt bitcoin users will be labeled terrorists.

...but you cannot guarantee that.

So this counter-argument is useless.

It wasn't meant to be a part of the argument, I was just pointing out that some people are concerned that members of TBF would be arrested as being terrorists, because they gave up their anonymity, while others don't like the idea of a depoliticized bitcoin.

Bitcoin is full of non-anonymous users, politicizing bitcoin will be throwing them under the bus.

[acoindr]

There is zero hard, technical evidence of anything supporting the trolls positions.

You know what's disturbing to me? That the opposing side are labeled "trolls".

No matter which side you're on, which views you have, is that really indicative of honest debate?

This thread has 51 pages, over 13K views in about 72 hours... And everything from the opposing side were troll posts?

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

There is zero hard, technical evidence of anything supporting the trolls positions.

You know what's disturbing to me? That the opposing side are labeled "trolls".

No matter which side you're on, which views you have, is that really indicative of honest debate?

This thread has 51 pages, over 13K views in about 72 hours... And everything from the opposing side were troll posts?

What makes me wonder is why do the foundation founders think that everything is just "perfect" with their child ?
Why can't things outside software world have bugs, just as software ?

Aren't the "trolls" just people who see bugs and submit them to a bugzilla (which is what this topic actually is) ?

OK, the foundation is a good idea, but it has some bugs which need fixing before pushing clearly unfinished alpha-grade product to everybody around the world...

@Core team
You are supposed to be programmers, so think like one.

[jgarzik]

There is zero hard, technical evidence of anything supporting the trolls positions.

You know what's disturbing to me? That the opposing side are labeled "trolls".

No matter which side you're on, which views you have, is that really indicative of honest debate?

critic != troll

There is a clear difference in this thread between honest criticism and paranoia unsupported by evidence.

All the evidence to date is that the Gavin-led dev team encourages a more-decentralized ecosystem than even Satoshi did.  A voluntary organization has been organized to help provide resources to continue that work.

Absolutely there will be bugs and problems at startup.  It is better to start, and fix those bugs, than to endlessly debate about what is the perfect form that satisfies everybody.

[tucenaber]

Does Gavis have a blog or website where he defends his position? I realise he doesn't think highly of this forum, but I really was hoping he would write something somewhere. Does he?

[hazek]

There is zero hard, technical evidence of anything supporting the trolls positions.

You know what's disturbing to me? That the opposing side are labeled "trolls".

No matter which side you're on, which views you have, is that really indicative of honest debate?

This thread has 51 pages, over 13K views in about 72 hours... And everything from the opposing side were troll posts?

Being labeled a troll isn't as disturbing as an out right attack on ones persona:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.msg1231368#msg1231368

and here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.msg1231715#msg1231715

And the second attack happened even after my post replying to the first one here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.msg1231439#msg1231439

[acoindr]

critic != troll

There is a clear difference in this thread between honest criticism and paranoia unsupported by evidence.

You know what your arguing premise reminds me of? Chastising the lone critics (I'm sure there must have been some) of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.

From Jim Grant:

"If one reads the Federal Reserve Act, you will be struck by how little the 21st Century model resembles the projected central bank - as in fact the founders advocated for a De-Centralized system."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/what-does-fed-do

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

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.

Same thing can be achieved without a conflict of interest with an independent contract. Lead dev and dev team can specify what the funds will be spent on developing in there.

If the organization is hiring the development, it's the organization who specifies priorities. By putting developers in high positions inside this organization, these developers get to influence these priorities. I don't see a conflict of interest.

Now they are locked with this organization

Why are they locked?

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.

Wrong. Donations can be made by anyone and they can be of any size. This means that if you have a deep purse you carry more weight and can buy more power which no one will notice. On the other hand a for profit business sells a service, the same service at the same price for everyone. There if they don't have many clients (which translates to broad support) they go out of business and a deep purse can't change that by buying their service over and over again because it would be obvious what is happening.

Again, I insist, praxeologically speaking, every organization, every individual, seek profit. From an economical POV, it makes no sense saying this organization is not for profit. And every organization may run out of business.
Plus, if somebody with deep enough pockets wants to save a business - whatever business - he will always be able too.
The real danger is not somebody buying up this organization and then get things developed for them - this "danger" exist right now, nothing's stopping rich people from buying Bitcoin development from its main developers.
The real danger - and in that, the lie that is their name may play a role - is people trusting this organization more than they should.

There's no reason to believe this organization would accomplish their goals better if they tried to sell stuff/services instead of asking for donations. I think the best approach is mixing both of them.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Does Gavis have a blog or website where he defends his position? I realise he doesn't think highly of this forum, but I really was hoping he would write something somewhere. Does he?

After...

I'm not going to address conspiracy theories, mostly because I'm not seeing most of them because of who I've got on my ignore list.

   ...we shouldn't expect that he will write something in defence.

[The_Duke]

There is zero hard, technical evidence of anything supporting the trolls positions.

You know what's disturbing to me? That the opposing side are labeled "trolls".

No matter which side you're on, which views you have, is that really indicative of honest debate?

critic != troll

A little late to add nuance to your statement, don't you think?

There is a clear difference in this thread between honest criticism and paranoia unsupported by evidence.

And who is to be the judge of what is "honest criticism" and what is "paranoia unsupported by evidence"? You almost sound like someone who would join an organisation to govern the very definition and certification of those terms...

All the evidence to date is that the Gavin-led dev team encourages a more-decentralized ecosystem than even Satoshi did.

If only it were like that.
Maybe you should really read through this topic. Read and try to understand what is actually being said, rather than dismiss it as trolls and paranoia unsupported by evidence.

A voluntary organization has been organized to help provide resources to continue that work.

Voluntary? What is voluntary by demanding to get paid for the providing of resources?
Edit: NVM, I misunderstood the "voluntary" part. It means something different in my native language. 

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

1. The name "The Bitcoin Foundation" wrongly suggest that it is the central authority that controls Bitcoin.

[as mentioned before] this is a fair point, but really bike shedding at this juncture.

Bikeshedding?
The name is a lie in itself, for a start. This organization is not the foundation of Bitcoin.
And it will inevitably mislead ignorant people into believing this organization has authority over Bitcoin. That will likely make people trust this organization more than they should.
And the worst of all: the name was likely chosen to have such effect.
I have a hard time trusting an organization that's born with intentions of lie and deception...

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).

An understandable criticism, but I think this is within the realm of member policy.

What do you mean by "within the realm of member policy"?
This reason alone is enough for me not joining nor donating anything. It shows that, besides lying and trying to trick people, they also lack some basic principles which are important. Privacy is particularly important in the world we live in.
The fact they've included Satoshi as a founder, although not being of any practical relevance, also shows they don't understand voluntary associations.

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)

Bogus criticism:  the foundation will disappear if its members dislike its actions.  Thus there is a free-market economic feedback mechanism and members are the customers.

I agree with this point of yours. This is obviously a voluntary organization. I'm seeing comparisons with the Fed in this thread, which are not fair since the Fed is a result of government violence. This organization is not.

Not everything that is voluntary produces good results though.

[jgarzik]

 A voluntary organization has been organized to help provide resources to continue that work.

Voluntary? What is voluntary by demanding to get paid for the providing of resources?

*plonk*

[kiba]

Voluntary? What is voluntary by demanding to get paid for the providing of resources?

One of the dumbest statement ever made in this thread.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

 A voluntary organization has been organized to help provide resources to continue that work.

Voluntary? What is voluntary by demanding to get paid for the providing of resources?

Unless you're forcing people to pay or to provide resources, that's pretty much the textbook definition of voluntary exchange.

[galambo]

I think a reasonable request for the foundation would be to provide a mechanism for Satoshi to claim the founders chair, and one of the enumerated powers of the founder's chair would be to dissolve the foundation.

Just to be sure no one is running away with an idea that isn't theirs.

[Sitarow]

I think a reasonable request for the foundation would be to provide a mechanism for Satoshi to claim the founders chair, and one of the enumerated powers of the founder's chair would be to dissolve the foundation.

Just to be sure no one is running away with an idea that isn't theirs.

If history is any indication the idea of a Bitcoin Foundation can lead to a central authority system that will be susceptible to third party influence.

[kiba]

If history is any indication the idea of a Bitcoin Foundation can lead to a central authority system that will be susceptible to third party influence.

Examples, please.

[Sitarow]

If history is any indication the idea of a Bitcoin Foundation can lead to a central authority system that will be susceptible to third party influence.

Examples, please.

It is always important to self regulate in order to prevent abuses of power.

Edit:

Please visit the Foundation website for details, and please keep in mind that nothing is set in stone; the structure of the Foundation can be changed by a vote of its members, and exactly what the Foundation does will largely depend on who is willing to step up do the work to make things happen.

Simple examples of organizations that have been used to keep the "peace" but may not necessarily be open to outside "scrutiny" (for good cause)

OPEC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC

Despite the slow return to health of a sickly world economy, oil fetches a lofty $75 a barrel, which Saudi Arabia, OPEC's most influential member reckons is "ideal".
source

Federal Reserve System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

The Federal Reserve is not a government agency. There are 12 Federal Reserve Member Banks.
A member bank is a private institution and owns stock in its regional Federal Reserve Bank.
Member banks, do however, elect six of the nine members of the Federal Reserve Banks' boards of directors.[31][76] From the profits of the Regional Bank of which it is a member, a member bank receives a dividend equal to 6% of their purchased stock.[17] The remainder of the regional Federal Reserve Banks' profits is given over to the United States Treasury Department.
source

Who Owns the Federal Reserve

"Citibank, Chase Manhatten, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Chemical Bank, Manufacturers Hanover Trust, Bankers Trust Company, National Bank of North America, and the Bank of New York"

"many of these banks are owned by about a dozen European banking organizations, mostly British, and most notably the Rothschild banking dynasty. Through their American agents they are able to select the board of directors for the New York Fed and to direct U.S. monetary policy"

"It is difficult researching this particular claim because a Federal Reserve Bank is not a publicly traded corporation and is therefore not required by the Securities and Exchange Commission to publish a list of its major shareholders. The question of ownership can still be addressed, however, by examining the legal rules for acquisition of such stock. The Federal Reserve Act requires national banks and participating state banks to purchase shares of their regional Federal Reserve Bank upon joining the System, thereby becoming "member banks" (12 USCA 282). Since the eight banks Mullins named all operate within the New York Federal Reserve district, and are all nationally chartered banks, they are required to be shareholders of the New York Federal Reserve Bank."
source

The Federal Reserve ADMITS that Its 12 Banks Are PRIVATE – Not Government – Entities

Indeed, Ron Paul noted recently that one-third of all fed bailout loans – and essentially 100% of
loans from the New York Fed – went to foreign banks.
source

However If history is any guide, having some sort of central bank may have been better than none. Out of 100 years of Fed control, the country has had 22 recessional years, including one depression. The 100 years before the Fed saw 44 recessions and six depressions.

What's left is this: until someone thinks of a better idea than the gold standard or handing the economic keys to the Treasury Department, or just leaving a void, the Fed will probably have to stick around—flaws and all.

"I think most of the rhetoric is political blather and adds to a degree of uncertainty around the world, hurting all aspects of growth," says John Allan James. "It may make good media copy, but the chances of the Fed being dissolved are totally unrealistic."

Source

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-09/wall_street/31040431_1_interest-rates-big-banks-member-banks#ixzz285rfS66H

More down to earth examples of how regulation has been used for select groups.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57443091-37/yep-apple-owns-iphone5.com-now/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act

[The_Duke]

 A voluntary organization has been organized to help provide resources to continue that work.

Voluntary? What is voluntary by demanding to get paid for the providing of resources?

Unless you're forcing people to pay or to provide resources, that's pretty much the textbook definition of voluntary exchange.

Ok, turns out there's a slight language confusion on my part there, I'm sorry. In my native language voluntary would translate to work you do without getting paid. As you understand, that would stand in contrast to Gavin now wanting money for work he used to do for free. (Which I'd consider more hobby than work anyway)

I now understand what jgarzik meant with his voluntary statement and I apologize for the confusion.

[S3052]

hazek, you're really annoying me.

First, you edited my OP and broke all of the links changing .org to .com.
Then you sent me a PM asking if it would be ok to move this thread to Service Discussion.  WTF?  If discussion of the Foundation isn't a good topic for the main Discussion forum what is?

Now you spout off about 'Gavin this, Gavin that.'

It isn't easy to piss me off, but, I'm sorry, you're really pissing me off. Bounties?  Really?  Point me to a successful security-critical open source project where bounties pay the rent.

I haven't tried kickstarter-like fundraising?  http://blockchain.info/address/17XvU95PkpDqXAr8ieNpYzSdRDRJL55UQ8  is the address for the Bitcoin Testing Project, which has received a grand total of 72 BTC, which isn't nearly enough to pay a QA grunt, let alone a QA lead.

You say "why change, Bitcoin has been working great for me!"

It hasn't been working great for me; I'm frustrated by the lack of resources and all of the distractions I have to deal with as the unelected, un-asked-for de-facto leader of this amazing experiment. I'm excited about the Foundation, because it is bringing together dedicated, effective people who all want Bitcoin to succeed.

+111111111111

Gavin
Keep moving forward. You are doing a fantastic job. Don't get sidetracked by a few  critics. Most people here support you and even if not , they can create their own foundation or club.