[ANN] Bitcoin Foundation

[Mobius]

We really need a full alternative, TBF independent, client. Asap.

+1

[Kupsi]

We really need a full alternative, TBF independent, client. Asap.

Wouldn't you have the very same hypothetical problems with the developers of the alternative client?

As soon as they set up something as broken as TBF, then yes.

Why don't you start a new organization for developing the alternative client?

[kjj]

if the membership agrees with your "bugs" then they'll get fixed.

I'm happy that I'd already made a post in the Alternative client section, because if I hadn't I would have to do it now.

What you're saying here is that if something needs fixing (be it in bitcoind, TBF's setup, or other), it will only happen if enough paying members want it. So if something needs fixing that might not be beneficial to enough paying members (even if it is vital to the majority of the userbase that is not a member), it won't get done.

We really need a full alternative, TBF independent, client. Asap.

See, this is why we call you a troll.

In the case of the foundation, the decision about whether something is broken or not belongs to the members.  You don't get to decide that something in the foundation's bylaws is broken and needs to be fixed, the members do.  If the members don't think that something needs to be changed, it isn't broken, no matter how much you think it is.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Name:  I like the name.  It can be changed if the membership decides on something better.

OK, this is actually a [minor] bug.

Hosting company: could easily be changed; it likely will be.

Well, since this is kind of a [critical] bug, it better be. Soon.

I highly doubt Cloudflare is a government honeypot for anything besides catching DDoS botnet operators.

Still, it will be much easier for the government & FEDs to get their hands on the servers, since the company already cooperates deeply with the authorities.

Identities/voting: Please see "Sybil Attack" for why we're requiring names, mailing addresses and emails. If you've got a magical way of identifying anonymous people please send me the source code, I could use it for the Bitcoin Faucet.

Actually, i do have a not-so-magical way for confirming one's identity, however it will not work for the Faucet.

Simply, if somebody wants to confirm his identity, he needs to meet one of existing, trusted foundation members in public place. And then use PGP/GPG to verify that it is the same person, which has registered on the foundation's website & on Bitcoin forums. This is a 100% sybil attack-proof procedure. Also, it provides high level of protection against government collecting all information about "Bitcoin dissidents" just by hacking/taking over the servers or even torturing/blackmailing people.

Yeah, i know this will be problematic, but you can charge additional BTC for it. Severity of this bug is [critical]. Possibility of government action against Bitcoin cannot be ignored.

US based: if Patrick (Foundation's lawyer) was Finnish we would probably be Finnish-based. That's the whole "perfect is the enemy of the good" thing (and I really don't want to have a month-long discussion about which legal jurisdiction is the least likely to declare Bitcoin Foundation illegal, which would be best for getting donors tax deductions, and whatever other arguments we could have).

The fear of US is well deserved... after all it US that has FED, it is US that jailed Kim Dotcom without charges, it is US that pushes for Assange's extradition even though he didn't break any laws in his country and it is US that has Guantanamo concentration camp, where they can hold & torture you indefinately without due process or even any charges.

Severity: [critical].

[Rothgar]

Don't care about supporting an organization whose name is a lie in itself and will likely mislead people - with the high probability of this being intentional.

Damn that national science foundation, and their monopoly on science.

[cunicula]

Not only is Gavin unlikely to humor this, it's a very disingenuous comparison. Bitcoin is at risk of a single malicious party which must afford to scale their attack against everybody else in the network, at direct opposition to the market incentive to act as an honest party. Not only is there not a market incentive to act as an honest voter in the foundation, the entry rates (2.5btc) are static and do not change based on the demand of new participants.

You simply cannot have a "1 person 1 vote" system that allows anonymous donation. Since they actually want their foundation to have credibility, they've made the right decision.

This is a completely valid comparison. People will lobby the foundation because of their private economic interest. Incentives to buy votes scale with the value of bitcoin just like incentives to invest in mining equipment. In both situations, the interests of lobbyists/miners will not fully coincide with those of bitcoin owners.

I'm not against a foundation; just like I'm not against a mining monopoly. Both are improvements over the status quo. An organization dominated by special interests is better than no organization at all. A robust democratic institution instead of one based on vote buying would be far preferable. (i.e. one coin of ownership = one vote, not one coin donated to vote buying = one vote)

[Insu Dra]

if the membership agrees with your "bugs" then they'll get fixed.

I'm happy that I'd already made a post in the Alternative client section, because if I hadn't I would have to do it now.

What you're saying here is that if something needs fixing (be it in bitcoind, TBF's setup, or other), it will only happen if enough paying members want it. So if something needs fixing that might not be beneficial to enough paying members (even if it is vital to the majority of the userbase that is not a member), it won't get done.

We really need a full alternative, TBF independent, client. Asap.

See, this is why we call you a troll.

In the case of the foundation, the decision about whether something is broken or not belongs to the members.  You don't get to decide that something in the foundation's bylaws is broken and needs to be fixed, the members do.  If the members don't think that something needs to be changed, it isn't broken, no matter how much you think it is.

So it all comes down to members that pay, eventually those that pay the most will have most power. Equal votes my ass, they pay the bills and put food on the table ...

In the end The Foundation will be there to please those that pay and not to protect or advance the protocol.

The more I read and hear about this the more I'm tempted to just remove any software related to the foundation ... if only that was possible.

We really need a full alternative, TBF independent, client. Asap.

+1k

[kjj]

We really need a full alternative, TBF independent, client. Asap.

+1k

Woah!  I didn't say that.  Please attribute that quote to the right person.  Here is the original reference:

if the membership agrees with your "bugs" then they'll get fixed.

I'm happy that I'd already made a post in the Alternative client section, because if I hadn't I would have to do it now.

What you're saying here is that if something needs fixing (be it in bitcoind, TBF's setup, or other), it will only happen if enough paying members want it. So if something needs fixing that might not be beneficial to enough paying members (even if it is vital to the majority of the userbase that is not a member), it won't get done.

We really need a full alternative, TBF independent, client. Asap.

For what it's worth, I think that we need a whole bunch of alternative clients.  The difference is that I think they'll just show up as bitcoin grows, and I've thought that way since way before the start of the foundation.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

You simply cannot have a "1 person 1 vote" system that allows anonymous donation.

Why having a "1 person 1 vote" system? Those who donate more should get a louder voice, that's much fairer.
If you think otherwise you probably have some aversion against money/profit/rich people or any other sort of distorted value that goes against the ideal of free market money which Bitcoin represents.

EDIT: Plus, "1 person 1 vote" systems are more prone to the "public choice problem" described in the following video, since individual members' losses from a bad ruling tend to be too insignificant for them to bother acting against it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgJ644LPL6g
An organization in which some parties have a higher "share" is less susceptible since these parties would suffer a greater loss from the "distributed cost", so they may be motivated to act.
Not that any of this is of major relevance since this organization is voluntary and people may leave at any moment anyway.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

In the end The Foundation will be there to please those that pay and not to protect or advance the protocol.

I think this kind of critic doesn't stand.

There's nothing stopping people with deep pockets from financing developments that please them right now. This organization per se won't make it easier or harder for them.
In the end, what matters is who people (=bitcoin users) trust. If well intended developers see the foundation has been bought by "an evil guy", they can simply leave it. Their reputation will leave with them.

The actual danger is not people buying up the organization. The actual danger is bitcoin users trusting this organization more than they should. The simple fact they don't accept anonymous memberships is already a reason to be wary, IMHO.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

Don't care about supporting an organization whose name is a lie in itself and will likely mislead people - with the high probability of this being intentional.

Damn that national science foundation, and their monopoly on science.

Do you want to bet that people will be misled by this organization's name?

[Rothgar]

Don't care about supporting an organization whose name is a lie in itself and will likely mislead people - with the high probability of this being intentional.

Damn that national science foundation, and their monopoly on science.

Do you want to bet that people will be misled by this organization's name?

It may very well be true that people are misled by the name "National Science Foundation," but those people are stupid.

[Insu Dra]

In the end The Foundation will be there to please those that pay and not to protect or advance the protocol.

I think this kind of critic doesn't stand.

There's nothing stopping people with deep pockets from financing developments that please them right now. This organization per se won't make it easier or harder for them.
In the end, what matters is who people (=bitcoin users) trust. If well intended developers see the foundation has been bought by "an evil guy", they can simply leave it. Their reputation will leave with them.

The actual danger is not people buying up the organization. The actual danger is bitcoin users trusting this organization more than they should. The simple fact they don't accept anonymous memberships is already a reason to be wary, IMHO.

The structure of the foundation and the current state of the bitcoin protocol is why I believe the foundation does make it easier for people with bad intentions to act, it gives them a ready to use and central point of attack with a legal structure to be co-opted.

As to users trust, I agree but the users don't have a choice. At this point in time they have to trust software put out by the foundation. There simply is no complete alternative for the to turn to.

In the past I gave Gavin trust as a person, I can't say I will do the same for Gavin the employee of 'the foundation'.

Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike the idea of a foundation but the timing and structure of BF seems off to me. On the other hand it might just wake people up out of there complacent state and push them to actually do something about it.

[The_Duke]

In the end The Foundation will be there to please those that pay and not to protect or advance the protocol.

I think this kind of critic doesn't stand.

There's nothing stopping people with deep pockets from financing developments that please them right now. This organization per se won't make it easier or harder for them.
In the end, what matters is who people (=bitcoin users) trust. If well intended developers see the foundation has been bought by "an evil guy", they can simply leave it. Their reputation will leave with them.

The actual danger is not people buying up the organization. The actual danger is bitcoin users trusting this organization more than they should. The simple fact they don't accept anonymous memberships is already a reason to be wary, IMHO.

+1

To this we should add and never forget that at the moment there are ~6 billion (I think that is a low estimation) potential future bitcoin users who have yet to be introduced to bitcoin. One of the first points of contact with bitcoin will be TBF for them. If you have any doubts of the effect this can potentially have, look at what EFF causes. There are already quite some cases of merchants not accepting bitcoin simply because EFF sais it is problematic. Sure, they should read more than just that once source, but let's be honest: many won't. Just like many (I dare to state: the majority) people will never look further than what they read on TBF's website.
That is not a problem as long as TBF only does what is good for bitcoin. But no one can guarantee that, and the way it has been set up almost ensures that it won't, at some point in time.

If wé are are not critical on TBF and their actions, those 6 billion people sure won't be.

[Insu Dra]

That is not a problem as long as TBF only does what is good for bitcoin. But no one can guarantee that, and the way it has been set up almost ensures that it won't, at some point in time.

If wé are are not critical on TBF and their actions, those 6 billion people sure won't be.

And how do you plan on doing that with a foundation that has a legal structure designed to give those with more money a head start ? To be elected you have to campaign and we all know how campaigns work, especially when those future 6 billion people join in on the voting wagon.

If you want a example of how that works in reality, take a closer look at the example Gavin mentioned.

With the Internet we have the power to decentralize politics and we no longer need to elect representatives. There was no need to add that kind of centralized structure on to the foundation ...

Edit: Correction - from the common users point of view there was no need to add that kind of centralized structure on to the foundation.

[boonies4u]

So it all comes down to members that pay, eventually those that pay the most will have most power. Equal votes my ass, they pay the bills and put food on the table ...

Are you suggesting that they will put something in the bylaws that will allow people to purchase more than one vote?

[The_Duke]

So it all comes down to members that pay, eventually those that pay the most will have most power. Equal votes my ass, they pay the bills and put food on the table ...

Are you suggesting that they will put something in the bylaws that will allow people to purchase more than one vote?

I think he's suggesting that the amount of money you give them should carry no weight in your voting. _{I also think you knew that already, but just wanted to be provocative}

[boonies4u]

So it all comes down to members that pay, eventually those that pay the most will have most power. Equal votes my ass, they pay the bills and put food on the table ...

Are you suggesting that they will put something in the bylaws that will allow people to purchase more than one vote?

I think he's suggesting that the amount of money you give them should carry no weight in your voting. _{I also think you knew that already, but just wanted to be provocative}

I'm pretty sure the only way to donate after purchasing a membership is anonymous donations. Or am I wrong?

[Insu Dra]

So it all comes down to members that pay, eventually those that pay the most will have most power. Equal votes my ass, they pay the bills and put food on the table ...

Are you suggesting that they will put something in the bylaws that will allow people to purchase more than one vote?

No, do they need to add it to the bylaws before it becomes true ?

Eventually operation will be depend on the funds added by specific parties and that is the invisible voting power most people seem to ignore and the one I was referring to. Organizations and/or corporations on the other hand are not able to ignore that voting power, they have the responsibility to keep operations going.

This is something you can't avoid, but in a free world competition and user choice solves the issue. For the 'bitcoin protocol' there is no viable alternative besides the one provided by them. As such I consider the creation of the foundation at this point in time a thread, a can of worms we should have kept closed a bit longer.

[cunicula]

I think voting should be like a joint stock company. One vote per bitcoin you own, x% of txn fees should go to whoever is voted to be the head of the organization. (most likely gavin at this point, but he can be voted out by the owners).  x can be set for all eternity or it can be voted on (I don't care).

Said this many times before, but it bears repeating.