Care about Bitcoin? STAY AWAY from the "Bitcoin Fundation"

[Polvos]

 I agree with the sentiment that there needs to be a foundation in order for government officials and executives to take Bitcoin seriously.

I absolutely disagree. Bitcoin doesn't need government officials and executives in any form. Specially the USA government (where the bitcoin foundation is placed). The power of bitcoin always have to be in the user base. Not in governments, foundations or selfdeclared core developers.

[shad0wbitz]

Bitcoin is meant to fight the state, not look for daddy's approval. Shad0w over and out

[shad0wbitz]

This is not true. Central banks are the voice of the dollar or euro.

Exactly my point ... do we need a Bitcoin central bank? Because judging from the board, this is what it is.

[Gabi]

I agree both with shadow and with jimbobway   Probably i'm a bit weird

[BitcoinBug]

... Shad0w over and out

...

Riiight

[casascius]

in order for government officials and executives to take Bitcoin seriously

This remember me the scene in the beginning of the movie The Scorpion King

I don't think about movies, I think about the fact that congressmen and corporate executive types not having a hand to shake helps them equate Bitcoin with that thing that criminals and gangsters use, and that thought process results in them wanting to take actions to hinder Bitcoin.  I see Bitcoin as the currency of liberty, not anarchy.

I absolutely disagree. Bitcoin doesn't need government officials and executives in any form. Specially the USA government (where the bitcoin foundation is placed). The power of bitcoin always have to be in the user base. Not in governments, foundations or selfdeclared core developers.

You are right if you're talking about the Bitcoin executable and code base, but not decentralized computerized money as an anthropological phenomenon.  A foundation helps greatly if we are to help it achieve acceptance by law-abiding citizens sooner rather than later.  If this will help the powers that be work with us instead of against us, why is this a bad thing?

[eb3full]

In fact we don't have a "dollar foundation" or an "euro foundation".

The dollar and euro are instituted under an organization less accountable than a foundation. But the comparison is faulty, Bitcoin is software and is encumbered by a number of challenges better faced by organization and fluidity. The current design (a loose-knit team of developers, unelected, who could very carefully and anonymously backdoor the software) is not ideal, they have to be much more conservative with changes and have less talent and research to draw upon when making decisions or planning a direction for the project. This foundation is adding a presence to the development cycle, allowing people to fund its development and have a direct voice.

There is little wiggle-room for this foundation to suddenly mandate some cynical statist conspiracy. The users are still in charge of Bitcoin and always will be.

[knight22]

This is not true. Central banks are the voice of the dollar or euro.

Exactly my point ... do we need a Bitcoin central bank? Because judging from the board, this is what it is.

bitcoin foundation doesn't look like any central banks at all. They will not have the power to issue any bitcoin at all. I don't think we should look at it as a threat to bitcoin.

[Gabi]

Mmh...i'm thinking about your word casascius and yes, you are right. This is a sign that bitcoin is no more only a "nerdy things" but is moving in the real world.

[jgarzik]

I stand in support of the premise of the creation of the Bitcoin Foundation, and trust the intents of the individuals on its board.  I disavow the OP's advice of "stay away" and disagree with the claims that it exists to annihilate the competition of its board members.  I agree with the sentiment that there needs to be a foundation in order for government officials and executives to take Bitcoin seriously.

+1

OP is a bunch of conspiracy silliness.

Though jimbobway and others are absolutely right that bitcoin is bigger than any foundation.  And that's the way it should be!

[shad0wbitz]

in order for government officials and executives to take Bitcoin seriously

This remember me the scene in the beginning of the movie The Scorpion King

I don't think about movies, I think about the fact that congressmen and corporate executive types not having a hand to shake helps them equate Bitcoin with that thing that criminals and gangsters use, and that thought process results in them wanting to take actions to hinder Bitcoin.  I see Bitcoin as the currency of liberty, not anarchy.

I absolutely disagree. Bitcoin doesn't need government officials and executives in any form. Specially the USA government (where the bitcoin foundation is placed). The power of bitcoin always have to be in the user base. Not in governments, foundations or selfdeclared core developers.

You are right if you're talking about the Bitcoin executable and code base, but not decentralized computerized money as an anthropological phenomenon.  A foundation helps greatly if we are to help it achieve acceptance by law-abiding citizens sooner rather than later.  If this will help the powers that be work with us instead of against us, why is this a bad thing?

First of all, let me start this by saying that your coins are fantastic . Now, I don't care how many hands are there to shake. Paypal will never like bitcoin. Visa will never like Bitcoin. The banks will never like Bitcoin. The ESTABLISHMENT will never like Bitcoin because they can't PROFIT from it, as they shouldn't. More over, Bitcoin is a direct threat to their bloodsucking structures they have in place. Let's not even mention inefficient and corrupt sovereign states like the US of A that need more and more tax to support the likes of their corporate pals.

Bitcoin will only be successful the day their community realizes that Bitcoin will NEVER be, and should NEVER be a mainstream product. This is why Satoshi was so particular about hiding his identity. He KNEW this. Perhaps it would refresh the memory's community to read the message Satoshi embedded on the genesis block.

This is like an ugly chick desperately begging for the popular guy to take her to prom. No matter how much make up, it won't fucking happen.

Perhaps I have a more orthodox view of what Bitcoin was intended to be, and what should be from the old (Satoshi) testament, but I firmly believe this.

[axus]

Some people believe it will inevitably be made illegal.  From this point of view, having a central place to exert control is a weakness.  Napster and Wikileaks are good examples of network information services that brought about unpopular laws.  Bitcoin is another network information service that threatens concentrated power.

in order for government officials and executives to take Bitcoin seriously

This remember me the scene in the beginning of the movie The Scorpion King

I don't think about movies, I think about the fact that congressmen and corporate executive types not having a hand to shake helps them equate Bitcoin with that thing that criminals and gangsters use, and that thought process results in them wanting to take actions to hinder Bitcoin.  I see Bitcoin as the currency of liberty, not anarchy.

I absolutely disagree. Bitcoin doesn't need government officials and executives in any form. Specially the USA government (where the bitcoin foundation is placed). The power of bitcoin always have to be in the user base. Not in governments, foundations or selfdeclared core developers.

You are right if you're talking about the Bitcoin executable and code base, but not decentralized computerized money as an anthropological phenomenon.  A foundation helps greatly if we are to help it achieve acceptance by law-abiding citizens sooner rather than later.  If this will help the powers that be work with us instead of against us, why is this a bad thing?

[jgarzik]

Some people believe it will inevitably be made illegal.  From this point of view, having a central place to exert control is a weakness.  Napster and Wikileaks are good examples of network information services that brought about unpopular laws.  Bitcoin is another network information service that threatens concentrated power.

None of bitcoin's fundamentals have changed.

Users continue to vote based on their choice of bitcoin client.

If users suddenly dislike a commit from Gavin, they are free to choose another client.

Just as they were yesterday.

[shad0wbitz]

Some people believe it will inevitably be made illegal.  From this point of view, having a central place to exert control is a weakness.  Napster and Wikileaks are good examples of network information services that brought about unpopular laws.  Bitcoin is another network information service that threatens concentrated power.

This IS inevitable. Think of banking AML laws and such. Do you really believe they have anything to do with "fighting terrorism"? It is all about people paying more and more taxes, to support governments that are more and more corrupt and inefficient. We are at war, and those who do not believe this can go happily into "let's get the government to like bitcoin on facebook camp". I am personally on the side of a true Satoshian. Bitcoin was born in the shadows, for the shadows.

[greyhawk]

His name wasn't Shadowshi, you know? It just sounds close.

[knight22]

shad0wbitz I think you are stressing out for nothing. What kind of power do you think the foundation will have over bitcoin?

[dancupid]

I'm personally glad to see the most successful Bitcoin businesses involved in the Bitcoin Foundation (as they should be) - but I hope there are plans to make this as international as possible. Multiple languages would help.

[shad0wbitz]

shad0wbitz I think you are stressing out for nothing. What kind of power do you think the foundation will have over bitcoin?

I don't know. MtGox has been known to block accounts that were funded with bitcoin that they consider "Tainted". So you tell me. It is on the foundation letter that they plan to start a "Bitcoin verification process" and make sure these businesses are within guidelines. So what happen to the little guy that can't afford the certification, or simply wants to do things differently?

I think the community at a minimum should read their material, and I think you will quickly find that this is less benign and un-intrusive than what people think, or the board will have you think.

[Spekulatius]

Some people believe it will inevitably be made illegal.  From this point of view, having a central place to exert control is a weakness.  Napster and Wikileaks are good examples of network information services that brought about unpopular laws.  Bitcoin is another network information service that threatens concentrated power.

None of bitcoin's fundamentals have changed.

Users continue to vote based on their choice of bitcoin client.

If users suddenly dislike a commit from Gavin, they are free to choose another client.

Just as they were yesterday.

This may be true for the clients as there are many interchangeable ones out there, but it's not for the blockchain. If there were to be a highly controversial change to the protocol, it would be just too painful to fork the chain or use an alternative one for the majority of the userbase, because 99% of the whole cryptoeconomy rely on bitcoin, not litecoin or else. Many protesters would disgruntled go with the flow because it would be the only feasible option.

To sustain bitcoin's success and uphold it's democratic values,
changes of grand magnitude always have to rely on broad and transparent discourse and consent among the bitcoin userbase and must not be determined by majority vote of this foundation' paying members. Just in case you are wielding that thought.

[sceeth0]

I'm trying to read their material, but I keep getting distracted by new posts in threads like this.