I suggest not joining or voting in the Bitcoin Foundation.

[Atlas]

Voting towards any of their goals for the Bitcoin network lends them authority. Let's not give them authority. Let's just vote through our choice of clients and mining hardware.

Unity? Compromise? Fuck no. This is Bitcoin. It's your way or the highway. If you don't like it, you should continue on your own path. If you don't like it, you should be able to fork the chain and start your own game. There are some who want to make forking obsolete.

Anyways, don't play into their hands, people. We can have a multitude of development teams competing or we can have a huge clout of a corporation called The Bitcoin Foundation ordering people on how Bitcoin should be. Eventually they could be lobbying Congress, legally mandating how Bitcoin should be if the government starts pushing for standardization that meets their ends.

No, the long arm of government shouldn't be able to reach Bitcoin, Jeff Garzik (Bitcoin Foundation Member). Fuck that.

This isn't Linux people. This is money. Money is very powerful and it shouldn't be going in the hands of a single Bitcoin Foundation.

That's all.

Say no to planned economies, planned lives and a planned Bitcoin. Choose FREEDOM.

[1713974141]

1713974141

[1713974141]

1713974141

[1713974141]

1713974141

[1713974141]

1713974141

[vampire]

Yea, looks like Gavin is trying to get some funding. I do understand that he needs few resources that he cannot afford right now and not present in the community.

[Atlas]

Yea, looks like Gavin is trying to get some funding. I do understand that he needs few resources that he cannot afford right now and not present in the community.

Coinbase was able to raise $600,000 for his web client. I don't see why Gavin couldn't raise development funding through a more modest organization that isn't named THE Bitcoin Foundation. Gavin Labs, Bitcoin Advancements, etc. would of been more humble.

...but, no, it has to be THE Bitcoin Foundation. The authority on all of Bitcoin. Come to us if you want to shape Bitcoin as you see fit. Fuck everyone else.

[Atlas]

A great article by a fellow Bitcoiner:

These are three problems that I see:

1. The "to be or not to be"-issue:

Is it better to have such an entity to promote and advocate bitcoin in public and before lawmakers and journalists? Or should we better stay an anonymous mass without a "face" to stay strong and make the public image not dependant of success or faliure of a single entity (you could call it the "Julian Assange Effect". If I say "we" I mean the community but also respect the decisions and judgement of the members of the board of Bitcoin Foundation over their foundation.

2. The "influence"-issue:

If we want such an entity, how can we keep transparency and public participation opportunities as clear and accessible as possible? Who's got the say?
Do we want a divergence of voting power in contrast to the total userbase in favour of a certain interest group like business owners (2 votes representing businesses that make up less than 5% (data guessed) of the total userbase, while only giving also 2 votes to "representatives" of the remaining 95% of the userbase) ?

3. The "perception"-issue

Some posts in this thread seem to view the Bitcoin Foundation already as a "bitcoin government", combining major powers over the source code and financial power in form of two big (if not biggest in terms of turn around) companies in the bitcoin economy. These worries are justified in my oppinion till it is clear how the foundation works, what powers it really has and what perception of it remains in the community and public oppinion.
I would nevertheless refrain from overestimating any such influence unless it is excerted over decisions concerning the source code that sway from the objective best for the entire current and potential future userbase.

I would therefore like to suggest for the core developers to think over their active role in the board, to prevent any influence over their judgements concerning their work on the source code and reference client and instead consider an advisary role to the board.

I also endorse the fund to pay Gavin's (and all core dev's) salary from voluntary donations made by Foundation members. This way all donors and donations are transparent.

[repentance]

How many fucking threads do we need about this?

[Atlas]

How many fucking threads do we need about this?

Until they get the message and change the name of their organization to reflect its nature: Another development team out of many.

[justusranvier]

How many fucking threads do we need about this?

Over 9000

[bitlane]

Will there be an independent oversight entity put in a position to monitor and evaluate the Bitcoin Foundation from time to time ?

[Atlas]

Will there be an independent oversight entity put in a position to monitor and evaluate the Bitcoin Foundation from time to time ?

Nope. Well, Satoshi can jump in and say "Fuck you guys. Shut this shit down." I doubt that will happen. I doubt he approves of it as well.

[alexanderanon]

Voting towards any of their goals for the Bitcoin network lends them authority. Let's not give them authority. Let's just vote through our choice of clients and mining hardware.

Unity? Compromise? Fuck no. This is Bitcoin. It's your way or the highway. If you don't like it, you should continue on your own path. If you don't like it, you should be able to fork the chain and start your own game. There are some who want to make forking obsolete.

Anyways, don't play into their hands, people. We can have a multitude of development teams competing or we can have a huge clout of a corporation called The Bitcoin Foundation ordering people on how Bitcoin should be. Eventually they could be lobbying Congress, legally mandating how Bitcoin should be if the government starts pushing for standardization that meets their ends.

No, the long arm of government shouldn't be able to reach Bitcoin, Jeff Garzik (Bitcoin Foundation Member). Fuck that.

This isn't Linux people. This is money. Money is very powerful and it shouldn't be going in the hands of a single Bitcoin Foundation.

That's all.

Say no to planned economies, planned lives and a planned Bitcoin. Choose FREEDOM.

I think you start too many threads, and have too much free time to do so. Perhaps go back to 4chan?

[Atlas]

Voting towards any of their goals for the Bitcoin network lends them authority. Let's not give them authority. Let's just vote through our choice of clients and mining hardware.

Unity? Compromise? Fuck no. This is Bitcoin. It's your way or the highway. If you don't like it, you should continue on your own path. If you don't like it, you should be able to fork the chain and start your own game. There are some who want to make forking obsolete.

Anyways, don't play into their hands, people. We can have a multitude of development teams competing or we can have a huge clout of a corporation called The Bitcoin Foundation ordering people on how Bitcoin should be. Eventually they could be lobbying Congress, legally mandating how Bitcoin should be if the government starts pushing for standardization that meets their ends.

No, the long arm of government shouldn't be able to reach Bitcoin, Jeff Garzik (Bitcoin Foundation Member). Fuck that.

This isn't Linux people. This is money. Money is very powerful and it shouldn't be going in the hands of a single Bitcoin Foundation.

That's all.

Say no to planned economies, planned lives and a planned Bitcoin. Choose FREEDOM.

I think you start too many threads, and have too much free time to do so. Perhaps go back to 4chan?

I don't think you know how much money I have made and saved in Bitcoins. I have a very personal stake in this whole thing.

[alexanderanon]

I have a very personal stake in my sanity, which is affected by massive Atlas spam all over this here forum. Where art thou, ignore button?

[Spekulatius]

A great article by a fellow Bitcoiner:

These are three problems that I see:

1. The "to be or not to be"-issue:

Is it better to have such an entity to promote and advocate bitcoin in public and before lawmakers and journalists? Or should we better stay an anonymous mass without a "face" to stay strong and make the public image not dependant of success or faliure of a single entity (you could call it the "Julian Assange Effect". If I say "we" I mean the community but also respect the decisions and judgement of the members of the board of Bitcoin Foundation over their foundation.

2. The "influence"-issue:

If we want such an entity, how can we keep transparency and public participation opportunities as clear and accessible as possible? Who's got the say?
Do we want a divergence of voting power in contrast to the total userbase in favour of a certain interest group like business owners (2 votes representing businesses that make up less than 5% (data guessed) of the total userbase, while only giving also 2 votes to "representatives" of the remaining 95% of the userbase) ?

3. The "perception"-issue

Some posts in this thread seem to view the Bitcoin Foundation already as a "bitcoin government", combining major powers over the source code and financial power in form of two big (if not biggest in terms of turn around) companies in the bitcoin economy. These worries are justified in my oppinion till it is clear how the foundation works, what powers it really has and what perception of it remains in the community and public oppinion.
I would nevertheless refrain from overestimating any such influence unless it is excerted over decisions concerning the source code that sway from the objective best for the entire current and potential future userbase.

I would therefore like to suggest for the core developers to think over their active role in the board, to prevent any influence over their judgements concerning their work on the source code and reference client and instead consider an advisary role to the board.

I also endorse the fund to pay Gavin's (and all core dev's) salary from voluntary donations made by Foundation members. This way all donors and donations are transparent.

Thank you very much, Im sure!

@ OP: You brought up three valid points I'd like to comment on:

1. Voting among their member base about issues that concern all of bitcoin users would be some serious issue (esp. because it costs to become a member). If they decided to make polls part of the develoment process, they would need to verify that members are unique identities indeed and not bought up accounts.

On the other hand: How did they decide what the implement and what not to up to this point? The dev team would have certainly have had some kind of vote. Among what voting crowd?

2. Wouldnt forking the chain result in another incompatible currency that no one else accepts? For that reason most people won't fork the chain even when bad decisions are made and rather use a half bad bitcoin then a great bitcoin nobody accepts.

3. What works for Linux doesn't necessarily work for bitcoin.

[cbeast]

Back when Gavin was developing Clear Coin, folks were complaining he had a conflict of interest being a Bitcoin core developer. Now he wants to form an independent committee to provide funding for Bitcoin developers and people complain about a conflict of interest. What do you want, Batman?