[CONFIRMED] The Bitcoin Foundation Wants to Be an Authoritarian Hegemony

[Atlas]

They want to set the Bitcoin standard for all businesses. They want big business to depend on them, which includes their certification process. They want to be a full-fledged Bitcoin hegemony. This is the very definition of power.

I can tell you hate our goals, so I won't spend a long time trying to convince you. But, I will say that businesses often need a long, secure timeframe to make investment decisions, and they need to have some sense that what they work on or invest in will be roughly similar at the end of their investment to the beginning.

For instance, imagine ebay deciding to take bitcoins. The person-hours to get that done inside ebay are staggering to imagine, from wallet scalability issue to accounting treatments, refunds, ... It would be a major endeavor.

It would be great for bitcoin if ebay took bitcoins. Seriously great, but they can't right now until they feel there is some generally stable path going forward.

- Executive Director of The Bitcoin Foundation

Some want government involvement. From another member of the Foundation:

If you want Bitcoins' market cap to rise above a couple hundred million, there are necessarily going to be "Establishment" players that work with Bitcoin.  You can't have a trillion dollar economy that never interacts with any government anytime in the next 100 years: if you believe that you could, you're living in a libertarian fantasy world in your head.

Their true colors are coming out. This is a STANDARD-SETTING, HIERARCHAL, CORPORATIST organization and they will go to BIG BUSINESS, BIG BANKING and BIG GOVERNMENT before making sure Bitcoin remains a liberty and privacy oriented currency.  

They will bend over backwards if it means more power and dollars in their pocket. This is just a power grab to accelerate Bitcoin in their favor.

And don't doubt me when I say that when outside powers that hate Bitcoin see this tool, they will take it to bring Bitcoin in their favor as well.

A government partnership is only a few ticks away.

To get the conversation started, here are some functions I think a Bitcoin Foundation could perform:

    Interact with the legal system, where a centralized entity is needed: for example, to hold the Bitcoin trademark, own/control the bitcoin.org domain name, etc.
    Act as a central library for accurate information about Bitcoin, so journalists and policymakers have an 'official' place to learn about Bitcoin.
    Collect donations to fund infrastructure necessary for Bitcoin's growth (organize regular developers' conferences or get-togethers maybe? pay for development of cross-implementation testing tools? pay core developers' salaries? create a certification/testing program for Bitcoin implementations? create a central clearinghouse for information about legal issues surrounding Bitcoin across the world?)

It was an honest question, especially since I read you reservations that I quoted and you didn't reply to.

I just don't understand how you can objectively justify classifying this foundation as decentralized and merely a node when the board of directors are lead dev + two biggest businesses in Bitcoin. Yes I agree with you, but your words do not match the reality.

The reality is this is a corporation that asserted itself as the face of Bitcoin. Otherwise it wouldn't have:
- included lead dev on it's board of directors
- thereby given itself access to the git repository
- chosen the name Bitcoin foundation
- been devised in private among a small group
- ect (all the other tale tale sings of a centralized power grab)

You just can't objectively call this decentralized.


But again I actually agree with you. With your words anyway. I would have loved if this were a voluntary private association. I would have loved if someone started a for profit business that merely contracted with Gavin and was dependent on income from product it offered the community. I would have loved if arrangements were fixed with personal contract and not hidden behind a corporation and it's open ended bylaws.

I would have loved that. But this isn't it. It's another animal of the state, designed to wield power over a community who never gave it's consent.

[shad0wbitz]

They want to set the Bitcoin standard for all businesses. They want big business to depend on them, which includes their certification process. They want to be a full-fledged Bitcoin hegemony. This is the very definition of power.

I can tell you hate our goals, so I won't spend a long time trying to convince you. But, I will say that businesses often need a long, secure timeframe to make investment decisions, and they need to have some sense that what they work on or invest in will be roughly similar at the end of their investment to the beginning.

For instance, imagine ebay deciding to take bitcoins. The person-hours to get that done inside ebay are staggering to imagine, from wallet scalability issue to accounting treatments, refunds, ... It would be a major endeavor.

It would be great for bitcoin if ebay took bitcoins. Seriously great, but they can't right now until they feel there is some generally stable path going forward.

- Executive Director of The Bitcoin Foundation

Some want government involvement. From another member of the Foundation:

If you want Bitcoins' market cap to rise above a couple hundred million, there are necessarily going to be "Establishment" players that work with Bitcoin.  You can't have a trillion dollar economy that never interacts with any government anytime in the next 100 years: if you believe that you could, you're living in a libertarian fantasy world in your head.

Their true colors are coming out. This is a STANDARD-SETTING, HIERARCHAL, CORPORATIST organization and they will go to BIG BUSINESS, BIG BANKING and BIG GOVERNMENT before making sure Bitcoin remains a liberty and privacy oriented currency.  

They will bend over backwards if it means more power and dollars in their pocket. This is just a power grab to accelerate Bitcoin in their favor.

And don't doubt me when I say that when outside powers that hate Bitcoin see this tool, they will take it to bring Bitcoin in their favor as well.

A government partnership is only a few ticks away.

+1. These power and money hungry players want the seal of approval of the establishment. Would the US exist today when the colonist decided not to follow the rules and fight? This is a war, against the failing economies of the few, and Bitcoin is our weapon. DO NOT SUPPORT THIS FOUNDATION.

I am sure the oppression on the colonist and the ideal of having  freedom wasn't just a "fantasy world in their head".

[Dalkore]

I need more time to think about this.  I can see Peter's points and I can see what your pointing at as well.



The only thing that stood out I would like to address is this:

If you want Bitcoins' market cap to rise above a couple hundred million, there are necessarily going to be "Establishment" players that work with Bitcoin. - Bitcoin Foundation Chairman

Bitcoins market cap is going to rise well beyond its point right now because of this interesting trend that I believe will become fact.  

Bitcoin is being used as a Wealth Reserve Asset.  

Just like precious metals like Gold & Silver bullion.  What makes it more attractive is that you can transport it quite easily without being burdened with a physical metal on your person.  With the amount of credit creation that is planned as far as the eye can see, people will continue to diversify and Bitcoin will enter more "smart money" players portfolios.   People want protection from efforts that can not stop or really contain.  That is the reality at this moment.  

[Comodore]

Hmm, Your ideas really worth considering. This can be double sided knife.

[misterbigg]

If you want Bitcoins' market cap to rise above a couple hundred million, there are necessarily going to be "Establishment" players that work with Bitcoin. - Bitcoin Foundation Chairman

Yeah this is BS. Bitcoin market cap will increase because businesses who use Bitcoin will gain a competitive advantage over those who don't, eventually forcing everyone to jump on the Bitcoin train or get left in the dust.

[kwoody]

I know a few retailers/merchants who were considering using Bitcoin. They've backed out since the "foundation" was announced. Sad.

[knight22]

I think it is better that governments and big corporations use bitcoin rather than fight it. As long as the protocol and the blockchain remain 100% transparent their is no fear to have.

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

I know a few retailers/merchants who were considering using Bitcoin. They've backed out since the "foundation" was announced. Sad.

Thats total BS, thank you very much. Have those merchants/retailers contact me if this were true. If it is true, I will personally walk them thru getting set up for processing and I wont charge them.

In fact, I have just been contacted today but many companies and banks wanting to work with Bitcoin who are super excited about the foundation because now it shows Bitcoin is not a bunch of kids in their moms basement.

Like Peter said, companies like eBay wanting to accept Bitcoin will do it when the ROI is worth it and they know Bitcoin will stick around for a while. Now with the foundation, they have their answer.

-Charlie

[evoorhees]

I know a few retailers/merchants who were considering using Bitcoin. They've backed out since the "foundation" was announced. Sad.

Anecdotal. I know others, who are big, who like to see some form of structure and are more enthusiastic about getting involved with Bitcoin now that the Foundation was announced.

And to say that the Bitcoin Foundation wants to be an "authorian hegemony" is absurd. People need to stop confusing voluntary order and voluntary structure with coercive, mandated structure. Don't let your legitimate fear of the latter cloud your ability to see the virtue in the former.

[Atlas]

I know a few retailers/merchants who were considering using Bitcoin. They've backed out since the "foundation" was announced. Sad.

Anecdotal. I know others, who are big, who like to see some form of structure and are more enthusiastic about getting involved with Bitcoin now that the Foundation was announced.

And to say that the Bitcoin Foundation wants to be an "authorian hegemony" is absurd. People need to stop confusing voluntary order and voluntary structure with coercive, mandated structure. Don't let your legitimate fear of the latter cloud your ability to see the virtue in the former.

Hegemony can be voluntary but it is still a social force with a sphere of influence. This can become a central cult of personality. Some of us do not want a central sphere of influence around Bitcoin regardless if its opt-in or opt-out.

Social power can change everything. We do not want Bitcoin becoming a neutered project at the hands of big business.

Feel free to say its your right to try to be a leader. It's my right to try to stop this leadership as well.

[SgtSpike]

I know a few retailers/merchants who were considering using Bitcoin. They've backed out since the "foundation" was announced. Sad.

Anecdotal. I know others, who are big, who like to see some form of structure and are more enthusiastic about getting involved with Bitcoin now that the Foundation was announced.

And to say that the Bitcoin Foundation wants to be an "authorian hegemony" is absurd. People need to stop confusing voluntary order and voluntary structure with coercive, mandated structure. Don't let your legitimate fear of the latter cloud your ability to see the virtue in the former.

Hegemony can be voluntary but it is still a social force with a sphere of influence. This can become a central cult of personality. Some of us do not want a central sphere of influence around Bitcoin regardless if its opt-in or opt-out.

Social power can change everything. We do not want Bitcoin becoming a neutered project at the hands of big business.

Feel free to say its your right to try to be a leader. It's my right to try to stop this leadership as well.

Too bad you can't do anything about it.

[Atlas]

I know a few retailers/merchants who were considering using Bitcoin. They've backed out since the "foundation" was announced. Sad.

Anecdotal. I know others, who are big, who like to see some form of structure and are more enthusiastic about getting involved with Bitcoin now that the Foundation was announced.

And to say that the Bitcoin Foundation wants to be an "authorian hegemony" is absurd. People need to stop confusing voluntary order and voluntary structure with coercive, mandated structure. Don't let your legitimate fear of the latter cloud your ability to see the virtue in the former.

Hegemony can be voluntary but it is still a social force with a sphere of influence. This can become a central cult of personality. Some of us do not want a central sphere of influence around Bitcoin regardless if its opt-in or opt-out.

Social power can change everything. We do not want Bitcoin becoming a neutered project at the hands of big business.

Feel free to say its your right to try to be a leader. It's my right to try to stop this leadership as well.

Too bad you can't do anything about it.

But I am. Eventually this organization and its endeavors will be under a microscope.

At the first sign of bad faith and an evolution towards a milder, regulated Bitcoin, there will be action towards my case.

[boonies4u]

I know a few retailers/merchants who were considering using Bitcoin. They've backed out since the "foundation" was announced. Sad.

Anecdotal. I know others, who are big, who like to see some form of structure and are more enthusiastic about getting involved with Bitcoin now that the Foundation was announced.

And to say that the Bitcoin Foundation wants to be an "authorian hegemony" is absurd. People need to stop confusing voluntary order and voluntary structure with coercive, mandated structure. Don't let your legitimate fear of the latter cloud your ability to see the virtue in the former.

Hegemony can be voluntary but it is still a social force with a sphere of influence. This can become a central cult of personality. Some of us do not want a central sphere of influence around Bitcoin regardless if its opt-in or opt-out.

Social power can change everything. We do not want Bitcoin becoming a neutered project at the hands of big business.

Feel free to say its your right to try to be a leader. It's my right to try to stop this leadership as well.

Too bad you can't do anything about it.

But I am. Eventually this organization and its endeavors will be under a microscope.

At the first sign of bad faith and an evolution towards a milder, regulated Bitcoin, there will be action towards my case.

And until then?

[hazek]

Erik, I'd love it if you replied to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.msg1228862#msg1228862

[Atlas]

I know a few retailers/merchants who were considering using Bitcoin. They've backed out since the "foundation" was announced. Sad.

Anecdotal. I know others, who are big, who like to see some form of structure and are more enthusiastic about getting involved with Bitcoin now that the Foundation was announced.

And to say that the Bitcoin Foundation wants to be an "authorian hegemony" is absurd. People need to stop confusing voluntary order and voluntary structure with coercive, mandated structure. Don't let your legitimate fear of the latter cloud your ability to see the virtue in the former.

Hegemony can be voluntary but it is still a social force with a sphere of influence. This can become a central cult of personality. Some of us do not want a central sphere of influence around Bitcoin regardless if its opt-in or opt-out.

Social power can change everything. We do not want Bitcoin becoming a neutered project at the hands of big business.

Feel free to say its your right to try to be a leader. It's my right to try to stop this leadership as well.

Too bad you can't do anything about it.

But I am. Eventually this organization and its endeavors will be under a microscope.

At the first sign of bad faith and an evolution towards a milder, regulated Bitcoin, there will be action towards my case.

And until then?

I will continue to raise awareness of the dangers of hegemonious power; private, governmental and combined.

[boonies4u]

I know a few retailers/merchants who were considering using Bitcoin. They've backed out since the "foundation" was announced. Sad.

Anecdotal. I know others, who are big, who like to see some form of structure and are more enthusiastic about getting involved with Bitcoin now that the Foundation was announced.

And to say that the Bitcoin Foundation wants to be an "authorian hegemony" is absurd. People need to stop confusing voluntary order and voluntary structure with coercive, mandated structure. Don't let your legitimate fear of the latter cloud your ability to see the virtue in the former.

Hegemony can be voluntary but it is still a social force with a sphere of influence. This can become a central cult of personality. Some of us do not want a central sphere of influence around Bitcoin regardless if its opt-in or opt-out.

Social power can change everything. We do not want Bitcoin becoming a neutered project at the hands of big business.

Feel free to say its your right to try to be a leader. It's my right to try to stop this leadership as well.

Too bad you can't do anything about it.

But I am. Eventually this organization and its endeavors will be under a microscope.

At the first sign of bad faith and an evolution towards a milder, regulated Bitcoin, there will be action towards my case.

And until then?

I will continue to raise awareness of the dangers of hegemonious power; private, governmental and combined.

I wouldn't expect anything less of you. -sigh-

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

I know a few retailers/merchants who were considering using Bitcoin. They've backed out since the "foundation" was announced. Sad.

Anecdotal. I know others, who are big, who like to see some form of structure and are more enthusiastic about getting involved with Bitcoin now that the Foundation was announced.

And to say that the Bitcoin Foundation wants to be an "authorian hegemony" is absurd. People need to stop confusing voluntary order and voluntary structure with coercive, mandated structure. Don't let your legitimate fear of the latter cloud your ability to see the virtue in the former.

Hegemony can be voluntary but it is still a social force with a sphere of influence. This can become a central cult of personality. Some of us do not want a central sphere of influence around Bitcoin regardless if its opt-in or opt-out.

Social power can change everything. We do not want Bitcoin becoming a neutered project at the hands of big business.

Feel free to say its your right to try to be a leader. It's my right to try to stop this leadership as well.

Too bad you can't do anything about it.

But I am. Eventually this organization and its endeavors will be under a microscope.

At the first sign of bad faith and an evolution towards a milder, regulated Bitcoin, there will be action towards my case.

And until then?

I will continue to raise awareness of the dangers of hegemonious power; private, governmental and combined.

Matt,

While this is great, you kinda also need good arguments that are well thought out.

Also, steer clear of personal attacks, just makes you look like a kid.

-Charlie

[jgarzik]

And to say that the Bitcoin Foundation wants to be an "authorian hegemony" is absurd. People need to stop confusing voluntary order and voluntary structure with coercive, mandated structure. Don't let your legitimate fear of the latter cloud your ability to see the virtue in the former.

Well and succinctly spoken, +1

[eb3full]

Guys, the International Astronomical Union wants to have total control/monopoly over astronomical units. Are they going to kill me for calling Pluto a planet? This doesn't bode well for free speech. Atlas, get on it.

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

Guys, the International Astronomical Union wants to have total control/monopoly over astronomical units. Are they going to kill me for calling Pluto a planet? This doesn't bode well for free speech. Atlas, get on it.

I love you.