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

[Atlas]

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.

This is different. This is money. Money is power.

[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.

This is different. This is money. Money is power.

It's not different at all man. You are the most cynical nutjob on this forum.

The "Bitcoin Foundation" works no differently than a union or a more organized dev team. You honestly preferred an exclusive, self-appointed team of developers over an organized structure of participation and research? Besides, even if this Bitcoin Foundation is evil, it can only have a positive influence over Bitcoin. The users and miners are still and always will be in control.

This is all just reactionary crap. There are some serious conspiracy theorists here.

[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.

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.

Atlas,

You are also a social force with a sphere of influence, as am I. Everyone involved influences everyone else, and some more than others.

And how would "big business" (I hate this term by the way, as if there is something wrong with a business so successful that it becomes larger than others...) "neuter" Bitcoin? It's open source software - do whatever the hell you want with it. And just as you have the right to do whatever you want with it, so does a large business, and if people want to make a group and call themselves the Foundation, they also have the right to do so and can proceed with any Bitcoin endeavors they wish. These influences all create struggle, but that's called a marketplace, and indeed the entire point of fostering a truly free market is to create an environment in which such struggles can occur. Rather than violating this principle, the Foundation is emblematic of it.  And of course, you have every right to work/speak/act against them if you so wish.

[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.

This is different. This is money. Money is power.

Matt,

The IAU has more money and power than that of the Bitcoin foundation.

Get your facts straight

-Charlie

[Atlas]

I will be watching this foundation and I hope many of you are right but your executive director and some board members are, indeed, making calls for power.

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

I will be watching this foundation and I hope many of you are right but your executive director and some board members are, indeed, making calls for power.

Matt,

Again, another opinion.

No one has made 'calls for power' only what you think are so.

If you are so afraid, join the foundation and run for a board seat to protect our calls for power

-Charlie

[evoorhees]

I will be watching this foundation and I hope many of you are right but your executive director and some board members are, indeed, making calls for power.

Also, and I'm not sure how to put this perfectly... but remember that statements made by the board members might be targeted to the outside world and not to the Bitcoin community. Read between the lines there and ponder on that strategically for a bit

[nebulus]

I will be watching this foundation and I hope many of you are right but your executive director and some board members are, indeed, making calls for power.

+1

[jgarzik]

Also, and I'm not sure how to put this perfectly... but remember that statements made by the board members might be targeted to the outside world and not to the Bitcoin community. Read between the lines there and ponder on that strategically for a bit

+1

[The_Duke]

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.

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.

tbh, I think you are making way more out of it than it really is. What it really is, is just ego. It's a small group of people who became too invested in bitcoin, who started thinking they "are" bitcoin. I totally agree with you that it will be very damaging to bitcoin (much more so than pirate, matthew, BFL, or any other ponzi or scam), but you are giving the foundation-gang way too much credit.

[Realpra]

No one can control Bitcoin, not even the Bitcoin foundation, so why fear them?

Gavin seems like a nice guy that care about the right issues how bad could this possibly be?

[The_Duke]

No one can control Bitcoin, not even the Bitcoin foundation, so why fear them?

Gavin seems like a nice guy that care about the right issues how bad could this possibly be?

If "the right issues" is money, then you might be right.

[alexanderanon]

If ever a libertarian micronation emerged, I would be hesitant to join for fear of its pollution by Atlas-type personalities.

[ElectricMucus]

If ever a libertarian micronation emerged, I would be hesitant to join for fear of its pollution by Atlas-type personalities.

Tha's why it will be Anarchistic not Libertarian  

Anarchists are fine with justified Authority.

[wmXchange]

More than 2000 years ago Aristotle said that "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" and til now is still true.
Doing something, even with the risk of failing, is better than doing nothing. If some members of the community decided to do something in order to advocate Bitcoin as a system and as a way of making money in a clear organized way, then I think this is better than everybody mind their own business, just wait things to happen and let others to be the cannon fodder.

In my opinion, we (the Bitcoin users) need some representatives to be there for us and represent our interest in front of governments, press, banking system, other industries. Otherwise, the next time when New York Times want to cover a Bitcoin story regarding the use of bitcoins in drug deals, lets just go all the members of this board to speak out for Bitcoin with that reporter and see how that will be of any good to Bitcoin and to its legitimate users

I see the Bitcoin Foundation to become more than the sum of its members and to protect the interests of Bitcoin as an idea, a community, a way of doing business, an Internet commodity and much more. If no one would step up and try to do something then how can we expect things to progress?

On the other side, we are all aware that Bitcoin is money, so its normal that people that step up should have more or less a material interest as well because this is the way this world runs. Where would be Bitcoin now if MtGox was just another Bitcoin blog? Also, did anybody think that Bill Gates created his foundation just because he wanted to burn some money? No, there was clearly an economical interest in there BUT his foundation is doing a lot of good things to a lot of people and that should matter, not what Gates win from that.

Best thing for those that don't trust the Bitcoin Foundation or its founding members is to join the foundation as a private individual (only 2.5 BTC/year), keep an eye on what's happening there and report in public anything that they think is not right so that people can discuss and those in charge be able to reconsider. I, for one, will do that!

[gmaxwell]

In my opinion, we (the Bitcoin users) need some representatives to be there for us and represent our interest in front of governments, press, banking system, other industries. Otherwise, the next time when New York Times want to cover a Bitcoin story regarding the use of bitcoins in drug deals, lets just go all the members of this board to speak out for Bitcoin with that reporter and see how that will be of any good to Bitcoin and to its legitimate users

I hate to lend credibility to this thread by responding to it— but there is another point to make here:

The reporters are already asking the people involved in the foundation this crap— at least sometimes, sometimes they ask _worse_ people—  but a key difference is that when they just ask them normally they're getting their personal/company positions. If the community doesn't like what they say? "It's my Opinion. Fuck you." When people speak on behalf of the foundation there will at least be some accountability to the community of people who have chosen to become members— and pressure to hold a consistent, considered position, which is tempered somewhat from their personal and professional 'color'.  I think this moderating effect can be as improvement an important as the reduction in talking to the wrong people.

[Atlas]

In my opinion, we (the Bitcoin users) need some representatives to be there for us and represent our interest in front of governments, press, banking system, other industries. Otherwise, the next time when New York Times want to cover a Bitcoin story regarding the use of bitcoins in drug deals, lets just go all the members of this board to speak out for Bitcoin with that reporter and see how that will be of any good to Bitcoin and to its legitimate users

The reporters are already asking the people involved in the foundation this crap

Mission accomplished.

[The-Real-Link]

Going big doesn't necessary mean a sell-out.  Ok so if they went big and somehow compromised the code that gives BTC it's unique property, there's no certainly that the biggest miners and such would reject that.  I'd imagine everyone has to move in unison and while I can understand the concerns, it's nice to see an organization come together as the Foundation has.

Again if they somehow sold-out, then what, tons of businesses start seeing BTC as a good investment and the value rises for all.  Does it impact you?  Sure.  But unless you're holding 10K+ BTC I'd imagine, what choice do you have (as in disagreeing with the banks or whomever else)?  Choose not to use BTC then.

I do hope the developers and Foundation members will strive for as much transparency and objectivity as can be accomplished should they butt heads with "Big Business" or the Government.  If this standardization is all for moving BTC ahead from a geeky experiment to where a large company (ala the Ebay example) would seriously revise it's infrastructure to acommodate BTC, then that's great.  

Agree with wmX and Evoor.

[gmaxwell]

The reporters are already asking the people involved in the foundation this crap

Mission accomplished.

Sorry, I wasn't writing with conspiracy theorists in mind— a grave error on this forum—, they were already asking them months ago. The people involved were already the nearest approximations of authorizes some reporters could find.

[shad0wbitz]

banks wanting to work with Bitcoin who are super excited about the foundation

I am sure bankers are super excited with this foundation Charlie ... I am SURE.

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.

Fuck eBay. Bitcoin is not paypal and was never meant to be paypal. It is a tool for the people, and by the people to move money amongst them without borders or control. Who the fuck wants, or need Bitcoin on eBay? Or wait ... I just answered my own question: The Bitcoin big businesses to further their own agenda.