This is the kind of hierarchy some want for the The Bitcoin Network.

[Atlas]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yVpbFMhOAwE#t=130s

The Bitcoin Foundation is trying to be like The Linux Foundation, who made this video. Gavin is trying to treat the protocol as a whole like Linux. He wants to be Torvalds. That works well for Linux but not for something that is money. Official Senior Developers and a Supreme Leader is not what Bitcoin needs if its going to supersede fiat currencies that easily ruin when force and authority is applied.

When authority is placed over money it becomes corrupt. Do you approve of the actions of Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke and what they did for the US Dollar? Do you think any person should have a say over your money as a supreme ruler?

Just watch until the end. That's what Gavin Andresen wants to be over Bitcoin, your Bitcoins.

Remember, there can only be one Bitcoin that people will accept widely. Do you want one that is yours? ...or one that is controlled by a select few?

The whole point of this currency is to escape the establishment. Let's not become a part of it.

[LightRider]

I would really like TBF to start their own youtube channel and post high quality videos like this. Get on it Gavin!

[sturle]

When authority is placed over money it becomes corrupt. Do you approve of the actions of Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke and what they did for the US Dollar? Do you think any person should have a say over your money as a supreme ruler?

You obviously lack basic undrstanding of how Bitcoin works.  The rules of bitcoin and the blockchain are set forever.  You can do minor restrictions, but that requires the support by a majority of all the miners out there voting by their hashrate.  The only supreme ruler of bitcoin is the blockchain, and the miners can support extra restrictions to the original set of rules if they want to.

[Atlas]

When authority is placed over money it becomes corrupt. Do you approve of the actions of Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke and what they did for the US Dollar? Do you think any person should have a say over your money as a supreme ruler?

You obviously lack basic undrstanding of how Bitcoin works.  The rules of bitcoin and the blockchain are set forever.  You can do minor restrictions, but that requires the support by a majority of all the miners out there voting by their hashrate.  The only supreme ruler of bitcoin is the blockchain, and the miners can support extra restrictions to the original set of rules if they want to.

The rules aren't permanent. The "official" dev team can make a release that changes the networks rules and most releases can be forced upon people if enough influence and clout is given.

[sturle]

When authority is placed over money it becomes corrupt. Do you approve of the actions of Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke and what they did for the US Dollar? Do you think any person should have a say over your money as a supreme ruler?

You obviously lack basic undrstanding of how Bitcoin works.

The rules aren't permanent.

QED.  There is no way to change the established rules of the blockchain without making a hard fork.  Absolutely no way.  You may, with the cooperation of the miners, introduce extra rules.  The new rules must be allowed by the existing rules.

[Atlas]

When authority is placed over money it becomes corrupt. Do you approve of the actions of Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke and what they did for the US Dollar? Do you think any person should have a say over your money as a supreme ruler?

You obviously lack basic undrstanding of how Bitcoin works.

The rules aren't permanent.

QED.  There is no way to change the established rules of the blockchain without making a hard fork.  Absolutely no way.  You may, with the cooperation of the miners, introduce extra rules.  The new rules must be allowed by the existing rules.

What if I told you Satoshi changed the network rules without notification, once upon time? Nobody was the wiser. No fork required. He could of done whatever he wanted.

The fact is power will act as it wishes without accountability.

[hazek]

When authority is placed over money it becomes corrupt. Do you approve of the actions of Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke and what they did for the US Dollar? Do you think any person should have a say over your money as a supreme ruler?

You obviously lack basic undrstanding of how Bitcoin works.  The rules of bitcoin and the blockchain are set forever.  You can do minor restrictions, but that requires the support by a majority of all the miners out there voting by their hashrate.  The only supreme ruler of bitcoin is the blockchain, and the miners can support extra restrictions to the original set of rules if they want to.

More restrictive rules can be malicious also. And Bitcoin Foundation being a self admitted self imposed spokesperson, policy setting, business vetting, intertwined with corporate interest body with enough money spent on PR will always get it their way with enough miners. Maybe not today but definitely in the future.

The danger exists now that's my point.

[Luno]

Central representation of Bitcoin could be very useful and also a very bad move. If someone wants to found such an organ let them try, no one can prevent them. If they can put a "public face" on Bitcoin it would be a trust building thing. If they can't provide credibility or usefulness,  they won't get that status. Who would remember mp3's now without the JPEG group? If Bitcoin ever have to compete with another crypto currency and established interest group is very important.

[sturle]

You obviously lack basic undrstanding of how Bitcoin works.

The rules aren't permanent.

QED.  There is no way to change the established rules of the blockchain without making a hard fork.  Absolutely no way.  You may, with the cooperation of the miners, introduce extra rules.  The new rules must be allowed by the existing rules.

What if I told you Satoshi changed the network rules without notification, once upon time?

I would know you were lying, and it is easy to verify by any client validating the blockchain.  Old rules can't be changed.  New rules may be added as long as they are allowed by existing rules.

[interlagos]

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation

PS: Personally I believe TBF is a good thing for Bitcoin at this point and was inevitable. Would you rather somebody else create a foundation and call it like that? There is nothing in there that would prevent it!
To alleviate the concerns we probably need more of these foundations not less to keep thing decentralized.

[sturle]

More restrictive rules can be malicious also. And Bitcoin Foundation being a self admitted self imposed spokesperson, policy setting, business vetting, intertwined with corporate interest body with enough money spent on PR will always get it their way with enough miners. Maybe not today but definitely in the future.

The danger exists now that's my point.

You are pulling your conspiracy theories a few miles to far now, don't you think?  Why was the old model better, where a handful of unpaid, and to some degree unknown, developers had full control?  Better than a member organization?

[Atlas]

More restrictive rules can be malicious also. And Bitcoin Foundation being a self admitted self imposed spokesperson, policy setting, business vetting, intertwined with corporate interest body with enough money spent on PR will always get it their way with enough miners. Maybe not today but definitely in the future.

The danger exists now that's my point.

You are pulling your conspiracy theories a few miles to far now, don't you think?  Why was the old model better, where a handful of unpaid, and to some degree unknown, developers had full control?  Better than a member organization?

I rather there be a handful of independent developers than a hegemony of industry funding solely dictating the course of development at the helm of one developer, indeed.

[hazek]

More restrictive rules can be malicious also. And Bitcoin Foundation being a self admitted self imposed spokesperson, policy setting, business vetting, intertwined with corporate interest body with enough money spent on PR will always get it their way with enough miners. Maybe not today but definitely in the future.

The danger exists now that's my point.

You are pulling your conspiracy theories a few miles to far now, don't you think?  Why was the old model better, where a handful of unpaid, and to some degree unknown, developers had full control?  Better than a member organization?

This is why:

Up is down, left is right. That's all I hear. All check and balances that we needed, we had until 2 days ago.

Before:  Gavin and other lead devs could have been funded by shady unknown, undisclosed -- or, more realistically, non-shady but unpredictable -- sources.

After:  Gavin and other devs may be funded by known, disclosed, predictable sources.

Before: Gavin or who ever is lead dev had to personally defend his and his team's actions while the whole community was carefully monitoring what he did AND he was easily removable from his lead position

After: Gavin or who ever is lead dev can hide behind a corporation, a self admitted self imposed spokesperson, policy setting, business vetting, intertwined with corporate interest body that can shield him from any negative repercussions providing him with the excuse he was just executing their policy AND him now being a board member for the next two years and a founding member making him nearly impossible to be removed from his position

Who is paying Gavin is irrelevant, just as it is irrelevant who is Satoshi. What is relevant is who carries the responsibility to not misbehave and what kind of consequences can they face if they do.


I'm really scared by all your trickery you're employing in your PR posts.

[Atlas]

i.e. J.P. Morgan, CIA and Governmental funding for this organization would be an issue.

[sturle]

Before: Gavin or who ever is lead dev had to personally defend his and his team's actions while the whole community was carefully monitoring what he did AND he was easily removable from his lead position

This is getting interesting.  How would you go about to remove Gavin from his lead position in the old model?  You claim it was easy.  To me it seems easier now when I am a member of the foundation employing him.  I wonder how you would go about to revoke his Satioshi powers in the old model.

I don't think the community will stop watching.  A large part of the community has joined the foundation, and will watch it as well.

[sturle]

i.e. J.P. Morgan, CIA and Governmental funding for this organization would be an issue.

And all of them secretly funding the developers under the old model would not?

[Atlas]

i.e. J.P. Morgan, CIA and Governmental funding for this organization would be an issue.

And all of them secretly funding the developers under the old model would not?

The old model would entail organizations going to each developer at the GitHub and having them work for them -- not easily done. Under the Bitcoin Foundation, there is more clout and changes can be pushed more easily just through Gavin.

[sturle]

i.e. J.P. Morgan, CIA and Governmental funding for this organization would be an issue.

And all of them secretly funding the developers under the old model would not?

The old model would entail organizations going to each developer at the GitHub and having them work for them -- not easily done. Under the Bitcoin Foundation, there is more clout and changes can be pushed more easily just through Gavin.

If J.P. Morgan, CIA and governments around the world would like to support Bitcoin's open development, I would welcome it.  They could do it under the old model as well, but under the old model we wouldn't necessarily know about it.  Perhaps this is your problem?  You just don't want to know about it?

[Atlas]

i.e. J.P. Morgan, CIA and Governmental funding for this organization would be an issue.

And all of them secretly funding the developers under the old model would not?

The old model would entail organizations going to each developer at the GitHub and having them work for them -- not easily done. Under the Bitcoin Foundation, there is more clout and changes can be pushed more easily just through Gavin.

If J.P. Morgan, CIA and governments around the world would like to support Bitcoin's open development, I would welcome it.  They could do it under the old model as well, but under the old model we wouldn't necessarily know about it.  Perhaps this is your problem?  You just don't want to know about it?

No. Not even close.

If you can't see the conflict of interest that comes from large social and financial powers funding Bitcoin, I don't think we can have a productive discussion.

They couldn't do it effectively under the old model because nothing would get done. There would be no foundation or authority for flawed releases coming from individual developers.

Look up Hegemony. Look how social movements and countries get taken over. We don't live in a nice, trustworthy world.

[hazek]

Before: Gavin or who ever is lead dev had to personally defend his and his team's actions while the whole community was carefully monitoring what he did AND he was easily removable from his lead position

This is getting interesting.  How would you go about to remove Gavin from his lead position in the old model?  You claim it was easy.  To me it seems easier now when I am a member of the foundation employing him.  I wonder how you would go about to revoke his Satioshi powers in the old model.

I don't think the community will stop watching.  A large part of the community has joined the foundation, and will watch it as well.

How? Fork git, discredit his.

It's all about credibility, it always was. Back then a lead dev was solely responsible for his, now he has a corporation shielding it for him.

Yeah you joined? And your going to vote him out? Is that why the political system works oh so well? Because elections are a good way to get rid of bad people? Please, I'm not 5 years old. You can't remove Gavin now. First of all he is on the board of directors for the next two years, to vote him off you will need to wait at least that long but secondly he is a founding member, and you can't get rid of one of those.

i.e. J.P. Morgan, CIA and Governmental funding for this organization would be an issue.

And all of them secretly funding the developers under the old model would not?

The old model would entail organizations going to each developer at the GitHub and having them work for them -- not easily done. Under the Bitcoin Foundation, there is more clout and changes can be pushed more easily just through Gavin.

If J.P. Morgan, CIA and governments around the world would like to support Bitcoin's open development, I would welcome it.  They could do it under the old model as well, but under the old model we wouldn't necessarily know about it.  Perhaps this is your problem?  You just don't want to know about it?

And this fallacy is exactly the reason why I preferred him being independent and constantly watched by the community. Now the community will trust that this Bitcoin foundation is being honest and open about who pays which bill where NOTHING prevents someone still paying a lead dev secretly to do whatever (not that I think this is relevant in the first place). So you see, this false sense of security under the pretense that it was actually needed is actually a moral hazard, the first of it's kind in the Bitcoin ecosystem and a huge danger down the road.