The EFF's damage to Bitcoin continues.

[VeeMiner]

that's a low blow from EFF.

[1714987557]

1714987557

[1714987557]

1714987557

[Stephen Gornick]

It's one thing for the EFF not to accept Bitcoin for it's own reasons specific to legal advocacy - but from the above, we see that their about-face and public statements continue to damage Bitcoin's reputation in the non-profit sphere.

The @EFF now accepts donations with Stripe: https://supporters.eff.org/donate

- http://twitter.com/stripe/status/253193235894247424

Which shows that argument 3 is bullshit:

3.   People were misconstruing our acceptance of Bitcoins as an endorsement of Bitcoin. We were concerned that some people may have participated in the Bitcoin project specifically because EFF accepted Bitcoins, and perhaps they therefore believed the investment in Bitcoins was secure and risk-free. While we’ve been following the Bitcoin movement with a great degree of interest, EFF has never endorsed Bitcoin. In fact, we generally don’t endorse any type of product or service – and Bitcoin is no exception.

 - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/06/eff-and-bitcoin

[Severian]

The @EFF now accepts donations with Stripe: https://supporters.eff.org/donate

- http://twitter.com/stripe/status/253193235894247424

Which shows that argument 3 is bullshit:

Their entire argument is bullshit. Good find on a product they seem to like endorsing.

[julz]

Interesting.
This certainly seems like an endorsement of Stripe:  https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/payment-provider-stripe-levels-transparency

There are only a handful of payment providers available, and yet at least one is necessary so that donations, payments, advertisements, auctions, and online stores can function.

gosh.. someone should tell the EFF about Bitcoin 


Well, it does imply to me that they should in theory be open to using an intermediary such as Bitpay or Paysius. Perhaps they weren't aware of such intermediaries when they did their about-face on Bitcoin.

Anyway.. I now suspect directly (or indirectly via ranting threads like this) needling the EFF on this isn't likely to be productive.

Perhaps a fundraiser in the legal subsection of the forum to get a lawyer to write up a basic overview of tax & legal implications for non-profits operating via Bitcoin intermediaries would be a better approach... then we could have something to point people to, which counters the EFF's statements.

[chaosman]

The @EFF now accepts donations with Stripe: https://supporters.eff.org/donate

- http://twitter.com/stripe/status/253193235894247424

Which shows that argument 3 is bullshit:

Their entire argument is bullshit. Good find on a product they seem to like endorsing.

Honestly, I do not see what the fuss is all about. If you ran a corporation or a 501(c)(3) non proft, the board of directors do whats best for the organization. If you had an organization and realized that a certain action could cause trouble would you take the risk of doing that action? The legal concerns they express are valid. I think I would rather see them fight battles rather than be a victim of a battle.
Even if they don't take on a case regarding bitcoin, doesnt mean that they wont submit an amicus curiae in support of bitcoin if/when a case does come down.
This is just one guy's opinion but I just see them avoiding a big mess..

[Severian]

If you ran a corporation or a 501(c)(3) non proft, the board of directors do whats best for the organization.

If the organization isn't willing to back up something in direct line with its own principles, it's not an organization worth associating with.

EFF had a different tune at first re: bitcoin:

Bitcoin - a Step Toward Censorship-Resistant Digital Currency, Jan. 2011.

When the issue of a "Censorship-Resistant Digital Currency" got too hot for them, they bailed.

Like the terminally hip, they're all style, little substance.

[kuzetsa]

((...snip...))
Once that imbalance exists though - it's accelerated by the obnoxious comments which go unchallenged. Perhaps my discussion of 'risk taking' gender effects isn't helpful either - but if so - I wish there were more women around here to correct any misconceptions I have in that regard!

This forum scares me... The bitcoin community in general actually. I've seen just about enough sexism and abuse to reinforce my general preference: Many places I participate in "the internet" I set up my accounts using androgynous names, no picture, and no gender selected.


Link titled as "sexism and abuse", thread has examples such as the post 22 with "schoolyard taunt" attacks such as "I declare this day as Maria-is-a-dude-and-he's-a-chicken-day." --- after all, there are no women on the interwebz , so let's all be insensitive jerks... Abusive ad hominem - insulting or belittling one's opponents in order to attack their claims or invalidate their arguments

I have enough trouble on this badly broken forum without making a bigger target of myself by (more) openly showing signs that I'm not a heteronormative white christian male. (( oops, I just queued the wrong minority soundbite ))

Off topic as I am, I think I'll save all this for a different thread. Anyone have a suggestion, please feel free to drop a private thinger in my inbox pointing out the best place(s) on here for such topic(s)

[chaosman]

If you ran a corporation or a 501(c)(3) non proft, the board of directors do whats best for the organization.

If the organization isn't willing to back up something in direct line with its own principles, it's not an organization worth associating with.

EFF had a different tune at first re: bitcoin:

Bitcoin - a Step Toward Censorship-Resistant Digital Currency, Jan. 2011.

When the issue of a "Censorship-Resistant Digital Currency" got too hot for them, they bailed.

Like the terminally hip, they're all style, little substance.

I understand what you are saying 100%. Correct me if I am wrong, as I read the press releases and this thread. But I don't think they are totally abandoning bitcoin/censorship-resistant digital currencies. They are protecting themselves so they can later either defend bitcoin. I am pretty much theorizing here. But if the EFF gets indicted on felony counts of whatever the fed decides to charge them with or is subjected to a civil suit brought by the fed; well it is harder to defend. As the saying goes a lawyer who represents themselves has a fool for a client. The EFF is good at what they do, but who would represent the EFF if things were to turn for the worse on them because of bitcoin?

I believe my thinking of this comes from when I was a voting member of an LLC and having to make business decisios that I thought were for the greater good of the company.

[Severian]

But if the EFF gets indicted on felony counts of whatever the fed decides to charge them with or is subjected to a civil suit brought by the fed; well it is harder to defend.

The EFF should welcome the attention from would-be regulators so a legal decision can be made and the rights of the "electronic frontier" can be defended. Isn't that what the EFF claims as its raison d'être to begin with?

[marcus_of_augustus]

Anyway.. I now suspect directly (or indirectly via ranting threads like this) needling the EFF on this isn't likely to be productive.

No I agree, but it can be entertaining. EFF has some precious (holier-than-thou) supporters.

Anyway, lawyers can only get you so far ... when the State starts behaving above the law, they become useless baggage, jest more hungry mouths to be fed. Wetting yourself at first hint of State intimidation is less than helpful.

[BitBlitz]

Wow.  A bunch of angry nerds [clarification edit: 'on BitcoinTalk'] pushing a false dichotomy.  If you don't completely support Bitcoin, you are Bitcoin's enemy.
Yeah, that is the attitude that will encourage the greater public to adopt Bitcoin..  Nice job boys!!

[stevegee58]

Wow.  A bunch of angry nerds pushing a false dichotomy.  If you don't completely support Bitcoin, you are Bitcoin's enemy.
Yeah, that is the attitude that will encourage the greater public to adopt Bitcoin..  Nice job boys!!

LOL don't worry.  The general public is not only not paying attention to BTC, they haven't even heard of it.

[Syke]

The legal concerns they express are valid.

What legal concerns? There is nothing illegal about Bitcoins. Stating otherwise is pure FUD. Treat them as any other kind of non-fiat donation. I donate my underwear and even cash anonymously to the Salvation Army, and then take a tax deduction for it, as do millions of other people. Bitcoin donations are no different.

[kjj]

Wow.  A bunch of angry nerds pushing a false dichotomy.  If you don't completely support Bitcoin, you are Bitcoin's enemy.
Yeah, that is the attitude that will encourage the greater public to adopt Bitcoin..  Nice job boys!!

Well, in fairness, the EFF has a point that they need to avoid being their own test cases.

But... defending free use of technology by other people is kinda their whole reason for existing.

[reeses]

Wow.  A bunch of angry nerds pushing a false dichotomy.  If you don't completely support Bitcoin, you are Bitcoin's enemy.
Yeah, that is the attitude that will encourage the greater public to adopt Bitcoin..  Nice job boys!!

As ignorance, immaturity, and incentive increase, opinions polarize to "sucks" and "rocks". – Mark Twain

[reeses]

The legal concerns they express are valid.

What legal concerns? There is nothing illegal about Bitcoins. Stating otherwise is pure FUD. Treat them as any other kind of non-fiat donation. I donate my underwear and even cash anonymously to the Salvation Army, and then take a tax deduction for it, as do millions of other people. Bitcoin donations are no different.

I suspect you're joking about the underwear, but that is non-deductible if used.

[Severian]

Wow.  A bunch of angry nerds [clarification edit: 'on BitcoinTalk'] pushing a false dichotomy.  If you don't completely support Bitcoin, you are Bitcoin's enemy.

Not quite.

1. Claim to be the "Electronic Frontier Foundation"

2. Spread FUD about the frontier

3.

4. Profit!

[phillipsjk]

Interesting.
This certainly seems like an endorsement of Stripe:  https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/payment-provider-stripe-levels-transparency

There are only a handful of payment providers available, and yet at least one is necessary so that donations, payments, advertisements, auctions, and online stores can function.

gosh.. someone should tell the EFF about Bitcoin 


Well, it does imply to me that they should in theory be open to using an intermediary such as Bitpay or Paysius. Perhaps they weren't aware of such intermediaries when they did their about-face on Bitcoin.
...

Now this is interesting. Their reasoning for the endorsement is:

Fast-growing online payment provider Stripe announced on Friday that they were embracing transparency around government requests. When the company receives a legal request to shut down a user’s account, Stripe will send a copy to the transparency website Chilling Effects, a site maintained by EFF and law school clinics that accepts and publishes take down notices from across the web. Stripe is the first payment provider to participate in Chilling Effects. Stripe’s actions will help ensure that attempts by the government to silence sites by shutting down their revenue source will be open to public scrutiny and debate.

I sense an opportunity here: Bitcoin payment processors should agree to follow Stripe's lead, and bring this up with the EFF, without specifically mentioning that they process Bitcoin. I feel this should force the EFF to clarify their position on Bitcoin.

As an asside, "Chilling effects" never responded to my e-mail about what happens when the notices themselves are the subject of take-down notices.

[BitBlitz]

I sense an opportunity here: Bitcoin payment processors should agree to follow Stripe's lead, and bring this up with the EFF, without specifically mentioning that they process Bitcoin. I feel this should force the EFF to clarify their position on Bitcoin.

Actually, I doubt the EFF cares about any currency conversions before they receive the donation.  They made it clear that they were not comfortable accepting a currency that they had to convert.  I'd place bets that they would accept dollars from a payment processor that did the conversion on the donor's behalf.

[Severian]

I'd place bets that they would accept dollars from a payment processor that did the conversion on the donor's behalf.

Sure. As long as it went through Paypal or a credit card. Perhaps the EFF didn't want to jeopardize its relationships with its current payment processors that might feel threatened by the "frontier".