[poll] What's your opinion on Bitcoin Foundation?

[grondilu]

Not sure any poll on the September announcement has been posted yet.

[1713546073]

1713546073

[Come-from-Beyond]

Do you support the launch of the Bitcoin Foundation? [Poll]: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113509.0

[hazek]

Would be cool to a see some more votes on this.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

The option i would like to choose is not present in the poll, so the poll sucks.
There should be at least 3 more options, including "The idea is good, however it has some issues which require improving".

[knight22]

I think it can be useful but dangerous at the same time... 

[grondilu]

The option i would like to choose is not present in the poll, so the poll sucks.
There should be at least 3 more options, including "The idea is good, however it has some issues which require improving".

It's pretty much the same as option 2.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

The option i would like to choose is not present in the poll, so the poll sucks.
There should be at least 3 more options, including "The idea is good, however it has some issues which require improving".

It's pretty much the same as option 2.

Nope, i don't think so.

Why not simply make multi-choice poll with few more options ?

[grondilu]

Nope, i don't think so.

It's close enough.

Why not simply make multi-choice poll with few more options ?

Because there are just too many possible answers.  You just have to pick a representative subset of them.  I didn't think very deep about this because I know there's just no way to make everyone happy anyway.

[allthingsluxury]

This is a pretty evenly split issue.

[kwoody]

The Foundation would've been much better received by the community if those who created it had been a little more transparent in the conception. People like to feel as though they are in control of their financial holdings, and to see something like TBF just pop up out of the blue is troubling to say the least. The implementation of the foundation could've been handled much, much better. It would be surrounded by positive vibes if everybody who contributes to the Bitcoin community had been able to give their 2 cents on the idea, what were essential bylaws for the organization, who should be CEO/board members, etc. What we got instead was an announcement, about an announcement, and a CEO that the majority of Bitcoin users had never even heard of; the implementation of the Foundation was/is laughable, and most likely why the site's been DDoS'd quite a few times since its existance was made public.

To give us a feeling of security, they've stated that any board member can be replaced after serving a multi-year term. What about impeachment? Is the community free to impeach a sitting board member? If not, TBF sucks donkey balls as an organization, and should be abolished immediately. I refuse to be falsely represented by an organization which doesn't even make itself public enough to be audited. It might be time for Gavin to hand the keys over to somebody more aligned with Satoshi's vision.

[hazek]

It seems there aren't just a few trolls trying to troll as was portrayed by some, it seems a lot more are at least suspicious of what this Bitcoin Foundation means for Bitcoin down the road. I'd really like to see more votes though.

[grondilu]

I'd really like to see more votes though.

Make the thread sticky, maybe?

[Come-from-Beyond]

The Foundation would've been much better received by the community if those who created it had been a little more transparent in the conception.

A little MORE? OMFG, they r completely untransparent! Ask them to publish the address that was used by MtGox to pay the membership fee. I already did it - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114911.msg1240116#msg1240116.

[hazek]

I'd really like to see more votes though.

Make the thread sticky, maybe?

Good idea actually. Unless instructed otherwise I will make this thread sticky for 1 week from today.

[deeplink]

This is a pretty evenly split issue.

Currently over 50% is suspious or even against TBF and only 45% think it is ok. The rest don't care.

This is getting interesting and I find the behaviour of this organization worrying to say the least. The fact that critical people are set aside as "only a few trolls/haters" reminds me of how some political figures are stigmatized by the media.

The Foundation would've been much better received by the community if those who created it had been a little more transparent in the conception.

A little MORE? OMFG, they r completely untransparent! Ask them to publish the address that was used by MtGox to pay the membership fee. I already did it - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114911.msg1240116#msg1240116.

Yeah I would very much like to see this too, but why did you lock the thread, so Peter cannot reply even if he wanted to?

It might be time for Gavin to hand the keys over to somebody more aligned with Satoshi's vision.

It would be a loss, but at the moment I agree completely. Gavin is not irreplaceable.

Bitcion development should NOT be involved in a political organization. Never ever.

[deeplink]

I'd really like to see more votes though.

Make the thread sticky, maybe?

Yes please sticky it, so we can get more votes.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Yeah I would very much like to see this too, but why did you lock the thread, so Peter cannot reply even if he wanted to?

Peter can't confirm a payment that has never existed. If a miracle happened and MtGox really paid - he can always create a new thread.

[acoindr]

There is clearly significant concern about TBF. I'm surprised I haven't gotten more positive feedback on my counter defense to Bitcoin Foundation power, by using litecoins in the marketplace as well explained here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115303.0

I think people just don't understand what I'm proposing.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

There is clearly significant concern about TBF. I'm surprised I haven't gotten more positive feedback on my counter defense to Bitcoin Foundation power, by using litecoins in the marketplace as well explained here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115303.0

I think people just don't understand what I'm proposing.

I do understand what you are proposing.
However, Litecoins simply suck and that is why there is no positive feedback.

Vulnerability to mining monopoly

Similarly to Bitcoin, Litecoin can be attacked by a rich entity (on the scale of big corporations and governments). Also similarly to Bitcoin, this attack becomes more difficult to orchestrate the higher the hash rate of the network. However, because Litecoin is designed to be inefficient on all common computer components (both CPUs and GPUs), a malicious entity needs only produce a single piece of specialized/custom hardware to overtake all the commodity mining systems combined.

Another problem with changed algorithm is that AFAIK Litecoin cannot be merge-mined together with Bitcoin, which sucks even more.

[acoindr]

There is clearly significant concern about TBF. I'm surprised I haven't gotten more positive feedback on my counter defense to Bitcoin Foundation power, by using litecoins in the marketplace as well explained here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115303.0

I think people just don't understand what I'm proposing.

I do understand what you are proposing.
However, Litecoins simply suck and that is why there is no positive feedback.

Vulnerability to mining monopoly

Similarly to Bitcoin, Litecoin can be attacked by a rich entity (on the scale of big corporations and governments). Also similarly to Bitcoin, this attack becomes more difficult to orchestrate the higher the hash rate of the network. However, because Litecoin is designed to be inefficient on all common computer components (both CPUs and GPUs), a malicious entity needs only produce a single piece of specialized/custom hardware to overtake all the commodity mining systems combined.

Another problem with changed algorithm is that AFAIK Litecoin cannot be merge-mined together with Bitcoin, which sucks even more.

Right now any cryptocurrency can be attacked by a rich entity. There is no way to prevent this except to hope the network hash rate on the honest network side can remain superior by it becoming increasing cost prohibitive to challenge it.

So why is it perceived that something like Bitcoin can achieve network supremacy? Ponder that answer, seriously. Consider also how people are reacting to ASICS. My own belief is that as Bitcoin adoption grows so too will the resources available to defend it, not just by incidental market mining, but strategically coordinated network defenders. Governments are powerful entities with lots of money, resources, and state of the art technology.

Any specialized/custom hardware produced to target bitcoin OR litecoin would also be available to the honest network. As far as merged mining that is not a problem if both currencies gain mainstream adoption, for example. Just think about the math for a minute. World government regimes number in the hundreds, but regular people number in the billions. It wouldn't take long for any cryptocurrency to have seriously cost prohibitive attack hashing rates once usage numbered in just the tens or hundreds of millions. It doesn't take the hash rate of the entire world to be cost prohibitive to attacks.

I've also explained in that post how a new model of currency usage (storing limited wealth in cryptocurrencies) reduces or eliminates the effectiveness of any 51% attack.