Re: Bitcoin Foundation

[dree12]

This has occurred in the past with Bitcoin Foundation: Gavin unfairly maintains its post in Bitcoin Discussion, with a sticky dedicated to it, while competing foundations are promptly and correctly moved out.

This is not entirely true.

Actually the only true part is that the threads started within 24hours of Gavin's announcement I moved to Service Discussion, fully expecting to move his announcement to Service announcements as well. But I wanted to hear his agreement first, which I didn't get so I asked theymos who told me this:

Gavin's thread definitely belongs in Bitcoin Discussion because this is an innovative new type of "service" and the announcement is significant to the Bitcoin ecosystem as a whole. I might have left discussion about the Foundation in Bitcoin Discussion too, but moving it to Service Discussion is fine, especially since Bitcoin Discussion was getting filled with Foundation-related topics.

As you can see, there was no censorship and ever since I got this instruction from theymos I left any thread that raised an important concern about Bitcoin Foundation in the Bitcoin Discussion. You can ask Atlas about that. And as far as I know no threads other than a poll were made sticky about Bitcoin Foundation.

Also any competing foundation threads were left in Bitcoin Discussion, even an announcement of an announcement of a competing idea that turned out to be nothing really was left there.


I suggest if you are going to raise issues, at least be honest and list complaints based on facts, not on fiction.

Best Regards,
hazek

Please do not accuse me of spreading fiction. I have monitored the Bitcoin Discussion boards for some time now, and my words were the truth and nothing but the truth.

1.

hazek, you're really annoying me.

First, you edited my OP and broke all of the links changing .org to .com.
Then you sent me a PM asking if it would be ok to move this thread to Service Discussion.  WTF?  If discussion of the Foundation isn't a good topic for the main Discussion forum what is?

Now you spout off about 'Gavin this, Gavin that.'

It isn't easy to piss me off, but, I'm sorry, you're really pissing me off. Bounties?  Really?  Point me to a successful security-critical open source project where bounties pay the rent.

I haven't tried kickstarter-like fundraising?  http://blockchain.info/address/17XvU95PkpDqXAr8ieNpYzSdRDRJL55UQ8  is the address for the Bitcoin Testing Project, which has received a grand total of 72 BTC, which isn't nearly enough to pay a QA grunt, let alone a QA lead.

You say "why change, Bitcoin has been working great for me!"

It hasn't been working great for me; I'm frustrated by the lack of resources and all of the distractions I have to deal with as the unelected, un-asked-for de-facto leader of this amazing experiment. I'm excited about the Foundation, because it is bringing together dedicated, effective people who all want Bitcoin to succeed.

Emphasis mine. It does not take more than this to prove that Gavin maintains the Foundation thread in Bitcoin Discussion. He neither allows the community to decide nor follows guidelines about thread placement.

2. This thread, although not anymore, was previously stickied and remained so even after I reported it. Had the thread been about, e.g., "What's your opinion on Mt. Gox", it could not have remained in Bitcoin Discussion, let alone being stickied there.

3. The precedent, and thereby the case law states, that the Foundation thread be moved out.

• https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114737.0
• https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113649.0
• https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113372.0
• https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99396.0

These, like Bitcoin Foundation, are services, and have been moved out (rightfully).

4.

Also any competing foundation threads were left in Bitcoin Discussion, even an announcement of an announcement of a competing idea that turned out to be nothing really was left there.

Please provide evidence of this.

[1714181939]

1714181939

[1714181939]

1714181939

[1714181939]

1714181939

[hazek]

This has occurred in the past with Bitcoin Foundation: Gavin unfairly maintains its post in Bitcoin Discussion, with a sticky dedicated to it, while competing foundations are promptly and correctly moved out.

This is not entirely true.

Actually the only true part is that the threads started within 24hours of Gavin's announcement I moved to Service Discussion, fully expecting to move his announcement to Service announcements as well. But I wanted to hear his agreement first, which I didn't get so I asked theymos who told me this:

Gavin's thread definitely belongs in Bitcoin Discussion because this is an innovative new type of "service" and the announcement is significant to the Bitcoin ecosystem as a whole. I might have left discussion about the Foundation in Bitcoin Discussion too, but moving it to Service Discussion is fine, especially since Bitcoin Discussion was getting filled with Foundation-related topics.

As you can see, there was no censorship and ever since I got this instruction from theymos I left any thread that raised an important concern about Bitcoin Foundation in the Bitcoin Discussion. You can ask Atlas about that. And as far as I know no threads other than a poll were made sticky about Bitcoin Foundation.

Also any competing foundation threads were left in Bitcoin Discussion, even an announcement of an announcement of a competing idea that turned out to be nothing really was left there.


I suggest if you are going to raise issues, at least be honest and list complaints based on facts, not on fiction.

Best Regards,
hazek

Please do not accuse me of spreading fiction. I have monitored the Bitcoin Discussion boards for some time now, and my words were the truth and nothing but the truth.

1.

hazek, you're really annoying me.

First, you edited my OP and broke all of the links changing .org to .com.
Then you sent me a PM asking if it would be ok to move this thread to Service Discussion.  WTF?  If discussion of the Foundation isn't a good topic for the main Discussion forum what is?

Now you spout off about 'Gavin this, Gavin that.'

It isn't easy to piss me off, but, I'm sorry, you're really pissing me off. Bounties?  Really?  Point me to a successful security-critical open source project where bounties pay the rent.

I haven't tried kickstarter-like fundraising?  http://blockchain.info/address/17XvU95PkpDqXAr8ieNpYzSdRDRJL55UQ8  is the address for the Bitcoin Testing Project, which has received a grand total of 72 BTC, which isn't nearly enough to pay a QA grunt, let alone a QA lead.

You say "why change, Bitcoin has been working great for me!"

It hasn't been working great for me; I'm frustrated by the lack of resources and all of the distractions I have to deal with as the unelected, un-asked-for de-facto leader of this amazing experiment. I'm excited about the Foundation, because it is bringing together dedicated, effective people who all want Bitcoin to succeed.

Emphasis mine. It does not take more than this to prove that Gavin maintains the Foundation thread in Bitcoin Discussion. He neither allows the community to decide nor follows guidelines about thread placement.

2. This thread, although not anymore, was previously stickied and remained so even after I reported it. Had the thread been about, e.g., "What's your opinion on Mt. Gox", it could not have remained in Bitcoin Discussion, let alone being stickied there.

3. The precedent, and thereby the case law states, that the Foundation thread be moved out.

• https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114737.0
• https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113649.0
• https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113372.0
• https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99396.0

These, like Bitcoin Foundation, are services, and have been moved out (rightfully).

4.

Also any competing foundation threads were left in Bitcoin Discussion, even an announcement of an announcement of a competing idea that turned out to be nothing really was left there.

Please provide evidence of this.

I'll reply to each point separately with to it's corresponding number:

1. I never disputed this as is evident in my post you quoted in the very beginning of your thread. I state "This is not entirely true.." and then proceed to explain what is true which entails me being instructed, against my personal judgment, to leave Bitcoin Foundation in the Bitcoin discussions.

2. Yes this is true, again as mentioned in my post you quoted, I stickied that thread to get more votes. It's a neutral thread, not in favor of Bitcoin Foundation or against it, but merely a poll trying to gauge the community's acceptance of it. It is also evidence that threads discussing Bitcoin Foundation are no longer moved to Service Discussions as I stated in my post you quoted was done by me only for the first initial 24 hours after the announcement was posted.

3. I agree but I already stated as much and this was already covered under 1.

4.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115388.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115303.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114297.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115785.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115024.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114911.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113842.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113823.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113735.0

[dree12]

This has occurred in the past with Bitcoin Foundation: Gavin unfairly maintains its post in Bitcoin Discussion, with a sticky dedicated to it, while competing foundations are promptly and correctly moved out.

This is not entirely true.

Actually the only true part is that the threads started within 24hours of Gavin's announcement I moved to Service Discussion, fully expecting to move his announcement to Service announcements as well. But I wanted to hear his agreement first, which I didn't get so I asked theymos who told me this:

Gavin's thread definitely belongs in Bitcoin Discussion because this is an innovative new type of "service" and the announcement is significant to the Bitcoin ecosystem as a whole. I might have left discussion about the Foundation in Bitcoin Discussion too, but moving it to Service Discussion is fine, especially since Bitcoin Discussion was getting filled with Foundation-related topics.

As you can see, there was no censorship and ever since I got this instruction from theymos I left any thread that raised an important concern about Bitcoin Foundation in the Bitcoin Discussion. You can ask Atlas about that. And as far as I know no threads other than a poll were made sticky about Bitcoin Foundation.

Also any competing foundation threads were left in Bitcoin Discussion, even an announcement of an announcement of a competing idea that turned out to be nothing really was left there.


I suggest if you are going to raise issues, at least be honest and list complaints based on facts, not on fiction.

Best Regards,
hazek

Please do not accuse me of spreading fiction. I have monitored the Bitcoin Discussion boards for some time now, and my words were the truth and nothing but the truth.

1.

hazek, you're really annoying me.

First, you edited my OP and broke all of the links changing .org to .com.
Then you sent me a PM asking if it would be ok to move this thread to Service Discussion.  WTF?  If discussion of the Foundation isn't a good topic for the main Discussion forum what is?

Now you spout off about 'Gavin this, Gavin that.'

It isn't easy to piss me off, but, I'm sorry, you're really pissing me off. Bounties?  Really?  Point me to a successful security-critical open source project where bounties pay the rent.

I haven't tried kickstarter-like fundraising?  http://blockchain.info/address/17XvU95PkpDqXAr8ieNpYzSdRDRJL55UQ8  is the address for the Bitcoin Testing Project, which has received a grand total of 72 BTC, which isn't nearly enough to pay a QA grunt, let alone a QA lead.

You say "why change, Bitcoin has been working great for me!"

It hasn't been working great for me; I'm frustrated by the lack of resources and all of the distractions I have to deal with as the unelected, un-asked-for de-facto leader of this amazing experiment. I'm excited about the Foundation, because it is bringing together dedicated, effective people who all want Bitcoin to succeed.

Emphasis mine. It does not take more than this to prove that Gavin maintains the Foundation thread in Bitcoin Discussion. He neither allows the community to decide nor follows guidelines about thread placement.

2. This thread, although not anymore, was previously stickied and remained so even after I reported it. Had the thread been about, e.g., "What's your opinion on Mt. Gox", it could not have remained in Bitcoin Discussion, let alone being stickied there.

3. The precedent, and thereby the case law states, that the Foundation thread be moved out.

• https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114737.0
• https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113649.0
• https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113372.0
• https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99396.0

These, like Bitcoin Foundation, are services, and have been moved out (rightfully).

4.

Also any competing foundation threads were left in Bitcoin Discussion, even an announcement of an announcement of a competing idea that turned out to be nothing really was left there.

Please provide evidence of this.

I'll reply to each point separately with to it's corresponding number:

1. I never disputed this as is evident in my post you quoted in the very beginning of your thread. I state "This is not entirely true.." and then proceed to explain what is true which entails me being instructed, against my personal judgment, to leave Bitcoin Foundation in the Bitcoin discussions.

2. Yes this is true, again as mentioned in my post you quoted, I stickied that thread to get more votes. It's a neutral thread, not in favor of Bitcoin Foundation or against it, but merely a poll trying to gauge the community's acceptance of it. It is also evidence that threads discussing Bitcoin Foundation are no longer moved to Service Discussions as I stated in my post you quoted was done by me only for the first initial 24 hours after the announcement was posted.

3. I agree but I already stated as much and this was already covered under 1.

4.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115388.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115303.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114297.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115785.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115024.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114911.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113842.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113823.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113735.0

My case is not that the Bitcoin Foundation is being portrayed in too positive a light (I support the Bitcoin Foundation personally), but that it is unfairly given too much attention. All these threads that are left in Bitcoin Discussion reference the Bitcoin Foundation in some way. During the BTC-E hack, the Bitcoinica incident, etc., which are similar in nature, many similar threads were created, polls were made, etc.; however, these threads were moved to Service Discussion (as it was created for this purpose). Now, we see the same controversy, but no attempt to move it to Service Discussion/Announcements.

To be honest, I would be content if the posts were moved to the correct sections and a sticky with links to all of them was left behind until the event passes from the media. But the current state in Bitcoin Discussion clearly overemphasizes the importance of Bitcoin Foundation.

At this point, I feel compelled to apologize for the commotion I have caused. Although with every move to the authoritarian direction, I find BitcoinTalk less valuable as a society, it still by far beats out every other forum by the quality of the community. I understand it is hard to please everybody as a moderator, and as I am not one myself, I have not felt the pressure from barrages of reports or demanding statements from higher moderators or admins. As such, I retract my statement that you are to share in the blame, given your difficult role of moving threads out of Bitcoin Discussion.

However, I believe others in this forum should remain vigilant. Democracy falls when the citizens give up their power, and analogously I believe that unless we, as forum users, speak out against censorship, the admins in charge will eventually control the opinions on this forum.

In accordance with that ideology, I maintain my public stance that Bitcoin Foundation should be moved out of Bitcoin Discussion. However, I will refrain from arguing more about this issue.

[augustocroppo]

However, I believe others in this forum should remain vigilant. Democracy falls when the citizens give up their power, and analogously I believe that unless we, as forum users, speak out against censorship, the admins in charge will eventually control the opinions on this forum.

In accordance with that ideology, I maintain my public stance that Bitcoin Foundation should be moved out of Bitcoin Discussion. However, I will refrain from arguing more about this issue.

What you and many others here fail to understand is this not a democracy and this does not belong to the people. This is a private forum hosted in the Internet. This is not a public domain neither a free speech zone. Because of this fact, complaints regarding the censorship or sponsorship practiced by the administrators and moderators are useless. The Bitcointalk forum is entitled to support or to suppress whatever the administrators and owners decide, not what the "vigilant" users decide.

The "power" here belongs to the administrators and the owners, not to the users.

[BitcoinINV]

However, I believe others in this forum should remain vigilant. Democracy falls when the citizens give up their power, and analogously I believe that unless we, as forum users, speak out against censorship, the admins in charge will eventually control the opinions on this forum.

In accordance with that ideology, I maintain my public stance that Bitcoin Foundation should be moved out of Bitcoin Discussion. However, I will refrain from arguing more about this issue.

What you and many others here fail to understand is this not a democracy and this does not belong to the people. This is a private forum hosted in the Internet. This is not a public domain neither a free speech zone. Because of this fact, complaints regarding the censorship or sponsorship practiced by the administrators and moderators are useless. The Bitcointalk forum is entitled to support or to suppress whatever the administrators and owners decide, not what the "vigilant" users decide.

The "power" here belongs to the administrators and the owners, not to the users.

Like I said the other day, Your speech is limited by venue "like school or Lib". If you live in the U.S. and go to Cuba observe the laws there or they will throw you in jail. If your on the forum observe the rules and "dictator" Joking! Here.

[Blind]

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

[ZenInTexas]

However, I believe others in this forum should remain vigilant. Democracy falls when the citizens give up their power, and analogously I believe that unless we, as forum users, speak out against censorship, the admins in charge will eventually control the opinions on this forum.

In accordance with that ideology, I maintain my public stance that Bitcoin Foundation should be moved out of Bitcoin Discussion. However, I will refrain from arguing more about this issue.

What you and many others here fail to understand is this not a democracy and this does not belong to the people. This is a private forum hosted in the Internet. This is not a public domain neither a free speech zone. Because of this fact, complaints regarding the censorship or sponsorship practiced by the administrators and moderators are useless. The Bitcointalk forum is entitled to support or to suppress whatever the administrators and owners decide, not what the "vigilant" users decide.

The "power" here belongs to the administrators and the owners, not to the users.

What you said is an underlying truth of the Forum, and it needs to be highlighted.  I don't think enough people realize this when they first wade into bitcoin.  The .org domain hints at something non-profit, and now the new "Foundation" hints at something pure, but in reality, there nothing in the bitcoin world is non-profit.  Bitcoin developers want to be paid, this may not be the advertised or an acknowledged fact. Forum moderators spend time here because they see an opportunity to make money.  I personally did not recognize the extant of hidden conflict of interests until the GLSBE/goat issues exposed some of the links.  I now assume that there are far more interconnections and undisclosed reasons to bend a message one way or another by moderators AND foundation members.

What new users fail to realize, is pseudo conflict of interest policy that I had assumed exists is really just a self-policing policy.  But it appears that when the sum is large enough, rules are bent, favors given, changes are made - you know stuff that if it occurred in the real-world we would cry "not fair", and regular folks would expect someone to step in and fix it.  Some folks have called out "not fair", "biased" etc, but no one is taking this seriously enough to actually address in an organized way.  My theory is that because everyone is involved in the profit side right now, it looks like these "not fair" calls will be ignored and torn down in seemingly logic arguments.

[dree12]

However, I believe others in this forum should remain vigilant. Democracy falls when the citizens give up their power, and analogously I believe that unless we, as forum users, speak out against censorship, the admins in charge will eventually control the opinions on this forum.

In accordance with that ideology, I maintain my public stance that Bitcoin Foundation should be moved out of Bitcoin Discussion. However, I will refrain from arguing more about this issue.

What you and many others here fail to understand is this not a democracy and this does not belong to the people. This is a private forum hosted in the Internet. This is not a public domain neither a free speech zone. Because of this fact, complaints regarding the censorship or sponsorship practiced by the administrators and moderators are useless. The Bitcointalk forum is entitled to support or to suppress whatever the administrators and owners decide, not what the "vigilant" users decide.

The "power" here belongs to the administrators and the owners, not to the users.

The users are entitled to leave if BitcoinTalk continues this blatant sponsorship and remains authoritarian. The more people aware of censorship, the more likely they will leave.

I compare this to a think-tank established by an umbrella organization. The umbrella organization definitely has the right to censor the decisions of the think-tank, but if this is revealed and people leave, the think-tank will lose its source of value. Therefore, the umbrella organization will have to comply with the demands of the participants. If participants give up on reporting censorship, other participants may not be aware and the umbrella organization will have too much power.