Time for a renewed push to get EFF to accept Bitcoins?

[Akka]

The clowns at the EFF need to reevaluate who's side they're on. We got Wordpress now...

Thats not how opposition or a battle against legal authorities works.

Please don't forget: legal authorities aren't fighting Bitcoin at the moment.


The moment this changes, and authorities start actually to put pressure on (not just threatening), any large commercial entity will jump ship so fast that you can't even say "meh". Then will be the time for the EFF to come to help.

Exactly, the way I understand it the EFF has cancelled accepting bitcoin. Because they don't want to leave the impression they have a self interest in fighting for bitcoin, in the case they have to do so.

[RodeoX]

Exactly, the way I understand it the EFF has cancelled accepting bitcoin. Because they don't want to leave the impression they have a self interest in fighting for bitcoin, in the case they have to do so.

Then they should stop using the internet also.

[hazek]

Exactly, the way I understand it the EFF has cancelled accepting bitcoin. Because they don't want to leave the impression they have a self interest in fighting for bitcoin, in the case they have to do so.

Then they should stop using the internet also.

Fair point.

[Akka]

Exactly, the way I understand it the EFF has cancelled accepting bitcoin. Because they don't want to leave the impression they have a self interest in fighting for bitcoin, in the case they have to do so.

Then they should stop using the internet also.

Fair point.

Yup, got me there. Can't come up with a counter argument.

[FreeMoney]

It's totally bogus. Frontier my ass. They are afraid to publish a 33 char string on their webpage.

[Roger_Murdock]

Exactly, the way I understand it the EFF has cancelled accepting bitcoin. Because they don't want to leave the impression they have a self interest in fighting for bitcoin, in the case they have to do so.

Then they should stop using the internet also.

Fair point.

Yup, got me there. Can't come up with a counter argument.

Yeah, that really is a pretty ridiculous justification. I guess they shouldn't accept donations in fiat either. After all, Bitcoin and fiat are competitors. Accepting fiat but not Bitcoin doesn't seem very "neutral."

[DeathAndTaxes]

Exactly, the way I understand it the EFF has cancelled accepting bitcoin. Because they don't want to leave the impression they have a self interest in fighting for bitcoin, in the case they have to do so.

Then they should stop using the internet also.

Game. Set.  Match. 

I understand EFF needs to draw a line and not promote a technology (and the shouldn't) however the argument that they can't use a technology without being compromised is (as indicated above) weak.   Other than the internet they have been involved in cases related to domain name disputes, digital content, and strong encryption.   Do they also strip themselves of those technologies.  Winning cases and lobbying on behalf of FREEDOM in those areas also directly benefits themselves.   In the payment arena, the EFF accepts PayPal which could be a source of future legislation or legal action.

Lastly it isn't like EFF is suing to get clarification on legal rights of Bitcoin.  They are simply accepting the status quo while saying they (and by extension nobody else) should use it because the legal area is gray.

So the legal aspects are gray, therefore nobody should use it.  If nobody uses it then there will never be a legal challenge.  Without a legal challege the legal aspects will remain gray.

I mean if it requires Congress explicitly declaring Bitcoin legal before the EFF will defend it then why do we need the EFF?

[etotheipi]

In defense of EFF:  I too was disappointed by them not accepting BTC early on.  But consider what kind of resources they are going to spend defending Bitcoin against the torrent of legal gray areas it falls.  They could've put in millions of dollars and defended Bitcoin, just to have it fizzle a month later because of network security issues, or some other doomsday scenario.  In that sense, they're probably more concerned about getting the most value out of their limited resources -- why spend millions of dollars to protect the rights of 12 nerds from some transient internet phenomenon when they can be protecting thousands of other people from other issues with the same resources.  Especially if there's no direct indication yet that freedom is threatened.

Now that Bitcoin is gaining momentum, it's no longer a handful of nerds -- it's a lot of people and quite a few businesses, too.  And if those people and businesses look like they will be threatened, I imagine the EFF will start to take it more seriously.  Perhaps we're starting to reach that point, now.  But I don't blame them for their stance last year.

[Ichthyo]

Exactly, the way I understand it the EFF has cancelled accepting bitcoin. Because they don't want to leave the impression they have a self interest in fighting for bitcoin, in the case they have to do so.

Then they should stop using the internet also.

They aren't defending "the internet", they are defending the small internet users against the large scale interest groups

[casascius]

I gave several of their staffers some Casascius Coins at DefCon, making explicit that these were personal gifts to the individuals and not donations to the EFF.

[fergalish]

Exactly, the way I understand it the EFF has cancelled accepting bitcoin. Because they don't want to leave the impression they have a self interest in fighting for bitcoin, in the case they have to do so.

Then they should stop using the internet also.

I understand EFF needs to draw a line and not promote a technology (and the shouldn't) however the argument that they can't use a technology without being compromised is (as indicated above) weak.   Other than the internet they have been involved in cases related to domain name disputes, digital content, and strong encryption.   Do they also strip themselves of those technologies.

The legality of these technologies, including the internet, are now well established, unlike bitcoin. Also, it accepting bitcoin donations now could never promote bitcoins as much as it successfully defending bitcoin in some future legal action. If accepting bitcoin donations could compromise that... well, that'd be a pity. So... No, leave the EFF alone.

[casascius]

When EFF started accepting it, people were using the EFF's name to promote Bitcoin.  It's reasonable for them to take the position that they don't want to be seen as promoting it.

They can always change their mind, and they certainly will if they feel so inclined.

[FreeMoney]

When EFF started accepting it, people were using the EFF's name to promote Bitcoin.  It's reasonable for them to take the position that they don't want to be seen as promoting it.

They can always change their mind, and they certainly will if they feel so inclined.

Certainly they will change their mind, but they'll never be on the frontier.

[Roger_Murdock]

When EFF started accepting it, people were using the EFF's name to promote Bitcoin.  It's reasonable for them to take the position that they don't want to be seen as promoting it.

They can always change their mind, and they certainly will if they feel so inclined.

Certainly they will change their mind, but they'll never be on the frontier.

+1

[sunnankar]

The clowns at the EFF need to reevaluate who's side they're on. We got Wordpress now...

Thats not how opposition or a battle against legal authorities works.

Please don't forget: legal authorities aren't fighting Bitcoin at the moment.

The moment this changes, and authorities start actually to put pressure on (not just threatening), any large commercial entity will jump ship so fast that you can't even say "meh". Then will be the time for the EFF to come to help.

This is important to keep in mind. What Bitcoin represents is a fight against the largest and wealthiest special interests in the world that control the monetary and legal systems. Governments derive their power from ideology. In the fight for freedom violence is not an option because the governments can inflict violence to such a great degree.

Nevertheless, we are seeing the market mobilizing and the chess pieces are being put in place. Even better it seems to be arising out of chaos as spontaneous order with coordination without cooperation.

Remember, ideas can only be overcome by other ideas. Power and force are impotent against ideas. Open source publishing, and WordPress is THE leader in this regards, is the spear-tip when it comes to the delivery mechanism of ideas. The spear-shaft is the monetary system.

The platform that has allowed the spread of ideas to such a large degree has now embraced Bitcoin.

This places any legal authorities in a very precarious position if they attempt to fight Bitcoin because WordPress has reframed the issue from allowing people to buy illegal drugs to empowering people's freedom of speech. Those with a soapbox who can spread ideas are going to increasingly become Bitcoin's defenders because it is the shaft that allows the spear-tip to be forced through inferior ideas. Thus WordPress's veiled threat:

With Bitcoin we join a new digital economy that doesn’t leave anyone behind, essentially making financial transactions open source — something WordPress.com is behind 100%. We’re proud to support bloggers from all over the world by providing a Bitcoin option.

To any regulators it means this: We will fight you with litigation and we have the financial resources to hire attorneys. We have the moral high ground because of our position regarding freedom of speech. We can lay claim to the power of that moral high ground because of our ability to transmit those ideas far and wide. Thus, if you attack us then it will be like attacking freedom of speech.

Just think: How many millions of bloggers will donate to WordPress if they ask for help defending a Bitcoin related lawsuit? What type of a PR nightmare would that create for the governments? You saw how the market and Internet mobilized against SOPA and PIPA. And who was one of the leaders in that? WordPress.

And if governments are stupid enough to attempt to litigate against WordPress, assuming there actually is any legal issue with accepting bitcoins, think of how swift, how powerful and how vicious the Internet's reaction would be to their attempt to stifle freedom of speech. And who will probably be on the vanguard as defense counsel? The EFF (so don't be too hard on them; I think their reasons for not accepting Bitcoin are specious).

So just keep pressing forward. This is a revolution of ideas and minds are being changed one at a time. And those with inferior ideas, like limited freedom of speech and closed source money, are losing position and will be checkmated soon.

[marcus_of_augustus]

To any regulators it means this: We will fight you with litigation and we have the financial resources to hire attorneys. We have the moral high ground because of our position regarding freedom of speech. We can lay claim to the power of that moral high ground because of our ability to transmit those ideas far and wide. Thus, if you attack us then it will be like attacking freedom of speech.

Just think: How many millions of bloggers will donate to WordPress if they ask for help defending a Bitcoin related lawsuit? What type of a PR nightmare would that create for the governments? You saw how the market and Internet mobilized against SOPA and PIPA. And who was one of the leaders in that? WordPress.

And if governments are stupid enough to attempt to litigate against WordPress, assuming there actually is any legal issue with accepting bitcoins, think of how swift, how powerful and how vicious the Internet's reaction would be to their attempt to stifle freedom of speech. And who will probably be on the vanguard as defense counsel? The EFF (so don't be too hard on them; I think their reasons for not accepting Bitcoin are specious).

Nice sunnaker, this summarised some of what I was thinking/wondering ... it seems like the next move might well be from the govts (against WP) and does WordPress really understand what they are taking on?? If they do, then it is v. ballsy of them (big ups)  but also belies that they understand the moral power that they may claim to, if need be. WP are declaring themselves to be more than a just another bitcoin user, but a willing, powerful ally (though I easily may be reading too much into this). Lord knows we can use more allies.

Re EFF ... when they finally declare that they will be accepting bitcoin donations it is going to get plastered far and wide as the ultimate bitcoin endorsement, you and I can make sure of that.  (we'll call it the EFF rally)

[DoomDumas]

As I understood their argument they wanted to preserve the appearance of being unbaised if they'd ever need to defend Bitcoin legally which if they'd accept donations in bitcoins someone might try to slander them that they are just looking out for their own interest..

+1

As we all know they are already acknoledged about BTC, we disturb them.. Maybe they will be in a better position to defend BTC if not receiving it in donation, and if they change their mind sometime, they know how to accept BTC donation.. I'll go for "leave them alone, they are well aware of BTC" !

Another point, I've donate a lot to sites that I wish to support.. but, from almost a year, instead of donate, I write an email, asking if they are willing to accept BTC, and stating that I'll donate if they do so, and by accepting BTC donation, a lot of members from the BTC community will also donate !

A lot more business, fundation will be accepting BTC in the near future.. No need to focus on the EFF.

[Herodes]

When someone doesn't want to do something, they say anything to get you off their back. People are like that. Don't expect people or organizations to always be honest and upfront about the 'real' reasons.

[westkybitcoins]

When someone doesn't want to do something, they say anything to get you off their back. People are like that. Don't expect people or organizations to always be honest and upfront about the 'real' reasons.

+1

This is obviously what's occurring. If their stated reasons accurately portrayed their real concerns, their stance would be solidly neutral, and would not include vague hinting that bitcoins should be avoided for the time being due to <fill in any legitimate-sounding excuse here>.

[Ichthyo]

If their stated reasons accurately portrayed their real concerns, their stance would be solidly neutral, and would not include vague hinting that bitcoins should be avoided for the time being due to <fill in any legitimate-sounding excuse here>.

The only thing we could (and indeed should) request from EFF is to update their old statement from 2011 to precisely reflect their current position. When doing so, we should point out to them that their old statement was used and interpreted by other sites or entities as an advice not to accept bitcoins -- so a clarification on that interpretation would be desirable.


Beyond that, I don't think we should nag them and demand they accept BTC, nor should we bad mouth the EFF for not accepting BTC.