Bitcoin Foundation: Where on Earth Did all the Money Go?

[BruceFenton]

 
Do the values and interests of TBF align with 'Bitcoin Core' given the fact that your chief scientist is Gavin Andersen? I applaud the goal of helping encourage technical consensus but have difficulty seeing how this will happen.  It seems like lines have been drawn in the sand and you are either with or against certain interests. How can bitcoin

I don't think the part of tomothy's question in bold is answered properly.

So, part of your mission is "Fostering Core Development", but you won't outright support Core on their approach for the block size debate? How can this be?

Do you plan to support the other teams like XT or BU then?

And "Gavin no longer receives a salary from the Bitcoin Foundation"... what does that mean? Is he no longer chief scientist?

To put it another way: If someone supports The Bitcoin Foundation in any way, what are they supporting?


Best Regards


Oh, and thanks to tomothy for bringing something meaningful into this.

Was sidetracked, let me try to answer this better.

I think it would be ideal if the Bitcoin Foundation was neutral.  Gavin is Chief Scientist but as a volunteer organization anyone qualified can take a role.  If a Greg Maxwell, Jeff Garzik, Nick Szabo or Adam Back caliber of person wanted to volunteer then the foundation would be glad to give them a high profile role as well.   We've talked about a Chair of the Development Communications committee in the mission statement.

For DevCore I worked hard to make sure it was balanced and not only the Gavin POV...in fact he was a minority opinion from a blocksize debate standpoint: Maxwell and Corallo were also speakers.

This blocksize discussion is going to be resolved.  Ideally non-profits in this space can plan for after this as well.

[BruceFenton]

It seems to me that there is a lot of arguing going on and there is nothing getting done.  I agree that a proper Audit needs to be placed in order to completely learn from the mistakes of the past.  You can not just let the past be the past without making some of the same mistakes without properly understanding what went wrong before and why.  Once that is done, all of the arguing and all needs to come to a halt and move forward.  If this can not be done, the only other thing to do would be to disband the foundation and make a replacement.

I agree that an audit might give some closure.
The main purposes of an audit are to 1) find out what happened, or 2) gain info that informs a change in personnel or policies.

I think we pretty much know what happened:  lots of money was wasted and lots of money is gone due to the Bitcoin price drop.
The people are gone and the procedures already changed.  So I'm not sure what new info an audit might give.  But if someone wants to do one I'll support it.

[tomothy]

I don't think the part of tomothy's question in bold is answered properly.

So, part of your mission is "Fostering Core Development", but you won't outright support Core on their approach for the block size debate? How can this be?

Do you plan to support the other teams like XT or BU then?

And "Gavin no longer receives a salary from the Bitcoin Foundation"... what does that mean? Is he no longer chief scientist?

To put it another way: If someone supports The Bitcoin Foundation in any way, what are they supporting?


Best Regards


Oh, and thanks to tomothy for bringing something meaningful into this.

This is a draft mission statement,  the specific reason it is listed as a draft and out for comment is to answer questions like this.

My thought is that, since we have members like Gavin, Garzik, Peter Todd and companies from various sides of the discussion that working to be neutral and improve communication and consensus is valuable.   If you think the foundation should take a solid stand on the blocksize debate, then that is very worthy of discussion.  It's up to the members to convey this to the board and the board to determine how they best represent those members.

Yes, Gavin is still Chief Scientist, he is not paid, he is a volunteer just like all other roles (save two part time admin roles)

Thanks for the clarification. I don't really see a point in the foundation bossing about in tech questions, but the block size debate has created a schism of sorts. I guess what I'm really curious about is if you are solely committed to supporting the Core devs or if you'll consider supporting efforts or talented individuals from teams working on other implementations in the future? Is your neutral line to be read as an affirmative to supporting other implementations or do you see TBF bound to Core in a way that makes this unlikely? Is this up for debate as well?

Best Regards

I guess, depending on the vision of TBF, does it make sense to have negative members with given goals of undermining BTC, i.e., Gavin Vs. Todd, etc etc.? Who's negative? Well, it depends on your view of bitcoin. Assuming TBF seeks to provide a neutral avenue seeking to facilitate communication and transparency concerning Bitcoin, how will this be done? My understanding is some of the current arguments surrounding blocksize argue that doing nothing, or, inaction, constitutes a position. What about RBF/LN? Good, bad, indifferent? So besides helping host/produce Devcore, what role is TBF playing to seek a middle ground? If it is not doing anything, is that in the best interest of Bitcoin? Is it better to stay silent than participate? Will community letters be drafted outlining the various conflicting party interests in whatever ongoing issue/debate exists at the time and to provide a layman's understanding of outstanding issues?

It seems evident that this blocksize debate is not the first divisive issue that bitcoin will face in the near or distant future. I think it was critically helpful for one of the community members to poll various mining entities concerning their position about the blocksize, but this took place without any participation from TBF and was done in an unofficial capacity. I recognize TBF is significantly underfunded, but polls and statistics  can help provide an overview of the landscape. I guess the next question, naturally leads itself to, whether TBF can maintain a position of neutrality without damaging the system it tries to Shepard. I recognize that these are tough issues and are exacerbated by insufficient funding and there is no simple answer that will please everyone. However, Bitcoin has been recognized as a threat to current industry standards and their are well funded strategic initiatives set to mitigate bitcoin to the past and they are gaining momentum while bitcoin stagnates.

Ultimately I think TBF faces a liquidity/funding crisis like many entities in the bitcoin space due to the usd/btc price decline which can only be addressed by TBF drawing a line in the sand concerning an overall bitcoin use case. I.E., if you are courting Wall Street you will have different supporters than if you are supporting more of a crypto/libertarian viewpoint. I think bitcoin faces a tipping point where you can no longer please every party. TBF had been viewed as a sane and guiding hand navigating the murky bitcoin waters and that voice has fallen silent. When TBF speaks again, who will it's target audience be. I think ultimately, the interests of miners, users, and exchanges, should dictate the course of Bitcoin and developers help facilitate whatever goal that should be.  At the same time, the interests of these participants do not always align and opinions are influenced based on their geographic location.

I realize I've gone on a tangent but hopefully provided enough solid information to continue a healthy dialogue. I think it is critically important to know who TBF represents, and who the intended target of 'their voice/message' is intended for (and please don't say the bitcoin community or the users, that's a cop'out.)

(another edit, p.s. I concur with Bruce that the audit seems superfluous and a waste of resources. It's clearly evident that TBF is broke. It's more important to understand what the plan is moving forward I think it could be more beneficial to see an updated/current business plan and mtd/ytd balance/income statements to show donations/cash flow. I mean honestly, is this a Gox issue where people send a few donations and a day later TBF disbands? It sounds like based on current liabilities, sustainability is clearly a pressing issue. Additionally, I recognize that various members purchased lifetime memberships, but, an update on which of those entities continues to provide donations to TBF could also be beneficial to show and explore hidden motivations. I apologize if this information already exists, there's a lot to digest in BTC space.)

[BruceFenton]

I guess, depending on the vision of TBF, does it make sense to have negative members with given goals of undermining BTC, i.e., Gavin Vs. Todd, etc etc.? Who's negative? Well, it depends on your view of bitcoin. Assuming TBF seeks to provide a neutral avenue seeking to facilitate communication and transparency concerning Bitcoin, how will this be done? My understanding is some of the current arguments surrounding blocksize argue that doing nothing, or, inaction, constitutes a position. What about RBF/LN? Good, bad, indifferent? So besides helping host/produce Devcore, what role is TBF playing to seek a middle ground? If it is not doing anything, is that in the best interest of Bitcoin? Is it better to stay silent than participate? Will community letters be drafted outlining the various conflicting party interests in whatever ongoing issue/debate exists at the time and to provide a layman's understanding of outstanding issues?

It seems evident that this blocksize debate is not the first divisive issue that bitcoin will face in the near or distant future. I think it was critically helpful for one of the community members to poll various mining entities concerning their position about the blocksize, but this took place without any participation from TBF and was done in an unofficial capacity. I recognize TBF is significantly underfunded, but polls and statistics  can help provide an overview of the landscape. I guess the next question, naturally leads itself to, whether TBF can maintain a position of neutrality without damaging the system it tries to Shepard. I recognize that these are tough issues and are exacerbated by insufficient funding and there is no simple answer that will please everyone. However, Bitcoin has been recognized as a threat to current industry standards and their are well funded strategic initiatives set to mitigate bitcoin to the past and they are gaining momentum while bitcoin stagnates.

Ultimately I think TBF faces a liquidity/funding crisis like many entities in the bitcoin space due to the usd/btc price decline which can only be addressed by TBF drawing a line in the sand concerning an overall bitcoin use case. I.E., if you are courting Wall Street you will have different supporters than if you are supporting more of a crypto/libertarian viewpoint. I think bitcoin faces a tipping point where you can no longer please every party. TBF had been viewed as a sane and guiding hand navigating the murky bitcoin waters and that voice has fallen silent. When TBF speaks again, who will it's target audience be. I think ultimately, the interests of miners, users, and exchanges, should dictate the course of Bitcoin and developers help facilitate whatever goal that should be.  At the same time, the interests of these participants do not always align and opinions are influenced based on their geographic location.

I realize I've gone on a tangent but hopefully provided enough solid information to continue a healthy dialogue. I think it is critically important to know who TBF represents, and who the intended target of 'their voice/message' is intended for (and please don't say the bitcoin community or the users, that's a cop'out.)

(another edit, p.s. I concur with Bruce that the audit seems superfluous and a waste of resources. It's clearly evident that TBF is broke. It's more important to understand what the plan is moving forward I think it could be more beneficial to see an updated/current business plan and mtd/ytd balance/income statements to show donations/cash flow. I mean honestly, is this a Gox issue where people send a few donations and a day later TBF disbands? It sounds like based on current liabilities, sustainability is clearly a pressing issue. Additionally, I recognize that various members purchased lifetime memberships, but, an update on which of those entities continues to provide donations to TBF could also be beneficial to show and explore hidden motivations. I apologize if this information already exists, there's a lot to digest in BTC space.)

Thanks.  It would be great to look at ideas on how to do this.  BTW I don't think either Peter or Gavin have a goal of undermining Bitcoin.  I think they both, and the other major voices, want to help Bitcoin but just disagree on the best way forward.

[franky1]

I think we pretty much know what happened:  lots of money was wasted and lots of money is gone due to the Bitcoin price drop.
The people are gone and the procedures already changed.  So I'm not sure what new info an audit might give.  But if someone wants to do one I'll support it.

im sorry but if TBF plan that prices in april '13 to sepember '13 were ~$120 .. then in october, november. december TBF would be spending LESS bitcoin as the price went up. meaning they got to keep more bitcoin.
and if things were bought using any dollar bank accounts.. there would be no impact. EG a conference in july being $8000. or in november, is still $8000

and so even in january 2014 bitcoin was still higher than previous year so any bitcoin spending would be less than the previous year.

its my thought that its not the 'bitcoin drop' thats to blame but more so that funds were probably stored in Gox.. and just vanished into kerpeles brain wallet. as it make no logical sense that a drop in bitcoin price would cost more bitcoins compared to the bitcoin saving during the price rise and ultimately high average bitcoin price compared to previous year..

[BruceFenton]

im sorry but if TBF plan that prices in april '13 to sepember '13 were ~$120 .. then in october, november. december TBF would be spending LESS bitcoin as the price went up. meaning they got to keep more bitcoin.
and if things were bought using any dollar bank accounts.. there would be no impact. EG a conference in july being $8000. or in november, is still $8000

and so even in january 2014 bitcoin was still higher than previous year so any bitcoin spending would be less than the previous year.

its my thought that its not the 'bitcoin drop' thats to blame but more so that funds were probably stored in Gox.. and just vanished into kerpeles brain wallet. as it make no logical sense that a drop in bitcoin price would cost more bitcoins compared to the bitcoin saving during the price rise and ultimately high average bitcoin price compared to previous year..

What makes you think they had a budget based on 2013?

From the data in the original post it seems that they just spent like crazy and Bitcoin went down.

This 2014 tax return accounts for a loss from $4.6 million to $330k --- that's pretty bad.   I don't think they had any Gox coins or they would have lost even more.

We can easily track around $4.3 million in losses for 2014 by simply looking at spending and Bitcoin price decline.   

[franky1]

What makes you think they had a budget based on 2013?

From the data in the original post it seems that they just spent like crazy and Bitcoin went down.

This 2014 tax return accounts for a loss from $4.6 million to $330k --- that's pretty bad.   I don't think they had any Gox coins or they would have lost even more.

We can easily track around $4.3 million in losses for 2014 by simply looking at spending and Bitcoin price decline.  

well if everyone had to pay a renewel fee in december.. then yeah its worth less in january's price dump.. but if people paid in april-september '13 then TBF would be better off in February..

EG
annual membership= $25
so april '13 =0.21btc
even into september '13=0.21btc

now lets say, in december if TBF needed to buy something for $25 they just needed 0.025btc (keeping 0.185btc)
or if they didnt spend in december but spent in february'14 they would only need to cash out 0.1btc or less dependent on that day.. (keeping 0.11btc)

[bhodson]

Something fishy going on with the members. 

Have there been any dishonest members on the board?

[BruceFenton]

well if everyone had to pay a renewel fee in december.. then yeah its worth less in january's price dump.. but if people paid in april-september '13 then TBF would be better off in February..

EG
annual membership= $25
so april '13 =0.21btc
even into september '13=0.21btc

now lets say, in december if TBF needed to buy something for $25 they just needed 0.025btc (keeping 0.185btc)
or if they didnt spend in december but spent in february'14 they would only need to cash out 0.1btc or less dependent on that day.. (keeping 0.11btc)

The way the return reads is that they had $4.6 million at the beginning of the year 2014 and they had $350k or so at the end of the year.

4-5 months later when I volunteered, that $350k had dwindled to $70k with outstanding obligations.

I think those numbers are pretty bad.

The $4.3 million drop includes both the spending and the price drop for the whole year.  I'm sure for some months Bitcoin was a bit higher or lower - but overall, by year end they had total value of $4.3 million less than they started with, definitely a lot less cash and a lot less coins.

[Spoetnik]

Sad.. sooo sad.
800k for a Bitcoin meeting ? (a circle jerk meeting fro Crypto nerds)

These fuckers blew through the cash and should be fired simple.

Reminds me of a story i heard in my town about an announcement by City Counsel
they announced spending on a project was stalled because of the conversion of CAN to USD
it was cheaper for them to wait until the US dollar goes up etc.
The same concept can and should be applied in the Crypto world with financing.
Irresponsibly throwing money around like an idiot is dumb.

If these guys were held accountable and had to be re-elected they woudl not be brought back.

We need max terms for the Foundation and a slashing of earnings big time.
No reason these pricks need to drive a Ferrari to work.

[BruceFenton]

C'mon now, there is no one on the board who has been convicted of stealing, fraud, money laundering or anything similar.

Also, no one on the board has made a penny or accepted a penny from the foundation....not even travel reimbursement (other than Jim Harper who recently resigned).  Executive Director is also a volunteer spot and only reimbursed for out of pocket costs.

The bad spending decisions were made by people no longer there.

[BruceFenton]

Sad.. sooo sad.
800k for a Bitcoin meeting ? (a circle jerk meeting fro Crypto nerds)

These fuckers blew through the cash and should be fired simple.

Trying to make it clear:  the people who made these spending decisions are no longer there.

[Bitcoinpro]

C'mon now, there is no one on the board who has been convicted of stealing, fraud, money laundering or anything similar.

Also, no one on the board has made a penny or accepted a penny from the foundation....not even travel reimbursement (other than Jim Harper who recently resigned).  Executive Director is also a volunteer spot and only reimbursed for out of pocket costs.

The bad spending decisions were made by people no longer there.

Liar liar pants on fire,

The Emporer (or shall we say D** S***) has lost his clothes and dances around like a crazy retard just released

from a mental institution!

[rizzlarolla]

Topic: Bitcoin Foundation: Where on Earth Did all the Money Go?

BF "I do remain skeptical of the value of an audit."

On a personal level thats fine,
But as BF chair, or whatever, I would like to see your default position as - wanting an audit for transparency-
Even if you still add, (due to lack of finance) "provided someone can lead it and do the work involved and/ or support the costs of one."

BF "2) ridiculously wasteful and reckless spending"

This is not too far from saying misappropriation and fraud/theft.
(which I am not saying is the case)
But dont you NEED to know. I kind of do.
Would ex board members fund this audit possibly? (It would save a lot of speculation/mudslinging)

BF "I have not been presented any evidence of any theft, criminal act or similar wrongdoing but would be *happy to pay a bounty of at least 10%* for anyone with information and evidence of any such act leading to recovery of any funds which were misappropriated or stolen."

And your are unlikely to be presented with *evidence* without an audit?
How about instead of *happy to pay a bounty of at least 10%*, put it (?) into the audit fund to get it started?


I wont go on about Brock Pierce either, except to say there are other allegations against him also.
($200k and stock stolen. KNC miner debacle. other?)

Not sure what is on topic here now!

Edit. BF being Bruce fenton, not bitcoin foundation. didn't spot that!

[rizzlarolla]

Wow... 17 pages of rehashing up old topics and trolling! It does bring up some interesting ethical dilemmas like how does one determine Age of Consent. Fun Fact - The legal age of consent was 12 in The Vatican City up until 2013 where it changed to 14 for married women.....disgusting.

 Cody Wilson is interested to bring transparency to the Bitcoin Foundation and move this issue forward . Bruce, I sent you an IM.

 

Does that mean all except you and Bruce are trolling and rehashing?
Was that irony/sarcasm?

I am trying to be productive here.
Is that not coming across?

I haven't spammed Bruces' message box.


Edit, to save me spamming.   vvv (Response to below) vvv  Thank you BitUsher I understand. sorry, I was a bit snappy to you.

[Gleb Gamow]

I locked my other thread on the subject and will be penning a formal apology to Bruce, with hoping to speak with him on the phone tomorrow.

Quote from the locked thread:

Gleb, this is really terribly sad.

You've now gone back to a 1998 ListServe mailing list about the writing of Shakespeare in an attempt to tarnish my name?

Yes, the first post is me.  Please read carefully and see that the second post not me but was a reply by another person.  Correct, I do not have ties to Canada and did not even have any kids until a decade after this post.   Think also: you know my age from your research.  I was 26 years old in 1998.  Do you think I'd have a daughter living on her own that I'd go visit?

Once again you have accused me of dishonesty and once again your claim has been proven false.


Please, I don't know what kind of person you are, but I have some hope that you are honorable.   Give it a a rest, appologize if you see fit.   Call me and we can speak by phone or perhaps together we can work to catch an actual bad apple.  You do nothing for yourself, this board or Bitcoin by continuing to increasingly grasp at demons that are not there.

I'm going to do my best to walk away from this now.

Bruce, I tried to warn you. Bruno has a history of knowingly making false accusations. You're lucky you haven't been accused of child rape yet. He still can, and it won't be surprising in the least if he does.

Don't talk to Bruno, on the phone or otherwise. It's a mistake to give this lunatic any of what he desires most: attention.

But if you must, please record the conversation and post it. I vaguely remember that Bruno made some accusations against a hardware mining company and then travelled to see them. While he was there they gave him a "free" miner in exchange for making a video in their office saying how wrong he was about the mining company and what good people they were. It was hilarious to watch that lying lunatic lowlife grovel. I wish I'd saved that video. It was funnier than the pictures of him at a Bitcoin conference in a tutu giving a mumbling disjointed interview to letstalkbitcoin.

Someday it might look very bad that the Bitcoin community continued to entertain this delusional attention-seeking fuckface for so long.

I'm sure that my noble efforts have enriched you myriad ways while I've no doubt inadvertently stepped on your toes directly or indirectly while you - perhaps - involved yourself in some nefarious activity, hence the ONLY fuckin' reason you have the red-ass toward me.

If Joshua Zipkin removed the YouTube video mentioned, I have a couple that I'll be more than happy to upload. And, when I left Joshua's office after the filming of said video, upon getting into a hotel room I immediately denounced his lyin' piece of shit ass and continued to do so to this very day.

If you recall, Joshua Zipkin is on record on trying to get a contract on me to burn down my house with ALL the other occupants inside. The local police in PA tried for over a week to question Joshua at his Mason Lounge office, but to no available, calling me each day to keep me abreast. That's the mentally unstable individual and not I.

The unfortunate Patrick episode on my part (apology sent) stemmed from a Reddit post he penned pertaining to those (was directly mostly at me) asking hard question as being lunatics (paraphrased), whereupon I proceeded to verify his assessment of us by calling him a pedo et al. That episode escalated when I, among others, was pressing for proof of KnC actually paying a $100K membership fee to become a platinum member JUST prior to an infamous election, proof I may add has yet to be proved to this very day.

All that said, go fuck yourself before I slap the shit outta you with my eggnog enema bag.

[Gleb Gamow]

I vaguely remember that Bruno made some accusations against a hardware mining company and then travelled to see them. While he was there they gave him a "free" miner in exchange for making a video in their office saying how wrong he was about the mining company and what good people they were. It was hilarious to watch that lying lunatic lowlife grovel.

but...

look what happened to butterfly labs...... so he wasnt that far off

Yeah, and I guess the FBI has a habit of gleaning relevant information from mentally unstable individuals via hour-long phone conversations with their blockchain forensics dude picking the brain of said mental dude.

Translated: I'm in this space helping you dudes out as much as possible, with periodically fucking up due to being at bat more than my fair share of times, sometimes apologizing for my missteps of which Bruce Fenton is now due such, publicly and by phone unless, that is, he won't take my call because an anon dude posted me's psycho.

[Gleb Gamow]

I vaguely remember that Bruno made some accusations against a hardware mining company and then travelled to see them. While he was there they gave him a "free" miner in exchange for making a video in their office saying how wrong he was about the mining company and what good people they were. It was hilarious to watch that lying lunatic lowlife grovel.

but...

look what happened to butterfly labs...... so he wasnt that far off

It's not surprising that occasionally Bruno says something that's true. He never shuts the fuck up, so he's bound to say something true every once in a while. Broken clock theory.

I can't imagine anyone seriously denying Bruno is mentally ill. Well, Bruno sort of denies it, but he also says he fucks baby goats or something. He's not exactly a credible witness.

My main point is that it's way, way past time for Bitcoiners to slowly walk away from this sad old man who accomplished nothing with his life but desparately wants to be seen as someone important.

Note to self: Dox the living shit outta this dude.

Dude, I've been giving you the benefit of doubt till now. Obviously, you have a fuckin' issue with me that won't end, thus I WILL research as to why such is the case and publish my findings. Well played, asshole!

[Gleb Gamow]

Seriously, it is worth a watch as one of the worst pieces of film ever produced.

I'm not Brock's defender, I don't really have time to watch a tv program from a long time ago to judge if it was low production quality, creepy etc.  For context, I thought he was 17-19 years old or something at this time.

My only comment was that it seemed that the earlier allegations against him were not backed up by any legal conviction, investigation or trial...it doesn't seem there was one.  It also seems that some accusations were made not against him but against a colleague / friend Bryan Singer.  From the press it seems those accusations against Singer were false.

If anyone has actual criminal records, guilty convictions or trial records about him related to this accusation and brings them forward then I would not support him.   I think if such a thing existed it would have been found.   He has a lot of Bitcoin companies who've worked with him and presumably have researched him beforehand.

I'm going to try not to discuss accusations about Brock or actions of others I had nothing to do with.

I've spoken with Brock on the phone than met him in person, sorta coming around to his storyline. I'm sure he'll confirm that I'm not some sort of psycho as would others that have met me in person.

[Gleb Gamow]

I gladly accept Bruno's apology.

Everyone gets hot under the collar and in a discussion with emotion around it and bad characters involved.

It's natural to want to assume the worst about someone.  He went down a path of attack but then had the wisdom and logic to step back objectively and see that there was not as much to attack as he might have thought.

Dude, I've yet to pen the formally apology, but it's forthcoming, but thanks anyway, bud.