Closed

[The_Duke]

The problem with decentralization and extreme resiliency is that it is EXPENSIVE.

No its not. There's plenty of open source project that have excellent security track records where no one gets paid. Also, paying gavin does not make this project more secure, it makes it LESS secure, because it creates dependencies, centralization and it gives influence through a small amount of companies that have a financial interest for themselves rather than towards the community.

[1713519440]

1713519440

[1713519440]

1713519440

[1713519440]

1713519440

[kiba]

No its not. There's plenty of open source project that have excellent security track records where no one gets paid.

Security is an easier problem to tackle in an open source project, sufficiently managed. That's not to say decentralization don't have costs. It would be a lot more efficient if we just use a group of servers managed by a few trustworthy individuals, but it's also quite vunerable to takedown by nefarious organizations. That's why bitcoin exists. Arguably, you could say bitcoin is a lot cheaper than other approaches, but you also have take into mind the mining rigs that's popping up all over the planet.

And a lot of people really don't like how bitcoin operates because it is blatantly inefficient in a lot of way.

Also, paying gavin does not make this project more secure, it makes it LESS secure, because it creates dependencies, centralization and it gives influence through a small amount of companies that have a financial interest for themselves rather than towards the community.

  You can join the Bitcoin foundation as an individual member, have more corporations join it, etc.

[The_Duke]

No its not. There's plenty of open source project that have excellent security track records where no one gets paid.

Security is an easier problem to tackle in an open source project, sufficiently managed. That's not to say decentralization don't have costs.

These same open source projects are also completely decentralized, some having thousands of developers from all over the world and none are getting paid.
The whole bitcoinfoundation thing has made it less likely that the development will be sustainable, open and decentralized. If I were a developer working on open source projects and perhaps interested in joining another (which I happen to be, heh) I would think twice before joining one where the "lead dev" is getting paid by an organisation that is (partly) ran by some companies that have a financial gain from his work. It will limit freedom, and it is not very open-spirited.

You can join the Bitcoin foundation as an individual member, have more corporations join it, etc.

"We set up something flawed, and if you don't like the flaws you can join it and make it better".

 

[kiba]

These same open source projects are also completely decentralized, some having thousands of developers from all over the world and none are getting paid.

Don't give me that crap. People are paid to work on linux, firefox, apache, and any number of large open soruce projects. In fact, some projects are responsible for the livelihood of developers, such as ruby on rails.

You could say that open source spawn commercial activity. Why shouldn't it be the same with bitcoin, in which their whole points is to support commercial activity!?

The whole bitcoinfoundation thing has made it less likely that the development will be sustainable, open and decentralized. If I were a developer working on open source projects and perhaps interested in joining another (which I happen to be, heh) I would think twice before joining one where the "lead dev" is getting paid by an organisation that is (partly) ran by some companies that have a financial gain from his work. It will limit freedom, and it is not very open-spirited.

You think those linux foundation members are doing nefarious things? I am sure that they are getting some "financial gains" from funding Linus' works.

"We set up something flawed, and if you don't like the flaws you can join it and make it better".

 

If you want to fix under-representation in an organization, you fix it by joining it as a member so that you are represented.

[The_Duke]

These same open source projects are also completely decentralized, some having thousands of developers from all over the world and none are getting paid.

Don't give me that crap. People are paid to work on linux, firefox, apache, and any number of large open soruce projects. In fact, some projects are responsible for the livelihood of developers, such as ruby on rails.

I also get paid to work on one open source project. But I get paid by a company (for which I also do other activities), who want someone to defend their interests in this project. That's all open and transparent.
That is very different from a foundation paying a dev, with this foundation being paid by "members", whose main contributors and board members happen to be... companies that have an interest in the development.
It is not open and tranaparent anymore. Is gavin making code that he wants to make? If he making code that the foundation wants him to make? Is he making code that a specific part of the board of the foundation wants him to make?

Why shouldn't it be the same with bitcoin, in which their whole points is to support commercial activity!?

Is it? None of the foundations three "missions" are aimed at that though. Not officially at least. I agree that unofficially they *will* be aimed at that of course. And whose commercial activities are they likely to support best you think? Yours? Mine? Or maybe MtGox's? And Bitinstant's?

You think those linux foundation members are doing nefarious things? I am sure that they are getting some "financial gains" from funding Linus' works.

I don't know. I'm not involved in it. But if I wanted to be involved in it, I'd first check to make sure no companies that have a financial gain (or loss) depending on the direction linux is headed are paying its core devs through the foundation while being in the board if this foundation themselves.

If you want to fix under-representation in an organization, you fix it by joining it as a member so that you are represented.

If you want an organization that is not under-represented in some areas, then set it up in a way that supports and stimulates that.

[MPOE-PR]

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/support

So I was looking over this site, they seem pretty big, I was wondering what are the main benefits of being part of this foundation?

Even as an individual, is it worth it? Seems pretty pricey as well.

If anyone is part of it, would be great if you can give some insight about it.

The pricey part is trying to be MPEx. It doesn't work in their case because they don't actually provide any value for the price. Being part of the exclusive club of kids who can trade BTC securities is one thing, being part of the exclusive club of kids that sit around being part of the exclusive club of kids is nothing at all.

The seeming big part is unexplainable. They don't seem anything other than very small, as best I can determine.

It's a circumvoluted way for a couple of BTC groups to pay Gavin's salary without outright starting a war with the miners (who will in the future be hiring their own dev teams, forking the project and carrying on). This isn't even bad, mind you, the more kingdoms warring the more stable the continent, and in the particular the weaker party organizing itself first holds promises for future stability.

[phelix]

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/support

So I was looking over this site, they seem pretty big, I was wondering what are the main benefits of being part of this foundation?

Even as an individual, is it worth it? Seems pretty pricey as well.

If anyone is part of it, would be great if you can give some insight about it.

I would expect them to be a public voice for bitcoin.

What disappointed me was that they missed the opportunity of a press release for bitcoin's fourth birthday.