Should Peter Vessenes resign as the Executive Director for Bitcoin Foundation ?

[k99]

Lets revisit some of Gavins original ideas about the foundation:

I said:

To get the conversation started, here are some functions I think a Bitcoin Foundation could perform:

• Interact with the legal system, where a centralized entity is needed: for example, to hold the Bitcoin trademark, own/control the bitcoin.org domain name, etc.
  
• Act as a central library for accurate information about Bitcoin, so journalists and policymakers have an 'official' place to learn about Bitcoin.
  
• Collect donations to fund infrastructure necessary for Bitcoin's growth (organize regular developers' conferences or get-togethers maybe? pay for development of cross-implementation testing tools? pay core developers' salaries? create a certification/testing program for Bitcoin implementations? create a central clearinghouse for information about legal issues surrounding Bitcoin across the world?)
  

I like decentralized approaches, because failures are less catastrophic and because I think smaller, focused organizations are more effective than big, try-to-be-everything-to-everybody organizations.

So I'm happy that the Cryptocurrency Legal Advocacy Group is working on legal issues, starting with figuring out what the issues are.

And I'm happy that LoveBitcoins have been starting PR/Marketing efforts for Bitcoin.

Today I created the Bitcoin Testing Project to tackle some infrastructure needs that I think are being ignored (rigorous quality assurance / testing):
   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=80019.0

I really like the idea of small decentralized independent groups instead of a central foundation.
Maybe a central foundation could server more as an umbrella for these task forces.
One of Gavins initial points was the payment of the core developers. It is now covered by the foundation but could be better handled from a more open and democratic structure.
Why not create a project where any bitcoiners can contribute with donations to the core dev team to get the independence back?
It would be really a shame if the community could not collect the money needed for salary and other development costs. Many people have already made a fortune with bitcoins so lets share some of that!

[1715081192]

1715081192

[1715081192]

1715081192

[1715081192]

1715081192

[1715081192]

1715081192

[1715081192]

1715081192

[1715081192]

1715081192

[Herodes]

Many people have already made a fortune with bitcoins so lets share some of that!

On a sidenote, some have profited, but for someone to profit, someone else must lose out. The only ones who are 'guaranteed' to turn a profit are the ones facilitating exchange services. But Bitcoin in itself has a larger value than only it's exchange rate against the $, and I'm sure most users would not object contributing to building and maintaining the bitcoin infrastructure.

[FreeBit]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=176921.0

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/bitcoin_anarchy_in_need_of_some_zTFr06G6IWEWYp3OSvJ99L


“We’d be happy to be regulated,” said Vessenes, who also is with the Bitcoin Foundation, an organizing body. “There is no self-regulatory organization for these. It’s pre-regulated right now, but we’re not anti-regulation.”


Who is this guy, flying to Japan, negotiating MtGox into giving up their US and Canadian customer base, and then he goes straight into bed with the authorities, slowly pulling us with the legs into exact the same broken system we're intending to leave ?

Submissive/opportunistic scum (feel free to add morally degenerated) ...?

What other interpration of “We’d be happy to be regulated,” is possible? Oh, he is a cool business man, doing the Coinlab-thing (I really like the website design and the idea of renting/providing computation power). So it's tactical submissivness for opportunistic/idealistic reasons. This is how they teach you (in school/home/...) to deal reasonable and nice with the more and more enlarging monster of govermental  tyranny and other bullies.

[k99]

@ Herodes: I was referring more to the community people who are really intereseted in bitcoin, not the average user.

And I think we would be enough to contribute a relative small amount to an idea which helps to protect independence.
Look at all the crowd funding projects. Nobody can say that this concept is not working already!

I do not know how much budget is needed for the core development team.
To get a rough estimation we could have a look to the foundation. What is the budget it has gathered yet.  

Let´s sum up what the foundation gets in from the membership fees:
115 lifetime members 115 x 1.9 BTC = 218,5 BTC
211 annual members 211 x 0.19 BTC = 40,09 BTC
2 platinium members: 2x 758.4 BTC = 1516.8 BTC
7 silver members (between 7.6 and 37.9 BTC):
    min: 7x 7.6 BTC = 53.2 BTC
    max: 7x 37.9 BTC = 265.3 BTC

So the overall budget in the foundation would be between: 1828,59 and 2040,69 BTC.
Here you see also the problem that 2 companies fund between 74% and 83% of the budget!
That is for sure not a good situation!

I would like to see it funded in a more decentralized manner.
How would it look without the company funds?
So if you roughly count with 2000 BTC and 300 individual members it would be about 6,6 BTC per member. That does not sound an amount which would be impossible to contribute. I assume there would be more members contributing if the idea is clear and straight.

I wanted to join the foundation, but after reading more about it I was getting more and more sceptical.
If there would be a clearly defined donation page where the members are supporting only the technical development without all the complexity of the politics, I think it would be easier for people to contribute.
Of course the amount anyone contribute could be flexible and open, so anyone can contribute to his personal possibilities.

[odolvlobo]

Because if they just fight the regulation the exchanges will mostly get shut down and you will have no exchanges.  There is really no other position to take given the situation.

There is a big difference between "we’d be happy to be regulated" and "we concede that some amount of regulation in inevitable".

Mr. Vessenes welcomes regulation because he believes that he is in a position where regulation will give him a competitive advantage. No one can deny that financial regulation has become a major subsidy for the too-big-to-fail-banks. Mr. Vessenes is looking for a similar subsidy through regulation of bitcoin.

[cryptoanarchist]

“We’d be happy to be regulated,” said Vessenes, who also is with the Bitcoin Foundation, an organizing body. “There is no self-regulatory organization for these. It’s pre-regulated right now, but we’re not anti-regulation.”

What a douche.

[Herodes]

“We’d be happy to be regulated,” said Vessenes, who also is with the Bitcoin Foundation, an organizing body. “There is no self-regulatory organization for these. It’s pre-regulated right now, but we’re not anti-regulation.”

What a douche.

In all fairness I agree with the statement above. I've also been misquoted in the media, I won't go into specifics and it's about 20 years ago, but I said something to the extent of, if I reach a certain target, I will be happy. They managed to print that unless I hit that certain target, I would be unhappy. I never said that.  Not that it was technically completely wrong, but I would've not have phrased it that way. So yes, the media is always not very accurate.

If we look at reality though, the fiat side of things must adhere to current rules and regulations in the jurisdiction where an exchange resides, if not, there naturally will be a whole lot of problems cropping up. If bitcoin itself is going to be regulated though, then I think we're looking into a fork, or people moving to alt-coins.

[Chakraball]

Because if they just fight the regulation the exchanges will mostly get shut down and you will have no exchanges.  There is really no other position to take given the situation.

There is a big difference between "we’d be happy to be regulated" and "we concede that some amount of regulation in inevitable".

Mr. Vessenes welcomes regulation because he believes that he is in a position where regulation will give him a competitive advantage. No one can deny that financial regulation has become a major subsidy for the too-big-to-fail-banks. Mr. Vessenes is looking for a similar subsidy through regulation of bitcoin.

That is a quote from a NY Post article, it is not an official policy document.  Many quotes you read in news stories are taken out of context or wrong.  In this case it looks like an off-hand  comment.

In any case the topic is if he should resign.  His Reddit comments say he will not be both a Board member and Exec Director for long (most organizations like this have separation) but he isn't going to quit completely since he started the thing in the first place.

Gavin Andresen

over the last six months or so it has become obvious to me that the rest of the world isn't set up to interact with a radically decentralized system like Bitcoin, and I think forming a not-for-profit organization will be a positive step towards Bitcoin's long-term success.

I'm posting this to see if there is a consensus on what a Bitcoin Foundation should be.

Gavin gave the impression that the Foundation was his idea which, as lead developer was quite acceptable to most of the community. One of the points he stated in that post was this "for example, to hold the Bitcoin trademark, own/control the bitcoin.org domain name, etc." when in fact Peter Vessenes had registered the domain almost twelve months earlier.

[jgarzik]

Some call it conspiracy theory, Gavin called it "tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy-mongering"

I don't know Gavin personally, but I know of a lot of people that would give up some liberty and independence for a steady paycheck. Vessenes provides that for him.

And what better method than cornering the market is there than approaching the biggest player and 'take over' their business ?

We must be incredibly naive if we think that major business players enter the market for any other reason that serving their own business interests. I don't say that all businesses are purely motivated by financial gains, but take that element away, and most players will obviously withdraw from the scene.

As you know from other threads, I've agreed with some of your other criticisms, but this insinuation is pure bunk.

Trade groups like the Linux Foundation, upon which BF was modeled, are formed precisely because they are a vendor neutral, third party way to support key open source developers that are essentially working for the entire community.  Linus Torvalds is paid by the Linux Foundation, so that Intel, AMD, Red Hat, Canonical and other competitors do not need to worry about paying him directly -- with the conflict-of-interest that would imply.

All available evidence shows Gavin, Peter V and BF are acting similarly, with zero evidence to the contrary.

If there is a better, sustainable, more neutral way to fund Gavin or infrastructure projects, we are all open to that.

Being funded by a neutral trade group frees developers to focus on bitcoin's needs full time, without distraction.

[xavier]

Look guys. If you don't like it, there's a pretty simple solution. Just sell Bitcoin and buy Litecoin. Then everyone can return to talking about the serious technical issues and prospects for virtual currencies rather than continuously worrying about this silly foundation that thinks its important, but will actually in time be proved irrelevant.

IMO, when people are doing things that are obviously stupid, it's easier just to let them continue and eventually self destruct, rather than to waste your own time trying to change them.

[odolvlobo]

Look guys. If you don't like it, there's a pretty simple solution. Just sell Bitcoin and buy Litecoin. Then everyone can return to talking about the serious technical issues and prospects for virtual currencies rather than continuously worrying about this silly foundation that thinks its important, but will actually in time be proved irrelevant.

IMO, when people are doing things that are obviously stupid, it's easier just to let them continue and eventually self destruct, rather than to waste your own time trying to change them.

In other words, "if you don't like it, leave". That's a pretty stupid piece of advice. No offense.

[Herodes]

If there is a better, sustainable, more neutral way to fund Gavin or infrastructure projects, we are all open to that.

Being funded by a neutral trade group frees developers to focus on bitcoin's needs full time, without distraction.

I've always respected your opinions jgarzik.

There's already fees paid for sending bitcoins, what if there was added a certain amount as a dev-fee. A pretty tiny amount pr. transaction, but enough that during one year it would've collected enough btc to fund one or more devs working on Bitcoin, would that be possible ? If not, perhaps showing a line in the official client letting people know they can contribute to the continued success of Bitcoin, almost like Wikipedia does, could that be an option ?

Also, we all know that the founder of bitcoin was/is anonymous, Gavin lashed out towards the 'Anonymous cowards' in this thread, which admittedly made me quite angry,and for a moment I thought, why should I care about Bitcoin and spend my time on it, with a Head Dev that's this ungrateful towards people that actually care about Bitcoin, but Gavin is just a human like the rest of us, and he becomes angry at times, he's no saint. And Bitcoin is greater than him, so even if he left Bitcoin or he continues to 'loose it' on the forums, Bitcoins as an idea and technology is larger than anyone involved in particular. There will always be someone else to take over, so even if Gavin is the Head Dev, he's nothing but an ordinary man, that can be replaced at any time.

Seeing as Vess doesn't even post on these forums, which I see some of you refer to as the 'cesspit' of bitcoin, I can't do anything but conclude that Vess don't care much, and that you feel you're part of an elitist club where others have no say, and esp. not the 'Anonymous Cowards'. Too bad then that Satoshi is among these 'Anonymous Cowards'.

The idea of Bitcoin is that of personal freedom and changing the current system. And Bitcoin is far more important than any single person taking part in it. If at one point, the US Govt. decides that Bitcoin is a tool of domestic terrorism, for instance following a terrorist act where it's found that Bitcoin was used to buy parts for a bomb, don't be surprised if some overreaching officials determines that all Bitcoin-devs needs to be brought in for questioning and even be detained, if the Govt. then decides to press charges for whatever reason, there's not much any single person can do with it, even if the charges will be dropped in the end, if will be a complete nightmare to go through.

For example Sven Olaf Kamphuis was recently arrested: http://krebsonsecurity.com/2013/04/dutchman-arrested-in-spamhaus-ddos/

It's not sure he had any actual involvement in the DDOS-attacks described, but he put his name out there for anyone to see and was very vocal about the whole issue, and as thus become an easy target when somebody needed to be arrested.

Satoshi, being it one man or one group, created Bitcoin - and he's to this day anonymous. I believe he saw his idea as a larger thing than himself. If we look at Assange, he's a big narcissist and egomaniac, and there's been a lot of internal unrest in his organization due to the way he run things, and as we can see he's now virtually a prisoner in London, living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. We could imagine Satoshi suffering the same fate at one point if he came forward.

In my opinion, ideas are more important than the people executing them, esp. when it has a large social impact and has the possibility to change existing structures. The idea that you need to register with your full name in the Bitcoin Foundation and pay a membership fee even to read their forum, speaks mountains for it being an elitist club with no intention of transparency. A lot of people sponsor them indirectly through doing business with all the businesses that have board-members in the foundation. The premium memberships paid by some companies to the foundation would not've been possible without the fees paid by users for using the services of these companies.

The 'trust us - we will only work to the benefit of Bitcoin'-attitude doesn't cut it. As we know power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If the people involved care about transparency and being a part of the community, they should involve the community more.

I have no reason to think Gavin is not a good man, wanting the best for bitcoin, but as time has showed through history, many projects have started with good intentions, and then there's battle's of power, and we're left with structures that we see in the current system that we're trying to battle: Closed systems where only a few decides what will really happen.

If the foundation really cared about bitcoin, it would seek to desentralize bitcoin trade, for instance by supporting the development of an open source trading platform that could then be used by anyone wanting to start their own exchange.

Lastly: I'm sure a lot of you are doing a great job, and that some of the criticism may seem unjust, but dismissing criticism entirely, or just frowning about it, is not a good thing. It's also Gavins choice to do interviews and being a public figure in the Bitcoin world. If he's chose to be anonymous like Satoshi, and chose to hide his identity, it wouldn't have been a problem for me. As I said earlier, an idea, a concept and a philosophy is far more important than the people executing it. And as such I think being 'anonymous', 'pseudo-anonymous' or putting your name out there is a personal choice. And as such, I don't think the people not putting out their 'real names' are 'Anonymous Cowards'. They might be 'anonymous' or 'pseudo-anonymous', but that doesn't imply that they're automatically cowards. They may be exactly the opposite, but they simply may have no desire to have their name out there on the Internet for everyone to peak at. For some people personal recognition, getting attention etc. is important, for some others it's not important at all. They work silently for a greater cause without expecting fame in return.

But the Foundation and everyone else involved in Bitcoin, should expect and welcome all criticism towards what they do. It means people are involved and interested, and I never saw that as a bad thing. However, there may always be some unwarranted criticism that's far out there that's quite different from constructive criticism, but intelligent people are able to see through that, and is able to ignore/briefly respond to the unjust criticism and then dicuss with the people that gives constructive crisicism. The attitude: "We're always right, and the others are idiots" is not a healthy attitude.

For instance, one of the things I like about MtGox, is that if you have an important query, you can actually go on irc and talk with Mark directly. Admittedly he's not always on, but if he's on and available, he will most often attend to the issues at hand. That's a direct line to the CEO of a company! How many other companies deliver the same opportunity ? Now, I realize that it's not feasible for all companies to do, as some companies are simply too big. But it certainly builds trust within the community.

As someone else in this thread mentioned: "I just want to be treated with respect, and be shown that you care". And that about sums it up. No matter how angry or unjust one thinks something is, having a major role within the Bitcoin ecosystem means that a lot of people look up to you. I kind of looked up to Gavin before his outburst as well. But in reality, we're all just humans with different positions within the ecosystem, and while some of us has a 'higher' position than others, that doesn't mean those people are 'worth more' or have the right to dismiss the criticism and input of others. The users of Bitcoin, which very often is very passionate about Bitcoin, is what makes the whole thing possible, and as such those in 'lead'-positions should be grateful that the users actually care, and not call them 'Anonymous cowards'. What I personally fear is that Bitcoin is starting to be run by big corporate entities that stop caring for it's users. Too many companies have become so big that it's not important to them to actually treat their users with respect and dignity.

That's all - thanks for listening.

[WikileaksDude]

If there is a better, sustainable, more neutral way to fund Gavin or infrastructure projects, we are all open to that.

Being funded by a neutral trade group frees developers to focus on bitcoin's needs full time, without distraction.

I've always respected your opinions jgarzik.

There's already fees paid for sending bitcoins, what if there was added a certain amount as a dev-fee. A pretty tiny amount pr. transaction, but enough that during one year it would've collected enough btc to fund one or more devs working on Bitcoin, would that be possible ? If not, perhaps showing a line in the official client letting people know they can contribute to the continued success of Bitcoin, almost like Wikipedia does, could that be an option ?

Also, we all know that the founder of bitcoin was/is anonymous, Gavin lashed out towards the 'Anonymous cowards' in this thread, which admittedly made me quite angry,and for a moment I thought, why should I care about Bitcoin and spend my time on it, with a Head Dev that's this ungrateful towards people that actually care about Bitcoin, but Gavin is just a human like the rest of us, and he becomes angry at times, he's no saint. And Bitcoin is greater than him, so even if he left Bitcoin or he continues to 'loose it' on the forums, Bitcoins as an idea and technology is larger than anyone involved in particular. There will always be someone else to take over, so even if Gavin is the Head Dev, he's nothing but an ordinary man, that can be replaced at any time.

Seeing as Vess doesn't even post on these forums, which I see some of you refer to as the 'cesspit' of bitcoin, I can't do anything but conclude that Vess don't care much, and that you feel you're part of an elitist club where others have no say, and esp. not the 'Anonymous Cowards'. Too bad then that Satoshi is among these 'Anonymous Cowards'.

The idea of Bitcoin is that of personal freedom and changing the current system. And Bitcoin is far more important than any single person taking part in it. If at one point, the US Govt. decides that Bitcoin is a tool of domestic terrorism, for instance following a terrorist act where it's found that Bitcoin was used to buy parts for a bomb, don't be surprised if some overreaching officials determines that all Bitcoin-devs needs to be brought in for questioning and even be detained, if the Govt. then decides to press charges for whatever reason, there's not much any single person can do with it, even if the charges will be dropped in the end, if will be a complete nightmare to go through.

For example Sven Olaf Kamphuis was recently arrested: http://krebsonsecurity.com/2013/04/dutchman-arrested-in-spamhaus-ddos/

It's not sure he had any actual involvement in the DDOS-attacks described, but he put his name out there for anyone to see and was very vocal about the whole issue, and as thus become an easy target when somebody needed to be arrested.

Satoshi, being it one man or one group, created Bitcoin - and he's to this day anonymous. I believe he saw his idea as a larger thing than himself. If we look at Assange, he's a big narcissist and egomaniac, and there's been a lot of internal unrest in his organization due to the way he run things, and as we can see he's now virtually a prisoner in London, living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. We could imagine Satoshi suffering the same fate at one point if he came forward.

In my opinion, ideas are more important than the people executing them, esp. when it has a large social impact and has the possibility to change existing structures. The idea that you need to register with your full name in the Bitcoin Foundation and pay a membership fee even to read their forum, speaks mountains for it being an elitist club with no intention of transparency. A lot of people sponsor them indirectly through doing business with all the businesses that have board-members in the foundation. The premium memberships paid by some companies to the foundation would not've been possible without the fees paid by users for using the services of these companies.

The 'trust us - we will only work to the benefit of Bitcoin'-attitude doesn't cut it. As we know power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If the people involved care about transparency and being a part of the community, they should involve the community more.

I have no reason to think Gavin is not a good man, wanting the best for bitcoin, but as time has showed through history, many projects have started with good intentions, and then there's battle's of power, and we're left with structures that we see in the current system that we're trying to battle: Closed systems where only a few decides what will really happen.

If the foundation really cared about bitcoin, it would seek to desentralize bitcoin trade, for instance by supporting the development of an open source trading platform that could then be used by anyone wanting to start their own exchange.

Lastly: I'm sure a lot of you are doing a great job, and that some of the criticism may seem unjust, but dismissing criticism entirely, or just frowning about it, is not a good thing. It's also Gavins choice to do interviews and being a public figure in the Bitcoin world. If he's chose to be anonymous like Satoshi, and chose to hide his identity, it wouldn't have been a problem for me. As I said earlier, an idea, a concept and a philosophy is far more important than the people executing it. And as such I think being 'anonymous', 'pseudo-anonymous' or putting your name out there is a personal choice. And as such, I don't think the people not putting out their 'real names' are 'Anonymous Cowards'. They might be 'anonymous' or 'pseudo-anonymous', but that doesn't imply that they're automatically cowards. They may be exactly the opposite, but they simply may have no desire to have their name out there on the Internet for everyone to peak at. For some people personal recognition, getting attention etc. is important, for some others it's not important at all. They work silently for a greater cause without expecting fame in return.

But the Foundation and everyone else involved in Bitcoin, should expect and welcome all criticism towards what they do. It means people are involved and interested, and I never saw that as a bad thing. However, there may always be some unwarranted criticism that's far out there that's quite different from constructive criticism, but intelligent people are able to see through that, and is able to ignore/briefly respond to the unjust criticism and then dicuss with the people that gives constructive crisicism. The attitude: "We're always right, and the others are idiots" is not a healthy attitude.

For instance, one of the things I like about MtGox, is that if you have an important query, you can actually go on irc and talk with Mark directly. Admittedly he's not always on, but if he's on and available, he will most often attend to the issues at hand. That's a direct line to the CEO of a company! How many other companies deliver the same opportunity ? Now, I realize that it's not feasible for all companies to do, as some companies are simply too big. But it certainly builds trust within the community.

As someone else in this thread mentioned: "I just want to be treated with respect, and be shown that you care". And that about sums it up. No matter how angry or unjust one thinks something is, having a major role within the Bitcoin ecosystem means that a lot of people look up to you. I kind of looked up to Gavin before his outburst as well. But in reality, we're all just humans with different positions within the ecosystem, and while some of us has a 'higher' position than others, that doesn't mean those people are 'worth more' or have the right to dismiss the criticism and input of others. The users of Bitcoin, which very often is very passionate about Bitcoin, is what makes the whole thing possible, and as such those in 'lead'-positions should be grateful that the users actually care, and not call them 'Anonymous cowards'. What I personally fear is that Bitcoin is starting to be run by big corporate entities that stop caring for it's users. Too many companies have become so big that it's not important to them to actually treat their users with respect and dignity.

That's all - thanks for listening.

This is what bitcoin community is powered by. Actual intellectuall people. Don't play with us BCF.

[k99]

@Herodes: +100

[Herodes]

I've pm'ed Vess to ask him to get input to this thread.

Here's what I wrote to him:

Could you read through this thread please, and give us your thoughts ?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=177679.0

If anyone else wants to have his input here, they could pm him:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=621

[charleshoskinson]

Not going to happen

[cryptoanarchist]

If there is a better, sustainable, more neutral way to fund Gavin or infrastructure projects, we are all open to that.

Being funded by a neutral trade group frees developers to focus on bitcoin's needs full time, without distraction.

I've always respected your opinions jgarzik.

There's already fees paid for sending bitcoins, what if there was added a certain amount as a dev-fee. A pretty tiny amount pr. transaction, but enough that during one year it would've collected enough btc to fund one or more devs working on Bitcoin, would that be possible ? If not, perhaps showing a line in the official client letting people know they can contribute to the continued success of Bitcoin, almost like Wikipedia does, could that be an option ?

Also, we all know that the founder of bitcoin was/is anonymous, Gavin lashed out towards the 'Anonymous cowards' in this thread, which admittedly made me quite angry,and for a moment I thought, why should I care about Bitcoin and spend my time on it, with a Head Dev that's this ungrateful towards people that actually care about Bitcoin, but Gavin is just a human like the rest of us, and he becomes angry at times, he's no saint. And Bitcoin is greater than him, so even if he left Bitcoin or he continues to 'loose it' on the forums, Bitcoins as an idea and technology is larger than anyone involved in particular. There will always be someone else to take over, so even if Gavin is the Head Dev, he's nothing but an ordinary man, that can be replaced at any time.

Seeing as Vess doesn't even post on these forums, which I see some of you refer to as the 'cesspit' of bitcoin, I can't do anything but conclude that Vess don't care much, and that you feel you're part of an elitist club where others have no say, and esp. not the 'Anonymous Cowards'. Too bad then that Satoshi is among these 'Anonymous Cowards'.

The idea of Bitcoin is that of personal freedom and changing the current system. And Bitcoin is far more important than any single person taking part in it. If at one point, the US Govt. decides that Bitcoin is a tool of domestic terrorism, for instance following a terrorist act where it's found that Bitcoin was used to buy parts for a bomb, don't be surprised if some overreaching officials determines that all Bitcoin-devs needs to be brought in for questioning and even be detained, if the Govt. then decides to press charges for whatever reason, there's not much any single person can do with it, even if the charges will be dropped in the end, if will be a complete nightmare to go through.

For example Sven Olaf Kamphuis was recently arrested: http://krebsonsecurity.com/2013/04/dutchman-arrested-in-spamhaus-ddos/

It's not sure he had any actual involvement in the DDOS-attacks described, but he put his name out there for anyone to see and was very vocal about the whole issue, and as thus become an easy target when somebody needed to be arrested.

Satoshi, being it one man or one group, created Bitcoin - and he's to this day anonymous. I believe he saw his idea as a larger thing than himself. If we look at Assange, he's a big narcissist and egomaniac, and there's been a lot of internal unrest in his organization due to the way he run things, and as we can see he's now virtually a prisoner in London, living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. We could imagine Satoshi suffering the same fate at one point if he came forward.

In my opinion, ideas are more important than the people executing them, esp. when it has a large social impact and has the possibility to change existing structures. The idea that you need to register with your full name in the Bitcoin Foundation and pay a membership fee even to read their forum, speaks mountains for it being an elitist club with no intention of transparency. A lot of people sponsor them indirectly through doing business with all the businesses that have board-members in the foundation. The premium memberships paid by some companies to the foundation would not've been possible without the fees paid by users for using the services of these companies.

The 'trust us - we will only work to the benefit of Bitcoin'-attitude doesn't cut it. As we know power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If the people involved care about transparency and being a part of the community, they should involve the community more.

I have no reason to think Gavin is not a good man, wanting the best for bitcoin, but as time has showed through history, many projects have started with good intentions, and then there's battle's of power, and we're left with structures that we see in the current system that we're trying to battle: Closed systems where only a few decides what will really happen.

If the foundation really cared about bitcoin, it would seek to desentralize bitcoin trade, for instance by supporting the development of an open source trading platform that could then be used by anyone wanting to start their own exchange.

Lastly: I'm sure a lot of you are doing a great job, and that some of the criticism may seem unjust, but dismissing criticism entirely, or just frowning about it, is not a good thing. It's also Gavins choice to do interviews and being a public figure in the Bitcoin world. If he's chose to be anonymous like Satoshi, and chose to hide his identity, it wouldn't have been a problem for me. As I said earlier, an idea, a concept and a philosophy is far more important than the people executing it. And as such I think being 'anonymous', 'pseudo-anonymous' or putting your name out there is a personal choice. And as such, I don't think the people not putting out their 'real names' are 'Anonymous Cowards'. They might be 'anonymous' or 'pseudo-anonymous', but that doesn't imply that they're automatically cowards. They may be exactly the opposite, but they simply may have no desire to have their name out there on the Internet for everyone to peak at. For some people personal recognition, getting attention etc. is important, for some others it's not important at all. They work silently for a greater cause without expecting fame in return.

But the Foundation and everyone else involved in Bitcoin, should expect and welcome all criticism towards what they do. It means people are involved and interested, and I never saw that as a bad thing. However, there may always be some unwarranted criticism that's far out there that's quite different from constructive criticism, but intelligent people are able to see through that, and is able to ignore/briefly respond to the unjust criticism and then dicuss with the people that gives constructive crisicism. The attitude: "We're always right, and the others are idiots" is not a healthy attitude.

For instance, one of the things I like about MtGox, is that if you have an important query, you can actually go on irc and talk with Mark directly. Admittedly he's not always on, but if he's on and available, he will most often attend to the issues at hand. That's a direct line to the CEO of a company! How many other companies deliver the same opportunity ? Now, I realize that it's not feasible for all companies to do, as some companies are simply too big. But it certainly builds trust within the community.

As someone else in this thread mentioned: "I just want to be treated with respect, and be shown that you care". And that about sums it up. No matter how angry or unjust one thinks something is, having a major role within the Bitcoin ecosystem means that a lot of people look up to you. I kind of looked up to Gavin before his outburst as well. But in reality, we're all just humans with different positions within the ecosystem, and while some of us has a 'higher' position than others, that doesn't mean those people are 'worth more' or have the right to dismiss the criticism and input of others. The users of Bitcoin, which very often is very passionate about Bitcoin, is what makes the whole thing possible, and as such those in 'lead'-positions should be grateful that the users actually care, and not call them 'Anonymous cowards'. What I personally fear is that Bitcoin is starting to be run by big corporate entities that stop caring for it's users. Too many companies have become so big that it's not important to them to actually treat their users with respect and dignity.

That's all - thanks for listening.

+1000000 btc

[Herodes]

Not going to happen

So you're saying a self proclaimed Bitcoin nerd, who obviously have a computer, and have an account on this forum and have used it actively before, and just recently signed in, and overall have what you'd call an active social presence online would not be able to spend 30 minutes of his time, reading through this thread and give a calm, intelligent and fruitful response ? I'm pretty sure he's aware of this thread, and avoiding it doesn't not calm any worries that people may have. If he wants to give a response, he's fully capable of doing so, choosing not to is another matter entirely. I think there's many valid points put forth in this thread.

I believe he will chime in, contain himself and give some polite input.

[charleshoskinson]

So you're saying a self proclaimed Bitcoin nerd, who obviously have a computer, and have an account on this forum and have used it actively before, and just recently signed in, and overall have what you'd call an active social presence online would not be able to spend 30 minutes of his time, reading through this thread and give a calm, intelligent and fruitful response ? I'm pretty sure he's aware of this thread, and avoiding it doesn't not calm any worries that people may have. If he wants to give a response, he's fully capable of doing so, choosing not to is another matter entirely. I think there's many valid points put forth in this thread.

I believe he will chime in, contain himself and give some polite input.

Vess and others at the foundation have become increasingly more difficult to communicate with outside of their predetermined media events. They seldom respond to PMs and emails and also have started moving more discussion over the the foundation's forum. Forgive my cynicism, but I don't think you fully understand what is going on. It's a power play for Bitcoin not an attempt to gain consensus and support in the community.

[Herodes]

So you're saying a self proclaimed Bitcoin nerd, who obviously have a computer, and have an account on this forum and have used it actively before, and just recently signed in, and overall have what you'd call an active social presence online would not be able to spend 30 minutes of his time, reading through this thread and give a calm, intelligent and fruitful response ? I'm pretty sure he's aware of this thread, and avoiding it doesn't not calm any worries that people may have. If he wants to give a response, he's fully capable of doing so, choosing not to is another matter entirely. I think there's many valid points put forth in this thread.

I believe he will chime in, contain himself and give some polite input.

Vess and others at the foundation have become increasingly more difficult to communicate with outside of their predetermined media events. They seldom respond to PMs and emails and also have started moving more discussion over the the foundation's forum. Forgive my cynicism, but I don't think you fully understand what is going on. It's a power play for Bitcoin not an attempt to gain consensus and support in the community.

I'm concerned about what's going on, and that's why I made this thread in the first place. I'm fully aware that most 'real business' is done by men in suits in meatspace.

Vess was last active April 27, 2013, 04:19:56 AM, this thread was made the 16th of April, so if he wanted to chime in, he would've had the possibility to do so.

It's also a bit startling that you're talking about cynicism, as I've already stated numerous times that we must not be naive. You state that I don't fully understand what's going on, could you please enligheten me as to what's going on ? Perhaps you have some sources, or some information that would be beneficial to us ? As the transition is going to happen early in May, he and his associates are probably super busy as well, but you've always got 15 minutes to look at something if you really want to..