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

[Etlase2]

A Bitcoin-Stallman would not be bad. 

Let me know how long you're standing around waiting.

Perhaps the Foundation should be more independent ?

I have followed the foundation *very little*, but I do recall that mtgox was the first or one of the first "top tier" donators for like 10kbtc yearly? Do you think a sane business would expect nothing in return? The political will of bitcoin has started and the major players are going to be the people who have lots of bitcoins. This is what you guys wanted, right?

[Severian]

I'd nominate casascius to the board. 

[Herodes]

well, i'm looking at this from merchant point of view. I need stable rate so I dont have to worry about selling coins every hour. As long as soft  regulates coins it will always be what it is today. It will never go mainstream  the way it is now. I'm not sure how it needs to be regulated but I think it needs human input just like US gov does to market

If you're a merchant that sells something for bitcoin, and you're dependant on getting the USD eqivalent, then you can use an automated solution that converts for you instantly. In cases of extreme volatility in the markets, buying could temporarily be stopped. This does not happen often.

And if you wanted the exchange rate to be more stable at this point in time, how do you propose it be done ?

How do we know that's what he really believes?  I'm not doubting it, but when someone speaks in their official capacity in a manner consistent with that capacity, I don't automatically equate it with being their true-to-heart personal opinion, especially when that capacity happens to be that of a lawyer, somebody purposefully trained to articulate a position with which they don't necessarily agree personally.  The notion that he "derides" somebody is really indeterminable from a statement like this, and so is any assessment as to what trust he places in governments.

Bitcoin needs more legal talent looking out for it, not less.

Agreed, and in that light, this entire thread is based on exactly what I personally frown upon, polarizing on incomplete information, but anyways, it seems like there can be some discussion from it. I'm sure Vessenes have thick enough skin to survive my post. Also, it's not like a forum post is going to change anything anyway.

A Bitcoin-Stallman would not be bad.  

Let me know how long you're standing around waiting.

Perhaps the Foundation should be more independent ?

I have followed the foundation *very little*, but I do recall that mtgox was the first or one of the first "top tier" donators for like 10kbtc yearly? Do you think a sane business would expect nothing in return? The political will of bitcoin has started and the major players are going to be the people who have lots of bitcoins. This is what you guys wanted, right?

Got your point, somebody has to have the role of Executive Director. Sure, no matter if the people running the show weren't business owners, they would still have to listen to the viewpoing of any entity funding them, that's about how the political system works I would think.

As for what we guys wanted? Personally I never had any say in regards to the Foundation, if I supported it or opposed it, it would have no effect either way.

I'd nominate casascius to the board.  

I would too. He seems to be one of the smartest and most reasonable persons around this forum.

[Etlase2]

As for what we guys wanted? Personally I never had any say in regards to the Foundation, if I supported it or opposed it, it would have no effect either way.

I was speaking on a scale bigger than just the foundation. Bitcoin isn't just about making some people wealthy for the greater good, those wealthy people are also going to be in positions of power and will shape the future of the currency. Perhaps, THE WORLD! For better or worse, the players are already pretty well-set. Ergo you will continue to have no say. But I'm just a raving bitcoin hater.

[Severian]

Agreed, and in that light, this entire thread is based on exactly what I personally frown upon, polarizing on incomplete information

Then maybe Peter shouldn't run around polarizing people with inflammatory invective.

I'd nominate casascius to the board.  

I would too. He seems to be one of the smartest and most reasonable persons around this forum.

casascius has also done more for Bitcoin than the current executive director, imo.

[Herodes]

casascius has also done more for Bitcoin than the current executive director, imo.

Good point, I never heard of Vessenes before he became the Executive Director. Casascius I have great respect for though.

[darkmule]

What power does the BCF have that prevents everyone from just ignoring it?

[ab8989]

How do we know that's what he really believes?  I'm not doubting it, but when someone speaks in their official capacity in a manner consistent with that capacity, I don't automatically equate it with being their true-to-heart personal opinion

I quess the bigger picture in what you say is that the bitcoin foundation as organization wants to see bitcoin regulated.

There are also other persons from that direction seem to talk fondly about regulation and I have heard nobody from there to talk passionately against it so I think it is a pretty good guess to assume Vessenes actually means what he says and what he says is pro-regulation. Not that it matters that much as it is more important that the bitcoin foundation wants regulation.

Don't make the mistake of analyzing the effect of regulation just taking the current letter of the law but you should look out for the spirit of the law and more importantly the spirit of the lawmakers. The letter of the law is subject to change and the direction of change can be guessed by thinking about what is the spirit of the lawmakers.

What is the spirit of the lawmakers? Are they happy to have AML regulations enforced only at the exchanges or would they want to track all bitcoin movements? Would the taxman also want to know everything and tax everything? Would some FBI or CIA want to track all money movements? Yes. That is what they are going to go after and having a lot of bitcoin-businesses on US soil and bitcoin foundation aboard on this effort is making things much easier for them.

[Brushan]

People sell out. Welcome to reality. Why do you think communism and anarchy are great ideas on paper but never work. Greed! If you look at bitcoin as a social experiment you can learn alot about humanity.

[thoughtfan]

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 ?

It's time for the community to decide what we want. Bitcoin shall not be governed by the US.


Peter Vessenes, how dare he speak for Bitcoin, the decentralized network. If he's happy to be regulated, then he at least should discuss this with the community first. This is really disrespectful towards the community, and it is against the spirit of freedom and lack of regulation that is Bitcoin.


“We’d be happy to be regulated,” said Vessenes

^^ This is the worst thing that man has ever said, I had some hard questions for him earlier on, which he choose to never respond to

He hasn't even posted in this forum since March 19. And ignored a hell of a lot of questions asked to him.

What kind of shady deals are going on in the background here ? Also MtGox is discontinuing USD redeemable codes, or else they would face consequences. Consquences by who, and who delivered the message. I don't like this development at all.

Let us see what the community thinks.

The OP is misleading as it stands.  I knew the name but had to check it out.  Please make it clearer in the OP that the organisation Vessenes is referring to is Coinlab.  If that is his organisation then who are we to be outraged?  He can do as he pleases with it and can negotiate as he pleases with mtgox.  You don't like it go elsewhere.

It would be useful to know his position with regards regulation of the Bitcoin Foundation or regulation of Bitcoin in general but if the acceptance of regulation on Bitcoin exchanges in the US is inevitable then his business is likely to get much more co-operation and less of a headache from the regulating authority if he publicly shows willing rather than appearing to be dragged screaming and kicking to regulation for the sake of his libertarian audience.

Of course the Randians among us will be calling anyone who doesn't stand up and do a Hank Rearden a traitor to 'the cause'.  I find the irony quite amusing really that that element of this community would rather see those Bitcoin-related business pioneers sacrifice themselves to fight their libertarian cause than accept the realities of operating within the legal framework of whatever jurisdiction they happen to be in.  On the other hand all that is required of customers who are not happy with latest developments is that they withdraw their custom.

If what people are unhappy about is that ID details given to mtgox is handed over to the US authorities I would have thought it a little naive to think those details were going to stay locked up in mtgox records and never looked at by any authorities - and if it's one authority it's all of them!  I wonder what the small print of the mtgox ID process is?  I've not looked because I never did the whole caboodle with them.

It is another matter whether someone who (maybe for practical reasons) in public statements proclaims to be in favour of regulation for his own business would like to see (or would easily capitulate to) regulation of the Foundation .  So I don't see a problem with the poll question providing the issues that appear in the OP to have been conflated by the outrage are separated out and dealt with accordingly.

[Herodes]

[...]

As Vessenes runs Coinlab I don't expect him to do anything that would hurt his business. And of course you're right. Govt's would like to have control of everything. But can they ?

[caveden]

Please make it clearer in the OP that the organisation Vessenes is referring to is Coinlab.  If that is his organisation then who are we to be outraged?  He can do as he pleases with it and can negotiate as he pleases with mtgox.  You don't like it go elsewhere.

It would be useful to know his position with regards regulation of the Bitcoin Foundation or regulation of Bitcoin in general but if the acceptance of regulation on Bitcoin exchanges in the US is inevitable then his business is likely to get much more co-operation and less of a headache from the regulating authority if he publicly shows willing rather than appearing to be dragged screaming and kicking to regulation for the sake of his libertarian audience.

Established business people tend to like regulations a lot, indeed. They keep competition at bay, by creating a huge barrier of entry to new market participants. By pressing for tough and strict regulations, Vessenes assures that few people will manage to create new startups to compete with him (like that bitfloor guy for ex., would his exchange exist if regulation enforcement was strict when he started?)

Regardless of whether he meant regulation for his competitors or regulation for Bitcoin in general, I don't find it sane to have a person that likes to use government force in the Bitcoin Foundation board. But who am I to say anything anyway, I'm not even a member of this club.

I very much enjoy the free-market spirit of "older" Bitcoin entrepreneurs like Erik Voorhees, Roger Ver, Charlie Shrem etc. I guess that as Bitcoin approaches mainstream, more "classic" entrepreneurs will start showing up. We'll have to deal with it.

Thank you OP for opening this topic and making me aware of this fact.

[Herodes]

Thank you OP for opening this topic and making me aware of this fact.

It was probably a bit hasty and silly of me to open such a poll on such a whim, given the lack of information regarding the case, but anyway it seems like it spured some decent discussion.

[mjosephs]

What power does the BCF have that prevents everyone from just ignoring it?

Code signing keys for the client issued by the  OS vendors (Microsoft and Apple) whose bootloaders are in turn recognized by the hardware vendors.  Just wait.

Speaking of which, it's too bad we don't have a project leader with the kind of balls Linus has.

[Herodes]

Speaking of which, it's too bad we don't have a project leader with the kind of balls Linus has.

I remember Gavin Andresen setting dollar bills on fire in an early interview. Apart from that, he's the epitome of political correctness. (Just waiting for Gavin to pop in with his two cents - as he has a magical ability to spot whenever his name is mentioned on the forum. )

[mjosephs]

Speaking of which, it's too bad we don't have a project leader with the kind of balls Linus has.

I remember Gavin Andresen setting dollar bills on fire in an early interview.

I suppose you think Linus got appointed to the Linux Foundation for defacing a Windows XP CD, eh?

[Bitcoin Oz]

Governments cant regulate mathematics, which is the basis of bitcoin. Its like trying to regulate gravity.

[nwbitcoin]

I don't like when companies become involved with lobbying groups for their industries, its how cartels are created - its not free market at all.

However, we don't live in a free market, we live in a world where corporatism and lobbying governments is how you get things done.

You should never get your news from a newspaper, all that article was about was declaring that the BF was willing to talk, and had the support of the rest of the industry.  It was confirmation that they really did speak for the community and were willing to do what the government wanted to move bitcoin to the next level.

This is good old fashioned politics, and not somewhere where ideology has a home.

Real issues that rock the boat are best discussed behind closed doors, where there isn't an audit trail - but in public, everyone should have the same voice - that is how the game is played.

If you don't know the rules, you lose!

[darkmule]

[...]

As Vessenes runs Coinlab I don't expect him to do anything that would hurt his business. And of course you're right. Govt's would like to have control of everything. But can they ?

So basically, at this point, BCF can be considered a lobbying organization operating for the benefit of Coinlab.

I don't want anything to do with that business, and still wonder why BCF can't simply be ignored.  What authority does it have to tell anyone to do anything?  If you don't like it, don't support it.

If BCF is considered somehow to represent Bitcoin itself, then there is a glaring conflict of interest in it being run by a principal of one specific business that is competing with every other Bitcoin business.

[relmeas]

Sad but truth - bitcoin indeed is centralized system that pretends it wants to be decentralized.

1. The blockchain split incident. It required central authority to split the chain. It required central authority to cause the problem in the first place (which was formed by accumulating >50% hash power).

2. The client code is controlled by central authority. Does anyone check the source code and compile it by hand before using it? Even if someone does, 99% of userbase just installs whatever they get each time a new version is released. If that code is secretly controlled by some authority, they have all the power they need and you can't do anything about it.