Concerns about the Bitcoin Foundation (email inside)

[anarchy]

I've sent this email to the Bitcoin Foundation 2 weeks ago.  For me it is clear they need to state their intensions.
The fact that they didn't reply, is not a good sign.  Worst case we should start our own counter-foundation.  Noone can claim bitcoin anyway.
We will be the Bitcoin User Group. Email me if you want to help found it, and agree with the original bitcoin principles: contact@bitcoinusergroup.com

We will stand for:

- Respecting the 21 million limit
- Decentralisation, no intervention of any kind
- Not changing the crypto (we keep SHA256)

-> Basically protecting the libertarian and anarcho-capitalistic principles, and not allow for any government intervention in the protocol.

Hi Lindsay,

Before I donate, I would like to know the foundation's stance on bitcoin:

Do you commit to never increasing the limit beyond 21 million coins?
Also, do you commit to never accepting changes that will include payments to be approved by government before being transacted?

In other words, are you ready and willing to protect the core essences of bitcoin, including its libertarian aspects as Satoshi intended?

Thanks for your reply.  It would also help if you could put your key intentions on your site if they are correct.

Regards

[bg002h]

Weird idea ya got there. Your emailing the secretary will not get a reply. You need to ask (or become) a member to get items on the agenda. I would not support wasting time on the obvious and will not suggest it as an agenda item...your concerns are unrealistic. I don't want to set a precedent of having to reply to every wild accusation to appease people who aren't even paying to advance Bitcoin.

[anarchy]

Weird idea ya got there. Your emailing the secretary will not get a reply. You need to ask (or become) a member to get items on the agenda. I would not support wasting time on the obvious and will not suggest it as an agenda item...your concerns are unrealistic. I don't want to set a precedent of having to reply to every wild accusation to appease people who aren't even paying to advance Bitcoin.

So I have to pay to get a reply?  Also, I don't like your tone.  You already sound like a government agent.

'Sorry, you mailed the wrong address, you should have known!'
'Since you behaved not according to our standards, I will not put your item on the agenda, you are wasting time'
'You aren't contributing to the system, so you have no right to reply'

It was actually my intention to donate, but you probably read over that part.  Before I donate somewhere, I want to know what their principles are.
And trust me, I was about to donate a fairly large amount.

Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

Edit: Oh yeah, like a real politician, you actually avoided answering my questions.

[phatsphere]

bitcoin is some kind of "majority" system. also, the goals of the bitcoin foundation are based on some kind of "majority" system. why should the entire group fix their behaviour of the next decades just to get some coins from you? why are you of such an importance?

… and that's without even really reading your "demands".

please don't join the foundation.

[bg002h]

Weird idea ya got there. Your emailing the secretary will not get a reply. You need to ask (or become) a member to get items on the agenda. I would not support wasting time on the obvious and will not suggest it as an agenda item...your concerns are unrealistic. I don't want to set a precedent of having to reply to every wild accusation to appease people who aren't even paying to advance Bitcoin.

So I have to pay to get a reply?  Also, I don't like your tone.  You already sound like a government agent.

'Sorry, you mailed the wrong address, you should have known!'
'Since you behaved not according to our standards, I will not put your item on the agenda, you are wasting time'
'You aren't contributing to the system, so you have no right to reply'

It was actually my intention to donate, but you probably read over that part.  Before I donate somewhere, I want to know what their principles are.
And trust me, I was about to donate a fairly large amount.

Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

Edit: Oh yeah, like a real politician, you actually avoided answering my questions.

Let me be direct: your concerns amount to hysterics. Nobody on the foundation wants to (or could) change the rules of Bitcoin.

I'm not interested in having hysterics in a foundation that tries to get real work (the kind of work worth paying for) accomplished. Please start your own foundation to pay for stuff. I suggest you use a name that sounds less like Foundation and more like "club" or "well-wishers." This way you'll find it easier to keep the feeble minded from thinking you are evil. Oh, don't charge more than $30 entrance fee and update your btc based fee each week if necessary to keep the fiat cost low (instead of once chabging it once a year...or forget using that whole Bitcoin thing for actually receiving payments, it's too unstable to be useful...please note this is sarcasm).

[Herodes]

Lindsay is busy with the conference stuff now, you might try her on the bitcoin2013 contact e-mail address.

[ivanc]

@ anarchy: The decisional power in Bitcoin is hold by the miners. Things like changing the coins generation algorithm, transactions system, etc.
If you own majority of computing power, you can start changing the rules and hope minority participants (miners + simple clients) will accept the changes. This was Satoshi's vision.
The Bitcoin Foundation is unrelated to this basic mechanism.

[kiba]

Bitcoin Foundation is a not a place to implement your anarchist/liberal/socialist/libertarian politics.


Sincerely,

A Bitcoin Foundation member.

[Severian]

I've sent this email to the Bitcoin Foundation 2 weeks ago. 

There's nothing stopping you from starting your own Bitcoin organization that advocates whatever you want to.

[drawingthesun]

We will stand for:

- Respecting the 21 million limit
- Decentralisation, no intervention of any kind
- Not changing the crypto (we keep SHA256)

The foundation has never even mentioned anything about changing the 21 million limit, and it would devalue the massive holding they have anyway. Why would they want to do that. Remember many foundation members were mining minimum 100 Bitcoins a day non-stop.

What has been suggested about making Bitcoin not decentralized? I would like to know.

The crypto MUST be changed in the event SHA256 is compromised. However this is unlikely to become a concern for many lifetimes.

[qwk]

We will be the Bitcoin User Group.
[...]
We will stand for:

- Respecting the 21 million limit
- Decentralisation, no intervention of any kind
- Not changing the crypto (we keep SHA256)

-> Basically protecting the libertarian and anarcho-capitalistic principles, and not allow for any government intervention in the protocol.

Who is "We"? Did you mean "I"?

I regard myself a "Bitcoin User", may I therefore kindly ask you to call your private interest group something else than "Bitcoin User Group"? TIA.

[Epicurus]

So I have to pay to get a reply?  Also, I don't like your tone.  You already sound like a government agent.

You sound like an angsty teenager.

[chronocoin]

So I have to pay to get a reply?  Also, I don't like your tone.  You already sound like a government agent.

You sound like an angsty teenager.

Pretty sure that you're not supposed to actually express political opinions as a non-profit. Also, Bitcoin is not designed with anarchy in mind....please do some reading before you proclaim your political viewpoints to the world

[TheDarKnight]

If there can never be more minted Bitcoins than 21 Million, then surely they will keep on increasing in value due to the fact that a certain number are constantly being lost to hard drive crashes and people sending to addresses that are no longer active? 

[Herodes]

Bitcoin Foundation is a not a place to implement your anarchist/liberal/socialist/libertarian politics.


Sincerely,

A Bitcoin Foundation member.

So if someone has any of these political stances, or you think a person has any of those political stances means that said individual has no place in the Bitcoin Foundation ? And why sign such a message as a Bitcoin Foundation member. Do you consider your own view above that of another free man ?

[anarchy]

Wow the arrogance/anger in all these replies is staggering.  I wonder why?  Isn't it a simple question to ask, if the foundation will protect the core essence of bitcoin?

[kiba]

So if someone has any of these political stances, or you think a person has any of those political stances means that said individual has no place in the Bitcoin Foundation ? And why sign such a message as a Bitcoin Foundation member. Do you consider your own view above that of another free man ?

I prefer that the bitcoin foundation be as non-political as possible, except whatever is needed to protect bitcoin.

[Abdussamad]

We will stand for:

- Respecting the 21 million limit
- Decentralisation, no intervention of any kind
- Not changing the crypto (we keep SHA256)

Not changing the cryptography algorithm is stupid. Eventually SHA256 will be broken and we will HAVE to adopt a new algo. That is actually one of the strengths of bitcoin as I understand it - you can use a new algo to keep up with changing times.

[franky1]

i think the bitcoin foundation does need to have some fundamental principles lined out that will never change no matter what "agenda's" get voted in or out.

after all if there is only a couple dozen members then it will only take a group of craze minded saboteurs to pay a members fee and then over cast the votes in their favour.

imagine 50 bankers or public-servants buying the memberships purely to control the voting results. to get "agenda's" passed through and then persuade the community to change to the updated clients containing these voted changes.

so this is why i think the OP asked the question..

before donating to become a member, what intentions/fundamental principles does the foundation hold.

EDIT:

i like how this post just earned me to be ignored by 2 of the foundation members. As if them no longer seeing the message makes the points of the message less valid.

[kokjo]

I've sent this email to the Bitcoin Foundation 2 weeks ago.  For me it is clear they need to state their intensions.
The fact that they didn't reply, is not a good sign.  Worst case we should start our own counter-foundation.  Noone can claim bitcoin anyway.
We will be the Bitcoin User Group. Email me if you want to help found it, and agree with the original bitcoin principles: contact@bitcoinusergroup.com

We will stand for:

- Respecting the 21 million limit
- Decentralisation, no intervention of any kind
- Not changing the crypto (we keep SHA256)

-> Basically protecting the libertarian and anarcho-capitalistic principles, and not allow for any government intervention in the protocol.

Hi Lindsay,

Before I donate, I would like to know the foundation's stance on bitcoin:

Do you commit to never increasing the limit beyond 21 million coins?
Also, do you commit to never accepting changes that will include payments to be approved by government before being transacted?

In other words, are you ready and willing to protect the core essences of bitcoin, including its libertarian aspects as Satoshi intended?

Thanks for your reply.  It would also help if you could put your key intentions on your site if they are correct.

Regards

LOOOL! i really don't understand bitcoin! THEY CAN'T FUCKING CHANGE IT UNLESS PEOPLE AGREES WITH THEM.

and also bitcoin is not bound by the "libertarian aspects as Satoshi intended".