THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC.

[Dunster]

There we go, stifled and buried deep in the forums. The most important revelation since the genesis of Bitcoin. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[MPOE-PR]

There's way worse things about the "foundation" than that.

There's still no legal mailing adress. There's no privacy policy even though they gather personal data on the "join us" pages. They are accepting "donations" but there's no information on the tax status of this... company?/non-profit?/for-profit?/what the hell are they even?

You mean they've never put out a report on how the BTC they collect mostly goes to provide the sitting CEO/Treasurer (nice going there) capital for his dead "business"? Heh.

[MPOE-PR]

501(c)(3) charities have to make their tax returns publicly available, 501(c)(6) entities do not. 

They do not hold a US federal TM for Bitcoin as you can see by searching uspto.gov.  Some guy tried a couple years ago and gave up.  More recently some clown filed an intent-to-use application which will surely fail.   

Right-o. Piling heaps upon heaps of this credibility thingie by picking the opaque title to incorporate under.

It happens to make not one whit of difference what federal statute says, not like we were about to prosecute a bunch of self-proclaimed entrepreneurs for fraud. What matters here is that there's quite reasonable expectation from the general community to see reports. If Satoshi Dice can do it, if MPEx can do it then indeed so can this foundation whatever it is.

And for that matter, PROOF that the donated funds are used for the declared purposes, rather than as a general float fund for Coinbase/whatever other Yscambinator "ventures". This means statements signed with addresses, so everyone can see when funds move.

Presto.

[Razick]

What's wrong with them being incorporated?

[repentance]

What's wrong with them being incorporated?

There's nothing wrong with them being incorporated - it's the fact that they're incorporated as a business rather than a non-profit which some people find disturbing, especially given that they chose to style themselves as "Foundation" and that they claim to represent Bitcoin in general rather than specific Bitcoin interests.  

People worry about a commercial entity whose management is dominated by those involved in Bitcoin commerce paying the lead developer (there are some people who believe the devs shouldn't be paid at all, nevermind by commercial interests).  Rightly or wrongly, they believe that the "Bitcoin elite" will have undue influence over the development of the official client.

If they styled themselves the Bitcoin Chamber of Commerce, or the Bitcoin Financial Services Alliance, no-one would really give a shit.  If they were an actual non-profit obligated to make their financial statements public, there'd also be far less concern.

[kjj]

What's wrong with them being incorporated?

There's nothing wrong with them being incorporated - it's the fact that they're incorporated as a business rather than a non-profit which some people find disturbing, especially given that they chose to style themselves as "Foundation" and that they claim to represent Bitcoin in general rather than specific Bitcoin interests.  

You must have missed the part where they actually are a nonprofit.  You probably also don't realize that pretty most other entities recognized as nonprofit by the IRS are also corporations.

[gmaxwell]

You must have missed the part where they actually are a nonprofit.  You probably also don't realize that pretty most other entities recognized as nonprofit by the IRS are also corporations.

A non-profit, but not a charity, and I think a lot of people think of the two as synonymous— the tax advantage of their structure mostly exists to prevent double taxation on monies that would otherwise be spent directly by the members if the orginization didn't exist. I hadn't really paid much attention to (c)(6)'s previously, it's interesting to see that some have been under fire, and thats probably another argument for maintaining a good delineation between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Foundation:  no one wants uncle sam arguing that Bitcoin Foundation is really the controlling corporation for Bitcoin— in independent business— operating under (c)(6) as a tax dodge.

[charleshoskinson]

The privacy policy is an important point. Thank you for mentioning it.  Same with the tax status. Do you hade a back ground in this sort of thing? I think we could use someone who knows something about this. The foundation has a lot of work to do in addition to advancing Bitcoin. But bear in mind, the vast majority of the foundation membrrs are just like the members here...except we paid $30 (about 1/3 if what you would pay to join the Linux foundation).

I will put it on the agenda. Many thanks.

As long as bg is a member of the foundation, I will continue to stay. He's been one of my best friends here at bitcointalk and a great member of the community. To be honest, I don't think what the foundation has set out to do is easy. They are effectively herding cats on a global scale.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Well there you have it, a United States corporation is trying to take over Bitcoin.

The Bitcoin Foundation is not trying to take over anything.

They are not trying to take over anything because they already have.

[charleshoskinson]

They are not trying to take over anything because they already have.

Sorry mate. I haven't thrown in the towel yet. If the foundation doesn't get behind my course, then they will become irrelevant

[charleshoskinson]

Wait so they have the lead developer of bitcoin, the CEO of Mt Gox, CEO of bitinstant, some other heavy hitters of bitcoins and because they don't like your course (which is below sub par research) they will be irrelevant. I really doubt that, but believe what you want.

I love you too gweedo

[charleshoskinson]

You do realized they will always be relevant they have a hold on bitcoin, we have to hope they get voted out and new members who can turn the foundation around and actually get things done will succeed. But I doubt Gavin, Charlie, and Mark will give up there powers, and have there employees vote them back in, or put figure heads into power. I really doubt a sub par educational system will bring them down.

This is like arguing over who will be head of the free software foundation. Bitcoin is much larger than a single foundation and they are not focusing on the only chokepoint to control it. I'm not worried at all. Whoever controls the gateway into bitcoin land (ie the knowledge required to use bitcoins) controls bitcoin land. I'm slowly bringing the community together behind this concept and if the BTC foundation wants to ignore it, then they will end up as an also ran.

I really doubt a sub par educational system will bring them down.

You're free at any time to help us.

[charleshoskinson]

Bitcoin is larger, but the person that make the decisions for the bitcoin masses is behind it, so you think people will do there own research? No they will just accept it.

It is all about who controls the gateway into the world. What's your area of expertise? I'd like you to record a lecture

[lucif]

It's interesting that THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. conveniently and casually drop the  "INC." designation at the bottom of their website at https://bitcoinfoundation.org/.

If they are trying to hide the fact that they are a United States Corporation, what else could they be hiding?

Here is the lawyer behind the formation of this corporation:
http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/patrick-murck-1805177.html

This "foundation" is one of the biggest scams in Bitcoin.

+1

[jubalix]

Well there you have it, a United States corporation is trying to take over Bitcoin.

The Bitcoin Foundation is not trying to take over anything.

They are not trying to take over anything because they already have.

Good point, they are at most just solidifying their positions.....until a superior coin comes along!!!!

[Razick]

What's wrong with them being incorporated?

There's nothing wrong with them being incorporated - it's the fact that they're incorporated as a business rather than a non-profit which some people find disturbing, especially given that they chose to style themselves as "Foundation" and that they claim to represent Bitcoin in general rather than specific Bitcoin interests.  

People worry about a commercial entity whose management is dominated by those involved in Bitcoin commerce paying the lead developer (there are some people who believe the devs shouldn't be paid at all, nevermind by commercial interests).  Rightly or wrongly, they believe that the "Bitcoin elite" will have undue influence over the development of the official client.

If they styled themselves the Bitcoin Chamber of Commerce, or the Bitcoin Financial Services Alliance, no-one would really give a shit.  If they were an actual non-profit obligated to make their financial statements public, there'd also be far less concern.

+1

[Razick]

What's wrong with them being incorporated?

There's nothing wrong with them being incorporated - it's the fact that they're incorporated as a business rather than a non-profit which some people find disturbing, especially given that they chose to style themselves as "Foundation" and that they claim to represent Bitcoin in general rather than specific Bitcoin interests.  

You must have missed the part where they actually are a nonprofit.  You probably also don't realize that pretty most other entities recognized as nonprofit by the IRS are also corporations.

+1

[charleshoskinson]

This is nowhere near taking off.  If you have retailers all over start taking it the transaction rate will go up 100 or a thousand times or more.  You are not going to have that whole system hinge on 1 person.  You will have large numbers of paid developers and there will probably be foundations on different continents.    

Amazon, Microsoft, Paypal, Google and Facebook. Until someone spends the time to seduce them into contributing devs the Foundation will be small. This- alongside my education project- should be the focus of the foundation. They would get dozens of seasoned professional programmers and powerful corporations who are financially tied to the success of Bitcoin. That's called a win win.

[charleshoskinson]

Satoshi isn't coming back.

[John (John K.)]

Please keep this on topic, gents.