Breaking News: Satoshi sighted as member of "the Foundation"

[Dunster]

Satoshi has been sighted! He is now a member of "the Foundation" otherwise known as THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC.

ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP

Section 3.1 Membership Classes: The Corporation will have three classes of membership:

(a) Founding Members;

(b) Industry Members; and

(c) Individual Members.

The term "member" may be used to refer generically to a member in any class.

Section 3.2 Membership Qualifications: The requirements for membership in each membership class shall be as follows:

(a) Founding Members. The Founding Members of the Corporation shall be:

i. Gavin Andresen, Bitcoin Developer residing or doing business in Amherst, MA, USA.

ii. Peter Vessenes, CEO of CoinLab and residing or doing business in Bainbridge Island, WA, USA.

iii. Charles Shrem, CEO of BitInstant residing or doing business in Brooklyn, NY, USA.

iv. Roger Ver, CEO of MemoryDealers residing or doing business in Santa Clara, CA, USA.

v. Patrick Murck, Principal at Engage Legal, PLLC residing or doing business in Washington, DC, USA.

vi. Mark Karpeles, CEO of MtGox.com and residing or doing business in Tokyo, Japan.

vii. Satoshi Nakamoto, at satoshin@gmx.com, author of the white paper “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” published on http://bitcoin.org and owner of the PGP Public Key with fingerprint: 5EC948A1.

As a founding member of  THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. he may have signed the by-laws. In the interest of full transparency THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. should post a scan of the original by-laws or provide us with an explanation why he was appointed without his consent.

Please post on Twitter, Facebook and other social media. Let's get the word out.

THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. is scrambling and covering up to bury this story by relegating the most important revelation since the genesis block as deeply as they could in these forums:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=188177.0

[acoindr]

What do you think is news? The people who set up the foundation are honoring the person, group, or entity responsible for the project they support. Your breaking news has been widely known for several months.

[Dunster]

What do you think is news? The people who set up the foundation are honoring the person, group, or entity responsible for the project they support. Your breaking news has been widely known for several months.

They are not honoring Him, they have named him as a founding member:

(a) Founding Members. The Founding Members of the Corporation shall be:

In the interest of full transparency THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. should post a scan of the original by-laws or provide us with an explanation why he was appointed without his consent.

[Wilikon]

What do you think is news? The people who set up the foundation are honoring the person, group, or entity responsible for the project they support. Your breaking news has been widely known for several months.

In the interest of full transparency THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. should post a scan of the original by-laws or provide us with an explanation why he was appointed without his consent.

What makes you think it was without his consent?

[Dunster]

What makes you think it was without his consent?

The scan of the original by-laws will answer that question.

[acoindr]

What do you think is news? The people who set up the foundation are honoring the person, group, or entity responsible for the project they support. Your breaking news has been widely known for several months.

They are not honoring Him, they have named him as a founding member:

Once Bitcoin reached a certain point of adoption Satoshi said he was "moving on to other things". For whatever reason(s) he is no longer dealing in any significant way with Bitcoin, at least not openly. If he should ever decide to return in a public way why should he not have status with an organization likely to be well associated with the project he started?

[Dunster]

Once Bitcoin reached a certain point of adoption Satoshi said he was "moving on to other things". For whatever reason(s) he is no longer dealing in any significant way with Bitcoin, at least not openly. If he should ever decide to return in a public way why should he not have status with an organization likely to be well associated with the project he started?

We want to know if he consented to being a founding member of THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. or if THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. is simply using his name to strengthen their hold as the self appointed "leaders" of Bitcoin. The ethical question this poses is extremely important.

[acoindr]

Once Bitcoin reached a certain point of adoption Satoshi said he was "moving on to other things". For whatever reason(s) he is no longer dealing in any significant way with Bitcoin, at least not openly. If he should ever decide to return in a public way why should he not have status with an organization likely to be well associated with the project he started?

We want to know if he consented to being a founding member of THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. or if THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. is simply using his name to strengthen their hold as the self appointed "leaders" of Bitcoin. The ethical question this poses is extremely important.

It's clear all that's listed is his assumed identification. The free market can take that whichever way they want. You don't seem to give the free market much credit.

[Dunster]

It's clear all that's listed is his assumed identification. The free market can take that whichever way they want. You don't seem to give the free market much credit.

The question is not about the free market. You are now using the "hide the problem in plain site technique". The by-laws clearly state he is a founder and we want to see his signature. The ethics of this situation absolutely require it.

[acoindr]

It's clear all that's listed is his assumed identification. The free market can take that whichever way they want. You don't seem to give the free market much credit.

The question is not about the free market. You are now using the "hide the problem in plain site technique". The by-laws clearly state he is a founder and we want to see his signature. The ethics of this situation absolutely require it.

I'm not trying to hide anything in plain sight. I'm no corporate lawyer, but AFAIK by-laws are simply rules that govern the corporate entity. You can say Donald Duck is your spiritual leader in your by-laws if you want to. It only applies to the entity.

[Dunster]

The Wikimedia Foundation bylaws are signed:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Bylaws

SIGNATURES

/s/ Kat Walsh, /s/ Jan-Bart de Vreede, /s/ Jimmy Wales, /s/ Bishakha Datta, /s/ Matt Halprin, /s/ Stu West. /s/ Samuel Klein, /s/ Alice Wiegand, /s/ Patricio Lorente, /s/ Ting Chen

[Dunster]

We don't need to do a pull request. We simply want to see a scan of the original by-laws to see who signed. There is no PDF scan in the Github.

[acoindr]

The Wikimedia Foundation bylaws are signed:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Bylaws

SIGNATURES

/s/ Kat Walsh, /s/ Jan-Bart de Vreede, /s/ Jimmy Wales, /s/ Bishakha Datta, /s/ Matt Halprin, /s/ Stu West. /s/ Samuel Klein, /s/ Alice Wiegand, /s/ Patricio Lorente, /s/ Ting Chen

You don't understand what I'm saying.

The foundation's by-laws create various classes. One class is founding members, in which they included Satoshi. They could have also included a Spiritual Leaders class in which they name Donald Duck.

That doesn't mean Donald Duck has to sign anything.

[Gabi]

I agree with Dunster, this "foundation" is just a private thing, it is not bitcoin. Satoshi a founder? Did he sign? Or the "foundation" members happily added him? So now i can make the GABI FOUNDATION and have as founder satoshi as well? 

[acoindr]

I agree with Dunster, this "foundation" is just a private thing, it is not bitcoin. Satoshi a founder? Did he sign? Or the "foundation" members happily added him? So now i can make the GABI FOUNDATION and have as founder satoshi as well?  

Yes. And you can have Donald Duck as your "spiritual leader" if you like.

[Dunster]

Donald Duck is clearly not a real person. A real person should be consented and Satoshi is presented as a real person as a founding member. You are skirting the real issue and we simply wanted to see a scan of the by-laws and who signed them.

[Gabi]

I agree with Dunster, this "foundation" is just a private thing, it is not bitcoin. Satoshi a founder? Did he sign? Or the "foundation" members happily added him? So now i can make the GABI FOUNDATION and have as founder satoshi as well?  

Yes. And you can have Donald Duck as your "spiritual leader" if you like.

Now imagine if they add me as a founder member. Without my consent. This clearly would not be acceptable because i am not a founder and i never signed to be one.

[acoindr]

Donald Duck is clearly not a real person. A real person should be consented and Satoshi is presented as a real person as a founding member. You are skirting the real issue and we simply wanted to see a scan of the by-laws and who signed them.

Well, I suppose if they thought Satoshi would have a problem with being named as a "founder" in their by-laws they might have a problem if not having consent, but I doubt it would ever be an issue.

[Dunster]

Now imagine if they add me as a founder member. Without my consent. This clearly would not be acceptable because i am not a founder and i never signed to be one.

This is correct. We need the community to demand a scan of the original by-laws as soon as possible. Otherwise, the takeover of Bitcoin by THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. is essentially complete.

We don't want to see Satoshi's Bitcoin born January 3, 2009 and died April 26, 2013.

[benjamindees]

As a founding member of  THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. he may have signed the by-laws. In the interest of full transparency THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. should post a scan of the original by-laws or provide us with an explanation why he was appointed without his consent.

Agree.