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

[repentance]

The way that they identified him makes it pretty clear (by his pseudonym, his email address, and as the author of the white paper) makes pretty clear that it's an honourary status.  I could set up an organisation tomorrow which gives a similar honourary status to - for instance - Martin Luther King.  His heirs could object to that, but otherwise there'd be no real problem with it unless the status itself imposed legal responsibility. 

Generally speaking, "founding member" on its own imposes no legal obligations on someone (although it's a status often coveted by wankers).  Depending on jurisdiction, certain roles within an organisation do carry with them legal responsibility and people assuming those roles must consent to assuming that responsibility (whether it comes about by appointment or by election).  You could not - realistically - appoint Satoshi to the board, even though the initial board was not elected.

Does this hostility come from Satoshi being named as a founding member or is it more about the likelihood that there are people within the Bitcoin sphere of influence who are still in contact with him (which has always been presumed by most of the community)?

If you said that Satoshi being named as a founding member in absentia creates the impression that he supports the actions of Bitcoin Foundation, you might have a valid point.  I'm utterly convinced, however, that if Satoshi returned today under a new username and posted his opinions on the current state of Bitcoin a shitload of people would tell him that he "doesn't understand" Bitcoin and what it's "supposed" to be.

[1715155028]

1715155028

[1715155028]

1715155028

[Dunster]

http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/1/3436984/bitcoin-foundation-legitimacy-and-standardization

In a response, Vessenes said he could "confirm that Satoshi is a Founding Member" of the Foundation, though he didn’t disclose who he was. He also sees the move away from anonymity as vital to building trust in Bitcoin. "I hope we’ll be able to provide a bit of social proof that people are high-quality and willing to tell their real names," he says of the rule. Obviously, this doesn’t stop anyone from using their coins anonymously, but if the group gains clout, it could incentivize putting your name behind your trades.

Where is the proof of confirmation? We don't need six confirmations, one is sufficient in this case.

[darkmule]

What makes you think Satoshi isn't entirely capable of defending his own honor, if he's upset about this? 

[Dunster]

What makes you think Satoshi isn't entirely capable of defending his own honor, if he's upset about this?  

It's possible that THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. just entered his name and details into the by-laws and makes it appear that Satoshi endorses THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC.

Additionally, they admit they have locked Satoshi out of the forum.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=186939.msg1943004#msg1943004

His account is locked, so no. If he wants to claim his account, he'll have to contact me with a PGP signature.

[wumpus]

You already created a topic about the by-laws, why not continue discussion there?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=188127.0

How many of these topics defaming the bitcoin foundation with the same old arguments are you going to start? Check the front page of this subforum. This is starting to look like quite an unhealthy obsession.

[Dunster]

You already created a topic about the by-laws, why not continue discussion there?

Because that thread is buried deep in the hierarchy and difficult for people to find. Clearly I'm up against some very strong forces of the Bitcoin power elite here, I've touched a nerve as I may have exposed some significant deception.

[Lethn]

What makes you think Satoshi isn't entirely capable of defending his own honor, if he's upset about this?  

It's possible that THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. just entered his name and details into the by-laws and makes it appear that Satoshi endorses THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC.

Additionally, they admit they have locked Satoshi out of the forum.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=186939.msg1943004#msg1943004

His account is locked, so no. If he wants to claim his account, he'll have to contact me with a PGP signature.

I think this as well, it looks like a classic way for them to try and seem legitimate and get more people on your side, kind of like organising a rebellion and marrying a princess so the rebellion seems more legitimate except in this case they're taking advantage of the fact that Satoshi seems to not want to show up in public and I suspect this kind of thing is exactly they were worried about.

[jubalix]

They have forked Satoshi persona, by specious by laws and trading off his name

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

[jubalix]

isn't this always the way for the actual leader,

crucify him,
deify him,
adopt him,
?
profit.

lulz

locked out

to funny

the truth is they are not about to risk that he does come back, because even if genuine, he would prove fallible, and not in line with there views

What makes you think Satoshi isn't entirely capable of defending his own honor, if he's upset about this?  

It's possible that THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. just entered his name and details into the by-laws and makes it appear that Satoshi endorses THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC.

Additionally, they admit they have locked Satoshi out of the forum.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=186939.msg1943004#msg1943004

His account is locked, so no. If he wants to claim his account, he'll have to contact me with a PGP signature.

[bitrick]

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.

Darn, the tubes lost my longer post, so this will have to do:

Agreed. The Foundation should simply add the word "honorary" to the text regarding Satoshi's membership and I'll be satisfied.

Until they clarify this, I will assume they have inappropriately claimed Satoshi's support in a bid to attain some exclusive authority that Satoshi's endorsement would imply.

The Foundation should speak for it's members and other foundations can speak for their members. That is the decentralized philosophy of Bitcoin and the Foundation should strictly adhere to that philosophy. Gavin, for example, has always claimed he supports the development of other bitcoin clients.

Since this could be addressed with a trivial fix of adding one word to the text, I will assume this is an ongoing deception on the part of the Foundation and I suspect it will remain a sticking point in the Foundation's relationship with the broader Bitcoin community until it is addressed.

[arklan]

i read most of the posts in the thread about the founding of the foundation. it was clearly, unquestionably, without any shadow of a doubt, stated therein that they had no actual interaction with satoshi, that the seat is utterly honorary as a result, and that, if he does "return" and prove his/her/their identity using the email/pgp key or what have you, he could thus claim his seat on the foundation's board.

you think he actually showed up somewhere and signed a document? man, that... that's rich.

[rini17]

So, if i understand correctly, half of you are saying it's completely okay to incorporate in the US with pseudonymous and not undersigned entities listed as Founding Members? And handwave it "oh, they are just honorary"?

[arklan]

So, if i understand correctly, half of you are saying it's completely okay to incorporate in the US with pseudonymous and not undersigned entities listed as Founding Members? And handwave it "oh, they are just honorary"?

no idea in the slightest if it's ok or not. for me, i was simply saying this is what they DID.

[Gabi]

To me it is nonsense. He did not found that "foundation", plain and simple. So he is not a founder. Like i am not a founder. Or maybe the other founders know something we don't know? Maybe satoshi is really a founder and we don't know?

[tvbcof]

Hazek and the other mods mostly seem to be either Libertarians or Anarchists (of a Capitalist flavour). They say so themselves. As individualists, it's highly unlikely that they'd be involved in some grand conspiracy (whether to promote or censor anything about the Bitcoin Foundation). What's much more likely, is that they could be unwitting participants in somebody else's manipulation. And even if there is no conspiracy whatsoever, Bitcoin could still be corrupted by accident -- a "tragedy of the commons" caused precisely because Anarcho-Capitalists don't seem to believe in a 'Commons'.

That said, I think it's a "storm in a teacup". I agree that "the" Bitcoin Foundation seems awfully suspect:
a) they seem to be 'squatting' in a made-up prestigious role, apparently for the sake of making Bitcoin look good to investors.
b) they seem ineffectual (from the outside, at least) in driving some obvious development. Instead of saying "fuck off, mainstream! Can't you see the BETA sign?" It's all "softly softly! Lest we upset some stakeholders."

Those 2 observations combined make Bitcoin seem like a ponzi scheme, which is sad because I'm sure it's not. However, I suspect Satoshi recruited Libertarians and An-Caps, not because he supported all of their views, but because he knew they would be strong believers who could evangelize Bitcoin and help it survive downturns. Perhaps he underestimated people's greed and herd mentality though. How would anyone hope to steer development towards some kind of "Open Source multiple mini cash systems all interacting together", when there's a gathering crowd of vulture capitalists saying "don't touch it, I'm trying to profit!" ?

A+ analysis.

The more I study things, the more it does not appear to me that 'Satoshi' ever had much interest in 'multiple mini-cash systems' though.  I'd like to believe it were true since that efficiently sums up my personal preferred world-view of crypto-currencies.  I just have to accept the fact that most of the important developers of the solution simply have a different world view than I.  Oh well.  The Bitcoin project has almost certainly released the floodgate holding back an ocean of technical talent which will likely be entering the space.  And possibly at a very opportune time in the life-cycle of our official financial systems.

[Malawi]

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.

Are you trolling?

Nobody can take over bitcoin unless there is consensus for it, or there is a massive hashing-attack. Satoshis signature is of no importance, Bitcoin works and does not need Satoshi to thrive. Just like apples don't need to check with Newton before they fall.

[darkmule]

What makes you think Satoshi isn't entirely capable of defending his own honor, if he's upset about this?  

It's possible that THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. just entered his name and details into the by-laws and makes it appear that Satoshi endorses THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC.

Additionally, they admit they have locked Satoshi out of the forum.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=186939.msg1943004#msg1943004

His account is locked, so no. If he wants to claim his account, he'll have to contact me with a PGP signature.

So you seriously think Satoshi is too retarded to use PGP if he wants to?  Or sign a message using the key from the genesis block?

This is such a complete non-issue. 

[mcdett]

calm down you fools.  THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. is registered in DC and should have filed papers stating this before advertising it.  We need someone to pull down the official legal filing, and make sure the i's are dotted.

If they're registering as a private organization and protecting their original bylaws by being private <-- tear it up on this forum... I'll get some backup

If they desire transparency, then they'll produce pdf's of the contract that was executed for the articles of incorporation.  We need the originals not the digital ones... the ones with signatures.

I do contracts all the time.... there's always a last minute edit (initialed by all parties), and full john hancocks for a body of work that usually is never perfect in word format (you need the scanned pdf).

[cycloid]

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.

This makes sense and needs to be addressed!

[cycloid]

Are you trolling?

Nobody can take over bitcoin unless there is consensus for it, or there is a massive hashing-attack. Satoshis signature is of no importance, Bitcoin works and does not need Satoshi to thrive. Just like apples don't need to check with Newton before they fall.

LOL awesome