The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action

[franky1]

SOME of you guys have little to no clue about real world stuff..

if you want bitcoin to fiat conversions then you have to accept that things need regulating. and if you want more relaxed regulations such as cheaper regulatory licensing to allow small businesses have the ability to compete against the centralised giants then that requires lobbying.

those that dont want lobbying or regulations. give me your FIAT and stop using it. find other methods of dealing with bitcoin EG trading bitcoins for bread, milk, meat and veg. dont touch the FIAT if you want a free market.

that is the simple answer.

regulations will not/have not made bitcoin owned by governments, what regulations do though is ensure that FIAT transactions are traceable, which is the same laws that have been around for years. the regulations have not changed.

bitcoin is not money. remember that. FIAT is money. and the government regulations are about FIAT.
you know the coins and bank notes with £$ symbols on them, they are trademarks of their respective governments/countries.
$ is a trademark of the US governments. £ is the trademark of the UK government. its their property so they have the rights to licence it however they please.

if you trade milk for bread that is not making a profit, due to the fact that with bartering it is a straight swap. but if you then sell the swapped item back to FIAT they will then want to know about this sudden appearance of their property.

so make your own personal decisions, do you want some lobbying to make it more fair and cheaper to offer bitcoin/fiat exchanges or will you get out of the basement and start up grocery stores to trade and barter bitcoins for other items.

arguing on a forum is just whispers that can be ignored if you think that just revoking membership from your sofa cushion will change anything.

bitcoin can never be owned by any sole person/entity/business... because bitcoin is not a single thing. the bitcoin is the blockchain, which can never be taken away.

if the government were to buy up or take ownership of the trademark "bitcoin" that is fine too.. it does not affect the blockchain, all it means is we rename the blockchain currency satoshi's or something else, within minutes we are back in business without any damage.

so stop getting hysterical about government taking over bitcoin.
if the government wanted to take a 20% cut of virtual currency(which is impossible). then make some game-bots to make billions upon billions of game gold in zynga, world of warcraft, etc and send that to the government as a form of protest, while still "paying them".. they will soon see that the value they get given is not as valuable as what we hold. and will soon learn to work with us, instead of against us.

the new hampshire project is working in the right direction, so is the sea-steading projects, actually speaking to government departments to make it easier to trade freely. which will surprisingly make their beloved FIAT move more freely from bank account to bank account. rather then being hoarded in secret off shore accounts.

think about the big picture guys and stop getting hysterical about "government is out to get us" .. seriously arguing on a forum wont change the laws for our benefit and ignoring the laws that have been around for many many years wont benefit you either.

[dancingnancy]

And, worse still, this is yet the same Patrick Murck who drew up the Coinlab/Bitcoinica/Bitcoin Consultancy deal which turned into such a massive clusterfuck that exactly none of the players involved emerged in any other manner than smeared with shit from head to toe. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=196150.0;all)

You forgot to let people know Mt. Gox is now holding the bitconica funds hostage as leverage and thus screwing over the little guy in their silly who gets to be king of bitcoin games...

No one on that foundation should represent BTC esp since they seem to think centralization is what BTC needs (to make them personally rich).

This needs to be said more often.  Such pieces of shit, really.

[Loozik]

"Outgoing" Bitcoin Foundation Executive Director Peter Vessenes, aka "vess" here, @vessenes on Twitter, states in video from Bitcoin 2013 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I6jfPXFAToM) at 5:23 that the Foundation will be hiring a lawyer to lobby regulators in Washington DC:

Then donations from individual users will fall to ZERO BTC. Who would want to send money to be used for a lawyer? In this event Peter Vessenes will be covering the lawyer's bill from his own pocket or from the soon-to-be-dried funds available at Bitcoin Foundation (at the expense of programmers).

What should be noted is that Peter Vessenes spoke on behalf of himself + maybe a few other persons only. He neither represents you (you did not give him the power of attorney) nor me (I didn't give the power of attorney) nor thousands of other Bitcoin users.

If you are to start some new Bitcoin community-driven organization, please make it one of the priorities to fund client development and testing. I don't see the Bitcoin Foundation doing this enough.

Please someone do this. 100% of donations should go for the client development + similar. 0% should go for politics (politics is anti-business).

[SamS]

SOME of you guys have little to no clue about real world stuff..

if you want bitcoin to fiat conversions then you have to accept that things need regulating. and if you want more relaxed regulations such as cheaper regulatory licensing to allow small businesses have the ability to compete against the centralised giants then that requires lobbying.

those that dont want lobbying or regulations. give me your FIAT and stop using it. find other methods of dealing with bitcoin EG trading bitcoins for bread, milk, meat and veg. dont touch the FIAT if you want a free market.

that is the simple answer.

regulations will not/have not made bitcoin owned by governments, what regulations do though is ensure that FIAT transactions are traceable, which is the same laws that have been around for years. the regulations have not changed.

bitcoin is not money. remember that. FIAT is money. and the government regulations are about FIAT.
you know the coins and bank notes with £$ symbols on them, they are trademarks of their respective governments/countries.
$ is a trademark of the US governments. £ is the trademark of the UK government. its their property so they have the rights to licence it however they please.

if you trade milk for bread that is not making a profit, due to the fact that with bartering it is a straight swap. but if you then sell the swapped item back to FIAT they will then want to know about this sudden appearance of their property.

so make your own personal decisions, do you want some lobbying to make it more fair and cheaper to offer bitcoin/fiat exchanges or will you get out of the basement and start up grocery stores to trade and barter bitcoins for other items.

arguing on a forum is just whispers that can be ignored if you think that just revoking membership from your sofa cushion will change anything.

bitcoin can never be owned by any sole person/entity/business... because bitcoin is not a single thing. the bitcoin is the blockchain, which can never be taken away.

if the government were to buy up or take ownership of the trademark "bitcoin" that is fine too.. it does not affect the blockchain, all it means is we rename the blockchain currency satoshi's or something else, within minutes we are back in business without any damage.

so stop getting hysterical about government taking over bitcoin.
if the government wanted to take a 20% cut of virtual currency(which is impossible). then make some game-bots to make billions upon billions of game gold in zynga, world of warcraft, etc and send that to the government as a form of protest, while still "paying them".. they will soon see that the value they get given is not as valuable as what we hold. and will soon learn to work with us, instead of against us.

the new hampshire project is working in the right direction, so is the sea-steading projects, actually speaking to government departments to make it easier to trade freely. which will surprisingly make their beloved FIAT move more freely from bank account to bank account. rather then being hoarded in secret off shore accounts.

think about the big picture guys and stop getting hysterical about "government is out to get us" .. seriously arguing on a forum wont change the laws for our benefit and ignoring the laws that have been around for many many years wont benefit you either.

Got to agree that the vulnerable point is still the exchange from bitcoin to Fiat. That's where the regulatory impact is clear -- and real. Obviously, people could choose to ignore this and just take what comes -- which I agree seems seems short-sighted -- or they could find smart people  who are looking out for Bitcoin's future to represent the interests of the community. I have no opinion on whether or not the Bitcoin Foundation is that organization. However, it's very clear that there are divergent points of view and having a discussion about them publicly can only be a good thing -- i.e. I disagree with your comment about "arguing on a forum..." has no impact.

With respect to representation, the issues are clearly complex and require more than part-time volunteers -- both on the technology and the regulatory side. Someone has to pay for that, which means some sort of trade group unless Bill Gates or Warren Buffet take a starring role. Right now, it's clear that the only people stumping up significant chunks of money are the for-profit organizations with a vested interest -- which is one reason why the initial board appeared so incestuous. To be fair, Peter deserves Kudos for stepping down -- and someone else probably should step down as well hint hint. Having said that, if you eliminate two of the major funders from the board, you have to ask yourself who steps in to replace them if not other CEO's of for-profit operations -- and probably VC backed ones at that? This brings me back to my first point about the need/value of a public discussion of where should/could the Bitcoin Foundation go from here.

When I started looking into Bitcoin a month or so ago, I was really excited about the potential. Now what I see is Bitcoin's "Wild West" level of development and the coordination problems inherent in any growth strategy. For a distributed network like Bitcoin with multiple interest groups, a forum like this one is an essential place to discuss and coordinate opinions on how to move forward -- regulatory and developmental Github if you will.

Just my $.02.

[melpomene]

Similar feelings here.

Probably the best is to focus on the aspects the foundation is not covering (like decentralization), plus the more democratic approach.

I think very important is to foster alternative clients and implementations.
Also proper protocol documentation, together with an "enhancement proposal" for when people want to change the protocol.

Just a few btc invested there would go a long way.

[gweedo]

i highly suspect they will get about 30% of the old users back after a year if that.

why pay them btc to sue each other and hurt btc.

most people are smarter than that.

We hope, some people are chugging that kool-aid by the gallons if you look at some posts.

[wumpus]

together with an "enhancement proposal" for when people want to change the protocol.

Those already existed far before the Bitcoin Foundation:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_Improvement_Proposals

[lonelyminer (Peter Šurda)]

So if a mafia boss hires lobbyists or even bribes politicians, that is a bad business decision? Not taking a strong position, just food for thought.

[franky1]

for the whole lobbying government to help free market and entrepeuners, i would prefer to use the people in new hampshire as oppose to the bitcoin foundation as they seem to have a community philospohy, where as the bitcoin foundation as a more commercial philosophy.

the only way to change that is not by arguing against them, but to change them from within.. that goes for the foundation and government departments

[coastermonger]

I need someone to clarify something for me: what power does the bitcoin foundation actually have? 

[QuestionAuthority]

I need someone to clarify something for me: what power does the bitcoin foundation actually have? 

Political none - monetary some - consensus some but not enough to have a mandate to do anything.

[SamS]

for the whole lobbying government to help free market and entrepeuners, i would prefer to use the people in new hampshire as oppose to the bitcoin foundation as they seem to have a community philospohy, where as the bitcoin foundation as a more commercial philosophy.

the only way to change that is not by arguing against them, but to change them from within.. that goes for the foundation and government departments

The issue, of course, is who is going to fund the lobbying effort. The commercial groups fund it because it helps them make money. Since they are setting up to make lots of money, they have investors who will fund lobbying as another business cost.

A "community philosophy" on the other hand is not commercial. It takes visionary altruists to be willing to fund this on a large scale. I'm sure, given the right approach, that they can be found. But someone has to be willing to invest the time, energy, and brain power, to work out the mechanics. I don't want to be pessimistic here, but I'm not seeing the coordination that can lead to this outcome thus far.

[gweedo]

I need someone to clarify something for me: what power does the bitcoin foundation actually have?  

They claim to have none, but the lead developer of bitcoins has high ranking so you can read between the lines.

[QuestionAuthority]

for the whole lobbying government to help free market and entrepeuners, i would prefer to use the people in new hampshire as oppose to the bitcoin foundation as they seem to have a community philospohy, where as the bitcoin foundation as a more commercial philosophy.

the only way to change that is not by arguing against them, but to change them from within.. that goes for the foundation and government departments

The issue, of course, is who is going to fund the lobbying effort. The commercial groups fund it because it helps them make money. Since they are setting up to make lots of money, they have investors who will fund lobbying as another business cost.

A "community philosophy" on the other hand is not commercial. It takes visionary altruists to be willing to fund this on a large scale. I'm sure, given the right approach, that they can be found. But someone has to be willing to invest the time, energy, and brain power, to work out the mechanics. I don't want to be pessimistic here, but I'm not seeing the coordination that can lead to this outcome thus far.

Bitcoin can succeed without lobbyists.

Bitcoin can succeed without TBF. They are just an action group focusing on the needs of Bitcoin businesses.

[SamS]

for the whole lobbying government to help free market and entrepeuners, i would prefer to use the people in new hampshire as oppose to the bitcoin foundation as they seem to have a community philospohy, where as the bitcoin foundation as a more commercial philosophy.

the only way to change that is not by arguing against them, but to change them from within.. that goes for the foundation and government departments

The issue, of course, is who is going to fund the lobbying effort. The commercial groups fund it because it helps them make money. Since they are setting up to make lots of money, they have investors who will fund lobbying as another business cost.

A "community philosophy" on the other hand is not commercial. It takes visionary altruists to be willing to fund this on a large scale. I'm sure, given the right approach, that they can be found. But someone has to be willing to invest the time, energy, and brain power, to work out the mechanics. I don't want to be pessimistic here, but I'm not seeing the coordination that can lead to this outcome thus far.

Bitcoin can succeed without lobbyists.

Bitcoin can succeed without TBF. They are just an action group focusing on the needs of Bitcoin businesses.

FWIW, I should be clear that I'm not talking about Bitcoin here as much as the interface between Bitcoin and Fiat. They really are two different things to my mind.  Bitcoin doesn't have to have a lobby -- but loses the chance to have influence in the discussion if it doesn't. The BTF doesn't have to be the representative organization, but what other funded group is there right now? Mind you, i'm not trying to argue for or against BTF here, just trying to be practical about the alternatives. 

[QuestionAuthority]

for the whole lobbying government to help free market and entrepeuners, i would prefer to use the people in new hampshire as oppose to the bitcoin foundation as they seem to have a community philospohy, where as the bitcoin foundation as a more commercial philosophy.

the only way to change that is not by arguing against them, but to change them from within.. that goes for the foundation and government departments

The issue, of course, is who is going to fund the lobbying effort. The commercial groups fund it because it helps them make money. Since they are setting up to make lots of money, they have investors who will fund lobbying as another business cost.

A "community philosophy" on the other hand is not commercial. It takes visionary altruists to be willing to fund this on a large scale. I'm sure, given the right approach, that they can be found. But someone has to be willing to invest the time, energy, and brain power, to work out the mechanics. I don't want to be pessimistic here, but I'm not seeing the coordination that can lead to this outcome thus far.

Bitcoin can succeed without lobbyists.

Bitcoin can succeed without TBF. They are just an action group focusing on the needs of Bitcoin businesses.

FWIW, I should be clear that I'm not talking about Bitcoin here as much as the interface between Bitcoin and Fiat. They really are two different things to my mind.  Bitcoin doesn't have to have a lobby -- but loses the chance to have influence in the discussion if it doesn't. The BTF doesn't have to be the representative organization, but what other funded group is there right now? Mind you, i'm not trying to argue for or against BTF here, just trying to be practical about the alternatives. 

I'm not arguing for or against them either. There is nothing wrong with a group of professional business people having a representative org. They don't represent me but I don't have a business so I don't have a voice and I didn't join the club. Because many here are not members or business owners I think this whole discussion should be on the TBF forum where members do rightfully have a voice.

[Micon]

1) https://bitcoinfoundation.org/about/board  I don't know the other 3, but personally trust and respect Jon, Gavin, & Charlie 

2) The conference they put on is badass and getting massive world-wide attention for bitcoin

3) IMO they are a net positive for btc and thus have my support

[Loozik]

Bitcoin can succeed without lobbyists.

With lobbyists Bitcoin will fail. In fact Bitcoin has been doing very well without them.

Bitcoin can succeed without TBF. They are just an action group focusing on the needs of Bitcoin businesses.

Maybe an organization is needed to do a job of an action group for retail users of Bitcoin, not business users?

but what other funded group is there right now? Mind you, i'm not trying to argue for or against BTF here, just trying to be practical about the alternatives.  

Let's fund one.

They don't represent me but I don't have a business so I don't have a voice and I didn't join the club.

If a new ''organization'' gets set up, you certainly could have a voice, with your money. You and other retail users of Bitcoin could crowd-finance features of their interest.

With this new money, we could convince developers to work for the new organization for money rather than (i) for BTF for free or (ii) businesses for money and political whoring.

[QuestionAuthority]

Bitcoin can succeed without lobbyists.

With lobbyists Bitcoin will fail. In fact Bitcoin has been doing very well without them.

Bitcoin can succeed without TBF. They are just an action group focusing on the needs of Bitcoin businesses.

Maybe an organization is needed to do a job of an action group for retail users of Bitcoin, not business users?

but what other funded group is there right now? Mind you, i'm not trying to argue for or against BTF here, just trying to be practical about the alternatives.  

Let's fund one.

They don't represent me but I don't have a business so I don't have a voice and I didn't join the club.

If a new ''organization'' gets set up, you certainly could have a voice, with your money. You and other retail users of Bitcoin could crowd-finance features of their interest.

With this new money, we could convince developers to work for the new organization for money rather than (i) for BTF for free or (ii) businesses for money and political whoring.

Wouldn't hurt my feelings to have a user group. I watch the forums very carefully because I have money in the game. Close monitoring has already allowed me to watch a crash happening once and profit by selling on the down trend and buying at the bottom. Even a user entity that does nothing but track political and economic happenings and sends out daily emails would have value to me.

[Loozik]

Wouldn't hurt my feelings to have a user group.

Great.

I watch the forums very carefully because I have money in the game.

I just started (account at MtGox funded a few days ago after three weeks waiting to be verified). And after I funded my account I read a thread started by retep (a developer) and got really frightened. He was advocating regulation.

Even a user entity that does nothing but track political and economic happenings and sends out daily emails would have value to me.

This user entity should go further and ''buy out'' developers from BTF (this will be easy as they already have worked for free).