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

[Severian]

THUS, IMHO, and as a Foundation Life Member, I hereby move that the Foundation dissolve itself, immediately, and enter into a binding legal plan to reimburse all donors proportionately, once legitimate expenses and outstanding debt incurred to date is covered. Additionally, I move that the Foundation immediately terminate all relations with Peter Vessenes, Mark Karpeles (sorry, dude) and Patrick Murck, and that Jon Matonis be appointed interim Executive Director, to serve during the company's receivership and through it's final dissolution as a legal entity.

I agree with this but I don't need my btc back. I donated to get Gavin paid. Otherwise, spot on.

I don't trust people seeking regulation. Their interests are aligned with the government, not with the Bitcoin community. They may think they're performing some kind of good for the community but they're actually leaving themselves and us open to surveillance and manipulation.

[1714041216]

1714041216

[1714041216]

1714041216

[SamS]

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.

I've handled the finances for a number of non-profits over the years. It's unlikely that you are talking less than $500K/annum here and it's just as likely that it will be closer to $1M to start (for developers, lobbying as needed, etc...). To get the ball rolling, if there are really people out there that want to fund such an organization, I'll donate the administration/management time pro bono.

[QuestionAuthority]

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).

I don't know that I agree with that. Private citizens don't generally hire their own developers and compete in the open market. Take Microsoft for example: closed system working for pure profit. When they develop a loser like Microsoft "BOB" no one buys it and they lose money. It's in their best interest to ensure they are catering to consumers. Bitcoin businesses are no different. If they pay a developer to produce something that the user-base dislikes it will fail. Free market economies are pretty self correcting.

[Loozik]

I've handled the finances for a number of non-profits over the years. It's unlikely that you are talking less than $500K/annum here and it's just as likely that it will be closer to $1M to start (for developers, lobbying as needed, etc...). To get the ball rolling, if there are really people out there that want to fund such an organization, I'll donate the administration/management time pro bono.

1. I do not think it is needed to set up a formal organization.

2. In the first incarnation it could just be a crowd-financing website where non-statist developers who want to free themselves from BTF would put the features and price tags on these features. People would vote for these features with their money (BTC).

3. Not having a formal organization is even better. The so called authorities / regulators will have noone to talk to.

[SamS]

I've handled the finances for a number of non-profits over the years. It's unlikely that you are talking less than $500K/annum here and it's just as likely that it will be closer to $1M to start (for developers, lobbying as needed, etc...). To get the ball rolling, if there are really people out there that want to fund such an organization, I'll donate the administration/management time pro bono.

1. I do not think it is needed to set up a formal organization.

2. In the first incarnation it could just be a crowd-financing website where non-statist developers who want to free themselves from BTF would put the features and price tags on these features. People would vote for these features with their money (BTC).

3. Not having a formal organization is even better. The so called authorities / regulators will have noone to talk to.

I view this as unworkable but will watch with hopeful enthusiasm.

[Loozik]

I view this as unworkable but will watch with hopeful enthusiasm.

Why unworkable? The mechanism for crowd-financing has been proved effective. Would you mind voluntarily paying say BTC 1 a year to keep Bitcoin system free of politics + get a desired feature in Bitcoin-Qt?

[SamS]

I view this as unworkable but will watch with hopeful enthusiasm.

Why unworkable? The mechanism for crowd-financing has been proved effective. Would you mind voluntarily paying say BTC 1 a year to keep Bitcoin system free of politics + get a desired feature in Bitcoin-Qt?

Crowd funding just raises funds. I don't "think" that that's the issue here -- although, if it did take $500K, we'd be talking 5,000 donors of 1 bitcoin each. It's the ability to stay on track and get relevant things done that concerns me more. I see this as a complicated coordination problem that in my view at least is unlikely to be optimally resolved from a decentralized approach. I'd be happy to be proved wrong though.

[Loozik]

Crowd funding just raises funds. I don't "think" that that's the issue here -- although, if it did take $500K, we'd be talking 5,000 donors of 1 bitcoin each.

You will donate 1 bitcoin. A dissatisfied BTF member will donate 25 bitcoins. An investor who wants bitcoin to stay away from politics will donate 100 bitcoins.

It's the ability to stay on track and get relevant things done that concerns me more. I see this as a complicated coordination problem that in my view at least is unlikely to be optimally resolved from a decentralized approach. I'd be happy to be proved wrong though.

It is just an idea (to get developers focused on development and testing). Details / problems can get resolved in time. There are so many brainiacs here

[SamS]

Crowd funding just raises funds. I don't "think" that that's the issue here -- although, if it did take $500K, we'd be talking 5,000 donors of 1 bitcoin each.

You will donate 1 bitcoin. A dissatisfied BTF member will donate 25 bitcoins. An investor who wants bitcoin to stay away from politics will donate 100 bitcoins.

It's the ability to stay on track and get relevant things done that concerns me more. I see this as a complicated coordination problem that in my view at least is unlikely to be optimally resolved from a decentralized approach. I'd be happy to be proved wrong though.

It is just an idea (to get developers focused on development and testing). Details / problems can get resolved in time. There are so many brainiacs here

Like I said, I'm game to help out on the non-tech side.

[gogxmagog]

If you hate the system, you might find it less effective to be always fighting it at every turn; than to simply find a way to make the system be your servant.

Failing that; move to a cabin in Montana, work on your manifesto, and build mail-bombs.

[wumpus]

I don't know that I agree with that. Private citizens don't generally hire their own developers and compete in the open market. Take Microsoft for example: closed system working for pure profit. When they develop a loser like Microsoft "BOB" no one buys it and they lose money. It's in their best interest to ensure they are catering to consumers. Bitcoin businesses are no different. If they pay a developer to produce something that the user-base dislikes it will fail. Free market economies are pretty self correcting.

The elephant in the room is that many people are setting up successful businesses on top of Bitcoin, but no one is paying the developers of the infrastructure itself. At least not the user-facing parts. The network will be fine, for example Jeff Garzik was just hired by Bitpay.

However this may mean that, for example, Bitcoin-Qt will no longer be maintained at a certain point and only the bitcoind will remain. It's not the case now, but I can see myself moving on to something else if I don't find a way to fund its development (through the Bitcoin Foundation or otherwise).

[QuestionAuthority]

I don't know that I agree with that. Private citizens don't generally hire their own developers and compete in the open market. Take Microsoft for example: closed system working for pure profit. When they develop a loser like Microsoft "BOB" no one buys it and they lose money. It's in their best interest to ensure they are catering to consumers. Bitcoin businesses are no different. If they pay a developer to produce something that the user-base dislikes it will fail. Free market economies are pretty self correcting.

The elephant in the room is that many people are setting up successful businesses on top of Bitcoin, but no one is paying the developers of the infrastructure itself. At least not the user-facing parts. The network will be fine, for example Jeff Garzik was just hired by Bitpay.

This may mean that, for example, Bitcoin-Qt will no longer be maintained at a certain point and only the bitcoind will remain. It's not the case now, but I can see myself moving on to something else if I don't find a way to fund its development (through the Bitcoin Foundation or otherwise).

Markets are self correcting. Consumer desire drives innovation. Someone will step in an hire a developer to continue to advance the software. If you wanted to argue anything you might be able to make a case for continued open source software but I don't even think there is a danger of closing development with TBF.

[marcus_of_augustus]

"... sure all we want to do is pay Gavin, send in your bitcoins folks ... "

And then the lawyers showed up.   Didn't see this one coming.

FWIW; I donated personally to Gavin late 2012 and was extremely surprise that I appeared to be the FIRST person to do so ever. He doesn't ask for donations, but neither does he refuse them. If bitcoiners weren't such miserly bunch of skinflints then we maybe wouldn't need a 'foundation' to pay him ... but deflationary currencies attract savers, so goes with territory I suppose.

[wumpus]

Markets are self correcting. Consumer desire drives innovation. Someone will step in an hire a developer to continue to advance the software. If you wanted to argue anything you might be able to make a case for continued open source software but I don't even think there is a danger of closing development with TBF.

So you're proposing to make Bitcoin closed source software and sell it? Or package it with ads?
We could just as well retire it completely in that case. It just won't work (no one trusts a closed client). Consumer desire works for easily marketable products, not an experimental cryptocurrency.
And if you don't see value in open source that's fine, but I'm sure there are people here who do.

FWIW; I donated personally to Gavin late 2012 and was extremely surprise that I appeared to be the FIRST person to do so ever. He doesn't ask for donations, but neither does he refuse them. If bitcoiners weren't such miserly bunch of skinflints then we maybe wouldn't need a 'foundation' to pay him ...

Yep, that's how it goes...

[Loozik]

If bitcoiners weren't such miserly bunch of skinflints then we maybe wouldn't need a 'foundation' to pay him ... but deflationary currencies attract savers, so goes with territory I suppose.

That's why bitcoiners need a tool / mechanism / website through which they can pay the developers for their work thus freeing them from soon-to-be-politically-involved TBF.

[LorenzoMoney]

Mike,

I read your post four times and I still am not sure what you are trying to say. Are you upset that the Bitcoin Foundation doesn't do what you want or are you upset that Gavin Andresen gets a salary, or are you upset that the Bitcoin Foundation is hiring a lobbyist to go to Washington? Or is the choice of lobbyist or lawyer that is bothering you?

From what you wrote, it is not clear to me what it is you are complaining about and what you really want.

The idea of calling out to the Bitcoin Foundation on this site Bitcointalk to disband actually goes against the principles of Bitcoin. Instead of trying to tell other people what to do, why don't you just organize your own Foundation / Organization / Association and promulgate your own ideas. The Bitcoin Foundation is not going to go away just because you are unhappy with them.

I hear that the Bitcoin Foundation has there own private secret forum on which only members can post, and which only members can read. If you really object to something they are doing, and if, as some people here say, you have lifetime membership, Why don't you just post what you have to say on their forum?

Your complaints seem disorganized and displaced.

I do welcome any new foundation you organize. Organize a new and better foundation does not require or mandate any existing organization to disband.

Let us address the issue of hiring a lawyer and a lobbyist.
Those of you in this thread who would like to just rebel and protest against the government and say that we should just use bitcoin until fiat falls into decline and the government comes to us, well, high school is over and the reality is, as we have learned from Bitfloor and Mt.Gox-Dwolla, that the rest of the universe runs on rules and widespread adoption of bitcoin will require smart navigation of various legal systems. The best way to deal with government objections is to engage the government directly. I for one and happy that the Bitcoin Foundation is hiring a lawyer and lobbyist.

I do want to point out that your goals and motivations, as you wrote in your posting here are not quite clear and I look forward to learning more about the new association you plan on organizing.


Lorenzo Money

[willphase]

Let us address the issue of hiring a lawyer and a lobbyist.
Those of you in this thread who would like to just rebel and protest against the government and say that we should just use bitcoin until fiat falls into decline and the government comes to us, well, high school is over and the reality is, as we have learned from Bitfloor and Mt.Gox-Dwolla, that the rest of the universe runs on rules and widespread adoption of bitcoin will require smart navigation of various legal systems. The best way to deal with government objections is to engage the government directly. I for one and happy that the Bitcoin Foundation is hiring a lawyer and lobbyist.

Agree with this.

History has shown that governments - that means people with the power to push legislation and vote on bills - members of congress and senators - do not really understand things (c.f. climate change) and need things explained to them.  If the BCF or someone else does not lobby for things, explaining the benefits of bitcoin, explaining that it's not just used for drugs, that it isn't really anonymous and that it's not a big scary thing that they don't understand - then guess what will happen:  The banks and real opposition to bitcoin (the parts of the machine that stand to lose the most if bitcoin succeeds) will lobby instead, and they will lobby for a stranglehold to be placed on bitcoin e.g. by banning bitcoin/fiat exchanges because of the fear of people using it to buy drugs and weapons and 3d printers and things that senators get scared about - and however much you think that bitcoin can succeed without regulation - this will be the death for bitcoin because if people can't use it for real transactions without fear of being arrested, then it will just die.

I, for one, agree that we should engage with DC and try and get the regulation that will help bitcoin succeed rather than put our heads in the sand and hope that government will go away because of some misguided belief that 'bitcoin is peer to peer and decentralised and you can't shut it down NO YOU CAN'T' - sigh.

Will

[QuestionAuthority]

Markets are self correcting. Consumer desire drives innovation. Someone will step in an hire a developer to continue to advance the software. If you wanted to argue anything you might be able to make a case for continued open source software but I don't even think there is a danger of closing development with TBF.

So you're proposing to make Bitcoin closed source software and sell it? Or package it with ads?
We could just as well retire it completely in that case. It just won't work (no one trusts a closed client). Consumer desire works for easily marketable products, not an experimental cryptocurrency.
And if you don't see value in open source that's fine, but I'm sure there are people here who do.

FWIW; I donated personally to Gavin late 2012 and was extremely surprise that I appeared to be the FIRST person to do so ever. He doesn't ask for donations, but neither does he refuse them. If bitcoiners weren't such miserly bunch of skinflints then we maybe wouldn't need a 'foundation' to pay him ...

Yep, that's how it goes...

Read the bold part again....

[SamS]

I'm not actually sure how the BitCoin Foundation is setup as a search on the IRS 501(c)(3) non-profit status tracker showed up blank under the name "Bitcoin Foundation." I know the posted Bylaws say a District of Columbia non-profit corporation but what exactly that means in terms of its Federal non-profit status is unclear to me.

http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/mainSearch.do;jsessionid=cIUhqFUkb4VY4X8FP5lx0w__?mainSearchChoice=pub78&dispatchMethod=selectSearch

Having said that, 501(c)(3) non-profits allow you to restrict your donations for specific uses. In effect, you could send an email with your donating saying  "I am donating 5 bitcoins to pay Gavin's salary and only Gavin's Salary" and the Foundation would have to use that money for that purpose. Or you could more generally say, "My donation is restricted for core development of the Bitcoin software." That way you'd be sure your funds were being used for what they want. Otherwise, the Foundation is obligated to not take them to begin with or return them if they can't be put to that use -- if Gavin were to quit for example. 

That would be one way of separating oneself from the lobbying portion of the Foundation's work without walking away from the Foundation itself.

Personally, I think that the project runs the risk of becoming balkanized if there isn't a well funded open source team maintaining the core development.  If they have to go the for-profit route, then incentives change and competition would likely emerge. 

[peewee]

This is painfully narrow minded and extremely short sighted.   Bitcoin will only be analogous to file sharing until its market cap and volume is big enough to support arms trades and legitimate physical threats from massive drug trafficking operations .  Right now bitcoin doesn't have the market cap or infrastructure to deal in either of these two government unbalancing trades....but its headed there.   Guess what happens to your unlimited freedom for spending your money when that happens?  Better to head this off in Washington and around the globe ahead of time.