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

[Loozik]

Well besides the fact that all modern democracies are constitutionally mandated to protect minority rights your point is without much substance

LOL. I am the minority that does not want to be forced to pay taxes and wants to be left alone. Tell me how this is protected by a constitution (an object class paper with toner and ink on it).

So now your just saying you want a narrow 1% dictatorship rather then a 51% dictatorship, I'd take the latter any day of the week thank you very much.

Choosing between one form of statism (1% dictatorship) and another form of statism (51% dictatorship) is like choosing between syphilis and gonorrhea. Why would I need to be forced to choose between both if I could just be left alone and choose none of them.

[1713307148]

1713307148

[1713307148]

1713307148

[1713307148]

1713307148

[1713307148]

1713307148

[blacksmithtm]

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

You know the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Whats going to happen is this lobbyist is going to washington, then hes going to meet all kinds of people who will begin wondering how they can profit from legislating bitcoin. Thats just how things go. In the end, you will have very strict and specific regulation pointed at bitcoin, which makes bitcoin startups nearly impossible. The result is a few big players will control the market - people of the bitcoin foundation - and the few exchanges availaible will have massive fees, stupid delays, and will be reporting everything you do to the government. However it will just be a temporary thing as the US government is about to go bankrupt. Thats why its pointless to begin with, to interact with it, or lobby it. Bitcoin is going to outlast it anyway, the regulation wont matter in 4-5 years when the US is litterately collapsing.

[Cryptoman]

Well besides the fact that all modern democracies are constitutionally mandated to protect minority rights your point is without much substance

LOL. I am the minority that does not want to be forced to pay taxes and wants to be left alone. Tell me how this is protected by a constitution (an object class paper with toner and ink on it).

+1  Western democracies absolutely do not protect minorities.  The only way you can be protected is through the mathematics of prime numbers.

[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. 

they are under c(6) rather than c(3).  That means, among other things, they do not have make their tax returns public.

Ah, thanks.

Then donations (other than membership fees) are NOT tax deductible.  Also, it looks to me like they have to file a 990 if income is over $25k/annum. I'm uncertain about restrictions and if they play into this at all -- have to look it up. 

[ktttn]

Well besides the fact that all modern democracies are constitutionally mandated to protect minority rights your point is without much substance

LOL. I am the minority that does not want to be forced to pay taxes and wants to be left alone. Tell me how this is protected by a constitution (an object class paper with toner and ink on it).

+1  Western democracies absolutely do not protect minorities.  The only way you can be protected is through the mathematics of prime numbers.

Bravo.

You folks are so full of fail, your such radical libertarians you'd be more accurately called anarchists and the BTC foundation shows exactly why anarchists always fail.  When you attack ALL authority as illegitimate you inevitably get a dictatorship of the wealthy elites who end up being worse then democracy because they have no pretense of representing anyone but themselves.  In the BTC-verse that means Mt.Gox for the time being but gradually it will be people like those Winkli-twin douches and then the very same 'Bankers' you claim to hate. 

You anarchist morons ARE THEIR BEST FRIENDS as your handing them BTC on a silver platter.  Real merchants can see that you offer them nothing, so they fall into the arms of any half-decent cartel that offers to create an environment in which the merchant can do business.  The OP should look at himself for why leadership of BTC is moving away from people like him, because he and his ilk have refused to take up that leadership.

Hm. Them's fighting words..
The btc foundation is btc users. I consider us to be on the same team, even if they are willing to negotiate with terrorists and aren't as anarchist as me.
Authority, freely given, is helpful in organizing. Any self respecting anarchoanything will tell you
that.
Also, if someone tells you theyll represent you and you believe and trust them, you will suffer.

[Loozik]

The btc foundation is btc users.

I disagree. BTC users are several thousand people (if not several tens of thousand). TBF are just few tens of people whose name you can read there https://bitcoinfoundation.org/members

I consider us to be on the same team, even if they are willing to negotiate with terrorists and aren't as anarchist as me.

I follow the good old anarchist principle of non-violent non-cooperation (with the so called government). This means, among other things, that you do not engage in talks with people who call themselves 'governments' untill they put a gun in your head (metaphorically, because it does not need to be a physical object that's put in your head, it may very well be a threat of using one).

Peter Vessenes of TBF stated point blank he wanted to hire a guy to go and talk to the so called government. Note it's not the government that wants to speak to TBF, it's TBF that wants to speak to the government - WTF  

Unless Peter Vessenes' statement was a joke, he shouldn't be considered to be on the same team with anarchists.

[hayek]

When you attack ALL authority as illegitimate you inevitably get a dictatorship of the wealthy elites who end up being worse then democracy because they have no pretense of representing anyone but themselves.

I would argue democracy is a form of dictatorship (by a voting majority).

Well besides the fact that all modern democracies are constitutionally mandated to protect minority rights your point is without much substance ..."

That's always funny to me. This means: IT'S WRITTEN ON A PIECE OF PAPER!!1! THEY HAVE TO DO WHAT THAT PAPER SAYS!

As I demonstrated that anarchy is as silly, stupid and impossible as state as communism is you can't denigrate democracy by comparing it to a non-existent ideal.  So now your just saying you want a narrow 1% dictatorship rather then a 51% dictatorship, I'd take the latter any day of the week thank you very much.

Actually democracy commits atrocities daily. I think we can denigrate as much as we want. The onus is not on the anarchist to prove their ideals, it's on the state to prove why it's violence is justified (and it is not)

In the BTC-verse that means Mt.Gox for the time being but gradually it will be people like those Winkli-twin douches and then the very same 'Bankers' you claim to hate.  

Do you think this is the right thread to put insults?

I site them primarily as an example of emerging class of people who take existing wealth distribution advantages and 'move' their dominance into BTC.  The whole premise that BTC can some how overthrow existing power structures is flawed because existing power structure just moves in to the vacuum.

Yeah... When those people buy their BTC someone gets that money. The people receiving that money get the 'security' of having part of the previous person power with respect to fiat. The person converting their assets to BTC are buying a chance at an increased amount of wealth later and the risk that goes with it. Innovation, by its nature, distributes power. Even if this worse case were to happen many new wealthy people who were never wealthy before would be created

 As for the twins anyone with half a brain can tell these guys are douches, I find it pathetic that anyone would have them as speakers.

Yes, they are douches. I would also add that they have never created anything of value themselves and leech off the labor of others and are incapable of putting any wealth back in to the world themselves. For me, that's one of the highest insults you can give someone - being incapable of sustaining yourself.

[mikegogulski]

From my Twitter:

#Bitcoin needs a #BDFL like @linus_torvalds. @Linux_Kernel:Bitcoin ?::? GNU:{@SatoshiDice #silkroad @bitpay @bitcoinkeiz}

https://twitter.com/mikegogulski/status/336834392909553664

We should also have: @linuxfoundation:@Linux_Kernel::@BTCFoundation::#Bitcoin

https://twitter.com/mikegogulski/status/336841247929028611

[Loozik]

Okay Guys,

Let's conclude this part of the thread:

1. There is an organization called TBF. Several businesses and individual people donated to this organization. This organization probably has its by-laws which must have been known to the businesses and people prior to donating.

2. My guts are telling me the by-laws were not violated by appointing / electing / whatever Peter Vessenes to be chairman of this organization.

3. Peter Vessenes has the power to do with the donated money as he pleases. He can hire a lobbyist, he can pay for the hookers if he believes that his action ''standardizes, protects and promotes the use of Bitcoin cryptographic money for the benefit of users worldwide''.

4. We may dislike what he does with this money, but we have no power over what he does with it. And probably businesses and individual people who have donated have no power over what Peter Vessenes does with this money. They may find it unaesthetic / unwanted and contradictory to TBF's motto, but by having donated they agreed (probably in line with the organizations' by-laws) to give the chairman the power to spend this money.

5. The OP called for action:
a) with regard to TBF

The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve

There is nothing we can do  and neither should we be doing anything regarding TBF. If donors continue to pay TBF under Peter Vessenes, TBF will survive. If donors stop financing Peter Vessenes, TBF will die.

b) with regard to Bitcoin

I am ready to support a new organization which actually serves the interests of Bitcoin [...] The new organization shall operate democratically from day zero

While I like his first statement, I truly dislike his second statement. No matter what context I put ''democratically'' in, it just sounds bad. I do not know TBF's by-laws, but surely there are some democratic mechanism built-in like voting. And now see what happened! There is no guarantee that a new ''democratic'' organization will not end up like TBF. Actually one can be pretty sure a new organization will end just like TBF.

How about replacing the word ''democracy'' with the word ''free market'' to arrive at a new vision?


The problems after TBF dies or gets involved in politics or both

1. There will be less and less money available for development and testing of the system = less newcomers to the Bitcoin system due to its current incarnation aimed for power users = fall in BTC value

2. Devs will need to build in (for free?) the system and Bitcon client the mechanisms enforced by the regulators whom Peter Vessenes wants to joyfully talk to = end of Bitcoin = new cryptocurrency will replace Bitcoin

3. Non-statist developers will stop working on the system = I do not even want to think what this might result in

4. ..... you surely can write better scenarios (mathematics will be replace by politics, etc.)


The solution

Let's work on a free-market solution. No more organizations, even democratic ones claiming to represent me or you or the best interest of the Bitcoin community. Just free market:

1. A dev should set up a project management website where people, developers and business can submit (I posted in this thread a picture of how such a website might look like):
a) bug reports
b) feature request
c) others (not only system development can be financed through this website, but also keeping wiki up-to-date)
2. Through this website we will be paying the devs for their services like maintaining the system, enhancements, adding features (bug fixing should be the priority and should be free of charge - just my opinion).
3. The bright dev who will set up the project management website should charge commission for his services of maintaining the website, e.g. 1% of all money received by the devs.


The benefits of the solution
a) no politics involved - there will be no-one the so called government can even send an e-mail to discuss Bitcoin or changes to Bitcoin
b) system is properly maintained and undergoes development
c) devs are happy
d) more people come to use the system that is better secured = increase in Bitcoin value


Risks
a) retail users have less purchasing power than business users, therefore business users will enforce the way the Bitcoin system is maintained and developed - this is an unlikely scenario: businesses have as much money as individual people let them have. Businesses derive money from people, e.g. MtGox holds less than 1% of my equity and MtGox can only spend 0.5% of that money (fees). A hundred users easily can financially ''outvote'' MtGox, BitPay and other businesses, BTW retail users and business users do not necessarily need to have opposing interests - they can finance the development jointly

b) people will flood the project management website with silly requests - unlikely to happen when people must back their requests with money

c) crowd financing can't work effectively - yeah, tell it to bitcoin miners who get together to join forces and mine more effectively

d) devs will put ridiculously high prices for their work and will be overpaid - it will be in the interest of the dev who established the project management website to allow for inflow of new developers (competition) to the system thus keeping the devs' salaries reasonable

WHO"S WITH ME?

Sorry for highjacking the thread.

[jubalix]

Okay Guys,

Let's conclude this part of the thread:

can we call this the free market foundation, I nominate me as Prez

[Loozik]

can we call this the free market foundation

just a website, a project management website. no foundations, no organizations (you save on lawyers, banks and accountants)

, I nominate me as Prez

If you can set up such a website and attract sellers (developers) and buyers (people and businesses) by the quality of your service you can even nominate yourself to be President of Mickey Mouse. Nobody will care.

[mikegogulski]

Sorry for highjacking the thread.

I encourage both hijacking and further schisms. Onward to decentralized victory!

When I say "democratic" I misspeak. I should have said something like "operated by and for human beings, without specific weight or voice given to developers, merchants, traders, speculators, miners, etc."

[Gavin Andresen]

Couple years ago it was "Don't talk to the CIA! They're Evil, and will Destroy Bitcoin!"

Now it is "Don't get involved in DC lobbying! That's Evil, and will Destroy Bitcoin!"

In a few more years, I bet it'll be "Don't go to the United Nations! They're Evil, and will Destroy Bitcoin!"

I'll quote myself from a related thread on google+

Walking along the beach this afternoon, enjoying the California sunshine, I think I realized where the fundamental disagreement lies.

Financial privacy / freedom is a larger issue than Bitcoin, and I personally think it would be better to fight that fight separately from Bitcoin.  Yes, Bitcoin is a great tool that will (I hope) bring us greater privacy/freedom. But I see advocating for Bitcoin as separate from advocating for financial privacy/freedom in general.

So: I think if you want financial privacy/freedom in general, then there is at least one US organization dedicated to that goal (http://freedomandprosperity.org/ -- we should get them to accept Bitcoin donations). I hate reinventing wheels, and am a big believer in focused organizations and projects as the way to get things done, so I think the Bitcoin Foundation should concentrate on making Bitcoin successful.

[cbeast]

Couple years ago it was "Don't talk to the CIA! They're Evil, and will Destroy Bitcoin!"

Now it is "Don't get involved in DC lobbying! That's Evil, and will Destroy Bitcoin!"

In a few more years, I bet it'll be "Don't go to the United Nations! They're Evil, and will Destroy Bitcoin!"

I'll quote myself from a related thread on google+

Walking along the beach this afternoon, enjoying the California sunshine, I think I realized where the fundamental disagreement lies.

Financial privacy / freedom is a larger issue than Bitcoin, and I personally think it would be better to fight that fight separately from Bitcoin.  Yes, Bitcoin is a great tool that will (I hope) bring us greater privacy/freedom. But I see advocating for Bitcoin as separate from advocating for financial privacy/freedom in general.

So: I think if you want financial privacy/freedom in general, then there is at least one US organization dedicated to that goal (http://freedomandprosperity.org/ -- we should get them to accept Bitcoin donations). I hate reinventing wheels, and am a big believer in focused organizations and projects as the way to get things done, so I think the Bitcoin Foundation should concentrate on making Bitcoin successful.

I'm walking along the beach in CC, TX thanks to Bitcoin and thinking something similar, but that's just a segue. There may come a day when in fact everyone BEGS for regulation compliance for safety's sake. The real strength of Bitcoin is that its rarity regulates government, not the other way around.

[Loozik]

Gavin,

You certainly are aware of users grumbling of Bitcoin not being easy to use for non power users. You must be aware that devs are not happy for providing their work free of charge.

Are there any plans at TBF that you are aware of to start paying the devs. What plans if any are there to speed up the development process? If yes, how will this be financed?

Thanks

[Loozik]

Gavin,

You certainly are aware of users grumbling of Bitcoin not being easy to use for non power users. You must be aware that devs are not happy for providing their work free of charge.

Are there any plans at TBF that you are aware of to start paying the devs. What plans if any are there to speed up the development process? If yes, how will this be financed?

Thanks

You mean pay more developers and have less to pay Gavin, your insane LOL The only reason for the foundation is so Gavin gets paid.

That's not what I meant. If you read through my posts in this thread you could arrive at the conclusion that I am rather afraid of less money being potentially left for Gavin due to the expenditures that may need to be spent on the lobbyist.

[matthewh3]

I do not have any qualms with the Bitcoin Foundation, as long as it does not inhibit the organic growth of the Bitcoin protocol. However, it seems increasingly likely that this will never be the case. As long as certain specific parties are funding Gavin's salary, they will have sway over development decisions and attempt to steer the direction of bitcoin. Unfortunately, it appears that they do not share many of the values of long time bitcoin proponents.

For example, consider the blurb retep shared with us in the recent "bitcoin regulation" thread:

The Bitcoin Foundation itself is in a difficult position: we all know who it's funded by, and everyone involved is publicly known. This can be a problem: in the last round of grant proposals at one point Gavin suggested someone submit a grant for a trust-free mixer service to help people make the coins in their wallet more anonymous by mixing them with a large pool of other users. I asked Gavin about that later, and he said the foundation lawyers nixed the idea because efforts to make Bitcoin users more anonymous could be seen to be aiding money laundering, especially if the foundation itself was paying for development and to run the servers.

We can work with regulators to make sure Bitcoin is acceptable to them. For instance we can ensure that it remains possible to track the flow of money through Bitcoin. We can also ensure that there are options if certain funds need to be frozen and blacklisted, due to fraud, theft, or because they encode illegal data. We can work with them to find ways to apply AML rules to Bitcoin transactions and to the exchanges. There are ways to put taxation into Bitcoin itself, so that taxes are automatically applied when a transaction is made. Maybe even one day we'll be required to prevent dangerous levels of deflation. A lot of these changes are technical, such as improving scalability so transactions can remain on the blockchain, developing P2P blacklist technologies, and preventing deflation.

To me, this is clear evidence that we cannot trust the bitcoin foundation to pursue the best interests of the community. I find it extremely upsetting. I was under the impression that most here have no interest in playing nice with the status quo. To me, bitcoin is a non-violent method of doggedly routing around many barriers to innovation and freedom that currently weigh down on humanity. I may be naive, however I feel that those who stand in the way of the fullest realization of what bitcoin and similar innovations would bring about are short-sighted, close-minded, and disrespectful to the idea of true human liberty.

I am comforted by the fact that, in the long run, the battle to stop these type of developments is an impossible one. Still, I would prefer that change comes sooner rather than later.

I don't know about other TBF members but I won't be renewing my membership next year if the quote in this topic is true.  If anything I can see the TBF forming a hard fork and trying to buy Gavin with them for legitimately.

[QuestionAuthority]

Gavin,

You certainly are aware of users grumbling of Bitcoin not being easy to use for non power users. You must be aware that devs are not happy for providing their work free of charge.

Are there any plans at TBF that you are aware of to start paying the devs. What plans if any are there to speed up the development process? If yes, how will this be financed?

Thanks

You mean pay more developers and have less to pay Gavin, your insane LOL The only reason for the foundation is so Gavin gets paid.

That's not what I meant. If you read through my posts in this thread you could arrive at the conclusion that I am rather afraid of less money being potentially left for Gavin due to the expenditures that may need to be spent on the lobbyist.

Some devs are making money off of Bitcoin. Others can if they choose to. Do you believe if the lead dev decided to open his own pool no one would join? I want TBF to solve their own issues. For some reason Mr. Andresen chooses to remain above the fray and not join in all the money that's being made. He never mined or owned many Bitcoins, doesn't run a pool and isn't making a sidebar for profit wallet or app. That's fine. Then TBF can pay him to work for Bitcoin business needs. However, it's not necessary to feel sorry for him. He's been here long enough and is bright enough to have made a few dollars along the way if he chose too.

[Loozik]

They are blowing thru their money, and more and more people want their money back. Which I think most people never got the money back which shows that the foundation is in it for profit.

Gweedo,

Here's the deal:
a) given your description is ''Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!''
b) assuming people will not resume their subscriptions at TBF = no salary for Gavin and his team, and no to little money for development and testing
then just talk to the devs, convince them to leave their low-salary / no-salary jobs at TBF   and make business by creating the Bitcoin Project Management website. How does it sound to you?

[bassclef]

Couple years ago it was "Don't talk to the CIA! They're Evil, and will Destroy Bitcoin!"

Now it is "Don't get involved in DC lobbying! That's Evil, and will Destroy Bitcoin!"

In a few more years, I bet it'll be "Don't go to the United Nations! They're Evil, and will Destroy Bitcoin!"

I'll quote myself from a related thread on google+

Walking along the beach this afternoon, enjoying the California sunshine, I think I realized where the fundamental disagreement lies.

Financial privacy / freedom is a larger issue than Bitcoin, and I personally think it would be better to fight that fight separately from Bitcoin.  Yes, Bitcoin is a great tool that will (I hope) bring us greater privacy/freedom. But I see advocating for Bitcoin as separate from advocating for financial privacy/freedom in general.

So: I think if you want financial privacy/freedom in general, then there is at least one US organization dedicated to that goal (http://freedomandprosperity.org/ -- we should get them to accept Bitcoin donations). I hate reinventing wheels, and am a big believer in focused organizations and projects as the way to get things done, so I think the Bitcoin Foundation should concentrate on making Bitcoin successful.

Gavin, you do realize that you're in a unique position here, where your decisions now within the Foundation will greatly affect Bitcoin's future.

While I agree with you about Bitcoin not being the sole catalyst for financial freedom, you must understand that by lobbying and engaging DC politicians, you are working within the very same corrupt system that Satoshi was fed up with.

Now look at someone like Ron Paul, who has worked within this corrupt system for his entire career. Numerous versions of his bill to audit the Federal Reserve (like, a full-on audit) were struck down time and again by banking interests. His attempts at the Presidency were easily kneecapped by a corrupt GOP and corporate-owned media. Do you really think something so disruptive like Bitcoin, that not only competes with the Federal Reserve, but threatens entire banking industries around the world, with all their money and power, are going to lay back and accept Bitcoin just because some politically-naive programmers hired a few good lawyers?

It's like handing your enemy a time bomb, saying, "Here's what will eventually destroy you, however I'm going to show you all of its secrets so you don't attack me first."

I am, as are others, fearful that you are jumping into a snake pit here, and one misstep could doom Bitcoin to the shadows of the internet. And I'm sure the moneyed interests in Washington would be just fine with that.