Bitcoin Forum
April 16, 2014, 03:59:09 PM *
News: ♦♦ A bug in OpenSSL, used by Bitcoin-Qt/Bitcoin Core, could allow your bitcoins to be stolen. Immediately updating Bitcoin Core to 0.9.1 is required in some cases, especially if you're using 0.9.0. Download. More info.
The same bug also affected the forum. Changing your forum password is recommended.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [All]
  Print  
Author Topic: The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve, plus a call to action  (Read 14410 times)
mikegogulski
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 349



View Profile WWW

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 01:00:55 PM
 #1

My apologies for the length of this post, but I believe that it sums up what is broken with the Foundation, shows it is essentially unfixable, and includes at the end a call to action to form a new, democratically-constituted umbrella organization for the advancement and defense of cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin first and foremost among them. I also believe you will find it valuable reading, if you're not already closely familiar with the matters at hand.

"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:

https://twitter.com/mikegogulski/status/335820053926797312

As I wrote:
Quote
#BitcoinFoundation is DEAD TO ME. Lobbyists? Fuck you @Vessenes shyster sellout! Give my BTC 25 back! http://ow.ly/lai8e  #Bitcoin2013

Then:
Quote
Is that why you sold me http://app.bitlaundry.com/  @vessenes? So you could look squeaky clean while cozying up to politicians?#Bitcoin2013  (https://twitter.com/mikegogulski/status/335822417400324097)

And:
Quote
I got into #Bitcoin to improve this miserable planet and ESCAPE the iron grip of privileged moneyed interests, not JOIN THEM! #Bitcoin2013

And:
Quote
And @Vessenes sues @MtGox for $75m. Send the king's swordsmen! I need more money! #Bitcoin2013 #Bitcoin #betrayal #rat #statist #sellout

Plenty more follows in my tweet stream, and includes a conversation with Smári McCarthy of the International (formerly Icelandic) Modern Media Institute (http://www.immi.is/).

I provided more of my reasoning (after a nice barbiturates-and-vodka cocktail and a bit of sleep) on Google+, in comments on Declan McCullagh's article (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57585151-38/winklevoss-twins-on-bitcoin-time-to-work-with-the-feds/) from today:

Quote
TL;DR: Sending Bitcoin to DC is like sending My Little Pony to the veterinarian.

+Jon Matonis Despite my rantings, for me it's not about purity either, but about the Foundation running off in a direction starkly counter to the motivations of a good many members, without any consultation at all. I believe I also heard +Peter Vessenes say, in that opening pitch, that there would be a Bitcoin Foundation members' meeting during the conference. I guess that means that I'll be getting an invitation with a teleconference number soon(?).

+Jerry Brito and +Declan McCullagh Yes, the exchanges are a vulnerable point, almost a "systempunkt" in John Robb's terminology, the resiliency of the underlying protocol aside. At the same time, it's already widely recognized that the best solutions to that sort of risk in the Bitcoin ecosystem involve peer-to-peer fiat/BTC exchange on the lines of #bitcoin-otc, localbitcoins.com and/or some kind of price discovery and exchange mechanism, with market actor reputation tracking, working in distributed fashion either in the BTC blockchain itself or as part of some kind of complementary system based roughly on the same principles. It's into those kinds of solutions that I'd like to see funding from whatever replaces the now toxic Bitcoin foundation and where I'd like to see the massive amounts of human energy that will otherwise be sucked into the interdimensional tentacle-monster maelstrom of KYC/AML/FinCEN/FATF/make-it-play-in-Peoria compliance (vendor AND customer side) spent.

As +Nick Weaver alludes to, Bitcoin really is fundamentally incompatible with the pharaonic pyramids of the legacy banking system, or, in my parting words from last night, sending Bitcoin to DC is like sending My Little Pony to the veterinarian. Even though we lot on this thread may share similar ideas about the ideal end state for Bitcoin, I think we all agree that the means to reach those ends are important as well. There is clear disagreement about what sorts of means are the most efficient in bringing us all to shiny happy crypto-ponycoin utopia, and that's fine. I'm asking folks to consider the entire picture very carefully, and especially not with America-centric blinders on.

I could go on to complain (but won't do so here, hehe) that the Bitcoin core dev team -- and, by extension, the Foundation which pays +Gavin Andresen -- are, in my opinion, spending a disproportionate amount of time/energy on work which primarily benefits a small number of mining pool operators (taken collectively, another systempunkt!) and on work which tends more and more to support centralized and institutionalized structures such as BitPay and BitInstant -- with all due respect to those teams -- and to toward the deprioritization of work support independent merchants and the actual peer-to-peer future. Perhaps this is simply a disagreement regarding how to sequence priorities, but I can't help but think it points to the same sort of issues I mention above, which actually turn out to be key ones as indicated by others.

+Jerry Brito "Allowed" is a hobgoblin. Bitcoin doesn't need permission from the existing state/corporate financial system. In fact, it presents an existential threat to both. Fine, though, send some "diplomats" out to spread confusion in the enemy's ranks.

And to +Jeffrey Tucker, it is indeed sad that freedom itself is simply unthinkable, where in a proper society it would be the reflexive, unconsidered default posture and where that society would react swiftly and forcefully to deviations from its principles. Alas, even with several thousand years of thought and experience to guide us, we have not yet collectively made the freedom posture the default.

(https://plus.google.com/u/1/112961607570158342254/posts/YLe37k7vonQ)

CLEARLY, Bitcoin no longer needs the Bitcoin Foundation as it's currently constituted, and it is probably too toxic to be salvaged in any form. The conflicts of interest among directors should make this perfectly clear. Plus, we now have Vessenes suing Karpeles over the MtGox/Coinlab deal while they are both on the same board. They both should have resigned immediately at the time the suit was filed and served.

Even worse, and utterly inexcusably, Peter Vessenes hired Patrick Murck as the Foundation's general counsel. This of course is the very same Patrick Murck who serves as Coinlab's General Counsel, and who is therefore Coinlab's top litigator in the suit against MtGox.

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)

Note also that NONE of these highly controversial acts and omissions were placed before votes of the Foundation's membership, in radical contravention of the founding spirit of the organization if not the language of its founding charter.

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.

And I am ready to support a new organization which actually serves the interests of Bitcoin (and other cryptocurrencies, as appropriate), with such egregious conflicts of interest excluded from decision-taking power and with a broad umbrella missing to accommodate ALL of the Bitcoin community, not just those who are only too delighted to cuddle up to regulators and politicians on the little-guy donor's coin. The new organization shall operate democratically from day zero. I move that Jon Matonis be named custodian of founding donations and that he shall serve, once and only once, as Chairman of the founding, general meeting of the entire membership, at which a full charter and a full set of by-laws shall be adopted and a new slate of directors and executives elected, such meeting to be held not less than 60 days from now and not less than 120 days from now, and to include the technical capacity for as many voices as possible to participate and be heard (that is founding-donors-only google hangout, IRC channel, toll-free teleconference linked to a skype teleconference, etc.).

Who's with me?

FREE ROSS ULBRICHT, allegedly one of the Dread Pirates Roberts of the Silk Road
1397663949
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1397663949

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1397663949
Reply with quote  #2

1397663949
Report to moderator
Pre-order Cloud Mining Power. Cheapest price.
2 Ph/s in stock.
INVEST NOW  >

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1397663949
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1397663949

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1397663949
Reply with quote  #2

1397663949
Report to moderator
Raoul Duke
aka psy
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


XBT.pt - BTC/DOGE


View Profile WWW

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 01:12:17 PM
 #2

You know what I find surprising?
You, Mike, of all people, couldn't see the bitcoin foundation would just turn into a lobbying institution and paid for a lifetime membership...
I mean, really? Even I could see their true purpose, and I'm not as smart as you, not even close  Embarrassed

Not being a foundation member I can't do much more than offer my support to your proposal, useless as that support may be.

bg002h
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 882


Got GLIPH? https://gli.ph/m *p-d-d


View Profile WWW

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 01:17:58 PM
 #3

Good luck getting your $300 back...well, $300 presuming you joined before the ฿ fee grew way put of sync with the $ fee. I just used $ to immediately buy and spend ฿ right after an adjustment, so it cost me the intended low $ amount.

QuantPlus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280



View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 01:20:48 PM
 #4

+Jerry Brito and +Declan McCullagh Yes, the exchanges are a vulnerable point, almost a "systempunkt"...

As +Nick Weaver alludes to, Bitcoin really is fundamentally incompatible with the pharaonic pyramids of the legacy banking system...

The [financial and litigation] conflicts of interest among directors...

Who's with me?


How exactly did Bitcoin control become centralized and Made in America...
The single most dangerous jurisdiction for BTC?

Why are open source decentralized exchanges not a top priority?
Why should BTC 100% depend on small businessmen rolling their own exchange sites?

And why is it always BTC to Fiat?

Fiat is owned by Central Banks. You don't "own" that dollar in your pocket.

It should be BTC to commodity (gold, gasoline, beads, whatever)...
There is infinitely less regulation of commodities...
And BTC (as of 2013), has the velocity of a commodity, not a currency.
mikegogulski
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 349



View Profile WWW

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 01:22:12 PM
 #5

You know what I find surprising?
You, Mike, of all people, couldn't see the bitcoin foundation would just turn into a lobbying institution and paid for a lifetime membership...
I mean, really? Even I could see their true purpose, and I'm not as smart as you, not even close  Embarrassed

Not being a foundation member I can't do much more than offer my support to your proposal, useless as that support may be.

Call it a blessing, call it a curse, but I'm one of those people with the "I'm OK, you're OK" orientation imprinted at the lowest level. This means that I tend to trust people complete at first sight rather than to begin from suspicion. For me, trust is not earned, but destroyed by betrayal or damaged by ill action.

Thanks for the compliment, too, although this isn't about being smart in the one-dimensional way intelligence is usually defined. I can be a complete dumbass in terms of social and emotional intelligence, to the point of making people cry IRL when trying to persuade them intellectually about something I believe in passionately.

You don't have to be a member of the now-moribund foundation to make a contribution here, and to join and support a new effort (whether one emerges from my proposals here or not). I've just pushed the RESET button on the whole thing, at least in my own mind. So, new world. Where shall we go?

FREE ROSS ULBRICHT, allegedly one of the Dread Pirates Roberts of the Silk Road
mikegogulski
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 349



View Profile WWW

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 01:25:26 PM
 #6

Good luck getting your $300 back...well, $300 presuming you joined before the ฿ fee grew way put of sync with the $ fee. I just used $ to immediately buy and spend ฿ right after an adjustment, so it cost me the intended low $ amount.

I paid 25 BTC right at the beginning for a life membership, so it was around that level.

But honestly I don't care about the money a single bit. Sure, I could use it for better things, but whatever. I *do* care about others getting theirs back, but hey, if leaving $1m of BTC/USD value in Treasurer Peter Sellout Vessenes's pocket is the price of rapidly excising this malignant tumor from the body of the Bitcoin community, well, I can't speak for others, but it's a price *I'm* willing to pay.

FREE ROSS ULBRICHT, allegedly one of the Dread Pirates Roberts of the Silk Road
lettucebee
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 253



View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 01:33:35 PM
 #7

Mike,
are you saying that Vessenes used your service to launder bitcoins before he engaged in his regulatory escapades?
mikegogulski
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 349



View Profile WWW

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 01:37:45 PM
 #8

Mike,
are you saying that Vessenes used your service to launder bitcoins before he engaged in his regulatory escapades?

Peter Vessenes INVENTED bitlaundry.com. I created bitcoinlaundry.com unaware of its existence. Later, Peter offered the site and code for sale, and I bought it.

Teaser quote from an upcoming magazine article where I'm interviewed:

Quote
bitlaundry.com was actually started before my first service, in mid-2010, by Peter Vesseness, currently CEO of the Bitcoin Foundation (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=624.0;all and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=963.0;all ). I acquired the service from Peter in early 2011 for BTC 100: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6939.0;all

FREE ROSS ULBRICHT, allegedly one of the Dread Pirates Roberts of the Silk Road
cbeast
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064

Bitcoin, Decorporated stockholder since 2011.


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 02:01:33 PM
 #9

There are any number of ways to distance a btc quantity from the last known IP and associated address(es). Peter knows this as do most developers including the OP I would suspect. I don't understand your objection. I consider what Peter et. al. are doing as baby talking to non-bitcoiners. They need to speak with small words to small minds. Regulation is IMPOSSIBLE with Bitcoin in the context they are discussing. All they want to do is open the door of acceptance by bowing to the naked emperor. I am sure they are having a good laugh about it behind closed doors as should the OP.

Do what you want. It doesn't matter. Governments will attempt to regulate Bitcoin no matter what anyone says. They will fail no matter what anyone does. It's like catching a cold, you just chill out and let it run its course.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
flibbr
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 232


Bitcoins ftw !


View Profile WWW

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 02:11:59 PM
 #10

Without trying to point out the obviousness here.. but Bitcoin doesn't need to start lobbying, our currency is stronger... ignore the state and let them come to us ! . . then tell them, if they want our money, they better start proving for it in competition with other providers like everyone else has to and not use force.

I love bitcoins - everything about them.
Visit the Flibbr website - follow on twitter: @flibbr - or say hello on Facebook
dave111223
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448



View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 02:25:52 PM
 #11

Look on the bright side, you can still get your moneys worth by using the "Bitcoin Foundation Lifetime member" avatar

I think it's this one right? (That's worth $3000 right?)


wumpus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

No Maps for These Territories


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 02:30:18 PM
 #12

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.

Bitcoin Core developer [PGP]  Tips: 1L125pF2e7himW43Qu752ZFLtBLicxQmng Warning: For most, coin loss is a larger risk than coin theft. A disk can die any time. Regularly back up your wallet through FileBackup Wallet to an external storage or the (encrypted!) cloud. Use a separate offline wallet for storing larger amounts.
Brushan
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98



View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 02:45:06 PM
 #13

Everytime i hear the Bitcoin Foundation talking about regulating Bitcoin..
http://imgur.com/H4TfQNp

BTC: 17BTWGuG3EKaZuTYuEpV1ewVz3UKgUqfEP
LTC: Lf5hcNH5dQPH9dZYC7odSuWvuz37DMi9Gg
Raoul Duke
aka psy
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


XBT.pt - BTC/DOGE


View Profile WWW

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 03:02:38 PM
 #14

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.

I think the Bitcoin Foundation openly states that all they intend to do on that level is to pay Gavin a salary, not to fund client development and testing. You're right that any other organization should make it a priority but not on the same terms e.g."Pay developer X a salary"

tempt
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 232



View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 03:21:59 PM
 #15

If you want it to disappear, ignore it.
crazy_rabbit
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 756


RUM AND CARROTS: A PIRATE LIFE FOR ME


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 03:25:42 PM
 #16

Well elections are coming up. If you feel so strongly, you could run for the board. You do after all have some vote if you're a member.

Founder of Aeternum.in - NFC enabled, Secure, Bitcoin Cold Storage.
For the next thing in Bitcoin: http://mastercointalk.org/
ktttn
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


Capitalism is the crisis.


View Profile WWW

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 03:28:46 PM
 #17

All they want to do is open the door of acceptance by bowing to the naked emperor. I am sure they are having a good laugh about it behind closed doors as should the OP.

Do what you want. It doesn't matter. Governments will attempt to regulate Bitcoin no matter what anyone says. They will fail no matter what anyone does. It's like catching a cold, you just chill out and let it run its course.

Agreeing hard. I'm smolderingly new, but it makes sense for an org as by design yuppy and libtard friendly seeming as that to be sending a lobbyist to washington. It makes my stomach turn, but while these powers still exist, what other lip service fake white flag could be put up to attempt to delay or prevent raids on miners?
I can tell you from experience that when you occupy land the state doesn't want you to occupy, they truly will riotcop your ass and equipment into the ground. If playing the dumb game as a strategy succeeds, perhaps fedreserve patriots will simply look away instead of literally bombing us.

Wit all my solidarities,
-ktttn
Ever see a gutterpunk spanging for cryptocoins?
LfkJXVy8DanHm6aKegnmzvY8ZJuw8Dp4Qc
FoBoT
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


I like pie


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 03:35:28 PM
 #18

"democratically-constituted umbrella organization" , that would be just as bad as a King (King Gavin that you rail against?)
democracy is tyranny of the majority, just as bad as a dictatorship\

no central authority is needed, no alliance with the US National government agencies is needed

wumpus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

No Maps for These Territories


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 04:03:20 PM
 #19

I think the Bitcoin Foundation openly states that all they intend to do on that level is to pay Gavin a salary, not to fund client development and testing.
I know that. That's why I mentioned it.

Quote
You're right that any other organization should make it a priority but not on the same terms e.g."Pay developer X a salary"
Developer and tester bandwidth is kind of the elephant in the room for bitcoin, especially as the system grows. Gavin admits this, too (see for example http://www.cio.de/_misc/article/printoverview/index.cfm?pid=156&pk=2916242&op=lst ).
We really can't expect developers for a worldwide online currency to do their work out of altruism.

If a new bitcoin organization is just about politics and business and not development I certainly wouldn't support it.

Bitcoin Core developer [PGP]  Tips: 1L125pF2e7himW43Qu752ZFLtBLicxQmng Warning: For most, coin loss is a larger risk than coin theft. A disk can die any time. Regularly back up your wallet through FileBackup Wallet to an external storage or the (encrypted!) cloud. Use a separate offline wallet for storing larger amounts.
QuestionAuthority
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490


You lead and I'll watch you walk away.


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 04:10:12 PM
 #20

Isn't this a Foundation issue better discussed among the membership than in open forum? TBF represents TBF interests. They do not represent the interests of all users. TBF represents a subset of American users that have donated to be a part of that group. TBF has its own forum where members can discuss Foundation interests which obviously don't coincide with the interests of all users or everyone would be a member. Soliciting involvement from non members is pointless because they already don't believe TBF represents them or they would have joined.

GROUPTHINK kills braincells!!!!!!
paraipan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


Firstbits: 1pirata


View Profile WWW

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 04:19:22 PM
 #21

...

Who's with me?


I'm with you and they can keep my one year subscription, I only wanted to support Gavin and his team, but he's doing an awful job lately.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2577

BTCitcoin: An Idea Worth Saving - Q&A with bitcoins on rugatu.com - Check my rep
franky1
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 602



View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 04:23:06 PM
 #22

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.

Do not take any information given on this forum on face value. Please do your own due diligence and respect what is written here as both opinion and information gleaned from experience. If you wish to seek legal FACTUAL advice, then seek the guidance of a LEGAL specialist
dancingnancy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 383


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 04:46:23 PM
 #23



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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 04:47:53 PM
 #24

"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
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 05:00:35 PM
 #25

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.




Bitcoin: 16i8sQWjZo3QPhhSfWupJff5PtwTxxpRJJ
Ripple:  rL7mRCDYBXsVSM2obdvEjwft5fPUmxv3ra
melpomene
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 10


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 05:02:46 PM
 #26

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 05:05:47 PM
 #27

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.

http://www.apicoin.io - making the blockchain rest | Donations: 1GweedoZJYb5CNLfSaBgBBYS2y7BMVb2Wo| Tox: 8814C1F411BBF9FCCFA3338DEB23E4DCCAEC2BF7E89C0048F2C23389651C071959F0EB5F4A58 |Escrow (0.5% FEE), just PM | PGP key |The Mark Cuban of this Forum
wumpus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

No Maps for These Territories


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 05:24:52 PM
 #28

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

Bitcoin Core developer [PGP]  Tips: 1L125pF2e7himW43Qu752ZFLtBLicxQmng Warning: For most, coin loss is a larger risk than coin theft. A disk can die any time. Regularly back up your wallet through FileBackup Wallet to an external storage or the (encrypted!) cloud. Use a separate offline wallet for storing larger amounts.
lonelyminer (Peter Šurda)
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 529


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 06:25:02 PM
 #29

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.
100x
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


Seek the truth


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 06:56:09 PM
 #30

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.
franky1
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 602



View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 07:14:25 PM
 #31

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

Do not take any information given on this forum on face value. Please do your own due diligence and respect what is written here as both opinion and information gleaned from experience. If you wish to seek legal FACTUAL advice, then seek the guidance of a LEGAL specialist
coastermonger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 345


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 07:20:35 PM
 #32

I need someone to clarify something for me: what power does the bitcoin foundation actually have? 
QuestionAuthority
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490


You lead and I'll watch you walk away.


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 07:25:41 PM
 #33

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.

GROUPTHINK kills braincells!!!!!!
SamS
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 07:26:11 PM
 #34

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: 16i8sQWjZo3QPhhSfWupJff5PtwTxxpRJJ
Ripple:  rL7mRCDYBXsVSM2obdvEjwft5fPUmxv3ra
gweedo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 07:26:49 PM
 #35

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.

http://www.apicoin.io - making the blockchain rest | Donations: 1GweedoZJYb5CNLfSaBgBBYS2y7BMVb2Wo| Tox: 8814C1F411BBF9FCCFA3338DEB23E4DCCAEC2BF7E89C0048F2C23389651C071959F0EB5F4A58 |Escrow (0.5% FEE), just PM | PGP key |The Mark Cuban of this Forum
100x
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


Seek the truth


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 07:27:23 PM
 #36

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.
QuestionAuthority
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490


You lead and I'll watch you walk away.


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 07:29:50 PM
 #37

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.

GROUPTHINK kills braincells!!!!!!
SamS
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 07:36:13 PM
 #38

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. 

Bitcoin: 16i8sQWjZo3QPhhSfWupJff5PtwTxxpRJJ
Ripple:  rL7mRCDYBXsVSM2obdvEjwft5fPUmxv3ra
QuestionAuthority
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490


You lead and I'll watch you walk away.


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 07:43:21 PM
 #39

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.

GROUPTHINK kills braincells!!!!!!
Micon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


I'm not the law, but I represent justice


View Profile WWW

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 07:56:53 PM
 #40

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

Site pro SealsWithClubs.eu Bitcoin Poker |  Pro Poker Player  |  my poker forum & podcast DonkDown.com  | BitcoinVapes.com | @BryanMicon
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 07:58:45 PM
 #41

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490


You lead and I'll watch you walk away.


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 08:09:44 PM
 #42

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.

GROUPTHINK kills braincells!!!!!!
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 08:18:10 PM
 #43

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).
Severian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


anarchistic marketist


View Profile WWW

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 08:24:26 PM
 #44

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.

"The synonym of usury is ruin." -Samuel Johnson
SamS
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 08:26:09 PM
 #45

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.

Bitcoin: 16i8sQWjZo3QPhhSfWupJff5PtwTxxpRJJ
Ripple:  rL7mRCDYBXsVSM2obdvEjwft5fPUmxv3ra
QuestionAuthority
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490


You lead and I'll watch you walk away.


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 08:27:56 PM
 #46

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.

GROUPTHINK kills braincells!!!!!!
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 08:32:49 PM
 #47

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
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 08:34:54 PM
 #48

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.

Bitcoin: 16i8sQWjZo3QPhhSfWupJff5PtwTxxpRJJ
Ripple:  rL7mRCDYBXsVSM2obdvEjwft5fPUmxv3ra
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 08:39:12 PM
 #49

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
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 08:57:15 PM
 #50

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.

Bitcoin: 16i8sQWjZo3QPhhSfWupJff5PtwTxxpRJJ
Ripple:  rL7mRCDYBXsVSM2obdvEjwft5fPUmxv3ra
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 09:05:33 PM
 #51

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 Smiley
SamS
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 09:26:39 PM
 #52

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 Smiley

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

Bitcoin: 16i8sQWjZo3QPhhSfWupJff5PtwTxxpRJJ
Ripple:  rL7mRCDYBXsVSM2obdvEjwft5fPUmxv3ra
gogxmagog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


I think the turtle just died


View Profile WWW

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 09:54:08 PM
 #53

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.

activity: 420 - 13LJpsau9BJYkCeAKaMKRidrWGvHWd1LFx
wumpus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

No Maps for These Territories


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 09:58:16 PM
 #54

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).

Bitcoin Core developer [PGP]  Tips: 1L125pF2e7himW43Qu752ZFLtBLicxQmng Warning: For most, coin loss is a larger risk than coin theft. A disk can die any time. Regularly back up your wallet through FileBackup Wallet to an external storage or the (encrypted!) cloud. Use a separate offline wallet for storing larger amounts.
QuestionAuthority
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490


You lead and I'll watch you walk away.


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 10:05:22 PM
 #55

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.

GROUPTHINK kills braincells!!!!!!
marcus_of_augustus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 10:08:32 PM
 #56

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

And then the lawyers showed up.  Roll Eyes 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.

Monetary Freedom - a basic human right
"Disarming money as a tool for tyranny."
"Disintermediating the State."
wumpus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

No Maps for These Territories


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 10:14:34 PM
 #57

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.
Quote
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...

Bitcoin Core developer [PGP]  Tips: 1L125pF2e7himW43Qu752ZFLtBLicxQmng Warning: For most, coin loss is a larger risk than coin theft. A disk can die any time. Regularly back up your wallet through FileBackup Wallet to an external storage or the (encrypted!) cloud. Use a separate offline wallet for storing larger amounts.
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 10:16:54 PM
 #58

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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 274



View Profile

Ignore
May 19, 2013, 11:19:37 PM
 #59

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

https://twitter.com/Lorenzo_Money -- Bitcoin Address: 1EttqaSSCksRAXrwejoChs5zmGjSikN9mC -- http://lorenzomoney.wordpress.com/
The Bulk of mankind is as well equipped for flying as thinking. - Jonathan Swift
DOGE COIN address: DSYMgD1HfmJFwNuc6Zvhp7PkrVD1QRBsgu
willphase
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 767


View Profile

Ignore
May 20, 2013, 12:37:50 AM
 #60

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490


You lead and I'll watch you walk away.


View Profile

Ignore
May 20, 2013, 12:38:43 AM
 #61

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.
Quote
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....

GROUPTHINK kills braincells!!!!!!
SamS
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile

Ignore
May 20, 2013, 12:58:37 AM
 #62


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.  Undecided

Bitcoin: 16i8sQWjZo3QPhhSfWupJff5PtwTxxpRJJ
Ripple:  rL7mRCDYBXsVSM2obdvEjwft5fPUmxv3ra
100x
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


Seek the truth


View Profile

Ignore
May 20, 2013, 01:08:54 AM
 #63

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

Whether you like it or not, the answer isn't to always appeal with hopeful spirits to whatever power monopoly is currently watching over society and enforcing its own specific rulebook. Maybe you should go back to high school yourself, and read about some of the revolutions that have occurred throughout history?

Governments have tried for over a decade to shut down sharing of various files over the internet. They have failed miserably. The resolution of this dilemma will be an evolution in property rights, with the government dragging its feet the entire way. Those involved with file-sharing online have forced the governments hand. They haven't asked nicely and made sure no one's feelings were hurt. And no, I'm not trying to make file-sharers out to be noble heroes, I'm simply giving an example of how peaceful resistance against certain entrenched interests CAN be successful.

I'm not sure why you guys are interested in bitcoin, but I came here because I do not think the government has a right to tell anyone how to use their money, or the right to monitor an individual's transaction history (of course, the reduced monetary friction of the bitcoin network is an essential benefit as well). Any entity that works against those principles is a threat in my book.

I should admit however that if certain people wish to engage regulators or politicians in Washington, that is none of my business. It only becomes my business if they are also jockeying themselves as the "face" of bitcoin, and using their power to influence bitcoin development. I suppose you might say, "Go fund your own development bitcoin team". Fair point. Check back in a few years when I'm more financially prosperous  Smiley
peewee
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42



View Profile

Ignore
May 20, 2013, 04:00:54 AM
 #64

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.
100x
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


Seek the truth


View Profile

Ignore
May 20, 2013, 05:18:06 AM
 #65

Can someone with the authority do so clarify the motivation for the lobbying/interactions with regulators and the potential end results?

Is the protocol up for debate? Will development be guided away from certain less marketable ideas such as stronger anonymity (various coin-mixing)? Is transaction filtering a possibility?

Perhaps if the goal and methods were more clearly outlined, there would be less backlash, or at the very least the backlash would be more informed.
99Percent
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154



View Profile

Ignore
May 20, 2013, 05:31:58 AM
 #66

My apologies for the length of this post, but I believe that it sums up what is broken with the Foundation, shows it is essentially unfixable, and includes at the end a call to action to form a new, democratically-constituted ...

Lost me here.
justusranvier
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868



View Profile WWW

Ignore
May 20, 2013, 07:33:44 AM
 #67

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.
It exists.

gweedo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile

Ignore
May 20, 2013, 07:36:31 AM
 #68

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.
It exists.

https://www.gittip.com/ and the developer is trying to add bitcoins.

http://www.apicoin.io - making the blockchain rest | Donations: 1GweedoZJYb5CNLfSaBgBBYS2y7BMVb2Wo| Tox: 8814C1F411BBF9FCCFA3338DEB23E4DCCAEC2BF7E89C0048F2C23389651C071959F0EB5F4A58 |Escrow (0.5% FEE), just PM | PGP key |The Mark Cuban of this Forum
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile

Ignore
May 20, 2013, 07:44:29 AM
 #69

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.
It exists.

https://www.gittip.com/ and the developer is trying to add bitcoins.

Is it this? https://www.gittip.com/for/bitrix/
gweedo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile

Ignore
May 20, 2013, 07:45:50 AM
 #70

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.
It exists.

https://www.gittip.com/ and the developer is trying to add bitcoins.

Is it this? https://www.gittip.com/for/bitrix/

That is a gittip community, but if you want to tip Gavin, or any other core developer get their github name and you can tip them.

http://www.apicoin.io - making the blockchain rest | Donations: 1GweedoZJYb5CNLfSaBgBBYS2y7BMVb2Wo| Tox: 8814C1F411BBF9FCCFA3338DEB23E4DCCAEC2BF7E89C0048F2C23389651C071959F0EB5F4A58 |Escrow (0.5% FEE), just PM | PGP key |The Mark Cuban of this Forum
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile

Ignore
May 20, 2013, 07:55:21 AM
 #71

That is a gittip community, but if you want to tip Gavin, or any other core developer get their github name and you can tip them.

1. Okay, It is my understanding that I can pay Gavin, Jeff Garzik, John Smith and others using gittip.com, right?

2. But these guys may work on features and the type of development I am not interested to support, e.g. they may work at the moment on features that MtGox or Bitpay is interested in - just like TBF may be working on things I do not like, e.g. hiring a lobbyist; why should then I donate to TBF?

3. Where do I find a list of all developers with a list of features each of the dev is working on, so that I could donate to the feature I particularily want or like (thus supporting a particular developer)?
gweedo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile

Ignore
May 20, 2013, 07:58:18 AM
 #72

That is a gittip community, but if you want to tip Gavin, or any other core developer get their github name and you can tip them.

1. Okay, It is my understanding that I can pay Gavin, Jeff Garzik, John Smith and others using gittip.com, right?

2. But these guys may work on features and the type of development I am not interested to support, e.g. they may work at the moment on features that MtGox or Bitpay is interested in? - just like TBF may be working on things I do not like, e.g. hiring a lobbyst; why shouls then I donate to TBF?

3. Where do I find a list of all developers with a list of features each of the dev is working on, so that I could donate to the feature I particularily want or like (thus supporting a particular developer)?


1) Correct

2) If you don't like it don't donate, that is why I am not donating, I don't like the foundation's view and where it is going

3) I would just post on the forum, or pm the developers directly then after the feature is created then donated, but Gavin holds the ability to accept features, so even if the developer creates the feature, it probably won't make it to the client unless Gavin says it should be in it.

http://www.apicoin.io - making the blockchain rest | Donations: 1GweedoZJYb5CNLfSaBgBBYS2y7BMVb2Wo| Tox: 8814C1F411BBF9FCCFA3338DEB23E4DCCAEC2BF7E89C0048F2C23389651C071959F0EB5F4A58 |Escrow (0.5% FEE), just PM | PGP key |The Mark Cuban of this Forum
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile

Ignore
May 20, 2013, 08:23:21 AM
 #73


3) I would just post on the forum, or pm the developers directly then after the feature is created then donated, but Gavin holds the ability to accept features, so even if the developer creates the feature, it probably won't make it to the client unless Gavin says it should be in it.

You see the problem is none of the features I am aware they are working on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues?labels=Feature&milestone=&page=1&state=open is of interest to me (like ''address book cannot be searched'' - this is a feature for business users who have many addresses); I consider them trivial and non-important for retail users.

It is in the best interest of the developers to:
a) make a list of sensible features for retail users
b) add prices to these features
c) add ''donate'' buton to github website (or a new Bitcoin project development website) so that bitcoiners can donate to a particular feature / pay for a particular feature.

If a - c is done then retail users can compete on the market with business users over developers, i.e. over where development effort is put.

If a - c is done then developers will get some money for their services. My understanding is that TBF does not pay them (except for Gavin) and they do a charitable work.
ktttn
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


Capitalism is the crisis.


View Profile WWW

Ignore
May 20, 2013, 08:52:14 AM
 #74

Can someone with the authority do so clarify the motivation for the lobbying/interactions with regulators and the potential end results?

Is the protocol up for debate? Will development be guided away from certain less marketable ideas such as stronger anonymity (various coin-mixing)? Is transaction filtering a possibility?

Perhaps if the goal and methods were more clearly outlined, there would be less backlash, or at the very least the backlash would be more informed.
hey... wanna see something cool?
*whipping out brown paper bag*
See that thing in there? Its my authority...
So dig this:
I want to send anyone to everywhere to convince whoever to start using and mining bitcoin.
I want to send lawyers and lobbyists to DC to convince politicians to start using and mining bitcoin.
Y'all remember how christism was instituted, right? Constantine, yo. If not the foundation, then who? If they can't beat us, they'll join us.
Opinions?

Wit all my solidarities,
-ktttn
Ever see a gutterpunk spanging for cryptocoins?
LfkJXVy8DanHm6aKegnmzvY8ZJuw8Dp4Qc
wumpus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

No Maps for These Territories


View Profile

Ignore
May 20, 2013, 08:53:35 AM
 #75

is of interest to me (like ''address book cannot be searched'' - this is a feature for business users who have many addresses); I consider them trivial and non-important for retail users.
I'm kind of surprised that between 377(!) open issues there is not one that seems important to you.
Why not make one then?
Then people could use gittip (or bitcoinbounties.com) or whatever to contribute to it, and you could test out your experiment on the cheap.

Bitcoin Core developer [PGP]  Tips: 1L125pF2e7himW43Qu752ZFLtBLicxQmng Warning: For most, coin loss is a larger risk than coin theft. A disk can die any time. Regularly back up your wallet through FileBackup Wallet to an external storage or the (encrypted!) cloud. Use a separate offline wallet for storing larger amounts.
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile

Ignore
May 20, 2013, 09:33:39 AM
 #76

I'm kind of surprised that between 377(!) open issues there is not one that seems important to you.

There are 23 open feature requests https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues?labels=Feature&milestone=&page=1&state=open None of them interests me. Really.

Why not make one then?

Language barrier (my English is poor) + knowledge barrier (a newbie and a non-techie).

Then people could use gittip (or bitcoinbounties.com) or whatever to contribute to it, and you could test out your experiment on the cheap.

1. There should be one project development website*. On this website retail users and business users compete with their money for the Bitcoin developers' resources.

2. The website should have built-in crowd financing mechanism. This crowd financing mechanism will be mostly used by retail users, but I can imagine that in case of complex and pricey features (more than $100k) businesses can join forces and use it too.

3. The website should work like this:
a) People / businesses submit their feature requests like in this project management site http://www.multicharts.com/pm/ (loads slowly).
b) Then developers put a price tag for requests they can handle + specify time they agree to complete the task.
c) Then people / businesses commit to pay the whole price (it will take a week or two if the feature is desired or years if the feature is unwanted)
d) When 100% of the price from the price tag is paid to a particular developer's address, the developer starts coding.
e) The feature is added to Bitcoin-Qt (e.g. documentation) after reviewing by other developers in context of safety.

Additional mechanisms can be added like holding some of the devs salary in escrow for a certain period of time for possible bug fixing.

Bitcoin miners jointly dispose of computer power greater than 500 top computers in the world. Bitcoin users dispose of cash (to be used for project development) greater than what you can get from MtGox, Bitpay and other businesses. You simply need to build the auction tool to let this cash flow to the developers.

* having one website = one username + all issues and feature requests in one place + easy management, like sorting issues, deleting doubling feature requests, etc. (no need to jump from bitcoinbounties to gitthyub to gittip, etc. - I do not imagine 1000 people doing all this acrobatics to donate 1 or 2 bitcoins for a small feature).
wumpus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

No Maps for These Territories


View Profile

Ignore
May 20, 2013, 10:16:14 AM
 #77

You shouldn't just look at the feature requests but the other issues as well. Not all are labeled properly (yes, no one is paid to do that either).

In any case you're kind of confirming Gavin's feeling: the non-sexy issues that badly need to be fixed would not get funded, as they're not as interesting in a casual glance by someone non-technical.

And *that's* what funding is needed for: Autotesters, small friendlyness improvements (like choosing the block chain location), robustness, fixing bugs and annoyances. That's the kind of issues that currently hardly receive attention from developers because they're not fun or even very challenging to implement. That's where an incentive is needed.

Bitcoin Core developer [PGP]  Tips: 1L125pF2e7himW43Qu752ZFLtBLicxQmng Warning: For most, coin loss is a larger risk than coin theft. A disk can die any time. Regularly back up your wallet through FileBackup Wallet to an external storage or the (encrypted!) cloud. Use a separate offline wallet for storing larger amounts.
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile

Ignore
May 20, 2013, 10:48:50 AM
 #78

In any case you're kind of confirming Gavin's feeling: the non-sexy issues that badly need to be fixed would not get funded, as they're not as interesting in a casual glance by someone non-technical.

John,

1. Are these non-sexy issues fixed now for free? If yes then, they will continue to be fixed for free in the future as well (by this kind soul). If these non-sexy issues are not being fixed now, then nothing would change, if you started being paid for sexy features (except you would be better off).

2. I will post a layout of the project management website today (a basic idea).

3. BTW, I do not think that people will start massively flooding you with sexy and nonsensical feature requests. If people must back their requests with their hard earned real money - trust me - the request will be well thought and sense-making.
Impaler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364



View Profile

Ignore
May 20, 2013, 11:09:39 AM
 #79

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.

FRC:  18mAGEto3xZzfKNJPwsDVA5c2Fk5Za3nbs  http://www.freicoin.org  IRC:  Freenode #freicoin
wumpus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

No Maps for These Territories


View Profile

Ignore
May 20, 2013, 11:13:42 AM
 #80

Quote
1. Are these non-sexy issues fixed now for free? If yes then, they will continue to be fixed for free in the future as well (by this kind soul). If these non-sexy issues are not being fixed now, then nothing would change, if you started being paid for sexy features (except you would be better off).
No, they're not fixed right now. That's what people are complaining about; see for example.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1eb1dg/bitcoinqt_should_have_a_way_to_choose_blockchain/

And I can't speak for the other developers but at least I am tired of doing work for free.

Another example would be "sweep private key" (to redeem paper wallets etc without polluting the wallet with potentially untrusted private keys).

Or a wizard/help system to guide people through setup, shows help bubbles on first use, etc.

Basically, things that developers and advanced users don't need because they can McGyver-rig something to do the job anyway.

"sexy issues" are things like multi-wallet support, HD wallets, coin control patches, etc. Hard, very high impact, but also very hard to test properly and thus get integrated. Developers may work on them for free just for the challenge and developer cred. You can add financial incentives as you want to these, but that won't necessarily help them get integrated faster because the bottleneck is testing/code review.

Quote
2. I will post a layout of the project management website today (a basic idea).
Ok, cool

Quote
3. BTW, I do not think that people will start massively flooding you with sexy and nonsensical feature requests. If people must back their requests with their hard earned real money - trust me - the request will be well thought and sense-making.
You have a point there.

Bitcoin Core developer [PGP]  Tips: 1L125pF2e7himW43Qu752ZFLtBLicxQmng Warning: For most, coin loss is a larger risk than coin theft. A disk can die any time. Regularly back up your wallet through FileBackup Wallet to an external storage or the (encrypted!) cloud. Use a separate offline wallet for storing larger amounts.
jubalix
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


View Profile

Ignore
May 20, 2013, 11:16:46 AM
 #81

My apologies for the length of this post, but I believe that it sums up what is broken with the Foundation, shows it is essentially unfixable, and includes at the end a call to action to form a new, democratically-constituted umbrella organization for the advancement and defense of cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin first and foremost among them. I also believe you will find it valuable reading, if you're not already closely familiar with the matters at hand.

"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:

https://twitter.com/mikegogulski/status/335820053926797312

As I wrote:
Quote
#BitcoinFoundation is DEAD TO ME. Lobbyists? Fuck you @Vessenes shyster sellout! Give my BTC 25 back! http://ow.ly/lai8e  #Bitcoin2013

Then:
Quote
Is that why you sold me http://app.bitlaundry.com/  @vessenes? So you could look squeaky clean while cozying up to politicians?#Bitcoin2013  (https://twitter.com/mikegogulski/status/335822417400324097)

And:
Quote
I got into #Bitcoin to improve this miserable planet and ESCAPE the iron grip of privileged moneyed interests, not JOIN THEM! #Bitcoin2013

And:
Quote
And @Vessenes sues @MtGox for $75m. Send the king's swordsmen! I need more money! #Bitcoin2013 #Bitcoin #betrayal #rat #statist #sellout

Plenty more follows in my tweet stream, and includes a conversation with Smári McCarthy of the International (formerly Icelandic) Modern Media Institute (http://www.immi.is/).

I provided more of my reasoning (after a nice barbiturates-and-vodka cocktail and a bit of sleep) on Google+, in comments on Declan McCullagh's article (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57585151-38/winklevoss-twins-on-bitcoin-time-to-work-with-the-feds/) from today:

Quote
TL;DR: Sending Bitcoin to DC is like sending My Little Pony to the veterinarian.

+Jon Matonis Despite my rantings, for me it's not about purity either, but about the Foundation running off in a direction starkly counter to the motivations of a good many members, without any consultation at all. I believe I also heard +Peter Vessenes say, in that opening pitch, that there would be a Bitcoin Foundation members' meeting during the conference. I guess that means that I'll be getting an invitation with a teleconference number soon(?).

+Jerry Brito and +Declan McCullagh Yes, the exchanges are a vulnerable point, almost a "systempunkt" in John Robb's terminology, the resiliency of the underlying protocol aside. At the same time, it's already widely recognized that the best solutions to that sort of risk in the Bitcoin ecosystem involve peer-to-peer fiat/BTC exchange on the lines of #bitcoin-otc, localbitcoins.com and/or some kind of price discovery and exchange mechanism, with market actor reputation tracking, working in distributed fashion either in the BTC blockchain itself or as part of some kind of complementary system based roughly on the same principles. It's into those kinds of solutions that I'd like to see funding from whatever replaces the now toxic Bitcoin foundation and where I'd like to see the massive amounts of human energy that will otherwise be sucked into the interdimensional tentacle-monster maelstrom of KYC/AML/FinCEN/FATF/make-it-play-in-Peoria compliance (vendor AND customer side) spent.

As +Nick Weaver alludes to, Bitcoin really is fundamentally incompatible with the pharaonic pyramids of the legacy banking system, or, in my parting words from last night, sending Bitcoin to DC is like sending My Little Pony to the veterinarian. Even though we lot on this thread may share similar ideas about the ideal end state for Bitcoin, I think we all agree that the means to reach those ends are important as well. There is clear disagreement about what sorts of means are the most efficient in bringing us all to shiny happy crypto-ponycoin utopia, and that's fine. I'm asking folks to consider the entire picture very carefully, and especially not with America-centric blinders on.

I could go on to complain (but won't do so here, hehe) that the Bitcoin core dev team -- and, by extension, the Foundation which pays +Gavin Andresen -- are, in my opinion, spending a disproportionate amount of time/energy on work which primarily benefits a small number of mining pool operators (taken collectively, another systempunkt!) and on work which tends more and more to support centralized and institutionalized structures such as BitPay and BitInstant -- with all due respect to those teams -- and to toward the deprioritization of work support independent merchants and the actual peer-to-peer future. Perhaps this is simply a disagreement regarding how to sequence priorities, but I can't help but think it points to the same sort of issues I mention above, which actually turn out to be key ones as indicated by others.

+Jerry Brito "Allowed" is a hobgoblin. Bitcoin doesn't need permission from the existing state/corporate financial system. In fact, it presents an existential threat to both. Fine, though, send some "diplomats" out to spread confusion in the enemy's ranks.

And to +Jeffrey Tucker, it is indeed sad that freedom itself is simply unthinkable, where in a proper society it would be the reflexive, unconsidered default posture and where that society would react swiftly and forcefully to deviations from its principles. Alas, even with several thousand years of thought and experience to guide us, we have not yet collectively made the freedom posture the default.

(https://plus.google.com/u/1/112961607570158342254/posts/YLe37k7vonQ)

CLEARLY, Bitcoin no longer needs the Bitcoin Foundation as it's currently constituted, and it is probably too toxic to be salvaged in any form. The conflicts of interest among directors should make this perfectly clear. Plus, we now have Vessenes suing Karpeles over the MtGox/Coinlab deal while they are both on the same board. They both should have resigned immediately at the time the suit was filed and served.

Even worse, and utterly inexcusably, Peter Vessenes hired Patrick Murck as the Foundation's general counsel. This of course is the very same Patrick Murck who serves as Coinlab's General Counsel, and who is therefore Coinlab's top litigator in the suit against MtGox.

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)

Note also that NONE of these highly controversial acts and omissions were placed before votes of the Foundation's membership, in radical contravention of the founding spirit of the organization if not the language of its founding charter.

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.

And I am ready to support a new organization which actually serves the interests of Bitcoin (and other cryptocurrencies, as appropriate), with such egregious conflicts of interest excluded from decision-taking power and with a broad umbrella missing to accommodate ALL of the Bitcoin community, not just those who are only too delighted to cuddle up to regulators and politicians on the little-guy donor's coin. The new organization shall operate democratically from day zero. I move that Jon Matonis be named custodian of founding donations and that he shall serve, once and only once, as Chairman of the founding, general meeting of the entire membership, at which a full charter and a full set of by-laws shall be adopted and a new slate of directors and executives elected, such meeting to be held not less than 60 days from now and not less than 120 days from now, and to include the technical capacity for as many voices as possible to participate and be heard (that is founding-donors-only google hangout, IRC channel, toll-free teleconference linked to a skype teleconference, etc.).

Who's with me?


I just don't see the point let the foundation do whatever they want.

Just start your own Bitcoin foundation
willphase
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 767


View Profile

Ignore
May 20, 2013, 11:22:51 AM
 #82

I just don't see the point let the foundation do whatever they want.

Just start your own Bitcoin foundation



Will

Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile

Ignore
May 20, 2013, 11:29:48 AM
 #83

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).

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?
Impaler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364



View Profile

Ignore
May 20, 2013, 12:07:56 PM
 #84

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 because your just arguing that everything is dictatorship.  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.

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.  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.

FRC:  18mAGEto3xZzfKNJPwsDVA5c2Fk5Za3nbs  http://www.freicoin.org  IRC:  Freenode #freicoin
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile

Ignore
May 20, 2013, 12:08:15 PM
 #85

And I can't speak for the other developers but at least I am tired of doing work for free.

Then you and probably other developers are not very happy to see announcements of using TBF's stretched resources to hire a lobbyist / involve in politics instead of paying developers, are you? Below is a solution - just a rough idea.





[img=http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/13114078/img/13114078.png]




Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile

Ignore
May 20, 2013, 12:20:28 PM
 #86

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.
blacksmithtm
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42


View Profile

Ignore
May 20, 2013, 12:38:14 PM
 #87

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 726



View Profile

Ignore
May 20, 2013, 01:41:28 PM
 #88

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.

"A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history." --Gandhi
SamS
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile

Ignore
May 20, 2013, 02:59:08 PM
 #89


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.  Undecided


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. 

Bitcoin: 16i8sQWjZo3QPhhSfWupJff5PtwTxxpRJJ
Ripple:  rL7mRCDYBXsVSM2obdvEjwft5fPUmxv3ra
ktttn
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


Capitalism is the crisis.


View Profile WWW

Ignore
May 21, 2013, 10:21:12 AM
 #90

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.

Wit all my solidarities,
-ktttn
Ever see a gutterpunk spanging for cryptocoins?
LfkJXVy8DanHm6aKegnmzvY8ZJuw8Dp4Qc
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile

Ignore
May 21, 2013, 11:17:17 AM
 #91

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  Huh

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

Activity: 238


View Profile

Ignore
May 21, 2013, 12:48:58 PM
 #92

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!

Quote
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

Quote
 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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 349



View Profile WWW

Ignore
May 21, 2013, 01:49:36 PM
 #93

From my Twitter:

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

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

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

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

FREE ROSS ULBRICHT, allegedly one of the Dread Pirates Roberts of the Silk Road
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile

Ignore
May 21, 2013, 02:55:35 PM
 #94

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
Quote from: mikegogulski
The Bitcoin Foundation is TOXIC and must dissolve
There is nothing we can do  Grin 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
Quote from: mikegogulski
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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


View Profile

Ignore
May 21, 2013, 03:36:15 PM
 #95

Okay Guys,

Let's conclude this part of the thread:



can we call this the free market foundation, I nominate me as Prez
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile

Ignore
May 21, 2013, 03:49:21 PM
 #96

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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 349



View Profile WWW

Ignore
May 21, 2013, 07:36:28 PM
 #97

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."

FREE ROSS ULBRICHT, allegedly one of the Dread Pirates Roberts of the Silk Road
Gavin Andresen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330


Chief Scientist


View Profile WWW

Ignore
May 21, 2013, 07:54:28 PM
 #98

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+

Quote

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.

Will I see you in Amsterdam?
  http://bitcoin2014.com/
cbeast
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064

Bitcoin, Decorporated stockholder since 2011.


View Profile

Ignore
May 21, 2013, 08:21:16 PM
 #99

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+

Quote

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.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile

Ignore
May 21, 2013, 09:13:28 PM
 #100

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
gweedo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile

Ignore
May 21, 2013, 09:15:18 PM
 #101

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.

http://www.apicoin.io - making the blockchain rest | Donations: 1GweedoZJYb5CNLfSaBgBBYS2y7BMVb2Wo| Tox: 8814C1F411BBF9FCCFA3338DEB23E4DCCAEC2BF7E89C0048F2C23389651C071959F0EB5F4A58 |Escrow (0.5% FEE), just PM | PGP key |The Mark Cuban of this Forum
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile

Ignore
May 21, 2013, 09:18:45 PM
 #102

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840



View Profile WWW

Ignore
May 21, 2013, 09:25:08 PM
 #103

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.

The Freedom Box Foundation - http://is.gd/2n3GMU - Pirate Linux - http://is.gd/gtPfY6 - The Free Network Foundation - http://is.gd/8MnkhN - Pyramining referrals - http://pyramining.com/referral/dkqb468af - http://pyramining.com/referral/mbk42yxz7
gweedo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile

Ignore
May 21, 2013, 09:29:02 PM
 #104

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.

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.

http://www.apicoin.io - making the blockchain rest | Donations: 1GweedoZJYb5CNLfSaBgBBYS2y7BMVb2Wo| Tox: 8814C1F411BBF9FCCFA3338DEB23E4DCCAEC2BF7E89C0048F2C23389651C071959F0EB5F4A58 |Escrow (0.5% FEE), just PM | PGP key |The Mark Cuban of this Forum
QuestionAuthority
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490


You lead and I'll watch you walk away.


View Profile

Ignore
May 21, 2013, 09:35:10 PM
 #105

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.

GROUPTHINK kills braincells!!!!!!
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile

Ignore
May 21, 2013, 09:39:39 PM
 #106

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  Grin and make business by creating the Bitcoin Project Management website. How does it sound to you?
bassclef
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile

Ignore
May 21, 2013, 09:47:29 PM
 #107

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+

Quote

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.

BTCeer me: 1BUD95eSZv6ariYDkcP59xMBBf6ECDktYm
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile

Ignore
May 21, 2013, 09:48:06 PM
 #108

Some devs are making money off of Bitcoin. Others can if they choose to.

I do not think they make as much as the Bitcoin system and Bitcoin community wants. Look at Bitcoin-Qt: its development is slow, it is hardly usable for non-programmers, wiki is outdated, there is no documentation for Bitcoin-Qt, etc.

I want TBF to solve their own issues.

There are no issues at TBF. TBF's management are just a few guys who use other guys' donated money for things the latter ones do not like. No issues, just good business. TBF business is just fine.
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile

Ignore
May 21, 2013, 09:55:48 PM
 #109


Now look at someone like Ron Paul, who has worked within this corrupt system for his entire career.

Ron Paul joined the mafia in hope he could change the mafia into something good. He couldn't have succeeded. Of course one does not change / destroy mafia by joining it (except for success stories in movies).

I think Gavin and other TBF members are smarter than Ron Paul and have greater chances of succeeding. But still I estimate their chances at 0.00000000%, which is not worth the effort.
bassclef
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile

Ignore
May 21, 2013, 10:48:03 PM
 #110


Now look at someone like Ron Paul, who has worked within this corrupt system for his entire career.

Ron Paul joined the mafia in hope he could change the mafia into something good. He couldn't have succeeded. Of course one does not change / destroy mafia by joining it (except for success stories in movies).

I think Gavin and other TBF members are smarter than Ron Paul and have greater chances of succeeding. But still I estimate their chances at 0.00000000%, which is not worth the effort.

Ron Paul (per his own words) went into politics to spread ideas, not to win. And while Gavin and others may be smarter than Ron Paul, the real question is, are they more principled? I would guess not.

BTCeer me: 1BUD95eSZv6ariYDkcP59xMBBf6ECDktYm
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile

Ignore
May 21, 2013, 11:00:55 PM
 #111

And while Gavin and others may be smarter than Ron Paul, the real question is, are they more principled? I would guess not.

I think they are more principled. They are intellectually rigorous. At least Gavin is - I infer it from interviews he gives.

Anyway, I submitted the idea of ''Bitcoin project management website with rewards / salaries paid to the developers'' and I have not yet heard whether people like it or not.

Is this idea good, is it ugly, is it bad? Do you like it or not. Why not? Please speak.
marcus_of_augustus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile

Ignore
May 21, 2013, 11:21:17 PM
 #112

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+

Quote

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 said yourself that the Bitcoin Foundation is being modelled on the Linux Foundation. How many lawyers and lobbyists does the Linux Foundation employ? Just as a point of reference.

Also, you must realise that most of the members were of the impression when the foundation was set up (less than a year ago) that it was basically to fund dev work. Now it is talking about hiring a team of 6 lawyers and lobbyists to go to DC. Does this sound like dev work? It sounds more like a deceptive bait and switch ...

Monetary Freedom - a basic human right
"Disarming money as a tool for tyranny."
"Disintermediating the State."
gweedo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile

Ignore
May 21, 2013, 11:28:46 PM
 #113

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  Grin and make business by creating the Bitcoin Project Management website. How does it sound to you?

I don't know what my description has to do with this. Remember everyone cuts their own deals in life. If Gavin didn't want to get paid, which he was getting paid for a while thru coinlab, but still he become greedy. I think it would be great if the foundation did more than just pay his salary or he actually did more for bitcoin. I mean everytime I read something he is either taking walks on the beach or giving interviews.

I would think it be great for the bitcoin community if Gavin actually stop being the lead developer I feel he has gotten too powerful in a position that is suppose to be powerless.

http://www.apicoin.io - making the blockchain rest | Donations: 1GweedoZJYb5CNLfSaBgBBYS2y7BMVb2Wo| Tox: 8814C1F411BBF9FCCFA3338DEB23E4DCCAEC2BF7E89C0048F2C23389651C071959F0EB5F4A58 |Escrow (0.5% FEE), just PM | PGP key |The Mark Cuban of this Forum
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile

Ignore
May 21, 2013, 11:43:42 PM
 #114

I would think it be great for the bitcoin community if Gavin actually stop being the lead developer I feel he has gotten too powerful in a position that is suppose to be powerless.

I'll tell you what would be great from my perspective. Look at this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD4L7xDNCmA One of the devs (Mike) speaks there are certain capabilities built in the system that are ready to use, e.g. you can use some tool to avail funds when your kids when they turn 18 or something (not before).

Now, how to find such a functionality in Bitcoin-Qt, what command should be typped in Console? Well you guessed it, there is no documentation to Bitcoin-Qt and you can't find such a tool unless you are a programmer or a geek. Why the heck some developer could not be paid to make a documentation to this feature?

I do not think the problem is in Gavin leading the team. The problem is in the team not getting paid and therefore not getting the job done!
gweedo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile

Ignore
May 21, 2013, 11:48:59 PM
 #115

I would think it be great for the bitcoin community if Gavin actually stop being the lead developer I feel he has gotten too powerful in a position that is suppose to be powerless.

I'll tell you what would be great from my perspective. Look at this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD4L7xDNCmA One of the devs (Mike) speaks there are certain capabilities built in the system that are ready to use, e.g. you can use some tool to avail funds when your kids when they turn 18 or something (not before).

Now, how to find such a functionality in Bitcoin-Qt, what command should be typped in Console? Well you guessed it, there is no documentation to Bitcoin-Qt and you can't find such a tool unless you are a programmer or a geek. Why the heck some developer could not be paid to make a documentation to this feature?

I do not think the problem is in Gavin leading the team. The problem is in the team not getting paid and therefore not getting the job done!

Well now your talking about the blockchain scripting, which isn't turned on for good reason. We are still in beta, this stuff is still experimental, don't you want this stuff stable before adding another human factor in to something that isn't worth cents, that is worth over $100? I think it has nothing to do with the team getting paid or not, it has to do with lets get this part of the protocol stable before adding that other part into it. Also Mike Hern started bitcoinj, he wasn't a dev at any point on the bitcoin-qt, if I remember correctly.

The problem with bitcoin is now people are getting greedy and if the developers don't want to do it for free, then that is their choice, but to have Gavin get paid for a position that is suppose to have no power, I think that is a HUGE problem, it is already showing that the software is centralized. If Gavin can't leave then we have failed the experiment known as bitcoin.

http://www.apicoin.io - making the blockchain rest | Donations: 1GweedoZJYb5CNLfSaBgBBYS2y7BMVb2Wo| Tox: 8814C1F411BBF9FCCFA3338DEB23E4DCCAEC2BF7E89C0048F2C23389651C071959F0EB5F4A58 |Escrow (0.5% FEE), just PM | PGP key |The Mark Cuban of this Forum
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile

Ignore
May 22, 2013, 12:04:23 AM
 #116

Well now your talking about the blockchain scripting, which isn't turned on for good reason. We are still in beta, this stuff is still experimental, don't you want this stuff stable before adding another human factor in to something that isn't worth cents, that is worth over $100?

It was just an example to show that e.g. up-to-date documentation is needed - nobody will write it for free. I wasn't particularly interested in this feature, but looked for it for an hour in my Bitcoin-Qt and couldn't find Tongue

The problem with bitcoin is now people are getting greedy and if the developers don't want to do it for free, then that is their choice.

Nobody wants to work for free. I understand the devs pretty well. They are developing something beautiful that can potentially change the world. They should be rewarded, and its the system users who should pay, if the system users want the system to improve. I want to pay, but I do not want to donate to TBF (how can I be sure I am not donating to lobbyist's salary or the development of the feature I do not like and will not use?).

TBF has been failing to provide devs with good financial backup. Hence my idea of dumping TBF and starting a crowd financing website through which devs could be rewarded for their work. Shit, nobody even gave any comments to this proposal, except for John Smith.
Severian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


anarchistic marketist


View Profile WWW

Ignore
May 22, 2013, 12:09:23 AM
 #117

Financial privacy / freedom is a larger issue than Bitcoin, and I personally think it would be better to fight that fight separately from Bitcoin. 

I have to disagree. Satoshi put privacy in his white paper:

Quote
10. Privacy

The traditional banking model achieves a level of privacy by limiting access to information to the
parties involved and the trusted third party. The necessity to announce all transactions publicly
precludes this method, but privacy can still be maintained by breaking the flow of information in
another place: by keeping public keys anonymous. The public can see that someone is sending
an amount to someone else, but without information linking the transaction to anyone. This is
similar to the level of information released by stock exchanges, where the time and size of
individual trades, the "tape", is made public, but without telling who the parties were.

As an additional firewall, a new key pair should be used for each transaction to keep them
from being linked to a common owner. Some linking is still unavoidable with multi-input
transactions, which necessarily reveal that their inputs were owned by the same owner. The risk
is that if the owner of a key is revealed, linking could reveal other transactions that belonged to
the same owner.

http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

The fight for privacy and the fight for Bitcoin were the same fight. IMO, the fight has been lost because too many people are looking at profit instead of privacy.

It was a good battle while it lasted.

"The synonym of usury is ruin." -Samuel Johnson
gweedo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile

Ignore
May 22, 2013, 12:11:27 AM
 #118

Well now your talking about the blockchain scripting, which isn't turned on for good reason. We are still in beta, this stuff is still experimental, don't you want this stuff stable before adding another human factor in to something that isn't worth cents, that is worth over $100?

It was just an example to show that e.g. up-to-date documentation is needed - nobody will write it for free. I wasn't particularly interested in this feature, but looked for it for an hour in my Bitcoin-Qt and couldn't find Tongue

The documentation isn't to date as I understood from when i asked about it was that, bitcoin-qt is too big to create a documentation that would be 100% compatible with the bitcoin-qt. Remember documentation has been tried again and again, and has failed so that has nothing to do with money or people.

The problem with bitcoin is now people are getting greedy and if the developers don't want to do it for free, then that is their choice.

Nobody wants to work for free. I understand the devs pretty well. They are developing something beautiful that can potentially change the world. They should be rewarded, and its the system users who should pay, if the system users want the system to improve. I want to pay, but I do not want to donate to TBF (how can I be sure I am not donating to lobbyist's salary or the development of the feature I do not like and will not use?).

TBF has been failing to provide devs with good financial backup. Hence my idea of dumping TBF and starting a crowd financing website through which devs could be rewarded for their work. Shit, nobody even gave any comments to this proposal, except for John Smith.

If you want to donate, then that your choice as I said before in a lot of other threads like that, use http://gittip.com the developer is trying to add bitcoins.


Also yes nobody wants to work for free. But working on bitcoin is different. Almost all the devs are earlier adopters, and if they hedged their bets could be millionaires. I don't know if that is true or not. Remember everyone is here for bitcoin to be successful and cause we have a passion for it. Getting paid shouldn't be on the front mind of any developer working on bitcoin-qt or the protocol. It should be the last thing. The first thing should be creating something that could change the internet it is a new and different way of handling payments. It is making life easy and in some cases safer. That should be the reward, getting paid should never be the end goal of working on bitcoin.

http://www.apicoin.io - making the blockchain rest | Donations: 1GweedoZJYb5CNLfSaBgBBYS2y7BMVb2Wo| Tox: 8814C1F411BBF9FCCFA3338DEB23E4DCCAEC2BF7E89C0048F2C23389651C071959F0EB5F4A58 |Escrow (0.5% FEE), just PM | PGP key |The Mark Cuban of this Forum
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile

Ignore
May 22, 2013, 12:25:02 AM
 #119

If you want to donate, then that your choice as I said before in a lot of other threads like that, use http://gittip.com the developer is trying to add bitcoins.

The problem with gittip is:

1. When I donate to a developer through gittip he receives BTC 1 and is still malnutritioned, while there should be a dedicated website where 1,000 people like me pay a developer BTC 1 each, making the developer 1,000 x happier.

2. When I donate through gittip I have no recourse over the developer. When I co-finance a feature through a dedicated project management website I can at least get back some funds from escrow if the developer's work is buggy.

Gittip is of no use if Bitcoin development's quality is to skyrocket.
gweedo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile

Ignore
May 22, 2013, 12:32:57 AM
 #120

If you want to donate, then that your choice as I said before in a lot of other threads like that, use http://gittip.com the developer is trying to add bitcoins.

The problem with gittip is:

1. When I donate to a developer through gittip he receives BTC 1 and is still malnutritioned, while there should be a dedicated website where 1,000 people like me pay a developer BTC 1 each, making the developer 1,000 x happier.

2. When I donate through gittip I have no recourse over the developer. When I co-finance a feature through a dedicated project management website I can at least get back some funds from escrow if the developer's work is buggy.

Gittip is of no use if Bitcoin development's quality is to skyrocket.

1) Uhmm this isn't an issue, if 1,000 people want to donate then 1,000 people can donate thru gittip. 1BTC each is too much anyway.

2) Ok now your talking about basically hiring a developer to create features just for you. Remember Gavin controls what makes it into the client, while anyone can add or remove, Gavin is very choosey as he should be to add stupid features that only like one or two people want.

Gittip is for donations, you just want to hire a developer to make stuff for you. Two different things.

http://www.apicoin.io - making the blockchain rest | Donations: 1GweedoZJYb5CNLfSaBgBBYS2y7BMVb2Wo| Tox: 8814C1F411BBF9FCCFA3338DEB23E4DCCAEC2BF7E89C0048F2C23389651C071959F0EB5F4A58 |Escrow (0.5% FEE), just PM | PGP key |The Mark Cuban of this Forum
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile

Ignore
May 22, 2013, 12:42:05 AM
 #121

2) Ok now your talking about basically hiring a developer to create features just for you.

Me and 999 other users willing to co-fund a certain feature.

Remember Gavin controls what makes it into the client, while anyone can add or remove, Gavin is very choosey as he should be to add stupid features that only like one or two people want.

That's why I suggested control tools for him - look at this picture.






Gittip is for donations, you just want to hire a developer to make stuff for you. Two different things.

Yes, I do not want to make silly donations for non-jobs. I want to pay for sens-making features / fo jobs getting done. To speed development up.
gweedo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile

Ignore
May 22, 2013, 01:01:33 AM
 #122

2) Ok now your talking about basically hiring a developer to create features just for you.

Me and 999 other users willing to co-fund a certain feature.

Remember Gavin controls what makes it into the client, while anyone can add or remove, Gavin is very choosey as he should be to add stupid features that only like one or two people want.

That's why I suggested control tools for him - look at this picture.

Gittip is for donations, you just want to hire a developer to make stuff for you. Two different things.

Yes, I do not want to make silly donations for non-jobs. I want to pay for sens-making features / fo jobs getting done. To speed development up.

Uhmm, ok but bitcoin is in beta, and Gavin controls what goes into the main release of bitcoin, so you want to hire a developer to add what you want in. Gavin knows the roadmap and he wants to hit certain points, having people like you biding on features that 99% of people don't want is something he doesn't want. So just hire a developer. Their but it be more expensive then 1 BTC your probably looking at 3-4BTCs.

http://www.apicoin.io - making the blockchain rest | Donations: 1GweedoZJYb5CNLfSaBgBBYS2y7BMVb2Wo| Tox: 8814C1F411BBF9FCCFA3338DEB23E4DCCAEC2BF7E89C0048F2C23389651C071959F0EB5F4A58 |Escrow (0.5% FEE), just PM | PGP key |The Mark Cuban of this Forum
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile

Ignore
May 22, 2013, 01:16:16 AM
 #123

Uhmm, ok but bitcoin is in beta,
Bitcoin is in beta, but still businesses hire developers to do jobs in Bitcoin (BitPay and Jeff). Why couldn't users crowd-finance Bitcoin in its beta stage, if businesses can do it?

and Gavin controls what goes into the main release of bitcoin
Nothing would change, he would still control what goes into the main releases. the difference would be, his team would be paid by bitcoiners through crowd-financing website. Not only features could be financed this way, but also maintaining wiki.

so you want to hire a developer to add what you want in.
I want to hire a developer, but I do not have as much cash as MtGox have for hiring a developer. But 1,000 users through crowd-financing can pay more than MtGox.

Gavin knows the roadmap and he wants to hit certain points, having people like you biding on features that 99% of people don't want is something he doesn't want. So just hire a developer. Their but it be more expensive then 1 BTC your probably looking at 3-4BTCs.
Whether the feature is wanted and makes sense or not depends on the money that backs such a feature. Why do you think I or anybody else (separately or jointly) would be wasting BTC 1,000 or more of his hard earned money on a feature that does not add-value Bitcoin?
gweedo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile

Ignore
May 22, 2013, 01:20:35 AM
 #124

Uhmm, ok but bitcoin is in beta,
Bitcoin is in beta, but still businesses hire developers to do jobs in Bitcoin (BitPay and Jeff). Why couldn't users crowd-finance Bitcoin in its beta stage, if businesses can do it?

and Gavin controls what goes into the main release of bitcoin
Nothing would change, he would still control what goes into the main releases. the difference would be, his team would be paid by bitcoiners through crowd-financing website. Not only features could be financed this way, but also maintaining wiki.

so you want to hire a developer to add what you want in.
I want to hire a developer, but I do not have as much cash as MtGox have for hiring a developer. But 1,000 users through crowd-financing can pay more than MtGox.

Gavin knows the roadmap and he wants to hit certain points, having people like you biding on features that 99% of people don't want is something he doesn't want. So just hire a developer. Their but it be more expensive then 1 BTC your probably looking at 3-4BTCs.
Whether the feature is wanted and makes sense or not depends on the money that backs such a feature. Why do you think I or anybody else (separately or jointly) would be wasting BTC 1,000 or more of his hard earned money on a feature that does not add-value Bitcoin?

Ok let me be blunt with you, your throwing numbers out like 1,000 that or 1,000 this. 1,000 People all donating 1 BTC is going to be very hard, if not next to impossible so don't throw out numbers. Second going back to the beta thing, isn't it more important for devs to be working on the stability of the bitcoin protocol instead of creating stupid features that you want.

http://www.apicoin.io - making the blockchain rest | Donations: 1GweedoZJYb5CNLfSaBgBBYS2y7BMVb2Wo| Tox: 8814C1F411BBF9FCCFA3338DEB23E4DCCAEC2BF7E89C0048F2C23389651C071959F0EB5F4A58 |Escrow (0.5% FEE), just PM | PGP key |The Mark Cuban of this Forum
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile

Ignore
May 22, 2013, 01:33:23 AM
 #125

Ok let me be blunt with you, your throwing numbers out like 1,000 that or 1,000 this.

Yeah, I am throwing numbers. Simply because I do not know the prices of developing features for Bitcoin. To my knowledge no developer ever publicly put a price on such a job. I have no idea whether a feature of allowing searching of addresses in Bitcoin-Qt costs BTC 10 or 100. Do you know?

And I also do not know how many people can be gathered by the idea of speeding up a development of a particular feature. How many people are there in an average mining pool? If there are 50 people in an average mining pool working together to achieve their goal, then I would assume that an average feature can be sponsored by also 50 persons (to speed up achieving a goal).

Second going back to the beta thing, isn't it more important for devs to be working on the stability of the bitcoin protocol
Maybe, you are the only guy who raises such question.

instead of creating stupid features that you want.

Firstly, you you have no idea what features I might want, if any. Why do you label them stupid  Huh

So far I only publicly stated I can co-sponsor keeping wiki up-to-date and I can pay BTC 1 per year. If Bitcoin project management website is created maybe another 30 - 40 such persons can be found and use such tool to co-sponsor wiki as well. In this event, would BTC 30 - 40 be enough to hire an editor? I don't know - nobody put a price for it.
gweedo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


Java, PHP, HTML/CSS Programmer for Hire!


View Profile

Ignore
May 22, 2013, 01:44:32 AM
 #126

Ok let me be blunt with you, your throwing numbers out like 1,000 that or 1,000 this.

Yeah, I am throwing numbers. Simply because I do not know the prices of developing features for Bitcoin. To my knowledge no developer ever publicly put a price on such a job. I have no idea whether a feature of allowing searching of addresses in Bitcoin-Qt costs BTC 10 or 100. Do you know?

And I also do not know how many people can be gathered by the idea of speeding up a development of a particular feature. How many people are there in an average mining pool? If there are 50 people in an average mining pool working together to achieve their goal, then I would assume that an average feature can be sponsored by also 50 persons (to speed up achieving a goal).

Second going back to the beta thing, isn't it more important for devs to be working on the stability of the bitcoin protocol
Maybe, you are the only guy who raises such question.

instead of creating stupid features that you want.

Firstly, you you have no idea what features I might want, if any. Why do you label them stupid  Huh

So far I only publicly stated I can co-sponsor keeping wiki up-to-date and I can pay BTC 1 per year. If Bitcoin project management website is created maybe another 30 - 40 such persons can be found and use such tool to co-sponsor wiki as well. In this event, would BTC 30 - 40 be enough to hire an editor? I don't know - nobody put a price for it.

It shouldn't be more than a couple hundred for most features.

Cause I can tell.


I am going back to coding, this is getting boring trying to explain how your idea, isn't going to work and will just foster bad code, and important things not getting done.

http://www.apicoin.io - making the blockchain rest | Donations: 1GweedoZJYb5CNLfSaBgBBYS2y7BMVb2Wo| Tox: 8814C1F411BBF9FCCFA3338DEB23E4DCCAEC2BF7E89C0048F2C23389651C071959F0EB5F4A58 |Escrow (0.5% FEE), just PM | PGP key |The Mark Cuban of this Forum
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile

Ignore
May 22, 2013, 01:49:12 AM
 #127

It shouldn't be more than a couple hundred for most features.

Cause I can tell.


I am going back to coding, this is getting boring trying to explain how your idea, isn't going to work and will just foster bad code, and important things not getting done.

Thanks for your input.
peewee
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42



View Profile

Ignore
May 22, 2013, 06:21:00 PM
 #128

Okay Guys,

Let's conclude this part of the thread:



Please don't take this personally but as constructive criticism.  It's obvious you're a coder and not in management yet because you've failed to acknowledge/identify a couple of key problems (should have been the first step)....just helpful advice when you're trying to move up the chain in the future.

In regards to your plan - I've read pages now and still have no solid Idea on how you propose to deal with the following problems:

1.  Implementation - Just because a lot of money goes behind an idea, doesn't mean that its; A - Good for Bitcoin, B - Accepted by a majority, C -A clear priority.   There's a reason the lobby and vote system exists in government and despite anarchist opinion, it's not to promote corruption... its to create an educated and well balanced debate that addresses all sides before a vote is cast on implementation.....how does your plan get to implementation in a fair and organized way?

2.  Government Intervention - How do you plan to protect Bitcoin from this looming threat.  I caution you that - "the we have more computing power than they do so what can they do" argument is painfully flawed.  When were talking about governments the size of the US, China, Russia, etc.... the paltry market cap of Bitcoin could easily be squashed by a multitude of options.   You need to acknowledge that this is a REALITY and then give us a plan that will address it.  Throwing money at developers does not satisfactorily re-enforce Bitcoin.  This war isn't going to be solely waged by computers over the internet in the near future....its going to face real push-back and sanctions from governments if we're not careful and it will affect us all.
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile

Ignore
May 22, 2013, 06:53:37 PM
 #129

Please don't take this personally but as constructive criticism.

I don't mind criticism.

It's obvious you're a coder

No, I am not.

you've failed to acknowledge/identify a couple of key problems (should have been the first step)....just helpful advice when you're trying to move up the chain in the future

In regards to your plan - I've read pages now and still have no solid Idea on how you propose to deal with the following problems:

Okay, let's see these problems

1.  Implementation - Just because a lot of money goes behind an idea, doesn't mean that its; A - Good for Bitcoin, B - Accepted by a majority, C -A clear priority.
What does the above have to do with my idea? I see no relation.

There's a reason the lobby and vote system exists in government and despite anarchist opinion, it's not to promote corruption... its to create an educated and well balanced debate that addresses all sides before a vote is cast on implementation.....how does your plan get to implementation in a fair and organized way?
What does the above have to do with my idea? I see no relation.

2.  Government Intervention - How do you plan to protect Bitcoin from this looming threat.
By separating soon-to-be politically involved TBF from Bitcoin system's development and (Bitcoin system development would be financed by the system users and TBF would have no influence over technical aspects).

I caution you that - "the we have more computing power than they do so what can they do" argument is painfully flawed.  When were talking about governments the size of the US, China, Russia, etc.... the paltry market cap of Bitcoin could easily be squashed by a multitude of options.   You need to acknowledge that this is a REALITY and then give us a plan that will address it.  
What are you talking about?

Throwing money at developers does not satisfactorily re-enforce Bitcoin.
I think you missed my point. I do not want to throw money at developers. I want to co-finance, through crowdfunding mechanism, particular tasks (e.g. feature development). The last thing I want is to throw money at developers and require nothing from them.

This war isn't going to be solely waged by computers over the internet in the near future....its going to face real push-back and sanctions from governments if we're not careful and it will affect us all.

War?! What war? What are you talking about? Who is ''we''?
senseless
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Activity: 341



View Profile

Ignore
August 19, 2013, 03:02:34 PM
 #130


Bitcoin foundation votes are coming up for new board memberships.

If you want to alter the course of the foundation I would suggest you vote.

Raoul Duke
aka psy
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


XBT.pt - BTC/DOGE


View Profile WWW

Ignore
August 27, 2013, 09:47:30 PM
 #131


Bitcoin foundation votes are coming up for new board memberships.

If you want to alter the course of the foundation I would suggest you vote.

Does one have to be a politician/lobbyist just because he/she wishes the "government" to change its path?
Can't people just protest?

Abdussamad
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


Hello world!


View Profile WWW

Ignore
August 28, 2013, 12:02:12 AM
 #132

TPTB have already lined up their candidates for the foundation election. Elizabeth Ploshay has been professionally lobbying for Israel in the US govt. She's been a member of AIPAC since her college days. The Israeli lobby in the US is responsible for so many deaths in the middle east. And now they are going to get their hands on bitcoin.

luv2drnkbr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 612



View Profile

Ignore
August 28, 2013, 01:09:01 AM
 #133

I don't understand how you or anybody can be upset at the foundation for trying to integrate bitcoin in the the regulatory world.  The foundation is doing exactly what it's job is-- to promote bitcoin to the outside (regulation-laden) world.  I don't think it's necessary, and I haven't donated to the foundation, but they ARE doing what they're supposed to be doing.  That task includes hiring lobbyists, helping the gov create regulations for USA-based bitcoin businesses, etc.

As long as they keep paying Gavin to write code and as long as the code keeps the decentralization intact, I've got no beef with what they're trying to do.  I don't support it, but I also don't think it's necessarily bad.

The world is the way it is, and trying to place bitcoin into context with that world will bring more people in, which is a good thing.  Bitcoin is still beyond regulation, and if you don't like the foundation, you can simply IGNORE it.  As long as miners keep on putting valid tx's in blocks, Bitcoin will keep right on trucking.

This vitriol of the foundation is unwarranted.  They are doing exactly what they should be doing.  If you support that, donate to them, if you don't, don't.  It's really that simple.

virtualmaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392



View Profile

Ignore
August 28, 2013, 08:21:38 AM
 #134

The Bitcoin Foundation should teach government agents how to mine bitcoins on unused government computers.

Calendars for free to print: 2014 Calendar in JPG | 2014 Calendar in PDF Protect the Environment with Namecoin: 2014 Calendar in JPG | 2014 Calendar in PDF
Namecoinia.org  -  take the planet in your hands
BTC: 15KXVQv7UGtUoTe5VNWXT1bMz46MXuePba   |  NMC: NABFA31b3x7CvhKMxcipUqA3TnKsNfCC7S
Phinnaeus Gage
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050


Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending


View Profile WWW

Ignore
August 28, 2013, 09:21:28 AM
 #135

The Bitcoin Foundation should teach government agents how to mine bitcoins on unused government computers.

Then move the entire operation to Utah once THAT building is completed.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [All]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!