Elizabeth T. Ploshay for Bitcoin Foundation board

[drama247365]

"The clock is ticking and we do not have much time until Bitcoin is compromised" - Hamster Girl.

you beat me to it.  WTF was that all about?

I think it's about time people from LTB come clean about their motivations and agenda with this hamster. Anyone with even a little Bitcoin knowledge knows this woman is fucking clueless and I don't think she is writing the cue cards she reads from either. After that debate, I'm convinced she is a stool pigeon for them and perhaps a few other people. Andreas M(r Arrogant) Antonopoulos and the Adam "The Jew" Levine have some 'splaining to do.

[zachcope]

i'm confused how anybody who listened to the debate at letstalkbitcoin.com can support Elizabeth Ploshay.

Agreed. She gets +1 for realising btc is the future.
-10 for not realising how a decentralised peer to currency DOES NOT NEED 'organised decentralisation'. I see her vision as similar to Hell's Angels chapters - ie if in your decentralised Chapter you make a decision the Board disagree with then ETP will fly over and kneecap you.

Bitcoin is not reliant on USA approval.
The foundation should focus on core development with the goal to maintain freedom if transaction. They can do some education but expat Somalians transferring remittances to Somalia or Argentinians trying to save money without hyperinflation don't need permission or cheer leading from ETP automaton.

Joerg is the most clear about what bitcoin is and can communicate that excellently.

[2weiX]

Joerg is the most clear about what bitcoin is and can communicate that excellently.

+1

I wish I could vote.

[Professor James Moriarty]

 Who has the rights to vote , where can I find the candidates and more info on them?

[cypherdoc]

Yes, the goal should be to increase the user base and its safety and not increase the regulation-Platzer

[2weiX]

 Who has the rights to vote , where can I find the candidates and more info on them?

Everyone who was member of the foundation prior to some date (aug 23rd or so).
Become a member of the foundation for .19 btc and you get access to the forums!

-___^

[2weiX]

just listening to the first queston (the mission statement) had me go, "whut?" after elizabeth.

[cypherdoc]

just listening to the first queston (the mission statement) had me go, "whut?" after elizabeth.

She spews forth this litany of pithy one liners that sound good but make you say wtf?

That last one was priceless though. So who wrote that one? Andreas or Adam?

Just kidding guys! I'm sure she wrote  that one all on her own.   

[zachcope]

In fact she wouldn't kneecap you, just patronise you to death or talk nonsense non stop until you cracked and jumped off a bridge.

[willphase]

My 2bitcents from the debate...

I'm afraid I wasn't too impressed with Elizabeth in that debate, she seems to be full of platitudes unfortunately.  However, she would bring a much needed action and organisation to the Board, she's obviously passionate about Bitcoin and helping push the foundation forward, I just don't think she has anything really new to bring to the board.

I still worry about Joerg's views on how to get bitcoin adopted.  He believes that a grassroots movement the world over (like the Berlin movement) will somehow work and we will reach the cryptocurrency singularity and at that point governments will just not be able to stop it.

"we need make those international and national bodies aware of the fact that anonymity in financial transactions is their new reality"

I'm sorry but I still think this is desperately unrealistic, if governments hear things like this, then they just shut bitcoin down c.f. FATCA.  I don't want someone on the BCF board saying that sort of thing around regulators!  If we get anywhere near that then governments will just come in and squash bitcoin, which they could do already by just passing a FATCA style of law about moving any state currency in/out of bitcoin.  What is needed is engagement with governments, and Ben, Trace, Elizabeth in their own ways have a more reasoned approach to this.  I think Joerg can continue his grassroots adoption as he has done in Berlin without being on the BCF board.  This grassroots adoption needs to occur, as well as the continued engagement with governments.

Ben I would worry about how much time he can devote to bitcoin, since he has a full time job at Facebook.  Trace and Joerg obviously already 'live bitcoin' and from what I can tell, Elizabeth will just do this as her full time work, while making a living working for bitcoin magazine.  I am impressed with Ben though, I just felt a bit uncertain about a few answers he gave

Overall, I'm now tempted to vote for Trace - I think he has the right balance with the regulator/government stuff, he's obviously passionate about Bitcoin, he understands the technology, but his underlying philosophy towards bitcoin being the eventual future and transactional freedom is something I can agree with.  I might still vote for Ben though, I'll monitor the thread(s) here and on the BCF forum before making a final decision.

Will

[Kouye]

Watched video, listened to debate, thanks a lot for the links.

I agree with theymos, she's the one we need. But not as a board member.
A sexy, bitcoin-related, video buzz on youtube would probably be much more efficient.
That's my vote.

Go Liz!

[matonis]

Thanks to LetsTalkBitcoin for hosting the debate on very short notice and I am pleased to have had the Bitcoin Foundation sponsor it.
Thanks also to the five candidates that made the time over Saturday to participate.

[NewLiberty]

Thanks to LetsTalkBitcoin for hosting the debate on very short notice and I am pleased to have had the Bitcoin Foundation sponsor it.
Thanks also to the five candidates that made the time over Saturday to participate.

It is also a testament to this Bitcoin Foundation to attract such a group of quality candidates.

The debate questions were friendly, more so than I'd hoped, very civil and open ended, but not particularly challenging (except when the interviewer was not understanding an answer and pressed for more).  Board member is a leadership position so it would be nice to have had a few more hardball questions dealing with the necessary core competencies for the role such as how they would form and mobilize strategies to handle particular governmental oppositions that are occurring today around the world, and some which may yet come.

Rather than (just) be a complainer, I'll offer examples:

Not all regions see competitive business advantage as a sufficient incentive to permit transaction freedom.  Some may not be convinced by the merits of Bitcoin even with a complete understanding of it and the technology.  If some near-totalitarian state were to decree Bitcoin outlawed, and assign capital punishment to users transacting in its jurisdiction unless using a government sanctioned escrow for the private keys of all its citizens, (which law, were it to exist, might even be enforceable to some degree).

Faced with such, how would you as a Bitcoin Foundation board member address this?
Citizens there may not be able to send TBF member fees nor get any representation in TBF without foreign help, would you advocate such help through the Foundation and how?

I'm insufficiently vain to imagine that any of the Board hopefuls will read this or answer it, but had to put it out there for the rest of us to contemplate because I am old enough to remember when "munitions grade" PGP was illegal to export from the USA.

[QuestionAuthority]

Thanks to LetsTalkBitcoin for hosting the debate on very short notice and I am pleased to have had the Bitcoin Foundation sponsor it.
Thanks also to the five candidates that made the time over Saturday to participate.

It is also a testament to this Bitcoin Foundation to attract such a group of quality candidates.

The debate questions were friendly, more so than I'd hoped, very civil and open ended, but not particularly challenging (except when the interviewer was not understanding an answer and pressed for more).  Board member is a leadership position so it would be nice to have had a few more hardball questions dealing with the necessary core competencies for the role such as how they would form and mobilize strategies to handle particular governmental oppositions that are occurring today around the world, and some which may yet come.

Rather than (just) be a complainer, I'll offer examples:

Not all regions see competitive business advantage as a sufficient incentive to permit transaction freedom.  Some may not be convinced by the merits of Bitcoin even with a complete understanding of it and the technology.  If some near-totalitarian state were to decree Bitcoin outlawed, and assign capital punishment to users transacting in its jurisdiction unless using a government sanctioned escrow for the private keys of all its citizens, (which law, were it to exist, might even be enforceable to some degree).

Faced with such, how would you as a Bitcoin Foundation board member address this?
Citizens there may not be able to send TBF member fees nor get any representation in TBF without foreign help, would you advocate such help through the Foundation and how?

I'm insufficiently vain to imagine that any of the Board hopefuls will read this or answer it, but had to put it out there for the rest of us to contemplate because I am old enough to remember when "munitions grade" PGP was illegal to export from the USA.

That's a really good way to look at it. I've read many negative comments about candidates reading from a prompter, not having a clue about Bitcoin, being a super Bitcoin user, superior knowledge about the subject or having the most passion about the subject. The truth is none of these matter for a group representative that will liaison between government and TBF. Experience with the target government matters the most.

I don't believe anyone could immerse themselves in Bitcoin for a reasonable period of time and not end up understanding it. If I thought that were true then I would have to believe Bitcoin is doomed to failure because the common man will never understand it well enough to use it effectively. I would prefer that any liaison office not be held by a developer or super user. I have nothing against developers but feel their superior knowledge would keep them from understanding how to explain Bitcoin to the uninitiated. Superior knowledge does not equal the ability to teach. I took many classes in college where I learned more from the student teacher than from the class professor because I had an easier time understanding the way they were explaining the subject.

The dairy coalition lobbyists don't have to be dairy farmers to lobby Washington. In fact, it's almost impossible for any good lobbyist to be a working member of the group they are employed by because they need an education and experience in government to know how to work the system, who to communicate with and how to best present ideas to a bureaucrat. I still only see one candidate that fits that bill.


Manager of Communications at Bitcoin Magazine

Past
Scheduler at Congressman Peter J. Roskam
Israel Relations at US House of Representatives
Staff Assistant at US Congress

Education
Wheaton College

[QuestionAuthority]

Thanks to LetsTalkBitcoin for hosting the debate on very short notice and I am pleased to have had the Bitcoin Foundation sponsor it.
Thanks also to the five candidates that made the time over Saturday to participate.

It is also a testament to this Bitcoin Foundation to attract such a group of quality candidates.

The debate questions were friendly, more so than I'd hoped, very civil and open ended, but not particularly challenging (except when the interviewer was not understanding an answer and pressed for more).  Board member is a leadership position so it would be nice to have had a few more hardball questions dealing with the necessary core competencies for the role such as how they would form and mobilize strategies to handle particular governmental oppositions that are occurring today around the world, and some which may yet come.

Rather than (just) be a complainer, I'll offer examples:

Not all regions see competitive business advantage as a sufficient incentive to permit transaction freedom.  Some may not be convinced by the merits of Bitcoin even with a complete understanding of it and the technology.  If some near-totalitarian state were to decree Bitcoin outlawed, and assign capital punishment to users transacting in its jurisdiction unless using a government sanctioned escrow for the private keys of all its citizens, (which law, were it to exist, might even be enforceable to some degree).

Faced with such, how would you as a Bitcoin Foundation board member address this?
Citizens there may not be able to send TBF member fees nor get any representation in TBF without foreign help, would you advocate such help through the Foundation and how?

I'm insufficiently vain to imagine that any of the Board hopefuls will read this or answer it, but had to put it out there for the rest of us to contemplate because I am old enough to remember when "munitions grade" PGP was illegal to export from the USA.

That's a really good way to look at it. I've read many negative comments about candidates reading from a prompter, not having a clue about Bitcoin, being a super Bitcoin user, superior knowledge about the subject or having the most passion about the subject. The truth is none of these matter for a group representative that will liaison between government and TBF. Experience with the target government matters the most.

I don't believe anyone could immerse themselves in Bitcoin for a reasonable period of time and not end up understanding it. If I thought that were true then I would have to believe Bitcoin is doomed to failure because the common man will never understand it well enough to use it effectively. I would prefer that any liaison office not be held by a developer or super user. I have nothing against developers but feel their superior knowledge would keep them from understanding how to explain Bitcoin to the uninitiated. Superior knowledge does not equal the ability to teach. I took many classes in college where I learned more from the student teacher than from the class professor because I had an easier time understanding the way they were explaining the subject.

The dairy coalition lobbyists don't have to be dairy farmers to lobby Washington. In fact, it's almost impossible for any good lobbyist to be a working member of the group they are employed by because they need an education and experience in government to know how to work the system, who to communicate with and how to best present ideas to a bureaucrat. I still only see one candidate that fits that bill.


Manager of Communications at Bitcoin Magazine

Past
Scheduler at Congressman Peter J. Roskam
Israel Relations at US House of Representatives
Staff Assistant at US Congress

Education
Wheaton College

The Foundation has committees that do this and they would do more direct interaction than board members.  That is why I suggested putting the losing candidates on committees that deal with issues they are involved with.

What do Board members do?

Board members are charged with working collectively to act as the "mind" of the community group they serve. In doing so, they must work together to:
Determine the group's mission and purpose;
Set a strategic vision and plan;
Ensure the group is financially and legally accountable;
Appoint and monitor the group's CEO (if it has one);
Ensure the group has adequate resources;
Work to enhance the group's public image; and
Assess the Board's effectiveness.

In practice, this may involve, among a plethora of other tasks:
Setting and approving budgets
Managing risk
Keeping on top of relevant laws and regulations
Approving major programs and projects undertaken by the group in achieving its mission
Attending and participating in meetings
Serving on Board committees
Undertaking or overseeing fundraising activities
Representing stakeholders' views during meetings
Speaking about the group at functions
Acting as the group's media spokesperson
Lobbying on behalf of the group
Organising and attending Board retreats and other evaluation activities

I think you're wrong.

[willphase]

I think you're wrong.

I have to agree with the others here.  Elizabeth sounds like a great person and she will get a load of stuff done, she's obviously very organised, passionate and motivated about trying to make Bitcoin work, but I just don't see her as contributing much to the board in terms of experience or opinions (no offence, Elizabeth!).  I think she would be better served as a representative of the BCF in Washington, or a voice for Bitcoin in the press/media, or someone you know you can depend on to get things done or form order out of chaos.

I think having someone with more experience of Bitcoin on the board is the way to go - Trace and Joerg would be better in this perspective.  I personally am tending towards Trace, because I think right now the time is right to engage with governments and banking industry rather than try and convince them by edging slowly towards the cryptocurrency singularity - I have tremendous respect for Joerg but some of the seemingly confrontational things he's been saying in interviews really worry me.

Just my 2bitcents

Will

[cypherdoc]

I think you're wrong.

I have to agree with the others here.  Elizabeth sounds like a great person and she will get a load of stuff done, she's obviously very organised, passionate and motivated about trying to make Bitcoin work, but I just don't see her as contributing much to the board in terms of experience or opinions (no offence, Elizabeth!).  I think she would be better served as a representative of the BCF in Washington, or a voice for Bitcoin in the press/media, or someone you know you can depend on to get things done or form order out of chaos.

I think having someone with more experience of Bitcoin on the board is the way to go - Trace and Joerg would be better in this perspective.  I personally am tending towards Trace, because I think right now the time is right to engage with governments and banking industry rather than try and convince them by edging slowly towards the cryptocurrency singularity - I have tremendous respect for Joerg but some of the seemingly confrontational things he's been saying in interviews really worry me.

Just my 2bitcents

Will

yeah, Trace would not be a bad choice at all altho he sometimes overpromotes himself and claims too much credit for advancing Bitcoin theory.  he himself admits having missed the first boat in Bitcoin back in 2011.  but to give him credit, he definitely caught the second boat to sail.  i also like the fact that he seems to be working tirelessly to establish contacts in the traditional banking system.  he clearly is independent enough to be able to travel to many foreign countries to spread the word which i very much like.  by talking and networking with many different ppl he gains a perspective on the marketplace that very few of us can claim.  he's a clear thinker as well.

Ben impressed me as a mature honest individual who would do well also.  experience in Facebook is a big advantage and supposedly he is a good dev.

the main reason i'm partial to Platzer is that he is international.  maybe that's too much of a simplification but i also think he's lived, breathed, and taken personal and financial risks in promoting Bitcoin.  there's a part of me that worries that the US declares Bitcoin illegal here in the States and with an all US representation on the BF that could paralyze that organization instantly, imo.

and surprisingly enough, Luke did way better than i thought he would.  he was calm and relatively articulate.  he withstood the personal attacks quite well too surprisingly.  i say surprisingly b/c he has a well known shall i say negative history with Gavin and others around here.  sorry Luke but my intent here is to complement you for a job pretty well done given the circumstances.

[Carlton Banks]

the main reason i'm partial to Platzer is that he is international.  maybe that's too much of a simplification but i also think he's lived, breathed, and taken personal and financial risks in promoting Bitcoin.

Exactly. He has a personal stake in the system: he risked his business standing up for his (allegedly extremist) views, and it paid off for him, he had the diplomatic abilities to negotiate Bitcoin payment for all of his overheads. He can't have been so confrontational and uncompromising to achieve that.

[cypherdoc]

Thanks to LetsTalkBitcoin for hosting the debate on very short notice and I am pleased to have had the Bitcoin Foundation sponsor it.
Thanks also to the five candidates that made the time over Saturday to participate.

It is also a testament to this Bitcoin Foundation to attract such a group of quality candidates.

The debate questions were friendly, more so than I'd hoped, very civil and open ended, but not particularly challenging (except when the interviewer was not understanding an answer and pressed for more).  Board member is a leadership position so it would be nice to have had a few more hardball questions dealing with the necessary core competencies for the role such as how they would form and mobilize strategies to handle particular governmental oppositions that are occurring today around the world, and some which may yet come.

Rather than (just) be a complainer, I'll offer examples:

Not all regions see competitive business advantage as a sufficient incentive to permit transaction freedom.  Some may not be convinced by the merits of Bitcoin even with a complete understanding of it and the technology.  If some near-totalitarian state were to decree Bitcoin outlawed, and assign capital punishment to users transacting in its jurisdiction unless using a government sanctioned escrow for the private keys of all its citizens, (which law, were it to exist, might even be enforceable to some degree).

Faced with such, how would you as a Bitcoin Foundation board member address this?
Citizens there may not be able to send TBF member fees nor get any representation in TBF without foreign help, would you advocate such help through the Foundation and how?

I'm insufficiently vain to imagine that any of the Board hopefuls will read this or answer it, but had to put it out there for the rest of us to contemplate because I am old enough to remember when "munitions grade" PGP was illegal to export from the USA.

That's a really good way to look at it. I've read many negative comments about candidates reading from a prompter, not having a clue about Bitcoin, being a super Bitcoin user, superior knowledge about the subject or having the most passion about the subject. The truth is none of these matter for a group representative that will liaison between government and TBF. Experience with the target government matters the most.

I don't believe anyone could immerse themselves in Bitcoin for a reasonable period of time and not end up understanding it. If I thought that were true then I would have to believe Bitcoin is doomed to failure because the common man will never understand it well enough to use it effectively. I would prefer that any liaison office not be held by a developer or super user. I have nothing against developers but feel their superior knowledge would keep them from understanding how to explain Bitcoin to the uninitiated. Superior knowledge does not equal the ability to teach. I took many classes in college where I learned more from the student teacher than from the class professor because I had an easier time understanding the way they were explaining the subject.

The dairy coalition lobbyists don't have to be dairy farmers to lobby Washington. In fact, it's almost impossible for any good lobbyist to be a working member of the group they are employed by because they need an education and experience in government to know how to work the system, who to communicate with and how to best present ideas to a bureaucrat. I still only see one candidate that fits that bill.


Manager of Communications at Bitcoin Magazine

Past
Scheduler at Congressman Peter J. Roskam
Israel Relations at US House of Representatives
Staff Assistant at US Congress

Education
Wheaton College

you seem to understand her way better than most ppl around here.  certainly me.

perhaps you can then explain the meaning of her closing statement:  "The clock is ticking and we do not have much time until Bitcoin is compromised" ?

[cypherdoc]

the main reason i'm partial to Platzer is that he is international.  maybe that's too much of a simplification but i also think he's lived, breathed, and taken personal and financial risks in promoting Bitcoin.

Exactly. He has a personal stake in the system: he risked his business standing up for his (allegedly extremist) views, and it paid  of for him, he had the diplomatic abilities to negotiate Bitcoin payment for all of his overheads. He can't have been so confrontational and uncompromising to achieve that.

from my own geopolitical assessment of risk to Bitcoin's future, Germany's ruling allowing Bitcoin to function as a legal private currency was a seminal event.  to me that means whatever the US gov't does to try and obstruct Bitcoin, it won't matter given this development.  that is huge to me.

i always assumed Platzer had a hand in this and now from the debate i learn that my suspicions were true.  he's been working directly with Schaeffer (?) of the Bundesbank to get this done.  that's big and indicates an ability to work with regulators towards what in essence guarantees Bitcoin's future, imo.