Elizabeth T. Ploshay for Bitcoin Foundation board

[LightRider]

What if we actually didn't need any pyramidal politically fucked-up foundation, and just BTC-crowd-funded any need to hire honest lawyers/developers/senators/head-hunters/etc. ?

Because false authority is seductive and many people have distorted values instilled in them from a sick culture that rewards aberrant behavior.

[mindtomatter]

What if we actually didn't need any pyramidal politically fucked-up foundation, and just BTC-crowd-funded any need to hire honest lawyers/developers/senators/head-hunters/etc. ?

The wonderful part about Bitcoin is that you can do whatever you want, just because this is the first bitcoin foundation doesn't mean it will or should be the only one.  The people who make up the foundation think this is the way to go about it, and they've put their money where their mouths are.  I genuinely encourage you to set up a bounty-only Bitcoin foundation, I would happily be a member of that one too and help in any way I could.

[Ipsum]

What if we actually didn't need any pyramidal politically fucked-up foundation, and just BTC-crowd-funded any need to hire honest lawyers/developers/senators/head-hunters/etc. ?

And what individuals would manage said lawyers, for instance? Who would the lawyers report to, coordinate with, and receive priorities from? It certainly can't be "the crowd" or you've just handed your entire strategy to the opposition.

[qwk]

What if we actually didn't need any pyramidal politically fucked-up foundation, and just BTC-crowd-funded any need to hire honest lawyers/developers/senators/head-hunters/etc. ?

Nice collection of oxymorons

[NewLiberty]

The foundation has to be known by the effectiveness of it's action.
Others would have the same criteria, regardless of structure.  Maybe they are organized regionally, or by a particular focus.  Or by a particular currency/coin type.

Consider the circumstance of a case where there were some entity or group supporting a great new technology, call them GOOD PEOPLE, and there are others opposed to the existence of Bitcoin, lets call them the "Bad Angry Negative Killers" for our purposes here.  Wait that is too long, lets shorten it to BANK.
So BANK maybe wants to do all kinds of things to ruin Bitcoin, subvert or wreck the technology, insert bugs, make legal barriers where they want them, they could strive to control the dialog around the technology through the use of the 4th estate and generally bend it to their will.

What would BANK do to accomplish this?  They might put the top programmers on their payroll, they might create an authoritarian entity to stand in front of the technology and present it to the legal authorities, thus framing the case law created by their engagement.  Perhaps they would even be on both sides of important cases, funding prosecution and defense through diverse channels.  They might install representatives of the major communication channels into the organization to frame the debate.  It would create circles of secrecy so that only certain insiders could know what motivations are driving it.

Basically BANK would do all the same sort of things that the GOOD PEOPLE would do to support the technology, but the outcomes would be entirely different.

Some people are going to naturally distrust any structure that can be used as a leverage point, just because of the capability for that leverage to be used by BANK or by GOOD PEOPLE.  Others are going to look to enhance such structures and use leverage to build faster.

It is like any position of power.

If you want the power to decide who lives and who dies, you can get some of that action by being a doctor or being a soldier, and either way you can do much deciding.  Arguably more often by being a doctor.

[qwk]

You touched the main problem of the Foundation.  It is set up by a relatively small group of Bitcoin yet they go around claiming to represent all of Bitcoin.

No.

We are determined to keep Bitcoin rooted in its core principles: non-political economy, openness and independence. While we aim to advance standards and security, we remain strong advocates of the liberating power of decentralized money. Our goal is to act as both an organizing body for Bitcoin and simultaneously be inclusive of the general Bitcoin community. Only then will our mission succeed.

[qwk]

We are determined to keep Bitcoin rooted in its core principles: non-political economy, openness and independence. While we aim to advance standards and security, we remain strong advocates of the liberating power of decentralized money. Our goal is to act as both an organizing body for Bitcoin and simultaneously be inclusive of the general Bitcoin community. Only then will our mission succeed.

I don't know what that is supposed to mean and neither will most users.  You can see time and time again people are confused over what the Bitcoin Foundation and who they represent.  A clear statement would be:  "We represent our constituent members."  blah blah blah "...  and be inclusive of the general Bitcoin Community." 

I don't see people being confused over what the Foundation does or whom they represent.
It's all clearly stated right there on the website bitcoinfoundation.org.
There's even a public list of members:
https://members.bitcoinfoundation.org/current
Seriously, how much more transparency do you expect?

Is it really the fault of the Foundation that some people obviously don't even care to read what they publish?

They are obviously not open so anyone who knows about Bitcoin and the Foundation would probably stop reading after that claim and consider the whole statement as not credible.

What exactly about the Foundation is not open?
The only thing I can think of is the forum, that's members only, and why wouldn't it?
Do you expect public access to all the forums of each and every political/business/religious/whatever interest group in the world, and if so, why?

[2weiX]

Screw the foundation.

People like the guy wrote the BitcoinTipBot on reddit are the ones that drive the success.

[cypherdoc]

why hasn't Elizabeth bothered to enter this thread and answer questions?

[cypherdoc]

many of the BF members have openly stated that they spend 99% of their forum time here on Bitcointalk.

so the fact that Elizabeth has not bothered to post here indicate that she will be out of touch with the vast majority of the community's opinion either willfully or out of ignorance?

[mindtomatter]

many of the BF members have openly stated that they spend 99% of their forum time here on Bitcointalk.

so the fact that Elizabeth has not bothered to post here indicate that she will be out of touch with the vast majority of the community's opinion either willfully or out of ignorance?

If I were her, I wouldn't be posting in this thread either.  There are few if any people here who can actually vote in the process and those few are far outnumbered by people who either just hate the foundation because they think it's trying to claim domination of Bitcoin, or don't like Elizabeth because shes either "Supports the Jews" or is an unattractive woman.

I'd encourage you to email her if you have questions.

And for the record, I spend less than 10% of my forum time on BitcoinTalk. 

[greyhawk]

" or is an unattractive woman.

I never said that. Don't put things in my mouth. I like hamsters. They are cute and fuzzy. Although not very talkactive. As is evidenced in this thread.

[mindtomatter]

What if we actually didn't need any pyramidal politically fucked-up foundation, and just BTC-crowd-funded any need to hire honest lawyers/developers/senators/head-hunters/etc. ?

The wonderful part about Bitcoin is that you can do whatever you want, just because this is the first bitcoin foundation doesn't mean it will or should be the only one.  The people who make up the foundation think this is the way to go about it, and they've put their money where their mouths are.  I genuinely encourage you to set up a bounty-only Bitcoin foundation, I would happily be a member of that one too and help in any way I could.

You touched the main problem of the Foundation.  It is set up by a relatively small group of Bitcoin yet they go around claiming to represent all of Bitcoin.  They make vague references to some community but they usually don't spell out who they represent.  They lead people to believe they represent everyone and when many newcomers get that impression they don't correct them, they just ask for donations.  Many people have complained that they donated expecting participation and what they got was a donation into a black hole.  Andreas said the same thing on Let's Talk Bitcoin.  He said he was happy to donate because it supported the developers but he said he has no idea how policy is developed or what they do behind the scenes.

What episode was that?  The Foundation has been a black box to this point, which is why these elections are interesting.  I also am in the "What is being done with my money" camp, which again is why i've personally voted for Elizabeth, who I believe can help with transparency and communication.

Again I'm not seeing where the foundation pretends to represent all bitcoin users.  You're really stuck on something that doesn't exist.  If you're talking about how they're covered in the mainstream media that's a problem with the media misunderstanding - When I worked with Politico on a story we had to correct 3 times because they simply didn't understand the relationship between bitcoin and the bitcoin foundation, so to my eyes it's very much not intentional.  

Honestly this perception does more to hurt the foundation that help it as you can only buy a membership with Bitcoin and people who have no idea the difference between the foundation and Bitcoin probably don't own any to begin with.  

You really need to pick your evil empires - Lots of bad guys out there, you've picked a convenient enemy rather than a real one.

[cypherdoc]

many of the BF members have openly stated that they spend 99% of their forum time here on Bitcointalk.

so the fact that Elizabeth has not bothered to post here indicate that she will be out of touch with the vast majority of the community's opinion either willfully or out of ignorance?

If I were her, I wouldn't be posting in this thread either.  There are few if any people here who can actually vote in the process and those few are far outnumbered by people who either just hate the foundation because they think it's trying to claim domination of Bitcoin, or don't like Elizabeth because shes either "Supports the Jews" or is an unattractive woman.

I'd encourage you to email her if you have questions.

And for the record, I spend less than 10% of my forum time on BitcoinTalk.  

well, i guess we disagree esp. if you take the position that the only ones she needs to talk to are voting BF members.  fyi, i actually support the BF concept even tho i'm not a member.

this whole Bitcoin experiment could be arguably described as the virtualization of money.  this forum is one large thinktank where ideas about all sorts of matters relevant to Bitcoin are conveyed on a regular basis.

how else will she communicate with us?  if she's not willing to talk to us then how can she represent us?

[mindtomatter]

I see what is happening now, this is playing itself out over on Reddit.

What the insiders want is someone who will not rock the boat and just go along with the flow.  The Bitcoin Foundation now wants to have "chapters" instead of forming independent groups that collaborate.  They have created a new meaningless buzz word (don't all politicians do that) called "Organized Decentralization."  http://elizabethtploshay.com/organized-decentralization/

Folks, people like Theymos are taking you for a ride.  It is like the donations to this forum which total over $600K.  Theymos has been given advice time and time again about how to secure this web site against attacks and hacks.  He never takes the advice and refuses to take even basic steps to run this site properly.  He also gives elevated status to people running obviously illegal services.  He is apparently holding on the $600K in case he needs some kind of legal defense. 

Just to be clear, am I the "insider" you're talking about?   Are there any other qualifications besides disagreeing with you?

No I am not talking about you.  You are really flipping out over this election thing and you are really turning into a shill for the Foundation.  You are ruining an otherwise good show by tainting it with bias.  However, I don't think you have been involved long enough and you don't have enough Bitcoins to be part of the insiders I am talking about.  I think you are turning into a tool for the insiders I am talking about.  "Organized Decentralization," what a load of crap.

This is the problem when someone gets to close to the story they are covering.  They get too involved and they end up taking sides.  It happens all the time when you focus on small industry.  They won't ask the tough questions because it will make people mad and they won't get invited to the parties anymore.

lol just noticed this post.  Can you point to a single instance in the show where we've even talked about this?   I'll save you the time - No, you can't because it hasn't happened.     Can you show me the tough questions I avoided asking Jon Matonis when I interviewed him on being the new Executive Director?  No... You can't, because I asked a shitload of questions and  they were the ones that I as a member wanted to know the answer to.

I claim to be fair, not unbiased.  It is insane as a human commentator to claim you have no opinion about the world you live in, and I've always felt that hiding the bias is more dishonest than being up front about how you feel.  I think my work bears this definition out, and I would challenge you to find an example in the more than 50 hours of content out there for everyone for free.

And now I'm off to go finish todays show, but you probably don't need to bother listening as you already know everything we'll say.  I hope someday you learn to better differentiate between enemy and friend.

[mindtomatter]

many of the BF members have openly stated that they spend 99% of their forum time here on Bitcointalk.

so the fact that Elizabeth has not bothered to post here indicate that she will be out of touch with the vast majority of the community's opinion either willfully or out of ignorance?

If I were her, I wouldn't be posting in this thread either.  There are few if any people here who can actually vote in the process and those few are far outnumbered by people who either just hate the foundation because they think it's trying to claim domination of Bitcoin, or don't like Elizabeth because shes either "Supports the Jews" or is an unattractive woman.

I'd encourage you to email her if you have questions.

And for the record, I spend less than 10% of my forum time on BitcoinTalk.  

well, i guess we disagree esp. if you take the position that the only ones she needs to talk to are voting BF members.  fyi, i actually support the BF concept even tho i'm not a member.

this whole Bitcoin experiment could be arguably described as the virtualization of money.  this forum is one large thinktank where ideas about all sorts of matters relevant to Bitcoin are conveyed on a regular basis.

how else will she communicate with us?  if she's not willing to talk to us then how can she represent us?

This whole idea is a lose/lose situation.  If the foundation claims to represent everybody, people like Milly throw a tantrum.

If you want to be represented by the foundation, you should join the foundation.  I have been very consistent in my belief that representing people who don't want to be represented is always a losing position, and as i've mentioned if another foundation were formed (such as one that was all about bounties for development as has been proposed) I would join that one too.

We don't live in a monotheistic world and yet so many people still demand that we act that way.

And yes, the forum is a thinktank if that tank were suspended underwater in a dark sharkfilled ocean.   

[BTCGuy111]

The Bitcoin Foundation represents its constituent members, not all Bitcoin users and not some undefined "community."

The fact that the Bitcoin Foundation keeps its discussion board closed so the public cannot view it highlights this problem.  You have some members like Marco Santori saying they represent just the constituent members and business interests while you have others trying to claim the Foundation represents all of Bitcoin.  They don't have a consistent message and people are taking advantage of this unclear message and purpose.

Yes, this is most unfortunate. Joerg actually started a thread on the Foundation forums to open up at least some of the forums for (at least) anonymous read access, but it just didn't get much support:

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/372-why-are-we-behind-a-paywall/

May, many people have asked about this and they are generally ignored.  Some of the early people and developers want to run everything themselves and they want to shut out most of the users from decisions while, at the same time, asking all these people to adopt Bitcoin.  Many of them are young people like theymos who think that because they have been involved in something for 2 or 3 years (something they characterize as some huge amount of time) that it gives them some sort of elevated status.  They want to keep things that way and keep their "positions" much the way bankers want to keep their positions and shut out Bitcoin.  Much like The Bitcoin faucet had to give away coins for the system to become valuable to others these early people need to start thinking about including newcomers.  If you look at many Bitcoin businesses are run and how this forum is run you can see those people know quite a bit about Bitcoin but they are often clueless about most other things.

It's an election for seats on the board of an industry group with paid membership. Why would they open it up? If you can vote, you can read everything.

[mindtomatter]

This whole idea is a lose/lose situation.  If the foundation claims to represent everybody, people like Milly throw a tantrum.
  

More hyperbole and nonsense.  I raise issues that many people have raised and now you start attacking and trying to confuse the issue.  You are turning into a shill.

The Foundation is purposely making unclear who they represent and they speak out of 2 sides of their mouth.  It is because they want to fool new users into sending in their money.  Many suggestions have been made by many people and they won't do it.  It looks like they are trying to collect money from the masses in order to support a small number of business interests.  You have a vested interest in all this because they provide you access to stuff to do their show.  I think the Foundation does many good things.  However, they are doing those things because it is beneficial to their businesses.  Often times those interests happen to coincide with Bitcoin users so it is beneficial to many users.  Ask Andreas about the Foundation, I am sure he will remember the episode where he discussed it.

This has nothing to do with the campaign of Elizabeth.  I just pointed out this statement of "organized decentralization" makes no sense and is just a meaningless buzzword.  There are some candidates with more experience than her and this blind support of her while ignoring other candidates makes me suspicious.  I would not be against her being involved in the Foundation.

You statement about "evil empire" is one attempt to demonize people who bring up issues about the Foundation.  It is just the developers calling people "trolls" and "anonymous cowards" when the whole project is based on an anonymous contributor.  

As I explained before it is very simple to put a statement that says they represent the constituent members.  Instead of answer that you go off on rants about lose/lose situations and "evil empires."   All hyperbole.

Like I said, you can't convince somebody who sees enemies everywhere they look.  I support Elizabeth because I know her and believe she can do the specific job she's running for, which I think is much smaller than you have decided it is.  I also think given her specialization in communication rather than investing or technicals she makes a better fit on the board given its current makeup than the other candidates.

So being a dues paying member and actually having educated myself on the candidates, that makes me a shill because you disagree with me. 

Also it would be great if you responded to the whole quote rather than just the part you have an easy time misrepresenting

This whole idea is a lose/lose situation.  If the foundation claims to represent everybody, people like Milly throw a tantrum.

If you want to be represented by the foundation, you should join the foundation.  I have been very consistent in my belief that representing people who don't want to be represented is always a losing position, and as i've mentioned if another foundation were formed (such as one that was all about bounties for development as has been proposed) I would join that one too.

We don't live in a monotheistic world and yet so many people still demand that we act that way.

And yes, the forum is a thinktank if that tank were suspended underwater in a dark sharkfilled ocean.   

[mindtomatter]

And of course, just to pile on the irony I'm right now bouncing back and forth between arguing with you and organizing the next candidate debate, where the candidate I support has the most to lose and the least to gain since she's the frontrunner.  And it was my idea to do both this debate and the other debate.   So.... Am I shilling for Elizabeth? the Foundation?  Bitcoin?

Can you provide a list of things I'm not allowed to talk about without becoming a shill in your eyes?  

[qwk]

You replies is a series of hyperbolic statements and you keep ignoring the reasons and responses I have already provided. 

Sorry to read that. I don't mean to ignore your reasons, but I seem unable to understand them.

Anyone can look at the news coverage, discussions, and the way governments are responding to see there is confusion over who the Foundation represents.

Point me to it, please. The news coverage, the government responses, I just don't see it.
The discussions, well, I see them over here at bitcointalk, and that's it. Where else?
I really beg you to give me directions, how are we supposed to have a vital discussion here as long as I'm unable to verify/falsify your claims?

Probably one of the main reasons for our misunderstanding here is, I don't use twitter, facebook, reddit, I don't listen to podcasts or watch youtube videos. Sorry, I might just be a little too old for that kind of entertainment. I want my sources in written text, longer than 140 characters, in full, plain old English or German sentences. I prefer my sources without "likes", "+1s", or any other kind of popularity contest hodgepodge.

By the way, that's one of the things the Bitcoin Foundation Forum offers.

As I have explained several times, Marco Santori was pressed and he claimed that the purpose of the Foundation was to represent their constant members but that is not what the web site says.

I don't see where the Foundation's website claims otherwise, maybe the following statement comes closest:

Allowing the community to speak through a single source will enable Bitcoin to improve its reputation.

Anyone can listed to Lets Talk Bitcoin and hear Andreas explains the various reasons why the Foundation is not open and is essentially a black hole where you send your money.

Is there a transcript available somewhere? I don't intend to watch those videos (or are these audio? in that case, I don't intend to listen).
I could be mean and say "Hey, Let's Talk Bitcoin is not open", because I'd have to watch those videos, which for me would be even more of a hassle than for you to get a Bitcoin Foundation membership. But I won't, that'd be ridiculous.

As for the forum specifically the only answer I have seen is that they want to keep some strategy secret.

I've never ever seen that answer.
In this thread, for example, there's been the wild guess from RodeoX, and that doesn't even come close to what you're implying:

[guessing] Some of the discussions are kept away from the public not because the public is not welcome, but to plan without tipping our hand to decision makers in the government and hostile industries. As banks, payment processors, and trigger happy regulators better understand bitcoin they are likely going to fight harder. We don't want them to have access to all our plans. [/guessing]

I'm going to help you out with a little insight. I don't intend to break the privacy of the Foundation's members, so I'm just going to quote my very own posting over at the BF forum (The topic was "Why are we behind a paywall?"):

I could imagine a single or a few subforums being public / read only.
But for most of the forums, I guess the paywall, as you call it, makes it a lot easier to discuss matters that may or may not be embraced by the "general public".
Think of discussions about regulation issues. If those were public, bitcointalk users would probably dismiss whatever "we" come up with. And that might actually hurt the process.
For other topics, I could imagine "inviting" specific people over for a read/write account.
I can think of a lot of examples here, like (in no particular order), press, politicians, bankers, business people, alt-coin developers, etc.
On a side note, managing a public forum would require a lot more effort, bandwidth, moderation etc., and why would the Foundation want to provide that? Bitcointalk already does that, and like it or not, they're doing a pretty good job.
Conclusion: the paywall is necessary, at least for the major part of the forum.
Individual guest members would be a nice idea, a read-only public area probably not so much.

Yes, I expect public access to forums when groups claim to be open and transparent and claim to represent people outside of their constituent membership.

Well, then let's just agree to disagree, I'm not going to argue.
I am and have been a member of several interest groups in my life, and most of them have been "membership only" for major parts of their work.

For the moment, as long as I don't see any substantial reasons for your position, I'm going to keep mine.