Elizabeth T. Ploshay for Bitcoin Foundation board

[qwk]

One more thing, can anyone explain how the fact that Foundation Board members are suing each other affects the Foundation?
http://thegenesisblock.com/mt-gox-responds-to-coinlab-lawsuit-with-5-5m-in-counterclaims/

As far as I can tell, there's not been too much of an impact on the Foundation so far.

Just going to quote another member of the Foundation on the topic (not going to disclose who it was without his consent):

If you have ever been involved with an organization that has more than three members, you should know that there will always be conflicts between members. Always.

The lawsuit is a disagreement between two companies. I personally hope that they resolve it and move on quickly, but the Foundation is about Bitcoin-the-currency-and-system, not individual companies.

[qwk]

Point me to it, please. The news coverage, the government responses, I just don't see it.

Subscribe to Google alerts on the word "Bitcoin" and go through the hundreds of articles that come out and you can see how Bitcoin and the Foundation is portrayed.  I have listened to every episode of Let's Talk Bitcoin and I don't have all the shows memorized.  Just write to Andreas directly and ask him.  There is also this forum and reddit but they are more for the knowledgeable people rather than the general population so you have to keep that in mind as you go through the stuff.  

So, basically, you're saying "go search yourself, I'm going to claim whatever I like and not back it up".

At the same time, I've been going through the hassle of copy'n'pasting quotes from the Foundation's forum, website, have taken a look at "Let's Talk Bitcoin" (coming to the conclusion that I don't want to watch those videos), flipping through a couple reddit pages (which I normally don't read), finding and re-posting former quotes from this discussion here at bitcointalk...

Thank you so much for this conversation.

People have been asking the discussion board be readable by anyone.  This would probably not cost any extra money in terms of bandwidth or anything else and is just a minor configuration change.

I won't fall for it again. Read my former posting in this thread.

[RodeoX]

I think part of the media confusion over who/what the foundation represents stems from a lack of understanding of bitcoin in general. I don't remember who wrote it, but one article stated that the foundation represented the company that started bitcoin.
There is also the fact that it is new and the role it plays will evolve organically and likely change over time. Look, for example, at the NRA. They originally focused on firearm safety. They still do that, but overwhelmingly it has become a lobby organization.  

[qwk]

It just may be that promoting Bitcoin coincides with their business interests in many cases so maybe you want to donate and join for that reason.  Don't mistake that for some kind of mission to change the world or think that they will choose Bitcoin users interests over their own business interests.

Most members of the Foundation are smart people. They understand very well what interests drive their board members.

[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?  

More hyperbole, shilling, and nonsense.  

-Anyone can listen to the debates for themselves so there is no point arguing over the qualifications of the candidates.  

-It is unethical of you to run the debates and then go around getting heavily involved in the election.  

-The Foundation can clear up many of the misconceptions that you admit exits by putting a relatively simple statement on their web site that says they represent their constituent members.

I said I am organizing the debate because if I don't, there would be no debate.  Andreas will be moderating, and there will be a timekeeper who is also not me.

I see you accusing me of quite a bit but not having much to say beyond insults.

and I have zero control over what happens to the website or foundation, I am a dues paying yearly member and trying to get people like Elizabeth onto the board is the only way I can see to try and enact change.   I never claimed the other candidates aren't qualified, I just have a personal opinion based on the fact that I know and have worked with only one of them to the point where I think she's right for the job.

Is this more hyperbole and shilling?  I'm really trying to figure out if I'm allowed to say anything at all about my personal opinion.  It's what I do on the show constantly, share my personal opinion and views on things...  Seems like you liked it until I gave my opinion on this (You'll notice it's happened only on forums as I don't think it's appropriate to use the show as a platform for my political inclinations).

[qwk]

Most members of the Foundation are smart people. They understand very well what interests drive their board members.

Many of them complained that they donated and they were not allowed to participate.  If you are happy then there is no problem but some members are not.

Another claim without evidence. Just how long do you think it will take until nobody cares to listen/read anymore?

As for the discussion board, people have asked for public access and you have come to the conclusion that it would not be helpful to them so they should not have access (and you drag in some irrelevant issues).

That's my personal conclusion, right.
With my quote, I've also shown that it's an ongoing discussion. Obviously, for the moment, non-members of the Foundation won't be able to follow it.

It is a lack of transparency but if it is a private club then I don't see a problem with that.   

It is a private club.

Finally, I have not asked you believe anything I say.  I gave the tools so you can see for yourself.

I can't enforce any kind of netiquette on you, so I'll just leave this standing:
personally, I find it rude to make claims in a discussion and not care about backing them when asked.
"Just go search yourself" is not the way I prefer to be treated.

[og kush420]

can someone who supports the foundation explain why there is such thing as an industry seat? do they think corporations are literally people and should have votes? why cant the owner just pay for membership for their employees? this sole issue is enough to for me to say the foundation is crap

[mindtomatter]

can someone who supports the foundation explain why there is such thing as an industry seat? do they think corporations are literally people and should have votes? why cant the owner just pay for membership for their employees? this sole issue is enough to for me to say the foundation is crap

Industry memberships are much more expensive compared to individual memberships, and that's how the foundation decided to operate. 

As mentioned, this is the first Bitcoin Foundation not the last or only, if you think it should be done differently you are encouraged to propose your own advocacy structure and if people agree with it they'll join and support you.  The foundation is literally made up of people and companies who are putting their money where their mouth is, everyone who is involved has put value in to participate.  The foundation can only represent its members, not the whole community because it is a opt-in structure.   You do not have to join, and you don't have to let it represent you.

[og kush420]

can someone who supports the foundation explain why there is such thing as an industry seat? do they think corporations are literally people and should have votes? why cant the owner just pay for membership for their employees? this sole issue is enough to for me to say the foundation is crap

Industry memberships are much more expensive compared to individual memberships, and that's how the foundation decided to operate. 

As mentioned, this is the first Bitcoin Foundation not the last or only, if you think it should be done differently you are encouraged to propose your own advocacy structure and if people agree with it they'll join and support you.  The foundation is literally made up of people and companies who are putting their money where their mouth is, everyone who is involved has put value in to participate.  The foundation can only represent its members, not the whole community because it is a opt-in structure.   You do not have to join, and you don't have to let it represent you.

thats a nice way to avoid the question. you responded as if i said this:
"what gives the right to the foundation to do this, when they represent all of us?"-this is not what im asking/saying

im asking from THEIR perspective, assuming they have good intentions and are not a collection of corporate interests to monopolize the bitcoin market, what is the logic for this decision? why?

[mindtomatter]

can someone who supports the foundation explain why there is such thing as an industry seat? do they think corporations are literally people and should have votes? why cant the owner just pay for membership for their employees? this sole issue is enough to for me to say the foundation is crap

Industry memberships are much more expensive compared to individual memberships, and that's how the foundation decided to operate. 

As mentioned, this is the first Bitcoin Foundation not the last or only, if you think it should be done differently you are encouraged to propose your own advocacy structure and if people agree with it they'll join and support you.  The foundation is literally made up of people and companies who are putting their money where their mouth is, everyone who is involved has put value in to participate.  The foundation can only represent its members, not the whole community because it is a opt-in structure.   You do not have to join, and you don't have to let it represent you.

thats a nice way to avoid the question. you responded as if i said this:
"what gives the right to the foundation to do this, when they represent all of us?"-this is not what im asking/saying

im asking from THEIR perspective, assuming they have good intentions and are not a collection of corporate interests to monopolize the bitcoin market, what is the logic for this decision? why?

I answered it in the only way I as an individual dues paying member can, I joined the foundation in May and can't speak to its formation or any non-public strategy because I don't know.

If I had to guess, I'd say it's because businesses have different priorities and needs compared to individual members and it's important to represent both individuals and businesses with a neutral payment protocol intended for use by both types of participants.

I very much agree it is a conflict of interest to have Coinlab and MtGox playing large roles in the foundation (mostly CoinLab, mt.Gox appears to just put money but not input in from everything I've seen) when they are suing each other rather viciously.  Frankly I think the whole board should go through the election process, but I work with the options available to me.

[NewLiberty]

I don't represent the foundation, but to me it seemed to make sense.  See if you follow my reasoning:
A company may want a membership so that it can have a representative.  If the designated representative who's job includes participation in the foundation leaves that company, the company would be able to designate a different person as the representative.
This feature should cost more.
Individuals who are employees of a company may also be members, and as individuals their membership would follow them rather than the company that employs them.

[qwk]

can someone who supports the foundation explain why there is such thing as an industry seat? do they think corporations are literally people and should have votes? why cant the owner just pay for membership for their employees? this sole issue is enough to for me to say the foundation is crap

Not speaking on behalf of the Foundation, I might be able to shed some light on the thoughts behind the organizational structure. As far as I understand it, the Bitcoin Foundation simply follows a "best common practice" here, namely the inclusion of corporations, not necessarily in a democratic way, for practical reasons.

I won't go into details, since I'm typing on my ipad right now, which is a real PITA, but you might want to take a look at other examples, like the Linux Foundation, or the W3C:
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/board-members
http://www.w3.org/

[LightRider]

If you wanted fair representation in the first place, you should have been filthy rich and been able to buy your own politicians with expensive lobbying efforts. The bitcoin foundation is for those who can pay to play, and the rest of us can continue to create real value, strengthen the actual community and help each other be ready for when the foundation turns on us and sells us down the river to their new corporate masters.

[mindtomatter]

If you wanted fair representation in the first place, you should have been filthy rich and been able to buy your own politicians with expensive lobbying efforts. The bitcoin foundation is for those who can pay to play, and the rest of us can continue to create real value, strengthen the actual community and help each other be ready for when the foundation turns on us and sells us down the river to their new corporate masters.

You're acting like it's one or the other.  I paid my .2btc to be a member for a year, but does that mean I'm not contributing to the community?  Of course not.   

The wrong assumption here is you have to pick one to the exclusion of all others, open source cryptocurrency at its core is about making choices for yourself as an individual based on your personal needs.

[LightRider]

If you wanted fair representation in the first place, you should have been filthy rich and been able to buy your own politicians with expensive lobbying efforts. The bitcoin foundation is for those who can pay to play, and the rest of us can continue to create real value, strengthen the actual community and help each other be ready for when the foundation turns on us and sells us down the river to their new corporate masters.

You're acting like it's one or the other.  I paid my .2btc to be a member for a year, but does that mean I'm not contributing to the community?  Of course not.   

The wrong assumption here is you have to pick one to the exclusion of all others, open source cryptocurrency at its core is about making choices for yourself as an individual based on your personal needs.

One can not faithfully serve two masters, at least not in the long run.

[qwk]

One can not faithfully serve two masters, at least not in the long run.

I'm a Foundation member as well as a bitcointalk Donator, yet I would not call myself a servant of any single one of these "masters".

[LightRider]

One can not faithfully serve two masters, at least not in the long run.

I'm a Foundation member as well as a bitcointalk Donator, yet I would not call myself a servant of any single one of these "masters".

It is immaterial what you consider yourself to be.

[qwk]

The missions of the organization are explained at
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/

The Mission of the BitcoinFoundation is at https://bitcoinfoundation.org/about/
Standardizing Bitcoin, Protecting Bitcoin, and Promoting Bitcoin.  It does not say anything about representing constituent members.

And where does the Linux Foundation or the W3C "say anything about representing constituent members" anywhere on the webpages you mentioned? Or anywhere else, for that matter?

They want to get people to believe they are Bitcoin itself to get more donations.

That's what you say. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true. Where's your evidence?
By the way, the Foundation greatly reduced its fees, that just doesn't seem to make sense when they have a secret agenda of getting more donations.

[qwk]

One can not faithfully serve two masters, at least not in the long run.

Just spicing it up with a little ad hominem:
Which one of your masters will you serve in the long run, Zeitgeist or Venus?

I've gone through the trouble of flipping through a few pages of your post history here, let me request that you leave your political agenda out of this discussion, if you want talk about the Bitcoin Foundation.

[LightRider]

One can not faithfully serve two masters, at least not in the long run.

Just spicing it up with a little ad hominem:
Which one of your masters will you serve in the long run, Zeitgeist or Venus?

I've gone through the trouble of flipping through a few pages of your post history here, let me request that you leave your political agenda out of this discussion, if you want talk about the Bitcoin Foundation.

Fortunately their goals and methods are not significantly orthogonal, so I am comfortable talking about both. In the long run, the Zeitgeist Movement may prove to be more significant in terms of social influence due to its broader perspective.

I find it odd that you ask me a direct question and then contradict yourself by telling me I should not talk about that question's subject.