Bitcoin Foundation meeting with regulators

[HELP.org]

..

[1715554764]

1715554764

[1715554764]

1715554764

[1715554764]

1715554764

[TheButterZone]

When you operate in the shadows, you're supposed to beat the shit out of psychopaths and make sure they go to Arkham. Unless you're not Batman.

[Dr.Steve]

I just saw this story about the Bitcoin Foundation setting up a meeting with regulators on Monday:

http://www.coindesk.com/federal-agency-representatives-meeting-to-discuss-bitcoin/

These meetings suddenly pop up without warning.  The Bitcoin Foundation and the committees they form seem to operate in shadows.  I wonder what their agenda is?

If you were a member of the BF, you would have more input to the discussion board. It's not opaque at all.

[QuantumQrack]

We have a few problems with the Bitcoin Foundation.  One is a more recent problem, and some others are a trust and transparency problem.

#1  They haven't communicated anything of importance about their recent trip to Washington.  I imagine they either signed or verbally agreed to keep what was talked about secret for now or possibly forever.  (This is not good)

#2  The Bitcoin Foundation finances are not public.  (This is not good)

#3  The Bitcoin Foundation seems to have some serious conflicts of interest.  
     A.  Marco Santori (Regulatory Affairs Committee Chair) --  Attorney, interested in rules being created to regulate Bitcoin.  Who would have thought?
     B.  Peter Vessenes (CoinLab) suing Mark Karpeles (Mt.Gox), and they are both board members.
     C.  Charlie Shrem - BitInstant  (which doesn't work at all right now because the banks aren't playing nice)
     D.  There are many more.

It seems at this point, that the Bitcoin Foundation will probably make compromises with the united states government (and other governments), banks, etc., so that these individual businesses and future businesses can exist and make $$$. I don't really think they share the bitcoin vision that I think most of the community has.  It seems to be fast becoming a self serving entity.

A couple of people I do like at the foundation are Jon Matonis and Patrick Murck.

I have been a member since November and I never had the opportunity to vote on the following, they were simply appointed:
Regulatory Affairs Committee Chair
Education Committee Chair
Law and Policy Committee Chair
Legal Advocacy Committee Chair

The legal advocacy committee chair is Brian Klein, who, with his recent visit to washington, educated the lawmakers there about different techniques and tools to identify bitcoin users and control them.

So, by-and-large, being a member is sort of ok, but not really.  You can already see the concentrations of power, and how they let the little guy (foundation member) interact with the big boys.

So basically what is happening here, is that instead of them hiring a lobbyist (which was a plan, once upon a time), the whole fucking foundation functions as a lobby for the bitcoin foundation's special interests.  They don't seem to give a flying fuck about you, the regular bitcoin user.  And they have also already taken the stance of compromise with lawmakers.  (read, big banking, etc etc)  They have to so that their businesses can make them $$$ in the future.  Notice I use the symbol $.  Not the bitcoin symbol.

Now, with that said, its possible that their work will greatly benefit the whole community.  Time will tell on this.  My gut feeling is that their compromises will only benefit certain businesses, law enforcement, IRS collections (so they can fund more businesses like bankrupt Solyndra), etc.

Be careful who you give trust to.  Right now I'm giving the Bitcoin Foundation an Integrity Grade of D, and a Transparency Grade of F at the moment.
    

[LiteCoinGuy]

in my opinion you have two choices, which were already discussed several times:

A: bring bitcoin to sucess and play within the rules

or

B: give a fuck on the rules and bitcoin will stay in the shadow forever


i would take A. but also A has some great benefits and takes alot power from the modern banking system.

[niko]

in my opinion you have two choices, which were already discussed several times:

A: bring bitcoin to sucess and play within the rules

or

B: give a fuck on the rules and bitcoin will stay in the shadow forever


i would take A. but also A has some great benefits and takes alot power from the modern banking system.

Also note that, given A, you can still choose to do B. Just like government fiat - it still works great for illegal purposes. Therefore, option A is a win for everyone.

[resheen]

?

[Bitcoinpro]

its says this at the bottom

"California’s state financial regulator issued a cease and desist order against the Bitcoin Foundation."

and here is a link for this story

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2013/06/23/bitcoin-foundation-receives-cease-and-desist-order-from-california/

Directly following last month’s Bitcoin 2013 conference event in San Jose, CA that brought decent revenue into the state, California’s Department of Financial Institutions decided to issue a cease and desist warning to conference organizer Bitcoin Foundation for allegedly engaging in the business of money transmission without a license or proper authorization.

If found to be in violation of California Financial Code, penalties can be severe ranging from $1,000 to $2,500 per violation per day plus criminal prosecution which could result in fines and/or imprisonment. Additionally, it is a felony violation of federal law to engage in the business of money transmission without the appropriate state license or failure to register with the U.S. Treasury Department. Convictions under the federal statute are punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.