i like the efforts being done around the world.. but when there are laws about foundations needing XYZ, then why stick to these laws by calling the group a foundation. call it a community drive, a collective, a group, a social club, a resourse hub..
after all this is bitcoins not FIAT so why limit yourself to categorizing the group into a name that causes its 'members' to be paid by FIAT rules
To follow the currently Bitcoin Foundation, and become part of it.
The good thing about the fundation, is that the founds they get, only can be invested in his objectives.
But yes, those compliances are stupid...
I think this make it "legal".
you can still set up a community drive, a collective, a group, a social club, a resource hub and have the same bitcoin agreed rules, just without having to adhere to the FIAT / government rules.
for instance if the original bitcoin FOUNDATION were to have been called the bitcoin Consortium. what merits or demerits would it have had legally or within the community..
the answer. no de-merits.. GavinA and his crew would still program and debug the QT client, the promoters would still be able to promote, nothing would be prevented by it being a consortium.
why does anything in bitcoin land (that does not touch the FIAT borders) have to be categorised by local government rules. and before someone replies, because its based on linux ideologies and blah blah hence the link to linux foundation.. id reply, how about the w3c (a consortium).
