Bitcoin at the US Senate

[augustocroppo]

The Foundation often makes it appear as if they represent all of Bitcoin and they state that at their web site.  Sometimes they say they represent just their members but they only do that when they are pressed or when they are in a defensive posture like this thread.

When they say "Bitcoin", they mean the software, not the people using the software. The main developer of the Bitcoin software is paid by the foundation. I do not think they try to represent all the people which uses the "Bitcoin" software.

[1715018054]

1715018054

[1715018054]

1715018054

[1715018054]

1715018054

[1715018054]

1715018054

[1715018054]

1715018054

[proudhon]

So, FWIW, I think this guy should say something there.

[corebob]

The Foundation often makes it appear as if they represent all of Bitcoin and they state that at their web site.  Sometimes they say they represent just their members but they only do that when they are pressed or when they are in a defensive posture like this thread.

When they say "Bitcoin", they mean the software, not the people using the software. The main developer of the Bitcoin software is paid by the foundation. I do not think they try to represent all the people which uses the "Bitcoin" software.

The word software is misleading.
Its not the software, its the combination of encryption, distributed networking and mathematical truths that makes the protocol useful.
The software is just a manifistation of the protocol, which is just a manifistation of those elements.

[uMMcQxCWELNzkt]

My issue is that the foundation, in my opinion, is just repeating the same system that I was hoping Bitcoin and other new innovations might eventually free us from.

How can a software "free us from" the current political system?

The same way that cars allowed us a move on from the horse and cart, or how telephones enabled us to move on from posting letters.  

Advising is great, however I don't believe we should conform to a dated political system where the "authority" is not willing to inform themselves.

They are willing to inform themselves, otherwise there would be no hearings.

You missed out a lot of the meat from that paragraph so I will assume you agreed with those sentiments . True they are willing to have the hearing though, I would hope that their idea of informing themselves goes beyond talking to a select group of people however.

Even if the foundation has Bitcoins best interests at heart today, tomorrow those interests will shift until eventually the core philosophies have been eroded.

What evidence you have which indicates this will happen?

Consider for a moment the United States Constitution and how it has changed since its conception. The banking system once had a useful function of value which has eventually eroded into the corruption that we have today. If you put any idea into the wrong hands then don't expect a positive result. I cannot forecast into the future obviously, but history I feel offers a good indication to where the foundation could potentially lead.

Sometimes new definitions need to be invented, that's how innovation works. Law, politics, education and economics should adapt to new advances. Honestly though, I have not yet considered what I "want to do" on these matters, that is something the entire community would need to reflect upon. I do however feel with the advent of social media and so on, there is a far lesser need for advisers. The general public need to be informed, not the dinosaurs who will only care if they can somehow control and manipulate it.

How do you expect the "dinosaurs" inform the "general public" if there is less and less "advisers" from "Law, politics, education and economics" providing the necessary information?

So the idea is for the advisers(The Foundation in this instance) to inform government who will then in turn inform the general public? So we expect no misinformation or propaganda in this chain of events? Anyway I did not say that advising is bad, or that lesser of them is a good idea, in fact here is a direct quote ("Advising is great"). Obviously sharing information is always a good idea, the Foundation however act as more than mere advisers by not just acting as facilitators of knowledge, but as the voice itself. Big difference.

I guess an important question to ask before arguing my point any further would be...
Do you feel that the foundation have, or intend to establish themselves as an authority on behalf of Bitcoin?
If so do you not see any potential for that authority to lead to negative outcomes?

If you say no to either of those then that is just a difference of opinion and time will tell.

[Lauda]

How about we vote to shut down the foundation ---> profit.

[Lauda]

How about we vote to shut down the foundation ---> profit.

I don't think they will shut down.  Other groups could form, such as Bitcoin users group so the Foundation is not the only game in town. 

If they don't shut down even though the majority of the community voted for that, they aren't really doing anything for the community, but rather for themselves.

[augustocroppo]

Whatever...

Governments will exist, money will circulate, people will have debates, binary codes will be improved.

[corebob]

I haven't been around here long enough to say for sure but I wouldn't criticise the foundation without a good reason.
The way I see it, the only way the foundation or the developers can make any harm to the currency is to make a change to the protocol that is not backwards compatible.
Like changing the encryption scheme from binary field curves to something more mainstream

[Come-from-Beyond]

Other pages:

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.

And now they are going to the US Senate...
...to get APPROVED BY U.S.Govt. stamp.

[ffssixtynine]

Other pages:

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.

And now they are going to the US Senate...
...to get APPROVED BY U.S.Govt. stamp.

I keep hearing this from people who then have no counterpoint. What is your alternative? You want to go underground? And you're completely misrepresenting the quote as well.

If you want it underground then I'm not going to argue that point. As a technologist and an entrepreneur I think it's a poor idea and politically lead, and I think it's bad for Bitcoin and for the masses.

If you want to use Bitcoin as your tool to try and change the way we're governed then go right ahead, but you do not represent Bitcoin - you represent an ideological point of view and I'm good with that. The Foundation, and I'm not saying they are the best thing ever so don't get me wrong, are there to represent Bitcoin. They are not there to take on the government and nor is Bitcoin.

I'd also like to add that this whole anti-government/libertarianism is a very American thing. There'll be some non US citizens in this thread who think the same (since this is Bitcoin) but across the rest of the world it's really seen as quite an odd thing. Yeah democracy has faults and looking from the outside America seems particularly weird, but Bitcoin isn't the fix you're looking for.

I don't think you'll find for one second anyone here wants the US, or any country, interfering with the Bitcoin protocol or development. However, here's the thing. They already do. The way mining is currently seen, AML, KYC, exchanges, future coloured coin issues - they already interfere. So the key is trying to limit that interference to something which doesn't get in the way, so business can operate, so miners can mine without wondering about the feds knocking on the door, so people can be compliant with tax law, so more places can accept Bitcoin, so people can buy it safely, and so on.

So, stick your head in the sand or finger up at the world and carry on regardless or try and carve a path which works for everyone?

[Come-from-Beyond]

Yeah democracy has faults and looking from the outside America seems particularly weird, but Bitcoin isn't the fix you're looking for.

I see...

[uMMcQxCWELNzkt]

Other pages:

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.

And now they are going to the US Senate...
...to get APPROVED BY U.S.Govt. stamp.

I don't think acceptance would make Bitcoin independent or non-political, that suggests government would approve and keep their hand out of the pot?
Do you think this will be the case? I have to say though, perhaps the result either way would lead to the same potential results.

I keep hearing this from people who then have no counterpoint. What is your alternative? You want to go underground? And you're completely misrepresenting the quote as well.

If you want it underground then I'm not going to argue that point. As a technologist and an entrepreneur I think it's a poor idea and politically lead, and I think it's bad for Bitcoin and for the masses.

My statements (I am assuming I am one of the "people") are directed towards the foundation. I would like Bitcoin to be accepted, just not compromised or handed over to any central authority in any way, shape or form. Acceptance would mean greater value and far less risk involved, although lets not discount the possibility of the Foundation doing a bad job and swaying Bitcoin in the wrong direction. I dislike the potential outcomes that might result if the foundation become THE authority, so that is my main gripe personally.

If you want to use Bitcoin as your tool to try and change the way we're governed then go right ahead, but you do not represent Bitcoin - you represent an ideological point of view and I'm good with that. The Foundation, and I'm not saying they are the best thing ever so don't get me wrong, are there to represent Bitcoin. They are not there to take on the government and nor is Bitcoin.

I'd also like to add that this whole anti-government/libertarianism is a very American thing. There'll be some non US citizens in this thread who think the same (since this is Bitcoin) but across the rest of the world it's really seen as quite an odd thing. Yeah democracy has faults and looking from the outside America seems particularly weird, but Bitcoin isn't the fix you're looking for.

I live in the UK, and if I am not mistaken most of the World has been rioting and trying to speak out against their government.

I don't think you'll find for one second anyone here wants the US, or any country, interfering with the Bitcoin protocol or development. However, here's the thing. They already do. The way mining is currently seen, AML, KYC, exchanges, future coloured coin issues - they already interfere. So the key is trying to limit that interference to something which doesn't get in the way, so business can operate, so miners can mine without wondering about the feds knocking on the door, so people can be compliant with tax law, so more places can accept Bitcoin, so people can buy it safely, and so on.

So, stick your head in the sand or finger up at the world and carry on regardless or try and carve a path which works for everyone?

The current system does not seem to be working very well, the economic collapse, war, poverty and so on are shining examples of this. I would argue ignoring these points equates to a head in the sand, doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results  . I will however reserve my right to put my finger up at anyone who wants to express my views for me, Bitcoin doesn't need a savior and will get on fine without the Foundation.

[Lauda]

This won't end in a good way.
They might even corrupt our so called "foundation".

[AgeraS]

This won't end in a good way.
They might even corrupt our so called "foundation".

If this does end in a bad way, just remember which group it was that thought is was a good idea to get involved with the US government; The Foundation.

[Lauda]

Also remember that we don't need a foundation and that I was right.

[tvbcof]

This won't end in a good way.
They might even corrupt our so called "foundation".

I would suspect that by-n-large, the interest of the members of the foundation and those of the US govt align.  Most of the former would like to become the size of players who dominate the economy, or a footprint within it.  The latter would be happy to see that happen as it is relatively more straightforward to control such a construct.

In the 90's there was considerable consternation about the possibility for the unwashed masses to communicate with one another freely due to developments in cryptography.  As we can see now, using strong cryptography for communications did indeed become widespread, but channeled through organizations who were pliable.  I suspect that the best outcome which could be hoped for from the perspective of our leaderships would be that crypto-currency evolution follows this same basic pattern.

[tvbcof]

Also remember that we don't need a foundation and that I was right.

Link please.  There were very few people who expressed some reservations when the discussion about the possibility of a foundation was first floated.  You can go back and look at the thread to discover who they were if you are interested.

[Lauda]

Also remember that we don't need a foundation and that I was right.

Link please.  There were very few people who expressed some reservations when the discussion about the possibility of a foundation was first floated.  You can go back and look at the thread to discover who they were if you are interested.

Care enough to link the thread?
Would be much appreciated.

[tvbcof]

Also remember that we don't need a foundation and that I was right.

Link please.  There were very few people who expressed some reservations when the discussion about the possibility of a foundation was first floated.  You can go back and look at the thread to discover who they were if you are interested.

Care enough to link the thread?
Would be much appreciated.

Took a little while for me to find it, but here you go:

  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49841.0

It'll probably make for some interesting reading now that we have some hind-sight, but I've not bothered yet.

[leemar]

Let them know that the USD is no longer the primary currency exchanged for BTC.

Good luck to Patrick and other representatives.