Should the Bitcoin Foundation be moved to a Neutral Country...

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

In light of recent [1] events [2] (namely a member of Bitcoin Fundation suggesting that we should diffrentiate between "Good Bitcoins" and "Bad Bitcoins"), it becomes more and more obvious that the worst enemy of Bitcoin is the Bitcoin Foundation:

There are probably strong political pressures from USA which not only has very aggressive AML policies, but clearly is going in the direction of Fascism and Socialism while becoming more and more anti-democratic.

So what is the point of keeping Bitcoin Foundation in a country which is (or will be soon) an enemy of Bitcoin ?

Perhaps a truly democratic country should be used, such as Switzerland.

What do you think ?

[1713545641]

1713545641

[1713545641]

1713545641

[1713545641]

1713545641

[p2pbucks]

AND Members in bitcointalk should have rights to vote on every big issue of foundation .

[seafarer124]

Bitcoin and Bitcoin Foundation should not be supporters of the establishment.

[niothor]

How about we get rid of the problem instead of probably solving it temporary ?

[adamstgBit]

i'd like to see some live debates on youtube for these hard issues

lots of polling the community by the Foundation before they decide anything

and draw up a constitution, outlining the core values of the community

I feel the foundation is no longer representing the communities interest, they simply want to do wtv is necessary to get bitcoin "approved for mainstream use", when it seem clear to me that the community could not care less about conforming to the US rules even if it would make us all rich, we have values and they are not for sale! the Foundation  MUST reflect that

[seafarer124]

Have a read of the link, Bitcoin will go the same way.


http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702303559504579198370113163530-lMyQjAxMTAzMDEwNTExNDUyWj

[Gabi]

It should be ignored 

[wumpus]

Why not multiple "bitcoin foundations" in different parts of the world?
Decentralization makes more sense than moving a centralized organization around.
An European Bitcoin Foundation could be based in Switzerland of course.

[ilpirata79]

Why not multiple "bitcoin foundations" in different parts of the world?
Decentralization makes more sense than moving a centralized organization around.
An European Bitcoin Foundation could be based in Switzerland of course.

Agreed, but who has the rights on the bitcoin.org website?

Regards,
lilpirata79

[wumpus]

Agreed, but who has the rights on the bitcoin.org website?

I don't see how that matters. org TLD is very much USA, a European Bitcoin Foundation could use an .eu domain, a Chinese Bitcoin Foundation would use .cn, and so on...

[franky1]

a "foundation" is a word used which requires registration to a country. alot of people seen it early on that as soon as bitcoin foundation registered itself it became tied to the US.

i seek that if the bitcoin foundation becomes abolished and a better place was chosen then using a word such as a 'consortium' be used.

EG W3C, which does not need official bureaucratic registration to a particular country

also using non-geographics TLD would avoid future problems too, thus avoiding future issues.
EG suppose choosing switzerland and then that countries AMLKYC reg's changed. it would be better to have bitcoin as non-geographical as possible so that the only regulations that a country could apply are simply to the exchanges that touch that countries FIAT

[n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU]

OP, answer to your question is yes.  One way or another, changes and/or alternatives are coming, and soon.  Quoting myself from another thread:

Start your own foundation or organization.
 

It seems this is regularly thrown at anyone who criticises the foundation, apparently in the belief it's impossible someone could do just that.  Not only is it a poor and defensive line of argument, it's also an increasingly likely outcome.  

If the US bitcoin foundation continues down its path of cosying up to politicians and bankers while removing core aspects of bitcoin, that is exactly what will happen.  I can't imagine it being particularly pretty if it does though.

BTW there are serious, active negotiation efforts underway to significantly reform the Foundation structure and excessive US influence.  If those efforts fail, it is a certainty that a decentralized alliance will emerge as a viable alternative.  Any public move from the current Foundation in support of "validation" or "tainting" will accelerate the current schism and isolate the USA from the rest of the world.  Read between the lines of this op-ed by Aaron Koenig:

http://bitcoinmagazine.com/7637/how-to-decentralise-the-bitcoin-foundation/

[Rluner]

a "foundation" is a word used which requires registration to a country. alot of people seen it early on that as soon as bitcoin foundation registered itself it became tied to the US.

i seek that if the bitcoin foundation becomes abolished and a better place was chosen then using a word such as a 'consortium' be used.

EG W3C, which does not need official bureaucratic registration to a particular country

Collective ie as in the link below.    

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg_(Star_Trek)

"The Borg have become a symbol in popular culture for any juggernaut against which "resistance is futile".

[SaltySpitoon]

Yeah, I personally think that the Bitcoin Foundation is a horrible idea. Rather than self assigning a group of people to represent a community that doesn't want to be represented, and making yourselves a huge legal target, its a good idea to have one. I don't see why we don't just have reputable business owners and lead developers independantly speaking about Bitcoin?

I'm confused as to how the Bitcoin Foundation can even say that they represent the Bitcoin community, when truthfully there is no more a Bitcoin community than a fiat community.

[beetcoin]

the problem is that there needs to be a foundation, or an institution that decides what happens or doesn't.. and any time when a person or group of people are given power, they tend to misuse it for their own self gain and purposes. it's a tough pickle to be in, isn't it? in order to move forward, there has to be rules.

[bitjoint]

AND Members in bitcointalk should have rights to vote on every big issue of foundation .

lots of polling the community by the Foundation before they decide anything

Your wish is my command...

https://www.agoravoting.com/misc/page/professional/
https://github.com/agoraciudadana/agora-ciudadana

and draw up a constitution, outlining the core values of the community

Agree...

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

the problem is that there needs to be a foundation,

There needs to be a bridge (or multiple bridges) between the Bitcoin distributed/decentralized world and the "normal" world, because the normal one is not decentralized.

or an institution that decides what happens or doesn't..

Foundation should mainly lobby & collect funds for the development of Bitcoin, NOT DECIDE anything.
This only shows that the current "foundation" has gone wrong.

[UncleBobs]

I think what is needed at this point is an official Anti-Bitcoin Foundation.

Just a simple website that states the position of bitcoin users who do not agree that the Bitcoin Foundation represents them, and explicitly refuses to be bound by any agreements made by the Bitcoin Foundation, and makes it clear that we refuse to comply with the regulations of any state, whether it be Thailand or the USA.

Why?  Because we want Freedom, we are tired of Slavery, and we will NOT comply any longer.

[Morbid]

well if its true then foundation is gonna lose their credibility in this community. but it wouldnt stop gov to push the sheep public for bitcoin adoption with foundations like these backing that. bitcoin-qt is the only possible centralisation mechanism right now and they are trying to sieze it before it grows bigger than the powers in charge of usa.

I think what is needed at this point is an official Anti-Bitcoin Foundation.

Just a simple website that states the position of bitcoin users who do not agree that the Bitcoin Foundation represents them, and explicitly refuses to be bound by any agreements made by the Bitcoin Foundation, and makes it clear that we refuse to comply with the regulations of any state, whether it be Thailand or the USA.

Why?  Because we want Freedom, we are tired of Slavery, and we will NOT comply any longer.

+1

[corebob]

Forget Europe. The only nation we know of that might be up to the task is in South America, but no nation should be given such a dangerous task.
The network peers worldwide is what gives the coin strength. It always was

[Rupture]

Maybe they shouldn't be centred anywhere. That way it's international like btc

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Maybe they shouldn't be centred anywhere. That way it's international like btc

Nobody is saying that there should be only one foundation.

I'm talking about moving this one to Switzerland, because USA is a country fucked up beyond repair (as many many other to be fair).

[MoonShadow]

Switzerland is not neutral.  There is no answer to this poll for the notion that no nation state can be neutral with regard to bitcoin.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Switzerland is not neutral.  

Of course it is not 100% neutral. But Close Enough(tm).

There is no answer to this poll for the notion that no nation state can be neutral with regard to bitcoin.

Sorry, can't change the poll now, the results would be invalid.

[UncleBobs]

I'm not convinced Switzerland is the best choice, although I agree that the USA is the absolute WORST choice.

How about Iceland?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party_Iceland

[UncleBobs]

well if its true then foundation is gonna lose their credibility in this community. 

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it . . ."

Ringing any bells?

[tspacepilot]

Maybe the bitcoin foundation should be a distributed, peer-to-peer foundation.  Not localized in any country.

[leopard2]

Switzerland has allowed the US to buttfuck and buttrape its banking system 

Iceland is probably a better choice because it is of extreme strategic importance for NATO forces due to its particular location. It is unlikely that the USA would use brute force against Iceland and stir hate against themselves...

Or Russia - not neutral but more likely to support a technology that the US government combats. And strong enough to resist threats. A country that is strong enough to protect Snowden is strong enough to protect Bitcoin.

[Boussac]

In light of recent [1] events [2] (namely a member of Bitcoin Fundation suggesting that we should diffrentiate between "Good Bitcoins" and "Bad Bitcoins"), it becomes more and more obvious that the worst enemy of Bitcoin is the Bitcoin Foundation:

There are probably strong political pressures from USA which not only has very aggressive AML policies, but clearly is going in the direction of Fascism and Socialism while becoming more and more anti-democratic.

So what is the point of keeping Bitcoin Foundation in a country which is (or will be soon) an enemy of Bitcoin ?

Perhaps a truly democratic country should be used, such as Switzerland.

What do you think ?

I don't know about democratic but Switzerland sure is a decentralized country (disclaimer: I am not from Switzerland) by virtue of the canton system.
It is probably one of the most decentralized politcial system in the world.

[UncleBobs]

I don't know about democratic but Switzerland sure is a decentralized country (disclaimer: I am not from Switzerland) by virtue of the canton system.
It is probably one of the most decentralized political system in the world.

Well, democracy is not an ideal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed

What is needed is a country that is willing to stand up to central bankers, and I cannot think of one, except Iceland.  Perhaps Rick Falkvinge is the man to call?
http://falkvinge.net/2013/11/06/bitcoins-real-revolution-isnt-hard-money-its-economic-panarchy/

[corebob]

Maybe the bitcoin foundation should be a distributed, peer-to-peer foundation.  Not localized in any country.

This is not a bad idea. Their "votes" should probably be part of the block chain as well.

[Lauda]

Yes and yes. Move it away from the US.

[safeminer]

no more bitcoin foundation please, dont destroy the bitcoin it's humanitys last hope

[Luckybit]

In light of recent [1] events [2] (namely a member of Bitcoin Fundation suggesting that we should diffrentiate between "Good Bitcoins" and "Bad Bitcoins"), it becomes more and more obvious that the worst enemy of Bitcoin is the Bitcoin Foundation:

There are probably strong political pressures from USA which not only has very aggressive AML policies, but clearly is going in the direction of Fascism and Socialism while becoming more and more anti-democratic.

So what is the point of keeping Bitcoin Foundation in a country which is (or will be soon) an enemy of Bitcoin ?

Perhaps a truly democratic country should be used, such as Switzerland.

What do you think ?

Why should there be a central foundation at all? Have chapters all over the world. Different countries have different political issues to solve.

[safeminer]

Shouldn't we first need to worry about getting this blacklist thing off the agenda ?

[Lauda]

Shouldn't we first need to worry about getting this blacklist thing off the agenda ?

Yeah, it's an huge issue.

[MoonShadow]

Shouldn't we first need to worry about getting this blacklist thing off the agenda ?

Yeah, it's an huge issue.

Why?  The Bitcoin Foundation is no more able to enact it's agenda than anyone else is.  Their impotent.  Their only function is to play the part of the, ultimately ineffective, NGO for the major governments of the world; because that is how the statist psycology works.  The protocol doesn't provide a mechanism for blacklisting, and simply wishing for it doesn't make it so.  But making the case for same, even if you know in your deepest of hearts that it's never going to happen, does so much to divert the ire of politicos who are conditioned to believe that someone is in charge of all this bitcoin stuff.  Even if the foundation can lean on US developers to cave into their desires, the open source nature of bitcoin is certain to take that development consensus away from them, and someone else is going to be releasing the dominate clients going forward.  The Dark Wallet project is already doing exactly this, and those guys cite the Bitcoin Foundation itself for the motivation.

If the mainline client starts blacklisting, anyone who uses it is going to slowly remove themselves from the bitcoin economy.

[Lauda]

Why?  The Bitcoin Foundation is no more able to enact it's agenda than anyone else is.  Their impotent.  Their only function is to play the part of the, ultimately ineffective, NGO for the major governments of the world; because that is how the statist psycology works.  The protocol doesn't provide a mechanism for blacklisting, and simply wishing for it doesn't make it so.  But making the case for same, even if you know in your deepest of hearts that it's never going to happen, does so much to divert the ire of politicos who are conditioned to believe that someone is in charge of all this bitcoin stuff.  Even if the foundation can lean on US developers to cave into their desires, the open source nature of bitcoin is certain to take that development consensus away from them, and someone else is going to be releasing the dominate clients going forward.  The Dark Wallet project is already doing exactly this, and those guys cite the Bitcoin Foundation itself for the motivation.

If the mainline client starts blacklisting, anyone who uses it is going to slowly remove themselves from the bitcoin economy.

The foundation is the issue. They are kind of acting like they're in control.

[Ecurb123]

I agree, if there is such a foundation, it should not be in the US.

[niothor]

Switzerland has allowed the US to buttfuck and buttrape its banking system  

Iceland is probably a better choice because it is of extreme strategic importance for NATO forces due to its particular location. It is unlikely that the USA would use brute force against Iceland and stir hate against themselves...

Or Russia - not neutral but more likely to support a technology that the US government combats. And strong enough to resist threats. A country that is strong enough to protect Snowden is strong enough to protect Bitcoin.

Russia? common...
The country where journalist disappear because they write something against Putin? Where if you criticize him you have 100% more chances to die in a tragic accident ?
If Snowden was russian you wouldn't have heard of him , just in a local paper about how somebody died of "overdose".

[Ecologisto]

I am Swiss. I question having a centralized foundation, but if it is what we want it would be a pleasure to have the Bitcoin foundation here. I would rather like a decentralized system (like we are used to in Switzerland, with most responsibilities to the lowest possible level).

The Swiss government accepted recently to study the impact of Bitcoin on our country : http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1pg8xy/swiss_governement_accepts_to_evaluate_bitcoin/

About US forcing Switzerland to get rid of the bank secret, I believe it is the fault of the Swiss banks. They clearly messed up in the US and even continued after being told off several times. US basically said that they would remove banking license to the banks who wouldn't comply.
A Bitcoin foundation has simply nothing in common with this situation.

[aninterestedparty]

and draw up a constitution, outlining the core values of the community

How does a "foundation" like the "Bitcoin Foundation" not already have a constitution?

[Lauda]

How about we create our own country?

[aninterestedparty]

I think what is needed at this point is an official Anti-Bitcoin Foundation.

Just a simple website that states the position of bitcoin users who do not agree that the Bitcoin Foundation represents them, and explicitly refuses to be bound by any agreements made by the Bitcoin Foundation, and makes it clear that we refuse to comply with the regulations of any state, whether it be Thailand or the USA.

Why?  Because we want Freedom, we are tired of Slavery, and we will NOT comply any longer.

Let's do it then. Let's write up a constitution and create a website

[phelix]

Current foundation is a United States Foundation.

[Bitventurer]

it should move some were in Europe.  Germany.

[Bitventurer]

How about we create our own country?

yeah BITCOIN FEDERATION 

[Lauda]

How about we create our own country?

yeah BITCOIN FEDERATION 

We could make a small one, I believe.

[cdtc]

In light of recent [1] events [2] (namely a member of Bitcoin Fundation suggesting that we should diffrentiate between "Good Bitcoins" and "Bad Bitcoins"), it becomes more and more obvious that the worst enemy of Bitcoin is the Bitcoin Foundation:

There are probably strong political pressures from USA which not only has very aggressive AML policies, but clearly is going in the direction of Fascism and Socialism while becoming more and more anti-democratic.

So what is the point of keeping Bitcoin Foundation in a country which is (or will be soon) an enemy of Bitcoin ?

Perhaps a truly democratic country should be used, such as Switzerland.

What do you think ?

I vote strong yes, far from fascistic american government.

[nostdal.org]

Voted "don't care" because Bitcoin and its users shouldn't care.

Also, Democracy is evil; it is the original 51% attack.

[BittBurger]

Why not multiple "bitcoin foundations" in different parts of the world?
Decentralization makes more sense than moving a centralized organization around.

Bitcoin Foundation was attempting a decentralized organization, but has clearly made the USA the "headquarters" by calling all the other Bitcoin Foundation locations "chapters" or "branches". 

I think the Bitcoin Foundation should be a representative organization with zero power. 

Simply put. 

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Current foundation is a United States Foundation.

Exactly - this is my whole point. Why keep the "main"/"original" Foundation in the Fucked up Country like USA is ?

If we are going to have "the" Foundation, let's have it in the best country in the world for such things - Switzerland.

[zachcope]

There is some utility is having a paid core dev team who can respond quickly to issues and develop the code, for example payment protocol.

The core dev team doesn't need to sit under the same umbrella as the, more controversial, US lobbying foundation.

Also the foundation still use language that implied US is THE foundation and others are their Hell's angels bitches 'chapters'. ETP talks about it this way and it is very annoying.

[notthematrix]

maby its better for the foundation to move out of the US.
because of possible desparate actions to demage the bitcoin.
this would mean that people have to move with there families,

[ffssixtynine]

Join for a few bucks and enact change from the inside. You can join and post on the forums, contact the different people, read the discussions, look to get on the board. Contribute however you wish. Much better than complaining without being members on another forum. Start this thread over within the foundation and see what the support is.

Moving on from that, the next best thing is to start a new entity, whereever you want and however you want. Define the structure, define the purpose, say what it will actually do, work out who it represents, and if you think the foundation has made mistakes then learn from them.

The bitcoin community is so diverse now that it can support other groups. No one group can represent bitcoin users or supporters because people want to pull in different directions.

If someone thinks they can do it better, step forward now and actually do it!

[NorbyTheGeek]

There shouldn't be a "foundation" at all.  The Foundation is an example of the centralization that Bitcoin was created to avoid.

If folks want to propose changes to the protocol or the reference client, a process similar to the one used for Internet protocols should be used.  (RFC)  That way, anyone interested can be involved and discussions are not taking place behind closed doors.

[b!z]

and draw up a constitution, outlining the core values of the community

How does a "foundation" like the "Bitcoin Foundation" not already have a constitution?

I'm not too sure. They should already have that by now.

[Michael_S]

There is some utility is having a paid core dev team who can respond quickly to issues and develop the code, for example payment protocol.

The core dev team doesn't need to sit under the same umbrella as the, more controversial, US lobbying foundation.

Also the foundation still use language that implied US is THE foundation and others are their Hell's angels bitches 'chapters'. ETP talks about it this way and it is very annoying.

yes. the non-national bf should deal with technical aspects exclusively (remember the quick reaction on the block chain fork in march 2013 - this is a good example, or changing to more efficient database formats...), not with legal issues. e.g. changing the bitcoin protocol due to pressure from nation states should be taboo.

national legal issues are best dealt with by local chapters (whether or not members of the intl. bf).

Hence: intl. bf yes, but on a ground with least interference to be expected from that govm't.

Hence: I vote "yes".

Which country: certainly Switzerland is better than US, even though it is *the* banking nation...

Other alternatives that spring to my mind that might provide a very friendly environment (alphabetical order):
- costa rica (liberal country w/o even an army afaik, seems to be very compatible with btc's ideas)
- finland (great btc adoption per capita)
- island (proved independence from world banking cartel during financial crisis to avoid financial slavery)
- south africa (mentioned earlier in this thread, no personal opinion myself)

I wouldn't trust Russia/Putin. Just because they give asylum to snowden and RT.com has some nice broadcasts, their system's fundamental mindset is not "friendly". they just make use of temporary circumstances as it suits them best politically. tomorrow they may point their "weapons" against  "you"... or to put it in simple words: your "enemy's enemy" is not automatically your friend, this shows so often in history. The world is multi-polar, not bi-polar...

[corebob]

There is some utility is having a paid core dev team who can respond quickly to issues and develop the code, for example payment protocol.

The core dev team doesn't need to sit under the same umbrella as the, more controversial, US lobbying foundation.

Also the foundation still use language that implied US is THE foundation and others are their Hell's angels bitches 'chapters'. ETP talks about it this way and it is very annoying.

yes. the non-national bf should deal with technical aspects exclusively (remember the quick reaction on the block chain fork in march 2013 - this is a good example, or changing to more efficient database formats...), not with legal issues. e.g. changing the bitcoin protocol due to pressure from nation states should be taboo.

national legal issues are best dealt with by local chapters (whether or not members of the intl. bf).

Hence: intl. bf yes, but on a ground with least interference to be expected from that govm't.

Hence: I vote "yes".

Which country: certainly Switzerland is better than US, even though it is *the* banking nation...

Other alternatives that spring to my mind that might provide a very friendly environment (alphabetical order):
- costa rica (liberal country w/o even an army afaik, seems to be very compatible with btc's ideas)
- finland (great btc adoption per capita)
- island (proved independence from world banking cartel during financial crisis to avoid financial slavery)
- south africa (mentioned earlier in this thread, no personal opinion myself)

I wouldn't trust Russia/Putin. Just because they give asylum to snowden and RT.com has some nice broadcasts, their system's fundamental mindset is not "friendly". they just make use of temporary circumstances as it suits them best politically. tomorrow they may point their "weapons" against  "you"... or to put it in simple words: your "enemy's enemy" is not automatically your friend, this shows so often in history. The world is multi-polar, not bi-polar...

bitcoin should not be involved in anything with the word "legal" in it. Anything like that would ruin it.

Also, Europe has this huge suffocating Stockholm syndrome towards the US. No country in Europe must be given such a task. And that definitely includes Switzerland

[tvbcof]

How about moving the BF (Bunch-o-Fascists) to Trashcanistan?