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

[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?