Open questions to the Bitcoin Foundation

[Xtib]

I was curious about the bitcoin foundation and their lack of leadership with regards to the MtGox problems. I decided to check the whois records somewhere around Feb 20, 2014. I was surprised to find that Mark Karpeles owned the bitcoinfoundation.org domain name (see quote below).

Question 1: Did Karpeles' ownership of the domain name take precedence over the foundations responsibility to the Bitcoin community?

Question 2: Why did the foundation essentially pave a road to MtGox without any warning to the community?

When I heard about Mark Karpeles' resignation from the foundation I checked whois again and found that Mark's ownership in the domain name was transferred to the Bitcoin foundation on Feb. 23, 2014. I looked for any news or warnings from the foundation about MtGox and only found that they were wishing him well as they parted ways.

I believe that the foundation knew at that point for sure that Mark was going to file for bankruptcy very soon.

Question 3: Why did the foundation accept assets from Mark Karpeles when he is on the verge of bankruptcy. Why are you not returning those assets now that he is in bankruptcy. Do you believe your recovery rights usurp Japanese bankruptcy laws and the rights of the victims to recover their losses.

Question 4: Did you receive any bitcoins from Mark during this transfer of assets?

I look forward to your responses to these questions.

Xtib

bitcoinfoundation.org
Is this your domain name? Renew it now.


Domain Name:BITCOINFOUNDATION.ORG
Domain ID: D160855409-LROR
Creation Date: 2010-12-06T21:40:58Z
Updated Date: 2013-08-31T16:15:07Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2021-12-06T21:40:58Z
Sponsoring Registrar:1API GmbH (R1724-LROR)
Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 1387
WHOIS Server:
Referral URL:
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited
Registrant ID:BHT16696982-FKOF
Registrant Name:bitcoinfounda 80082f93-140b
Registrant Organization:Tibanne Privacy
Registrant Street: Cerulean Tower 15F - 26-1 Sakuragaoka-cho
Registrant City:Shibuya-ku
Registrant State/Province:Tokyo-to
Registrant Postal Code:150-8512
Registrant Country:JP
Registrant Phone:+81.345501529
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email:bitcoinfoundation.org@service.tibanne.com
Admin ID:BHT16696982-FKOF
Admin Name:bitcoinfounda 80082f93-140b
Admin Organization:Tibanne Privacy
Admin Street: Cerulean Tower 15F - 26-1 Sakuragaoka-cho
Admin City:Shibuya-ku
Admin State/Province:Tokyo-to
Admin Postal Code:150-8512
Admin Country:JP
Admin Phone:+81.345501529
Admin Phone Ext:
Admin Fax:
Admin Fax Ext:
Admin Email:bitcoinfoundation.org@service.tibanne.com
Tech ID:BST16696983-QRJN
Tech Name:bitcoinfounda 824b112e-a10c
Tech Organization:Tibanne Privacy
Tech Street: Cerulean Tower 15F - 26-1 Sakuragaoka-cho
Tech City:Shibuya-ku
Tech State/Province:Tokyo-to
Tech Postal Code:150-8512
Tech Country:JP
Tech Phone:+81.345501529
Tech Phone Ext:
Tech Fax:
Tech Fax Ext:
Tech Email:bitcoinfoundation.org@service.tibanne.com
Name Server:ISLA.NS.CLOUDFLARE.COM
Name Server:LEE.NS.CLOUDFLARE.COM
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
DNSSEC:Unsigned

Access to .ORG WHOIS information is provided to assist persons in determining the contents
of a domain name registration record in the Public Interest Registry registry database. The
data in this record is provided by Public Interest Registry for informational purposes
only, and Public Interest Registry does not guarantee its accuracy. This service is
intended only for query-based access. You agree that you will use this data only for lawful
purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this data to(a) allow, enable, or
otherwise support the transmission by e-mail, telephone, or facsimile of mass unsolicited,
commercial advertising or solicitations to entities other than the data recipient's own
existing customers; or (b) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that send
queries or data to the systems of Registry Operator, a Registrar, or Afilias except as
reasonably necessary to register domain names or modify existing registrations. All rights
reserved. Public Interest Registry reserves the right to modify these terms at any time. By
submitting this query, you agree to abide by this policy.


The previous information has been obtained either directly from the registrant or a registrar of the domain name other than Network Solutions. Network Solutions, therefore, does not guarantee its accuracy or completeness.
  
  Show underlying registry data for this record/quote]

[1715150845]

1715150845

[1715150845]

1715150845

[kolev]

Mt.Gox also owns the Bitcoin trademark.

[Zeeks]

Didn't they take over this forum too at some point?

[Cryptoidal]

Very good questions deserving accurate important answers...

Read also:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=492526.0

[Pangia]

Didn't they take over this forum too at some point?

It wouldn't surprise me. I was accused last year by a MOD of potentially being "the owner of a rival exchange" because I was critical of MTGOX and suspected that they were insolvent.

Create a negative post about MTGOX and it will be moved immediately, so I wouldn't be surprised if MTGOX use to bribe the MODS here.

[Cryptoidal]

The whois info of the .org was updated a few days ago to the present registrant (greg egan) of the bitcoinfoundation - (why would that be? Is that transparency?)
>But the current owner of BitcoinFoundation.com (according to current Whois) is Mark Karpeles -semi hidden in privacy as 'Tibanne privacy' ?
Hmmmm
Isn't the owner of Tibanne Mark Karpeles ?

I find the above questions (as well as a few others) very important, especially coming from the self proclaimed  foundation of Bitcoin itself ....

[MPOE-PR]

They just prop the scams and collect "donations" from idiots. They don't actually... you know, do anything. Except if by anything you mean "deny any responsibility for the fallout from the scams they vouched for".

[darkmule]

Mt.Gox also owns the Bitcoin trademark.

The only record I've seen is this in Europe.  I've seen no evidence they've actually used the mark in commerce as a mark indicating products unique to Gox.  Generally, a trademark must identify the products of the specific entity claiming ownership of it, and that entity must have control over the use of the mark.  Gox has effectively abandoned the mark by never attempting enforcement, not that an enforcement attempt would have been likely to succeed.

I suppose it's possible an intellectual property troll will somehow end up with possession of whatever rights they have in the term, but I wouldn't worry about it much unless it actually happens.

The trademark registration does not register actual ownership of a mark, but merely puts the first filer (in most jurisdictions) basically "first in line" with their claim of ownership, such that an accused infringer does not have a defense of lack of notice.  Of course, this being a registration in Europe, Gox would have to be able to demonstrate that it actually used this mark in commerce in at least one EU country.  And of course laws vary by jurisdiction so the exact impact of their use in commerce, assuming it exists at all, might vary in unpredictable ways.

[Come-from-Beyond]

They just prop the scams and collect "donations" from idiots. They don't actually... you know, do anything. Except if by anything you mean "deny any responsibility for the fallout from the scams they vouched for".

True. Bitcoin Foundation f***ed Bitcoin community. It was obvious from the very beginning when the foundation was created, but ppl prefered not to see red flags. I tried to warn u more than year ago, now enjoy the consequences, losers, u deserve it...

[akujin]

Satoshi = Mark Karpeles!

We're doomed! Bwahahaha  

[bg002h]

Believe it or not, a newbie's post on a forum is not likely to get noticed by the Bitcoin Foundation.  While I'm a member of the foundation, I don't speak for the foundation (just like I'm a donator here but I don't speak for bitcointalk.org).  

Anyhow, The domain name issue you speak of is news to me and of doubtful significance.  The Foundation didn't pave a way to MtGox; rather, MtGox paved the way to established a Foundation (with the help of a few others).  

You assert the Foundation accepted funds while MtGox was on the verge of bankruptcy, what do you mean?  If you mean they've been on the verge of bankruptcy for a few years and they paid membership dues, then, uh...duh... If you mean something more relevant, explain yourself. I can only speak for myself, but, no Mark didn't pay me (or AFAIK any of my my 800 friends) anything.

All this said, I do think those who lost funds will end up having some recourse; the amounts they recover will depend on what exactly happened and where the funds are.  AFAIK, the truth about what exactly happened isn't known, not even to MtGox.  

But don't confuse the two organizations: MtGox and the Bitcoin Foundation had one thing in common: Mark was a board member on both.  While he essentially ran MtGox, he was just one of 5-7 board members at the Foundation.  Mark did not run the Bitcoin Foundation.  In fact, of the minutes currently available (which is OOD, IMHO), Mark didn't go to Foundation board meetings and instead sent his second in command to the board meetings (who attended 70% of them).

[bg002h]

Mt.Gox also owns the Bitcoin trademark.

The only record I've seen is this in Europe.  I've seen no evidence they've actually used the mark in commerce as a mark indicating products unique to Gox.  Generally, a trademark must identify the products of the specific entity claiming ownership of it, and that entity must have control over the use of the mark.  Gox has effectively abandoned the mark by never attempting enforcement, not that an enforcement attempt would have been likely to succeed.

I suppose it's possible an intellectual property troll will somehow end up with possession of whatever rights they have in the term, but I wouldn't worry about it much unless it actually happens.

The trademark registration does not register actual ownership of a mark, but merely puts the first filer (in most jurisdictions) basically "first in line" with their claim of ownership, such that an accused infringer does not have a defense of lack of notice.  Of course, this being a registration in Europe, Gox would have to be able to demonstrate that it actually used this mark in commerce in at least one EU country.  And of course laws vary by jurisdiction so the exact impact of their use in commerce, assuming it exists at all, might vary in unpredictable ways.

Lots of people have tried to trademark Bitcoin.  The US law is pretty clear on this: first use defines who gets to TM something...thus, there's no need for (or ability for anyone to obtain) a US trademark.  For other countries, it's (AFAIK) basically first horse across the regulatory finish line gets the TM, regardless of who has been using it (doesn't matter who was first, what they were using it for, how long they were using it, etc).  Mark used his own funds to defensively trademark it and then (i guess) purposely never enforce it so as to make it essentially free to use (he's a French citizen, i think, so he did this in France).  I don't know if that means no one can TM it there or it re-opens the door for someone else to TM it...but  he was praised for doing this for the community at the time.  If someone came to you and asked you for a few $k USD to TM "bitcoin" in your country to pre-empt squatters, would you be willing?

[darkmule]

Lots of people have tried to trademark Bitcoin.  The US law is pretty clear on this: first use defines who gets to TM something...thus, there's no need for (or ability for anyone to obtain) a US trademark.

First use requires actual use.  I don't think what Gox did constitutes a use in commerce, as it did not identify the source of goods or services, but instead, was used as a generic term to refer to something they (as well as many others) were selling.  I.e. to the extent a trademark registration followed by no subsequent use is an asset, it isn't worth much.

For other countries, it's (AFAIK) basically first horse across the regulatory finish line gets the TM, regardless of who has been using it (doesn't matter who was first, what they were using it for, how long they were using it, etc).  Mark used his own funds to defensively trademark it and then (i guess) purposely never enforce it so as to make it essentially free to use (he's a French citizen, i think, so he did this in France).  I don't know if that means no one can TM it there or it re-opens the door for someone else to TM it...but  he was praised for doing this for the community at the time.  If someone came to you and asked you for a few $k USD to TM "bitcoin" in your country to pre-empt squatters, would you be willing?

Actually, it generally creates a presumption that the "first horse" has dibs.  That isn't necessarily conclusive. 

I think the term Bitcoin was practically born genericized because of its uninterrupted use by the public at large without any attempts to enforce the "trademark" against others.  As for whether I'd personally spend a few K to trademark Bitcoin, probably not.  If I thought it would be useful, I'd approve of someone with an interest in the term doing it, at least if I knew they weren't going to use it maliciously, which I probably wouldn't.

[flyable]

It seems Mark "sell" this domain to Gavin at 2014-02-23, 2 days before its shutdown.

[darkmule]

Mark didn't go to Foundation board meetings and instead sent his second in command to the board meetings (who attended 70% of them).

If your agent shows up, you are just as present as otherwise for any relevant purposes.

[Bit_Happy]

Mark didn't go to Foundation board meetings and instead sent his second in command to the board meetings (who attended 70% of them).

If your agent shows up, you are just as present as otherwise for any relevant purposes.

Who's money was used for that travel?