Calling out the Bitcoin Foundation Scam.

[tvbcof]

Watching*

(*) which I feel at liberty to do being one of the VERY early people to call the Bitcoin Foundation out when fuckin near everyone else was all ga-ga over it...

[1714795862]

1714795862

[1714795862]

1714795862

[1714795862]

1714795862

[chriswilmer]

I haven't seen anyone point out that the Bitcoin Foundation pays Gavin's salary, so that he can focus on developing the Bitcoin protocol. That seems like money well spent, right? (feel free to make counter arguments... I certainly don't inspect Gavin's code contributions personally)

[r0ach]

And I doubt Gavin has enough power to hard fork even if he wanted to.

He easily does.  Same thing with Sunny King and proof of stake.  Since not even the developer himself really seems to understand how proof of stake works, and all the secondary or unintended consequences of each variable, few people have the authority to create a consensus to stop something if he wants it to happen.  Bitcoin is the same way.  It's easier to understand the general concepts of PoW, but there's still secondary or unintended consequences that make the "authority figures" divisible by a handful, or maybe even 1, especially when each change has to conform to future plans that aren't even known by all parties.

[justusranvier]

I haven't seen anyone point out that the Bitcoin Foundation pays Gavin's salary, so that he can focus on developing the Bitcoin protocol.

How much protocol development has happened in the last year?

[Atruk]

I don’t think it’s either practical nor feasible nor even desirable to use Bitcoin in the day to day dabble of pizzas, phone credits, hairspray and sneakers. People try to, because of the misguided belief that Bitcoin value is somehow related to or deriving from its crossection in the retail market.

2)  A single developer (Gavin) being able to screw up a software update and causing a fork that destroys a 10+ billion dollar business is not an option.  See #1.  People will want to minimize their possible risks to 10-20% loss for attacks or things like this happening.

3)  Demand for anonymous transactions vs open transactions.

4)  Practical hardware/space limitations of a single chain that has already been discussed.

5)  The usage of PoS as a virtual bank.

6)  How easy it is for a government to co-opt, attack, or take over a single chain.  It's much harder to take over or destroy 10 at once.  My estimate is, there will be 5-10 large coins.

7)  Dozens more that I don't feel like typing.

Gavin hasn't been Bitcoin's best friend in quite some time and even nao the development accomplishments haven't been much.

[r0ach]

How much protocol development has happened in the last year?

How anxious are you to be the sole person to get blamed for breaking a $10+ billion dollar industry?  Probably wants to outsource some responsibility to other people first so it's at least a team effort if they manage to screw it up.  They're at a stage where they have to make permanent choices that will decide the entire future of the currency and if it fails or succeeds.  Things like the whole 7 vs 80-100TPS deal, and huge block chains with high centralization and high transactions vs lower centralization and crap volume.  The guy doesn't seem like a rock star, anarchist programmer, with the idea of "fuck the entire world, I'm doing it my way".

There has to be at least 3-4 more high profile people from several other different countries like China, Germany, Japan, Finland, etc, involved and taking responsibility before anything big happens.

What do you think this article actually means?  It doesn't mean what Coindesk wrote, it means he's scared to be responsible for something that might decide the fate of the entire planet lol.

http://www.coindesk.com/gavin-andresen-bitcoin-companies-support-open-source/

[hammo]

Just start a new one.  Call yourselves "the official foundation", register a domain and go.

Or what about the 'Bitcoin Founding Foundation' or BFF for short 

[justusranvier]

What do you think this article actually means?  It doesn't mean what Coindesk wrote, it means he's scared to be responsible for something that might decide the fate of the entire planet lol.

http://www.coindesk.com/gavin-andresen-bitcoin-companies-support-open-source/

So more Bitcoin companies should be involved in development? It's funny that Conformal Systems did exactly that, and gets no recognition from Gavin or any of the other core developers for their contributions.

Unlike BitPay which made a big deal of supporting the community via Jeff Garzik's 2000 LOC, Conformal put the development of their actual business on hold for a year while they wrote a clean slate reimplementation of the reference implementation as an open source donation to the community.

Fortunately, they're about done with that so now they can focus on their Coinvoice service. I say fortunately because that means they've had time to help out two local merchants in Austin that got burned by BitPay. (Do you know how embarrassing it is to go around to local merchants convincing them to start accepting Bitcoin and pointing them at the most well-known Bitcoin payment processor just to have them run into existential problems like "not getting paid?")

[yamamushi]

Fortunately, they're about done with that so now they can focus on their Coinvoice service. I say fortunately because that means they've had time to help out two local merchants in Austin that got burned by BitPay. (Do you know how embarrassing it is to go around to local merchants convincing them to start accepting Bitcoin and pointing them at the most well-known Bitcoin payment processor just to have them run into existential problems like "not getting paid?")

Considering one of them was a licensed firearms dealer, and in order to buy weapons through them you have to go through an FBI background check, it was extremely frustrating that BitPay or Coinbase wouldn't work with them.

[AnonyMint]

And I doubt Gavin has enough power to hard fork even if he wanted to.

He easily does.  Same thing with Sunny King and proof of stake.

But he (personally) doesn't (without great risk) in the overall (holistic) political game theory. You are thinking too-inside-the-box.

[5flags]

Yeah, what a scam to take peoples membership money and use it to organize conferences, lobby regulators, provide a resource for business and the press, to provide a space to coordinate the volunteer efforts of dozens of people who actually do something. Wow such scam! Only a doggy based coin could save us now.  

+21 million

Agree. This thread is a ridiculous criticism, obviously made by someone with no understanding that Bitcoin is NOT an island. It interfaces in very real ways with centralised, legacy systems - and we need an organised, dedicated focal point.

This doesn't mean the foundation is beyond criticism, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

[tayfun73]

Yeah, what a scam to take peoples membership money and use it to organize conferences, lobby regulators, provide a resource for business and the press, to provide a space to coordinate the volunteer efforts of dozens of people who actually do something. Wow such scam! Only a doggy based coin could save us now.  

+21 million

Agree. This thread is a ridiculous criticism, obviously made by someone with no understanding that Bitcoin is NOT an island. It interfaces in very real ways with centralised, legacy systems - and we need an organised, dedicated focal point.

This doesn't mean the foundation is beyond criticism, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Agreed, we do need an organised and dedicated group of people who represent the community. However, who voted these guys in? What input did the bitcoin community as a whole have in the establishment of the foundation, yet alone electing who would be on there? I guess having such shrewd businessman and solid citizens as Mark Karpeles on the board made them think they didn't need that input.

It would be interesting to weigh up the good that the foundation has done compared to the damage that they have done to the brand. It wasn't until the knife was well and truly to the bone that they got rid of Gox and Karpeles. I do not believe for one minute that they were suddenly 'surprised' by what happened over in Tokyo.

[5flags]

Agreed, we do need an organised and dedicated group of people who represent the community. However, who voted these guys in? What input did the bitcoin community as a whole have in the establishment of the foundation, yet alone electing who would be on there? I guess having such shrewd businessman and solid citizens as Mark Karpeles on the board made them think they didn't need that input.

It would be interesting to weigh up the good that the foundation has done compared to the damage that they have done to the brand. It wasn't until the knife was well and truly to the bone that they got rid of Gox and Karpeles. I do not believe for one minute that they were suddenly 'surprised' by what happened over in Tokyo.

Yea, all valid points. Like I say, they aren't beyond criticism. Like it or not, Bitcoin, by its very nature attracts the kind of person with an affinity for risk. Criminals and entrepreneurs share this affinity. And as we've seen, the line between entrepreneur and criminal is blurry, to say the least.

It's important to remember that TBF does not own Bitcoin. Their activities are what THEY think are in Bitcoin's best interest. We don't have to agree, or take any notice. But there's nothing stopping anyone setting up another lobbying group.

[tayfun73]

Agreed, we do need an organised and dedicated group of people who represent the community. However, who voted these guys in? What input did the bitcoin community as a whole have in the establishment of the foundation, yet alone electing who would be on there? I guess having such shrewd businessman and solid citizens as Mark Karpeles on the board made them think they didn't need that input.

It would be interesting to weigh up the good that the foundation has done compared to the damage that they have done to the brand. It wasn't until the knife was well and truly to the bone that they got rid of Gox and Karpeles. I do not believe for one minute that they were suddenly 'surprised' by what happened over in Tokyo.

Yea, all valid points. Like I say, they aren't beyond criticism. Like it or not, Bitcoin, by its very nature attracts the kind of person with an affinity for risk. Criminals and entrepreneurs share this affinity. And as we've seen, the line between entrepreneur and criminal is blurry, to say the least.

It's important to remember that TBF does not own Bitcoin. Their activities are what THEY think are in Bitcoin's best interest. We don't have to agree, or take any notice. But there's nothing stopping anyone setting up another lobbying group.

Fair enough, they do not own bitcoin, we can set up a rival group etc etc, but I read earlier that they pay Gavin's salary as the lead dev for the bitcoin project. Noone will deny that he deserves to get paid and does a top job, but it's a bit worrying when you have a foundation which has very little confidence put in it by the community being Gavin's 'boss', and have the fate of the currency at their mercy.

[5flags]

Fair enough, they do not own bitcoin, we can set up a rival group etc etc, but I read earlier that they pay Gavin's salary as the lead dev for the bitcoin project. Noone will deny that he deserves to get paid and does a top job, but it's a bit worrying when you have a foundation which has very little confidence put in it by the community being Gavin's 'boss', and have the fate of the currency at their mercy.

One day, I hope Gavin earns enough to buy a small island in the South Pacific where he can live out his days with 12 young wives serving him mojitos on the beach. His stewardship of Bitcoin has been exemplary.

There would be nothing stopping a "rival" foundation "outbidding" to pay Gavin. Or even paying him in addition to his TBF income.

[cosmofly]

i always disagree with MP , but i admit he is 100% spot on about the foundation. They have to be shut down , they must be shutdown. They have stolen hundreds of thousands worth of bitcoins and DID NOTHING for the community, yes they are pocketing it all. They did NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING.

The development is a complete joke and bitcoin is in grave danger due to the lack of active development. No marketing, no promotion, no government lobbying, nothing, all they do is get paid more money to attend conferences and visits to the CIA.

We need to shut them down immediately.

[The_Duke]

In September 2012, as a response to the BF Announcement I already posted:

So the bitcoin foundation (which had nothing to do with founding bitcoin and created itself without involvement from the bitcoin community or its creator) gets a start as some incredibly overhyped Announcement (yeah, with a capital A apparently).
THIS is that big announcement that would bring more stability to bitcoin? A self proclaimed "bitcoin foundation" that on its own decides how to best help bitcoin?
To me, this just looks like a lot of e-peening by a bunch of people who on their own have become too invested in bitcoin and who are in effect decentralizing it by pulling to much attention and too much involvement onto themselves, thereby hindering the openness and freedom of bitcoin.
Why does something that is supposed to be uncontrolled and decentralized need a centralized body to control anything? What if the Bitcoin Foundation starts doing or saying things that a lot of bitcoin users feel is harmful to bitcoin? Can we replace the people in bitcoin foundation?

It will give the "outside world" (filled with evil bankers, corporations and goverments) a centralized point from which to influence bitcoin. (And whoever thinks they will influence it in a direction that is good for bitcoin is just being naive) They can now just talk to THE "Bitcoin Foundation", which happens to also include the major developers, the ones controlling the trademarks, etc.
Under the flag of "not for profit" bitcoin seems to get commercialized. :sad:

Turns out it's all even worse than I suspected back then. But at least my mistrust was justified.

[MPOE-PR]

Watching*

(*) which I feel at liberty to do being one of the VERY early people to call the Bitcoin Foundation out when fuckin near everyone else was all ga-ga over it...

This would be true.

He easily does.  Same thing with Sunny King and proof of stake.  Since not even the developer himself really seems to understand how proof of stake works, and all the secondary or unintended consequences of each variable, few people have the authority to create a consensus to stop something if he wants it to happen.  Bitcoin is the same way.  It's easier to understand the general concepts of PoW, but there's still secondary or unintended consequences that make the "authority figures" divisible by a handful, or maybe even 1, especially when each change has to conform to future plans that aren't even known by all parties.

Listen nooblet, stop positing that if you've eaten cereal in the morning three times this past week this is "what's done in the morning". Some people fuck in the morning. For instance, your parents, which is how a cereal eating snotty brat like you even exists in the first place.

So more Bitcoin companies should be involved in development? It's funny that Conformal Systems did exactly that, and gets no recognition from Gavin or any of the other core developers for their contributions.

This. Gavin used to be respectable. Not so much anymore.

Back when Gavin used to be respectable, Gavin used to wield a lot of power re the -qt client, and people used to like...even download the newer versions. That time is well past. The overall impact on the Bitcoin network of a new delivery of bitcoin-qt code is roughly nil. You gotta understand that Bitcoin = the Bitcoins, if you get a lot of adoption from people who have together half a Bitcoin you've really got no adoption worth the mention.

[AnonyMint]

So you've just argued TBF has no effective power, so then why give a fuck what they do?

I think you've just argued that no one can control Bitcoin right now and thus there is no way to make any more hard forks.

[raskul]

So you've just argued TBF has no effective power, so then why give a fuck what they do?

I think you've just argued that no one can control Bitcoin right now and thus there is no way to make any more hard forks.

I have to say, i'm with you on that one. I couldn't give a flying fork what the bitcoin foundation do, they don't speak for me, nor will any members club who evolve in the future democratically elected, or not. Good riddance if they fade into obscurity, and if they don't, it makes not a blind bit of difference to me.