The Bitcoin Foundation Must Remove Satoshi as Founder

[Aquent]

Satoshi Nakamoto was not a founder of the bitcoin foundation. It  is highly unethical for him to be listed as a founder. It is not an honorary title. Satoshi created a decentralised system. He would hate the foundation's centralisation.

Now that a highly controversial figure has been elected to the board I think it is imperative that the foundation stops claiming legitimacy by stating that Satoshi was in any way a founder or in any way approved of that rotten centalisation.

[DannyHamilton]

Satoshi Nakamoto was not a founder of the bitcoin foundation. It  is highly unethical for him to be listed as a founder. It is not an honorary title. Satoshi created a decentralised system. He would hate the foundation's centralisation.

Now that a highly controversial figure has been elected to the board I think it is imperative that the foundation stops claiming legitimacy by stating that Satoshi was in any way a founder or in any way approved of that rotten centalisation.

How can you speak for Satoshi?  Do you know him personally?  Has he told you that he doesn't want to be associated with the Foundation?  Can you prove that he didn't give the foundation permission to list him?

It is highly unethical for you to be deciding on behalf of Satoshi if he should be listed unless he has given you permission to do so.  Let him speak for himself if he is against it.

[bananas]

Satoshi Nakamoto was not a founder of the bitcoin foundation. It  is highly unethical for him to be listed as a founder. It is not an honorary title. Satoshi created a decentralised system. He would hate the foundation's centralisation.

Now that a highly controversial figure has been elected to the board I think it is imperative that the foundation stops claiming legitimacy by stating that Satoshi was in any way a founder or in any way approved of that rotten centalisation.

Man, Satoshi is part of that crime related foundation since day one 'cause he wants so, he can speak by himself . He is not dead.

Many think of Satoshi as a mystical angel and think like "oh my god, he can't be part of it", but he is not any angel and he is part of that group on his own will.

[DannyHamilton]

Satoshi Nakamoto was not a founder of the bitcoin foundation. It  is highly unethical for him to be listed as a founder. It is not an honorary title. Satoshi created a decentralised system. He would hate the foundation's centralisation.

Now that a highly controversial figure has been elected to the board I think it is imperative that the foundation stops claiming legitimacy by stating that Satoshi was in any way a founder or in any way approved of that rotten centalisation.

How can you speak for Satoshi?  Do you know him personally?  Has he told you that he doesn't want to be associated with the Foundation?  Can you prove that he didn't give the foundation permission to list him?

It is highly unethical for you to be deciding on behalf of Satoshi if he should be listed unless he has given you permission to do so.  Let him speak for himself if he is against it.

The point you make in bold is very good. Unless the Bitcoin Foundation provides proof that Satoshi wants to be listed as a founder then the Bitcoin Foundation is acting unethically. It should be no problem for the Bitcoin Foundation to provide the proof since they must know Satoshi personally to have listed him as a founder.

And if Satoshi asked them not to provide such proof?  There is no obligation to provide proof that someone wants to be listed as a founder.  Has the foundation provided proof that Gavin wants to be listed as a founder?  Are they ethically obligated to provide proof that Gavin wants to be listed as a founder?

Don't be so presumptuous as to speak on Satoshi's behalf.  If he doesn't want to be listed a a founder, he can speak for himself.  In the same way that we can assume that Gavin wants to be listed as a founder (since he hasn't spoken out against it), we can also assume that Satoshi wants to be listed as a founder (since he hasn't spoken out against it).

[bananas]

Satoshi Nakamoto was not a founder of the bitcoin foundation. It  is highly unethical for him to be listed as a founder. It is not an honorary title. Satoshi created a decentralised system. He would hate the foundation's centralisation.

Now that a highly controversial figure has been elected to the board I think it is imperative that the foundation stops claiming legitimacy by stating that Satoshi was in any way a founder or in any way approved of that rotten centalisation.

How can you speak for Satoshi?  Do you know him personally?  Has he told you that he doesn't want to be associated with the Foundation?  Can you prove that he didn't give the foundation permission to list him?

It is highly unethical for you to be deciding on behalf of Satoshi if he should be listed unless he has given you permission to do so.  Let him speak for himself if he is against it.

The point you make in bold is very good. Unless the Bitcoin Foundation provides proof that Satoshi wants to be listed as a founder then the Bitcoin Foundation is acting unethically. It should be no problem for the Bitcoin Foundation to provide the proof since they must know Satoshi personally to have listed him as a founder.

Satoshi spoke when he did not want to be confused with Dorian, why would not he speak about something a lot more serious as being part of a group full of dirty? He would.

[btbrae]

There is nothing you can do to control a private club, only call it out and avoid using or donating to it and it's members.

[jc01480]

This is one of those "Mind your own business" moments.

[5flags]

Satoshi spoke when he did not want to be confused with Dorian

No he didn't. If it isn't signed, it didn't happen.

[Aquent]

Satoshi Nakamoto was not a founder of the bitcoin foundation. It  is highly unethical for him to be listed as a founder. It is not an honorary title. Satoshi created a decentralised system. He would hate the foundation's centralisation.

Now that a highly controversial figure has been elected to the board I think it is imperative that the foundation stops claiming legitimacy by stating that Satoshi was in any way a founder or in any way approved of that rotten centalisation.

How can you speak for Satoshi?  Do you know him personally?  Has he told you that he doesn't want to be associated with the Foundation?  Can you prove that he didn't give the foundation permission to list him?

It is highly unethical for you to be deciding on behalf of Satoshi if he should be listed unless he has given you permission to do so.  Let him speak for himself if he is against it.

The point you make in bold is very good. Unless the Bitcoin Foundation provides proof that Satoshi wants to be listed as a founder then the Bitcoin Foundation is acting unethically. It should be no problem for the Bitcoin Foundation to provide the proof since they must know Satoshi personally to have listed him as a founder.

Satoshi spoke when he did not want to be confused with Dorian, why would not he speak about something a lot more serious as being part of a group full of dirty? He would.

Satoshi stopped speaking about 3 years ago and has said nothing save for "I am not Dorian". He said that because an innocent man's life might have been in danger therefore he probably judges that it is right for him to speak in regards to this very exceptional and unusual circumstance.

He isn't going to come out and speak for every tiny other thing. He has chosen to leave and be silent. That's his choice. To expect him to say he is not a founder is also to expect him to say a lot of other stuff which he seems to have chosen not to do so.

Therefore unless he has given permission to be listed as founder it is highly unethical and manipulative as well as an outright lie to claim that satoshi was a founder of the bitcoin foundation.

The onus is on the foundation to prove he was a founder. If they can't provide such evidence then his name should be removed so that outsiders can see it as just a group rather than THE group created by THE man himself.

[hilariousandco]

How do you know he's not another member of the Foundation? Just because bitcoin is decentralised doesn't mean everything else has to be.

[guybrushthreepwood]

Does it really matter whether he's on there or not? If he was removed people would then probably complain to get him reinstated.

[jc01480]

So they've essentially hijacked a name to take advantage or capitalize on an association that doesn't really exist?  I get it.  Are we alleging fraud here?

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

No he didn't. If it isn't signed, it didn't happen.

The post quoted above didn't happen.

[DannyHamilton]

Therefore unless he has given permission to be listed as founder it is highly unethical and manipulative as well as an outright lie to claim that satoshi was a founder of the bitcoin foundation.

Unless you are Satoshi, or unless he has given permission for you to speak on his behalf, the bitcoin foundation has as much right to speak on his behalf as you do.  Since you've already made it clear that you believe that you have the right to speak on his behalf, this would seem to imply that in your worldview, the bitcoin foundation ALSO has the right to speak on his behalf.  Unless of course you are a hypocrite that believes that there are special rules that only apply to you, and not them.

Let Satoshi speak for himself.  If he doesn't care enough to get involved in this disagreement, then why do you think it's important.  Satoshi clearly doesn't think that "an innocent man's life might be in danger" over this, and is therefore ok with what the bitcoin foundation has chosen to say about his membership.

The onus is on the foundation to prove he was a founder.

No, it isn't.  The onus is on you to prove that Satoshi doesn't want to be listed as a founder.  Otherwise, you have no right to speak on his behalf.

If they can't provide such evidence then his name should be removed

If they wanted to do that, they already would have.  How exactly do you intend to force them to do so?  By creating another discussion thread in the bitcointalk.org disccusion forum?  That didn't seem to work so well the few hundred times that other people tried it.  Why would your rant be any more successful?

so that outsiders can see it as just a group rather than THE group created by THE man himself.

"THE man himself"?  You do realize that Satoshi doesn't have any special super powers, right?  He's not God or anything like that.  He's just some guy (or group of people) that happen to have come up with a pretty decent way of handling distributed consensus and used it to determine what order transaction occur in.  That's about it.  He wasn't even a very great programmer, or great at cryptography.  He made several programming mistakes, and made some questionable cryptography choices.

The fact that a decent programmer with some better than average knowledge about cryptography belongs to some private club shouldn't matter to anyone except those foolish enough to believe that celebrity is persuasive.

[Joshuar]

Therefore unless he has given permission to be listed as founder it is highly unethical and manipulative as well as an outright lie to claim that satoshi was a founder of the bitcoin foundation.

Unless you are Satoshi, or unless he has given permission for you to speak on his behalf, the bitcoin foundation has as much right to speak on his behalf as you do.  Since you've already made it clear that you believe that you have the right to speak on his behalf, this would seem to imply that in your worldview, the bitcoin foundation ALSO has the right to speak on his behalf.  Unless of course you are a hypocrite that believes that there are special rules that only apply to you, and not them.

Let Satoshi speak for himself.  If he doesn't care enough to get involved in this disagreement, then why do you think it's important.  Satoshi clearly doesn't think that "an innocent man's life might be in danger" over this, and is therefore ok with what the bitcoin foundation has chosen to say about his membership.

The onus is on the foundation to prove he was a founder.

No, it isn't.  The onus is on you to prove that Satoshi doesn't want to be listed as a founder.  Otherwise, you have no right to speak on his behalf.

If they can't provide such evidence then his name should be removed

If they wanted to do that, they already would have.  How exactly do you intend to force them to do so?  By creating another discussion thread in the bitcointalk.org disccusion forum?  That didn't seem to work so well the few hundred times that other people tried it.  Why would your rant be any more successful?

so that outsiders can see it as just a group rather than THE group created by THE man himself.

"THE man himself"?  You do realize that Satoshi doesn't have any special super powers, right?  He's not God or anything like that.  He's just some guy (or group of people) that happen to have come up with a pretty decent way of handling distributed consensus and used it to determine what order transaction occur in.  That's about it.  He wasn't even a very great programmer, or great at cryptography.  He made several programming mistakes, and made some questionable cryptography choices.

The fact that a decent programmer with some better than average knowledge about cryptography belongs to some private club shouldn't matter to anyone except those foolish enough to believe that celebrity is persuasive.

Nothing in this world is 100% "decentralized", we need a central point one way or another. Bitcoin Foundation doesn't own bitcoin, it just represents it to the masses. Like it or not, most people in Bitcoin just buy it to invest/hold/sell, not because they truly believe in it. That's why We Need a foundation, to plan coordinated efforts to advertise Bitcoin and such.

[Aquent]

"Unless you are Satoshi, or unless he has given permission for you to speak on his behalf, the bitcoin foundation has as much right to speak on his behalf as you do."

The bitcoin foundation was created after Satoshi stopped speaking. Therefore the claim that satoshi was a founder is an outright lie. To lie is wrong so, that's it, his name should not be listed as a founder of a foundation which elects an alleged pedofile as a director.

[5flags]

Out of interest, has anyone ever asked the Foundation whether SN is listed with his/her/their permission?

[Joshuar]

Out of interest, has anyone ever asked the Foundation whether SN is listed with his/her/their permission?

If Satoshi wanted to be removed as a Founder, he would of said so. Just like he messaged, " I am not Dorian Nakamoto"

And, no one cares, Satoshi made Bitcoin, let him be a founder until he decides he doesn't want to anymore..

[5flags]

And on the question of being an "alleged pedophile" - if he has not been convicted, hasn't been charged and isn't even under investigation, then he is innocent, like everyone else until proven guilty.

Caveat: I don't know anything about the guy in question. Nor am I interested in reading anything about him.

[guybrushthreepwood]

Out of interest, has anyone ever asked the Foundation whether SN is listed with his/her/their permission?

If Satoshi wanted to be removed as a Founder, he would of said so. Just like he messaged, " I am not Dorian Nakamoto"

And, no one cares.

Except I don't think that was actually him but an impostor. I very much doubt they got his permission. Maybe they asked but he probably didnt reply.