The Bitcoin Foundation Must Remove Satoshi as Founder

[Gimpeline]

Listing him takes away cedebillity from the foundation.
people might look it up and think.... hmm ok they lied there. What else are they lying about

[1714820240]

1714820240

[1714820240]

1714820240

[DannyHamilton]

Nothing in this world is 100% "decentralized", we need a central point one way or another.

You are welcome to have as many "central points" as you like.

Bitcoin Foundation doesn't own bitcoin, it just represents it to the masses.

Only to those foolish enough to think that some private club is representative of something public.  Does the "Chicago Sailing Club" represent Chicago to the masses?  Foolish people will be fooled by private club giving themselves a fancy name.  I can't control the beliefs of others.

Like it or not, most people in Bitcoin just buy it to invest/hold/sell, not because they truly believe in it.

This is wild speculation.  Can you prove this?  It might be true, but it very well might not.  Regardless, the reason that people are using bitcoin has no bearing on the legitimacy or behaviors of the bitcoin foundation.

That's why We Need a foundation, to plan coordinated efforts to advertise Bitcoin and such.

This is not what the bitcoin foundation does, or why it exists.  You are taking your own hopes and projecting them on an entity that you don't understand just because it has a name that you like.  You might want to reconsider that.

Specifically, what coordinated efforts to advertise Bitcoin have you seen from the bitcoin foundation?

The bitcoin foundation exists to pay some developers some money so they can enact the features that their highest paying membership prefers.  It also exists to make sure that when news organizations or political organizations want answers to questions, the answers are the ones that the highest paying members prefer.

[DannyHamilton]

"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.

You can prove that Satoshi didn't send a message to Gavin giving permission?  You can prove that when Satoshi stopped communicating publicly, he also stopped communicating privately?  You can prove that none of the other members of the bitcoin foundation actually are Satoshi?

The claim that Satoshi was a founder might be a lie.  And if it is a lie, then it's wrong.

It also might be the truth.  Since you can't prove it either way, only Satoshi can speak for himself.  If he doesn't demand that his name be removed, then he is giving implicit permission.

[franky1]

too many opinions and hypotheticals about what 'satoshi' believes and disbeleives.

ill just leave you with this.

do you really think that jesus christ wants to be known as the founder of the greedy Vatican, the pedophile priests and the congregation that hates their fellow man, judging each other?

in either case bitcoin or religion, who cares, its not like both people are going to come back and smite anyone tied to such gross abuses of wealth and disgusting behavior

[Gimpeline]

"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.

You can prove that Satoshi didn't send a message to Gavin giving permission?  You can prove that when Satoshi stopped communicating publicly, he also stopped communicating privately?  You can prove that none of the other members of the bitcoin foundation actually are Satoshi?

The claim that Satoshi was a founder might be a lie.  And if it is a lie, then it's wrong.

It also might be the truth.  Since you can't prove it either way, only Satoshi can speak for himself.  If he doesn't demand that his name be removed, then he is giving implicit permission.

You cant disprove anything. If Satoshi sendt a message to Gavin, then gavin have to come up with the proof. Just as you cant disprove anything else. Inosent untill prove guilty

[DannyHamilton]

You cant disprove anything.

Exactly.  You can't prove that Satoshi gave permission.  You can't prove that he didn't give permission.  Therefore, stop speaking on his behalf and let him speak for himself if he wants to.

If Satoshi sendt a message to Gavin, then gavin have to come up with the proof.

No. He doesn't. Why should he waste his time jumping through every hoop that every random internet user in the world sets up for him.  If you want the name removed, you need to prove that it doesn't belong there.

Just as you cant disprove anything else. Inosent untill prove guilty

Exactly.  The bitcoin foundation is innocent until proven guilty.  If you can't prove that they are acting fraudulently by using the name, then they are presumed innocent.

[Gimpeline]

You cant disprove anything.

Exactly.  You can't prove that Satoshi gave permission.  You can't prove that he didn't give permission.  Therefore, stop speaking on his behalf and let him speak for himself if he wants to.

If Satoshi sendt a message to Gavin, then gavin have to come up with the proof.

No. He doesn't. Why should he waste his time jumping through every hoop that every random internet user in the world sets up for him.  If you want the name removed, you need to prove that it doesn't belong there.

Just as you cant disprove anything else. Inosent untill prove guilty

Exactly.  The bitcoin foundation is innocent until proven guilty.  If you can't prove that they are acting fraudulently by using the name, then they are presumed innocent.

Not how it works. If Gavin has the proof it's up to him to deliver. Not the other way around

[jonald_fyookball]

. Like it or not, most people in Bitcoin just buy it to invest/hold/sell, not because they truly believe in it.

Oooh thems fightin words.  Lol jk.

No but seriously, why would someone invest in something they won't believe in?
What do you "truly believe in"?

I believe bitcoin is an amazing idea that has been well implemented and has solid support and momentum.
I also am an investor because i am expecting others to see the value in it and adopt it at some point as a superior form of money.

[jonald_fyookball]

You cant disprove anything.

Exactly.  You can't prove that Satoshi gave permission.  You can't prove that he didn't give permission.  Therefore, stop speaking on his behalf and let him speak for himself if he wants to.

If Satoshi sendt a message to Gavin, then gavin have to come up with the proof.

No. He doesn't. Why should he waste his time jumping through every hoop that every random internet user in the world sets up for him.  If you want the name removed, you need to prove that it doesn't belong there.

Just as you cant disprove anything else. Inosent untill prove guilty

Exactly.  The bitcoin foundation is innocent until proven guilty.  If you can't prove that they are acting fraudulently by using the name, then they are presumed innocent.

Not how it works. If Gavin has the proof it's up to him to deliver. Not the other way around

In a debate or argument,  burden of proof lies on whoever makes an assertion.
However, one can also simply choose not to provide proof
and not participate in the debate to begin with.

[Gimpeline]

You cant disprove anything.

Exactly.  You can't prove that Satoshi gave permission.  You can't prove that he didn't give permission.  Therefore, stop speaking on his behalf and let him speak for himself if he wants to.

If Satoshi sendt a message to Gavin, then gavin have to come up with the proof.

No. He doesn't. Why should he waste his time jumping through every hoop that every random internet user in the world sets up for him.  If you want the name removed, you need to prove that it doesn't belong there.

Just as you cant disprove anything else. Inosent untill prove guilty

well he does
Its like this. I can say that monkeys fly out of my ass. I can prove it, but you cant see the evidence.
To disprove it you have to investigate my ass. I won't alow yopu to do that.
You have to prove it without the evidence. Do you see where the logic is missing?

Exactly.  The bitcoin foundation is innocent until proven guilty.  If you can't prove that they are acting fraudulently by using the name, then they are presumed innocent.

Not how it works. If Gavin has the proof it's up to him to deliver. Not the other way around

In a debate or argument,  burden of proof lies on whoever makes an assertion.
However, one can also simply choose not to provide proof
and not participate in the debate to begin with.

Its like this. I can say that monkeys fly out of my ass. I can prove it, but you cant see the evidence.
To disprove it you have to investigate my ass. I won't alow yopu to do that.
You have to prove it without the evidence. Do you see where the logic is missing?

[jonald_fyookball]

Its like this. I can say that monkeys fly out of my ass. I can prove it, but you cant see the evidence.
To disprove it you have to investigate my ass. I won't alow yopu to do that.
You have to prove it without the evidence. Do you see where the logic is missing?

Who said I have to prove it?
Who said you have to prove it?

No one has to prove anything (unless they want to win an argument).

[Yakamoto]

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.

This is honestly what I was thinking as I read this.

[BittBurger]

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.

This is a completely retarded response.  Given the fact that you know full-well Satoshi isn't going to "speak up" in the first place, your response is kind of useless.  Even if he did, the onus is not on Satoshi saying "No".  In a situation like this, the onus is on him saying "Yes".

Naming him as founder is really just a way for the Bitcoin Foundation to imply that they're *supported* by Satoshi himself.   That assertion shouldn't be made unless Satoshi explicitly states he not only founded, but also supports this organization.  Naming him as a founding member also implies that everything they do has the blessing of the creator of Bitcoin.  This is why the onus is on Satoshi saying "Yes".   Not Satoshi saying "No".   Given the fact that *everything he did* was intended to end all forms of centralized organizations, the OP's has every logical right to claim Satoshi never said "Yes" to this.

-B-

[DannyHamilton]

It's been fun, but this discussion is getting boring.

You're all talking in circles, and you can "demand action" all you want.  It won't make a difference.

Have fun agreeing with each other that they should do what you want them to do.

[Aquent]

It's been fun, but this discussion is getting boring.

You're all talking in circles, and you can "demand action" all you want.  It won't make a difference.

Have fun agreeing with each other that the should do what you want them to do.

DannyHamilton I wasn't sure if you were trolling or not, but the above post makes it apparent.

For all it's worth I can't find any reference to satoshi on the bitcoin foundation website or any wikipedia article referring to the foundation website. So I guess they have removed it as they have been requested.

[DeathAndTaxes]

IIRC the foundation when pressed before indicated they had no contact with Satoshi and they added him as an honorific.  As such I see it just as a name grab for legitimacy.   I am a member but I don't agree with the decision to use his name without permission or to imply an association exists where there is none.  It is unethical, dishonest, and shows a lack of respect for the creator of the Bitcoin protocol.

It is also an unacceptable burden, to demand that someone (who obviously wishes to be left alone and values his privacy) make a formal statement every time someone jackass decides to fraudulently uses his name without permission.  Generally speaking that kind of burden isn't accepted by society in similar situations.  You can't use a celebrity name and likeness as an endorsement and then when they sue you, claim as your defense that they didn't explicitly notify you stating they didn't want their name used.  There is no such obligation for someone to notify you that they don't want you to use their name.  The obligation is on the party using the name and implying an association where none exists to secure that permission before using it.

[BurtW]

What is a "Bitcoin Foundation" part of a trilogy of books or something like that?

[umair127]

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.

If he was a founder then they would have known him, they are just trying to use his name to sound like they are the official foundation of bitcoin, which is a lie.  What they are doing is unethical.  Take off satoshi from the board, he may be welcomed there but dont claim you know him.  I agree with the Op

[MicroGuy]

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.

This is conjecture. I think it's also possible that it was actually Dorian posting to divert attention from himself.

[BCB]

I think the Bitcoin Foundation actually has bigger problems now.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/255a6o/bitcoin_foundation_adds_alleged_child_molester_to/