I just paid the $100K USD via BTC to become a Platinum Member of TBF.

[QuestionAuthority]

If there is so much angst against the foundation, why don't people just organise a new one?

Because we're too lazy. It's much easier to sit behind a keyboard and bitch about the current one.

[inBitweTrust]

Because we're too lazy. It's much easier to sit behind a keyboard and bitch about the current one.

Many of us are opposed to any foundation representing bitcoin and prefer the protocol to remain mercurial, fluid, and dynamic.

All of the forums combined represent the metaphorical foundation.

[QuestionAuthority]

Because we're too lazy. It's much easier to sit behind a keyboard and bitch about the current one.

Many of us are opposed to any foundation representing bitcoin and prefer the protocol to remain mercurial, fluid, and dynamic.

All of the forums combined represent the metaphorical foundation.

^
|
V

AFAIK, no one has been able to prove anyone has paid a membership fee...the foundation doesn't publish a privacy violating list of payers / identities & addresses...duh. The expectation that large membership fees would be paid in a single tx is a bit misguided, imho.

Well, I had understood that they promised to accept donations only through a specific address, precisely so that everybody could check their accounting.   

But that is indeed an interesting philosophical question: how can we get to trust a Foundation devoted to the cause of a trustless anonymous payment system.   

The question is, why do we need a foundation and what has having one done for Bitcoin? Look at the bylaws of the foundation. Specifically, the permanent founding members list. Do you trust an organization with members that can't be removed?

[ANTIcentralized]

If there is so much angst against the foundation, why don't people just organise a new one?

Because we're too lazy. It's much easier to sit behind a keyboard and bitch about the current one.

I would say that it is more because there is no real need for any kind of official group of foundation that "represents" Bitcoin. People will work on the bitcoin code with or without the help of TBF (or any other similar entity). The market is self-regulating and there is no need for TBF to assist in molding the market

[JorgeStolfi]

If there is so much angst against the foundation, why don't people just organise a new one?

Because we're too lazy. It's much easier to sit behind a keyboard and bitch about the current one.

I would say that it is more because there is no real need for any kind of official group of foundation that "represents" Bitcoin. People will work on the bitcoin code with or without the help of TBF (or any other similar entity). The market is self-regulating and there is no need for TBF to assist in molding the market

Obviously having an entity to "govern" bitcoin in any way would negate bitcoin's very goals.  The situation of Gavin wrt the Foundation wrt the blockchain is already, ahem, interesting.

However, there could be

* A Foundation to sponsor technical studies, education, etc. -- but not to control the blockchain, protocol, or core software, or represent bitcoin to government, or engage in business.

* A Trader Association, to publish standards and ethical guidelines for exchanges, pressure them for openness and independent auditing, and evaluate them for compliance;

* A  Miner's Association, to do the same for miners.

Ideally these institutions should have a low fixed fee, and refuse donations.  Otherwise they would soon be "owned" by a few large members, and will cater to their interest even when it is against the interest ot the majority of the memebrs.  Which seems to be the current state of The Shrem Karpelès & Friends Foundation...

[ANTIcentralized]

If there is so much angst against the foundation, why don't people just organise a new one?

Because we're too lazy. It's much easier to sit behind a keyboard and bitch about the current one.

I would say that it is more because there is no real need for any kind of official group of foundation that "represents" Bitcoin. People will work on the bitcoin code with or without the help of TBF (or any other similar entity). The market is self-regulating and there is no need for TBF to assist in molding the market

Obviously having an entity to "govern" bitcoin in any way would negate bitcoin's very goals.  The situation of Gavin wrt the Foundation wrt the blockchain is already, ahem, interesting.

However, there could be

* A Foundation to sponsor technical studies, education, etc. -- but not to control the blockchain, protocol, or core software, or represent bitcoin to government, or engage in business.

* A Trader Association, to publish standards and ethical guidelines for exchanges, pressure them for openness and independent auditing, and evaluate them for compliance;

* A  Miner's Association, to do the same for miners.

Ideally these institutions should have a low fixed fee, and refuse donations.  Otherwise they would soon be "owned" by a few large members, and will cater to their interest even when it is against the interest ot the majority of the memebrs.  Which seems to be the current state of The Shrem Karpelès & Friends Foundation...

I would accept your suggestion that some foundation/entity sponsor research, although I still think that major stakeholders of Bitcoin would pay for and facilitate such research. I think that people would likely be willing to donate to such an entity to help pay for this kind of research.

I would reject both a trader association and a miner's association. The fact that the market is self regulating would make it difficult/impossible for an exchange without transparency and ethical operations. Having a miner's association would potentially open the network to 51% type attacks as the miners would literally be working together

[JorgeStolfi]

I would reject both a trader association and a miner's association. The fact that the market is self regulating would make it difficult/impossible for an exchange without transparency and ethical operations. Having a miner's association would potentially open the network to 51% type attacks as the miners would literally be working together

Well, the exchanges now are all but transparent.  Are they solvent?  Are they front-running their clients?  Are they faking orders and traffic?  Do some clients have special privileges (like a few seconds advance knowledge of the order book)? 

For a 51% attack, it suffices that the 3-4 largest miners collude.  That is much easier backstage than through a professional association.  On the other hand, a miner's association could better spot and sue fraudulent manufacturers, for example.

[pequelore]

If there is so much angst against the foundation, why don't people just organise a new one?

It is easy to say that.. However, organizing a new one is a lot harder than you think.

[ANTIcentralized]

I would reject both a trader association and a miner's association. The fact that the market is self regulating would make it difficult/impossible for an exchange without transparency and ethical operations. Having a miner's association would potentially open the network to 51% type attacks as the miners would literally be working together

Well, the exchanges now are all but transparent.  Are they solvent?  Are they front-running their clients?  Are they faking orders and traffic?  Do some clients have special privileges (like a few seconds advance knowledge of the order book)? 

For a 51% attack, it suffices that the 3-4 largest miners collude.  That is much easier backstage than through a professional association.  On the other hand, a miner's association could better spot and sue fraudulent manufacturers, for example.

There is also a very large amount of fiat to bitcoin trade done outside of exchange and people are willing to pay large premiums to not have to deal with an exchange, much larger then the trading fees, so I would argue that the market is self regulating because the exchanges are not more transparent.

A professional association would set up a forum for miners to communicate that may not otherwise be possible. I don't think operators have a lot of interest in communicating with other pool operators, and since it would likely take more then two pool operators acting dishonestly to launch a 51% attack it would be difficult to bring at least three pool operators together like this without risking your plan leaking without this kind of foum

[Swordsoffreedom]

If there is so much angst against the foundation, why don't people just organise a new one?

It is easy to say that.. However, organizing a new one is a lot harder than you think.

It's a matter of finding the right people for the job.
If a collection of well respected individuals teamed up and decided to create a new organization and the community built itself around it then that might be the best way of approaching it.
Hard to get that collective sense of unity and objective going though.

[arara]

If there is so much angst against the foundation, why don't people just organise a new one?

It is easy to say that.. However, organizing a new one is a lot harder than you think.

It's a matter of finding the right people for the job.
If a collection of well respected individuals teamed up and decided to create a new organization and the community built itself around it then that might be the best way of approaching it.
Hard to get that collective sense of unity and objective going though.

then you will have 2 fundations, and who would tell which one is the right one?

[JorgeStolfi]

then you will have 2 fundations, and who would tell which one is the right one?

That is easy, the one with longer blogchain will win. 

[Eisenhower34]

If there is so much angst against the foundation, why don't people just organise a new one?

It is easy to say that.. However, organizing a new one is a lot harder than you think.

It's a matter of finding the right people for the job.
If a collection of well respected individuals teamed up and decided to create a new organization and the community built itself around it then that might be the best way of approaching it.
Hard to get that collective sense of unity and objective going though.

then you will have 2 fundations, and who would tell which one is the right one?

There would not be any 'right' or 'wrong' foundation. TBF as of now only promotes Bitcoin and hires devs to try to improve/patch weaknesses in the protocol.

The main issue with TBF right now is that they have gone though a lot of controversy and is not very transparent

[cbeast]

Wow. That's great! I hope they do something worthy to deserve it!

[Gleb Gamow]

To date, nary a Bitcoin-theme periodical has penned an exposé exposing that KnC did not indeed pay TBF $100K USD via BTC for their Platinum Membership.

Likewise, nary a Bitcoin-theme periodical has penned an exposé exposing HashTrade for not REALLY paying BFL that infamous million dollars via BitPay for a shitload of Monarchs in October, 2013. Is it because HashTrade and its sister companies, LiquidBits, NimbusMining, and Nitsolus, all under the auspices of Coinware, are all controlled by none other than the Jacobson brothers, Jean-Marc and Remy, who in turn control respectively the Canadian and Miami Bitcoin Embassies?

What gives, you news guys?

~Bruno Kucinskas

[JorgeStolfi]

To date, nary a Bitcoin-theme periodical has penned an exposé exposing that KnC did not indeed pay TBF $100K USD via BTC for their Platinum Membership.

Likewise, nary a Bitcoin-theme periodical has penned an exposé exposing HashTrade for not REALLY paying BFL that infamous million dollars via BitPay for a shitload of Monarchs in October, 2013. Is it because HashTrade and its sister companies, LiquidBits, NimbusMining, and Nitsolus, all under the auspices of Coinware, are all controlled by none other than the Jacobson brothers, Jean-Marc and Remy, who in turn control respectively the Canadian and Miami Bitcoin Embassies?

What gives, you news guys?

~Bruno Kucinskas

I suppose it is just a rhetorical question, but anyway: the Bitcoin sites are supported by Bitcoin enterprises, not by individual miners, traders, and  investors.  Running an exposé on one company could result in a dozen others like them to take their ads and press releases elsewhere.

You don't expect to see articles in traditional media that say bad things about products that are (or may be) advertised there.   When that happens, the author or magazine may be tacitly blackmailing the company, "you give us {a free sample|your ads} or we will continue to badmouth you".

EDIT: Many years ago, famous science fiction author used to run a hardware/software review column in the Datamation magazine, where he almost boasted of doing that.  In one issue he would write "I tried the new IBM FooBar PC, it was junk".  In the next issue, "The folks from IBM gave me a Foobar PC as a free sample, and I found that it is actually wonderful."

[ManeBjorn]

I have a writer working on this right now on CryptoCoinsNews.com.
Rick has been doing some excellent work on digging up info on what KnC has been doing.

To date, nary a Bitcoin-theme periodical has penned an exposé exposing that KnC did not indeed pay TBF $100K USD via BTC for their Platinum Membership.

Likewise, nary a Bitcoin-theme periodical has penned an exposé exposing HashTrade for not REALLY paying BFL that infamous million dollars via BitPay for a shitload of Monarchs in October, 2013. Is it because HashTrade and its sister companies, LiquidBits, NimbusMining, and Nitsolus, all under the auspices of Coinware, are all controlled by none other than the Jacobson brothers, Jean-Marc and Remy, who in turn control respectively the Canadian and Miami Bitcoin Embassies?

What gives, you news guys?

~Bruno Kucinskas

I suppose it is just a rhetorical question, but anyway: the Bitcoin sites are supported by Bitcoin enterprises, not by individual miners, traders, and  investors.  Running an exposé on one company could result in a dozen others like them to take their ads and press releases elsewhere.

You don't expect to see articles in traditional media that say bad things about products that are (or may be) advertised there.   When that happens, the author or magazine may be tacitly blackmailing the company, "you give us {a free sample|your ads} or we will continue to badmouth you".

EDIT: Many years ago, famous science fiction author used to run a hardware/software review column in the Datamation magazine, where he almost boasted of doing that.  In one issue he would write "I tried the new IBM FooBar PC, it was junk".  In the next issue, "The folks from IBM gave me a Foobar PC as a free sample, and I found that it is actually wonderful."

[Gleb Gamow]

I have a writer working on this right now on CryptoCoinsNews.com.
Rick has been doing some excellent work on digging up info on what KnC has been doing.

To date, nary a Bitcoin-theme periodical has penned an exposé exposing that KnC did not indeed pay TBF $100K USD via BTC for their Platinum Membership.

Likewise, nary a Bitcoin-theme periodical has penned an exposé exposing HashTrade for not REALLY paying BFL that infamous million dollars via BitPay for a shitload of Monarchs in October, 2013. Is it because HashTrade and its sister companies, LiquidBits, NimbusMining, and Nitsolus, all under the auspices of Coinware, are all controlled by none other than the Jacobson brothers, Jean-Marc and Remy, who in turn control respectively the Canadian and Miami Bitcoin Embassies?

What gives, you news guys?

~Bruno Kucinskas

I suppose it is just a rhetorical question, but anyway: the Bitcoin sites are supported by Bitcoin enterprises, not by individual miners, traders, and  investors.  Running an exposé on one company could result in a dozen others like them to take their ads and press releases elsewhere.

You don't expect to see articles in traditional media that say bad things about products that are (or may be) advertised there.   When that happens, the author or magazine may be tacitly blackmailing the company, "you give us {a free sample|your ads} or we will continue to badmouth you".

EDIT: Many years ago, famous science fiction author used to run a hardware/software review column in the Datamation magazine, where he almost boasted of doing that.  In one issue he would write "I tried the new IBM FooBar PC, it was junk".  In the next issue, "The folks from IBM gave me a Foobar PC as a free sample, and I found that it is actually wonderful."

Great, bud. And when he's done with that he can look into that $1M USD via BTC that HashTrade never paid to BFL via BitPal for Monarchs.

Meanwhile, looks like the pressure of this episode is taking its toll: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/bitcoin-foundations-executive-director-jon-matonis-resigns/?_r=0

I, too, would distant myself if I smelt something coming from upwind (or is it downwind?).

Amazing how little ol' me got three honest nests all shoken up in just under 48 hours.

[ManeBjorn]

Definitely some weird stuff happening there as well.
I wonder which direction it will take now.

I have a writer working on this right now on CryptoCoinsNews.com.
Rick has been doing some excellent work on digging up info on what KnC has been doing.

To date, nary a Bitcoin-theme periodical has penned an exposé exposing that KnC did not indeed pay TBF $100K USD via BTC for their Platinum Membership.

Likewise, nary a Bitcoin-theme periodical has penned an exposé exposing HashTrade for not REALLY paying BFL that infamous million dollars via BitPay for a shitload of Monarchs in October, 2013. Is it because HashTrade and its sister companies, LiquidBits, NimbusMining, and Nitsolus, all under the auspices of Coinware, are all controlled by none other than the Jacobson brothers, Jean-Marc and Remy, who in turn control respectively the Canadian and Miami Bitcoin Embassies?

What gives, you news guys?

~Bruno Kucinskas

I suppose it is just a rhetorical question, but anyway: the Bitcoin sites are supported by Bitcoin enterprises, not by individual miners, traders, and  investors.  Running an exposé on one company could result in a dozen others like them to take their ads and press releases elsewhere.

You don't expect to see articles in traditional media that say bad things about products that are (or may be) advertised there.   When that happens, the author or magazine may be tacitly blackmailing the company, "you give us {a free sample|your ads} or we will continue to badmouth you".

EDIT: Many years ago, famous science fiction author used to run a hardware/software review column in the Datamation magazine, where he almost boasted of doing that.  In one issue he would write "I tried the new IBM FooBar PC, it was junk".  In the next issue, "The folks from IBM gave me a Foobar PC as a free sample, and I found that it is actually wonderful."

Great, bud. And when he's done with that he can look into that $1M USD via BTC that HashTrade never paid to BFL via BitPal for Monarchs.

Meanwhile, looks like the pressure of this episode is taking its toll: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/bitcoin-foundations-executive-director-jon-matonis-resigns/?_r=0

I, too, would distant myself if I smelt something coming from upwind (or is it downwind?).

Amazing how little ol' me got three honest nests all shoken up in just under 48 hours.

[Gleb Gamow]

Game on!

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2ldjk7/hello_rbitcoin_im_patrick_murck_executive/clttx4a

I just took the time to read all the comments to date to see if a certain concern had been addressed, opting to not search the page.

Sadly, it had not, but at least I was amused with all the softball questions that I can't help myself from thinking some were contrived beforehand to control the narrative.

KnC Miner.

KnC Miner and The Bitcoin Foundation are on record in stating that the former paid the $100K USD fee to become a Platinum Member of TBF. TBF ONLY accepts memberships fees via a dedicated bitcoin wallet address, but said fee amount is nowhere to be found.

In spite of all the scuttlebutt on BitcoinTalk, TBF had yet to address concerns about said payment, in spite of such being an important issue at the time due to now/then KnC gaining unique voting rights for the then upcoming elections for vacated board seats in which Bobby Lee and Brock Pierce won.

Question: Where's the proof that KnC Miner truly did pay for their Platinum Member to join The Bitcoin Foundation, given that such is no state secret because bitcoins were supposed to be used and full-transparency is what TBF adheres to?

~Bruno Kucinskas

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2ldjk7/hello_rbitcoin_im_patrick_murck_executive/cltw3nv

Hi Bruno.

I double-checked and we sent KNC Miner an invoice via BitPay for $100,000 USD (Platinum Membership price), which they paid timely.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2ldjk7/hello_rbitcoin_im_patrick_murck_executive/cltxn70

That is great! Now, show us the tx on the blockchain, since such is going to be disclosed anyway come tax time, you might as well show us said proof now to quell further discontent.

Ask for proof, and receive a non-proof reply.

The Bitcoin Foundation has no problem disclosing multitudes of tx exceeding $100K but have yet provide the $100K payment from KnC Miner. At the very least, it's now implied that the supposed payment was remitted via bitcoins and NOT via a check, et al.

Surely, TBF is not trying to keep the BWA used from being uncovered fearing another tipped can o' worms causing a stampede, are they?

Feel free to chime in on TBF's AMA over on Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2ldjk7/hello_rbitcoin_im_patrick_murck_executive/