New Bitcoin Foundation

[DGulari]

Due to an extreme lack of confidence in the Bitcoin Foundation, now is the time for it to disband and reform.  It is absolution clear that without a reset, there is no hope for restoring faith to this organization. 

Both Antonopolis and Andresen stay.  All others go. Andreas and Gavin must decide how to bring about a new organization which is not corrupt and effectively moves bitcoin forward.

I call on all members of the present board to dismiss themselves and allow a new entity to come forth without resistance and fighting.  It is the right thing to do.  If the present directors ever had any genuine concern for bitcoin, they should do this without further delay.  Continued resistance indicates further corruption - as those who want to cling to their seats are merely looking out for themselves rather than bitcoin as a whole. 

[1714037641]

1714037641

[1714037641]

1714037641

[1714037641]

1714037641

[PolarPoint]

A lot of people will want to see a reform in TBF. What can we do? Voting here is not going to be any good. We need votes in TBF. Whoever has the money to join TBF, please do and vote for a reform.

[binaryFate]

Both Antonopolis and Andresen stay.  All others go.

You realize that this is completely subjective? You're not helping your cause by sounding so confident in what is good or not.
If you're a member of TBF, try to change it from the inside, you have voting rights. If you're not, why do you care?

[ChuckBuck]

Lol those 2 are basically the only members I trust.  You can tell those 2 aren't in it strictly for the coin.  Andreas speaks so passionately about the technology and possibilities.  Same with Gavin.

The rest of them...ugh, very sketchy members.

[odolvlobo]

It would be better if this discussion took place in the Bitcoin Foundation forums. Most of the people that post here about the Bitcoin Foundation aren't even members, so what they think doesn't really count.

[mikewirth]

Both Antonopolis and Andresen stay.  All others go.

You realize that this is completely subjective? You're not helping your cause by sounding so confident in what is good or not.
If you're a member of TBF, try to change it from the inside, you have voting rights. If you're not, why do you care?

Nearly everyone trust these two guys.  They have the least problems.  If they reform a new foundation, everyone will be happy.  The others are all questionable.  No person has attained a higher level of trust in the community than these two.  

'Subjective' or not, there are no persons with higher credibility than these guys.  This is a call for the other to volunteer to withdraw to permit a reform.  It is not intended by this vote that they will somehow be forcibly removed.  This poll is merely intended to appeal to their better sense of decency and fair play.  Lots of votes should result in voluntary withdrawal.  

You will see some decide to cling to their position.  This will forever corrupt the foundation and cause it to lose credibility.  If all leave, and a new one is reformed, it will have very high faith of the community.  It is up to the foundation.  

[RawDog]

It would be better if this discussion took place in the Bitcoin Foundation forums. Most of the people that post here about the Bitcoin Foundation aren't even members, so what they think doesn't really count.

The opposite is true.  What the foundation thinks of itself is unimportant.  What the bitcoin community (bitcointalk) thinks is of greatest importance.  This discussion should take place here where the foundation can't easily influence its outcome.

[binaryFate]

I personally see it as a reasonably democratic process. If you're not happy with the current board/governement, you don't ask them to withdraw. Nothing would ever be done that way. You wait for the next election. Or you decide not to expect anything from them and not give them anything. Which unlike a government you can do easily here.

I was at the members meeting in Amsterdam, and they seem to think they do reasonably good. More important, they seem to think that they act with the credibility they own from the members. So I doubt it's any useful what you do here.

I question the "reasonably democratic process", the founding members rights are completely disproportioned and not justified for instance. But calling for a complete withdraw-start-again is just useless bitcointalk rant. If you're so far from giving them any legitimacy, why do you even care about what they do? Just live your bitcoin life on your own.

[RawDog]

I personally see it as a reasonably democratic process. If you're not happy with the current board/governement, you don't ask them to withdraw. Nothing would ever be done that way.

Haven't you ever heard of a 'no confidence' vote?  Dumbass.

If you're so far from giving them any legitimacy, why do you even care about what they do?

Because they have enormous potential to fuck things up HUGE.  You don't think that Pierce will be lobbying hard for advantages which help his companies efforts?  He for sure has set the tone to screw everyone to make a profit for his company.  It is a clear conflict of interest to have someone so vested in various private efforts as he is.  Andreas will vote for the maximum good of bitcoin everything.  Brock Pierce will be trying every angle to rig the system to help GoCoin.  Booby Lee might be a very nice guy - I never met him.  But he too is too stacked up with personal interests which do not align well with general bitcoin interests. 

The present board is corrupt and broken.  We need a no confidence vote to encourage them to voluntarily leave and form a new one.  They really need to fire themselves.

Having a lame foundation is bad for bitcoin.  Let's form a strong one.

[binaryFate]

Haven't you ever heard of a 'no confidence' vote?  Dumbass.

May I ask you to remain polite, or at least not aggressive? No need to insult me to express your opinion.

[dreamspark]

It would be better if this discussion took place in the Bitcoin Foundation forums. Most of the people that post here about the Bitcoin Foundation aren't even members, so what they think doesn't really count.

The opposite is true.  What the foundation thinks of itself is unimportant.  What the bitcoin community (bitcointalk) thinks is of greatest importance.  This discussion should take place here where the foundation can't easily influence its outcome.

I'd have to take this side of the argument. Surely the community at large, not just those with the funds to be a member, should be of the most importance.

[odolvlobo]

It would be better if this discussion took place in the Bitcoin Foundation forums. Most of the people that post here about the Bitcoin Foundation aren't even members, so what they think doesn't really count.

The opposite is true.  What the foundation thinks of itself is unimportant.  What the bitcoin community (bitcointalk) thinks is of greatest importance.  This discussion should take place here where the foundation can't easily influence its outcome.

I'd have to take this side of the argument. Surely the community at large, not just those with the funds to be a member, should be of the most importance.

My point is that if you aren't a member of the Foundation, you can't vote on the direction that the Foundation takes. Also, it is a stretch to imagine that members of the Foundation would think, "a bunch of random people think we should shut down our organization, so let's shut it down."

If you don't like what the Foundation is doing, you have three choices:

1. Complain here.
2. Join and try to change it.
3. Start a competing organization.

I think that #1 is the least effective action, and #3 is the most effective.

[dreamspark]

My point is that if you aren't a member of the Foundation, you can't vote on the direction that the Foundation takes. Also, it is a stretch to imagine that members of the Foundation would think, "a bunch of random people think we should shut down our organization, so let's shut it down."

If you don't like what the Foundation is doing, you have three choices:

1. Complain here.
2. Join and try to change it.
3. Start a competing organization.

I think that #1 is the least effective action, and #3 is the most effective.

I agree and also agree with your rankings. Im not saying "a bunch of random people think we should shut down our organization, so let's shut it down" I don't agree with that.

However it's my opinion that the direction the foundation takes should be decided by the Bitcoin community at large, not just a bunch of random people, IF they profess to represent the community at large and not just the organisation. They can't have it both ways.

[odolvlobo]

However it's my opinion that the direction the foundation takes should be decided by the Bitcoin community at large, not just a bunch of random people, IF they profess to represent the community at large and not just the organisation. They can't have it both ways.

The direction of the Foundation is not decided by a bunch of random people, it is decided by the members of the Foundation.

The foundation can profess to represent the community at large because they are the only organization around. They are the de facto representative (at least in the U.S.). If there were another organization in the U.S., the situation would be different. Keep in mind that there are organizations in other countries that have more clout in those countries than the Bitcoin Foundation.

[dreamspark]

However it's my opinion that the direction the foundation takes should be decided by the Bitcoin community at large, not just a bunch of random people, IF they profess to represent the community at large and not just the organisation. They can't have it both ways.

The direction of the Foundation is not decided by a bunch of random people, it is decided by the members of the Foundation.

The foundation can profess to represent the community at large because they are the only organization around. They are the de facto representative (at least in the U.S.). If there were another organization in the U.S., the situation would be different. Keep in mind that there are organizations in other countries that have more clout in those countries than the Bitcoin Foundation.

You misunderstood "a bunch of random people" I was referring to you calling the community at large a bunch of random people. I realise this wasn't worded clearly.

But the point is someone can't profess to represent others if others haven't agreed for them represent them. I think this strays into political territory where your view will probably be influenced by your political ideas of democracy and fair representation.

[bananas]

Well, if it reforms with Gavin and Andreas it will absolutely the same shit.

They are charismatic, that's the only reason why OP and many people separate them from the dirt and criminal TBF. They two and their close friends from the TBF are the root of all evil. There is no way to separate them from TBF, Karpeles and you name it.

Ideally any org taking some important role in Bitcoin should not have any relation with any TBF member.

[RawDog]

Well, if it reforms with Gavin and Andreas it will absolutely the same shit.

They are charismatic, that's the only reason why OP and many people separate them from the dirt and criminal TBF. They two and their close friends from the TBF are the root of all evil. There is no way to separate them from TBF, Karpeles and you name it.

Ideally any org taking some important role in Bitcoin should not have any relation with any TBF member.

What?!  Are you mad? 

If an issue comes before the foundation it is clear the Gavin and Andreas will consider the longterm good of bitcoin in making a decision.  Conversely, nothing is more clear that Brock Pierce IS HIGHLY CONFLICTED. 

For example, OP_Return.  Pierce as an big investor in Mastercoin would definitely lobby hard to make a liberal accommodation for OP_Retun.  His personal business interests don't always match bitcoin's long term interests.  He should dismiss himself.  Even the appearance of impropriety is severely damaging to bitcoin.  Forget about the ugly lawsuit and DEN and IGE and other shit he was involved with.  The mere fact that his business positions are extensive and often in conflict with bitcoin long term interests means he should not participate - BY HIS OWN judgment - he should leave. 

Gavin and Andreas have not shown even the slightest lean away from the long term best interests for bitcoin. 

The Foundation as it is today is seriously compromised.  Dissolve it.

[jbreher]

Thread is funny.

OP: 'hey TBF - go commit suicide'.

Really?

As an aside, if Brock had any sort of decency, he would have resigned when it became apparent that his past -- either factual or fabricated -- was casting TBF in a bad light.

[jc01480]

TBF does not represent me, my interests, or BTC.  They have zero influence.

[bananas]

Well, if it reforms with Gavin and Andreas it will absolutely the same shit.

They are charismatic, that's the only reason why OP and many people separate them from the dirt and criminal TBF. They two and their close friends from the TBF are the root of all evil. There is no way to separate them from TBF, Karpeles and you name it.

Ideally any org taking some important role in Bitcoin should not have any relation with any TBF member.

What?!  Are you mad? 

If an issue comes before the foundation it is clear the Gavin and Andreas will consider the longterm good of bitcoin in making a decision.  Conversely, nothing is more clear that Brock Pierce IS HIGHLY CONFLICTED. 

It is not clear, i don't really understand your logic. Would you trust someone who have close relationship with criminals? Who is the founder of an organization with criminal activities? Would you trust someone who Karpeles fully trust to give the bitcoin domain name before announcing his fraud?

GIMME A BREAK