Bitcoin Foundation - in good hands

[TKeenan]

Say what you want you foundation haters - Murck knows what he is doing. 

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/12/18/bitbeat-lawskys-blockbuster-analogy-harper-leaves-bitcoin-foundation/

Harper is a buffoon who wants to fuss about with policy.  Murck understands why that is worse thing a Bitcoin Foundation could concern itself with.  Thankfully, Murck knows that the focus belongs on a great core development.  Fights and debates with the fools in Washington do nothing but consume enormous amounts of time.  How can Lawsky make rules already? - we don't even know what bitcoin is yet.  We probably won't know for at least another 3 years.  All laws made today are going to be completely dumb in view of the new concepts which are sure to come.  Use the old rules on fraud to go after the cheats and let the protocol breath for now.  Legitimate new companies don't need to spend millions putting in place silly papers for Lawsky's department to give blessings.  What a waste of resources.  Both government resources and public resources.  All for nothing. 

In the face of all that crap, Murck says: 'let get back to work' and sends the foundation down the path of perfecting the core without a care nor concern about the fools who will debate until the moon comes up again - Lawsky and Harper. 

Three cheers Murck - keep up the good work. 

[bg002h]

I'm of the camp that feels engaging Washington and regulators is an important thing to do. I also feel that Jim Harper is brilliant and highly effective...and he knows how the game is played. He is a huge asset to the Bitcoin community.

That said, just like Gavin used to keep backups of the bitcointalk forum on his pc, he's shed some hats as things progressed. A year ago, we didn't have Coin Center or the digital chamber of commerce. The foundation tried to do it all...and it was critical at that time to do so...

But now things have grown and it's not possible to (affordably) do all things well. If the foundation had to pick one thing to work on, I agree it's the core. Could the foundation someday grow into a huge organization with every possible type of specialist (programmers, lawyers, policy wonks, marketers, educators, etc)...maybe, but I don't know that that's really wise...having separate organizations for separate tasks makes for a more resilient system.

[TKeenan]

I'm of the camp that feels engaging Washington and regulators is an important thing to do. I also feel that Jim Harper is brilliant and highly effective...and he knows how the game is played. He is a huge asset to the Bitcoin community.

That said, just like Gavin used to keep backups of the bitcointalk forum on his pc, he's shed some hats as things progressed. A year ago, we didn't have Coin Center or the digital chamber of commerce. The foundation tried to do it all...and it was critical at that time to do so...

But now things have grown and it's not possible to (affordably) do all things well. If the foundation had to pick one thing to work on, I agree it's the core. Could the foundation someday grow into a huge organization with every possible type of specialist (programmers, lawyers, policy wonks, marketers, educators, etc)...maybe, but I don't know that that's really wise...having separate organizations for separate tasks makes for a more resilient system.

Making regulation today is premature.  No matter how brilliant Harper is, whatever rules they can come up with today won't be sensible very soon.  The whole thing will look very different in 12 months.  It is just too early. 

We have great laws already.  Fraud is fraud - no matter the currency.  Use those laws to get the bad guys.  In about 5 years, bitcoin will be in a good state for regulators to make some very nice and useful rules.  Today, let anyone do what they do without hindrance unless they are flat out thieves.  Even idiots like Karpeles should be able to make new bitcoin businesses... until someone proves he flatout stole something.  Too many cops and rules will crush startups. 

I can't breath!