bitcoin foundation is a very bad idea

[albert11]

The problem with a bitcoin foundation is that it creates a central point for decision and corruption.
Government will start to legitimize this foundation, as time goes by they will grant  them more and more power backed by actual law.
When the foundation will be the legitimate central point for decision then they will corrupt the director of the foundation and people voting within the foundation, they will pay these guys millions to modify the code as they please.

This is a real threat and the members of the foundation might not even realize this yet while others knows and will take advantage of it

I think the community needs to create multiple foundation to make the current system irrelevant or sign a petition  ( though i doubt much will happen but at least it could be a test to see if they act in the community's interest or not)

[1715323506]

1715323506

[1715323506]

1715323506

[1715323506]

1715323506

[1715323506]

1715323506

[1715323506]

1715323506

[1715323506]

1715323506

[newIndia]

Inspite of all the allegations against bitcoin foundation, I still believe, if there were no bitcoin foudnation, the development of bitcoin core could not be what it is today.

By the way, there are more than one foundation in existence. The Bitcoin Foundation is only the most prominent one.

[Bit_Happy]

Agreed, long-term they are a serious unresolved issue:
What is the worst thing the Bitcoin Foundation could actually do?

[Lethn]

Most Anarchists would certainly agree with you on that point, the problem is there are others here who genuinely seem to think that it's a good thing to have these people work on our behalf with the U.S government.

[odolvlobo]

The problem with a bitcoin foundation is that it creates a central point for decision and corruption.
Government will start to legitimize this foundation, as time goes by they will grant them them more and more power backed by actual law.
When the foundation will be the legitimate central point for decision then they will corrupt the director of the foundation and people voting within the foundation, they will pay these guys millions to modify the code as they please.


I really have no idea how we could get rid of it, but trust me this is a real threat and the members of the foundation might not even realize this yet.

I think the community needs to create multiple foundation to make the current system irrelevant or sign a petition to get rid of it ( though i doubt much will happen but at least it could be a test to see if they act in the community's interest or not)

You are a little late. The BF has been around for more than 2 years. Anyway, it doesn't have any power over anyone. It doesn't represent anyone but its members. It is a private organization. You can't get rid of it by signing a petition any more than you can get rid of AARP by signing a petition.

[Lethn]

Who said anything about signing a petition for fucks sake? But yes, they're fairly powerless, the problem will come though is if they get any kind of official backing from politicians, that's my worry.

[albert11]

Inspite of all the allegations against bitcoin foundation, I still believe, if there were no bitcoin foudnation, the development of bitcoin core could not be what it is today.

By the way, there are more than one foundation in existence. The Bitcoin Foundation is only the most prominent one.

More than one bitcoin foundation?

could you elaborate on why bitcoin core would be any different without a foundation?

[albert11]

The problem with a bitcoin foundation is that it creates a central point for decision and corruption.
Government will start to legitimize this foundation, as time goes by they will grant them them more and more power backed by actual law.
When the foundation will be the legitimate central point for decision then they will corrupt the director of the foundation and people voting within the foundation, they will pay these guys millions to modify the code as they please.


I really have no idea how we could get rid of it, but trust me this is a real threat and the members of the foundation might not even realize this yet.

I think the community needs to create multiple foundation to make the current system irrelevant or sign a petition to get rid of it ( though i doubt much will happen but at least it could be a test to see if they act in the community's interest or not)

You are a little late. The BF has been around for more than 2 years. Anyway, it doesn't have any power over anyone. It doesn't represent anyone but its members. It is a private organization.

Private like the federal reserve...

It doesn't have any power YET but that's where the government will mess with if bitcoin ever became mass adopted, they will not let their power vanish over a couple line of code believe me and the scenario might even be written on paper already

[Lethn]

They technically have Gavin and the like under their thumb because he's being paid a salary by them, thankfully though Satoshi was clever enough to release the source code so we'll have many, many alternatives to choose from.

[countryfree]

Whether the BTC foundation is a good or bad idea isn't relevant because it's needed.

There is a need for a central institution to regularly update and upgrade the code. There are decisions that must be made about the future, like how to accept a growing number of transactions. Who could do that if there were no foundation?

[odolvlobo]

Whether the BTC foundation is a good or bad idea isn't relevant because it's needed.

There is a need for a central institution to regularly update and upgrade the code. There are decisions that must be made about the future, like how to accept a growing number of transactions. Who could do that if there were no foundation?

You are very wrong. Nobody is required use the software produced by the BF (Bitcoin Core and bitcoind). There are several alternatives.

That is why the Bitcoin Foundation has no real power, only the power of persuasion.

[countryfree]

Whether the BTC foundation is a good or bad idea isn't relevant because it's needed.

There is a need for a central institution to regularly update and upgrade the code. There are decisions that must be made about the future, like how to accept a growing number of transactions. Who could do that if there were no foundation?

You are very wrong. Nobody is required use the software produced by the BF (Bitcoin Core and bitcoind). There are several alternatives.

That is why the Bitcoin Foundation has no real power, only the power of persuasion.

This isn't what I'm talking of. I haven't used Bitcoin Core software for over 18 months. There are other issues.

[countryfree]

Whether the BTC foundation is a good or bad idea isn't relevant because it's needed.

There is a need for a central institution to regularly update and upgrade the code. There are decisions that must be made about the future, like how to accept a growing number of transactions. Who could do that if there were no foundation?

You are very wrong. Nobody is required use the software produced by the BF (Bitcoin Core and bitcoind). There are several alternatives.

That is why the Bitcoin Foundation has no real power, only the power of persuasion.

This isn't what I'm talking about. I haven't used Bitcoin Core software for over 18 months. There are other issues.

[albert11]

Whether the BTC foundation is a good or bad idea isn't relevant because it's needed.

There is a need for a central institution to regularly update and upgrade the code. There are decisions that must be made about the future, like how to accept a growing number of transactions. Who could do that if there were no foundation?

These decisions should be made by the people for the people, bitcoin is decentralized technology and everything around it should be too.

A central institution should not decide about bitcoin's future(especially when they restrict vote for only members,ask for money to be able to vote and offer no transparency about the votes), we are seeing the discrimination happening already and this is just the beginning.

The more centralization of the ecosystem, the more easy it will be to corrupt every single entity and have the majority use the fed blockchain.


If there were no foundation the people would do it, we just need to organize.We could take decision by doing a simple referendum for every proposal. People would vote using the blockchain and would need to be verified somehow for being a btc users.I'm not sure exactly how this could work out but i'm sure there is way to make this work, the logic is that every bitcoin user could vote, that's how it works in every country right , every citizen can vote, not only the members of the senat can

[the joint]

Whether the BTC foundation is a good or bad idea isn't relevant because it's needed.

There is a need for a central institution to regularly update and upgrade the code. There are decisions that must be made about the future, like how to accept a growing number of transactions. Who could do that if there were no foundation?

I'd like to point out that every single innovation has come from outside the Foundation.  It's a fun little concept, but imagine the few types of personalities that would actually take that concept and implement it.   It's a self-serving organization under the guise of an ideal.  

The Federal Reserve as a mechanism for responsible inflation when necessary is a pretty neat concept, too, unless you have greedy dickheads running or affiliated with the mint.

[croato]

We can like it or not, but we need Bitcoin foundation.

[Q7]

No the community as a whole still has the final say on whether to adopt the change. Eventually it is still the majority who wins.

[juleskeen]

Agreed. It's run by weirdos...

[the joint]

We can like it or not, but we need Bitcoin foundation.

Then why are they so unimportant?

[Neg]

The problem with a bitcoin foundation is that it creates a central point for decision and corruption.
Government will start to legitimize this foundation, as time goes by they will grant  them more and more power backed by actual law.
When the foundation will be the legitimate central point for decision then they will corrupt the director of the foundation and people voting within the foundation, they will pay these guys millions to modify the code as they please.

This is a real threat and the members of the foundation might not even realize this yet while others knows and will take advantage of it

I think the community needs to create multiple foundation to make the current system irrelevant or sign a petition  ( though i doubt much will happen but at least it could be a test to see if they act in the community's interest or not)

Anyone could create a foundation and there's nothing we can do to stop those people. They're not official and I'm sure they will become corrupt or try sway things to their individual business interests but that's whay we just have to reject the notion of them being some sort of official body.

[newIndia]

Inspite of all the allegations against bitcoin foundation, I still believe, if there were no bitcoin foudnation, the development of bitcoin core could not be what it is today.

By the way, there are more than one foundation in existence. The Bitcoin Foundation is only the most prominent one.

More than one bitcoin foundation?

could you elaborate on why bitcoin core would be any different without a foundation?

Here is an example of another entity like Bitcoin Foundation => http://www.global-bitcoin-alliance.org/

The Bitcoin Foundation finances the core development team. Without them financing it the core team will lose prominent developers. Development has a cost.

[Krang]

We can like it or not, but we need Bitcoin foundation.

How so. Care to actually back this proposition with an opinion?

Inspite of all the allegations against bitcoin foundation, I still believe, if there were no bitcoin foudnation, the development of bitcoin core could not be what it is today.

By the way, there are more than one foundation in existence. The Bitcoin Foundation is only the most prominent one.

More than one bitcoin foundation?

could you elaborate on why bitcoin core would be any different without a foundation?

Here is an example of another entity like Bitcoin Foundation => http://www.global-bitcoin-alliance.org/

The Bitcoin Foundation finances the core development team. Without them financing it the core team will lose prominent developers. Development has a cost.

There will always be people willing to do it for free. I think bitcoin should continue to be as open and free as possible and we certainly shouldn't be relying on Foundation-funded devs. This is where personal interests can cloud peoples judgement and can lead bitcoin down the wrong path.

[BillyBobZorton]

They should come up with a decentralized voting system and have people around the world freely vote on how they want bitcoin to be.

[wadili89]

what is bad idea in bitcoin foundation ? and also it doesnt matter if its even a bad idea or not but bitcoins neet it anyways

[LewiesMan]

what is bad idea in bitcoin foundation ? and also it doesnt matter if its even a bad idea or not but bitcoins neet it anyways

It is bad as they charge you to be in something useless. They don't do anything useful to the bitcoin world.  Bitcoin doesn't need the BF

[countryfree]

Those who are against the foundation shall realize, the sooner the better, that bitcoin, as it is, is doomed because it cannot grow. It doesn't scale well. It's very easy to kill bitcoin: you would just need to increase ten-fold the number of transactions. One solution against this is to increase the block size, but that raises other issues, so there's a need for qualified people (not me) to make the right decisions, and modify the code. Who else could do it, if not the foundation?

[oblivi]

Those who are against the foundation shall realize, the sooner the better, that bitcoin, as it is, is doomed because it cannot grow. It doesn't scale well. It's very easy to kill bitcoin: you would just need to increase ten-fold the number of transactions. One solution against this is to increase the block size, but that raises other issues, so there's a need for qualified people (not me) to make the right decisions, and modify the code. Who else could do it, if not the foundation?

Qualified people that aren't necessarly part of the foundation.

[kori]

No
I think there is a need of a organisation whi h should look after the economy of btcs..... as it is chnging day by day!

Regards

[koelen3]

The whole community is with bitcoins and no government is taking control so easily of our blockchain and BTc

[coinpr0n]

It partially helps funds developers of the software. That seems like a good idea.

[ajareselde]

Those who are against the foundation shall realize, the sooner the better, that bitcoin, as it is, is doomed because it cannot grow. It doesn't scale well. It's very easy to kill bitcoin: you would just need to increase ten-fold the number of transactions. One solution against this is to increase the block size, but that raises other issues, so there's a need for qualified people (not me) to make the right decisions, and modify the code. Who else could do it, if not the foundation?

this is why we need the +1 option on this forum , or like buttol instead, because u took words out of my mouth. I agree with the rest that it seams a bit off to have a main core devs in one place, but it is so with good reason. Bitcoin would fast fall apart if this wasnt the case, and and problem we may have with it would not get fixed as fast as it can be addressed now.

cheers

[the joint]

They should come up with a decentralized voting system and have people around the world freely vote on how they want bitcoin to be.

We have that already.  It's called mining.

[pereira4]

They should come up with a decentralized voting system and have people around the world freely vote on how they want bitcoin to be.

We have that already.  It's called mining.

How does mining address particular questions such as "do we want a fork or not?"

[the joint]

They should come up with a decentralized voting system and have people around the world freely vote on how they want bitcoin to be.

We have that already.  It's called mining.

How does mining address particular questions such as "do we want a fork or not?"

A couple of years ago, the network forked quite literally by accident when approximately half of the network was running one version of the core client while the other half was running another.  The fork was detected, and within a matter of only a couple hours, the community rallied together to fix the issue.  Miners using the "bad" version switched over to the "good" one.  Technically, pool operators were largely responsible for the fix as some pools had been running the "bad" version and quickly switched to the "good" one.  But individual miners could have opted to switch pools (or mine solo) if they didn't agree with the decision.

To directly answer your question, any coder can alter the software to come up with a new version of the core client.  After that, it simply depends on whether enough miners prefer the new version. If a majority of the network switches to the new version, the network will fork.

[MarihuanaStocks]

We (all bitcoin users) should register the brand "bitcoin" as a DAC. In votings we can then choose to prohibit the use of the name bitcoin for some companys or organisations. That the Bitcoin-foundation is named in that way is irritating me, because they don't represent Bitcoin. The community does!

[countryfree]

They should come up with a decentralized voting system and have people around the world freely vote on how they want bitcoin to be.

We have that already.  It's called mining.

I sure like the idea. Miners decide. You answered quite correctly about the fork question, but there are other issues. Shall we increase block size? By how much?

Another issue is that miners are no longer individuals on their home computers. They're now Chinese businessmen owning large web farms. Are they friendlier or any better than BTC foundation members?

[Shazam!!!]

They should come up with a decentralized voting system and have people around the world freely vote on how they want bitcoin to be.

We have that already.  It's called mining.

I sure like the idea. Miners decide. You answered quite correctly about the fork question, but there are other issues. Shall we increase block size? By how much?

Another issue is that miners are no longer individuals on their home computers. They're now Chinese businessmen owning large web farms. Are they friendlier or any better than BTC foundation members?

I think that is alot of everyone's problem right now. The giant farms have taken away ALOT of individual mining positions
that were once held by people who had faith in Bitcoin. These people could have made the network stronger. Now its a few
BUISNESS men making the decision for thousands of people that have their hands tied.

[najzenmajsen]

They should come up with a decentralized voting system and have people around the world freely vote on how they want bitcoin to be.

We have that already.  It's called mining.

I sure like the idea. Miners decide. You answered quite correctly about the fork question, but there are other issues. Shall we increase block size? By how much?

Another issue is that miners are no longer individuals on their home computers. They're now Chinese businessmen owning large web farms. Are they friendlier or any better than BTC foundation members?

I think that is alot of everyone's problem right now. The giant farms have taken away ALOT of individual mining positions
that were once held by people who had faith in Bitcoin. These people could have made the network stronger. Now its a few
BUISNESS men making the decision for thousands of people that have their hands tied.

agree with this man , damn bussiness men !

[Beymond]

if it was a bad idea, how it thrived till now

[champbronc2]

Bitcoin Foundation is riddled with shady players; I'm not ready to give up on them yet, but I honestly am not sure how they will be able to regain their reputation back. At that, I'm not sure what purpose they are trying to serve anymore. Seems more self gratuitous than anything at this point.

[Lauda]

This has been discussed multiple times already I believe. It would be more useful to use the search function and read up rather than starting a new thread.
Obviously TBF has its pros and cons.

It is bad as they charge you to be in something useless. They don't do anything useful to the bitcoin world.  Bitcoin doesn't need the BF

Are you going to fund the developers?

[Lethn]

Bitcoin Foundation is riddled with shady players; I'm not ready to give up on them yet, but I honestly am not sure how they will be able to regain their reputation back. At that, I'm not sure what purpose they are trying to serve anymore. Seems more self gratuitous than anything at this point.

Cody Wilson wants to get into the Bitcoin Foundation to wreck it vote for him!

[coinpr0n]

They should come up with a decentralized voting system and have people around the world freely vote on how they want bitcoin to be.

We have that already.  It's called mining.

How does mining address particular questions such as "do we want a fork or not?"

A couple of years ago, the network forked quite literally by accident when approximately half of the network was running one version of the core client while the other half was running another.  The fork was detected, and within a matter of only a couple hours, the community rallied together to fix the issue.  Miners using the "bad" version switched over to the "good" one.  Technically, pool operators were largely responsible for the fix as some pools had been running the "bad" version and quickly switched to the "good" one.  But individual miners could have opted to switch pools (or mine solo) if they didn't agree with the decision.

To directly answer your question, any coder can alter the software to come up with a new version of the core client.  After that, it simply depends on whether enough miners prefer the new version. If a majority of the network switches to the new version, the network will fork.

Interesting. Very well explained too.