Candidate fights for choice for "Yes / No" or "Do Not Approve" on BTC Fnd Ballot

[ABISprotocol]

Hello,

I have been one of the Candidates in the recent election.  I didn't make it to the second round.  The essence of my platform was:
choice for the users,
bitcoin development, and
privacy & anonymity

I have struggled to continue fight for choice for the users moving forward but have found this process very daunting.  In sum, if users do wish to support a candidate, I urge them to do so, but if they don't, I think they should not have to and should be able to vote "Do Not Approve."  The Executive Director worked with me on such a process when I issued a complaint on the matter and a "Yes / No" appeared next to each of four candidate's names in the second round so that you could if you wanted vote "No" for each of the four candidates, or just vote yes for one or two, as the case may be, affording users more flexibility.  This was also going to be a blockchain based voting in Swarm; there was not much notice of it, but it seemed like it would address some of the substance of my complaint.

The Swarm system was then almost immediately pulled back (it did not even last a day as a voting system) and the Foundation reverted back to Helios, the system that was used for first round.  Notably, the "Yes / No" (effectively, a "Do Not Approve" for the second round) that I had fought for) no longer appeared, and only the candidates' names now appear for the second round, so you are forced to pick one of them in order to proceed, so it would seem.  This provides a false choice for voters in the second round and pushes voters to vote for a candidate or not express themselves on the ballot.

You can see the substance of my complaint here:

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1256-resolution-of-do-not-approve-issue-successful-complaint-choices-on-ballot/

If you are also concerned about these issues, I urge you to also contact Patrick Murck at patrick@bitcoinfoundation.org ~ particularly if you wish to express your view on the ballot as "Do Not Approve" instead of voting for any one of the four candidates.

It is also my understanding the Bylaws allow for members to do a voice vote.  You may wish to ask Mr. Murck if you can arrange for a voice vote via telephone if the Foundation refuses to allow for us to express our "Do Not Approve" votes electronically.  If voter disenfranchisement is going to be embedded in the electronic segment of this voting process, we may choose to use the bylaws to ensure that our will can be exercised regardless of what the political interests of the Chair of the Election Committee may be.  To wit:

(Bylaws) Section 4.8 Voting: Each member is entitled to one vote on each matter submitted to a vote of the members of the member's membership class. Voting may be by voice vote, written vote or through electronic means as directed by the Executive Director. Cumulative voting for the election of directors or otherwise shall not be authorized.

The new deadline for voting is Saturday, February 28 at 11:59pm EST as per the Bitcoin Foundation staff.

Please help by spreading this message.  Thank you.

[QuestionAuthority]

I'm am so over the Bitcoin Foundation. I just hope they run out of money soon so they go away. Why do these discussions keep spilling over to this forum? Don't they have their own forum?

[Eastfist]

I'm am so over the Bitcoin Foundation. I just hope they run out of money soon so they go away. Why do these discussions keep spilling over to this forum? Don't they have their own forum?

Be careful what you wish for. Without Bitcoin Foundation's money and support, Bitcoin wouldn't have gained the exposure it needed. It would go back to being what Andrea Antonopolous called "a plaything for the fringe groups". Most of the Bitcoin developers are getting paid by these venture capitalists (in Bitcoin), so if the Foundation disappeared, they'd lose their jobs and Bitcoin development would cease. One of the reason Satoshi left was because he saw how overzealous the Bitcoin Foundation was, clawing at his feet for his baby, and that's why he left. He didn't abandon Bitcoin, but he didn't have the resources to implement it, so letting the "money machine" build it was the only way to see if Bitcoin could come to life.

But I get some people's frustrations with The Foundation: the investors do come off as douchebags, and they do think because they fund it that they should get more control. They shouldn't. They should just keep the money flowing and shut up. Bitcoin isn't even fully built yet.

It makes investors look like they're only in it for a quick cash out. They need to understand that in order for the Bitcoin machine to be fully functional, they have to go all in.

[QuestionAuthority]

I'm am so over the Bitcoin Foundation. I just hope they run out of money soon so they go away. Why do these discussions keep spilling over to this forum? Don't they have their own forum?

Be careful what you wish for. Without Bitcoin Foundation's money and support, Bitcoin wouldn't have gained the exposure it needed. It would go back to being what Andrea Antonopolous called "a plaything for the fringe groups". Most of the Bitcoin developers are getting paid by these venture capitalists (in Bitcoin), so if the Foundation disappeared, they'd lose their jobs and Bitcoin development would cease. One of the reason Satoshi left was because he saw how overzealous the Bitcoin Foundation was, clawing at his feet for his baby, and that's why he left. He didn't abandon Bitcoin, but he didn't have the resources to implement it, so letting the "money machine" build it was the only way to see if Bitcoin could come to life.

But I get some people's frustrations with The Foundation: the investors do come off as douchebags, and they do think because they fund it that they should get more control. They shouldn't. They should just keep the money flowing and shut up. Bitcoin isn't even fully built yet.

It makes investors look like they're only in it for a quick cash out. They need to understand that in order for the Bitcoin machine to be fully functional, they have to go all in.

If I really believed Bitcoin was that fragile I'd stop using it right now.

[mlferro]

Surely this matter is very polemical. I do not believe that bitcoin is fragile

[Eastfist]

I'm am so over the Bitcoin Foundation. I just hope they run out of money soon so they go away. Why do these discussions keep spilling over to this forum? Don't they have their own forum?

Be careful what you wish for. Without Bitcoin Foundation's money and support, Bitcoin wouldn't have gained the exposure it needed. It would go back to being what Andrea Antonopolous called "a plaything for the fringe groups". Most of the Bitcoin developers are getting paid by these venture capitalists (in Bitcoin), so if the Foundation disappeared, they'd lose their jobs and Bitcoin development would cease. One of the reason Satoshi left was because he saw how overzealous the Bitcoin Foundation was, clawing at his feet for his baby, and that's why he left. He didn't abandon Bitcoin, but he didn't have the resources to implement it, so letting the "money machine" build it was the only way to see if Bitcoin could come to life.

But I get some people's frustrations with The Foundation: the investors do come off as douchebags, and they do think because they fund it that they should get more control. They shouldn't. They should just keep the money flowing and shut up. Bitcoin isn't even fully built yet.

It makes investors look like they're only in it for a quick cash out. They need to understand that in order for the Bitcoin machine to be fully functional, they have to go all in.

If I really believed Bitcoin was that fragile I'd stop using it right now.

It's not fragile at all. Even if the "value" plunks down to $0 per Bitcoin, it's still usable. Common people just look at it because it's interpreted as "money". Banks want to use it because it'll make process more efficient, intelligence agencies want to use it because it's solid for passing around intel, geeks want to use it because it's hip, crumbling governments need a financial savior, greedy pump and dumpers take advantage, drug dealers, terrorists, etc, etc. People give it value.

But if there is to be wide adoption, Bitcoin needs big money to make it happen. Otherwise, Bitcoin is still just a LAN party.

[ABISprotocol]

I'm am so over the Bitcoin Foundation. I just hope they run out of money soon so they go away. Why do these discussions keep spilling over to this forum? Don't they have their own forum?

Various people here who use the bitcointalk forum obviously have membership at Bitcoin Foundation, but I don't know how many.  I am just trying to do what I said I would as part of my platform, stand up for user choice (that was the primary thing) in addition to the other points of bitcoin development, privacy & anonymity; here I focus on choice for the users in the context of the election.  If anyone reading this has membership and plans on voting I am trying to defend the choices you would have as going into that second round, the "choices" offered were essentially false (a slate of four candidate "choices" and no options on the ballot for people who didn't want those candidates but still wanted to express themselves on the ballot).

Thus the discussion around choice for the users, "Do Not Approve," and Foundation members.  Please spread the word about this post if you are one of those people.  Thank you.

[stevenh512]

Without Bitcoin Foundation's money and support, Bitcoin wouldn't have gained the exposure it needed. It would go back to being what Andrea Antonopolous called "a plaything for the fringe groups". Most of the Bitcoin developers are getting paid by these venture capitalists (in Bitcoin), so if the Foundation disappeared, they'd lose their jobs and Bitcoin development would cease.

How many Bitcoin developers is the Bitcoin Foundation directly responsible for paying? 2? 3? Do you honestly believe that if the Bitcoin Foundation were gone, companies like BitPay would automatically cease to exist, or stick around but stop paying Bitcoin developers even though it's in their best interest to see Bitcoin succeed? Even with the Foundation and companies like BitPay, most of Bitcoin's development is done by volunteers in their spare time, they're just going to go away without the Foundation? Do the VCs really need the Foundation at this point, when they've been investing in Bitcoin businesses for well over a year now and have seen business models succeed and fail? Without the Foundation, they wouldn't put their own knowledge into play and decide which companies to invest in based on likelihood of profitability, they'd just go away, right?

It makes investors look like they're only in it for a quick cash out.

They're called venture capitalists for a reason. They are in it for a quick cash out and don't ever let them tell you anything different. Some of them may have other more altruistic motives, most don't, but in the end it all comes down to how much money they're going to make and how fast they're going to make it.

[Eastfist]

Without Bitcoin Foundation's money and support, Bitcoin wouldn't have gained the exposure it needed. It would go back to being what Andrea Antonopolous called "a plaything for the fringe groups". Most of the Bitcoin developers are getting paid by these venture capitalists (in Bitcoin), so if the Foundation disappeared, they'd lose their jobs and Bitcoin development would cease.

How many Bitcoin developers is the Bitcoin Foundation directly responsible for paying? 2? 3? Do you honestly believe that if the Bitcoin Foundation were gone, companies like BitPay would automatically cease to exist, or stick around but stop paying Bitcoin developers even though it's in their best interest to see Bitcoin succeed? Even with the Foundation and companies like BitPay, most of Bitcoin's development is done by volunteers in their spare time, they're just going to go away without the Foundation? Do the VCs really need the Foundation at this point, when they've been investing in Bitcoin businesses for well over a year now and have seen business models succeed and fail? Without the Foundation, they wouldn't put their own knowledge into play and decide which companies to invest in based on likelihood of profitability, they'd just go away, right?

It makes investors look like they're only in it for a quick cash out.

They're called venture capitalists for a reason. They are in it for a quick cash out and don't ever let them tell you anything different. Some of them may have other more altruistic motives, most don't, but in the end it all comes down to how much money they're going to make and how fast they're going to make it.

It is what it is. Let's just say, "we'll see".

[koelen3]

I'm am so over the Bitcoin Foundation. I just hope they run out of money soon so they go away. Why do these discussions keep spilling over to this forum? Don't they have their own forum?

Be careful what you wish for. Without Bitcoin Foundation's money and support, Bitcoin wouldn't have gained the exposure it needed. It would go back to being what Andrea Antonopolous called "a plaything for the fringe groups". Most of the Bitcoin developers are getting paid by these venture capitalists (in Bitcoin), so if the Foundation disappeared, they'd lose their jobs and Bitcoin development would cease. One of the reason Satoshi left was because he saw how overzealous the Bitcoin Foundation was, clawing at his feet for his baby, and that's why he left. He didn't abandon Bitcoin, but he didn't have the resources to implement it, so letting the "money machine" build it was the only way to see if Bitcoin could come to life.

But I get some people's frustrations with The Foundation: the investors do come off as douchebags, and they do think because they fund it that they should get more control. They shouldn't. They should just keep the money flowing and shut up. Bitcoin isn't even fully built yet.

It makes investors look like they're only in it for a quick cash out. They need to understand that in order for the Bitcoin machine to be fully functional, they have to go all in.

If I really believed Bitcoin was that fragile I'd stop using it right now.

It's kind of true and if the bitcoin foundation is any good why would they go down so easily and if they do , they don't deserve it

[ABISprotocol]

I'm am so over the Bitcoin Foundation. I just hope they run out of money soon so they go away. Why do these discussions keep spilling over to this forum? Don't they have their own forum?

Be careful what you wish for. Without Bitcoin Foundation's money and support, Bitcoin wouldn't have gained the exposure it needed. It would go back to being what Andrea Antonopolous called "a plaything for the fringe groups". Most of the Bitcoin developers are getting paid by these venture capitalists (in Bitcoin), so if the Foundation disappeared, they'd lose their jobs and Bitcoin development would cease. One of the reason Satoshi left was because he saw how overzealous the Bitcoin Foundation was, clawing at his feet for his baby, and that's why he left. He didn't abandon Bitcoin, but he didn't have the resources to implement it, so letting the "money machine" build it was the only way to see if Bitcoin could come to life.

But I get some people's frustrations with The Foundation: the investors do come off as douchebags, and they do think because they fund it that they should get more control. They shouldn't. They should just keep the money flowing and shut up. Bitcoin isn't even fully built yet.

It makes investors look like they're only in it for a quick cash out. They need to understand that in order for the Bitcoin machine to be fully functional, they have to go all in.

If I really believed Bitcoin was that fragile I'd stop using it right now.

It's kind of true and if the bitcoin foundation is any good why would they go down so easily and if they do , they don't deserve it

In light of the failure of the Foundation to respond adequately to its members who would either want to:

a) only want to vote for one candidate at this stage (the electronic system forces you to vote for two or more even if you don't want to) or

b) not want to vote for any of the candidates and have that choice expressed on the ballot (Yes / No, with No as a choice),

I recommend that people who are members of Foundation and have not yet voted consider the following:

Bylaws Section 4.8 allows members to send a written vote in.  So you don't have to be limited by the stupid ballot software limitations that the Foundation has put up to try to keep members from voting the way they want.

Here's the suggested language for sending in your vote for this second round of the election (but write it however you want) - this is how it would appear if you were voting no on all the candidates (basically, you must be a paid up active member individual annual or lifetime, other than that I think there is no other limitation on voting as a Foundation member for this election):


"I am sending in my written vote to the Executive Director of the Bitcoin Foundation via e-mail at patrick@bitcoinfoundation.org.  This written vote, to which I am entitled by the language of Bylaws Section 4.8, constitutes my sole second-round vote for the election consistent with Section 4.8 of the Bylaws, as "No" on all of the candidates.  I ask  that the Executive Director direct the Chair of the Election Committee to accept my vote as valid."

(Note you can't do one written vote via e-mail or postal mail or whatever and then also participate via the cryptographic Helios system, because Section 4.8 prohibits cumulative voting - just one vote is all you get.)

Deadline for voting is Saturday, February 28 at 11:59pm EST as per the Bitcoin Foundation staff, but if you are doing it via e-mail, I'd suggest doing it today..

[koelen3]

In light of the failure of the Foundation to respond adequately to its members who would either want to:

a) only want to vote for one candidate at this stage (the electronic system forces you to vote for two or more even if you don't want to) or

b) not want to vote for any of the candidates and have that choice expressed on the ballot (Yes / No, with No as a choice),

I recommend that people who are members of Foundation and have not yet voted consider the following:

Bylaws Section 4.8 allows members to send a written vote in.  So you don't have to be limited by the stupid ballot software limitations that the Foundation has put up to try to keep members from voting the way they want.

Here's the suggested language for sending in your vote for this second round of the election (but write it however you want) - this is how it would appear if you were voting no on all the candidates (basically, you must be a paid up active member individual annual or lifetime, other than that I think there is no other limitation on voting as a Foundation member for this election):


"I am sending in my written vote to the Executive Director of the Bitcoin Foundation via e-mail at patrick@bitcoinfoundation.org.  This written vote, to which I am entitled by the language of Bylaws Section 4.8, constitutes my sole second-round vote for the election consistent with Section 4.8 of the Bylaws, as "No" on all of the candidates.  I ask  that the Executive Director direct the Chair of the Election Committee to accept my vote as valid."

(Note you can't do one written vote via e-mail or postal mail or whatever and then also participate via the cryptographic Helios system, because Section 4.8 prohibits cumulative voting - just one vote is all you get.)

Deadline for voting is Saturday, February 28 at 11:59pm EST as per the Bitcoin Foundation staff, but if you are doing it via e-mail, I'd suggest doing it today..

Do we need to be a part of it ! to be able to vote via email?

[ABISprotocol]

In light of the failure of the Foundation to respond adequately to its members who would either want to:

a) only want to vote for one candidate at this stage (the electronic system forces you to vote for two or more even if you don't want to) or

b) not want to vote for any of the candidates and have that choice expressed on the ballot (Yes / No, with No as a choice),

I recommend that people who are members of Foundation and have not yet voted consider the following:

Bylaws Section 4.8 allows members to send a written vote in.  So you don't have to be limited by the stupid ballot software limitations that the Foundation has put up to try to keep members from voting the way they want.

Here's the suggested language for sending in your vote for this second round of the election (but write it however you want) - this is how it would appear if you were voting no on all the candidates (basically, you must be a paid up active member individual annual or lifetime, other than that I think there is no other limitation on voting as a Foundation member for this election):


"I am sending in my written vote to the Executive Director of the Bitcoin Foundation via e-mail at patrick@bitcoinfoundation.org.  This written vote, to which I am entitled by the language of Bylaws Section 4.8, constitutes my sole second-round vote for the election consistent with Section 4.8 of the Bylaws, as "No" on all of the candidates.  I ask  that the Executive Director direct the Chair of the Election Committee to accept my vote as valid."

(Note you can't do one written vote via e-mail or postal mail or whatever and then also participate via the cryptographic Helios system, because Section 4.8 prohibits cumulative voting - just one vote is all you get.)

Deadline for voting is Saturday, February 28 at 11:59pm EST as per the Bitcoin Foundation staff, but if you are doing it via e-mail, I'd suggest doing it today..

Do we need to be a part of it ! to be able to vote via email?

Hello,

Yes, and some people are paid up members and may forget they have paid up or renewed (although they do get reminder e-mails from the Foundation).  This may be particularly true for Lifetime members who haven't checked in for a while.

Explainer with more details:

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1259-reminder-re-voting-troubles-if-you-havent-voted-yet-choices/

Ciao!

[Lethn]

Oh look, another self-appointed leader that claims to speak for the people come to make declrations to the community, you guys have butchered any idea of a real democracy the moment you decided to make it so you have to pay to even be a member and vote. Do you really think anyone here gives a fuck about the opinions of a bunch of wannabe beauracrats? You have never represented the opinions of the Bitcoin community and you never will.

This reminds me of the policies here in Britain where you actually have to pay fees in order to become a political party or register to be an independent candidate.