Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Foundation - page 10. (Read 127621 times)

Not to be pedantic, but the road to heaven is also paved the same way.

If TBF was stopping at just good intentions, I'd be wary. But every founding member is doing something intimately involved with Bitcoin and has every reason to better the network, the currency and the userbase, which is the same goal shared by many of us.

I gave them my btc because they're not promising anything. I also want to see Gavin get paid. Why everyone hasn't sent a few coins or few tenths of coin to the devs is a puzzle to me.

Now we start to get into some interesting human-nature discussions. Ultimately, bitcoin either fails or becomes an underlying tool on top of which traditional power structures are created if the masses are truly incapable of doing *a little* research and making their own decisions. You have to have *some* level of optimistic belief in human-nature, in the ability of people to see and seek a better alternative, in order to believe that something like bitcoin will result in a monetary utopia of sorts.

As noted, organizations such as TBF operating on top of bitcoin are inevitable. I believe this one has good intentions, with people on board who largely share the decentralization ethos. But there will be other orgs down the road with perhaps not-so-good intentions. It will be up to the masses to create the demand for the best software and best ecosystem. If you do not believe the masses are at all capable of making distinctions, then game over for certain utopian visions of bitcoin. 



Indeed. Would love to find some time to study that debate.

I like the initial creation that this foundation is.  Bitcoin could really benefit from this.  I will probably join myself , but wish the price was a bit cheaper for a company membership.  The current prices are a ways out of our reach, but one could hope business picks up.

So... if the membership agrees with your "bugs" then they'll get fixed.  Like I said, the vision is it will be a member-driven organization. And like I said, I find it is much more effective to start with something imperfect and improve it over time rather than try to get everything exactly right and make everybody completely happy at the start.

My personal opinion on the "bugs":

Name:  I like the name.  It can be changed if the membership decides on something better.

Hosting company: could easily be changed; it likely will be. I highly doubt Cloudflare is a government honeypot for anything besides catching DDoS botnet operators.

Identities/voting: Please see "Sybil Attack" for why we're requiring names, mailing addresses and emails. If you've got a magical way of identifying anonymous people please send me the source code, I could use it for the Bitcoin Faucet.

Privacy policy: fair point, there should be a privacy policy on the website.

US based: if Patrick (Foundation's lawyer) was Finnish we would probably be Finnish-based. That's the whole "perfect is the enemy of the good" thing (and I really don't want to have a month-long discussion about which legal jurisdiction is the least likely to declare Bitcoin Foundation illegal, which would be best for getting donors tax deductions, and whatever other arguments we could have).


One of the things that I think will be fascinating to watch is how users and miners organize themselves (or not) to elect people to the Board. I'm not going to pretend that the current composition of the Board is perfect-- I have no idea if some arrangement would be better. But it seems to me before making a statement like "there should be more of X on the Board" we should either get some experience under our collective belts to see how things work OR find an example of a similar, successful organization that works.

Oh, okay. It's semantics. If a blockchain can help identify a thief in some cases, I've got nothing against it. Calling coins "tainted" may be taking it too far. How about "blockchain forensics" then?
Moving on, back on topic. The issue of blockchain forensics is really something for the law enforcement and businesses to worry about, not the average users or miners. I agree that users and miners should be represented more on the BF board.

I am a supporter of the Bitcoin Foundation, and I think taint is a horrible idea.  All proposals to implement it so far are ineffective and are more likely to hurt naive bitcoin newbies than the thieves themselves.  The people who are 'out of the know' concerning taint will accept them, giving thieves a good or service in exchange, and they'll be stuck holding the bag.

Keeping bitcoins fungible is important.

This thread isn't for debating the merits (or lack thereof) of taint. However, there are plenty of threads that cover why this a bad idea already:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-warning-against-using-taint-85433
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/taint-checker-list-67383

Yeah, are you one of those terrorists? If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide.

Now let me check your genitals for STDs.

Why are you afraid of it? Did you steal anyone's wallet?

Sidetracked ? You are not listening to the critics at all man. You simply don't get it.

I think that the foundation is good and important thing, but why not fix some bugs while the thing is small. After the foundation grows big, it will be more difficult to make important changes.

Here is the list of bugs to be (potentially) fixed:


Not listening to critics is not a good thing. It's like dictatorial stance "we don't give a fuck about what you think, we will do what we want".
I also know that Gavin probably has me on his ignore list, because he never answers any of my posts directed at him, which is also not very nice.

If Gavin does not want (or does not have time, he is lead dev after all) to answer our criticism, he should at least delegate somebody to "scan" the forums to check what people's opinions are, and then answer them collectively on a blog or something.

i do support the bitcoin foundation
i just (and only) have the fear that mtgox uses this power to convince all bitcoin businness to copy his definition of tainted coins.

+111111111111

Gavin
Keep moving forward. You are doing a fantastic job. Don't get sidetracked by a few  critics. Most people here support you and even if not , they can create their own foundation or club.

Ok, turns out there's a slight language confusion on my part there, I'm sorry. In my native language voluntary would translate to work you do without getting paid. As you understand, that would stand in contrast to Gavin now wanting money for work he used to do for free. (Which I'd consider more hobby than work anyway)

I now understand what jgarzik meant with his voluntary statement and I apologize for the confusion.

It is always important to self regulate in order to prevent abuses of power.

Edit:
Simple examples of organizations that have been used to keep the "peace" but may not necessarily be open to outside "scrutiny" (for good cause)

OPEC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC


Federal Reserve System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System



Who Owns the Federal Reserve


The Federal Reserve ADMITS that Its 12 Banks Are PRIVATE – Not Government – Entities






Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-09/wall_street/31040431_1_interest-rates-big-banks-member-banks#ixzz285rfS66H

More down to earth examples of how regulation has been used for select groups.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57443091-37/yep-apple-owns-iphone5.com-now/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act

Examples, please.

If history is any indication the idea of a Bitcoin Foundation can lead to a central authority system that will be susceptible to third party influence.

I think a reasonable request for the foundation would be to provide a mechanism for Satoshi to claim the founders chair, and one of the enumerated powers of the founder's chair would be to dissolve the foundation.

Just to be sure no one is running away with an idea that isn't theirs.

Unless you're forcing people to pay or to provide resources, that's pretty much the textbook definition of voluntary exchange.

One of the dumbest statement ever made in this thread.

*plonk*

Bikeshedding?
The name is a lie in itself, for a start. This organization is not the foundation of Bitcoin.
And it will inevitably mislead ignorant people into believing this organization has authority over Bitcoin. That will likely make people trust this organization more than they should.
And the worst of all: the name was likely chosen to have such effect.
I have a hard time trusting an organization that's born with intentions of lie and deception...


What do you mean by "within the realm of member policy"?
This reason alone is enough for me not joining nor donating anything. It shows that, besides lying and trying to trick people, they also lack some basic principles which are important. Privacy is particularly important in the world we live in.
The fact they've included Satoshi as a founder, although not being of any practical relevance, also shows they don't understand voluntary associations.


I agree with this point of yours. This is obviously a voluntary organization. I'm seeing comparisons with the Fed in this thread, which are not fair since the Fed is a result of government violence. This organization is not.

Not everything that is voluntary produces good results though.