Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Foundation - page 17. (Read 127561 times)

What are you talking about? I'm using Tor right now.

Ok, let me be stupid for a second since it seems anyone straying from what the status quo says anymore is just dismissed with an ad hominem and not reason or logic or fact.

What exactly are the repercussions for a Bitcoin Foundation if they certify the wrong business, do they cover any loses? Do they go out of business? Are they obligated to do anything that would make it very painful for them to get it wrong? If there are no such repercussions then this is a moral hazard exactly the same as the FDIC's bottomless purse (printing press) insuring banks - it transfers the vigilance from the consumer to an organization where the organization wont have any problems if they get it wrong.


But I agree! It is a problem that a service provider could attempt to solve through an actual free market approach. Don't know what that is? Let me help: insurance. Instead of a Bitcoin Foundation we simply need a for profit Bitcoin Insurance, a business that will for a fee sell insurance. If the business is too risky and can't get their seal, then this is a sign to stay away. If they get the seal of a purchased insurance then this is a sign someone is willing to risk their own money as a sign of confidence and legitimacy. But again coming up with such a business, getting the needed investors and coming up with a model that isn't going to screw you isn't as easy as just asserting yourself as being a watchdog that faces no risk by getting it wrong. Unfortunately easy != good.

All known proxies and tor exit nodes r banned on this forum.

The FDIC provides Desposit Insurance for certain accounts up to a certain amount. http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/dis/index.html

It does not prevent a housing bubble, or prevent the banks from "investing" your money.

The certificate program is a very good idea. Thinking otherwise is just stupid. Of course there are bad certificates but certificates in general are a good idea. We need ways to identify if a Bitcoin company is secure, that is so very important when handling large amounts of money. It's also important to have competing certificates, it would not be good if only the foundation hands out certificates.

It's a free market out there though, anyone can start gaining a reputation and start issuing certificates. The foundation has a strong board and a good start so they have the reputation part covered (well, at least for now the reputation is still neutral/good), just need proper procedures and rules for the certificates.

... and rest assured that the bank has a reasonable chance of not losing all your money, because it is FDIC insured? Sounds familiar?!

Many of the problems with Bitcoin today are due to poor security practices and misunderstandings about Bitcoin. Certification allows people to see a "Bitcoin Foundation Security Certified" logo and rest assured that the site has a reasonable chance of not losing all their bitcoins.

Firstly, congrats for implementing my idea!

And secondly,


should be removed from your goals at all! Certification is a bad idea and doesn't correspond to bitcoin spirit.

One question though. How do people become members, get voting rights, and still preserve their anonymity?

Please stop all of you.
You're inventing a problem, and then coming up with horrendous "solutions" to such invented problem.
Why does it have to be one vote per individual, for a start? What's the problem in having voting powers proportional to the amount you donate to the organization? That's actually much fairer.
And no, it would not allow the organization to be "corrupted"... and even if it happened, this is just one organization among many, isn't it? It has no power over Bitcoin. There should be no problem if somebody simply buys it up. Those which don't like the "buyer" get off and create another.

You think you are so smart, yet you can't read with understanding, can you ?

Did i say ANYWHERE that it is a honeypot ? No, what I said is "it works like a honeypot, in case if they wanted to delegalize Bitcoin". Huge difference.

Also, this forum does not work as a honeypot. One can use PROXY or TOR to access it.

 
Sometimes, reading this forum makes me believe the stupidity that there are actually two sides to choose from, and that I should be working for the CIA, FBI, and the BTF.
 
This forum is a honeypot, and should remain a honeypot, for paranoid narcissists, instant experts, know-it-all pundits, wannabe criminals, and delusional losers.
 

Yeah, it's like giving FED/CIA/FBI/MAFIAA all data necessary to imprison all dissidents on a plate (in case they would declare Bitcoin illegal). I do not like this.

This actually works like a honeypot. I wouldn't be surprised if, in case of data leakage (which is quite probable), FBI automatically wiretapped all people on the list...

Shouldn't there be an option of confirming one's Identity in-person ? For example by meeting one of "core members" in a public place ?

This is totally a serious issue, jokes & trolling aside.

If someone submits two membership applications with different names, then both IDs will still have the same Date of Birth and photo. The foundation can easily prevent double voting by checking any matching DoB to make sure the photos are not the same person.

Using home address as the second unique identifier is not required. Nor is it a good way of identifying people. There are many cases of people being wrongfully arrested because they shared an address with someone else.

Didn't you ever hear the standard answer for your question?

"For your own security"

Photos associated with each member checked by facial recognition software for multiple entry is the best and most anonymous way of solving the double voting problem. This way all a member has to give up is his photo, no name, no address, no nothing, and they can't sing up twice.

It is perfectly legal in some States, including every member of the United States (per US Constitution), to have multiple legal names, and in some cases multiple IDs for each of those. Using an address to overcome this, however, may not be the best solution, since many people have multiple homes.

This is actually concerning.
Why would the foundation need anything else than my PGP signature confirmed with my Forum account ?

I am never registering as a member then.

What about all the people who contribute to Bitcoin project but would like to stay anonymous ?

If we are ever going to be accepted by the mainstream establishment, we need to conform with the regulations governing it. It is time Bitcoin grew up and started playing by the rules.

In the meantime, we will be making sure the long-arm of government can reach our Bitcoin donations and donations everywhere. For tax and legal purposes. We need to cooperate with authorities if we are going anywhere. Bitcoin will have to be a complementary currency to what is already legitimately out there.

The Bitcoin Foundation: Bringing Social Responsibility and Governance to Bitcoin

Sponsored by The Federal Reserve Bank

Why address?

Prevention of double voting can be accomplished using name ID only. There is no need for the foundation to have my home address.

Passports and many national ID cards do not have address on them, so you would need to obtain utility bills for proof of address creating an unnecessary paperwork burden.

I would be happy to verify my name using passport but I will not be supplying my home address. I hope the Foundation could reconsider removing the address requirement from individual membership.

OK, I only read the first 10 pages and all the good stuff has already been said, but I want to add a few things.

For the last month I have been trying to learn as much as possible about the bitcoin protocol and tools like bitcoind, trying to see different ways to automate payments and stuff for a small project I'm working on.

and more than once I notice a glaringly obvious and very simple feature that should've been in bitcoind but isn't there, and I immediately think that the only explanation for this must be that there is a very small number of developers working on it with no competing projects and/or enough control over the userbase that they don't have to worry about it, and that they just decided they don't want to add it (I hope the reason is something benign like laziness, busy-ness, or incompetence, I'm not paying them so I don't really have the right to demand anything)

Now, I'm still new here, but when one of the developers (sole/lead developer?) announces a project to "standardize" things without giving any further explanation, I don't see that as a good thing. I think the only kind of standardization I can expect from that project is "the users don't need / shouldn't be able to do that, throw it out".

Also, adding someone as a founding member of an organization they didn't found is ridiculous and a cheap way to gain legitimacy, especially when you know that person won't reappear just to say no thanks.


"You can't kill an idea, but you can corrupt it."