Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Foundation - page 20. (Read 127621 times)

Satoshi didn't use Github. Again, he made most of the core code on his own.

Actually, you should first check the github statistics of who did the most of commits and merges, and only second, speak.

Another thing is that, if i remember correctly, Satoshi himself blessed Gavin as the project leader. Somebody correct me if I am wrong.

Who made him the lead developer? Satoshi sure as hell didn't and somebody else totally redid the interface.

Additionally, Satoshi coded <95% of the whole thing. I say we pay per contribution and not a salary. This isn't intended to be a job. He isn't the god of Bitcoin.

"Bitcoin Advocacy Group", "Bitcoin Supporters Group", "Bitcoin Development Group", "Bitcoin Club" are some that just came out of my mind, and I don't see these names misleading people, nor do they sound presumptuous to me. I'm sure more creative people, with some time of thinking, could definitely come out with something better.

@Erik Voor Hees and Jon Matonis, if you're still following this gigantic thread, I'd appreciate if you could answer me these questions:

• What's your opinion on the ban of anonymous memberships of this organization?
• Don't you see that the name "Bitcoin Foundation", besides being a lie in itself (this organization is not the foundation of Bitcoin), will inevitably mislead people - including journalists - into believing this organization has some sort authority over Bitcoin? Don't you believe the name was intentionally chosen to produce such effect? Doesn't that bother you a tiny bit?

Sorry if you've addressed those questions already, but I couldn't read the entire thread line by line. Just be kind to point me to the post answering them if that's the case.


I do understand the difference very well. I don't claim they're a coercive order.

What I don't like in this organization is mainly the fact that they've chosen a name that is a lie in itself and will inevitably provoke misunderstandings.
There's also the fact that they lack some basic principles, which wouldn't bother me if they weren't being so presumptuous as to call themselves "Bitcoin Foundation". Not allowing anonymous memberships is a big mistake. That alone is a reason for me never joining it. There are also some other displays of lack of principles, which may not be relevant from a practical point of view, but are not a good start anyway. For example, declaring Satoshi as a founder without his express consent shows they don't fully understand voluntary associations.  

I'm addressing you two (Erik and Matonis) precisely because I'd expect you to understand the importance of these principles better - especially the anonymous participation thing. I'd also expect you not to want to mislead people into believing this organization has some sort of power over Bitcoin.

No one wondered about this?

Well, he is the lead developer.

What other did you expect ?

This is a useless poll.

It can be easily manipulated by starting multiple accounts...
A proper poll mechanism should be written, which only allows individuals with proper reputation (minimum 2 months on the forum, minimum ~100 posts) to vote.

The only other option is to vote by posting posts, and later only the votes or reputable people will be counted.

Same here.

I think goal number one here for this foundation is Gavin's job security. That's where most of your money will be going.

I would like to what they are spending every coin on before I invest any  problems with that? Just sounds fair public funds = public views.

Okay, this seems like a blatant political attempt to vilify hazek who has had a dissenting voice on TBF.

Under the circumstances wouldn't this be more suited to a PM? What are the charges, again? That he changed the links from .org to .com?

Let's look at this from the perspective of hazek intentionally being malicious... Seems like a pretty weak action to me. On the other hand, an honest attempt to fix what is thought to be a broken link sounds more likely, at least to me. I don't know the details surrounding this, but I've seen repeated messages about TBF site being unavailable, and one post asking about some private party owning the .com version which suggests to me such a version exists. Sounds like an honest mistake.

Second charge? That he PM'd you to clarify proper handling of placement for this thread? Again, that sounds like a pretty weak charge. I myself had the exact same question upon visiting and seeing about 7 foundation related threads moved to Service Discussion while this thread remained on the main forum. I wondered about consistency, but felt given the significance of this the inconsistency might be justified; just my own view.

Last charge? That he's "spouting off" about Gavin this or that? Please. Your behavior is really starting to worry me. Maybe you're just stressed with all that's going on. I hope that's the case rather than intentional negative political/PR tactics, because that would suggest the need to behave in a disingenuous manner over something which is supposed to be a good idea on its own merits.



Apples to oranges comparison.

Let me spell it out since you and Jeff Garzik apparently haven't any inkling about how crowdfunding Bitcoin Kickstarter style might work.

Do you know how I'd go about it? The first step would be identifying the need/problem. What exactly is it? Reading through these posts I'd say there is strain in different forms on the leading developers of Bitcoin software, including compensation. Okay. So that's a problem. What's the scope? Well, given technical threats and just the inherent needs of such a complex and large-scale project I'd say enormous, i.e., it could threaten/halt Bitcoin progress completely. Okay, so we've identified that we need to get adequate development compensation or it may halt Bitcoin progress completely.

Don't you think that sounds just a bit more urgent than a "Bitcoin Testing Project" that received 72 BTC, or a subtle donation plate style wallet address in a dev signature? You make a thread in the main forum along the lines of "Listen up everyone, Bitcoin may come to a grinding halt if we don't find a solution to X". In this case X is raising adequate developer compensation.

As a libertarian I've followed the campaign of Ron Paul, who raised millions of dollars, not from any wealthy special interests, but pretty much entirely from grassroots supporters. In fact he set a campaign fundraising single day record of about $6 million through use of a grassroots invention called the "money bomb". Why do I bring this up? Because Dr. Paul didn't have wealthy donors. His average contribution was about $25. It's just that so many people believed in the cause so much that raising these lofty figures suddenly became possible, so much so it started garnering media attention for someone way outside the mainstream.

So you set a goal. You say we need 1 million dollars raised in the next month or the current leading developers will have to retire temporarily. But if we raise it we can pay X number of developers for X amount of time which should get Bitcoin to point X, at which time we can reassess things.

Dr. Paul didn't do much with his impressive grassroots funding in his '07/08 run, but in his latest 2012 run he raised far more; his momentum had garnered far more supporters...

Make sense? Fundraising via a foundation is crowdfunding too, is it not?


I can see why you of all people would be glad to see something in the way of this foundation. I knew you were in a quasi-leadership type role for Bitcoin, but I had no appreciation for just how much you were doing before now. Let me take a quick moment to say thank you, and to the other developers as well. My impression was that people put into Bitcoin whatever they could, in the form they wished, when they wished to do so. I imagined voluntary contributions were sure to be uneven in places, but that nobody should be putting in anything that would result in any strain. Why should they? But it appears you were, at least.

So I can certainly sympathize with you in pushing for this foundation. Unfortunately, that doesn't automatically make it a good idea in my book. As I posted earlier I plan on posting another thread with my own version of solutions to perceived Bitcoin problems.

Already opened a thread in the Staff forum (which might not be visible to non-moderators).

that's quite serious. i suggest to open a thread in the meta forum

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=24.0

None of the replies answered any of the above, specific questions.


Yes there was an explanation, possibly innocent.  It was good that he responded -- thanks!  I agree the intentions may have been innocent, but it does not look good as a critic, to edit the post of those on whom you are critical. I remain curious about the following unanswered questions:

Has hazek edited any other non-hazek post in this thread?  If yes, what were the edits?
Has hazek ever edited any older posts of the following people: Gavin, me, satoshi?
Is there an audit trail of moderator post edits?

Will the foundation members pay for those trips themselves, or will donations and membership-money be used to pay for holidaytrips of foundation members?

Maybe you should read someone's replies to accusations before judging people?  
It seems that hazek's intentions were good, whereas Gavin is simply spreading FUD by selectively pulling things out of context.

But it's nice to see that you realise the danger when people have the power to influence things you trust on in daily life. I assume that with this new found knowledge you better understand the criticism on the foundation-gang.
But hey, maybe the foundation can set up their own forums, where they can moderate-away any opinions they don't like and ensure that *their* vision on bitcoin (which is the most important one in their eyes) gets spread undisturbed...

Please don't let this escalate into a fiasco.  From what he said, it sounded like his edits were well-intentioned, and I don't have any reason to suspect any abuse of his responsibilities.  And I'm saying that as someone that recently had a fairly heated and very public disagreement with him.

These forums need moderation, and that means that someone has to have the power to edit posts.  If nothing else, the owner of the server can just diddle the database directly.  There is a level of trust that we have to take on in exchange for the convenience of these forums.

Important things should be signed with GPG before posting.  In retrospect, perhaps this post was one of those.

Actually, the amount of supportive emails, PM's and phonecalls I got all supporting what I said is staggering.


I've narrowed it down to a handful of people who have something to gain from associating with the foundation-gang and a bunch of follow lickers which total to about 20.

 

Anyone already wondered how many bitcoins Gavin has acquired by being an early adopter, how much that would amount to by now in USD, how much your average coder makes in a year and how many years Gavin could live off of that money? Anyone already wondered what would be better for the bitcoin economy: Gavins coins actually being spent by him, or Gavin (and crew) collecting MORE coins by forming a foundation asking for your money?

The foundation site seems to be down now?

Tried locally and on downforeveryoneorjustme.com