Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Foundation - page 21. (Read 127634 times)

There is some constructive criticism to be found here, but there is an overwhelming amount of hysterical ignorance. Bitcoin is a technology. A tool. Like a knife or a voice coil or a laser or a jet engine or a convection oven. It's not supposed to fight Visa, Big Brother, wars, peace, statism, anarchism, capitalism, socialism, individualism, libertarianism, or government subsidies. Unfortunately, it doesn't fight stupidity and ignorance either. Grow fucking up and stop bitching and masturbating over your ideological views and fantasies here in public. Face the fact that not everyone in this world shares your values, your selfishness, your fears, your notion of freedom, and your hopes. Also, face the fact that many of those people different from you are perfectly fine folks.

Woah.  That is a significant abuse of moderator power.

Has hazek edited any of your other posts?
Has hazek edited any of my posts?
Has hazek edited any of satoshi's old posts?

Editing another's posts is far worse than deletion, when it comes to abuse of moderator powers.  That is misrepresenting someone else's identity.

Edit:  Yes, Gavin should have signed his post with PGP, to more easily spot things like this.

According to https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/do-you-support-the-launch-of-the-bitcoin-foundation-113509:

Do you support the launch of the Bitcoin Foundation?
Yes - 55.1% (49/89)
No - 25.8% (23/89)
Not decided yet - 19.1% (17/89)

Agreed.

I have no reason not to believe you, all I'm saying is that it's important to be organized and prepared for all possible scenarios.

Would you believe me if I told you someone is paying monthly for a life insurance policy on me?

They have so much vested in me and in Bitcoin, that if I die, they want to make sure they get paid.

Obviously, if I'm murdered he won't get paid because of the "Anti Gotti" laws

Well, if there's a meeting in person of all persons on the Bitcoin Foundation, esp. if it's on US soil, it wouldn't be too hard for a government agency to bring all of them in for 'questioning' at once, esp. as bitcoins grows bigger and becomes a threat. Since the members of the foundation is big players in the bitcoin economy, it would hurt the economy a lot if they don't have plans for how their operations should proceed in the event they were incapacitated for a shorter or longer time.

This threat is real. We must remember the crackdown of the Internet gambling industry from the US government. I hope the big players plan accordingly. We must also realize that law enforcement swipes with a wide brush when they first strike.

I would wish nothing but success for bitcoin, but please, everyone involved, please be prepared in the event of anything like this.

Yeah but that dose of legitimacy is exactly what some of us were calling a power grab and now fear it's a danger in the future. I much rather see a different name that allows for likewise legitimate competition rather than a name that implies sole legitimacy but I do agree that two people can't decide what the best name should be and do hope you have a meeting, ask for suggestions and vote on a change ASAP.

As for the rest, I just want to you to take a free market voluntary approach to every aspect and couldn't understand why you didn't do so from the get go. Currently you made a lot of assertions and thereby raised red flags with some of us who are highly coercion wary. So I do hope this is the second most important topic you will discuss at your meeting then ask for suggestions and change ASAP. You can only benefit if you do so even though it might not seem like that right away because you'd be giving up some of this "power" or legitimacy.


And good morning to you too.

Agreed.


I promise at all times to do my best with this.

If you feel I'm getting defensive or being dishonest, please point it out to me ASAP (and even reference this thread if you want)

I know you only have good intentions here, it's hard for people to see it sometimes.


Yes of course!

We will start to have meetings once a week, minutes will be posted to all members.

Every 3 months, the foundation members meet physically as well.

There are already a few ideas coming out of these threads that we will be putting up to a member vote

-Charlie

In a heated discussion it's hard to remain rational and emotionless, especially if someone is envisioning future scenarios where you are behaving maliciously when you know you have the best intentions at heart right now. I get that. But I thought I did my best, actually surprisingly restrained for my standards, to remain respectful and not manipulative at all times. I really am just trying to ask question and point out what I perceive as inconsistencies and future dangers.

So yes I agree with you, we should try to remain respectful to each other in order to find a solution. And the acknowledgement from you last night that how some of us critics perceive TBF (self imposed spokesperson, policy setting, business vetting, intertwined with corporate interest body) is actually correct was a huge step in the right direction. I hope you can make many more such steps to ensure this becomes a good solution for a long time to come. But it will require more such honesty and openness which might again rattle up some emotions so don't forget this in those moments.

+1

There is a poll on CodingInMySleep blog:

What's your first impression of the Bitcoin Foundation?
Love it! (70%, 63 Votes)
Meh. (23%, 21 Votes)
Hate it! (7%, 6 Votes)

http://codinginmysleep.com/announcing-the-bitcoin-foundation/

Good point.

While Im still thinking about this, I think you and I can agree that the structure and name of the foundation needs alot of analyses and opinions from many different people. In and outside of Bitcoin.
One thing to note (I know this doesn't justify it, but forsure a plus)- The name gives it a nice dose of legitimacy outside the Bitcoin world.
We have banks, VC's, press, ect.. literally calling us up and saying now they will work with us since there is a a (and I quote) "Long term entity that makes us comfortable knowing we can invest time and resources into Bitcoin and it being around in the future"

Regarding Gavin and the core dev team, this goes into the same response as above. I don't have an opinion on this, simply because I have not heard enough arguments on both side of the table.

Good morning by the way! 

-Charlie

Well with some of this money you guys make you should put some commercials on T.V. as a public broadcast. That would be something worth while.

No I don't think that solves the conflict of interest. There can't be ownership of both by the same group or person. You either create two groups separate and independent or do as I suggested if you really want to solve the dangers that a conflict of interest poses in the future.

I'm still interested to hear your response two the other two suggestions.

Once you take the personal attacks out of the debate and people stop making assumptions about other people and policies alot of good comes out of these debates.

Last night, Hazek, Atlas and myself even came to an agreement of a problem we all believe is real regarding the future of the foundation

Read here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1230272

My point is, we can all get along, let's just be civil and stop taking everything so personally

This goes both ways.

-Charlie

All criticism should be listened to, and genuine haters who have no genuine criticism could just be ignored.

It's a saying that goes:

"You can please some of the people, some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time".

Even a saint would have his or her haters, so having everyone like you on the internet is impossible.

Bitcoin as a technology doesn't have a leader. Different people may lead different projects but bitcoin itself is open for anyone to contribute without needing to follow some lead.

This is a debate over nothing. I am tuning this thread out until the hater discussion get separated.

I'm not trying to be annoying, I'm just pointing out dangers and inconsistencies. I apologize if that annoys you.


After doing so, because .org wasn't working for me but .com was thinking you made a mistake and wanted to fix a broken link, I immediately pmed you about my correction upon which you pmed that I made a mistake for which I immediately apologized for. I don't understand why you are trying to paint me as a saboteur when I am anything but.


As the moderator I have responsibilities. One is to check my mail for reports of which I got more than five asking me why the moderation is being inconsistent moving all the posts discussing the foundation to Service Discussion, and moving all the other announcement to Service Announcements but leaving your announcement of a service, which is my personal opinion what your Bitcoin Foundation is, in the Bitcoin Discussion. Despite all the reports I didn't take any action, instead I extended you some courtesy and pmed you about this issue, to which you gave me a non answer
I also don't understand why you are putting words in my mouth. I'm not spouting off anything, all I did was give Charlie suggestion how to prevent TBF being corrupted in the future and abused and one of my suggetions was to eliminate your conflict of interest which no one wants to acknowledge exists with you being the lead dev and at the same time a founding member on the board of directors for the next two years. I don't understand how else I can express my suggestions and point out facts that it wouldn't bother you. It's about you, it's bound to bother you but that's not my fault.


It is my opinion that if as much effort was put into fund raising as was put into formulating TBF, you would have more than enough funds to fund yourself and a big enough team to support you. A single post on the forum just isn't enough effort to bare any such fruit. Did you ever ask if anyone wanted to help out with promotion or with figuring out a fund raising scheme? I must bring up the very successful foundraising for the very first promotional Bitcoin video that raised something like 9000 BTC which was the money that started weusecoins.com. If that much was raised for that purpose I can't even imagine how much you could get for development.



Yes this is a problem. I don't deny it. But how you now attempted to solve it is not and cannot be the only solution. It's a solution, it's the solution that is the most comfortable and easy for you. Unfortunately it's also the most dangerous solution for the future of Bitcoin.



Last but not least I just don't understand why instead of attacking my persona you don't just point to facts that would support your arguments. It's really scary to read such manipulative posts from you and it makes it that much harder to believe you understand the issues some of us are having with TBF.

Actually, the amount of membership and donations are staggering.

I've narrowed it down to 3 trolls in this forum, and a bunch of follower haters which total to about 20.

-Charlie