Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Foundation - page 22. (Read 127621 times)

To be honest, you yourself should have posted it in the service discussion section and not in the main discussion forum. Because you're trying to provide a service, right? Just the act of putting it in the main forum touches on what most "opponents" of this foundation feel is the main problem with it: it seems to go against what they thought bitcoin stood for. Apparently you think that THE bitcoin foundation is so much more important than other services it deserves to be in the main discussion forum.



*YOU* feel you are the "unelected, un-asked-for de-facto leader of this amazing experiment". No one made you that, and frankly speaking I don't think the majority of the bitcoin users feel that you are. And even IF they do, I'd say that in itself is a bad sign and should make you shy away from trying to step up even more.
This is how this all makes me feel: It feels like an someone who feels like an unelected, un-asked-for de-facto leader of this amazing experiment would rather become the elected (or in this case, self-appointed) asked-for principal leader of this amazing experiment.

I am really sorry that what is happening with bitcoin doesn't make you feel well at the moment, but just the fact that you put a lot of voluntary work into bitcoin doesn't grant you any rights. That is why it's called voluntary. If you feel it's taking too much out of you, nothing prevents you from changing what you do for/with bitcoin. That's the great part about voluntary efforts. No rights, but also no obligations.
You did choose to change something it seems, but the way in which you want things to change for YOU is a way that a lot of people disagree with. As much as it is your right to change stuff you, it's the right of those people to stand up against how these changes (might) affect them.

What?
Did you do that hazek? Really? If so, why?

Notice the time the thread was posted.


Notice the time it was last edited by Gavin.


And the time hazek made his first post in this thread...

I feel the Bitcoin Foundation is a great idea. Not only the Linux Foundation is an example to follow. All open standards need an organization to guide on their specification. Once these standards are established, guided by proposals and consensus, any individual or company can implement their products in a compatible way.

For example, the specification of the HTTP protocol was coordinated by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C); the definition of the XML markup language was produced by the W3C. I am happy that the Bitcoin Foundation guides the specification for the future evolution of the Bitcoin protocol.

Besides, The Bitcoin Foundation has no similarity with the government or the State. There is no threat of using the force by TBF if you don't comply with their proposals.

Absolutely.  As gavin said,

     To take one example, I don't want to be the centralized decision-maker who
      figures out who should or should not be on the bitcoin-press mailing list that
      is on the bitcoin.org homepage any more.

The bitcoin.org homepage is already moving in the direction of multi-client, in fact: http://bitcoin.org/clients.html  Hopefully there is a better process for choosing the default client on the main page (or simply those front-page links get removed).

We want to make as much of the facilities as possible decentralized.

hazek, you're really annoying me.

First, you edited my OP and broke all of the links changing .org to .com.
Then you sent me a PM asking if it would be ok to move this thread to Service Discussion.  WTF?  If discussion of the Foundation isn't a good topic for the main Discussion forum what is?

Now you spout off about 'Gavin this, Gavin that.'

It isn't easy to piss me off, but, I'm sorry, you're really pissing me off. Bounties?  Really?  Point me to a successful security-critical open source project where bounties pay the rent.

I haven't tried kickstarter-like fundraising?  http://blockchain.info/address/17XvU95PkpDqXAr8ieNpYzSdRDRJL55UQ8  is the address for the Bitcoin Testing Project, which has received a grand total of 72 BTC, which isn't nearly enough to pay a QA grunt, let alone a QA lead.

You say "why change, Bitcoin has been working great for me!"

It hasn't been working great for me; I'm frustrated by the lack of resources and all of the distractions I have to deal with as the unelected, un-asked-for de-facto leader of this amazing experiment. I'm excited about the Foundation, because it is bringing together dedicated, effective people who all want Bitcoin to succeed.

It is simple observation.  The self-supporting route was already tried.  Bounties continually fail on this forum, as well as outside.  I have personally paid over 15,000 BTC of my own money in bounties, to juice the bitcoin economy.  Have you?

For KickStarter, every single example is a single burst of money.  That is by definition not a predictable stream of income, year after year.  Any sane developer trying to support a family will prefer a predictable income.

Put on your thinking cap (and take off the tin foil one).


A group of free individuals created a voluntary organization.  The free market did decide.

The world is full of example where free-market, profit seeking companies get together in a neutral, members-based trade organization for topics of mutual interest.


No, this is open source, free market -- instead of whining you could do something.

If there is a critical mass of people who dislike the Bitcoin Foundation, band together and propose alternate or matching funding.  Then propose your own development funding scheme.

Or fund your own team of developers, independent of BF.

It seems if the dev team were rational economic actors, a proposal of

• Let BF fund 50%
• Let hazek's foundation fund 50%
• Therefore, no one entity can claim >51% control over funding

could be economically in their interests (more diverse funding sources) and placate some of the bitcoin forum critics.

You are, therefore, assuming failure when in fact there are many possibilities for a do-er.

The community will follow a good idea, especially right now, before the supposed BF-led drones take over.


1) BF is a voluntary organization.  You are forced to swallow nothing.

2) The challenge is, as always:  provide a better solution.

These comments are just plain stupid and pure FUD. Just like Bitcoin.org today, the Foundation will surely not just instruct people to use the official client. That would be ridiculous these days when we have so many excellent wallets. It was understandable before but not anymore.

In fact most of the FUD here is based on totally made up assumptions of what the Foundation will actually do. I think people will be surprised. Well, some people will be. I hope I won't be because I fully expect neutral information from them and that includes informing people of other clients as well.

Bitcoin Foundation web down (I don't know why, probably DDOSed). Let's all enjoy the flavour of the centralization. Now imagine a newcomer army complaining about the impossibility of enjoying their foundation membership special fees in the Mtgox. Or yelling they abandon bitcoin because they can't download the "official" bitcoin client and they don't trust any other.

Same here, I wanted to make a small donation since today Im feeling good lol.

Will have to wait. I guess.

Jgarzik made excellent points in #772. Also, BTF  website is not available at this moment. DoS?

Glad to hear this. As much as people hate centralization there is a place for it IMHO.

The start of a new day...

First, slightly off-topic, I must say regardless of all current issues, hazek, you've got my respect, bro.


You misunderstand me. Here is your "Aunt Tillie" example:


Again, I'm not talking about Bitcoin itself, the protocol, how its design is cleverly built to be self-protecting. That obviously works well. I'm talking about the vulnerability of countless numbers of "Aunt Tillies" trusting by default that they go to a centralized official site to get "Bitcoin". A malicious site can compromise and abuse users different ways. I'm sure you know this. Downloading "bitcoin-paranoia.exe" isn't necesssary. Simply calling a user's un-patched Java/Adobe/IE script is all that's needed to deliver malicious code/spyware, you name it.

Yes, the security measures of Bitcoin and secure software distribution tools like gitian certainly help cut down on options for mischief, but they don't and can't eliminate it. I think you know one of the most effective hacks simply involves social engineering - don't brute force a password, just ask for it.

Without an "official" foundation users are left to their own devices to acquire safe Bitcoin code to use. This doesn't mean they always will, but it does mean an enemy to Bitcoin, like the State, can't target them from a single "official" point.


I don't follow you here. If 5 million people use a site like blockchain.info versus 5 million who recognize an "official" bitcoin foundation how is that the same? If blockchain.info makes an announcement to double the 21M coin limit you're saying that will have the same effect as "The Bitcoin Foundation" saying it?


First, what do you mean by "creating obstacle to the improvement and distribution of the decentralized client"? Second, a majority of people will use easy-to-use websites regardless. They will look for the path of least resistance for transactions no matter what. The inherent structure of Bitcoin operation is disadvantaged in this way versus the options available to Web and mobile browser based sites.


I would also. However, we likely disagree on ways to accomplish this.


Even if that's a true statement it doesn't mean there must be a centrally recognized official foundation to achieve it.


Now, this may be the substantive post you've made as far as I'm concerned. I think you've highlighted real concerns you (and others) can have about impediments to Bitcoin's success. I believe you think you have what is likely the only viable answer which comes in the form of an officially recognized and powerful foundation. I don't think we differ very much here in terms of starting point, but our reactions are quite different.

You chose one course, which happens to include swift tangible action. I actually must applaud that as respectable, even while I may disagree with the course taken overall. The answer I don't think is easy. It comes from the unavoidable weaknesses of something as complex yet potentially powerful (due to decentralization) as Bitcoin. I actually had already planned a more ideological post/thread with my views on this, which is forthcoming.

Do you have to be a member of TBF to get an invite?

Great summary of this thread

Fine words Garzik (Clear and Present eh?) ... me and many others will be watching. Make no mistake, you and the others of "The Foundation" are gathering power upon yourselves (you have even now with these words offered a "crises" to justify such) .... you have made yourselves the target voluntarily.

You now have enemies within and beyond the gates, step carefully or your digital world may crash and disappear spectacularly all about you.

PS: Paranoia is nice word to throw around but it gets real when someone pops something inside your kernel that says, "Hi Jeff!" next time you launch bitcoin ....

Can you really not stop using trickery in your posts? I'm telling you you can't fool me because I studied this - I know exactly how propaganda works.

What your post here says are 3 things:

1) you assert that "Bounties fail.  KickStarter-like provides unpredictable bursts.  Anonymous donations are a beer-money tiny trickle.  Self-supporting through for-profit ventures steals developer focus and introduces clear, direct conflicts of interest "
 I disagree. Has Gavin tried the bounties route? Has he tried a kickstarter like fundraising? No. You merely assert those methods or some other method doesn't work.

2) you identified a danger and instead of offering a service and letting the market decide whether it wants/needs it, you have self imposed yourself over all users without them having a choice while telling us that this is the only way it could have been done - again a mere assertion. I already explained that in order for this not be the case, you need to change the name, change to for profit, remove Gavin or any dev from members and have independent contracts with them

3) you keep pointing out I can start my own solution and yet I would need to persuade the lead dev and his team to join me without whom my foundation's relevancy would be non existent which you know damn well but refuse to acknowledge. TBF has been formed with lead dev + dev team, two most powerful Bitcoin businesses, no other foundation can possibly match that and you all know this.



Governments do what you did with your post all the time. "Oh oh poor people who got their houses destroyed by a hurricane. We need to do something!" pretending their solution is the only possible way and just forcing themselves on the people and we all know how well that works out - it doesn't. And as much as people applaud politicians for their great speeches when they tell the masses how they fought to secure the funds to help those poor people it doesn't change the fact that usually the road to hell is paved with good intentions and such forced endeavors end up in a bigger tragedy.

Yes Bitcoin development might be facing a freight train, but no your solution isn't the only solution and isn't the best solution and yet you forced us to swallow it no matter what the consequences while making it virtually impossible to compete.

Sorry, but I will not applaud a move like that, ever.

+1 to jgarzik from me as well. Excellent post, important viewpoint!

Why can't the network function with just miners handling the network load and users paying fees to support them?

+1 good clarification. Thanks for post here, Jeff.

I predict that "TBF" will launch a "webwallet" for (new) bitcoiners so they won't have problems with blockchain download issue. All transactions between such "wallets" will be instant and this will solve "one hour for 6 confirmations" issue. Later "TBF" will add an option to reverse bitcoin payments (like with a credit card). After a while the "official" client will be modified so it will get new transactions only from a (the?) central authority. This will solve "double-spending in fast payments" issue.

Hell, "TBF" will definitely make the Bitcoin world better!