Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Foundation - page 24. (Read 127621 times)
why is #bitcoin-foundation unable to join channel (invite only)
The foundation might consider a bylaw along the lines of:
Any recommendation to change Bitcoin client code that alters user privacy or acceptability of transactions must be voted unanimously. Such a recommendation to programmers must be non-compelling such that any programmers who choose not to implement the change need not fear for their job. Such a recommendation once decided upon and issued must be made public.
Or language to this effect as lawyers find suitable to ensure secret changes aren't given to programmers and then compelled to be implemented via fear of job loss.
Any recommendation to change Bitcoin client code that alters user privacy or acceptability of transactions must be voted unanimously. Such a recommendation to programmers must be non-compelling such that any programmers who choose not to implement the change need not fear for their job. Such a recommendation once decided upon and issued must be made public.
Or language to this effect as lawyers find suitable to ensure secret changes aren't given to programmers and then compelled to be implemented via fear of job loss.
This ^^^
I would be glad if the bylaws includes the compromise by the foundation to not change or sponsor the change of any of bitcoin basic principles, as they were initially envisioned by Satoshi.
Or language to this effect as lawyers find suitable to ensure secret changes aren't given to programmers and then compelled to be implemented via fear of job loss.
Secret changes do not occur in the current system; that is the part being missed.
Every git (or gitian, if binary) user around the world would instantly see the "secret" change.
Why would the Bitcoin foundation, an organisaton that has the power to decide which Bitcoin business is legitimate, the power to employ the lead dev, the power to be the self anointed official spokesperson for Bitcoin need to do anything secretly 2 or 3 years down the road. Fear of secret changes is unfounded. The fear of pushed change that the community will simply swallow because the Bitcoin Foundation said so, isn't.
What's what I fear.
Matt,
Yes you do, and I will show you why.
As you so helpfully pointed out, twice I asked you the same question, but no response from you!
I asked you:
To which you responded:
Which did not answer my question, so Ill rephrase and hope to get an answer.
Tell me, what specific power or control are you worried about that the foundation will try to do over Bitcoin?
Answer that, and I will tell you how the foundation will prevent that, and if we have nothing to do it, I promise to make sure those protections go into the bylaws.
Thanks
Yes you do, and I will show you why.
As you so helpfully pointed out, twice I asked you the same question, but no response from you!
I asked you:
Quote
You tell me, what can the foundation do thats not already obvious? We have no control over Bitcoin, Bitcoin runs itself.
To which you responded:
Quote
So what you are telling me now is that you lied in your post and that in fact you can gain power and are not limited by your bylaws except you can't control how Bitcoin is being run?
Which did not answer my question, so Ill rephrase and hope to get an answer.
Tell me, what specific power or control are you worried about that the foundation will try to do over Bitcoin?
Answer that, and I will tell you how the foundation will prevent that, and if we have nothing to do it, I promise to make sure those protections go into the bylaws.
Thanks
So you aren't going to point to the section of the bylaws the supposedly highly limits the Bitcoin Foundation as was implied with "We cant gain power, in fact we cannot do anything outside the bylaws." ?
I'm worried the foundation will grab the power to:
- claim to speak in the name of all users of the Bitcoin software
- claim to speak as the authority on Bitcoin software
- claim to be a watchdog over the code so individual members needn't worry
- claim to be the authority deciding which Bitcoin businesses are legitimate
- claim to be the authority that decides which Bitcoin projects are worthy of founding
- claim to be the authority that decides which developer's improvements should/shouldn't be added to the core Bitcoin code
- sell a change of Bitcoin or any "approved" layers on top, or just simply a policy or a mission statement to the corporate membership, shoved down the throats of all of the users through a founders 1 + corporate 2 vote giving them the majority
and I could think of more.. So please how are you going to prevent this from happening some day. I realize you probably aren't doing this today, but what about in a year, or 2 or 3 or 5?
After you are done addressing these, don't forget to explain what you meant by "We cant gain power, in fact we cannot do anything outside the bylaws.". It's extremely important that we understand how did you limit yourself through the bylaws as implied by your post. Preferably quote the bylaws. And if you didn't limit yourself, please explain why you worded your post in a manner leaving an impression you did.
Also, who the hell is Matt?
Matt,
Again, I clearly said the bylaws limit our corporate power which you already quoted. I did not say the bylaws limit the power over its control of Bitcoin.
Please stop trying to twist my words. I wrote "Your bylaws reference is speaking of something totally different, corporate law, that states that the foundation can sell t-shirts but not illegal firearms..nothing to do with promoting Bitcoin"
Now, onto the real issue...
I'm worried the foundation will grab the power to:
- claim to speak in the name of all users of the Bitcoin software
>> We claim to speak in the name of all members of the foundation. Bitcoin is open source, no one owns it.
- claim to speak as the authority on Bitcoin software
>> Bitcoin is open source, no one owns it. Anyone can write their own Bitcoin software. The foundation does not control any of the software.
- claim to be a watchdog over the code so individual members needn't worry
>> The foundation will pay for Quality Control and Assurance of the Bitcoin code from member dues. The InfoSec type companies will be hired to test the quality of the code and look for bugs/holes (Something which the dev teams badly needs and has requested many times) Any findings will be published the an update released. Any of the individual software writers or users are free to not update their clients or software.
- claim to be the authority deciding which Bitcoin businesses are legitimate
>> The foundation will attempt to build a vetting process to prevent scammer companies from exploiting Bitcoin users. It wil not just point a finger at a company and say "This is illegitimate". The foundation will release evidence acquired and present it to its members.
- claim to be the authority that decides which Bitcoin projects are worthy of founding
>> The foundation will fund projects that request to be funded. It is legally allowed to deny/approve anyone as its a member driven organization.
- claim to be the authority that decides which developer's improvements should/shouldn't be added to the core Bitcoin code
>> The foundation has no say in what goes in the code. Recommendations could be presented to the core dev team, and they can do as they see fit.
- sell a change of Bitcoin or any "approved" layers on top, or just simply a policy or a mission statement to the corporate membership, shoved down the throats of all of the users through a founders 1 + corporate 2 vote giving them the majority
>> Most policys and major changes would require a unanimous vote, not a majority.
Let me know if you have other concerns, I'll gladly respond to them.
Some of these concerns are real, and I think need to go intro the bylaws, so thank you for pointing them out....just wish you were a little nicer about it considering you asked to be treated like an adult
-Charlie
But no, you are blinded with ego and can't see three feet in front of you all the dangers that are possible even in this highly restrictive system.
Dude, you gotta stop with the personal insults at people. Have I insulted you? Why cant you have a normal and civilized conversion.
You asked to be treated like an adult, act like one!
Ok maybe you missed it at the very end, but who the hell is Matt? You want me to be nicer? Why not follow your own advice and stop calling people names that aren't theirs? I never called you any names, all I did was ask questions based off of your posts. And telling someone they are blinded by their ego just can't be an insult. No, I'm actually being extremely nice and cordial by my standards. But I'm not going not point out inconsistencies in your words for the sake of being nice.
As for your answers, I'm not happy, as you can imagine because you have just shown me with your answers that you will seek certain power to do certain things and no matter how open or well intentioned the process is going to be, given how you structured the board of directors you cannot promise me anything that would make me believe corruption and abuse isn't possible down the road. Now I have to trust you. And THAT is my main problem. Before all I needed to worry about was the code, now I need to worry about the code AND trusting you, something I did not consent to and had no need for.
And last but not least, let's clear this up please because I really wouldn't want to "twist your words". Explain what exactly did you mean in the below quote, specifically with the red underlined part:
The problem I have with this Foundation is that it asserted itself over this experiment and the community. No one asked you to. No one gave you permission. You just did it. You created a corporation to wield power no one granted you.
THIS! HEAR HEAR!
The problem with both you and shad0wbitz (which ive pointed out many times) is that you assume the foundation is assering itself, you assume we are wielding power which in fact we are not.
Its not a complicated structure to understand and you can create your own foundation to help further Bitcoin.
Foundation has no power or control, and no one owns the foundation its owned by you. Like I said, when elections come the whole board can be replaced and you can be on it
-Charlie
This contradicts your Executive Directors statement in regards to standards. You guys want to make standards for security and the Bitcoin protocol. You are asserting yourself in many ways, especially with your proposed certifications and the cost it takes for businesses to join.
Your foundation will eventually gain power if the industries within form trusts to control the message and force competitors out of its veil of legitimacy.
Matt,
That has nothing to do with power
Again, all you do is assume without facts.
" Your foundation will eventually gain power"
It's not my foundation, its YOUR foundation, Ive stated this many times.
We cant gain power, in fact we cannot do anything outside the bylaws.
The certifications are for anyone to join and use. If you dont like it, don't join it or start your own foundation.
If you have problems, join the board, and enjoy
Have a great day
-Charlie
Ah, I apologize Hazek,
Wasn't attempting to call you names, I just get confused between people I think are trolling here. I call Atlas Matt, Matt Atlas, ect...
Sorry if you think its intentional, I just can't tell the difference sometimes....
As per the underlined quote, again I simply said (I'm LOL'ing because Im repeating myself over and over again)
"Again, I clearly said the bylaws limit our corporate power which you already quoted. I did not say the bylaws limit the power over its control of Bitcoin."
Regarding my answers. You are not happy with? Ok, I'm sorry you are not happy with them.
The fact remains that anything the foundation does, it does not effect Bitcoin proper.
In regards to paying for things, vetting, QA...its the foundations money and can do what it feels it can to to help promote Bitcoin.
It will not do anything that will change Bitcoins course, path or core. If the community does not like it, it can reject it, so can all Bitcoiners.
If you don't like the way its set up, you don't need to join.
If you don't like my views, join, and contend my seat!
-Charlie
Such non answers and trickery..
The system works how it works? How about with an answer like "Yes the system works where change is possible, especially backwards compatible change like BIP16, so yes theoretically we could make rules stricter to include an IP address with every transaction and if we got enough mining support there wouldn't even be a hard fork necessary. You are right that is a problem."
The system works how it works? How about with an answer like "Yes the system works where change is possible, especially backwards compatible change like BIP16, so yes theoretically we could make rules stricter to include an IP address with every transaction and if we got enough mining support there wouldn't even be a hard fork necessary. You are right that is a problem."
And the community would reject any version that added such IP tracking. As they should.
Each user's use of bitcoin software is a vote to accept or reject changes. If community does not like the changes coming down the pipe, they won't use them! Every single change is public, out in the open for inspection. The process for firing Gavin and any other dev is therefore simple.
git and gitian guard well against "include an IP address with every transaction" back doors.
Two years down the road the Bitcoin foundation will say jump, and the community will ask how high, how will you prevent this scenario from playing out?
No, this will not happen. The foundation may make a recommendation regarding a certain matter and present its evidence. The community will decide the case based on its merits.
Please give the community more credit, don't insult us. We can think for ourselves.
Thats offensive.
Or language to this effect as lawyers find suitable to ensure secret changes aren't given to programmers and then compelled to be implemented via fear of job loss.
Secret changes do not occur in the current system; that is the part being missed.
Every git (or gitian, if binary) user around the world would instantly see the "secret" change.
Such non answers and trickery..
The system works how it works? How about with an answer like "Yes the system works where change is possible, especially backwards compatible change like BIP16, so yes theoretically we could make rules stricter to include an IP address with every transaction and if we got enough mining support there wouldn't even be a hard fork necessary. You are right that is a problem."
The system works how it works? How about with an answer like "Yes the system works where change is possible, especially backwards compatible change like BIP16, so yes theoretically we could make rules stricter to include an IP address with every transaction and if we got enough mining support there wouldn't even be a hard fork necessary. You are right that is a problem."
And the community would reject any version that added such IP tracking. As they should.
Each user's use of bitcoin software is a vote to accept or reject changes. If community does not like the changes coming down the pipe, they won't use them! Every single change is public, out in the open for inspection. The process for firing Gavin and any other dev is therefore simple.
git and gitian guard well against "include an IP address with every transaction" back doors.
Two years down the road the Bitcoin foundation will say jump, and the community will ask how high, how will you prevent this scenario from playing out?
Or language to this effect as lawyers find suitable to ensure secret changes aren't given to programmers and then compelled to be implemented via fear of job loss.
Foundation members are not the only people who can fund Gavin and the others, you know? If they need money, they can go beg on bitcointalk.
I'm very interested in being a part of this aspect of things. I've worked in software QA (admittedly primarily video game related) for over a decade, and would love a chance to work on helping secure bitcoin software. the thought hadn't ever crossed my mind, or i'd have already been doing so.
who should i contact regarding this?
who should i contact regarding this?
The bitcoin-development mailing list at http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/ currently has a thread discussing bitcoin testing.
We welcome -- and need! -- more people testing the software.
The foundation might consider a bylaw along the lines of:
Any recommendation to change Bitcoin client code that alters user privacy or acceptability of transactions must be voted unanimously. Such a recommendation to programmers must be non-compelling such that any programmers who choose not to implement the change need not fear for their job. Such a recommendation once decided upon and issued must be made public.
Or language to this effect as lawyers find suitable to ensure secret changes aren't given to programmers and then compelled to be implemented via fear of job loss.
Any recommendation to change Bitcoin client code that alters user privacy or acceptability of transactions must be voted unanimously. Such a recommendation to programmers must be non-compelling such that any programmers who choose not to implement the change need not fear for their job. Such a recommendation once decided upon and issued must be made public.
Or language to this effect as lawyers find suitable to ensure secret changes aren't given to programmers and then compelled to be implemented via fear of job loss.
Government pressure does not change that. Government pressure cannot magically compromise SHA256 or ECDSA -- that's the whole point of the system.
Now, see? This is what hazek means by indirect answers. Did I ask anything about the bitcoin design?
You of all people know that if you can get a user to run an executable file on their computer you now own everything on the computer, and once that computer connects to the Internet, then you own that computer from anywhere in the world including executing more instructions.
How are we not connecting? You guys keep pointing to things like protocols and bylaws. That's NOT where our concern lies. Those things mean basically NOTHING in the day to day world.
Bitcoin design was the answer, because bitcoin design is directly relevant to why these fears are unrealistic, paranoid fantasies.
Satoshi created a design that enables open review, and gitian enhances that with provable binaries.
Any "government pressured" back-doored executable file would be immediately noticed by the community, with cryptographic certainty.
Aunt Tillie might wind up downloading bitcoin-paranoia.exe, but soon all hell would break loose, and forks would appear immediately. Users would vote against bitcoin-paranoia.exe with their feet. It is a self-correcting system.
Quote
How are we not connecting? You guys keep pointing to things like protocols and bylaws. That's NOT where our concern lies. Those things mean basically NOTHING in the day to day world.
That's the beauty of Satoshi's design: they do. If a judge or a man with a gun orders someone to add IP tracking, the system is designed to make that immediately apparent, and route around that.
Matt,
Yes you do, and I will show you why.
As you so helpfully pointed out, twice I asked you the same question, but no response from you!
I asked you:
To which you responded:
Which did not answer my question, so Ill rephrase and hope to get an answer.
Tell me, what specific power or control are you worried about that the foundation will try to do over Bitcoin?
Answer that, and I will tell you how the foundation will prevent that, and if we have nothing to do it, I promise to make sure those protections go into the bylaws.
Thanks
Yes you do, and I will show you why.
As you so helpfully pointed out, twice I asked you the same question, but no response from you!
I asked you:
Quote
You tell me, what can the foundation do thats not already obvious? We have no control over Bitcoin, Bitcoin runs itself.
To which you responded:
Quote
So what you are telling me now is that you lied in your post and that in fact you can gain power and are not limited by your bylaws except you can't control how Bitcoin is being run?
Which did not answer my question, so Ill rephrase and hope to get an answer.
Tell me, what specific power or control are you worried about that the foundation will try to do over Bitcoin?
Answer that, and I will tell you how the foundation will prevent that, and if we have nothing to do it, I promise to make sure those protections go into the bylaws.
Thanks
So you aren't going to point to the section of the bylaws the supposedly highly limits the Bitcoin Foundation as was implied with "We cant gain power, in fact we cannot do anything outside the bylaws." ?
I'm worried the foundation will grab the power to:
- claim to speak in the name of all users of the Bitcoin software
- claim to speak as the authority on Bitcoin software
- claim to be a watchdog over the code so individual members needn't worry
- claim to be the authority deciding which Bitcoin businesses are legitimate
- claim to be the authority that decides which Bitcoin projects are worthy of founding
- claim to be the authority that decides which developer's improvements should/shouldn't be added to the core Bitcoin code
- sell a change of Bitcoin or any "approved" layers on top, or just simply a policy or a mission statement to the corporate membership, shoved down the throats of all of the users through a founders 1 + corporate 2 vote giving them the majority
and I could think of more.. So please how are you going to prevent this from happening some day. I realize you probably aren't doing this today, but what about in a year, or 2 or 3 or 5?
After you are done addressing these, don't forget to explain what you meant by "We cant gain power, in fact we cannot do anything outside the bylaws.". It's extremely important that we understand how did you limit yourself through the bylaws as implied by your post. Preferably quote the bylaws. And if you didn't limit yourself, please explain why you worded your post in a manner leaving an impression you did.
Also, who the hell is Matt?
Matt,
Again, I clearly said the bylaws limit our corporate power which you already quoted. I did not say the bylaws limit the power over its control of Bitcoin.
Please stop trying to twist my words. I wrote "Your bylaws reference is speaking of something totally different, corporate law, that states that the foundation can sell t-shirts but not illegal firearms..nothing to do with promoting Bitcoin"
Now, onto the real issue...
I'm worried the foundation will grab the power to:
- claim to speak in the name of all users of the Bitcoin software
>> We claim to speak in the name of all members of the foundation. Bitcoin is open source, no one owns it.
- claim to speak as the authority on Bitcoin software
>> Bitcoin is open source, no one owns it. Anyone can write their own Bitcoin software. The foundation does not control any of the software.
- claim to be a watchdog over the code so individual members needn't worry
>> The foundation will pay for Quality Control and Assurance of the Bitcoin code from member dues. The InfoSec type companies will be hired to test the quality of the code and look for bugs/holes (Something which the dev teams badly needs and has requested many times) Any findings will be published the an update released. Any of the individual software writers or users are free to not update their clients or software.
- claim to be the authority deciding which Bitcoin businesses are legitimate
>> The foundation will attempt to build a vetting process to prevent scammer companies from exploiting Bitcoin users. It wil not just point a finger at a company and say "This is illegitimate". The foundation will release evidence acquired and present it to its members.
- claim to be the authority that decides which Bitcoin projects are worthy of founding
>> The foundation will fund projects that request to be funded. It is legally allowed to deny/approve anyone as its a member driven organization.
- claim to be the authority that decides which developer's improvements should/shouldn't be added to the core Bitcoin code
>> The foundation has no say in what goes in the code. Recommendations could be presented to the core dev team, and they can do as they see fit.
- sell a change of Bitcoin or any "approved" layers on top, or just simply a policy or a mission statement to the corporate membership, shoved down the throats of all of the users through a founders 1 + corporate 2 vote giving them the majority
>> Most policys and major changes would require a unanimous vote, not a majority.
Let me know if you have other concerns, I'll gladly respond to them.
Some of these concerns are real, and I think need to go intro the bylaws, so thank you for pointing them out....just wish you were a little nicer about it considering you asked to be treated like an adult
-Charlie
But no, you are blinded with ego and can't see three feet in front of you all the dangers that are possible even in this highly restrictive system.
Dude, you gotta stop with the personal insults at people. Have I insulted you? Why cant you have a normal and civilized conversion.
You asked to be treated like an adult, act like one!
Ok maybe you missed it at the very end, but who the hell is Matt? You want me to be nicer? Why not follow your own advice and stop calling people names that aren't theirs? I never called you any names, all I did was ask questions based off of your posts. And telling someone they are blinded by their ego just can't be an insult. No, I'm actually being extremely nice and cordial by my standards. But I'm not going not point out inconsistencies in your words for the sake of being nice.
As for your answers, I'm not happy, as you can imagine because you have just shown me with your answers that you will seek certain power to do certain things and no matter how open or well intentioned the process is going to be, given how you structured the board of directors you cannot promise me anything that would make me believe corruption and abuse isn't possible down the road. Now I have to trust you. And THAT is my main problem. Before all I needed to worry about was the code, now I need to worry about the code AND trusting you, something I did not consent to and had no need for.
And last but not least, let's clear this up please because I really wouldn't want to "twist your words". Explain what exactly did you mean in the below quote, specifically with the red underlined part:
The problem I have with this Foundation is that it asserted itself over this experiment and the community. No one asked you to. No one gave you permission. You just did it. You created a corporation to wield power no one granted you.
THIS! HEAR HEAR!
The problem with both you and shad0wbitz (which ive pointed out many times) is that you assume the foundation is assering itself, you assume we are wielding power which in fact we are not.
Its not a complicated structure to understand and you can create your own foundation to help further Bitcoin.
Foundation has no power or control, and no one owns the foundation its owned by you. Like I said, when elections come the whole board can be replaced and you can be on it
-Charlie
This contradicts your Executive Directors statement in regards to standards. You guys want to make standards for security and the Bitcoin protocol. You are asserting yourself in many ways, especially with your proposed certifications and the cost it takes for businesses to join.
Your foundation will eventually gain power if the industries within form trusts to control the message and force competitors out of its veil of legitimacy.
Matt,
That has nothing to do with power
Again, all you do is assume without facts.
" Your foundation will eventually gain power"
It's not my foundation, its YOUR foundation, Ive stated this many times.
We cant gain power, in fact we cannot do anything outside the bylaws.
The certifications are for anyone to join and use. If you dont like it, don't join it or start your own foundation.
If you have problems, join the board, and enjoy
Have a great day
-Charlie
(snipped a little bit...)
- claim to be a watchdog over the code so individual members needn't worry
>> The foundation will pay for Quality Control and Assurance of the Bitcoin code from member dues. The InfoSec type companies will be hired to test the quality of the code and look for bugs/holes (Something which the dev teams badly needs and has requested many times) Any findings will be published the an update released. Any of the individual software writers or users are free to not update their clients or software.
- claim to be a watchdog over the code so individual members needn't worry
>> The foundation will pay for Quality Control and Assurance of the Bitcoin code from member dues. The InfoSec type companies will be hired to test the quality of the code and look for bugs/holes (Something which the dev teams badly needs and has requested many times) Any findings will be published the an update released. Any of the individual software writers or users are free to not update their clients or software.
I'm very interested in being a part of this aspect of things. I've worked in software QA (admittedly primarily video game related) for over a decade, and would love a chance to work on helping secure bitcoin software. the thought hadn't ever crossed my mind, or i'd have already been doing so.
who should i contact regarding this?
AWESOME!
Please contact me right away! [email protected]
See, this is why I love Bitcoin
-Charlie
I think a bitcoin foundation is great. However, I'm concerned that, due to its likely funding sources, it will not be a democratic organization.
Consider these options.
1) (I prefer) Compulsory taxation (e.g. txn fee levy) funds organization. Users elect foundation members (one coin = one vote). This is similar to a representative democracy (though wealth is the basis of voting power). The foundation will represent the interests of the median wealth holder. I think the median wealth holder would be an upper middle class consumer or small business owner.
2) (current system; I think it is better than nothing) Voluntary donation. Only special interests find it worthwhile to volunteer donations. Foundation members elect themselves, though presumably donating businesses have the ultimate say. This is similar to an industry lobbying group. The foundation represents special interests of large-scale, bitcoin businesses and is accountable to big business.
I believe that having a foundation is much better than not having one at all. However, I think system (1) is much better than system (2). I proposed an alt-chain based on this before. However, the vast majority here seems to think that compulsory taxation is evil, so we will have only system (2).
Not trying to knock on the foundation (it is a step forward), but I wanted to put this out there.
Consider these options.
1) (I prefer) Compulsory taxation (e.g. txn fee levy) funds organization. Users elect foundation members (one coin = one vote). This is similar to a representative democracy (though wealth is the basis of voting power). The foundation will represent the interests of the median wealth holder. I think the median wealth holder would be an upper middle class consumer or small business owner.
2) (current system; I think it is better than nothing) Voluntary donation. Only special interests find it worthwhile to volunteer donations. Foundation members elect themselves, though presumably donating businesses have the ultimate say. This is similar to an industry lobbying group. The foundation represents special interests of large-scale, bitcoin businesses and is accountable to big business.
I believe that having a foundation is much better than not having one at all. However, I think system (1) is much better than system (2). I proposed an alt-chain based on this before. However, the vast majority here seems to think that compulsory taxation is evil, so we will have only system (2).
Not trying to knock on the foundation (it is a step forward), but I wanted to put this out there.
(snipped a little bit...)
- claim to be a watchdog over the code so individual members needn't worry
>> The foundation will pay for Quality Control and Assurance of the Bitcoin code from member dues. The InfoSec type companies will be hired to test the quality of the code and look for bugs/holes (Something which the dev teams badly needs and has requested many times) Any findings will be published the an update released. Any of the individual software writers or users are free to not update their clients or software.
- claim to be a watchdog over the code so individual members needn't worry
>> The foundation will pay for Quality Control and Assurance of the Bitcoin code from member dues. The InfoSec type companies will be hired to test the quality of the code and look for bugs/holes (Something which the dev teams badly needs and has requested many times) Any findings will be published the an update released. Any of the individual software writers or users are free to not update their clients or software.
I'm very interested in being a part of this aspect of things. I've worked in software QA (admittedly primarily video game related) for over a decade, and would love a chance to work on helping secure bitcoin software. the thought hadn't ever crossed my mind, or i'd have already been doing so.
who should i contact regarding this?
Such non answers and trickery..
The system works how it works? How about with an answer like "Yes the system works where change is possible, especially backwards compatible change like BIP16, so yes theoretically we could make rules stricter to include an IP address with every transaction and if we got enough mining support there wouldn't even be a hard fork necessary. You are right that is a problem."
The system works how it works? How about with an answer like "Yes the system works where change is possible, especially backwards compatible change like BIP16, so yes theoretically we could make rules stricter to include an IP address with every transaction and if we got enough mining support there wouldn't even be a hard fork necessary. You are right that is a problem."
And the community would reject any version that added such IP tracking. As they should.
Each user's use of bitcoin software is a vote to accept or reject changes. If community does not like the changes coming down the pipe, they won't use them! Every single change is public, out in the open for inspection. The process for firing Gavin and any other dev is therefore simple.
git and gitian guard well against "include an IP address with every transaction" back doors.
Are you familiar with what happened at 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco? Let me give a brief overview. President Bush instructed phone companies to allow an illegal warrant-less wiretap be installed at this location and others recording ALL Internet traffic unfiltered, which a whistle blower found out about. The administration then had Congress retroactively grant the phone companies immunity from prosecution for siding with them in breaking the law.
https://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying
As a U.S. corporation that openly develops the software to conduct bitcoin transactions, how would the foundation deal with similar government pressure to "save us from the terrorists, pornographers, government anarchists, etc"?
https://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying
As a U.S. corporation that openly develops the software to conduct bitcoin transactions, how would the foundation deal with similar government pressure to "save us from the terrorists, pornographers, government anarchists, etc"?
The bitcoin design permits what it permits, and prevents what it prevents.
Government pressure does not change that. Government pressure cannot magically compromise SHA256 or ECDSA -- that's the whole point of the system.
The system works how it works.
Now, see? This is what hazek means by indirect answers. Did I ask anything about the bitcoin design?
You of all people know that if you can get a user to run an executable file on their computer you now own everything on the computer, and once that computer connects to the Internet, then you own that computer from anywhere in the world including executing more instructions.
How are we not connecting? You guys keep pointing to things like protocols and bylaws. That's NOT where our concern lies. Those things mean basically NOTHING in the day to day world. On the other hand, in a world full of not-too-bright and usually non-tech savvy users, a powerful organization like The Bitcoin Foundation has a lot of power and influence if users buy into it.
You're talking about strengthening Bitcoin, and I'm trying to show how this can weaken it. Don't you get it? Bitcoin is not ONLY about lines of code and protocols. It's about perception, what people believe about it, and what influences that perception.
Get ready...its a long one! 
Having thought about this for longer now I'd say my main fear with this foundation is how they're going to credibly explain to the US govt that they cannot build AML and KYC rules into the code when they are actually paying the devs salaries?
This was on the tip of my tongue! Thank you so much!
This is no problem at all.
Bitcoin does not need AML/KYC policies, however the companies that operate within moving fiat to Bitcoin and back do.
It's a very simple concept of closed loop and open loop. One which I've explained to regulators many times
-Charlie
Interesting answer. Let me put it another way.
What is the representative foundation going to do when the U.S. Department of Justice or similar authority targets it to help crack down on users suspected of illegal behavior, like openly buying drugs on Silk Road. Please keep in mind that hushmail.com, which is based in Canada, was pressured into helping authorities install Java code that aided them in busting mail account holders of an amateurish Silk Road like online drug ring.
That’s an interesting idea considering Gavin has already met with the CIA.
Why would a “Foundation” or any corporate style entity facilitate pressuring a software developer? Couldn’t Gavin already be working for the CIA?
See my response above.
Also,
Everyone has to get over the fact he met with the CIA, its not a big deal.
A bunch of analysts in the room who just wanted to ask some questions, stop being so paranoid
Mr. Shrem,
Thank you for being civil and doing your best to answer questions here about your foundation. I understand your points and do accept that the foundation principals believe they are performing a great service for Bitcoin. My only concern is that many foundations are set up to be money making organizations even if they are for charitable causes and can be easily corrupted. Bitcoin clearly isn’t a charitable organization.
Why not have a single reasonably priced membership fee for all and choose principals based on ability and chosen by a popular vote instead of an elitist buy-in? Please don’t take offense to this question. I’m not attacking what you have accomplished or attempting to devalue the worth of a “Bitcoin Foundation.” I just don’t understand why the wealthiest users need control of the foundation. I believed Bitcoin was supposed to be something different than what we have now with fiat?
Hey dude,
Have I every taken offense to a question, moreover a question from you? You and I go back a while now, I would never think you had ill intentions.
Your question is a good one, and it comes down to representation..the same reason the US has a Senate where each state is represented equally.
Allow me to answer your question with a parable.
In a situation with 1 membership fee with 1 vote per member, we were afraid what could happen is that different sectors and industries within Bitcoin (now and in the future) would not be properly represented. As a group, we felt sure that we wanted to represent both commercial and individual interests in the community. We also wanted a structure flexible enough to adjust to the community's input.
If all miners decided to team up and take all 5 board seats and change the rules, that would be a terrible thing.
However, in the current structure, miners get 2 seats only, therefore they cannot assert control.
Same thing with corporate members not being able to asserts control over individual members.
I'm sure this may not be the -best- way in your opinion, but thats totally cool!
If you think it needs changing, get in touch! Even better, run for a board seat and change the rules yourself!
-Charlie
Let me phrase it this way...
Few facts:
Hushmail = centralized company - has user data
Bitcoin = Decentralized that no one owns/runs/controls.
Foundation = centralized U.S. company - develops software that handles user data
Are you familiar with what happened at 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco? Let me give a brief overview. President Bush instructed phone companies to allow an illegal warrant-less wiretap be installed as a splitter at this location recording ALL Internet traffic unfiltered, which a whistle blower found out about. The administration then had Congress retroactively grant the phone companies immunity from prosecution for siding with them in breaking the law.
https://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying
As a U.S. corporation that openly develops the software to conduct bitcoin transactions, how would the foundation deal with similar government pressure to "save us from the terrorists, pornographers, government anarchists, etc"?
The Foundation and the core dev team are 2 separate things. The Foundation will not be able to control the code or dev team.
The Foundation is merely an entity to protects and promote Bitcoin. We will not attempt to control it, as long as I am on the board.
So you aren't going to point to the section of the bylaws the supposedly highly limits the Bitcoin Foundation as was implied with "We cant gain power, in fact we cannot do anything outside the bylaws." ?
I'm worried the foundation will grab the power to:
- claim to speak in the name of all users of the Bitcoin software
- claim to speak as the authority on Bitcoin software
- claim to be a watchdog over the code so individual members needn't worry
- claim to be the authority deciding which Bitcoin businesses are legitimate
- claim to be the authority that decides which Bitcoin projects are worthy of founding
- claim to be the authority that decides which developer's improvements should/shouldn't be added to the core Bitcoin code
- sell a change of Bitcoin or any "approved" layers on top, or just simply a policy or a mission statement to the corporate membership, shoved down the throats of all of the users through a founders 1 + corporate 2 vote giving them the majority
and I could think of more.. So please how are you going to prevent this from happening some day. I realize you probably aren't doing this today, but what about in a year, or 2 or 3 or 5?
After you are done addressing these, don't forget to explain what you meant by "We cant gain power, in fact we cannot do anything outside the bylaws.". It's extremely important that we understand how did you limit yourself through the bylaws as implied by your post. Preferably quote the bylaws. And if you didn't limit yourself, please explain why you worded your post in a manner leaving an impression you did.
Also, who the hell is Matt?
Matt,
Again, I clearly said the bylaws limit our corporate power which you already quoted. I did not say the bylaws limit the power over its control of Bitcoin.
Please stop trying to twist my words. I wrote "Your bylaws reference is speaking of something totally different, corporate law, that states that the foundation can sell t-shirts but not illegal firearms..nothing to do with promoting Bitcoin"
Now, onto the real issue...
I'm worried the foundation will grab the power to:
- claim to speak in the name of all users of the Bitcoin software
>> We claim to speak in the name of all members of the foundation. Bitcoin is open source, no one owns it.
- claim to speak as the authority on Bitcoin software
>> Bitcoin is open source, no one owns it. Anyone can write their own Bitcoin software. The foundation does not control any of the software.
- claim to be a watchdog over the code so individual members needn't worry
>> The foundation will pay for Quality Control and Assurance of the Bitcoin code from member dues. The InfoSec type companies will be hired to test the quality of the code and look for bugs/holes (Something which the dev teams badly needs and has requested many times) Any findings will be published the an update released. Any of the individual software writers or users are free to not update their clients or software.
- claim to be the authority deciding which Bitcoin businesses are legitimate
>> The foundation will attempt to build a vetting process to prevent scammer companies from exploiting Bitcoin users. It wil not just point a finger at a company and say "This is illegitimate". The foundation will release evidence acquired and present it to its members.
- claim to be the authority that decides which Bitcoin projects are worthy of founding
>> The foundation will fund projects that request to be funded. It is legally allowed to deny/approve anyone as its a member driven organization.
- claim to be the authority that decides which developer's improvements should/shouldn't be added to the core Bitcoin code
>> The foundation has no say in what goes in the code. Recommendations could be presented to the core dev team, and they can do as they see fit.
- sell a change of Bitcoin or any "approved" layers on top, or just simply a policy or a mission statement to the corporate membership, shoved down the throats of all of the users through a founders 1 + corporate 2 vote giving them the majority
>> Most policys and major changes would require a unanimous vote, not a majority.
Let me know if you have other concerns, I'll gladly respond to them.
Some of these concerns are real, and I think need to go intro the bylaws, so thank you for pointing them out....just wish you were a little nicer about it considering you asked to be treated like an adult
-Charlie
But no, you are blinded with ego and can't see three feet in front of you all the dangers that are possible even in this highly restrictive system.
Dude, you gotta stop with the personal insults at people. Have I insulted you? Why cant you have a normal and civilized conversion.
You asked to be treated like an adult, act like one!
The plan was openly discussed. And then linked in the OP.
Having thought about this for longer now I'd say my main fear with this foundation is how they're going to credibly explain to the US govt that they cannot build AML and KYC rules into the code when they are actually paying the devs salaries?
This was on the tip of my tongue! Thank you so much!
This is no problem at all.
Bitcoin does not need AML/KYC policies, however the companies that operate within moving fiat to Bitcoin and back do.
It's a very simple concept of closed loop and open loop. One which I've explained to regulators many times
-Charlie
Interesting answer. Let me put it another way.
What is the representative foundation going to do when the U.S. Department of Justice or similar authority targets it to help crack down on users suspected of illegal behavior, like openly buying drugs on Silk Road. Please keep in mind that hushmail.com, which is based in Canada, was pressured into helping authorities install Java code that aided them in busting mail account holders of an amateurish Silk Road like online drug ring.
That’s an interesting idea considering Gavin has already met with the CIA.
Why would a “Foundation” or any corporate style entity facilitate pressuring a software developer? Couldn’t Gavin already be working for the CIA?
See my response above.
Also,
Everyone has to get over the fact he met with the CIA, its not a big deal.
A bunch of analysts in the room who just wanted to ask some questions, stop being so paranoid
Mr. Shrem,
Thank you for being civil and doing your best to answer questions here about your foundation. I understand your points and do accept that the foundation principals believe they are performing a great service for Bitcoin. My only concern is that many foundations are set up to be money making organizations even if they are for charitable causes and can be easily corrupted. Bitcoin clearly isn’t a charitable organization.
Why not have a single reasonably priced membership fee for all and choose principals based on ability and chosen by a popular vote instead of an elitist buy-in? Please don’t take offense to this question. I’m not attacking what you have accomplished or attempting to devalue the worth of a “Bitcoin Foundation.” I just don’t understand why the wealthiest users need control of the foundation. I believed Bitcoin was supposed to be something different than what we have now with fiat?
Hey dude,
Have I every taken offense to a question, moreover a question from you? You and I go back a while now, I would never think you had ill intentions.
Your question is a good one, and it comes down to representation..the same reason the US has a Senate where each state is represented equally.
Allow me to answer your question with a parable.
In a situation with 1 membership fee with 1 vote per member, we were afraid what could happen is that different sectors and industries within Bitcoin (now and in the future) would not be properly represented. As a group, we felt sure that we wanted to represent both commercial and individual interests in the community. We also wanted a structure flexible enough to adjust to the community's input.
If all miners decided to team up and take all 5 board seats and change the rules, that would be a terrible thing.
However, in the current structure, miners get 2 seats only, therefore they cannot assert control.
Same thing with corporate members not being able to asserts control over individual members.
I'm sure this may not be the -best- way in your opinion, but thats totally cool!
If you think it needs changing, get in touch! Even better, run for a board seat and change the rules yourself!
-Charlie
Ah, first, THANK YOU for actually asking a good question!
Few facts:
Hushmail = centralized company - has user data
Bitcoin = Decentralized that no one owns/runs/controls.
How can the foundation help crack down on Bitcoin holders not users (thats a bad word to use) when the foundation does not own these users nor regulates them nor owns Bitcoin nor has any information on them?
Would the government go to the Linux Foundation and say "Hey, this hacker was using linux, help us find him"
Would the government go to the Tor Foundation and say "Hey, this hacker was using Tor, help us find him"
In both cases, they cannot!
Answer your question?
-Charlie
Few facts:
Hushmail = centralized company - has user data
Bitcoin = Decentralized that no one owns/runs/controls.
How can the foundation help crack down on Bitcoin holders not users (thats a bad word to use) when the foundation does not own these users nor regulates them nor owns Bitcoin nor has any information on them?
Would the government go to the Linux Foundation and say "Hey, this hacker was using linux, help us find him"
Would the government go to the Tor Foundation and say "Hey, this hacker was using Tor, help us find him"
In both cases, they cannot!
Answer your question?
-Charlie
Let me phrase it this way...
Few facts:
Hushmail = centralized company - has user data
Bitcoin = Decentralized that no one owns/runs/controls.
Foundation = centralized U.S. company - develops software that handles user data
Are you familiar with what happened at 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco? Let me give a brief overview. President Bush instructed phone companies to allow an illegal warrant-less wiretap be installed as a splitter at this location recording ALL Internet traffic unfiltered, which a whistle blower found out about. The administration then had Congress retroactively grant the phone companies immunity from prosecution for siding with them in breaking the law.
https://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying
As a U.S. corporation that openly develops the software to conduct bitcoin transactions, how would the foundation deal with similar government pressure to "save us from the terrorists, pornographers, government anarchists, etc"?
The Foundation and the core dev team are 2 separate things. The Foundation will not be able to control the code or dev team.
The Foundation is merely an entity to protects and promote Bitcoin. We will not attempt to control it, as long as I am on the board.
Matt,
Yes you do, and I will show you why.
As you so helpfully pointed out, twice I asked you the same question, but no response from you!
I asked you:
To which you responded:
Which did not answer my question, so Ill rephrase and hope to get an answer.
Tell me, what specific power or control are you worried about that the foundation will try to do over Bitcoin?
Answer that, and I will tell you how the foundation will prevent that, and if we have nothing to do it, I promise to make sure those protections go into the bylaws.
Thanks
Yes you do, and I will show you why.
As you so helpfully pointed out, twice I asked you the same question, but no response from you!
I asked you:
Quote
You tell me, what can the foundation do thats not already obvious? We have no control over Bitcoin, Bitcoin runs itself.
To which you responded:
Quote
So what you are telling me now is that you lied in your post and that in fact you can gain power and are not limited by your bylaws except you can't control how Bitcoin is being run?
Which did not answer my question, so Ill rephrase and hope to get an answer.
Tell me, what specific power or control are you worried about that the foundation will try to do over Bitcoin?
Answer that, and I will tell you how the foundation will prevent that, and if we have nothing to do it, I promise to make sure those protections go into the bylaws.
Thanks
So you aren't going to point to the section of the bylaws the supposedly highly limits the Bitcoin Foundation as was implied with "We cant gain power, in fact we cannot do anything outside the bylaws." ?
I'm worried the foundation will grab the power to:
- claim to speak in the name of all users of the Bitcoin software
- claim to speak as the authority on Bitcoin software
- claim to be a watchdog over the code so individual members needn't worry
- claim to be the authority deciding which Bitcoin businesses are legitimate
- claim to be the authority that decides which Bitcoin projects are worthy of founding
- claim to be the authority that decides which developer's improvements should/shouldn't be added to the core Bitcoin code
- sell a change of Bitcoin or any "approved" layers on top, or just simply a policy or a mission statement to the corporate membership, shoved down the throats of all of the users through a founders 1 + corporate 2 vote giving them the majority
and I could think of more.. So please how are you going to prevent this from happening some day. I realize you probably aren't doing this today, but what about in a year, or 2 or 3 or 5?
After you are done addressing these, don't forget to explain what you meant by "We cant gain power, in fact we cannot do anything outside the bylaws.". It's extremely important that we understand how did you limit yourself through the bylaws as implied by your post. Preferably quote the bylaws. And if you didn't limit yourself, please explain why you worded your post in a manner leaving an impression you did.
Also, who the hell is Matt?
Matt,
Again, I clearly said the bylaws limit our corporate power which you already quoted. I did not say the bylaws limit the power over its control of Bitcoin.
Please stop trying to twist my words. I wrote "Your bylaws reference is speaking of something totally different, corporate law, that states that the foundation can sell t-shirts but not illegal firearms..nothing to do with promoting Bitcoin"
Now, onto the real issue...
I'm worried the foundation will grab the power to:
- claim to speak in the name of all users of the Bitcoin software
>> We claim to speak in the name of all members of the foundation. Bitcoin is open source, no one owns it.
- claim to speak as the authority on Bitcoin software
>> Bitcoin is open source, no one owns it. Anyone can write their own Bitcoin software. The foundation does not control any of the software.
- claim to be a watchdog over the code so individual members needn't worry
>> The foundation will pay for Quality Control and Assurance of the Bitcoin code from member dues. The InfoSec type companies will be hired to test the quality of the code and look for bugs/holes (Something which the dev teams badly needs and has requested many times) Any findings will be published the an update released. Any of the individual software writers or users are free to not update their clients or software.
- claim to be the authority deciding which Bitcoin businesses are legitimate
>> The foundation will attempt to build a vetting process to prevent scammer companies from exploiting Bitcoin users. It wil not just point a finger at a company and say "This is illegitimate". The foundation will release evidence acquired and present it to its members.
- claim to be the authority that decides which Bitcoin projects are worthy of founding
>> The foundation will fund projects that request to be funded. It is legally allowed to deny/approve anyone as its a member driven organization.
- claim to be the authority that decides which developer's improvements should/shouldn't be added to the core Bitcoin code
>> The foundation has no say in what goes in the code. Recommendations could be presented to the core dev team, and they can do as they see fit.
- sell a change of Bitcoin or any "approved" layers on top, or just simply a policy or a mission statement to the corporate membership, shoved down the throats of all of the users through a founders 1 + corporate 2 vote giving them the majority
>> Most policys and major changes would require a unanimous vote, not a majority.
Let me know if you have other concerns, I'll gladly respond to them.
Some of these concerns are real, and I think need to go intro the bylaws, so thank you for pointing them out....just wish you were a little nicer about it considering you asked to be treated like an adult
-Charlie
But no, you are blinded with ego and can't see three feet in front of you all the dangers that are possible even in this highly restrictive system.
Dude, you gotta stop with the personal insults at people. Have I insulted you? Why cant you have a normal and civilized conversion.
You asked to be treated like an adult, act like one!
Are you familiar with what happened at 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco? Let me give a brief overview. President Bush instructed phone companies to allow an illegal warrant-less wiretap be installed at this location and others recording ALL Internet traffic unfiltered, which a whistle blower found out about. The administration then had Congress retroactively grant the phone companies immunity from prosecution for siding with them in breaking the law.
https://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying
As a U.S. corporation that openly develops the software to conduct bitcoin transactions, how would the foundation deal with similar government pressure to "save us from the terrorists, pornographers, government anarchists, etc"?
https://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying
As a U.S. corporation that openly develops the software to conduct bitcoin transactions, how would the foundation deal with similar government pressure to "save us from the terrorists, pornographers, government anarchists, etc"?
The bitcoin design permits what it permits, and prevents what it prevents.
Government pressure does not change that. Government pressure cannot magically compromise SHA256 or ECDSA -- that's the whole point of the system.
The system works how it works.
Such non answers and trickery..
The system works how it works? How about with an answer like "Yes the system works where change is possible, especially backwards compatible change like BIP16, so yes theoretically we could make rules stricter to include an IP address with every transaction and if we got enough mining support there wouldn't even be a hard fork necessary. You are right that is a problem."
But no, you are blinded with ego and can't see three feet in front of you all the dangers that are possible even in this highly restrictive system.
I like the idea of the Foundation and have joined up for life, I can vote now.
Imo your average person/bizz needs something like this or otherwise Bitcoin is just like bobbing for apples in a tub when you need answers.
The Atlas campaign smacks of ol style propaganda, repeat something often enough and people will eventually believe it.
Imo your average person/bizz needs something like this or otherwise Bitcoin is just like bobbing for apples in a tub when you need answers.
The Atlas campaign smacks of ol style propaganda, repeat something often enough and people will eventually believe it.
Are you familiar with what happened at 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco? Let me give a brief overview. President Bush instructed phone companies to allow an illegal warrant-less wiretap be installed at this location and others recording ALL Internet traffic unfiltered, which a whistle blower found out about. The administration then had Congress retroactively grant the phone companies immunity from prosecution for siding with them in breaking the law.
https://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying
As a U.S. corporation that openly develops the software to conduct bitcoin transactions, how would the foundation deal with similar government pressure to "save us from the terrorists, pornographers, government anarchists, etc"?
https://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying
As a U.S. corporation that openly develops the software to conduct bitcoin transactions, how would the foundation deal with similar government pressure to "save us from the terrorists, pornographers, government anarchists, etc"?
The bitcoin design permits what it permits, and prevents what it prevents.
Government pressure does not change that. Government pressure cannot magically compromise SHA256 or ECDSA -- that's the whole point of the system.
The system works how it works.
Jump to: