Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Foundation - page 25. (Read 127621 times)

You are afraid of TBF implementing code in the software to leak user data? Is that what you're trying to say?

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 Bitcoin 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 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"?

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?

Because it needs the authority to ensure the modified client is accepted and used by a majority of users. If Gavin made egregious changes on his own it would quickly be dropped and he would no longer have the respect to continue as leader. But if the foundation imposes changes and makes it seem to the majority that there really is no choice and it's in the best interests of the majority then it quite likely could be accepted. Isn't this how government works anyway? Don't we all accept the violent force of the state because the majority has been convinced it's in our best interest?

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

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

This seems reasonable at the moment but as more and more economic activity takes place with bitcoin I can very easily see this not being sufficient for any govt. They will want to know who is paying who and for what and will want a cut in taxes, and to impose controls. When enough users have useful holding in bitcoin such that they can thrive without fiat they will be wanting to know more. And isn't that what we're all here for? To eventually make Bitcoin so useful that we no longer need to depend on govt fiat money?

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

Ok, I guess I need to quote everything in order to show how the conversation actually went (relevant parts are underlined and red):


To which I wrote:


To which you replied:


To which I replied:


To which you replied with a non answer:


To which I replied with my conclusion:


And you replied with another non answer:



And finally I'm waiting to hear your answer to:

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.

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

I pretty much agree with this except for what I highlighted in bold. I don't think a bigger market will result if this isn't concluded properly. Bitcoin's value is based on a perception, one which includes non-centralized power. What this event has done is drastically threaten that perception, and perception is the only thing the Bitcoin value/exchange rate is based on. If this isn't resolved in what is perceived to be an acceptable way I fear the foundation of the exchange rate will essentially disappear.

Matt,

I clearly said the foundation is limited on what it can do as a corporate entity in its bylaws.

Then, you asked me what the foundation is doing to limit the power over Bitcoin.

I simply responded that the foundation has no power, because Satoshi build Bitcoin to not be able to be controlled by any outside entity.

I then asked for some things that you would like to see control over, which you did not respond to.

Please, I urge you to speak out in a civil way and show your concerns, not bash other people and make things up.

Regarding being truthful, it goes both ways.

Have a great night Matt,

-Charlie

By the way, proof:

Thank you for the concession here. That's helpful and small progress.

Alternative names were suggested starting here. I'll recap:

The We Use Coins Group
The Global Bitcoiner Association
The Bitcoin Freedom Foundation
The Bitcoin Helper Group
The Friends of Karples Foundation
The Bitcoin Super Friends Club

I kind of like The Bitcoin Freedom Foundation, as did another poster in that thread besides the creator.

I'm also interested in a response to this:


Or, put another way, how adding and official target for enemies of Bitcoin might be dealt with.

This explicitly demonstrates the problem. This makes it clear that (1) Gavin doesn't understand consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consenus) as it requires consent from all parties. Unless by "rough" he meant, well, among a few of his buddies and highly vested business friends. and (2) that "he" would like to get it going. He didn't say "we should", or "the community ought to" but just simply "I, Gavin, me" would like to get it going.

Saying that he posted about this almost a year ago and then left it at that for background working to take place is hardly being open, inclusive or consensual. He probably knew that if it had been put out there in the Bitcoin community it would have been torn apart and inspected for it's weaknesses. He didn't want to bend to the will of anyone but a few vested interests.

I think what has been done now has introduced a massive vulnerability into Bitcoin. One that opens up what a lot of users believed was a founding principle.

I'd say that this issue appears to be forming a battleline between two camps in Bitcoin. Those who are happy to see Bitcoin bent to the will of government, because it probably means a bigger market and more money in fees, and those who still value the privacy and anti-censorship aspects of Bitcoin, those who thought there was no central authority, and never would be.

No, there is now a group of individuals that took the initiative to form a legal corporation and announce to the community that they ARE the Bitcoin Foundation.

Do you see the frustration dissenters have? Why can't we have more straightforward discussion, as opposed to PR type wording? It's the rammed push that people are concerned about as feeling like a power grab, and likely indicative of what's to come.

If this is a great idea can't it be discussed openly on its merits?

Yes, I read that when written. You know how I interpreted it? As setting the tone for dialogue in that thread.

I don't know how we got from "I would like to get" to "I will take action". But maybe that's my fault for not understanding, or maybe it's just semantics. Regardless, it's not helpful to form such in entity in the way it was done given its nature and the context. I hope you can see that.

For starters I'd like a honest open conversation without trickery. If we call you on a mistake, admit it if facts show it's true. Charlie is a board member and yet also used trickery in his replies as noted.

Besides I already gave constructive criticism above here:

The people you are "quoting" are not representatives of the foundation, but supporters from the community.

I believe most of the non-affiliated supporters were refuting claims that it was "a secret plot" with malicious intentions, not that the incorporation and website design was done privately within a group of 6-7 people.

What's done is done.  There is now a Bitcoin Foundation, and it is asking the community what direction it should head in.  Do you have any constructive criticism for how they should move forward or what you'd like them to do? 

Are you proposing the Foundation should be dismantled because they didn't voluntarily disclose that the "idea" phase had ended and they had moved into the "initial implementation" phase?  This seems kind of petty to me.

Readers please note the continued trickery. Before it was "The plan was publicly discussed", when called on the trickery it changes to "The plan wasn't really publicly discussed but the intentions were so you should have guessed the plan."


You know, I really wouldn't have such a hard time swallowing this Foundation if you could just address criticism honestly and say: Hey yes, you are right, we did forge the plan and executed it in private with a select few because we thought this is the only way we could do it. You are right, it wasn't open, that's why to address this and make it open we are going to do the following..

But no, you lie. Blatantly.

Same with Charlie. When asked about the power the Foundation will have he says it's severely limited by it's bylaws, when asked to provide the section of the bylaws that does it it changes to an implied "Well we don't really have limits other than we cann't control how Bitcoin is run."



This is not how honest business is being done and don't think for a second we are naive and can't smell the stench emanating from your and the board member's posts.