Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Foundation - page 26. (Read 127621 times)

In October, it was written "Assuming there is rough consensus that a Bitcoin Foundation is a good idea, I would like to get something imperfect up and running quickly, with the expectation that it will evolve over time."

That a foundation was actively moving forward? (including selection of board members and setting up a corporation, discussed between a select few?)

This was on the tip of my tongue! Thank you so much!

Yes, let's be precise.  You go first.

"The plan"...  what, precisely, was done in private and unexpectedly?  A large amount of details are simply obvious, falling out naturally from the creation of a legal entity:  You have to choose a name.  You have to file paperwork with a government in a physical jurisdiction.  You will be dispensing funds, thus you will need to collect some funds from initial funders and board members.

A members-based trade organization for open source projects is a common sight, with a familiar structure.  Simply saying "foundation for bitcoin" tells you it will probably look and work like Linux Foundation, Apache Software Foundation, Tor Project, GNOME Foundation, etc., etc.

So for anyone remotely paying attention... the plan and likely details are quite public.

The only private detail I can see is simply the Board, funding and members present on Launch Day.

Given that we went thru more than a month of guessing what the BIG announcement was going to be and that no one suggested the foundation (or maybe a few did, I didn't read every post, but it wasn't well known) I'd say it pretty clear the intent was to keep it secret until all the work had been done and it could be announced before being shot down.

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?

After that, lets say they are forced to add such code, you may say everyone is free to not use it. Given that the general public doesn't put much emphasis on privacy and security of data, as evidenced by their massive uptake of Facebook, and given that it's likely the Bitcoin network will more and more be populated by general public users it would hold they are probably going to form a majority that doesn't much care if their personal info is logged and relaying to the govt. They will end up being the majority that accepts using such a "dirty" client. This is just the way these things go and this foundation gives government the entry point.

As someone who took up using and contributing to Bitcoin projects due to it's anti-censorship and privacy features I'd like more than just hand waving by the foundation that they have plans to deal with protecting the privacy aspects.

Let's hear that again. Where will the oh-so humble Gavin be paid at, again? Under what corporate name?

Gavin Super Stud Dev, Inc.

This is reasonable -- I had suggested this to Gavin myself, e.g. Bitcoin Foundation pays Gavin Super Stud Dev, Inc. My suggestion was related to tax treatment, though other separation advantages may be apparent.

However, this is intimately tied to Gavin's personal compensation setup, and touches in the realm of personal privacy.

So this belongs in the "reasonable, but medium term suggestion" category.


As a members org, I think it should be up to the members what it is called.

But quite seriously...  let's hear some better names.  A suggestion of "change this" is vague.  Be specific about what the name should change to, and you have a basis for discussion.


As an opt-in, private organization, members will self-select their behavior here.

Yep, super humble. You just have to read through his pedantic, authoritarian messages on this board to understand how much of an egotistical asshole he is (including, by his own post a few pages back adding to the "ignore" list anybody that dissents with his "democratic, open to everyone" foundation).

Gavin: Thanks for that key. Hey, I know you have problems with the establishment and you created this thing but I went ahead and RSVP'd with the CIA.

Satoshi: ...

Gavin: Okay, I am now head developer. I own Bitcoin now.

This analogy is wrong at so many levels. When Satoshi wrote his paper and initial code, there was NO community.

LOL.  Gavin is probably the most humble person in the Bitcoin community.  

Oh and let's be precise. The plan was never openly discussed, just Gavin's intentions or wishes. The plan was formulated and executed in private and this is a fact which you admit.

Satoshi wrote his paper with zero input from the community, and yet you have no problem using his protocol.

Anybody is welcome to join.

---
Overall, there is lots of confusion between the Bitcoin protocol and "Bitcoin". The protocol is decentralized, p2p. Bitcoin itself, in its many meanings, is not and cannot be "decentralized" - this is meaningless.

I would add people that have such disproportionate control of the market (Charlie/Mark) shouldn't be on the board either.

Gavin is just a mediocre developer, with a huge ego that pretty much kicked off Satoshi from the project:

http://forums.microcash.org/index.php/topic/529-did-gavin-andresen-push-satoshi-out-of-bitcoin/

Ok here's my feedback on what mistakes were made now please fix them:

- Gavin or anyone else who is a dev should not be on the board of directors, he and all the other devs should be independently contracted by the Foundation
- name should be changed to something that does not imply ownership or control of Bitcoin or any aspect thereof
- First board members need to be voted on.

I expect these corrections to happen ASAP. Thank you.

It seems like the biggest issue is fear that the Foundation will get editorial control over the core devs, as a result of them paying the developers' salaries.

"The Foundation cannot suggest changes to the protocol to the core dev team." Seems overbearing.  The foundation plans on creating some sort of communication platform for members to use to discuss the future of Bitcoin.  Because some core dev team members are also foundation members, this could be construed as disallowing any open discussion of protocol development between foundation members, which seems counterproductive.

"No foundation board member may suggest changes to the protocol to the core dev team that they would benefit financially from." I think this clause would be unnecessary, because there is already a Conflict of Interest provision.

"The Foundation cannot demand changes to the protocol to the core dev team." or "No discussion of specific desired changes to the protocol can be made during negotiation of developer compensation." Sounds reasonable to me.  What do you think?

The plan was openly discussed.  And then linked in the OP.

It is self-evidently misleading on the part of critics to portray the forming of a foundation as a "secret plot."  11 months ago the forum saw "I would like to get something imperfect up and running quickly, with the expectation that it will evolve over time."

And that's what you do:  you find a group of people that can get something going, do-ers rather than talk-ers, and you pool initial funds and file legal paperwork.  If problems are found, you change.

Otherwise nothing gets done, outside of rampant bike shedding over names and other superficial details.  "THE Bitcoin Foundation"?  "A Bitcoin Foundation"?  "A Bitcoin Group"?  "Cream of Mushroom Engineer"?

At some point, it is better to do and get feedback and fix mistakes in an iterative process.

Funny, that sounds suspiciously like a political answer.

I'm not asking you what is the meaning of life here. It's a simple yes or no answer. I'm trying to assess your (and high level foundation members) ideological thinking for reasons which should be obvious.


No. That is what is vague in terms of TBF power. Staying true to the protocol doesn't limit power. The protocol defines how computers are to interact technically. That doesn't mean anything in the real world. Let me spell it out with an example: the Foundation will NOT meet with Washington lobbyists. That's an example of a clear accountable limit on power. What does the Bitcoin protocol have to do with that?


Thank you. At least that's a start. I notice you didn't say you'd adopt a different name. You just gave a set of instructions. You could in the future say that any submitted names didn't meet one or both of those criteria, and you stuck with what you had for that reason.

Do you see what it looks like you're trying to do versus what I'm trying to do?

It appears that you're leaving political wiggle room for TBF to amass power and justify it with clever words or speeches so it's not challenged. I'm trying to make it so that "you" (which represent the TBF PTB at this point) are answerable for any actions that can lead to more/unnecessary power. If our goals really are the same then we shouldn't have any conflict.

Thanks for pointing what the egomaniac Gavin had to say about this foundation. So much for "Dude, if you don't like it, create your own foundation, this is not **official**"

THIS. We went from "Hey guys, what do you think about having a bitcoin foundation?" to "Here is the foundation. We, the powers that be in the Bitcoin world, already elected the board, wrote the bylaws, and had the website done with ZERO input from the community"

Give me a break... and I don't want to hear that ridiculous "Anybody who owns 1 bitcoin can be elected to the board". Why not call for elections from the get go?

This is just ridiculous, and it will most certainly kill Bitcoin as we know it.