http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil
This is what's needed^^
Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Foundation - page 27. (Read 127621 times)
A start for limiting power would be as simple as stating the intention to do so. I haven't seen that in any form from any high level member. Why not a good faith answer about the name, for example, which I've described as problematic in the way it infers power, yet isn't essential to solve the problems the entity is supposed to solve.
No high level member has said they're open to using a less powerful sounding name. They haven't even answered my simple question:
Should the Bitcoin Foundation intentionally and explicitly seek to LIMIT its power in every way possible which does not diminish its ability to accomplish its goals?
No high level member has said they're open to using a less powerful sounding name. They haven't even answered my simple question:
Should the Bitcoin Foundation intentionally and explicitly seek to LIMIT its power in every way possible which does not diminish its ability to accomplish its goals?
It is a meaningless question, whose only possible answer is vague, not quantifiable, and entirely within the realm of politicians not engineers.
But even as such, this answered the question. Staying within Satoshi's vision is a clear limit on power. Staying true to the protocol is a clear limit on power.
As to the name... come up with a better one that (a) doesn't sound lame and (b) doesn't sound ominous to other forum denizens.
Not if Satoshi's vision gets redefined much like how statists say the Founding Father's intended for the second amendment to apply to hunting.
You guys are just regular people and when you get the chance to have power, you will likely take it unless clear limits are set.
My issue with this statement is that the "in every way possible which does not diminish its ability to accomplish its goals?" part renders any limit utterly effective.
If the Foundation decided to limit it's power, as stated above, wouldn't they be able to just arbitrarily change what their goals are in order to get around it? "Well, that's our goal now, so we don't have any limits on what we can do towards it."
If the Foundation decided to limit it's power, as stated above, wouldn't they be able to just arbitrarily change what their goals are in order to get around it? "Well, that's our goal now, so we don't have any limits on what we can do towards it."
I'm trying to get clearly defined goals and limits on power up front to protect from the warnings all the dissenters have been giving.
Quote
What are they afraid of? Forget the bylaws. Just TALK for heavens sake.
Bylaws are important. Having something in the bylaws actually restricts what the Foundation can legally do. The limits on power you're advocating for must necessarily be codified into the bylaws to be an effective limit. This is why I was asking for specific proposed changes to the bylaws.
You don't go from nothing to bylaws. There is discussion first. I'm looking for discussion.
A start for limiting power would be as simple as stating the intention to do so. I haven't seen that in any form from any high level member. Why not a good faith answer about the name, for example, which I've described as problematic in the way it infers power, yet isn't essential to solve the problems the entity is supposed to solve.
No high level member has said they're open to using a less powerful sounding name. They haven't even answered my simple question:
Should the Bitcoin Foundation intentionally and explicitly seek to LIMIT its power in every way possible which does not diminish its ability to accomplish its goals?
No high level member has said they're open to using a less powerful sounding name. They haven't even answered my simple question:
Should the Bitcoin Foundation intentionally and explicitly seek to LIMIT its power in every way possible which does not diminish its ability to accomplish its goals?
It is a meaningless question, whose only possible answer is vague, not quantifiable, and entirely within the realm of politicians not engineers.
But even as such, this answered the question. Staying within Satoshi's vision is a clear limit on power. Staying true to the protocol is a clear limit on power.
As to the name... come up with a better one that (a) doesn't sound lame and (b) doesn't sound ominous to other forum denizens.
Thank you. That's a start. You're not one of the "high level involved members" but at least you, from your posts, agree with that side for now.
A start for limiting power would be as simple as stating the intention to do so. I haven't seen that in any form from any high level member. Why not a good faith answer about the name, for example, which I've described as problematic in the way it infers power, yet isn't essential to solve the problems the entity is supposed to solve.
No high level member has said they're open to using a less powerful sounding name.
They just got the thing launched, I don't think they're going to want to change the name on Day 2. With enough popular support from the members, I think it could be done in the next six months though.
"Limitless power" is obviously not the intention of the Foundation (and I'm sure all of the board members would agree). It isn't clear to me, though, what specific, practical changes you are advocating for.
Then why haven't I seen any acknowledgement on that to the contrary? I'd breathe much easier if someone at a high level just said they believe the entity should seek to LIMIT its power in all sensible ways.
Most of the Board members don't spend as much time on the forums as many of the people here. They skim when a thread is about them, and may miss many questions or comments. If you'd like a direct response from Peter, I'd suggest posting in his AMA on reddit:
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/10mezg/iam_peter_vessenes_executive_director_of_the/
If these guys who started "A Bitcoin Foundation" would have embraced the community a little better instead of twirling their moustaches while hatching their plot in secret, perhaps the rollout would have been welcomed almost unanimously with open arms. Instead, they caused a divide. Bad karma.
This secret plot was openly discussed in this thread.
Create a central clearinghouse for information about legal issues surrounding Bitcoin across the world?
Act as a central library for accurate information about Bitcoin, so journalists and policymakers have an 'official' place to learn about Bitcoin.
Fuck this so hard. This is about controlling the message and it will create a hegemony if we let it.
If these guys who started "A Bitcoin Foundation" would have embraced the community a little better instead of twirling their moustaches while hatching their plot in secret, perhaps the rollout would have been welcomed almost unanimously with open arms. Instead, they caused a divide. Bad karma.
This secret plot was openly discussed in this thread.
This is disingenuous at best because what was discussed there is merely the idea of such an organization and not a single detail of the actual implementation.
I don't understand why you need to employ such trickery and keep misleading people? The foundation was formed in private among a select minority - this is a fact.
The following statement really bothers me, and is ridiculous in the context of a product whose originator clearly valued anonymity highly, for good reason:
Quote from: vessenes 4 points 2 hours ago
The Foundation's core values include openness and transparency. I think the Bitcoin anonymous thing is overblown and a bit of a myth, by the way. Every bitcoin transaction links two addresses; often people can be determined from those addresses.
It is factually incorrect to call bitcoins anonymous. See https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Anonymity
Everyone from the EFF to the US Department of State recommend Tor for activists to secure their communications.
What if that same activist, hiding from an authoritarian government, hears "bitcoin is anonymous" with no further detail? They will get caught, by protocol fingerprinting, network analysis and other techniques.
You have to employ several techniques over and over "using bitcoin" to achieve reasonable anonymity.
If these guys who started "A Bitcoin Foundation" would have embraced the community a little better instead of twirling their moustaches while hatching their plot in secret, perhaps the rollout would have been welcomed almost unanimously with open arms. Instead, they caused a divide. Bad karma.
This secret plot was openly discussed in this thread.
bylaws 4.3c contains a critical typo:
five percent attack!
Quote
(c) Members holding five percent (15%) or more of the Corporation's voting power by a written demand signed, dated, and delivered to the Secretary.
five percent attack!
I just submitted the first pull request on the bylaws!
https://github.com/cwkoss/The-Bitcoin-Foundation-Legal-Repo/commit/49616de82e2c0e9b07bd4f4a5eab3de09b96b05a
Then why haven't I seen any acknowledgement on that to the contrary? I'd breathe much easier if someone at a high level just said they believe the entity should seek to LIMIT its power in all sensible ways.
I don't know. Maybe, they're just busy?
Good point. And I have. I think a foundation can have legitimate usefulness. Please see my post here. In a nutshell, I think if a foundation is to exist, then the way to do it properly is to have clear limits on its power. Wouldn't most people agree? Or would the opposite be preferred, that it seek to amass as much role and power as possible?
OK. I'll bite.
How do you propose the Foundation should limit its power? What is the language you would use to codify these limits into the bylaws?
Thank you. That's a start. You're not one of the "high level involved members" but at least you, from your posts, agree with that side for now.
A start for limiting power would be as simple as stating the intention to do so. I haven't seen that in any form from any high level member. Why not a good faith answer about the name, for example, which I've described as problematic in the way it infers power, yet isn't essential to solve the problems the entity is supposed to solve.
No high level member has said they're open to using a less powerful sounding name. They haven't even answered my simple question:
Should the Bitcoin Foundation intentionally and explicitly seek to LIMIT its power in every way possible which does not diminish its ability to accomplish its goals?
What are they afraid of? Forget the bylaws. Just TALK for heavens sake.
"Limitless power" is obviously not the intention of the Foundation (and I'm sure all of the board members would agree). It isn't clear to me, though, what specific, practical changes you are advocating for.
Then why haven't I seen any acknowledgement on that to the contrary? I'd breathe much easier if someone at a high level just said they believe the entity should seek to LIMIT its power in all sensible ways.
Good point. And I have. I think a foundation can have legitimate usefulness. Please see my post here. In a nutshell, I think if a foundation is to exist, then the way to do it properly is to have clear limits on its power. Wouldn't most people agree? Or would the opposite be preferred, that it seek to amass as much role and power as possible?
OK. I'll bite.
How do you propose the Foundation should limit its power? What is the language you would use to codify these limits into the bylaws?
"Limitless power" is obviously not the intention of the Foundation (and I'm sure all of the board members would agree). It isn't clear to me, though, what specific, practical changes you are advocating for.
A constitution that says what The Foundation is explicitly allowed to do while forbidding anything not listed. A list of forbidden powers could be listed as well.
Good point. And I have. I think a foundation can have legitimate usefulness. Please see my post here. In a nutshell, I think if a foundation is to exist, then the way to do it properly is to have clear limits on its power. Wouldn't most people agree? Or would the opposite be preferred, that it seek to amass as much role and power as possible?
OK. I'll bite.
How do you propose the Foundation should limit its power? What is the language you would use to codify these limits into the bylaws?
"Limitless power" is obviously not the intention of the Foundation (and I'm sure all of the board members would agree). It isn't clear to me, though, what specific, practical changes you are advocating for.
This is just fear mongering. Those people who are on the board are not anonymous. We know where they live, what companies they run, etc. You think there wouldn't be an international manhunt if they tries to run away with the money?
All of this calls for transparency and financial privacy, not letting any foundation represent anybody.
All of this calls for transparency and financial privacy, not letting any foundation represent anybody.
You've missed the point. It isn't about stealing bitcoins outright. It's about the power and influence to steal or benefit, if desired, in a much less obvious way. You don't think we know the identities of every lawmaker in the U.S. Congress? You think corruptions, favoritism, bribery and outright illegal activity doesn't happen in the American government?
Unfortunately, I fail to see why it is dangerous. To me, the foundation have zero power at all beyond the consent and support of the community. As far as I am concerned, the developers will continue their dance with the independent horde of miners.
You fail to see any danger? Okay...
Just think creatively for a moment.
Good point. And I have. I think a foundation can have legitimate usefulness. Please see my post here. In a nutshell, I think if a foundation is to exist, then the way to do it properly is to have clear limits on its power. Wouldn't most people agree? Or would the opposite be preferred, that it seek to amass as much role and power as possible?
I don't think anyone would say it was. I think people generally agree (including lead Bitcoin developers) that people were pretty stupid on their own.
Now, that's small scale damage. There are over 300 million people in the U.S. alone and there are billions of people globally. Bitcoin is global. How many of these people would you wager are much different from the people that got taken in the scam?
Now, imagine The Bitcoin Foundation becomes widely viewed as the legitimate de facto face of Bitcoin. Millions of people recognize it as such, because of how many other do. This is similar to how many people use Google, not because they understand the nuances of why/how it produces better results, but because it's perceived as the top by everyone else. Why do you think Google's founders immediately made a goal to "do no evil"? It's because they knew the enormous power and influence they would get, whether deserved or not, far into the future, whether they continued to be deserving or not. Do you know how much "evil" Google could get away without losing any real share of users? Just think creatively for a moment. I'm talking censorship, favorites for rankings etc.
This is just fear mongering. Those people who are on the board are not anonymous. We know where they live, what companies they run, etc. You think there wouldn't be an international manhunt if they tries to run away with the money?
All of this calls for transparency and financial privacy, not letting any foundation represent anybody.
Unfortunately, I fail to see why it is dangerous. To me, the foundation have zero power at all beyond the consent and support of the community. As far as I am concerned, the developers will continue their dance with the independent horde of miners.
You fail to see any danger? Okay...
Just think creatively for a moment.
I give it a year or two before the Foundation starts "helping" regulators to draft laws relating to Bitcoin. I sure hope I'm wrong.
Unfortunately, I fail to see why it is dangerous. To me, the foundation have zero power at all beyond the consent and support of the community. As far as I am concerned, the developers will continue their dance with the independent horde of miners.
You fail to see any danger? Okay...
Consider this. How much money/BTC did people lose to Pirateat40 in the Bitcoin Savings and Trust scam?
I'd put the figure near half a million dollars. Probably from several hundred people of various levels of activity on this forum and in the community.
Was that a brilliantly executed scam?
I don't think anyone would say it was. I think people generally agree (including lead Bitcoin developers) that people were pretty stupid on their own.
Now, that's small scale damage. There are over 300 million people in the U.S. alone and there are billions of people globally. Bitcoin is global. How many of these people would you wager are much different from the people that got taken in the scam?
Now, imagine The Bitcoin Foundation becomes widely viewed as the legitimate de facto face of Bitcoin. Millions of people recognize it as such, because of how many other do. This is similar to how many people use Google, not because they understand the nuances of why/how it produces better results, but because it's perceived as the top by everyone else. Why do you think Google's founders immediately made a goal to "do no evil"? It's because they knew the enormous power and influence they would get, whether deserved or not, far into the future, whether they continued to be deserving or not. Do you know how much "evil" Google could get away without losing any real share of users? Just think creatively for a moment. I'm talking censorship, favorites for rankings, blacklisting etc. Remember, if you're not in Google, you pretty much don't exist.
Jump to: