Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Foundation - page 29. (Read 127634 times)
Since when is there a mtgox tainted coins list?
This isn't the "lesser evil" - it's this or nothing - currently.
False. Is this or leaving the code, the client and my fucking coins the way they are now.
Whether or not TBF exists, the code, the client, and therefore how your coins move about in the network if you chose to send them somewhere will change.
Of course you are free to use an alternate client.
False. A self defined "THE Bitcoin Foundation" is a newcomers honeypot with the two biggest exchangers and the main bitcoin developer forming part of it. If the developer ends up tweaking the widespread newcomers client in order to, for example, reject the MtGOX tainted coin list (or the USA government tainted list), my bitcoins atomatically will be less valuable. Remember that Gavin is in "money searching mode" as they say in the web.
Remember: Control the newcomers and, someday, you will control the bitcoin network majority.
This isn't the "lesser evil" - it's this or nothing - currently.
False. Is this or leaving the code, the client and my fucking coins the way they are now.
Are you calling to stop improving the client? Or is this about the fear that lets say a part of you coins are sent to a goverment wallet without your consent? (or any other ridiculous scenario dreamed up here)
Because neither of those will happen, with our without the bitcoin foundation.
I don't understand what "power" has to do with any of this. What am I missing?
Thanks for the question. I'll try and answer, give a sec...
If people like you aren't happy with the direction of Bitcoin you are free to fork it and go on your way.
As we still are free to inform the users about the theats OUR currency are facing
Yes, yes we are and we will continue.
It is a democracy inasmuch as your "votes" are the efforts you contribute to the project. I simply reap the rewards by using bitcoin. I don't feel entitled by any means and I am grateful the foundation exists.
If people like you aren't happy with the direction of Bitcoin you are free to fork it and go on your way.
As we still are free to inform the users about the theats OUR currency are facing
I don't understand what "power" has to do with any of this. What am I missing?
You are missing everything.
Power was suppose to be decentralized residing with individuals with a central authority. We now have a quasi central authority that it's true, it can't control how Bitcoin runs, but it can control all the other aspects of it: lead dev, dev team, logo, pr, legal, you name it.
And I didn't consent to any of it.
On a personal note, I can't tell you how exhausting today is for me. Even my family noticed I was feeling really down.
You don't have to consent to a collective forming. People are allowed to voluntarily pool their resources. You people must really feel high and mighty if you think that your consent is required, considered, or even should be asked for.
You are missing everything.
Thanks for the rude answer to a polite question.
Quote
Power was suppose to be decentralized residing with individuals with a central authority
I don't understand the meaning of this sentence.
Quote
. We now have a quasi central authority that it's true, it can't control how Bitcoin runs, but it can control all the other aspects of it: lead dev, dev team, logo, pr, legal, you name it.
dev team is dev team because 1) they put hard work in and 2) people are pleased with their work. The other things you list are things that won't be accomplished without some sort of quasi-central authority.
Quote
And I didn't consent to any of it.
You are if you are still using the client and protocol that they put so much work into. This is the evolution of this open source project. Not everyone is going to agree and it's not going to be a democracy, much less a perfect one. The people who step up and contribute, like all the members of the board, are the ones who get to represent the project.
This isn't the "lesser evil" - it's this or nothing - currently.
False. Is this or leaving the code, the client and my fucking coins the way they are now.
Whether or not TBF exists, the code, the client, and therefore how your coins move about in the network if you chose to send them somewhere will change.
Of course you are free to use an alternate client.
Whoever controls the most widely-accept Bitcoin implementation, controls Bitcoin.
And this is different now because?
You might want to grasp the point of "widely-accepted" and realize just what that states about potential changes. If people like you aren't happy with the direction of Bitcoin you are free to fork it and go on your way.
Whoever controls the most widely-accept Bitcoin implementation, controls Bitcoin.
As of now, this foundation will be the primary sponsor of the "official" release with corporate backers who will want their say.
As of now, this foundation will be the primary sponsor of the "official" release with corporate backers who will want their say.
I don't understand what "power" has to do with any of this. What am I missing?
You are missing everything.
Power was suppose to be decentralized residing with individuals with a central authority. We now have a quasi central authority that it's true, it can't control how Bitcoin runs, but it can control all the other aspects of it: lead dev, dev team, logo, pr, legal, you name it.
And I didn't consent to any of it.
On a personal note, I can't tell you how exhausting today is for me. Even my family noticed I was feeling really down.
This isn't the "lesser evil" - it's this or nothing - currently.
False. Is this or leaving the code, the client and my fucking coins the way they are now.
I don't understand what "power" has to do with any of this. What am I missing?
Hey Erik, why the change of heart?:
And today:
Gavin - seems like a reasonable idea.
Bitcoin would still have all the advantages of being decentralized (no central server, no office to raid and shut down. etc), but gets the added advantages of a core organization to guide it. Perhaps the core organization will get destroyed by the evil powers, but I'm not sure that'd be incredibly damaging to Bitcoin as a protocol. The community would just grow a new command center when the old was destroyed.
The main danger is if the community trusts such an organization too much. For example- if everyone assumed the client version put out by the organization was trustworthy, then there is serious danger. A group as you propose should probably exist, but the community should remain skeptical of it, and always constructively critical.
Bitcoin would still have all the advantages of being decentralized (no central server, no office to raid and shut down. etc), but gets the added advantages of a core organization to guide it. Perhaps the core organization will get destroyed by the evil powers, but I'm not sure that'd be incredibly damaging to Bitcoin as a protocol. The community would just grow a new command center when the old was destroyed.
The main danger is if the community trusts such an organization too much. For example- if everyone assumed the client version put out by the organization was trustworthy, then there is serious danger. A group as you propose should probably exist, but the community should remain skeptical of it, and always constructively critical.
After a few mins of more thinking...
Perhaps the idea of an "official" group is not wise. Instead, the core dev team could create an organization, with special logo and name. This organization would be the de facto official group, but only so long as it held up its reputation. At all times, other groups can form and compete for "de facto officialness."
In essence then, this would just be a Non-profit, spontaneously organized by individuals. If multiple such organizations sprout up, then each community member can support whomever they wish.
Think of it like a market for competing representatives. No group official by law, but any group official by market sentiment. We would see one group come to dominate the sentiment, but Bitcoin would not be irrevocably tied to it.
No group should be granted an explicit monopoly... but an implicit market-derived monopoly would not bother me.
Perhaps the idea of an "official" group is not wise. Instead, the core dev team could create an organization, with special logo and name. This organization would be the de facto official group, but only so long as it held up its reputation. At all times, other groups can form and compete for "de facto officialness."
In essence then, this would just be a Non-profit, spontaneously organized by individuals. If multiple such organizations sprout up, then each community member can support whomever they wish.
Think of it like a market for competing representatives. No group official by law, but any group official by market sentiment. We would see one group come to dominate the sentiment, but Bitcoin would not be irrevocably tied to it.
No group should be granted an explicit monopoly... but an implicit market-derived monopoly would not bother me.
And today:
"Warning - while you were reading 193 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post."
LOL
For the record, I LOVE that the Foundation exists now. I think this is a huge positive step for Bitcoin. Few negatives, plenty of positives. I also understand the concern many people feel - we should always be diligent and skeptical of anyone trying to be "the face" of Bitcoin. But in this case specifically, and to the extent this Foundation can act in certain manners for certain goals, I think it's a very legitimate development and I'll be joining as a paying member here soon.
LOL
For the record, I LOVE that the Foundation exists now. I think this is a huge positive step for Bitcoin. Few negatives, plenty of positives. I also understand the concern many people feel - we should always be diligent and skeptical of anyone trying to be "the face" of Bitcoin. But in this case specifically, and to the extent this Foundation can act in certain manners for certain goals, I think it's a very legitimate development and I'll be joining as a paying member here soon.
I don't see a change of heart in my above statements. Anyone can make another Foundation or group to develop, make standards, raise money, represent itself, etc. I would prefer for this Bitcoin Foundation to not label themselves verbatim as "The Official Organization In Charge Of Bitcoin" etc., and I don't think they're doing that. The language used will be important, but the Foundation should earn it's "official" reputation through its actions and relationships with people, not through "claiming" it explicitly, if that makes sense.
Again, a market-based, central organization is something I have no problem with. So long as others can organize their own organizations with their own agendas, all is well. I will say, however, if the Bitcoin Foundation ever seeks Government legislation which curtails the decentralized, market-based nature of Bitcoin, I will be vociferously opposed. I do not believe anyone on the board desires such legislation.
Heh Erik.. As I've established no other foundation, if it were to be established, could possibly have the same influence and power as this one with the name Bitcoin Foundation (something you opposed to), with Gavin on the board of directors and with free will to join another foundation or not and with most powerful business' CEOs on the board of directors. If you are honest with yourself and you read you're posts from then you will admit that this is not what you wanted.
It doesn't matter what their intentions are today. They have a foot in the door now. Their intentions can change and we all know how that worked out for let's say the once freest country on this planet.
I just hope the pro-hierarchy Bitcoiners understand we will get upset if they start trying to set the Bitcoin price, making government partnerships and lobbying for regulations that only benefit certain parts of the Bitcoin industry over others.
That's the point. It's not hierarchical.
Nobody is talking about doing those things, and Gavin and the others have justification for their Autority. These are the limits of the technology we are currently using.
If it were possible to use the proof of work mechanism to vote on sourcecode changes that would not be the case. But since that isn't supported by the current version of bitcoin/maybe never will be the bitcoin foundation is the next best thing. This isn't the "lesser evil" - it's this or nothing - currently.
All I really want is this foundation to be an advisory board with just mere opinions that people can easily leave.
If this organization has no teeth through regulation or control of the protocol, I'll be fine with it. From what I am hearing though, power is desired.
If this organization has no teeth through regulation or control of the protocol, I'll be fine with it. From what I am hearing though, power is desired.
Matt,
This is exactly what the organization is.
This is not what your 'hearing', this is what your 'claiming' on the forums on your own
-Charlie
Not true. This is NOT an advisory board. It's a legal and formal structured corporation, currently adopting a name which suggests it speaks for Bitcoin in its entirety.
Do you disagree?
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?
Pay attention to his post, he was quoting what someone else said.
Thank for for pointing that out.
No I'm sorry. I'm not going to let you off the hook this easy.
You made a claim that the Foundation cannot gain any power because it is limited by it's bylaws. I then made a reference to the bylaws that you said is not the section governing what the Foundation can or can't do upon which I asked if you'd be so kind to quote the section that is. You did not, instead you asked a question which implied that you in fact have no limits imposed by your bylaws except the limit of Bitcoin's design which doesn't allow you to control it how it's run. I then asked why you lied such limits were imposed by bylaws.
My question is this:
Can you please quote the section of your bylaws that limits what the Foundation can or can't do with regards to acquiring or increasing it's power?
If not, why did you say such limits existed?
Btw if I need to I'll compose a post with all the quotes matching the above.
+1. Excellent questions.
+1000000000
Viable question indeed
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?
Pay attention to his post, he was quoting what someone else said.
Thank for for pointing that out.
No I'm sorry. I'm not going to let you off the hook this easy.
You made a claim that the Foundation cannot gain any power because it is limited by it's bylaws. I then made a reference to the bylaws that you said is not the section governing what the Foundation can or can't do upon which I asked if you'd be so kind to quote the section that is. You did not, instead you asked a question which implied that you in fact have no limits imposed by your bylaws except the limit of Bitcoin's design which doesn't allow you to control it how it's run. I then asked why you lied such limits were imposed by bylaws.
My question is this:
Can you please quote the section of your bylaws that limits what the Foundation can or can't do with regards to acquiring or increasing it's power?
If not, why did you say such limits existed?
Btw if I need to I'll compose a post with all the quotes matching the above.
+1. Excellent questions.
Jump to: