Hey Erik, why the change of heart?:
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.
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.
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.
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.
