Pages:
Author

Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Foundation - page 31. (Read 127621 times)

legendary
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1023
Democracy is the original 51% attack
September 28, 2012, 03:05:03 PM
I agree with the sentiment that at this point the bitcoin experiment cannot be inherently anti-government if it is to succeed in the end.

Bitcoin is inherently anti-government since it takes away power from those who would live at the expense of others.


Exactly and this board could easily one day neuter Bitcoin from being a free currency to a fiat, government-controlled one by making standards for the protocol that everyone would be forced to abide by through corporate and social influence.

Corporate and social influence != force. That is the mistake you're making.  There is absolutely no problem with "influence" and every problem with "force." The Foundation will have lots of influence (and I think the current board has earned it), but no force, and thus I welcome it.
legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000
Charlie 'Van Bitcoin' Shrem
September 28, 2012, 03:02:49 PM
Bitcoin is inherently anti-government since it takes away power from those who would live at the expense of others.

Well, let us not close off the option of governments adopting a currency like bitcoin.

Think long game, as I pointed out in the mini-manifesto posted earlier in this thread.



"We are working with the government to make sure indeed the long arm of the government can reach Bitcoin." --Jeff Garzik,

Matt,

By the way, although I love Jeff, he does not speak for the foundation, so don't quote him on behalf of the foundation

Charlie
legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003
September 28, 2012, 03:01:38 PM
"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 must wonder if you'd be saying the same if Charlie wasn't a board member. Not that I think you're trying to be manipulative, it's just hard to believe you are looking at this objectively and aren't highly biased.


Please, don't be absurd.  Roll Eyes  If Charlie was doing something I disagreed with, he would know, and I'd have no problem discussing it on the forum. It happens that Charlie and I tend to agree on almost everything, especially after some discussion... though he's still slightly too statist for my taste, though this is changing fairly quickly, because Charlie is a smart guy Smiley

I've long been in favor of a more formal, more structured Foundation type organization to foster Bitcoin growth. I worry that people do not understand the difference between voluntary, market-based order and coercive order. They think the Foundation is the latter, when it's not.

A decentralized system can (and indeed, ought to) have certain "nodes" of organization and structure. It is the same dynamic which occurs with the bitcoin exchanges. The system is decentralized, yes, but it needs points of centralization (again, this is market-based centralization) to carry out specific functions such as bringing many buyers and sellers together to trade in the case of exchanges. Those who think exchanges shouldn't exist, and Bitcoin should only be traded among P2P systems, are not thinking clearly, and don't understand how markets operate. And just as one exchange may hold "influence" on the market, it cannot control it. The same is true with the Foundation.

Do not fear private, voluntary organization among intelligent, productive people. Avoiding, or condemning, such organization is antithetical to Bitcoin progress. All the best Bitcoin successes will be brought about not by perfectly decentralized, independent action of individuals, but by the voluntary cooperation and structure each individual builds with others. The Foundation is just another example of this, and I'm excited to see the progress this structure will bring.

It was an honest question, especially since I read you reservations that I quoted and you didn't reply to.

I just don't understand how you can objectively justify classifying this foundation as decentralized and merely a node when the board of directors are lead dev + two biggest businesses in Bitcoin. Yes I agree with you, but your words do not match the reality.

The reality is this is a corporation that asserted itself as the face of Bitcoin. Otherwise it wouldn't have:
- included lead dev on it's board of directors
- thereby given itself access to the git repository
- chosen the name Bitcoin foundation
- been devised in private among a small group
- ect (all the other tale tale sings of a centralized power grab)

You just can't objectively call this decentralized.


But again I actually agree with you. With your words anyway. I would have loved if this were a voluntary private association. I would have loved if someone started a for profit business that merely contracted with Gavin and was dependent on income from product it offered the community. I would have loved if arrangements were fixed with personal contract and not hidden behind a corporation and it's open ended bylaws.

I would have loved that. But this isn't it. It's another animal of the state, designed to wield power over a community who never gave it's consent.
vip
Activity: 198
Merit: 101
September 28, 2012, 03:01:33 PM
making standards for the protocol that everyone would be forced to abide by through corporate and social influence.

Corporate and social influence enforces how Bitcoin operates? I don't get it, if that was true wouldn't Bitcoin be screwed anyway?

Bitcoin cannot just magically change into a fiat currency because of some sinister plot. They have a hard enough time adding new things to the protocol. The only changes that could ever be accomplished will require enormous support.

By the way, hierarchy and trust systems will emerge out of Bitcoin. If you think otherwise, you're being selective about how you're applying game theory.
jr. member
Activity: 56
Merit: 1
September 28, 2012, 03:01:20 PM
Bitcoin is inherently anti-government since it takes away power from those who would live at the expense of others.

Well, let us not close off the option of governments adopting a currency like bitcoin.

Think long game, as I pointed out in the mini-manifesto posted earlier in this thread.



"We are working with the government to make sure indeed the long arm of the government can reach Bitcoin." --Jeff Garzik,
legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000
Charlie 'Van Bitcoin' Shrem
September 28, 2012, 03:00:35 PM
I'm absolutely stunned. From other "Bitcoin Foundation" related thread:

Having a Bitcoin Foundation puts us one step closer to it being plausible that Visa might actually consider Bitcoin a currency worth adding to their platform.

I'm really start to think about a true conspiracy. Now all of a sudden, some of the big fishes I was carefully reading from day one here, jump into this Foundation or openly defend it.


Huh?

This is what we do on forums, we talk.

-Charlie

Its not a complicated structure to understand and you can create your own foundation to help further Bitcoin.

Will Gavin leave your Foudation and join mine?

Would it be necessary for Gavin to leave one in order to participate in the other?  It's not unusual for causes to have multiple organisations set up to promote them and for each organisation to have a different focus.  It's also not unusual for those organisations to have some degree of common membership, at least when the number of organisations is still small.

I'm pretty sure Gavin can be a member of 2 similar entities or foundations.
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1100
September 28, 2012, 03:00:28 PM
Bitcoin is inherently anti-government since it takes away power from those who would live at the expense of others.

Well, let us not close off the option of governments adopting a currency like bitcoin.

Think long game, as I pointed out in the mini-manifesto posted earlier in this thread.

hero member
Activity: 868
Merit: 1000
September 28, 2012, 02:59:38 PM
Its not a complicated structure to understand and you can create your own foundation to help further Bitcoin.

Will Gavin leave your Foudation and join mine?

Would it be necessary for Gavin to leave one in order to participate in the other?  It's not unusual for causes to have multiple organisations set up to promote them and for each organisation to have a different focus.  It's also not unusual for those organisations to have some degree of common membership, at least when the number of organisations is still small.
hero member
Activity: 597
Merit: 500
September 28, 2012, 02:58:52 PM
I'm absolutely stunned. From other "Bitcoin Foundation" related thread:

Having a Bitcoin Foundation puts us one step closer to it being plausible that Visa might actually consider Bitcoin a currency worth adding to their platform.

I'm really starting to think about a true conspiracy. Now all of a sudden, some of the big fishes I was carefully reading from day one here, jump into this Foundation or openly defend it.

And who cares about VISA now? Why do we need that? If I want Visa managing my money I will search for credit cards in some bank. Let me be clear about this madness: we don't beg to some major banking or payment system to paternalisticly accept us. In a near future we will have the power not because having some public hands to shake, but having a large userbase.
hero member
Activity: 826
Merit: 1000
September 28, 2012, 02:58:07 PM
Altas did you sleep yet?

I don't think he sleeps.
jr. member
Activity: 56
Merit: 1
September 28, 2012, 02:57:28 PM
I agree with the sentiment that at this point the bitcoin experiment cannot be inherently anti-government if it is to succeed in the end.

Bitcoin is inherently anti-government since it takes away power from those who would live at the expense of others.


Exactly and this board could easily one day neuter Bitcoin from being a free currency to a fiat, government-controlled one by making standards for the protocol that everyone would be forced to abide by through corporate and social influence.
legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000
Charlie 'Van Bitcoin' Shrem
September 28, 2012, 02:57:15 PM
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.

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

Your bylaws reference is speaking of something totally different, corporate law, that states that the foundation can sell t-shirts but not illegal firearms..nothing to do with promoting Bitcoin

-Charlie

But you said you are limited by them. Could be so kind to point out the section of the bylaws that limits you to what the Foundation can do?

You tell me, what can the foundation do thats not already obvious? We have no control over Bitcoin, Bitcoin runs itself.
legendary
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1057
Marketing manager - GO MP
September 28, 2012, 02:56:27 PM
Altas did you sleep yet? You are repeating your points... and while I got you to admit that currently (or pre foundation) the situation was worse than it is to become with this foundation since until now Gavin had (almost) sole power over the official source code.
Why are you still at it? Call it a day it should be better for your (and our) mental health.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
September 28, 2012, 02:56:13 PM
bitcoin as a protocol would be useless without decentralization. But bitcoin as an experiment, as a project in development, as a revolution must have some sort of central organization. Otherwise, chaos. Like Erik said, market-based centralization. free market != chaos.
jr. member
Activity: 56
Merit: 1
September 28, 2012, 02:55:31 PM
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.
legendary
Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001
September 28, 2012, 02:54:40 PM
I agree with the sentiment that at this point the bitcoin experiment cannot be inherently anti-government if it is to succeed in the end.

Bitcoin is inherently anti-government since it takes away power from those who would live at the expense of others.
jr. member
Activity: 56
Merit: 1
September 28, 2012, 02:54:09 PM
I don't exactly understand the dissent. I'm still neutral here but it seems to me like the dev team totally deserves to ask for funding in this way. It worked for Linux, right? Look at Linux now, it's universal and amazing. And still true to the principles of open source technology.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what the Foundation is trying to accomplish, and maybe I don't understand what the Linux Foundation did.

I agree with the sentiment that at this point the bitcoin experiment cannot be inherently anti-government if it is to succeed in the end. I suppose it is anti-fiat money by nature, but I think governments can and will evolve. There is no denying that bitcoin is a better alternative to an endless supply of special paper.


Linux isn't money.
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 501
There is more to Bitcoin than bitcoins.
September 28, 2012, 02:53:35 PM
I think Linux is a great "role model" for Bitcoin

Linux is not about money though. And money destroys friendships.  Cry

Excellent point. I hope board members take it to heart.
Other than that, I welcome the foundation and look forward to their positive contributions.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
September 28, 2012, 02:51:29 PM
I don't exactly understand the dissent. I'm still neutral here but it seems to me like the dev team totally deserves to ask for funding in this way. It worked for Linux, right? Look at Linux now, it's universal and amazing. And still true to the principles of open source technology.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what the Foundation is trying to accomplish, and maybe I don't understand what the Linux Foundation did.

I agree with the sentiment that at this point the bitcoin experiment cannot be inherently anti-government if it is to succeed in the end. I suppose it is anti-fiat money by nature, but I think governments can and will evolve. There is no denying that bitcoin is a better alternative to an endless supply of special paper.




legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003
September 28, 2012, 02:50:11 PM
Your bylaws reference is speaking of something totally different, corporate law, that states that the foundation can sell t-shirts but not illegal firearms..nothing to do with promoting Bitcoin

-Charlie

But you said you are limited by them. Could be so kind to point out the section of the bylaws that limits you to what the Foundation can do?
Pages:
Jump to: