"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.
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
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.
