Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Foundation - page 36. (Read 127634 times)

Oh, it's an advocacy group? Well then, maybe they should rename themselves to "Bitcoin advocacy group" and relinquish any ownership of any Bitcoin assets at all. Then I'll be all for it.

Like I said, please don't troll me.

6.  an institution financed by a donation or legacy to aid research, education, the arts, etc.: the Ford Foundation.

I'm not going to address conspiracy theories, mostly because I'm not seeing most of them because of who I've got on my ignore list.

What do you mean by bitcoin assets? the code? or coins themselves?

The foundation has never claimed to own the code.

Oh, it's an advocacy group? Well then, maybe they should rename themselves to "Bitcoin advocacy group" and relinquish any ownership of any Bitcoin assets at all. Then I'll be all for it.

Like I said, please don't troll me.

If this Foundation is really such a wonderful idea why then did you keep it's formation (founders, bylaws, mission statement, allocation of salaries, ect) private?

Why didn't you open a public thread on this forum and let everyone have an input how such an organization, if one was wanted or warranted in the first place, should be structured.

These bylaws are distributed under the MIT License and may be forked for use in creating any new member-driven nonprofit corporation or for any other use.

Next time, cut bigger air holes in your tinfoil mask, or just use a tinfoil beanie like normal people.

IF someone pushed for something malicious, and no one but Atlas and a couple of other forum tools even imagine that anyone would, it wouldn't do them a damn bit of good.  The people that could fuck you tomorrow are the same people that could fuck you yesterday.  Having an advocacy group doesn't change a damn thing.

Please don't troll me. We all know who of these three groups is the most likely to try and push for something malicious and who of these three groups is the most likely to agree with it being bought and paid for and who of these three groups is the most likely to get screwed in the end powerless to stop it.

Come on Jon, I thought better of you.

You got it all backwards. Open source is incorruptible as long as people remain vigilant. It's impossible to sneak something malicious into the code even if some developer is getting paid on the side - if people pay attention. What you have done now is actually weaken this vigilance because a lot of the user base is going to rely on you - the board members - to be vigilant for them.

We had checks and balances - the open source code anyone could read, and everyone was forced to read if they wanted to make sure.

Now we have a political centralized service provider (the structure of which ensures that corporate + founders always have the majority) that only part of the community supports and that wants to be the face of something they have no control over, they have no ownership over and are going to give a false sense of security to some users diminishing the vigilance that will be necessary to protect the core of Bitcoin.




If this Foundation is really such a wonderful idea why then did you keep it's formation (founders, bylaws, mission statement, allocation of salaries, ect) private? Why didn't you open a public thread on this forum and let everyone have an input how such an organization, if one was wanted or warranted in the first place, should be structured.

I'm sorry but I don't like what you did with this Foundation one bit because I don't trust that you'll do what is best for my own personal interest because I do not pay you and I didn't give you my explicit consent arranged with a contract to do so. All I can do now is hope you remain powerless and hope that I am left alone to experience Bitcoin as I wish. And judging by history of mankind I get the sense this hope is all in vain.

THE is fine as long as it's not THE Bitcoin Foundation.

For example:

The Friends of Karples Foundation.

So do the corporate + individual members.  Or the individual + founding members.  This is very simple math.  Are you surprised that 2+1>5/2 and 2+2>5/2 ?  

What are you going to do to stop them from forming and maintaining their foundation? What are you going to do to keep them from seizing power and leaving "your money alone"? What makes you think the mob would undermine their own financial freedom by putting a backdoor in place?

Go ahead and declare independence if you want. Why don't you go and boycott all the coins they receive while you're at it.

They are free to form a collective just as you are free to form or join one of your choosing or abstain from these all together.


I would rather have the person charged and convicted of possessing crack cocaine on the board than a snitch. Just my personal opinion.

Yeah that's a real cake right there: corporate + founding members always have the majority, very "representative".  

The board has two "industry member" representatives, and two " individual member" representatives.  The seats are elected by members from the class that they represent.

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 it's hard to believe you are looking at this objectively and aren't highly biased.

BTW is it just me or is the foundation website being DDOSed?

"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.