Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Foundation - page 39. (Read 127621 times)

I agree with this.

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 thread announcing some "major announcement in the Bitcoin economy that will bring us stability" was in the main bitcoin forum for about a month.

Now that some of the low profile users complain about what we think is a bad idea, the staff members want us in a subforum corner a day after the "announcement".

- Has "The English foundation" selfdeclared "the face" of the English speakers worldwide?

- Has "The English foundation" raped one of the most valuable characteristic of the English language asking for breaking anonymity in order to learn it?

- Has "The Englis foundation" plausibility or any possibility of patenting, claiming or stealing other people work for the English language?

This thread should be moved to "Service announcements" since it's simply announcing the formation of a US corporation that's looking for members.

I wish people got this mad about an official sounding name when some guy created Bitcoin Savings & Trust.

They need to be ostracised! Everyone knows that UK English is superiour.

I just made a terrible discovery.

The English Foundation.

This is a foundation dedicated to US English. I can't tell but I don't think they even invented English, they seem to be co-opting it for their purposes after the fact and I fear it will get worse. One main tactic seems to be teaching English to new people, eventually those people are going to outnumber us and (with help from The Foundation) have more influence than us early English adopters.

This is -our- language we are talking about here. I don't think it would be wise to leave it in the hands of this one organization.

How will the foundation respond to a request from the Department of Homeland Security or other government agency to cough up all user data in relation to registered bitcoin foundation members if they suddenly declare it a "tool of terrorism" or feel need to "protect the children" ?


In saying that the people on the board need to have balls the size of an elephant to take on such a  public role and for that I am impressed. remember that Julian Assange didnt get charged with "rape" untill he leaked some stuff about the bankers 

I've answered this on reddit and similar sentiments in the comment section of my recent article, but I also want to post here. [No comment from me on copyrights and patents, because I don't believe in them and I don't support their infrastructure.]

theymos, thank you. I considered those issues as well prior to accepting the offer to join the board (and the specific direction is still being debated in multiple venues such as this forum). The success and organization of the Tor Project had a lot to do with my decision.

As a libertarian and non-Statist on the Foundation board, I think that other libertarians and non-Statists would mostly agree that a transparent organization is preferable to a 'single anointed individual' that can select the next 'single anointed individual' in a non-transparent fashion (the community never voiced their opinion on Gavin taking over lead role for Satoshi — it just happened). Although it has worked out well, no one can guarantee the longevity of Gavin in that role.

Open source software is actually more vulnerable to discreet State pressures and random bribery when only one, or a few, steer core protocol development without any community input on succession planning. A centralized individual is more corruptible than a group and the foundation is actually a step towards de-centralization in that regard.

Additionally, I would think that bitcoin users in general would welcome a check-and-balance on the core development group that may or may not have been involved in receiving clandestine compensation on the side. Of course, nothing prevents that from occurring now or in the future but I believe that an accountable, nonprofit foundation would decrease its likelihood.

I'm a real Bitcoin believer. That's why I think people would gradually incorporate to the bitcoin network. So all the potential userbase still don't know too much about Bitcoin.

In fact I consider all of us, the today users, early adopters that, in a very next future, will become <50% of the bitcoin userbase. So control the newcomers and in a next future you will control the majority of the network.

It's for this because I'm opposing "THE bitcoin foundation". If I want a decentralized network validating the transactions I make, I want the same decentralized spirit in the information the newcomers are going to taste in their bitcoin approaching. Remember that, someday, they'll become the >50%.

I hope Gavin is going to do something like that with the banks in the future : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYWzMvlj2RQ 

Not very likely. SA is not so much about making fun of Bitcoin itself, but more about making fun of the mass agglomeration of easily scammed idiots and talentfree superstars-in-their-own-mind surrounding Bitcoin. That said, personally I find this foundation is a major step forward for Bitcoin and as far as I can gather most of my fellow goons see it the same way.


The negative feedback mostly seems to be coming from the ultra-randian fraction and the crypto-anarchists.

You could also just edit your post you kow.  

1) Regarding data safety what i mentioned earlier.
How can the Bitcoin foundation guarantee that my identity will be kept a secret if the database gets compromised in some way.
Is this data encrypted?

2) When will Gavin start to answer some questions and add them to the FAQ in the OP?

He, if they didn't want to mislead people into believing they have some sort of authority over Bitcoin, they would not have chosen such name for a start. It would be named something like "Bitcoin Development Group", or "Bitcoin Supporters Club", or even "Andresen Foudation", if you will.

Exactly. This will mislead people. And it seems it was intentional.


+1

Your presence in it might be a "check and balance", as you say in English.
AFAICT, you're not a statist. Perhaps the only one in the core dev team not to be?
You've shown to be very neutral and fair in the administration of this forum. I don't know if you'd remain like that in this organization, but it's easier to expect you to do so than the others which are in there already. Sort of like Ron Paul in US Congress. Actually, perhaps it was not just by mistake that you were not invited.

I just asked the first person I saw if she knew Satoshi. She said it was some new toy she saw in a commercial on disney channel. She had never heard of bitcoin though.

So no, I don't think everyone knows Satoshi invented bitcoin. Almost no one knows bitcoin. And of the ones who know bitcoin, maybe about half (the ones who do more with it that just buy some and sit on em praying the price goes up) know who satoshi is.

And it will be the same with this foundation. The vast majority of people won't ever look beyond the first things they see. They see "Bitcoin Foundation" and will assume that bitcoin was created and is "owned" by this foundation.
The fact that a small group of people are pulling so much of the bitcoin "ownership" onto themselves is very sad.

+1