Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Foundation - page 42. (Read 127621 times)

What if Gavin would rather write code than beg?  He's gone a long time without compensation, and a crowd-sourced solution hasn't come together yet.  

Personally, I'd love to see a decentralized system for rewarding contributions to Open Source Software projects, but I don't know a way to securely and accurately measure the proportional contributions of different developers: any decentralized system would be vulnerable to a sybil attack.   If you have solved this problem, please start a thread with how to do it, and I'll do whatever I can to help.

I can't speak for Gavin, but I'm pretty sure he'd be happy to accept any Bitcoins you raise to thank him for his contributions to the Bitcoin codebase (provided there are no strings attached).

IMO I see a couple major problems with the foundation. Maybe this will be clarified when bylaws are published.

- The control of what gets coded by devs into the client (the defacto protocol) needs to be decoupled 100% from the foundation board and monetary/political interests. I see this being pretty hard to achieve when the foundation pays the salaries. What's the famous quote about someone always seeing things in alignment with who pays their salary?

- It was formed in a country that believes it's own laws to be enforceable world wide. What is the foundations view on laws that the USA holds but other countries do not? Are they going to align Bitcoin, through alterations to the client, to the full extent of US law only? For example, tax evasion is not an offense in Switzerland (at least to my last reckoning) but is the most egregious offense in the USA. If someone doesn't report their Bitcoin holdings or income how will the foundation respond to government pressure to install tracking in the client? Will they fight it briefly, not at all, or disband entirely?

Most organizations would rather bend under authority than risk their own demise , or just close their doors. If you think having control over the devs doesn't mean they can manipulate the client then you're wrong. There are devious, tricky ways of pushing forward what they want to happen to Bitcoin. They might take US congress as an example and push multiple changes into a release where some are desirable enough that many users would ignore the undesirables changes. They might make a release no longer work with some older releases such that a gradual fading of freedoms encroaches upon users.

You might say, "Well, none of this has happened yet", but given the powers likely to rise against Bitcoin and the pressures that will manifest it is only a matter of when. My question is will these types of control be defined in the bylaws? Will the foundation close it's doors rather than become an arm of the state? And not just any state but the worst military / corporate state today.

I don't know whether to think that the people behind forming this foundation are naive, in that they don't know what pressures they will come under, or secretly power hunger, in that they fully plan to manipulate Bitcoin into a docile puppy under the heel of law, just or not, to fully realize monetary gain.

I got involved with Bitcoin because of the philosophy and it appears this is a step in rewriting that philosophy, and as usual, for the gain of a few monied interests.

They plan to re-target prices every 6 months.  If you think the price is about to spike, you should get your membership now while its cheap

Hey everyone, I'm logging off for the day.

My suggestion: The Foundation should put everything on PAUSE. If it truly needs to exist/go forward, doing so a little later shouldn't make much difference. But the alternative could be damaging. In the meantime, start some more OPEN discussion about solutions to currently perceived Bitcoin progress problems.

True. That's another problem with centralization. Even if there is little to no corruption or abuse of power. It gives enemies a place to attack - precisely another way Bitcoin draws strength from decentralization. This is all stuff Bitcoin's value is based upon. Again, this isn't trivial stuff.

I have mixed feelings in relation to this announcement as well, but I'll point out one thing, look at the calm of Gavin, he's probably busy hacking a way at the bitcoin source code right now. When he made the announcement, he made a couple of other posts after that, and then silence.

He knows what kind of reactions there will be on the forum, and he does not waste his time with drama. He's perhaps one of the more level headed figures in the entire community, but then again, who knows what happened behind closed doors in the CIA-meeting. 

Gavin has been replaced by a CIA look-a-like.

Not really, but what would stop the CIA from doing this?

The problem with "putting a face" on Bitcoin..? it's like painting a bullseye on your face and saying "hey, I'm here, shoot me".

So my question would be is this currently sufficient to meet development compensation needs?

I don't think it is. But I don't think a foundation is the only way to address that. There are projects on Kickstarter.com that raise hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars (http://www.kickstarter.com/discover/most-funded) that don't have anywhere near the scope and impact of something like Bitcoin.

As I posted, crowdsourcing developer compensation shouldn't be a problem. If it has been before now, maybe it's only because the need wasn't made known.

Looks like BF is in a quagmire here. To use the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto would most definitely negate that real names are required. To not use his name, pseudonym or real, would be leaving out the key founder. Then again SN could contact Gavin and state that he doesn't want to mentioned as a founder. If that were the case, then SN can not be mentioned anywhere on Bitcoin Foundation's website.

I look forward to reading how this plays out.

So far, I hate and love this foundation at the same time. I will become a member to further the cause, though.

I noticed the membership dues are in BTC. Great! But what mechanisms are in place if BTC doubles or triples, let's say, within the coming weeks (months)? A lifetime membership will jump from $250 to $500 or $750 (or more), and at the same token, a Platinum Membership could easily exceed a quarter of a millions dollars (US).

~Bruno~

That is precisely what is happening:  part of that community is banding together, in a free market opt-in way, to collectively fill in the basic gaps -- like actually paying devs for their time, or paying for testing -- because that is otherwise not happening right now.

Upon further reflection since Bitcoin requires software to implement the protocol and because we need the protocol and related software to be improved over time it seems necessary to have a core group of highly competent benevolent developers who will work with the community to create these improvements.

History shows that "design by committee" produces disastrous results for software, whereas having one or two "superstar developers" with strong vision and commitment usually works better.

We probably need something resembling this foundation, but the way that it was introduced and presented to the community left a bad taste in people's mouths.

I think the developers and people behind this have their hearts in the right place, and care about Bitcoin. I really do.

I just think they're going about solutions the wrong way. If you truly believe in Bitcoin then you believe in its own inherent abilities to foster/ensure its success. Its strength is that it's decentralized, and relies on the community to provide what it needs in a free market way.

Some practical organization can help. I'll be the first to agree. But you have to understand Bitcoin is political, like it or not. So steps in the direction of centralization have to be taken VERY carefully and thoughtfully.

I bet that evil cadre of core developers trembles and quakes every time you threaten them like this.   


Quoting Satan now?  lol  Did you really read Milton or did you get that from reruns of the original Star Trek series?   

I am just wondering if you identify with a fallen angel or with a eugenically superior breed of man.     

Who the fuck is Peter Vessenes and what gives him the right to represent this community/economy?

I agree completely. Probably a lot of the negative reactions in this thread are coming from the perceived arrogance and lack of humility that these handful of people pretend to speak for everyone with a pretentious title "The Bitcoin Foundation."

This just goes to show you that public relations / marketing should not be handled by nerds.

I hope the leading developers realize it's precisely because the people involved in this foundation at a high level already have some political community clout that this foundation can be a problem.

Any foundation suggesting it speaks for Bitcoin is a problem, because Bitcoin is supposed to be decentralized. The fact this is made up of the top representation of Bitcoin already is even worse.

I don't think I'm overstating it when I say this is playing with fire.

If a foundation must exist then it needs to be very clear how it will severely and intentionally limit its political power/influence over centralization.

Bitcoin Freedom Foundation does have a nice ring to it...

Since we're thinking of name, howabout the Bitcoin Super Friends Club!
Heh, I like the given name. I'm not sure I get the concept, but we'll see how it plays.

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

For example:

The Friends of Karples Foundation.

This already happens. See this CNN article on hackers demanding bitcoins for Romney's tax returns which quotes Jeff Garzik. How did they know to consult Jeff Garzik? Because the community already recognizes certain people as best to speak for bitcoin on certain issues. That happened naturally, and is good. However, formalizing it expands that power and is probably bad given Bitcoin's decentralized nature.