Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Foundation - page 43. (Read 127621 times)

How about the Bitcoin Support Group? Or the Bitcoin Helper Group?

I think people are jumping to a lot of conclusions here and we should perhaps give some time. Paranoia, on the other hand, is not necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps a better suggestion than starting a competing foundation is to start a watchdog group, focused on suspicious foundations.

As another poster noted it shouldn't have "the" in the name. That suggests it speaks for Bitcoin. Hello??? Bitcoin is decentralized?

How about the Bitcoin Freedom Foundation? Then we could all be BFFs.

Interesting idea. Although I support the idea of some association interfacing between Bitcoin and the rest of world, I don't like the name, exactly for ^^ reason.

The name, upon people hearing it, should NOT suggest they speak for Bitcoin. That's all.

This wouldn't reduce their effectiveness in solving the listed problems. But it would reduce public perception of their power, which is power.

I think it's because the introduction of the project was handled slightly wrong. Would it be better if it was a couple months process of several small announcements?

For example:

• Announce that the idea is very much alive and in development
• Publish vision and goals
• Introduce first two members of the board
• Finalize bylaws
• Get some feedback from community about who they want to see as members of the board
• Introduce the rest of the board members

How about the Global Bitcoiner Association?

This is why I think that it is in fact a major announcement:

Thanks for your response and the opportunity for me to clarify.

First, about the 4 things for Bitcoin moving forward. While we all want Bitcoin to move forward, I was under the impression there wasn't an expectation of time frame. In other words, if Bitcoin progress takes longer without a foundation is that really a problem?

As to whether a foundation helps solve (perceived) problems being a good thing, no, it's not if it does more damage by undermining Bitcoin's claim of decentralization.

A foundation may be an efficient way to solve those problems, but not the best way, if that makes sense.

As for "an official sounding name" that's exactly my point. The ONLY thing I have against this foundation project is the incidental power that comes with it, whether intended or not. Everything else sounds great. But power and politics are weird, sort of like money itself. Money gains value based on growing numbers of people accepting it as such. This too happens with entities gaining power. If it's NOT the goal of this foundation to amass power then deflecting the political power that comes with an official sounding name should be no problem.

Look at the way you even added a disclaimer when speaking about your ties to the Foundation, which I think was smart, by the way. Don't you see? You already recognized the PR/political significance surrounding this thing.

Make no mistake: Bitcoin's value does NOT come from having Gavin et al work on it. That's not a dig. I highly respect and admire the leading developers. Bitcoin's value comes from what people perceive of it. And part of that perception is that it is trusted to be decentralized. That's not a minor issue.

@Atlas - please consider some post restraint, and that you may be diluting your argument credibility/effectiveness.

It is kind of funny how someone can start a foundation that relies entirely on voluntary contributions and donations and we will go over its proposal with a fine-toothed comb but someone could start offering a bank that offers 90% interest per day and they would be overwhelmed with people begging to hand over their life savings with no questions asked.

This is true but given the facts, it would have been more appropriate to say "We are making a minor announcement in September."

Right. There was no "major announcement."

You do have control over the protocol. You will be paying Gavin's salary and I bet the board would love to make stipulations. You are also setting "standards". What does that mean to you? Setting the standards on how Bitcoin functions?

Every "release" has a pretty long time to do test work. The community has the time to check the code.

I think you are trying to be inflammatory for the fun on it, based on your extensive history of trolling, but I'll respond to you in case you are being sincere.

I look forward to seeing a well-organized group working on the general advancement of Bitcoin.  Not for the advancement of one interest or the other, but all working towards the simple goal: "Let's help Bitcoin reach its potential."  The Foundation is not claiming any authority over anything.  The fact that important, trusted Bitcoiners are involved with the Bitcoin Foundation gives it credibility, not authority.

Bitcointalk is the best way to get news about whats going on in the community.  Does that mean it is the "central authority for Bitcoin information"?  It's not a central authority because it has no direct power over the Bitcoin protocol. And, there are many alternatives.

The Bitcoin Foundation is not trying to get a "monopoly" on advancing Bitcoin, I'm certain that they will encourage all efforts that help Bitcoin succeed. Many other groups like this already exist, and I'm sure new ones will pop up in the future.  The Foundation has no direct control over the protocol (one of it's board members, Gavin, does.  but it's been that way for over a year). And, there are many alternatives.

If you don't see these forums as a "central authority", I'm not sure why you're interpreting the Foundation as trying to be one.

That will not matter if everybody accepts "official" releases under a power structure that's hard to undermine using monetary and legal resources.

Is there anything stopping some other group from creating another foundation with exactly the same name?

Or do non-profits get to have trademark rights, etc?

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.

As long as the source is open, there is not likely to be a backdoor. If you wanna keep your goal, why not start your own foundation, like "Bitcoin Foundation II" which focused on check the sourcecode of bitcoin to make sure that there is no backdoor?