Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Foundation - page 44. (Read 127621 times)

It must be hard to please you, I am sorry for your girlfriend or wife.

Jokes aside, Bitcoin Foundation is a group of people that has website and ask for money, what makes it different is the list of very capable people interested in promotion and development of Bitcoin, who will get the money and will have the opportunity to make a very good and consequential things for Bitcoin.

+ 1


I just had to change my sig.

-1 for THE. Call it A Bitcoin Foundation
+1 misterbigg, this is way overhyped, although I'm not surprised by this because I often see maximum hype and vapourware on this forum.

I wasn't going to comment till I got to the end of this thread, but felt it necessary now. I've been charged with three felonies in my life: abuse, though she didn't have a mark on her and I had plenty (dropped); underage rape--she claimed I even got her pregnant and I demanded a DNA test (dropped); possession of crack cocaine--picked up a girl for you know what and before dropping her off where I found her, made a pit stop for her to make a buy (dropped, after wearing a wire to help with another investigation)(first and last time I've ever seen crack/cocaine).

I am taken aback by your comment if true for how/why/etc. would the foundation member(s) get their hands on such information? Surely, surely, surely not via any close associates over at the CIA.

At the moment, I'm on the fence with this issue. Half of me applauds this incentive, while the other half is WFT.

I admire a couple of those on the board (Gavin, for sure), whereas I've previously penned ill things about another. I do see a strong semblance here to Faissez Faire City prior to its demise.

God's speed.

~Bruno~

EDIT: Upon rereading, it seems that only future board members will undergo a full background check. That said, please don't read I what I penned above about being charged with three felonies.

Isn't already a fact? How Gavin's foundation can control the bitcoin protocol? Bitcoin of course is independent from the Foundation. The Foundation can support the bitcoin, but the bitcoin community don't have to listen to the Foundation.

...or we can just declare independence from this one and make sure its purported authority is not recognized. Then we can let others work as they see fit.

I don't want a foundation. I don't want power. I just want people to leave my money alone. I don't want mob rule putting a backdoor in Bitcoin.

To those ones who wanna Decentralization:

JUST start your own bitcoin foundation. don't waste your time to criticize Gavin's work.

Atlas, just start your own foundation. you have a long history on this forum of raising money without anything achieved. You can raise money and form a foundation. You don't have to talk so much negatively here. Just start your own thread.

If I'm not mistaken, Gavin said that there would be a "major announcement in September" casually during an interview, once.  Then these forums blew up with 15+ pages of speculation about what the announcement would be.

The hype was manufactured by Bitcointalkers, not the founders of this Foundation.  

So you want a central authority for Bitcoin?

The centralization of power has started - factual power.

The Bitcoin Foundation and the way it was introduced is against the core principle of Bitcoin: Decentralization.

I'm deeply dissappointed. And I'm saddened by the people cheering for their new masters.

I see a major fork coming.

17 pages in one day?  Geez.

Looks good, I have no idea what it's for, but it looks good!

*These are my views and do not necessarily reflect the views of CoinLab, or my boss, Peter. I don't work for the Foundation, but have volunteered myself to help however I can.

From the post you linked, you ask if the Bitcoin Foundation is the right/best way to do 4 things that (it seems) you and I both agree would be good for Bitcoin moving forward.

If it helps accomplish those four goals, isn't that a good thing?  We could spend years discussing the "best" way to move forward, but I'm of the philosophy that its best to start moving things forward and then improve over time. (Gavin has been working to make this to happen for ~11 months now.)

Why does it have to be "the best"?  Isn't good-for-bitcoin enough? Couldn't Bitcoin use all the help it can get?

Personally, I think for the Foundation to be an effective legitimate face to Bitcoin, it needs an official sounding name.  "We Use Coins Group" sounds like a club in a garage: regulators, businesspeople, journalists, etc. wouldn't take a group with a name like that seriously.  "Bitcoin Foundation" is the simplest, most clear name they could have chosen IMO.  

+1
We're still getting the bitinstant debit card. *shrugs*

Relax, I'm pretty sure "bloody congress" refers to parliment.

This is beyond lame. Now I know why there was a distractingly loud burst of absolute silence earlier today, it was the collective yawn from masses of Bitcoin users over this announcement. Next time, don't try to build up excitement by foreshadowing "something big" only to let people down.

I was expecting:

- A new piece of technology / software
or
- A revolutionary business model based on Bitcoin
or
- Mass regional adoption of Bitcoin by retailers
or
- Acceptance of Bitcoin by an established political center

What I got INSTEAD was a sausage party that decided to put up a website and ask for donations.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the effort that goes on behind the scenes by the developers (thanks Gavin) but for all of the hype I expected something bigger.

Can we just give Atlas a solitary subforum so he can spout off his "eternal vigilance" mantras elsewhere?

This "eternal vigilance" has never accomplished anything. You may think that the reason the Federal Reserve bill was passed, and every other continued transgression of the state succeeded was because of a lack of people like you, with your "eternal vigilance". It wasn't. These events are determined by the systems in which they occur, and only change due to paradigm shifts. The United States of America was doomed from the founders to become what it is today, regardless of so-called vigilance. Bitcoin is one of those paradigm shifts. Blathering Alex Jones types do nothing but draw attention to themselves, and in your case, post 50+ times in a single day.

Many people accept the terms of governments and monopolies all the time. People who have been indoctrinated into a new Bitcoin culture that accepts a central body will change the Bitcoin protocol. I am protecting against rapid and possibly damaging change that is questioned by no one accept those who are within the doctrine of a single organization.

Democracies do not work. They fail constantly. I care not if this organization has a supposedly democratic board. It can be corrupted and controlled.

It doesn't matter if nobody recognizes your money on your terms. Anyways, value is subjective. I am just trying to protect Bitcoins from a single controlling body

Adding code is like adding laws. We don't need to add more code to the protocol. More code can add vulnerabilities.

I was hoping for some more specific answers but I'll withhold judgement until the bylaws are published.

At this point I can't say whether or not I'd be willing to contribute money to the foundation. If one of the functions is to hire one or more full time developers that certainly something I'd contribute for but the rest is pretty murky. I don't know if I support "share the load and financial burden better while aiming at protecting and promoting and standardizing Bitcoin" because I don't know what that actually means.