Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Foundation - page 45. (Read 127634 times)

... I think that the fundamental concept we are working with is that individuals (who have invested some money and time) and corporations (who have often invested MAJOR money and time) and the core development team should work together, share the load and financial burden better while aiming at protecting and promoting and standardizing Bitcoin.

Was there a particular reason to keep it all in secret rather than slowly introduce the project to people while gauging reaction to the idea of Bitcoin Foundation?

It might have been a slight mistake to introduce The Bitcoin Foundation in one chunk of complex information. It will take some time for people to grasp it, and uncertainty gives trolls the opportunity to strike.

Hey AbelsFire, these are good questions, ones I'd like to discuss. I think that the fundamental concept we are working with is that individuals (who have invested some money and time) and corporations (who have often invested MAJOR money and time) and the core development team should work together, share the load and financial burden better while aiming at protecting and promoting and standardizing Bitcoin. The bylaws, to be published soon on Github, talk a little bit about how we're aiming to do this. I have anticipated that member classes who are unhappy with their representation would advocate for different representation.

I have a few questions about the Foundation that I haven't seen answered anywhere else.

1. How will potential conflicts of interest be identified and addressed? Especially with regards to the relationship between the foundation and businesses associated with the board members.

2. Is there an explicit list of activities which donations might be used for, or perhaps even a list of activities which donations will never be used for?

OK, i had enough for today.

Good night everybody.

This may be a major problem

Maybe using larger font like other posters does help things get noticed...

So here is the problem: perhaps one of Bitcoin's biggest strengths is it's decentralized

Granted the listed problems said to be the reason for creating a foundation are an issue. They include:

1. (from the "Why" page) As the Bitcoin economy has evolved, we have all noticed barriers to its widespread adoption—botnets that attempt to undermine the network, hackers that threaten wallets, and an undeserved reputation stirred by ignorance and inaccurate reporting.
2. under/non-paid developers working on a global level payment system
3. legal representation of Bitcoin issues
4. giving a "legitimate" face to Bitcoin

The problem is I'm not immediately convinced a "foundation" is the right/best course to attempt solving these problem. And further, that they can't be solved another way.

Although it sounds good on the surface I'm wary of it. Once you give over power it's hard or impossible to revoke it. I'm not against any of the people so far involved with this project. It's not that at all. They may be the most angel-honest, incorruptible people on earth. The problem is I (and nobody else) can know for sure what the truth is, and that it will always be so.

This is the problem I have with this. And also that it seems to be a bit rammed down the community presently.

I propose discussion/answers to two things, or I'll have to seriously reconsider my view of Bitcoin:

First: is a foundation the only way to solve the above 4 problems? I only see #3 as being the best candidate. Crowd-funding has factually proven very, very successful for a number of Internet related projects. Proper developer compensation shouldn't be a problem for a project such as Bitcoin. And doesn't it make sense for such compensation to have the chance to be applied to any developer?

Second: if a foundation IS deemed critical by the Bitcoin community then I believe it necessarily MUST explicitly limit its role and powers upfront as much as possible, with no ability to change this. Think, for example, if it aimed to do the opposite, that is, expand its role and powers as much as possible.



I think such limits might only be a start.

I would like to echo this. The Bitcoin Foundation is a service which like any other layer on top of the core Bitcoin code must be and is optional. It can be a face for Bitcoin if their clients want it to be but it must not and can not control Bitcoin.

Throwing accusations around like "tinfoil hats" does nothing to advance the debate ... neither does pasting extended quote blocks.
We are just trying to keep it real for the dumbed-down masses that are about to stampede into bitcoin.

Atlas, you are missing the point. **Gavin & folks already do control the official releases**. So there is no difference.

Raise your fees, seize your funds, tax at will. When you control the "official" releases of Bitcoin and maintain the message of what's acceptable, anything can be done.

But this is not the "university world".
Haven't you noticed yet how paranoid, libertarian and anarchist Bitcoin society is ?
Read this thread, find out. We are extremely paranoid. Trying to manipulate the source now would be a personal suicide for the person who tried it.

I suspect that many people who post in this thread actually may have tinfoil hats.

What harm can a titular bank do?

All I can say is that this paranoia must not die. Liberty requires eternal vigilance.



The Bitcoin Foundation can become a titular bank if we allow it to.

All I can say is that this paranoia must not die. Liberty requires eternal vigilance.



The Bitcoin Foundation can become a titular bank if we allow it to.

Sorry but this works today in the University world.

Sorry, not gonna work anymore in the era of the internet, especially in the cryptogeek subculture, which sustains bitcoin.
You (they) need to think of something much, much better. Raise the bar...

Sorry, not gonna work anymore in the era of the internet, especially in the cryptogeek subculture, which sustains bitcoin.
You (they) need to think of something much, much better. Raise the bar...