Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Foundation - page 49. (Read 127621 times)
Jeff Garzik, a board member: "We are working with the government[which?] to make sure indeed the long arm of the government can reach Bitcoin... the only way Bitcoins are gonna be successful is working with regulation and with the government."
The dangers to Bitcoin from any move/power gravitating toward centralization are obvious to me.
Question: is The Foundation critical to Bitcoin's success?
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.
Certainly these are annoying problems, but is a foundation the (only) way to solve them?
Question: is The Foundation critical to Bitcoin's success?
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.
Certainly these are annoying problems, but is a foundation the (only) way to solve them?
I am optimistic with slight reservation.
I think the main concern, and the only valid one I can think of, is the issue of aboveground vs underground bitcoin. Bitcoin grows by either the quiet growth within the community, and/or by the expansion of that very community out and into the public sphere. Clearly with this decision, the top players in this community have placed their bets with growth by publicity. They must recognize however, that with the benefits of greater publicity and assertiveness comes the perils of aggressive action by those actors who see bitcoin as a threat. I think such a foundation was inevitable, but some might say that it should have waited until more "quiet" development had occurred.
As for the other concerns expressed in this thread:
1. The Foundation is asserting itself as the official voice of bitcoin, when a collection of "unofficial" voices is safer when dealing with a legally ambiguous entity.
1a. Essentially the same as above. There is a strategic give and take between streamlining bitcoin's interaction with a society that is potentially benign and fielding inquiries from a system that is potentially hostile. Evidently the Foundation thinks it is worth the risk.
2. Democracy is ineffective in ascertaining the official voice of the community.
2a. The Foundation will need to answer questions as to the workings of their alleged democratic system. If the community grows dissatisfied with how the Foundation is portraying bitcoin, and the Foundation takes the classic democratic turn towards oligarchy, then alternative "official" voices and associations will certainly spring forth and return us to a more decentralized balance.
3. Regulators will compromise the Foundation and ruin bitcoin!
3a. If they wished to do so pre-Foundation, they would go after Gavin directly. Now, supported by a Foundation with money and lawyers, Gavin and the other developers are much better protected from such dangers, and able to generate an appropriate response (or a fork) if need be. Besides, the nature of the satoshi protocol contains numerous safeguards built-in against such kinds of "attacks" (namely that bitcoin versions are voluntary downloads). At the same time, government interference is arguably more likely now that bitcoin is growing out in the open.
I think the main concern, and the only valid one I can think of, is the issue of aboveground vs underground bitcoin. Bitcoin grows by either the quiet growth within the community, and/or by the expansion of that very community out and into the public sphere. Clearly with this decision, the top players in this community have placed their bets with growth by publicity. They must recognize however, that with the benefits of greater publicity and assertiveness comes the perils of aggressive action by those actors who see bitcoin as a threat. I think such a foundation was inevitable, but some might say that it should have waited until more "quiet" development had occurred.
As for the other concerns expressed in this thread:
1. The Foundation is asserting itself as the official voice of bitcoin, when a collection of "unofficial" voices is safer when dealing with a legally ambiguous entity.
1a. Essentially the same as above. There is a strategic give and take between streamlining bitcoin's interaction with a society that is potentially benign and fielding inquiries from a system that is potentially hostile. Evidently the Foundation thinks it is worth the risk.
2. Democracy is ineffective in ascertaining the official voice of the community.
2a. The Foundation will need to answer questions as to the workings of their alleged democratic system. If the community grows dissatisfied with how the Foundation is portraying bitcoin, and the Foundation takes the classic democratic turn towards oligarchy, then alternative "official" voices and associations will certainly spring forth and return us to a more decentralized balance.
3. Regulators will compromise the Foundation and ruin bitcoin!
3a. If they wished to do so pre-Foundation, they would go after Gavin directly. Now, supported by a Foundation with money and lawyers, Gavin and the other developers are much better protected from such dangers, and able to generate an appropriate response (or a fork) if need be. Besides, the nature of the satoshi protocol contains numerous safeguards built-in against such kinds of "attacks" (namely that bitcoin versions are voluntary downloads). At the same time, government interference is arguably more likely now that bitcoin is growing out in the open.
Unless Gavin accepts the "long-arm of government" through the "official" voice of The Bitcoin Foundation. Before you know it, you'll see government backdoors in the protocol and people would be swayed into accepting it with little question because "Standards".
Do you have any evidence of this happening? Would you advocate for the immediately dissolution of what may very well be a positive voice for bitcoin for fear of some hazards so far only imagined? All the while you could start your own bitcoin advocacy group and hard fork complement as a check and balance to the impending "disaster" that is Bitcoin Foundation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henny_Penny
Don't get so hung up on the name, it is just an organization to promote and grow bitcoin.
The name is important for a organization selfdeclared "the face" of my savings
Okay, first – sorry, did not bother to read previous 11 pages. Second – fees are way too high and site’s design is far from professional or even good-looking (what is the point of back-dating it to July then? Show how little work was done since then?). Also i had never heard of Linux foundation despite using Linux, if it is the same business model, I fail to see how it would bring any promised ‘stability’ to Bitcoin. For me it is no more than developers’ way to raise cash for otherwise undocumented ‘champagne expenses’ – no profit for the community as such and certainly not worth of silly ‘announcement of an announcement’ publicity stunt. Do not care if you had ‘meant good’, sorry, failed for me here.
I am optimistic with slight reservation.
I think the main concern, and the only valid one I can think of, is the issue of aboveground vs underground bitcoin. Bitcoin grows by either the quiet growth within the community, and/or by the expansion of that very community out and into the public sphere. Clearly with this decision, the top players in this community have placed their bets with growth by publicity. They must recognize however, that with the benefits of greater publicity and assertiveness comes the perils of aggressive action by those actors who see bitcoin as a threat. I think such a foundation was inevitable, but some might say that it should have waited until more "quiet" development had occurred.
As for the other concerns expressed in this thread:
1. The Foundation is asserting itself as the official voice of bitcoin, when a collection of "unofficial" voices is safer when dealing with a legally ambiguous entity.
1a. Essentially the same as above. There is a strategic give and take between streamlining bitcoin's interaction with a society that is potentially benign and fielding inquiries from a system that is potentially hostile. Evidently the Foundation thinks it is worth the risk.
2. Democracy is ineffective in ascertaining the official voice of the community.
2a. The Foundation will need to answer questions as to the workings of their alleged democratic system. If the community grows dissatisfied with how the Foundation is portraying bitcoin, and the Foundation takes the classic democratic turn towards oligarchy, then alternative "official" voices and associations will certainly spring forth and return us to a more decentralized balance.
3. Regulators will compromise the Foundation and ruin bitcoin!
3a. If they wished to do so pre-Foundation, they would go after Gavin directly. Now, supported by a Foundation with money and lawyers, Gavin and the other developers are much better protected from such dangers, and able to generate an appropriate response (or a fork) if need be. Besides, the nature of the satoshi protocol contains numerous safeguards built-in against such kinds of "attacks" (namely that bitcoin versions are voluntary downloads). At the same time, government interference is arguably more likely now that bitcoin is growing out in the open.
I think the main concern, and the only valid one I can think of, is the issue of aboveground vs underground bitcoin. Bitcoin grows by either the quiet growth within the community, and/or by the expansion of that very community out and into the public sphere. Clearly with this decision, the top players in this community have placed their bets with growth by publicity. They must recognize however, that with the benefits of greater publicity and assertiveness comes the perils of aggressive action by those actors who see bitcoin as a threat. I think such a foundation was inevitable, but some might say that it should have waited until more "quiet" development had occurred.
As for the other concerns expressed in this thread:
1. The Foundation is asserting itself as the official voice of bitcoin, when a collection of "unofficial" voices is safer when dealing with a legally ambiguous entity.
1a. Essentially the same as above. There is a strategic give and take between streamlining bitcoin's interaction with a society that is potentially benign and fielding inquiries from a system that is potentially hostile. Evidently the Foundation thinks it is worth the risk.
2. Democracy is ineffective in ascertaining the official voice of the community.
2a. The Foundation will need to answer questions as to the workings of their alleged democratic system. If the community grows dissatisfied with how the Foundation is portraying bitcoin, and the Foundation takes the classic democratic turn towards oligarchy, then alternative "official" voices and associations will certainly spring forth and return us to a more decentralized balance.
3. Regulators will compromise the Foundation and ruin bitcoin!
3a. If they wished to do so pre-Foundation, they would go after Gavin directly. Now, supported by a Foundation with money and lawyers, Gavin and the other developers are much better protected from such dangers, and able to generate an appropriate response (or a fork) if need be. Besides, the nature of the satoshi protocol contains numerous safeguards built-in against such kinds of "attacks" (namely that bitcoin versions are voluntary downloads). At the same time, government interference is arguably more likely now that bitcoin is growing out in the open.
Unless Gavin accepts the "long-arm of government" through the "official" voice of The Bitcoin Foundation. Before you know it, you'll see government backdoors in the protocol and people would be swayed into accepting it with little question because "Standards".
The bitcoin foundation. They call themselves THE foundation, but they are not the founders of bitcoin. With the naming and the new public relations function they have selfassigned, they will be catching a lot of newbie attention. Now imagine they focus all the newbies only in the premium companies services...
The Federal Reserve is neither Federal, nor a Reserve. I even have my doubts about the The. By comparison, The Bitcoin Foundation is a fountain of great honesty.
Don't get so hung up on the name, it is just an organization to promote and grow bitcoin.
I am optimistic with slight reservation.
I think the main concern, and the only valid one I can think of, is the issue of aboveground vs underground bitcoin. Bitcoin grows by either the quiet growth within the community, and/or by the expansion of that very community out and into the public sphere. Clearly with this decision, the top players in this community have placed their bets with growth by publicity. They must recognize however, that with the benefits of greater publicity and assertiveness comes the perils of aggressive action by those actors who see bitcoin as a threat. I think such a foundation was inevitable, but some might say that it should have waited until more "quiet" development had occurred.
As for the other concerns expressed in this thread:
1. The Foundation is asserting itself as the official voice of bitcoin, when a collection of "unofficial" voices is safer when dealing with a legally ambiguous entity.
1a. Essentially the same as above. There is a strategic give and take between streamlining bitcoin's interaction with a society that is potentially benign and fielding inquiries from a system that is potentially hostile. Evidently the Foundation thinks it is worth the risk.
2. Democracy is ineffective in ascertaining the official voice of the community.
2a. The Foundation will need to answer questions as to the workings of their alleged democratic system. If the community grows dissatisfied with how the Foundation is portraying bitcoin, and the Foundation takes the classic democratic turn towards oligarchy, then alternative "official" voices and associations will certainly spring forth and return us to a more decentralized balance.
3. Regulators will compromise the Foundation and ruin bitcoin!
3a. If they wished to do so pre-Foundation, they would go after Gavin directly. Now, supported by a Foundation with money and lawyers, Gavin and the other developers are much better protected from such dangers, and able to generate an appropriate response (or a fork) if need be. Besides, the nature of the satoshi protocol contains numerous safeguards built-in against such kinds of "attacks" (namely that bitcoin versions are voluntary downloads). At the same time, government interference is arguably more likely now that bitcoin is growing out in the open.
I think the main concern, and the only valid one I can think of, is the issue of aboveground vs underground bitcoin. Bitcoin grows by either the quiet growth within the community, and/or by the expansion of that very community out and into the public sphere. Clearly with this decision, the top players in this community have placed their bets with growth by publicity. They must recognize however, that with the benefits of greater publicity and assertiveness comes the perils of aggressive action by those actors who see bitcoin as a threat. I think such a foundation was inevitable, but some might say that it should have waited until more "quiet" development had occurred.
As for the other concerns expressed in this thread:
1. The Foundation is asserting itself as the official voice of bitcoin, when a collection of "unofficial" voices is safer when dealing with a legally ambiguous entity.
1a. Essentially the same as above. There is a strategic give and take between streamlining bitcoin's interaction with a society that is potentially benign and fielding inquiries from a system that is potentially hostile. Evidently the Foundation thinks it is worth the risk.
2. Democracy is ineffective in ascertaining the official voice of the community.
2a. The Foundation will need to answer questions as to the workings of their alleged democratic system. If the community grows dissatisfied with how the Foundation is portraying bitcoin, and the Foundation takes the classic democratic turn towards oligarchy, then alternative "official" voices and associations will certainly spring forth and return us to a more decentralized balance.
3. Regulators will compromise the Foundation and ruin bitcoin!
3a. If they wished to do so pre-Foundation, they would go after Gavin directly. Now, supported by a Foundation with money and lawyers, Gavin and the other developers are much better protected from such dangers, and able to generate an appropriate response (or a fork) if need be. Besides, the nature of the satoshi protocol contains numerous safeguards built-in against such kinds of "attacks" (namely that bitcoin versions are voluntary downloads). At the same time, government interference is arguably more likely now that bitcoin is growing out in the open.
The bitcoin foundation. They call themselves THE foundation, but they are not the founders of bitcoin. With the naming and the new public relations function they have selfassigned, they will be catching a lot of newbie attention. Now imagine they focus all the newbies only in the premium companies services...
They work together regardless because people desire certain things. Some of these protocols remain untouched and need no oversight because they are fine as they are.
Sorry? Software suddenly started communicating over vast distances through desire and haven't be touched since?
It's magic people, magic!
Or...
http://www.rfc-editor.org/
Bitcoin isn't something people can easily leave if they have their savings in it. We are dealing with wealth here.
You cannot easily sell your bitcoins?
Please stop acting like the world owes you something...
It doesn't. That's why I am getting my message out and trying to encourage people to do what they think is best for their money: Hopefully that is no central control over it.
I object to people calling themselves "official" representatives for my money, my Bitcoins and the network they run on.
I would totally object to that too. Wake me up if someone actually does it.
Bitcoin isn't something people can easily leave if they have their savings in it. We are dealing with wealth here.
You cannot easily sell your bitcoins?
Please stop acting like the world owes you something...
The American internet has had no central government since its inception. Nobody is regulating the bandwidth providers. People are free to lay their own data cables, centers and routers as they please.
Errr, telecommunications are very much regulated, as is the WWW, domain names, http, tcp, ip, ftp...
Those are all iterations of various protocols, additions to the internet. The core infrastructure is not regulated.
Which are regulated by committes, foundations, groups etc. or they wouldn't work together, would they?
Dipshit.
They are products that you can either use or defer from. Bitcoin isn't something people can easily leave if they have their savings in it. We are dealing with wealth here.
The American internet has had no central government since its inception. Nobody is regulating the bandwidth providers. People are free to lay their own data cables, centers and routers as they please.
Errr, telecommunications are very much regulated, as is the WWW, domain names, http, tcp, ip, ftp...
Those are all iterations of various protocols, additions to the internet. The core infrastructure is not regulated.
Which are regulated by committes, foundations, groups etc. or they wouldn't work together, would they?
Dipshit.
The American internet has had no central government since its inception. Nobody is regulating the bandwidth providers. People are free to lay their own data cables, centers and routers as they please.
Errr, telecommunications are very much regulated, as is the WWW, domain names, http, tcp, ip, ftp...
Those are all iterations of various protocols, additions to the internet. The core infrastructure is not regulated.
You mean, the infrastructure using IP addresses allocated by ARIN?
The American internet has had no central government since its inception. Nobody is regulating the bandwidth providers. People are free to lay their own data cables, centers and routers as they please.
Errr, telecommunications are very much regulated, as is the WWW, domain names, http, tcp, ip, ftp...
Those are all iterations of various protocols, additions to the internet. The core infrastructure is not regulated.
This is just legal approval to give developers salaries and raise funding for those salaries.
"Yay, we are recognized by the government to do business with certain tax privileges, yay! Bitcoin needs government approval to succeed!"
That's all I see here. Congrats.
Now, if you are trying to be the central democratic process for the Bitcoin network protocol, go fuck yourselves. Seriously, die. We don't need your authority or approval.
Bitcoin doesn't need a government. It doesn't need corporate sponsorship. It just needs people that value them. Central authority ruins Bitcoin's value.
"Yay, we are recognized by the government to do business with certain tax privileges, yay! Bitcoin needs government approval to succeed!"
That's all I see here. Congrats.
Now, if you are trying to be the central democratic process for the Bitcoin network protocol, go fuck yourselves. Seriously, die. We don't need your authority or approval.
Bitcoin doesn't need a government. It doesn't need corporate sponsorship. It just needs people that value them. Central authority ruins Bitcoin's value.
If people can actually hurt the value of your money by (iyo) claiming authority over it then it was pretty shit to start with.
The American internet has had no central government since its inception. Nobody is regulating the bandwidth providers. People are free to lay their own data cables, centers and routers as they please.
Errr, telecommunications are very much regulated, as is the WWW, domain names, http, tcp, ip, ftp...
This is not going to end well. It's like the wrong pendular thinking I'm used to see in my country.
- Some hackers break into my users database? (MtGox)==> I ask for passport apostilled documentation plus some domestic invoice to everyone.
- Some fake exchangers steal the users bitcoins they keep there?(bitcoinica)==>Well, let's all demand for a tainted coins system in order to prevent some stolen coins from moving through the network.
- Some scammer offers a 7% weekly and then tries to dissapear?(pirate)==> Let's run to the government skirt and cry for help.
- Some lazy ass journalists write uninformed articles about a new internet currency?==>Let's start a bitcoin foundation because bitcoin needs a "face to talk to the media" and a way to centralize all the newbie activity in the network.
- Some prima donna-thinking developer wants to get paid a salary?==> Let's build a bitcoin centralized fan club, loose all the anonymity, and ask for a monthly fee.
Gavin Andresen don't take my answers too bad, but If you think you deserve a better payment for your effort: ask for a bounty in the developer subforum. That way you will get truly anonymous and democratic answers from the only people who deserve the power: The user.
- Some hackers break into my users database? (MtGox)==> I ask for passport apostilled documentation plus some domestic invoice to everyone.
- Some fake exchangers steal the users bitcoins they keep there?(bitcoinica)==>Well, let's all demand for a tainted coins system in order to prevent some stolen coins from moving through the network.
- Some scammer offers a 7% weekly and then tries to dissapear?(pirate)==> Let's run to the government skirt and cry for help.
- Some lazy ass journalists write uninformed articles about a new internet currency?==>Let's start a bitcoin foundation because bitcoin needs a "face to talk to the media" and a way to centralize all the newbie activity in the network.
- Some prima donna-thinking developer wants to get paid a salary?==> Let's build a bitcoin centralized fan club, loose all the anonymity, and ask for a monthly fee.
Gavin Andresen don't take my answers too bad, but If you think you deserve a better payment for your effort: ask for a bounty in the developer subforum. That way you will get truly anonymous and democratic answers from the only people who deserve the power: The user.
Jump to: