Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Foundation - page 53. (Read 127621 times)
Rejoice! Hoorah!
Give me an example how a fat ass target foundation will cause us to lose everything?
Imagine USA declares bitcoin illegal and asks the foundation based in this country to leak all the users joined database.
Isn't liberty great? Gavin can make a Bitcoin Foundation, and people can join, or not, as serves their interests.
I suggest two seats just for mining, with voting decided in the coinbase rather than creating a third category of membership.
Having two miners seats will give opportunity to two biggest pools to become even bigger, this is clearly a step in wrong direction.
Huh?
I'm guessing the satoshi client or whatever people call it these days will now be copyrighted under the bitcoin Foundation? The Foundation is essentially the vehicle for the development of that client?
Bitcoin Foundation != dev team
While I hope the Bitcoin Foundation will address critical immediate needs -- like paying Gavin to work on bitcoin -- fiddling with the copyrights does not seem within the claimed Linux Foundation model. The Linux kernel is copyrighted by the individual authors, not by the Linux Foundation. It seems logical the code would stay the same.
After all, the code is not just the dev team, even... it is every contributor. And every code contributor wrote has written more than a couple lines of code has a copyright claim.
Full disclosure: yes, I joined the foundation as a lifetime member.
This is a pretty common misunderstanding of copyright law. Copyright can't be taken, it can only be given. Every fragment of every line of code has an author, and that author holds the copyright on that part (or their employer, for example, if they've made such an agreement). Some developers could assign their copyright to the foundation if they wanted to, but the foundation can't just take it. It also isn't available for a vote, for example, if the devs held a vote on assigning the rights to the foundation, their vote wouldn't be binding on anyone.
I'ts not difficult to list someone as a founding member even if they "disappeared"
It's not difficult, it's just a lie. As the name "Bitcoin Foundation" itself, since you're not the foundation of Bitcoin.
Satoshi is a very involved member of the bitcoin community, I think he's Casascius.
I know I will never be able to prove that, and people will ignore/ridicule my assessment, nevertheless I believe it
I know I will never be able to prove that, and people will ignore/ridicule my assessment, nevertheless I believe it
It makes a lot of sense actually.
Satoshi is a very involved member of the bitcoin community, I think he's Casascius.
I know I will never be able to prove that, and people will ignore/ridicule my assessment, nevertheless I believe it
I know I will never be able to prove that, and people will ignore/ridicule my assessment, nevertheless I believe it
100% in support of the foundation.
Hey, that means you have his real name and adress on file. 
Another LOLz....
I'ts not difficult to list someone as a founding member even if they "disappeared"
LOLZ ... I am sorry. Not serious.
Satoshi is in the bylaws of the foundation and the founding member.
I'm sorry, but how can he be a "founding member" of something founded after he ... "disappeared"?
I'm afraid I can't find these bylaws. Is there a link?
Ya, should be posted on the website in a few days.
I'ts not difficult to list someone as a founding member even if they "disappeared"
Hey, that means you have his real name and adress on file.
Satoshi is in the bylaws of the foundation and the founding member.
I'm sorry, but how can he be a "founding member" of something founded after he ... "disappeared"?
I'm afraid I can't find these bylaws. Is there a link?
Ya, should be posted on the website in a few days.
I'ts not difficult to list someone as a founding member even if they "disappeared"
I suggest two seats just for mining, with voting decided in the coinbase rather than creating a third category of membership.
Having two miners seats will give opportunity to two biggest pools to become even bigger, this is clearly a step in wrong direction.
Satoshi is in the bylaws of the foundation and the founding member.
I'm sorry, but how can he be a "founding member" of something founded after he ... "disappeared"?
I'm afraid I can't find these bylaws. Is there a link?
I love the idea of the Bitcoin Foundation and will be supporting it.
Bitcoin as we know it, and as it was devised by Satoshi will ALWAYS be against the interests of the modern, blood sucking state, period. They will never be allies unless Bitcoin becomes Paypal and tax accountability is in place. This is just a fact. Why do you think Satoshi was so particular about his anonymity? Because he thought he could "mainstream" Bitcoin?
The state is not a monolithic entity. The FBI don't gives a hoot about bitcoin destroying dollars, just as long as they're getting paid(does it matters what?) and you're not committing frauds. The CIA loves an anonymous way of funding their spy operations. Taxation works the same way. They could tax people without violating their financial privacy, but they don't wanna.
The government could see bitcoin as a threat or an opportunity or just not care about it. It depends on how they see it.
It's like a doctor seeing a new cure for cancer that will end his job. He can see it as a threat to his livelihood or he could embrace as saving his life.
I'm guessing the satoshi client or whatever people call it these days will now be copyrighted under the bitcoin Foundation? The Foundation is essentially the vehicle for the development of that client?
Bitcoin Foundation != dev team
While I hope the Bitcoin Foundation will address critical immediate needs -- like paying Gavin to work on bitcoin -- fiddling with the copyrights does not seem within the claimed Linux Foundation model. The Linux kernel is copyrighted by the individual authors, not by the Linux Foundation. It seems logical the code would stay the same.
After all, the code is not just the dev team, even... it is every contributor. And every code contributor wrote has written more than a couple lines of code has a copyright claim.
Full disclosure: yes, I joined the foundation as a lifetime member.
I would prefer if Bitcoin stayed just like E-mail: no "E-mail Foundation", no "E-mail phone number" etc, and everybody understands that very well. Nobody asks for an "authority over E-mail".
This is hilarious. Do you know who developed and standardized email in it's current form? DARPA!
It's good that the Foundation will be funding development and representing Bitcoin legally, but it's important that the ownership of Bitcoin-related assets doesn't become too centralized. In particular, the Foundation should not:
- Control bitcoin.org
- Control any DNS seeds, etc.
- Own copyright on the Bitcoin source code
- Own any patents
- Own the Bitcoin trademark (unless someone has to own it)
A hostile entity that gained control over those things could do some damage, but it wouldn't be irreperable.- Control bitcoin.org
- Control any DNS seeds, etc.
- Own copyright on the Bitcoin source code
- Own any patents
- Own the Bitcoin trademark (unless someone has to own it)
The code is already out in the open. Someone seeking to stop distribution via copyright and patent lawsuits wouldn't have any more luck than the media industry. At worst it would just push future development into the darknet.
Jump to: