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)
Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Foundation - page 55. (Read 127634 times)
Quote
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".
HTML5 is determined by a standard group. There's no evil people going around making HTML5 into a tool for government spying.
I'm absolutely certain that everybody understands how E-mail came about and continues to exist in the world today.
NO THANK YOU!. We have enough of the Bitinstant/MtGox vaporware and nonsense. I am going to pass on this one.
How about NOBODY that PROFIT from Bitcoin should be on the board? How about not having the SAME attorney for BitInstant and Roger Ver on the board of an "independent" fundation.
How about NOBODY that PROFIT from Bitcoin should be on the board? How about not having the SAME attorney for BitInstant and Roger Ver on the board of an "independent" fundation.
Everyone who own a single bitcoin profit when the price rise. So no bitcoiners should be on the bitcoin board. Only paypal and mastercard and everyone who hate bitcoin should be on board.(They don't profit from bitcoin, remember?)
There is no bitcoin monopoly and there cannot be any forceful monopoly. The software is under an open-source license with no patents or anything. It's open software.
People choose to use MtGox as much as they do as their own choice. People are free to use alternatives. As bitcoin grows in size I suspect competition will grow with the exchanges.
People choose to use MtGox as much as they do as their own choice. People are free to use alternatives. As bitcoin grows in size I suspect competition will grow with the exchanges.
Seems like a good idea to have a foundation so that the public image of Bitcoin isn't just a bunch of drug dealers and money launderers.
When anything shady happens and Bitcoin is involved somehow, we can have official statements from the foundation and look professional.
When anything shady happens and Bitcoin is involved somehow, we can have official statements from the foundation and look professional.
Do you want to bet that one year from now, if this organization is still up, many newbies coming by will believe "Bitcoin was created by the Bitcoin Foundation" or that the "Bitcoin Foundation decides the roadmap for the Bitcoin project and are responsible for it" etc? Or even that journalists will say such things?
Not to mention the risk of small manipulations. If they really don't even accept anonymous memberships, that already shows they miss some basic principles.
Not to mention the risk of small manipulations. If they really don't even accept anonymous memberships, that already shows they miss some basic principles.
The bitcoin project is de-facto the official standard bearer for the development of the bitcoin network. The Bitcoin Foundation is just formalizing it.
Quote
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".
HTML5 is determined by a standard group. There's no evil people going around making HTML5 into a tool for government spying.
I think the mission statement for the fundation should read:
"To advance the interest of the biggest players in the industry (mtgox and bitinstant), who already have their hands on everything Bitcoin related. To annihilate competition and to foster camaraderie between the good ol'boys, and to elect a board of directors without any democratic input whatsoever from the true owners of Bitcoins: Its community. Finally, to provide a tax exempt vehicle to pay Gavin Andersen for developing open source, free software".
NO THANK YOU!. We have enough of the Bitinstant/MtGox vaporware and nonsense. I am going to pass on this one.
How about NOBODY that PROFIT from Bitcoin should be on the board? How about not having the SAME attorney for BitInstant and Roger Ver on the board of an "independent" fundation.
I am sorry, but this is a transvestite, just like the last organization that Charlie Shrem and Vorhees were involved with the scammer Matthew N. Wright http://dcao.org/
I hope this community REMEMBERS. I would urge anybody caring about Bitcoin to stay away from this monopoly.
"To advance the interest of the biggest players in the industry (mtgox and bitinstant), who already have their hands on everything Bitcoin related. To annihilate competition and to foster camaraderie between the good ol'boys, and to elect a board of directors without any democratic input whatsoever from the true owners of Bitcoins: Its community. Finally, to provide a tax exempt vehicle to pay Gavin Andersen for developing open source, free software".
NO THANK YOU!. We have enough of the Bitinstant/MtGox vaporware and nonsense. I am going to pass on this one.
How about NOBODY that PROFIT from Bitcoin should be on the board? How about not having the SAME attorney for BitInstant and Roger Ver on the board of an "independent" fundation.
I am sorry, but this is a transvestite, just like the last organization that Charlie Shrem and Vorhees were involved with the scammer Matthew N. Wright http://dcao.org/
I hope this community REMEMBERS. I would urge anybody caring about Bitcoin to stay away from this monopoly.
And the foundation don't have the ability to compels the miners.
I understand this, I understand it remains free software, I understand they have all the right to create this thing and nobody can stop them etc etc.
I just don't appreciate it.
Do you want to bet that one year from now, if this organization is still up, many newbies coming by will believe "Bitcoin was created by the Bitcoin Foundation" or that the "Bitcoin Foundation decides the roadmap for the Bitcoin project and are responsible for it" etc? Or even that journalists will say such things?
Not to mention the risk of small manipulations. If they really don't even accept anonymous memberships, that already shows they miss some basic principles.
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".
Quote
...we require a real name and address for Individual members
W. T. F.
Real identity in Bitcoin world? I hope u'll remove this nonsense soon. Guys, u r supposed to solve problems without help of outer world. If u need an instrument - make it!
And how do you suppose we figure out if the half of the membership is actually ghost stuffed by a nefarious anonymous CIA operation?
Foundation: Guys, 70% of the members in the bitcoin foundation want to deanonymize the network!
Us: Bullshit! People at the meetup say they're voting for anonymity!
Foundation: But they're real! They all paid a membership!
CIA: MUAHHAHAH! We are destroying bitcoin for our government master. Wait, this mean we have no anonymous way to fund our spying operation. What will we do?
Remember, anonymity cuts both way. They allows power for good, and for evil! Sometime, anonymity allows bad people to unmask an individual's financial privacy and get away with it.
The bitcoin Foundation is not a threat to the decentralised nature of the bitcoin network simply due to the fact many people are worried about that. It tells me people are worried about centralisation and hence would take actions to prevent it. The bitcoin Foundation is just one bitcoin organisation and doesn't require anyone to join it to use bitcoin or anything like that.
Already the development team is quite centralised some may argue, so this just adds an organisational layer. There will still be alternative clients, bitcoin services and businesses which may decide to have nothing to do with the Foundation.
Already the development team is quite centralised some may argue, so this just adds an organisational layer. There will still be alternative clients, bitcoin services and businesses which may decide to have nothing to do with the Foundation.
The rest of the humanity is free to join the network. They only need to read in the forums to start getting the information to start the trip. And one of the first things they will read, and I hope they would be searching for, will be the anonymity they can achieve working right with their bitcoins. This foundation crashes with anonymity.
Anonymity is important to you and me, but not necessary the whole of humanity. Also, the forum have trolls and idiots. Who wants to read about idiots arguing for ponzi scheme? The bitcointalk forum is an embarrassment.
Quote
I think bitcoin doesn't need someone to talk from itself. Code, users, actions and time talks from itself. One error of a bitcoin user and some coins are lost. One error of the bitcoin fat ass target foundation and we can loose everything.
Give me an example how a fat ass target foundation will cause us to lose everything?
Quote
...we require a real name and address for Individual members
W. T. F.
Real identity in Bitcoin world? I hope u'll remove this nonsense soon. Guys, u r supposed to solve problems without help of outer world. If u need an instrument - make it!
The only thing needed is acceptance from the rest of the users in the network.
This is truth. But what about the 99.9999% of humanity that isn't on the network?
Getting more users on the network by countering the bad info and propaganda is part of the mission statement of the foundation. To the fence-sitter who might be persuaded to join the network, having a statement issued by The Bitcoin Foundation sounds more authoritative than pointing to a forum announcement.
The foundation is Bitcoin's face to the world, not a mirror for us to look at ourselves.
The rest of the humanity is free to join the network. They only need to read in the forums to start getting the information to start the trip. And one of the first things they will read, and I hope they would be searching for, will be the anonymity they can achieve working right with their bitcoins. This foundation crashes with anonymity.
I think bitcoin doesn't need someone to talk from itself. Code, users, actions and time talks from itself. One error of a bitcoin user and some coins are lost. One error of the bitcoin fat ass target foundation and we can loose everything.
I find this foundation as dangerous for bitcoin as the fat ass MtGox. With both we loose anonymity and the decentralized spirit of the network.
Thankfully so.
"Bitcoin has no authority", remember?
(again, I'm not saying this is definitely a threat, but I don't like the approach)
"Bitcoin has no authority", remember?
(again, I'm not saying this is definitely a threat, but I don't like the approach)
And the foundation don't have the ability to compels the miners.
Any perceived attempt by people to organize a higher hierarchy[/u] in the bitcoin world is seen as threat
Thankfully so.
"Bitcoin has no authority", remember?
(again, I'm not saying this is definitely a threat, but I don't like the approach)
They have something on their web page about disallowing felons. So I guess that means no Silkroad, no BFL.
Felons under whose definition?
SR so far are no criminals under any serious objective Ethics, for example.
And to reject "felons" (under whichever definition), they need to require people to identify themselves. That's already something that I consider that goes against bitcoin principles. I wouldn't expect that of Jon Matonis, for example, who proudly supports financial privacy. And look who's on the board... (PS: I haven't verified yet if they really block anonymous memberships, I'm saying this based on what was said on this topic)
The felon part is for board members, not the actual memberships of the foundation.
You're right. I just re-read that myself. So my above statement was factually incorrect.
The only thing needed is acceptance from the rest of the users in the network.
This is truth. But what about the 99.9999% of humanity that isn't on the network?
Bitcoiners are the 0.0001%!
And to reject "felons" (under whichever definition), they need to require people to identify themselves. That's already something that I consider that goes against bitcoin principles. I wouldn't expect that of Jon Matonis, for example, who proudly supports financial privacy. And look who's on the board... (PS: I haven't verified yet if they really block anonymous memberships, I'm saying this based on what was said on this topic)
If it's all based on rumors, perhaps we should read about the membership requirement on their page instead.
The only thing needed is acceptance from the rest of the users in the network.
This is truth. But what about the 99.9999% of humanity that isn't on the network?
Getting more users on the network by countering the bad info and propaganda is part of the mission statement of the foundation. To the fence-sitter who might be persuaded to join the network, having a statement issued by The Bitcoin Foundation sounds more authoritative than pointing to a forum announcement.
The foundation is Bitcoin's face to the world, not a mirror for us to look at ourselves.
Jump to: