Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Foundation - page 56. (Read 127634 times)
I don't know why some people are so against it, they may be right that it may not be best decision but this is just another bitcoin foundation, if majority is against this it will not work, if majority wants a different organization everybody is free to make one instead whining, here is mine "The unorganized BTCitcoin organization" with only one member me
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)
Any perceived attempt by people to organize a higher hierarchy in the bitcoin world is seen as threat and "centralization" by bitcoiners even if said schema have no power and doesn't actually centralize anything.
Lifetime membership here I come.
I think this is a very important step. Monumental step. Bitcoin will become more legitimate and more robust thanks to this.
I disagree much. When I sign with a private key I own a message which says some imputs become some outputs and broadcast it trough the bitcoin network I, and anyone, don't need legitimation of any kind. The only thing needed is acceptance from the rest of the users in the network.
Especially if your enemy can just buy any number of votes (=memberships) he wants.
I suppose microsoft can just buy seats on the linux foundation too.
I can't help but comment on two points already made:
1) Silk Road becoming Platinum Member.
2) People with money, can buy their way in changing (or destroying) bitcoin.
1) Is anyone allowed to become a member? If not, what are the rules/restrictions?
They have something on their web page about disallowing felons. So I guess that means no Silkroad, no BFL.
It also worries me that you need to give away your anonymity to support this project.
Where will this precious data end up when shit hits the fan?
Where will this precious data end up when shit hits the fan?
I agree, this doesn't even keep one of the core values of bitcoins, that is anonymity, kinda disappointed, I wanted to get a membership until I see have to provide a real address and real name.
Damn, I hadn't noticed that.
It starts awfully bad already. Privacy is just a fundamental principle. If they start by ignoring it...
If you are worried about the direction of the Bitcoin Foundation and the members of the board you should join the foundation and let your vote count.
Brilliant!! Just like democracy!! This system that works so fucking well!!
Especially if your enemy can just buy any number of votes (=memberships) he wants.
I can't help but comment on two points already made:
1) Silk Road becoming Platinum Member.
2) People with money, can buy their way in changing (or destroying) bitcoin.
I'd like to pose the following questions to the Foundation
1) Is anyone allowed to become a member? If not, what are the rules/restrictions?
2) Is everyone's vote worth the same? If not, please explain.
3) How will the Foundation defend itself from people with power buying their way into changing/destroying things?
I feel this is a good move and I'm pleased with it, there are problems though that need to be thought over. I (and many others) would appreciate if you could provide us with some answers, preferably on the Foundation's web site.
1) Silk Road becoming Platinum Member.
2) People with money, can buy their way in changing (or destroying) bitcoin.
I'd like to pose the following questions to the Foundation
1) Is anyone allowed to become a member? If not, what are the rules/restrictions?
2) Is everyone's vote worth the same? If not, please explain.
3) How will the Foundation defend itself from people with power buying their way into changing/destroying things?
I feel this is a good move and I'm pleased with it, there are problems though that need to be thought over. I (and many others) would appreciate if you could provide us with some answers, preferably on the Foundation's web site.
I'm kind of offended that legitmate questioning and criticisms are being called "whining"
Legit crit is never whining. I don't recall ever seeing you engage in whining, so no offense intended.
"Wah, this isn't what I want" isn't legit crit.
Quote
Not sure if you missed the memo, Bitcoin is about not having to trust ... I'm pretty sure Gavin welcomes us to not trust him ... I don't, you shouldn't either ... he probably shouldn't even trust himself.
I don't trust anyone I don't know or haven't had successful dealings with. Trust is based on experience. I trust that the developers have the best interests of the protocol and the network in mind when they develop.
I don't trust mtgox, so they don't get my money. But I do trust that Mark will be a good fit at the foundation.
From observing bitcoin for a couple of years and in my dealings with Gavin, I trust him to make a best effort do what he'll say. Likewise, I trust that this foundation will have the interests of Bitcoin in mind.
My trust can be broken if I see any changes in what my experience has been thus far.
I have just spent all the MultiBit donations, topped up with my own BTC, for a lifetime membership.
I think this is a very important step. Monumental step. Bitcoin will become more legitimate and more robust thanks to this. The developers do need funding because the whole project is getting too big, too serious, to develop only through voluntarism. Also there needs to be an organization that tries to push the positive picture of Bitcoin to the law makers as well. Bitcoin can be used even if it's made illegal but it won't be good for much after that, so an entity like this will make it more difficult to just ban Bitcoin.
I'm happy to be a member, unfortunately our company won't be a member in a long time.
I'm happy to be a member, unfortunately our company won't be a member in a long time.
This is a great step ahead, and will greatly benefit the proliferation of Bitcoin...I cannot understand all the whining.
I don't either. People seem to trust Gavin enough to run the code that he and the dev team publish. People also seem to trust the network enough that they put their fiat into it in some form or another. The Free Software Foundation, the Linux Foundation, etc. are worthy models.
I'm kind of offended that legitmate questioning and criticisms are being called "whining" ... when this project got off the ground criticisms were accepted as necessary to make it stronger ... whining works.
Not sure if you missed the memo, Bitcoin is about not having to trust ... I'm pretty sure Gavin welcomes us to not trust him ... I don't, you shouldn't either ... he probably shouldn't even trust himself.
He, and that's precisely a good example of how things may turn out not that good... wikipedia people can get quite censor-prone sometimes. People get in and try to push their agenda. I've seen some biased decisions there, particularly in the Portuguese version of it.
Dude, wikipedia people are not the wikimedia people. I know this because I am a former editor myself.
Quote
Of course, that doesn't prevent wikipedia from being a great resource to mankind. But wikipedia is not a potential threat to so many people as bitcoin is though (at least I don't think Encyclopedia Britanica and others have the same lobbying power bankers have)
The foundation have no more power other than being a decoy target for governments to target, which is a good thing.
If you are worried about the direction of the Bitcoin Foundation and the members of the board you should join the foundation and let your vote count.
Brilliant!! Just like democracy!! This system that works so fucking well!!
This is a great step ahead, and will greatly benefit the proliferation of Bitcoin...I cannot understand all the whining.
I don't either. People seem to trust Gavin enough to run the code that he and the dev team publish. People also seem to trust the network enough that they put their fiat into it in some form or another. The Free Software Foundation, the Linux Foundation, etc. are worthy models.
although there is always that network warning key that Gavin holds that could be used to propagandise against upstart client "threats" I suppose.
That is not the case. Other clients do not need to pay attention to bitcoin alert messages. They could even use their own keys but that would not propagate though other clients.
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?
Will the Foundation create a bitcoin specification paper? That's something I find is missing, and I don't know if any thought was made on that?
That's just wordplay.
Wordplay matters.
You name the organization like that, and many newbies will consider it is the project founder and maintainer. They will think such foundation is responsible for the project, as the Tor Project organization is pretty much responsible for the Tor project.
I'm already seeing dumb regulators going after "bitcoin server farms" in the Bitcoin Foundation. And the less dumb among them will probably try to influence this foundation (and the developers under it) somehow.
One good anology would be wikimedia foundation, they are developing the mediawiki software and at the same time are responsible for wikipedia.
He, and that's precisely a good example of how things may turn out not that good... wikipedia people can get quite censor-prone sometimes. People get in and try to push their agenda. I've seen some biased decisions there, particularly in the Portuguese version of it.
Of course, that doesn't prevent wikipedia from being a great resource to mankind. But wikipedia is not a potential threat to so many people as bitcoin is though (at least I don't think Encyclopedia Britanica and others have the same lobbying power bankers have)
This is a great step ahead, and will greatly benefit the proliferation of Bitcoin.
Those who feel that this foundation does not represent their ideals should rather create their own foundation that does. How is that for freedom and decentralization?? This foundation does nothing to change what the bitcoin protocol is, so I cannot understand all the whining. (And I am sure the developers would even accept your new foundation helping to pay for the development too!)
Those who feel that this foundation does not represent their ideals should rather create their own foundation that does. How is that for freedom and decentralization?? This foundation does nothing to change what the bitcoin protocol is, so I cannot understand all the whining. (And I am sure the developers would even accept your new foundation helping to pay for the development too!)
Jump to: