The majority of critics do not seem to want any hierarchical organization at all, so it is like herding cats.
We need an organization but non-hierarchical one. An organization of peers. P2P network.
Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Foundation - page 8. (Read 127621 times)
We need an organization but non-hierarchical one. An organization of peers. P2P network.
I think voting should be like a joint stock company. One vote per bitcoin you own
Good idea. In this case u need only to prove amount u own. No need to reveal real identity.
Well, thanks for the support. The majority of critics do not seem to want any hierarchical organization at all, so it is like herding cats.
I think voting should be like a joint stock company. One vote per bitcoin you own
Good idea. In this case u need only to prove amount u own. No need to reveal real identity.
Seriously ?
Anything that lets to stay anonymous looks like a good idea.
I think voting should be like a joint stock company. One vote per bitcoin you own
Good idea. In this case u need only to prove amount u own. No need to reveal real identity.
Seriously ?
The voting systems used today are hacked, they are being used to hide and/or remove liability from the people making the decisions. Bringing liability back is a must if you want to live in a free world. I don't think any one has come up with a system that's 100% reliably ...
The only valet way to vote is by opting in or out (buy or don't buy, use or don't use), any other large scale voting system is open to fraud and manipulation.
To me "Votes" are only valid if all the people voting can be present in real life, all other "Votes" are just a way to see who thinks a idea is bad or good (to lesser degree how meany). For me anny other "Vote" is just a poll, it should be treated as such and have no binding obligations at all.
It is up to the person behind the vote/poll to pick the results he trusts and the solution he thinks is best. After that people need to have a choice and a way to opt in or out.
(I do believe in democracy even tho it doesn't sound that way, democracy just means people have the right to get a say in how things are done, in today's world people seem to have lost that right, I blame the voting system we use.)
+111111111111
Gavin
Keep moving forward. You are doing a fantastic job. Don't get sidetracked by a few critics. Most people here support you and even if not , they can create their own foundation or club.
Gavin
Keep moving forward. You are doing a fantastic job. Don't get sidetracked by a few critics. Most people here support you and even if not , they can create their own foundation or club.
i do support the bitcoin foundation
i just (and only) have the fear that mtgox uses this power to convince all bitcoin businness to copy his definition of tainted coins.
Why are you afraid of it? Did you steal anyone's wallet?
no,
i am afraid that i get "tainted" coins from another party (eg satoshidice, another exchange...)
I think voting should be like a joint stock company. One vote per bitcoin you own,
Really??!? Before he disappeared, we didn't get all of Pirate's votes... 
I think voting should be like a joint stock company. One vote per bitcoin you own,
Wow, since the announcement of TBF that is the worst suggestion I heard. (nofi)
So first the few "bitcoin rich" set up their own club, but then you would base the voting power on how rich someone is?
Requiring a 50 BTC deposit (or whatever) would be another way to prevent Sybil attacks. Perhaps this could be an alternative to giving out your identity.
Another possibility would be to have one of several third-parties verify your identity and give you an anonymous "voting token" using blind signing.
Another possibility would be to have one of several third-parties verify your identity and give you an anonymous "voting token" using blind signing.
Bitcoin+giving personal info+USA=incoming fail
just look at what happened to kim dotcom
just look at what happened to kim dotcom
I think voting should be like a joint stock company. One vote per bitcoin you own
Good idea. In this case u need only to prove amount u own. No need to reveal real identity.
I think voting should be like a joint stock company. One vote per bitcoin you own, x% of txn fees should go to whoever is voted to be the head of the organization. (most likely gavin at this point, but he can be voted out by the owners). x can be set for all eternity or it can be voted on (I don't care).
Said this many times before, but it bears repeating.
Said this many times before, but it bears repeating.
So it all comes down to members that pay, eventually those that pay the most will have most power. Equal votes my ass, they pay the bills and put food on the table ...
Are you suggesting that they will put something in the bylaws that will allow people to purchase more than one vote?
No, do they need to add it to the bylaws before it becomes true ?
Eventually operation will be depend on the funds added by specific parties and that is the invisible voting power most people seem to ignore and the one I was referring to. Organizations and/or corporations on the other hand are not able to ignore that voting power, they have the responsibility to keep operations going.
This is something you can't avoid, but in a free world competition and user choice solves the issue. For the 'bitcoin protocol' there is no viable alternative besides the one provided by them. As such I consider the creation of the foundation at this point in time a thread, a can of worms we should have kept closed a bit longer.
So it all comes down to members that pay, eventually those that pay the most will have most power. Equal votes my ass, they pay the bills and put food on the table ...
Are you suggesting that they will put something in the bylaws that will allow people to purchase more than one vote?
I think he's suggesting that the amount of money you give them should carry no weight in your voting. I also think you knew that already, but just wanted to be provocative
I'm pretty sure the only way to donate after purchasing a membership is anonymous donations. Or am I wrong?
So it all comes down to members that pay, eventually those that pay the most will have most power. Equal votes my ass, they pay the bills and put food on the table ...
Are you suggesting that they will put something in the bylaws that will allow people to purchase more than one vote?
I think he's suggesting that the amount of money you give them should carry no weight in your voting. I also think you knew that already, but just wanted to be provocative
So it all comes down to members that pay, eventually those that pay the most will have most power. Equal votes my ass, they pay the bills and put food on the table ...
Are you suggesting that they will put something in the bylaws that will allow people to purchase more than one vote?
That is not a problem as long as TBF only does what is good for bitcoin. But no one can guarantee that, and the way it has been set up almost ensures that it won't, at some point in time.
If wé are are not critical on TBF and their actions, those 6 billion people sure won't be.
If wé are are not critical on TBF and their actions, those 6 billion people sure won't be.
And how do you plan on doing that with a foundation that has a legal structure designed to give those with more money a head start ? To be elected you have to campaign and we all know how campaigns work, especially when those future 6 billion people join in on the voting wagon.
If you want a example of how that works in reality, take a closer look at the example Gavin mentioned.
With the Internet we have the power to decentralize politics and we no longer need to elect representatives.
Edit: Correction - from the common users point of view there was no need to add that kind of centralized structure on to the foundation.
In the end The Foundation will be there to please those that pay and not to protect or advance the protocol.
I think this kind of critic doesn't stand.
There's nothing stopping people with deep pockets from financing developments that please them right now. This organization per se won't make it easier or harder for them.
In the end, what matters is who people (=bitcoin users) trust. If well intended developers see the foundation has been bought by "an evil guy", they can simply leave it. Their reputation will leave with them.
The actual danger is not people buying up the organization. The actual danger is bitcoin users trusting this organization more than they should. The simple fact they don't accept anonymous memberships is already a reason to be wary, IMHO.
+1
To this we should add and never forget that at the moment there are ~6 billion (I think that is a low estimation) potential future bitcoin users who have yet to be introduced to bitcoin. One of the first points of contact with bitcoin will be TBF for them. If you have any doubts of the effect this can potentially have, look at what EFF causes. There are already quite some cases of merchants not accepting bitcoin simply because EFF sais it is problematic. Sure, they should read more than just that once source, but let's be honest: many won't. Just like many (I dare to state: the majority) people will never look further than what they read on TBF's website.
That is not a problem as long as TBF only does what is good for bitcoin. But no one can guarantee that, and the way it has been set up almost ensures that it won't, at some point in time.
If wé are are not critical on TBF and their actions, those 6 billion people sure won't be.
In the end The Foundation will be there to please those that pay and not to protect or advance the protocol.
I think this kind of critic doesn't stand.
There's nothing stopping people with deep pockets from financing developments that please them right now. This organization per se won't make it easier or harder for them.
In the end, what matters is who people (=bitcoin users) trust. If well intended developers see the foundation has been bought by "an evil guy", they can simply leave it. Their reputation will leave with them.
The actual danger is not people buying up the organization. The actual danger is bitcoin users trusting this organization more than they should. The simple fact they don't accept anonymous memberships is already a reason to be wary, IMHO.
The structure of the foundation and the current state of the bitcoin protocol is why I believe the foundation does make it easier for people with bad intentions to act, it gives them a ready to use and central point of attack with a legal structure to be co-opted.
As to users trust, I agree but the users don't have a choice. At this point in time they have to trust software put out by the foundation. There simply is no complete alternative for the to turn to.
In the past I gave Gavin trust as a person, I can't say I will do the same for Gavin the employee of 'the foundation'.
Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike the idea of a foundation but the timing and structure of BF seems off to me. On the other hand it might just wake people up out of there complacent state and push them to actually do something about it.
Don't care about supporting an organization whose name is a lie in itself and will likely mislead people - with the high probability of this being intentional.
Damn that national science foundation, and their monopoly on science.
Do you want to bet that people will be misled by this organization's name?
It may very well be true that people are misled by the name "National Science Foundation," but those people are stupid.
Don't care about supporting an organization whose name is a lie in itself and will likely mislead people - with the high probability of this being intentional.
Damn that national science foundation, and their monopoly on science.
Do you want to bet that people will be misled by this organization's name?
Jump to: