Topic: Bitcoin at the US Senate - page 17. (Read 67168 times)

The Linux project is already about to become the backyard project of a few multinational corporations.
Its a good model but at some point in the future the community might have to be prepared to fork.
What I'm trying to figure out is if there is any way to ruin the currency without breaking the current protocol. If it is, we have a problem. Even the developers knows that

Wow... The responses in that topic are completely the opposite of few responses in this topic. It was a refreshing reading.

Thank you for your share.
The ANN thread is here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-bitcoin-foundation-113400

Hopefully we won't regret the opinions of those members, too much. At least now we have somewhere to point our fingers at, once this goes wrong.

Let them know that the USD is no longer the primary currency exchanged for BTC.

Good luck to Patrick and other representatives.

Took a little while for me to find it, but here you go:

  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-foundation-49841

It'll probably make for some interesting reading now that we have some hind-sight, but I've not bothered yet.

Care enough to link the thread?
Would be much appreciated.

Link please.  There were very few people who expressed some reservations when the discussion about the possibility of a foundation was first floated.  You can go back and look at the thread to discover who they were if you are interested.

I would suspect that by-n-large, the interest of the members of the foundation and those of the US govt align.  Most of the former would like to become the size of players who dominate the economy, or a footprint within it.  The latter would be happy to see that happen as it is relatively more straightforward to control such a construct.

In the 90's there was considerable consternation about the possibility for the unwashed masses to communicate with one another freely due to developments in cryptography.  As we can see now, using strong cryptography for communications did indeed become widespread, but channeled through organizations who were pliable.  I suspect that the best outcome which could be hoped for from the perspective of our leaderships would be that crypto-currency evolution follows this same basic pattern.

Also remember that we don't need a foundation and that I was right.

If this does end in a bad way, just remember which group it was that thought is was a good idea to get involved with the US government; The Foundation.

This won't end in a good way.
They might even corrupt our so called "foundation".

I don't think acceptance would make Bitcoin independent or non-political, that suggests government would approve and keep their hand out of the pot?
Do you think this will be the case? I have to say though, perhaps the result either way would lead to the same potential results.



My statements (I am assuming I am one of the "people") are directed towards the foundation. I would like Bitcoin to be accepted, just not compromised or handed over to any central authority in any way, shape or form. Acceptance would mean greater value and far less risk involved, although lets not discount the possibility of the Foundation doing a bad job and swaying Bitcoin in the wrong direction. I dislike the potential outcomes that might result if the foundation become THE authority, so that is my main gripe personally.


I live in the UK, and if I am not mistaken most of the World has been rioting and trying to speak out against their government.


The current system does not seem to be working very well, the economic collapse, war, poverty and so on are shining examples of this. I would argue ignoring these points equates to a head in the sand, doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results  . I will however reserve my right to put my finger up at anyone who wants to express my views for me, Bitcoin doesn't need a savior and will get on fine without the Foundation.

I see...

I keep hearing this from people who then have no counterpoint. What is your alternative? You want to go underground? And you're completely misrepresenting the quote as well.

If you want it underground then I'm not going to argue that point. As a technologist and an entrepreneur I think it's a poor idea and politically lead, and I think it's bad for Bitcoin and for the masses.

If you want to use Bitcoin as your tool to try and change the way we're governed then go right ahead, but you do not represent Bitcoin - you represent an ideological point of view and I'm good with that. The Foundation, and I'm not saying they are the best thing ever so don't get me wrong, are there to represent Bitcoin. They are not there to take on the government and nor is Bitcoin.

I'd also like to add that this whole anti-government/libertarianism is a very American thing. There'll be some non US citizens in this thread who think the same (since this is Bitcoin) but across the rest of the world it's really seen as quite an odd thing. Yeah democracy has faults and looking from the outside America seems particularly weird, but Bitcoin isn't the fix you're looking for.

I don't think you'll find for one second anyone here wants the US, or any country, interfering with the Bitcoin protocol or development. However, here's the thing. They already do. The way mining is currently seen, AML, KYC, exchanges, future coloured coin issues - they already interfere. So the key is trying to limit that interference to something which doesn't get in the way, so business can operate, so miners can mine without wondering about the feds knocking on the door, so people can be compliant with tax law, so more places can accept Bitcoin, so people can buy it safely, and so on.

So, stick your head in the sand or finger up at the world and carry on regardless or try and carve a path which works for everyone?

And now they are going to the US Senate...
...to get APPROVED BY U.S.Govt. stamp.

I haven't been around here long enough to say for sure but I wouldn't criticise the foundation without a good reason.
The way I see it, the only way the foundation or the developers can make any harm to the currency is to make a change to the protocol that is not backwards compatible.
Like changing the encryption scheme from binary field curves to something more mainstream

Whatever...

Governments will exist, money will circulate, people will have debates, binary codes will be improved.

If they don't shut down even though the majority of the community voted for that, they aren't really doing anything for the community, but rather for themselves.

How about we vote to shut down the foundation ---> profit.

The same way that cars allowed us a move on from the horse and cart, or how telephones enabled us to move on from posting letters.  

You missed out a lot of the meat from that paragraph so I will assume you agreed with those sentiments . True they are willing to have the hearing though, I would hope that their idea of informing themselves goes beyond talking to a select group of people however.


Consider for a moment the United States Constitution and how it has changed since its conception. The banking system once had a useful function of value which has eventually eroded into the corruption that we have today. If you put any idea into the wrong hands then don't expect a positive result. I cannot forecast into the future obviously, but history I feel offers a good indication to where the foundation could potentially lead.

So the idea is for the advisers(The Foundation in this instance) to inform government who will then in turn inform the general public? So we expect no misinformation or propaganda in this chain of events? Anyway I did not say that advising is bad, or that lesser of them is a good idea, in fact here is a direct quote ("Advising is great"). Obviously sharing information is always a good idea, the Foundation however act as more than mere advisers by not just acting as facilitators of knowledge, but as the voice itself. Big difference.

I guess an important question to ask before arguing my point any further would be...
Do you feel that the foundation have, or intend to establish themselves as an authority on behalf of Bitcoin?
If so do you not see any potential for that authority to lead to negative outcomes?

If you say no to either of those then that is just a difference of opinion and time will tell.