Topic: Bitcoin Foundation Election (Read 3053 times)

Spendulus.. I'm curious about your thoughts on the criteria (privacy related) as developed by Kristov Atlas.  He developed them up and sought comment but nobody really gave him any commentary on his rather well detailed privacy ratings criteria for wallets. I would have added something relative to an installation category since I think from a user privacy standpoint, web wallets are dead (everything on that end involves soliciting and luring the user to "join" and then selling the user's information to third parties or handing it off to governments or corporations) and so to be realistic, you have to favor the installation models, the question then becomes what is installed  and the usability or ease of doing so.

https://github.com/OpenBitcoinPrivacyProject/wallet-ratings/blob/master/criteria.md

By the way for those who are still tracking this thread and are curious, or are just looking at it for first time, yes I am a Candidate for Individual Director for the Foundation - this is my latest press:

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/colin-gallagher-bitcoin-foundation-elections/
See also:
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1188-candidate-area-man-random-member/

Soon to come, Let's Talk Bitcoin will be releasing multicandidate debate and roundtable. 

Hi,

Presently BTC cannot be readily kept anonymously. Someone can with very strong and exceptional precautions can gain a great deal of privacy, but Bitcoin as a system is transparent.  However, you will note that some wallets have different features than others, for example, Electrum will be integrating Stealth send capability once Stealth process is a BIP (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal) as it has already worked through that at
https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/pull/817

But it is not currently included in Electrum by default (even if you can work it in as a non-mainline option), so such options will come only with time.

And of course, the Darkwallet team has done this really great work which essentially amounts simply to making the stealth.js code have its own repository - see the thread on that here:
https://github.com/darkwallet/darkwallet/issues/154

I would not say that Stealth is the same thing as anonymity.  You may wish to further debate that, but if you want to get into the very technical details of whether Stealth transactions are anonymous or not, please read here:
http://sx.dyne.org/stealth.html
Note that they call it an anonymity technique, but I am not so sure.  I think it is closer to a very good privacy technique.  To me an anonymity technique would be something like what zerocash would offer. 

There is a project that is being developed (not a Bitcoin Foundation project ~ it is through Kristov Atlas, who has done good work)
It shows Privacy Ratings Criteria for wallets, so you can look at some ideas for how these have been evaluated:
https://github.com/OpenBitcoinPrivacyProject/wallet-ratings/blob/master/criteria.md

Cheers!

this foundation is going to keep the btc anonimosuly or its to escrow a bit on bad trasactions and scam sites too? i mean there like 1 scam site per day trying to doulbe your money just for saying then dissapperas with the all.

Getting back to this, please check out my revised Consider It page, which is here:

https://bitcoin-election.consider.it/colin-gallagher

Then check out the "deliberation" area, which is here (not a vote, but it is an area where candidates can preliminarily be weighed for or against each other before the actual election):

https://bitcoin-election.consider.it/

Vote me up, share, etc.

I think you have to use the e-mail address you used when you logged in as member, for your results to be preserved in the consider-it deliberation area.

Cheers

I don't wish to "convince you of anything."  I simply stated my disagreement, as per my earlier reply above, where I started by saying, "I fundamentally disagree with you."  That's all.  If we agree on anything, which I suspect we don't on these particular points, it might be that we agree to disagree.

 But, I am guessing that it would be unlikely that we would even agree on that point, and I don't want to burn more time on this with you if you really think that there are no possibilities for the Foundation to do any contribution that could be meaningful.

I'm not running on Cody's platform.  I have my own.  For some reason I've noticed some people have this delusion that people should jump on the Cody train just because mathematically that approach would need numbers to work.  I don't support Cody's angle.  I have my own approach and it doesn't involve dissolution, but I've spoken in depth before about how I would respond to dissolution if it came up - and I've been very, very clear about it in response to questions here on bitcointalk.  It's silly to keep talking about it again and again.  I'll let Cody handle such issues, that's his platform, not mine, and dissolution is not mathematically feasible, as I've pointed out at least several times.

 It's not just about persons, but the values and how they put them into practice, but if you look at myself, Olivier Janssens, or Bruce Fenton, I think you will find examples of people who would be good individuals for Foundation members to vote for, personally.  You have your views, I don't want to convince you of anything particularly as you don't even want to support the organization, I fundamentally disagree with the points you made earlier, I made my points known.  

I am running on my platform which I have announced since early November 2014 as summed up in three points:

user choice,
bitcoin development,
privacy / anonymity.
Recently detailed more in depth:

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1188-candidate-area-man-random-member/

Cheers.

There is no point in convincing me of anything since I will never be a part of the organization (which, I assume, is required to vote.)  If you can use my tongue-n-cheek prose as a pivot however, great.  I was one of the very few people who argued against the organization before it was formed and some of my concerns are expressed (significantly) in how the organization evolved.  Other defects that I did not expect popped up as well.

I am actually somewhat impressed by some of Matonis's writings.  He has the native ability to 'get' certain important things whereas most people do not, but even if he does there is only so much that is possible to do at this point.

Although I don't care deeply one way or another, I would be pleased to see the winners be people who have the desire and ability to torpedo the organization to a watery forgotten grave-site.  Cody is, I think, running on this patform, and I wish him better luck than that fat fuck whats-his-name [oh ya, Michael Moore] had running for president of the NRA.  That is not to say that I don't understand and appreciate certain things the organization has accomplished.  I have them to thank for being able to capitalize monetarily on Bitcoin so far after all.  But their accomplishments were necessary (arguably) evils and it's time to shift gears and build Bitcoin on it's native strengths.  Very few people in TBF are of the mindset to do this and there is no point in trying to turn the organization around.  Treating it as a honeypot to be dumped is the only real value left as far as I am concerned.

I fundamentally disagree with you.  That is not the critical part of the job.  It sounds like you have a view of the situation as though there is no possibility that the development process itself can be improved or that the larger community should be involved in development and decentralization discussions and so forth.  Which it should.  But it is not the only thing.  Each candidate has a platform and it contributes to a whole. Nobody (and I certainly will emphasize this) on the Foundation can possibly, nor should they operate under the delusion of, trying to control a development process, though there are development funding processes which the Foundation does engage in and thus, the Foundation contributes to core development.  I have argued extensively that this needs to be done very differently as you can see from my posts below:
  https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1024-a-clear-and-present-danger/#entry11507
(more technical at:)
 https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1024-a-clear-and-present-danger/#entry11587
(lighthouse related at:)
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1186-candidate-olivier-janssens/#entry12640

But you may wonder then what is my platform?  My platform is shown below, and indeed, I am running for Individual Director.  The points in this platform have been public since Nov. 5th, 2014, as you can see from here:
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1129-corporate-governance-update/#entry12235

I was nominated, and accepted the nominations, of Jon Matonis and Mike Hayes.  I believe I was the first candidate to have been nominated this time around.  I made a few small adjustments to platform in order to clarify what I felt needed clarifying, as you can see here from this Jan. 7, 2015 post:

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1188-candidate-area-man-random-member/

"They got my dick message!!"

- Peter Quill (to Gamora) [Guardians of the Galaxy, 2014)

Hmm, and this makes one wonder if part of this whole regulatory setup is actually a facade while some part of the regulatory/corporation-state apparatus plays in to set itself up on the sidechain (or some variant of DAO or what comes next after that, say, some post-DAO darpa-invention) such that they plan for their own survival even as they fade?

I could explore this further and would like to, but can't at present elaborate between ethics, use vs. nature, the various moral questions we may invent versus what we concerned about at the core in terms of surplus and abundance of violence that we may create indirectly, and algorithmic alternatives to that which we may choose as options, because I have been dealing with doctors matters over the past few days and have to go into a medical center tomorrow for some followup, so I'm out for a day or so.  

Cheers, I'll be back soon.  A day, day and half tops.

I think this is a guaranteed outcome. At no point in history have individual subjects had true control over the coffers of the kingdom. Morality attacks will be used against Bitcoin to engage legal and regulatory controls in an attempt to neuter its use to circumvent government power. Mountains of dollars are used to prove governments moral superiority and maintain control over citizens. Infinite piles of dollars will be spent ensuring government control of Bitcoin. They simply cannot allow Bitcoin to replace fiats use in any small capacity

Frank and Colin -

I posted the following because frankly, this is an interesting aspect of bitcoin - it's use and availability as cash and it's perceived utility in "black markets".  Discussing such a subject is not equal to advocating it, rather it is an effort towards understanding. 



Let me place a US dollar on the table.  It has no ethics, it knows no laws, it has no conscious.  It is a dead thing made of dead trees.  That is money.  We understand it by studying it's history and it's use.

Let's not confuse the "nature of money" with the "use of money".

What may be slowly emerging now is attempts by governments to merge these two things, such that money itself operates according to schemes governments do or do not allow or approve of.  This is very dangerous.  This "attempt to merge" for example is the US government leaning on credit card companies in the US (yes, NOW) to not take process payments from Canadian pharmacies for medicine.  Another example is the US government leaning on banks to close bank accounts of porn stars.

This is in my view highly dangerous to society and in no sense or fashion "good."  In the world of Bitcoin yes, we do need to discuss the divergence or lack of between the "use of money" and the "nature of money" because some may think they can interject "moral, legal, regulatory" into the nature of bitcoin algorithmically.

BitFrank,

Here's my reply to your post as you had originally posted it in Bitcoin Foundation forum, so that's where I replied to it:
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1199-francis-pouliot-candidate-for-representative-of-the-individual-members/#entry12724
I had hoped that this would engender an intelligent and open discussion based on some of your replies in other threads, but I am observing that I am mistaken.  As stated from back in the Bitcoin Foundation forum, I do not wish to "burn daylight," by which I mean I do not wish to waste time, with back and forth, when it is evident that you are likely to be inflexible, irrational, or unreasonable.

However, I do hope you'll read my latest wall of text:

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1203-i-vehemently-oppose-the-50-state-solution-and-you-should-too/

Ciao

I will run for the position, ONLY under the condition that I am elected supreme chancellor

~Darth Dickus~

It will be very interesting to see who the new board members are and what their proposed changes will be.

Don't worry about it.  The only critical part of the job is to get Gavin's bloatchain fork rolled out, and the qualifications here are just that the winner can effectively network with the dwindling number of players in the consolidating pool of entities who matter.  Multibit will silently adopt the chain with no particular understanding on the part of the sheep herd who runs it, 'TBFcoin' --> 'Bitcoin', and the world turns.

I've just announce my candidacy as well - you can find the candidate thread here: https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1199-francis-pouliot-candidate-for-representative-of-the-individual-members/

Full post (sorry for the wall of text)

Bringing the Foundation back to its root
My platform as representative of the Bitcoin Foundation's individual members

My name is Francis Pouliot and I am a full-time Bitcoin advocate, educator, and community organizer. You may have heard of me as Director of Public Affairs at the Bitcoin Embassy, the first physical space in the world dedicated to the promotion and development of the cryptocurrency ecosystem. Fellow Canadians will recognize me as the Chief Executive Officer at the Bitcoin Foundation Canada, a pan-Canadian membership-based advocacy group dedicated to ensuring a favorable environment for Canada's cryptocurrency ecosystem.

While I may not be a famous Bitcoin investor or entrepreneur, I consider myself a large stakeholder in Bitcoin since cryptocurrency (mostly Bitcoin) represents around 90% of my assets and is effectively my only source of income. I’m also a Bitcoin miner, integration consultation and certified Bitcoin professional with C4 (passed at 96%).

The best decision of my life has been to re-orient my rapidly advancing and successful career as a policy analyst for free-market think tanks in order to dedicate myself full-time to being an active participant in the cryptocurrency revolution. I still remain to this day an active supporter of the libertarian movement through my involvement in various pro-liberty organizations - but I will never use the Foundation as a medium to promote my personal beliefs.

My general assessment of the current state of the Bitcoin Foundation is that by pursuing too many goals, the Foundation has misallocated and mismanaged resources necessary to successfully fulfill the essential mandate of supporting technical development. It has not lived up to its potential and has disappointed many of its members, including myself. I truly believe in the Foundation’s mission to protect Bitcoin's technological infrastructure and that, in realizing this goal, it must remain an important part of the Bitcoin ecosystem.  I also believe that the only essential mission of the Bitcoin Foundation, that should take priority over all others, should become and always remain the protection and development of Bitcoin’s technological infrastructure.

My platform as your representative

With humility, I propose myself as to represent my fellow individual members on the Bitcoin Foundation’s board of directors. I have the skills, values, energy and time necessary to accomplish this task successfully. As CEO of the BFC, I have knowledge of the inner-workings of the Foundation and know exactly what its problems are and the best way to overcome them. On behalf of its Canadian members, I have attempted to act as a watchdog, being critical of its work and suggesting reforms directly to staff members.

If I am elected, I pledge to continue this role on behalf of all individual members. I now ask for your support so that I may obtain the necessary powers to bring the Foundation to implement the following:

1) Technical development will become the Bitcoin Foundation’s only essential mission and main expenditure. Any other activities will be undertaken strictly with the rationale of obtaining resources and tools to protect and develop Bitcoin’s technological infrastructure. Resources dedicated to the training of core developers will increase and the Foundation will contribute financial and non-financial resources to other non-profit organizations involved in the development process.

2) Direct political lobbying will cease immediately. In doing so, the Foundation will greatly reduce resources spent on policy issues. No more internal staff members dedicated specifically to policy issues and no hiring of lobbyists in Washington. However, the Foundation will adopt an institutional policy position which strictly denounces any technology-specific regulation of Bitcoin or any form of barrier to entry whatsoever, even if such barriers to entry are being suggested by its corporate members.

3) Consumer adoption will not be a mandate of the Bitcoin Foundation and it will no longer attempt to produce educational material. It will instead support external Bitcoin education campaigns aimed at a global audience undertaken by other Bitcoin advocacy groups that have a track record of success by making available its non-financial resources such as intellectual capital, network, blog/website and public relations staff. If a void in such material is identified, it will provide small financial grants to other organizations for the production of such material. The decentralized nature of this approach is well aligned with the principles of cryptocurrency.

4) Expansion of the affiliate program will cease immediately and, after consultation with existing affiliate chapters, the Foundation will study the possibility of re-structuring the program from the current centralized “franchise-model” to a decentralized “partnership model”. It will continue to provide non-financial resources to local Bitcoin advocacy groups and may provide financial resources to local groups engaged in development of Bitcoin-related open-source software, including but not limited to Bitcoin Core.

5) Broad budget orientations and financial statements will be made available to the members and, by extension, to the general public. Such statements should at minimum include program expenses, administration expenses and fundraising expenses. The amount spent on technical development relative to all other expenses should also be transparent.

6) Community support and public perception will be increased not by traditional “marketing strategies” but rather with good old fashioned regular communications from Board members following meetings and from staff.

7) Standardization efforts will continue regarding the currency code and symbol.

8 ) Switch from a “top-down/corporate” to a “bottom-up/grassroots” organizational model. This is something that, I believe, Patrick Murck has already started. Broadly speaking, this means reducing the bureaucracy and relying more on membership and volunteers. The Foundation should act more as a coordination platform / forum rather than a government agency.
I will personally assume the unofficial role of watchdog, reporting to members my concerns over the management of the Foundation and personally receiving complaints directly. I will bring such complaints to the attention of the Board.

After having discussed with Patrick Murck, I believe that he is the most capable Executive Director that the Foundation could have at the moment. I also believe that we share the same broad vision as to where the Foundation should be heading and as your representative I will support him in his undertaking to bring the Foundation back to its roots.

Nature and role of the Bitcoin Foundation – some thoughts

The Bitcoin Foundations, as a private organization, is a platform through which individual and corporate members can voluntarily coordinate and implement their common interests. It does not, nor should it attempt to or claim to, represent the entire Bitcoin community. Although it provides a public service, it is only accountable to its members.

That being said, there is no doubt that the (uninformed) general public’s perception of the Foundation will taint its perception of the entire Bitcoin community by proxy. In addition, the Foundation’s technical team has a large influence on the development process and its actions will have an effect on the entire Bitcoin community, whether they are members of the Foundation or not. As such, the Foundation has moral responsibilities that other private membership-based organizations do not and should act with this specificity in mind.

The Bitcoin community and ecosystem are extremely diverse. In my opinion, there is only one common interest amongst all members of our community: the continued existence and expansion of a healthy technical development process which will ensure the continued decentralization and scalability of the Bitcoin network. I believe that this is also true within the Bitcoin Foundation membership.

I think the idea that the existence of a “centralized institution” such as the Foundation is contradictory with the decentralized nature of Bitcoin is beyond ridiculous. Nor is it contradictory with the crypto-decentralization movement to which I personally identify myself with. In fact, there can be no decentralization movement if individuals and corporations do not coordinate their interests via some form of organization. While it is certainly likely that such associations and organizations will eventually take the form of Decentralized Autonomous Corporations, I do not believe the necessary technology has been developed to a degree which makes this option a logical choice for the Foundation (and probably won’t for the next couple of years).

Let’s be clear: the Bitcoin Foundation should never, under any circumstance, attempt to impose any agenda or barrier to entry whatsoever on members and non-members alike via the coercive power of government.

Also, the Bitcoin Foundation should not attempt to assert a monopoly over the technical development process. I am extremely happy to see private corporations such as Blockstream and Bitpay contribute to this process, and am even happier to see that individuals are still contributing their time on a voluntary basis. However, I think a large part of development should be undertaken by non-profit organizations in order to ensure some form of neutrality.

Final thoughts – regulation

My views on cryptocurrency regulation

As a libertarian, I am naturally against regulation. I do not intend to idly stand by while arbitrary decrees are imposed upon us, and, as such, I believe that stakeholders such as individuals, private corporations or local Bitcoin advocacy groups should actively engage government officials and regulators to ensure that no discriminatory regulation or legislation concerning Bitcoin occurs.

Under no circumstance should technology-specific regulation such as the BitLicenses be tolerated. Moreover, government decrees that are in effect discriminatory (such as the “double taxation” of bitcoins via sales taxes) should be fiercely opposed. Innovation does not require permission.

However, as we lobby for government not to discriminate against Bitcoin, we must also realize that Bitcoin does not and should not operate in a legal vacuum. Bitcoin business models that mimic legacy business models (such as currency exchanges) should be regulated in the same way as their fiat counterparts. For example, a Bitcoin exchange should comply to financial regulation in the same way as a fiat exchange. If we demand not to be discriminated against, we must also acknowledge that we can’t have special treatment just because we do not believe in the validity of the laws that apply to us.

I do realize that compliance requirements of the legacy fiat financial industry are often outdated and that the cryptocurrency ecosystem will come up with its own innovative solutions for KYC/AML. These solutions are to be encouraged and, ideally, they will become the standard not only for cryptocurrency businesses but for the entire financial industry.

Bitcoin is like an economic trojan horse – if we really want the cryptocurrency revolution to happen, it is crucially important that there be an economic infrastructure with exchanges, payment processors, brokers, financial products, etc.  This is the key to mainstream user adoption and this will only occur if we play by the rules. Government can’t stop Bitcoin but it can certainly greatly slow down progress by enforcing its power on the individuals and corporations that compose the Bitcoin economic ecosystem, something even the most anarchic members of the community should realize.

Why I think the Bitcoin Foundation should not be engaged in lobbying

It seems to me that the Foundation has an “identity crisis” because its mandate is simply too broad. It cannot be at the same time a “Linux Foundation-style” organization and a lobby group such as the Digital Chamber of Commerce or think tank such as Coin Center. Because it has given itself too many goals, each goal has been inefficiently carried out.

The Foundation’s involvement in lobbying has considerably contributed to its negative perception by the community, which means less membership and less revenue. This means that there are fewer and fewer financial resources available for technical development. I believe that retreating from active political lobbying may reverse this trend.

The main reason is strictly based on pragmatism and resource allocation. There are various groups all over the world, including in the United States, who are actively involved in the fight against discriminatory or excessive Bitcoin regulation. The void that the Bitcoin Foundation had attempted to fill when it initially got into lobbying clearly does not exist anymore. However, there are no other non-profit organization involved in supporting technical development, so that in that area there is a very real void.

Finally, policy is inherently local and jurisdictional while the Foundation aims to be a global organization. I don’t think non-US members appreciate that their contributions are being spent on lobbying in Washington while the Foundation does nothing to prevent their own governments from obstructing the progress of Bitcoin.

10 reasons you should vote for me

I have experience in managing Bitcoin-related non-profit organizations.
I have a proven track record as a Bitcoin advocate and community organizer.
I have time to fulfill my mandate and enjoy the full support of my employer the Bitcoin Embassy.
I am energetic and passionate.
I already have knowledge of the inner-workings of the Foundation and have a clear vision for the future.
I have no investment in any Bitcoin corporation thus no conflict of interest.
85% of my assets are bitcoins  – it is in my self-interest to ensure Bitcoin’s success.
I am a good public speaker and present myself well in front of the media.
I genuinely believe in the Bitcoin Foundation’s mission and I truly wish its success.
I have never been involved in any scandal or controversy whatsoever.

You can reach me at [email protected] or at 1 855 922-3622.

organizational expression is not, by itself a liability, but the manifestation of organizational expression to diminish expressions of others in ways that could reduce explorations of the as-yet untapped potential for decentralization in communication, assembly, currency, identity, and in many aspects of society (in other words, resulting in the manifestation of one form of organization in such a way as to be wielded against others to keep them from exploring and realizing their full potential) is surely one of the most harmful uses of human organization on this planet, and as such, is a liability that we constantly wield against ourselves.  If on the other hand we can see and use structure as a point for discussion or participatory dialogue (as one example), rather than as a point for policy, demands, and regulations against ourselves, then I think that is at the very least a substantial starting point for an organization such as the Foundation.  But even more meaningful would be such discussion that would lead to launchpad(s) where the result would be much more substantial developmental options down the road provided to bitcoin users than what we have today.  2015 is very likely just the beginning of a process in which developments such as zerocash, sidechains, and many others will just be the tip of the iceberg in that regard.  Here we are not talking about "organizational expression" leading to such technologies, as we are talking about massively decentralized participation.  And so what kind of functions in society can be so massively decentralized so as to invite the contribution or partial authoring from anyone, anywhere?  Questions are empowering.

Happy New Year

Gavin,

Thanks for throwing it down into this forum for x-posts - the bitcoin foundation forum has had probs as has the bitcoin foundation site lately due to reconfiguration and "other."  Without getting too much into it, the post you refer to was actually gone for a little while after it was first posted 11 days ago (this was due to the Bitcoin Foundation site reconfiguration and other issues possibly external to that reconfiguration, and isn't even visible to me at the moment unless I see that you have provided a link and then walk through captchas...  and that includes the post you have provided a link to which I think very few members have even read  and if they have managed to come across it, then they may not have bothered to read it due to readability issues (captchas, access, etc)

So what's certain is right now today it's visible again to you and I:

https://blog.bitcoinfoundation.org/elections-update/

Currently (as of today) shows up, states "February 13 – 19, 2015" is when the polls will be open, includes a reference to "deadline to register," of February 11, 2015  which indicates that "All members who wish to vote must register."

And regarding the "and you don't need to care" part, sure I do, or I wouldn't be a Candidate, would I?  I can focus my energies, and I do, but I choose to care enough about what I think matters, ok. 

I'm hoping to do one reddit IaMA / AMA with other Candidates before then and one IaMA / AMA on my own before the elections so we'll see how all that goes.

Cheers

My point exactly. What's stopping an enemy to get like, 200 members inside the foundation and vote for something.

Though, the core devs know what they're doing...

Indeed that is exaggerating, but it could potentially damage Bitcoin.
I myself do not have the extra funds to join the foundation, thus I can't vote. Someone with a lot of money could pay a lot of people to get in it and vote for them -> manipulation, hence the 'voting with money'.
Is this not the case?