Cited, not sighted.
But I'm excited that you sighted the citation.
Topic: Breaking News: Satoshi sighted as member of "the Foundation" - page 2. (Read 8013 times)
As usual, this is a pure troll thread, caused not by an evil conspiracy to control bitcoin, but by a too-tight tinfoil hat.
Not so. If they desire to be transparent they'll produce the legally executed articles of incorporation. They could legally assign ownership to an individual that provides a key, but why wouldn't they produce the signed agreement?
They need to let us know how transparent they want to be!
You "do contracts all the time"? That must be hard for a guy that apparently can't read.
There is no ownership. That means that there was no "legally assign ownership" either. Members are not owners. You seem to have missed that in my previous post. Is bold enough, or should I change the font size too?
At least you have stopped thinking that corporations are created by contract. You may get your merit badge in internet lawyering yet.
As a founding member of THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. he may have signed the by-laws. In the interest of full transparency THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. should post a scan of the original by-laws or provide us with an explanation why he was appointed without his consent.
Agree.
This makes sense and needs to be addressed!
As usual, this is a pure troll thread, caused not by an evil conspiracy to control bitcoin, but by a too-tight tinfoil hat.
Not so. If they desire to be transparent they'll produce the legally executed articles of incorporation. They could legally assign ownership to an individual that provides a key, but why wouldn't they produce the signed agreement?
They need to let us know how transparent they want to be!
So, if i understand correctly, half of you are saying it's completely okay to incorporate in the US with pseudonymous and not undersigned entities listed as Founding Members? And handwave it "oh, they are just honorary"?
U.S. law has absolutely no concept of "founding members", nor of "members". Corporations have owners (shareholders) *, directors (the board, typically elected by the owners) and officers (president, CEO, CFO, etc, typically appointed by the board).
In the US, corporations are typically formed as shells with generic bylaws by people that specialize in such things, I have no idea if the foundation was filed that way, or directly. Doesn't matter even a tiny little bit either way.
The foundation board is divided into classes for various reasons, for example, to ensure that the entire board isn't corporate members. This is pretty common for nonprofit entities.
Being listed as a founding member means two things. First, if he steps forward to claim his membership, he won't need to pay any dues. Second, if he wishes to be on the board, it will be very easy for him to do so.
As usual, this is a pure troll thread, caused not by an evil conspiracy to control bitcoin, but by a too-tight tinfoil hat.
* Nonprofits are an odd exception to this. They don't have owners or shareholders, they have stakeholders. Read that again. No owners. Or, owned by everyone, if you prefer to see it that way. Since there are no owners, the bylaws indicate how the board is elected.
Quote
Are you trolling?
Nobody can take over bitcoin unless there is consensus for it, or there is a massive hashing-attack. Satoshis signature is of no importance, Bitcoin works and does not need Satoshi to thrive. Just like apples don't need to check with Newton before they fall.
Nobody can take over bitcoin unless there is consensus for it, or there is a massive hashing-attack. Satoshis signature is of no importance, Bitcoin works and does not need Satoshi to thrive. Just like apples don't need to check with Newton before they fall.
LOL awesome
As a founding member of THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. he may have signed the by-laws. In the interest of full transparency THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. should post a scan of the original by-laws or provide us with an explanation why he was appointed without his consent.
Agree.
This makes sense and needs to be addressed!
calm down you fools. THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. is registered in DC and should have filed papers stating this before advertising it. We need someone to pull down the official legal filing, and make sure the i's are dotted.
If they're registering as a private organization and protecting their original bylaws by being private <-- tear it up on this forum... I'll get some backup
If they desire transparency, then they'll produce pdf's of the contract that was executed for the articles of incorporation. We need the originals not the digital ones... the ones with signatures.
I do contracts all the time.... there's always a last minute edit (initialed by all parties), and full john hancocks for a body of work that usually is never perfect in word format (you need the scanned pdf).
If they're registering as a private organization and protecting their original bylaws by being private <-- tear it up on this forum... I'll get some backup
If they desire transparency, then they'll produce pdf's of the contract that was executed for the articles of incorporation. We need the originals not the digital ones... the ones with signatures.
I do contracts all the time.... there's always a last minute edit (initialed by all parties), and full john hancocks for a body of work that usually is never perfect in word format (you need the scanned pdf).
What makes you think Satoshi isn't entirely capable of defending his own honor, if he's upset about this?
It's possible that THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. just entered his name and details into the by-laws and makes it appear that Satoshi endorses THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC.
Additionally, they admit they have locked Satoshi out of the forum.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1943004
Quote
His account is locked, so no. If he wants to claim his account, he'll have to contact me with a PGP signature.
So you seriously think Satoshi is too retarded to use PGP if he wants to? Or sign a message using the key from the genesis block?
This is such a complete non-issue.
Quote
Now imagine if they add me as a founder member. Without my consent. This clearly would not be acceptable because i am not a founder and i never signed to be one.
This is correct. We need the community to demand a scan of the original by-laws as soon as possible. Otherwise, the takeover of Bitcoin by THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. is essentially complete.
We don't want to see Satoshi's Bitcoin born January 3, 2009 and died April 26, 2013.
Are you trolling?
Nobody can take over bitcoin unless there is consensus for it, or there is a massive hashing-attack. Satoshis signature is of no importance, Bitcoin works and does not need Satoshi to thrive. Just like apples don't need to check with Newton before they fall.
Hazek and the other mods mostly seem to be either Libertarians or Anarchists (of a Capitalist flavour). They say so themselves. As individualists, it's highly unlikely that they'd be involved in some grand conspiracy (whether to promote or censor anything about the Bitcoin Foundation). What's much more likely, is that they could be unwitting participants in somebody else's manipulation. And even if there is no conspiracy whatsoever, Bitcoin could still be corrupted by accident -- a "tragedy of the commons" caused precisely because Anarcho-Capitalists don't seem to believe in a 'Commons'.
That said, I think it's a "storm in a teacup". I agree that "the" Bitcoin Foundation seems awfully suspect:
a) they seem to be 'squatting' in a made-up prestigious role, apparently for the sake of making Bitcoin look good to investors.
b) they seem ineffectual (from the outside, at least) in driving some obvious development. Instead of saying "fuck off, mainstream! Can't you see the BETA sign?" It's all "softly softly! Lest we upset some stakeholders."
Those 2 observations combined make Bitcoin seem like a ponzi scheme, which is sad because I'm sure it's not. However, I suspect Satoshi recruited Libertarians and An-Caps, not because he supported all of their views, but because he knew they would be strong believers who could evangelize Bitcoin and help it survive downturns. Perhaps he underestimated people's greed and herd mentality though. How would anyone hope to steer development towards some kind of "Open Source multiple mini cash systems all interacting together", when there's a gathering crowd of vulture capitalists saying "don't touch it, I'm trying to profit!" ?
A+ analysis.
The more I study things, the more it does not appear to me that 'Satoshi' ever had much interest in 'multiple mini-cash systems' though. I'd like to believe it were true since that efficiently sums up my personal preferred world-view of crypto-currencies. I just have to accept the fact that most of the important developers of the solution simply have a different world view than I. Oh well. The Bitcoin project has almost certainly released the floodgate holding back an ocean of technical talent which will likely be entering the space. And possibly at a very opportune time in the life-cycle of our official financial systems.
To me it is nonsense. He did not found that "foundation", plain and simple. So he is not a founder. Like i am not a founder. Or maybe the other founders know something we don't know? Maybe satoshi is really a founder and we don't know?
So, if i understand correctly, half of you are saying it's completely okay to incorporate in the US with pseudonymous and not undersigned entities listed as Founding Members? And handwave it "oh, they are just honorary"?
no idea in the slightest if it's ok or not. for me, i was simply saying this is what they DID.
So, if i understand correctly, half of you are saying it's completely okay to incorporate in the US with pseudonymous and not undersigned entities listed as Founding Members? And handwave it "oh, they are just honorary"?
i read most of the posts in the thread about the founding of the foundation. it was clearly, unquestionably, without any shadow of a doubt, stated therein that they had no actual interaction with satoshi, that the seat is utterly honorary as a result, and that, if he does "return" and prove his/her/their identity using the email/pgp key or what have you, he could thus claim his seat on the foundation's board.
you think he actually showed up somewhere and signed a document? man, that... that's rich.
you think he actually showed up somewhere and signed a document? man, that... that's rich.
I agree with Dunster, this "foundation" is just a private thing, it is not bitcoin. Satoshi a founder? Did he sign? Or the "foundation" members happily added him? So now i can make the GABI FOUNDATION and have as founder satoshi as well? 
Yes. And you can have Donald Duck as your "spiritual leader" if you like.
Darn, the tubes lost my longer post, so this will have to do:
Agreed. The Foundation should simply add the word "honorary" to the text regarding Satoshi's membership and I'll be satisfied.
Until they clarify this, I will assume they have inappropriately claimed Satoshi's support in a bid to attain some exclusive authority that Satoshi's endorsement would imply.
The Foundation should speak for it's members and other foundations can speak for their members. That is the decentralized philosophy of Bitcoin and the Foundation should strictly adhere to that philosophy. Gavin, for example, has always claimed he supports the development of other bitcoin clients.
Since this could be addressed with a trivial fix of adding one word to the text, I will assume this is an ongoing deception on the part of the Foundation and I suspect it will remain a sticking point in the Foundation's relationship with the broader Bitcoin community until it is addressed.
isn't this always the way for the actual leader,
crucify him,
deify him,
adopt him,
?
profit.
lulz
locked out
to funny
the truth is they are not about to risk that he does come back, because even if genuine, he would prove fallible, and not in line with there views
It's possible that THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. just entered his name and details into the by-laws and makes it appear that Satoshi endorses THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC.
Additionally, they admit they have locked Satoshi out of the forum.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1943004
crucify him,
deify him,
adopt him,
? profit.
lulz
locked out
to funny
the truth is they are not about to risk that he does come back, because even if genuine, he would prove fallible, and not in line with there views
What makes you think Satoshi isn't entirely capable of defending his own honor, if he's upset about this?
It's possible that THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. just entered his name and details into the by-laws and makes it appear that Satoshi endorses THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC.
Additionally, they admit they have locked Satoshi out of the forum.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1943004
Quote
His account is locked, so no. If he wants to claim his account, he'll have to contact me with a PGP signature.
They have forked Satoshi persona, by specious by laws and trading off his name
Satoshi has been sighted! He is now a member of "the Foundation" otherwise known as THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC.
As a founding member of THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. he may have signed the by-laws. In the interest of full transparency THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. should post a scan of the original by-laws or provide us with an explanation why he was appointed without his consent.
Please post on Twitter, Facebook and other social media. Let's get the word out.
THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. is scrambling and covering up to bury this story by relegating the most important revelation since the genesis block as deeply as they could in these forums:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-bitcoin-foundation-inc-188177
Quote
ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP
Section 3.1 Membership Classes: The Corporation will have three classes of membership:
(a) Founding Members;
(b) Industry Members; and
(c) Individual Members.
The term "member" may be used to refer generically to a member in any class.
Section 3.2 Membership Qualifications: The requirements for membership in each membership class shall be as follows:
(a) Founding Members. The Founding Members of the Corporation shall be:
i. Gavin Andresen, Bitcoin Developer residing or doing business in Amherst, MA, USA.
ii. Peter Vessenes, CEO of CoinLab and residing or doing business in Bainbridge Island, WA, USA.
iii. Charles Shrem, CEO of BitInstant residing or doing business in Brooklyn, NY, USA.
iv. Roger Ver, CEO of MemoryDealers residing or doing business in Santa Clara, CA, USA.
v. Patrick Murck, Principal at Engage Legal, PLLC residing or doing business in Washington, DC, USA.
vi. Mark Karpeles, CEO of MtGox.com and residing or doing business in Tokyo, Japan.
vii. Satoshi Nakamoto, at [email protected], author of the white paper “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” published on http://bitcoin.org and owner of the PGP Public Key with fingerprint: 5EC948A1.
Section 3.1 Membership Classes: The Corporation will have three classes of membership:
(a) Founding Members;
(b) Industry Members; and
(c) Individual Members.
The term "member" may be used to refer generically to a member in any class.
Section 3.2 Membership Qualifications: The requirements for membership in each membership class shall be as follows:
(a) Founding Members. The Founding Members of the Corporation shall be:
i. Gavin Andresen, Bitcoin Developer residing or doing business in Amherst, MA, USA.
ii. Peter Vessenes, CEO of CoinLab and residing or doing business in Bainbridge Island, WA, USA.
iii. Charles Shrem, CEO of BitInstant residing or doing business in Brooklyn, NY, USA.
iv. Roger Ver, CEO of MemoryDealers residing or doing business in Santa Clara, CA, USA.
v. Patrick Murck, Principal at Engage Legal, PLLC residing or doing business in Washington, DC, USA.
vi. Mark Karpeles, CEO of MtGox.com and residing or doing business in Tokyo, Japan.
vii. Satoshi Nakamoto, at [email protected], author of the white paper “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” published on http://bitcoin.org and owner of the PGP Public Key with fingerprint: 5EC948A1.
As a founding member of THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. he may have signed the by-laws. In the interest of full transparency THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. should post a scan of the original by-laws or provide us with an explanation why he was appointed without his consent.
Please post on Twitter, Facebook and other social media. Let's get the word out.
THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. is scrambling and covering up to bury this story by relegating the most important revelation since the genesis block as deeply as they could in these forums:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-bitcoin-foundation-inc-188177
What makes you think Satoshi isn't entirely capable of defending his own honor, if he's upset about this?
It's possible that THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. just entered his name and details into the by-laws and makes it appear that Satoshi endorses THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC.
Additionally, they admit they have locked Satoshi out of the forum.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1943004
Quote
His account is locked, so no. If he wants to claim his account, he'll have to contact me with a PGP signature.
I think this as well, it looks like a classic way for them to try and seem legitimate and get more people on your side, kind of like organising a rebellion and marrying a princess so the rebellion seems more legitimate except in this case they're taking advantage of the fact that Satoshi seems to not want to show up in public and I suspect this kind of thing is exactly they were worried about.
Quote
You already created a topic about the by-laws, why not continue discussion there?
Because that thread is buried deep in the hierarchy and difficult for people to find. Clearly I'm up against some very strong forces of the Bitcoin power elite here, I've touched a nerve as I may have exposed some significant deception.
Jump to: