Topic: Breaking News: Satoshi sighted as member of "the Foundation" - page 3. (Read 8024 times)

You already created a topic about the by-laws, why not continue discussion there?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-foundation-by-laws-188127

How many of these topics defaming the bitcoin foundation with the same old arguments are you going to start? Check the front page of this subforum. This is starting to look like quite an unhealthy obsession.

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

What makes you think Satoshi isn't entirely capable of defending his own honor, if he's upset about this? 

http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/1/3436984/bitcoin-foundation-legitimacy-and-standardization


Where is the proof of confirmation? We don't need six confirmations, one is sufficient in this case.

The way that they identified him makes it pretty clear (by his pseudonym, his email address, and as the author of the white paper) makes pretty clear that it's an honourary status.  I could set up an organisation tomorrow which gives a similar honourary status to - for instance - Martin Luther King.  His heirs could object to that, but otherwise there'd be no real problem with it unless the status itself imposed legal responsibility. 

Generally speaking, "founding member" on its own imposes no legal obligations on someone (although it's a status often coveted by wankers).  Depending on jurisdiction, certain roles within an organisation do carry with them legal responsibility and people assuming those roles must consent to assuming that responsibility (whether it comes about by appointment or by election).  You could not - realistically - appoint Satoshi to the board, even though the initial board was not elected.

Does this hostility come from Satoshi being named as a founding member or is it more about the likelihood that there are people within the Bitcoin sphere of influence who are still in contact with him (which has always been presumed by most of the community)?

If you said that Satoshi being named as a founding member in absentia creates the impression that he supports the actions of Bitcoin Foundation, you might have a valid point.  I'm utterly convinced, however, that if Satoshi returned today under a new username and posted his opinions on the current state of Bitcoin a shitload of people would tell him that he "doesn't understand" Bitcoin and what it's "supposed" to be.

Agree.

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.

Well, I suppose if they thought Satoshi would have a problem with being named as a "founder" in their by-laws they might have a problem if not having consent, but I doubt it would ever be an issue.

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.

Donald Duck is clearly not a real person. A real person should be consented and Satoshi is presented as a real person as a founding member. You are skirting the real issue and we simply wanted to see a scan of the by-laws and who signed them.

Yes. And you can have Donald Duck as your "spiritual leader" if you like.

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? 

You don't understand what I'm saying.

The foundation's by-laws create various classes. One class is founding members, in which they included Satoshi. They could have also included a Spiritual Leaders class in which they name Donald Duck.

That doesn't mean Donald Duck has to sign anything.

We don't need to do a pull request. We simply want to see a scan of the original by-laws to see who signed. There is no PDF scan in the Github.

The Wikimedia Foundation bylaws are signed:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Bylaws

SIGNATURES

/s/ Kat Walsh, /s/ Jan-Bart de Vreede, /s/ Jimmy Wales, /s/ Bishakha Datta, /s/ Matt Halprin, /s/ Stu West. /s/ Samuel Klein, /s/ Alice Wiegand, /s/ Patricio Lorente, /s/ Ting Chen

I'm not trying to hide anything in plain sight. I'm no corporate lawyer, but AFAIK by-laws are simply rules that govern the corporate entity. You can say Donald Duck is your spiritual leader in your by-laws if you want to. It only applies to the entity.

The question is not about the free market. You are now using the "hide the problem in plain site technique". The by-laws clearly state he is a founder and we want to see his signature. The ethics of this situation absolutely require it.

It's clear all that's listed is his assumed identification. The free market can take that whichever way they want. You don't seem to give the free market much credit.

We want to know if he consented to being a founding member of THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. or if THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. is simply using his name to strengthen their hold as the self appointed "leaders" of Bitcoin. The ethical question this poses is extremely important.

Once Bitcoin reached a certain point of adoption Satoshi said he was "moving on to other things". For whatever reason(s) he is no longer dealing in any significant way with Bitcoin, at least not openly. If he should ever decide to return in a public way why should he not have status with an organization likely to be well associated with the project he started?