Topic: BTCFoundation candidate for user choice, bitcoin development, privacy& anonymity (Read 3219 times)

Hello Flashman,

Some more recent press ~

I was interviewed by CCN - https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/colin-gallagher-bitcoin-foundation-elections/ - this answers in a reasonably detailed way (but also quick read) about some of my history, my views, etc.

Let's Talk Bitcoin just released audio of a multi-candidate debate (10 candidates participated, myself, Cody, Bruce, -- all but three of the thirteen candidates.) https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-186-ltb-e186-the-bitcoin-foundation-2015-candidate-debate

I've just released a link to my reddit AMA, I'm answering questions through the 19th (which is the end of the February 2015 elections):

https://www.reddit.com/r/AMA/comments/2vih2y/hi_im_colin_gallagher_running_on_campaign_of_user/

Indeed, but first an election, which occurs mid-February.  It's also looking like there will be a debate (hosted by Letstalkbitcoin), probably on Friday Jan. 30, but I don't know the exact time yet, involving quite a few candidates including myself.  (Audio only, not sure if live or to be broadcast later.)

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

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

Please review my platform materials (link provided on the Consider It page) which show a post to the Bitcoin Foundation forum, in which I include a brief statement showing how anyone can connect through the membership page, become a Individual Member (eligible to get a ballot) and thus vote in February, but I'd suggest you get that membership signup or renewal done by early February (I think the cutoff is Feb. 10).

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/

"Delliberate" me up, share the page, 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

Bruce Fenton put in a pull request to change it last year in October.
See his pullreq here:
https://github.com/pmlaw/The-Bitcoin-Foundation-Legal-Repo/pull/28
  It needs some more pull requests on that subject, or maybe open an issue to get more discussion because there are definitely issues with how it's being handled - one of many issues on the sore subject of member payments (not just "how much") is that the Bitcoin Foundation currently has BitPay as the entity handling its membership payments.  I find this offensive because BitPay is one of the organizations that is supporting the Windhover Identity Proposals  -- see my post on this at:
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1132-open-letter-to-bitcoin-businesses-why-im-closing-my-accounts/

If you are working for BitPay and you are reading this you already know that it took a very long amount of time, I believe over a month, and an unacceptable amount of back and forth with BitPay staff, to cancel my account, and I still feel slighted by my treatment since you never confirmed for me what information you would be keeping for five years under business records laws versus what you would be deleting per my request, and I felt my requests were eminently reasonable.  After my account was canceled, there I was again, being forced to interact with BitPay.  Why?  Because the Bitcoin Foundation has BitPay as the default setting for payment or renewal of EVERYONE's membership with the Bitcoin Foundation.  So I lined up my Electrum (didn't choose BitPay as payment option obviously, just took note of the payment address) and sent payment too it, but it made me annoyed that BitPay was appearing on my screen at all.  And it confirmed.  
But then it took several days, BitPay staff, Foundation staff, and Foundation Board members to resolve, because someone inside the Foundation held the payment _after_ my payment had confirmed.

You heard that right:  Staff within the Bitcoin Foundation resisted accepting my (valid, confirmed) bitcoin payment (for a renewal to the Bitcoin Foundation itself) for several days, until, with the help of two Board members, the issue was straightened out.  By the way, I declared my candidacy on Nov. 4, 2014, and made my renewal payment on Dec. 12, 2014  ~ someone inside the Foundation managed to use bureacracy to hold up their internal recognition of my blockchain-valid payment for several days after Dec. 12.  Which shows you that bureacracy can resist the blockchain for only so long, by the way.

It's amazing - the Bitcoin Foundation (staff) actually figured out a way to censor Bitcoin (at least, when it came to accepting or not accepting payment from members who want to renew membership).  (Thanks to Liz and Jon, Board members who did help get the obstacles cleared that were happening within the Foundation.  I needed the membership renewed in order to proceed as a Candidate, which did happen.)  But again, when you pit bureacracy versus the blockchain.... BLOCKCHAIN WINS.

After much struggle and some days everything got worked out (with the help of Liz and Jon). This is one of the reasons I want to be on the Board, believe it or not.  I really hope I can help stop this kind of financial favoritism and censorship from happening.  Want to renew?  You should be able to choose your method (in bitcoin of course) and if you don't want to interact with BitPay or Coinbase (for example) you shouldn't have to.  These kind of companies and vendor systems I don't want harvesting my data, organs, etc. Concerned about financial censorship?  There should be no-one from Foundation ever that can stand in the way of your membership being recognized as being paid (or renewed).  It just is, it's just a record on the blockchain.  

My latest renewal by the way is shown here, spent as .0708 BTC for Bitcoin Foundation 2015 dues Individual Annual.
https://blockchain.info/address/14PmaTegDpVrynFH7Dxo2xaiUjDJN4aQx5   (12-12-2014)

Of course right now at the present moment BTC is worth less than it was on Dec. 12, so the BTC amount for dues would cost more for Individual Annual dues than it did for me in December 12 2014 (it varies ~ fluctuating BTC value, but membership cost technically is "fixed" the way they have it in the rules).


With that said, please all reading this, check out the following(!)

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


GHAAAA to Spendulus if you are reading this, I CoMPLETELY missed this little item and will add it to my last reply to you:

https://blog.bitcoinfoundation.org/calling-all-developers-whats-on-your-new-years-wish-list/

Which you may have already seen.

I think an update to the bylaws are in order https://github.com/pmlaw/The-Bitcoin-Foundation-Legal-Repo/blob/master/Bylaws/Bylaws_of_The_Bitcoin_Foundation.md

2.5BTC per annum?

The issues that I've brought up are generally particular to the forum, but also bleed over into how minutes and some transparency issues are handled - see part of my platform.  I'd like to get that changed if elected.  

When you say "maintaining and releasing the core protocol and its app" you are surely referring to bitcoin core development.  Surely the Foundation cannot be in charge of maintaining and releasing core protocol and app, though they can certainly help fund development, which they currently do.  There is a lot of discussion in bitcoin development of breaking core out into different libraries going on (or at least there has been recently).  I am curious to know your thoughts on that, I think it's a good idea to have something that can be identified as a core wallet which anyone can look at and say, "oh hello wallet app," and download it as such and have anyone work on while have parts be available in the context of much more simple libraries?  Then there is the question of how one can access and work on libraries.  When I saw Darkwallet have their stealth and coinjoin out as different libraries in late 2014 I thought that was a positive step.  With http://bitcoinjs.org you can now use
$ npm install stealth.js
$ npm install coinjoin.js
But I feel like I am missing the question, or that there is an unasked question.  Obviously the Foundation cannot be in charge of this process.  If you feel it is please identify the areas where you consider it to be specifically because those would be areas that need attention and change then.  Perhaps you are asking, if the core protocol and its app are brought out in a more decentralized way (than today), what (would) that development process look like?  I don't know.  Tell me what you think it should like.

EDIT:  Apparently there is a form where you can tell the Bitcoin Foundation staff what you think it should look like too, which is here: https://docs.google.com/a/bitcoinfoundation.org/forms/d/1OrX8ocXkviAhc2mSSUXWRHLJY7_rGYyx3_wK08xXjf0/viewform?c=0&w=1 Recently found this page here, which has a link to that form:
https://blog.bitcoinfoundation.org/calling-all-developers-whats-on-your-new-years-wish-list/ (The form on that page closes out by end of February 2015 I believe)

As I've stated earlier in this discussion, shutdown of the Foundation is not part of my platform, it's my understanding shutdown, or dissolution, is Cody Wilson's platform essentially.  

What's my platform in a nutshell?  user choice, bitcoin development, privacy / anonymity, and has some more details added.  

Also as stated earlier in this discussion, I'm not against someone bringing up a motion for shutdown, which is called "dissolution" in the bylaws. As I understand it a Board member can bring up whatever motion they want.  They can bring up a motion to encapsulate all the infinity stones in the Gauntlet of Infinity.  That doesn't mean the Board will vote for it.  And even if it were to pass a vote, that doesn't mean anything would happen as a result.  Bitcoin development is probably a classic example.  The Board can hire developers to work on protocol but the actual development process itself... very much decentralized.  No-one owns it, which is as it should be.  Back to the dissolution question.  I think there has been ample discussion in this thread about why dissolution would be unlikely to occur.  But to go after that issue again here in response to your question, Spendulus, I will provide more details:

1) Suppose I were elected to the Bitcoin Foundation.
2) Suppose some other person who were also elected were then to bring dissolution up and get it up on the agenda.***
3) By some manner of writhing and moaning amongst those involved on the Board, some debate and argumentation, let's say, it would come to a vote, say.***
4) I've sat on commissions and committees before (example being a Planning Commission (2004-2005 approx) for the City where I live where we figured out how to do a community collaboration to help raise a Library and also work out over years a community, residential and commercial center which is now in the final stages of being built on land that the military left behind, when the military left they created a vast desolate wasteland that we have had to carefully remove UXOs from and rebuild), and it is my practice not to commit to voting for or against something in advance due to that people may sneak in malicious language or something I would never agree to.

***FOOTNOTE to numbers 2 and 3 above. As a member, I have been waiting for something like FIVE MONTHS for my Pull Request, 'Anonymity and Funding,'  to get on the Board agenda for a final vote; the current composition of the Board has not allowed it to get on the agenda ~ it is entirely possible that all it would take is a single new Board member to say, "Hmm. That would be a nice change to the bylaws.  Let's get that on the agenda." Text of proposed change: https://github.com/ABISprotocol/The-Bitcoin-Foundation-Legal-Repo/commit/f8890546d64ebeb08253cb500981c490482db405 Discussion: https://github.com/pmlaw/The-Bitcoin-Foundation-Legal-Repo/issues/19 Initial Board Review: https://github.com/pmlaw/The-Bitcoin-Foundation-Legal-Repo/pull/23#issuecomment-51843812

 However, if all that were a resolution which were either "Should the Foundation be subject to dissolution unless a condition of decentralization of certain functions involving development funding are met" then I would be very likely to vote for it,
or, if the resolution were "Should the Foundation be subject to dissolution" then I'd respond a bit differently, for as I said previously,

So you're not in favor of shutting the Foundation down?

Are you for or against it's being in charge of maintaining and releasing the core protocol and it's app?

What, are the Three Stooges running the forums there?

Good point Spendulus, though I would add some other math to that equation:

Check out some of the other candidates that have recently posted on bitcoinfoundation.org/forum such as Olivier Janssens and Bruce Fenton. I'm not stumping for them, as this is my own Candidate thread but I am beginning to get the feeling that even if (as a hypothetical example) let's say that I were to win and also Olivier, or Olivier and Cody, or Olivier and Bruce... however you look at it, I just don't see that there's math supporting an actual Foundation shutdown, but I should note that part of my platform includes making sure that there will not be allowed to be initiated any lobbying to DC or anywhere else in the world by the Foundation.  That's just me though, I'm not sure where the other candidates stand on that bit, and when I came out with that part of my platform against lobbying in early November of last year, I think it was a bit later in 2014 if I am not mistaken that the Foundation Board decided to shut down its lobbying arm.  Again, if I am elected I will make sure that's actually the case and it stays that way.

Please see also this recent post I made:

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

It's on reddit, too, at:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2roh8i/area_man_running_for_individual_director_of/

Cheers

edit:  I was on in the morning of Jan. 9, 2015 at bitcoinfoundation.org/forum to check for replies (as I promised I'd do daily in the various fora of bitcointalk, reddit, bitcoinfoundation.org/forum) and to post back my own replies.  I had offered up a reply and posted a note on the subject of lighthouse and decentralization in Olivier's thread in response to, I think Francis's questions, including a note on my earlier remarks in July on the possibility of models like Lighthouse, Bithub, etc for decentralization - and the important question of what that means (the link I included in my reply today was this one):
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1024-a-clear-and-present-danger/#entry11587

My post was immediately censored and I was locked out, which has happened before.  
Someone (I believe a Bitcoin Foundation volunteer, I don't want to get too into the details of that here) has been also busy removing material in the past and recently "archiving" material, making it impossible for anyone, member or nonmember, to reply to certain topics on bitcoinfoundation.org/forum, so obviously I won't be able to meaningfully reply to some material in the bitcoinfoundation.org/forum area.

Back into the positive / contructive stuff, moving ahead: I will keep checking there anyway (bitcoinfoundation.org/forum) and also here (bitcointalk) and on reddit and will in the coming weeks have my own reddit AMA and also a multi-candidate AMA.

BTW:  According to a quick review of the members area on bitcoinfoundation.org, there are around 1260 members - not all of them are paid up and members who can vote, but it gives you an idea of the overall numbers involved in the upcoming February elections.

This is an excellent platform based on practical realities.  RE shutting the BF down as Glen Gamow and Cody advocate, there are TWO individual director slots.

So why not join the BF (or if you are a member, remember...) vote both Collin and Cody in?

This is not complicated.

Funny that there's yet another "BTC" Foundation. This time for Canada. Bitcoin doesn't need this. In fact it'll only hurt Bitcoin.

Yep. Mathematically speaking, an actual dissolution is infeasible in any near term outlook of the Foundation, though a "challenge vote" on it and philosophical discussion emanating from it at the Board level is certainly doable, or as another candidate has put it, certainly "on the table."  The emphasis I have in my platform is, I hope, providing a clear course forward for what we should be doing:

- Choice for the users.  Anything that does not provide or preserve user choice is a non-starter.
- Bitcoin development.
- Privacy and anonymity development using bitcoin.  Support for open source initiatives that accomplish this goal in bitcoin and in any distributed-digital currency that is supported or funded by the Board and is determined to be within the ambit of the Corporation's purpose.

To me these points are so simple.  I will consistently act according to these points in my platform if I'm elected.

On the other details I pointed out in the extended version of my platform, one of them was
"-  I will vote against any Foundation proposal that would result in initiation, continuance, or expansion of support for:   
a.) Foundation lobbying (to Washington, D.C. or in any country where such lobbying activity would be proposed to extend to),
b.) proposals to regulate bitcoin users or their identities, and
c.) any effort, whether or not its proponents claim a basis in law, where evidence suggests that Foundation support for such an effort would result in user choice being impaired or limited."

You probably saw this already, but note that it's been recently reported that the Bitcoin Foundation is finally moving to shut down its lobbying arm.  I really hope that this actually happens and I'll be watching that development closely, but I'm not holding my breath, because paid lobbying is one of those things that numerous nonprofit orgs tend to have on-and-off support for (if not done today, it's likely that it could be done tomorrow).  Again, if I'm elected, I will work to ensure that not only is the Bitcoin Foundation lobbying truly shut down and not funded, but that it stays that way as well.

I think it would be somewhat pointless to disband, because guess what, those that want some kind of bitcoin association, will form another one, and claim to speak for all, or maybe for segments, miners, users, financials, etc. So may as well deal with the one you've got, address things that it's doing wrong.

Note: See also Jon Matonis's recent tweet about my candidacy, here:
https://twitter.com/jonmatonis/status/535364177649758209

Agreed.  At a very basic level an agenda needs to be published before each meeting and minutes shortly thereafter.  I've tried to get a Bylaws change specific to the agendas and minutes piece, but so far the Foundation resists this transparency measure (they voted it down).  I'll continue to push for it though and if elected I'll make sure it gets agendized again.

I do not have voting rights in TBF, I would vote for change in the foundation. I imagined the foundation is a private club not willing to change. Andreas once joined the foundation and left. I forgot what he said about TBF, but he wasn't happy. TBF should be more transparent and should keep bitcoin users in the loop.

As an aside, I should point out that I don't think a vote to close the Foundation is mathematically feasible, so to be frank, such a vote is unlikely to have any real effect.  If someone brought it up as an option and laid it on the table, as I said, I'd second it for discussion or vote for it, because I think the discussion that would result would be useful (e.g. why are we here, what are the objections to some aspects of Foundation operation, or to the Foundation itself, etc).  I think you are being naive if you believe that there would ever be the number of requisite votes on the Board to actually dissolve the Foundation.

  But I'm not running on Cody's platform, I'm running on my platform.

My platform has three key points:

- Choice for the users.  Anything that does not provide or preserve user choice is a non-starter.
- Bitcoin development.
- Privacy and anonymity development using bitcoin.  Support for open source initiatives that accomplish this goal in bitcoin and in any distributed-digital currency that is supported or funded by the Board and is determined to be within the ambit of the Corporation's purpose.

Those points are the basis for my platform and will be my emphasis if I am elected for the duration of my time as an Individual Director.

-

For the record, I am now formally a candidate per the Bitcoin Foundation bylaws.  I have been nominated by an individual Lifetime member (Mike Hayes) as well as by a Board member (Jon Matonis).  You can see a link to where I announced this in the Bitcoin Foundation forum here:
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1129-corporate-governance-update/#entry12257

np!  nominate me! etc. :-)

With that, whether I agree or disagree, I duly appreciate your position and candidness expressed in your kind post. Again, apologies for the slight derail.

Hey Bruno,

It's interesting you mention that, because when Cody announced his platform ~

which is:  "The Foundation should be shuttered, the coins sold on the open market.  I will name names."
(( ref.: https://twitter.com/Radomysisky/status/529733818430005248 ))

That inspired me to run, because it gave me the sense that if I were elected there would be a kindred spirit on the Board.

For full disclosure, I am also part of Unsystem.

Today I had a discussion with someone by phone about the "anti-candidate" approach.  I think it is a good approach to have someone on the Board who would be willing to not just challenge things within the Foundation but who would be willing to actually vote to close it down.  If that proposal came up for a vote before the Board, I would support it.

But my platform, while not as simple and straightforward as Cody's, is intended to show how I'd stand up for the users if I were elected.