Topic: Calling out the Bitcoin Foundation Scam. - page 11. (Read 22530 times)

I hate the foundation... Its filled with early adopter scamers who I'm sure will end up in jail at some point or another like Charlie did.

I bet some of the founding members were even on SR and we know that investigation will be ongoing for years to come.

We need new money investors on the foundation.

Circle, Winklevos ect....

hmmm,

So if one doesn't want to drink their koolaid then what are the alternatives?

1. Use/promote an altcoin. Nxt? Etherium? or 1000 other alts?

2. Create a non bitcoin foundation client and convince the majority of miners to accept. (take back bitcoin movement)


Can bitcoin be saved? or has the brand bitcoin been forever tainted and coerced? Has Gavin accepted the decentralized bitcoin jesus spirit into his heart?

I think personally that the wink twins are right about the $400 billion ish crypto market cap but I'm feeling that that number will be a total of all of the different crypto coins. One of them will eventually overtake bitcoin by offering such revolutionary ideas as decentralized, no transaction fees, and gasp, anonymousness.

Dream on.

PS. Do you use Axe? I feel inexplicably very attracted to you on a sexual level. It must be the advertisements didn't lie.


No,  it does not. Nobody of any consequence runs anything past maybe 0.6 or so anyway. Just because a bunch of noobs with a bunch of dust downloaded the most recent release doesn't give it any sort of Bitcoin legitimacy. Currently the latest iOS and the latest bitcoin-qt are about equally relevant to Bitcoin,  which is roughly epsilon.

Nice work on the rest of your bullshit. They aren't points; they roughly reduce to "Pirate was fine and if you don't like ponzis you can just not participate". This was thoroughly debunked two years ago. Read that once a day for the next six months, maybe you get it somehow. In any case shut the fuck up for the interval, you don't have anything to contribute here.

Yeesh.  That's just what what Bitcoin needs - more bad press!

I gotta take a shit 

The statement was that they are *known scammers* and money launderers.  
That statement is false, at the very least because all the information isn't out yet, on either of them.
Karpeles situation indicates irresponsibility, arrogance, and possible sociopathy thus far.
Shrem situation reeks of a witch hunt by law enforcement, and I see zero indication of intent to break the law or defraud anyone.


Good point.  Gavin has expressed a strong desire to fully decentralize the development team, and said he is working with developers in other countries to try and get that going.  But right now, it would be a disaster if he walked away.

-B-

Problems posed by this idea:

1)  What happens if you attack TBF and Gavin gets mad and goes and becomes an amateur golfer instead.  Bitcoin still needs more hard forks before it's ready to run unattended for years/decades, and there's not many people who can easily create this consensus in a timely manner.  Even if you don't like TBF, it will probably do more harm than good attacking them, at least until every big fork is in the past.  Standard game theory, you're committing suicide to try and make a point for no gain.

2)  You can simply not donate if you don't want to, then you don't lose anything.

3)  If you plan to attack TBF, can you pick a less retarded date than the same week of MtGox.

A personal lack of belief doesn't make a thing false.

Funding a board of illicit actors does not make one credible.

This is a false statement.  
Based on the information that has been made available, I don't feel that Shrem had any intentions to defraud anyone, nor blatantly break any laundering laws.
As for Karpeles, nobody knows what happened yet.
He does display an incredibly abnormal behavior pattern (stuffing envelopes while Gox was crashed and in emergency state.  Deciding to take the weekend off while his team scrambled to get back online.  Taking his sweet time at Starbucks while people were outside his office, protesting the loss of millions of dollars).  
I dont know if that is arrogance, sociopath behavior or what, but his issues will be made clear soon.

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2014/03/bitcoin-exchange/

His propensity for bragging and arrogance (as per the wired article at least), wanting to be called "King of Bitcoin" and bragging about his Mensa membership says a lot.
The fact that such an individual helped found the first centralized ego foundation for Bitcoin with 5,000 of his own coins, lends more credibility to the attitude behind the creation of the organization.

Keep the focus on the fact that Bitcoin doesn't need, and shouldn't have a Foundation.  
I realize this flies in the face of everything we understand about worldwide financial systems, but the internet never needed a Foundation.

And lets acknowledge that the Foundation has done some good things to help stave-off regulators for awhile, giving the platform some time to take hold around the world.
But there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that an organization like this should slowly be dissolved, else it will grow into something completely contrary to what Bitcoin represents, eventually.

-B-

I remember having a long debate with Yankee about the validity of having a "Bitcoin Foundation" in the announcement thread. There were four things that made it invalid for me and I never joined. It violates the prime directive: thou shalt not centralize a decentralized currency, it was formed without a discussion first, it's initial leadership was not representative of the community but representative of business instead and its primary goal was to have big business pay a developer to advance an open source project. Since then it has focused its attention on one country (because perhaps TBF leadership knew that would be the country that eventually jailed them and they needed the support). I ended my debate with Charlie by simply agreeing that it may be good for business but it's not for me and good luck. I was distraught by observing so many supposedly respectable and respected members of the community, which I believed was about real individual freedom, lashing out at anyone that didn't support the newly formed TBF because I did not see it supporting the concepts that these faux visionaries touted. The issue for me isn't the existence of TBF but the way it solicited its massive amount of funding by convincing simpletons to join a non representative organization, use that funding to advance goals that are not in the best interest of its membership and that it required those simpletons to reveal their true identity to be a member.

BTW: Props to MPOE-PR for shedding light on the big problems that no one else will.

I guess that's why I have never heard of them

The do exactly what they were doing before you ever heard of them: NOTHING.

Bitcoin Foundation founders violated their own by-laws. Nuff said.

Yeah, what a scam to take peoples membership money and use it to organize conferences, lobby regulators, provide a resource for business and the press, to provide a space to coordinate the volunteer efforts of dozens of people who actually do something. Wow such scam! Only a doggy based coin could save us now.  

I agree with you MPOE-PR. They should have been shut down long ago. I'm against the Bitcoin Foundation and won't be represented by them nor will I ever acknowledge them as leaders, example, or whatever they might want to be. They aren't elected, they don't communicate with the community, you have to buy your way into it, etc. It's just a big no-go.

Finally people have realized that they are nothing more than a scam, I have never supported anything which the foundation has done even though they have claimed many times that they represent the Bitcoin community. I can't believe so many 'respected' people actually supported them and even defended them on occasions where they have been call out to be a scam with quality evidence.

We don't need a foundation we don't need any one to represent the Bitcoin community or Bitcoin itself.

Well everyone cal create foundation and can give it different names. No one car really force any one to give them money, same as no one can take away they money unless it would be used in different way than foundation states. We could create another foundation but who really want to waste time on it. Only problem might be they sometimes represent bitcoin, but soon second market or other bit company might to do and I wouldn't be surprised if it would end up even worst.

I must admit.
I have never heard of this Bitcoin Foundation before this post.

What is it that they do exactly?

Just like we have multiple exchanges across the globe, we need to have multiple foundations too...

Interesting read. I'm with you on this. They should have been shut down long ago.