Wow, everyone saying "the dollar and euro don't have a foundation to act as its voice" sure forgot the big switch to the euro fast. When the euro was still not quite a concrete thing yet there was a hell of a lot of chatter with groups forming on either side to promote or protest the idea of a united European currency and all kinds of special interest lobbying going on to convince individual countries' governments to adopt or refuse.
Other currencies have a foundation acting as their voice too, it's called the military. If you take issue with the currency of your country, there is a tendency for men with guns to "convince" you otherwise - to varying degree of course.
Topic: Care about Bitcoin? STAY AWAY from the "Bitcoin Fundation" (Read 9828 times)
Noone speaks with the voice of the dollar or euro. They don't need to become more human or hire a marketing responsible.
Hmm. Who created the Euro and the Dollar?
why are you so paranoid?
-Charlie
-Charlie
Why did you call him paranoid?
Thankfully, the network is not centrally-controlled. And hopefully never will be.
From Satoshi:
No, Satoshi, your words are just fine. Thank you for the enlightenment and to show us how there is NO room for a centralized Bitcoin Foundation on your original vision.
Quote
Yes, [we will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography,] but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.
Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own.
It's very attractive to the libertarian viewpoint if we can explain it properly. I'm better with code than with words though.
Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own.
It's very attractive to the libertarian viewpoint if we can explain it properly. I'm better with code than with words though.
No, Satoshi, your words are just fine. Thank you for the enlightenment and to show us how there is NO room for a centralized Bitcoin Foundation on your original vision.
How would they not take bitcoin seriously? Who cares what they think? If we do then why didn't Satoshi ask for permission from the governments of the world before creating bitcoin?
Bitcoin doesn't need governments to take it seriously. The whole point is to get government out of the way not put them back in the driver seat.
Bitcoin doesn't need governments to take it seriously. The whole point is to get government out of the way not put them back in the driver seat.
If government took Bitcoin seriously instead of calling it a tool of criminals and money launderers, business would be more willing to accept it, its legal framework would recognize and enforce property rights with respect to it, and corporations would throw weight and resources into improving it, instead of fearing repercussions from alleged association with crime. These benefits are significant and critical to widespread adoption among average citizens.
This is the Bitcoin forums, Bitcoin is the currency of freedom, not of anarchy. The point of Bitcoin is not to abolish government, it's to give us an alternative to the abuses of central banking and return us to honest digital money like silver and gold without needing a violent revolution.
I still don't care what governments think. If you remember the people are supposed to be the government, not big corporations (as it sits today).
If Satoshi cared what the governments thought and didn't care about his identity being revealed he would have done exactly as you are indicating (gotten governments to take bitcoin seriously).
Alternatively, govt can go take a hike.
YEEEEPPPPP that's the main idea behind Bitcoin. Thinking that the government will relinquish control and stop calling Bitcoin a "tool for criminals" because there is a foundation behind it is just laughable anyways.
Especially seeing how government is THE tool for criminals.
Alternatively, govt can go take a hike.
YEEEEPPPPP that's the main idea behind Bitcoin. Thinking that the government will relinquish control and stop calling Bitcoin a "tool for criminals" because there is a foundation behind it is just laughable anyways.
Should we wait for them to do so ?
Yes. Take their money supply away by sticking with something they can't debase and wait for them to come crawling.
Alternatively, govt can go take a hike.
Should we wait for them to do so ?
I am concerned about the bitcoin foundation, but at the same time i am very hopeful about what i promises to deliver.
It is going to be kinda cool to have a bitcoin person to shake hands with the money regulators and try make bitcoin an official currency, maybe convince other big money-transactors to get on board with integrating bitcoin, protecting us from laws, etc.
But it does put a lot of power in the hands of 1 team. What if the hammer fell and we the bitcoin foundation, being responsible for bitcoin.org, the bitcoin-qt client, etc was forced to put in an update to track users or something? if it were possible, that is. it would give a group of people the power to do such things, if a government was forcing them to do so.
There should be a seperate foundation for development on the official bitcoin client than the one that knock on the government's door.
It is going to be kinda cool to have a bitcoin person to shake hands with the money regulators and try make bitcoin an official currency, maybe convince other big money-transactors to get on board with integrating bitcoin, protecting us from laws, etc.
But it does put a lot of power in the hands of 1 team. What if the hammer fell and we the bitcoin foundation, being responsible for bitcoin.org, the bitcoin-qt client, etc was forced to put in an update to track users or something? if it were possible, that is. it would give a group of people the power to do such things, if a government was forcing them to do so.
There should be a seperate foundation for development on the official bitcoin client than the one that knock on the government's door.
If there was no foundation, the hammer could have fell on Gavin and other developpers. If there is a development-only foundation, the hammer could also fall on them.
Anyway, this is not enforcable. Everyone is free to choose which blockchain they want to use.
I am concerned about the bitcoin foundation, but at the same time i am very hopeful about what i promises to deliver.
It is going to be kinda cool to have a bitcoin person to shake hands with the money regulators and try make bitcoin an official currency, maybe convince other big money-transactors to get on board with integrating bitcoin, protecting us from laws, etc.
But it does put a lot of power in the hands of 1 team. What if the hammer fell and we the bitcoin foundation, being responsible for bitcoin.org, the bitcoin-qt client, etc was forced to put in an update to track users or something? if it were possible, that is. it would give a group of people the power to do such things, if a government was forcing them to do so.
There should be a seperate foundation for development on the official bitcoin client than the one that knock on the government's door.
It is going to be kinda cool to have a bitcoin person to shake hands with the money regulators and try make bitcoin an official currency, maybe convince other big money-transactors to get on board with integrating bitcoin, protecting us from laws, etc.
But it does put a lot of power in the hands of 1 team. What if the hammer fell and we the bitcoin foundation, being responsible for bitcoin.org, the bitcoin-qt client, etc was forced to put in an update to track users or something? if it were possible, that is. it would give a group of people the power to do such things, if a government was forcing them to do so.
There should be a seperate foundation for development on the official bitcoin client than the one that knock on the government's door.
MtGox's history of seizing tainted coins, and requiring id after allowing users to deposit make me feel really uncomfortable with the whole standards thing.
This one really bothered me. I have an email from MtGox support saying that my >$1,000 deposit, after it cleared from Dwolla would have NEVER been returned to me had I not provided my ID, despite the fact I made the transaction before the AML laws went into place. The sheer disregard for their customer's funds deserves to be a mark on their reputation forever. They should be upfront and honest about such things, and they should apologize profusely when they fail to properly communicate. We already know they are being forced to abide by local laws, so it's easy to dismiss the actual implementation, but the fact they wouldn't have even returned the money to my Dwolla account really f'ing bothers me.
This would be a problem.
MtGox's history of seizing tainted coins, and requiring id after allowing users to deposit make me feel really uncomfortable with the whole standards thing.
This one really bothered me. I have an email from MtGox support saying that my >$1,000 deposit, after it cleared from Dwolla would have NEVER been returned to me had I not provided my ID, despite the fact I made the transaction before the AML laws went into place. The sheer disregard for their customer's funds deserves to be a mark on their reputation forever. They should be upfront and honest about such things, and they should apologize profusely when they fail to properly communicate. We already know they are being forced to abide by local laws, so it's easy to dismiss the actual implementation, but the fact they wouldn't have even returned the money to my Dwolla account really f'ing bothers me.
Alternatively, govt can go take a hike.
How would they not take bitcoin seriously? Who cares what they think? If we do then why didn't Satoshi ask for permission from the governments of the world before creating bitcoin?
Bitcoin doesn't need governments to take it seriously. The whole point is to get government out of the way not put them back in the driver seat.
Bitcoin doesn't need governments to take it seriously. The whole point is to get government out of the way not put them back in the driver seat.
If government took Bitcoin seriously instead of calling it a tool of criminals and money launderers, business would be more willing to accept it, its legal framework would recognize and enforce property rights with respect to it, and corporations would throw weight and resources into improving it, instead of fearing repercussions from alleged association with crime. These benefits are significant and critical to widespread adoption among average citizens.
This is the Bitcoin forums, Bitcoin is the currency of freedom, not of anarchy. The point of Bitcoin is not to abolish government, it's to give us an alternative to the abuses of central banking and return us to honest digital money like silver and gold without needing a violent revolution.
I stand in support of the premise of the creation of the Bitcoin Foundation, and trust the intents of the individuals on its board. I disavow the OP's advice of "stay away" and disagree with the claims that it exists to annihilate the competition of its board members. I agree with the sentiment that there needs to be a foundation in order for government officials and executives to take Bitcoin seriously.
How would they not take bitcoin seriously? Who cares what they think? If we do then why didn't Satoshi ask for permission from the governments of the world before creating bitcoin?
Bitcoin doesn't need governments to take it seriously. The whole point is to get government out of the way not put them back in the driver seat.
I give it a year or two before the Foundation starts "helping" regulators to draft laws relating to Bitcoin. I sure hope I'm wrong.
+1 fully
I give it a year or two before the Foundation starts "helping" regulators to draft laws relating to Bitcoin. I sure hope I'm wrong.
That'd be them scamming the government.
For now as i see this foundation venture talks, its a catchy name for a venture, and of course we are in a free market with competition as some niches are involved with decent amount of money.
IF its a money making model there will be competitors.
IF its a money making model there will be competitors.
Having a Bitcoin Foundation puts us one step closer to it being plausible that Visa might actually consider Bitcoin a currency worth adding to their platform. It's a long shot and may not happen any time soon, but given that history spans a very, very long time, and a lot can happen in such a time, so spans the future.
Absolutely. That's a bit of what I just pointed out in "My rambling bitcoin mini-manifesto."
Jump to: