Topic: Care about Bitcoin? STAY AWAY from the "Bitcoin Fundation" - page 2. (Read 9828 times)

And who cares? Why do we need that? If I want Visa managing my money I will search for credit cards in some bank. Let me be clear about this madness: we don't beg to some major banking or payment system to paternalisticly accept us. In a near future we will have the power not because having some public hands to shake, but having a large userbase.

Being indifferent is quite a different thing than actively attacking something.  Are the banks and Visa actively attacking the internet because it threatens their stronghold on using TELEX lines to do bank wires?

The main benefactor of the current banking system's flaws are our politicians and our central bankers.  Money printing enables politicians to spend other people's money with less accountability, and central bankers get to profit off of all of the inefficiency of the system, and it all works because the public at large doesn't understand how it happens.  But I don't think that means every banker and every judge, mayor, and tax collector is individually sworn to undermine anything and everything that changes the status quo - they are just everyday people doing their jobs as trained, and might not be as hostile as you seem to suggest.

Visa could still have their lucrative business model even if they transacted in bitcoins instead of dollars.  It works for euros, yen, and every other popular unit of account.  Bitcoin is no different.  I know Visa isn't considered all that popular here, but they do add value in the eyes of many beholders that a straight Bitcoin client does not and never will replace (such as the ability for customers to do chargebacks, which you may not value, but many other customers do, and which is why they don't mind paying 2-3% extra for the privilege).  Visa could legitimately and profitably embrace Bitcoin and never see a reason to fight it.

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.

Chris, all due respect, you must be one of those people that believe we still leave in a democracy with officials elected by the people that work for the people, and unless banks and credit cards are races, I don't see how I am a xenophobe.

Why would the banks, visa etc give two rat's dicks about Bitcoin when they are robbing fees way higher than Bitcoin will ever make them? It is very simple: Banks, VISA, etc. are a mafia/cartel that have the golden cow tied to their backyard post. Why innovate? Why embrace ANYTHING else? Do you think nowadays with the technologies we have they couldn't, for example, use something else than SWIFT for international wire transfers that was designed to be transmitted ver TELEX lines?

The answer is clear: They make too much fucking money. They don't want to change anything. Not only that, but they will resist and fight any change or innovation that prevents them to keep robbing people.

Actually, the word I was looking for WAS transvestite

transvestite |transˈvesˌtīt, tranz-|
noun
a person, typically a man, who derives pleasure from dressing in clothes appropriate to the opposite sex.
DERIVATIVES
transvestism |-ˌtizəm|noun,
transvestist |-tist|noun( dated),
transvestitism |-tiˌtizəm|noun
ORIGIN 1920s: from German Transvestit, from Latin trans- ‘across’ + vestire ‘clothe.’

The problem is what the problem always is: with a "foundation" inventing "standards" you lose out on the gnarly eccentric bits, which happen to be where value is born and innovation usually starts. With a foundation inventing standards you have some gates to keep the crap away.

There's no solution to this, both alternatives suck. The one valuable point, however, is that if MtGox gives its Bitcoin trademark to the foundation this will have been a net plus and a clear reason to have it: now there's somebody to keep the trademarks, somebody other than a major player.

Both of your concerns seem to relate to the possibility that the foundation will provide an advantage to some businesses and not others.

This is a vaild concern, but expressing it in the form of incoherent rants doesn't do anyone any good.

Why not try something like this in the main announcement thread:

"I'm worried that this foundation will use the Bitcoin name to provide an undue advantage to certain businesses at the expense of other businesses. As such I am not willing to support it until you can explain what steps you'll take to make sure this doesn't happen."

As a bonus, you could provide some constructive suggestions which, if adopted, would satisfy your concern.

And a lot more bad reputation articles published. Just the kind of things the self declared bitcoin foundation tries to prevent.

Dangers I can think of:

#2: Important decisions a made away from the community and behind closed doors, influenced by those 2-out-of-5 seat-corporations that may only see their own gain and present >0.001% of bitcoin users

#3: The Julian Assange Effect

#4: Wealthy anonymous parties buy the majority of votes for upcoming polls

What if, I'm asking you! A few new users less?
Bitcoin went from sub 1$ to 30$ and back to 2$ in less than a year and survived, yet you worry about few new users?

This is danger number two:

Imagine some hackers ddos attack the bitcoin foundation server the same way they attacked bitpay. Would some newbie put some savings in a decentralized system where the selfdeclared "official face" is down a week because a ddos attack?. What if the premium companies offer some premium services to newbies through the foundation login page and the web is down for a week because the attack?.

Bitcoin is decentralized for a reason.

Maybe you don't, but some obviously do. And many of us appreciate it. It's all voluntary, what exactly is the problem? What is danger #2?

As long as the protocol remains loyal for everything it brings to us actually, as long as it remains 100% transparent and as long we have the choice to chose which fork to follow if changes are occurring on the protocol, there is no way we should worry about bitcoin.

Ok. As you know, english is not my native language. Anyway the only "organization" related to bitcoin is the validating network itself. The bitcoin is a economic tool. The same way we don't have a Mr hammer face or a Mr screwdriver face, we don't need a Mr bitcoin face.

That's (finally) something specific.

Danger #1: The Bitcoin Foundation could use it's position to provide preferrential advertising for favored businesses.

What else?

Do the other people resistant to the Foundation agree with the above statement?  I couldn't disagree more:

- You don't see any profit opportunities for the financial system accepting Bitcoin?   Have you just not thought about it?  Bank transfers are a very expensive, cumbersome process.  The trust model for moving money can be simplified with irreversibility. Transparent transactions in the blockchain can let funds manage money in a completely transparent way (if desired/the market demands it). There are huge opportunities for making financial markets more streamlined and efficient with Bitcoin.  

- You seem really xenophobic. Bitcoins aren't only for gold bugs, or anarchists, or businessmen, or cryptographers, or hacktivists, or nerds, or housewives.  Trade is a great unifying force, and we shouldn't work to exclude people who are different from ourselves from using it, but rather we should encourage them to join our economy for everyone's benefit.

- I don't like credit card companies or Paypal.  But, would I be happy if they made a Bitcoin service?  Of course!  The more the merrier.  If you expect Bitcoin to succeed, you have to expect that the dinosaurs will try to jump on the bandwagon at some point.

- "The Establishment" is amorphous and constantly changing (much "the Bitcoin community").  Some of the big players will die while clinging to outdated business models, some will adapt, and some successful small guys will turn into big players themselves.  If you want Bitcoins' market cap to rise above a couple hundred million, there are necessarily going to be "Establishment" players that work with Bitcoin.  You can't have a trillion dollar economy that never interacts with any government anytime in the next 100 years: if you believe that you could, you're living in a libertarian fantasy world in your head.

- You don't think Bitcoin's should ever become mainstream?  I do.  I want Bitcoin to succeed and benefit as many people as possible.  Why don't you?

- "I have a more orthodox view of what Bitcoin was intended to be" - NOPE.  You have a more narrow view of what Bitcoin was intended to be, and I'm slightly offended that you think you can speak for Satoshi.

Foundation does not mean being the inventor.  Its meaning is closer to the word "organization" or "institution".

For a good start: The name.

The bitcoin foundation. They call themselves THE foundation, but they are not the founders of bitcoin. With the naming and the new public relations function they have selfassigned, they will be catching a lot of newbie attention. Now imagine they focus all the newbies in the premium companies services.

The word you're looking for is travesty, but otherwise yes, this isn't going anywhere.

I would understand this position if someone could explain what exactly the danger is.

I understand if someone doesn't like the business practices of Mt Gox, but that's not an existential threat to Bitcoin itself. A single entity with >50% can cause harm to the rest of the network in well-documented ways so I understand that concern.

What specifically could this foundation do if it was malicious that everybody's so worried about? So far all I can see is a superstituous fear of the word "centralization".

I don't know why, but you can call me a "classic libertarian". I always complain when I see anonymity or decentralization of the bitcoin network in danger. The same way I complain when MtGox uses his monopolistic possition in the market and freezes people accounts by orders of a hidden tainted bitcoin list. The same way I complain when pools get too much mining power.