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

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.

Hmm. Who created the Euro and the Dollar?

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.

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).

Especially seeing how government is THE tool for criminals.

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.

Yes. Take their money supply away by sticking with something they can't debase and wait for them to come crawling.

Should we wait for them to do so ?


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.

This would be a problem.

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.

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.

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.

+1 fully

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.

Absolutely.  That's a bit of what I just pointed out in "My rambling bitcoin mini-manifesto."

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.

That's not an answer, it's a barely articulated expression of anxiety.

What specifically are you worried about?

The Foundation could create more democratic influence in the development of the bitcoin.org client, which I wouldn't like. The developers should decide what the client should do. I definitely wouldn't want to see a Bitcoin Foundation vote about something like P2SH.

I'll probably join. Like it or not, the Foundation's activities will be important, and I'd like to have a vote. I'm somewhat optimistic about it.

by amassing influence, power, money, relationships.  and then abusing those, like any other organization might if/when it becomes within their interest to do so.

How?

Paranoid or not, I think it's right to scrutinize (self-appointed) organizations.  Some eventually grow and amass the power to make or break other businesses and violate the very principles they once espoused.

A few examples:  the MPAA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated), the Better Business Bureau.. I'm sure we can all think of others.

Another way to take BTC from people. STOP TRUSTING BTC SITES AND PEOPLE.
If they guy down the road said he will keep you money safe would you give it all to him? But tools hand over BTC all day long then whine when they are taken.

I'm currently undecided as to the importance of this announcement but at the same time I don't understand where all the hate comes from. People who don't want to participate don't have to participate. What's the big deal? Maybe the people who are protesting the "centralization" in an apparent knee-jerk fashion don't understand how easy it is to fork a git repository.

This sounds like an excellent opportunity for education

Why is the above not true?

For the source code, we use git.  Just like the bitcoin block chain, git is a chain of hashes.  Each and every change is protected by a hash.  Anyone following git in a decentralized fashion may see and verify all changes.  Any "back door" is quite public.

For the binaries, we use gitian, so that outside parties may independently verify dev team binaries precisely match their locally-built binaries.  Bitcoin binaries from the dev team are not published until multiple sig matches appear.

A core foundation like this would only take away from the decentralized attractiveness of the network as a whole. Fuck paying for membership. Membership should be open to anybody who actively participates in the project via mining, developing, or even simply sending and receiving coins. Gavin and other core developers will be paid for the hard work they do to ensure a reasonably stable system for everyone in the community to use; this is the only part I agree with.

Do not exclude the lifeblood(community) of the network from making decisions which directly affect the network.

Hopefully it works out. If it were just that, I wouldn't be worried too much. They could have been donating to them all this time and it's just now more transparent. Hopefully they don't gain any more real powers and things just stay optional. If the licenses are unreasonable people may just not use or expect them.

So far I can see three problems here:

1. The "to be or not to be"-issue:

Is it better to have such an entity to promote and advocate bitcoin in public and before lawmakers and journalists? Or should we better stay an anonymous mass without a "face" to stay strong and make the public image not dependant of success or faliure of a single entity (you could call it the "Julian Assange Effect". If I say "we" I mean the community but also respect the decisions and judgement of the members of the board of Bitcoin Foundation over their foundation.

2. The "influence"-issue:

If we want such an entity, how can we keep transparency and public participation opportunities as clear and accessible as possible? Who's got the say?
Do we want a divergence of voting power in contrast to the total userbase in favour of a certain interest group like business owners (2 votes representing businesses that make up less than 5% (data guessed) of the total userbase, while only giving also 2 votes to "representatives" of the remaining 95% of the userbase) ?

3. The "perception"-issue

Some posts in this thread seem to view the Bitcoin Foundation already as a "bitcoin government", combining major powers over the source code and financial power in form of two big (if not biggest in terms of turn around) companies in the bitcoin economy. These worries are justified in my oppinion till it is clear how the foundation works, what powers it really has and what perception of it remains in the community and public oppinion.
I would nevertheless refrain from overestimating any such influence unless it is excerted over decisions concerning the source code that sway from the objective best for the entire current and potential future userbase.

I would therefore like to suggest for the core developers to think over their active role in the board, to prevent any influence over their judgements concerning their work on the source code and reference client and instead consider an advisary role to the board.

I also endorse the fund to pay Gavin's (and all core dev's) salary from voluntary donations made by Foundation members. This way all donors and donations are transparent.

+1

That's essentially a direct copy of what Linux Foundation is doing. They're paying Torvalds to maintain the kernel.

He's got legitimate concerns, and it's not over nothing.

Somebody gained influence. It wasn't me, wasn't him, most likely wasn't you either.

Guidelines for businesses to follow as far as best practices are concerned? The guidelines are not forced on you and they mean something to you (and others) so long as they are found credible. It is likely these best practices could be expanded upon by other entities in the future. The developers of Bitcoin are probably in the best position to recommend how it is used, especially with security in mind.

Because you think the developers "love bitcoin for bitcoin" doesn't mean others do, or that they always will. In fact it would appear irresponsible for them to avoid public accountability and additional participation from the outside. It is not centralization but cohesion to involve others democratically.

I am not talking about individual verifications, I am talking they are saying they will offer a "Business certification" along with guidelines that need to be followed. Read that letter. I am not reaching.

I honestly prefer an UNELECTED board of developers that love bitcoin for bitcoin, than an UNELECTED board comprised mainly from people that make a lot of money out of bitcoin and move at least 80% of the market.

shad0wbitz is absolutely right. Bitcoiners do not need the Foundation. Coz this will lead to centralization and death of Bitcoin. We r strong when we r separated.

The verification process is to prevent people from creating fake accounts. You are really reaching here.

Answer this for me: Before an unelected team of developers directed the project, and now you have the opportunity to actually influence the decisions and composition of the development team. Can you honestly say you have lost influence? Couldn't you simply recognize this as a more efficient structure for the dev team?

If you're just scared about involving the industry in decision making, maybe you should consider the fact that a vast number of entities with direct financial interest in Bitcoin already have enormous power over the currency (the miners) and the developers of Bitcoin are, to some extent, beholden to them already. Shouldn't this concern you equally?

I'm trying to read their material, but I keep getting distracted by new posts in threads like this. 

This may be true for the clients as there are many interchangeable ones out there, but it's not for the blockchain. If there were to be a highly controversial change to the protocol, it would be just too painful to fork the chain or use an alternative one for the majority of the userbase, because 99% of the whole cryptoeconomy rely on bitcoin, not litecoin or else. Many protesters would disgruntled go with the flow because it would be the only feasible option.

To sustain bitcoin's success and uphold it's democratic values,
changes of grand magnitude always have to rely on broad and transparent discourse and consent among the bitcoin userbase and must not be determined by majority vote of this foundation' paying members. Just in case you are wielding that thought.

I don't know. MtGox has been known to block accounts that were funded with bitcoin that they consider "Tainted". So you tell me. It is on the foundation letter that they plan to start a "Bitcoin verification process" and make sure these businesses are within guidelines. So what happen to the little guy that can't afford the certification, or simply wants to do things differently?

I think the community at a minimum should read their material, and I think you will quickly find that this is less benign and un-intrusive than what people think, or the board will have you think.

I'm personally glad to see the most successful Bitcoin businesses involved in the Bitcoin Foundation (as they should be) - but I hope there are plans to make this as international as possible. Multiple languages would help.

shad0wbitz I think you are stressing out for nothing. What kind of power do you think the foundation will have over bitcoin?

His name wasn't Shadowshi, you know? It just sounds close.

This IS inevitable. Think of banking AML laws and such. Do you really believe they have anything to do with "fighting terrorism"? It is all about people paying more and more taxes, to support governments that are more and more corrupt and inefficient. We are at war, and those who do not believe this can go happily into "let's get the government to like bitcoin on facebook camp". I am personally on the side of a true Satoshian. Bitcoin was born in the shadows, for the shadows.

None of bitcoin's fundamentals have changed.

Users continue to vote based on their choice of bitcoin client.

If users suddenly dislike a commit from Gavin, they are free to choose another client.

Just as they were yesterday.

Some people believe it will inevitably be made illegal.  From this point of view, having a central place to exert control is a weakness.  Napster and Wikileaks are good examples of network information services that brought about unpopular laws.  Bitcoin is another network information service that threatens concentrated power.

First of all, let me start this by saying that your coins are fantastic . Now, I don't care how many hands are there to shake. Paypal will never like bitcoin. Visa will never like Bitcoin. The banks will never like Bitcoin. The ESTABLISHMENT will never like Bitcoin because they can't PROFIT from it, as they shouldn't. More over, Bitcoin is a direct threat to their bloodsucking structures they have in place. Let's not even mention inefficient and corrupt sovereign states like the US of A that need more and more tax to support the likes of their corporate pals.

Bitcoin will only be successful the day their community realizes that Bitcoin will NEVER be, and should NEVER be a mainstream product. This is why Satoshi was so particular about hiding his identity. He KNEW this. Perhaps it would refresh the memory's community to read the message Satoshi embedded on the genesis block.

This is like an ugly chick desperately begging for the popular guy to take her to prom. No matter how much make up, it won't fucking happen.

Perhaps I have a more orthodox view of what Bitcoin was intended to be, and what should be from the old (Satoshi) testament, but I firmly believe this.

+1

OP is a bunch of conspiracy silliness.

Though jimbobway and others are absolutely right that bitcoin is bigger than any foundation.  And that's the way it should be!

Mmh...i'm thinking about your word casascius and yes, you are right. This is a sign that bitcoin is no more only a "nerdy things" but is moving in the real world.

bitcoin foundation doesn't look like any central banks at all. They will not have the power to issue any bitcoin at all. I don't think we should look at it as a threat to bitcoin.

The dollar and euro are instituted under an organization less accountable than a foundation. But the comparison is faulty, Bitcoin is software and is encumbered by a number of challenges better faced by organization and fluidity. The current design (a loose-knit team of developers, unelected, who could very carefully and anonymously backdoor the software) is not ideal, they have to be much more conservative with changes and have less talent and research to draw upon when making decisions or planning a direction for the project. This foundation is adding a presence to the development cycle, allowing people to fund its development and have a direct voice.

There is little wiggle-room for this foundation to suddenly mandate some cynical statist conspiracy. The users are still in charge of Bitcoin and always will be.

I don't think about movies, I think about the fact that congressmen and corporate executive types not having a hand to shake helps them equate Bitcoin with that thing that criminals and gangsters use, and that thought process results in them wanting to take actions to hinder Bitcoin.  I see Bitcoin as the currency of liberty, not anarchy.


You are right if you're talking about the Bitcoin executable and code base, but not decentralized computerized money as an anthropological phenomenon.  A foundation helps greatly if we are to help it achieve acceptance by law-abiding citizens sooner rather than later.  If this will help the powers that be work with us instead of against us, why is this a bad thing?

Riiight

I agree both with shadow and with jimbobway   Probably i'm a bit weird

Exactly my point ... do we need a Bitcoin central bank? Because judging from the board, this is what it is.

Bitcoin is meant to fight the state, not look for daddy's approval. Shad0w over and out

I absolutely disagree. Bitcoin doesn't need government officials and executives in any form. Specially the USA government (where the bitcoin foundation is placed). The power of bitcoin always have to be in the user base. Not in governments, foundations or selfdeclared core developers.

+1

This is not true. Central banks are the voice of the dollar or euro.

The Foundation is fine for me, it will probably help bitcoin.

But i disagree with

This remember me the scene in the beginning of the movie The Scorpion King

when Takmet says to Balthazar "You are king of nothing ... the ruler of a pile of sands and rocks" and then Balthazar grabs his hands and squeezed them and tell him "If I am no king, why are you kneeling before me?"

Same apply here. They don't take bitcoin seriously? Then why with bitcoin i can buy everything?

I think having something (a foundation) is better than having nothing at all.  Anyone can join the foundation.  Anyone can create their own foundation.  The problem with people like shadowbitz is that they are complaining because they don't own a successful business and they start whining about it since they are the "little guys."  There will always be big players and little players and alliances will form.  In the case of the Bitcoin Foundation the big players are actually trying to benefit the whole bitcoin community and the whole world and I don't see anything negative about this.

With that said, I think bitcoin is bigger than any foundation.  The current Bitcoin Foundation is a corporate non-profit entity derived from the state and backed by legal laws.  Some centralization is required to promote bitcoin and my guess is a "true" bitcoin foundation emerge and will be separate from the state and will be backed by multi-signature transactions and perhaps even use force (like a military).  When this happens the current Bitcoin Foundation will be less important and may even dissolve just like how lovebitcoins.org dissolved.  Alliances are broken and formed all the time but at this point the Bitcoin Foundation is a good thing and I hope it can last a long time and make a difference.

I see you've never been in Germany. Currencies DO have fan clubs. And how they do.

Then there's also this forum. If this isn't a fan club, I don't know what it is.

+1

Bitcoin = Currency

bitcoin = transactional monetary protocol.

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.

Pay for the right to vote? Vote what?

and this too is lol:


Yeah well they are the same who said "police will go after bitcoin staff" and then when they told them that there is no one behind bitcoin "then they will go after bitcoin server farms and infrastructure"? My opinion is, do the opposite of what "regulators" and "government officials" say 

But to vote what? Miners and people who use bitcoin vote. Not the foundation.

In fact we don't have a "dollar foundation" or an "euro foundation". Currencies don't have fans club. Noone speaks with the voice of the dollar or euro. They don't need to become more human or hire a marketing responsible. They only work as an interchange medium and a way to store value (this last point only metals and bitcoin)

If there is no identity checking, one with a lot of money could have dozens of votes. This goes even more against decentralization and democracy.

Yes as I said in the other thread, this whole thing goes against the spirit of Bitcoin and Satoshi. Do you know you cannot join the foundation without providing your "REAL" information? Satoshi wouldn't be able to join for example.

By the way, I want to add that I don't necessarily have a problem with you as a person, or your company. Same with Mark. I just think you guys should stay out of this.

The fact remains that you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars speaking to people because you make hundreds of thousands out of Bitcoin. The fact remains that having your lawyer as the foundation's lawyer is probably not the best idea. The fact remains that the board was orchestrated, selected and appointed without any input from the community. Lastly, the fact remains that there is a big difference between an individual owning 1 bitcoin and profiting in cents from price changes, to monolithic corporations that together control at least 80% of the bitcoin market.

I do not have a problem with Gavin being in there. I do have a problem with you and Mark being there, and with your lawyer being there. I think anybody that cares about the FREEDOM of Bitcoin should have a problem with this as well. I am not on a "personal vendetta" and as a board member, I think you should choose your wording more carefully when speaking to a member of this community voicing his concerns, and keep this as a democratic debate, otherwise the foundation might be perceived as an entity that will be quick to call names to those that disagree with them.

I agree with you shadow. Bitcoin has no user database as it has no face. Users don't need to pay in order to have "the right to vote" for the next developing branch. If a user needs something different from the "selfdeclared official core developers" patches all he has to do is put a bounty in the developers subforum.

You are more than welcome to, no one is banning or gagging you, why are you so paranoid?

Personal opinion is commendable, but you need to make sure your facts and claims are accurate because then your opinion just looks like FUD.

I've pointed our your errors here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1225486

I'm happy to answer any questions, feel free to PM me.

-Charlie

Here we go. The witch hunt begins. Now I have a vendetta, next thing you know, I am banned and gagged. Can't I express my personal opinion?

You obviously have a vendetta or maybe you are sour that no one involved you in this.

MtGox and BitInstant are listed there because they are the first corporate members. You are more than welcome to join as well. In fact, if you own 1 BTC then you are a profiteer as well when the price goes up.

Second, BitInstant and myself had no involvment with the DCAO other than Matt inviting me to it (like every other Bitcoin business owner was) and putting my name on the website..which I asked him to take down many times.

The foundation is extremely democratic. All you have to do is join for the smallest membership and you can be on the board as well by voting, the same way the other board members are on it.

We've spent hunreds of thousands of dollars and speak to regulators, goverment officials, corporate execs, ect. They all agreed that a foundation neds to be in place for Bitcoin to succeed.

No one owns the foundation, and board seats are not for life. Anyone can run the foundation, just like Bitcoin it runs itself.

If you don't want to join, thats fine, won't change anything.

-Charlie

You have not delegated any authority to this foundation, and it has not deprived the public of their authority over the protocol. It is the miners and the users of Bitcoin software that determine collectively the behavior of the blockchain. This foundation is arbitrarily structured to provide the most amount of public input in development -- especially entities that have an enormous influence on changes in the protocol, and so it does nothing to centralize Bitcoin any more than a respected team of developers have already done. But even if it were designed to position only the financial elite in its structure, it would do so at the expense of its own credibility and perhaps the merit of its activities.

You have the right to give a damn what this foundation says. It is merely an aggregation of talent and advocacy.

I think the mission statement for the fundation should read:

"To advance the interest of the biggest players in the industry (mtgox and bitinstant), who already have their hands on everything Bitcoin related. To annihilate competition and to foster camaraderie between the good ol'boys, and to elect a board of directors without any democratic input whatsoever from the true owners of Bitcoins: Its community. Finally, to provide a tax exempt vehicle to pay Gavin Andersen for developing open source, free software".

NO THANK YOU!. We have enough of the Bitinstant/MtGox vaporware and nonsense. I am going to pass on this one.

How about NOBODY that PROFIT from Bitcoin should be on the board? How about not having the SAME attorney for BitInstant and Roger Ver on the board of an "independent" fundation.

I am sorry, but this is a transvestite, just like the last organization that Charlie Shrem and Vorhees were involved with the scammer Matthew N. Wright http://dcao.org/

I hope this community REMEMBERS. I would urge anybody caring about Bitcoin to stay away from this monopoly.