Topic: [CONFIRMED] The Bitcoin Foundation Wants to Be an Authoritarian Hegemony (Read 4081 times)

He did put "official" in quotes, but in any case there's nothing stopping a second (or third) foundation from also claiming officialdom, if that word actually even means anything in the context of bitcoin.

I personally am happy that the Bitcoin Foundation was formed BUT also happy that people are suspicious of it, and I'll be even happier if competing foundations are established. The beauty of a natural order in the hands of the people is that competition is a check on centralization.

He can't because like I pointed out, Hazek, Atlas and the others assume things, make up words to build arguments, then twist words, ect.

Many arguments have bearing, its a shame the debaters are usually incompetent and dont know how to build a valid argument

-Charlie

Where did Gavin use the word "official" that you just quoted?  Be precise, please.

Anarchists... unite!

This makes me think:

Satoshi never wanted to have a clear face. He never wanted Bitcoin to have a real face either. The whole point was it to be a P2P protocol much like BitTorrent. It existed anywhere it was useful: On independent sites and services. He never gave himself a title nor legitimacy. He let Bitcoin be Bitcoin. I would love to be shown otherwise.

Now, Gavin, he probably wants a central protocol controlled by him like he's Linus Torvalds, the leader of the free world when he's only been a fraction of what Bitcoin is.

Good luck with that. Gavin, the owner of Bitcoin, already declared his foundation (who's purpose between other is to pay his salary by the way) the "official" Bitcoin foundation.

I am working on it, believe it or not.

However, it's not just legal documents. I need a level of force and funding -- that will take some time. I don't have the clout these men have but I can get something similar.

Then let's start another foundation to address the issues the BF is weak on. This is how polycentric/anarchic/emergent order works.

I am sure bankers are super excited with this foundation Charlie ... I am SURE.


Fuck eBay. Bitcoin is not paypal and was never meant to be paypal. It is a tool for the people, and by the people to move money amongst them without borders or control. Who the fuck wants, or need Bitcoin on eBay? Or wait ... I just answered my own question: The Bitcoin big businesses to further their own agenda.

Sorry, I wasn't writing with conspiracy theorists in mind— a grave error on this forum—, they were already asking them months ago. The people involved were already the nearest approximations of authorizes some reporters could find.

Going big doesn't necessary mean a sell-out.  Ok so if they went big and somehow compromised the code that gives BTC it's unique property, there's no certainly that the biggest miners and such would reject that.  I'd imagine everyone has to move in unison and while I can understand the concerns, it's nice to see an organization come together as the Foundation has.

Again if they somehow sold-out, then what, tons of businesses start seeing BTC as a good investment and the value rises for all.  Does it impact you?  Sure.  But unless you're holding 10K+ BTC I'd imagine, what choice do you have (as in disagreeing with the banks or whomever else)?  Choose not to use BTC then.

I do hope the developers and Foundation members will strive for as much transparency and objectivity as can be accomplished should they butt heads with "Big Business" or the Government.  If this standardization is all for moving BTC ahead from a geeky experiment to where a large company (ala the Ebay example) would seriously revise it's infrastructure to acommodate BTC, then that's great.  

Agree with wmX and Evoor.

Mission accomplished.

I hate to lend credibility to this thread by responding to it— but there is another point to make here:

The reporters are already asking the people involved in the foundation this crap— at least sometimes, sometimes they ask _worse_ people—  but a key difference is that when they just ask them normally they're getting their personal/company positions. If the community doesn't like what they say? "It's my Opinion. Fuck you." When people speak on behalf of the foundation there will at least be some accountability to the community of people who have chosen to become members— and pressure to hold a consistent, considered position, which is tempered somewhat from their personal and professional 'color'.  I think this moderating effect can be as improvement an important as the reduction in talking to the wrong people.

More than 2000 years ago Aristotle said that "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" and til now is still true.
Doing something, even with the risk of failing, is better than doing nothing. If some members of the community decided to do something in order to advocate Bitcoin as a system and as a way of making money in a clear organized way, then I think this is better than everybody mind their own business, just wait things to happen and let others to be the cannon fodder.

In my opinion, we (the Bitcoin users) need some representatives to be there for us and represent our interest in front of governments, press, banking system, other industries. Otherwise, the next time when New York Times want to cover a Bitcoin story regarding the use of bitcoins in drug deals, lets just go all the members of this board to speak out for Bitcoin with that reporter and see how that will be of any good to Bitcoin and to its legitimate users

I see the Bitcoin Foundation to become more than the sum of its members and to protect the interests of Bitcoin as an idea, a community, a way of doing business, an Internet commodity and much more. If no one would step up and try to do something then how can we expect things to progress?

On the other side, we are all aware that Bitcoin is money, so its normal that people that step up should have more or less a material interest as well because this is the way this world runs. Where would be Bitcoin now if MtGox was just another Bitcoin blog? Also, did anybody think that Bill Gates created his foundation just because he wanted to burn some money? No, there was clearly an economical interest in there BUT his foundation is doing a lot of good things to a lot of people and that should matter, not what Gates win from that.

Best thing for those that don't trust the Bitcoin Foundation or its founding members is to join the foundation as a private individual (only 2.5 BTC/year), keep an eye on what's happening there and report in public anything that they think is not right so that people can discuss and those in charge be able to reconsider. I, for one, will do that!

Tha's why it will be Anarchistic not Libertarian  

Anarchists are fine with justified Authority.

If ever a libertarian micronation emerged, I would be hesitant to join for fear of its pollution by Atlas-type personalities.

If "the right issues" is money, then you might be right.

No one can control Bitcoin, not even the Bitcoin foundation, so why fear them?

Gavin seems like a nice guy that care about the right issues how bad could this possibly be?

tbh, I think you are making way more out of it than it really is. What it really is, is just ego. It's a small group of people who became too invested in bitcoin, who started thinking they "are" bitcoin. I totally agree with you that it will be very damaging to bitcoin (much more so than pirate, matthew, BFL, or any other ponzi or scam), but you are giving the foundation-gang way too much credit.

+1