They want to set the Bitcoin standard for all businesses. They want big business to depend on them, which includes their certification process. They want to be a full-fledged Bitcoin hegemony. This is the very definition of power.
I can tell you hate our goals, so I won't spend a long time trying to convince you. But, I will say that businesses often need a long, secure timeframe to make investment decisions, and they need to have some sense that what they work on or invest in will be roughly similar at the end of their investment to the beginning.
For instance, imagine ebay deciding to take bitcoins. The person-hours to get that done inside ebay are staggering to imagine, from wallet scalability issue to accounting treatments, refunds, ... It would be a major endeavor.
It would be great for bitcoin if ebay took bitcoins. Seriously great, but they can't right now until they feel there is some generally stable path going forward.
- Executive Director of The Bitcoin Foundation
Some want government involvement. From another member of the Foundation:
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.
Their true colors are coming out. This is a STANDARD-SETTING, HIERARCHAL, CORPORATIST organization and they will go to BIG BUSINESS, BIG BANKING and BIG GOVERNMENT before making sure Bitcoin remains a liberty and privacy oriented currency.
They will bend over backwards if it means more power and dollars in their pocket. This is just a power grab to accelerate Bitcoin in their favor.
And don't doubt me when I say that when outside powers that hate Bitcoin see this tool, they will take it to bring Bitcoin in their favor as well.
A government partnership is only a few ticks away.
To get the conversation started, here are some functions I think a Bitcoin Foundation could perform:
Interact with the legal system, where a centralized entity is needed: for example, to hold the Bitcoin trademark, own/control the bitcoin.org domain name, etc.
Act as a central library for accurate information about Bitcoin, so journalists and policymakers have an 'official' place to learn about Bitcoin.
Collect donations to fund infrastructure necessary for Bitcoin's growth (organize regular developers' conferences or get-togethers maybe? pay for development of cross-implementation testing tools? pay core developers' salaries? create a certification/testing program for Bitcoin implementations? create a central clearinghouse for information about legal issues surrounding Bitcoin across the world?)
It was an honest question, especially since I read you reservations that I quoted and you didn't reply to.
I just don't understand how you can objectively justify classifying this foundation as decentralized and merely a node when the board of directors are lead dev + two biggest businesses in Bitcoin. Yes I agree with you, but your words do not match the reality.
The reality is this is a corporation that asserted itself as the face of Bitcoin. Otherwise it wouldn't have:
- included lead dev on it's board of directors
- thereby given itself access to the git repository
- chosen the name Bitcoin foundation
- been devised in private among a small group
- ect (all the other tale tale sings of a centralized power grab)
You just can't objectively call this decentralized.
But again I actually agree with you. With your words anyway. I would have loved if this were a voluntary private association. I would have loved if someone started a for profit business that merely contracted with Gavin and was dependent on income from product it offered the community. I would have loved if arrangements were fixed with personal contract and not hidden behind a corporation and it's open ended bylaws.
I would have loved that. But this isn't it. It's another animal of the state, designed to wield power over a community who never gave it's consent.
