Topic: Counter Announcement to The Bitcoin Foundation (Read 3478 times)

You make it sound as if people who use past events (historical evidence) as a guide for future outcomes are quacks?

Of the 6000 years of documented history that is backed by archaeological evidence, shows that human nature has changed very little at its core.

Greed & Fear
Death & Tax's

The guys wearing tinfoil hats never consider that everyone thinks they are crazy because they are crazy; it is always part of some grand scheme to suppress them.  You seem to be assuming that because I disagree with you, I'm working for "the man" and trying to stifle legitimate dissent.  I'm not, I just point out crazy when I see it.

See, unlike some people, I made my judgments of those posts based on the contents of the posts, not on their support of the foundation, or lack thereof.  If it makes you feel any better, most of the support for the foundation is vague too, but those guys aren't crapping up the forums.

I personally have not seen even one single post that was anti-foundation that wasn't full of nonsense (gox is going to pay Gavin to steal all of our coins!), or vague claims (someday, in the future, the foundation might be so big that it may do or say something that isn't good for the community).  If I missed one, please do point it out to me.

You're so right! Against TBF = handwaving, vague insinuations, paranoia. For TBF = enlightened.

Thanks for your time. Nothing more to say to you.

Oh, I'm well aware of that.  I think I've read every single post on these boards regarding the foundation, including (I'm ashamed to admit) the ones from people that I have on my ignore list.  I didn't bother doing much more than laugh at the suggestions that the foundation would make the moon explode, or sterilize dissenters, but I read the posts.
Yes, that is humorous hyperbole, but with just about the right amount of insane to be representative, in my opinion.

The real danger is that the foundation will sputter and stall without getting much done, not that they will do too much, or do the wrong things.  I haven't seen even a single post about a meaningful threat that could possibly come from the foundation.  I've seen lots of handwaving, lots of vague insinuations, lots of paranoia.  Nothing else of note.

Maybe - just maybe these dumb people you're referring to have had first hand experience with organizations and the quality of their ''internal governance of some sort'' ?

No, it does not mean ''that they necessarily have or seek power over others''. It is not necessary that they actively seek power over others for certain negative outcomes.

In addition I'd like to mention that the objections raised against TBF cover more aspects than this single point.

That's a good one. 

The rest r supposed to be Satoshi Nakamoto.

This was my second comment ever regarding the The Bitcoin Corporation, don't make it look like I was here for three days dribbling from my mouth.


Lightly spirited joke, sorry. Your comment reads in vein of "must be a terrorist if wants privacy". And no, I'm just regular supervillain who wants bitcoin project to stay independent, undo the wrongdoing of fiat currencies, remove the power of governments to keep population by the balls by financial means. But you have a business Charlie, you're the one who has an agenda.


Again, who's holding the steering wheel now, Charlie?

From bitcoin.org website :

Developers

Satoshi Nakamoto
Gavin Andresen
Pieter Wuille
Nils Schneider
Jeff Garzik
Wladimir J. van der Laan
Gregory Maxwell

Besides Gavin and Jeff, who already did, I'm very interested in hearing the opinion of all team members about the Foundation, and how they envision the future of bitcoin.

No, the merits of the argument have nothing to do with it. In fact, this is the first time you've even made a point from what I've read.

Your comment was exactly the type of comment that looks like trolling/hating. It was a response where you twisted my words around for your agenda.

What you should have done, was stated your position like you just did in the more recent comment

You don't trust me thats fine. Obviously, you dont understand the structure and how the foundation works if you think you need to trust me at all.

Because I'm less than thrilled about bitcoin development team being in bed with two biggest bitcoin businesses? It helps to avoid conflict of interest, isn't it? You're a businessman Charlie, and I don't trust you, shall the situation arise, to act in the best interest of the community.

I would say that if the something you have against the BF is dumb, it means you're dumb, and most of the frothing I've seen has been dumb on an epic scale.  "Haters and trollers" doesn't seem to be an inaccurate term for most of them.

Maybe dumb is too harsh.  Maybe they are just too imaginative, and don't have any experience with organizations, or the governance structures they use.  Heh, I'm even nervous writing that, because I expect it to be quoted but not understood.  To be clear, all groups and organizations above the totally informal level have internal governance of some sort, it doesn't mean that they necessarily have or seek power over others.


Heh, that part is harder to do.  Avoiding biased language is much harder than spotting it.  For what it is worth, I don't think that "support" will cause much skew in the results, but the amount will probably be non-zero.  Maybe something more like "Do you think that the Bitcoin Foundation, as described by their initial bylaws (include the link), is a good idea?"  Potential answers could be along the lines of:

1) Yes.
2) There are some minor changes that I would like to see discussed, but they are within the capabilities of the bylaws.
3) There are some major changes that I think would need to be made before I could approve of it.
4) There are huge changes that need to be made, they should start over.
5) I don't think this is a good idea in the first place, they shouldn't do it.

This wouldn't be perfect, but I think it would be more useful than the current poll.  Note that nothing can prevent self-selection bias here on the forums.  You can't make people take polls, so those with stronger opinions would be over-represented to some unknown (but probably very large) extent.

Still not sure who you are, please email me.

Thanks for the nice comments, but I feel bad we did not get to meet.



You are exactly what Im talking about

See kids? If you have something against The Bitcoin Company, it just means you're dumb.

So? How would u paraphrase the question?

Well, three or four people have suggested that "foundation" will be confused by people to mean "the part of a building that keeps it from sinking into the ground" rather than "organization".  Context makes that one abundantly clear, but context is not sufficient to completely disambiguate "support" meaning "endorse, approve" vs. "support" meaning "give funds to (by donating or joining)".

Is it possible to devise a more neutral question regarding the issue? 

Ever hear of selection bias?  This poll is self selected.  Until you've done a valid random sampling with a neutral question, don't pretend that you have some valid insight into the moods of bitcoiners in bulk.

Yeah, but Atlas has like 400 accounts...

I actually had your direct email.  We went back and forth quite a few times before I gave up.  You always told me to call before I actually stopped in.  Once I got as far as being outside of your offices and calling as we agreed on a time for me to show up...no one answered.  I also tried coming in the morning but you said before 9 am was too early.  We have a string of failed emails but BitPay was ready to Skype with me so no worries.

I'm grateful for BitInstant.  I really do enjoy your service.  Your open office NYC meetup thing was also a very nice gesture to the community.  But let's be honest...you said yourself that you have no idea who I am so why would you say I'm lying?