Topic: How to get BTC Foundation out of Bitcoin development? - page 2. (Read 5568 times)

There are a couple Foundation members in the Co-op, but I personally don't trust the Foundation, at all. It costs money to join, and you must join to have a voice, ergo it is a plutocracy. They're trying to set up shop in Canada, and it feels like an invasion; we worked hard to make Canada what it is for crypto, and the Foundation provided no support, whatsoever (or even credit after the fact). They just wanna be boss

 Bitcoin is an entity unto it's own self. No one owns Bitcoin. It's Free, in the wild. It can merely be supported.

 No one can ever "sell" Bitcoin. No one owns Bitcoin itself.


======================================================================


Re: How to get BTC Foundation out of Bitcoin development?

 The Bitcoin Foundation is free do to whatever it desires, same as any other group or organization involved with Bitcoin. They only have powers and controls over those that allow them to. Except for very few key things, such as the Alert Key, and I don't know what else (salary of Core Dev Team) I can't think of anything else. besides ownership of some their own website.

 This forum and other website are owned by others I recall. But their not a part of Bitcoin or it's Network either, instead their individuals or other groups too. Donations, membership fees pay costs. But everything else are side affairs instead, not part of the core Bitcoin Network.

 All Bitcoin must have is it's nodes on computers connecting everyone together with the Bitcoin-Qt "Core" Client software on those computers thus making a network of Bitcoin networked computers, running as nodes, on the network, with at least some of them operating as "full nodes" (more than 8 connections, UPnP enabled to be a full node, and Port ? open, and a Development Team. Nothing is is absolutely required.

 That is why nothing and no one can stop Bitcoin. It's full nodes are truly spread out (Decentralized) on thousands of computers worldwide. Only taking down the entire Global Internet could stop it for a little while, but it would require a global internet take down to do so, not realistic. Even then it's possible to find alternative ways to re-connect the nodes if required (old fashion dial up modems for just one alternative method, but they would be rather slowww). Wireless will soon get even much better, evolving ever better and much more efficiently. Soon even free satellite internet will roll out in some parts of the world, or that's the plan, but it too wont be as fast as broadband.


 Various Groups/Organizations represent Bitcoin already. But The USA based Bitcoin Foundation is the most influential so far. https://bitcoinfoundation.org/


These just for starters:

http://bitcoinassociation.org/

http://thebitcoinsociety.org/

http://nakamotoinstitute.org/


 Many other groups and organization including other self titled Bitcoin Foundations and what, Abroad, all across the world, in many various countries also assist and support everything there is about Bitcoin and it's progress and support.


 Bitcoin is and has been Global and far reaching. With more than a bit of internal bickering and squabbles between various groups, organizations and all their members. As any far reaching and large community would have.


 Very much Bitcoin is alive so to speak, without title or ownership.

https://bitcointalk.org/ is where we almost all come to chat and discuss things.




Bitcoin is Freedom.






 

For the "legal rights" to an established crypto-currency eco-system.  What I'm getting at is this whole idea could be buried in legal challenges as a method of disruption.  These guys at TBF seem really weird to say the least.  Asserting some type of legal claim to owning it is something that crossed my mind.  

It's open source.  There are no secret technologies to sell.  If Mastercard wants the technology, they can have it for free.  All they have to do is download the source code from github.  Why would they pay some self-appointed "foundation" money for something that they can already get for free?

So what is keeping TBF, the only organized and prevalent entity of Bitcoin, from selling the "technology" to Mastercard or some other corporation?  (Besides the obvious instantaneous un-adoption that would follow.)

 Are non profit foundations required to file publicly reviewable Income and Spending statements at all?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"...non-profits must make their records available for public inspection during regular business hours at their principal office..."

===============================================================
"...non-profits must make their records available for public inspection during regular business hours at
 their principal office..."  - See far below for full quote or the link far below here:
===============================================================
 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Recently I read that they didn't/don't or would not disclose that data elsewhere when
previously asked by other members here. That is not legal behavior if their a Non Profit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



==================================================================
 So yes, we can force disclose of their financial records if any member of the public desires to review them.
==================================================================



 IF The Bitcoin Foundation IS a Non Profit (I am almost certain it is):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nonprofit Financial Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/incorporation-and-legal-structures/nonprofit-financial-statements.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

" Question:

Do 501(c)(3) non-profit corporations have to make their financial statements available to the public?
Answer:

Yes. Non-profit corporations must submit their financial statements, which include the salaries of directors, officers and key employees to the IRS on Form 990. Both the IRS and the non-profit corporation are required to disclose the information they provide on Form 990 to the public. This means that non-profits must make their records available for public inspection during regular business hours at their principal office.

In addition, a number of websites make these financial statements available including GuideStar and the Foundation Center. Finally, you can request a Form 990 from a specific non-profit corporation by writing to the IRS, including the name of the organization and the tax year you wish to review:"

Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Attn: Freedom of Information Reading Room
1111 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20224



Bitcoin is Freedom.

 I was referring to the core dev team. Why should any other body have control over the core dev team? Especially a body such as the current Bitcoin Foundation. Yea, that's sure to keep a lot of the best core developers on that team smiling. NOT.

 Marketing, Business, and Political Organizations don't have any business giving orders nor directions to the scientists on the Bitcoin-Qt Core Client Dev Team. It doesn't make sense to allow such a tiny group to have such broad based powers and control over others. No sense at all now that Gavin is not leading the Core Dev Team.

 Instead defuse the powers and controls across a spectrum of groups. Much more aligned with Decentralization of powers and controls.

  Other dev teams can surely operate completely independently if they care too. And rightly so.

 So should the core dev team have the same autonomous, independence from influence and assignments from any other outside groups, unless of course they agree to do so.

 This nonsense needs real leadership to fix things as they evolve, or spiral apart. This needs addressing unless what I have reviewed is incorrect and that the Bitcoin Foundation DOESN'T already in fact have power and control over the Official Bitcoin Core Dev Team.

 This is Decentralized correct? We are on the same planet right? And if I am mistaken about the role of the Bitcoin Foundation over the Dev team then please by all means disregard, but I believe that is the power/control flowchart here, per say. No Mas. No way. Not acceptable. Decentralize powers and controls. End any possible ongoing internal bickering and conflicts possible that can be ended, if that is yet even an issue (wouldn't surprise me in the very least, including recent actions since April 2014...)



Bitcoin is the Future.

Except how many of them besides Gavin Andresen have the alert key? Whether or not you people want to admit it there is a smaller collection of people controlling Bitcoin than are in control of any governments fiat in the world. Everyone likes to point to miners and say the people are in control. That's total bullshit. Miners are nothing but zombies. How many pool operators are there again? How many people make up the core dev team? How many key major donating members are there in TBF?

Name recognition is the most important aspect in the success of anything from being elected president to selling a can of soda. Bitcoin has it and we are not in control of Bitcoin.

NO
no one controls bitcoin
if ANY dev want to change something they have to convince the majority of pools and/or users.
^^ the current devs are just more trusted and have more knowledge of the inner workings as anybody else, so atm they are the ones which develops most new features. just search this forum and you see different clients (eg nofee, coincontrol started this way also) [luckily they all seem to follow the protocol so they dont need pool support]

Part of a prior post at:
Re: $100,000 Bounty for Software that Replaces the Bitcoin Foundation
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6794681

...

3) Bitcoin Core Developers Foundation & Community @ BitcoinCore.org & bitcoincore.org

 The Bitcoin Core Developers really should have their very own, completely Independently control over their Core Development Team and Community, including bitcoin.org and bitcoincore.org, and funded by all of the Bitcoin Community, and whatever other means we can devise up.

 I don't know exactly how the Bitcoin Core Developers communities is presently structured, but I firmly believe they should be rulers of their own work, with last/final say in everything concerning any and all Bitcoin-Qt Core work. And always be completely Independent, answer to no one, but simply always willing listeners to the Bitcoin Community, and it's needs and desires with Bitcoin-Qt Core.

 Set the Core Developers Free, IF not already so. Let them FOCUS on their expertise: Development. Let no one rule over them but their own leadership. And let the greater Bitcoin community win their minds to the greater bitcoin communities desires for Bitcoin-Qt Core Client's future Core Client innovations.

 But always make it the Developers that have the last call and final say so. No one else should be allowed to make final determinations on any Bitcoin-Qt Core Client software innovation decisions. Their the Software Experts, no one else. They should always have the last say. Fully autonomous/independent/of everything else related to Bitcoin-Qt Core Client Development and Inovations. Hopefully their that way already. I just don't know the answer, sadly. Shameful, I know.

*With Bitcoin-Qt Core Client downloads directly from both Bitcoincore.org and Bitcoin.org for redundancy and safety purposes.
* With easy to verify Digital Signatures (for the typical users) on all new Bitcoin-Qt Core Client downloads.
Plus SHA256 sigs too, yea yea, I know...bla bla...PGP. PLEASE do these things Bitcoin Core Developors. Thank You.




Bitcoin is Freedom.

If you don't think they're worthy to have higher control of bitcoin, then just ignore them. By making threads like this, it gives them even more publicity. And you know what they say... any publicity is good publicity.

Seriously, they're nothing more than just another bitcoin user.

Gavin getting paid by the TBF was the biggest scam by him. Most of the high ranking of the core dev team is rich and if they say no they are lying.

Greed is something that is plagued in bitcoin.

Nice read, but... http://www.coindesk.com/gavin-andresen-steps-bitcoins-lead-developer/

Don't make me juxtapose two quotes from Gavin, one claiming he could retire on his Bitcoin stash, and another claiming he's bitcoin poor during the time frame discussing why he should be paid by TBF.

And, the marketing aspect just got stronger.

Look, it's no secret that Brock Pierce mined bitcoins as early as late 2009 prior to working behind the scenes to advance some start-ups, opting to not become a leading spokesperson for Bitcoin till Q2 of last year after he had most the marketing tentacles in place à la his hot tub alto-singing cronies.

Speaking of altos, this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeOvcT4486Q#t=37.

Why would a multi-millionaire seek $30K via an Indiegogo crowdfunding campaign for the sole purpose of having a CES party at the Michael Jackson mansion in Las Vegas when he easily could have done it himself, possibly turning a profit via ticket sales? http://www.adrants.com/2012/12/the-most-embarrassing-ces-party-list.php

Satoshi should have dropped in a mining tax of (x)% to pay developers with, avoid all these shady board members feeding at the corporate crony trough and directly pay devs

What could the Bitcoin Foundation do, to get a good leader?
Maybe offer financing audits?

some kind of a leader may be necessary. But NOT in a sense that it could change bitcoin; just to represent it.

 The current and past self titled, self absorbed 'Bitcoin Foundation' isn't worthy of Bitcoin.  I stand behind these words. Apparently so do many others.

  As far as I have been able to deduce only Gavin Andresen is extremely worthy to be in any leadership role concerning Bitcoin, thank goodness we all have Mr. Andresen leading the Development of Bitcoin and at the Bitcoin Foundation. Maybe others too are very worthy leading the Bitcoin Foundation that are currently in leadership positions but I cannot be anywhere near certain of that at this point in time. Add to that many past/present Bitcoin Foundation board members are obviously extremely unworthy of their past/present positions, and that's what finally forced my reply and voice here.


 Like the vast majority I am all in favor of a representative body for helping lead Bitcoin. But not what Bitcoin has had at the Bitcoin Foundation overall, to present date.


 The  Bitcoin Foundation is an overall embarrassment, and somewhat of a stain on Bitcoin itself, if that's even possible, which fortunately it's really not. Nothing can stop Bitcoin, that's apparent. But many things can slow it down and hinder it, including poor leadership. And at least until these self serving political maneuvers finally come to an end it will continue to be so in many eyes opinions.


 I am certain many past and present members of the Foundation should have never made it to a leadership position at the Bitcoin Foundation in the first place, nor even been considered, nor should have an owner of any Exchange been the one to found the Bitcoin Foundation in the first place.

 The mixing of industry business leaders onto the Bitcoin Foundation is already conflicting enough, perhaps far too much. Then again it appears this is more a self serving quasi-business-political organization that doesn't concern itself much about leading Bitcoin, but instead the members own personal business agenda's far too very often.


 Most of those residing on what's very much been a self serving board at the Bitcoin Foundation to date don't appear to be worthy to represent Bitcoin in any leadership roles. Maybe some other current Bitcoin Foundation members do, that is still impossible for me to know at this time so far. But already it's been impossible for those like myself to stand beside the  'Bitcoin Foundation' to date, or even support the 'Bitcoin Foundation' up till now.


 I also believe that soon this all blows over as drastic changes are made to come about at the Bitcoin Foundation, or another Foundation altogether as Bitcoin's growth continues to increase.


 As for all the resignations at the 'Bitcoin Foundation'...outstanding! That's a good start. Stand up, be heard, make a stand, do what can be done to make things better, object when nothing else is possible, and if required stand aside and let it self destruct. And if nothing else at least sound out about what one believes and what one objects to publicly, and not merely behind closed doorways.


 As for the current voting requirements for positions at the Bitcoin Foundation; that too must end. At most a very modest enrollment fee to become an annual member should be all that's required to cast one's vote, nothing more, nor anything less than the BTC equivalent of $10 to $20 annually should be all that it takes to allow one's voice/vote to be heard/cast. When this finally occurs I will join, until then I will continue to cringe concerning almost everything about the so called Bitcoin Foundation. But at the same time I will also continue an unwavering support of the Decentralized Monetary Revolution that Bitcoin is dominating, and that is extremely likely to rightfully continue dominating, with or without decent leadership at the 'Bitcoin Foundation.


 Make no mistake: The Bitcoin Foundation doesn't represent those like myself. I also believe the Bitcoin Foundation doesn't have Dorian Satoshi's blessing either, not after reading the Bitcoin Whitepaper more than a couple of times.


 But as stated before Gavin Andresen does have my full faith and support as do many others including apparently Dorian Satoshi. Many others also truly help lead Bitcoin from all corners of the Bitcoin community, yet the Bitcoin Foundation doesn't seem to care for anything but a semi-dictatorial self along with of course grossly restricted voting audience for the said Bitcoin Foundation.

 I can only urge Bitcoin Foundation board members to drop any possible conflicting personal political monetary beliefs when it comes to doing what's best for Bitcoin and it's future, and open up the voting of all Board Membership to all Bitcoin Foundation members, and keep those annual fees for membership at a very modest amount. That may be difficult for some to take to task, but it's certainly required if Bitcoin is to become all it can be. Otherwise they can fully expect to be a lot more than merely challenged.


Caveat emptor

Breaking away and creating a new group that is not from the Bitcoin Foundation is a good idea.
When  the foundation is becoming more a shame than something to be respected
Even a renaming would help it out at this stage or a purge

With enough support it could be done. With paying members leaving the foundation in droves it is all ready happening on a small scale.